John Edwards, Scumbag

January 27th, 2010

The news of Sen. John Edwards marital affairs will probably not be news to anyone who has followed the story, but the details in Andrew Young’s book The Politician seem to make him out to be an even bigger scumbag than even his fiercest critics on the right thought he was.

  • Contempt for the people he claimed to represent? Check. Edwards complained about state fair appearances where “fat rednecks try to shove food down my face. I know I’m the people’s senator, but do I have to hang out with them?”
  • A complete political animal with no loyalty or sense of shame or decency? Check. “Young says that Edwards would confide in him about how he thought about leaving ‘crazy’ Elizabeth, but how she plays better with American voters than he.”
  • “Breck Girl” fixation on his hair? Check.

Basically, just about everything Republicans ever said about him was correct, and just about everything his supporters claimed was a lie. Edwards is just a complete slimeball, and he was almost Vice President of the United States of America.

What I wonder is: When the tell-all books on Obama come out, what are they going to reveal that’s being swept under the rug now?

Gentlemen, Your Crow

January 24th, 2010

Given the huge upheaval in the political landscape following Scott Brown’s upset victory in the Massachusetts senatorial race, I thought it was time to revisit what many in the liberal punditocracy were saying following Obama’s victory in 2008. There may very well have been some liberal commentators advising caution and restraint, least liberal ambitions and hubris lay the Democratic party low. However, I don’t remember any of them. What I do remember is numerous notables bandying about phrases like “the Republican Party is finished” and “permanent progressive majority.” Let’s exhume that commentary from its dusty vaults (some over a year old; very dusty indeed in Internet years) and see who might be dining tonight in Hell on a generous, tasty helping of fricasseed crow.

For example, here’s The New Republic‘s John B. Judis in an article entitled “America the Liberal” published November 19, 2008 explaining how Obama’s election heralded a fundamental realignment in American politics:

If Obama and congressional Democrats act boldly, they can not only arrest the downturn but also lay the basis for an enduring majority. As was the case with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, many of the measures necessary to combat today’s recession will also help ensure long-term Democratic electoral success. Many Southerners remained Democrats for generations in part because of Roosevelt’s rural electrification program; a similar program for bringing broadband to the hinterland could lure these voters back to the Democratic Party. And national health insurance could play the same role in Democrats’ future prospects that Social Security played in the perpetuation of the New Deal majority.

-snip-

The Republican Party will be divided and demoralized after this defeat. And, just as the Great Depression took Prohibition and the other great social issues of the 1920s off the popular agenda, this downturn has pushed aside the culture war of the last decades. It simply wasn’t a factor in the presidential election.

If, however, Obama and the Democrats take the advice of official Washington and go slow–adopting incremental reforms, appeasing adversaries that have lost their clout–they could end up prolonging the downturn and discrediting themselves.

Or alternately, ObamaCare could doom that same realignment in less than a year after he took office. And of all the complaints about the Obama-Reid-Pelosi policy initiatives that Massachusetts voters voiced, I’m pretty sure that “going too slow” wasn’t among them. (Also, I think Sarah Palin and company might take issue with the assertion that the culture war “simply wasn’t a factor in the presidential election.”)

For another example, take Judis’ sometimes-collaborator, liberal demographer Ruy Teixeira, who has been predicting a “permanent democratic majority” for about as long as I can remember. In March 2009, his study “New Progressive America: Twenty Years of Demographic, Geographic, and Attitudinal Changes Across the Country Herald a New Progressive Majority” had this to say:

“At this point in our history, progressive arguments combined with the continuing demographic and geographic changes are tilting our country in a progressive direction—trends should take America down a very different road than has been traveled in the last eight years. A new progressive America is on the rise.”

Sunset seems to have come remarkably quickly for that “new progressive America.”

For the wisdom of another old Democratic party hand, let’s see what Robert Shrum (who managed just about every losing Democratic presidential campaign in living memory) had to say in The Week on September 22, 2009 about the political climate:

“After this summer of discontent, Republicans think they can ride a wave of bitter tea to electoral victory. Once the tide runs out, they will be left high and dry. After health reform passes, probably with the help of Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Republicans will crawl out of their hole to assail it in the campaigns ahead as ‘socialism’ or worse.”

With such vaunted prognostication skills, I can’t imagine how Schrum’s campaigns could possibly have failed.

The day after the 2008 election, Dan Conley of prominent left-wing blog MyDD proclaimed the “Death of the Center-Right Myth”:

“The CRM is dead. Long live the New Liberal America.”

However, he tempered his prediction with this: “Liberalism succeeds when Americans feel their faith in government restored. It won’t happen overnight … it’s a process that will probably outlive the Obama administration.”

Not only did Obama not restore America’s “faith” in government, the project itself didn’t make it a fourth of the way through Obama’s term.

