More Change You Can Believe In: Obama Capitulates To The Russians

Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton to Rich Lowry:

"This is just pre-emptive capitulation, although like everything else, the rhetoric is that we're doing the opposite." It doesn't make sense that we should only be concerned with the short-and-medium-range threat and not also with "the long-range threat 2 or 3 years from now." And our intelligence on Iran is manifestly "inadequate." I wouldn't "bet a lot of money on it being right," and in any case, "there's this concept called 'break-out,'" where they achieve a quantum leap in their capability. It's a "bet against the future" that leaves "us and the Europeans in a more risky situation." All the talk of the intelligence changing and an enhanced short-and-medium-range capability is "blue smoke and mirrors" because they never believed in missile defense. "It's a convenient smoke-screen to do what they wanted to do anyway, which is to give up on missile defense in the hope the Russians will be nice to us." Secretary Gates’s comments were the "most disingenuous." Yes, we want a defense against the short-and-medium-range threat, but the whole idea of missile defense is based on a "layered defense." "Gates was a problem in the Bush administration on missile defense. He was always weak on this."

My man Mitt Romney is very sharp on this issue as well:

* The administration believes that by giving such a gesture of goodwill to the Russians, they will be more willing to give in to our request that they join in sanctions against Iran. Here, the president’s lack of negotiation experience may have come in to play. Yes, sometimes in a negotiation you give up something that is important to you, but you do that only when the other party has agreed to give you something you want even more. You don’t give before you get. But here it’s even worse than that: The president has taught Putin that when he blusters and threatens, America caves.

* The administration is also teaching our friends some very unfortunate lessons; the Eastern Europeans who have stood so valiantly with America and who took political heat for backing the missile-defense system have simply been brushed aside. They have to wonder why America is treating its foes better than it is treating its friends. It’s a question that also is surely being asked in Israel and Honduras.

* The administration’s discounting of Iran’s nuclear progress tells Israel that if it is to stop what its own intelligence may believe is an imminent threat, it may have to act alone — and precipitously.

Then, from Drudge, Analysis: Demise of U.S. shield may embolden Russia hawks and Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Acorn: Waaaaaaaay Better Than President Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives"

You know, if you like drugs, prostitution, sex trafficking & whatnot.

Oh, and fraud. I almost forgot about fraud. If you like fraud, you're gonna love Acorn.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Ah, Progressives: Albert Jay Nock On The Cool Kids With Their New & Nifty Ideas For Saving The Planet etc.

Because they really believe in the novelty of their ideas and that they, in all their fervor, are the change they've been waiting for.

“I have been thinking,” Nock wrote in 1932, “of how old some of our brand-new economic nostrums really are. Price-regulation by State authority (through State purchase, like our Farm Board) was tried in China about 350 b.c. It did not work. It was tried again, with State distribution, in the first century a.d., and it did not work. Private trading was suppressed in the second century b.c., and regional planning was tried a little later. They did not work; the costs were too high. In the eleventh century a.d., a plan like the R.F.C. [Reconstruction Finance Corporation] was tried, but again cost too much. State monopolies are very old; there were two in China in the seventh century b.c. I suppose there is not a single item on the modern politician’s agenda that was not tried and found wanting ages ago.” Among virtually all of the political writers of the Left and the Right in the 1920s and 1930s, Nock shines brightest for seeing from the outset that the differences between the various collectivist schemes then circulating amounted to differences in branding. “Communism, the New Deal, Fascism, Nazism,” he wrote in his Memoirs, “are merely so-many trade-names for collectivist Statism, like the trade-names for tooth-pastes which are all exactly alike except for the flavouring.”

Is there a problem in the world? It follows that there is a progressive government "plan" to solve it--a plan that will centralize & ascribe control to your social, intellectual, & educational betters, reduce your liberty, and inevitably fail.

Unfortunately for us, the inevitable failure of these plans--in the case of global warmism & healthcare--may take a number of years and cost society lives, quality of life, and trillions of dollars.

Oh well, what's a few broken eggs on the way to a utopian omelet, right?

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

On Waterboarding & Torture (UPDATED)

One of the most frequent topics of discussion with my liberal friends regards the efficacy & necessity of extraordinary interrogation techniques like waterboarding. They believe that when you torture someone--they insist that waterboarding is torture--that they will "tell you anything" to get you to stop. Because of this, we can't trust the intel we get from them.

This understanding of interrogation belies an almost complete misunderstanding of intelligence gathering.

In the first instance, the intent of interrogation (at least these types) is not to determine guilt--"are you a terrorist or aren't you!?!!"--but to gather actionable intelligence which will help save lives.

Once someone like KSM tells us whatever he tells us under the duress of waterboarding (he is one of only 3 terrorists who have been waterboarded since 9/11, none since 2003), we can then take that intel and check it against the intelligence we already have. If he tells us that there is a weapons cache or a terror cell or whatever, it is a pretty simple thing to discover if what he says is true.

American intelligence services have been dealing with intelligence of questionable origin for a long time. We know how to fact-check.

The "he'll tell you whatever you want to hear just to stop being waterboarded" argument is a bad one. It's not that hard to find out if the terrorist is lying.

All of this is my over-long introduction to an article by Clifford May entitled "Torture TV." May recently appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and discussed torture, waterboarding, etc. His article is the best single explanation of the ins & outs of interrogation I have ever read.

I highly recommend you read the whole thing; here's a sampling:

Jon Stewart: But answer my question: Is waterboarding torture? Yes or no?

Cliff May: Defining torture is not easy. A simple legal definition is that it “shocks the conscience.” Cutting off Daniel Pearl’s head on videotape — that shocks my conscience. Sending a child out as a suicide bomber — that shocks my conscience. People jumping off the World Trade Towers because they’d rather die that way than by burning — that shocks my conscience. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 atrocities, gagging for a few minutes and, as a result, providing information that saves lives, then going back to his cell for dinner and a movie — no, my conscience is not shocked by that.

