I-Pod 10

1. "Do You Believe in Shame" - Duran Duran
2. "These Foolish Things" - Lester Young with the Oscar Peterson Trio
3. "Flying" - The Telescopes
4. "Only You" - Portishead
5. "Paper" - Saint Etienne
6. "Snow" - Severed Heads
7. "You" - Five Thirty
8. "Laugh, Laugh" - The Beau Brummels
9. "Try All You Want" - Electronic
10. "Beloved Wife" - Natalie Merchant

Over 7,000 songs on my I-Pod now.

Paranoid Fantasies

It's interesting. If in 2000 I had heard someone accurately predict what a Bush Presidency would be like, I would have called them a delusional paranoid crackpot. I mean it would have seemed so bizarre.

That said, I feel pretty confident in saying that John Andrews' predictions for an Obama presidency are delusional, paranoid, and crackpot. Apparently there's going to be a second 9/11 which we can't prevent because of all those silly civil liberty's concerns. What is Obama's response to this tragedy?

Tory radio hosts, already demoralized, grew more so after September 11, 2009, when Al Qaeda took down a dozen airliners over the US, Britain, and Canada in a single hour. Aboard one of them, tragically, was Chief Justice John Roberts. Obama appointed arch-liberal Laurence Tribe to replace him, and picked Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison to chair a commission on why they hate us.

McCain, now as lonely a voice in the Senate as Churchill had been in Parliament before 1939, pointed out that the Patriot Act and FISA surveillance could probably have averted the Second 9/11. But few listened, especially after the Super Fairness Doctrine was signed, muzzling conservative voices on cable and the Internet as well as talk radio.

That's pretty crazy. It's hard to tell whether or not Andrew believes this claptrap, but he certainly wants his readers to believe it.

No Hope

Cal Thomas's latest article takes shots at Barack Obama for daring to ask the American people to hope. He says hope is fine in peace, but in these times of constant danger, we can't afford it.

What commander would put a low-ranking officer in charge of all troops during wartime? We are close to making Obama our commander in chief with no hint of how he might perform, other than to withdraw troops from Iraq.

A President Obama might be worth the risk in peacetime, but with crafty enemies seeking to destroy us, can we afford to make what might be a fatal mistake by electing someone upon whom too many of us gave projected, ungrounded hope?

Look to hear this one all year long. Obama will be constantly derided as having no experience compared to McCains age and military service. Both eight years ago and four years ago the same charges could have been leveled at President Bush (they were leveled but not forcefully enough). But this time around, you should take them seriously.

That said, predicting this line of attack isn't exactly rocket science, so presumably as the year rolls along we'll get more of an response to this argument.

So you're worried about the war? Well let's talk about abortion!

This an article by a guy I don't recall, Phil Harris. And yeah, this is his argument. He defends the Iraq war by making such brilliant points as noting that there were wars before President Bush was President. Yep. President Bush didn't invent war, so we should be ok with him.

Sensing that perhaps his rhetorical skills aren't going to circle the square on the Iraq War he moves to another technique; changing the subject as quickly and violently as possible.

Are you enamored by the thought of a President Obama, or a President Hillary Clinton? Have you considered that both are committed to unencumbered abortion on demand? Have you been listening to the conversations, regarding the realities of abortion?

This is so clumsy as to be hilarious. "You oppose the Iraq war, eh? Well how do you feel about killing babies?" Kind of sad, but perhaps an argument we will be seeing more of. One of McCain's few strengths, with the Republican base, is his consistent pro-life stance. So maybe this won't be the last time we hear this argument.

Can McCain Win?

Joe Conason, writing at Credo Action, has written an article on McCain's electability in the General Election.

He has quietly walked away from his former allies on campaign finance reform. He has run away from his own immigration-reform legislation. He has sold away the commitment to economic fairness and fiscal discipline that once led him to oppose the skewed Bush tax cuts.

On at least one issue, however, he remains absolutely consistent. As he said not long ago, he favors dispatching generations of American soldiers to Iraq for a hundred years or more, while spending trillions of borrowed dollars not only on that war, but others to come in unspecified countries. "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" is the mindless motto of the McCain foreign policy.

In an election year when voters say they are demanding change from the failures and follies of the Bush years, this political profile could create serious problems for any candidate.

Conason notes that the one issue he might use to rally the Republican Base, Immigration Reform, is one that he's on the wrong side of. So he's on the wrong side of the Iraq War which hurts him with moderates and liberals, and he's on the wrong side of the Immigration Reform issue, at least from the conservatives point of view. Who is he planning on appealing to?

Is Ann Coulter Still Insane?

You be the judge. Here's some lines from her latest article.

A few more primary wins and B. Hussein Obama will be able to light up a cigarette during a televised speech and still get the nomination. It looks like the only thing that can stop him now is an endorsement from Al Gore.

Gore is always lunging into a movement just as it has passed its prime -- the Internet, Howard Dean, global warming, trying to talk black when he campaigns at a black church. He probably bought a big house a few months ago. Gore is such a supremely unlikable human being, he even subverted the mainstream media's affection for liberalism during the 2000 election.

Yeah, I don't think Ann Coulter is seeing the same world as the rest of us. Certainly Al Gore has become a lot more popular since his character was trashed unfairly and deceptively in 2000. Oh and in case you are wondering she's no fan of McCain.

McCain is hysterical about pouring water down terrorists' noses and campaigns to shut down Guantanamo.

I should not at this point, that the fact that Ann Coulter does not support John McCain does not make McCain some kind of liberal or acceptable presidential candidate; recall that when it comes to occupying Iraq, getting thousands of American troops killed and millions of Iraqis killed, well McCain is as big a fan of that strategy as President Bush. Maybe bigger.

Shut down Guantanemo!

I'm not sure about the wisdom of the Bush Administration in bringing 6 prisoners at Guantanemo this year, and I'm even less sure of the wisdom of assuring us that the prosecutors will be seeking the death penalty. But that is apparently the plan. I hope that whoever gets elected, a year from now Guantanemo will be in the process of being shut down. As Nicholas D. Kristoff points out in his latest editorial, Guantanemo hasn't helped us all that much and has certainly hurt us.

Most Americans, including myself, originally gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the inmates truly were “the worst of the worst.” But evidence has grown that many are simply the unluckiest of the unluckiest.

Some were aid workers who were kidnapped by armed Afghan groups and sold to the C.I.A. as extremists. One longtime Sudanese aid worker employed by an international charity, Adel Hamad, was just released by the U.S. in December after five years in captivity. A U.S. Army major reviewing his case called it “unconscionable.”

. . . All this is inhumane, but also boneheaded. Guantánamo itself does far more damage to American interests than Mr. Hajj could ever do.

To stand against torture and arbitrary detention is not to be squeamish. It is to be civilized.

He's not wrong.

Hope

This is an article from the Guardian in the U.K., reprinted at Common Dreams, so it is written in relation to their Government. But I think it has a point that applies in the United States.

Two things are obvious about the demonstration to “stop the war”. First, the millions on the march were right. Not just right on balance, but right on every single aspect of the question. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq did turn into a bloodbath, the invasion did not help resolve the crisis in the Middle East, and it did damage the cohesion of our own society and imperil our civil liberties while not making us one whit safer from terrorism. So the people were smarter than the politicians.

Second the demonstration did not stop the war. Our hope had been that mass protest could drive the British government out of its aggressive alliance with Bush and that the latter, isolated internationally as a result, would come under intensified domestic pressure. We came very close, as Donald Rumsfeld made clear. In the wake of February 15, Washington told Blair he could stand down our army if he wanted to.

The prime minister ignored that offer and the people he represents alike. However, failing is not the same thing as making no difference. February 15 has cast a long shadow over British politics since, and contributed to Blair’s departure from office under circumstances - in public odium and with an exasperated party - scarcely of his choosing. What war have we stopped? The next one, perhaps.

Let's be blunt. Bush, Cheney, his advisors, and probably McCain would very much like to bring our military might down on Iran. They can't. Because people are aware of what a disaster Iraq has been, and won't countenance further military adventures.

Another Look at McCain

I don't want to make it seem like all conservatives hate McCain. Many do, obviously, but some like him just fine. Case in point; Bill Kristol, conservative columnist at the New York Times.

When the primaries are over, if McCain has won the day, don’t sulk and don’t sit it out. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between a candidate who’s committed to winning in Iraq and a Democratic nominee who embraces defeat. Don’t tell us that it doesn’t matter if the next president voted to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, or opposed them. Don’t close your eyes to the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, or between resistance to big government and the embrace of it.

