According to CBS' Harry Smith, waxing Biblical about Kennedy's endorsement.

With Obama surging in the polls, again, the press has returned to its old Obamessianic coverage. Just as previously the press looked for absurd reasons to praise Obama, they've begun doing so again -- I've misplaced the link, but a reporter was blown away by how Obama actually asked for voters' votes at a recent DC rally. Very uncommon to do that, the reporter noted, detecting healing or maybe change -- redemption, perhaps? -- in this utterly unexpected utterance.

Prematurely Martyring the Messiah: Harry Smith also frets that "agents of change" may become targets of assassins, asking Ted Kennedy about this grim possibility.

I suppose there is reason to worry. On the other hand, there is good reason to worry that the hatred on the left for George Bush imperils his life as well -- it only takes one lunatic with a rifle and a unexpectedly accurate shot to take a president's life -- but he media has long ignored this, intentionally.

The media used to fret about all the right-wing hate directed at Bill Clinton, and exposed this "underground" of poisonous thought before, but became entirely unconcerned with such unhinged venom encouraging assassins the moment George Bush was sworn into office.

Bob writes:

I know that I am certainly getting tired of their attempts to assert a mortal threat against one of the more likable people (politics aside) in this race, and wonder why more bloggers have not yet castigated the media for recycling the possibility of a threat again and again, perhaps goading an unstable person to act upon them.

This needs to stop.

I actually think the opposite: if there is hate-speech encouraging the assassination of an American figure, it should be exposed and castigated by all. I suppose the MSM has typically not done its homework here and hasn't bothered to find such dark talk, though I'm sure some exists someplace.

But after eight years of deliberately ignoring the words of those who seek to encourage assassins, how do they suddenly reverse themselves and discover "Oh yes, gee, this seems to have suddenly become a problem again"?

Holy Grail, Holy Blood: Ann Curry notes "American royalty" has blessed Obama.

This is all sounding a bit Da Vinci code -- from Jesus to the Merovingians to John F. Kennedy and now to Obama.

Change! Obama announces immediate withdrawal from Iraq if elected.

On tap for Iraq? A massive security vacuum. For Afghanistan? A security build-up, sure to be popular with the leftist base. ItÂ’s a quirk of Iraqi and Afghan cultures that the latter, like Bosnia, does best within a traditional occupation model while the former tends to flourish from being returned very suddenly to a quasi-Hobbesian state of nature.

Or maybe itÂ’s not a question of culture or strategy at all but a simple function of each warÂ’s respective popularity...

Iraq is unpopular and thus does not need a surge; Afghanistan is comparatively popular and hence a surge is just what is needed.

Iraq is unpopular and therefore "killing terrorists there just makes more of them;" Afghanistan is relatively more popular and thus terrorists there do not possess this hydra-like quality, and hence we can kill them without worry about "making more of them."

A cynic like Allah thinks that there is really no difference between the two wars except the Democrats' desire to lose one while pretending to care about winning the other.

I know better.

Obama's gonna heal me.

Too Many White People and Women on Mega Tuesday? If we assume the Democrats are largely picking their candidate based on identity politics -- which is mostly true -- the demographics of Mega Tuesday seem to favor Hillary.

As Bill Clinton said, approximately, "Hey, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too, and he was a darkie. Apparently so is Obama. Have you heard that? Turns out he's not white. Go figure."

Posted by: Ace at 11:55 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 677 words, total size 5 kb.

This has been linked here before, but it's still sweet.

Another vid of the Bat-Squad flying in formation at David Thompson's always idiosyncratic and interesting blog.

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

A bit of tealeaf reading here, but honestly, it is my own gauzy recollection based on such things that Romney wasn't leaning very far forward on the surge.

It is true, as you write, that “Romney wasn't as enthusiastic about [the surge] and in his body language, if nothing else seemed ready to distance himself from it if it failed.” But he went further than that. In June 2007, when there were already good signs that the surge was working, Romney told an interviewer, “I think we would hope to turn Iraq security over to their own military and their own security forces, and if presence in the region is important for us than we have other options that are nearby." (This is quoted by Dobbs in the Post) That may seem innocuous enough now. But you remember how thinsg were at the time. That was the way both Democrats and Republican supporters of withdrawal described their plan in those days. The idea was to pull U.S. troops out of the fighting in Iraq, hand over the fight to the Iraqis, and station U.S. forces “nearby” or “over the horizon.” That was how advisers to Hillary Clinton described their preferred option. It was how people who supported the Baker-Hamilton commission report described their ideal option. They didn’t call for immediate and total abandonment of Iraq — and very few do so today. When people who favored withdrawal explained their plan, it was as Romney described it. The fact that he also talked about “timetables” in an earlier interview, albeit secret “timetables,” also puts him in what was then the withdrawal camp.

