According to a Lieberman internal poll, which, no doubt, is juiced a bit with extra Joementum.

Still.

Are Republican prospects really that dire?

When faced with the choice of an anti-war Democrat versus two pro-war candidates, the pro-war candidates share 55% of the vote (Schlesinger gets a paltry 4%).

And this is in Connecticut, The Land of Steady Habits, as the New York Times told us a month ago.

True, polls don't look good for Republicans -- at the moment. But the Lieberman-Lamont race is a display of what happens when the policy differences between pro-war and anti-war -- wait, "anti-" is so negative; let me make that a positive-sounding descriptor -- between pro-war and pro-appeasement candidates are sharpened, and voters are forced to actually decide between two men, neither perfect.

That support for a "generic Democratic" candidate? Nonsense. An unspecified candidate usually wins against a named one, because the named candidate is known, warts and all, and the public is free to project its dream policies into the specter called "Generic Democrat."

And in name versus name elections -- the policy differences haven't been sharpened yet. It's time to tie Sheehan, Bowman, Conyers, Rangell, Dingell, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha and company around every Democrat's neck.

True, the Feingold-McCain incumbent protection act forbids negative ads about a named candidate.

But not against Democrats generally.

The public is weary of this war, and would like to be rid of it. But-- here's the thing. They want to be rid of it by winning it. They hold out hope that the Democrats will explain to them some magic solution, other than the tough slog of Bush, that will allow them to win this war quickly and wtihout further pain.

They'd like to be convinced that an over-the-horizon redeployment to Okinawa is the best way to combat Al Qaeda in Iraq, but there's a good reason why they won't be so convinced: Because it's fucking idiotic.

So... as bad things look right now, I'm actually a bit more optimistic that, while the public may want some dream Democrat that will offer them a way to win the War in Iraq overnight, what will actually be on the political menu are Pelosi and her fellow travellers, and the public will wind up voting, somewhat reluctantly, for the party that actually thinks wars should be won and terrorists killed.

Or even belly-slapped.

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

Hmmm... and I'll be in NYC this weekend.

It's a futile gesture but a good one.

Thanks to Tanker.

Posted by: Ace at 11:32 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Sandy Berger protected.

As others have pointed out, there might be better evidence for precisely what he did, and refused to do, had he not stolen original archived notes of WH memoranda and then destroyed them.

Would-be House Dem chairs threatening ABC over 'Path to 9/11?' Dingell, Conyers, and Harman remind ABC of who will probably be in power next year.

Former head of CIA's Osama unit: Clinton WH *did* oppose operation to nab terrorist. Re-posting that bit from Michael Scheuer.

Alexandra writes:

re: your post about the path to 911 abc dramatization. dennis prager had lawrence
wright on his show yesterday, the author of the looming tower, which i believe is
the book the abc series is based on. he makes the (very substatiated) claim that
the conversation DID happen between the clinton white house and (i think) sudan about whether or not to take out bin laden. it's a fascinating nterview--lots of things about what lead up to 911 that most people don't know. like, how the cia found out about al quaeda in the first place, how al quaeda started, what its
original aims were, how it became an anti american organization, etc. big fingers
pointing to clinton when the ball was dropped. anyway, the episode is called
'looming towers' you can get it on itunes, or from his website.

I have no doubt that similar things occurred. I'm just saying the Clintonites have a legitimate beef if real (and damning) incidents were sexed up further to display soldiers right outside Osama's home, with Berger refusing to give the order to take him out at that point.

So far I haven't seen anyone claiming that actually happened in that way.

I've written Patterico's guest blogger, Justine Levine, to ask if that is indeed how the movie plays it.

Even if it does play it that way, it is merely "sexed up" and does still convey the essential truth that Berger and Clinton refused to take out bin Ladin. Without this scene, the movie is even less accurate than with it.

Update: Direct link to Praeger interview.

Thanks to Mary Katherine Ham.

Link Fixed. Damn that Mary Katherine Ham for making me misspell "href."

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

including those talentless hacks at EA Sports, and those "You're with me, leather" bastards at ESPN.

Ya know, picking football games isn't as easy as my 18-4 record last week makes it appear to be. I just make it look that way.

Anyway, those codswallowing assmunches think they can horn in on my act by getting a little fancy pants computer game like Madden 2007 to predict their games for them ahead of time.

Complete. Waste. of. F'n. Time.

How do I know this? I can sum it up in one word: Microsoft.

That's right, bitches. I said it. Microsoft sucks and the Xbox is an overrated gaming platform preferred by those who are easily fascinated by shiny objects and Dave @ Garfield Ridge.

But I repeat myself.

Anyway, I looked over the picks and they seem to have blown several with their "high-tech" solution.

