The New Editor expects a better November 7th than the New York Times.

Fun fact: the GOP only needs to win three of its at-risk seats to hold the Senate, and that seems to be a relatively easy go. If Tom Kean, Jr., beats the corrupt Menendez in New Jersey, the Dems can kiss the Senate goodbye. But Menendez currently leads.

I grew up in New Jersey. How the state became so liberal is beyond me. And its tolerance for corruption is remarkable-- it's the Louisiana of the Atlantic seaboard.

Well, actually, Rhode Island is the Louisiana of the Atlantic seabord, I guess.

When It Rains, It Monsoons Update: Curt Weldon's daughter's house raided by FBI, for evidence of illegal favors for lobbyists and consultants.

Isn't that lovely.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Today?

Meanwhile, oil edges up in advance of an emergency OPEC meeting to discuss cutting production.

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Hegel never supported this war, and Warner's been wobbly. Still, a pair of preening canaries in the coalmine seem to herald that the new American policy will be, ahem, "Peace With Honor" with a "Decent Interval."

Because that worked out so well in Vietnam.

- Two leading Republican senators called Sunday for a new strategy in Iraq, saying the situation in getting worse and leaving the United States with few options.

Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia are part of the growing list of Republicans who are speaking out against

President Bush's current plan for Iraq as U.S. casualties rise.

"The American people are not going to continue to support, sustain a policy that puts American troops in the middle of a civil war," Hagel said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Hagel said he agreed with Warner, chairman of the

Senate Armed Services Committee, who said after a recent visit to Iraq that Iraq was "drifting sideways." Warner has urged consideration of a change of course if the Iraq government fails to restore order over the next two months or three months.

Warner said Sunday he stands by that assessment, and even in the week since his trip to Iraq, there has been an "exponential increase in the killings and the savagery that's going on over there."

"You can see some movement forward, but a lot of movement back," Warner said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "We have to rethink all the options, except any option which says we precipitously pull out, which would let that country fall into a certain civil war at that time, and all of the neighboring countries would be destabilized."

Bush told reporters last week that he invites a change in strategy if the plan isn't working. But he also said the U.S. will not leave until the job is done.

Hagel said it is time to change course, but "our options are limited."

"We need to find a new strategy, a way out of Iraq, because the entire Middle East is more combustible than it's been probably since 1948, and more dangerous," Hagel said. "And we're in the middle of it."

What "new strategy"? If they can envision one, why do they not announce it?

Like the Democrats, they call for a "new strategy" but seem to have no idea of what a "new strategy" might look like.

What do such calls mean? Partly they're a way of saying "cut and run" without outright saying so. Partly they're a way of expressing the frustration many of us feel. Except, being Important Senators, they cannot merely say "We're frustrated by the situation," they have to make Important New Strategy Initiatives like, for example, calling for a New Strategy.

But another part of this might be the psychological need to feel relevant. People back home may want to contribute to a success in Iraq, but it's the fighters who will actually win the war. People like Hegel and Warner can't actually help win the war on the ground, so they convince themselves that they can "contribute" by adding "bold new ideas" and "fresh thinking" to the effort.

But can they? In 100,000 years of human warfare, has there really been a fundamental improvement on the elemental strategy of "kill as many of your enemies as possible, and deny logistics and shelter to the rest"?

I wish the "New Strategy" pinheads would recognize their fundamental irrelevancy. Our boys will win this war, if it's winnable, by killing terrorists, capturing terrorist supporters, and co-opting soft terrorist supporters. It can only hurt morale to constantly call for "New Strategies" -- suggesting the current strategy is defective and futile -- without actually proposing, or even hinting at, a new strategy.

If you have a new strategy, say so. I'm sure someone in the DoD will look it over and, if it has any merit, will pass it on to the relevant decisionmakers.

If you're actually calling for retreat, then do so plainly, without these all these half-assed ass-covering locutions. Either we can win in Iraq or we can't; if we can't, there's no sense losing more of our best to a lost cause. Either support the war or oppose it, but don't pose as wishing to win it while undermining the effort.