Here’s another MyDDer, Todd Beeton, on November 9, 2008, saying that Americans had come around to the Democrat’s views on the virtues of big government, saying “Republicans Should Keep Running Against Big Government & Higher Taxes: That would be awesome.”

Well, Mr. Beeton, it appears that Scott Brown took your advice. I don’t think he garnered the results you were expecting.

(Confession: I went looking for similarly clueless pronouncements among the more prominent ranks of the Daily Kos Kids, and wasn’t able to find them, possibly because in the weeks after the 2008 election they seemed completely obsessed with ranting against the unimaginable perfidy of Joseph Lieberman.)

Here’s a story called “Requiem for the Republican Party” by a Mike Whitney (a self-proclaimed Libertarian) on a site called The Market Oracle on May 6, 2009. It’s, um, somewhat less than oracular:

“The poor GOP isn’t really even a party anymore; it’s more like a vaudeville troupe scuttling from one backwater to the next performing the same worn slapstick. They’ve simply become irrelevant, a ‘non-party’ that no one pays much attention to apart from the occasional zinger on the Daily Show or Letterman. In truth, the GOP is so deeply-traumatized from their shocking fall from power, they’d probably benefit from a spell on the couch. Perhaps if they spent a few weeks in therapy, they’d see what a mess they’ve made of everything….The Republican party is finished. Stick a fork in it.”

I don’t think I’ll be taking stock-picking advice from Mr. Whitney anytime soon.

In the more obscure corners of the web, take a look at the retrospectively hilarious map that one Dan Chmielewski offers up from Gallup on a site called The Liberal OC. It features Texas as a “competitive state” and Oklahoma as a “leaning Democratic” state. You know, the same Oklahoma that had just gone for McCain over Obama by 66% to 34%. It also notes that Massachusetts is the second most liberal state in the union.

How quickly things change.

Finally, it should be noted that it’s not only liberals who believed Republicans would be losing for the foreseeable future. Take perhaps the most singular example of that rarest of species, the “Pro-Obama Conservative,” New York Times columnist David Brooks, who proclaimed that “Traditionalists” would lead the party to defeat until “Reformers” (i.e., people who act, talk, and think precisely like urbane, mannered moderates like David Brooks) finally took control. “The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government.” Mr. Brooks further states (and this is a real quote, not an Iowahawk parody) that “They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.”

Heaven forfend that sensibilities be insulted! Why if they continue to do that, all they can hope to achieve is seizing Ted Kennedy’s old seat! Their failure is assured.

Gentlemen, dinner is served:

Postscript: Some may consider all the above a blatant case of schadenfreude. Well, yes. But that’s not the only reason to post it.

First, when your political opponents say something amazingly stupid, you have to call them on it. There’s a small chance they might learn better, and a larger chance that the populace at large will start to discount their opinions once they discover just how demonstrably divorced from reality those opinions are.

Second, I wanted to demonstrate how easy it was, in the flush of victory, to make unwise, sweeping statements that are very likely to look quite foolish at some point in the future. Generally, statements about the “unstoppable” electoral rise of one political faction or another (or, to use that hoary old chestnut of the left, “historical inevitability”) are going to be proven wrong sooner or later. There are no permanent political victories in a democratic society. It is possible for individuals (or even, as the Whigs found out, entire political parties) to lose so badly they never recover, but the game goes on. In this light, extrapolating Scott Brown’s win to proclaim the inevitability of widespread Republican gains this November would be equally foolish and ill-advised. Such gains now look entirely possible, especially if Republicans, tea party members, conservatives, etc. are willing to put in the time, effort, and hard work to make it so, but they are by no means inevitable. Or, to paraphrase Instapundit: “Great win, kid. Now don’t get cocky.”

Random Site Administration Going On

January 24th, 2010

I’ve updated this page to the latest WordPress theme, and have been futzing with code and moving a few things around to get it working properly, including deleting a few minor posts. Expect a much more substantial post up later this day.

How Bad is Martha Coakley Doing?

January 19th, 2010

Polls aren’t even closed, but Democratic staffers are already leaking finger-pointing memos blaming each other for her defeat.

25% of Massachusetts Voters Expect ACORN to Commit Election Fraud

January 19th, 2010

According to left-leaning Public Policy Polling. Also, even 1 in 6 Democrats expect ACORN to commit election fraud.

Funny, all those Democratic apologists loudly claiming that “registration fraud doesn’t equal voting fraud” don’t seem to be changing the minds of voters who have to suffer the continuing indignity of only casting a single vote…

Kabul Under Heavy Attack

January 18th, 2010

Stratfor is reporting that the Taliban have launched a major attack on downtown Kabul. I’m mentioning it here because it doesn’t seem to have received a lot of media attention.

Yes, there is still a War on Terror/War on Islamofascism going on.