In any event, they did get one game right: Peyton "Chokemeister" Manning's Colts will beat Ace's beloved New York Giants this weekend.

So take this lesson with you, morons. When it comes to filling your gambling fix, Johnny M. Coldcuts will always be your pusher of record.

Now get out of here. You disgust me.

Except for you, Beth. This is one sandwich who thinks you make a pretty good side dish.

Posted by: Ace at 10:56 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

This is probably old, but it's new to me. I remember the video of the guy takin' care of business in a library bathroom, but this guy goes him one better, and polishes the carp right out in the open a t a row of computers.

Librarians caught him pink-handed once before, but let him come back because "you'd like to give people other chances."

The interview with the guy is pretty funny. He says he didn't realize it was wrong when he was doing it, but now he understands.

You won't be surprised to learn he lives with his parents.

Thanks to Hal.

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

And further, she fantasized about killing him as an infant. Some kind of time-travel jag.

Personally, I think that part is made up to make it sound like an impossible fantasy and thus not a legitimate desire to kill the President. While she's probably fantasized about that specific Doc Brown scenario, I think she also fantasizes about getting Bush to finally meet with her, and then murdering him with a smuggled weapon.

And yet this bastard won't meet personally with her. A raving anti-semitic anti-American tyrant-lover who confesses fantasies about murdering the President.

Has he no shame?

Meanwhile, of course, the Green Party candidate for governor announced his desire to kill Bush -- via execution upon conviction for war crimes -- and Chris Matthews simply said, "I like you already."

The left has decided that talk of murdering politicians they don't like is now acceptable. Cute, even. I have long been against such talk -- including on this site, directed at people I personally loathe -- but I have to say I'm getting to the point where I'm less willing to avoid it if the other side refuses to abide by similar common-sense restraints.

There are killers who will kill because they're crazy and cannot be dissauded by any means and need no encouragement.

And then there are many more potential assassins, who fantasize about killing Bush (and etc.), but who need a little bit of encouragement to do so. They need the validation of the poltical tribe they belong to; they need the promise they will be hailed as a hero for doing "what needs to be done."

I think the Green Party candidate is essentially calling for Bush's assassination, as it is quite clear he will never be charged with a war crime, let alone executed for one. Thus, if one believes "justice" will be frustrated, what other choice does a well-meaning lunatic liberal with a rifle have, after all?

I'm goddamned tired of the murder-talk and the left's wink-wink-nudge-nudge response to it. I am sick of these vile fuckers subtly and not-so-subtly encouraging the assassination of duly elected or appointed members of the Bush Administration.

If I begin suggesting that the Green Party candidate should be "executed" in the interests of justice -- or that the same should happen to Chris Matthews -- will they giggle about it? Or will they resent the fact that I have made it slghtly more likely that an unhinged rightwinger will shoot them down on the street.

I have tried to take the high road. What road is left but simple tit-for-tat? Will anything convince these assholes that talk of killing the President is completely out-of-bounds and odious except for a bit of "How you like it, Chief?"

Kinda creepy -- kinda unnerving -- kinda irresponsible -- kinda deadly-dangerous to have someone hinting, to an audience of thousands, some of whom may be mentally unstable, that perhaps it would be a good idea to kill you, huh?

Yeah.

Maybe you should fucking think of that before suggesting killing President Bush, assholes.

Update [AnalogKid]: I respond to Ace. I'm starting to sound like geoff and Ace when we're talking about Ann Coulter. Geez.

Posted by: Ace at 08:49 AM | Comments (63)
Post contains 557 words, total size 4 kb.

OK, as the most important guest blogger on this site, I'm pretty pissed that Ace chose not to acknowledge my contributions to his moron blog. Do I need to get Vinny Falcone to ride his ass?

If that were not enough, one or two posts later I find that he is outsourcing his questions about the Senate, when he has a 10 year veteran Senate staffer volunteering his time as a guest blogger already!

The indignity of it all.

So, I'm retaliating in the only way available to me. I'm gonna post even more often, and see just how far I can cause his traffic to dip.

Here's the deal. Do you have questions about how the Senate operates on a daily basis? Or about things you might have seen on C-span that you weren't real sure about? Or about the Senate/Senators in general? If so, leave a question in the comments and I will do what I can to answer your questions, straight up.

Obviously, I can't take the time to answer 100+ questions. I'm a very important man, after all. But I will read thru your submissions and select roughly 10 or so, and attempt to answer them for you in an extended entry update.

In the meantime, I'm going to be typing up my resume for submission to HotAir as a future guest blogger.

I mean, if I'm going to be ignored by someone, I'd rather it be a babe like Malkin than a dweeb like Ace.

