I watched the debate last night with about 350 of my closest friends as well as the Patriot’s nightside host Rusty Humphreys out at the Minnetonka Marriott last night.

Quick impressions:

• Mitt talked too much.  He came across a bit like…a too-slick CEO.  Not that he didn’t have great points – but there were times he needed to stop short of where he did, and just talk less.
• Mike Huckabee presented himself very well, although occasionally at the expense of actually answering the question.  Perhaps he was trying to edge around the “nannystater” rep he’s gotten in conservative circles in the last few weeks.  Oddly, Anderson Cooper didn’t seem to press him to answer the question as much as he did other candidates.
• Giuliani looked nervous, and occasionally distracted.  As a rule, he gave good, solid answers (including, I think, to the “gotcha” question toward the end), but he could have come across better.
• Thompson seemed (a little) more “relaxed” than “asleep”.  He had some sound bite lines, but he didn’t get enough air time.
• It was the first time I’d seen Tom Tancredo in a debate.  He did well, not that it matters much.
• Duncan Hunter, on the  other hand – a guy I’d love to see as a front-runner – could have done a lot better. Part of it may have been lack of practice – I think they only got around to him two or three times.
• Ron Paul seems to be morphing into Ross Perot.  His crowd, incidentally, was out in force last night, with posters and a booth and a big, raucous turnout.  I’m pretty sure Rep. Paul won the straw poll (although I had to leave a bit early).
• John McCain is taking great pains to push his conservative credentials – understandable, given the audience.  At times I found myself painfully wishing he could go back in time and take back McCain-Feingold and the Gang of 14; he almost sounded supportable.  I feel the train has left the station for the Senator, and it made me just a little sad.
• Anderson Cooper is a twit.
• I loved the way CNN picked the two “gun nuts” and one literal “bible waver” that most perfectly fit the most caricatured stereotype of Second Amendment activists and Christians they could find.  And where I say “loved”, I mean “thought it was as predictable as…well, Anderson Cooper being  a twit.
• While I’m ambivalent about the “gays in the military” issue – I don’t personally see a reason to exclude them from military service – I confess that by nature of my background I’m loath to suggest imposing a rule on the military by complete fiat; “unit cohesion” is a matter of life and death.  I’m not entirely sold on the idea that gays in squads will wreck unit cohesion – the British military has allowed openly gay servicepeople for quite some time, and the British army has been famous for unit cohesion for a very long time.  That being said, General Kerr got way too much air time.  While King and I both commented “good question” during the General’s video appearance, the General’s open-mic harangue from the audience was long, preachy, and excessive. 

Anyone else?

UPDATE:   Michelle Malkin notes that there was more to the questions than met the casual eye:

Retired Brig. Gen./gays in the military lobbyist/Hillary-Kerry supporter Keith H. Kerr wasn’t the only plant at the CNN/YouTube debate. The plant uncovering is in full-swing over at Free Republic.

Example: “Journey,” a.k.a. “Paperserenade,” the girl who asked an abortion question, is a declared John Edwards supporter.

You couldn’t tell from the video that CNN aired, where she’s wearing a plain shirt:

But if you click through on her YouTube profile, you see her latest video in response to the candidates’ answers. And she’s prominently wearing…her John Edwards ‘08 t-shirt:

And on, and on, and on.  Read the whole thing.

And for the record (on the off-chance that anyone is keeping the “record” of my statements), I don’t care that they’re Democrats; merely that CNN presented them – I would suspect with full knowledge – as just regular folks.

Ed sums it up well:

CNN deserves the brickbats it will receive for its atrocious research skills. However, Republicans should be prepared to answer the questions the candidates received in this debate. At some point, this will cease being an intramural fight and we will have to convince all of America to vote for our nominee. That won’t happen if we can’t handle fastballs, with a couple of curveballs in the mix.

True.  As long as America knows that CNN is putting spit, pine tar, bondo and/or spackle on the ball without telling anyone.

CORRECTION:  Yep.  Pine tar is for bats.  I plead caffeine-deprivation.

CORRECTION 2:  Or not.  Sentence rewritten to cover all possible permutations.

Jeff Dobbs at the Thinker on how Iraq could smack the Democrats in ’08:

It was just this past spring that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was proclaiming:

“We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) told reporters yesterday. “Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

The Democrats clearly understood that the worse the situation in Iraq became, the better their electoral prospects.

It was just this past summer that House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn worried that a positive report on the surge in September by General David Petraeus would be “a big problem for us”.

The Democrats clearly understood that the better the situation in Iraq became, the worse their electoral prospects.

Hence the wall-to-wall proclamations that “Iraq is a worse disaster than ever” on MPR? Just curious.

Dobbs continues:

Iraqis are voting with their feet by returning home after exile

The figures are hard to estimate precisely but the process could involve hundreds of thousands of people. The numbers are certainly large enough, as we report today, for a mass convoy to be planned next week as Iraqis who had opted for exile in Syria return to their homeland. It is one of the most striking signs that not only has violence in Baghdad and adjacent provinces decreased dramatically in recent months, but confidence in the economic and political future of Iraq has risen sharply.

