Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary
over many a quaint and curious unchallenged item in the life of the Great Orator
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping
as if someone’s boldly knocking, knocking and mocking mine and everyone’s gray matter
‘Tis surely a lie,’ I muttered, ‘knocking and mocking mine and everyone’s gray matter
Only this, and nothing more.’

Many have wondered what is there in Senator Obama’s curriculum vitae that would qualify him as President of the United States, and it’s not merely dyed in the wool Republicans who’ve been busy so wondering.  Since his school days, he has managed to amass some noteworthy titles indeed. Harvard Law School Review President, Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Illinois State Senator, and United States Senator are all enviable achievements worthy of notice. And… who can deny the power, the delivery of his superb keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention?

The impressive job titles in his resume show that he had every opportunity to shine, had he really cared to or been capable being capable of doing so. Instead he was too busy promoting himself, while running around with dubious associates some of them already criminally indicted. Even his staunchest supporters have finally asked him to define himself, to speak in concrete terms rather than spout lofty sounding but meaningless slogans. Will he? Can he?!?

Chaim

To read the rest go to: Freedom’s Cost

There is an interesting development taking place in the United States; voluntary segregation. Not of races, but of income and, more importantly, liberals on the one hand, and conservatives on the other. Those who share the same views and the same values are clustering together. (more…)

Without venturing an opinion on the merits of Techdude’s claims, without knowing if they are well founded or merely the words of a crackpot, I still have to seriously question why some Obama supporters are so desperate to stop these revelations from seeing the light of day. If Techdude’s lying or even if he’s sincere but wrong, other computer forensic experts will definitely unmask him and that will be a boost to their candidate so terribly besmirched by a right wing nut. If he’s telling the truth, would it not behoove Obama’s supporters to examine it and drop their candidate as a fraud and thus follow the American Constitution while saving the US?!?!?

Anyone who has ever read my blog, knows I do not believe Senator Obama is the political Messiah we all have been waiting for. His record in Chicago and in Washington, show me nothing but ineptitude, uncaring elitism and calculated deceit. But, I’ll admit, he’s very photogenic and superb at delivering a well rehearsed speech. Yes, gentle reader, that is just my opinion even if it was formed after a careful analysis of the good Senator’s record and words as a community organizer and as a US Senator. I see no reason to do or preach violence against those who do not share my beliefs, and while I’d be very unhappy were Obama to win the elections… he’d still be my country’s President.

For the rest, please go to: Freedom’s Cost

This may come as a bit of a traumatic shock to readers of the PoliGazette, but it’s become known to the Houston Chronicle that the vast majority of political donations made by Texas’ college professors go to left-wing candidates.  Texas faculty member’s candidate of choice for president?  Hillary Rodham Clinton.

(more…)

The New York Sun reports that Colin Kahl, Barack Obama’s working group coordinator on Iraq, has written a paper about U.S. troop numbers in that country in which he advises that significant numbers of U.S. forces should be retained in Iraq for at least 2 more years.

"…the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000–80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."

(more…)

For reasons known only to himself, Robert Farley compares an ad by John McCain to the Nazi propaganda film Triumph des Willens and wonders aloud if McCain is a liberal fascist.

His reasoning:  Both McCain’s ad and Triumph have cloud imagery in them.

Why, that’s genius! 

(more…)

I thought I had Barack Obama figured out. I thought he was no more liberal than Hillary Clinton but far more likely to bridge the divides in this nation. But, if that’s what I am seeing, why are America’s leftists seeing something entirely different? A day after Obama gets the MoveOn.org arch-liberal seal of approval, there’s this Christopher Hayes piece in The Nation, encouraging the left to rally behind Obama. (more…)

After word came out that Bill Kristol - the neoconservative commentator - would become a columnist for the New York Times the blogosphere erupted. It didn’t take long until liberal bloggers started blasting the Times for its decision.