I have to say that Kristol is right here. McCain really is a conservative and is going to govern conservatively. Maybe not conservatively enough for some people, but then Atilla the Hun wouldn't be conservative enough for some people.

I-Pod 10

1. Deepak Ram, "A Night in Lenasia"
2. Miles Davis, "Tutu"
3. Pearl Jam, "Strangest Tribe"
4. The Magic Numbers, "Hymn for Her"
5. DJ Format Ft. Abdominal & D-Sisive, "3ft Deep"
6. The Verve, "Catching the Buttefly"
7. Everything But the Girl, "Night & Day"
8. St. Germaine, "Montego Bay Spleen"
9. The Beatles, "While my Guitar Gently Weeps"
10. Oasis, "Underneath the Sky"

I'll note that the DJ Format track comes from his really excellent contribution to the Fabriclive series, a great funk/jazz mix. And that version of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" comes from the Cirque du Soliel project "Love."

The Other Limbaugh Brother

Rush is still taking potshots at McCain although he has broadened to include the "party elite."

But the truth of the matter is, this isn't about Rush Limbaugh. It isn't about any single person. The same people in Washington and New York who like to write op-eds and editorials to themselves to show how smart they are and how in touch they are, are missing what's going on. I don't control the real disaffection conservatives are feeling for the Republican Party and for Washington generally. This isn't some manufactured view that's turned on and off by me among my audience. This is the result of years of contempt for the grassroots, years of neglect, false promises, pseudoconservatism. McCain became the presumptive winner after Super Tuesday.

What's interesting is the way that Limbaugh has to airbrush out the fact that many in his party apparently like McCain. He's not charging the party with rigging the elections (or if he has I've missed it). If there are changes in his party that make McCain a viable candidate, well, it's not just the party elite that are allowing these changes to occur.

David Limbaugh sues for peace with McCain

Yes, at least one anti McCain Conservative is apparently willing to throw in the towel and make allegiance with McCain. David Limbaugh, in his latest article, does chide McCain for insufficient conservatism, but he also wants an end to hostilities between the Limbaugh conservatives and the followers of McCain.

Of course he's unable or unwilling to admit that his side has thrown most of the invective. Rather he chides the McCainiacs and suggests that they be nicer to him.

McCain has a choice to make -- and so do neo-Rockefellers presuming to do his bidding. They can either engage in a scorched-earth strategy against the conservative base in furtherance of their power play -- in which case, they'll never get to first base (pun intended). Or they can work with the base, most of which, I dare say, will work with them, especially toward the common end of a secure America.

Kind of sad. Limbaugh knows that if McCain is successful (and let's all hope he's not) he's out of it, so he wants to make peace. But he can't help pretending that this bad blood is all on McCains side of the fence. I could repeat the nasty things that his brother, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter et all have said, but you all know them.

He does know what will eventually unite the party though.

Besides, it's much more fun to direct our fire at Democrats. So let's get back to business.

Yep. Slamming Democrats is the one thing all Republicans apparently agree on.

Sadly Amusing

Rich Galen's latest article over at Townhall sees him referencing Band of Brothers, and calling for that spirit of "We are all in this together" to return to American Politics.

But, watching the "Band of Brothers" reminded me that there is a higher calling to which we Americans must answer. That there is a greater purpose to which we should rise. That there is a deeper reason for the creation of the United States of America than 30-second ads and 150-word blogs.

I am not suggesting that choosing who will lead our nation over the next four years is not important. It is very important. But our nation will survive no matter what choice the majority makes.

. . . We are political opponents. Not enemies. An enemy is something else altogether.

Kind of funny in a depressing way. I should point out that Galen specifically references Democrats so he's not just talking about the hard feelings caused by the elevation of McCain. But is Galen serious?

He belongs to the movement that supports Rush Limbaugh who describes a proud Democrat as a "liberal extremist" and who thinks we are all mentally ill.

And speaking of mentally ill, the Conservative movement has put up Ann Coulter, who is either crazy like a fox. A description of her pathology, at this late date, is hardly necessary.

Heck one of the Conservative movement's big problems with McCain is that he doesn't hate liberals enough.

So, I'm sorry Mr. Galen. But your vision of an America where we go back to all being buddies isn't very realistic.

Good Criticism and Bad Criticism

Let's start with the Bad Criticism first - specifically Paul Greenburg's latest article defending John McCain against the Conservative Pundits. In this he takes on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and others for attacking McCain. Coulter gets quite the treatment, being described as the "certified banshee of the American right." Anyway he says that they don't like McCain because he thinks for himself.

That's the trouble with John McCain; he's always been his own man. He just will not go along with the party line, anybody's party line. He's always given his interrogators a hard time, refusing to break no matter what blandishments, punishments or calumnies are applied.

Sure, the man may get things done - like finding a way to get conservative judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He may even prefer fixing a system that's broken - like our immigration "system" - rather than just griping about it. And if he's proving right about the war in Iraq or on terror in general, well, that scarcely makes up for his unmitigated independence.

I don't think this is entirely fair to the Conservative Critics of McCain, Coulter aside. Limbaugh, Hannity and the others have an idea of how conservatives should act, the principles they should espouse, the programs they should enact. McCain has, in a number or cases, acted outside these parameters, or even in opposition to what Limbaugh et al would consider Conservative principles. It's not surprising that they aren't keen on him.

That said, Greenburg certainly has a point when he notes that the Republican base clearly has a different idea about McCain's qualifications. I mean for all the talk about the party elite shoving McCain down the throat of the Republican party, that wouldn't be possible if the voters were voting for another candidate.

All this shouldn't be construed as support for McCain. I think there is clearly some valid criticism of him and his performance, and for a sample, let's check in with Glenn Greenwald.

Conventional media wisdom is already solidifying that John McCain's greatest political asset is national security. This is a completely bizarre proposition given that there is no politician who has been more mindlessly supportive than McCain of endless war in Iraq, one of America's most unpopular wars in its history. Only in Media World could undying support for an extremely unpopular war be considered a political asset.

Beyond Iraq, McCain is as pure a warmonger as it gets in the American political mainstream. He is supported by the most extreme neoconservative ideologues, such as Bill Kristol, John Bolton and Joe Lieberman, precisely because they perceive, correctly, that he would be the candidate most likely to enable their paramount dreams of endless Middle East war. The virtual certainty that McCain will ensure the endless occupation of Iraq and, worse, will inevitably provoke more American wars, ought to be considered his greatest political liability, not his greatest asset.

Greenwald's larger point can be scene here; Democrats should stop being afraid to call McCain's plans for occupying the middle east more or less indefinately what they are, insane. The American people are not fans of the Iraq war and would not be fans of further military adventurism over there. McCain is the candidate most likely to expand our military adventures in the middle east. So tell the American people that.

But that has not been the Democratic Way. Rather we continue to pretend like Republicans are "Strong" on defense and foreign policy, despite the fact that their programs have been moral and practical disasters and proven terribly unpopular with the American people.

So to sum up, the fact that some Right Wing Pundits don't like McCain doesn't change the fact that he'd be an awful and dangerous President.

Chastizing Rush

Well with Romney backing out of the race, it looks like the Republican Nominee is going to be John McCain. And, as you well know, Limbaugh, Hannity, and others have been very critical of McCain, to the point of calling him a liberal and suggesting that voting for him is a wasted vote. Well today these talk show hosts are chastised by Rich Galen over at Townhall.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the others are doing the work of the New York Times and the rest of the popular press by railing against McCain all day, every day.

It appears on the surface that their goal is to make Conservatives stay home next November 4 and hand the White House to Hillary or Barack.

But the reality is they are doing it because it means good ratings. When their listeners get tired of hearing them beat up on McCain, they'll switch to something else.

Certainly I wouldn't mind if Conservatives stayed home on November 4th, but I don't think that is their goal. It is more the latter combined with the theory that if they beat up McCain they can get a pledge from him to be more Conservative.

I don't think Rush is likely to change his mind - reading him, you get the idea he sees this as a fight for the soul of the Republican Party.

This to me is the big point. The failure of establishment Republicans -- whether they be members of Congress, Washington, or New York editorial writers, even some talk show hosts who live and work and socialize in that community, the failure of these people -- to uphold the principles of conservatism during the last decade or more has resulted in the mess that they now complain about. George Neumayr, writing today a column -- he used to be the editor of the American Spectator -- makes a great point. He said, "Once the Republican Party decided..." This was largely due to abortion, by the way. "Once the Republican Party decided to be a big-tent party, its days were numbered; its identity forever changed," because the definition of "big tent" was to bring in people who normally would not be in the tent, . . .

So from Rush's perspective, this isn't a fight he can afford to shy away from.

