New Wineskins

Thanks to everyone for reading and sustaining this blog these past three years. It's time to move on. Go here to find out why and join me on the next stage of the journey.

Rolling Over

March 17, 624. Battle of Badr. Green lights. Empire State Building. Last night of Ramadan. Dhimmitude. If you don't know what these things are or how they're connected, you should.

This coming weekend on October 12-14, for the first time ever the Empire State Building in New York City will be bathed with green lights, the color closely associated with Islam, so as to commemorate Eid ul-Fitr, the end of Ramadan... Contrary to what one might expect, however, the last day of Ramadan does not celebrate the actual date of the earliest revelations of Allah to Muhammad but rather the Battle of Badr, the first significant military victory by the forces of Muhammad.

All religions are not the same. Tolerance without truth is tolerance of falsehood.

H/T: The Merry Widow

Cure for Global Warming: Canadian Free Trade with Colombia

...authorities [in British Columbia, Canada] have benefitted [sic] from a 2006 law allowing BC Hydro, the area's main power company, to share its residential power consumption records with local officials... scanning residents' utility bills to determine who is using a lot more power than the average homeowner... Armed with that information, local authorities cut the power off to the home of the suspected offender... [homegrown pot is] collectively worth nearly seven billion dollars each year, account for a whopping six percent of this province's power consumption.

And folks complain about civil liberties encroachments down here!

Bundle o' Bits

Short week. Busy day. Pardon the cryptic style--and apologies in advance for 72 hours of radio silence starting tomorrow night as I depart for an intensive faith-formation retreat. A few items:

• 17.6 of professors in the social scientists consider themselves Marxists. Only academics doing a survey of other academics could possibly think that this is low (actually, the authors use the term "rare"!). The next time someone tells you that conservatives avoid academic positions in the social sciences because they believe in nonsensical superstitions with no empirical or logical support, while liberals believe in the scientific method, remember that 17.6% figure.
  
  
• As if awarding the Nobel to Yasser Arafat hadn't done enough, this will do more to damage the prestige of the prize than it will help Al Gore and his cause. The (London) Times puts it nicely: "Al Gore is being tipped as a favourite to win the Nobel peace prize in Oslo this Friday in a controversial move that could place saving the planet above saving people from war and conflict." (Last I checked, his environmental jihad was highly divisive, not peace- inducing.) Modest proposal: award him a science Nobel in 100 years... if his theories can be proven correct at that time.
  
  
• Just finished Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower" over breakfast. I read a lot. I thought I knew a lot about Islam, Al Q'aeda, 9-11 and American dysfunction in intelligence and response to this threat. I didn't. This one goes deep--absolutely packed with facts but with a literary flair for character and story-telling. (Liberals will find plenty to chew on also.) Over 500 original interviews. Dozens of pages of end-notes. Read it.
  
  
• "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday [called] for a full Israeli withdrawal from all territories captured in the 1967 Mideast war." (A war that would have ended in Israel's destruction had they not acted pre-emptively against the five nations massing on their borders.) Meanwhile, American Indians asked for a withdrawal to pre-1492 borders, Brits asked for a withdrawal to pre-1775 borders, and Osama bin Laden asked Europe for a withdrawal to pre-1683 borders. It's a thin cover for what Palestinians and other Arabs really want but won't get: an instant multi-century 'fix' of cultural and socio-economic self-esteem and a reversal of the public humiliation and castration they woke up to in June, 1967. It's about as likely as my neutered dog having puppies. Meanwhile, other Islamists called for Israel to return to its pre-1948 borders.

She is a Nice Person!

File this one under dispassionate and objective, hard-hitting news... or not:

Don Schwartz, who describes himself as "a super-Deaniac progressive type," decided to back Hillary Clinton - whose centrist views, he concedes, do not necessarily match his own - for a simple reason. He wanted, finally, to be with a winner.

