If he's following Reagan's model as regards a late announcement, he also seems to be following his model by establishing a written record of his thoughts and principles in well-crafted but accessible language.

This one's about Sarkozy.

The election of Nicolas Sarkozy to the presidency of France has been a serious blow to those who claim that America has earned the undying hatred of Europeans. Oh, to be sure, the French media hates us, but there are a lot of people who say ours does too. Regardless, SarkozyÂ’s victory has sent shock waves through the worldÂ’s media centers.

A French president who openly admires America is an embarrassment to those who view us as the country bumpkin cousins of the sophisticated Europeans. American pundits and politicians who say we should change our foreign policies to win the European popularity contest ought to be feeling a little embarrassed too.

From the beginning, Sarkozy pledged to help heal the ill feelings that have existed between our two countries — especially over Iraq. He outraged French Socialists and journalists by coming to America during his campaign to meet with our president. He has praised America’s dynamism, freedoms and prosperity, and he promises to work for reforms that will make France more like the U.S.

Sarkozy’s victory over anti-American political forces was not just decisive; it was far more of a mandate than our own current congress claims. In his first post-election speech, he went out of his way to say, “I want to call out to our American friends to tell them that they can count on our friendship.”

Although it seems to me he's running -- he's delaying based on his own calculations of timing and stagecraft -- it really will be very bad for the Republican party should he ultimately not run. And that remains a possibility of course.

He's sucking an awful lot of oxygen out of the room, and preventing many Republicans from giving more serious thought to supporting other serious, strong-but-flawed candidates, like Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and of course, Ron "The Gold Standard" Paul.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

It sounds pretty bad. It probably is pretty bad. But to be honest, at this point, I think Iraq would be doing the US a favor to request the withdrawal of our troops. If their heart isn't in the fight, how exactly can we ask US troops to give all on their behalf?

The Iraqi bill, drafted by a parliamentary bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, was signed by 144 members of the 275-member house, according to Nassar al-Rubaie, the leader of the Sadrist bloc.

The Sadrist bloc, which sees the U.S.-led forces as an occupying army, has pushed similar bills before, but this was the first time it had garnered the support of a majority of lawmakersÂ…

It's not a request we can refuse -- after all, we've promised from the beginning to stay as long as the Iraqis requested and not a day longer -- and I don't think Americans are particularly eager to resist the request anyway.

True, all sorts of havoc would ensue, but that's on them. We would have done -- more specifically, our troops would have done -- what we said we'd do. We came, we fought, we left when asked to by the elected representative government. We're not in the business of helping people against their will.

The trouble is that this bill almost certainly won't pass, so there will be no clean request for withdrawal, and the US will be expected to carry on the fight despite the fact that a majority of elected Iraqi MPs have gone on record with their demand that we go home.

Captain Ed comments on the parliament's plan to go on vacation for two months -- without passing critical oil-sharing legislation that may reduce the energy of the insurgency -- while US troops are dying.

If the Iraqis walk away from the Assembly without any of that getting accomplished, and then spend two months without making any effort at all, the war effort is over. The surge will be a dead letter in Congress, and almost certainly Republicans will start to consider defunding as an option as well as Democrats. Dick Cheney understands this, which is why he made a surprise visit to Maliki to explain the situation in small words.

I had considered a threat that if the parliament takes a vacation, so will US troops. After all, they've earned it more, accomplished a hell of a lot more than the Iraqi MPs, and are definitely more in need of some downtime. Captain Ed has similar thoughts:

A two-month vacation by the Assembly will leave the US with one of two options. Either we continue to fight al-Qaeda in Anbar and Diyala and move out of Baghdad to secure the Iraqi-Iranian border, or we dump the whole project into the laps of the Saudis and Egyptians and wish them the best of luck.

Is the war over, for all but the shouting? It would seem so, absent some dramatic moves by Iraqi politicians to show greater eagerness to solve their own problems as well as greater appreciation for the sacrifice of US soldiers.

Certainly the war on behalf of the Iraqi government and people is over -- there's hardly any point fighting for peace and decency in a country whose inhabitants simply do not want such things. Though, as Captain Ed says, there may be some good Al Qaeda hunting to be done.

Allah links this excellent Roggio piece about US forces organizing tribal leaders in Diayala and preparing for a major offensive this summer. Good news, but a bit too little too late, I'm afraid.

If Iraq is determined to be Sadrist, we can't really change their minds from our current posture of helping a government increasingly beholden to Sadrists.

The correct posture is to begin preparing to treat Iraq as an enemy, or at least hostile, country, with all that that entails. We don't help our enemies.

The Three Year Rule: Instapundit seems inclined to err on behalf of optimism, but he does note we've gone past the three-year rule for wars by a full year.

