My Lunch With Hugh and the Northern Alliance

Fortunately for me, after the debacle of my attempt to attend the Patriot Forum on Thursday, I received an invitation to have lunch with Hugh Hewitt and the bloggers of the Northern Alliance. As guests of The Patriot in the Twin Cities, we all met for lunch at Billy's Lighthouse in Long Lake, a terrific restaurant owned by a fan of Hugh's. It was the first chance I'd had to meet most of the Northern Alliance bloggers, as well as Hugh and the Generalissimo, Duane.

I think I can speak for the group (although you can check out their blogs, as I'm sure they'll be posting on this) when I say what a blast we all had. Hugh is every bit as gracious and friendly as you'd imagine from his show and his writing, and funny as well. We all talked about Minnesota, blogging, politics ... I don't remember the last time I had this much fun getting out for a lunch with colleagues. As you'll see in the extended post, Hugh happily posed for pictures. Duane was quite different than I imagined, and with both of us being California natives, we traded a couple of stories about the area and explained California weather and geography to the others at the table.

While I'd met The Elder and RB from Fraters Libertas, I hadn't met Saint Paul or JB Doubtless until today. They're a great group of guys, of course, but the life of the party (besides Hugh) had to be Mitch Berg of A Shot In The Dark, who towered over the rest of us. Hindrocket and Big Trunk from Power Line showed up at the same time as I did, and they were a lot of fun to talk with at the table. Eloise and the Warrior Monk from Spitbull drove quite a ways, I believe, to be there with us, as did King Banaian from SCSU Scholars. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that you'd be hard pressed to find a nicer group of people.

A couple of items to note. First, Hugh had us all predict which states would go for Bush and which would go Democrat in November, and promised to ridicule us all with the results at the appropriate time. I'm certain that if my predictive track record means anything at all, I just doomed the Bush campaign. The second item is that we have big plans for the Northern Alliance. Hugh challenged us to do something special, and we're all pretty enthusiastic. I won't say any more than that at the moment, but stay tuned.

Just click below to see some of the pictures I took of the event. (Thank goodness for digital cameras!) And once more, let me thank Hugh, Billy's Lighthouse, and The Patriot for a wonderful lunch and a great time.

Sitting/kneeling: Saint Paul, Duane, and Hugh
Standing: Hindrocket, The Elder, Warrior Monk, Mitch Berg, RB, me, Big Trunk, King Banaian, JB Doubtless

I had no idea that this sign was there until Hindrocket pointed it out to me (it says Captain's Quarters -- Billy's Lighthouse may have to be my official restaurant!) I'll use this picture for promotion, of course ...

One old captain poses next to another!

Neel's Strategy Memo to the Deaniacs

Thanks to alert reader Mark from Minnesota, we now have the latest strategy memo from Roy Neel, the new Howard Dean campaign chief. I'm posting it in its entirety. Neel attempts to explain the retreat announced this week from the February 3rd primaries, in what you could look at as the Ross Perot strategy:

This campaign has always defied conventional wisdom. Our extraordinary rise last year defied conventional wisdom—so did our fall in Iowa, and so did our comeback in New Hampshire after most pundits predicted Howard Dean was finished.

Conventional wisdom has been consistently wrong about this race.

So when conventional wisdom says a candidate must win somewhere on February 3, or that John Kerry will have wrapped up the nomination after fewer than 10% of the delegates have been chosen, we disagree.

Our goal for the next two and a half weeks is simple—become the last-standing alternative to John Kerry after the Wisconsin primary on February 17.

Why Wisconsin? First, it is a stand-alone primary where we believe we can run very strong. Second, it kicks off a two-week campaign for over 1,100 delegates on March 2, and the shift of the campaign that month to nearly every big state: California, New York, and Ohio on March 2, Texas and Florida on March 9, Illinois on March 16, and Pennsylvania on April 27.

In the meantime, Howard Dean is traveling to many of the February 3 states, sending surrogates—including Al Gore—to most, and conducting radio interviews in all. We believe that one or more of our major opponents will be eliminated that day, and that the others will fall by the wayside as our strength grows in the following days. As a result we have elected to not buy television advertisements in February 3 states, but instead direct our resources toward the February 7 and 8 contests in Michigan, Washington and Maine. We may not win any February 3 state, but even third place finishes will allow us to move forward, continue to amass delegates in Virginia and Tennessee on February 10, and then strongly challenge Kerry in Wisconsin.

Regardless of who takes first place in these states, we think that after Wisconsin we’ll get Kerry in the open field. Remember one crucial thing about the 2004 calendar—in previous years a front-runner or presumptive nominee would typically emerge after most of the states had voted and most of the delegates had been chosen. The final competitor to that candidate, even if he won late states, as many have done, has not been able to win a majority of delegates under any scenario.

This year is very different. The media and the party insiders will attempt to declare Kerry the winner on February 3 after fewer than 10% of the state delegates have been chosen. At that point Kerry himself will probably have claimed fewer than one third of the delegates he needs to win. They would like the campaign to be over before the voters of California, New York, Texas and nearly every other big state have spoken.

Democrats in Florida, who witnessed a perversion of democracy in November 2000, will not have a choice concerning the nominee if the media and the party insiders have their way.

We intend to make this campaign a choice. We alone of the remaining challengers to John Kerry are geared to the long haul—we’ve raised nearly $2 million in the week after Iowa, over $600,000 in the 48 hours since New Hampshire. No candidate—not even Kerry, who mortgaged his house and tapped his personal fortune to funnel $7 million into his campaign —will have sufficient funds to advertise in all, or even most, of the big states that fall on March 2 and beyond. At that point paid advertising becomes much less of a factor.

And we alone of the remaining challengers offer a clear choice to Kerry. Howard Dean is no Johnny Come Lately to the message of change—he has actually delivered change in Vermont. Howard Dean has the courage and conviction to stand up for what’s right, even when it’s not politically popular, as opposed to the cautiousness, compromise and convenience that has characterized John Kerry’s 19 years in the Senate.

We believe that when the voters of the post-Wisconsin states—which constitute 75% of the delegates that will be chosen in the states—compare Howard Dean and John Kerry, they will conclude that Dean, not Kerry, has the best chance to beat George Bush, because only Dean offers a clear vision of change and a record of results that contrasts against the rhetoric emanating from Washington. We believe they will increasingly reject the rubber stamp presented to them by the media.

Has such a strategy ever worked before?

No. It's never been tried.

But prior to this year, no candidate had ever raised $46 million dollars, mostly from ordinary Americans giving $100 each. Prior to this year no candidate for President had ever inspired the kind of grass-roots activity that has been this campaign’s hallmark. Prior to this year no candidate for President had so clearly revitalized his party, allowed it to reclaim its voice, and shifted the agenda so clearly to a call for change.

Let the conventional wisdom and the media declare this race over. We’re going to let the people decide.

Roy Neel
CEO, Dean for America

Roy Neel is not quite correct in one conclusion: this strategy has been tried, and it worked very effectively for Ross Perot in 1992. Faced with a poor organization and a chaotic third-party constituency, Perot retired from the race throughout the summer, staging a "draft" in late September to return to the national stage. While Perot didn't get elected, he did allow Bill Clinton to win with just 43% of the popular vote. Perot avoided most of the bruising trench warfare and emerged with a huge boost from the media. He played the gadfly to perfection and captured 19% of the popular vote, despite being a paranoid schizophrenic (he claimed the Bush family sabotaged his daughter's wedding).

Will this work for Dean? Maybe, although the dynamics are different. Neel proposes that after February 3 that Kerry will be the only viable candidate left. However, it's unlikely that everyone will drop out after the first Super Tuesday, which means that Dean will still have to compete against Edwards and possibly Clark in Wisconsin, where Neel proposes to make his stand for Dean. Neel is also mistaken in thinking that the media will be anxious to anoint a clear winner by next week. Where's the news in that? The media will be looking for ways to make sure that Kerry doesn't have it locked up. They want conflict and tension as long as possible to keep people tuning in and buying newspapers and magazines.

At best, this is a "strategy" borne of practical necessity. The Dean campaign has run through their money faster and to less effect than they planned, and with Dean taking an unexpected beating early, the donations are slowing down. Money and endorsements are flowing to the candidate who's winning, not talking about moral victories in finishing twelve points back in New Hampshire. Neel doesn't have the means to run an effective media campaign for February 3rd, and so he's making its absence seem strategic. The Ross Perot strategy may work, but it's more likely to have a Ross Perot result.

UPDATE: No one caught this, but I claimed that Perot captured 19% of the electoral vote, when in fact it was the popular vote. Perot didn't win any electors. I knew that but used the wrong term. (Bad Captain! No rum for you!)

More Canceled Flights

Several international flights to the US have been canceled for the weekend:

British Airways and Air France on Saturday announced the cancellation of seven flights to and from the United States because of security concerns. BA canceled four flights between Heathrow Airport and Washington on Sunday and Monday and one from Heathrow to Miami on Sunday. Air France canceled two Paris-to-Washington flights.

There seems to be less information forthcoming on these cancellations than the ones over Christmas, and that's probably a good thing. The spectacular attention those received may have exposed intelligence assets and scared off the terrorists. Let's hope that security agencies have better luck this time around.

Congress: No Evidence CIA Slanted Iraq Intelligence

Despite the shrill rhetoric emanating from the Democratic primaries and certain broadsheets, two Congressional investigations have concluded that no one pressured intelligence agencies to slant their data to support the Administration's casus belli:

Congressional and CIA investigations into the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism have found no evidence that CIA analysts colored their judgment because of perceived or actual political pressure from White House officials, according to intelligence officials and congressional officials from both parties. Richard J. Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who is leading the CIA's review of its prewar Iraq assessment, said an examination of the secret analytical work done by CIA analysts showed that it remained consistent over many years.