Either that, or he knows--as is patently obvious--that she's not really a 'centrist' at all but well to the left of even Mr. Dean. Only in Boston-Globe-Land and northward (i.e., Vermont and its socialist environs) would she be considered as such with a straight face.

When Schwartz, the vice chairman of the Londonderry Democratic committee, started to contact his neighbors, with a goal of reaching 100 people per week, he thought he would have to appeal to their respect for her rather than their affection.

Respect for what? Her role as consigliere of her husband's administration? For her gutsiness in proposing the wholesale socialization of the largest share of this country's GDP? (healthcare) For her willingness to stick around through her husband's many affairs? For her ability to weather a list of financial scandals and shady dealings that would have killed a lesser mortal? For her flip-flops on the war? For her boldness in taking money from a shady Chinese national and a former hedge fund operator well to the left of Vladimir Lenin who made his money speculating on the U.S. dollar?

"I was actually surprised how many people said they were for Hillary," Schwartz said. "Now, they're getting to know her, and they're starting to like her. She is a nice person!"

Well, now that's a great reason to elect someone president. (Reminds me of the logic used when Jimmy Carter got elected.) This is why I dropped a subscription to my hometown newspaper long ago. What's frightening is that around here, many take their entire world view exclusively from its pages, thinking it to be both centrist and comprehensive. Hillary doesn't need to send them a check. They already know what to write.

Ted Nugent at Whole Foods

Just got back from picking up a few things at our local Whole Foods Market. (For those who don't know, it's an upscale organic-oriented grocery chain founded in Austin, TX). The main reason I go there is not for the opportunity to spend wads of cash to feel good about eating vegetables fertilized with cow poo and meat from animals who did yoga and got daily massages, but because our other local grocery store has slid the point that someone transported from Bulgaria during the heyday of Communist rule would complain about poor service.

So I'm standing in the dry goods aisle when I notice it: Ted Nugent's signature tune, "Cat Scratch Fever", with all of the suggestive lyrics intact, playing far louder than the typical background Musak. This all at 10:30 in the morning. I'm not complaining--just observing.

Something has changed fundamentally in our culture when this is seen not only as non-controversial (do they know what the song is about?) but commercially advantageous. In an environment where the apples and bell peppers all seem to have been scrubbed to pristine perfection with a toothbrush, one can't help but musing: in another place and time, that toothbrush would have been applied (along with a bar of soap) to Mr. Nugent's mouth.

Call me a fuddy-duddy if you like. I actually like the song and am not objecting to its being played (WFM can do what it likes). It just seems weird that somehow we've gotten to a place where what was once on the far far fringe* of outrageous culture is now perfectly mainstream.

*(Mr. Nugent once graced the cover of 'High Times', fronting an article about how he had soiled himself and failed to bathe for two weeks in order to avoid the draft. Don't ask how I know that.)

UPDATE: Here's another critique of a different kind of music and its ostensible 'progress' in the 20th century.

In Search of Eco-Salvation

Great piece by Frank Furedi over at Spiked on how, like a stinking sewage effluent pipe, global warming-as-religion is spilling over into, and fouling the clear waters of traditional religion.

In recent years, some in the church have sought to gain the public’s ear through the greening of traditional doctrines, and Christ the Saviour is fast becoming Christ the environmental activist... Church leaders have embraced the rituals of eco-morality to demonstrate their commitment to a higher good. Absolution through carbon offsets appears to be the way forward... As far as some Vatican leaders are concerned, offsetting carbon emissions plays a role analogous to that of fasting or self-mortification in previous times... Through an implicit reinterpretation of classical dogma, the sanctity of nature and all creation displaces the traditional focus on the sanctity of human beings.

His criticism is not limited to the Catholic church, or even to Christianity, as the following anecdote illustrates (WARNING: swallow coffee before reading).