Anytime I see an image of the twin towers or even walk the streets of the city where they once stood, I get a sick and sad feeling. I remember watching video footage of people jumping from the towers. I cannot erase those images from my head.

In my opinion, anything we can do--like waterboarding--to gather intelligence which will save lives, ought to be done. Of course there ought to be limits to the techniques employed by the interrogators, but eliminating things like waterboarding and sleep deprivation and not allowing interrogators to bombard terrorists with hour after hour of Britney Spears (who wouldn't cave?) is ridiculous.

How would we feel if lives are lost--losses which could have been easily prevented by gathering intel using rather tame interrogation techniques such as these?

UPDATE 7 May 2:53am BST: Sebastian D. emailed me a link to another good blog post about waterboarding. (content warning) The whole thing is worth reading; one part in particular stood out to me because it was a meme I hadn't addressed: that waterboarding just recruits more terrorists. This is one of my favorite/funniest meme's of the loony left--essentially everything results in the recruitment of another jihadist.

Uh huh, right.

I heard some author talking about how, sure, these interrogations may have saved lives, but on the other hand, the absolute awfulness of waterboarding only caused more people to be recruited in the fight against us. That is such utter and complete horse[crap] that I’m having a hard time understanding how anybody with two brain cells capable of creating friction could actually believe that.

You mean to tell me that if you’re living in a 3rd world hole, and you’ve been taught every single day of your life that the reason your country sucks by your Mullahs is because of Israel and the Great Satan, and you live in a culture of complete and utter violence, where history has been so rewritten by the powers that be that you actually believe the Holocaust is Israeli propaganda, and you swallow hook line and sinker all of the nonsense about the Great Satan that you’re willing to sacrifice your life in fiery suicidal jihad to get your 72 virgins, but you’ve just been holding back strapping on that bomb vest… until you discovered that some other crazy Muslim you’ve never heard of was threatened with a box of caterpillars. Because that is just the final straw! BOOM!

(edited for content because this is, uh, a family-friendly blog)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

National Review Sticks Up For Mormons, 1st Amendment

I'm tempting the Fair Use fates (again) by posting this, but I just don't see any other way around it. If you care about the 1st Amendment, you must read this article.

Last week in a Denver suburb, someone lit a Book of Mormon on fire and dropped it on the doorstep of a Mormon temple, presumably as a statement about the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California, an initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a move that may make gay-rights supporters’ heads spin, the incident is being investigated as a hate crime.

The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.

The wisdom of hate-crimes legislation aside, there is no doubt that a lot of hate is being directed at Mormons as a group. But why single out Mormons? And why now?

Dozens of church bodies — including the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian bishops of California, and a wide variety of evangelicals — supported the proposition. It’s also worth considering that, while gay-rights advocates cannot discuss same-sex marriage for more than 30 seconds without making faulty analogies to Jim Crow-era anti-miscegenation laws, some 70 percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8. While there have been a few ugly racist statements by gay-rights supporters, such vile sentiment has been restricted. Not so the hatred directed at Mormons, who are convenient targets.

To date, 30 states have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage, and in every state traditional marriage has come out on top. But somehow the fact that Mormons got involved during the latest statewide referendum constitutes a bridge too far? In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact.

There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not remarkably strident in its beliefs on the subject. So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.

Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs. Freedom of conscience, or diversity of belief, is the last thing the homosexual lobby will tolerate: In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn’t previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announced it had been browbeaten into doing so by New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights and the threat of litigation. The first 10,000 same-sex eHarmony registrants will receive a free six-month subscription. “That’s one of the things I asked for,” crowed Eric McKinley, who brought the charges against eHarmony.

Where do they go from here? Gay activists are already using the legal system to try to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church. If you believe that churches and synagogues, priests and rabbis won’t eventually be sued for their statements on sexuality, you’re kidding yourself. Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” A National Public Radio report on the conflict noted that if previous cases are any guide, “the outlook is grim for religious groups.”

Given their cavalier disregard for the freedom of conscience, it’s little surprise that the gay lobby is equally disdainful of democracy: They began pursuing legal challenges to Proposition 8 practically before they were done tallying the votes. Lamentably, the state attorney general defending the will of the people will be former Jerry Brown, the liberal former governor who was an open opponent of the measure and tried to sabotage it. The legal challenges will be heard by the same state Supreme Court that overturned California’s previous law forbidding gay marriage back in May. There’s a real possibility the will of the people will be spurned a second time, democracy be damned. They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.

(emphasis added)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

National Review On Prop 8 & Attacks On Mormons

Thanks to Blake C. for this one:

On Tuesday, by a margin of 52 to 48 percent, voters in California amended their state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as did voters in Florida (62 to 38 percent) and Arizona (56 to 44 percent).

Those who argue social conservatism is behind the GOP’s current electoral malaise take note: In Arizona marriage outperformed John McCain by 2 percentage points, in Florida by 14 percentage points, and in California by 15 percentage points.

The Arizona win, reversing a defeat for a marriage amendment in that state in 2006, also restores to state marriage amendments an unblemished record of victory: They have won in 30 out of 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

What lesson can we take from Tuesday’s marriage victories? Here’s one obvious one: Americans still care a great deal about this issue. The California supreme court may have believed that the public would acquiesce when it foisted same-sex marriage on the state earlier this year. But the successful campaign to overturn its ruling was an astonishing effort, unprecedented for a social issue, that raised more than 100,000 volunteers and almost $40 million from over 60,000 donors.

How have the leaders of the movement for same-sex marriage responded to their California loss at the ballot box? The same way they usually do: by getting lawyers to make ever more outrageous arguments to impose their values on unwilling people. (The ACLU is preparing to argue that a one-sentence definition of marriage constitutes such a wholesale revision of California’s constitution that the California Supreme Court should invalidate Prop 8.)

