What the hell is it with this guy?

Rude joke follows. You've been warned. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:06 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

A mysterious reader calling himself "vs" drops by to answer.

I love it. All this sweet work done by someone else, and all to the embarassment of Andrew Sullivan.

A few days ago, I asked:

What number, praytell, did Mr. Sullivan expect? When he was so passionately, and so emotionally, making his case for all the wond'rous benefits that would flow from an American invasion, what number of American dead was he envisioning? What number of American dead did he have in his mind as the break-point between a war that was virtuous and necessary and a war that was too painful and not worth fighting at all?

He never told us when he was so stridently urging this nation into war. He can correct this oversight by telling us now-- and telling us, too, why he never informed us of how very conditional his passionate support for war was.

"vs" tells me that during the drive on Baghdad, Sullivan answered my question thus:

The phrase "it seems -- even if the war overall is going well so far" is the qualification only a master blogger could pull off. So's the final sentence. If there's room for doubting the hawks' "grander" rosy scenarios, is there no room for doubting the less grand ones, like, er, that Rummy hasn't obviously screwed up so far? In fact, to the naked eye, he's kicking butt. Surely the best neoliberal criterion should still be Kenneth Pollack's (partly because it wasn't made with any of the current debate in mind):

Probably the most likely scenario would be about one third of Iraq's armed forces fighting hard, limited use of tactical WMD, and some extensive combat in a few cities. In this most likely case, the campaign would probably last four to eight weeks and result in roughly 500 to 1,000 American combat deaths.

To argue that the war has taken much longer than necessary seems to me at this point to be pushing credulity. At the current rate of progress, it looks as if we're going to come in at the lower end of Pollack's estimate. But I guess the anti-neo-cons have got to grasp at something. If things continue at this pace, it's going to be a cluster of von Hoffman awards.

So, it seems that Andrew Sullivan expected some 1000 American deaths, albeit all coming in eight weeks of hard fighting.

Well, that didn't happen; Saddam's forces melted away to fight not hard and in mass but in guerilla -- or terrorist -- fashion. Still, at the end of the day, we're just above 1000 American deaths.

And yet Sullivan now finds such a tally too horrible a toll to bear.

Without doubt, we all would have been grateful had our casualties in Iraq been limited to the 150 brave men and women who died in the first few weeks of combat. We would have been joyous had we lost no one at all. Still, it seems strange that what Andrew Sullivan once thought of as a reasonable under-over for war-dead has now become evidence of Bush's "criminal negligence," or whatever the hystrionic little twit is calling it lately.

It just so happens that the Massachusetts Supreme Court forced gay marriage on a reluctant state in the interim, and Bush, to stop other courts from doing likewise, announced his support of the FMA.

But that, of course, is just a coincidence.

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 586 words, total size 3 kb.

Pardon me if I keep bringing this up, but I had long heard that undecideds always break for the challenger, until Howard Dean's former campaign manager called that complete bunk during the conventions. So I'm interested to know if it's true; obviously, it's a crucial bit of information for the upcoming election, which will almost certainly be pretty close (if not razor-close).

This site transcribes also Pat Caddell saying the bromide is pure crap:

CADDELL: ... One of the [erroneous] things by the way I'll point out to you, having just listened to you and the Speaker, is that no, the undecideds always break to the incumbent at the end of a Presidential campaign.

CAVUTO: Really?

CADDELL: That is the greatest misnomer I've ever heard, because nobody studies the history of this. Undecided voters, by the middle of October, have not decided to vote for the challenger, they go for the safe choice, the person they have. That is what was moving Carter--

CAVUTO: What does that mean, Pat, go for the safe choice, because--

CADDELL: In other words, if a challenger cannot convince them, it's what I used to call the button problem, it's the war problem. If you're not going to vote for, unless you convince yourself that the challenger will do a better job in protecting the country, or handling particularly foreign policy than will be the incumbent or the incumbent party, then if you haven't made that decision, you stay with what's safe, you stay with what you know, that you're comfortable with. And that's been working for Bush I think coming all along, and it's part of the whole--

CAVUTO: Well why didn't it work for Jimmy Carter, Pat?

CADDELL: It did. It did.

Caddell goes on to explain that undecideds were breaking for Carter in late October 1980, but that a tactical error by Carter ruined all that. But you'll have to click on the link for the end of the story.

Thanks to Kausfiles.

