The sad performance of the Times and Post

American Thinker has a detailed look at the poor reporting from these two papers on the whole Wilson/Plame debacle. Money quote:

A newspaper so enmeshed in repeating lies on critical matters of national importance as the New York Times deserves to die a quick death. To rely on it for important matters after this behavior, is to rely on a thoroughly untrustworthy source. It has become little more than a cocooning plaything: an alternate reality in which the anti-Administration left can feel cozy in their make-believe land.

And:

Neither paper deserves our respect for being so uncritical of his claims in the first instance and for having so long kept silent about the truth when it became known. They behaved like the kind of beasts who attack firemen trying to put out a fire and save their neighborhood.The Washington Post reconsidered and pulled back. The New York Times did not, evidently hoping for the flames to win.

Losing a little more respect every day

Hedgehog has an interesting quote from Laura Ingraham on her radio show talking about the Alito nomination. Here is what he wrote:

I'm listening warily to Ingraham and so far she has talked about the future . . . oops, she just slipped into an analysis of why Miers was such a bad choice and "all you people who supported Miers should get behind this." Well, I must say that there never has been any doubt that all we conservative "people who supported Miers" (who, by the way, outnumbered conservative people who opposed Miers) would support a conservative nominee. We're, ah, conservatives. The worry was whether your side of the debate would support the president's nominee.

Uhhh, Laura. You need to buy a clue.

Compare and Contrast (II)

Here is a comprehensive comparison of the ethical record of the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.

Hint -- this is really, really close (like a snail racing a cheetah).

Organized Vote Fraud

Michelle Malkin points to the latest by the Shark on how the Democrats in the State of Washington stole the last election.

More Cluelessness from the NY Times

Ranting Profs notes this post which points out how really incompetent the reporters and editors of the Times are. In a really stupid statement, the Times wrote:

Unlike the Marines, Army infantry and Special Forces, which send volunteers straight from boot camp to the front lines, the Harlem Knights Army unit signs potential recruits up for more than 200 noncombat jobs, everything from laundry and textile specialist to flute player to dental specialist.

Jason writes, "Straight from boot camp to the front lines" my ass. When is the Times going to get someone on their staff who has a clue?"

"If they don't know even the most basic facts about where Special Forces come from, then what else are they getting wrong?"

A whole lot.

Conservative demands on Bush are "PAID IN FULL"

I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but there is one factor in the upcoming confirmation fight which is sort of interesting. The anti-Miers coalition absolutely cannot afford any result other than for Alito to be confirmed. If Alito goes down and Bush suffers the resulting exponential increase in political damage, every loyal Republican in the country will hold the NRO gang and friends responsible. So now that they have the fight that they have been lusting for, they have to make sure Bush wins.

What an interesting turn of events! Much of the Miers fight was a proxy for generalized conservative disenchantment with Bush. Now these folks have no choice but to be Dubya's strongest supporters.

Note also -- this extends beyond this confirmation fight. In order to deflect the argument that borking Miers was a body blow to the president's political capital, they need to expend every possible resource to support and buttress Bush on just about everything.

As I see it, they basically collected all the moaning, bitching and complaining chits they thought they were due from the president and spent them to sink Miers. As a practical matter, all bills should be considered marked "PAID IN FULL".

Incompetent or Corrupt -- CIA

As I pointed out previously, the Clinton Administration regularly pleaded incompetence to explain behavior that looked like corruption. The MSM often has to resort to the incompetence defense to try to explain blatant propaganda. Now the CIA may have found itself between the same rock and hard place. Glenn makes the case with updates from others.

I don't point this out because I expect that I have visitors who won't see it on his site, but rather to connect the corruption/incompetence angle to long time liberal behavior.

Absorbing the Kool-Aid

Peggy Noonan wrote a piece for Opinion Journal a couple of weeks ago in which she discussed elite attitudes and the problems of America. She was properly criticized by some bloggers on two grounds. First, her incredibly pessimistic view of America seems to have been formed by someone who still gets her "facts" from the MSM. Second, her assumption of who constitutes the "elites" in America appears to be what one would expect of someone who lives in Manhattan surrounded by Ivy League liberals.

Some time ago she wrote another column which suffered from the same problem. She wrote about the fact that two couples that were among her friends in Manhattan had a son graduate from college and join the military in the year after 9/11. These two were the only young men from her circle of Manhattan friends who were in the military. She went on to write about the almost complete absence of Ivy League grads joining the military each year. She worried that America's military (and the country) would suffer because the "best and brightest" chose to avoid military service.

I sincerely doubt that Ms. Noonan has any idea that the three military academies all rank among the top ten most selective universities in America. I doubt she has any idea of the incredible academic, athletic, and community achievements of those who are selected for admission. The future greatness of our nation will depend far more upon the type of high school grads who are interested in attending the academies than upon the liberal Ivy League types who disdain the military.

I am sure that Peggy Noonan has her heart in the right place. I know she considers herself a political conservative. Her short-sighted view of "elites" and her pessimism likely stem from living in an environment that is overwhelmed by liberals. I think that Andrew Sullivan is another good example of what can happen when someone is immersed in a sea of liberals 7/24. It isn't that they choose to drink the kool-aid. They can't help but absorb it.

If you live and work in Manhattan, DC or another of the parochial liberal villages and get your news from the MSM, liberal assumptions are all too likely to leak into your worldview unconsciously.

The real President

D J Drummond keeps cranking out the kind of stuff I wish I wrote. He starts:

More than a few of the anti-Miers crowd have mocked me for trusting the judgment of President Bush, and for backing a candidate they found wholly unacceptable. Some have suggested I do not know the “real” George W. Bush. The only answers I can give to this, start with the fact that I do know the real Mr. Bush,

and he ends:

I will in no way attack or insult the President. And in my personal opinion, anyone who does so against President Bush is harming the Movement; there is no better general in this fight than Dubya

Of course, he's right. Read it all.

Celebrating death

Pictures of the joyous party of liberals celebrating the deaths of US troops in Iraq can be seen here. Note those who continue to lie about Iraq's civilian toll.

Just your typical liberal group of liars and assholes.

Is the UN dead?

Wretchard summarizes the meaning of the Volcker Report:

The fundamental argument against international military action is the supposition that effective alternatives exist to contain rogue states and tyrants. But what if it does not? The Volcker Report essentially describes the history of the decade-long diplomatic battle to proscribe the movements of Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War. It is an account of the unmitigated defeat of the "international community" at the hands of Saddam; not only a defeat but a rout and a surrender. And although the surrender had already taken place, the world was told categorically by the capitulators themselves that they were fighting and winning the good fight against the forces of lawlessness. The problem with September 11 was not that it happened, but that it happened where it could not be ignored; this fact was the virtual third aircraft that crashed into Manhattan that day, striking somewhere in the vicinity of Turtle Bay.

