Wednesday, October 19, 2005

What liberal bias at AP?

[C]heck out this hard-hitting editorial on the Plame kerfuffle:
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's CIA-leak inquiry is focusing attention on what long has been a tactic of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration: slash-and-burn assaults on its critics, particularly those opposed to the president's Iraq war policies.

If top officials are indicted, it could seriously erode the administration's credibility and prove yet another embarrassment to Bush on the larger issue of how he and his national security team marshaled information--much of it later shown to be inaccurate--to support their case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Oh wait, that isn't an editorial; it's an Associated Press "news" story. Hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005


Ed Koch expounds on Bush, the war, the Democrats and the New York Times. Good stuff. At least until the end--I'm not excited about his ultimate proposal

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

No joy in Mudville


Monday, October 10, 2005

Blogger poll on Harriet Miers

79 right-of-center bloggers responded to a poll about Harriet Miers. For those keeping track at home, here are the results:
1) Do you think George Bush made:
A) A good or excellent decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (9% --7)
B) A bad or terrible decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (49% -- 39 responses)
C) A so-so decision? (20% -- 16)
D) I'm not sure yet. (22% -- 17)
2) Has the decision to select Harriet Miers:
A) Made you view George Bush more favorably? (4% -- 3)
B) Made you view George Bush less favorably? (53% -- 42)
C) Neither? (33% -- 26)
D) I'm not sure yet. (10% - 8)
3) Would you prefer that George Bush:
A) Continue to support Harriet Miers? (41% -- 32)
B) Withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (25% -- 20)
4) If the Harriet Miers nomination is not withdrawn by President Bush, then at her confirmation hearings, would you prefer that Republican Senators:
A) Vote to confirm Harriet Miers? (33% -- 26)
B) Vote against Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (33% -- 26)

We love her, we love her not

Skim this list of arguments for and against Harriet Miers (mostly from right-leaning sources) and you'll be able to handle yourself on the topic at any cocktail party.

(Via Jonah Goldberg.)

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Attention Yankee fans

I just discovered free month-by-month video highlights of the 2004 and 2005 Yankees here. Check out the July 1, 2004 Boston-New York game for some memories.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Mary Mapes and irony

Mary Mapes, the producer at CBS News who was fired over her role in the Dan Rather/Memogate affair, has written a book.

An excerpt:
There was no analysis of what the documents actually said, no work done to look at the content, no comparison with the official record, no phone calls made to check the facts of the story...
Rand Simberg comments,
Well, she's finally admitting it.

Oh, wait! She's talking about the bloggers! My irony meter just shattered the glass, and bent its needle into a pretzel.

(Via Hofer.)

Rudy Giuliani for president?

As momentum starts to build for Rudy Giuliani for president, I have reservations.

They are not the reservations I've heard elsewhere. The major Republican criticism of Giuliani is his liberal leaning on social issues. That doesn't bother me. (Sure he's a pro-choice Republican. I'm largely on board with his views. I'm part of an odd breed of pro-choice people who think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision.)

And I concur in much of the praise people have sent Giuliani's way: strong leadership, inspirational crisis management after 9/11 (Yes, lived in Manhattan at the time), willingness to take risks, talk straight and stand up to his opponents.

My problems with Giuliani are two-fold:
  • First (and probably less important), in his days as a prosecutor, I found Giuliani to be too aggressive and "innovative" in using laws to prosecute targets that those laws were never intended to touch. He should not have used RICO, a law intended for organized crime, to go after financial companies wholly unrelated to the mob.

  • Second, I found Giuliani the mayor to be lacking key public relations/empathy skills as a politician, particularly pre-9/11 . This was largely forgotten after 9/11.

    For example, Giuliani did an outstanding job of overseeing an improved approach to policing which led to lower crime and higher quality of life for New Yorkers. But in the midst of this, there were two high profile, horrific screw-ups by the NYPD. One involved the ghastly abuse of a suspect, the other the killing of an unarmed man. And the media, as the media are wont to do, focused on these incidents relentlessly.

    And Giuliani handled it terribly. If, just for a press conference or two, he had put on a Clintonian show of biting his lip and feeling the pain of those who suffered, it would have done wonders for his image. Instead, he insisted that these incidents were being dealt with by the appropriate channels, and that the police force overall were doing a stellar job. True enough, but not the only message to convey, particularly to a somewhat hostile media eager to tar a Republican administration with charges of racism and insensitivity.

    Given how much more hostile the national media would be to Giuliani the Republican presidential nominee, or Giuliani the Republican president, this lack of an empathetic PR capability may be enough to keep the man out of office.
I recognize that the latter critique is one of form over substance. But an effective president, and especially an effective presidential candidate, must be a master of both.

Nobel Peace Prize quote of the day

From "Totally ineffectual international bureaucracy lauded for good intentions," by Jeff Harrell:
When did the Nobel Prize become an A-for-effort, everyone’s-a-winner mockery of itself? Oh, right. Arafat.
Much more on the the topic from Meryl Yourish.

(First link via Darleen's Place.)

Friday, October 07, 2005

Bad analogy, Mr. Krauthammer, in a year in which the Yankees' bench is not particularly deep

Charles Krauthammer:
There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others on a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous.

Thursday, October 06, 2005


For those who doubt President Bush has a comprehensive strategy in the War on Islamist Terror, read the remarks he delivered today at the National Endowment for Democracy. I've reprinted a few snippets here, but it's worthwhile to read it all:


Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.


We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy. Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond. Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence.

  • First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur....
  • Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation....
  • Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of
    outlaw regimes....
  • Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which
    they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror....
  • The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the
    militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it....

Conservative cartoons

Scroll all the way to the bottom of this blog for the latest versions of Day by Day and Gaggle, the best in conservative comic strips, updated daily.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Notre Dame and the pass to the right

[Update: Watch the video here. And just try to keep a dry eye.]

My alma mater has generally not had a big-time football team in recent decades, and as such I'm not much of a college football fan. But I think I'll be rooting for Notre Dame this year.

Craig Newmark tells the story:
Before last Saturday's game against Washington, Notre Dame football coach Charlie Weis visited a ten-year-old boy dying from inoperable brain cancer. Weis asked the boy if he could do anything for him. The boy said he wanted Notre Dame's first play from scrimmage to be a "pass to the right".

The boy passed away Friday.

On Saturday Notre Dame kicked off to Washington, Washington drove to the Notre Dame 1-yard line, and fumbled. Notre Dame recovered. Notre Dame, first and ten, from its own 1.

Now some very generous talk with a dying boy is one thing. But the boy is gone. And this is NCAA Division One football. Real life, not Hollywood, in one of the most pressure-packed jobs in America. What did Charlie Weis do?

He kept his promise. Charlie Weis called a pass to the right and it went for thirteen yards.