Everyone who was fighting for the surge in the early months of last year — and that was not a very large number of people back then—was desperately looking around Republican ranks for support. Most Republicans on the Hill were quiet. Most conservative commentators were not working up any enthusiasm, to say the least. And aside from McCain, the leading Republican presidential candidates at the time were being careful. It was clear that both Giuliani and Romney were tempted to let McCain take the issue and self-immolate. But of the two, I remember, Rudy was the one who decided to put himself most clearly on the side of the surge. He began speaking out on the need for more troops in his public appearances. The contrast with Romney is even more striking in this regard. As best I can recall, Giuliani never talked about timetables, withdrawal, or about stationing forces “nearby.” Among the three leading candidates, only Romney took that line.

First of all, it should be remembered that McCain himself did a lot of political positioning on the war. He's fond of saying that he had the guts to challenge Rumsfeld when the war wasn't being won. That's partly true. It's also partly true that McCain found this position -- criticizing the execution of the war -- to be politically helpful, as he it afforded him the opportunity to distance himself from it while attacking Bush, supposedly, from the right.

Secondly, McCain himself was open to the idea of "timetables" and "benchmarks" and spoke in favor of them. Kagan's summary leaves out some important context: the public had turned against the war by this point and even those who firmly supported the goal of victory in Iraq found it necessary -- as McCain did -- to offer up appeasements to anti-war sentiment, to reassure the public that we were not, in fact, necessarily staying "forever," as the Democrats had it.

McCain did that too. So did Bush. "Benchmarks" and "timetables" -- of the goal sort, not the date-certain type -- became for many pro-war politicians the soft soap offered to a public tiring of war in order to keep the goal of victory alive.

In this context, Romney was deferring to conventional political wisdom on the point. He wasn't being a leader for the war effort, true enough. But neither was he being a leader against the war.

I'm not sure I can tell the difference between McCain's and Bush's soft, grudging support for benchmarks and unenforceable timetables and Romney's blessing of the same. They appear fairly similar.

I also don't see how Romney' statement about ultimately turning over Iraq to the Iraqis is somehow damning. That is everybody's goal, including Bush, McCain, and even the oil-vampire Dick Cheney. Kagan reads into this some code for withdrawal; I don't. He's expressing simply the hope of an end of the US involvement in the war, which everyone does, from left to right, from dove to hawk. Kagan reads into this a wish to withdraw no matter what the consequences; but the fact he can't find a quote that better aids him suggests there is none to be found.

The rest is up to "body language," the feeling, based on how passionately he spoke on the issue, that Romney meant more than this while Bush and McCain meant less. Having sometimes gotten that feeling myself based on "body language" and passion, I can't say that's an absurd inference. But it is, ultimately, just a sense.

In the "context" Kagan discusses, he seems to forget that even pro-war supporters were scrambling to meet the demands for immediate withdrawal with some reassurances to the public that would blunt the then-perceived stampede for the exits. He seizes upon ambiguous words of Romney to claim that Romney, unlike McCain, was in the bug-out camp whereas McCain's not-terribly-dissimilar statements were proof of his unwavering commitment to the war. That's a very big distinction to make upon such weak evidence.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 951 words, total size 6 kb.

I like a drunk with integrity.

She talked with dispatchers, explaining that she was driving because her boyfriend was too drunk to drive -- and that he made her call 911 because he thought "she was too drunk to drive," too. Dykstra explained she hung up because she doesn't like talking on her cell phone while driving.

During a call that lasted about four minutes, Dykstra told law enforcement everything they needed to know to find her.

...

Showing her citation to Action 2 News on Monday, Dykstra said she has no regrets about calling police on herself.

"I don't know. I'm so surprised. I did it myself, really. it's just one of those things. I didn't think I was driving so good so I said, let's tell them I'm not driving so good."

Dykstra was given a breath test and blew a 0.14. The limit considered too drunk to drive is 0.08.

Dodge County's sheriff says it's the first time a drunken driver actually called in a complaint about their self.

"I'm sure when her friends find out what transpired, I'm sure she will be the brunt of many jokes, but I give the woman a lot of credit," Sheriff Nehls said. "Intoxicated or not, she called in, thought she had too much to drink, we made the arrest. If more people did that, our highways would be a little safer."

If you're so worried that maybe you're too drunk to drive that you call the cops to report yourself, isn't there a pretty high likelihood you are, in fact, too drunk to drive?