Violence is down. Iraqis are returning. The American people are beginning to see this progress, despite the efforts of Democrats and many in the media to hide it from them.

For now, the number of Iraqis returning may seem small compared to an estimated 2 million that have fled. But the number is growing faster than anyone has anticipated. And those returning are not returning as targets of opportunity for terrorists, but as participants in the opportunity for freedom.

To the extent that the war in Iraq will play a significant role in the 2008 elections, the numbers should be compelling and astounding to Democrats, in a direction they never could have imagined just a few months ago

But…But…John Stewart still says it’s a quagmire!

Go read it.

The NYTimes notes that the Dems are busily trying to figure out how to be for the war, after they were against it, after they were for it:

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

I’ve noticed this in the media’s coverage – and even in callers on the NARN show; suddenly, now that fewer people are dying and the threat of civil war seems to be waning, a functional parliament and government is the gold standard for determining success in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

Um, yeah.  With bells on.

“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”

I think for most Democrats – those that are in any way beholden to the nutroots – it’s too late.

Not that it’ll harm the likes of Keith Ellison and Betty “Rubble” McCollum, but yes, it is a club that needs to be used with gusto.

Tim Montgomerie of the London Times on how very traditionalist, European and “conservative” the Bush Foreign Policy has been.

And it’s not really a good thing:

The foreign offices of Europe all hope for more multilateralism. More realpolitik. Less sabre-rattling.The critics have a problem, however. In reality, Team Bush has largely been following European approaches to foreign policy for most of the world’s troublespot nations.

Take Pakistan. The “realist school” couldn’t honestly disapprove of any aspect of Bush’s dealings with Islamabad. American taxpayers have financed a military dictator in the hope that Musharraf will suppress the fundamentalists and provide logistical support for Nato operations in Afghanistan. Has this worked? No. Islamic militancy is mushrooming.

Musharraf has often bargained with the political patrons of the madrassas in order to stymie his democratic opponents. If he falls, the Pakistan people may see America as the nation that propped up the regime that introduced martial law and warped the constitution.

Which isn’t exactly “Neocon”.

It’s all too reminiscent of its relationship with the Shah of Iran in the 1970s. When it comes to present-day Iran, Team Bush has been patiently multilateralist. Washington allowed the years to pass as Europe promised to negotiate an end to Tehran’s nuclear plans. As it became obvious that the talks were failing, the Americans turned to the United Nations. Russia and China have vetoed any significant action.

Ditto.

Indeed…:

Something akin to neoconservatism has only really been pursued in Iraq. Even the keenest supporters of the war readily agree that dreadful mistakes have been made. Nonetheless, the tide is now turning. Violence has halved. The progress of the “surge” is increasingly apparent…The bungled road to a democratic Iraq has been far too bloody but it’s now perfectly sensible to believe that Bush’s pre-emptive war may have sown the seeds for what could be the least troubled nation of the region in a decade’s time. The multilateral approach to Iran may leave us with a nuclear-armed Tehran terrorising Israel and holding the world to ransom over oil supplies.

Lessons to learn?  Especially for the next president?

When it comes to foreign policy the next US president has to remember that America is most effective when the world’s only policeman is seen as strong, as in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Libya disarmed. The Khan nuclear exchange programme was exposed. Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Problems multiplied when America looked unwilling to commit necessary troops to finish the first battles of the War on Terror. A weak America, tied down by do-nothing multilateralists, is the last thing our dangerous world needs.

Uh-oh.

I’m going to go write a check to a Republican.  Hell, every Republican except Ron Paul.

A few weeks ago, Michael Brodkorb at MDE broke the story – Minnesota’s DFLer Secretary of State Mark Ritchie was abusing the power of his office to get political contributions.

The local Sorosphere erupted in response:

• “He’s a GOP operative!”
• “Oh, yeah?  Well, at least Ritchie’s not Mary Kiffmeyer!”
• “Brodkorb’s on the GOP payroll!”
• “Tool!  Tool!  Tool tool tool!”
• “Brodkorb gets his money from the GOP!”

But lo and behold, that noted GOP organ the Strib notes that…

…Brodkorb was right!

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie now says that he personally gave his campaign a list of participants in a state-sponsored “civic engagement” program so it could send them a campaign newsletter that asked for a political contribution.

Ritchie, a DFLer, was elected on a platform of de-politicizing the office, which supervises elections. He has been under fire since two Republican activists who attended the office’s publicly funded event filed a complaint over having their e-mail addresses turned over to Ritchie’s political operation.

Previously, Ritchie had denied knowing how the campaign got the list. He now insists that it solicited contributions only to pay for the newsletter itself. But its text invites recipients to an upcoming campaign fundraiser.

Ritchie said on Tuesday that it was a mistake for his campaign to use the list and took responsibility, saying he has taken measures to ensure that people can easily “unsubscribe” from the newsletter and that it will from now on contain only news, not solicitations.

Wow.  Brodkorb was right!