"There was pressure and a lot of debate, and people should have a lot of debate, that's quite legitimate," Kerr said. "But the bottom line is, over a period of several years," the analysts' assessments "were very consistent. They didn't change their views."

In other words, both investigations have confirmed the obvious. If you read the newspapers from 1991 forward, the intelligence data on WMDs has remained consistent, and in fact the UN and all of its Security Council members have operated from the same understanding of Saddam's weapons programs. Not only has there been no change in the intelligence, there was no change in the conclusions between the Clinton and Bush II administrations: regime change was the only way the WMD question (and Saddam's oppression and aggression) could be resolved. The only difference was in strategy, and that didn't change until after 9/11. Just before that, Bush and Powell were about to roll out a new plan for "smart sanctions" that would more effectively target Saddam's personal and military interests.

Democratic insistence that some unholy cooking of intelligence occurred when the exact same allegations, figures, and conclusions were operative during the Clinton administration makes them look extremely desperate and not terribly honest. The real question should be how the American and international intelligence communities could have been so far off, if indeed we never find WMDs, which may still be an open question. Two changes in American intelligence strategies contributed to the problem: the Carter administration's insistence on curtailing human intelligence assets and the Clinton administration's order to refuse association with field assets that don't support our human-rights values, as if the people who present a danger to us only associate with Boy Scouts. On top of that, Senator John Kerry led the fight to cut CIA funding in the 1990s as part of the so-called "peace dividend" (see this for an interesting perspective). You can't tie blinders onto a horse and then beat him for wandering off the road.

If Americans want their intelligence services operating correctly, it seems to me that the solution isn't to let the people who caused the problems dictate the solutions. Instead of making ludicrous claims that the Bush administration twisted intelligence so much that it was identical to what Clinton produced, Democrats should be addressing their plans to reinvest in humint and taking the shackles off of the CIA. Their rhetoric demonstrates that they do not intend on fixing the problem and instead want nothing more than to score political cheap shots.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers, and a big thanks to Glenn! I hope you take a look around and make Captain's Quarters a regular read.

Kerry: Lobbyist Magnet

Far from being the scourge of special-interest lobbyists that he declares himself to be, John Kerry has raised more money from lobbyists than anyone else in the Senate over the past 15 years:

Kerry, a 19-year veteran of the Senate who fought and won four expensive political campaigns, has received nearly $640,000 from lobbyists, many representing telecommunications and financial companies with business before his committee, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

For his presidential race, Kerry has raised more than $225,000 from lobbyists, better than twice as much as his nearest Democratic rival.

Kerry claims that all that money can't buy his vote, but he may have trouble explaining the juxtaposition of this:

One of Kerry's biggest -- and perhaps most controversial -- donors has been the Boston-based law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. The group, which lobbies on behalf of the telecommunications industry -- and employs the senator's brother, Cameron -- is his single largest contributor over the course of his Senate career. David Leiter, Kerry's former chief of staff, is vice president of a lobbying company affiliated with the Boston-based law firm.

The Center for Public Integrity criticized the senator's relationship with the firm in a little-publicized report released last year, accusing him of pushing the agenda of those helping to pay his bills.

"Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor," the report said. The Boston law firm's client include the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), an umbrella group for telecommunications companies.

Since 1999, Kerry has sponsored at least two bills and co-sponsored half a dozen that were sought by the CTIA, including industry-backed plans for winning lucrative auctions of spectrum, or airwaves. Thomas Wheeler, the former chief executive of the CTIA, and Christopher Putala, a lobbyist for the group, are both among Kerry's biggest presidential fundraisers.

Let's not kid ourselves; lobbyists give money to everyone. The problem here isn't that Kerry takes lobbyist money, it's that he claims to be the champion of the anti-lobbyists while raking in the money. It demonstrates his hypocrisy and his willingness to say anything to get elected. He voted against military action in 1990 because he supported military action to eject Iraq from Kuwait. He voted to authorize military action in 2002 because he didn't support the use of force in Iraq. He's taken more money from lobbyists than anyone else in the Democratic primaries because he wants to kick the lobbyists out of Washington, saying at one stop, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Kerry will take both sides of any position and feign as much passion as he can to convince you that the earth is round, but in a really flat way. Or, to put it another way -- he's the kind of man who makes a public spectacle of excoriating the influence of lobbyists while writing and sponsoring bills for the benefit of his brother and his lobbyist cronies. He's a hypocrite, and a blatant one at tha. Is that what Democrats propose for the nation? Is that the best they can do?

Al-Qaeda: Fighting On

A message purportedly from al-Qaeda states that they are still valiantly hanging on in their struggle to remain deadly:

Al-Qaeda vowed in its Thursday statement to continue fighting the Saudi government and its Western supporters, swearing to "take revenge on anyone who fights the faith and its people, or stands as a line of defence for the Crusader forces". ... The alleged al-Qaeda statement, a copy of which was emailed to The Associated Press today, also said government forces detained one of its members, Khaled al-Juwaiser al-Farraj, and that al-Farraj's father was wounded in a shootout with security forces, but that the rest of the group escaped.

The Interior Ministry, said, however, that al-Farraj's father was killed - but not by security agents.

This statement followed either (a) a deadly shootout with Saudi security forces, or (b) an ambush on them by al-Qaeda, depending on who's doing the talking. It underscores the recent trend of al-Qaeda of focusing on governments in the near area of Afghanistan and Iraq, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, attacking Muslims rather than those outside the ummah. Historically, though, religious zealots always seem to save their worst punishments for their brethren who, in their judgment, fail to meet the zealots' exacting standards.

Despite their zeal, al-Qaeda has only succeeded in driving the Saudis closer to the US, especially now that our armed forces have left their country. Since the car bombing last May, Saudi security forces have been much more energized in tracking down al-Qaeda personnel and infrastructure:

In recent months, Saudi security forces have arrested scores of terror suspects and seized large caches of weapons, ammunition and bomb-making material, spurred in part by suicide bombers' attacks on housing compounds inhabited by foreigners last May and November. Both US and Saudi officials blamed those attacks on al-Qaeda.

The Interior Ministry said Friday that security forces raided a home in al-Saly, east of Riyadh, and confiscated a cache of weapons. A booby-trapped pickup truck, explosives and ammunition, two automatic rifles, two pistols and a computer also were seized yesterday, it said.

In a second raid in the same neighbourhood, security agents found rocket-propelled grenades and launchers, Kalashnikovs rifles, pistols, hand grenades and explosives, the ministry said.

A year ago, the Saudis were only paying lip service about being our partner in the war on terror. Literally paying, actually, to the tune of $5 million a year, for advertising in the US about their friendship with the American people. Since May and especially since November, at least part of their government has gotten serious about the friendship. Let's hope it continues. Al-Qaeda is certainly doing their part.

French Corruption Scandals Grow

The French just capped off a glorious week of scandal and corruption with the conviction of former PM Alain Juppé, a crony of Jacques Chirac:

In a stinging reverse for President Jacques Chirac, the former French prime minister Alain Juppé was banned from office for a decade yesterday after being found guilty of corrupt party financing. ... A court in Nanterre in the Paris suburbs found him guilty yesterday of "taking illegal advantage" of public funds. He was given an 18-month suspended sentence and ordered to serve the mandatory 10-year suspension from elected office. More than a score of other serving or former party colleagues or associates of M. Juppé and M. Chirac were given suspended prison terms. ...

The legal conviction of M. Juppé also amounts to a political indictment of M. Chirac. The offences of which M. Juppé was convicted - embezzling the money of Paris taxpayers by putting seven party officials on the town hall payroll - occurred while M. Chirac was mayor of the French capital. It is generally accepted that the President would also have stood trial if he had not been protected by his immunity as head of state.

After the publication of the oil-for-food bribery list, featuring prominent French politicians who made France the second-largest recipient of Saddam's generosity, this additional scandal will rock Chirac's standing in the EU. Added to Elf-Aquitaine and their insistence on getting immunity in the US for the Executive Life collapse, and it is apparent that Chirac may be running the most corrupt Western European government since the Nazis stole everything that wasn't bolted down.

This scandal-ridden administration should make clear to all, especially Americans, that France no longer has any credibility. Chirac has forfeited any claim to speak for international agreements, let alone lecture the US on morality. Their self-assigned role as arbiter of our foreign policy, and the importance that certain politicians put in their opinion and assent, clearly are discredited now. Any candidate at any level that argues for French agreement (and Russian, for that matter) before pursuing foreign-policy and national-security objectives demonstrates their lack of qualification on national defense.

Kerry: Terrorist Threat Exaggerated

Power Line picks up on an interesting Washington Times article on yesterday's Democratic debate, in which the Times manages to catch something that the NY Times buried and the Washington Post completely ignored:

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said during last night's Democratic presidential debate that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated. "I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." ...

Sen. John Edwards, who was born in this state and has said he must win here, took the first opportunity to disagree with Mr. Kerry, the victor in both the binding Democratic contests held so far — the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. "It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September 11," Mr. Edwards said.

If there is a better argument for keeping Kerry out of the White House, I'd like to hear it. How typically left-wing is it to claim that the Republicans are exaggerating the threat of foreign attack? It takes us back to the Carter presidency, who shifted American foreign policy from Cold War containment to peaceful and friendly coexistence (famously smooching Brezhnev) -- only to see the peaceful and friendly Soviets overrun Afghanistan.