Just before they lost on Tuesday in California, same-sex marriage advocates in California descended to a new low. A group affiliated with Moveon.org, United Healthcare Workers, and the California Nurses Association released a television ad, “Home Invasion,” which portrayed Mormon missionaries as ransacking a California home: “We’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We’ve come to take away your rights.” (The ad was referring to the financial contributions Mormon citizens had made to the initiative campaign.) Are there any other religious minority groups whose political giving liberals believe should be stigmatized? Can we expect the Anti-Defamation League to speak up?

So far, not a single same-sex marriage advocate in California or outside of it has been willing to repudiate this vicious tactic: not MoveOn.org, of course, and not the ACLU or the Human Rights Campaign either. But also not, for example, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who appeared in an anti-Prop 8 TV ad saying that “we must always say no to discrimination.” But not, it seems, to bigotry.

The current conflict over marriage is in part a proxy for a larger ongoing conflict about the role of religious people and religious values in public life. As courts come to endorse the principle that sexual orientation is just like race, American government is going to find itself in the position of treating traditional faith communities just like racists. Voters should beware — if they are consulted on the matter.

(emphasis added)

Religious bigotry is the last acceptable form of bigotry in this country.

One of the lessons to be drawn from this election is that social conservatism is alive and well. Coupled with fiscal conservatism and strong-on-defense foreign policy positions, conservatism as a whole, has a bright future.

Conservatives must do as Ronald Reagan always did when confronted with a new problem: Return to first principles. It's why we are conservatives--because we have sure principles which we can always apply to new problems, if we work and think hard enough.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Michael Crichton, RIP

I'm trying to think how many Michael Crichton novels I've read: Jurassic Park, for sure, Congo, and Sphere. I think that's it. They were all enjoyable reads.

I was saddened to learn that Crichton died over the weekend. In losing Crichton, we lose a man who wasn't afraid to poke fun at the accepted wisdom of the elites--like global warmism.

(or climate change or whatever it is they're calling it today because global temperatures aren't going their way, if you know what I mean)

John Miller, writer for the National Review, penned an excellent obit op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. My brother, Matt, pointed out the best part:

His workaholic habits were legendary, and he must have been a hard man to live with. Four of his five marriages ended in divorce. He displayed a vindictive streak, too. In 2006, Michael Crowley of The New Republic wrote a negative critique of Mr. Crichton's work. Rather than responding with a letter to the editor, Mr. Crichton retaliated in "Next," a novel about transgenic animals. It included a minor character named Mick Crowley, a child rapist who, like the real Mr. Crowley, had attended Yale.

Haters, beware. I'll be working you into my next novel.

(h/t Scott L.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Mark Steyn Is Back

Fresh off his Kangaroo court acquittal in Canada, Mark Steyn is back on the humorous political commentary scene. And this one won't disappoint. It's not a short little post at The Corner, this is the real deal.

Excerpt:

Where was I? Oh, yeah. Citizen-presidents: Who needs ’em? The day after the debate I bumped into two Obama supporters in St Johnsbury, Vermont who said isn’t it great that he's on course to win. Well, they were cute chicks, and I know an obvious pick-up line when I hear one, so I stopped to chat. God Almighty, it was like reverse Viagra: After ten minutes of Babes For Barack, I never want to meet a female woman of the opposite sex for the rest of my life. Their basic pitch was:

How do you solve a problem? Like, Obama!

How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

That’s John McCain's problem. Traditionally, when an unknown politician emerges on the national scene, it’s a race to define him. Governor Palin is a good example: within days, the coastal sophisticates were mocking her as a chillbilly ditz with a womb that spits out inbred kids faster than the First National Bank of Welfare Swamp issues subprime mortgages. That’s politics as usual: Define your opponent. But Obama is defined by his indefinability. When I pointed out to my Vermont gals that he lives in a swank pad that was part of some shady real estate deal with a convicted fraudster (Tony Rezko), that he entrusted his daughters’ entire religious education to a neo-segregationist anti-American nut who preaches that the government created the AIDS virus to kill black people (Jeremiah Wright), that he attended fundraisers with a political patron who’s an unrepentant terrorist proud of plotting to blow up young ladies just like them at a dance at the Fort Dix military base (William Ayers), when I pointed all this out, they looked at me as if I’d brought a baseball bat to a croquet match. Mere earthbound politicians are defined by their real estate deals and sleazy buddies, but Obama is defined only by his vibe. As his many admirers in France would say, he has a certain je ne sais quoi. And, if you try to pin down quoi precisely, then they don’t want to sais.

Welcome back, Mr. Steyn. You have been missed.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Jonah Goldberg On Chris Buckley's Betrayal

For the most part, I consider myself to be a Buckley conservative (William F. Buckley Jr.). I am socially conservative, fiscally libertarian, and hawkish on foreign policy. I'm probably more interventionist and thus (by some people's definition), neoconservative in my foreign policy outlook.

I subscribe to National Review and have read Christopher Buckley's stuff (WFB's son) for years. I particularly enjoyed Thank You For Smoking, and recommend it to anyone.

However, I do not agree with his outlook on the current state of the Republican party, John McCain's candidacy, or his ticket's inclusion of Sarah Palin. You can read Chris's endorsement of Barack Obama here, if you like.

Here on the pages of OL&L, I prefer to post Jonah Goldberg's response:

I am a great fan of Christopher's. I am proud to call him my friend and I am grateful for his many kindnesses. None of that changes because of his decision to endorse Barack Obama. But I think he’s wrong.

I would very much like to leave it at that.

But since I don't need a kazillion emails complaining that I punted, I'll pick up the ball and carry it a few yards downfield without any attempt to make it to the end zone, never mind do some sort of dance at his expense.

I think Mark's reader has it basically right. Christopher knows that McCain once had great character. We know he knows this because he says so at some length. He thinks McCain has lost it. I think that is unfair and untrue. His only real evidence stems from McCain’s recent political performance. But even if you think McCain has run a less than honorable campaign (I do not – which is not to say that I think he’s run a particularly good campaign), it's hard for me to take the complaint all that seriously from someone who worked for — and greatly admires — George HW Bush. Campaigns often require a certain tackiness, as was conspicuously the case with poppa Bush. But Bush pere was not a tacky president and I see nothing in Christopher’s argument that persuades me to think it would be otherwise with McCain.

