Download Full Content – Printable Pickings
Mark Steyn looks over the candidates.
… Let me ask a question of my Democrat friends: What does John Edwards really believe on Iraq? I mean, really? To pose the question is to answer it: There’s no there there. In the Dem debates, the only fellow who knows what he believes and says it out loud is Dennis Kucinich. Otherwise, all is pandering and calculation. The Democratic Party could use some seriously fresh thinking on any number of issues – abortion, entitlements, racial preferences – but the base doesn’t want to hear, and no viable candidate is man enough (even Hillary) to stick it to ‘em. I disagree profoundly with McCain and Giuliani, but there’s something admirable about watching them run in explicit opposition to significant chunks of their base and standing their ground. Their message is: This is who I am. Take it or leave it.
That’s the significance of Clinton’s dithering on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. There was a media kerfuffle the other day because at some GOP event an audience member referred to Sen. Clinton as a “bitch,” and John McCain was deemed not to have distanced himself sufficiently from it. Totally phony controversy: In private, Hillary’s crowd liked the way it plays into her image as a tough stand-up broad. And, yes, she is tough. A while back, Elizabeth Edwards had the temerity to venture that she thought her life was happier than Hillary’s. And within days the Clinton gang had jumped her in a dark alley, taken the tire iron to her kneecaps, and forced her into a glassy-eyed public recantation of her lese-majeste. If you’re looking for someone to get tough with Elizabeth Edwards or RINO senators or White House travel-office flunkies, Hillary’s your gal.
But tough on America’s enemies? Thatcher-tough? Not a chance.
Charles Krauthammer on progress in Iraq and the Dem denial. The Democrats confuse process with results which has become a metaphor for government thought and action at all levels; local, state, and federal.
It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment — a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.
And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: “This is not working. . . . We must reverse it.” A euphemism for “abandon the field,” which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.
How do they avoid acknowledging the realities on the ground? By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks — mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government — that were set months ago. And that these benchmarks are paramount. And that all the current progress is ultimately vitiated by the absence of centrally legislated national reconciliation. …
Mark Steyn Corner post.
Gerard Baker on the strength of the U. S. economy.
The Captain with a series of posts on the candidacy of HRC.
1. And here I thought that the dumbest statements of this extended political season would come in the quiz shows presidential debates. The latest kerfuffle in the Democratic primary centers on whether living abroad as a child carries more weight on foreign policy than being First Lady. It’s akin to watching two guys in a bar debate whether playing Pop Warner football gives more credibility than playing Madden 2007 when criticizing NFL head coaches: …
2. InfoUSA now faces an SEC probe, one that could indirectly, at least, involve Bill and Hillary Clinton in the middle of an election campaign. The data processing company spent millions on Bill Clinton as a consultant and has flown Hillary around on its corporate jets. Now the SEC wants a look at the company’s books, spurred on by stockholders who sense something amiss in the benefits showered on the former First Couple: …
3. This story challenges the boundaries of satire. Hillary Clinton captured the vital corrupt-foreign-leader constituency with Bernadette Chirac’s endorsement yesterday. The wife of the French ex-president said that she thought Hillary had the makings of a president, although her personal experience at that may not play too well on the campaign trail (via Memeorandum): …
Kimberley Strassel gives her perception of Clinton’s weakness.
You might not think one lousy debate performance, or one silly planted question, would jolt a storming campaign. Then again, you might not be Hillary Clinton. If the last few weeks have shown anything, it’s that Mrs. Clinton has some weak spots. What isn’t yet clear is whether her Democratic opponents have the time, or the will, to exploit them.
Until recently, the biggest thing going for Hillary is that she has appeared “inevitable.” This is no accident. Mrs. Clinton may not be as naturally gifted as her husband, but she does have access to his playbook. One of Bill’s more brilliant strategies when he ran in 1992 was to campaign as if he were already the nominee. It gave an otherwise little-known governor the legitimacy to sideline his opponents.
Mrs. Clinton has made this tactic a cornerstone of her campaign, and it had been working. During debates she frequently speaks on “behalf of everyone” on the stage. She chooses moments wisely to make statements no Democrat disagrees with (“George Bush is ruining this country”), leaving the competition nodding in miserable agreement. Her insistence that she and her Democratic colleagues should keep this race focused on their arch-enemy was equally savvy. With everyone piling on Dubya, nobody was piling on her.
Add to this Mrs. Clinton’s stash of money, the vaunted infrastructure, the endorsements and her superstar status. The Clinton campaign has flogged all of these to leave the impression she’s the only player in the game.
The trick is that there’s little room for error. The media hates a winner as much as it hates a preordained election, and so it has seized on her missteps to blitz the papers with stories suggesting she’s not Teflon. For a campaign betting so much on perception, this new doubt is not good. ..
Ann Coulter wants all Dems reading the NY Times.
Here’s a story that may not have been deemed “Fit to Print”: In the six months that ended Sept. 25, The New York Times’ daily circulation was down another 4.51 percent to about a million readers a day. The paper’s Sunday circulation was down 7.59 percent to about 1.5 million readers. In short, the Times is dropping faster than Hillary in New Hampshire. (Meanwhile, the Drudge Report has more than 16 million readers every day.)
One can only hope that none of the Democratic presidential candidates are among the disaffected hordes lining up to cancel their Times subscriptions.
The Times is so accustomed to lying about the news to prove that “most Americans” agree with the Times, that it seems poised to lead the Democrats — and any Republicans stupid enough to believe the Times — down a primrose path to their own destruction.
So if you know a Democratic presidential candidate who doesn’t currently read the Times, by all means order him a subscription. …
Denver Post with a story that’ll make you sign on to every lawyer joke you’ve heard.
The New Editor has a govemnment waste story that’ll amaze you.
Here’s a story that seems to illustrate in spades the ridiculous inefficiency of government: (via Don Boudreaux)
After Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Audubon Aquarium needed to restock its collection in order to replace losses resulting from the storm, and did so at a cost of about $100,000. However, when aquarium officials sought disaster-relief compensation for the loss from FEMA, they were turned down because the agency said they should have spent more than $600,000 in order to replace the fish. …
Samizdata on one of the ways socialism kills.