As Edwards reminded the audience, 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11 wasn't the result of exaggerated threats; it was the result of decades-long minimization of the one-sided Islamofascist war on the West in general and the US in particular. Kerry proposes to take us back to the days of minimization, where we close our eyes to the threats and insist that we spend the "peace dividend" on domestic social engineering. That thinking brought us 9/11.

When we looked at the burning and collapsing towers behind the Statue of Liberty, the smoldering wreck of the Pentagon facade, and the pit made by the heroes of Flight 93 when they thwarted the hijackers, didn't we vow to remember? Did we vow to become vigilant and to take action to make sure that such a thing never happened again? Or did we all decide to write it off as "s**t happens" and assume that the UN will protect us from harm? Kerry's message to the world appears to be the latter.

ABC: Saddam's List

ABC News reports further on the list of global government officials on Saddam's bribe list:

All of the contracts were awarded from late 1997 until the U.S.-led war in March 2003. They were conducted under the aegis of the United Nations' oil-for-food program, which was designed to allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods. The document was discovered several weeks ago in the files of the Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad.

According to a copy obtained by ABCNEWS, some 270 prominent individuals, political parties or corporations in 47 countries were on a list of those given Iraq oil contracts instantly worth millions of dollars.

These bribes worked by assigning barrels of oil to people at a rate 50 cents below the market value as a commodity, which allowed the recipients to sell the oil to legitimate brokers for a a profit, without ever touching a barrel themselves. If I had 1 million barrels, I would receive $500,000 for no more work than making a phone call. So let's take a look at some of the people on Saddam's list, shall we?

* Indonesia President Megawati Sukarnoputri: 10 million barrels. Spoke out against war.
* George Galloway, MP UK: 19 million barrels. Demonstrated against war.
* Patrick Maguein, French businessman and crony of Jacques Chirac: 36 million barrels.
* Charles Pasqua, former French Minister of Interior: 12 million barrels.
* Michel Grimard, French founder of French-Iraqi Export Club: 17.1 million barrels
* Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet: 90 million barrels
* Russian Communist Party: 137 million barrels (I guess everyone's a capitalist at heart)
* Russian Orthodox Church (?): 5 million barrels
* Arthur Millholland, Canadian CEO of Oilexico: 9.5 million

Altogether, Russia received 1.3 billion barrels of oil, coming in first on the list, with France coming in second. Oddly enough, France and Russia threatened to veto any enforcement of Resolution 1441 and the 16 UNSC resolutions preceding it. The International ANSWER people were all wrong. The war for oil wasn't fought in Iraq, it was fought in the United Nations Security Council. Russia and France lost, but the oil revenue that found its way to Moscow and Paris will eventually be enjoyed by the Iraqi people instead.

Blogs for Bush also has the whole list up.

Poll: Kerry Edging Bush Among Minnesotans

A poll by the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Minnesota Public Radio shows John Kerry slightly ahead of George Bush among Minnesotans, and the only Democrat who would beat him at this point in the race:

The poll, commissioned by the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Minnesota Public Radio, puts Kerry at 43 percent, Bush at 41 percent and undecided Minnesota voters at 16 percent. The poll was taken shortly after Kerry's victories in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, which have given him momentum versus the rest of the field. ...

In Minnesota, Bush would defeat Gen. Wesley Clark by a 5-point margin, Sen. John Edwards by a 6-point margin, Sen. Joseph Lieberman by an 8-point margin and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean by a 14-point margin. Among women, however, Democrats would defeat Bush — except Dean, who lagged by 1 point with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points.

"The interesting thing there is how badly Dean does," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, which conducted the poll. "He is clearly the weakest Democrat right now against the president."

Statistically, it's a dead heat (which the article stresses in its opening paragraph), and with 16% undecided, it would appear that the partisans have already decided and the more independent voters are keeping their powder dry. The keys among the poll demographics were the war on terror and the economy. Minnesotans approve of Bush's handling of the war on terror, 53-47, and if we can keep Iraq together and make progress against al-Qaeda, that number might go up a little more. His approval rating specifically on Iraq was 49%, to 40% disapproving and 11% undecided, an oddly high number. After the fall of Baghdad -- the last time the Pioneer Press did a poll -- Bush's numbers on the terror war were at 61%, not as high as his national numbers. The war will never show ecstatic numbers here in the North Star state.

Bush's rating on the economy came in at 47-42-11 disapproving, significantly below his national numbers, and this needs attention, quickly. It doesn't help that the major daily in Minnesota takes its economic cues from an increasingly hysterical Paul Krugman, whose columns it reprints without question. The Bush campaign should begin to advertise its economic successes and strategies for the future to Minnesotans in order to provide an alternative to the partisan volleys from the Strib. Hopefully those numbers will organically improve as more jobs open up in Minnesota.

I think that if the election were truly held today, Kerry would lose by a razor-thin difference to Bush; Minnesota went significantly to the right last election, and the pollsters missed that, too. But it would be a close-run thing, and if the Bush campaign wants a stronger result, kicking a few ad dollars this way now would be a good idea.

Why I Missed the Patriot Forum Tonight

I am so pissed -- at no one in particular, but I'm still pissed.

As I blogged earlier, my wife and I planned on going to the Patriot Forum, a dinner and discussion with Hugh Hewitt, an event I have been looking forward to attending for over a month. I got stuck in a meeting at work and couldn't escape until 4:45, although I made it home in a half-hour, something of a record for this time of year. I had originally planned to leave the house about that time, but I got ready as quickly as I could and started to head out the door. I asked the First Mate to check with the hotel to see if they had valet parking, for which I would gladly pay a small fortune on a -15-degree night. (There are other reasons, which will come into play later.) The hotel confirmed that valet parking was available. It was about 5:40, five minutes before cocktails but almost an hour until dinner.

The problems started immediately after that.

First, as we were throwing on our dressy coats, I saw that the jacket of the brand-new outfit my wife bought for the occasion still had the EAS tag on it from the store. I tried for five minutes to remove that ^&%*&% tag to no avail. She left the jacket at home while I not-so-silently cursed the sales clerks at Macy's. We went out the door and into the car, where I had to get cash for the aforementioned valet. After that, we set out for Saint Paul, and I figured it would take me about a half-hour to get to the hotel. No sweat; we'd arrive just as dinner would be served.

We drove into Saint Paul -- not reknowned for its user-friendly layout -- and promptly got diverted from our route, thanks to a combination of the Ice Palace and a Minnesota Wild hockey game that came as a surprise to me. After negotiating our way back from the river (and not really having a clue where I was going at that point), we finally rolled up in front of the hotel -- to see several large signs informing us that VALET PARKING WAS FOR OVERNIGHT GUESTS ONLY. Oh, yeah, and their lot was full, too. Welcome to the Saint Paul Hotel, and go screw yourself.

By now it was 6:30. Dinner was being served, and Hugh would begin speaking in an hour. However, I could not find a parking space close by. In fact, I could not move for over 15 minutes, as three different buses decided to turn left from the right-hand lane at the other end of the street, keeping a whole line of cars backed up. After I finally made my way past that knot -- for all I know, there's still two buses sticking halfway out into that intersection -- I found parking four blocks away from the hotel.

Here's where the rest of the problems start. To begin with, the First Mate was dressed for valet parking; it was -15, and the wind chill had to be -30 or below, and she wasn't going to do very well walking four blocks in that weather in her very elegant but thin outfit. Next, because of chronic health issues, she can't walk for long distances even in the best of weather. Third, because of her diabetes, she can't afford to skip a meal, and since it was now 7 pm, I wasn't even sure we'd get there before Hugh began speaking. We had almost certainly missed dinner, and there was no place to stop on the way there and no time to do it anyway. (I'm Type II and shouldn't skip either, but sometimes I do.) Finally, even if she managed to survive the walk to the hotel, she certainly wouldn't make the walk back, just to get into a subzero car which might finally warm up when we pulled into our garage.

So, muttering curses under my breath, we left the parking lot and went home. Which is why I'm pissed. I'm sitting here with my computer on my lap instead of sitting in an elegant ballroom at the hotel, listening to Hugh speak and meeting my Northern Alliance brethren, as well as DC from Brainstorming and a number of other people. Sorry, everyone.

Worst of all, my wife is upstairs, convinced that I'm pissed at her, when it has nothing to do with her. I gave her a hug and told her that I wasn't mad at her; I was just mad and she needed to let me be mad for a while. (If anything, I'm pissed at the hotel -- if they had told me that there wasn't any valet service except for overnight guests, I would have called a cab.) She doesn't believe me and still thinks she ruined the evening for me. But now that I've managed to get this out of my system, I'm going to go back upstairs, make a joke, eat something, and try to be a bit more jolly the rest of the night.

But you all know ... I'm still pissed.

Dean Flounders, Pulls Back Advertising

In what looks suspiciously like capitulation, the Howard Dean campaign has suddenly canceled its advertising in the seven battleground states voting next week on the Democratic nomination for President:

Howard Dean will not air ads in any of the seven states holding elections next week, officials said Thursday, a risky strategy that puts him at a distinct disadvantage with high-spending rivals for the Democratic nomination. With his money and momentum depleted, Dean decided to save his ad money for the Feb. 7 elections in Michigan and Washington state and, 10 days later, the primary in Wisconsin, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

One of the stories on Joe Trippi's departure published yesterday reported on strategic differences between trippi and Roy Neel, who took his place. If surrendering on Tuesday is part of the strategic realignment of this campaign, why did Trippi need to leave? I assume that Trippi saw this strategy as the acknowledgement of Dean's faltering appeal that it is, and Trippi knows that the image of a candidate backpedaling and downsizing holds little attraction to people concerned about electability. Kerry already held an edge among Democrats for whom electability against George Bush was the main motivation for their vote in New Hampshire, and with the turmoil in the Dean camp the past two weeks, it's sure to be more of an issue now.

