Recently in Politics Category

House passes HR 1852. This raises the limit for FHA mortgages, appears to lower equity requirements (to less than zero) in certain circumstances, lowers their mortgage insurance ceiling. It also lowers the credit score minimum, and prohibits failures to pay from being reported to credit reporting agencies.

CBO report here, which quite frankly looks like a whitewash. You're making it easier for people with credit way below average to obtain financing for which the government is going to be liable, and giving them more favorable terms, to boot. Maybe I missed the part where they clicked the ruby slippers together three times and said, "There's no place like Oz!" (yes, I'm aware that's not the original quote)

Maybe it will straighten everything out before anything worse than what's already happened, and like the beginning of one of the episode of Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, where the illustrate the illumination of the ultimate question to life, the universe, and everything (which the Vogons blew up before it could be communicated), really nobody will have to get nailed to a cross this time. Nevertheless, I'm thoroughly skeptical.

As a loan officer and real estate agent, this is going to make a very positive difference to my business.

As a taxpayer, here we go with multiple high speed stainless steel counter-rotating shafts, which we're all going to pay for, while those who entered the biggest transaction of their lives without any research are all going to benefit from. As tens of thousands of loan officers and real estate agents who've been setting their clients up breathe a huge sigh of relief.

At first glance and first thought, this appears to be a very poorly thought out and poorly targeted bill. Yes, it's going to save a lot of people, the consumers of which I'm glad of. But it appears to heavily reward severely irresponsible behavior by insulating those practicing it from the consequences of their actions, thereby encouraging more of the same. This is the sort of heavy-handed vote buying that I'd expect from a nascent communist state.

Considering my own individual interests, I'm all in favor of this bill. Considering those of the country as a whole, I find myself hoping the Senate has the intelligence and intestinal fortitude to produce something better. Right now, it's not looking good. There's no way the minority Republicans can filibuster this politically, and the Democrats look like they're ready to run off the edge of a cliff with it. The best hope of fiscal sanity is the President vetoing it (which is probably the funniest joke you've hear today, but there's more chance of that than anything else stopping it).

Reno Realty asks "Maybe I'm missing something here, but if distressed homebuyers can't afford the homes they're currently in, how does making it easier for first-time home buyers to purchase more expensive homes "return stability to the mortgage market"?" (The answer is in economic aggregates, of course, but it's a good point in the context made).

National Taxpayer's Union
recommends a "No" Vote

an apparent foreclosure and short sale specialist doesn't like it either - of course a foreclosure interests as an individual align perfectly with those of taxpayers, here, but the sentiment is correct "Trying to turn FHA into an ATM".

Seattle Real Estate Professionals do note that the President did at least refuse to support expanding the conforming loan limit.

The builders are happy (predictably) with the passage.

Honeycomb Properties sees good and bad.

While I'm on the topic of politics, during the most recent Republican debate, the candidates were asked if they believe in evolution as opposed to creation.



(See Below for update and clarification) Not to put too fine a point on it, not believing in evolution is not a central flaw in a presidential candidate. It may be silly, irrational, and unscientific. However, it just doesn't impact their judgment in a lot of important policy areas. Education, yes, but the President's role in education is small and should be negligible. For the vast majority of our history, there was no federal role in education, and the schools of that time turned out a more educated, more critical, product in less time, so I find the idea of federal funding and mandates for education being beneficial unpersuasive, and the President's role in education and ability to influence its course is rather minimal. In the last several administrations, the Presidential spouse has given more apparent attention to education than the President themselves.



Let's ask presidential candidates what their economic beliefs are. Do they really believe in supply and demand? The power of the market? Capitalism?



Let's ask the presidential candidates what their diplomatic beliefs are. Do they believe in realpolitik? Do they believe in accommodation and hoping a problem goes away, or do they want to not merely deal with the problem at hand, but work to give us better options next time there's a problem?



Being President is about finding stuff out. Nobody can know everything that's necessary to run a country like the United States. Let's ask the presidential candidates who they listen to. Who are their trusted advisers? How would they go about finding the information they need to make the correct decisions, and what direction to lead us in?



Being President is, most importantly, about being a leader, and getting the country to go in the direction they want us to go. If following the crowd or the most recent poll results was what was important, we'd follow the example of Larry Niven's Puppeteers and name our most important decision-making position "the Hindmost." Let the devil take the Hindmost - the most important thing in a President is a leader. Let's ask the presidential candidates to tell us how they would persuade the country that something very unpopular is nonetheless necessary. Matter of fact, if they're anything like the vast majority of the people out there, they believe in some very unpopular truth. Ask them to pick something they believe in that is unpopular and sell us on that belief. I don't want to vote for anyone that only holds popular opinions. That way lies disaster. If that was a good way to pick a President, we'd all just gather together in one big circle and blow on a weather vane to make our decisions.



Let's take it a step further. Let's ask the presidential candidates to tell us how they would go about the process of persuading the country that something they personally find morally repugnant is nonetheless necessary. Give them a short list of topics from various areas - foreign policy, economics, law - and let each of them choose one that they specifically find repugnant and sell us on it. That way nobody can make hay on the issue without leaving themselves open. But how can we expect someone to lead the country if they can't even lead themselves?



All of this prospects for two very important other qualities that are in extremely short supply in our political classes: rational thought, and the ability to respect the opposing point of view while nonetheless persuading them that your viewpoint has merit. It's very easy to accuse someone of being evil for disagreeing with you, but it accomplishes nothing. Our modern short attention span theater of politics does not encourage either quality - but they are the very qualities we need in a President.



This stuff gets tougher and tougher, I know. But we don't spend two years to pick our most important decision maker so they can avoid solving problems. We don't spend billions of dollars in campaign contributions to pick the President because the job is easy or trivial. And some people might vote for the most popular kid in school like they did for class president, but we don't need to spend thousands of hours of broadcast time to find out who's the most popular. We spend all those resources to pick the best leader who is going to make the best decisions for us as a country.