(Or is that “The GOP was right”?  Hmmm.  Who knows?)

Minnesota Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles said Tuesday that his office has accumulated a significant amount of information regarding the complaint against Ritchie and was assessing the case.

Ruh-roh.

Ritchie, responding by e-mail while recuperating from a medical procedure, said Tuesday that he believes firewalls need to exist between taxpayer-funded programs and his campaign.

Yeah, you could say that.

Kudos, M-Brod.  Yet again, you’ve proven that the local Sorosphere is your beeyatch.

UPDATE AND FLASHBACK: Of course, Joe “Learned Foot’ Tucci notes that he had Ritchie’s number before “having Ritchie’s number” was cool.

Rosner at Ha’aretz notes that  the Democratic prez candidates sound a lot like…neocons.

But the even more amazing thing about the Pakistan chapter of the debate was the extent to which the Democratic candidates sounded almost like – well – neocons.Consider their praise for democracy and their insistence that the Bush administration should be pushing Pakistan’s President to allow elections in Pakistan to move forward. Consider the talk about how democracy in countries like Pakistan contributes to America’s national security (Clinton). Consider their practical dismissal of the danger attached to a destabilized Pakistan (Dodd was the exception, saying that “When you take the oath of office (for the presidency) January 20th, you promise to do two things: protect and defend the United States and protect yourselves from enemies foreign and domestic.”)

Interesting that the Administration has had to adopt – at least operationally – a more realpolitik-y approach on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, promoting stability and strong traditional institutions (like the sheikhs and tribes) over surface indications of democracy, for at least the time being, while the left is moving into the space the Administration has for the moment vacated.

Consider all their statements and you?ll reach one of two conclusions:
Either everything is politics, and when Bush does A (avoids pushing the Pakistani President) the Democrats must say B no matter what; or, as much as the Democrats want to deny it, the Bush years did influence the way they think about the world.

I’ll take (C):  All of the above, but with a healthy dollop of Bush Derangement slathered on top.

When it comes to gays, the left talks a big game – but as we’ve been noting for years, when the chips are down, lefty commentators are vastly more likely to resort to gay-bashing than the mainstream right.  (Note:  opposing gay marriage is not “Gay-Bashing”).

I noted this years ago in re Nick Coleman’s abortive, abortious “radio show”, which consistently  tittered and giggled like a couple of junior high kids over a bunch of “gay” cheap shots. Of course, even the most rigorously reputable regional media outlets aren’t above gay-baiting cheap shots.

Taranto notes its’s not just a regional phenomenon:

There’s almost a year to go before the presidential election, and already the Angry Left is employing gutter tactics against the Republican front-runner. One ugly theme has emerged:

* “Could the United States, for that matter, elect a cross-dresser? The Rudy Giuliani surge would be comic if its broader implications were not so grave.”–James Carroll, Boston Globe, Oct. 29

* “Rudy’s acceptance of Pat Robertson’s endorsement is equally foolish. Not only has it made utterly transparent that Giuliani isn’t just a cross dresser but also a man capable of practicing the oldest profession as well as any Jezebel . . .”–Gloria Feldt, Puffington Host, Nov. 9

* ” Rudy Giuliani did Hillary imitations, complete with mincing steps and effete hand gestures, looking just like the cross-dresser we know him to be.”–Stanley Fish, New York Times Web site, Nov. 11

* “The old guard, Pat Robertson, has just endorsed the cross-dressing former mayor of New York to defeat what he called Islamic ‘blood lust.’ “–Andrew Sullivan, Times (London), Nov. 11

They make Giuliani sound like Boy George. In fact, as we’ve noted, he’s more Monty Python, having donned a dress on a couple of occasions purely for comic effect.

It’s especially sad to see Andrew Sullivan, who styles himself a champion of gay rights, resort to a rank appeal to homophobia in order to score cheap partisan points.

Sad?

More like “predictable”.

I’d love to see how the region’s more-prominent gay-activist bloggers (pretty much universally left-of-center) treat this.

Or “if”.

Alternate Title:  “They Eat Their Own, Part MLXXXVIII“.  El Rider notes the niutroots are out for Rahm Emanuel’s political head:

Okay, if it takes a “member of the vast right-wing conspiracy” to defend Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) then things are not going all that swimmingly over on the other side of the pool. Yesterday, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos asked whether Rahm Emanuel is a racist. A few weeks ago I read a comment stream on Ellen’s Tenth… concerning Rahm and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) that was bizarre even for those folks. So what the heck is going on?

Feeding frenzy?

Methinks that some folks are trying to move any blame concerning the current congress away from the more outwardly liberal Pelosi and toward the more centrist Emanuel. Some commenters over at Ellen’s place and on the regressive Daily Kos don’t seem to understand what Rahm did last year. He recruited good centrist candidates in vulnerable districts around the nation and not only were those candidates successful but they gave the Democratic Party it’s current House majority.

Thank God for the nutroots – Kos and his regional doppelgängers and anhängers – or the GOP would be in real trouble right now.

