The Aftermath

Well, as I'm sure you know by now, the Dems have swept it all, taking the House and Senate. It's a great day. It's a shame that one of the new Senators won't be Harold Ford Jr, though. I was really pulling for him. Another day. Another day...Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker, and Harry Reid will most likely be Majority Leader. Joe Lieberman has left poser Ned Lamont in the dust, and he'll caucus with the Dems (because he's a man of his word). The center is rising, folks. Oh, and Rummy is out. Robert Gates has replaced him. He's an old guard guy from the Bush I days. Wait and see. As far as Iraq goes, any ideas that don't involve pulling out early, partitioning the country, or keeping the status quo ought to be on the table.    

Today's The Day. Get Out and Vote.

Nuff said.

UPDATE: My predictions: Dems take House by 15-20 seats, and Dems take Senate by 2 seats. If the GOP does win the Senate, it's 50-50. There you go.

OK, We're Here

I had this big post planned for the elections tomorrow, but honestly, I'm worn out. The fact is, I think the Democrats should win control of at least one of the Houses of Congress, and ideally, both. The question some may ask is, why? How can a pro-war Democrat, who believes in a victory in Iraq, go for the Democrats? This question is harder to answer than it should be, but it's not that hard. I've said this before, but I'll say it once more: I don't believe that putting the Democrats back in power will lead to defeat. I really don't. I know some will point to this, but I really don't think the Democrats are that crazy. I believe that there are enough Dems and moderates to hold the line, so to speak. It's a gamble, but I'm willing to take it.

So, what will they do? For one thing, they'll hold the Administration accountable. The fact is, we need serious policy changes, on the domestic and foreign policy side. I want to win in Iraq, but the "stay the course" plan isn't enough. We need a change in tactics (that of course desn't involve retreat), in order to bring things under control. At the very least, we'll have an opposition Congress, that will force the President to adjust. This isn't just about Iraq. The larger GWOT is involved as well. Detainee treatment, wiretapping, oversight, port security, etc. These things are important. Besides national security, there certain issues that are no-brainers. The GOP-controlled house will never pass a comprehensive immigration bill. The Dems might actually pass a minimum wage bill. Let's not forget spending, and the six-plus years of arrogant leadership. I'll admit, some of these issues are partisan ones, but there you are.

I'm not voting a straight-ticket though. I'm a Marylander, so I'm backing Robert Ehrlich for Governor, and I'm leaning towards Steele for the Senate. I realize that could kill the Dems chances for the Senate, but Cardin's focused far too much on pulling out of Iraq, and I like Michael Steele. He seems like a straight shooter. I'm a bit conflicted.

So, at end the of the day, I'm voting for change, hoping that that change doesn't lead to a defeat. I'm reasonably optimistic. Of course, thay actually have to win the thing first. Nothing's decided, yet.

Either way, get out and vote. Whatever happens, really, the country will survive.

Groupthink and Authentic Intellectuals

I had to link to another great and probing essay by Orson Scott Card, on how groupthink has made somewhat of a havoc of the sciences, particularly with regards to Physics and string theory. He also goes on about how this has affected other disciplines (namely the "Studies" departments, and even the English Departments), and how groupthink affects the culture at large. I really cannot decide what to excerpt, because it is all so good.

I do have to protest a bit though, as I think he was being a bit too hard on the English Departments. Don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the wholesale damage done by thirty years of rampant deconstructionism, postmodernism, Orientalism, multiculturalism, and the like, but the lit theory and comp. lit courses I took were solid. Most of my professors were great, and actually taught me things. None of them seems to be disciples of Theoretics. Exception to the rule, perhaps? Nevertheless, this trend is real, and it is dangerous.

It can be thwarted as well, as he points out.

One Day Away...

I'm planning my election piece for later today (Tuesday morning at the latest), but I wanted to preview with a few thoughts. First off, while this on my mind, I want to be clear that I take no joy in the Ted Haggard situation, nor should anyone. As a Christian, I pray that he will go before the Lord in repentance, and heal the wounds with himself, his wife, and his church. I think this post by David Kuo says a lot. This is beyond politics.

As we all know, arch-murderer Saddam will finally face ultimate justiice for his crimes. For some reason some on the Left keep insisting that the trial was phony, and a U.S. led stunt. I don't really know how to respond, except by pointing out that the trial was legitimate and necessary, and the fact that he will pay is a victory for the Iraqi people. Some are wondering if this will affect the elections, or whether it was timed to do so. Maliki says no, and Bush says no. I believe them, and find the idea a bit silly.

