The crap that goes on in liberal circles we never hear about. Kaus is sorta in those circles and hears them.

Now the idea that Obama has been "ghettoized" as the "black" candidate has become the accepted template for the campaign--even the point that a win in hotly contested South Carolina on Saturday is seen as actually hurting Obama because (in Dick Morris' analysis)

[w]atching blacks block vote for Obama will trigger a white backlash that will help Hillary win Florida and to prevail the week after.

Here we thought we were getting the Mondale/Hart campaign of 1984--without Mondale's likeability or Hart's weirdness--and instead we get the Dukakis campaign of 1988, in which an marginally likeable establishment figure established his mainstream (white) bona fides by running around the country thumping Jesse Jackson.

Huh.

So the Democrats are racist? Who knew?

Posted by: Ace at 11:08 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

A lot of former fred supporters, and possible Romney supporters generally, acknowledge that Romney says mostly the right things. The trouble is, he seems to offer these glibly as crowd-pleasing platitudes, and they're not sure if he actually believes them.

Fred, I think, had a lot of enthusiasm because he didn't just say the right thing, he gave the right reason for believing the right thing (and the right subsidiary reason for believing the right reason). His conservatism, to many, was deeper. He didn't just have the conservative answer, but the underlying conservative assumptions supporting that answer.

If Mitt wants to seal the deal with a lot of conservatives out there, he'll offer a "What I Believe" type internet address, maybe 15 or even 20 minutes long, explaining his thinking. Not just the surface conservative conclusions, but the underlying conservative thinking. Heartfelt and inartful (not so much smiling, few applause lines, generally stodgy and somewhat wonky (at least in broad principles, not techno-wonky) and designed to appeal to conservative political geeks, not a general audience) would be the right tone.

It would also be helpful to address the three most frequent knocks on Romney: He's a flip-flopper on abortion; his health care plan in Massachusetts was socialistic; and he's anti-gun.

And, for me, I'd sure the hell like to hear more about his basic foreign policy. This is an area in which it's hard as hell not to descend into gauzy generalities, but I personally would like some reassurance that Romney isn't just a domestic policy wonk but has thought hard about the war we're in and is ready to make the terrible decisions of war and peace.

PS: Offer a five-year moratorium on any legislation designed to grant amnesty or a "path to citizenship." The five years moratorium would be designed to ensure that border security has been achieved before moving on to any sort of "comprehensive" solution.

The point of this, of course, is to make McCain choke, as he will not offer such a guarantee himself.

So Mitt Romney should offer it.

And so should Giuliani. And so should Huckabee, too.

Let the Maverick prove his Maverick stripes and refuse to take any sort of vow to not introduce his piece of shit bill until the public is actually reassured the feds are serious about enforcing the borders.

PS... Before we go jumping on the McCain Electability Bandwagon, let's reflect on why he's so damned electable, supposedly. Because he attacks us with delight at every turn. As he did during the Amnesty fight.

And... wow: Laura Ingraham tears McCain on not just McCain-Feingold, but in filing an amicus brief attempting to shut up Wisconsin Right to Life.

Neither of these are my big issues but Jesus, Laura gets fiery here and convinces me.

Hm: Seems Kaus already thought of this idea of a moratorium on amnesty, though he proposes it as a guarantee McCain can offer and thus guarantee his nomination.

Hey, I thought of this myself. Only it was two days later. Haven't checked Kaus in weeks.

At any rate, he's wrong, McCain, Mr. Straight Shot, won't make that guarantee. So other candidates should begin doing so.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 PM | Comments (56)
Post contains 547 words, total size 4 kb.

Over at an update at Hot Air, there's a conspiracy theory a-brewin' that Carl Cameron's report is a hit, owing to the fact that a buddy of his, formerly of FoxNews, was hired and then fired by the Thompson campaign. I guess the idea is that either Cameron's lying to avenge his friend, or his friend is pushing false dirt on Thompson for vengeance.

Problems: Supposedly Cameron heard this not when Fred was hiring people, but last year at CPAC, and furthermore he heard it from mutliple "insiders."

