To keep people like this out:


They seriously need to be stopped.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:30 PM | Permalink | |

Tom Tancredo, a Congressman from Colorado, is my hero this week. He is the man on the immigration debate that has exploded recently, and he has been stirring the right on this issue for some time now. He was on The Situation with Tucker Carlson the other night and said this, which sums up the issue pretty well:

TANCREDO: And you know, Tucker. We do not have to pass another single law. Congress doesn‘t have to do anything. Congress already has passed the laws long since—a long time ago saying it‘s against the law to hire people who are here illegally.

What we need desperately is a president who will enforce the law. We don‘t need another law on the books. All we need is somebody in the White House who will tell the head of homeland security, “This is what you‘re going to do.”

CARLSON: That‘s right.

TANCREDO: “You‘re actually going to enforce the law.” Until then, Tucker, we can—over here, we could pass—we could pass all the bills that I‘ve introduced.

CARLSON: That doesn‘t matter.

TANCREDO: And we still would not be able to fix the problem until you get the executive to go along with it.

CARLSON: I just think it‘s such a shame that this is not the executive to do it. It depresses me. I think you.

TANCREDO: Me, too, buddy.

CARLSON: Thank you, Congressman, for pointing that out. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. We appreciate it.

Also, Newsweek did a profile on him an issue or two ago. Tancredo, the Republican Rep banned from the Bush White House, is a force to be reckoned with.


Alren Specter, Senator from my home state of Pennsylvania, is my hack this week. He was one of the backers of the Crappy Immigration Plan set forth by the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. Honorable mentions go to perennial JttR hack favorites, John McCain and Ted "Jabba" Kennedy.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:01 AM | Permalink | |

I honestly liked him better than Frist, but this is unacceptable. Senator Lott killed a bipartisan transparency bill today aimed at earmark reform.It seems he did this because it was not his version of earmark reform. From Tapscott's Copy Desk:

It's gotten little attention in the mainstream media but a potentially landmark measure authored by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, and Sen. Barrack Obama, D-IL, was taken up by the Senate today. Call it the "Show Us the Money" amendment for Uncle Sam.

Lott killed it using Senate Rule 22:

The Senate's Rule 22 refers to the germaneness - i.e. relevance - of a proposed amendment. Translated from the Washington legislatese in which senators and congressmen so often hide, this means Lott thinks making sure the public can see who is getting more than $300 billion of their tax dollars has nothing to do with congressional ethics.

Put another way, Lott just told taxpayers to butt out.

Meanwhile, Sen. Coburn is the man:

“Keeping serious pork reform out of this lobbying reform bill was like removing alcohol from the agenda of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Earmark abuse was at the center of the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals yet the Senate failed to clamp down on what Abramoff described as the ‘earmark favor factory’ in Congress. This bill will not change how members of Congress and lobbyists interact. In fact, by rejecting an amendment by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) that would have given Senators greater power to block egregious earmarks the Senate voted to protect business as usual,” Dr. Coburn said.

“In the wake of the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals Congress could have crafted serious reform legislation. Unfortunately, the Senate put public relations ahead of real reform and chose to wash the outside of the cup while leaving the inside filthy. The problem in Washington is not lobbyists; the problem is Congress,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Since the Senate has decided earmark reform is not a priority in the context of lobbying reform I am convinced that the American people, now more than ever, deserve an extended and thorough debate on each individual earmark or pork project Senators propose this year. Earmarks are a gateway drug that leads to spending addictions and the excesses revealed by the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals. Debating each and every earmark will help give the American people the honest reform debate they deserve,” Dr. Coburn said.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:22 PM | Permalink | |

(AP) LOS ANGELES The marching orders were clear: Carry American flags and pack the kids, pick up your trash and wear white for peace and for effect.

Many of the 500,000 people who crammed downtown Los Angeles on Saturday to protest legislation that would make criminals out of illegal immigrants learned where, when and even how to demonstrate from the Spanish-language media.

For English-speaking America, the mass protests in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities over the past few days have been surprising for their size and seeming spontaneity.

But they were organized, promoted or publicized for weeks by Spanish-language radio hosts and TV anchors as a demonstration of Hispanic pride and power.

and:

One of those doing the most talking was El Piolin, a syndicated morning show radio host who is broadcast in 20 cities.