Eco-spirituality is also seen as a moral resource that can transcend cultural and religious differences. This summer, the 9th Islamic Fayre in Bristol promoted an eco theme. ‘Islam is a religion of peace but is also known as a religion of nature’, stated Rizwan Ahmed, the event’s organiser. And Farooq Siddique, community development officer of the British Muslim Cultural Society noted that the ‘event is also about bringing communities together’. The hope that the appeal of eco-spirituality could counteract the influence of radical jihadist sentiments has encouraged British officialdom to support such initiatives. [emphasis added]

Well, wouldn't that be nice... if it were remotely connected to reality. The over-arching ethic Furedi depicts calls to mind this.

...many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

It's interesting, now that I think about it, how misplaced worry about things getting warm (and therefore more friendly to life) goes hand-in-hand with peoples' love for God growing cold.

Furedi concludes forcefully:

...eco-spirituality cannot really compensate for the loss of traditional moral authority. Indeed the very embrace of the environmentalist agenda can only accelerate the decline of institutions that cannot give meaning to the religious doctrines on which they were founded. The shift away from God towards nature inevitably leads to a world where the pronouncements of environmentalist experts trump those of the priesthood. It will be interesting to see what will remain of traditional religion as prophecy and revelation is displaced by computerised climate models.

'Taking Out' Drudge and Rush--A Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy?

OK, call me paranoid, but I'm starting to put some pieces together and they're not looking good for the future of right-leaning media (or free speech generally) as we roll into the 2008 election season.

Spring, 2007: Democrats in Congress make a trial run at re-instating the 'Fairness' Doctrine, testing the political waters, invigorating their base, priming the media, flushing out the opposition, pruning and honing their arguments and preparing a strategy for the real assault to come later.

Late Summer/Early Fall, 2007: Several near-simultaneous but seemingly spontaneous developments strike at critical tap-roots feeding the rest of right-leaning grassroots media:

1. In late August, New York Magazine runs one of the most revealing exposes of Matt Drudge ever printed. The article is informative but, given the magazine's liberal readership, it helps to highlight the important role Drudge plays in priming right-leaning media (e.g., like blogs and talk radio) and just as galling to lefties, how he's getting rich doing it.
   
   
2. Congress goes after Rush this week, in a transparently false but highly aggressive smear campaign.
   
   
3. Matt Drudge drops his popular Sunday-night radio show (as of October) for reasons unknown and with nothing announced to replace it.
   
   
4. At the same time, all photos suddenly disappear from Drudge's website, sending it back ten years to its origins as a plain-text rag. Everyone knows that a picture is worth a thousand words and (as Reagan discovered) that selected pictures can tell very powerful stories. Here's what one commenter on that last linked site had to say:
   

It looks like Drudge got pretty lazy... all of [Drudge's photos] came from Yahoo’s image servers, which Yahoo uses to host photos for Yahoo News, including wire photos from AP, AFP and Knight-Ridder. Anyone with any familiarity with wire services knows that there is no allowed use of wire photos without credit.

For all the years Drudge has done this, with each incident saved forever on sites like Drudge Report Archives and The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, there could be one massive lawsuit coming Drudge’s way. I wouldn’t want to be him.

These may or may not be coincidental, however I wouldn't be surprised if it's later discovered that the fingerprints of Moveon.org, the she-devil and others are all over this series of seemingly disconnected events, acting through sympathetic proxies in the corporate MSM, federal regulatory bureaucracies, large copyright owners and corporate broadcast groups.

Anyone care to do some digging??

UPDATE I: Welcome Instapundit readers!! (Thanks Glenn). For the record: 'no'... it's just that they're all out to get me! ;-) Check out the other interesting links at his post linking to me.

UPDATE II: Fausta just pointed me to this related cartoon. Can you say "lynch mob"? Aren't they the group funding the party of peace?...

UPDATE III: Thanks also to The Anchoress for her link. Hers remains one of my all-time favorite blogs. If you don't read it, you should. She adds this link to a chilling story by Michelle Malkin over at Townhall. Short take: thinking of crossing Moveon.org? Best to get rich like George Soros so you can hire enough lawyers to fight him.