Posted by: Ace at 10:38 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

Actually, she responds to an email interview; for some crazy reason, she doesn't trust the liberal media to print her answers accurately.

Some good stuff, some vintage Ann, but I liked this especially:

Q: Why don't you convert to libertarianism? You and John Stossel could get married and save America.

A: Libertarians are potheads posing as right-wingers. But John Stossel is a fine fellow. I just don't think I could go along with working "give me a break" into the wedding vows.

Yup-yup. Libertarians are nice people and all, but seriously, a political philosophy has to be built on a more vigorous intellectual foundation than Weeeeeeeeeeeed! Weeeeed! Weed, man! Weeeeeeeeed!

I mean, seriously. Conservativism goes back to John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke. People like that. Big thinkers.

Near as I can tell, libertarianism was born after a midnight showing of Cheech & Chong's Nice Dreams.

And reliable sources inform me that most votes for a libertarian candidate are cast due to losing a bar bet of some sort.

Come on, libertarians. Straighten up. Fly right. Come in on the winning team for the big win.

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

Because, get this, compact-sized obstructionist dandy Tom Daschle is about to get booted out of office by John Thune.

Well, I guess that depends on how many millions of votes they get from the reservations. But, as regards legal votes, he's just about toast.

H/t NRO's The Corner.

Explain to me again why monsters all used
to have eight-sided hit dice, back in "the Golden
Age" of fantasy war-gaming.

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

As most of you know, I have been, like Andrew Sullivan, a confirmed "independent eagle" on the question of who should be the next President. Much like my guiding muse Mr. Sullivan, I have been posed on the knife's edge between endorsing Bush, endorsing Kerry, or not endorsing any candidate at all.

Yes, it's a three-edged knife. That's how complicated my decision has been. Don't nit-pick, dick.

I have watched with great fascination at Andrew Sullivan's difficult wrestling with this key question. It's been so difficult to divine precisely where he'd come down on the issue; and so it has been too, for me. Yes, I did give an interview to Al Goldstein's Screw magazine in which I said I could never, ever support John Kerry as a heterosexual man who retains full use of his balls and spine; but that was for a different audience. You musn't take that as some sort of early judgment on the issue.

I have been straight with you. I said I was undecided, and I remain undecided. I'm "undecided" in the sense that I haven't yet announced my decision. Sort of like Oliver Willis just before he gets to the order-taker at McDonald's.

And, like Andrew Sullivan, my independent-minded, non-partisan struggle with the issue has caused me to lose some of my more knee-jerkedly partisan readers. The Batman, for example. (If that is his real name.)

Yes, The Batman still occasionally shows up to taunt me in my moment of doubt, but does he ever give me a "You go girl" or even a "Ohhh, snap! No you didn't!" ? Well, let me assure you, he does not. And it stings.

As a straight man living in New York City, my occasional defenses of President Bush have caused me a great deal of heart-ache in the social circles I run in. Just the other day I was out with the girls for a mani-pedi, and just as I was having my callouses buffed, I accidentally said, "Is it just me, or does Karen Hughes seem to have a pretty nice rack on her?" Well, I was just about ostracized from the group entirely; somehow my invite to Sandy's The O.C. season-debut viewing party went "missing."

Missing? Or just vindictively sent to Joanie instead, who thinks she's all that, but she ain'?

But all this Hamlet-like vacillation on the issue must come to an end, I fear.

I don't want to give away my decision, but look, if you're a John Kerry supporter who just comes here for the discussions about Billy Squire and Streets of Fire, maybe you ought to send in your donation now, rather than just putting it off until tomorrow.

Oh, not for any reason. It's just that you don't want to be a Procrastinating Paula, right? No one likes that.

Also, if George Soros is about to offer me some cash to pimp for the liberal Senator from Massachusetts engage in some spirited analysis that contributes to a return to American greatness, maybe we ought to get those contracts signed quick, huh?

At any rate, it's time for me, like the brave Andrew Sullivan, to make my own courageous and utterly unpredictable endorsement. I hope you will understand the gutsy choice I find myself forced to make.

Update: I think Mrs. Jeff Goldstein has the right attitude on Mr. Sullivan.

Then again, maybe not. I can't make up my mind. What is a Guiliani-Schwarzenegger-McCain-Peter Allen independent eagle to think of all this?

Questions, questions.

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 607 words, total size 4 kb.