Meanwhile, Christopher invokes Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous line that FDR had a “first-class temperament” and so too Obama. Indeed, he suggests that Obama is a man of great character because he's a man of great temperament. Conceding for the sake of argument that Obama's temperament is first rate, are the two really the same thing? I don't think so (indeed, that would be a hard case to make about FDR himself, who could be deceitful, vindictive, petty — even to his own son — and adulterous. And let us note that Holmes himself was not a man many of us should be invoking as an authority on political virtue or general decency).

The story Christopher tells of McCain's great character has no real analogue in Obama. He may be in private a deeply honorable man, but his public record is one of accommodation, shortcuts, dishonest equivocations, serious leftwing sympathies and fellow-traveling with some awful people. Obama, let us recall, threw his own grandmother under the rhetorical bus in order to defend his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. That he sounded dignified doing it does not confer dignity on the act itself or the man behind it. That is surely not all there is to say about Obama, many of his friends and fans speak very well of him. But the scales Christopher uses to weigh one man against the other seem awfully rigged to me.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Media Bias Re: Bill Ayers & Barack Obama

So strong is the media inthetankedness for Barack Obama that they are now claiming (see CNN) that a magazine outing the relationship between Obama and unrepentant former terrorist Bill Ayers--National Review--actually debunked the relationship. Um, no.

See Stanley Kurtz, leading researcher on this question, at NR's The Corner:

A CNN article on Sarah Palin’s criticism of Barack Obama’s relationship to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers actually cites National Review as one of the publications supposedly debunking Palin’s point. How CNN can cite National Review this way is a mystery to me. Maybe we’ll have to set up an NR "truth squad."

I was very briefly on CNN immediately after the McCain campaign called for me to be given access to UIC library. A CNN reporter interviewed me, and almost every question was an attempt to challenge the significance of the Obama-Ayers link. I answered every query in detail. When the report finally aired, my points about the significance of the Obama-Ayers connection were cut. And now, CNN is actually claiming NR as an ally in its effort to undercut Palin. Incredible.

You can't make this stuff up.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

2008 Vice Presidential Debate Post-Mortem

11:38pm: Amanda Carpenter, who is awesome, gives her "Wrap Up Thoughts":

Sarah Palin was shaky at times tonight, but never lost her footing. She even managed to trip up her debate veteran opponent Joe Biden on occasion.

And, wow, what a closing statement. (With the surprise invitation to have more events...?!?!)

Ironically, Palin was at her strongest debating Biden on foreign policy, the very subject of which he is considered an expert. Palin deftly reminded viewers, over and over, Biden had openly criticized Barack Obama’s positions on the war, funding and withdrawal throughout the Democratic primaries. “I watched those debates, so I know what that was about,” she grinned. She knowingly gave the media an open invitation to replay those old tapes against the contradictory statements Biden made this evening.

At another point she fiercely labeled Obama’s withdrawal plan, “the white flag of surrender” and promised John McCain knows how to win. Gutsy.

On the negative side, she awkwardly ducked a question on complex bankruptcy law and dodged a few other questions that appeared to be over her head. Instead, she referred to her extensive experience in the energy industry and status as a reformer. Not a bad distraction.

[...]

(emphasis added)

11:33pm: Susan Davis in the WSJ Washington Wire writes about the VP debate word count:

A quick word count of the 90 minute face-off tonight between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden shows that the words “maverick,” “taxes,” and “middle class” popped up frequently in the debate.

“Now, what I’ve done as a governor and as a mayor is truly had that track record of reform, and I’ve joined this team that is a team of mavericks, with John McCain,” Palin said, kicking off a “maverick” count that topped off at 15.

However, Biden used the word more often, 9-6 to Palin, and sought to use it as a negative against McCain. “He’s been a maverick on some issues. But he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people’s lives,” he said.

The word “tax” or “taxes” took top billing with at least 35 references by Biden and 32 by Palin. The tax issue is a cornerstone of the rival campaigns’ appeal to the middle class—Barack Obama says he will cut them for the middle class, and McCain says Obama will raise them on everybody.

11:22pm: Mary Katherine Ham:

Oddly enough, Sarah Palin was masterful tonight at exactly what she was incapable of doing in the Gibson and Couric interviews. Tonight, she was able to answer questions the way she wanted to answer them instead of doing it the way Ifill wanted her to. In particular, when asked what her Achilles heel was, she simply chose to talk about her strengths instead. It was the classic job interview, "What's your greatest weakness" moment, and she reacted correctly. By the time she was done talking, no one remembered that the question was about a weakness. (Suddenly, the media that has argued her inability to do this was a handicap will decide her newfound ability to do it is dishonest obfuscation.)

[...]

Tonight could have been a bleed-out for the McCain campaign, and Sarah Palin may have made it a boon. I've been scanning the cable networks, and even Keith Olbermann can only ask desperately, "So, she didn't do anything to help McCain, right?" because she didn't offer him a convenient gaffe to pounce upon.

[...]

David Plouffe of the Obama campaign: "Stylistically, Sarah Palin did have a very good night," he said, arguing only that Biden won the night on points. Last week, even though many conceded McCain won on points, all that mattered to many pundits was that Obama didn't fall on his face, and therefore won. Suddenly, that's not what matters to some pundits (ahem, CNN).

(emphasis added)

11:10pm: After seeing the results of the CBS and CNN focus groups as compared to Frank Luntz's focus group results, well, I just don't think we can trust the first two. I think Axelrod astroturfed 'em and Luntz's are the only ones we can trust. Last week they gave the win to Obama, this week they gave the win to Palin. CBS & CNN gave the win to the Democrats each week by about the same margin. Uh, yeah, right.