I also note this ominous line later in his comments.

Because I'm going to tell you something, folks: what's happening in our party today is not only do the establishment Republicans want amnesty for illegal immigrants, they want amnesty for Democrats.

Why exactly do Democrats need Amnesty?

We view liberals as a threat to the founding of this country.

On a secondary note - how exactly does Rush see Liberals as a threat to the founding of this country? I mean it's not like we liberals are working on a secret time machine project to send Harry Reid back to the constitutional convention and have him introduce an amendment . . . well perhaps I've said to much.

The Crux

The big problem with McCain, from the Limbaugh Conservatives point of view, is that he doesn't hate Liberals enough. And Rush confirmed it yesterday on his show.

Mr. McCain, Ronaldus Magnus did reach out to Democrats -- to defeat them! Ronald Reagan created what's known as the Reagan Democrats, Southern Democrats, who joined the Republican Party as conservative voters. They may have stayed Democrats, but they were voting for conservatism. We are reaching out and asking liberals to come join us as liberals. And somehow this is a great masterstroke? If this were a war, what we're saying is, "Enemy, come on in, and come be who you are when you get here." If the Republican Party and the Democrat Party were two nations, Senator McCain is saying, "I'm going to have no border on my nation, the Republican Party. And if those people in that enemy party want to come in, infiltrate our party, that's great. I'm going to show that I'm the guy that can get it done. I'm going to be the guy to not protect the borders." Why is it so hard? I'm serious. This one escapes me. Why is it so hard to understand that what we want is to defeat those people?

We view those people as threats to the American way of life, as we've always known it. We view liberals as a threat to the founding of this country. We view them as a threat to the future. We view them as a threat to the traditions and institutions that have defined this country's greatness. We view them as people who need to be defeated, not worked with.

I will note that Limbaugh has specifically denied hating liberals; whether or not he actually does hate Liberals is left as an exercise for the readers.

The Wisdom of Walter Williams

In these days of turmoil and strife among the Republican Party, it's nice that Walter E. Williams isn't scared. He's so uninterested in the current struggle between Huckabee, Romney, and McCain that this weeks article is largely about how much he hates bad grammar.

I could point out, I suppose, that no candidate is likely to be crazy enough to suit Mr. Williams. So maybe he just doesn't care.

How much does a Republican Delegate Cost?

According to Jonathan Wiesman at the Washington Post, each Delegate that is supporting Romney has cost Romney approximately $1.16 million.

That sounds like a lot, but consider there are only 2,380 Republican Party 2008 delegates available. And I certainly understand the desire to collect. Which is why I'm offering a discount. $30,000 gets you an official 2008 Stupid Enough Unexplanation Delegate. Each Delegate comes with a certificate of authenticity, which you receive in lieu of an actual breathing delegate. This works kind of like those name a star after yourself scams . . . i mean opportunities. Just send me $30,000 and I will give you the name of your delegate to the Stupid Enough Unexplanation convention, who may or may not be aware that he or she is a delegate.

Supplies are limited, so act soon.

I know I won't be able to sell any of these to Huckabee unfortunately; he's already a bargain hunter. He gets approximately 20 Republican delegates for $1 million, meaning he's about 20 times as efficient as Romney.

Body Movin'

I am quietly pleased with the Super Tuesday Primaries. Both races are still going on, which seems goofy, but there you go. Obama and Hilllary are still basically tied, which doesn't bother me at all.

As for the Republican side, I like how Mike Madden puts it in his article on the race over at Salon.

One thing was clear as Super Tuesday came to a close: The speechwriters had their work cut out for them. All three leading candidates delivered remarks that were not quite roars of victory, not quite sighs of defeat. John McCain won enough states and enough delegates Tuesday night to claim he had triumphed, yet not enough to get his rivals to agree with him. Mike Huckabee racked up win after win in the South, gleefully declaring his campaign relevant again, but he couldn't put together much support anywhere else. And Mitt Romney continued to mop up contests where he had no competition, while losing in states where he actually had to fight for it.

It's kind of easy to win when there's no competition.

I also like the fact that Romney is going to pretend to run an outsider campaign. There's a special kind of blindness in Republicans that let's them pretend a wealthy white guy who look like Romney is some kind of persecuted outside simply because the voters preferred another guy to him. Bizarre. But it might work.

Fourth Time Around

I feel kind of disconnected today. Because I know that today is the day we select who will represent our two major parties in the Fall Elections - this is Super Duper Tuesday, and by tomorrow morning we will know whether we got McCain or Romney, Hillary or Obama. And yet, in a way, it's already done, and I'm thinking about other things.

I hope Romney loses big tomorrow, for three reasons.

1. Romney is genuinely a phony and a dirty politician. I don't like to see people rewarded for playing dirty.

2. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk will be upset if Romney loses, because it means that their brand of conservatism isn't currently dominant. That won't stand for very long; they'll get back on top eventually. But for this year, they are on the outs.

3. Romney is a Mormon, and I don't want to spend a year explaining to my co-religionists that he's a bit of a bastard even if he is a brother in the faith, and I don't want to spend a year explaining to my fellow liberals that Mormonism isn't a cult or evil or what not.

McCain I don't care much for either. He's not that much cleaner than Romney, and he's even more gung ho about our strategy in Iraq (a strategy that has led to the death of over a million Iraqis at this point).

As for Clinton and Obama, my guy (Edwards) is out, so I don't feel as strongly. I prefer Obama to Clinton, but both of them are pretty middle of the road, so I don't feel that strongly about it. I certainly won't be that upset if Clinton wins.

I guess I will be disappointed because I don't want to spend the year defending Clinton either. And that is what I will have to do, if she wins.

But wait, do I hear some of you saying "You know you don't really have to defend Clinton." Well yes I do. Both McCain and Romney will be disasters for America and Clinton is the only viable option. She'll most likely be a disappointment but she won't be a disaster. And so it falls to me, as it does to every Democrat/Liberal/Lefist, to defend her against the outrageous lies and calumnies of the right wing.

Because we know what they are going to say, and it's not going to be pretty and it's not going to fair and it's not going to be honest. We are going to hear lies about whitewater and Vince Foster and the White House Travel office. And someone is going to have to counter those lies.

Anyway I guess we'll know after tomorrow.

Cowards

OK so Douglas MacKinnon has a problem. He wants to write an article supporting Romney in such a way as to build sympathy for a guy who has, on average, run a very dirty campaign. Romney's biggest challenger is John McCain, who is such a strong challenger he might actually win. And MacKinnon probably doesn't want to offend the person who might be the next President. On the other hand he really wants to attack somebody on behalf of his chosen candidate, Mitt Romney. What's a coward to do?

Attack Mike Huckabee. That's right, there's no chance that Huckabee will be the candidate or the President (at least not this go around). So attacking him costs MacKinnon nothing, and gets the point across. So, in his latest article, that's what he does.

If so, you have until Tuesday evening to make your principled and patriotic voice heard. For after Tuesday, if Mike Huckabee succeeds in his self-serving quest to deny Mitt Romney the nomination, then it will be conservatives who will be placed at the back of the line…for years to come.

I love the language - "deny Mitt Romney the nomination." Is it his birthright? What the hell? Why is Romney owed the Republican nomination? Why isn't McCain? Bizarre.

But cowardly, as well.

I-Pod 10

1. Primitive Radio Gods - "Standing Outside a Broken Phone Booth with Money in My Hand"
2. Emmanual Spice - "Meat Ball"
3. Ennio Morricone - "Paranoia Prima"
4. B-52's - "Mesopotamia"
5. Blue States - "The Interceptors"
6. Ella Fitzgerald - "A Night in Tunisia"
7. The Cure - " The Empty World (Live)"
8. The Plimsouls - "Hypnotized"
9. Morrissey, "In the Future When All's Well"
10. The Chemical Brothers, "The Pills Won't Help You Now."

Dinesh D'Souza defends McCain

For those of you who don't recall Dinesh D'Souza, he'd like to see a dual war against both Islamic Terrorists and American Liberals. So he's a lot like a number of other Conservatives, if a bit less discreet in his views.

And he's a defender of John McCain in his latest article.

Now I realize many conservatives have serious reservations about McCain, and I share some of them. His campaign finance ideas are terrible and he seems to pander too much to the liberals. Even so I don’t understand the criticism that says McCain isn’t conservative. If Bush is a conservative, then McCain is a conservative. He’s very strong on defense, he’s fiscally conservative, and he’s pro-life. He may be too old and he may be too conciliatory. If there’s a problem with McCain it’s not that he’s a liberal in disguise.