The other day, Pat Shortridge at TvM wrote one of the most insightful pieces I’ve ever seen on what ails the Minnesota GOP:

The Right side of the spectrum still doesn’t get it when it comes to the importance of local elections.  Our side gets all hepped up about the White House or a huge Senate race, over which we as citizens have relatively little control.  But when it comes to the areas where we can have the most impact – electing mayors, city councils, school boards, etc, – we are just giving it away to the other side, barely even in the game, with a very few notable exceptions.

I’ve kvetched about this for years; in my own district, the Fourth CD, the GOP barely shows up.  But for the odd Tom Conlon (the only Republican on the St. Paul School Board) or Bill Poulos or Georgia Dietz (who got elected to executive positions on the Highland Community Council), the Fourth CD is a wasteland for Republicans – even though the city and the first-ring burbs are clogged with people who should, by all rights, be amenable to conservatism; black parents disgusted by the collapsing educational system; Asians who embody free enterprise and  love of this country (how many of them or their forefathers crossed rivers under fire and oceans on rickety boats to get here?); Hispanics whose votes the Dems court, but whose industry and vibrant Catholicism the party piddles on; working people who are seeing their taxes rise and rise, for no rational return.

So why do Republicans not get that “government begins at home?” and that “politics is local?”

Because the enemy sure gets it:

Education Minnesota and its allies clearly understand what’s at stake.  Beyond the policy issues of any given election, they are accomplishing two critical things: (1) control over virtually all of the official information that gets disseminated and that the public relies on for its thinking about education issues, and (2) they are creating and constantly replenishing a political farm team.  Think about how many DFL candidates for the legislature in recent years have been involved in education policy making, either as school board members, teachers, activists, etc.

Shortridge nails the solution:

If the center-right is going to regain any standing, it must re-engage at the local level.  It’s all well and good for folks to engage in levy debates, but man, a whole lot goes on beyond that.  Our side – I include myself foremost in this – must start attending meetings, serving on committees, recruiting candidates, and running for office in our own backyards.  In scanning the election results, far too many races were uncontested or the opposition was token at best. 

The “warm body on the ballot” syndrome that especially besets the GOP in the Fourth and Fifth CDs – where a token GOP candidate will try to spare the party the embarassment of an open slot – is itself a symptom of the problem; endorsing names to run for the Legislature (to say nothing of Congress) that have no political history with voters of any party much less the non-political is a waste of time and effort at the very least – and at worst a Potemkin approach to politics; “See?  We have a party here!  Honest!”

The mere act of meeting every two years and endorsing a slate of candidates to stage hopeless, pro forma runs for office doesn’t make a party, much less a movement. 

Getting people – good, first-princples-based Republican people – involved at the grassiest of Minnesota Politics’ grass roots is where change really begins; where the GOP will start to actually contest control of the cities without which this state will never be in real contest.

Which means Republicans have to start running for those grassiest-roots offices; in Saint Paul, that means the Neighborhood Coalitions that control so much of the “on the street” effect of municipal government.  The GOP insurrection in Highland Park showed what can happen; Dietz and Poulos got Republicans to turn out, which in turn got a right-leaning council empaneled, which in turn uncovered epic rot at the district, a traditional DFL sinecure in “non-partisan” clothes.

More – much more – on this in coming weeks.

Rep. Kohls challenges SOS Ritchie over alleged abuses of his office.

Brodkorb, as usual, has the story.

Sue Jeffers is not amused by T-Paw’s slip to the left:

OK Governor Pawlenty, we know you have jumped on the green band wagon. We got it.

 

We knew it with E-85, we knew it at the Governor’s Convention, we knew it with the Renewable Energy Bill, and we knew it with the Global Warming Mitigation Act. We heard you say loud and clear that global warming is “a huge and defining issue of our time.” We got it.

And it’s not just idle political chatter:

The cost to anyone who uses energy will be staggering.Conveniently ignoring the fact that there is nothing Minnesota could reasonably do which would noticeably impact the climate. In fact there is no proof that these proposals will affect global warming, positive or negative, even if every state in the nation, and every country in the world, adopted them.

I acknowledge that perfect is the enemy of good enough.  As a conservative, I’m keenly aware that politics is about crafting the most advantageous compromise you can manage.  Stomping ones’ feet and threatening to take your toys and go home if you can’t get a perfectly-conservative-enough candidate is a sign of immaturity, at least when it comes to making your politics matter in the real world. 

Still, our role is to push the conversation to the right.  And there’s a fair case to be made that TPaw needs that push. 

And Sue is pushing.

So Governor, hear this Conservative loud and clear: the defining moment will be when you find your backbone and lead and govern using conservative principles instead of supporting yet another invented liberal crisis. It would be much more effective if on your trip to the Arctic you would scope out the terrain and figure out the best spot to put the drilling rigs.

Strommie’s not thrilled either.

Politico says Norm is going to endorse Rudy:

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) plans to endorse the presidential campaign of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, according to Republican sources.

It’s a union of two Brooklyn-native, non-Protestant former mayors.

True – although I’m wondering what “non-protestant” has to do with it?