El Piolin, whose real name is Eduardo Sotelo and whose nickname means "Tweety Bird," persuaded colleagues from 11 Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles to talk up the rally on air.

He said he devised the idea of telling protesters to wear white and carry flags to symbolize their peaceful intent and love of the United States. He also urged parents to bring their children to minimize chances of violence and reminded everyone to bring plenty of water and trash bags.

Insane. This is worse than Dan Rather or David Gregory.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:32 PM | Permalink | |

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee approved sweeping election-year legislation Monday that clears the way for 11 million illegal aliens to seek U.S. citizenship, a victory for demonstrators who had spilled into the streets by the hundreds of thousands demanding better treatment for immigrants.

With a bipartisan coalition in control, the committee also voted down proposed criminal penalties on immigrants found to be in the country illegally. It approved a new temporary program allowing entry for 1.5 million workers seeking jobs in the agriculture industry.

They just don't get it. Illegeal immigrants break the law to get here, thus being illegal,and have no respect for our laws once they are here. Fixing this would seem to be a simple solution, until Congress tries to muck it up. Here's my plan, with handy "Jokerchart (TM)" technology:

Simple enough. Step one: Build Wall. Step Two: Give illegals the boot (make sure they land on other side of wall). How hard is that to understand?

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:38 PM | Permalink | |

Mallard Fillmore urges conservatives on.

Coburn is easily my favorite Senator, and it would be great to see him make a go for it.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:16 PM | Permalink | |

I'll admit it. I have "True Believer" Syndrome. TB first came to my attention watching the movie Primary Colors, based on the book by Anonymous about the Clinton primary battles. Irregardless of the movie itself, which I find to be entertaining even if Billy Bob Thornton is nowhere entertaining as the real James Carville, the concept of TB is useful. While I doubt Henry's vision- what he wants Stanton/Clinton to be is far different from mine, being a liberal or centrist Democrat, we both want some of the same things.

We want a candidate free from the burdens and dirt of Washington, and able to convey a message to the average American. A positive message that can bring the country together (or at least 50% + 1). The perfect candidate ran in 1980 and '84, though it took many years for Reagan, after trying numerous times, to hone himself and his message and to secure the nomination. Clinton and Reagan both have something in common, being the last two nominees to defeat a sitting President in reelection.

I believe that one day, another Ronald Reagan will come along, a true conservative who is not afraid to bring conservatism to mainsteam America. I have been voting and watching this straw poll tournament, and there is a sad few that I am actually rooting for. Those would be Mike Pence, J.C. Watts, Tom Coburn, Haley Barbour, Tom Tancredo, and Newt Gingrich.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:35 PM | Permalink | |

Ian Schwartz:

In his book and on The Daily Show, Sada says that Weapons of Mass Destruction existed, however they were moved to Syria prior to the American invasion in 2003. Stewart asks how he knows this; was it by documents or video, Sada responds: “I was the number two man in the air force”.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:50 PM | Permalink | |

We're going to watch Red Dawn at the College Republicans meeting tonight, and so I find this observation by new WaPo blogger Ben Domenech to be very amusing:

During the discussions about the launch of this new blog, the good folks at washingtonpost.com spent far too much time in sessions with markers and whiteboard, trying to settle on a name for the column. The suggestions were all over the map - but one suggestion provided a reminder of the sociopolitical divide in this country. "What about 'Red Dawn'?" said one helpful editor.

"Well, only if you want to make people think it was a gun blog," I said, to puzzled faces.

"Red Dawn? You must know it - the greatest pro-gun movie ever? I mean, they actually show the jackbooted communist thugs prying the guns from cold dead hands."

Any red-blooded American conservative, even those who hold a dim view of Patrick Swayze's acting "talent," knows a Red Dawn reference.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:44 AM | Permalink | |

Possibly stemming from Neal Stephenson's HEAP, Glenn Reynolds believes that the right to armed resistance to genocide should be the next major international human right. I have to say, I am inclined to agree:

This led me to speculate a few years ago that the right of people to be armed to resist genocide should perhaps be regarded as the next international human right.