If you have nothing especially insightful or specific to say-- please, stop trying to seem important and shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Ace at 09:58 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 751 words, total size 4 kb.

Avast! Arggh! Mew!

Awww, wee snookums.

A peg-leg and a hook? That's a little disturbing.

Thanks to tres.

Posted by: LauraW. at 07:37 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

There's some kind of story at the link. I don't care, I just like the picture and knew that it was purrrfect for the new Laura O'Spades format.

Coming up:
*Extreme closeups of Hugh Jackman's pectorals
*Health alert: Your Cuticles And You

Posted by: LauraW. at 06:34 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Current event themes, or what-have-you.

Integrity (5-7-5 format) or Loose Shit.

I'll kick it off with Loose Shit:

Right Wing Mindset

Polls make me worry
when my team isn't favored
and when they are, I still think its some kind of a dirty trick and I have to go throw up

Tried to come up with something funny along Nork lines, but failed. Perhaps the gifted and drunk people in the comments section can oblige.

UPDATE: Progressive trolls are invited to join this contest. Yes. The judging gets dicey there, but will do my best to recognize greatness. Unless I just feel like a spiteful jerk that day, which is entirely within the realm of possibility. So, you know. Don't get too attached to your sandcastle, troll.

Results will be announced sometime after you all forget about the contest. Yes, there will be phoney-baloney internet non-prizes.

Posted by: LauraW. at 04:02 PM | Comments (239)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, a little bit more of teh ghey.

Posted by: Ace at 11:37 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

According to his producer.

I don't think it makes you gay. I tested this claim by listening to "SexyBack" 40 times in a row, then going to a highway rest area and having sex with fifteen random dudes.

Result? I did enjoy it. Much. Still straight. Ish.

Meanwhile... You can buy a "Hot Heroes" calender, featuring half-naked and very buff Marines, and donate a bit to wounded veterans while you're at it.

I'm told that if you look at this calender while listening to "SexyBack," a straight man's head will explode as if he combined Coke and PopRocks.

Enough Gay Stuff: I have a question. The Giants have repeatedly done a group celebration after sacks, multiple people taking pantomime jump shots at once.

Is this a loophole in the rules? You're not allowed to engage in group celebrations after a touchdown, but you can do so at other times? I wondered after the first time why they didn't draw a flag; now I'm pretty sure they must be permitted to.

Seems to me it's more of a taunt to celebrate after a sack than after a touchdown.

And I'd rather see the group celebrations after touchdowns; the Icky Shuffle and Dirty Bird were fun .

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

America's feeling Blue.

Blue, Blue, Blue.

In all likelihood, the House is lost, and the GOP can now just hope to barely retain the Senate. There are only a few things that can change this.

It may be that many social cons and serious-on-the-war independents are reporting their disgust over the Foley affair, and general weariness with the GOP, in polls, but that when it comes time to pull a lever, they'll pull it for the R's. Even so, one imagines that many of the voters who turned out in droves for the GOP in 2004 will stay home this year.

The much-vaunted GOP advertising spree may change some votes-- though if it's having a big effect, it's not evident in the polls so far.

The GOP could also begin running hard on the one issue that undeniably cuts in their favor, and which animates voters -- immigration. But it's not really a national strategy, as Bush is opposed to his own party on this issue. So it's hard for local candidates to really get the unified-message-synergy on the issue.

The GOP needs some good news -- or a big scandal for Democrats (that the media is actually obliged) to cover -- fast. They don't seem to want to cover Harry Reid with the "flood the zone" coverage they're giving to Foley. With three weeks left, breaking good news seems less likely every day. Most of the good news -- economy, tough measures on terror, border fence, etc. -- is already in, and apparently isn't enough.

Which is no reason not to vote. Limit the damage. Right now there looks like there's going to be an awful lot of it.

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (149)
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

In case you haven't done them yet.

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.