So if you want to believe Cameron is flat-out lying to get some payback for a friend, I guess you're allowed to do so.

JackM. works in DC and heard the same thing. He wrote me earlier:

Absolutely true.


I heard about this as well, and was also sworn to secrecy, which is why I never jumped on the Fred! bandwagon despite his being the most conservative in the field.


It seemed dishonest to me to pimp a guy to your readers who I knew wasn't really in it. But I couldn't say anything...


So, I think you can take Cameron's story to the bank. It seems to jibe with what I heard, although I didnt hear it at CPAC. I heard it [sometime before Thompson officially declared].


Sorry that I couldn't break this on your blog, but people wouldn't have bought it coming from me. All I can do is offer my experiences as an independent confirmation of what someone with credibility has already said.

He softens that "absolutely true" a bit--

I wrote that it was "Absolutely true"...obviously I cant know that as I'm not in Fred''s head.

It is true that the story was circulating in DC. That's what I meant to imply. So that I believe it is absolutely true that Cameron was told this, as I was told the same thing at a later date.

Just because a rumor is widespread doesn't make it true and all that. Still, JackM. heard this from people other than Jim Mills. I can't say who, but let's say the notion that Fred wasn't quite in it to win it was not limited to embittered ex-staffers.

At any rate, I trust JackM. JackM. is kinda connected, which is one reason I allow him to post his stalker poems here.

But damn, buddy. Could have clued me in, huh? When have I ever broken the code when you told me "Keep this confidential"?

Hmmm... A while ago Mickey Kaus wrote cryptically of a "dark star" or black hole exerting influence on the MSM's coverage of the Democratic campaign -- an analogy he used for a fact, or, rather "fact" the MSM thought they knew but couldn't report but which caused them to distort their reportage.

Like a dark star or black hole, the analogy went, the "fact" was actually invisible and unknowable (at least by the general public), but its presence was evidenced by intangible effects like the gravity of slant or bias. The Dark Star itself cannot be seen, except indirectly, in the inexplicable spins of visible bodies.

I didn't know what he was talking about then, specifically, and I still don't, despite the fact that I asked him about it and I think he told me.

But that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the idea of Dark Star Reportage in general, especially as regards Fred. Carl Cameron most likely let his fellow Foxies in on the Big Secret he was keeping confidential. This almost certainly distorted FoxNews' coverage of Fred Thompson, which was strangely antipathetic towards him. Fred complained that he wasn't getting much play at Fox, and there does seem to be some evidence for that.

Fred Thompson should have enjoyed a fairly warm reception at conservative-leaning, Reagan-revering Fox -- and yet he seems not to. Why? Well, perhaps because Fox was acting as if Cameron's scoop were true... while not telling their audience the reasons for their behavior.

Which leads to serious questions. If FoxNews was sitting on an undisclosed scoop they could not reveal due to oaths of secrecy, should they then behave according to that knowledge? Is it fair to treat Fred Thompson's candidacy as not very serious when refusing to reveal to the public the reasons for not treating it very seriously?

Is it fair to allow a secret Dark Star guide one's reportage without alerting the public to that, or even allowing the candidate whose reportage is distorted by the Dark Star to respond to it openly?

It's not doing someone a favor, really, to keep allegations of, say, infidelity secret and hush-hush when actually insinuating, vaguely, there might be some skeleton's in one's closet, is it? If one keeps the secret but more or less behaves as if it's accepted fact, that seems to be the worst of all possible worlds -- the public isn't informed, and the person whose secret is sorta, but not completely, kept (i.e., it's in the air, though never discussed) is actually harmed just about as much as if the secret were actually aired and refuted.

In addition, while I don't think Cameron (or JackM.) is a liar, there is a small chance that this idea of seeking-the-presidency-to-get-the-vice-presidency was spread by an insider who himself was prone to theorizing about stuff he couldn't possibly know for certain. And thus while it may be true that someone close to Thompson told other "insiders" Fred's secret plan, etc., this guy might simply have been wrong. Or he may have been, like so many others in DC, attempting to puff up his own importance by claiming confidences he didn't have, using Thompson as his Big Famous Friend who tells him Very Important Secrets.

