Allah doesn't buy it, and I guess I don't either. When you're down to such low numbers the MoE is pretty big compared to the number itself.

6% of the country isn't reading independent political blogs, bit they are reading gossip blogs, pseudoblogs like Television Without Pity, TechBlogs, blogs connected to major publications, etc.

Political blog readers? Eh, probably 2 million or so. Which is kind of low, but not when one excludes anyone in college or younger (very young people don't care about politics, and most collegians already know everything they need to know), and those who are simply too old to have really jumped on to this internets dealio, and those who simply are too poor to have a computer and a hook-up -- well, it's a small but nontrivial swath of those who could conceivably be expected to be reading blogs. It's, um, kind of huge when you think where it was four years ago.

I think people may be claiming to be reading political blogs because it sounds a little bit better than saying "I'm spending upwards of six hours a day arguing about Lost on Television Without Pity."

Dean Barnett guestimatess 300,000 as to the total number of conservative political blog-readers out there. I'd guess it's higher -- 500,000 or 600,000 or so.

But there doesn't seem like much room for the entire blogosphere to grow. Instapundit is the biggest right-leaning blogger, but his traffic really hasn't grown much over the past couple of years. Well, from about 100,000 uniques a day to 170,000. Not really the sort of explosive growth one might have expected. LGF has grown (based on memory) from about 80,000 per day to about 120,000.

Actually, putting those two together gives you around 300,000, which is Barnett's estimate, but I'd guess there's an equal number of conservative blog readers who don't read either. Andrew Sullivan is a fairly big blogger, but when I mention him, a lot of people are like "Who?" And some mean that seriously.

Even those who get the biggest traffic aren't attracting a majority of the potential market.

Except for Kos. Because liberals, you see, are very lemming-ish.

Posted by: Ace at 06:26 PM | Comments (184)
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

He really flipped on Gonzales.

It's like Fitzmas came twice in one year!

Goldstein note he did say something that cast Gonzales in, as the New York Times says, "an unflattering light." To wit, that a Gonzales statement that he had never read memos about the Sacred 8 was "not entirely accurate" in the sense that he was aware of the basics of the plan to fire them. (Sampson himself noted that Gonzales had already clarified this statement; Schumer, of course, insisted on reading to him an already retracted-and-corrected statement.)

Please.

Meanwhile, Val Plame is yet to be investigated for her mistatements about her not being "involved" in "discussions" regarding sending her unqualified, hyperpartisan husband to Niger.

Posted by: Ace at 02:59 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Dirty, dirty, dirty.

Dianne Feinstein steered business to defense contractors heavily invested in by her husband's big-ass investment companies for years and only now she steathfully resigns from a key military appropriations committee?

Professor Shackelford quietly asks:

WHERE IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS TO CONDEMN AND ASK FOR HER RESIGNATION? WHERE IS NANCY PELOSI? WHERE IS HARRY REID? WHERE IS CHUCK SCHUMER?

More importantly, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE REPUBLICANS?

This is genuine news. Political corruption on a scale as big as Duke Cunningham, and the mainstream press is worried about 8 US attorneys losing their jobs in a completely legal hard-ball political axing-session.

The Culture of Corruption has 'returned' - bigger and better than ever before!

Well, I can tell you where the MSM is: investigating Republicans. Which is where they always be. The only way to even get a story like this cursorilly covered by the MSM is for Republicans to push it, hard.

Which they probably won't.

Correction: I first wrote her husband owned "big ass military companies." He doesn't, he just invests heavily in them.

Posted by: Ace at 02:53 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

The Republican Party sucks. It consists almost entirely of morons, hypocrites, sell-outs, phonies, racists, and fag-haters.

But we do have one group that sustains our political viability.

Democrats.

Posted by: Ace at 01:15 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Nice work, Elizabeth. You got her to say it. You also got this moron to promise to invite scientists on to the show to discuss her lunacy.

Rosie actually says she "doesn't know" who destroyed WTC 7. She's just sure it wasn't due to the 9/11 attacks. Given that no one else had access to the building except for Americans, obviously a "controlled demolition" can only have been conducted by the US Government.