UPDATE and clarification: Yes, someone who believes in creationism is a moron - on one specific topic and those decisions relating to it. My point is that the major presidential decisions having to do with that topic and related items are few. Bush 43 has actually had one (stem cells). Clinton didn't, nor Bush 41, nor Reagan. But I and the country can cope with a candidate who's a moron on this one fairly narrow issue a lot better than we can cope with someone who's a moron on the subject of economics, or practical applied psychology, or any of a dozen areas that are central to the major decisions a president is expected to make on a continuing basis, and on which the vast majority of the candidates out there have convinced any rational observer that they are morons.



To riff on Monty Python's famous spam sketch, we can have eggs, moron, bacon, normal, normal, normal and normal, where there's not much moron in it, but it does not appear that we have an option where there's "no moron at all."

Poll: 79% Will Vote for African-American President

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of American voters say they're willing to vote for an African-American presidential candidate. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 55% believe their family, friends, and co-workers are willing to do the same.

See also, "I'm not sexist, but everyone else is"

Earlier, we asked a similar question about voting for a woman and found similar results. Seventy-eight percent (78%) say they'd vote for a woman but just 51% said their peer group would do the same.

The question I'd be asking is how many people don't agree with their positions on the issues, but would vote for them because they're black, or female?



Obama seems a decent senator for his consituents, albeit so left wing I'll never vote for him for President, unlike Hillary, where I might be persuaded to vote for her if the Republicans offer something even worse.



However, the country is 51% women voters, and I suspect a lot of them will vote Hillary despite her stance on the issues simply because she is female and they want to prove that a woman can be president. Ditto Obama and black, but there are more women than blacks, especially when you consider the numbers who actually vote.



(I have voted for a black for President: Alan Keyes, before he went crazy, and I'm willing to consider a woman on the merits of her candidacy, but not "because she's a woman." That's every bit as much a bigoted as voting for Hillary's opposition, if you do so because Hillary is a woman, and not because of their relative stance on the issues.)

Begging the Question 101:



Ford: Bush made 'big mistake' on Iraq justifications

"I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security," Ford told Woodward.

(emphasis mine)



I always respected President Ford, but this does directly impact our national security. I haven't heard the tapes, so I cannot judge context or the way in which it was meant, but this is a common error called "begging the question," which presumes the answer in the premise. For instance, if you are trying to prove that all dogs are blue, and include in your premises a statement that anything not colored blue is not a dog. In this case, it renders the conclusion correct by an immediate logical corollary (the contrapositive), but it's still a worthless conclusion based upon a false premise - I have two dogs at home, neither one of them blue. A very common one is made by abortion proponents, when they argue that women have the legal right to do anything to their bodies that they please, and therefore abortions should be legal. I mostly agree with the conclusion, but not the premise. If you could do anything you like with your body, on what basis do we prevent, stop, or medically treat suicides against their obvious wishes? On what basis do we require drugs which the person freely chooses to be prescribed by a medical practitioner or even outlawed entirely? Error, NOMAD, Contradiction! Sterilize!



Nazi Germany did precisely nothing to the United States prior to the declaration of war after Pearl Harbor. Indeed, they were very accomodating in ignoring many actions, such as the sinking of three German subs by US Coast Guard cutters, that would have been valid causes for war (much like the US is currently treating both Iran and Syria, by the way). Why then, did we make defeating Germany in World War II our main priority and only devoted leftover resources that could not properly be used against the Reich to the Pacific Theater of operations, against the Japanese who so treacherously attacked us? Because Germany was the greater threat for many reasons, and President Roosevelt knew that Germany would have to be fought, and if they were allowed to consolidate their gains they would have been a much tougher opponent.



We could abandon the rest of the world to fend for themselves, wean ourselves of dependence on foreign energy sources, and completely abrogate all of our alliances, in effect walling ourselves off from the rest of planet earth, and still the people we are fighting would come after us when they have consolidated their gains. Indeed, such an act would make it immeasurably easier for them to make and consolidate gains, accelerating the day when they felt ready to attempt conquest or destruction of our homeland. They aren't interested in any kind of reasonable accommodation, any more than the Inquisition was. Indeed, the Inquisition was willing to make allowances for the weaknesses of men and women, and foibles and errors of people, whereas the Islamists are not. The Inquisition was given authority only over professed Christians, while the Islamists are after dominion over everyone.



We have the option of fighting them now, on their territory, or later on when they have grown immeasurably stronger when they are ready to conquer or destroy the United States completely. I would like not fighting them at all to be on the table, but the only way to achieve that is to accept the place of the dhimmi, which would be the death of all of those cultural differences that those arguing the hardest against the war would have us celebrate. Gay rights? Women's rights? Separation of church and state? Freedom of expression? The right to choose any religion, or none? The ability to ignore officious preachers of moralism?



Suppose the Bill of Rights were suddenly repealed by our own elected leaders? Not just the unconstitutional abridgements like McCain-Feingold and all of the limits on the right to keep and bear arms, but freedom of speech, political expression, equality under the law, all of those things particularly in the first, fourth, and fifth amendments that gets everybody all excited? The sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments that protect the due process of law? Do you think a Second American Civil War might be justified? The Islamists mean to impose these changes by conquest. Do you think that means it would be somehow better than imposed by the opponents of your favored politics?



Here's one link to the text of the Constitution. Is there anything there, either individually or in the aggregate, that you might consider worth defending, by violence if necessary? What if our next President proclaims the entire Constitution null and void (without the due process of another Constitutional Convention and ratification by the states)? Well, the people we are fighting want to do precisely that, as well as destroy our way of life and kill anyone who does not submit. Actually, they'll kill a lot of those who do submit, as well. I knew some folks who went back to Iran to help overthrow the shah. I've been informed that more than one of them was purged by the Islamist regime.



War is a horrible thing. But it is not the worst thing. Yes, many of us are going to be killed in the fighting, and much treasure spent, even if we win. That's a lot better than the alternative if we don't fight or if we lose: more of us killed, what treasure we don't spend confiscated, and that precious thing known as the United States which allows us all of these freedoms we take for granted gone forever.

Farewell, Gerald R. Ford. You will be missed.