Giuliani will also make a joint appearance in Washington on Friday morning to accept the endorsement of another U.S. senator whose name has not been disclosed, the sources said.

The endorsement holds clear advantages for each of them. It could bolster Giuliani’s argument that as nominee, he would have the chance a better chance of putting certain Democratic states in play than some other Republicans would.

Pat Shortridge writes at TvM:

Ideologically, the former mayors are compatible. Norm is a bit more conservative than Rudy on social issues; Rudy more conservative than Norm on the fiscal side.    

As with his work on things like uncovering corruption in the UN Oil for Food program, Norm realizes that there’s more to being a conservative than fiery speeches, you have to get results.  The same applies to Rudy.  In Rudy, I’m sure Norm sees executive competence, ability to get things done, and a willingness to lead on tough issues. 

Of course, the corollary is both have been willing to lead in the wrong direction, at times.

Still – it’ll be big news.

Brodkorb has more on SecState Ritchie and some interesting transactions:

I have received information this morning that certain state employees associated with Minnesota’s Sesquicentennial events have complained about receiving solicitations for contributions from Ritchie’s campaign. Secretary of State Ritchie’s official office has an active role in Minnesota’s Sesquicentennial events and his official website lists information about next year’s events.

According to numerous sources who spoke with me on background, some state employees have received solicitations for contributions from Ritchie’s campaign at their state email addresses. At no time did they provide Ritchie’s campaign with the specific contact information through which they received their solicitation for contributions from Ritchie’s campaign.

This new information widens the scope of the allegations against Secretary of State Ritchie.

Just saying.

It’s going to be an interesting Volume III on the NARN this weekend.

Jeff at TvM Ttalks about a discussion with his seven-year old on foreign policy, noting that his son’s philosophy…:

…these days is focused on the question, “Which is more powerful, the dark side of the force or the light side?”.

And I think that makes him a more nuanced thinker than Barack Obama. From the foreign policy journal, MTV:

Obama also reiterated that he would be willing to talk to such rogue nations as Iran and use diplomacy — not unilateral military action — to try to repair the image of the United States on the world stage. He promised to close the controversial terror detainee jail at Guantanamo Bay, restore the right of habeas corpus to detainees and to bring back all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his arrival in the Oval Office.

Obama has got it in his head that his path to the nomination means embracing defeatism, surrenderism, and America is to blameism.

And keep in mind, Obama is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. One wonders if he’s absorbed anything sitting on that committee.

Iran has been committing acts of war against the US since 1979. Our problem is not that we haven’t talked talked to Iran, or engaged in diplomacy. Our problem is that we’ve talked too much, and engaged in diplunacy.

I’m going to my wayback machine, picturing Premier Bzurek Obamski, leader of Poland, expressing growing “concern” with German aggression – on September 1, 1969.

Failure is an orphan.  Success has a thousand fathers.

And if the Iraq situation continues to improve, you’re going to see a party full of deadbeat parents rushing back.

Or so says Giuliani:

“I think they’re going to change their minds. I think the verdict of history is going to be that it was the right decision,” Giuliani said.

He argued that had the U.S. not invaded Iraq, it would now be facing two dangerous countries trying to become nuclear powers – Iraq and Iran.

“Suppose Hillary Clinton and John Edwards’ new position was their position back then, that it was a mistake to take him out,” Giuliani said, referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. “Wouldn’t we be dealing with Saddam Hussein becoming nuclear right now? If Iran was becoming nuclear what would he be doing? Sitting there letting his arch enemy gain nuclear power over him? Or would we now be dealing with two countries seeking to become nuclear powers.”

“Honest, Junior, the support check really did get in the mail.”

Rudy also does the unthinkable; point out that the Dems are simply not ready for prime time not serious about the world’s real situation:

On Iran, Giuliani criticized Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., also a candidate for president, for saying they would engage in diplomatic relations with Iran. Obama has said he would be willing to meet with Iran’s leader in the first year of his presidency without conditions; Clinton has said envoys below the presidential level should begin diplomatic work.

“This is the world we live in. It’s not this happy, romantic-like world where we’ll negotiate with this one, or we’ll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we’ll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we’ll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House,” Giuliani said.

 The Dems’ response?  “Stop talking mean to us”.

Well, close:

The Democrats’ campaigns quickly challenged Giuliani.

Edwards spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said Giuliani was spinning “convoluted foreign policy theories” and that Edwards “believes we have to take action to end the war quickly and responsibly and bring our troops home.”

Reid Cherlin, Obama’s spokesman, said Giuliani’s “cheap applause lines, unfounded political smears, and shoot-first-think-later politics are irresponsible in a campaign, and would be catastrophic in a presidency.”

They remind me of the Samoan lawyer from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Huckabee stock seems to have taken a bath recently.

First Ringer sounds off with a resounding “sell” order:

Huckabee appeals to the media and pundits for two reasons. As a Baptist preacher who seems like a combination between Jerry Falwell and William Jennings Bryant, pundits believe his pro-marriage, pro-life preachings echo those of the stereotypical conservative while his “Cross of Gold” economic views have won him fans among the Manhattan/D.C. publishing nexus.