I have to think that when it comes to ferreting out evil Liberals, D'Souza would be quite skilled. So maybe I will take him at his words.

Is Romney a Phoney?

According to Deroy Murdock, there's evidence that he is. In particular he has recently claimed that he wishes he could have been in the military, that he could have served in Vietnam. But in 1994 he said "I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam." Interesting. Murdock has some comments on this shift.

It is bad enough to reverse course 180 degrees on public-policy matters such as taxes, gay rights, guns, abortion, immigration, the minimum wage, Ronald Reagan’s legacy, or any of the other topics on which the old and new Romneys clobber each other. At least these are political issues on which, at best, new information and thinking can justify changed views or, at worst, electoral mathematics can explain abandoning one position for another.

But for Romney to somersault on something so personal — his own non-involvement in the Vietnam War — makes one wonder if Romney is any different from an exterior set on a Hollywood back lot: Clean and pretty in the front and all flat, plywood planks in the back.

Murdock does seem pretty correct in this analysis. I suspect what Romney really means, when he wishes he had served in Vietnam, is "I wish I could call on the Vietnam War as a positive the way my opponent, John McCain, can."

He shouldn't worry so much; he's the GOP Golden Boy. It's not like they have had any trouble trashing ex-soldiers in their pursuit of power.

The Other Side of John McCain

Obviously there are some people who like John McCain, and there are others who recognize that his nomination may not be stoppable at this point, and the party had better get used to the idea of supporting him. I'd say John Hawkins is in the latter camp - and his latest article is entitled, "Why You're Going To Vote For John McCain In November And Like It!" He admits that's a bit of hyperbole; most Republicans aren't going to like it. But he says, accurately, that McCain is a lot more conservative than Clinton or Obama.

Does that mean you should, "vote for John McCain in November and like it?" No, but it does mean, that if John McCain is the nominee, you should think very hard about holding your nose and voting for the viable candidate who would do the most good for our country.

Of course the Townhall Readers aren't taking this lying down.

am a conservative first and Republican second. If the Republican party is no longer the party of Conservatives but rather is a liberal party, I will leave it in a heart beat and so would Ronald Reagan.

McCain is a Liberal first and Republican second. He is much more of a threat to our Republic than either of the Democrats this election and I flat out refuse to vote for him. At the very least if we elect Obama then we can blame the Democrats for the next 4 years and not a pretend Republican.

That's a pretty common response from jcdean1978 (oh and the I is missing in the original).

Can Reagen overcome the notable handicap of being dead to leave the Republican Party?

It's interesting how many hurt feelings there seem to be on the Conservative Republicfan side of the fence, more then one noted that McCain "has a history of poking Conservative in the eye on issue after issue." to quote SMILE. But then any disagreement with the party line, no matter how mild, is a poke in the eye, I guess.

McCain Ennui

David Limbaugh, America's other Limbaugh, also doesn't like John McCain, which comes as no surprise. He notes that McCain has slighted conservatives again and again, and seems to take pleasure in doing so. He criticizes McCains positions on global warming, campaign finance reform, and tax cuts. And then he gets to foreign policy, the one area where Conservatives generally like McCain. But even here, McCain comes up short.

When it comes to the most important issue of all -- the war -- McCain is more hawkish and more conservative than anyone. But even that is not entirely true on closer inspection. He's been good mostly on Iraq -- from a conservative perspective -- but very disappointing on opposing tough, life-saving interrogation techniques, in wanting to close down Gitmo, and in favoring constitutional protections for enemy combatants. Only liberals think like that. Only liberal instincts tell us that if we are tough on them, they'll be tougher on us -- as if they need any excuse to be barbaric toward us. They just are.

Life saving interrogation techniques, eh? That's a short step to "life saving torture. " I really hope that Romney makes McCain's unwillingness to torture a major campaign issue leading up to the Super Tuesday Primaries.

McCain isn't a liberal by the way; he's just not as insane as the Limbaugh brothers would like him to be.

Are McCain's criticisms of Romney Fair?

I'm not a fan of Romney, but the line that McCain is attacking Romney over isn't that bad. Romney just said that presumably President Bush and the Iraqi Government have ideas about how they would like to pull out of Iraq. Romney wasn't talking about a public and open withdrawal, which in republican thought would lead to our enemies being emboldened. He's talking about private discussions with the Iraqi Government about how the United States really isn't going to stay in Iraq forever.

Apparently that's surrender, according to McCain. In this I agree with Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.

Is McCain suggesting that anyone, no matter how hawkish, who suggests a day will come when American troops will leave Iraq is on the wrong side? I think he's just written off the vast majority of the electorate. Plus, the way he's bullied Romney in several debates -- just before the New Hampshire primary was the worst -- has been simply cruel and small. I know a lot of people quail at the prospect of war hero McCain squaring off against either a woman, Hillary Clinton, or a younger black man who opposed the war from the start, Barack Obama. Personally, I think either one of them will do just fine, because the country is on their side on the war, and they're both more appealing and harder to rattle than the mighty McCain.

I think Ms. Walsh is right; I'm particularly eager to see Obama and McCain square off in a debate.

Are Hillary and McCain the Same? or Another Two Minute Hate by Rush Limbaugh

This is from Limbaugh's show yesterday.

I also don't buy the notion that Hillary is an automatic two-term president. You're making this really hard. I was asked this earlier today, Don, "Would you vote for McCain even if?" I'm not going to take action to see that our side loses. I don't advocate losing, period. I just don't know -- and this is bottom line -- I just don't know that my vote for McCain would matter, if you understand what I mean.

That's the spirit Rush. Why vote at all? Keep up the good work disheartening the Republican Base.

Answering Questions / Fox News

I didn't know about this story, or I would have blogged on it then, but about a month ago, when there were seemingly three times the candidates we have now, the Boston Globe asked all of the candidates questions on executive power and it's uses. They covered such subjects as signing statements, whether or not the President can be constrained by treaties or by acts of congress, and when should the President go to congress for approval of military actions. Well worth reading.

In other news, Fox New's big news is that they are old news. They are losing market share to CNN, presumably because of their decision to limit their appeal to Republicans / Conservatives.

Peace at last

According to NME, the long fued between Oasis and Blur is finally at an end. The feud, which hasn't been relevant in about a decade, is being settled by a cooperative cheese venture.

So now we know the power of Cheese to bring people together.

Apparently.

And that's English Cheese - who knows what American Cheese might be able to accomplish (besides blinding Homer Simpson).

McCain can win

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's latest article is based on a simple principle - Hillary Clinton must be defeated no matter the cost. Based on that principle, he says that McCain is a better bet.

It is only on the economy that McCain has a self-proclaimed (if inadvisably so) weakness. But Hillary would be overreaching dramatically if she claimed special expertise on this issue merely through the osmosis that she claims to be a feature of living in the White House. Her tax increase proposals, particularly her support for a higher capital gains tax, can be painted, accurately, as foreshadowing doom for the economy. Neither Hillary nor McCain can claim the economy as an especial preserve.

Can Romney? Inexplicably, the McCain campaign has not spoken of the layoffs that must have accompanied Romney’s efforts to “turn around” failing companies. Hedge funds are notorious for cutting jobs and the Clintons will make Mitt eat every single one. McCain has no such vulnerability and, hopefully, will make Romney’s layoffs an issue before Super Tuesday.

So McCain can win and Romney won’t. That’s the long and the short of it.

There it is. That said, I think the Conservative hatred for McCain is at least as great as their hatred of the Clintons. It's kind of a depressing thing to consider that this contest may turn on who the Conservatives hate less.

Well depressing for Conservatives, anyway.

Bush's Legacy

Jonah Goldberg's latest article is about President Bush and President Clinton. And it's not that positive an assessment of our 43rd President.

. . . that desire for change is also a product of ideological confusion on the left and the right. Clinton left office insisting that he'd restored liberalism in America, but in reality he bequeathed a confused mishmash of ill-formed ideas, slogans and hatreds. President Bush is winding down his presidency much the same way, talking about limited government, personal liberty and spending restraint, but he's left his party's troops scattered across the battlefield, with no overarching strategy and an awful lot of friendly fire.

Rush Limbaugh, for example, promises that if either John McCain or Mike Huckabee gets the nomination, it will "destroy the Republican Party." The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan replies that, "This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues."

I'm sympathetic to both positions. Limbaugh is right that Huckabee and McCain might lead the party further from its limited-government roots. Noonan is right that Bush let the horse out of the barn long ago. But both complaints overlook a simple fact: We were warned. Bush and Clinton promised to be different kinds of leaders. And they delivered.

He's not wrong on either point. Both Clinton and Bush, by aiming towards the middle, sort of, weakened their respective parties.