But, because the exact nature of the MSM's disdain of Thompson was never revealed, Thompson could never really publicly deny it.

There's a lot of bias in the MSM, obviously. The MSM "knows" a lot of crap it doesn't "know' at all -- like that Global Warming is real and we must do something about it (except give up private jets and limos) soon or we're all going to die. And that Bush said Iraq bought uranium from Niger. And etc.

But the press also seems to suffer from the non-political bias of thinking they know more than they actually know, behaving as if a fact is "confirmed" when it hasn't been confirmed at all. And they don't actually print these Phantom Facts, knowing there's no actual confirmation of them -- technically abiding by the rules of journalism. But then they shape their coverage to reflect these unconfirmed Phantom Facts, putting these little nuggets of non-information out there through slant and angle.

Wouldn't it be far more honest to admit to this stuff right up front? Is it more "fair" or "honest" for the press to keep the rumors and beliefs secret from the public (and immune to refutation) while allowing these exact same rumors and beliefs to shape, distort, and (mis)inform its actual published news product?

Posted by: Ace at 08:09 PM | Comments (100)
Post contains 1172 words, total size 7 kb.

Dude. The pinkie hug and the boots are going to exacerbate the injury.

Who's your doctor? Does he know you are doing this pinkie thing, and walking around in boots?

Or knockin the boots?

Money is involved now. You keep that in mind.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 06:11 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

And monitored by big brother cameras.

...He said today: "Twenty miles per hour speed limits save lives and make our neighbourhoods better. These measures will build on what we have already done so that the quality of life in our local neighbourhoods is improved for everyone. I think if you can say 20mph zones without the road humps there won't be any opposition."

According to City Hall, nine out of 10 pedestrians will be killed if hit by a car travelling at 40mph, two out of 10 will die if struck at 30mph but his drops to one in 40 at 20mph. ...

As a practical matter, is it a good thing for society to encourage continued survival of idiots who put themselves in a position to get run over? I would argue no, its not. They might breed and propagate another generation of morons. The occasional person gets whacked when some auto jumps a curb and careens down the sidewalk, but those are the exception, plain old bad luck.

The vast majority of urban pedestrian fatalities are due to ordinary stupidity. Crossing the street against the signals. Crossing in the middle of the block. Not looking each way before crossing. These sort of things are preventable if a few neurons are firing. If the guide dogs for the blind can manage it, those who can't really don't deserve much sympathy in public policy.

I'll admit my position on such things has a distinctly Spartan ambiance to it, but pandering to the bad habits of idiots simply isn't sound public policy. By the time I was 5 years old, I had been taught how to cross a road safely.

Of course its "Red Ken" Livingstone who is behind this new wave of nanny stateism.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:06 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Stay in Fred! Stay in!

How about McCain guarantees us a five-year moratorium on any new Comprehensive Pieces off Shit Immigration Reform Bills to reassure us that he actually is interested in not only "certifying" the border is secured, but in allowing enough time for people to actually verify it has been secured and the problem is now contained?

I sort of doubt he'll make such a pledge. Meaning he'll propose amnesty again within his first year in office. 'Cuz, you know, it will only take a few months to get those borders closed.

And of course he's leading in Florida, though a Rasmussen outlier puts Romney ahead by five.

Correction: Allah apparently misread the results and was corrected by his readers. Mitt picks up 3% of Fred's 7%, McCain only 2%. Giuliani and Huckabee each pick up a single percentage point.

7%? Geeze, I knew Fred was sucking hind tit but I didn't realize he was doing that poorly nationally.

Posted by: Ace at 06:01 PM | Comments (57)
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Eva Green.

What about for those Lady Fredheads out there? Hmm, let me think. I'm so resolutely heterosexual I have no earthly idea what might be considered "handsome" to the opposite sex, so I always have to guess. more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:50 PM | Comments (42)
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow:

Back in March of 07 at the CPAC convention in DC several former Fred Thompson Congressional staffers told me Fred Thompson was thinking about a run. Some of his Tennessee cronies had been talking him up too.