Is the UN dead?

Is war the only answer?

Serious Screw-up causes Halloween Horror Story

Bill Hobbs tells a horror story for Halloween. As the father of small children, I have to say that this is a very, very big deal. I shudder at the thought.

I plan to take Bill's advice.

Flawed NY Times mishandles Volcker Report

Cori Dauber at Ranting Profs exposes the Times.

The Never-ending Investigation

Econopundit has an interesting observation about Fitzpatrick and his comment on how the investigation continues:

What jumps into one's mind immediately is Leon Trotsky. Let me explain.

Fitzgerald says the following:

Is the investigation finished? It's not over...[V]ery rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried in which you ever end a grand jury investigation.

And Leon Trotsky said:

The permanent revolution...is...a revolution whose every successive stage is rooted in the preceding one and which can end only in complete liquidation.

So Fitzgerald investigates a crime, then investigates peoples' behavior during the investigation, then investigates that investigation, and so on.

The theory of permanent investigation.

Take this Quiz

Here.

Borking Miers kills soldiers

How many will die?

I am really shocked and appalled at the failure of the anti-Miers bloggers to appreciate the costs of killing her nomination. All they seem to focus on is the benefit they perceive. Surely, they can't be so blind to the potential costs?

Some have pointed out that the tactics of the opposition to Miers seemed to be very similar to what we would expect from liberals. Apparently, the failure to do a cost-benefit analysis is another shared feature of this experience.

Liberals see a poor person and want to give out welfare. For liberals, that makes everything "all better" (as my daughter might say). Conservatives point out that policies have unintended consequences. Welfare, for example, breeds a crippling dependency. Raising the minimum wage is another policy that makes liberals happy because it "gives" workers more money. Everything is all better. But conservatives have to point out that the higher minimim wage increases unemployment. Everything is all better -- except for the folks who are much worse off. And the economic misallocations, etc.

The anti-Miers forces saw a Supreme Court nominee who failed to meet their standards. They hammered and hammered the president until Ms. Miers' nomination was withdrawn. And now, everything is all better.

At what cost? Is it possible that some damage might have been incurred somewhere? Doesn't anyone have any interest in exploring what that damage might be? Or even admit that it exists. In fact, wouldn't it have been a good idea to think about the cost side a little before the borking commenced?

Do I need to remind folks that we are war. This war is all about the media and the perception of American resolve. George W. Bush is on point in leading America in this war. His political enemies are unwilling to join the war effort. Many are working to degrade our ability to fight. So ultimately, the terrorists' focus is the defeat of the President. Everything that weakens Bush, strengthens and prolongs the terrorist's war effort. Anything that hurts W and weakens his political capital will likely lead to greater US casualties.

There are, of course, many other potential costs. For example, political initiatives which conservatives favor are likely to be damaged because the president has been weakened. And the perception of weakness cannot be helpful for GOP election efforts in 2006. But rather than engage in an exhaustive list, let's just focus on the war effort.

Bottom line -- borking Miers likely hurt our military efforts in the Mideast. It could very well result in more US casualties. Those who opposed her may well think that the benefit of removing her from the bench was worth the additional war dead and the political damage to the president and the GOP. I remain unconvinced.

What upsets me, however, is not how anyone chooses to resolve the political and moral calculus. It is not how much weight they choose to allocate to the perceived benefits and costs. They are entitled to their opinions. What upsets me is their apparent failure to even recognize the costs and undertake the analysis.

Everything is not "all better" now.

Why you should never listen to the "experts"

Troy Aikman has a nice article about why Peyton Manning's passing yardage and passing touchdown totals are down this year. One small problem -- his explanation is just flat wrong. Troy says Manning is playing well and he's right. Manning has been playing QB at a level never seen before. But this is the reason Troy gives for the reduced passing "Because the defense is so much better, the Colts are running the ball more and passing it less."

Wrong. Manning comes to the line and decides, based on what the defense presents, what is the best play to run. This is what he has been doing for years and no one has ever come close to doing it as well as he does. Last year, defenses looked at the weaknesses in the Colt offensive line and thought they could get quick pressure on Manning. This was especially true after 3 starters in the line went down with injuries. Yet, he showed repeatedly that he had the ability to read coverage quickly and deliver a perfect pass before pass rushers could get to him, even when they were unblocked! After his phenomenal passing success last year, teams have gone to plan B.

Since even unblocked blitzers cannot get to him in time to disrupt the passing game, they are dropping everyone into deep coverage and daring the Colts to run the ball. Given the weakness in the O-line, this is a reasonable plan. Fortunately for the Colts, Manning's unique ability to get the handoff wide to James on the outside zone stretch delays the secondary in providing run support and helps open holes for Edge to run through.

The increased use of the running game has nothing to do with the Colt defense. It has everything to do with opposing defenses using different strategy. Troy should know better.

When a broken clock is more accurate

EU Rota has a nice roundup of the predictions which were at the core of the rise of the environmental movement. Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day which is a far better accuracy record than the Greenies can boast.

I guess being an environmentalist is a matter of faith -- the same kind of faith which led the moonbats to assemble a few years ago for the end of the world. Hat tip -- Don Luskin.

How TV news doomed the rescue operation at Munich Olympics

Cori Dauber reminds us of how bad TV news can be. The new head of CBS News is the son of ABC Sports announcer, Jim McKay. He talked about how impressed he was with the coverage of the Israeli athlete hostage-taking by Palestinian terrorists. Cori writes about the revelations of a documentary she saw recently:

I didn't have but vague memories of Munich, so what I saw on this documentary about Munich just stunned me.

It's made pretty clear that ABC wasn't alone, but ABC:

-- announced that within a half an hour German police dressed as athletes would be storming the apartments in the athlete's village where the hostages were being held

-- showed the police in their staging area preparing, then moving towards the apartments and then, worst of all

-- showed the police moving into their various positions above and around the apartment balconies and windows.

In interviews for the documentary one of the policemen who had been up on that roof getting into position, then waiting for the word (which never came) to storm the apartment, now retired, explained that they couldn't understand why the word never came. They didn't realize they were being televised live, and they didn't realize that at the last minute their superiors found out (thank God, just in time) that every room in the athlete's village had a TV set. It would have been a suicide mission.

And that was this guy's introduction to the wonders and power of television news.

Things that make you say, "hmmm."

Economic Illiterate -- Sen. Ron Wyden (D. Ore.)

Just heard this yahoo on CNBC pitching his new tax plan. I don't think I have ever heard him speak before. Hope I never have to again. What an idiot! The CNBC anchor, Ron Insana, keeps getting progressively worse, as well.

I have begun turning the sound down and leaving it on simply to check the markets. I'll turn up the sound, if someone worth listening to comes on.

I wish my cable provider had a different financial channel to go to.