11:07pm: Lorie Byrd @ Wizbang:

Sarah is no Dan Quayle. And she is no Tina Fey cartoon. And she is no drooling moron.

Democrats set the debate up better than we ever could have. If you accuse someone of being a drooling boob, you darn well better make sure they are one. Palin showed up and made all those who ridiculed her look like idiots. Case in point -- Keith Olbermann. I was flipping around so I just caught bits and pieces of the post debate here and there. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell said Palin was rehearsed. Matthews said the danger with these debates is that people say rehearsed lines and they can be mistaken for intelligence. Sounds a bit like good ole Teleprompter Boy to me. But Teleprompter Boy doesn't even rehearse the lines. He has to read them.

[...]

On Fox tonight Frank Luntz' focus group loved Palin. All in the group raised their hand when asked if Palin won. Several in the group said they moved toward McCain as a result of the debate. Luntz said to look for the polling to change because of this debate.

Dick Morris said it was a huge win for Palin and that she exhibited a talent for communication not seen since Ronald Reagan.

Karl Rove read a list of ten things that Biden got completely wrong that were beyond dispute, then said there were about six additional items he could argue Biden got wrong.

Joe Lieberman looked exceptionally happy and had a blast on Hannity & Colmes.

My overall impression is that Palin was incredible and that Joe Biden was quite smitten with her. I don't know how much any VP debate can move polls, but I do believe that if she had not done well it would have had a very negative impact. I would not be surprised to see Frank Luntz be right and see an uptick in the polls as a result of tonight. At this point in the race people who have not yet made up their minds often go with their gut. They want to vote for the person they feel comfortable with and the one they trust, not necessarily the candidate with all the facts memorized. Tonight's debate reminded me of the 2000 Bush-Gore debate in which Al Gore kept referring to the Dingle-Norwood bill. Gore was Mr. Smarty Pants with all the facts, but Bush was the one that displayed the personality. It will be interesting to see whether or not the voters are moved by Sarah Palin tonight.

11:01pm: Mark Levin on Palin:

I have been involved in and observed politics for a long time. Governor Palin is a truly unique national figure. She is down to earth, personable, and smart as hell. That’s right. She has been on the national scene for a little over a month, she has been campaigning everywhere, she has had to bone up on all kinds of national issues, and she has shown class throughout. Too often too many are persuaded by the mainstream media’s opinion and react to that. This should be another lesson in that regard. As for some of her populist views, she cannot openly campaign against the positions of her presidential running mate. She is the bright light in this campaign from my perspective.

10:27pm: And I'm back. Kathryn Lopez, my National Review sponsor at the RNC, and fellow Sarah Palin fan, weighs in:

Sarah Palin won this debate and puts the campaign in a great position to rail against the media. Whatever she did before this debate — prayed? – is what she should always fall back on. And my impression is what she does. And why she’s come so far so fast.

Sarah Palin is the breath of fresh air on the political scene so many hoped she is. And she’ll be honored to beat the guy who’s been in the Senate since she was in the second grade.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Al Felzenberg On The Debate

I had the fortune of meeting Mr. Felzenberg on Day 1 of the RNC at a reception co-sponsored by National Review. He was friendly and solicitous, providing timely and sound advice as I embark on my PhD program.

In the aftermath of the first Presidential debate, Felzenberg, who knows a thing or two about Presidents, wrote a lucid analysis of the debate.

McCain’s moments to shine came when he treated his opponent and the rest of us to a succinct lecture on linkage between Russia’s aggressive posture in Georgia and its energy interests. These were the thoughts of an agile mind which seriously thinks through problems and understands the interconnectedness of so many.

But when it came to which contender for the nation’s highest office has a better grasp on the nation’s primary security challenges, McCain won this round hands down, and without breaking a sweat, and without showing signs of weakening under strain. The question his team needs to have asked in the days ahead is not “are you better off?” but “which of these two guys has better chance of instilling fear in the hearts of those who plan to do the United States ill?”

The more voters ponder this, the more they will decide that, while Obama might make an enjoyable dinner guest, McCain would make the stronger president. Through his seriousness, sense of purpose, and demeanor, he showed this from start to finish.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Bob Costas Interviews President Bush

We don't care what anyone says, it'll be a sad day when George W. Bush is no longer President of the United States. He's so like-able and trustworthy. And such a good guy. Think you won't miss him? Ask Britons how they feel about Gordon Brown and if they miss Tony Blair. We suspect the same thing will happen in the U.S. if Barack Obama is elected.

While watching the Olympics tonight, we caught Bob Costas' interview with President Bush. Their interview was wide ranging but we were particularly impressed with the discussion of China and it's human rights/liberty issues.

Transcript here

Costas noted that China remains an authoritarian state despite what you maybe believe as a result of all the positive press surrounding the Olympics. Good on Costas for pointing this out when everyone else seems to forget.

President Bush, a man whose religious sincerity has sometimes been questioned by the haters, pointed out that increased religious liberty is a positive and important step in creating a more free and open society. As he said, 'once religion takes hold, it doesn't leave.'

Religious liberty is often overlooked in broader discussions of human rights. President Bush has made it a priority to push for religious freedom in all his interactions with oppressive regimes. This is something for which he should be given more credit.

It may be that as China continues market liberalization, while resisting the broader freedoms that normally come as a result, that religious liberty will be the catalyst to bringing about deeper democratic reform.

As President Bush noted, it's important for America to stay engaged with China--on every level--and continue to encourage reform at every opportunity.

We already included these links as part of the "Editors' Picks" over at Newsbusters.org, but we don't want anyone to miss out on reading them. W/o further ado, Jay Nordlinger's series on China & the Olympics:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Dangerous & Strange Bedfellows

In the most recent issue of "Natty Review" appears an article by Daniel Pipes--director of the Middle East Forum and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. In it, Pipes discusses the pragmatic alliance between "Islamists, Marxists, and the radical Left."

It is both persuasive and alarming.

For the hurried, an outline will be provided below, for those with a few minutes on their hands, click here.