Unlike so many others, he never wanted to be President, but did a good job with the situation he was handed. I've always thought that had he not suffered by association with Nixon as every Republican did, he would have been re-elected in 1976. Those of us who are old enough to remember the problems of his successor's term wish that he had been. The Mayaguez incident lasted a grand total of 4 days, not 444, and his willingness to take action in the face of Khmer Rouge aggression ameliorated some of the stronger negatives from the fall of South Vietnam.



Of course, his most "controversial" decision was his pardon of Richard Nixon. I was 13 at the time, and even then I thought it a no-brainer. Looking back, I now understand that the "controversial" thing about it was "depriving" the press, which leaned heavily left even then, of several more years of beating the Republicans with "Nixon!" as the case made its way through the courts.



Tigerhawk has more worth reading.



I was comparatively young when he left public life, yet the one thing I remember most about him was that he was never barbed or hurtful in his politics, making his points by persuasion and logic, never by belittling his opponent. For that reason, despite 66 vetoes in two years (12 over-ridden - the Democrats had a truly massive majority thanks to Watergate fallout), he truly was a healer. Nobody ever considered calling Gerald Ford "Hitler." To do so to the President who made his own breakfast would have been ludicrous. There are certainly worse things to be remembered for than his, "You can disagree without being disagreeable."



Perhaps not one of the greats. But definitely one of the good. Would that we had more leaders of his type.

Okay, two years ago, I had advice mostly for the Democrats. This time, my advice is going to be mostly for the Republicans.



The Republicans played way too hard to the wrong part of their base for the last two years, and ignored the more important part. The christian groups rewarded them for their effort, but as is plain to see now, the christian groups aren't enough. Furthermore, the christian groups, the republicans are pretty much going to get no matter what. The reasons that they vote are pretty much anathema to the Democrats. At most they might stay home. But by playing so hard to them, they got maybe a couple percent higher turnout and participation - at the cost of losing ten percent or more of some groups that are much larger in the aggregate directly to the democrats. Small government conservatives and small l libertarians have voted very strongly Republican in the last several elections. After the prescription drug benefit on top of the very necessary war related and homeland security expenses mandated by reality after 9/11, small government conservatives were looking for Democrats to support just on the theory that a divided government slows the growth in the federal budget. I happen to think they're wrong, but they had significant reasons to believe so. Furthermore, the prescription drug benefit didn't buy you much with the older voters who are concerned about social security. It is necessary to reform social security, and now, in order to save it for the long term, but those voters who are worried about cuts to present day benefits aren't going to be swayed by drug benefits, and those drug benefits were a major chink in your armor with small government voters.



I fully realize that political parties are creatures of privilege, nonetheless you have a situation where necessary government programs of surveillance for the War on Terror created significant anxiety among the libertarian minded voters. Now the hardcore Libertarians wouldn't vote for you anyway, but they vote Libertarian, not Democrat, essentially taking them out of the political equation. However, those who trend libertarian and vote based upon economic issues have tended in the past to vote very heavily Republican. You did a poor job explaining the reasons for the surveillance and the safeguards on it. Yes, I realize that the national media, being Democratic partisans, did their best to confuse the issue, but the means exists to get your message out. Just a simple factually complete email to a dozen of the largest bloggers on the right and center would have done more than all the press conferences and hostile questioning you went through with a hostile media. Furthermore, you could and should have made it a plain policy of enforcement that nobody was immune to these programs. If calls to the White House are subject to the same criteria for monitoring as calls to Achmed the immigrant cab driver, and everyone in between, that says they you consider it important enough that nobody is immune, which goes a long way towards showing how essential these programs are. You didn't do this, thereby exacerbating the perception that caused libertarians to trend a bit less economic libertarian and a bit more civil liberties libertarian, a reaction that always has bad consequences for Republicans. Piled on top of the Terri Schiavo controversy, this caused libertarians to think more civil liberties and less economic.



Finally, the American public has roughly the patience of mayflies. That the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan has been going on so long, and is actually being conducted quite well considering the underlying political realities, cuts no slack with the American people after three and a half years. You've got to explain it to them, constantly. You didn't do that, as a result of which we may have lost the war Tuesday night. If the Democrats consider it a mandate to leave Iraq, we have lost the war, plain and simple, and I strongly doubt we will have another Ronald Reagan to turn it around for us. It's going to take something else as big as 9/11 to get the attention and the support of the American public again, and by that time, it will probably be too late.



Now, just as two years ago I had some advice for the winning Republicans, which included the advice that the Republicans would have a lot more at stake this year than the Democrats, here's some advice for the Democrats. If you look at the Democrats who won, they ran as centrists, not leftists. Calls for the impeachment of President Bush or another go-around of something like Iran Contra will not endear you to the American public. Most of your leaders are leftists, but it's the centrists who won on Election night, and if they don't want to be swept out in their next election, they are going to have to act like centrists, talk like centrists, and most importantly, vote like centrists. The national media, which the Democrats control, pulled out all of the stops in spinning things your direction this cycle. Furthermore, the Republicans were completely inept politically, and it was the sixth year of a Presidency, and the majority who don't understand the War on Terror wanted to register a protest vote, and you benefited from all of that. The Republicans had a lot less going for them in 1994, and in 2004. If this is as good as you can do with everything like that in your favor, you are in no less trouble than you were two years ago. More actually, because now you're going to be held responsible for solutions, instead of merely criticizing the opposition, if not in the media, then at least by the citizens, who are more and more learning to bypass inappropriate filters on the news. Try to run the country hard left, like most of your leaders have been talking until very recently, and you'll be the minority party again in 2008. Stay in the center, and you'll do very well.



Now actually I'm very encouraged by what I see from the actual politicians of both parties in the two days since the election. But the test is not in how they talk prior to taking office; the test is in how they act and vote once they have taken office.



Worthy Articles from here and there

Don Surber on what won and what didn't.

Decision '08 on the death of the conspiracy theories

Coyote Blog: Parties are partisan, so get over it.

Blackfive on Pelosi's quote that Iraq is not a war

Q and O Dems actually have to do something now.

Michael Barone on what Bush is likely to do.

Eject! Eject! Eject! on the way to react to Republican defeat.

Scrappleface on something that would guarantee a Republican sweep in 2008.

Michelle Malkin notes that there are already indications it may happen.