Howard Dean looks increasingly incompetent as a national candidate. If he doesn't compete for next Tuesday's primaries, he will drop further off the radar screen and allow John Edwards to grab the momentum for second place. In two weeks, Howard Dean will be finished as a credible contender.

Limited Blogging Today

I will not be doing too much blogging today, as the First Mate and I will be attending the Patriot Forum tonight in St. Paul, featuring Hugh Hewitt as guest speaker. Hugh and Duane will be visiting us just in time to see the physical proof of Al Gore's theory of global warming; as I write this, it is 15 degrees below zero. (I'm actually surprised the former Vice President isn't speaking in the Twin Cities this week to continue his "Bitter Cold of Global Warming" series of lectures. We could use the hot air.) We'll be dining with our fellow bloggers of the Northern Alliance, such as the gang at Fraters Libertas, Mitch Berg at Shot In The Dark, Big Trunk at Power Line, and many more. If you are a listener of Hugh's show, James Lileks will be guest-hosting live from our own Patriot station here in town, so be sure to stay tuned.

To get us all into the mood, make sure you get a chance to read Hugh's latest column in the Daily Standard on John Kerry. Only Hugh could tie the Boer War, McCarthyism, and the UN together coherently and apply it to the primaries. In discussing John Kerry's vote against the 1991 action to eject Iraq from Kuwait with full UN blessing, Hugh notes:

But a singular focus on the war is a lesson from 1900 that the White House has no doubt already absorbed. A vote for the Democrats isn't a vote for the Baathists, but it surely is a vote for the United Nations. A solid majority of Americans aren't going to support a side which believes that legitimacy resides only in recurring consents from the Security Council and recoils from the use of force even when the Security Council is onboard.

John Kerry voted against the Gulf War in 1991. Had Kerry had his way, Saddam would now be a member of the nuclear club, and the WMDs he had in '91 would have doubled and tripled in scope and lethality. Kerry was absolutely, positively, and enormously wrong about the most important vote of his public life. His judgment was flawed then and remains flawed now. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the Security Council, except in 1991 when that Council wanted war.

Make sure you read the whole thing, and then listen to Lileks tonight. We'll be at the St. Paul Hotel, if we haven't frozen to the road on the way there.

What Happened To The Left?

Dissent Magazine published an excellent essay on the moral abdication of the Left in the fight against fascism. It's written by a Leftist who is dismayed by his sudden isolation:

"And yet," I insisted, "if good-hearted people like you would only open your left-wing eyes, you would see clearly enough that the Baath Party is very nearly a classic fascist movement, and so is the radical Islamist movement, in a somewhat different fashion-two strands of a single impulse, which happens to be Europe's fascist and totalitarian legacy to the modern Muslim world. If only people like you would wake up, you would see that war against the radical Islamist and Baathist movements, in Afghanistan exactly as in Iraq, is war against fascism." I grew still more heated.

"What a tragedy that you don't see this! It's a tragedy for the Afghanis and the Iraqis, who need more help than they are receiving. A tragedy for the genuine liberals all over the Muslim world! A tragedy for the American soldiers, the British, the Poles and every one else who has gone to Iraq lately, the nongovernmental organization volunteers and the occupying forces from abroad, who have to struggle on bitterly against the worst kind of nihilists, and have been getting damn little support or even moral solidarity from people who describe themselves as antifascists in the world's richest and fattest neighborhoods."

Read the whole essay. (via Crossing the Rubicon2)

Arts Funding Increase? Why?

The New York Times reported yesterday that President Bush will request a substantial increase in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts:

President Bush will seek a big increase in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts, the largest single source of support for the arts in the United States, administration officials said on Wednesday. The proposal is part of a turnaround for the agency, which was once fighting for its life, attacked by some Republicans as a threat to the nation's moral standards.

I don't think it's a threat to the nation's moral standards; daytime soap operas present more of a threat than art-house displays of Robert Mapplethorpe's rear end ever could. It's a nonproductive waste of money and it's completely unnecessary. Artists sell their wares in a free market here in the US. Artists who can't make a living out of it on their own should hardly be supported by government grants to go on being unproductive. Not only that, but the NEA is expected to supply patronage without discernment -- funding is demanded for all sorts of projects of questionable taste, such as the notorious pictures of bullwhips protruding from Mapplethorpe's ass. It's the first patronage system in history where the patron is held hostage to the artist.

One side benefit of being the NEA, I suppose, is that you can get really talented writers to produce works of fiction to support your organization, such as:

Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a New York Democrat who is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Arts Caucus, said she was delighted to learn of Mr. Bush's proposal. "There's nothing in the world that helps economic development more than arts programs," Ms. Slaughter said.

Yes, it was that all-important art industry that pulled a great nation from the Great Depression. And it was lucky, too, that it came along when it did. Why, if the great engine of the arts hadn't been around, we'd never have been able to bomb the Nazis with primitive sculptures and Cubist watercolors. Memo to Ms. Slaughter from planet Earth: There's nothing in the world that helps economic development than free-market capital. And the NEA eats up too much of that as it is.

BlogMadness, Round 1: Movin' On Up!

The voting is over for Round 1 in the BlogMadness tourney, and Captain's Quarters is moving onto the next round, thanks to all of you who voted for me. My "epic" poem, The Midnight Blog-Court, topped d-42's entry on pornography. California Yankee also won in my bracket.

Next up, round 2, where voting starts tonight at 11PM EST. I'm up against some pretty stiff competition this time: a grandmother writing about her grandchild's birth and difficult first few days (an excellent post, really). Hope you'll all continue to participate!

The French Exodus

French Jews no longer have confidence in France to protect them, and immigration to Israel has almost tripled:

Growing anti-Semitism in France has prompted a big rise in the number of French Jews emigrating to Israel. Figures released in Israel yesterday showed that 2,380 moved last year and 2,556 the year before. In the 1990s only about 800 French Jews emigrated to Israel each year.

One suspects that this presents a bit of a mixed bag to the Muslims responsible for attacks on Jews in France. On one hand, forcing Jews to leave must delight them, but I doubt they're happy to see them go to Israel. What exactly is driving France's Jews out of Europe?

Natan Sharansky, an Israeli minister, said on Sunday: "Last year the number of anti-Semitic incidents in France doubled and 47 per cent of all anti-Semitic attacks in western Europe occurred there." ... He said that between 2002 and 2003 anti-Semitic incidents around the world fell from 1,979 to 983; in France they rose from 77 to 141.

In other words, while anti-Semitic acts declined by 50% worldwide, they almost doubled in France. In 2002, France accounted for 3.9% of all anti-Semitic acts, while in 2003 France accounted for 14.3%, making them a contender for the title.

France passed their anti-scarf legislation today, but perhaps instead of focusing on how people dress, the French government should pay more attention to how they act. Until they do, no one can blame French Jews for emigrating to a country that affords its citizens religious freedom and a sense that each of them matter.

Dean On The Ropes

Governor Howard Dean's sputtering campaign hit more bumps in the road today:

Democrat Howard Dean shook up his faltering bid for the White House on Wednesday, replacing his campaign manager with a longtime associate of former Vice President Al Gore [Roy Neel]. In a further sign of distress, the one-time front-runner implemented cost-cutting measures as he looked ahead to a series of costly primaries and caucuses, asking staff to defer their paychecks for two weeks.

Management changes and budget cuts do not indicate a campaign firing on all cylinders; it demonstrates the extent of the problem Dean now faces. With his opponents raising more cash and with seven states voting on Tuesday, Dean has to spend a ton of money and needs a steady hand at the rudder. I'm not sure why outgoing campaign manager Joe Trippi suddenly lost Dean's confidence. Most of the problems Dean has he brought on himself, from his foolish notion that Saddam's capture made the US "no safer" to his cranky rant against a retired Iowan and his manic third-place "acceptance" speech. Apparently, Trippi doesn't know either:

One source said the former Vermont governor offered Trippi a spot on the payroll as a senior adviser — similar to the position Neel has held since Jan. 1 — but he decided to quit rather than accept the demotion.

Trippi's hurt feelings are the least of Dean's worries at the moment. Continued success in fundraising, regardless of whether it's from large donors or small, depends on the perception that Dean has a strong chance of winning the nomination. A month ago, Dean was the only candidate in the race inspiring that confidence, but now Kerry has assumed that mantle. Donations will start to slow, if they haven't already, leading to the suspension of pay for his campaign team. Donors aren't the only ones losing confidence in Dean's prospects:

One day after absorbing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire at the hands of rival John Kerry, Dean publicly and privately expressed his determination to remain in the race. At the same time, in a conference call with members of Congress who have endorsed him, he was told bluntly that finishing second wasn't good enough — that he had to show he could win a primary.

"He said he understood," said one lawmaker who was involved in the call.

Dean's campaign chairman Steve Grossman also said Wednesday that the candidate must win a presidential primary in the next two weeks to keep even his most loyal donor base — those giving modest amounts over the Web — contributing enough to make him financially competitive.

Translation: Dean must right his foundering campaign and win at least one of the primaries being held next Tuesday. Otherwise, what support he still enjoys will be looking for a way out.

BlogMadness Continues

Thanks to a boost from Hugh Hewitt, the Lord High Commissioner of the blogosphere, I'm ahead in the first round of the BlogMadness contest, 24-11, with 8 hours left to go. If you haven't been by there yet, please visit the bracket and cast your vote.

Other CQ brethren need some attention as well:

California Yankee is down 9-6. Patterico's Pontifications is behind 17-12 against terrific competition from The American Mind. King of Fools, Evangelical Outpost, and Wizbang are all ahead, but vote for them for insurance -- standings can change fast!