Allied Menace
By Daniel Pipes

Overview: Despite their obvious ideological differences, Islamists and Leftists have begun to make common cause in their efforts against Western Civilization including the U.S., Great Britain & Israel.

Examples: Hugo Chavez's alliance with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; Ken Livingstone the Trotskyite former mayor of London; Noam Chomsky, friend of Hezbollah; Ella Vogelaar, Dutch minister for housing; the Workers World's (an American Communist newspaper) laudatory obituary of Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyeh; Carlos the Jackal & others actually converted to Islam; Norman Mailer called the 9/11 perpetrators "brilliant"; Michel Foucault supported the Iranian Revolution and called Ayatollah Khomeini a "saint"; during the Cold War, Islamists favored the Soviet Union and "the U.S.S.R. receive[d] but a small fraction of the hatred and venom directed at the United States;" the Cairo Anti-War Conference. The list goes on

Why the "unholy alliance?"

1. Similar enemy--Western Civilization, the U.S., Great Britain, Israel, Jews, believing Christians, and international capitalists.

2. Shared political goals: they want coalition forces to lose in Iraq, an end to the War on Terror, the spread of anti-Americanism, and the destruction of Israel.

3. Marxism-Leninism and Islamism have historical and philosophical ties: a stages view of history; crossover of Leftist thinkers like Franz Fanon, Che Guevara, Jean-Paul Sartre, Lenin, & Stalin. Additionally, Marxists have replaced the failed rise of the worker with the rise of the Islamists (ie. the Iranian Revolution, 9/11. et al.)

4. A pragmatic path to power. Both groups are able to subordinate conflicting pillars of their respective ideologies in order to combat their common enemy--here again, Western Civilization. Add to the examples listed above the Stop the War Coalition whose committee members are drawn from the British Communist party and the Muslim Association of Britain.

Conclusion: Where communists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Castroists and others "had been clinging to the dregs of a clapped-out cause," Islamists bring a new proletariat. This dangerous and strange partnership is a threat to Western Civilization which "must be exposed, rejected, resisted, and defeated."


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Links! Links! Links!

Climate Change

- More Bjørn Lomborg. This time, you can read him in his own words in an op-ed he wrote for The Guardian, a British newspaper. Our opinion on Climate Change pretty well matches his--it's reasonable, empirical, and realistic.

- Lomborg Part II - Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online editor, interviewed Lomborg on the intersection of Climate Change and politics. Very interesting read.

Miscellaneous

- Jason L. Riley, member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and pro-immigrationist, wrote about the problem of multiculturalism. Check out, Keep the Immigrants, Deport the Multiculturalists.

- In probably the best article we've read this year on the conservative outlook, Roger Kimball wrote an article entitled Conservative Gloominess. From that article:

Progressives cannot wrap their minds (or, more to the point, their hearts) around this irony: that “reform” so regularly exacerbates either the evil it was meant to cure or another evil it had hardly glimpsed.

- Looking for responsible energy policy? Larry Kudlow weighed in against cap & trade and tentatively in favor of a carbon tax.

- We wrote about it earlier this week when we quoted Pres. Bush's speech to the Knesset and asked readers to find "Barack Obama" in the speech. No one has succeeded yet. Mark Steyn, as usual, does a better job lampooning Obama and his Democrat apologists for their foreign policy idiocy--an idiocy which is even more indefensible in this instance than usual (no mean feat).

- Re: The appeasers in the Democratic party (and those among the Republicans): This, quote of the day:

Liberals think the way to deal with dangerous tyrants is to send in a sensitive president who will make Ahmadinejad fall in love with him. They imagine Obama becoming Ahmadinejad's psychotherapist, like Barbra Streisand in "The Prince of Tides.

- This next article, written by David Ranson, head of research at H.C. Wainwright & Co. Economics Inc., wrote about tax policy, much-maligned supply-siders, and the state of economic research. (subscription required, email us for a copy)

- Naomi Schaeffer Riley interviewed Roger Hertog about philanthropy and the cause of conservatism in higher education. Very interesting read.

- From the Seattle Times, a newspaper we usually only read for their sports coverage, on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner. This is quite the plane requiring a whole new style of production.

- Our fav. economist, Thomas Sowell, gave his recommended summer reading list.

- Finally, Dan Henninger, the other columnist we read without fail each week, on China and Burma and why non-democratic countries suck. It's summed up in the title, Democracies Don't Let People Die, but there's more to it than that. This is push-back against multiculturalists who think all governments, societies, and cultures are equally good, with no one better than the other.

*UPDATE 7:50pm MST: Pendulum Politics

- buruboi on the European demographics. This is a topic that interests us greatly. We'll leave it to buruoi to explain, but European demographics are such that their massive entitlement/welfare state programs are wholly unsustainable. This, combined with unemployment rates that are sometimes double the U.S.'s combine to create a dismal prognosis for Europe's economic future--Western & Northern Europe that is.

Countries in Eastern Europe and Ireland have produced low tax, pro-growth policies similar to the U.S.'s which should help them avoid the future pit and pratfalls of their euro-neighbors.

- RD on Moderation in U.S. politics. We read his post as an economic critique on the policies of the left and right. As in, apply a systematic way to value the priorities of both sides--his examples are the environment & abortion--and then compromise. This seems like wise counsel.

His critique of advocates on the right, so-called pro-lifers, is unfair and unsupported by empirical evidence. He says that the Right cares more about the lives of the unborn than it does people in less-developed countries. The truth is that religious organizations and self-described conservatives donate hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to charities and humanitarian philanthropies organizations around the world every year. Donations in the wake of the 2004 Tsunami are an illustrative example. (see the list of NGO donations).

RD, we agree with your call for moderation, but your critique of the pro-life right's motivations is not accurate.