Even with progress in Anbar, Baghdad, and Diayala, we're realistically looking at five years, if not more. And it becomes very hard for me to justify the shedding of American blood for ungrateful barbaric bastards giving our troops the finger.

Update: Well, "someone" told me I should wait 48 hours for vetting of this story, and that Sadrists may have put out a dishonest account of the draft.

He may be right -- to some extent. How right, I don't know.

Allah updates to note this:

Deputy Speaker Khaled Al Attiyah told The Associated Press said the draft legislation had not been officially submitted to the speaker, but was currently being reviewed by the houseÂ’s legal department, apparently the final step before it can be submitted.

Al Rubaie said Al Mashhadani had a week to schedule a debate on the bill before he would use the majority that backs it to force one.

However, his majority might be shaky.

Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said he had backed the draft but only on the condition that the withdrawal timetable be linked to a schedule for training and equipping IraqÂ’s security forces.

“But the sponsors of the legislation did not include our observations in the draft. This is deception,” he said.

I don't know how much that changes the story, but it does change it somewhat, and it does indicate the Sadrists are overstating their "victory" for propaganda purposes.

He also links a story that Bush is yielding to the idea of "benchmarks" for the Iraqi government's performance, which isn't very surprising, as the White House indicated a week or two ago they were open to these vague standards as a compromise measure.

I have to think that Cheney was less vague in his discussions with Iraqis. Maybe even making ultimata.

Posted by: Ace at 10:23 AM | Comments (203)
Post contains 1020 words, total size 6 kb.

(Dan Riehl link, feel free to click). Supposedly from Hill sources.

The left is already issuing Important Action Alerts and Pretty Vicious Rants to bring them back into line.

Posted by: Ace at 10:17 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

The guy's a crank. End of story.

The guy's spouting 1950s era Bircherisms at every turn. And 1950s era Bircherisms haven't grown sweeter with age.

More Hits From the Ron Paul Experience! A delightful appearance on 9/11 Truther Alex Jones' wackadoo radio show.

Let's see:

1. He supports Dennis Kucinich's desire for a fresh, Truther-friendly investigation into the "cover up" of 9/11.

2. He goes on Truther radio shows.

3. He suggests, Trutherifically, that the US will phony up a fake attack by Iran on our troops (probably killing Americans, as we may have done on 9/11) in order to have a pretext to bomb the mullahs. So, you know, if Iran actually does fire on American warships, his supporters will know it's actually all a contrivance by the US government. (As was Iran's taking of British hostages, presumably. As was the Khobar Towers bombing, presumably.)

But he's not a Truther, oh no, and he's definitely not a conspiracy nutter or John Bircher crank. Nor is he some kind of Dogmatically Dopey Barroom Ideologue.

No, he's a Serious American Candidate with all sorts of Important Principles about Limited Constitutional Government and the Gold Standard and Suchlike Things.

Whatever. If I wanted a fruitcake candidate, I'd've supported Alan Freakin' Keyes in 2000 (or 1996, or 2002, or 2004, or any of the six thousand other times he's run haplessly for public office).

More! "Powerful banking interests" behind the creation of the American central banking system (which has no place Under Our Constitution (TM), by the way).

It's like Archie Bunker lost weight, dropped 20 IQ points, and got himself elected Congressman.

Again, not really a "libertarian" so much a conspiratorially-minded populist demogogue with the kind of ruthlessly reductivist thinking required by the simple-minded to make sense of a complex world.

Posted by: Ace at 08:28 PM | Comments (291)
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

Dorkafork suggests that the Politico or whatever leftwing outfit or reporter handling the next Democratic debate ask for a "show of hands" as to which candidates have an "open mind" about 9/11 being an American government conspiracy.

Rob Port wants to see that, too.

Wedge issues are difficult things to negotiate -- one one hand, if you please the base, you'll alienate the center; if you please the center, you alienate the base. And you need both to win; alienating either too much results in defeat.

For that reason, of course, every politician would like to be asked about wedge issues as infrequently as possible, and when he is asked about them, he'd like the questioning to be as softball as possible, with no follow-ups -- he has a carefully-constructed vague straddle position answer to such questions which will collapse and be exposed as evasive and disingenuous should he be pressed very hard with follow-up questions.

Note that the MSM is quite good at asking Republican candidates about wedge issues. Just ask Rudy Giuliani. Or ask any Republican about the abortion issue, which they would be happy to discuss as little and as vaguely as possible, thereby having a better chance of maintaining both their base and the center, rather than being forced to choose between them.

The media loves close questioning about abortion. And Bob Jones University. And the Confederate flag. And etc., and etc., and etc. -- every issue that cuts against Republicans, where the wedge divides base from center, always gets an enormous amount of attention from the Washington press corps.