Our Friends, The French

UPI and the UK Independent report that official Iraqi government documents show that Saddam Hussein engaged in a series of bribes of high-ranking European officials:

Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council, the Independent reported Wednesday.

"I think the list is true," Naseer Chaderji, a governing council member, said. "I will demand an investigation. These people must be prosecuted."

If true, these documents would explode the Presidential race. Democrats consistently attack Bush for "unilateralism" and, in John Kerry's words, building an "illegitimate" coalition because the French opposed the US. Chirac even reversed course and stabbed Colin Powell in the back by reneging on an agreement to back us if we allowed a final effort at inspections. At the time, France certainly presented its opposition as a principled stand on behalf of peace, an arguable concept in and of itself while Saddam was filling mass graves with the bodies of his opponents. But if Chirac and/or his ministers were being paid off by Saddam, it yanks the "unilateral" rug right out from under the Democrats. No one in their right mind would expect the US to get a permission slip from a criminally corrupt ally who sold the US out for personal riches.

Get ready for some real fireworks if these documents are authenticated. The French may finally wake up from their long nanny-state slumber and discover that they've been betrayed by their keepers.

Edwards: I'm No Second Banana

Senator John Edwards, who finished in a virtual dead heat for third place in New Hampshire with General Wesley Clark, categorically rejects the idea of running in the #2 slot in November:

Presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) on Wednesday rejected any notion of sharing the Democratic ticket with front-running rival John Kerry (news - web sites) — unless he is at the top.

Asked on NBC's "Today" show if he would accept second place on the Democratic slate to face President Bush (news - web sites) in the fall election, Edwards said: "I think you've got the order reversed. I intend to be the nominee." Edwards said he would not be willing to be No. 2. "No, no. Final. I don't want to be vice president. I'm running for president," he said.

While candidates often pooh-pooh the idea of being a VP, this is the second time that Edwards has said he would never consider it. If he wound up in the #2 slot -- a move that would definitely benefit Democrats if typical Northeastern liberals John Kerry or Howard Dean won the nomination -- these tidbits could be a minor-league equivalent of "Read my lips!"

I find it rather odd that a one-term Senator from the South wouldn't leave more of an open door on this question, answering more along the lines of this: "I'm running for President, and that's what we're going to focus on now. The time for selecting a Vice President will come when the nominee is selected, and at that time we'll all have a say in that process." Being a VP would hardly be a step down for Edwards; he's not running for a second term in the Senate, but he does have long-term political aspirations with the Democrats. Assuming he doesn't win the nomination, which seems a safe bet at this point after failing to capture any delegates in New Hampshire, a refusal to assist the Democrats in the South by joining the ticket does not augur well for any future electoral plans he will have. It comes across as arrogant and selfish. If Edwards wanted to build momentum for his current campaign, creating that kind of image with the DNC won't help here, either.

How Can You Keep Them On The Farm ...

Apparently, in the eyes of Minnesota Golden Gophers athletes, Minnesota's natural beauty is a terrific attraction for high school recruits. Unfortunately, some of the student hosts gave recruits too close a look at some of our beauties:

Gophers athletic director Joel Maturi said he will investigate recruiting practices within the football program after learning that high school prospects went to several Minneapolis bars and a strip club during an official recruiting visit in December.

Three prospects acknowledged Tuesday that they were part of a group that visited bars as minors and that several were served alcohol. A group also went to Deja Vu, a downtown strip club that admits patrons 18 and older and does not serve alcohol.

I am certain that high-school prospects would like nothing better than to go to strip clubs and get tanked, but the question is how a public university allowed such a thing to happen. Going to the strip clubs is bad enough, of course, and if I were a parent of one of the recruits, the university president would be getting an angry phone call from me tout suite. But allowing underage recruits to drink alcohol in nightclubs calls into question the liability of the university (and Minnesota taxpayers) had someone gotten injured or killed as a result of intoxication. The state drinking age here is 21, as it is in most states. I suspect even some of the "student hosts" couldn't have bought a legal drink, let alone their guests.

Players and recruits tried their best to protect Glen Mason, the football head coach for the Gophers, and his staff:

"Coach Mason and Coach Browning [assistant coach, Mitch] told the players not to act up and to keep it calm," Kershaw said. "The coaches didn't have any part of it. The hosts really were low-key, too. It was mostly the recruits who went out together."

Sorry, but as a taxpayer and parent of a potential student, I don't buy that. If the entirety of Glen Mason's direction to his student hosts was "Don't act up and keep it calm," then someone isn't taking their jo seriously enough. Coach Mason and his staff have the responsibility to run a recruitment program that doesn't allow for the recruits to be placed in dangerous situations. Simply calling on a few players to show the kids around town with no direction and no supervision is unacceptable to me, and should be unacceptable to all Minnesotans. If Mason can't be bothered to manage his own recruitment program, perhaps the university should see fit to reassign his multimillion-dollar contract to someone else who can handle the responsibility.

Blair Cleared In Scientist's Suicide

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, under fire and accused of releasing the name of the scientist that was the source of a discredited BBC report, has been cleared of any wrongdoing according to a leaked copy of the investigation's final report:

A judge's probe into an Iraq weapons expert's suicide has cleared Prime Minister Tony Blair of blame, according to the Sun which has published what it says is a leak of the report. ... The Sun said the BBC, which had asserted in a report that Blair's government "sexed up" intelligence about Iraqi weapons to make its case for war last year, was accused of being "at fault" over a story that should have been checked more closely.

"The document...is a devastating indictment of the BBC and its defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan," wrote the Sun's political editor Trevor Kavanagh. "Tony Blair is sensationally cleared of any 'dishonourable or underhand' conduct."

David Kelly committed suicide in 2003 after he was publicly outed as the source of Andrew Gilligan's BBC story that Blair's government had "sexed up" intelligence in order to justify the war in Iraq. Gilligan contended that Blair's ministers had inserted a warning that Saddam could activate his WMDs within 45 minutes. The contention that intelligence was corrupted by the government has already been shown false, but the Hutton report specifically dealt with Kelly's outing and suicide.

The big loser? The BBC. Many other blogs have dealt with the BBC's bias and outright falsehoods over the past two years, especially but not exclusively regarding Iraq. The Hutton report will further cement the Beeb's reputation as a left-wing mouthpiece that used to be a news-gathering organization.

Someone Stop Sandler!

Lovers of classic 1970s films, especially sports films, may need extra blood-pressure medicine after reading this item on Adam Sandler's latest project:

Adam Sandler will star in a remake of the 1974 Burt Reynolds comedy "The Longest Yard," the story of a former football player turned convict who challenges prison guards to a game.

Adam Sandler -- remaking one of the icons of men's films? I ask you, how many of you can see Sandler as even an adequate replacement for Burt Reynolds? Sandler must be hallucinating, which would explain his Mr. Deeds remake, too. I don't believe that someone can ruin a classic movie by remaking it poorly -- after all, the original movie still remains -- but you can certainly insult its standing by making stupid casting decisions. One could hardly get more foolish than by casting Sandler as a hardened and corrupt NFL quarterback who stands up to an even more corrupt prison system. I don't know about you, but when I put the concepts of prison and Sandler together, it doesn't equate in my mind with "cynical tough guy," but more with the common name for a female dog, if you dig my drift.

Here's Sandler's partner on the concept:

"Although we plan to update quite a few things, the overall story will remain intact," said Jack Giarraputo, who co-owns the Happy Madison production company with Sandler. "We want to keep the same blend of comedy and grit that made the first one a classic."

Why does this sound like a pitch for The Waterboy II: Bobby Behind Bars?

Captain's Log: New Hampshire Primary

All times CST...

6:56 - I've got Fox News on the TV and on the computer, getting set up to flip around and open several browser windows. I'm also hoping that Saint Paul comes around again to satirize me while I'm doing this. It's too self-important to resist. Anyway, on Fox News, I've already found what may wind up being the funniest line of the night:

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (search), who has been polling at 1 percent in most polls, said Tuesday his campaign has the money to carry beyond New Hampshire and insisted he won't drop out of the race. "We're going to do our best here and go on to the next state and the next state," Kucinich said while in Maine. "I haven't discounted the possibility of a surge in some of these other states."

Stop it, Dennis, you're killing me. What qualifies as a Kucinich "surge"? 2%?

7:01 - Kerry 38%, Dean 24%, Edwards 13%, with 13% of all precincts reporting. No word on absentee ballots. It's the same order as Fox's exit polling, but their exit polls have it 36%-29% Kerry over Dean.

7:08 - Kerry's campaign predicts an "early night," according to Fox, meaning they think it's all wrapped up. CNN has the same numbers as Fox with 14% reporting. Clark is narrowly behind Edwards for third place.

7:27 - Kerry still holding at 39% with 24% of the precincts reporting, and the others are holding at the same levels as before. CNN is calling it for Kerry. Don't know how I feel about that -- it seems rather quick, but so far the numbers aren't changing that much. Fox News is calling it as well. A 15% gap doesn't bode well for Dean, but a second-place finish is probably enough to keep him going.

7:37 - Kerry will be addressing his supporters in about 10 minutes. I am now babysitting the Little Admiral, so blogging will be short and to the point. If these numbers hold up, then Kerry will have a full head of steam rolling into the first Super Tuesday. It's looking like I picked the correct order, and even the correct percentages for everyone except Kerry. It looks like both Clark and Lieberman are done. I doubt Clark will withdraw -- there are few creatures more egotistical than a general, after all -- but Lieberman is much more of a realist.

7:47 - Fox News exit polls shows that military households went 35% Kerry, 25% Dean, and only 15% Clark. So much for the General outranking the Lieutenant.