As Allah says, the great fat lunatic -- pretty much the Kathy Bates character from Misery except unencumbered by a passion for reading -- has virtually demanded that Barbra Walters fire her.

And Jack Cafferty, of course, joins in with the conspiracy-talk, becoming the "male Rosie."

Not sure about that. Rosie's got bigger testicles than Jack Cafferty.

Rosie or Elizabeth? The fact that Rosie's "interesting theory" hasn't been aired on the show previously suggests that Barbara Walters laid down the law that Rosie's 9/11 Truthiness was not to be brought up by anyone.

So it might be that Elizabeth was the one who broke Walters' embargo on the subject, and got Rosie to admit what she believes.

Ah, well. The girl's built up an awful lot of goodwill dealing with these disgusting old yentas. She'll fail upwards. It will be delicious if Walters' fires Elizabeth for exposing Rosie's insanities.

Rosie's promised it -- so let's have it. Let's have the crew from Popular Mechanics on the show to discuss WTC 7's collapse for a full hour.

Posted by: Ace at 01:04 PM | Comments (67)
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Ba-zing:

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) introduced the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2007, a bill to restore Second Amendment rights in Washington, D.C.

“The constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens do not end when they cross into the borders of the District of Columbia,” said Sen. Hutchison.

“The gun ban has been proven ineffective by the trend of increased violent crime in the District. The citizens of Washington, D.C., deserve to have the same right to defend themselves and their families in their homes that lawful Americans enjoy.

“This requires both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right as the D.C. Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts have affirmed.”

Instapundit snarks that perhaps Jim Webb will consider cosponsoring the legislation. Can his executive assistant cosponsor? He already seems to be observing the not-yet-passed law.

Instapundit's emailers rap James Webb for shoddy gun safety.

Posted by: Ace at 12:32 PM | Comments (49)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

If KC Johnson is married, I feel sorry for his wife. This is guy who's like a chick, only ten time worse: He forgets nothing. He forgives nothing.

Selena Roberts forgot his anniversary, and man, does he let her have it. Scroll down to "Selena vs. Selena" for a good start, and then watch the snowball roll.

In her screed against the lacrosse team in SundayÂ’s New York Times, Selena Roberts positioned herself as an aggressive champion of diversity, while also appealing to class-based sentiments by taking a negative tone to former lacrosse players' Wall Street jobs.

Such a figure, no doubt, practices what she preaches, and demonstrates a deep commitment to diversity in her personal life, correct?

Not quite.

According to her Times bio, Roberts is a resident of Westport, Connecticut, a suburb in Fairfield County. The US Census Bureau's fact page reveals that Westport is a bastion of neither racial nor economic diversity. Of its 25,598 residents, 24,560, or 95.5 percent, are white. Westport has a grand total of 292 African-American residents. Barely 1 percent of Roberts' fellow townsfolk, in other words, are black.

What about economic diversity? The median family income in Westport is $153,131, more than $100,000 greater than the median family income for the United States as a whole. And a grand total of 104 families live below the poverty level. Barely 1 percent of Roberts' fellow townsfolk, in other words, are poor. The town website has forms for people who need to store their boats--either on water or on land--and for residents-only tennis and golf facilities.

And then that causes him to remember Selena Roberts once got drunk and made a pass at his sister, and then, well. It just gets worse. He's about two posts away from a guest appearance on COPS.

Come now. You tellin' me she hasn't molested a couple of strippers in her time? Betcha $50 she's got her own table with her name on it down at the Westport Hooters.

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

Getting a little Churchillian:

Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that Britain would not negotiate over British sailors and marines held hostage by Iran. In an interview with ITV News, Blair again called for the unconditional return of the 15 Royal Navy personnel who were seized by Iranian authorities last week.

Britain's Sky News meanwhile said Iran had released another letter by captured sailor Faye Turney, this time calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq

"The important thing for us is to get them back safe and sound, but we can't enter into some basis of bargaining," Blair said. "What you have to do when you are engaged with people like the Iranian regime, you have to keep explaining to them, very patiently, what it is necessary to do and at the same time make them fully aware there are further measures that will be taken if they're not prepared to be reasonable.