Where is the justification for embracing litmus tests?

Earlier this summer, as they had for decades, conservatives stood firm and united against the use of ideological litmus tests for nominees to the Federal bench. Opposition to their use came from a sound understanding of history and the recognition that litmus tests were an assault on the independence of the judiciary. Their use was predicted to lead to a long term degradation of our entire legal system.

This month, a whole lot of conservatives have attacked President Bush and Harriet Miers for failing to pass their ideological litmus tests. My point is not to highlight hypocrisy, but rather to ask a very serious question -- when and why did so many conservatives decide to abandon their previous beliefs and embrace the litmus test?

I would surely hope that this decision to radically alter course came only after some serious reflection. Would someone please direct me to the law review articles and columns in serious journals where the anti-Miers intellectuals explain and justify their departure from their previous position.

Has anyone explained how the use of litmus tests supposedly benefits the national interest? I'm familiar with a lot of the reasons why litmus tests are a terrible idea. I haven't heard or read anyone offer reasons why the benefits from using litmus tests trump the costs. Has anyone in the anti-Miers group done this benefit-cost analysis?

I have to believe they have. I can't imagine them doing what they did to Bush and Miers without thinking this through very carefully. Would someone please give me the links for the reasoned law review articles, the scholarly analyses, or even the op-ed columns where this has been discussed and decided?

A sad day for ALL of us

So Harriet Miers decided that enough was enough. I can't say I blame her one bit. I am saddened for three very different reasons. First, no person should ever be treated the way she was treated. Being nominated for any federal position should never be viewed as sufficient justificatiion for others to trash and slander a lifetime of honest, noble service. There is a very nasty place in hell waiting for those who have used this type of despicable tactic on people such as Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Kenneth Starr and, now, Harriet Miers.

Second, the conservatives who trashed Miers have made it impossible to object when liberals renew their brand of character assassination on the next Republican they get in their sights.

And finally, the politicization of the judiciary is now complete and permanent. This is the worst of the repercussions from this sad, disgusting episode. Litmus tests have been enshrined. More on this in the next post.

Is TABOR dead in Colorado?

My father-in-law called to tell me that he'd heard that polls in Colorado were not encouraging for the continued viability of their Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Apparently, the politicians anxious to raise taxes have been running ads telling the voters that killing TABOR will mean higher spending on education et al, but without higher taxes.

Anyone know more?

I'm e-mailing Bill Hobbs to ask what he has heard.

UPDATE AND BUMP --

Bill wrote back:

It's close, but most of the "undecideds" are Republicans, which I think means in the end they'll vote mostly the right way and the "reforms" that would gut TABOR will narrowly fail. Remember, it only passed 52-48 the first time, not by some huge landslide. I think it will survive intact by the about the same margin.

Perspective on #2000

After learning that an armistice had been agreed to and that the war was going to end at 11 a.m., American military commanders sent over 3500 American soldiers to their deaths in attacks on the morning of November 11, 1918. The attacks accomplished absolutely nothing beneficial (despite the approval of blood-thirsty officers like Harry Truman).

Today, after two and a half years of fighting, American military commanders have removed fascist dictorships in 2 countries and supported the creation of fledgling democracies. Over 50 million people are experiencing freedom. People all over the region are now clamoring for the same kind of freedom. Their attitudes toward the United States has dramatically improved.

As a result of intelligence gathered during fighting, terrorist attacks have been stopped and terrorist groups bent on operating in the US have been dismantled or drastically cut back.

Two thousand of our finest have given their lives to make this happen. Only a fool would fail to appreciate the incredible successes they have helped achieve.

Disagreeing with the Captain

Ed has a post referencing his new Daily Standard column and asks if we all can't be a little more civil. I agree with that. One sentence in his post really struck me as odd:

We got to this position of controlling the levers of power through the efforts of people like Hugh Hewitt, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, George Bush, Ken Mehlman, Tom DeLay, and the various bloggers and grassroots organizers weighing in on vital policy issues every day.

Say what?!

Republicans are in a majority in DC because of the actions of folks like Reagan, Gingrich and Limbaugh. And I guess you could give some of the "credit" to liberals such as McGovern, Carter and Clinton for helping to show how badly liberalism screws up public policy. In fact, the best explanation for the ascendancy of the GOP is that the inevitable collapse of welfare state policies provided the voters with the reason to seek an alternative. At that point, credit Reagan and Gingrich with seizing the opportunity and Rush for providing the alternative voice to the MSM.

I don't think any individual bloggers do much of anything to change the debate or the course of political history. If Glenn, Hugh or the Powerline guys didn't blog, other bloggers are already there to do what they do. Their absence would only change the stats, not the message. For proof of this, simply look at Andrew Sullivan. He was a force on the conservative side in the early days of the blogosphere. He changed sides and the audience moved on to others. Can anyone really argue that he changed many minds when he started changing his own? I don't think so.

If one of the influential bloggers on the right should lose credibility, due to the Miers spat or something else, the audience will simply move on. There are far too many voices posting every day and e-mailing friends and family for lost credibility on the part of a few bloggers to derail the conservative message.

No Peace without Victory

Powerline has a long excerpt of the President's speech. Especially good stuff:

The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 150 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan. Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.

No acts of ours involves the rage of killers. And no concessions, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans of murder. On the contrary; they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory.

And:

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It's not justified. With every random bombing and every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves. In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny to liberation, to national elections, to the ratification of a constitution -- in the space of two and a half years. (Applause.)

There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. That would be a pleasant world -- but it isn't the world in which we live. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory -- and we will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.)

When their grievance is the Crusades, only a fool would think there exists some concession that will end their violence. This point needs to be made as often as kindergarteners recite their ABCs until the liberals understand it.

Judges you can live with

Debra Saunders:

Conservatives ask: Why elect Republicans if we don't get the judges we want?
Answer: So that you'll get judges you can live with.

DJ Drummond says it better than I

Just read this by D J over at Polipundit on the Miers nomination. Very well done. Read it all on why she will be confirmed. One point he makes about all the attacks on Miers:

Annoying, this piling-on of hate by the ideologues, but it is very poor strategy as well. If nothing else, the average American tends to favor someone perceived as an underdog or an innocent victim, and all this vitriol is making people ask the reasonable question, ‘why not just let the lady have her hearings?’ It seems to me that not only are the ideologues embarrassing themselves with such comments, they are driving the undecideds to the pro-Miers side. Also, as Strata-Sphere observed succinctly, “the anti-Miers crowd are losing other conservative factions because they called for a civil war with nothing but scary fairytales to back up their claims.”

A reasonable question -- "Why not just let the lady have her hearings?"

And -- they called for a civil war armed with nothing but fairy tales.

Good stuff both of them.

Perfect "Chicken Little" column

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Oh dear, oh dear. We must go tell the king. Jack Kelly joins Turkey Lurkey and Henny Penny.