On the other hand, Goldberg does kind of look over Bush's biggest strength and biggest problem - he had nothing to govern over except the war on terror. And if the war on terror isn't the central theme of the election, Republicans are more antagonistic towards each other than supportive.

I-Pod 10

1. Billy Bragg - "The Man in the Iron Mask"
2. Bob Dylan - "Sally Gal (Outtake)"
3. Chapterhouse - "Pearl"
4. Pearl Jam - "Pilate"
5. Jefferson Airplane - "3/5 of a Mile in 10 Seconds"
6. The Cramps - "New Kind of Kick"
7. Simon and Garfunkle - "You Don't Know Where Your Interest Lies"
8. Severed Heads - "All Saints Day"
9. Billy Bragg - "Speedway Hero"
10. The Chemical Brothers, "The Big Jump"

The Decline?

Frank Gaffney Jr. laments the decline of the Democratic Party in terms that seem quite humorous to me. He comments on Terry Elkes, long time liberal who supported President Bush's many boneheaded and illegal acts. A Lieberman Liberal, more or less.

How far Terry Elkes’ party has disenfranchised voters like him who long were the backbone of its membership – social liberals but hard-headed internationalists in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Henry “Scoop” Jackson – is evident at the moment in the fight underway in Congress over electronic intelligence collection.

In the wake of the 9/11’s deadly acts of war, George W. Bush did what one would hope any President would do: He strove to prevent follow-on strikes and brought to bear every available instrument for that purpose.

Even if you grant that President Bush's motives were pure, it's hard for me to see how his actions have been effective. And Gaffney's subject, the illegal wiretapping, is a clear violation of the law.

On primary day, here in Florida, I'd like to comment that all of the Republican Candidates have committed themselves to the same kind of madness we've seen under President Bush. Some might be worse, others not quite as bad, but there's not one among them, save Ron Paul, who's willing to change course. McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney will be just as bad as President Bush and in some cases worse.

And say what you will about Clinton or Obama or Edwards, they will change course.

McCain

I am supporting John McCain for the Republican Nomination; doesn't get him anything of course. But I'd rather see him as their leader than Romney or Giuliani. I don't think McCain is quite as dangerous to freedom as Giuliani and Romney just annoys me.

I would rather have a true democratic socialist in the White House than a traitor to our conservative principles such as Juan McCain.

At least Hillary and Obama admit their liberal views, we know their the enemy, but Juan McCain and his amnesty agenda is too much for most core conservatives to handle.

McCain will lose because many of us will not vote for his anti American open border amnesty agenda. He's a RINO Joe!

Still the party faithful don't seem to cotton to McCain. His stance on issues like illegal immigration and the bush tax cuts have ensured that he is hated.

I'll NEVER vote for McCain. Anyone who claims he can beat Hillary OR Obama is dreaming.

Why would anyone who agrees with his Democrat positions vote for a RINO, when a real Democrat is on the ballot?

Why would anyone who dis-agrees with his Democrat positions vote for a RINO??

McCain is a RINO, and no one is going to vote for him in the general election.

Still the party, as a whole, has a pretty good chance of giving him the nomination. What does that say about the party? Well it says that the people who are most vocal in their support of conservatism aren't actually running the party.

Maybe this guy has the right idea

After the election, maybe it will be time to start a Conservative Party and let the Republican Party die with its remaining quasi nouveau libs. For the time being, we can put our money where our mouth is meaning don't give them any. I just want to know one thing. I want to see a list of McCain donors and endorsers. I want to know who sold us out for cheap labor so I don't vote for them or in the case of non-politicians, give them my business.

All quotes from the comments to an article by Donald Lambro that treats John McCain as a legitimate candidate, failing to excoriate him.

Is Romney a Conservative?

With Thompson dropping out of the race and Giuliani yet to make an appearance, it looks like Romney and McCain are duking it out, with Huckabee around the edges. To a lot of Conservatives Romney looks like the better option; he's seen as a real conservative compared to McCain.

Not so fast, says Debra J. Saunders in her latest article.

. . . don't tell me Romney is the true conservative in the race. His record reveals a solid conservative -- when it has been in his interest to be one.

. . . Romney had liberal/moderate Republican positions when running for Massachusetts office, then far-right positions when they could help him win the GOP nod for the White House. And somehow he feels no hesitation in framing himself as the true conservative. Yes, thinking people's positions evolve, but Romney's evolutions have been too fast and too convenient.

She's not wrong. But of course since the alternative is McCain, this isn't a popular position. Her comments aroused a range of responses, largely based on the theory that McCain sucks. Which doesn't really respond to these comments, unless you assume that attacking Romney means you support McCain.

Deb - Part Of The Liberal Leaning MSM
She joins in with most of the "Drive By Media" (as Rush coined the phrase) who are shilling/pandering for their liberal in chief hopeful McCain. I said it once yesterday and will say it again, I will vote for Obama before I vote for McCain. I am still struggling with whether I could vote for Shrillery over McCain, I might have to join the write in's or go the Bloomberg route maybe.

Even though there is not an ouce of difference between McShame and the dems, I would normally vote for the republican on principle, however I am sick to the gut of the Debra Saunders/MSM agenda forcing McStain down my conservative throat.

McShame and McStain? This guy has strong feelings.

Network Time Killer

Sorry been very busy and then on vacation so haven't updated in a little while, but I will be resuming our normal network programming soon. In the mean time, he's an I-Pod ten. The game is put your I-Pod on Shuffle and take the first 10 tracks. I never could do this before; but now I can. Enjoy.

1. Raven Maize "The Real Life (Fatboy Slim Mix)"
2. The Chemical Brothers "The Boxer"
3. Duran Duran, "All She Wants Is"
4. Ani DiFranco, "Back Back Back"
5. Ani DiFranco, "Wish I May"
6. Louis Armstrong, "What a Wonderful World"
7. Rain Parade, "You Are My Friend"
8. Sinead O'Conner, "Troy
9. Jasmon - "Hanina (Jasmon Mix)"
10. Aardvarks - "You're My Loving Way"

Weird to get two Ani DiFranco on one list, but what are you going to do. Jasmon is from Putumayo's Sahara Lounge, and it's pretty good.

Republicans and Democrats are idiots

According to Larry Elder's latest article, at any rate. He might be wrong. Come to think of it he does seem to be repeating a parody of what liberals believe rather than what they actually believe.

Republicans believe hard work wins, and government should allow you -- to the fullest extent possible -- to keep what you earn.

Democrats believe that success results from luck, chance and happenstance, and therefore a just government takes from those who have and gives to those who do not.

I believe that both luck and hard work can lead to success. Hard work can also lead to more hard work, and some people succeed through no merit of their own (see, for example, President Bush). You need a system that, as much as possible, rewards those who work hard and play by the rules; our current system does not do this as much as it should. A lot of hard working people don't even make enough to live on.

Republicans believe in peace through strength, and thus support strong national defense, and -- in this era of Islamofascism -- a proactive foreign policy.

Democrats believe in strength through peace, and believe they can better influence the behavior of enemies by demonstrating our good intentions.

I believe in a balanced approach; combining diplomacy and our military might. A "proactive" approach that emphasizes war to the exclusion of diplomacy is both wasteful and less effective than a balanced approach.

Republicans believe in a colorblind society determined by drive, work ethic and talent.

Democrats want a color-coordinated society. This explains the support for race and gender-based preferences to "correct" past sins and to create "diversity."

Elder's right here, Democrats do want blacks, hispanics and other minorities to have access to the same rights and opportunities that whats have. That said, I'm not sure about Republicans being committed to a color-blind society. One of the advantages to Obama winning the nomination (if it happens) would be seeing how Republicans treat him.

Huckabee and God and Government

This is a disturbing turn of events; Huckabee has apparently called on the constitution to be amended to accomodate "God's laws."

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

The obvious question is which God's Standards are we supposed to adhere to? I say obvious, because it's obvious to me. Possibly Mr. Huckabee has never considered those people who do not worship the same God as him.

Anyway the Carpetbagger report has a good response to this nonsense.

Once in a while, I hear liberals refer to the “Taliban wing of the Republican Party.” I should admit that I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the phrase, in part because I think it’s overused. The Taliban believes there should be no secular law — that all rules of government should be based on a specific religious worldview. Most Republicans reject that kind of thinking.

But that’s exactly what makes Huckabee’s remarks so startling. If the video clip is accurate, he was coming a little too close to a Taliban-like approach to the law. The Constitution, Huckabee seemed to be arguing, isn’t good enough the way it is; we need to fix it, by making it conform to “God’s standards.”

