So Mort Kondracke termed it, provoking a chuckle from Brit.

Rob Port has video of the actual speech, which he calls more unabashedly pro-American than most speeches from Democrats.

Posted by: Ace at 05:08 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

The rating is here.

Via Dr. Helen, who gets to tell her readers they're all geniuses.

Posted by: Ace at 05:00 PM | Comments (51)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Ford Motor Company will commemorate the 40th anniversary of the movie "Bullitt" with a new special edition "Bullitt Mustang" for 2008.

They pushed one before in 2001, but this one is a little closer to the lines and the feel of the 1968 Mustang from the film. Under the hood, a 4.6-liter V8 engine tuned to deliver 315 horsepower.

Dark Highland Green. Oh yes, it is the precious.

Here's a shorter clip from the famous Mustang/Charger chase scene, chock full of Lalo Schifrin "Shifting Gears" musical goodness.

tip: The Man of Substance, who is the only person who really knew where Joe was.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 04:28 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Nice.

Posted by: Ace at 03:19 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

The John Edwards campaign put this criticism of Hillary Clinton together showing her flip-flop on three issues all in the space of a single debate. It is absolutely hysterical and I think it's the music that really puts it over the top.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

From Kaus, the fence has destroyed the economy of a town... however, the town in question is a Mexican one that became a boomtown as a stop of convenience for illegal immigrants sneaking across the US border.

If the fence doesn't work, why exactly is this illegal stopover town decimated?

Poll: 77% oppose granting drivers' licenses to illegals.

And see Kaus too for Hillary's continue flailing on the issue, and John Edwards' exploiting of it. Kaus guesses Hillary might not be willing to walk back from her previous non-answer because she's too vain about her supposed intellectual gifts to admit she's ever wrong.

And, what the hell, see this Kaus piece I meant to link previously about Democrats finally realizing this issue is cutting against them, and very badly.

It seems like only months ago we were told the immigration issue was splitting Republicans. Now it's E.J. Dionne wringing his hands about the

worry among Democrats that Republicans are ready to use impatience with illegal immigration to win back voters dissatisfied with the status quo.

What's changed? Well, President Bush--the main politician doing the GOP-splitting--is leaving the scene. The Republican electorate seems to have decisively turned against his illegal-immigrant semi-amnesty. Result: No more split! But the powerful GOP anti-legalization sentiment was obviously latent even in 2006. The MSM just chose not to notice.

Anti-legalization sentiment has also been manifestly latent among Democratic voters--including, but not limited to, unskilled workers whose wages have been suppressed by immigrant competition. What's odd, then, is that the Dems now aren't split. They're only terrified!

Finally, the sage of American politics Michael Barone thinks, for the first time in his lifetime, immigration will be a key if not the key issue in 2008.

October 2007 may turn out to be the month that immigration became a key issue in presidential politics. It hasn't been, at least in my lifetime.

...

There was no perceptible difference on immigration between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000. Both favored a comprehensive bill with legalization and guest-worker provisions. John Kerry in 2006 and 2007 voted for immigration bills along the lines supported by Bush.

Now, things look different...

You don't have to be a racist to be bothered by such things. You just have to be a citizen who thinks that massive failure to enforce the law is corrosive to society.

That was apparent to me as I listened to a focus group of Republican voters in suburban Richmond, Va., conducted by Peter Hart for the Annenberg School of Communications. One voter after another complained that the immigration laws were not being enforced. None of them made any derogatory remarks about Latino immigrants -- two said they admired how hard they work. They don't want to see Latinos banished from this country. They want the immigrants here to be legally here.

Which leaves Democratic politicians and political candidates out on a pretty flimsy limb. Most of them reflexively back a comprehensive bill, and some of them (like Bush and a number of Republicans backing such a bill) have dismissed opponents as racists.

...

"The centrality of illegal immigration to the current discontent about the direction of the country may be taking us back again to a welfare moment," write the shrewd Democratic strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg. Yup.

Pinkerton likens this to the 1988 Willie Horton question posed by Al Gore of Michael Dukakis. Dukakis prevailed in the nomination fight, but he was mortally wounded against George Bush the elder in the general election.

And the Politico makes similar noises, analogizing illegal immigration to the crime/welfare issues of the 70s and 80s.