An article forthcoming in the Notre Dame Law Review takes a much deeper look (pdf) at that very question, with particular emphasis on Darfur, and notes that the victims of the genocide are effectively disarmed by law and international embargo while the perpetrating janjaweed militias are armed and financed (as is common in genocides) by the Sudanese government. For the people of Darfur, relying on the government to protect them is absurd, as the government is behind their murder. Relying on the international community, on the other hand, is absurd because the international community is - at the most charitable - absurd. In fact, as is also the case with most genocides, much of the international community is complicit, at least to the extent of turning a blind eye to conduct that would otherwise imperil important government contracts, or oil ventures.

More here:

This isn't a perfect world, and it's never going to be. It could, however, be a world where potential murderers, rapists and kidnappers know that there are no easy victims. A world where monsters are met with strength and determination - where every potential victim has a way to defend themselves. And we should make it so.

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:58 PM | Permalink | |

And no, that headline does not refer to the mainstream media (this time). The UN believes that humans are on the verge of causing mass extinctions.

OSLO (Reuters) - Humans are responsible for the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs and must make unprecedented extra efforts to reach a goal of slowing losses by 2010, a U.N. report said on Monday.

I am not denying that humans sometimes cause animals to become extinct. Humans have been causing animals to become extinct since we began hunting. Other animals cause the extinction of other animals. This is not something we necessarily can or should try to curb. The people who strongly believe in evolution also seem to be people who worry about extinction. Strange that the "survival of the fittest" does not seems to include Man.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:45 AM | Permalink | |

Strategypage:

Most Iraqis understand that a clean, cohesive government is the key to future peace and prosperity. But the cooperation and compromise required to make this all happen has so far eluded Iraqis. American and European diplomats and advisors constantly hover about with suggestions and advice. The key to peace in Iraq is not a military problem, the terrorists and Sunni Arab rebels are beaten. The key to peace is political, and the ability of Iraqi factions to work together. Iraqis have paid a lot of attention to Lebanon, looking for answers. Lebanon is split by religious factions (about one third Shia, one third Sunni and one third Christian). Lebanon went through a 15 year civil war (1975-90), and since making peace, the country has prospered (without oil, just the skills of the people), despite interference from Syria. The Lebanese example gives hope, but the payoff is in the performance. The Iraqi politicians have to perform. In the next few months, we'll see if they can.

It's the third anniversary of the coalition invasion of Iraq. The elected Iraqi parliament has held its first session, but is prevented from going much farther by factionalism. Iraqis are not keen on compromise, and dictatorship came to Iraq half a century ago when the generals decided to silence the squabbling and take over themselves. Iraqis wonder if they can avoid repeating past mistakes like this. The Shia Arab majority is split in several large, and many smaller, parties, that resist cooperating. The Kurds have two major factions, that are currently tolerating a truce, and dealing with growing popular unrest at the corruption at the faction (clan, actually) leadership.

The Sunni Arabs, who are now the oppressed minority, have always been the most willing group to unite and take charge. But no more. There are many factions. Some are religious extremists, some are secular (like the Baath Party Saddam ran), while others are tribal. One of the factions is al Qaeda, which is basically a group of Sunni Arab Islamic radicals. Al Qaeda is not happy that all Iraqi Sunni Arabs have not supported them. This has degenerated into war between al Qaeda and most Iraqi Sunni Arabs. But many of these same Sunni Arab factions are still hostile to the Shia Arab dominated government.

Glenn Reynolds postulates on the causal relationship between Bush and Iraq:

I think that attitudes on the war have more to do with attitudes on Bush than with realities on the ground, among a lot of people on both left and right. As Bush's popularity has sunk -- largely for non-war reasons -- it has pushed the war's popularity down, too.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:22 PM | Permalink | |

Some really interesting stuff here, but the most interesting question may be "why isn't the government getting this stuff out?" Another Bush-media failure?

The documents

ABC News story

"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:47 PM | Permalink | |

My hero this week is Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne. He was appointed by Bush to be the new Secretary of the Interior. He is my hero for a simple reason: I wouldn't want to be taking a job in the Bush Administration right now. That takes guts.