That's the trouble with today's generation, with their mod haircuts and loud jazz music and "heavy petting parties." No follow through.

Thanks to Penn State Marine.

Posted by: Ace at 09:56 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Just because we haven't done one in a long time.

Drew M. has been pestering me for a flame war thread. But I'm feeling weakly affectionate about you morons lately and just can't point out your moms' deplorable hygiene and deviant appetites right now.

Maybe later in the week.

Current events themes, in 5-7-5 or Loose Shit.

Been trying to come up with a McCain haiku that is funny instead of depressing but haven't been able to manage it. Surely one of you guys can find the right mix of words.
So I'll just kick it off with one for Gabriel Malor:

Lucky Break

crash on a slick road
blood alcohol was zero
good thing for Gabe there's no field test for toad secretions and Sharpie fumes

It's been heavy around the blog for some time. Let's have some fun.

Posted by: LauraW. at 09:50 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

John McCain.

You know who that benefits?

Mitt Romney.

Sayeth the internet's most trusted pundit, objectively speaking:

Even if the combination of the low-blow and the Crist-Martinez endorsements allow John McCain to eke out a narrow win tonight, headlines like this one assure Romney of an open field over the next week, as does the building backlash against the McCain tactics. (See Rich Lowry's assessment below.)

Expect the Golden State to be the decisive contest on 2/5, and tomorrow's debate to be anything but dull.

C'mon Florida! You HAVE to vote for Romney. This is becoming my favorite running joke of all time, and I don't want to see it end!

But that's mainly for selfish reasons. I have a whole slew of "You know who doesn't have enough delegates to win a brokered convention? John McCain. You know who that benefits? Conservatives." jokes that I really don't want to re-write.

Posted by: Jack M. at 08:34 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Science.

Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis...

In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled. The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

"Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a telephone interview.

"There are higher concentrations of carcinogens in cannabis smoke ... what is intriguing to us is there is so little work done on cannabis when there is so much done on tobacco."

Unfortunately, Professor Science could not be reached for comment. Neither could Reason's Nick Gillespie. Although, I imagine that had either been reached the words "Dude....", "harshin' my buzz" and "Doritoes" would have been used in their quote.

Posted by: Jack M. at 06:11 AM | Comments (100)
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Heeey, no hard feelings.

I have great respect for President Clinton and respect for Senator Clinton," the Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show as he made a round of appearances on morning network news programs.

Slathered with "change" and "new direction" blah blah.

He described the Clintons as friends. "I've known them a long time. I've worked very closely with the Clintons." But, he added, "We need new energy. We need someone who can bring people together. People are basically saying that they want to new day and a new generation."

Dude.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 06:11 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

He's "gotten it," I guess:

McCain stood in the middle of the GOP cloakroom and yelled at several of his Senate colleagues because they deigned to have a vote — to have a vote — on Inhofe's "English As the National Language" amendment to the 2006 immigration bill. He accused conservatives of being "divisive" and "insulting" Latinos for suggesting that immigrants ought to learn this language. He was nasty and unhinged. About 10 staffers witnessed this. He delighted in telling the conservative senators there that they were destroying the party with these efforts. This is what Santorum is talking about. He had antipathy for social and cultural conservatives' efforts.

That's from a senate source of Ramesh Ponuru's, one he says is trustworthy.

Meanwhile, as Barack Obama promises drivers licenses for all and a Comprehensive Piece of Shit in his first year, Mickey Kaus sees a reason to vote for Democrats:

Obama's bold Hispandering makes me eager to defeat ... McCain! Given the likelihood that either Obama or Hillary will be in the White House in 2009, it would be good to have at least one party that isn't formally committeed to rapid legalization and can therefore act as a check on the Democratic candidates' impulses. The only way to achieve that is to make it clear that, within the Republican party, self-righteous pro-legalization activism is a political loser. Beating McCain is the way to drive that message home.

True enough, Kaus often sees reasons to vote for Democrats, chiefly for the reason that he is, in fact, a Democrat. But I'm kinda getting on this Obama train myself... I need to be healed, and he says he'll heal me. Healing's good.

Santorum Speaks: He won't talk about specific things McCain said (why the hell not?), but offers up this nugget:

“the one that comes quickly to mind was a ban on cloning. While the House passed a cloning ban at least on one occasion, we never voted on the issue despite pleas from social conservatives as to its importance. Many senators including Senator McCain wanted to avoid casting votes.”

Can you smell that pipin' hot Straight Talk crackling on the skillet?

Posted by: Ace at 08:59 PM | Comments (53)
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.

Come on. Stop picking on my gal Hillary like that.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 08:38 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.