UPDATE IV: Pics are back. [cue tape of me doing a Roseanne Rosannadanna impression]

Think the U.S.-Soviet Cold War is Over? Think Again

Check out the sobering and highly insightful 'must-read' op-ed by Michael Rubin in this morning's WSJ ('Russian Roulette'). Ever wonder why sanctions on Iran have been impossible to obtain and why some of us have therefore thought it foolish to waste time pursuing them at all?

Russia and China have made billions as enablers to Iran's military ambitions. Less than a month after the 9/11 terror attacks, Moscow signed a $7 billion arms deal with Tehran. The Iranian government has paid Russia's state-owned Atomstroiexport more than $1 billion to construct the Bushehr nuclear plant. A 2003 CIA issued report credited Russian, Chinese and North Korean experts for Iran's ballistic-missile advances.

Alexander Denisov, deputy director of the Russian Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation said bluntly in 2005, "First of all, we have to count in our national interests. In Syria, we have a huge market, over 80% of Soviet-made arms. The same is true about Iran."...

Any conflict with Iran could drive oil over $120 a barrel. This would likely hurt the U.S. economy, but it would also accelerate Russia's return to a dominant position in the world.

Russian realists relish such a scenario. The Kremlin has converted its multibillion-dollar oil windfall into power and influence. Mr. Putin has increased defense procurement by more than 50% over the past two years. Russia has developed a new class of nuclear submarines and a new generation of nuclear missiles. Moscow leverages money into military strength.

My comments on all that? Try this or this or this for starters. Or this quote from Sir Isaac Newton: "About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up, who will turn their attention to the prophecies, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."

Guantanamo Bay as Universal Bush-Bashing Opportunity

D*mned if you do and d*mned if you don't. Those who despise this administration and its policies are finding opportunities for criticism in keeping prisoners there--and also in releasing them.

Rush Week

Well, gosh, that's a surprise. Democrats vote to condemn Rush.

[Rush] said the attacks aren't really about him personally. "It's about them and they are desperately trying to salvage themselves with their own lunatic fringe base who they are not only disappointing but they are deceiving because the dirty, little secret, as I also predicted, was that if the Democrats win the White House in '08 they are not pulling out of Iraq. All the top tier Democrats have said so," Limbaugh told his audience.

They've just made this man stronger than he ever was. Prediction: this is prologue to the Dems re-launching the Fairness Doctrine stuff they were getting all crazy about earlier this year. They have no other choice if they're to survive politically.

It was an oddly guilty sense of curiosity that got me reading and listening to conservative stuff in the first place when I was a liberal. (It felt like discovering pornography as a teen.) Unlike that analogous experience however, the facts and logic of the conservative argument started to sink in. We should be so lucky if this peels off even a few morbid rubber-neckers who want to see for themselves what all the shouting is about.

UPDATE: Here's a random thought: What if the buffoonery and impotence of this Congress is to the 2008 election what Jimmy Carter's presidency was to the 1980 one?

Great Palestinian Actors

Those who haven't been following the France2 story should. Boston blogger and professor Richard Landes at Augean Stables has one of the best summaries, drawing heavily on Natan Sharansky's recent WSJ op-ed. My own short-take on that:

France 2 Television broadcast film footage seven years ago purporting to show a Palestinian man and his son cowering under heavy IDF fire, ending with the boy's apparent death. Clips and stills from the footage became global icons most people would recognize instantly. As Sharansky notes: "The tape fanned the flames of what became known as the second intifada." Not to mention the third and fourth and, well... they're all starting to blend together now.

Only problems: 1) there is no blood whatsoever and 2) at the end of the full footage (only available outside of France as the tapes have been embargoed), the 'dead' boy raises his head and arm, wondering if the take is over and can he please get up now. That part was never broadcast.

In other words: it was a staged propaganda piece, designed to set off the intifada. (And people say Bush lied...) Experts have analyzed the film and testified to its fakery. The filmmakers were quite justifiably fired from France2. What did the French government do? It charged and convicted of defamation not the filmmakers, but the men who fired them(!)