Ned Lamont of Connecticut is my hack this week. He is running against Joe Lieberman for U.S. Senate, probably my favorite Democrat. I have no problem with challenging incumbents in primaries. However, Senator Lieberman is a mainstream Democrat:

Yet if one puts Iraq aside for a moment, most of Lieberman’s record belies Lamont’s portrait of him as a Republican:

• He voted against Clarence Thomas in 1991 and against convicting President Clinton on impeachment charges in 1999.
• He voted “no” on Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
• The nonpartisan magazine Congressional Quarterly recently rated senators on party unity, assessing roll call votes in 2005 in which a majority of Democrats opposed a majority of Republicans. Congressional Quarterly rated Lieberman a 90 out of 100, only a bit less than Democratic Leader Harry Reid’s 92.
• The gay rights group Human Rights Campaign gives Lieberman an 88 out of 100 rating, a better score than 30 other Democratic senators.
• The leading environmental advocacy group the League of Conservation Voters, which mostly backs Democratic candidates, enthusiastically endorsed Lieberman last week and gives him a lifetime rating of 86 out of 100.

Seems like a wasted effort here.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:44 AM | Permalink | |

NEW YORK (AP) -- Upbeat reports from the Federal Reserve and DuPont Co. lifted stocks for a second day Wednesday, pushing the Standard & Poor's 500 past 1,300 for the first time since May 2001.

The industrials, materials and transportation sectors led the market higher, allowing the S&P 500 to finally pop above 1,297, a ceiling the index has not been able to cross since November.

Sweet.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:08 AM | Permalink | |

Here's the link. Use my e-mail address to access the whole thing (flybyyyz[at]udel.edu) if you do not wish to register (it's free).

Teaser:

Conservatives aren't evil. We're just misunderstood.

As an outspoken conservative, I've been called a Nazi, a racist, a bigot, greedy, heartless, wingnut, murderer and other words that I will not tarnish this column by repeating.

Too many times someone said to me, "You're a conservative? But you're so nice!" I see no contradiction there.

Why do liberals hurl these slurs at conservatives? I'm not realty sure why. Maybe it makes them feel good about themselves.

In any case, I'll explain why I'm a conservative, and proud to be one: I'm a conservative because I believe in the power of individuals to make their own choices and judgments as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:42 PM | Permalink | |

Very interesting. Where's the "consensus" now?

According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientistsover the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.

The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:24 PM | Permalink | |

They just protest all the time. And this one is just about as useless as they come:

Planned Parenthood of Delaware and supporters of abortion rights ralllied today at the federal courthouse in Wilmington...

Karla McFarland, president of Planned Parenthood of Delaware, said that if a challenge to the South Dakota law reaches the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will become illegal immediately in Delaware because there is already a law on the books banning the procedure. [Emphasis Added]

As bad as that law is, and as much as I disagree with them, I still think they should spend their time doing something more usefull. Like counciling mothers of aborted children. Sheesh.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:50 AM | Permalink | |

I will have a "guest" column in the University of Delaware newspaper, The Review, tomorrow. You can pick it up tomorrow for free on campus, and it will be online. I promise to link.

To answer your next question, it isn't about the anglosphere. It is about why conservatives aren't evil; we're just misunderstood.

Pick it up tomorrow!

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:26 PM | Permalink | |

Really interesting NYTimes magazine article.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:01 AM | Permalink | |

Very interesting:

Private though it was, the McCain call was emblematic of the ‘08 strategy that he and his circle have decided to pursue. They want to build out their campaign with members of the Bush circle, and base McCain’s pitch on the notion that he is the only sensible, electable and competent commander who can take control of the war on terror.

and

Here in Memphis, McCainanites worked closely on straw poll strategy with Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a Bush loyalist widely regarded as one of the sharpest strategic and organizational minds in the party. They are wooing him to come aboard officially, which would be a major coup for McCain.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:44 PM | Permalink | |

Original Post
October Revision
Republicans:
Sen. George Allen - I saw him at CPAC, and man does he look like quarterback.

Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist - I am baffled as to how he won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll this weekend. I also saw him speak at CPAC, and had such low expectations, that I was actually impressed. He is retiring from the Senate soon, so he needs to be able to keep himself in the limelight for 2008.

Rudy Giuliani - America's Mayor is too socially moderate for the base, and ciritcs argue that he lacks experience for the office. I could see him as Vice President but not sure if he would take the office. If he seriously wants the Presidency, he should seek the New York Governor's office.