Don Surber New for 2007: Most corrupt Congress ever!

(This will be updated as further thoughts strike)



1) Very Surreal moment: Fox News just called Maryland for Cardin - despite the fact that Steele is leading the actual count.



2) They just did the same thing to Ehrlich, the Maryland governor, who is ahead in the count. Do they have the feeds to the public reversed?



3) Republicans find absentee ballots after all the ballots supposedly counted in Ohio. Not much detail. (Later clarification on my part) These were found after all absentee ballots were supposedly secure.



4) Harry Reid bloviating about investigating Halliburton, how he wants to be a uniter. Bull. His actions of badmouthing the opposition are pure divider.



5) They're griping about Steele refusing to concede in Maryland. He's ahead in the count right now. I wouldn't concede either.



6) Conrad Burns in Montana is badly behind in the initial report.



7) Allen and Webb very tight race. Lass 11000 votes out of 2 million plus margin for Allen right now. 3% remaining, and still too close to call.



8) Looks like Democrats have successfully lawyered DeLay's seat. That was low, even for the party of Richard "Dead Man Voting" Daley.



9) Official projection of Democratic House Control.



10) Talking about Dems in Control. Conyers running amok, playing political games along the same lines they've been playing, then portray themselves as "bipartisan". If they do that, after two years you're not going to believe the spanking the Dems get in 2008.



11) Bloviating about immigration reform "which was stalled by the Republican House". Actually, it was stalled in the Senate.



12) With the Dems who are winning being mostly conservative, look for the Dems to overplay their hand, especially if Pelosi interprets this like as a mandate of some sort for liberals.



13) Webb now has a razor-thin lead in Virginia.



14) Lieberman, of course, blow NutRoots candidate Lamont out.



15) With Tennessee effectively out of reach, the Dems need to run the table on Missouri, Montana, and Virginia, but the way the counts are going now, it's looking like they'll do it. The Senate is the only real excitement left nationally.

Better Late than never: Bush challenges Democrats to offer plan for Iraq



Mind you, by leaving it this long, it has become apparent to anyone of any intelligence whatsoever that the Democrats have no plan on Iraq. "Cut and run" is not a plan, and neither is "Starve the troops for funding.". "Get the French (or Germans, or Andorrans) involved" is a plan on the

level of "Fly to the moon by flapping your arms." It's not going to happen. Mind you, with the intifada on their streets every night, I think France is wishing they had sent some troops right about now, but they've committed too strongly to change course now.



The Democrats could have changed this at any point in the past three and a half years by getting real about their planning on the situation in Iraq. So as angry as I am that President Bush has let them go this long on a free pass, they have only themselves to blame that the effort does any damage. Kind of like a knight going into battle with no breastplate and a target on their chest.



Wars are not neat, clean surgical affairs. Not victorious ones, anyway. I had severe reservations before the invasion, mostly having to do with the American will to deal with extended conflicts of this nature, but I thought (and still think) the consequences of not invading were worse than the consequences of invading. Yes, there have been many mistakes made. This is a by-product of the fog of war. The next war in which even the victorious side makes no major mistakes will be the very first.



Meanwhile, terrorists are openly rooting for Democrats. The Right Place refers us to Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat

Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. - including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

You want to know how stupid withdrawal is? The Islamics don't believe the Democrats would actually do it

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

What would American withdrawal mean?

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

Unfortunately, I think I have to agree with him there. Why should anyone ally with us if we make a habit of leaving our allies high and dry? The US is the glue that holds the civilized world together. Without us, the world will fall piecemeal.



Q and O has more worthwhile information.



May the universe help us when the terrorists get to be as smart as "dumb" President Bush, who refused to endorse Joe Lieberman because it wouldn't help the Sentor with the people who were voting for the opposition.



Victor Davis Hanson has some perspective.



I have a theory about pre-election polls: They skew away from the party in power, as those who are disgruntled are more likely to want their voice heard. I've hung up on more than one of these idiots in the past week or so, and dozens of their even stupider kin, campaign telemarketers (I just don't have time to torture them mentally, the only worthwhile thing to do with either of them). The only poll that means anything is on Tuesday, November 7th. That's close enough, and I am patient enough, to be content waiting until then to get my answers. I happen to believe that we're likely to see two years of Speaker Pelosi, although not Majority leader Reid. I also happen to believe actual power-sharing with the Democrats in the session leading up to the 2008 elections will be a dream gift to any Republican with Presidential aspirations in that year. If I'm wrong on any of these beliefs, well, it won't shatter my world. We'll find out about the 2006 elections very soon. I can wait.

Terrorist lawyer who smuggled messages sentenced. She should have gotten life for her flagrant abuse of the civil rights system of this country. Every lawyer who violates the law like her is one more endangerment to the civil rights of all of us.

"If you send her to prison, she's going to die. It's as simple as that," defense lawyer Elizabeth Fink had told the judge before the sentence was pronounced.

That's her lawyer. She has to say that. I don't know about hoping she's correct, but I have no sympathy for traitors, particularly traitors who abuse the civil rights that have evolved to protect us all from government abuse.



Here's her crime:

Stewart and other defendants carried messages between the sheik and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.

In other words, she helped a terrorist we had already caught continue to lead his followers. Just a little violation of ethical guidelines. Probably wouldn't have aided in the murder of more than a few thousand people.

Stewart, in her letter to the judge, said she did not intentionally enter into any plot or conspiracy to aid a terrorist organization. She believes the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks made her behavior intolerable in the eyes of the government and gave it an excuse to make an example out of her.

Unless she's suffering from multiple personality disorder, this is a lie, and the latter half is paranoid delusional as well. "Poor little me! Just because I'm guilty is no excuse to prosecute!"



She could have gotten thirty years. She should have gotten life without parole. She didn't even get 30 months. If I'm ever guilty of anything, I hope they "persecute" me like that.



Don Surber has more.



Stop the ACLU also has some thoughts worth reading.



Captain's Quarters:

Stewart wants to play the patsy. However, patsies don't spend the lengthy time between her conviction and her sentencing appearing at numerous left-wing anti-war rallies, undermining the war effort and claiming to have been persecuted. Patsies don't tell crowds that they would do the same thing all over again under the same circumstances. The only saps involved in this case come from the multitudes who bought that story, and they're about to discover how gullible they've been.