Also, as I prepare my case as to why the Dems need to retake Congress, allow me to present an uncomfortably compelling counter-argument, by Orson Scott Card (h/t: InstaPundit). I don't agree with his overall conclusion, which is basically that a Democratic victory will lead to a defeat in the terror war (if I did, I could not, in good conscience vote for them), but his argument is compelling. He presents a solid case for Iraq, and while he travels far too much into Bush Worship Land, his argument is still worthy of consideration. It's the kind of piece that disturbs your sleep. He's wrong on his view, but he makes a serious argument.

More to come later...

Saddam Sentenced To Death

The Butcher of Baghdad has been sentenced to hang, for crimes against humanity. This goes without saying, but this is a good thing. The monster who murdered millions of his own people, invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait, and committed wholesale crimes against the free world will finally face ultimate justice.

It is as simple as that.

My Last Word on the Kerry Kerfuffle

I'm really hpoing this story will begin to die off now. I see no reason why this should affect the elections, being that it has no bearing on policy. The GOP sure loves a pile on, don't they? As I've said before, I'm convinced now that Kerry didn't mean to offend the troops with his bad joke. He was right to apologize, as he did offend, despite that fact that he didn't intend to. Many of the troops did take offense. He should have apologized in the beginning, as opposed to waiting a day, and ranting like he did. The GOP got a chance to play the phony outrage game they're so good at, and capitalize on the blunder. I still don't think it will hurt that much, but it could still be costly. Kerry will disappear until after the elections, and that is good. And now, for real this time, I am done with this.

My big election piece is coming Monday.

I'm Not Even Sure What to Make of This..

It seems that Pastor Ted Haggard might have some explaining to do. As with all matters like this, I'm not making any judgments until the facts are out. This could get real ugly, real quick, however this plays out:

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - The leader of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, resigned Thursday after being accused of paying for sex with a man in monthly trysts over the past three years.

The Rev. Ted Haggard, a married father of five who has been called one of the most influential evangelical Christians in the nation, denied the allegations. His accuser refused to share with The Associated Press voice mails that he said backed up his claim.

Haggard also stepped aside as head of his 14,000-member New Life Church while a church panel investigates, saying he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."

His accuser, is a Colorado man named Mike Jones, who felt the need to come forward after what he saw as hypocrisy:

Mike Jones, 49, of Denver told The Associated Press he decided to go public with his allegations because of the political fight. Jones, who said he is gay, said he was upset when he discovered Haggard and the New Life Church had publicly opposed same-sex marriage.

"It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex," said Jones, who added that he isn't working for any political group.

Jones, whose allegations were first aired on KHOW-AM radio in Denver, claimed Haggard paid him to have sex nearly every month over three years. Jones also said Haggard snorted methamphetamine before their sexual encounters to heighten his experience.

As I've said, I'm not jumping to conclusions. This does appear to another politically-motivated "outing," although the charges could be true. Who knows. We'll just have to wait and see.

Kerry Apologizes.

Sen. Kerry has finally bowed to his better judgment (and a heaping dose of pressure) and apologized for his comments:

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended," Kerry said in a statement.

This is good news. I'm not naive enough to think this will end things, but at least he's done the right thing, and things can't get any worse. Personally, I still don't think that Kerry intended to slam the troops (heck, even Tony Snow admitted this on O'Reilly earlier), but the fact is that he did, and he was right to apologize. There have been questions as to whether Kerry is anti-military in general. I don't believe so, although there are many who hold this view, especially those who believe he sold out the troops in those hearings thirty years ago. I do think it's clear that Kerry has a personal animosity towards Bush though, and past comments confirm this. The fact is that he doesn't like him. This helps explain Kerry's motivations.

Either way, I'm done with this. Done like Kerry's 2008 Presidential chances.

No Cross on the Chapel?

Just finished reading an interesting post over at Civil Commotion, over the decision to remove the Cross from the 300-year old Wren Chapel, at the College of William and Mary. I am Christian, but don't think you have to be a Christian to find this problematic at the very least. The charter itself establishes the school's history as a school with Christian traditions, and it's not really a violation of church-state separation to keep those traditions. The main argument in support of this change is the fact that this school has become non-denominational, and receives public support:


“In order to make the Wren Chapel less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff and visitors of all faiths, the cross has been removed from the altar area,” Engimann said.

The cross will be returned to the altar for those who wish to use it for events, services or private prayer. Student tour guides have been directed to pass any questions or complaints about the change on to administrators.