**UPDATE 22 May 10:31am MST: Ben's assertion regarding a supposed contrast between Reagan, Nixon, (Olmert) responsible diplomacy and Bush's "chest beating" is inaccurately characterized--not least of all because liberals in the '80's used to bash Reagan for being a cowboy (Evil Empire, ramped up military spending, Star Wars, Iran-Contra, etc.).

The meme Ben (and Obama) willfully misread into Bush's comments is that we should never engage in diplomacy. But Bush never said that. This was not the point of Bush's Knesset speech.

It was that Obama's tea-with-Tyrants and Carter's handholding-with-Hamas/Hezbollah is irresponsible and ignorant of reality. Meeting without precondition with tyrants and rogue terrorist states gains American nothing while lending prestige and legitimacy to thugs who kill American soldiers and threaten America and her allies.

When Nixon went to China, it was the result of 134 secret meetings, 18 months "behind-the-scenes" discussions by Henry Kissinger, and another 7 months of diplomatic hard work. (h/t: S. Lybbert)

Similarly, Olmert has not personally met with the Syrians--neither has the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni. We (OL&L) and the U.S. may not like the result or tenor of the talks between the Israelis and the Syrians, but they are low-level meetings (thanks Kurt M.) with preconditions--not direct, POTUS-to-thug meetings w/o preconditions as Obama naively suggested.

Like Ben, we are frustrated with the Bush Administration's failure to stop Iran from killing American soldiers in Iraq and their continued nuclear development. To a lesser extent, we're frustrated with North Korea's continued belligerence.

But these failures do not invalidate Bush's Knesset speech, nor do they mean that the next President should meet with every two-bit terrorist in the world. There are lessons to be learned from Bush's failures, but Obama's is the wrong one.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

William F. Buckley Jr., RIP

William F. Buckley Jr., father of modern conservatism and another of our heroes, passed away today. We cannot do justice to Mr. Buckley's personal history and accomplishments. Our personal experience with Mr. Buckley through the written word and ideas will have to suffice.

Our first encounter with Mr. Buckley was through one of his spy novels. We can't now remember the name of the book, but it was a gift from our dad. We remember thinking that the simple cloak and dagger of Mr. Buckley's books was more entertaining than the superficiality of 007.

We also remember watching or at least being in the room when our father was watching Mr. Buckley on Firing Line, his PBS political debate show. For a long time, he was the only conservative on TV.

We grew up in a largely conservative community, but most of our politically savvy friends and teachers were Democrats. Whether it was on a debate trip or in our senior government class, we were often the only person arguing the conservative side of the debate. Looking for good material, we remember coming across a series of articles by Mr. Buckley. He and they were smart, understandable, and conservative (not Republican).

As a freshman at BYU, one of the first books we bought at the bookstore fall sale was The Right Word, by William F. Buckley Jr. We didn't actually read the book until after returning home from a 2-year church mission, but this book taught us a love for the English language. From it we learned a love of words and crafting of coherent sentences (yes, we leave something to be desired).

This November, we will have been subscribed to William F. Buckley's magazine, National Review, for four years. Mr. Buckley's sections "Notes & Asides" and "On The Right" have always been our favorite reads. His intellectual and principled approach deeply affected our approach to politics.

Mr. Buckley formed the foundation of modern conservatism. It's a lot healthier now than it was when he got his start with God and Man at Yale over 50 years ago. We and other conservatives may not always agree with Mr. Buckley, but because of the intellectual heavy lifting he has done for the movement, we must all acknowledge and refer to his conservative political doctrine.

Our final memory of Mr. Buckley is of our shared love--Alta. We happened across an account of Mr. Buckley's annual visits to Alta, Utah for a week of skiing at the center of the skiing universe. We've had a season's pass at Alta for 5 years. We worked in Alta's Alf Engen ski school. For years Mr. Buckley would take his family to ski at Alta. He would often meet another of our political intellectual heroes, Milton Friedman at Alta for a few days of skiing and Alta conviviality (link: scroll to the bottom).

We wish we could have ridden a chairlift with those two. Tomorrow, when we head to Alta, we'll be sure to ski a run or two in memory of both those great men. We feel fortunate to have something in common with Mr. Buckley--we're both conservatives who love Alta.

*UPDATE 3:55pm MST: For a collection of all the best on WFB, check out The Corner at National Review Online.

**UPDATE 10:48pm MST: A further collection of NRO reader-responses to WFB's passing.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Free Mark Steyn

At least in Canada, when the local Muslim interest group complains, they don't throw you in jail and threaten lashes and/or worse. Well, they haven't, yet.

Mark Steyn has been a favorite columnist of ours for some time now. We serialized one of his best (and funniest) columns here, here, here, and here. We mentioned him in a post about an experience at the Cambridge Intel Seminar where we met a critic of his here. And if that's not enough Steyn for you, he's currently filling in for Sean Hannity on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes.

First of all, it behooves us to understand that other Western countries do not protect speech the way the US does. In fact, they typically don't have a Bill of Rights in the way that America does. This bears repeating: speech is not protected anywhere the way it is in the United States. Mark Steyn, like others before him, is currently experiencing what it is like when one offends a powerful interest group in a country with limited speech protection.

Read the overview about the case at National Review Online. Then, read what prompted the current kerfuffle at Macleans.ca. Finally, check out more about the case in an article by John Robson. Then, if you like, return and comment here.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

National Review, Our Fav Conservative Mag, Endorses Mitt

Generally, we believe that newspapers should not endorse candidates. Rather, we think they should advocate issues, ideas, and positions. We're not quite sure what to make of it when an outspoken conservative publication endorses a particular candidate.


Drudge called our attention to this development and it appears the Drudge traffic is overloading National Review's servers, so good luck getting at the article here.

Like National Review, we appreciate the totality of Mitt Romney's conservative positions. His current stated positions more closely match ours than any of the other Republican candidates for President. However, we still have reservations about Romney. How sure is his conversion to conservative principles? Was his change of position the result of a change of heart? Or was he just endorsing moderate to liberal positions to get elected in MA? Or, even worse, is he only now adopting conservative ideals to get past the Republican primary?