Which last thought wins the "Wishful Thinking" of the Day Award, but the rest is spot on debunking of some boldfaced lies.

At this point in time, it's looking like Democratic control of the House after the midterms is the likely outcome. Not assured, but likely. Now, it's not like this is a Good Thing; it's not. But let's put it into perspective: The midterms that happen in an incumbent's sixth year are historically a party's electoral low point. The party in the White House loses seats in the midterms. The opportunity for gains happens in the Presidential Elections. When the Republicans gained seats in 2002, it was the proverbial blue moon in politics. Politically, losing the House is about as minimally damaging as practical in American politics.



Now, here's the rub: This puts the Democrats in power sharing mode. Suddenly, they have to become responsible for policy. Furthermore, they will have more outlets to make fools of themselves. Put Pelosi and Murtha in the two top spots in the House, and the American public will get a lot more tired and a lot more disgusted with them, than they did with Hastert or Gingrich. It's like reading Democratic Underground - amusing so long as it's just hot air, but if the American people have to pay attention, they will want it to stop. Furthermore, the 2008 elections are likely to see a shift such as we haven't seen since World War II. If the Donkeys keep talking - and acting - like they have recently, they will have two years in the spotlight to alienate the public. I think that if the Republicans hold both chambers, we might see Hillary as President. If the Democrats win the house in 2006, I think people will be so disgusted with them that Hillary will lose badly in 2008 (as the Republicans take back Congress as well) even if she does score the nomination, clearing the way for a Dukakis, Dean or Kerry clone in 2012, and the death of the Democratic Party, at least as we know it. See the Whig disintegration, number of other realignments. Christians used to be a Democratic constituency. Blacks used to be Republican. The current Democratic coalition is right at the verge of its ability to hold together and be competitive nationally. The bias in the national press and media has become so blatant that clear non-partisans are noting the uneven treatment. This is not the action of a secure governing coalition; it's the actions of a coalition that's metaphorically punching out of its weight class. The Republicans are much closer to the center of society today, if only because they are afraid to offend the average centrist. But the Democratic coalition is going to have to start attracting new groups to stay competitive nationally, and frankly, I see Republicans taking various minority groups away from the Democrats before I see Democrats taking christians or business folk, let alone small l libertarians. Yes, the current Republican platforms don't have much to offer libertarians - but the Democratic ones promise to actively torpedo libertarian policy aims, such as school choice among many others.



I don't regard Democratic control of the House as a done deal yet, and I'm still hoping it doesn't happen. Not because I'm enamored of the Republicans. But I'm not insane enough to vote Cthulhu for President, and I'm not going to hope the Democrats win control of Congress, either. I've been known to echo the aphorism about knowing the advantages of the two party system, while wishing it weren't these two parties. The fact that the Republican party is in no way worthy of admiration does not alter the fact that the Democrats are intellectually bankrupt, blindly partisan, and doing their best to sabotage the best interests of the country. The lesser of two evils is still the lesser of two evils. I'm not so far gone in annoyance at what amounts to larcenous conduct that I'm willing to vote in obstructionists who would have the country commit suicide to aid in their larceny. And that is the choice in front of us.

Officials: Plot suspects met alleged al Qaeda bomber

But officials, who say the plot displays signs of al Qaeda participation but who are still investigating that angle, do not know whether Rehman was involved in the plot.

On the political side, Arrests Bolster G.O.P. Bid To Claim Security as Issue

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said, "This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."

Always about politics, Harry? Newsflash: Purely defensive measures are an absolute guaranteed failure. If the terrorists keep trying, eventually they will succeed, and they seem to have a surplus of young religiously suicidal males, a combination that is much more difficult to defend against. There are two ways to try to get them to stop: Pay them off, which was tried by Carter and Reagan and Clinton (among others), and leads to more activity and encourages others to get into the terrorism game, or go in and clean them out, like our current president is trying to do. It may or may not work - it won't if Mr. Reid or the terrorists have anything to say about it - but there is at least the possibility it will work, and is therefore the option I support.



on the same point, via Carol Platt Liebau, Newt Gingrich in the Washington Post: The Only Option Is to Win.



via Chequer Board of Nights and Days, Gerald Baker in Times Online The first step towards defeating the terrorists: stop blaming ourselves



Sanity and reasoning are out there. But they don't get nearly as much media play. I was going to say "I wonder why?" but I don't think there is anyone out there who wonders why. The insanity is more spectacular, more bold, more fun. Why limit yourself with consistency or logic or historical precedent?



On the other hand, read this very rational, Alan Dershowitz article at Huff'n'Puff, and then read the comments until you can no longer stomach them. Dershowitz is not exactly your typical long fanged right-wing triumphalist, having considerably more in the way of leftist credentials than centrist or otherwise. Just go read it.



Getting back to the NY Times article,

"The issue is going to be discussed in the fall," this official said. "Are you saying if the Democrats talk about the war, we shouldn't? We will talk about the war, and we will talk about the consequences of the policies advocated by the Democrats."

Sauce for the goose. To quote Peter Lorre in The Raven, "You coward! You're defending yourself!" (nod to den Beste).



Republican strategists don't get it. The President does. Bush, on a Quick Trip From His Texas Ranch, Says Americans Are Safer Than Before Sept. 11. And then he goes back to living his life. Follow the president's example. All reasonable steps are being taken. Living in fear does nobody any good. Enjoy your life. It's the only one you've got. I'm not saying plan trips to Lebanon or Iraq, but there's no reason not to go about normal business.

Airlines on alert after foiled bomb plot

The suspects were "homegrown," though it was not immediately clear if they were all British citizens, said a police official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. Police were working closely with the South Asian community, the official said.

'Red' Alert on British Flights to U.S.



European Carriers Cancel Flights to U.K.