Interesting argument, but wrong. The thing is, if the cross has to be removed except for private sectarian gatherings, what principle allows the cross to remain at all, since the school is non-denominational? Is it non-denominational only some of the time? The logic doesn't hold. The fact is, the cross represents the tradition of the school, much like the name of the city of Corpus Christi, Texas. This ruling by the college seems wrongheaded, and a betrayal of its traditions. Besides, couldn't you leave the cross up, and allow other faiths to use their respective religious items for their sectarian events? Again, this is a wrong-headed ruling.

Don't get me wrong, Bob Felton runs an interesting blog, yet I must say his anti-religious hostility is problematic for obvious reasons.

More on the Kerry Kerfuffle

I posted yesterday about the hot-water John Kerry got himself into the other day about his ill-advised comments. Personally, and it a bit of time to realize this, but I really don't think Kerry meant to insult the troops. It was, in typical Kerry fashion, a stupid move; a bad attempt at making a bad joke. Brendan Loy, who is no Kerry fan, agrees:

I believe Kerry’s explanation. I believe him not because he’s inherently trustworthy; certainly he’s not. But I believe him because it is by far the most objectively plausible explanation for his remarks.

That makes sense, because Kerry has proven before that he has a penchant for poorly executed criticisms of Bush and the GOP, which only manage to backfire politically, especially when he tries to explain them, when a simple "my bad" will do. I've defended him in the past, from the vicious, low-class, and underhanded attacks laid on him by many of his enemies. I tried to explain away the nuances, dodges, and prevarications. A lot of the criticisms of Kerry were over the top, but the fact is, even then, he was unsteady and wobbly. Based on his regrettable support for withdraw..I mean redeployment, I can say that I'm glad he's not President, not that I'm fond of Bush. Honestly, I voted for him based on the situation at the time. Loy continues:

Alas, while the Republican response has been predictably demagogic (Bush called Kerry’s comments “insulting and shameful“), Kerry has done himself no favors with his own response, in which he painted himself as a victim of “right wing nut-jobs” — rather than as a vicitm of his own poorly chosen words — and busted out the tired, irrelevant, logically fallacious “chickenhawk” meme. Instead of going into high dudgeon and defiantly declaring that “I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy,” Kerry should have humbly apologized for choosing his words poorly in a way that caused some people to reasonably but falsely believe he was insulting the troops, and left it at that.

Now the conservative blogosphere is on fire, liberals are wringing their hands, the Republicans think they’ve been handed a gift that can turn the tide next Tuesday, and at least one Democratic congressman is understandably livid: “I guess Kerry wasn’t content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too.”

There's not much else I can add. Kerry's 2008 election chances weren't really viable after his defeat in 2004, but they are dead now, not so much based on this incident, for this is really a symptom of the larger problem with Kerry's political character. Kerry's a war hero, and there's no doubting that. He was a hero in Vietnam. The problem is, he seems to be stuck there, and has no clue how to fight the current battle. Also, he's a humorless, emotional black hole. I'll stop there, because it's starting to become a pile on, and nobody likes a pile on.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse disagrees with Kerry's explanation, and thinks he's lying. I still don't think he meant to slam the troops, but as I've said, should apologize for the implication. You know what? I'm worn out with this already. Can someone just tell Kerry to disappear for the next seven days?

Well, When You Put It That Way...

Well, John Kerry's gotten himself into trouble again, after making some remarks at a campaign event that basically appears to call our troops fighting in Iraq uneducated:

Hat tip: Stubborn Facts

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Now, Kerry asserts that he was talking about President Bush, and not the troops. I'm not so sure, and even if that's true, what about the troops who support the mission, or those of us at home who support the mission, including members of his own Party? With all due respect, you did wrong, Senator. You ought to apologize, and for real this time, as opposed to this unhinged rant that looks to have sprung forth from Kos himself. Look, I'm not saying Kerry is anti-military, but the comments he made are stupid and denigrating to the troops. He should apologize, at least for the implication.

I say again, as someone who voted for you in 2004, you need to apologize. You really do. John McCain certainly thinks so:

McCain, in Indianapolis today campaigning for Republicans, calls Kerry's remarks "insensitive, ill-considered" and "unfortunate." More, from McCain's statement: "The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night." More from McCain: "Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country's call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education."

Yes, I agree. As far as the political fallout with regards to the elections a week from now, contrary to Glenn Reynolds' view, I don't think it will hurt that much, and it certainly doesn't nullify the case for a Democratic takeover. Not that Kerry could care.