8:02 - Still waiting for Kerry to speak to his supporters. He's a rock star, I tell ya. Never out on time.

9:01 - Okay, I had to do some serious baby-sitting stuff, like changing toxic-waste diapers, and the like. It felt strangely like politics to me ... I see that Clark has edged out Edwards for third place but still only got 13% of the vote. It looks like Clark may be fading away, like old generals are supposed to do, Dean wound up twelve points behind Kerry, which does not bode too well for Deaniacs. Overall, their candidate made up very little ground since tanking eight days ago. He's still in the race, of course, and has a big organization and lots of money, but he will need to translate that into an actual victory somewhere next week.

9:06 - Dean's taking the podium now. Let's see if he's learned anything in eight days.

9:23. Dean handled losing much better this time than in Iowa, but he's still losing. I couldn't listen to most of it, as my granddaughter insisted that Grampa pay attention to HER. Chris Matthews mentions that the only demographics that Dean won tonight were those voters who describe themselves as very liberal (40% of those) and the youngest . Not too much of a surprise there, although Hardball all said he would go even harder after the far-left segment. I disagree; he will need to get more support from the moderates if he wants to beat Kerry.

One of the fools on the show said that Bush had to be worried about New Hampshire now, given the "energy" of the Democrats after this primary. Hogwash. A large number of voters (35%) only made up their minds in the last three days, hardly an indicator of passion. The number one issue on NH voters' minds today was ... health care/Medicare but only by 28%, hardly a passionate subject. Where this energy can be found is beyond me.

Bottom line: Kerry is in the driver's seat, Dean's tagging along for now, and everyone else is window dressing from this point forward. Edwards and Clark couldn't even crack the 15% threshold.

Al Franken, Free-Speech Thug?

Al Franken thinks of himself as a free-speech advocate. In fact, he's so determined to allow candidates the right to speak that he'll assault anyone who pipes up around them:

Wise-cracking funnyman Al Franken yesterday body-slammed a demonstrator to the ground after the man tried to shout down Gov. Howard Dean. ... Franken emerged from the crowd and charged one male protester, grabbing him with a bear hug from behind and slamming him onto the floor.

Why has the normally pacifist, anti-war Franken suddenly taken to unilateral attacks?

"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."

Oh, so Franken is for freedom of some speech, and also for vigilantism. I certainly hope Al's available to work security for the protest area during the Republican convention. Oh, wait, he'll probably be one of the protestors, right? Hmmm ... if he gets too loud, can Bruce Willis beat the crap out of him?

Just wondering.

Live Blogging New Hampshire Results

As Professor Bainbridge will attempt to do, I will be live blogging during the New Hampshire primary results once the polls close. I'll probably concentrate on media reactions and coverage (my channel-flipping skills will be put to the test tonight). The wise Professor also has his predictions and a list of others, including mine.

Lord of the Rings Gets 11 Oscar Nominations

Now onto the real election news -- The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King has snagged 11 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director:

Along with best picture and director, the nominations for "Return of the King" included original score and song, visual effects, film editing and adapted screenplay for the script based on J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy classic. "Return of the King" led last weekend's Golden Globes with four wins, including best dramatic picture and director, and its broad critical and fan support give the film the inside track at the Oscars.

No word on acting nominations as yet. To no one's surprise, however, Renee Zellweger received a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her terrific performance in Cold Mountain, one that likely will be rewarded with a win.

UPDATE: No acting nominations, despite great performances in supporting roles. I guess a picture gets to be considered one of the five best of the year with no notable acting performances.

Kerry: We Should Have Waited For Saddam Attack

Senator John Kerry continues to make odd statements about the Iraq war, trying to reconcile his vote authorizing it with his current anti-war platform:

Kerry said that the administration had promised to go through the United Nations first, and then didn’t do it, but he added that at the time Saddam Hussein constituted a threat.

“From 1991 to 1998, we had inspectors in Iraq blowing up weapons of mass destruction,” Kerry said. “A lot of people seem to have forgotten that. We destroyed plenty of weapons of mass destruction in those 7½ years. We found more weapons than we thought Saddam had, and evidence of a nuclear program. "

Kerry is either lying or being deliberately obtuse. Bush went to the UN twice. In December, he pushed through UNSC resolution 1441, demanding immediate and full compliance from Saddam Hussein with the previous 16 UNSC resolutions. Inspectors were supposed to report on full compliance, not become detectives conducting search warrants for the entirety of Iraq. When UNSCOM inspectors found evidence of evasion and banned weapons, Bush went back to the UN to get them to finally recognize, after a dozen years, that Saddam was in material breach of the resolutions and the cease-fire that left him in power.

Note that Kerry, in attempting to bolster his vote, acknowledges that Saddam had WMDs until 1998, when he threw UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq. Any reasonable interpretation would not include that Iraq was complying but were too shy to do so while UN inspectors were around. Certainly the Clinton administration and Congress in 1998 didn't take that interpretation.

And then Kerry said something truly bizarre, in the next breath:

“I voted for the process,” Kerry said. “Go to the UN, build a coalition, and go to war as a last resort. George Bush broke his promise and went around us. He set the date for the war, not Saddam Hussein [emph. mine].”

So what Kerry proposes is to wait until we're attacked before taking any action? Maybe in a non-proliferated era we had the luxury of trusting the wide oceans to act as a buffer for any attack, but 9/11 should have taught everyone the folly of that philosophy. An attack from Saddam would not have begun with an invasion of Kuwait or missile attacks on American troops in the Persian Gulf -- it would have begun on our soil, especially if Saddam retained WMD capability. Such a statement indicates why John Kerry and the Democrats cannot be trusted on national security; they're living in the past.

NH Absentee Ballots Average, No Help to Dean

The New Hampshire Union-Leader reports that there has been no unusual demand for absentee ballots for this primary:

Election officials from around New Hampshire have received an average number of requests for absentee ballots this primary season. ... “I would typify it as average,” Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said, regarding the number of requests for absentee ballots.

Why does this matter? Absentee ballots are immune to last-minute eruptions, even going back a week or more, as voters complete them and mail them in early to assure their acceptance. Presumably, a large number of absentee voters marked their ballots prior to Dean's meltdown in Iowa and his odd acceptance speech. Since support ran stronger for Dean in the Granite State at that point, a high number of absentee ballots would have helped Dean. As it is, he can probably count on a small boost from absentee voters when they're processed; Clark may be the other beneficiary. I'll try to keep an eye on those numbers if they're broken out separately in tonight's tallies.

Enjoy It While You Can, General

General Wesley Clark was pleased that he won the first primary in the nation ... in the tiny New Hampshire town of Dixville Notch:

Of the 15 people casting ballots in the Democratic primary, eight voted for Clark. Sen. John Kerry collected three, Sen. John Edwards had two and Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean had one each.

"This is a great way to begin the next day," said a smiling Clark in Dixville Notch at about 12:15 a.m. "This is the first election I've had since homeroom student council representative. This is a big step for me."

Yeah, well ... he has nowhere to go but down the rest of the day, and I predict he'll go there rather quickly. Fourth place and out of the money. He'll be battling with Lieberman to hold onto that position, too.

Al-Qaeda WMD Project Stopped By Afghan Invasion

The AP reports that the US invasion of Afghanistan put an end to a nascent al-Qaeda WMD program:

An Al-Qaida program to develop chemical and biological weapons was in the early "conceptual stages" when it was cut short by the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. and Malaysian security officials said. The information on the state of Osama bin Laden's weapons plan came from [interrogations] of terrorist suspects captured in Southeast Asia and from clues gathered in the Afghan battlefield, the authorities said.

And where did these people come from? One of them studied in the US as a biochemist:

Yazid graduated from the University of California, Sacramento, in 1987. But after returning to Malaysia, he began attending classes run by Hambali, a charismatic preacher, and became one of scores of Malaysians and Indonesians recruited to his radical form of Islam in the mid-1990s.

Yazid, 40, spent time in an Al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan and became a key Jemaah Islamiyah member in Malaysia. He is accused of allowing top Al-Qaida operatives -- including two eventual Sept. 11 hijackers -- to use an apartment he owned for meetings in Malaysia in January 2000 and gave Sept. 11 suspect Zacarias Moussaoui a letter of employment that helped him enter the United States.

Interesting. Another example of why we need to be a bit more picky about foreigners who come to study potentially dangerous fields at our universities, or at least keep better track of those who do. This should demonstrate also that al-Qaeda indeed was attempting to develop catastrophic weapons and capability, and that they do not confine themselves to international borders. Had we waited to pursue law-enforcement solutions to 9/11, much worse would have awaited us.

CIA and FBI Missed Clues to 9/11 Hijackers: Panel

The LA Times reports that the federal 9/11 commission has concluded that the CIA and FBI missed opportunities to recognize the hijackers as a threat:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 plot, obtained a visa to come to the United States just weeks before the attacks despite being under a federal terrorism indictment, a report by the federal commission investigating the attacks revealed Monday.

As many as eight of the hijackers entered the United States with doctored passports that contained "clues to their association" with al-Qaida that should have been caught by immigration authorities, commission investigators said. The newly disclosed findings challenge previous claims by top CIA and FBI officials that the hijackers' records and paperwork were so clean that they could not have aroused suspicion.

The commissioners heard testimony all day on improvements made to the security system of the US, including technological as well as procedural changes of the sort needed to snag terrorists before they can enter the US. However, the commissioners aren't convinced:

But commissioners and investigators on the panel voiced concern that certain agencies had not come to grips with the magnitude of the problems that allowed al-Qaida operatives to slip past a host of security systems and checks. "We are not sure that these problems have been addressed," said Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission, referring in particular to failures to put al-Qaida operatives on federal watch lists. "We are not sure they are even adequately acknowledged as a problem."