Airline stocks slammed after terror arrests



Will people stop flying? No. It's too convenient, and nobody believes it will happen to them. But airplanes remain extremely available, extremely destructive weapons. Where else can you find 250,000 kilograms with 100,000 kilgrams of it being flammible fuel, travelling at speeds of 200 plus meters per second, all encased in a fragile aluminum shell and conveniently accessible to members of the public, not disincluding those who have made enemy sympathies all too clear? This is 5 gigajoules just in kinetic energy! Our current precautions are laughably insufficient, and even counterproductive. Move all that stuff to checked baggage? Get real. If electronic devices can still be checked, you've got timed detonation and people who might have been required to sacrifice their lives might simply check in but not actually get onto the plane.



Sooner or later, some more terrorists are going to succeed in taking over airplanes. What are we going to do other than warn people that we're doing out best under the circumstances, but there's a good possibility that won't be enough.



Meanwhile, back on the left, Oliver Willis believes, as usual for things of this nature, that it's just a political frame job. It's like he's got his fingers cemented into his ears and is screaming "I am not listening to Bush!" It may be possible that someday he'll discover the drawbacks of using Super Glue for that purpose, but I'm not optimistic.





via QOAE, who has her own thoughts, Americablog proves he remains a loyal party commissar, hewing to the pravda of the day, and Daily Kos is convinced the War on Terror is all the result of a Bushite plot to control our minds and out government.



Quite frankly, if the scenario the lefties posit were true, The government has already killed some 6000 Americans (9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq) and several time that number of peaceful moslems who never meant us harm. Why would such an Administration stop a second set of murderers short when they could get so much more political mileage out of dead bodies?



I thought Karl Rove was some kind of evil supergenius advising Rethuglicans on how to best maintain their absolute grip on power? I thought George Bush was an undead Hitler zombie with a genius for propaganda manipulation? Silly limited intellect that I am, I saw this in about two microseconds. Why didn't these superhuman intellects of evil?



I suppose if they didn't have fingers superglued into their ears they would be exclaiming Norman correlate! as a prelude to a Scanners-style head explosion.



Protein Wisdom takes down a delusional reporter and his enablers in much the same way. "I question the timing" indeed. Is there any point in time at which this revelation would not be politically helpful to the party which is not in complete denial about the threat we face?



Strata-Sphere connects a couple of dots.



Riehl World View notes that some of those arrested today have ties to those involved in the July 7 bombings last year.



Jawa Report relates information that the terrorists involved are linked to Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, exiled from Britain



Powerline: "No brotherhood excuses murder." I really would rather CAIR were out of the ordinary on this, but if Bar Associations, et al can't do it, why should we expect it of CAIR?



Jihad Watch notes that Moslem employees of Heathrow with "all Access" passes were involved.



via Dean's World, a timesonline report that Pakistani intelligence was a critical factor.



LGF names terrorist names.



I like the way this man thinks: Why Don't We All Consider A Little STFU?



Michelle Malkin has a massively important roundup, and another on the Moslem mindset.



via Instapundit, Irish Trojan wonders if this was the big August 22nd thing Ahmedinejad was talking about? If so, we may be going to war with Iran very soon.

Harry Reid stuck in denial: 1994's "Contract with America," was an "urban myth."



On the contrary. It was a list of ten specific issues that the Republicans were committed to bring to a floor vote. Not to pass, although they really did try and succeeded with seven and partially with another, but to bring them to a recorded floor vote so that people could see how their representative voted. Most of them had been languishing in committee for years, because that was an easy way to avoid the tough votes where either way you voted you were going to get someone angry, either the voters or the big campaign contributors.



Most of these issues had large constituencies, people who were committed to them. Offering them a commitment to bring it to a floor vote gave a lot of these folks the impetus to switch their vote to the Elephant candidate. Many of these folks had three, five, or even all ten of the issues that they supported and had given up ever seeing happen. In short, this was a market making activity that brought people from being uninterested in politics to being dedicated Republicans because of the Contract With America. Those who were on the fence but supported one or more of the issues went Republican. And those who did not support them weren't in play for the Republicans anyway.



The Republicans committed themselves publicly to the Contract with America, and en masse. No quibbling around the edges. There would be Floor Votes on these issues, period. Furthermore, the issues in the Contract were in line with what a lot of Republicans and their bases of support believed, and had been campaigning upon for years, not something they discovered overnight because some focus group or high powered consultant told them there were votes in it. Their commitment was believable, the way a Democratic commitment to national security is not.



There is a reason why Democrats have completely lost the hearts of the American middle. Deep down, most of the population realized something on September 11, 2001: We are not immune to the attacks that the rest of the world had been suffering for at least thirty years prior to that, and instead of figuring out ways to enhance our national security while nonetheless preserving our rights as Americans, Democrats are utterly obsessing about not abridging one jot or iota of the most ridiculously farfetched among those rights that grew up during a long period when we were immune, no matter what the effect upon national security. It's going to take an awful lot of hard work on their part before anyone is going to believe the Democrats really mean to safeguard our national security, and they're going to have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk, which means some votes on some issues that are going to alienate their most extreme supporters. I'll believe they mean it on national security when they're willing to risk some wrath and votes on the part of their far left supporters in favor of national security measures that really do protect the national interest. Until then, no deal, at least as far as I'm concerned. I have seen exactly zero evidence that any Democrat other than Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller even understand this.

First, a warning. There is some foul language below. I found myself unable to discover or remember less colorful words that conveyed adequately the information that needed to be conveyed.



Next, a sampling of some of the most current news out there:



As usual, Israel has it right while the rest of the world has it wrong: Israelis resolve to use more force



In other news. Bush-Blair call for international force. With a new UN resolution to enforce. What I want to know is how this would be different than all the other UN missions, all the other UN resolutions. Insanity: Trying the same solutions and expecting different results.



neo-neocon on What does Ariel Sharon have to say. I've seen many articles of the sort she refers to, teaching Palestinian children (and others in the broader Arab world) to hate Jews. They get ignored, because it doesn't fit the reader's preferred world view. Bill Whittle has something to say about that.



Via Dr. Sanity, a series of photos that should put anyone's doubts as to Hesbollah tactics to rest here.



Belmont Club writes some theoretically speculative fiction that is spot-on the probabilities, as far as I can tell.