UPDATE: You know, I think the Anchoress really captures my feeling on this:

There is an art to good politics and there is a rule, too - and it’s a really simple one, but so many politicians can’t follow it, particularly if they have delusions of genius. The Rule goes like this: If you screw up, whether because you’re an idiot, or you’re just having a bad day, or a mic was left on - whatever - and you say something deplorable (even if it just sounds deplorable but you meant it well…) you admit it, you make a joke at your own expense and you apologize - even a half-assed apology will usually do.

And then the whole thing usually goes away.

I mean, this seems to be Kerry's problem. He has this thing where he presents himself as always being in control of his words and thoughts, and when he's not, he tries correcting things, when apologizing and moving on will do. I get that Kerry wants to really start getting tough on his critics, after he sort of let the Swiftvets lay into him, but there is a question of timing, and doing it correctly. As much as I convince myself this won't change the elections, I'm not sure. I mean, they're still talking about this. This will play like crazy over the next seven days. Who knows?

Well, I guess I'll just have to hope the "Liberal Media" does its job then. :)

You Know, On Second Thought...

As far as the much discussed, uber-controversial ad run by the RNC against Harold Ford Jr., I have to say that while the ad is totally ridiculous, misleading, and stupid, it probably isn't racist, or at least, wasn't intended to be. To be honest, I find myself having to strain to see racism in the ad, and while it's very possible (and likely) that racist whites in Tennesee will bow to their racist instincts, the fact that they're racists (and thus have a big problem with Ford dating white women) means that they're not backing Ford anyway. I think Mary Katherine Ham's point was valid, about how these things can get out hand rather quickly. Many have suggested that the hunter in camo was wearing blackface. I have to say, that's a hell of a stretch.

At the end of the day, this isn't Macacas. This isn't Trent Lott romanticizing the golden days of Jim Crow. This is a stupid (and totally false) ad, but probably not racist.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Internet Explorer 7: Firefox Edition

Well, I decided to download IE 7 last night, and I must say that I'm impressed. Leave it to Microsoft to appropriate all the best features of Firefox, and bring them into their mothership. Tabbed browsing, easier image views, add-ons, it's all there. One feature I especially like is the ClearType fonts, which smooth out the text on web pages. There aren't quite enough add-ons yet, but it's still early. The only thing that kind of bothers me is that they really took everything from Firefox, in the kind of way that could lead to lawsuits, if you get my meaning. I suspect though, that Mozilla probably sold the technology to Microsoft, and become part of the Microsoft fold. Who knows. Either way, it's pretty cool so far, and seeing that my system hasn't crashed, I'm sticking with it.

Google: Slouching Further Towards Evil?

We already know that Google has been complicit in helping the Chinese suppress free speech, but now it seems that they're trying it over here. There's a new feature in the works that allows websites to control the search results that their users can see (thanks to the Anchoress for the hat tip):

The Google juggernaut has just launched the next step in bringing us a Brave New World, the world according to the Leftists’ manifesto of thought control. It’s a new version of Google Search called Google Custom Search Engine that allows a website operator to add a Google search box to his/her website — and then control what content is being searched, and also the prioritizing of the search results.

In plain English: If you are a proponant of Global Warming, and you want your readers to only be able to find articles supporting your position…well, Google’s gonna help you do that. If you’re pro-life and you want your readers to only be able to find articles supporting your position…well…I think Google is going to help you do that. You can never tell with Google. They may simply decide that your stuff is not the “right” stuff and suppress it.

Yeah, I agree. This is frightening in every way it can be. Regardless of what side you're on, this thing is a threat to free speech on its face. I'll not get into a debate about whether this is being fueled by the Left or Right (obviously some people have already made up their minds), but the impulse behind this move is dangerous at the least, and totalitarian at worst.

Can someone tell Google that they might have to change their motto, "Don't be Evil?" Or better yet, perhaps they could just stop being evil?

The Times Apologizes for Leaking the Terrorist Banking Program Story

Well, sort of. New York Times Public Editor Byron Calame has admitted that he made a big mistake in helping to undermine a perfectly legal, and effective anti-terror tool. He admits that it was a mistake, but basically still thinks it's Bush's fault, because it was Bush's criticism of the NYT that forced him to do it:

…What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.

So, because Bush hates the Times, he thought it was sonehow justified to take actions that undermined national security? And he's cool with that? Uhh, OK. With all due respect, I'm not one to jump on the "anti-Bush media undermines America" train, but the idea that one would allow irrational Bush hatred to undermine your job, and our national security is just plain nutty. Simply put, the Times blew it beyond measure.