From this one great lie has sprung much that is wrong about politics in the Middle East. Read it.

How Republicans Could Blow It

Yesterday I ranted about how Democrats were behaving badly, making clear that they've been bought and sold by the deep-pocketed ultra-left wing of their party. One symptom of that (or perhaps an attraction to their backers?) is the telling of baldfaced lies that 20-million people can instantly refute and not caring a whit because those people ('ditto-heads') are not their people. It's the very definition of parochialism and partisanship... not to mention paranoia.

With the Norm Hsu pyramid-scheme stuff leaking out despite the MSM's best efforts to quash it, the she-devil may be blunted in her ability to use the "vast right-wing conspiracy" line again. Then again, she's been shameless before... The advantage of building a political machine is having it. The disadvantage--in this day and age anyway--is that everybody knows you're using a machine to do what you're doing. With the headline yesterday that Dems' fundraising is surpassing that of Republicans by 2X, the 'conspiracy' charge sticks left nowadays a lot better than it sticks right.

With that obligatory warm-up, it's time today for some analysis of the Republicans. Their problem is less about maturity than about maintaining and building the kind of "big tent" that's historically been needed for electoral success and doing it with Reagan-like finesse. Captain Ed has a great analysis of how they could blow it next year, under the eye-popping headline: "Christian Conservatives for Hillary", noting that the "Christian Right" (his term):

...[has] significant influence in the Republican Party because of their ability to organize and contribute, but their influence outstrips their actual size. Forming a third party would set them back at least a generation, and it would push Republican politics away from their agenda and towards the center, just when Democrats appear poised to abandon it.

The immediate effect, however, would probably be the election of Hillary Clinton to the White House. Hillary has tremendous negatives, higher than anyone seeking a first-term Presidency in recent memory. At the moment, Rasmussen has her in the best position she's had -- and that's an anemic +6, with a whopping 46% negative. People don't get elected with those kinds of negatives in a two-party general election... unless someone runs as a third-party candidate that drains support from the other option.

That's not dissimilar from my comparison yesterday of Hillary to George McGovern and my soft prediction that she could find herself in nearly as deep an electoral hole in 13 months.

Hewitt (an undeclared but clear Romney supporter) had Giuliani on his show the other day and I was more impressed than I'd been prepared to be. He and Mitt each bring an element to toe-the-line evangelical voters that some will find hard to swallow (Mormonism in Mitt's case; three marriages and a muddy abortion stance in Rudy's).

Yet the presidential positives they share are potentially much stronger: long-time executive experience, clear-eyed strategic thinking and the kind of plain-speaking, hard-hitting, realistic talk that will go over well against some of the truly loopy stuff coming from the Democrats these days. Both of them, for example, recognize that we're at war, that we must win and that it is not confined to Iraq and never has been. (I'm leaving out Fred Thompson only because I know far less about him. I find it harder to envision him leaping into the lead based on his fumbles out of the gate.)

If I had to call it now, I'd call the primary and general election for Rudy based on the 9-11 recognition factor and an ability Mitt may not have to attract independents as well as frustrated Democratic hawks and realists.

Mitt casts a much higher profile around here, and I like him, but that's partly because he was our governor and it's such a relief to have any sane conservative voice around here that I could probably get excited about almost any lame-o conservative who had the wherewithal to stare down Teddy and Johnny K on the local scene.

I'm not sure how well Mitt projects into places like Ohio where winning will be essential in the general election. He's just a tad too Bain/management to Giuliani's gritty 'New Yawhkah'; that will hurt him in the Rust Belt. Captain Ed points out that Rudy's commitment to appoint strict constructionist judges may be enough to assuage evangelicals who are thinking as strategically and rationally as he is. (Presidents can't do much about particular legislative issues anyway, he points out.)