Of course, many of our open-minded (and foul-mouthed) liberal friends argue that it’s not about him being a neoconservative - no - it’s about him being wrong on many issues. And what was he wrong about? Why do they hate him with such a passion? That’s right, because he supported the war against Iraq and continues to support it. (more…)

Lee Harris at TCSDaily examines the old slander that conservatives are from the “stupid party”. What he finds is something that I have been saying about conservatives for a long time: What fundamentally distinguishes conservatives from liberals is not, as some liberals would maliciously suggest, intelligence or sanity or morality, but rather simply a different attitude towards risk. (more…)

Liberal and peace activist Cindy Sheehan - who was supposed to retire from activism a couple of months ago - “says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi collaborated with the Bush administration in condoning torture because Pelosi knew about water boarding torture since 2002,” according to OP-Ed news (via Gateway Pundit).

Since Pelosi doesn’t want to impeach Bush and because she knew that the CIA waterboards / has waterboarded some terrorism suspects but didn’t object to it, she has to be impeached, Sheehan said. (more…)

The Princeton Tory reports that a conservative Princeton student, Francisco Nava, was attacked recently by people who disagree with his politics. He was beaten until he was unconscious. The assault came after he had received several death threats. What’s more, Princeton seems to have a serious problem in this regard, considering that Nava isn’t the first conservative who has received death threats from political opponents.

One of two assailants, identified as a white, college-aged male, stopped Nava and asked him if he would “help someone who’s been hurt.” The assailant then pulled Nava into a dark area where another male joined in holding Nava’s jaw shut. The two assailants thrust Nava’s face against a brick wall causing abrasions, according to an email sent to administrators. (more…)

Devlin Barrett writes:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 “baby bond” from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

…

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program of how she would pay for it.

No, I expect that Ms. Clinton did not bother to explain that. Why hamper the process of buying votes with other people’s money??

Since I’ll be paying for this little ditty if Hillary gets elected I whipped out my little calculator post haste. I figure that it’s going to cost around $84 billion per year. Feel free to check my numbers.

Average stock market return: about 8%

Value of $5000 in 18 years at that rate: about $21,000

Babies born annually: > 4,000,000

Total: about $84,000,000,000 annually

Nice. (more…)

Dave Johnson of Seeing The Forest proposes the following:

Here is a lesson we should all learn from watching how the conservatives operate: don’t do what they do. We should always, always look at things the way they are, and not be blinded by ideology and preconceptions.

Bush and the Republicans have created a terrible, terrible mess in the Middle East. But we have to look at where things are today, and figure out how to make the world better starting today.

We want to avoid bringing about another Darfur in Iraq, so we have to look at where things are today, what might work to make things better, and go from there. What if the surge is working?

Dave, meet under the bus.  Under the bus…meet Dave. 

The big news in the liberal blogosphere on Monday was Joe Wilson’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton. The news of the endorsement went out to the blogs first via a conference call. The conference call is a major effort in reach out to the blogs by the Clinton campaign and a very smart move. Although Hillary has taken heat in the liberal blogosphere in the past, and this may not smooth the path 100%, it’s a significant step. The conference call to handful of liberal bloggers was organized by Hillary’s “Director of Online Everything,” Peter Daou.

Peter is one of the savviest bloggers that I know and I feel that Joe Wilson’s endorsement will play big for Hillary. He’s highly respected by the liberal netroots and his endorsement will carry some weight for Hillary, as it did for Kerry in ‘04. I missed the call, but Steve Clemons reports:

During the conference call, Joe Wilson said that he had been friends with Hillary for the last ten years. He stated that he believed that Hillary had emerged as a well-established, serious critic of the Bush administration and felt that she believed that “the Iraq War needed to be ended soon, that troops needed to be removed from harm’s way, and that a political process had to be started, a process that would end the war and preserve some shred of our strategic position in the Middle East.” (more…)

E.J. Dionne writes:

Why can’t the left get any respect?