Update: Ok..before I finished this post, Ace edited his to include me after all. Does this mean my acts of retaliatory posting are being called off? Of course not. It's a matter of personal honor. And, of course, my only real forum for continuing my flirting with Mary Katharine Ham.

UPDATE 2: Selected questions are answered in the extended entry. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:37 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 1350 words, total size 8 kb.

First of all, have I mentioned the guest bloggers are doing a great job?

At least until Michael gets drunk and starts posting a bazillion videos in a row.

I'm not actually on vacation. I'm just mentally cloudy, physically weak, and spending two hours a day trying to get a new computer, whether browsing and configuring them or trying to connive some deal to get a discount.

And also-- as my computer overheats after about an hour/90 minutes of use, and becomes slow and unstable, I have to shut it down regularly to let it cool for half an hour. If you notice a lot of typos lately, hey, the keyboard has decided to stop working too. The spacebar is practically gone. Have to slam down on it twice to get a space.

Oh, well. It's not like spaces between words are important.

As for my missing in action night schedule -- I'll tell you. I hate the thought of rebooting this stupid thing. It's nothing but misery.

Anyway, thanks Michael, Dave, Analogue Kid, Retired Geezer, Slublog, Sobek, JackM., and anyone else I've jackassedly not mentioned. And of course cobloggers LauraW and AndrewR. (Tanker and Harry Callahan too, but they seem to have gotten bored with this moronblog.)

The Wall Street Journal discusses blog vacations.

It's a weird thing. The imperative to post frequently sometimes causes me to post virtually all day, from wake-up to conking out at 1 or 2am. And then weekends become blog-important days-- can't post too little on weekends.

And vacations... well, they're hard to swing. They always turn out to be working vacations. Or a "vacation" means taking a weekend off, as I will be mostly doing this weekend.

Not really whining. I chose to do this. But sometimes I end up spending almost all my waking time on this blog. Obviously, that hasn't been the case the past two weeks. But for a while, I was kind of out hand.

Not sure it's healthy.

Via Patterico.

Posted by: Ace at 08:19 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Deep Stoat, who would know, tells me this:

All, at this point it appears as though S.2590 will not pass unanimously due to Democratic obstruction. Procedurally, this means that the fate of the bill is in the hands of Sen. Frist. While weÂ’re quite encouraged by his numerous public commitments to get a vote on the bill before the end of the month, time is running out. Because of the shortened election year calendar, we will have only a week or two at most to pass the bill out of the Senate, resolve differences with the House, and get the bill signed into law.

As such, it is imperative that Sen. Frist set a date certain for an up-or-down vote on passage on S.2590 as soon as possible. If we could pass the bill by the end of next week, we would then have two weeks to resolve differences with the House and ultimately send a bill to the president before both chambers adjourn at the end of this month. Time is our biggest enemy right now. As always, let me know if you have any questions about the bill or about parliamentary procedure.

I've asked him a few questions about procedure. I'll update when he responds.

Update! Deep Stoat got back to me quickly. His answers to my questions about an override of the hold, and the importance of unanimity, are posted below the fold. more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:26 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 633 words, total size 4 kb.

Via Just One Minute, The NYT reports that ABC might just cut all the scenes that offend the Clintonites.

Three members of the Clinton administration have written the chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, ABC’s parent, to complain that the network’s coming two-part miniseries “The Path to 9/11” is fraught with factual errors and fabrications.

The letters ask that the five-hour movie, scheduled for broadcast Sunday and Monday, be either edited for accuracy or canceled, and ABC gave a small indication yesterday that some changes might be made.

One of the officials, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, said in her letter to the Disney executive, Robert A. Iger, that although she had requested a copy of the film, ABC had not given her one. But, Ms. Albright said, she has been told by people who have seen it that it “depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never occurred.”

“It asserts as fact things that are not fact,” she wrote.

The concerns of Ms. Albright, as well as those expressed in letters from Samuel R. Berger, former national security adviser, and Bruce R. Lindsey, a Clinton White House aide now with the Clinton Foundation, were echoed yesterday by several Democratic members of Congress.

ABC, meanwhile, continued to explain that the mini-series, though largely drawn from the report of the Sept. 11 commission, was a dramatization, not a documentary.

But the network appeared to be leaving the door open to last-minute changes in the film.

“It is common practice to continue to make edits to strengthen a project right up to the broadcast date,” said Hope Hartman, an ABC spokeswoman.

The scene that seems to be most complained about depicts Clinton's advisors refusing to give the greenlight to US troops who are in position to capture or kill bin Ladin.

The Clintonites insist such an event never took place -- that there were never any soldiers in position to make such a capture or kill, and that the entire debate over greenlighting the action is entirely fabricated.

I hate to admit this, but I think they're right. But see update at end of post; they may not be right after all.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:21 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 1345 words, total size 8 kb.