The article goes on to list several incidents and connections between Khalid Mohammed, Mohammed Atta, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and other well-known players in al-Qaeda and 9/11. However, the theme from all of these seem to be just enough complacency previous to the attacks to allow them to succeed. For instance, the suspected 20th hijacker, Mohammed al-Qahtani, was denied entry because the screener who blocked his entry acted on his instincts when al-Qahtani's story at entry didn't add up. Evidence shows that Atta was at the airport at the same time and likely was there to meet him; Atta made a phone call from a pay phone to a number associated with the 9/11 attacks when al-Qahtani was unsuccessful in getting through security.

It's hard to know how this will affect the current political climate. While it will certainly reflect poorly on both agencies, it's been an accepted fact that the nation as a whole was unprepared for this scale of attack. It dovetails nicely with David Kay's assertion that the WMD assumption was based on intelligence failures as well. Presidential candidates may try to make some hay from this, but it's unlikely to resonate outside of the tinfoil-hat brigades of both parties, assuming this will be the extent of the foul-ups exposed. Read the entire article. It will be interesting to see the full report once complete.

Dean: National ID-Card Requirement For Internet Access, Gov't Programs

The Drudge Report found a commentary from CNET News by Declan McCullagh asserting that Howard Dean actively supported a national ID card as recently as 2002. Not only that, but Dean wanted the ID card to be a requirement for Internet access so that identification information could be tracked on line:

Fifteen months before Dean said he would seek the presidency, however, the former Vermont governor spoke at a conference in Pittsburgh co-sponsored by smart-card firm Wave Systems where he called for state drivers' licenses to be transformed into a kind of standardized national ID card for Americans. Embedding smart cards into uniform IDs was necessary to thwart "cyberterrorism" and identity theft, Dean claimed. "We must move to smarter license cards that carry secure digital information that can be universally read at vital checkpoints," Dean said in March 2002, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. "Issuing such a card would have little effect on the privacy of Americans."

Dean also suggested that computer makers such as Apple Computer, Dell, Gateway and Sony should be required to include an ID card reader in PCs--and Americans would have to insert their uniform IDs into the reader before they could log on.

After 9/11, plenty of people talked about creating a national ID card in order to identify Americans and help tackle terrorism, but I don't recall anyone proposing an ID-card requirement in order to access the Internet. Such a requirement would be a nightmare to engineer into a mature personal-computer market, let alone corporations that regularly access the Internet for business purposes. As McCullagh asks, what do you do about visitors with laptops? What do you do with Internet cafes and WiFi-equipped coffee shops?

More importantly, why does this proposal come from the same candidate whose made a key part of his campaign his anger at Bush's supposed encroachments on personal freedoms? How can Dean reconcile his statement from March 2002 -- "Privacy is the new urban myth" -- with this part of his platform?

I am also deeply troubled by some provisions in the USA Patriot Act, which was enacted in the wake of 9/11 without meaningful debate. The Act gives overly broad investigative and surveillance powers to the government and strips federal courts of their traditional authority to curb abuses of power by the executive branch. Many of the Act’s provisions have little or nothing to do with combating terrorism; in fact some had been previously rejected by Congress. But the Ashcroft Justice Department took advantage of the climate of fear following the attacks to make fundamental changes in law enforcement procedures. I am concerned that this Act:

* allows law enforcement agents to obtain information about an individual from a library, bookstore, bank, telephone company, credit card company, hotel, hospital or university without individualized suspicion and without meaningful judicial review;

* expands the use of “sneak and peak” searches, even in non-terror cases;

* allows the police to collect information about an individual’s internet use without a showing of probable cause;

* allows the government to conduct wiretaps in criminal cases using the looser rules intended for intelligence investigations;

* authorizes the Attorney General to detain immigrants based on a mere certification that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" the immigrant endangers national security.

Dean proposed, in his speech for Wave Systems at Carnegie Mellon University, that this national ID card would be required to receive any government services, presumably including Social Security and veteran's benefits. He also wanted this card to be equipped with "smart card" technology, allowing it to retain information as to when and where it was used so that a profile could be built from each card about the person's travel and purchasing habits. Requiring the ID card to be verified prior to each Internet session would guarantee that everyone's web-surfing habits and e-mail traffic could be stored in databases without a court order or any probable cause. And he's complaining about Bush curtailing civil rights?

The national ID card died a natural death after the panic of 9/11 wore off and cooler heads prevailed. However, Howard Dean has never explained his support for the most radical of the ID-card proposals. McCullagh has tried to get an answer to this from the Dean campaign for the past ten days, to no avail. This is yet another indication that Dean is far from being the straight-talking Everyman he purports to be; instead, he is a loose cannon, grabbing onto the idea of the moment to ride its popularity. Such a man would be a disaster in the Presidency, even if he were temperamentally suited for the job.

Lt. Smash: What Is Terrorism?

Lt. Smash -- now Citizen Smash after courageously serving his country -- asks a good question in today's Open Thread: what is terrorism? I've included my answer in the comments. It just got started, but I will bet that this will become a very interesting debate. Check it out and leave your own thoughts on terrorism.

Union Leaders Paid Like CEOs

The Southern California region has suffered through a 15-week-long grocery worker's strike/lockout which has damaged everyone concerned -- the workers, the stores, and the customers. Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times notes that the group shouldering the most blame for the current stalemate receives eye-popping compensation for their recent mediocrity:

Take Rick Icaza, the head of Los Angeles-based Local 770, which has 30,000 members. Icaza earned $273,404 in 2002, the latest period for which the figure is available. That was nearly a 10% raise over the prior year. Icaza, 69, out-earned even John Sweeney, the national president of the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor organization. Sweeney earned a salary of $247,500 that year. ...

The phenomenon of overripe compensation at the UFCW starts with International President Douglas Dority, whose $329,792 made him the best-paid president among the AFL-CIO's 64 member unions in 2002. That's the case even though the UFCW is only the fifth-biggest union in the AFL-CIO and its members, whose dues provide the funds for its lavish payroll, are generally part-time hourly workers in a low-paying industry.

All of this compensation goes to two men who badly misjudged supermarket management and failed to understand that national chains have enough flexibility to absorb local labordisruptions. Rather than craft a national strategy, Hiltzik notes, Dority and Icaza decided that pre-consolidation tactics would still work and never bothered to plan in advance for failure at the bargaining table. Since labor representation to this one market is all Dority and Icaza do -- especially Icaza, as the president of the local -- one wonders exactly what they were being paid to do between labor agreements. Their compensation comes from the dues paid by thousands of low-to-medium pay-range workers, who should be questioning both the salaries paid to their union management and the value received from it.

Hiltzik expresses his indignation best when comparing Icaza and Dority to the local longshoremen's union, who successfully fought off management attempts to sideline the union:

International Longshore and Warehouse Union President James Spinosa, who fought off the port industry's attempt to break his 10,500-member union during a lockout in 2002 — while preserving free health insurance and obtaining improved pension benefits — earned a salary of $93,000 that year. (Like many other labor leaders, the ILWU's patriarch, the late Harry Bridges, believed that the union brass should never earn more than the average member, a principle that apparently failed to penetrate the UFCW.)

Another example is Mike Garcia, head of L.A.-based Local 1877 of the Service Employees International Union. He led the landmark Justice for Janitors campaign in 2000, which featured a strike, vigils and public rallies. In the end, the SEIU won huge gains for thousands of commercial building workers downtown. Garcia's pay: $68,438.

Garcia, Hiltzik notes, planned the janitors' action for over two years, carefully crafting a strategy of educating their membership and the public at large so that when action was needed, they held the political edge. It's hard to escape the conclusion that Dority and Icaza either didn't have a strategy at all or planned poorly for a strike of this magnitude. Southern Californians, both labor and customers, should expext better performance for the superstar salaries that the two top men receive.

Kerry: I Vote In Bizarro World

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, John Kerry's inconsistencies seem to be catching up to him on the stump, if not quite yet in the polls. Facing a challenge from Howard Dean on his votes in 1991 against military action in Kuwait and in 2002 to authorize military action in Iraq, Kerry has come up with a novel explanation -- his votes meant the exact opposite of what they were:

Kerry said Sunday that he supported the Iraq resolution 15 months ago because he believed President Bush would use force only as a "last resort."

"The vote I cast was not a vote to go to war immediately," he said. ...

Although Kerry said he "believed we ought to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait," uppermost on his mind in 1991, he said, was public ambivalence about sending U.S. troops to the Persian Gulf. "I said we ought to draw a line in the sand, [I] couldn't have been more clear. But we had a very divided nation," he said. "That was actually a vote to go at that time, and I thought we ought to take a couple more months to build the support of the nation." ...

To recap: Kerry voted against military action in 1991 because he believed we should have used military force, and he voted for it in 2002 because he thought we should wait.

And Democrats wonder why we don't trust them with national-security and defense issues ...

Why doesn't he just tell the truth -- that he was against military action in 1991 but favored it in 2002? Because those positions aren't popular with the Democratic base. Instead of running on his convictions, he's running on his focus groups. Of course, Bill Clinton got elected and governed that way, but Clinton didn't have a long Senate record full of inconsistencies like this, either. Expect more Orwellian doublespeak from Kerry in the months ahead.

BlogMadness: A New Contest!