He's not wrong.

Huckabee and McCain and Romney

Well Mitt won big last night, sort of. Low turn out, but those who did turn out seemed to favor him over McCain and Huckabee. As Mike Madden at Salon points out, his ties to the state may have helped him, but it goes without saying that he doesn't have those ties everywhere.

I guess this is good news for the Republican Party, because, according to noted recounter Rush Limbaugh, the party nominating Huckabee or McCain would not be good for the party.

I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [McCain or Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party, it's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch.

So that's something to look forward to. We'll have to see what South Carolina says.

These people are not my kind

Lots of twats in funny hats,
With Karl Marx printed on their shirts.
Will tell you,
Revolution is just a state of mind.
Oh this is Saturday night
In the West End alright,
And these people are not my kind.

You can cut the rug with this weeks drug
Make 'em all queue up to lick your arse
Wear a T-Shirt that says
"Young, free and single",
Or a big badge that says
"I'm here, punk working class".
The place is full of earholes,
Who hang on every word
That they speak.
Who believe what they write
About themselves,
Week after week after week after week
I don't know how they get away with it,
They should be ashamed.

Billy Bragg, "Talking Wag Club Blues"

I'm in a mood.

What unites Republicans? Disdain for Republican Candidates

John Hawkins writes today to take a piss at another Republican Presidential Candidate; this time John McCain is the lucky dog. Apparently nominating him would be a disaster for the Republican Party.

I don't believe in protest votes and besides, the presidency is bigger than any one issue. Still, when you set up a situation where people on your own side are perversely incentivized to sabotage the candidacy of your party's President over the biggest domestic issue of last year, you're not just asking for trouble, you're begging for it.

What kind of trouble? Millions and millions of Republicans staying home, conservatives putting equal priority on fighting the Democrats and fighting against the ideas of their own candidate for the presidency, a third party effort, fund raising for Republican candidates dropping even lower than the anemic level it's already at and perhaps losing an extra 2-3 Senate seats and another 5-10 House seats -- or perhaps not.

What's interesting about the tone of this article is how it seems like the Republican Party controls the nomination, not the people. What are primaries for? I mean if a bunch of Republicans show up and vote for McCain as their nominee, doesn't that imply they are also willing to vote for him for President? I get that some Democrats may move over and vote for a loser, but I don't think they are statistically significant.

Frankly, given the articles I've been reading, it's unlikely the Conservative Base is going to be happy whatever happens.

Knives Out / New Opportunities / Redefinition

Yeah I had a hard time coming up with a name for this post; it's about Huckabee.

Specifically it's about Star Parker writing about Huckabee and what her party and the conservative movement is doing to him.

But from a gamut of well-known conservative and Republican personalities, no one is being excoriated like Huckabee.

There may be dissatisfaction with the other candidates, but Huckabee is the only one publicly being charged with John Edwards-like populism, anti-capitalism, of not being a conservative and, from some, being outright called a liberal.

I even heard one talk show journalist say the other day that there are Republicans that have their "knives" out for Huckabee.

Parker asks, quite reasonably, why so much hatred for a Republican. Well part of it is that his campaign seems to have picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh, and if there's one thing Limbaugh believes in, it's Limbaugh. So that didn't help.

But the other half of the equation is that there are two sides to the Republican Party - there's the side that's business led, provides the finances and most of the conservative spokespeople. And then there's the side that's more religious, more into preserving an American culture. While these two sides agree on a lot, they also disagree, particularly when it comes to the weight you give each particular issue.

What is more important, keeping taxes low or securing our borders? Protecting marriage or ending regulation of businesses? Well the business side might have one answer, the religious side another.

For a long time the dominant strain of American Republicanism has been the business side, with the religious conservatives as secondary players. Huckabee could change that; the party has made it clear that they don't like him. The conservative leaders have made it clear that they don't like him. If the religious right elects Huckabee over their protests (not an easy task I admit) than it could lead to a realignment in the party.

Star Parker makes it plain that she thinks her party should recognize this and get out in front of it.

Inside-the-beltway Republicans have also lost touch with the increasing seriousness with which grass roots conservatives relate to the traditional values agenda. More and more folks are feeling personally assaulted by the meaninglessness that is gripping our culture and do not see our moral health as separate and apart from our economic health.

Rather than attacking Huckabee, folks would be better served to take a more careful and less dismissive look at why he's garnering such broad support.

She might be right; this might be looked at as a mistake down the road. Or it could be a glitch that is papered over if Huckabee gets the nomination. What seems clear is that if Huckabee does get the nomination over Limbaugh and other's criticisms, the party is going to have to change.

It goes without saying that Star Parker, as an early adopter, will be well set to take advantage of this shift.

Friday Beats - Cut Copy - Fabriclive 29

So let's do the Fabric and Fabriclive series. These are Mix CDs by a variety of DJs attached to the Fabric nightclub in London (I believe). I own ten of them. Of the Fabric series, I own the discs done by John Digweed, Ralph Lawson, Tiefswarz, and Baby Mammoth, Biege, and Solid Doctor, and on the Fabriclive side I own discs by The Freestylers, Diplo, The Herbalizer, Cut Copy, Stanton Warrios, Krafty Kuts, and James Murphy and Pat Mahoney. They are all quality mixes (with one exception), and I enjoy them all (with degrees of enjoyment).

The one I don't like is Stanton Warriors contribution to the collection; I'm just not on that wavelength, and I thought the tracks all kind of blended together.

The Ralph Lawson, Tiefswarz and John Digweed contributions are all solid mixes - they sound very trance to me, but they aren't (musical classification is not my strongest suit). They do have that sort of soaring and cold feel to them, though. Enjoyable as background music mostly.

Diplo is the one I bought most recently, and it has some great stuff on it; it's a very populist mix, although some of the liberties taken with the tracks might annoy people. I enjoy it mostly though.

The Freestylers remix is like big beat dub. It gets my head bobbing along pretty quickly; and it's just kind of fun. That said, it has a template and it sticks to it pretty solidly. There are some standout tracks, but a lot of it sounds the same.

Baby Mammoth, Biege, and Solid Doctor provide a nu jazz effort to me, kind of house and kind of jazz. A lot of fun; it tends to flow beautifully in the background, imposing itself out every so often.

James Murphy and Pat Mahoney is a recent addition to my collection, and I'm not completely on it's wavelength yet. It's a disco mix, and a very good disco mix. But if you aren't in the mood for some old school disco, this mix might not come through as great as you would like.

The Herbalizer's contribution is hip-hop, and it's very good at that. Several of these mixes go into a genre and just explore it, and the Herbalizer is a good guide for this style of music. And it contains Apathy's "It Takes a Seven Nation Army to Hold Us Back" which is great.

Kraft Kuts almost got top billing; it starts amazingly. The first 7 or so track really get me moving; it's a big beat mix and just sounds excellent. Unfortunately it flags a little in the middle before wrapping up with an amazing ending. I particularly like the mash up of Freestylers In Love With You with Dynamite MC's There they Go.

Cut Copy gets the number one slot because this mix holds it's own all the way though. It's an electro mix, focusing on dance beats paired with guitars; it works very well, and the inclusion of lyrics holds my attention more so than strictly musical works. Standout tracks include Severed Heads "Dead Eyes Open" and New Young Pony Club's "Get Lucky." This video is weird but the song is awesome so I'm including it.



Anyway Fabric has a website, naturally. Most record stores with o.k. electronica sections will have some of their mixes - I should note they come in really cool metal cases that are dangerous to open while driving.

Quote of the Nanosecond

Jonah Goldberg, being asked about his great new book "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning," said the following to Alex Koppelman at Salon.

I'm not trying to do any argument ad Hitlerum in this book.

How dumb does Goldberg think the American people are? Hopefully dumb enough.

Snap Judgements

Ben Shapiro's latest article is surprising even handed and insightful. In it, he discusses how we size up potential presidents.

. . . we judge our politicians by looking at their hair, their height, their age, their sense of humor, their rustic or urban feel. We judge them based on their vibe, their attitude. That first glance means everything -- and it always has.

. . . Politicians must find a winning image that fits them; they must find a winning image that is authentic. Voters can spot inauthenticity a mile away. Mike Huckabee seems authentic, comfortable in his wryly humorous backcountry skin. Mitt Romney seems slick and businesslike, which is probably why Republican voters -- even those who share his political convictions -- are less than enthusiastic about his candidacy.

Barack Obama's early success is based entirely on his image. Obama radiates authenticity -- he speaks about change and hope with the zeal of the newly converted. He's tall, young and black -- a fresh face -- and that image merges well with his high-flown rhetoric about the dawn of a new day.