Hat tip: The Anchoress, and Stubborn Facts

Maybe I'm Misreading This,

but do I detect fear in Sean Hannity's latest rant? I hear the sound of grabbing at straws. Sorry Sean, I won't be staying home. For heaven's sake, man, you've got to calm down.

BTW, my concerns about the increasing influence of the anti-war Left and BSD on the Democratic Party notwithstanding, if I really believed that the Democrats wanted us to lose the war on terror, or wanted to abandon our troops in the field, I wouldn't support them. Period.

Oh, and my big post is still coming...

Well, It's A Start

Heck, I'm sure we'll have a fully-functional invisibility cloak before we know it. Once we've gotten that out of the way, it's on to teleportation.

Becoming the Monster (Or, Has the Left Been Taken Over by Homophobia?)

There is a potentially serious scandal brewing in the these final days leading up to the election. It seems that a prominent Lefty blogger named Mike Rogers has "outed" Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). Craig denies the charges. Apparently, he has a long history of this, and he says he's not done. I don't know about you, but this whole thing, and the idea of using this as a campaign strategy in general is just unseemly, and frankly stomach-turning. For heaven's sake, you'd expect these tactics from the far-right. Why are so many on the Left using that playbook?

It seems that there is a twofold political strategy here: To paint gay Republicans as hypocrites, and undermine GOP support from social conservatives. The GOP's record on gay rights issues, and their consistent campaign of wedge politics notwithstanding, the idea that either opponents of gay marriage are bigots by default, or that if gays support conservative causes they somehow lose their legitimacy is hardly a liberal concept. The way this is being done, it really is McCarthyite (and Rovian). Does the Left really want to go down that road?

After all, is this really how we want to win? With all the obsession over the Foley affair, you'd think Mark Foley is the only reason to vote against the GOP? Are the Democratic idea men really planning this as the slam dunk? Do they really believe this ought to be the focus? The GOP has so many weaknesses right now. Is this all they've got? Come on, people, enough of this.

Besides, this really could backfire, in the short and long term. Glenn Reynolds points out:

Yes, "creepy, gleeful efforts" don't win you many friends or converts. Of course, they're really just meant to demoralize Republican voters and keep them home on election day.
I suspect they'll have the opposite effect. The GOP leadership has managed to alienate much of its base, but this kind of slimy and obviously organized political effort is more likely to encourage GOP voters to ignore the bad stuff and vote Republican as a way of demonstrating their disgust with the creepiness.

Are we prepared to blow the election (and our dignity) with this low-class sleaze? I'm optimistic, so I'm convinced this won't spread past the lunatic Lefty cutthroat fringe, or hurt our chances that much. Let it be known though: The more this stuff increases, the more the Democratic Party (and the country) loses.

Also, I think Captain Ed makes a good point:

People wonder why we don't attract a wider range of qualified candidates for public office. Michael Rogers sets himself up as Exhibit #1. The personal and degrading attacks convince many people to skip the trouble, and the people who do dare to run for office usually wind up experiencing the ruination of their reputations in one form or other. It comes from all sides to some degree, but this ghastly mudslinging really marks a new low.

Yeah. I agree. All this notwithstanding, I've still got a piece coming on why the Dems should win this election. It's gotten a little harder to write. Just a little.

Hat tips: Classical Values and Fern.

UPDATE: If Mike Silverman is right, it's all moot anyway.

UPDATE#2: Secondary reflection leaves me wondering if I might have overreacted as far this being a widespread campaign strategy for Democrats. The evidence does show that this is an isolated incident, and no high-profile Dems are involved with this, so it's not really fair to suggest that this have become policy. That being said, this thing with Rogers is sleazy, the policy in general is sleazy, and unfortunately has support from some Lefties. I'm totally anti-hysteria, though, and I don't want this degenerating into hysteria. At the end of the day, the GOP has truly earned its anti-gay rights rep, but Rovian sleaze tactics aren't the answer.

Eyes on the Campuses

I was just wondering what everyone thought about this. It seems to me that we really should consider this as a viable anti-terror tool in the U.S. Assuming that we're real careful (respecting civil liberties, etc), I think it would be a good policy. Considering the very real potential of terrorists using campuses as a breeding ground, it makes sense to at least focus attention there. I don't think this is talking about indiscriminate roundups, or simply hauling people in for controversial views.