But for Democrats to take on the immigration issue, certain myths have to be overcome. A sterner stance on illegal immigration does not betray our national ideals. This is an issue of illegal immigration, not immigration.

Yet liberals should be worried. The inability or lack of intent to significantly decrease illegal immigration seems to be souring the publicÂ’s mood over immigration itself.

...

The political left should be particularly troubled because the illegal immigration issue also aggravates DemocratsÂ’ long-term demographics challenge and the leftÂ’s lack of support among male voters.

Today 40 percent of white men, compared with 28 percent of white women, identify as independents , according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

The fact that illegal immigration concerns independents most means that the issue could only serve to widen the white male gap, which has vexed Democrats since the days of Nixon.

Too often, however, the political debate gets lost in how justified the anxiety is over illegal immigration. The reason actually matters less than the reality. The majority of Americans are upset. They view immigration in law and order terms. Therefore, so must Democrats.

After all, there is no yielding of principle to stand for following the law. But should Democrats stand for the alternative, many moderates, especially men, may come to question — just as they did in 1968 — whether Democrats stand for them.

Thanks to Ogre Gunner for the tip to Politico; Pinkerton column via Instapundit.

Posted by: Ace at 12:46 PM | Comments (140)
Post contains 869 words, total size 6 kb.

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Yon, who has been more cautious about progress in Iraq before. This time he's decidedly incautious. Read all the highlights; here are some highlights of the highlights.

HH: Tell us what the Iraqis are telling you about this lull or peace or improvement. What do they think is going on here, and how long will it last?

MY: I donÂ’t believe this is a lull. I believe this is the real thing. I believe that weÂ’ve seen lulls before, and IÂ’ve always been very circumspect on taking a chance and saying hey, this is the real thing. But IÂ’ve seen a change in the mood of the people, and itÂ’s remarkable. And I believe if we can just continue to help them progress, and weÂ’ve got a little bit more serious fighting to do up in Ninewa Province, and then in Kirkuk and Salahaddin Province, and also out in Diayala Province, those four provinces. Other than that, I think really, itÂ’s a matter of pouring on the juice and helping them to get this country going again. I mean, theyÂ’re just finished with the war, as long as we can help get the monkey off their back in the form of al Qaeda, which is pretty much crushed at this point.

...

Yeah, [a return to normalcy and decency is] happening. In some areas, quicker than others. You know, weÂ’re just on the front edge of it. But I can tell you, I can see it every day IÂ’m out now, or week by week, month by month now, I really believe that, IÂ’ll be the first to say it and take a chance, I really believe five years from now, IÂ’m going to be back here with my camera and my longest lens shooting bird photos. I just feel that itÂ’s coming. You can sense the change in the people. The Iraqi people actually really tend to like Americans. ItÂ’s the ones that donÂ’t like us, you know, that can be a pretty severe difference. But in general, they really want to have a relationship with the United States, and itÂ’s not, weÂ’re not dealing with blood enemies here at all.

This is interesting:

HH: And what about Iran? What does the average Iraqi tell you about Iran?

MY: Well, now thatÂ’s not only a good question, but an increasingly kind of semi-humorous question, because every day now, including yesterday again, a retired army colonel, an Iraqi army colonel, told me hey, we will support you in your war against Iran. And he keeps saying this in front of AmericanÂ…oh yeah. Every day IÂ’m hearing that.

The post goes on to contrast the real facts on the ground with Hillary!'s and Reid's pronouncements as to the "lost war."

Thanks to CJ.

Related: General Says Drop In Violence Sustainable, Iraqi Forces Poised To Shoulder More of the Load: More optimistic predictions.

A reduction in violence in Baghdad over the past few months represents a sustainable trend that will allow fewer U.S. troops to protect the Iraqi capital, a top American general said on Wednesday.

Major-General Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said al Qaeda in Iraq no longer had a foothold in any part of the city of 7 million people. The group is blamed for most big car bombings that have killed thousands.

Death squad killings in Baghdad were also down 80 percent from their peak while roadside bombings had fallen 70 percent, Fil told foreign reporters without giving specific timeframes.

"I think there is going to come a day when certainly we will need less coalition troops in Baghdad," Fil said.