Read Hewitt today

Hugh Hewitt has several long posts over the last couple of days on the Miers nomination. They are all worth reading.

Why Bush will not withdraw the Miers nomination

[Note- I've had this post in mind for about 5 days, but wanted to wait until I had time to do it justice. I'm not going to get the time, so I'm just throwing it out there in rough form.]

Everything I think I know about President Bush tells me there is no possible way he will withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. First, his sense of honor, character and loyalty would not let him do it. Miers has given up a tremendous amount of income at the height of her career to serve Bush. Since her nomination, she has been slandered and belittled. I imagine that the White House has been shocked at the brutality with which she has been knifed in the back. If the public does not get to see her testify at hearings, all that will ever be known about her are the claims that she is "third-rate", incompetent and unqualified. Her reputation and future career as a top-notch lawyer, built over a lifetime of hard work, will be completely trashed. I don't see how she could be anywhere near as effective in securing the top drawer clientele she attracted in the past, if she doesn't get to testify. No matter how politically expedient some might argue it would be for Bush to get rid of her now, I just can't see him doing that to her.

Second, the President understands that the real end game is the vote of the Senate. All the gnashing of teeth and hissy fits by pundits and bloggers is ultimately meaningless. Clarence Thomas has survived a far more devastating personal assault for many years. He has risen above it all and continues to do good work on the Court. I imagine Miers and Bush are prepared to put up with the personal attacks against her, comfortable in the knowledge that, once confirmed, she can be a productive justice, too. And Bush has a far better feel for who is holding the cards in this poker game than the pundits screaming for her scalp. This hand will be won privately, one senator at a time, not in the court of public opinion. In the end, Bush knows that few in the GOP want to go on record with their constituents back home as having rejected his nominee. I don't think he will let them sink his friend behind closed doors. They will have to stand up and cast their votes on the record. I think and Bush likely knows that few will vote no.

Third, withdrawing the nomination without a hearing would vindicate the backstabbing Chicken Littles. For many of the conservatives who have joined the assault on Miers, the real target is Bush. I don't think it would be wise for W to allow those attacking him to claim a victory over him without cost. Obviously, the White House is convinced that Miers will do well when the nation tunes in to hear her. Even if the nomination is not confirmed, I suspect (and Bush likely believes) that her performance will put the lie to much of criticism and many of her critics will be revealed as having been harsh and mean-spirited. Many viewers will probably conclude that the anti-Miers forces were wrong in their descriptions of her. What else are they wrong about? It can only help Bush to have his critics cut down to size as a result of having their credibility placed in question.

Liberals have been misunderestimating W for his entire political career. I find it remarkable to see so many conservatives now making the same mistake. George W. Bush is the anti-Clinton. He doesn't bend with the prevailing wind. We have seen him persevere against the conventional wisdom on issue after issue for five years. I fully expect that he will stand strong and tough on the Miers nomination and see it through to her confirmation.

Given his record, only a fool would bet against him.

Finally, is it really politically advantageous to Bush to cut her loose now? How does it help him? The confirmation process may very well be contentious, but I'm not convinced that he doesn't benefit from it all. Can he get hurt more than he is right now? I think withdrawing now would be selling at the bottom of a bear market.

UPDATE (Wed morning):

Welcome to Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, Hedgehog and Red State readers (and thanks for the links). I appreciate the commenters and e-mailers who express their agreement and disagreement with thought and courtesy.

Later today I'm planning a post to respond to the points of disagreement and outline where I think the right side of the political spectrum diverged onto alternative paths. Hope you can check back this afternoon.

Again, thanks for your responses, both pro and con. Those who point out my errors help me improve and I certainly need to do a lot of improving (just ask my wife).

NOTE: Everyone needs to check out D J Drummond's take which I referenced here.

2nd UPDATE -- and hello to those from Betsy, Memeorandum, and Alexandra (and a big thank you to them).

How to win the Black vote

Buy it.

Compare and Contrast

As the MSM goes crazy speculating endlessly over Plame, let's compare their reactions to two previous instances where we KNOW that the White House committed corrupt or criminal acts: 1) the White House arranged for the payment of one million dollars to a convicted administration official in order to buy his silence in a grand jury investigation of the President; and 2) the White House chief of staff and his assistant were implicated by a federal judge for ordering Commerce Department officials to commit obstruction of justice on a wholesale basis.

Anyone remember the MSM fever over those two cases?

Three good articles on Plame investigation fiasco

Dr. Sanity has posts praising 3 articles on the Plame investigation fiasco here, here, and here. All worth a read.

Dr. Sanity asks the right question

Read her here. To Michael Moore and his friends:

Are they unable to feel the shame and disgrace of their carefully orchestrated and selective outrage? Their silence about the deaths and atrocities committed by Al-Qaeda in the name of Islam make it doubtful that either God or the Iraqi people will forgive them in the end.

Two good Cox and Forkum cartoons

Here and here.

Saddam and Nuremberg

At Belmont Club, a typically great post by Wretchard on Nuremberg and the Saddam trial. Read the earlier one as well.

Interstate Commerce Victory

Via Glenn, a win for civil liberties. David Kopel has the details of the bill in Congress to stop local governments from interfering in lawful interstate commerce of firearms. Important point:

The bill is an excellent exercise of the congressional power over interstate commerce, for precisely the purpose for which Congress was originally granted that power: the billis necessary and proper to stop local governments from interfering with interstate commerce, including by attempting to use a verdict in a single state court to impose national firearms controls which have been rejected by Congress and by all state governments.

Podhoretz slips on the banana

Beldar patiently explains to John Podhoretz that he doesn't have a clue about the nature of corporate litigation. Perhaps because I worked on the same kind of cases Miers did when I was a litigator, I was especially stunned by the foolishness of J-Pod's comment

Kicking and screaming on the floor

I have children ages 2,5, and 11. Thus, the behavior of the chicken little conservatives over the Miers nomination is really familiar. So is the "logic". Although in all fairness to Madison, he will be 12 soon and he is generally more mature than all that. The chicken littles have most resembled Catherine as she traverses through the sometimes "terrible twos".

The arguments against the Miers nomination can be categorized as follows:

1. She didn't go to the right schools (yes, the elitist snobs did say that).
2. Bush didn't follow my advice on who to nominate, so he's not my friend any more.
3. Bush didn't veto the highway bill, so he's not my friend any more.
4. Bush didn't follow my advice on immigration, so he's not my friend any more.
5. Bush has NEVER really been a conservative, so he's never been my friend.
6. She has to explicitly pass all my ideological litmus tests or I won't be her friend.

I have yet to read anyone make the case that the defeat of this nomination will aid the prosecution of the war or advance the cause of conservatism or help the GOP in future elections. So I can only conclude that all this has amounted to nothing but a huge temper tantrum.