Point by point, Mitt is our ideal candidate. But if he is not a true conservative believer, we'd rather have a candidate with whom we disagree, but believe is telling the truth.


***Update 11:23PM MST - Transcript of chat between Hugh Hewitt and Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review. This provides great insight into NR's decision making process vis-à-vis their endorsement of Romney.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Few Good Democrats

Never say we don't give credit where credit is due.

On Monday, an Op-Ed by two long-time Democratic critics of the war in Iraq was published in the New York Times. It bears repeating that Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack are neither neoconservatives nor Republicans. They are Democrats. Add them to the short list of Democrats* who recognize the importance of winning in Iraq and see the progress made by Gen. Petraeus' surge strategy--the positive results of which we noted yesterday.

Their Op-Ed is worth the read. We also suggest reading a review of their article by a number of writers over at National Review Online.

Among the best responses to the article was one written by Senator John McCain, Republican Presidential candidate. We quote in full:

Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack have uncovered a truth that seems to escape congressional Democrats: General Petraeus’s new strategy has shown remarkable progress. Earlier this month, on my sixth trip to Iraq, it was evident that our military is making dramatic achievements throughout the country.

Despite this progress, Democrats today advocate a precipitous withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. They are wrong, and their approach portends catastrophe for both Iraq and the United States. To fail in Iraq risks creating a sanctuary for al Qaeda, sparking a full scale civil war, genocide, and violence that could spread far beyond Iraq’s borders. To leave prematurely is to ensure just one thing: that we will be back, in more dangerous and difficult circumstances. We cannot and must not lose this war.

We must prevail. General Petraeus and his troops have asked Congress for just two things: the time and support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both, however much the congressional Democrats seek to withhold them. That is why I will keep fighting to ensure that our commanders have what they need to win this war.

I cannot guarantee success. But I do guarantee that, should Congress fail to sustain the effort, and should it pay no heed to the lessons drawn by Mr. Pollack and Mr. O’Hanlon, then America will face a historic and terrible defeat. Such a defeat, with its enormous human and strategic costs, will unfold unless we do all in our power to prevent it. I, for one, will continue to do just that.

If even some Democrats are willing to acknowledge the improvement in Iraq, we are left to conclude that the surge must be working.


*Isn't Senator Lieberman great?


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Fairness Doctrine & Fox News

We may not agree with Senator McCain about campaign finance or immigration or a number of other things, but we admire his stalwart support of the current surge in Iraq. McCain gets it. He understands that retreat and loss in Iraq would result in hundreds of thousands maybe millions of deaths there and a huge setback in the War on Terror. McCain is willing to lose a Presidential election because of his unpopular yet principled stand. That's what leaders do. It's unfortunate some of his fellow Republican Senators aren't willing to take the same risk with their elected position. Senator Gordon Smith, we're talking about you. Just because the Democrats are willing to play politics with the war, doesn't mean you or Senator Domenici or anyone has to. Senator Lieberman's win last fall is proof that elected officials can want to win in Iraq and persuade their constituents to re-elect them. We're embarrassed to share our alma mater with Senator Smith.

Meanwhile over at the Seattle PI, their liberal readership is debating a "fairness doctrine for media." It seems control of CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, Washington Post and the overwhelming majority of newspaper editorial boards is not enough for them. They want to legislate fairness in the one bastion of conservative thought--talk radio. It's telling that this legislation targets only one segment of the media. And such legislation begs way too many questions for us to even raise in this paragraph. Suffice it to say that we agree with Bruce Chapman, author of the op-ed that started the debate. If they want a "fairness doctrine," let them apply it to broadcast and print media as well as talk radio. Or they could just let free speech rule and permit the market to do its job.

One follow up item: if you read the first couple dozen comments, you'll read a lot of blather about how horrible Fox News and Rupert Murdoch are--you know, how they "distort" the news. They're afraid Murdoch and other "conservative billionaires" will control all media and give it their personal spin. Can anyone name another politically influential conservative billionaire? We can name a bunch of liberal ones--George Soros, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett--the list goes on. It's all part of another favorite liberal trope, that the rich are all conservative, white, and male. Right, and John Edwards--$400 haircuts and all--is a man of the people. We guess that's 2 out of 3.

But back to Murdoch and Fox News. The loony-left--especially those of the nutroots variety--love to bash Fox News. Not all liberals feel this way, many of them watch it, as evidenced by the fact that it regularly trounces its competition. What are we to conclude from this? That conservatism is popular despite the famously low ratings of Republicans and their leader, President Bush? Come on libs, think harder and try again. Fox News is popular because they peddle a particular brand of politics that appeals to elements in both parties--it's called populism. This explains why a true conservative outlet, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, is so insistent on editorial autonomy if Murdoch's Newscorp is successfull in its bid to purchase Dow Jones, the parent company of the WSJ. If Murdoch and Fox News were the conservative spin machine the loony left claims, you would think that the partisans over at the WSJ would positively love to be owned by Murdoch's Newscorp. But they're not. In fact, since the Newscorp offer was announced, Dow Jones ownership has been actively searching for other offers while simultaneously negotiating editorial independence in the event of a sale to Newscorp.

Another point about the wildly out of touch theory that all conservatives are rich or maybe that the rich are all conservative. The founding conservative publication, National Review, with William F. Buckley Jr. conservatism's founding father, have almost never turned a profit (homer nods: thanks Morgan) in their more than 50 years of publication. They regularly have to engage in drives to raise the funds necessary to support the magazine. Which of John Edwards' "two Americas" subscribes to National Review?

A footnote to the point about the WSJ. You'll note that we said the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. It's important and worth pointing out that their editorial bias, unlike the New York Times, does not bleed into their news reporting. That is to say, that like the rest of the mainstream media, the average beat reporter at the Wall Street Journal has about a 70% chance of voting for John Kerry in the last Presidential election. It's a fact of life that the profession is dominated by people with left leaning political beliefs.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.