Out-damn-standing take-down in NRO today:

he Times's gambit today reprises another oldie-but-goodie: the Bush administration's purported denial of human rights to captured terrorists (to whom it is the paper's amiable wont to refer as "young Arabic men"). Thus, this morning's page-one screamer reports that the administration has reversed itself and is denying the protections of the Geneva Conventions to some of the fighters captured in Iraq — which, for example, justifies permitting them to be removed from the country for interrogation purposes.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:18 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.

But I sure can link it:

"For too long, Republican-fueled hate has kept gays fearful and in the closet, often with tragic consequences," [John Edwards' "wife" Elizabeth] explained. "For example, even today gay men are frequently locked in loveless marriages of convenience, for no other reason than to provide a flimsy facade to society."

"This is a tragedy for everyone, particularly the unsuspecting wife," said Edwards. "She is that plain small town girl who meets the handsome -- yet oddly fussy -- prelaw student at the fraternity smoker, her undeveloped 'gay-dar' too weak to recognize his obsessive hair primping and unusual effeminate chattiness. Soon they are dating, but he shows little interest in sex, always claiming he has 'a big tort midterm' or other excuse. Still, she would rather stay with this eerily pretty man who shows no interest in other women, even if it means letting him have his regular Wednesday through Saturday 'boys nights out' in Charlotte or Raleigh or Atlanta...."

I think we've all been there, Liza.

It May Sound Real, But I Assure It's Not (?) Update: Just in case this isn't clear -- perhaps it's too damn believable Elizabeth Edwards would say exactly this -- this is a satire. It's made up. Iowahawk wrote it.

But we all know that John Edwards has seen the ABBA tribute musical Mama Mia at least three or four times.

I'm not saying that makes him gay.

I'm just saying, well, I guess that was what I was saying.

Posted by: Ace at 04:08 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

Top Rabbi Urges Conservative Jews to Vote For Bush

Itza Mitzvah!:

A senior Israeli rabbi with influence among almost 150,000 American Jews ruled Tuesday that they should vote for President George W. Bush in the upcoming US elections, his office said.

Rabbi Shalom Yosef Elyashiv, responding to queries from Americans residing in Israel, has decided that Bush is better for Israel than his competitor, John Kerry, said an assistant to the rabbi, Haim Cohen.

Elyashiv's opinions are respected by large ultra-Orthodox communities, especially in Israel and the US. Elyashiv has strong influence over about half of all haredi Jews of European origin.

"Apparently George Bush loves Israel and thus we need to vote for him," the rabbi said Tuesday, according to Cohen.

...

About 140,000 American Orthodox Jews will probably abide by Elyashiv's decision, said Sam Heilman, an expert on American Jews at Queens College in New York. But Elyashiv is just confirming the theories of many analysts who believe most haredi Jews in the US vote Republican, Heilman said in a telephone interview from his office.

"What's extraordinary is that the rabbi is addressing non-Israelis in a sense," Heilman said. "This confirms that the Orthodox community, by and large, is supporting Bush more than Kerry."

You know the one thing keeping Jews from defecting to the Republican Party wholesale?

Bowzer.

Damn him.

Posted by: Ace at 03:50 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

George Bush Leads, But Not Nearly Comfortably

Newsmax:

ABC News reported Tuesday that polling of people who have already voted shows George Bush with the lead over John Kerry by a significant margin, 51% to 47%.

The network reports that this early voting represents 1 in every ten voters who will likely vote through Election Day.

But the poll results "doesn't mean Bush is 'winning' the absentee vote; the difference is within sampling tolerances. And among all likely voters, including those waiting for Election Day, the race is essentially tied: Forty-nine percent support Kerry and 48 percent Bush, with 1 percent for Ralph Nader in interviews Friday through Monday."

More at Newsmax-- Democrats say Ohio and Florida look good for them, but then, what else would they say?

I don't know how to take this number. On the one hand, Bush is ahead. On the other hand, I have a feeling he should be more ahead among early voters. On the third, Zaphod Beeblebrox hand, if it's true that Democrats are especially animated and energized this election, maybe these numbers mean that they're not quite energized enough.

Time will tell.

Bud quotes Zaphod: "Put your analyst on danger money, baby." I hear that.

Kim Richards Suitability Update: The lead isn't strong enough for a Kim Richards siren. Sorry.

Posted by: Ace at 03:33 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.