The most egregious part of the chicken little tantrum has to be the way those who have kicked and screamed are now blaming the president for their tantrum. Apparently, Bush should have known they were going to pout and rant, if they didn't get their way. So all their tears are his fault.

Bork's appalling op-ed

When I read Robert Bork's WSJ op-ed in the dead tree version over my breakfast, I was tempted to lose it. Hugh Hewitt does a good job of taking it apart.

Why I'm in the market

A great summary of the good news in the future can be found here. The key is productivity growth.

Of course, we could just follow Will Rogers' investment advice -- "buy a good stock and after it goes up, sell it. If it don't go up, don't buy it."

Wash Post's Walter Pincus is clueless

In typically biased fashion, CNBC had two liberal journalists discuss the possibility of indictments of White House figures. Walter Pincus of the Post just said that Joe Wilson came back from Niger and reported the uranium story was bogus.

Uh, Walter -- the 9/11 Commission and everyone else who has looked at the memo proved that Wilson's report did just the opposite. Wilson lied. Poor Walter. Imagine living in his liberal cocoon and never being exposed to truth.

Anyone think we should try to break through and give him a special delivery of reality? Nah, he wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the face.

Barone on elite distaste for America

Michael Barone discusses the split in the Democratic party on patriotism.

I predict that someone will rise in the GOP by focusing like a laser on this issue and causing the Democrats to become a permanent minority party. In fact, they could easily go the way of the Liberal Party in Britain.

Racism

Great Cox and Forkum editorial cartoon.

Was the US terrorized by the government in the 50s?

TV ads for George Clooney's movie about CBS News and Edward R. Murrow make the statement that the nation was terrorized by its own government. Hmmmmmmm.

I thought the big criticism of the 50s was that they were too boring, too white bread and suburban. Now I don't doubt that communists in Hollywood were extremely worried about having their ties to the communist movement exposed. And I know that certain communists were unable to get work after it became known that they were communists.

What I didn't know was that the entire country felt terrorized. Never heard that one before.

The Iraqi vote

Wretchard has a good summary of what it all means.

Increasing incompetence of the Left -- Why?

Christopher Hitchens has an Op-ed in the dead tree WSJ describing how really bad this year's Nobel Prize for literature is. Bottom line -- as with the Peace prize, opposition to the US is the only criteria for selection. Actual merit means nothing.

This follows a trend which seems to permeate every institution on the left whether the academy, the MSM, or the Democratic Party. While it should be possible to engage in deliberate propaganda without degenerating into fraud and incompetence, we see fraud and incompetence increasing from the left at a rate that seems exponential. Why? One would think that the propaganda would likely be far more effective, if the institution was respected instead of derided. The more subtle bias of Walter Cronkite was certainly more effective than the blatant cheerleading of Dan Rather when it comes to swaying the votes of viewers who expect fair reporting.

Yet, the march to irrelevance (even self-parody) continues unabated on every front. Perhaps this is a political application of the old adage that bad money drives out good.

So here is the question -- we would expect that the institutions of the left would trend toward strategies that work (in essence, a survival of the fittest type evolution). Obviously, that is not what we are seeing. What we are seeing seems more like the bad money driving out good scenario.

Why?

Note -- some might point to the fund-raising needs of the Democrats and their special interest supporters. Extremism seems to raise far more money, even as it strays farther from rationality. But this doesn't explain the ridiculous Nobel choices, collegiate tenure decisions, or the precipitous decline of the MSM into a bad joke. Why do these institutions push bias past the breaking point and render themselves impotent?

Beldar fisks NRO

When journalists try to argue with a good lawyer their logical fallacies get exposed to a glaring spotlight. Clearly the Chicken Littles at NRO didn't count on having Beldar expose their inadequacies or they would have written a bit more carefully. Beldar slices up the NRO folks like Jackson handled the British at New Orleans. Will NRO keep a-comin'?

Tapscott on OU bomber

Mark Tapscott has a lot of posts this past week about the terror possibilities in the OU bomber case. His is a good blog to check regularly.

Spyware fiends get sued

Glenn points out this article about a lawsuit against some nefarious spyware types. I love the lawyering by the plaintiff's counsel.

Personally, however, I favor Congress and the states passing a law in a vein similar to the one some state passed regarding flag burning. Something like limiting the penalty for assault on a spyware perpetrator by someone enraged by said spyware to a term in jail no longer than an hour with such term to be served at a local coffeehouse.

Anchoress says it better than I

She puts to words what I have been feeling since I read Beldar's post about David Frum and the National Review's petition against Miers. She notes that Frum sounded very different about Miers earlier this summer. And then writes:

I’ll tell you what is still, really very obnoxious to me - that I am watching my own side “bork” a respectable conservative woman, before she even gets to speak for herself. Even Robert Bork got to appear before the Judiciary committee. In the case of Harriet Miers, everyone gets to have their loud, shrill and incessant say…except Harriet Miers.

This shames me. This shames me as an American and as a woman and as a conservative.

The right is “borking” this woman and doing their damndest to make sure she does NOT get her opportunity to speak for herself. WHY? Why this need to prevent her from opening her trap? What is everyone so damned afraid of?

There is something so profoundly weird about all of this - ALL of it - that I don’t want things to simply be pulled and quickly hushed up.

She thinks it is great that we can argue, but:

when I see people who are supposed to be all about fairness and openness working so desperately hard to keep a person from having her day in court - for better or worse - then I am very troubled.

When I see people insisting one month that the president is entitled to his nominee and his nominee is entitled to a hearing, and then saying precisely the opposite the next month - then I am very troubled.

Something stinks in Denmark. Something is just really, really wrong here.

And then she hits a home run in summary:

With all due respect to the many, many folks within the stop-Harriet alliance whom I regard as good friends, and fellow-travellers - something is not right here. Some of the rhetoric is out of control, some of the venom is showing uncharacteristic traits, some of the alliance appear to be on the verge of stroke. Some of this hyperventilation seems completely out-of-proportion to the crime of Ms. Miers being nominated to the bench.

The reaction of many to this nomination has gone way beyond intellectual reason and moved into sweaty emotionalism and even spite…where it has never belonged.

It begs the question why. And that question needs a real answer. An answer I suspect we will never get if Miers’ nomination is withdrawn.

A rift this big, a chasm this newly unstable demands explaining.

I too, demand an explanation from the Chicken Littles. How can this nomination be worth the kind of damage you are inflicting on your own side, your own president and your country. During a WAR?!!!

Weaker than weak

Bruce Bartlett points out how inadequate the Times' editorialist is on economic matters. Perhaps the Times might improve if they hired people who understood economics to write on economics. Maybe they could take some college courses or read some books.

Katie Couric -- Clinton shill

This is pathetic.

Wow!