Sen. Sam Brownback - Too Religious Right for me. He is ardently a social conserative, and the religous right will undoubtly look to see if he endorses anyone in the primary, but I will not support him.

Sen. Rick Santorum - Represents "Big Government Conservatism" more than anyone else. Hated by the Left, and is in jeopardy of losing his reelection bid. Next November (2006) is make or break for him, though he claims it is his last election anyway.

Gov. Jeb Bush - "Jeb really doesn't have any negatives, as far as I've found, unless you consider being the brother of the President a negative, and in a way, they are. While I think the current Florida governor could easily get the nomination in a weaker field, and could quite possibly nab it in the powerhouse field we're expecting. However, with America facing the possibility of three of the last four Presidents being a Bush, adding up to sixteen of the last twenty-four years (at the end of what would be Jeb's first term), I don't think it's viable. I think should the GOP lose in 2008, Jeb would be a great challenger to the Dem in 2012." No change.

Sen. John McCain - It will never happen. Too many people don't like him in the base for him to get nominated, and somewhat of a rogue, and still has that Senatorial drawback. Call him the anti-Edwards. He's a bigger showboat than Donald Trump. I like that he is fiscally conservative, but I just can't trust him. I am afraid of him jumping ship to a third party and drawing votes from the nominee. He is also 70 years old, which could make him a gravitas VP pick to a socially conservative nominee. Seems to want to be "coronated" the nominee, but he seems to ignore the base.

Gov. Mitt Romney - The Governor of Massachusetts, according to Tim Saler, "may be able to gain a lot of support from government reform voters as well as those who desire a more prudent fiscal policy." However, he is Mormon, and that may not sit well with many moderate voters because of the reputation that church has. On the upside, he would be sure to win Utah, and he is governor of a decidedly liberal state. Came in second in the SRLC straw poll.

Gov. Mike Huckabee - He is from Arkansas, and a darling of the Christian coalition. With his shaky immigration and fiscal policies, could potentially be considered George W. II.

Gov. Haley Barbour - Current Governor of Mississippi, and possibly the only to handle Katrina effectively. He has credentials in the party:

In the mid-‘80’s, Governor Barbour advised President Ronald Reagan for nearly two years as Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.

From 1993 to January 1997, Governor Barbour served two terms as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, including the 1994 elections when Republicans won GOP control of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty years and increased the number of Republican governors rose from 17 to 32.

Definately great VP material. Would lock up the South for the GOP.

Rep. Tom Tancredo - The rabidly conservative Congressman from Colorado is trying to make a name for himself and so are some activists. He seems to be strong on illegal immigration, and currently has a 100% rating by the American Conservative Union.

Noncontenders completely (who have been mentioned or were on the list previously):
Dick Cheney
Tom Ridge
Gov. George Pataki

The Wild Cards
Newt Gingrich - I loved his new book, and I think it is chock-full of platform building ideas for 2008. "He has declined that he wants to run, merely that he wants to influence those who are running. Doesn't sound like the Newt we know and love. Seems to want to update his "non-compassionate conservative" values for the post-9/11 era." Hopefully the ideas candidate for 2008, as the electorate mostly hates Gingrich, even if they don't know why.

Condoleeza Rice - Bush's second term has been lackluster, this has hurt Condi, but not the "Draft Condi" movement. They were in-force at CPAC, but she is not ready to run. Way to little campaign experience.

Dick Cheney - Now that would be an interesting campaign.

Democrats:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - "Since everyone else assumes she has the experience, I will too. After defeat at thier own hands in both 2000 and 2004, the Democrats are scrambling for a leader. A face of the party. Is it Howard Dean? John Kerry? Hillary has too many negatives, Whitewater, her husband, tainted for at least the next decade by the Monica thing, and well, comedian Jeff Foxworthy puts it best: "If you can't say anything nice about a person, you must be talking about Hillary Clinton." I honestly cannot picture Hillary running for President." However, she should not be underestimated.

DNC Chair Howard Dean - He seems to be really ineffective, and I doubt he will run in 2008.

Sen. John Kerry - Snowball's chance in hell.

Sen. Barack Obama - Too young for 2008, but keep an eye on him for 2012 or 2016.