All of which brings me around to an interesting point Dennis Prager made about Rudy the other day. Prager admonished religious voters (among whom he, as a highly religious Jew, counts himself) not to get their knickers in a knot over finding the perfect candidate. (To which I would add: there was only one Reagan. We were lucky to have him. We shouldn't expect another one for a century or more.)

After all, Prager noted, God made excellent use of King David after the man pulled off a jealousy / adultery / murder trifecta of literally biblical proportions. Taking that analogy any further is dangerous and Prager knows it, but the illustration is nonetheless useful. At the very least, it puts Rudy's three wives in perspective.

What Did Ahmadinejad Really Say?

Caroline Glick picks up the trail over at RealClearPolitics and it's a good deal more difficult to deal with than the bad-enough stuff that received saturation coverage (H/T: ShrinkWrapped)

During his visit to New York this week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacked every basic assumption upon which Western civilization is predicated... while the Western media sought hidden meanings and signals for peaceful intentions in his words, the fact is that on both occasions [Columbia and the UN], Ahmadinejad made absolutely clear that his vision of Islamic domination cannot coexist in any manner with Western civilization. Consequently, Ahmadinejad's statements were not negotiating stances. They were the direct consequence of the world view he propounds. As such, they are non-negotiable. [emphasis added]

Note the lack of qualifiers. Not 'Israel'. Not 'the United States'. Western Civilization. If you're reading this, that means you. Sadly, the bottom line with Iran is that all the rational, painless options have been systematically taken off the table by a madman.

This comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone who has sampled from my bookshelf (right), or read the excellent book I'm reading now: "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright. One thing remarkable about that one is that it's been hailed by right-wing pundits but also includes glowing reviews on the back jacket from Dan Rather and the New York Times. Just a few pages is all it takes to see why. Wright weaves many stories together with novelistic mastery based on what can only be exhaustive (and dangerous) original research.

Here's more from Glick's piece:

While most coverage surrounded [Ahmadinejad's] refusal to renounce his call to annihilate Israel, his central message, that he rejects the right of people to be free to choose their paths in life, was ignored. His remarks on the issue were dismissed as "weird" or "unintelligible." Yet they were neither.

It's called denial. The truth is too hard to deal with; our freedom too easily taken for granted.

Speaking as "an academic," Ahmadinejad said that from his perspective, the role of science is to serve Islam and that any science that does not serve Islamic goals is corrupt.

Contrast that to this (H/T: The Anchoress).

Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno... curator of one of the world's most important collections of meteorites, kept at Castelgandolfo (the Pope's summer residence), explains.

"They want the world to know that the Church isn't afraid of science," he said.

"This is our way of seeing how God created the universe and they want to make as strong a statement as possible that truth doesn't contradict truth; that if you have faith, then you're never going to be afraid of what science is going to come up with.

"Because it's true."

I find that tremendously liberating in multiple dimensions... Because it's true. Perfect. The church may have had problems with Galileo. They've obviously come around.

UPDATE: Be sure not to miss Mark Steyn's latest column in the Orange County Register.

Lots of prime ministers and diplomats accepted invitations to meet with Hitler, and generally the meetings went very well... testament to how normal thugs can appear in social situations. Civilized nations like chit-chatting, having tea, holding debates, talking talking talking. Tyrannies like terrorizing people, torturing people, murdering people, doing doing doing. It's easier for the doers to pass themselves off as talkers then for the talkers to rouse themselves to do anything... The pen is not mightier than the sword if your enemy is confident you will never use anything other than your pen. Sometimes it's not about "freedom of speech," but about freedom.

In a fair world, Steyn would be working for the New York Times... like the formerly great but recently deranged Tom Friedman.

High and Low Sex

"Is There Sex in Heaven"? Yes. But probably not in the way you're accustomed to thinking of it. (H/T: Evangelical Outpost)

Did it ever occur to you that... human sexuality is derived from cosmic sexuality rather than vice versa, that we are a local application of a universal principle? ...The God of the Bible is not a monistic pudding in which differences are reduced to lumps, or a light that out-dazzles all finite lights and colors. God is a sexual being, the most sexual of all beings. This sounds shocking to people only if they see sex only as physical and not spiritual, or if they are Unitarians rather than Trinitarians.