Whenever you use the word “left” in American politics, you feel almost compelled to add quotation marks. Today’s left is not talking about nationalizing industry, abolishing capitalism or destroying the rich. What passes for “left” in American politics is quite moderate by historical standards.

Still, cliches die hard, so you hear such 20-year-old questions as: “Are Democrats moving too far to the left?” or “Will Democrats abandon the center?”

This approach is about abstractions, not concrete political problems, and it misses the dynamic in American public life, which is the move away from the right and a discrediting of the conservative era. The political “center” of today is not where the “center” was even five years ago.

That’s why every leading Democratic candidate for president chose to appear at this week’s “Take Back America” conference organized by the Campaign for America’s Future, the leading group on the party’s progressive end. This included Hillary Clinton, whose roots in the centrist politics of the Democratic Leadership Council run deep. Clinton not only knows how much political energy there is on the left; she also knows where public opinion has moved, particularly on the Iraq war.

Conservatism as an ideology has only been discredited in the eyes of those who did not believe in conservative ideology to begin with. I find it hilarious to see progressives declare how conservatism has had its chance but how - sadly - it has proven that it does not work, etc.

Those who actually know something about traditional conservatism, however, know very well that Bush has not governed like a conservative. He has governed like a Big Government (and Big Business) Republican, not as a small government conservative. The mistake American conservatives made - of course - is that they stood by Bush, even when it had become crystal clear that Bush is anything but a conservative.

But - that does not mean that conservatism as an ideology has failed. It has not. It has not had a real chance.

Senator Inhofe (R-Okla.) said Thursday that he overheard a conversation between Senators Boxer and Clinton about conservative Talk Shows. According to Inhofe, the two said that something has to be done against conservative talk shows / talk show hosts. They want legislation to control them.

Whether or not Inhofe’s story is true, conservatives are pissed off:
- Ed Morrissey: “If Hillary gets elected President and the Democrats gain a few more seats in Congress, the Fairness Doctrine will return — and that will end political talk radio.”
- Gateway Pundit: “Hugo Chavez would be proud!”

MSNBC has published a list of (the) 144 journalists who “made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records studied by MSNBC.com.”

Guess what party and causes received - by far - the most contributions? The Poynter Online’s count: “125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.”

Not surprising at all, of course. Most people assume that most journalists are fairly progressive. In a way one could say that journalism is a progressive field - people who become journalists are often more interested in people than money and want to expose and fight perceived injustice wherever they see it, and, perhaps most importantly, they ascribe a bigger role to the government (the cause of ‘injustice’ - poverty, etc. - is that the government failed).

Kevin Sullivan (one of the rising stars in the blogosphere) has a great post up, in response to this article at The American Prospect by Ezra Klein. In it, Ezra takes on ‘liberal hawks.’ As is obvious to anyone who reads Ezra on a regular basis, he is not exactly a fan of his hawkish liberal brethren. Kevin, however, explains:

Ironically, Klein seems to confront hawkish vagueness with vagueness. He insinuates that there’s a cottage industry of “liberal hawk” scholars supporting the invasions of Iraq and Iran, however he only cites one example of such. If the “liberal hawk” has become such a common phenomenon, where are their think-tanks and periodicals? If they are in such lockstep over this issue, why only the one example? The truth is that the “liberal hawk” is more a theory than a person, and more accurately a tactic rather than a wing of the Democratic Party (more on that in a bit).

A little later:

I think the progressive isolationist has in fact created a convenient strawman of their own. By bemoaning the “war narrative” of the “liberal hawks” and the “Neo-cons,” they can dismiss any and all arguments made in favor of taking a tough stance with Iran. If it’s a “war narrative,” rather than a diplomatic use of leverage against a very real enemy, well than all talk is suspect. Invading Iraq is hawkish. Staying in Iraq is hawkish. Talking tough to a totalitarian (and he is a totalitarian, Ezra) becomes the same as President Bush mismanaging the war in Iraq. It becomes the same as failing to capture Osama Bin Laden, or aligning ourselves with obviously dubious regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. To the progressive isolationist, any and all talk involving our military is apparently what distinguishes the “liberal hawk” from just a plain old liberal.