I, for my part, am disgusted and past disgusted at people who have the evidence put up right in front of their eyes that these terrorist (Hesbollah) are never going to quit trying to exterminate Israel and the Jews so long as there is one Hesbollah or one Jew in the world, and still refuse to believe it because that one point of hard data conflicts with all of the things they want to believe, but have not one shred of hard evidence in favor of.



Given the fact that Israel has shown they are willing to live with Hesbollah, but Hesbollah has shown it is spectacularly unwilling to accept any compromise as anything more than a platform from which to launch their next attack, there is only one rational thing to be done. Exterminate Hesbollah. I can hear the shocked gasps from here. Well, screw that. There is no moral equivalence here. Israel has shown itself willing and able to abide by agreements that it's negotiating partners live up, or even sort of live up to. Witness Jordan and Egypt. Hesbollah is not. Indeed, they are making use of an Islamic technique that goes back to Mohammed and works because all of the decent people of the world that are farmers and bus drivers and especially real soldiers want peace so badly they will go to absurd lengths to preserve it, even when it is plain that hope is completely false. Well Hesbollah doesn't. They don't even pretend they want peace. It is so far past time to wipe these murdering terrorist scum off the face of the earth that I still have difficulty with the fact that Ronald Reagan didn't order it in 1983. Israel is doing the world a favor with every one of these hard-line extremists they kill, and if they ever did succeed in their goal of destroying Israel, the rest of the world would then reap the fruits of their labors. So consider Israel told "Thank You!" from me every time one of these enemies of civilization falls over dead. If I ever have the opportunity to thank an Israeli in person, I will.



Yes, it bothers me to see kids killed in the exchange of hostilities. It bothers me severely. But I put the onus for that squarely where it belongs, with Hesbollah, who hides in their midst, shoots out from groups of civilians, and hopes and prays that Israeli answering fire kills some "innocent" children and women and old men. IT IS A WAR ZONE! From time immemorial, civilians have known to get out of war zones. In Croatia, In Bosnia, in Kosovo, there were refugees. In Rwanda, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, there are refugees. Evacuate, at least until the bullets stop flying. From the dawn of time, civilians have gotten out of the way of hostile militaries. Why does the civilian population not evacuate southern Lebanon? Why can the civilian population not evacuate in this one instance. I'll tell you why! Some of them are Hesbollah supporters. The rest are being prevented from leaving! By Hesbollah! The Hesbollah supporters have made the determiniation that if Israel kills them while shooting at Hesbollah fighters, it'll give Hesbollah ammunition to claim the Israelis are uncivilized brutes who go looking for civilians to shoot. This is Bullshit. No, I'll go one better. This is utter Bullshit, purified and refined three times, down to the most essential, concentrated elements of Bullshit. It is bullshit so lost in its own self-justification, it has no clue as to even go about locating the truth. If Israel had wanted - or even been willing - to inflict those kinds of casualties on civilians, anytime in the past, it would not currently be under such heavy threat from all sides. It is a miracle that anyone in Israel is even willing to negotiate for peace under any circumstances. If the United States had ever been, since 1945, under such heavy attack as Israel thie entire time since its creation, there would be a nuclear desert surrounding us. If the Soviet Union, or China had been under that kind of threat, there would have been worldwide nuclear devastation just because they might as well do the rest of us in while they were at it. Israel has been nuclear armed for decades, and that they have not lobbed so much as one of them at their dedicated enemies is such a tribute to their will to stand for the essential principles of civilization that if the sorry nations of this world are ever looking for the best possible guardian for all the nuclear weapons of the world, I will nominate Israel. Compared to them, the Amish are quasi-pacifist weaklings.



I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. In the war between Israel and her enemies, the vast majority of the reason that there is even talk of a war - so close to 100% of the reason that there is fighting that the remainder just isn't worth talking about - is that the Islamists and other people think Death to Israel is more important than Life for their islamic co-religionists. This war will continue until either that changes, or every single one of the participants on one side or the other is dead. Israeli soldiers stand apart from civilians, shelter civilians behind them, even enemy civilians, and do not fire upon them except when they absolutely must to preserve their own lives. Israel as a nation has acted with so much decency and self-control that the rest of the world should be praising them for their saintly restraint. Their opponents target civilians, conduct war from population centers, hide within civilian populations, and use human shields as much as they can. I would prefer that the Islamists, Palestinian and otherwise, changed their minds, and decided Death for Israel just wasn't important any more. But neither I, nor anyone else, nor any combination of anybodies, has the power to force those Islamists to make that choice in their heart. It has to come from within, and it is showing exactly zero evidence of even being a debate. If they will not change their minds, if that must be the case, I'd rather'd share this world with the Israelis than the Islamists. I'd rather my daughters got to share this world with the Israelis and their self-control than had to share it with the Islamists and their hate and self-immolation. If anybody has any doubts as to what the Islamists would do to Israel if the situation were reversed, and they had the military advantage, exorcise them. Israel would be gone in fifteen minutes, and no UN or EU or American handwringing would change that or even put it off by the amount of time it takes to say "Mind Your Own Business!" We would be completely ignored. The only reason those kidnapped Israeli soldiers are even alive is that the Islamists hope to exchange them for literally hundreds of Islamists being held in prison - nice, civilized, prison, having been convicted in open, public, trials - who are being held because they committed or were intentionally involved in deadly terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians. What happened to the Israeli civilians that that the Islamists captured but didn't think they'd be able to exchange? Research it yourselves. The answers are available on the internet. I found the original stories (and others from the same day) in less than sixty seconds.



I am so glad that Israel finally had the intestinal fortitude to go after these enemies of civilization that my only worry is that some other enemy of civilization pretending to be a nice, diplomatic, civilized human being will talk them out of finishing the job.

neo-neocon deconstructs and deflates the idea of a "proportional response".



The idea of a modern civilization takes a lot to maintain. It has an amazing capacity not only for repair, but also for self-replication, that would have been unthinkable sixty years ago. Nonetheless, the raw materials, the power, and most essentially, the skills base have got to be there to keep it functioning more or less at a reasonable level. Attacks that smash the power generators, kill the doctors and nurses, and prevent medicine and supplies from reaching the hospitals kill people just as certainly as a bullet to the head, even if the damage is done on a less personal level. Not to mention the direct casualties of the attacks that Israel has been suffering under since 1967. It's a miracle and unbelievable monument to the Israelis resourcefulness that they have a country at all after nearly forty years of this.