Asked when that would be, he said: "Already we are at a point where we'll see that as the surge forces depart the city, we'll see a natural decline in numbers and I'm very comfortable where that comes to, with that gradual attrition of forces."

..

Fil said the drops in violence in Baghdad were sustainable.

"I do think it's sustainable and that's because first of all we're working with Iraqi forces now in really almost every corner of the city," he said.

...

He said the Iraqi security forces had become "much, much more effective," while volunteers who patrolled their own neighborhoods in coordination with the Iraqi security forces had had a positive impact.

...

Fil said one thing he had noticed was that ordinary Iraqis he met now no longer hounded him about security. He said their focus was on electricity, water and jobs.

Quick, let's surrender while there is still an enemy to surrender to.

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.

She seems to be taking this "co-president" thing far more seriously than anyone else. Including her husband.

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Dean Barnett and William Kristol team up to rap the I-wanna-stay-home ex-globe-hoppers.

[M]ore State Department employees have been killed by al Qaeda and allied groups outside Iraq, in East Africa and Jordan and elsewhere, in recent years. Does their sacrifice count for nothing? Is the State Department not also involved in fighting these brutal terrorists? Are timidity and grievance-mongering appropriate for senior U.S. government officials engaged in the conduct of the nation's foreign policy?

It's certainly the prerogative of government employees not to "believe in what's going on over there." But until they resign, they are still supposed to help carry out U.S. government policy. How many other parts of the executive branch don't believe we're at war or are quietly refusing to help the war effort? We know about the CIA leaks that have gushed from Langley the last few years with the express aim of wounding the administration. We also know that parts of the Pentagon want to abandon Iraq so they can return to their preferred terrain of orderly rotations, procuring new hardware, and preparing for World War Whatever with China or some other great power.

History will someday view President Bush's steadfastness in pursuing an unpopular war, and his courage in (finally) finding the right generals and the right strategy, as an admirable example of presidential leadership. The latest numbers out of Iraq have confirmed the extraordinary progress of recent months--the kind of progress that many, not only in the media and Congress, but also in the State Department and the Pentagon, all but insisted was impossible mere
months ago.

Still, it's a blemish on the president's record that he has never been able to get the whole government apparatus to pitch in on the war effort, or even to stop certain factions from undermining it. Last week, he complained that "some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war." He was not wrong, but he bears some responsibility for this state of affairs. His administration was slow to beef up the military after 9/11, unwilling to revamp our intelligence and diplomatic establishments, and loath to give the American people a constructive way to assist the war effort beyond suggesting that they go shopping.

I'm not sure I buy that last knock on Bush. I'm also not sure I should discount it. But what was the President to do, given the severe hit to the economy and the anxieties over future attacks depressing economic activity?

"It's WAR-- Hit the Mall" is not the most inspiring declaration, but in fact what was the average citizen to do? Is the Weekly Standard advocating the reintroduction of war bonds and victory gardens?

Posted by: Ace at 11:52 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

Odd.

With his wrestler's build and deep voice, it is hard to believe that Hussein Rabei could ever be mistaken for a woman, but in the Middle East cultural norms can blind people to the glaringly obvious.

Like dressing up in a sleeping bag, sure.

Formerly known as Zaineb, 33-year-old Rabei was raised as a girl after being born with genitalia that more closely resembled a vagina than a penis. Arab culture and its rigid views on gender meant doctors ignored growing signs that Rabei may in fact be male, he said.

"When I married, my husband used to say, 'It's funny, but when I'm with you it feels like I'm with one of the guys, not my wife,"' said Rabei, who is now divorced.

Funny strange or funny hot?

Rabei returned recently from an operation in Thailand to correct his gender -- a procedure for which he obtained consent from both Sunni and Shi'ite clerics.

He is the first Bahraini to go public with news of such an operation, his lawyer said. It triggered a flood of media coverage and condemnation from many of his fellow Bahrainis for what they see as a procedure forbidden by Islam.

Most Muslim scholars say changing one's sex is forbidden unless it is related to an intersex condition such as Rabei's.

Well it's nice, I guess, they permit the operation in cases of medical necessity. Or at least medical advisability.

Thanks to LauraW.

Posted by: Ace at 11:30 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.