Light blogging this week

January 14th, 2010

A family event looms, so content will be light here until next week

Evidently you can’t go a day without another John Murtha corruption story

January 7th, 2010

Today’s Rep. John Murtha (D-ollars)-related corruption story involves outright kickbacks from Kuchera Defense Systems Inc.:

A defense contractor with ties to Rep. John Murtha has been suspended again from bidding on government contracts, this time for paying more than $200,000 in kickbacks to another contractor turned government witness.

If you look at that CREW chart I linked to yesterday, you’ll see that Kuchera Defense Systems Inc. is part of the circle of corruption (one of several circles of corruption on that chart) for the Ervin Technical Associates lobbying firm. And which Ervin would they be technical associates of? That would be Jim Ervin, who you may remember from yesterday’s post about PharmAthene, the company to which the Obama Administration (personified by Tara O’Toole, another Murtha friend) awarded a no-bid contract for anthrax vaccines. And needless to say, just about everyone associated with Kuchera Defense Systems are heavy Murtha campaign contributors. (So many backs to scratch, and so many taxpayer dollars needed to scratch them.)

Bonus: Owner Bill Kuchera is a convicted drug dealer.

For the Obama Administration, your health John Murtha’s Pals Come First

January 6th, 2010

Remember Rep. John Murtha? The congressman who called his own constituents racists? You know, the John Murtha who sits as the chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee? The John Murtha whose nephew got $4 million in no-bid Defense contracts? The man at the center of the PMA Group lobbying scandal? The John Murthta who secured more than $200 million worth of taxpayer dollars for little-used John Murtha Airport?

You do? Good.

Well, guess what company got a single-source contract to produce anthrax vaccines? That would be PharmAthene, a company run by Murtha cronies Joel McCleary and James Ervin. And just who awarded the contract? That would be the Department of Homeland Security’s Under Secretary for the Science and Technology Directorate Tara O’Toole, who just happens (better sit down for this one) to be a friend of…Rep. John Murtha! (I know, it’s a shock. What are the odds?)

What would you care to bet that the same sorts of high ethical standards will be used to dole out funds for ObamaCare?

But wait! There’s still more exciting news on the Obama-anthrax front! If John Murtha’s cronies actually do succeed is producing enough anthrax vaccine, how will it be distributed in an emergency? Why, by that epitome of speed and efficiency, The U.S. Postal Service! As Stewart Baker at Skating on Stilts put it: “No one but an idiot would bet their children’s lives on that option.”

Here’s a link to CREW’s extremely informative interactive documentation of the web of corruption that surrounds Murtha, You Don’t Know Jack.

The Boot Murtha homepage may also be of interest.

Former National Hurricane Center Director Neil Frank on Climategate

January 4th, 2010

Interesting piece on Climategate by former National Hurricane Center Director (and former KHOU meteorologist) Neil Frank.

Some have asked why people like myself pay attention to critics of Anthropogenic Global Warming, rather than the “(insert random percentage between 75 and 99 here) of scientists that agree with it.” To which it is important to provide a few points of perspective:

  • We don’t know what percentage of the relevant scientific community actually supports the AGW consensus, and to what degree, because the pro-AGW crowd is the only one that’s been doing the counting.
  • Some scientists previously counted on as holding the AGW consensus have changed their mind, complaining that the process has become politicized and that their research has been distorted.
  • The number of scientists dissenting against the AGW consensus continues to grow. Here, for example, are some 700 scientists that disagree with the AGW consensus.
  • Many scientists have been questioning the AGW consensus almost from the beginning.
  • It’s a lot easier to forge consensus when questioning AGW, or producing results that refute it, can kill your career.
  • Ever since ClimateGate information started leaking out, it’s become more apparent that a significant percentage of that consensus was maintained via data manipulation, suppression of dissent, and outright fraud.
  • Even if a majority of climate scientists support AGW, that would not ipso facto prove the AGW case; science relies on empirical data, not popular votes.
  • That also raises the question: Who do you call a “climate scientist”? Meteorologist? Oceanographers? How about experts in Botany to talk about tree rings, one of the central issues of the Climategate scandal?
  • Finally, climate studies are in their relative infancy. To make far-reaching changes to economies and society, in essence giving up on economic growth in order to hand over vast tax and regulation powers to unelected bureaucratic elites, based on computer climate models that, in some cases, date back to 1981 (or earlier) is sheer folly.

In light of that, Frank’s commentary points out that there are many more AGW-skeptics than the media wants to report on:

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.

In short: many critics of Anthropogenic Global Warming aren’t just a few Internet cranks, they’re thousands of well-trained scientists with expertise in areas related to climate change, and whose only point of agreement is that there are too many questions about it to throw trillions of dollars at the problem without determining whether it’s real or not. Calling them all “deniers” is pure argumentum ad hominem.