I played professional baseball. I am totally in agreement with the Angels' players that an umpire is calling someone out when the umpire raises his arm and pumps his fist. That fist signifies an out. I'll bet 99% of all players believe that.

The umps in the post-game press conference are apparently trying to say that the home plate umpire was only calling a strike when he pumped his fist, not an out. According to the umps, on the play in question the ump pointed his hand out to the side in the age-old signal for a strike. The ump then made a definitive, obviously deliberate fist pumping motion. They are arguing that both motions meant the same thing (a strike).

I call BS.

Umps screw up playoffs

Just watching the end of Angels-White Sox. Don't really care who wins, but the umps just stepped into a huge controversy. In the bottom of the ninth with 2 outs, the Sox batter struck out on a low pitch. Tough to tell whether the ball hit the ground before the catcher caught it (if so, it is a dropped third strike and the batter can try to get to first). The plate ump signals it is a strike AND then signals the batter OUT. Catcher rolls the ball to the mound as the inning is now over. Batter decides to run to first and the ump forgets he has already called him out and awards him first base.

He ends up being the winning run. Angels are not happy (and with very good reason).

Jaw dropped

I continue to be shocked and dismayed by the incredible stupidity and self-destructive instincts of the Chicken Little conservatives. I am beginning to believe that a significant number of these folks are really more comfortable being true believers and in the minority. They just aren't up to the task of operating as a majority in a political system.

Of course, since they seem to have completely forgotten that we are at war, perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised that they can't seem to grasp the essential elements of politics, either.

Will They Blame Global Warming?

Would anyone be surprised if some liberal moonbat claims that the earthquake was caused by global warming?

Miers --my bottom line

Susan Salisbury has lots of good stuff. It's also a good idea to check Beldar regularly.

My bottom line --

A) people who say that she isn't qualified are ridiculous.

B) Conservatives who say they worry that she isn't conservative enough have two huge problems convincing me she should be opposed. First, they are just guessing and W has a lot more info than they. Second, even if she should turn out to be less conservative than some would like, the critics haven't convinced me that defeating her nomination is worth the tremendous damage such a defeat would wreak on the president's ability to function (as well as the damage to GOP electoral chances in 2006). In fact, they can't even predict that defeating her nomination will result in someone more conservative being confirmed.

So I just don't see the point of opposition. They are eager to inflict great harm to the nation and the conservative movement, yet they can't even offer any assurance that whoever else might ultimately be confirmed to the spot will be any better.

This is beyond stupid. It is utter madness.

Poor Al Gore

Michael Barone posts on Al Gore's character flaw of a tendency to utter falsehoods.

Musil patiently explains things to George Will

This is a good example of the kind of thought we wish we could get from George Will.

Proper Perspective During War

We often criticize liberals for refusing to understand that our country is at war. This past week, the Chicken Little conservatives apparently forgot we are at war as well. I can't imagine that all their whining has enhanced the President's ability to conduct the war. Perhaps when they calm down and some small measure of sanity returns, they will be able to appreciate that they have experienced a massive failure of perspective.

And those advocating that the President be knee-capped by torpedoing the Miers nomination ["send a message even if it costs us some seats in the next election!"] might want to imagine how well the war on Islamofascist terrorists might proceed with a liberal in the White House or a liberal coalition in control of the Senate.

It is past time for some folks to grow up and act responsibly.

Why fight when the enemy has surrendered?

Via Hugh Hewitt, this is a great post. Aristotle makes a solid point -- the Democrats told W they would confirm someone that he was 100% certain was a conservative and agreed with his positions.

Bush would have to be an idiot to turn down a deal like that. Why create a confirmation battle royale when the enemy will give you what you want without a fight?

Read the rest of it for his analysis of her paper trail.

Beldar answers Krauthammer and asks a question

I am really dismayed at the good doctor. As Beldar explains, it is likely to do to a failure of imagination. Methinks the failure quite massive.

He also passes on some info from the Dallas Morning News:

Ms. Miers lived with her mother, Sally, and younger brother Jeb during her SMU undergraduate and law school years. Her father, Morris Miers, suffered a stroke during her freshman year, leaving the family in financial straits.

Concerned that she couldn't afford to keep her daughter in school, Ms. Miers' mother telephoned SMU President Willis M. Tate, seeking help, said the nominee's brother, Robert Miers. The president arranged a scholarship and job for the student at the university's campus computer center, Mr. Miers said. "Harriet and the family are grateful to this day."

And then he asks:

Hypothetically, if your daddy has a stroke when you're a freshman in college, and you stay close to home so you can work a scholarship job while you're going to the best college and then the best law school in town, and then you clerk for a local federal district judge, and you go to work for one of the best firms in town (but that town isn't Washington or New York), and you go on to rack up a string of exceptional professional successes — does that nevertheless mean you're forever after a "third-rate" lawyer, forever after unworthy to be considered qualified for the Supreme Court, because you didn't go off to some Ivy League school?

Just askin'.

Great question.

Stuart Buck answers Randy Barnett

Buck points out that the person who advised the president was William K. Kelley, formerly a professor at Notre Dame Law School and clerk for Ken Starr and Justice Scalia.

DJ Drummond gets it

He makes good points:

1. Those who say Miers isn't conservative enough simply don't know what they are talking about.
2. It appears that a whole lot of conservatives are misunderestimating W the same way that liberals have for years.
3.

Harriet Miers is not the problem. Peggy Noonan, George Will, and every Conservative whose loyalty to the nation and party depends on their personal approval of every decision are the problem. The oh-so-quick assumption by many that a name or two that they have heard in conversation or essay, but whose actual judicial temperment they do not personally know, is superior to a jurist known by the President, whose mind and character he knows, is appalling on its face, all the worse that it should be given such ready currency simply out of pique.

4. And in the update:

Since the responses have been so far very predictable, may I request that the people who oppose Miers, cite what it is, exactly, about her which makes her unqualified? It’s one thing to say you wish your personal choice would have been picked, quite another to whine and moan about someone on no better motive than mistrust of the man you just voted for last year.

Why I wouldn't hire Bainbridge to be my lawyer

An ability to spot the critical issues and address them persuasively is paramount for a lawyer. In this attack on President Bush and his nomination of Harriet Miers, Professor Bainbridge tries a double switch and screws it up (to use a baseball analogy).

He says:

I think it's time for principled conservatives to give Bush and the rest of the GOP leadership a spanking for having deserted the principles for which we stand. If that costs the party seats in the short term, maybe that's the price we have to pay for teaching the party a valuable lesson.

How is nominating Miers an abandonment of conservative principles? He doesn't say. He merely says she is not as qualified as he would like. So -- unless he is implicitly equating his personal desires for Supreme Court justices with bedrock conservative principles we are left to wonder.