And what about Democrats' wedge issues? Not only does the media refuse to ask such questions, except in the easiest softball way -- allowing candidates to give their carefully-vetted focus-group-tested non-answers without having to survive the scrutiny of a follow-up -- the media is often insistent that even asking such questions is "divisive" and therefore unethical, if not unAmerican.

Witness the Democratic candidates being permitted to skate by with vague answers about gay marriage. Oh, marriage is between a man and a woman, but the federal government should certainly not push that viewpoint. (Imagine a Republican trying to get away with claiming that abortion is a woman's right, but the federal government should play no role in guaranteeing that right. Show of hands of all those who think the MSM would allow that position to stand uncritically without a great deal of questioning about whether or not it makes sense to hold a position "personally" and yet be determined that there be no public action whatsoever on behalf of that position.)

Are Democrats ever asked what they'll do once they withdraw US troops and Iraq becomes an Al Qaeda safe haven? What they'll do if "diplomacy" does not stop Iran from getting the bomb -- will they go to war or accept Iran into the nuclear club?

No. Such questions are cutting, sharp, and probing, and therefore dangerous to Democrats. Better leave them with their gauzy evasions if they're to have any hope against the Evil Republicans.

So here we have a very serious wedge issue for Democrats -- a majority of Democrats believe that Bush either knew about 9/11 beforehand, or may have known beforehand; but to the majority of Americans -- including the vital center -- such conspiratorial paranoia is insane, and a Democrat offering support for such a view would be all but unelectable.

Does anyone -- anyone -- expect anyone in the MSM to confront the Democrats about their growing Truther problem?

Of course not-- as always, on a difficult question, they'll be allowed to skate with a vague answer that can be read any number of different ways, both the lunatic base and moderate center reassured that each Democratic candidate is in both camps simultaneously.

So much of media bias isn't what's reported, or what's asked. So much of it is what's deliberately not reported, and what's deliberately not asked.

A Truther Who Just Wants To "Air Some Questions" About WTC 7: Well, no, he's beyond the "air some questions" dodge. He asserts that Osama bin Ladin is actually played by a "troupe of CIA actors."

Show of hands, please?

Posted by: Ace at 07:48 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 709 words, total size 5 kb.

Well! That's one way to defuse the controversy, eh?

It was fun while it lasted.

After months of conflicting signals on abortion, Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite the potential for bad consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.

At the same time, Mr. Giuliani’s campaign — seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading Republicans to nominate an abortion rights supporter — is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani’s social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

...

The shift in emphasis comes as the Giuliani campaign has struggled to deal with the fallout from the first Republican presidential candidate debate, in which he gave halting and apparently contradictory responses to questions about his support for abortion rights.

Mr. GiulianiÂ’s aides were concerned both because the responses opened him up to a new round of criticism from abortion critics, who have never been happy with the prospect of a Republican presidential candidate who supports abortion rights, while threatening to undercut his image as a tough-talking iconoclast who does not equivocate on tough issues.

...

Mr. Giuliani hinted at what aides said would be his uncompromising position on abortion rights yesterday in Huntsville, Ala., where he was besieged with questions about abortion and his donations to Planned Parenthood. “Ultimately, there has to be a right to chose,” he said.

Asked if Republicans would accept that, he said, “I guess we are going to find out.”

Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that his stance on abortion alone might disqualify him with some voters, but he said, “I am at peace with that.”

It's the Ferret Problem. Even the stuff he doesn't care much about, he cares about passionately once he's put his ego on one side or the other.

Oh, well.

Thanks to JackM.

Question: How egotistical do you have to be to throw away the presidency over an issue you don't really care very strongly about?

Jack's Update: Speaking of throwing your Presidential hopes (such as they are) away, a debate has erupted as to whether Ron Paul is, or is not, a John Edwards-like truther supporter.

I know what I think. But I'll let you watch and decide for yourselves.

Ah yes...a Kucinich-Paul bipartisan effort. It is the stuff of dreams!

Posted by: Ace at 06:57 PM | Comments (246)
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

A truly outrageous move on France's part to so undermine the very foundation of civilizational organization.

One problem: It's not true.

An even worse problem: His "fact" came from an Orson Scott Card science fiction novel. Speculative fiction, set in the future.

Romney confused it with the current law.

This following, of course, his declaration of Battlefield Earth to be his favorite novel.

As much as I like liked Romney, he's coming off as a serious, ahem, space cadet, and not a very bright one at that.

I'm not sure he has what it takes to be President. Maybe he can run for Commandant of Starfleet Acadamy or something.

Coming Next: Romney explains his flip-flop to the pro-life view as caused by the new respect for life gained after witnessing the destruction of planet Alderaan, where "a million voices cried out... and then were silenced."

We seem to be quickly running out of viable candidates.

In related news, we're all doomed.

Of course, while the right-leaning blogs point out such strange delusions of our candidates, you can bet damnsure neither Anna Marie Cox nor any other lefty in the media will make mention of John Edwards' far more calculated and vicious embrace of alt-history fantasy.