After that, Kevin goes on to explain what a liberal hawk exactly is:

A “liberal hawk” is simply a liberal who understands that fighting a war involves brains and brawn. They understand that you must use the former in order to avoid the latter, and that you must always have a balance of both when dealing with an enemy of the United States. The conservative approach, much like the progressive isolationist’s, seems to be feast or famine. Either you engage enemies with a statist mindset, or you ignore them entirely and pretend they don’t threaten you…

“Liberal hawks” are liberals that acknowledge the existence of very real enemies in the world, and maintain any and all options in dealing with those enemies. You thank God when you can avoid confrontation, but act swiftly and decisively when left with no other diplomatic options.

Certain contributors at TMV are “liberal hawks,” and I am wondering what they think about both Ezra’s article and Kevin’s response. As a more conservative blogger (hawk), I have to say that I agree with Kevin’s reasoning. The problem with the doves is that they oppose using military force, because it is military force. For us hawks, military force is a tool - a tool you will only use when all other tools fail on you, but a tool nonetheless.

I find it incredibly strange that there are people who want the US government, or individual candidates, to rule out (supporting) the use of force. If one rules it out completely, one can forget about getting one’s enemy to do what one wants / to compromise. Iran has to know that, if necessary, force will be used to prevent it from developing WMDs. If not, there will be less pressure on the Mullahs to stop ignoring the wishes of the international community.

Okay, I’ve had it: Bush the Neoliberal by Richard Cohen.

Years ago, someone coined the term “neoliberal.” I was never sure what it meant, and it has since fallen into disuse, but whatever the case, I’d like to revive (and mangle) the term and apply it — brace yourself — to George W. Bush. He’s more liberal than you might think…

But consider this: An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Education Department and turning the building — I am extrapolating here — into a museum of creationism.

Now, though, not only are such calls no longer heard, but Bush has extended the department’s reach in a manner that Democrats could not have envisaged. I am referring, of course, to the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind. I will spare you the act’s details, but it pretty much tells the states to shape up or face a loss of federal funds. It is precisely the sort of law that conservatives predicted Washington would someday seek — and it did.

Similarly, let’s take a look at the much-mocked notion of diversity. Bill Clinton was widely berated for his effort to have an administration that looked like America — women, African Americans, Hispanics, you name it. Whether by design or not, Bush has also managed that feat. A female education secretary is one thing, but a national security adviser — the uber-macho post — is something else, and that went first to Condi Rice. And over at Justice, Bush chose Alberto Gonzales, the son of Hispanic migrant workers and, incidentally, a lawyer with the singular gift of forgetting meetings he attended. (In private practice, did he forget to bill?)

I am not suggesting that any of these appointees — including Bush’s former White House counsel, Harriet Miers — are what is pejoratively known as affirmative action hires. I am suggesting, though, that Bush has not only diversified his Cabinet and staff but obviously got enormous satisfaction in doing so. You only have to listen to Bush talk about the virtues of immigration — another liberal sentiment — or his frequent mention of the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to appreciate that the president is a sentimental softie, what was once dismissively called a “mushy-headed liberal.”

For those wondering what neoliberalism exactly is, I suggest reading this. The Wikipedia entry in Dutch, rightfully identifies Thatcher and Reagan, among others, as neoliberals.

One could also, however, call Bush a neoconservative. I wrote an essay about this very subject: is George W. Bush America’s first neoconservative president or not? In the essay I argue that he is. He shows all the signs, so to speak. He invested in education, he came up with the Bush doctrine, he talks about moral values a lot, he fully supports Israel: yes, he’s a neocon.

To put an end to the confusion, I suggest calling George W. Bush a neolibercon.