"What you can't do is end up negotiating over hostages; end up saying there's some quid pro quo or tit for tat; that's not acceptable," he said.

That's the official position, and I'm surprised at the toughness of it. I still expect there actually is some "negotiating" going on backstage.

Let me channel Andrew Sullivan and say it reflects well on Blair's character if he chooses to negotiate for the freedom of the 15 seamen, but it also refelcts well on his character if he chooses not to.

Allah reads this as a valiant refusal to negotiate while backing that up with threatening language about more talking should the Iranians not comply.

I don't think that's quite it. Blair is choosing his words carefully, obviously. He just promised "a different phase" in the crisis should the seamen not be released promptly; now he says the Iranians must be made "fully aware that further measures that will be taken if they're not prepared to be reasonable."

Sure, spokesmen immediately rush out to say he's not talking about military options. But the words themselves suggest the possibility of a military option, and they have been selected to as to imply just that.

The Rules say that Britain cannot go to war, except reluctantly. He's abiding by The Rules.

America just sent a fairly impressive tidal wave of naval might into the Persian Gulf. While some officials say off the record it's a show of force hastily ordered in response to the kidnapping of the British seamen,

the Bush administration would not say publicly that this is the case.

So we're doing the same thing, sort of. A big part of diplomacy is just plain old lying.

Also from Hot Air -- the female sailor's letter didn't just claim Britain had strayed too far into Iranian waters. It also went on to opine that Britain had strayed too far onto Iraqi soil:

Iran has published another letter allegedly written by Leading Seaman Faye Turney in which she supposedly calls for British forces to withdraw from Iraq.

Well! She's certainly become a little chatterbox, hasn't she? Suddenly deciding to announce it was time for Britain to withdraw from Iraq. And she came to this conclusion without being coerced by the Iranians at all, whom she claims are treating her quite nicely.

I guess she just needed some time off to really think about the issues, huh?

So the Mullahs are now bullying a woman into propagandizing for them.

That should win them friends -- on the left, that is. Amanda Marcotte, I'm sure, will praise the Iranians for helping this misguided woman finally "find her voice."

Posted by: Ace at 11:07 AM | Comments (51)
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.

A little supply-side somethin'-somethin':

Republican ex-mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani won backing for his 2008 presidential bid from billionaire publisher Steve Forbes, who will also help lead his campaign, Giuliani's team said.

...

"Steve and I share an economic vision that embraces supply-side economics, tax relief, and spending restraint," Giuliani said in a statement released by his campaign team.

"As mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani showed how exercising fiscal discipline, including tax cuts, lowers deficits, spurs economic growth, and increases revenue," Forbes was quoted as saying in the statement.

"It is time the rest of the country benefit from a true fiscal conservative leader who gets real results."

Weighing against this is a New York Sun editorial knocking Giuliani for opposing a cut in the "commuter tax" levied on workers who work in, but do not live in, NYC.

John Podhertz notes it wasn't that simple.

And it wasn't. For one thing, Giuliani was mayor of New York City, not mayor of Jersey City or Greenwich, Connecticut. Between cutting taxes on New York City residents or residents of New Jersey, Connectucut, or up the Hudson New York, which do you think he favored?

For another, there's actually some justification for a commuter tax. Taxes are generally levied according to where one lives, rather than where one actually generates the income being taxed. So New York City suburbs could get fat on taxing income actually generated in New York City -- Giuliani (and pretty much every New York City politician) figured they ought to have a cut of that.

Finally, those who don't live in NYC, but are working there, do benefit from a lot of the services the city provides. Not all of them, of course, and not to the extent that a resident does, but it's not obviously unfair that a commuting NYC worker should pay a bit to the city, if only to keep up the surface roads he uses and pay the police and fire departments which protect him.

The tax was eventually repealed.

The result was an instant $200 million hole in the New York City budget. In effect, Albany was challenging Giuliani to raise taxes in New York City — on his own constituents — to make up for the shortfall it had caused to curry favor with voters in Rockland and Dutchess Counties. Giuliani reacted as any politician would react in such a situation. He got really mad, and did what little was in his power to do — which is to say, almost nothing — to get Albany to change its mind.