I'm entered in a new blog contest -- this one called BlogMadness 2003, designed to emulate the March Madness NCAA basketball tournament. It consists of rounds of single-elimination, head-to-head contests, where a blogger wins by getting the most votes and moving into the next bracket. BlogMadness explains:

A few weeks ago Manny and I stumbled upon a little idea: what would happen if you combined the fun and excitement of March Madness with the writing (brilliant and otherwise) which abounds in the blogosphere? The result of our discussion was the creation of a Blog Tournament. Everyone would go through their 2003 archives (which is fun in and of itself), pull out their very best post, and enter it in the tournament. We'll throw together a bracket, everyone will vote, and in the end the winners will be crowned King or Queen of some small portion of Blogland.

Hopefully, along the way, we'll all find some new daily reads, read some great writing, and leave this big mess of sites on the 'net a little more connected than we found it. Or maybe we'll just end up with a lot of petty bickering and de-linking? I'm not really sure, but I guess we'll find out.

So what I need you all to do, starting around 11 PM EST, is to use the link to go to the voting form. I'm up against d-42's post on pornography and its lack of effect on family life. (Well-written but I disagree with his conclusions.) Read both his entry and my entry, think carefully about which is better ... and vote for me anyway. While you're there, check out the other 115 blog entries in the contest, and cast your votes for your favorites.

Let me know what you think of this new contest -- it looks like another fun and amusing diversion!

UPDATE: Thanks for the hat-tip from Hugh Hewitt, and welcome to Hugh's readers and listeners! You may want to check out another blogger on Hugh's blogroll, the Evangelical Outpost, who's entered in this bracket. And don't forget about Patterico's Pontifications in this bracket, who's putting up his excellent LA Times bias retrospective.

What Color Is The Sky In Dean's World?

Just when you thought that Howard Dean might have figured out that his mouth is his own worst enemy, the diminutive governor lets it get away from him again:

Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean said Sunday that the standard of living for Iraqis is a "whole lot worse" since Saddam Hussein's removal from power in last year's American-led invasion.

"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone," said the former Vermont governor, an unflinching critic of the war against Iraq. "But a lot of them gave their lives. And their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

The Iraqi quality of life was better under Saddam Hussein? Under a regime that may have killed over 300,000 people and stuck them into mass graves? A regime where torture was commonplace and ethnic minorities faced state-sponsored oppression and even genocide? This is irresponsible rhetoric from a man who wants to be President. Regardless of whether one approved of the method of Hussein's removal, factually speaking, the Iraqi people are no longer being tortured, nor are they dying at the rate of 5,000 a month from economic sanctions that was an integral part of the "containment" strategy that proved so worthless. Iraq no longer gasses its Kurds, nor commits genocide on its Marsh Arabs. Power and water are more reliable and reach many more people in today's Iraq than under Hussein.

How can Democrats trust a candidate so far out of touch with reality? I doubt New Hampshire voters will endorse such an irrational candidate. I may have to downgrade my prediction to accomodate the damage if this gets much play in the media.

UPDATE: Glenn at Instapundit has a quote from an Iraqi with whom Dean needs to have a long, long chat ...

UPDATE II: Jon at QandO tells me that I need to have a beer and calm down. I'll agree to the beer part, anyway.

Hugh Hewitt Reviews 'The Passion of the Christ'

Hugh Hewitt posts a lengthy review of the new and controversial Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of the Christ (no permalink yet). Hugh's enthusiasm for this film is evident in this review, as it was in his radio show on Friday night:

The Passion of the Christ is a phenomenal work of art; a moving and inspiring film that will certainly be shown again and again for generations to come. Though I am a follower of Jesus Christ, I do not believe that one needs to be a believer in the divinity of Christ to appreciate the majesty of the movie and its extraordinary commitment to authenticity and an objective recounting of the story of the passion and death of Christ as relayed through the Gospels.

I have wondered how well Gibson would adhere to history in the Passion story. After all, his previous efforts at historical cinema fell somewhat short of the mark. In Braveheart, for instance, Gibson took an oral history with plenty of historical vagueness and managed to get a good deal of the known facts incorrect:

1. Wallace was no reluctant warrior; before his lover was murdered, he had already built a fearful reputation for killing Englishmen in Scotland. His lover's murder occurs late in his career.

2. William Wallace actually co-ruled an independent Scotland for a few months (there are treaties signed by Wallace) between the battles of Stirling Bridge and Falkirk.

3. Robert the Bruce was not about to be named a puppet King of Scotland on the fields of Bannockburn, as shown in the final scenes of the movie. He had already declared himself an independent king and Edward II's army was there to engage and destroy him. Outnumbered 2-1, Robert destroyed the English army at Bannockburn in 1314, creating a de facto independent Scotland that was confirmed by treaty in 1328.

4. Edward II did not marry until after Wallace was dead, so the whole ridiculous subplot with Sophie Marceau could not possibly have been true. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. The historical character she played would have been 13 years old at the time of Wallace's death (1305) and didn't marry Edward II until 1308.

In his later epic The Patriot, Gibson took even more dramatic licence with history, this time with the American Revolution. Among the more egregious errors Gibson allowed were a fictional account of the British burning down a church full of civilians as a reprisal for his character's commando raids on the British. Not only is this libelous to the British, who on the whole conducted themselves honorably during the Revolution, but it steals an actual Nazi atrocity from WWII. Also, slavery seemed to be miraculously scrubbed from The Patriot; the African-American characters are freed men in South Carolina, where freed Negroes were illegal right through to the Civil War. While the film was entertaining, its history was appallingly bad -- a great example of how Hollywood can't be trusted with truth.

Which brings us to Gibson's latest effort. I trust Hugh, as he is a well-read man with extensive historical knowledge, so I am greatly relieved to hear that Gibson's depiction of the Gospels improves on his track record. However, I do not blame people for being nervous about possible anti-Semitic biases or departures from the Gospels, given that track record. It demonstrates the wisdom of actually seeing a film before attacking it -- or defending it.

Is Kerry's Radical Past Fair Game?

Joe at the Evangelical Outpost, via the Sophorist, pointed out that Senator John Kerry wrote a book outlining his opposition to the Vietnam War, The New Soldier. Evangelical Outpost has a B/W picture of the cover on its post; the cover is dominated by a mockery of the Iwo Jima flag-raising, complete with an upside-down American flag, held by men trying their best to win Che Guevara look-alike contests. No doubt this image will resonate negatively with most Americans, and fortunately for John Kerry the book is out of print, or else all of his opponents would be tripping over themselves to produce the juiciest quotes possible.

But this raises a troubling question: just how germane are Kerry's political views from over thirty years ago to this Presidential campaign?

Aristide Briand once remarked that anyone who wasn't a Socialist at 20 had no heart, and anyone who is a Socialist at 40 has no head. It would be ridiculous to expect that every person who participated in radical but legal demonstrations in the late 1960s and early 1970s to be politically exiled for the entirety of their lives. People grow and adapt and hopefully improve over time, or at least we believe they have that capacity, whether that belief springs from Judeo-Christian religious convictions or from personal experience, or just from a sense of hopefulness. If we didn't believe that people can change, then our efforts at blogging would be mere intellectual masturbation.

John Kerry may need to explain his journey from anti-war radical to Establishment politician, maybe even to the leftists at the base of the Democratic Party, but to expect "gotcha" moments from differences of policy over a 30-year span smacks of desperation. It would be a huge mistake to hold a 60-year-old man to statements made in his twenties. Far better for Kerry's opponents to focus on his inconsistencies while in the Senate, since there seems to be a plethora to mine. With so many of these issues coming to light, why muddy the waters with decades-old and legal protests?

If attacked in that manner, Kerry will respond by wrapping himself in the flag and First Amendment, which will resonate with some justification, making him seem more centrist than he really is. It will also allow Kerry to review his war record, serving under combat conditions and three-times wounded. (Those who call these wounds into question are playing with dynamite; they'll do far more damage to themselves than they know. Regardless of the seriousness of the wounds, he still was wounded three times under enemy fire, and so played by the rules getting a stateside assignment. His bravery isn't defined by the depth of the wounds, gentlemen.) He'll explain his journey to radicalism and back again, expressing his reborn hope for a better America, and so on, and if you don't think that will resonate with the electorate, you don't remember Reagan's "Morning in America" campaign.

My advice to Kerry's opponents is this: Concentrate on Kerry's policies as a Senator, and forget the radical politics and creative-writing assignments of Kerry's youth. It matters not who Kerry was in his twenties; it matters who Kerry is now and what Kerry has done in office. Kerry's past is a minefield, but the most fruitful path is also the least dangerous.

UPDATE: Joe Carter has a good point when he says that Kerry's choice to make his war record a part of his campaign gives his opponents a legitimate opening to question his record after the war (see his comments on this post). Zygote makes the same argument, too.

New Hampshire Prediction

Because I did so well predicting the Iowa Caucuses (ha!), I'll take a whack at New Hampshire to see how badly I can humble myself:

Kerry: 28%
Dean: 24%
Edwards: 19%
Clark: 15%

All four will get delegates, Dean will claim rebound momentum, and Edwards will remain alive for South Carolina. Clark's campaign will begin to stall out, but he will stay in the race. Lieberman will withdraw, along with Kucinich if the Ohioan manages to get a moment of lucidity.

UPDATE: Other bloggers are starting to line up as well. Check out the predictions at the Evangelical Outpost, who managed to predict an upset in Iowa. He's predicting a solid Kerry victory by 15 points. (Gulp!) Dan at California Yankee agrees with me on the order, but he's not predicting percentages ... wise man that he is. He's got tons more links to blog predictions. The Commissar at Politburo Diktat thinks that Clark will win -- which makes me wonder what the Politburo's been smokin' over there. He's either brilliant or joking, and the best part is that he can claim either one on Wednesday. Oh, and don't forget to check out the Commissar's entry in the MoveOn ad contest.