I reported first that he was eyeing a White House bid. At the time several insiders told me OFF THE RECORD that it was largely a trial ballon to guage his popularity and float his name as a possible vice presidential nominee. I was sworn to silence.

Those insiders have now lifted the conditions on our conversations. From March to August of 07 through postponed announcement days, staff changes, firings, resignations and general disarray the Thompson camp was stunned by the incredibly positive response and didnÂ’t really know how to manage it. The trial balloon soared mighty high and he found himself being dragged into a race that he was not even sure how to run.

Even Allah can't "quite believe it," though it does explain an awful lot.

Fred wanted to be Vice President. He expressed interest in the Presidency to gauge his viability as a Veep, and was surprised at how much interest there was. So he threw his hat in the ring as an afterthought-- and as a bit of a lark.

He didn't start running early because that would have screwed over his Law & Order business associates, which wouldn't be justified (I guess he figured) for what was really a bit of a trial balloon anyway. He didn't really get serious about organization because he never expected much to happen.

And he didn't light up his opponents in debates and with paid ads -- as was required of him, if he were to make up ground in the polls -- because he didn't want to hurt his possible top-of-the-ticket running mate.

I can believe all that. It explains an awful lot. Sure, he did want to be President. Sort of. Once he found he actually had a shot at it, of course he wanted to take a stab at it.

But like Mike Huckabee recently said, refusing to allow that he might serve as VP to someone else, "I don't talk about fall-back positions, because once you have a fall-back, that becomes your actual goal." (Paraphrased.) For Fred, the Veepstakes wasn't really a fall-back, it was a first preference. It was the presidency itself that was the fall-back, or rather, the fall-into.

Assuming this is true -- and I personally don't think Carl Cameron is lying -- how badly does this damage Fred's attractiveness as a Veep? Especially among Fredheads themselves, I wonder. Fred's campaign was kept alive by his supporters, with Fred himself barely helping. Thompson's supporters did most of the heavy lifting on his behalf.

Given that, is Fred's thoughtful brand of consistent conservativism still attractive in the Veep slot? Or does this put most supporters off Fred for anything more than a middling-importance cabinet post?

I'm not mocking anyone here, but I guess I am asking the Johnny Rotten question: "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" (Early exit there, too, because, as Rotten announces, "I'm a lazy bastard... this is No Fun." Actually, it's all oddly appropos.)

Seriously, I'm not mocking. I'm not saying "Ha-ha, you been bamboozled." (Hey, I liked him too, though I was a bit baffled at his slapdash attitude towards the Presidency of the United States of America... he campaigned for president like John Winger trained for combat.)

I am genuinely curious, though, how burned Thompson's supporters feel about all this now (assuming, provisionally, it's basically accurate), considering how much money and support and emotional uplift they've tried to give his not-terribly-serious campaign.

And therefore how much juice Thompson can contribute to any ticket.

More: Dr. Rusty Shackleford suggests Fred's supporters turn to Romney.

See-Dub writes how the resume he submitted to Fred's campaign didn't even get a response.

And Bryan recounts how Fred just never got back to Hot Air about doing a prominent interview with Michelle Malkin on one of the world's biggest conservative websites.

Baffling.

As Yoda said, "Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'"

Posted by: Ace at 03:28 PM | Comments (109)
Post contains 736 words, total size 5 kb.

Yep, dirt. That stuff on the ground. The loss of dirt has been declared to "rival" global warming as an "environmental threat".

Disappearing dirt rivals global warming as an environmental threat

The planet is getting skinned.

While many worry about the potential consequences of atmospheric warming, a few experts are trying to call attention to another global crisis quietly taking place under our feet.

Call it the thin brown line. Dirt. On average, the planet is covered with little more than 3 feet of topsoil -- the shallow skin of nutrient-rich matter that sustains most of our food and appears to play a critical role in supporting life on Earth...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 02:56 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

But Murphy made some more frightening predictions. See the last second of this clip:

Silly and trivial, but that's what I do here.

Thanks to Boston Irish. And thanks to Kasper Hauser for reminding me of the Pluto Nash prediction.

Posted by: Ace at 02:38 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.