I am not interested in nearly sixty year old grievances of the Palestinians against the Israelis. There were two approximately equal populations of refugees created at the same time. One group, the entire world is familiar with. The other was created when Israel successfully defended herself at creation, and these were Jews against who the Islamic governments of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and others dispossessed as vengeance for the success of other Jews that the effected populations literally had no control over and little commonality with save a common religion. This second group, having been in their hearts Egyptians, Syrians, and Iraqis (among other nationalities), once dispossessed by bitter arabic governments who lacked the justifications Israel had, decided that if they were going to be treated as Israelis, they might as well become Israelis, and were welcomed with open arms, given citizenship, and made new lives for themselves. But they still have better claims against the Arab governments who threw their grandparents out of centuries old homes, than the descendants of Palestinians who at least committed treason towards Israel and were dispossessed for that very excellent reason. The Jews who were dispossessed committed no crimes and were dispossessed anyway. But since Israel was looking to create a prosperous modern nation, not nurse grievances, these dispossessed Jews were welcomed with open arms, and got on with the business of creating a new life on a new homestead. When you get to the bottom line, that is the story of Israel.



If there is any doubt in your mind that Israel has shown by words and deeds that it wishes to live in peace with Moslems, consider the fact that since its inception they have willingly granted citizenship and equal rights to Moslems who were willing to swear allegiance. They have Moslem political parties who participate in Israeli elections, Moslem soldiers who serve in the Israeli defense Forces, and any number of important personages who happen to be Moslems. Israel has been about the creation of a nation and a civilization, but her neighbors have given her no peace these last sixty years. The one time Israel attacked (1967), they had four nations outnumbering them twenty to one massing armed forces on their borders with clear signals of intentions to invade. Not to have struck pre-emptively in that situation would have been suicide, especially given that Israel's border in those days were far smaller and more difficult to defend (the West Bank reaches within nine miles of the Mediterranean, about half the distance of the typical American commute). Every other time, it has been an incessant pounding and escalation of attacks, or actual armed invasion, that forced Israel to either retaliate or suffer the destruction of their ability to form a state and a society.



Had the inhabitants of the West Bank tried to make a new life under the Israelis, they would have been full fledged participants in the Israeli political process by now. Egypt made peace and got the Sinai back in 1978. But ever since those territories came under Israeli control, two generations ago, they have been more interested in Death for Israelis than Life for Palestinians. Nor have Israel's arab neighbors done anything for the Moslem co-religionists like what Israel did for dispossessed jews. If they had, the problem would have vanished by now. But always the grievance against Israel was more important than the well-being of these people whose plight they supposedly hold in such concern. Israel has a large population of Jews descended from those expelled from Moslem lands who could nurse the same grievances, but have built new, successful lives for themselves and their descendants.



The point I am making is that the Israelis have taken every reasonable opportunity to turn the other cheek, which is not even a Jewish admonition, while the surrounding Islamic powers have done everything in their power to cut that Israeli other cheek off. Yes, I've got a lot of sympathy for third generation refugee camp residents, but I put the onus of responsibility for them being there where it belongs: on the Palestinian leadership and the Islamic powers surrounding Israel. Not upon Israel, which has done everything it reasonably could have short of suicide, in the name of peace.



This now appears to be ending. A people who have been trying to make peace with the Islamic world for sixty years, and who have received nothing but death and despite and destruction for their efforts, are running out of patience. When not only those running Israel, but their parents and grandparents and even great-grandparents can remember nothing but war against the Islamic self-appointed enemy, you can forgive them perhaps finally running out of patience and maybe taking a few destructive steps of their own to remove their enemies' ability to inflict that death and despite and destruction which Israel has suffered under for the past two generations.



Lebanon either is a sovereign state or they are not. If they aren't, Israel is pacifying a barbarous no-man's land which has been the source for continuing attacks upon it for at least thirty five years. If they are, then the Lebanese state is responsible for seeing to it that persons within its territory do not attack other sovereign states, and those states (Israel) who suffer recurring attacks are quite within international law to treat such attacks as acts of war. Any idea of "disproportionate response," by it's very nature, implicitly attempts to let intentional but largely less competent or less effective acts of aggression off the hook of responsibility; yet they were planned and attempted by persons who are legally competent adults. Had Osama's two planes missed the Trade Center Towers, it would still have been an act of war. If Mexico invaded but their army was routed by half a dozen Border Patrolmen, it would still be an act of war, just not a terrifically competent one. The intention of starting a conflict remains. Suppose the Japanese had misgauged when attacking Pearl Harbor and all crashed off the coast of Oahu. Do you think it likely FDR would have let them off the hook with a stern warning about "Don't let it happen again!"? No, their other attacks on the Philippines and Wake Island would have made their intentions all too obvious, and so it is in the Middle East today. There comes a time when it becomes obvious that the only way to get peace is not to rely upon a forbearance of a sworn enemy, which has been nonexistent in this case for sixty years; the way to peace is to remove your enemy's ability to wage war on you, no matter what it takes, whoever else suffers as a result. It is not as if those who suffer collateral damage have no responsibility or culpability for the series of events which led to said damage. By any reading of international law or moral and ethical guidelines of responsibility, those who had the responsibility for stopping those attacks and failed to do so, and failed to request assistance to do so, bear every bit as much of the blame as members of those terrorist organizations who made the actual attacks.



Now this morning while I was tightening up the article, news that Olmert Sets Conditions for End to Fighting. Quote, "the fighting in Lebanon would end when the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah guerrillas were freed, rocket attacks on Israel were stopped, and the Lebanese army was deployed along the border." All obviously necessary conditions, and something any other country would demand under equivalent circumstances. Far more lenient than most countries would demand, as a matter of fact. Wars of conquest have been fought over less than Israel has suffered in the last few weeks, let alone over the sorry course of this conflict. To accuse them of disproportionate response is to invite laughter from anyone familiar with the actual events of the last sixty years in the Middle East.