In other words – a Republican Lori Sturdevant would like, with a drawl?

Are Republicans ready – or interested – for a socially conservative Huey Long? Probably not. Populism has shallow roots in the GOP, even traditionally. One might have to go back to Alf Landon, nominated in 1936 amid the Kansas sunflowers and Republican dread over their election prospects, to find even a minor populist leading the national ticket. And given the results of that election, the argument for another populist nominee seems slight.

Huckabee – the man from Hopeless.

…the days until a leftyblogger actually addresses the facts of a Katherine Kersten column, rather than just blurting out facile, juvenile ad-hominem.

Two of her recent columns have drawn the ire of the not-too-smartosphere (here and here)

I’ll start the count at one day right now, based on these two (obtuse and selectively ignorant) posts bits of blog discharge.

We’ll start with obtuse; Matt Snyders, who seems to be on a mission to rhetorically peck at Kersten’s ankles, writes:

Depending on what kind of reactionary observer you ask, these individuals had it coming because they a) blocked traffic, b) taunted police in mysterious ways that the MPD has so far been unable to describe, c) are bourgeois hipsters and bourgeois hipsters deserve to be beaten, g*d damn it!, or d) some combination of all of the above.

Actually, there’s an option “d”, one that I suspect is the real answer that Matt Snyders (and the entire CP staff) dare not whisper:  Critical Mass are patsies for other people.

This topic comes up for discussion again a month-and-a-half later for two reasons: first, the resident she-jackal at the Strib  [She-jackal?  I feel like I’m reading a screed by some Campus Maoist – Ed.] has had a field day with the incident, penning two columns in the past three weeks on her newfound bogeymen. Check ’em out here and here. You won’t be disappointed. (“Minneapolis isn’t the only place where the Mass mob has strong-armed the police and City Hall,” it wrote on October 8, presumably with a straight face.)

One ad-hominem (ad-feminem?), two giggly but unsupported inferences…zero actual beef.  I mean – would Snyders at least let us knuckle-draggers in on where Kersten might be wrong?

Secondly, Critical Mass supporters launched a website earlier this week in order to “support the victims of the police violence and brutality” and to “help resist the remaining charges that are being leveled against 4 individual participants so that the cops and the city can save face and have someone to blame for their misconduct.”

Well, that should settle it then.

Look – as I wrote before, as a guy who dices it out with Twin Cities drivers on my bike at  least a couple of days a week (having the kids back in school cuts down on my biking time), I’m not unsympathetic to at least the part of Critical Mass’ agenda related to raising awareness about bikers.  But Snyders doesn’t apparently feel it necessary to show the reader where Kersten is supposedly wrong about Critical Mass.  Perhaps the CP staff knows that their audience is going to reach the conclusion they want no matter what they write – it’s nothing new. Or maybe Snyders needs to work on writing to an actual point, lest he be regarded as “the worst writer in the Twin Cities’ altmedia since the legendary Margaret Grebe”.

You be the judge.

Oh, it gets worse. This’d be the guy from “mobjectivist”, which if you want to get nit-picky about philosphy might be too-telling a name after all:

Trying to understand her obsession over bicyclists, I think the StarTribune columnist, Katherine Kersten, has tried to frame and conflate other recent Critical Mass events with the sanctioned ride.

Well, actually, she wrote about the ride that turned into a riot.  Remember that? 

 And another local assbag blogger, [“Assbag”? Mommy?  Is that you?  – Ed.] thinks it has something to do with prepping “greens” for bad behavior when the RNC comes into town next year. I guess what better way to practice intimidating conservatives than a bunch of bicyclists roaming the streets?

Prepping greens?

Where on earth did the “writer” get that?

Look, numbnuts “WHT” – I could care less about “Critical Mass”.  Indeed, I bike, so if they have something in mind to actually get drivers to stop knocking us off, more power to ’em.  Indeed, friends of mine ride with ’em.  And as far as “intimidation” goes, most of them are from Minneapolis, and if they ever crossed the river they’d need me to help them get out alive.

But if either of y’all have any ideas about facts that Kersten supposedly got wrong, sound off, m’kay?

(And “Needing someplace to refer to her as a snaggled-tooth witch” isnt’ even warm).

So – one day and counting!

NRO notes the corrosive racism in the left’s attacks on Bobby Jindal, who won the Louisiana governor’s race last week:

After “progressive” racists spent months trying to use his ethnicity against him, I think it’s a feather in Jindal’s cap that everyone talks about it now. Something, by the way, to remember next time you see the Left run for the moral high ground on perceived “racism” — as though it meant something to them beyond their party’s political success. It wasn’t just the Louisiana Democratic Party, but also self-styled “progressive” bloggers, writers and message-board posters who used Jindal’s race against him during this campaign.

There’s nothing ‘progressive’ about being liberal.

Ask Linda Chavez.

Socks the cat prop is back in the news:

AS THE “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter Chelsea. So where is Socks today?