An interesting column, by E.J. Dionne Jr., appeared in today’s Washington Post. Mr. Dionne writes:

“Let’s grow up, conservatives!”

Barry M. Goldwater’s declaration at the 1960 Republican National Convention was designed to quell a rebellion against Richard M. Nixon, whom conservatives saw as selling out to liberals on various platform planks. Goldwater’s next line was uncannily prophetic: “If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work.” Forty-seven years later, the conservatives whose cause Goldwater championed still dominate the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party’s progressive wing, furious at what it sees as the capitulation of its congressional leaders to President Bush on the Iraq war, should remember this history. The decision to drop withdrawal timelines from the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill is not a decisive defeat. It is a temporary setback in a much longer struggle for minds and votes that the administration’s critics are actually winning…

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said recently that no one remembers how long it took to reverse the direction of American policy in Vietnam. Obey is hunkered down for a lengthy struggle.

In a divided system, democracy can be frustratingly slow. But it usually works. Critics of the war should spend less time mourning the setbacks of May and begin organizing for a showdown in September. They would profit from taking Barry Goldwater’s long view.

Irony at its finest: ‘liberals’ looking at Barry Goldwater for inspiration.

There is a lot of truth to what Dionne is saying though: the Democrats caved in this time, but that doesn’t mean that the progressive movement has lost or will lose in the end. If I were a member of the progressive movement, I would use this as a means to re-energize the base, I would look at the bigger picture (battles like this take years), I would reward those politicians who did what the progressive movement wanted, and I would try to put pressure on those who didn’t do what the pm wanted, as to make sure that they will do what it wants next time (coming September).

There is only one problem: I believe that Americans are, culturally, more conservative than progressive. Therefore, a conservative movement can be successful, whereas a progressive movement cannot, at least not in the truly long run. They might win some battles, but they won’t win the war, so to speak.

Hillary Clinton voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill yesterday evening. Here is why:

“Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation. I fully support our troops, and wish the President had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment. But the President vetoed Congress’s new strategy and so Congress must reject the President’s failed policies. I will also continue to press with Senator Byrd for our legislation to end the authorization of the war in Iraq.”

This will go well with the progressive, anti-war base of the Democratic party. They will also want to know what Barack Obama did. The answer: Obama did the same as Hillary. He too voted against the bill.

Conclusion: politically, this will change little to nothing regarding the Democratic nomination. Both leading candidates know that they cannot afford to disappoint ‘the base’ right now.

US President George W. Bush released intelligence “asserting that Osama bin Laden in 2005 ordered creation of a terrorist unit to hit targets outside Iraq, including the United States.”

The information, which Bush was to cite Wednesday in a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, was declassified by the White House on Tuesday. It expands on a classified bulletin thenHomeland Security Department issued in March 2005.

The bulletin, which warned that bin Laden had enlisted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, his senior operative in Iraq, to plan potential strikes in the United States, was described at the time as credible but not specific. It did not prompt the administration to raise its national terror alert level.

The information has, Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, been declassified “because the intelligence community has tracked all leads from the information, and that the players were either dead or in U.S. custody.”

Others argue that there is a different reason for the sudden declassification:

Bush’s “tiger by the tail” gambit is a desperate move. it essentially boils down to “yes I deceived you and killed many of you for reasons of profit and power unrelated to your safety, but now we can’t afford to stop because it would be dangerous.” That’s much like the argument against abolition saying that you can’t let the slaves go now because they hate us so much for enslaving them.

I do wonder what those liberals think the US should do: they admit that Al Qaeda wants to turn Iraq into a terrorist safe haven, they admit that Al Qaeda is active in Iraq, and they admit that other terrorist organizations are in Iraq and have made it the center of their Jihad (Holy War). In other words: the war against terrorism finds, for a large part, place in Iraq. If the US leaves Iraq, do these people think that the terrorists currently there will decide to leave as well? Or do they expect extremists to take over the country and to turn it into a new and improved Afghanistan?