He concludes:

In short, the Giuliani opposition to the commuter-tax repeal tells you nothing about his view of taxation generally. As mayor, he did what he could to cut some of the most onerous taxes in the nation that had been imposed specifically by the City Council and previous mayors. His City Council wasn't all that high on doing a lot of it, but he muscled some of it through and that was more than anyone who preceded him had done.

It also tells you that given the choice between taxing people whose votes he relied upon and taxing people whose votes he didn't rely upon, he was more in favor of taxing the latter. Which is hardly revealing, now is it?

Posted by: Ace at 10:53 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

Pot, meet kettle.

Will Kurtz now write a screed about the vile commenters at the Washington Post?

Sloppy of Me: Christopher Fotos did what I hadn't -- read Kurtz' original piece. Which is also excerpted at LGF.

Kurtz does acknowlege such comments appear at the WaPo:

No corner of the Net is safe from this bile. The Washington PostÂ’s Web site has been grappling with a surge in offensive and incendiary comments.

The really gruesome stuff represents a tiny minority of those online. But is there a way of policing the worst stuff without shutting down robust debate?

The comments about Cheney at the Huffington Post included: “You can’t kill pure evil.” “If at first you don’t succeed . . . ” “Dr. Evil escapes again . . . damn.” Founder Arianna Huffington wrote that “no one at HuffPost is defending these comments — they are unacceptable and were treated as such by being removed.”

The comments about Mohammed and Carter at Little Green Footballs included: “Can we furlough him — just so he can realize the Carter plot? Please?” and “Even this schmuck had some good ideas.”

The site’s founder, Charles Johnson, wrote on Little Green Footballs that such comments “reflect only the opinions of the individuals who posted them” and doubted that they “rise to the level of hatred that showed up in Arianna’s readers’ Cheney-related comments.”

Some conservatives and liberals seized on the incidents to denounce the other side, but no conclusions should be drawn from wackjobs on the fringe.

So bad on me. With all due respect, however, Kurtz has clearly been mau-maued by the Greenwald Leftist Apologism Machine. The piece is practically lifted from Thomas Ellensberg's rantings about this.

Kurtz attempts to mitigate the assassination and cancer death-wishes spewing out from the left by quoting a few similar, but nowhere near as toxic, comments about Jimmy Carter on LGF. The comments concerned a "planned" assassination on Jimmy Carter by Al Qaeda which apparently never really made it very far into the even the planning phase. So this was entirely hypothetical, and pretty far in the past to boot.

To that revelation, some LGF commenters said stuff along the lines of "Well let's trade Jimmy Carter's life for the lives of those lost on 9/11." Pretty weak tea.

Compare that to the hundreds of pro-assassination comments on the HuffPo and the various other blogs of the Toxic Left.

Speaking of Bad Behavior: It's not just commenters, it's particularly sick internet crapmerchants and left-wing bloggers celebrating the cancer of Tony Snow and cancer-caused death of Cathy Seipp.

And it's also not merely political bloggers and commenters engaging in bad behavior. Kathy Sierra, who I think must have started the Sierra Games company, is now getting death threats over her blogging comments about the... game industry.

Apparently she was too "optimistic" about it -- seriously -- and hence the death threats.

I'd hoped that we wouldn't need a law, but I have a feeling a law will be passed. Or applicable laws will start being enforced. Make a death threat, spend six or nine months in jail. Why people think they can do this on-line when doing it over the phone or in person would get them locked up or shot is beyond me, but there you go. The rise of the Internet SuperMouse, a take-no-prisoners tough guy and threatener of women so long as he believes (mistakenly) he's annonymous behind his screen-name/Superhero Handle.

Nope! Kathy Sierra has nothing to do with Sierra games, commenters tell me. I remembered it was a husband-wife team, but apparently they're named Roberts or something. The game was named after the mountains.

I guess I should have picked up on the fact that no one was reporting she was the creator of a huge computer game business as reason to disabuse me of my kneejerk assumption.

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 682 words, total size 5 kb.