Once the presidency was over, there was no room for Socks any more. After years of loyal service at the White House, the black and white cat was dumped on Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, who also had an embarrassing clean-up role in the saga of his relationship with the intern Monica Lewinsky.

On the one hand, Sock should be thankful not to have ended up like Vince Foster, whose head Hillary personally stuffed into a civil war relic cannon and fired across the Potomac (or so I remember the story) [1].

On the other – what does this tell us about Hillary!?

Clinton has been boosting her prospects in the past week with some homespun references to her gender as part of a series of events with the theme Women Changing America, during which she chatted girlfriend-to-girlfriend and mom-to-mom with female voters.The softening of Clinton’s image seems to be working. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, predicts that up to a quarter of Republican women will vote for her. She leads Democratic rivals in the polls by 26 points and is scooping up more donations to her war chest from Wall Street and defence contractors than any candidate from either party – an unmistakable indicator of who they think will win in 2008.

Clinton’s treatment of Socks cuts to the heart of the questions about her candidacy. Is she too cold and calculating to win the presidency? Or does it signify political invincibility by showing she is willing to deploy every weapon to get what she wants?

“In the annals of human evil, off-loading a pet is nowhere near the top of the list,” writes Caitlin Flanagan in the current issue of The Atlantic magazine. “But neither is it dead last, and it is especially galling when said pet has been deployed for years as an all-purpose character reference.”

Flanagan’s article, headed No Girlfriend of Mine, points out that Clinton wrote a crowd-pleas-ing book Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets, in which she claimed that only with the arrival of Socks and his “toy mouse” did the White House “become a home”.

Someday, campaign to install our first cyborg female president will be taught as a case study in marketing classes worldwide.

(more…)

IMF protest in DC turns bloody.

You can expect to see some of these thugs in Saint Paul next September.

Michelle Malkin points us to an LATimes story that…

…digs into Hillary’s finances and uncovers more mysterious Chinatown donors with dilapidated addresses in NYC and jobs unlikely to put them in the position of maxing out campaign contributions. They include dishwashers, waiters, contributors who deny making contributions, and another who “admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.” And more:

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown…

…Of 74 residents of New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

Will Hillary accuse the Times reporters of “stalking” now?

Obviously, the LATimes is a racist conservative tool.

I like the use of the adjective “ephemeral:”

Like many who traveled this path, most of the Chinese reported as contributing to Clinton’s campaign have never voted. Many speak little or no English. Some seem to lead such ephemeral lives that neighbors say they’ve never heard of them.

Predictions: Hillary will come out swinging at the Times, her Asian-American acolytes will accuse the paper of racism and ethnic bigotry, and those “ephemeral” donors will never be found.

I suggest one of Chicago’s cemetaries.

At least, if Twin Cities’ college student Andrea Jackley, as evidenced in this Strib op-ed, is any evidence.

Last Friday, former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The award denotes a shared effort in diagnosing (and proving) global warming and bringing the pending environmental disaster to the attention of the world as one of the greatest challenges ever known to the human race.

And/or denotes the most amazing marketing effort for totalitarianism in the history of the world…

Nobel prizes are not meant to be political,

The Nobel Peace Prize nearly pure, distilled politics.

but nevertheless speak volumes [AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAGH! – Ed.] in terms of public opinion.

Among Norwegian academics? Perhaps.

And this year, as it always does, the award spurred controversy. Is the Norwegian Nobel Committee trying to criticize the Bush administration and its policies? Not really.

Hm.  Interesting conclusion.  Care to elaborate?  I’d like to see the carefully-honed reasoning that led to this rather sweeping – and groaningly implausible – observation.

Are they trying to tell us what to think?

Well yes, actually. The committee made its message quite clear: “By awarding the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby reduce the threat to the security of mankind,” said Chairman Ole Danbolt Mjøs.

In other words, the Nobel academics have decided what’s good for the rest of us, and want to do their bit to give an American patrician carte blanche to run the nation and the world.

No, Andrea.  Nothing political about that.

As a full-time college student burdened by two jobs, I’m completely immersed in my own busy life. I’m not sure what I was wearing yesterday, let alone what’s going on in the steadily changing world of politics.

[Aside:  So naturally, the Strib gives you an op-ed slot.  I guess it’s no worse than Susan Lenfestey]

But in an America deeply, and quite publicly, divided by issues ranging from war to health care to — of course — climate change, I am acutely aware of the floundering patriotism, national pride and participation of younger generations. But can you blame us?

As a group?  No.  Just about every generation – at least, the generations anyone notices (mine, a demographic shadow, slipped through while everyone else was barbering about the Baby Boomers) – goes through a bout of narcissism, solipsism, and self-adulation; a period where it is the center of the world (and for the Baby Boomers, it’s never ended).

There is a constant deluge of reports in the media about how poorly the world thinks of Americans and how often our government lies to us…The past six years have done immeasurable harm to our nation’s foreign relations.