Gov. Ed Rendell - I have never been able to pinpoint his popularity, even being from Philadelphia like he is. HE is very charismatic, and seems to be popular with Democrats. However, when his record is closely examined, it is less than stellar.

Sen. Joe Biden - He wasn't viable in 1988. I don't think 17 years in the Senate will change that. Can barely open his mouth without inserting his foot.

Sen. John Edwards - May be damaged goods. Unless he proves he is more than just a pretty face, I doubt he will be much of a player, unless he becomes the best of a poor pool of candidates, like his former running mate. Also, America hates trial lawyers, and he is not currently holding office.

Sen Evan Bayh - Americans for Bayh:

Very simply Evan Bayh, a Democrat with a proud political heritage, wins statewide in traditionally Republican Indiana. He was elected Secratary of State in 1986 and served two terms as Governor of the state of Indiana. Given then Governor Bayh's outstanding service and management of of Indiana as it's chief executive where "he was re-elected governor in 1992 with the highest percentage of the vote in a statewide election in modern Indiana history. By the end of his second term Bayh had an approval rating of nearly 80 percent." Evan Bayh then successfully ran for United States Senator in 1998 and 2004. President Bill Clinton once said of the Senator that "I tell you that I hope and expect some day I'll be voting for Evan Bayh for President of the United States."

Gov. Mark Warner - the centrist Democrat favorite:

I will say this... The Democrats could do a lot worse than Warner. He is a pro-gun, social moderate, pro-business Democrat who recently has boasted about a gain of 11,000 new jobs in his state with an average income of $76,000 per year. The Governor's biggest accomplishment to date is his backing, and eventual signing, of a tax reform package supported by Democrats, many Republicans, and Virginia business leaders. The legislation was hailed nationally as an act of common sense moderation that reformed an archaic and regressive tax system responsible for hurting Virginia's ability to invest in infrastructure and grow the economy.

Gov. Bill Richardson - From New Mexico, which went slightly red in 2004, and though supposedly non-charismatic, his credentials worry me because I sort of like the guy.

The Wild Cards
Sen. Russ Feingold - The No. 2 man on evil campiagn finance reform, he seems to be not as toxic as Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Let's hope McCain-Feingold remains a horrible law, and not a ticket. Americans for Democratic Action rates him at 96/100 progressive.

I am really unconviced as of yet to back any GOP horse except Barbour for VP.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:14 PM | Permalink | |

I think it is obivious that John McCain cannot win the primary, and I think he would make a terrible President. This was demonstrated to full effect at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, this weekend in Tennessee. Though hometown boy Frist is winning the straw poll, I think that it is minor news to McCain's wide defeat and his attempt to control it.
Drudge:

Facing a loss at a 2008 straw poll event this weekend, Senator John McCain of Arizona told his supporters to write in President Bush [?] as a sign of support, leaving many sputtering.

"For the next three years, with our country at war, he's our president and the only one who needs our support," McCain told nearly 2,000 party activists from 26 states gathered in Memphis.

McCain, realizing the national political media had descended on the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, moved to discredit the straw poll by asking delegates to vote for Bush, insiders claim.

Instead of stopping the momentum of Majority Leader Bill Frist - widely anticipated to win the straw poll - the move seemed to expose the McCain camp's insincerity about its position with the base.

One activist said, "McCain voted against all the Bush tax cuts... maybe he should have voted for the president then, instead of waiting for a political stunt to try and distract."

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:51 PM | Permalink | |

John Bolton is my hero this week, for being the tough-talking rebel in the UN. Way to not disappoint:

Bolton and other senior U.S. officials suggested that if the Security Council doesn't take tough action, the United States might look elsewhere to punish Iran _ possibly by rallying its allies to impose targeted sanctions.

"We're going to press for as vigorous a response in the council as we can get and hope that that gets the Iranians' attention," Bolton told reporters. "If the Iranians do not back off from their continued aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons, we'll have to make a decision of what the next step will be."

Just a week after he was hero for the first time ever, President Bush gets hack this week. Why? Dubai:

Mr Bush had warned repeatedly that blocking the deal would send a dangerously discriminatory message to the world. He threatened repeatedly to veto any congressional legislation.