Posted by: Ace at 06:33 PM | Comments (128)
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

First John Kerry, now John Edwards.

The Democrats' position on physical reality, it seems, is increasingly nuanced.

Allah notes the scariest part of this isn't Edwards' shameless, unAmerican pandering to lunatics, but the widespread applause that follows his promise to "look into" the Truther theory of a controlled demolition.

Not to razz Allah, but sometimes the more hackish take -- condemning a political opponent for what he appears to do and not giving him the benefit of the doubt -- is the right position. Kerry deliberately pandered, offering hope to those who claim America itself caused 9/11 that their position will be vindicated; Edwards does it here even more clearly (going so far as to make sure the young maniac asking the question leaves his full contact information so that Edwards can get back to him with an answer).

It just seems strange to me to frequently assume fairly cynical motives on the part of politicians one supports -- which I do, and of course Allah does -- and yet give absolute douchebags like Kerry and Edwards some undeserved benefit of the doubt.

John Edwards. John Kerry. Amanda Marcotte. Dylan Avery.

The lunatics are now running the asylum.

I'm sure the MSM will get around to covering this dramatic shift in the Democratic Party not only to the left but to the diagnosably psychotic any day now.

A Republican can't make a tough-on-crime speech without being endlessly accused by the media of using "racial code words," and can't state his opinion that America is safer under Republican governance than Democratic without being termed a McCarthyite.

And yet these fucking assholes can give credence to the most moronic and lunatic conspiracy theory in human history without a peep of commentary by the MSM?

Really? Is that how it works, guys?

Jack's Update: I wrote over at Hot Air that Edwards was clearly auditioning to be a recurring guest on Red Eye, since he is so much prettier than their favorite truther, Samantha Judge.

It just seemed a shame to leave that not so subtle dig in the comments.

Posted by: Ace at 04:58 PM | Comments (132)
Post contains 369 words, total size 3 kb.

Where have all the people gone?

In TV's worst spring in recent memory, a startling number of Americans drifted away from television the past two months: More than 2.5 million fewer people were watching ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox than at the same time last year, statistics show.

Everyone has a theory to explain the plummeting ratings: early Daylight Savings Time, more reruns, bad shows, more shows being recorded or downloaded or streamed.

Scariest of all for the networks, however, is the idea that many people are now making their own television schedules. The industry isn't fully equipped to keep track of them, and as a result the networks are scrambling to hold on to the nearly $8.8 billion they collected during last spring's ad-buying season.

...

The viewer plunge couldn't have come at a worse time for the networks -- next week they will showcase their fall schedules to advertisers in the annual "up front" presentations.

...

More bad news abounds. NBC set a record last month for its least-watched week during the past 20 years, and maybe ever -- then broke it a week later. This is the least popular season ever for CBS' "Survivor." ABC's "Lost" has lost nearly half its live audience -- more than 10 million people -- from the days it was a sensation. "The Sopranos" (a show that has earned broadcast-network-like ratings in the past) is ending on HBO, and the response is a collective yawn.

Why? Well, it's partly the Internet and/or computer games, which does provide the nightly entertainment for more and more people, it's partly minor cable channels which combined steal a lot of audience from the nets, and it's partly the DVR or TiVo.

I'd like to carp that TV now sucks, but in fact it's never been particularly good, and one can argue that in the past ten years it's had on more decent-to-excellent shows than it's had in a long time. Then again, I always hated M*A*S*H* and Hill Street Blues a bunch of other older shows people swore were great, so maybe I just have contrarian tastes.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:29 PM | Comments (82)
Post contains 951 words, total size 6 kb.

I know, it's old. Just figured I should mention it. He's off by a mere 9,988, or a factor of approximately 1000.

He says he was "tired." With all due respect, "tired" is only a good enough excuse to explain away an error of a single order of magnitude. For three orders of magnitude, I'm afraid we blow right through "tired" and head straight on towards "retarded" territory.

The media makes a big deal when a Republican guesses the price of bread wrong by a factor of 2 or less. It demonstrates the Republican is "out of touch" with the concerns of "everyday Americans."

I don't notice the MSM reading much into this Rain Man level gaffe.

Barack, how much does a loaf of bread cost?

About ten thousand dollars.

How much does a space shuttle cost?

Ten thousand dollars.

Also ten thousand dollars?

Ten thousand dollars, yeah. Definitely. A thousand dollars.

How many troops are in Iraq?

I'd say about ten thousand. Yeah, ten thousand. Give or take.

How many people died in Kansas, Barack?

Ten thousand people, yeah. Definitely.

He was "tired" though.

Certainly it doesn't reflect on whether he's "out of touch" with fifth-grade level current events or anything.

Related:

Posted by: Ace at 03:30 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.