I think there is a grain of truth in this. Certainly his pay off, that Hillary Clinton needs to change her image to win the presidency may be accurate. She is portrayed as cold and calculating, and she needs the American people to see her in a different light than that.

On the other hand Shapiro isn't exactly helping her here, since the underlying theme is that Clinton needs to changer her image - and what could be more cold and calculating than pretending to be more human to win a nomination/election?

Can McCain Take it?

I don't think McCain is that much of a threat - for one thing we haven't seen Giuliani step up to the plate yet, and Romney certainly isn't out yet either. But after New Hampshire he has gone from being the guy that I wondered why he was sticking it out to being a guy that I think can take it. So that's certainly a move in the right direction, from his perspective.

Today Ken Blackwell has an article on how McCain can take his recent success and translate it to a national victory. In a word, he has to court his base and not forget about them.

Mr. McCain’s advisors cannot make the mistake again of taking the base for granted, casting the senator as the inevitable candidate, telling conservative leaders to get onboard while ignoring the deeply-felt priorities of the party faithful. Some took the base for granted, and then when Iraq fatigue set in it was almost enough to finish him.

That’s because there are several factions of the Republican base that have had terrible relations with the senator. He may be able to win early primaries without them, but if he secures the nomination, he simply must become a candidate they can support to energize them, get them contributing and working, and turning out in big numbers. In other words, he might pull off primaries in a divided field without these things, but he needs them for the general election.

His suggestion? He needs to talk about judicial appointments early and often. Making it clear that he wants to put true conservatives on the bench will sooth their feelings towards him, apparently.

I don't know if that will be enough, given McCains past history of antagonizing the base, particularly on issues like illegal immigration and campaign finance reform. And also given the years of antagonism with the Limbaugh Cohort.

Catch 22

Here's a political Catch 22. The Democratic Party has two main contenders for the nomination, Obama and Clinton. I'm an Edwards supporter and I hope he does well in the south, but for right now Obama and Clinton are the big two.

At the Iowa Caucus last week, Obama did very well. But that's not good news for Democrats, because Obama is all about emotions and feelings and not about real practical solutions. This is the point to Kathleen Parkers recent article on him.

Destined for the historical audio files, Obama's speech was grandiose prose and inspiring rhetoric. But what does it mean? It means nothing, but it sounded so good, who wants to cause trouble? We're feelin' good for the first time in a while and that's what matters.

Obama isn't just the inevitable dream candidate. He is the self-object of Oprah Nation, love child of the therapeutic generation. What he brings to the table no one quite knows. But what he delivers to the couch is human Prozac.

He may or may not be the right man to fill the Oval Office, but Americans will feel too good to notice.

So if we vote for Obama we are touchy feely dopes voting for style over substance.

Of course we could vote for Clinton, and yesterday New Hampshire did. But wait - they've got us there. Look at the key words that describe Clinton on the right (and in the mainstream media) - she's cold, she's calculating. She had an emotional moment on Monday, and reporters were heard to speculate on how long she spent practicing (from Glenn Greenwald). And if we vote for her, we are the same, I predict. Selecting cold, calculating Clinton in a cold, calculating assessment of who will win. Choosing electability over heart, practicality over principals. Or so I predict the stories will go (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am).

Bear in mind that this catch 22 is largely fictitious. There's not that much difference on the issues between Obama and Clinton. And many people genuinely support Clinton with both their heads and their hearts. But there it is, if we select Obama (or I suspect, Edwards) we are head in the clouds dolts, following our hearts right over a cliff. If we select Clinton we are grasping opportunists, casting aside our hearts to win at all costs.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Well that's it for Ron Paul

Turn's out he's a neo-confederate. For those who don't know, the Neo Confederates are people who believe the wrong side won in the civil war. This by way of an article by James Kirchick at the New Republic. It reviews articles technically put out under Ron Paul's name, but this bit near the top, discussing a think tank Paul is associated with, really jumped out at me.

The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). . . .

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states.

Sorry Ron Paul, but denigrating Lincoln and praising the Confederacy ensure that I can't support you or even give you the benefit of the doubt.

Obama can Cure us of Our Funk

Apparently.

This from Gary Kamiya writing at Salon.

Yet as anyone who spends too much time reading political blogs knows, anger can itself become a toxin, self-perpetuating and self-destructive. It must be expressed -- but then it must be overcome. To fall into a state of permanent anger, of righteous indignation, is to become the very enemy you are fighting. This is the error that George W. Bush made when he launched his Manichean "war on terror," and turned America into a country far more like its fundamentalist enemies than it had ever been before.

Barack Obama's unique appeal is that he allows voters -- Democrats, independents and fed-up Republicans alike -- to simultaneously express their anger and transcend it. As a political outsider, as a black man, as someone who was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning, Obama is the antithesis of both Bushism and the mainstream Bush-lite Democratic stance on Iraq. Yet Obama's entire message is one of reconciliation and unity, the belief that even the most implacable foes can come together.

I think he might be selling Obama a little too highly. For one thing, Edwards critique of the Bush Administration has been more comprehensive than Obama's, even if Edwards did vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

I'm also not sure how willing the left wing, including myself, is willing to put aside their anger toward the right. Those guys have screwed up the country pretty damn good, while calling us un-American and treasonous at the same time. It'd be nice to believe in a country where the right wing and the left wing can have passionate disagreements without hating each other, but that seems more and more like a fairy tale.

And if it is to be war with the Right Wing, I'd rather win.

The Faith of Conservatism

For those who don't know, Jonah Goldberg has written a book called Liberal Fascism, about how Liberals are, more or less, fascists. In Townhall today, Rich Lowry reviews it and, unsurprisingly, thinks it's great. Basically all the fascists of the 1930s-1940s were liberals, and todays liberals are fascists as well.

This is pretty shallow analysis. It works if you take small features of both Hitlers and Mussolini's reign and ignore the larger points. Both Hitler and Mussolini were deliberately trying to recreate the past glories of their respective countries. That's conservative; going backwards. Modern Conservatives have the same idea; they constantly rhapsodize about the good old days.

And Lowry and Goldberg really go off the rails when they try to paint Roosevelt as a Fascist.

The crisis of the Great Depression was the occasion for reviving "war socialism." The man who ran the National Recovery Administration was an open admirer of Mussolini, and the alphabet soup of New Deal agencies had their roots in World War I and the classic fascist impulse to mobilize society and put it on a war footing.

This is flat nonsense. First of all, let no one forget that Roosevelt fought and pursued a war against Mussolini. He was one of the first in Government to recognize the threat fascism posed to America and the World. It was the Republicans who wanted to coexist with the Nazis. People like Prescott Bush were much more open in their admiration of Fascism than President Roosevelt.

So where does this impulse come from? It comes from ideology and faith. The continuum of politics has placed Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and their crimes on the left, while placing Hitler and Mussolini and Pinochet on the right. You can determine in your own minds what that means, but it's been clear that for some Conservatives this is intolerable. They are more comfortable believing that all historical evils are the fault of the Left, while the Right is historically blameless.

It's a pretty childish way of looking at the world, really.

Book Review

Over at Pop Matters some poor soul (Barry Lenser) has read Ann Coulters latest work, and written a review of it. Since he agrees with my analysis of Ann Coulter, namely that she's mostly in favor of making money for herself, I agree with him.

That said, he does make some comments on the thin line between humor and analysis that she gleefully dances over and back.

Is she a jokester or a serious observer of politics? Perhaps a satirist? When, if ever, should her words be accepted at face value? In her newest book’s chapter on the manipulation of language, Coulter admonishes that “you’d have to be either retarded or work for the Soviet thought police not to understand that much of what I say is a joke”. Despite the patina of self-definition here, she’s still hedging on the issue. “Much” is hopelessly vague, and probably with good reason. At her convenience, Coulter can simply deploy the defense that “It was just a joke” while the joke in question still gets its essential message across.

Not that the proudly shameless Coulter minds the umbrage. But her apologists often end up in a problematic spot: how to defend words and a personality so erratic and undefined.

It's an interesting conundrum. I don't know too many Coulter defenders, but those who I see are usually defending her in the most generic terms.

Conservatives aren't Conservative enough.

Apparently.

This according to the king of all Conservatives, Rush Limbaugh.

. . . just looking at things after Iowa, it looks to me like many in the Republican Party, despite all their yearning for conservatives in Washington, are rejecting conservatism. I say that with all seriousness. It may change once we get out of these more liberal states, but with Huckabee and McCain leading in New Hampshire -- look, they're fine guys. I don't want what I'm saying here to be interpreted as criticism. These are just observations. But with Huckabee and McCain leading in New Hampshire, they're not consistent principled conservatives.