But with his public approval ratings at record lows and his Republican party abandoning him, one of the US’s closest allies in the Arab world concluded that he was no longer in control in Washington.

The decision by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al- Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, is likely to avert the political backlash that hit Washington last month and may prevent any further damage to diplomatic and security relations between the countries. But it underscored that Mr Bush, who still has nearly three years to go in his second term, has become perilously weak.

This is completely Bush's fault for not selling it. Whether you agreed or disagreed is irrelevant, it is the President's job to market his view to the American people. Here, Bush failed horribly.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:16 AM | Permalink | |

This sounds pretty accurate to me (though I do not consider myself "hip"):

Yes, as far as youth culture is concerned, this decade (do we call it the 2000s, or does that refer to the whole century/millennium?) has just got it going on. And I think it has to do with the 20-year cycles of cultural trends: we are living an updated, new-and-improved version of the best decade in human history, the 1980s!

Alex P. Keaton is back with a vengeance, but this time he has some cool, some nonchalance, to go with the ambition and self-discipline. He has a sense of purpose beyond going to Wall Street and voting Republican. He's less manic, more sure of himself in a world that is less sure of itself.

We've all seen the same statistics popping up in increasingly incredulous articles: teenage pregnancy and drug use have long been in decline; the median age for first experiences with sex and alcohol is climbing; church attendance is up; juvenile delinquency is down. What in the name of Haley Joel Osment is going on?

Well, it seems that this successor cohort to the "Children of the 80s" (a more accurate descriptor than lumping us with people who are already in their 40s) simply sees less of a need to rebel against society. Life is pretty darn good when you've grown up during the most prosperous time in the most prosperous country ever.

At the same time, 9/11 served as a formative experience that focused Gen Yers in a way that those of us whose high school and college years were spent in the aimlessness of the "end of history" after the end of the Cold War. I see it in the changes that have taken place at my alma maters and, more importantly, I see it in the attitudes and worldviews of those who would have been my peers but for accidents of birth.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:34 PM | Permalink | |

Here's my reasoning. Just look at Drudge (the herald?)! Bush wants to cut spending and veto, Jimmy Carter opposes Hillary Clinton, Hillary opposes Bill, Iran is going berserk, North Korea is shooting missiles, Congress is revolting, Avian Flu, and we may have found other life in the solar system.

Whew.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:28 PM | Permalink | |

The New York Times:

With Congress heading into a politically perilous budget season, influential House conservatives plan this week to propose an austere alternative spending plan that would pare more than $650 billion over five years, balance the budget and drastically shrink three cabinet agencies.

The legislation, part of a push by some Republicans to re-establish themselves as champions of fiscal restraint, was taking shape as President Bush struck a similar theme on Monday by asking Congress to grant him line-item veto power to eliminate federal spending that he might judge wasteful

...

Under the proposal, expected to be introduced by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, and Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, military spending would continue to rise, administration tax cuts would be protected and Social Security would be spared. But many other programs and foreign aid would be greatly scaled back.

The authors of the proposal describe it as a sequel to the Contract With America, which helped catapult Republicans to power in 1994. An outline of the plan says the proposals require "tough choices, but members have expressed a serious desire to do the hard things to save America.

It will take a miracle to get it passed, but here's hoping.

(h/t to the lovely Mary Katherine Ham)

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:17 AM | Permalink | |

George Bush, Porkbuster? Or just Presidential power grabber? Thought dead and buried in the 1990s like Urkel and the Furby, the line-item veto is back, in Diet form:

Bush is now pressing for a modified, weaker version. Instead of being able to strike items from bills, he would send one or more items back to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Present law permits Congress to ignore these proposed rescissions, but under the Bush proposal lawmakers would have to vote on them. If majorities in both the House and the Senate agreed with the president, the cuts would take effect.

"Forty-three governors have this line-item veto in their states," Bush said. "Now it's time to bring this important tool of fiscal discipline to Washington, D.C."

Bush has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, but he said the modified line-item proposal would help "reduce wasteful spending, reduce the budget deficit and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely."

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., issued statements supporting Bush, as did several conservative lawmakers.

And Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who promoted a similar approach in his presidential campaign against Bush in 2004, immediately jumped on board.