How does defeating the nomination of Miers advance the cause of conservatism? He doesn't say. Somehow we are supposed to believe that having the GOP Senate embarrass Bush on a judicial nomination will teach a lesson to the party leadership about deserting principles. The line of causation for this argument gets lost in a swamp of cloudy thinking never to emerge again. To me, a defeat of Miers seems far more likely to result in nothing more than a fractured party unable to accomplish anything.

And how cavalier he is about the chance of losing control of one or more branches of government! Defeating the Miers nomination is worth risking that?!

Wow.

Talk about out of control recklessness. I'm not the type to place my entire retirement savings on a number at the craps table in hopes of making a big score. And I damn sure wouldn't hire a lawyer who advised me to do so. Especially with such a shoddy rationalization for such extreme behavior.

Lifson tweaks the chicken littles

This is worth a read. Some good parts include:

Based on some of the commentary from respected conservatives distressed over the SCOTUS nomination of non-judge, non-scholar, non-intellectual Harriet Miers, one would think that the Supreme Court has always been populated by Olympian figures, debating esoteric yet penetrating points of law, precedent and historical insight, and employing complex logic to persuade the majority to accede to the most brilliant minds among them. Would that it were so.

It is a pretty vision to contemplate, but it’s a bit of a fairy tale. That cannot be the Supreme Court which discovered the Constitution's penumbra, and in its most recent completed term transmogrified “public use” into “public purpose” so as to enable government entities to seize your property and give it to others who will pay more taxes to them on it.

Read it all.

A Culture of Corruption

"Culture of corruption" has been one of the Dems favorite talking points lately. Except that Frist did nothing wrong. And now it looks like all the corruption involving DeLay has been committed by the prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

Hugh Hewitt makes the point (in greater detail) that I made before -- for conservatives to continue the attack on Bush and Miers is self-defeating:

The recriminations now being hurled at the White House are delighting the MSM and their friends on the left. There's a reason why the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are running huge stories on this fight, and it isn't because the fight is good for the conservative movement.


Now the complaints have all been aired, and everyone has put their marker down. Continuing the assault on Miers means committing to her defeat, an event that would be one of the more remarkable exercises in political self-destruction in memory. Though the GOP is poised to pick up seats in the Senate in 2006 --in Florida, West Virginia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington State, to name just six possibilities-- the decision to turn on the president is decision the injure those chances.

Illegality and possible corruption -- TN Black Caucus

Bill Hobbs has the details. I doubt anyone is surprised.

How liberalism can make you stupid

Mickey Kaus provides us with a great example in discussing the Meirs nomination, "There are some moves Presidents who gain office on 5-4 Supreme Court votes can't make."

Earth to Mickey -- in the most recent presidential election, there was no Supreme Court vote. Bush won by a solid margin. And going back to 2000, there is no possible scenario by which a Supreme Court ruling for Gore would have resulted in Bush losing in Florida. That has already been conclusively established. Perhaps Mickey has been reading the lunatic ravings of Paul Krugman.

Amen to that

Beldar nails the law professors whose noses are so far up in the air that they have gotten stuck in their asses. To demonstrate the elitist attitude, he quotes from Professor Randy Barnett:

I do not expect any president to know enough about judicial philosophy to pick judges on his own. I expect him or her, however, to appoint advisers who do know about such matters and follow their advice.

Wow.

I wholeheartedly endorse these thoughts from Beldar:

I reject — I mock and I ridicule without apology — his notion that only "experts" or "advisers who do know about such matters" have the ability or the authority to decide who ought to be appointed to the courts. I submit that that notion is profoundly anti-democratic, profoundly insulting to the American public and the office of the POTUS (whoever holds it), and profoundly contrary to both the history and intent of our constitutional structure under the rule of law. As I commented on Prof. Barnett's post, if he really believes that, he's "not just off into the elitist deep end now, [he's] drowned in it."

Or suffocated.

To the Chicken Little Conservatives -- get over it!

This is a comment I left over at Beldar:

The Chicken Little conservatives have completely lost perspective. Some have lost their minds.

First, a justice is a person, not a resume. Second, the president is charged with the duty of choosing the nominee.

He choose Miers. She is unquestionably smart enough for the job. And that really is all that matters on the academic front. Can she handle the intellectual demands of the job? Easily. Besides, this stuff isn't really that hard to understand.

So now she is the nominee. Perhaps not the one some conservatives wanted. Obviously not the type of resume some wanted. BUT SHE IS THE NOMINEE!!!!

What do the Chicken Little types think they are accomplishing with all the teeth-gnashing? (Other than making asses of themselves?)

C'mon crybabies -- get over yourselves and figure out what you can do to make the country better. [hint -- all the whining ain't it]

Does any conservative out there really think that the country in general, or the conservative movement in particular, will be better off if Miers is not confirmed because GOP senators torpedo Bush? Are the wackos screaming that they will punish the GOP at the polls in 2006 off the meds? Someone want to try to explain how this is good for the USA? Or have y'all just forgotten about the fact that the future of the US is what this is all about.

The angry nutcases who punished Bush I in the 1992 election gave us 8 years of the Bubba and Hillary freak show and that resulted in 9/11.

I am quickly losing respect for these Chicken Little folks.

Robert Musil reminds us

... that not all justices have had prior judicial experience. He briefly outlines the careers of Byron White and Robert Jackson here.

UPDATE -- Luskin provides us with the long, long, long list of justices who had no previous judicial experience.
(Wed morning)

Beldar corrects NRO's Rich Lowry

Beldar does a great job setting Lowry's source straight on a whole lot of misinformation. He also explains how Mier's resume is superior to Roberts' in many ways (here).

This Ain't Rocket Science

A number of commentators have sniffed at Harriet Mier's resume. I happen to think that it is very solid. However, what I really want to take issue with is this crazy notion that the work of a US Supreme Court Justice requires extraordinary genius. What garbage!

First, let's remember that Thurgood Marshall cranked out votes that thrilled his liberal backers for many years long after he had become a doddering old fool. His liberal clerks and colleagues made sure of that.

Second, any person with the natural intelligence to gain acceptance at a decent law school can learn the essentials of constitutional law by reading any decent commercial outline in an afternoon. It ain't rocket science! And for the cases themselves, any reasonably bright lawyer can figure out exactly the issues at stake in a case by simply reading the appellate briefs the first time through. It really is pretty simple. The briefs and the record actually identify the issues raised on appeal. What could be easier than that?

Now add three law clerks who have recently finished clerkships for some of the finest judges from the Courts of Appeal (having been chosen for those posts because of their brilliant scholarship at the best law schools in the land). Does anyone really think that a justice at SCOTUS might actually fail to grasp the essential issues after reading memos and being briefed by 3 young John Roberts wanna-bes?

Now add the input, influence and reasoning of Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Roberts and their typically brilliant law clerks.