Which is why Sweden and Austria are swamped with immigrants, and lines of Indian and Saudi and Dutch are queued up to go to schools, apply for our jobs, and raise their families in Norway.

In a world becoming more and more closely linked on a daily basis, economically and socially, a cavalier and autocratic attitude is a luxury not even a superpower can afford. Contrary to what some of our politicians may think, America is no longer the stag leading the herd as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

Ding.

And so Ms. Jackley would prefer a leader who would, like Jimmy Carter, lead America to become a Big Sweden.

But then there’s Al, who has catapulted to almost movie-star status with his Oscars, who has appealed to the masses with giant outdoor concerts featuring acts like U2 and given his whacky, tree-hugging notions about the environment credibility. He’s all of the things college students love.

You just wanna put him in a bong and ingest the guy.  Or maybe kick him around like a hackey sack.

Seriously – what does this say about “young people” today, assuming Ms. Jackley’s right?  That the most important things in a leader are:

• They’re kinda like really cool rock stars
• The rest of the world loves them
• Oh, yeah – and all that “crushing democracy on behalf of a deeply controversial and far-from-proven theory” thing.

If Algore isn’t available, maybe Brad Pitt or Leo Decaprio could run.  Because they’re just dreamy, and they’re also interchangeable non-American in outlook!

More important, he’s an established, world-renowned figure with a fresh Nobel Peace Prize in his hands. That makes him something the rest of the world can love, too.

And goodness knows we need to get the rest of the world’s approval!

Gore is exactly what this country needs. He can appeal to younger generations and give us reason to get up and vote, and perhaps feel proud of our country again.

Andrea Jackley – people whose entire concept of politics and of this nation is as shallow and facile as yours shouldn’t be voting.  Indeed, you appear, from this glimpse into your personality, to be a prime example of why “get out the vote” efforts harm this nation.

He is someone who might be able to repair some of the damage to America’s reputation. He is someone who will, at the very least, start the ball rolling on energy independence and alternative sources. He is someone who will give us the leadership we’ve been craving. We need him desperately.

I desperately need an Advil.

As Matt Abe notes over at North Star Liberty, pragmatism seems to be the order of the day:

After opposing them while he was a U.S. Senator, candidate Fred Thompson now backs billions in taxpayer subsidies to Archer Daniels Midland and Big Ag to burn our nation’s corn supply for fuel — while domestic oil exploration and petroleum refinery construction have been at a virtual standstill for years, conveniently providing the “crisis” that ethanol has been waiting to solve.

Ethanol may be a scam, but like light rail and SCHIP for all, it wins elections…

…or, more to the point, primaries.  In rural states.

Don’t get me wrong.  I grew up in a rural state.  The notion that America could be run entirely according to coastal urban interests and still survive is comical.  But the classic rural state cliche – rock-ribbed conservatives who send the likes of Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan and Tim Walz to Congress, to bring home all the swag they can frank – is a real thing, which leads to things like the ethanol boondoggle.

…even if it doesn’t solve the problems that it purports to solve, even with a blank check from the public treasury. Just ask Governor Tim Pawlenty — or former lieutenant governor candidate Judi “What’s E85?” Dutcher.

Ethanol’s a no-brainer — for politicians on both sides of the aisle. Tyler would certainly agree.

Sort of like paying your bookie.

Does Ramstad have just one foot out the door?

Less than a month after announcing his retirement, longtime U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad is being asked by national party leaders to reenter the race.Facing Democratic challengers for all three of the congressional seats they hold in Minnesota, Republican leaders have been quietly meeting with Ramstad, a source close to Ramstad has told the Star Tribune.

Ramstad, 61, still plans to retire in January 2009, at the end of his ninth term, according to a statement by his chief of staff, Dean Peterson. Ramstad declined to be interviewed.

It may, of course, be less an endorsement of “moderate” GOP politics, and more a matter of conservation of effort:

Political observers note that while Ramstad’s third congressional district in the Twin Cities’ western suburbs has historically leaned Republican, a Ramstad decision to postpone his retirement could save the cash-strapped GOP campaign committee as much as $1 million to defend the seat, a factor that could be huge in a tough presidential election year.

The fundraising effort certainly needs a boost.

If conservatives aren’t being obligingly bigoted, frame ’em!

A group of seven GW students sent an e-mail to The Hatchet late Tuesday night admitting to hanging hundreds of controversial posters around campus early Monday morning.

The students – Adam Kokesh, freshman Yong Kwon, senior Brian Tierney, freshman Ned Goodwin, Maxine Nwigwe, Lara Masri and Amal Rammah – said their motives were misinterpreted. Students for Conservativo-Facism Awareness hung the posters in opposition to Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, an event being held beginning Oct. 22.

Kokesh, a graduate student and Iraq War veteran, gained celebrity over the past year because of his vocal opposition to the war. Nwigwe and Rammah are also graduate students.

In related Saint Paul news – on the local politics discussion boards, some of the lefty commentators have been going to amazing lengths to try to show that any violence that breaks out at the GOP convention next year is equally likely to be from right wing agents provocateurs.

They were conveniently short on actual incidents.