"It's no secret that President Bush and I don't agree on much, but I fully support giving him the line-item veto," Kerry said. "I'm going to introduce this legislation, Congress should immediately pass it, and I want to see President Bush use this veto pen to get tough on wasteful spending."

Glenn Reynolds and Mary Katherine Ham are skeptical.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:08 AM | Permalink | |

FoxNews.com:

Illegal immigrants living in nine states can now attend public college at in-state tuition costs. But legal U.S. citizens still have to pay out-of-state tuition at schools outside of their home state. That price difference can be tens of thousands of dollars.

Many say it's discrimination if states offer a cheaper public college education to illegal immigrants, and some out-of-state American students are suing in federal and state courts. Others argue it's the best way to make sure immigrant students reach their potential

Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to attend public universities at any price. If the university knows they are illegal...they should be sent back where they came from. And then we build the fence.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:25 PM | Permalink | |

Jim March on gun control:

Ever compared the number of murders and population levels between the single most “pro gun” state (Vermont) and the single most self-defense-restrictive area of the US (WashDC)?

It’s rather interesting.

Vermont’s population at 621,394 is larger than DC at 553,523.
. . .
Washington DC basically bans all handguns, bans all carry of guns and strictly regulates long-guns. Vermont in contrast is one of only two states where anybody without a felony record can legally carry a handgun concealed or open with no prior government permission needed – and has since 1903. (Alaska copied this system in 2004 so for a very long time Vermont was uniquely pro-self-defense above all other states.)

So if guns cause murder, one would expect more in Vermont?

Not exactly. The total number of murders in Vermont in 2004 was 16
. . .

The total in DC isn’t in that document that I could find but I did find a Washington Post reference to 420 murders in ’04 and even more in ’05

(h/t: Jeff the Baptist)

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:25 AM | Permalink | |

I discovered this book via Glenn Reynolds' podcast with the author (I recommend a listen) and was persuaded to pick it up, because Glenn and Helen both seemed to be enamoured with the telling of the story. Manhunt really does move practically in realtime, like some 19th century version of 24. I love history, so this was of interest to me, but I never realized how fascinating of a character that John Wilkes Booth was. Lee Harvey Oswald was certainly insane, but Booth has a cult of personality. He was an actor, America's most glamourized profession. He thought theatrically, and this had great impact, Swanson argues, on the unfolding of the assassination and the persuit and death of Booth. Highly recommended. This is one of the most engaging books on history that I have ever read.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:31 PM | Permalink | |

I don't feel like talking politics much right now, but I thought I'd take a concept featured prominently in the wonderfull movie High Fidelity and, well...steal it. So here is my all-time top five stranded-on-a-desert-island albums list. If I could only listen to 5 albums for the rest of my life, this would be it. I consider them the best, and some of the "best" artists/albums may not be represented (I'm not much of a Stones fan), but after all, this is my list.

The rules I used are as follows: must be an album by one artist, no compilations or soundtracks, no live albums or greatest hits. I'm not going to "tag" anybody, but if you are inclined to play along, leave a comment or trackback. Here goes:

1. Born to Run - Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band (1975)
Here, The Boss is at his best as singer/songwriter, and the E Street Band is amazing. Springsteen catches the essence of what it is to be an American teenager, "between what's flesh and what's fantasy," with vivid imagery and a great sound. A solid album, and one I can listen to over and over without it getting old. A testament to this are Springsteen's concerts, in which the songs are tweaked and played with, opened up and full-out jammed on. From Mary's dress waving on "Thunder Road" to the rumble in "Jungleland," it doesn't get any better than this.
Runners up by this artist: The Rising, Darkness of the Edge of Town



2. Signals - Rush (1982)
It took some thinking, but Signals is my favorite Rush album, with A Farewell to Kings coming in at a close second. There is just something about this album, before Rush moved completely in the direction of using synthesizers, that moves me. The title track depicts that feeling of being an outsider that everyone knows, "be cool or be cast out." "New World Man" is a great anthem for those going out to change the world. Just ask this blogger. (lyrics) In my Rush fandom, I tend to skew more to the earlier stuff (with 20-minute songs), but those albums tend to have highs and lows.

Runners up by this artist: A Farewell to Kings, 2112



3. Rubber Soul - The Beatles (1965)