With that kind of help available, does anyone really want to argue that any person of reasonable intelligence who had passed a bar exam couldn't figure out how to vote on these cases?! Let's face it. A state trial judge without benefit of a clerk and burdened by an overflowing docket needs to be a lot smarter in order to rule properly on any Constitutional issue raised in his court than a SCOTUS justice who is surrounded by dozens of brilliant folks who can offer guidance.

This stuff just isn't hard to understand.

Now I will readily grant that those of us on the right would all like to have a justice whose legal brilliance and persuasive writing style were capable of making Ginsberg, Breyer, or Souter see the light and renounce their evil ways. If anyone can, perhaps Roberts can fulfill that role. But people like John Roberts are kind of rare and we don't really expect that kind of miracle, anyway.

I'll be thrilled if Miers simply votes the same way as we expect all of those judges who have been nominated for appellate posts by Bush under her watchful eye.

Read Thomas Lifson -- Right Now!

Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker has an article on the Miers' nomination that is a must-read.

Read it all.

Right now.

Don't Get Stuck on Stupid!

Sorry Michelle, as much as I admire your work and normally agree with you, you (and far too many others) are getting real close to Stupid Land on the Miers nomination. It is perfectly legit to wish that some other conservative had been nominated. It is perfectly legit to wish that Miers had a different resume.

HOWEVER -- anyone conservative who is spouting this CRAP that Bush has betrayed them by nominating Miers is firmly stuck on stupid. I know it is the reader e-mails that Malkin is posting which keep claiming this is betrayal, but she is choosing to post them without correcting the fact that there is no possible way that anyone can claim betrayal. Since there is no logic to the point, why is she posting them?

Miers may turn out to be a better justice than Scalia or Thomas. These critics have no way of knowing. So they can claim disappointment. But claiming betrayal is total b...s..t!!!

CNBC and my comment spam

1. Several comments and e-mails express wonder as to why I would watch CNBC. Because of my business, it is helpful to have the TV on for commentary about the stock market, the economy, etc. Every once in a while I glean something useful. Unfortunately, CNBC seems to stray from the financial more often lately and the news coverage is horrible.

2. Anyone know what I can do about the comment spam?

Newspaper examines Iraq coverage

Via Ranting Profs, the ombudsman of the Jacksonville paper responds to reader complaints about the coverage of the war.

Give him credit for acknowledging how bad it has been.

MSM -- the new opposition party

Jed Babbin says that the MSM has gone beyond being a cheerleader for the Democrats and simply supplanted them as the real opposition party to the GOP.

Earle dives into the bottom of the outhouse

Earle was in the gutter. Now he's at the bottom of the outhouse. The Captain has details.

What an asshole.

UPDATE:

Michael Barone's take is here.

Read Beldar's response to Barnett

I had the same reaction to Barnett's op-ed slamming Miers when I read it this morning in my dead tree edition of the WSJ. Beldar says what I think and better than I could write it.

ESPN bias

ESPN has been campaigning shamelessly to convince baseball writers to give the AL MVP to David Ortiz of the Red Sox instead of A-Rod. The campaign isn't a first. They did the same thing to steal an MVP from Albert Belle of the Indians in favor of Mo Vaughn of the Red Sox. And of course, they led the charge to convince Heisman voters that Charles Woodson deserved the Heisman over Peyton Manning.

As time moves on, the duped writers look more and more foolish for allowing the constant campaigning to influence their votes. Perhaps some day they will learn. (yeah, right).

Incompetence beyond the bias

Just One Minute takes the time to point out how really bad the Times and Wash Post are in screwing up the facts of Wilson/Plame and Niger uranium. This isn't about the bias, although I don't doubt that bias contributes to the problem. This is a competence problem plain and simple. Even the producers of the most biased propaganda can be competent.

Of course, the worst of the incompetents are those at the top. Stupid journalists and stupid editors can botch the facts in the manner exposed in this post. The problem is that the top management will look at the exposure of rank incompetence by their employees and decide that the criticism is invalid because they disagree with the political preferences of the person pointing out the incompetence.

Talk about brain dead stupid.

Worrying too much

It seems popular right now for both liberals and conservatives (for different reasons) to predict impending disaster for the GOP in 2006. Michael Barone points out some Rasmussen data on those in the anti-war movement. And he notes that the unity among Republicans and the big split among the Democrats on this issue mirrors the same split in responses to previous poll questions posed by Rasmussen

—like whether this is basically a fair and decent country—that tested Americans' belief in American exceptionalism, the idea that this country is different and special.

Some day the GOP is going to finally figure out that they should drive a huge wedge in this split and drive the America-loving Democrats away from the America-haters. That will make the re-alignment complete.

Simply make Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore the public face of the Democrats and ask their rank and file voters to choose. Cindy and Michael or the rest of America?

Insanity or Stupidity

Dr. Sanity discusses the good points made by Mark Steyn and the foolish blather of liberals in light of the bombings in Bali.

Harriet Miers -- uniquely qualified

Beldar as usual, brings some much needed sense to the discussion. He makes a lot of excellent points. Among those -- Miers is NOT a stealth candidate. W's father knew nothing about Souter. W knows Miers as well as any president can know a SCOTUS nominee who is not a family member.

Second, she has a truly outstanding resume. The skills necessary to be successful as president of the state and county bars and managing partner of a law firm that merged two of the most powerful firms in Texas, and from different cities, aren't found in too many people.

They beat the hell out of the skills necessary to be a law professor.

Do Wash Post journalists root for the Democrats?

Polipundit has a quote from a Wash Post editor:

“The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions. . . . We’re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I’ve been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.”

The Imperial Judiciary -- out of control and beyond embarrassment

Beldar has a post on outrageous behavior by a federal judge which other judges refused to stop. Note, that this is outrageous in his official capacity (although likely affected by personally inappropriate behavior as well). As bad as the federal judge's actions are, the refusal of the chief judge of the district and the appellate judges on the 9th Circuit (of course) to discharge their responsibilities is the real scandal.

This, as much as anything else, demonstrates the extent of the rot in our judicial system.

Standard Media Misinformation

Hugh Hewitt and Power Line have noted this misleading photo and caption in the San Francisco Chronicle. (in case anyone has missed it)

They can't read cursive?!

Like Betsy, I'm a little skeptical. Of course, since the report was in a newspaper we should always read it with a grain of salt.

Tolerance and understanding on the Left

Via Lori at Polipundit, No Speed Bumps has a compilation of quotes from Atrios, the most popular blogger on the left. Atrois writes that he is far more tolerant than conservatives. Read his stuff and decide for yourself. [warning -- extensive use of foul language in the quotes]

Krugman -- folded, spindled and mutilated

Robert Musil has a very good post on Krugman's increasingly paranoid rants in the NY Times. Really worth a read.