So that's good news I guess.

I will note that since the party is fine with Romney or Giuliani, two guys who's conservative credentials are also somewhat suspect, they are a bit hoist on their own petard. They've been saying that Giuliani's past actions that weren't so conservative were no big deal; but the same doesn't apply to Huckabee. Apparently.

Iowa

Star Parker has some interesting commentary on the two front runners in Iowa. She notes that neither one is the party favorite (although the Democratic party elite are pretty ok with Obama, in fact). Then she notes that Obama would destroy society.

Obama not only obliterates the lines on race, but he also obliterates the lines on everything else. The end of the racial line is a great achievement. But the other points of demarcation we do need.

I am talking about the lines that define right and wrong in the sense of our religious traditions. The lines that define family and establish the standard by which we measure its health and breakdown. The lines that we have used in the past to instruct our children about how to manage and direct their sexual impulses.

Obama is apparently more powerful than I thought he was. He can obliterate the difference between right and wrong? That's pretty damn powerful.

Parker is pro-Huckabee - she didn't get the memo apparently. But she seems to be of the opinion that since he is a strong Christian he will, apparently, preserve the line between right and wrong.

The Limbaugh Brothers

They seem to be united in their disdain for Mike Huckabee.

That's why it troubles me when the ostensibly conservative Mike Huckabee tells Jay Leno he wants us to abandon "horizontal politics. Everything in this country is not left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. I think the country is looking for somebody who is vertical, who is thinking, 'Let's take America up and not down.'"

It's perfectly fine for Mike Huckabee to make such pronouncements. I just hope conservatives understand that what takes America "up" are conservative principles -- and that it will always be necessary to fight for those principles against those who don't fully understand them or who are committed to their defeat.

David Limbaugh, "Rededication to Conservative Principles"

. . . I don't want to hear from any of you Huckabee people who tell me he's Ronald Reagan. When he first says Obama is the guy closest to him on the Democrat side, and then he eschews all of this left-right, conservative, liberal, Democrat-Republican, let's take the country up instead of taking it left or right. See, that's the thing, folks. You take the country up by taking it right. It's been established. So what we have here is an excellent example of populism and appealing to the center, the great unwashed, the moderates, the independents. This is not conservatism.

Rush Limbaugh, on yesterday's radio program.

I guess that if you get both the Limbaugh brothers mad at you, you must be doing something right. Pity the many many things Huckabee is doing wrong overshadow that.

Huckabee's Tumble

Let's face it - Presidential hopeful Huckabee is not the favorite of the Republican Party Elite - they kind of hate him. And so I'm not inclined to be as negative towards him; although I disagree with him on a lot of his policies and programs. Nearly all of them.

But his stunt with the anti-Romney video? What was Huckabee thinking? Douglas McKinnon, Conservative Commentator, shares my disdain.

But wait. As Huckabee got to the podium to announce the ad campaign, he had a Machiavellian change of heart. “No,” he decided basically on the spot. The ad would not run. “Enough was enough.”

Clearly, the “enough was enough” uttered by Huckabee really meant enough of spending his dwindling campaign resources to do his own dirty work. Like Vladimir Lenin in the past, it was Huckabee’s intent to rely on “useful idiots” in the media to flood the nation with his disingenuous and insulting message. Unfortunately for Huckabee, the fifty or so national and local reporters gathered for his news conference, literally laughed in his face at his desperate and transparent attempt to use them.

Worse than witnessing what the Associated Press deemed a “bizarre news conference,” many in the media began to speculate as to how little respect Huckabee had for the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Does he think so little of them that he does not believe they are intelligent enough to figure out that he is gleefully perfecting the art of slander while consistently denying the same to their face?

He's not wrong. Huckabee's little dance is unlikely to fool anybody. Poor bastard.

Rush Limbaugh thinks this tactic might work, though.

And knowing, ladies and gentlemen -- this is what the Drive-Bys forget -- knowing that there is an intense distrust of the media everywhere, I don't care, Republicans, Democrats, average Americans have a distrust for the media, it's quite possible that people will see Huckabee's press conference as an attempt to be honorable, that the Drive-Bys have now sabotaged him, and they could easily conclude, "Look, he didn't air the ad, you guys did." I mean the people that are looking at Huckabee in a supportive way are not analyzing Huckabee, this is what you have to understand.

I don't buy it myself; I think Rush might be projecting a bit.

I like this sort of talk

Matt Towery's latest article is very heartwarming (for liberals). He comments on how Republicans have apparently failed to do what they were supposed to do.

I could name you plenty of members of Congress who promised limit terms. Most are either still there, were defeated, or just couldn't avoid the lure of making big money, by lobbying and such, while their colleagues were still in power.

As far as reducing government, what a joke! The GOP has helped create endless additional laws and spent wild amounts of money in the same manner as the Democrats we used to criticize.

And as for the so-called "neocons," thanks a lot. Having to listen to these mean-spirited, myopic D.C.-based know-it-alls is insufferable. The biggest joke is that they talk about issues no one cares about while the rest of the country is focused on reality. It took these insulated prigs months and months to figure out that there was a housing crisis. That's because in D.C. the local economy thrives -- because of its proximity to power and wealth.

Republicans have a lousy cast of leading candidates this year. It's just that simple. Not that the Democrats are anything to brag about, but that's their problem. Just think: These candidates have spent half their time talking about an immigration issue in a state, Iowa, where there is no immigration problem.

Right on. All the Republicans do kind of suck.

Unintended Consequences

What would happen if the Music Industry successfully lobbied to end ripping of CDs. Hard to say, but I can say how it would impact me personally.

I don't usually buy digital music; maybe 3 dozen songs over the last few years; largely stuff where I only wanted one song on an album or where the album was difficult to obtain. I prefer to have a physical CD with liner notes and all. So currently I go to Best Buy/Borders/Vinyl Fever and buy my CD and then rip it.

But if ripping is illegal, well at that point I am required to buy two copies if I want to have it on my computer and I want a physical CD. And that will seem like a waste. So I will stop buying physical copies, and simply buy my music from I-Tunes or Rhapsody. Kind of a pain, and I'll miss having the liner notes. But better than shelling out money for both a physical CD and a digital copy.

While we are on the subject, I'd also like to say something to Jennifer Pariser and others of her ilk who want to take a moralistic tone on this issue. I understand your desire to stop people from stealing your music; but attacking the right to rip a CD is going too far. At that point, you are the thief. You are stealing my ability to use a CD I purchased as I want to. And as I have been able to use it for like a decade now? You are stealing my right to rip a CD. You might get away with it, but you can stop looking down your nose at the people you are stealing from.

More News on the RIAA lawsuit

Apparently the core of the case against Howell is plain old-fashioned downloading of music; the additional suggestion that downloading or ripping music for personal use is an add on, not the core of the case. This from Endadget.

While there's a pretty good argument for the legality of ripping under the market factor of fair use, it's never actually been ruled as such by a judge -- so paradoxically, the RIAA might be shooting itself in the foot here, because a judge wouldn't ever rule on it unless they argue that it's illegal. Looks like someone may end up being too clever for their own good, eh?

That's a positive way of looking at it.

My I-pod now has 1696 songs on it. All ripped from CDs I purchased.

There is this troubling quote from a member of Sony BMG's litigation team, as recorded by Digital Trends.

Earlier this year, Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 in damages for songs she shared online; in that case, the head of Sony BMG's litigation team Jennifer Pariser testified she believed transferring your own CDs to a computer constituted theft. According to Pariser, transferring a song to a computer for personal use is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy.'"

So it's nice to know where the record companies heads are at.

Mike Huckabee and Ann Coulter

I will note that one of our readers likes Mike Huckabee; at least compared to other Republicans Running. After reading this article, I'm inclined to look at him a little more positively myself.

He [Huckabee] responded to my column last week -- pointing out that he is on record supporting the Supreme Court's sodomy-is-a-constitutional-right decision -- by saying that he was relying on the word of a caller to his radio show and didn't know the details of the case. Ironically, that's how most people feel about sodomy: They support it until they hear the details.

I find this story interesting. And somewhat reprehensible on both sides of the fence. Ann Coulter is reprehensible for wanting to criminalize Sodomy and Homosexuality. And Huckabee is reprehensible for not standing up to her; but basically saying he didn't understand. So apparently he agrees with Ann that homosexuality should be a crime?

On second thought; the fact that Ann Coulter is attacking him makes me think he must be ok; but the fact that he basically bends over and agrees with her attacks makes me think he's a punk.