Sex of an entirely different kind can be found in this particular h*ll-on-earth.

Veronica Kruschel, 2, drinks water while her twin sister Zola enjoys the Folsom Street Fair environment. Their parents Gary Beuschel and John Kruse (not photographed) watch nearby while having a lunch break. ... “Why do (these people) bring kids here? This is a leather fair for g*d’s sake,” said Bahran Aliassa, who was m_b_g in public. He has been doing it annually for the past six years. [Oh, I guess that must make it OK then. -KM]

Democrats Used to Be Mature

Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, JFK...

Whether one agreed with their policies or not, what does one think of upon hearing those names? What do they have in common?

Well, for one thing, they were serious men dealing seriously with serious issues during times of serious crisis and war. They weren't plagued by the kind of post-modernist cynicism, self-doubt, petty back-biting, vague guilt and self hatred that has burrowed its way into the Democrat party and many of our other civic institutions like flesh-eating bacteria.

In a word, they were mature.

What those great Democrat presidents (and their Congressional counterparts) did not do was to waste time on resolutions condemning radio talk show hosts. Why? Because they're radio talk show hosts, for goodness sakes!!!

This Congress, by contrast, thinks that condemning a man (Rush Limbaugh) after the fact, for stating his controversial opinion [the substance of which, it turns out, has nothing to do with what the Democrats said it did--i.e., they lied] is the same thing as accusing, by chickens**t proxy and prior to his ever opening his mouth, the man (Gen. David Petraeus) they themselves unanimously chartered just months earlier, in the course of their solemn professional duties, with the gravest of high-stakes tasks--leading U.S. troops on the field of battle--of being a liar and traitor.

The two are not even in the same universe.

I'm reminded of how children's squabbles escalate, wherein one party--clearly in the wrong and knowing it--looks to distract attention and deflect blame by mirroring the original accusation as loudly as possible on the theory that even if it is seen as transparent, it takes heat off for awhile.

Given all this, I'm beginning to think afresh about the 2008 campaign and to be increasingly optimistic about it. The she-devil, despite her formidable powers and the sympathetic backing of the media, is in many respects, her own worst enemy. She is just too eager to share her 'great' ideas (with the emphasis on her) with her base, forgetting to check the calendar (it's the 21st century, lady.)

It was noted today, for instance, that the last presidential candidate to propose a baby bond was (wait for it)... George McGovern. Yes, that George McGovern. He offered $1,000 per head (this from the Dennis Prager show this afternoon--no link.)

Anything in the current climate remind you of that time? Yeah, the country has changed, but not enough to completely reverse the outcome of that one-sided contest. Take your pick of the Republican contenders: any one is far more popular than Nixon. (For the record, I was a huge McGovern supporter in 1972. In my defense, I offer the following: 1) I was living in Massachusetts and didn't want to make waves, 2) I was nine years old and 3) I was a fool.)

The Dems' own bitter divisiveness vis-a-vis the she-devil (see David Geffen on Obama for example), the fact that Hillary, in winning the nomination, will inevitably upset some folks who were supporting him for the wrong reasons (i.e., race) to the point of not voting, the fact that Hillary is a uniting factor among Republicans, and the fact that none of them is a personal lightning rod on the left to nearly the degree that George Bush is, or that the she-devil is on the right all argue for Hillary's stock going south like the dot.com-heavy, post-bubble NASDAQ circa 2000/2001.

None of which is reason for complacency by Republicans, who still have their hurdles to clear. They are nothing in comparison to the Dems' hurdles and the petty immaturity of anti-Rush resolutions only proves it. If they'd ever actually listened to the show, they would realize that condemning him in this petty fashion (using taxpayer time to do it) will rally fewer votes in their base then it will solidify votes in his.