Quote Of The Day

"If forced to choose between the penitentiary and the White House for four years, I would say the penitentiary, thank you."
- General William Tecumseh Sherman

Fred - We Hardly Knew Ye

Andrew Ferguson at The Weekly Standard had a great article about Fred Thompson's ill-fated run for the White House:

"In his recent memoir, Alan Greenspan says he's been pushing a constitutional amendment of his own devising. It reads: "Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office." If the Greenspan amendment is ever enacted, it will at last clear the field for Fred Thompson, who might then become president. But not until then.

Thompson withdrew from the presidential race last week. He ended his campaign as he had conducted it, with a minimum of fuss and no wasted words. He released a withdrawal statement over the Internet. It was three sentences long, and he hasn't been heard from since. My guess is we'll be missing him dreadfully by spring."

My feelings are why wait until spring?

Steyn On McCain

Mark Steyn from NRO:

"I'm getting a bit tired of Senator McCain's anti-business shtick. The line about serving "for patriotism, not for profit" is pathetic. America spends more on its military than the next 35-40 biggest military spenders on the planet combined: Where does he think the money for that comes from?

As for his line about "some greedy people on Wall Street who need to be punished", aside from being almost entirely irrelevant to the subject under discussion (the subprime "crisis"), it reveals, I think, one of the most unpleasant aspects of McCain. For a so-called "maverick", he's very comfortable with the application of Big Government power, and the assumption of Big Government virtue. Undoubtedly there are "greedy people on Wall Street". Why should he and his chums be the ones who decide whether they need to be "punished"? If greed is to be punishable, why doesn't he start with a pilot program applied to, say, the United States Senate and report back to us in five years how that's going?"

CWCID: Instapundit

VoteChooser

And now a word from our sponsor:

Still in doubt over who to back in the up coming primary election? Let VoteChooser help.

It worked for me!

CWCID: TigerHawk

Why do I keep hearing Simon and Garfunkel wafting around in the background?

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.

Going to the candidate's debate.

Laugh about it, shout about it

When you've got to choose

Every way you look at this you lose.

Viva La Fred!

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit has been keeping his finger on the conservative Republican pulse especially when it comes to John McCain. Glenn has also noticed a lot of folks pining for the good, old days when Fred Thompson was still a candidate:

"January 30, 2008

REGARDING MY EARLIER POST, reader Don MacRae emails:

Long time daily reader, first time writer. I have noticed the Fred Thompson comments as well; file under "You Don't Know What You Got 'Til It's Gone". For the record, not only did I donate to his campaign, I went door to door to get signatures so he could be on the ballot here in Ohio and my wife was a state delegate to boot. I have been wondering who to support since Fred dropped out of the race and I am now fairly certain that I am going to vote for Fred anyway. Screw John McCain!

Fred may do surprisingly well, for a guy who's not running . . . .
posted at 09:45 PM by Glenn Reynolds"

I have to say I like the way this MacRae guy thinks!

The NRO Sponsored Debate

I think debate fatigue is getting to everyone, especially Jonah Goldberg, but this is a debate I'd like to see:

"A friend writes:

NRO couldn’t moderate a debate because it would take far too much money to build Romney a special, diamond encrusted three foot riser/podium, replete with rose colored spotlights and a halo hologram….

He left out that we'd also require that McCain have a half-starved badger chained to his ankle for the entire performance. And every time Giuliani said something about being pro-choice, we'd activate the electrodes wired to his nether regions.

I kid, I kid because I love."

Candidate Wanted

Jaded conservative voter is in the market for a Republican presidential candidate that will not waver in destroying Islamofascism, infringe on my Second Amendment rights, allow continued illegal immigration and/or raise my taxes. Willingness to appoint strict constructionist judges is considered a major plus.

Those not fitting the above description need not apply.





"Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?"

If You Can't Be Reagan, Be Goldwater

It is with a heavy heart that I remove my Fred Thompson for President banner on the sidebar in acknowledgement of his withdrawal from the race.

Here is the official announcement:

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

Jim Geraghty at NRO had this to say:

I spoke to one of my Thompson sources.

He's still with his ailing mother. "He's just being a good son."

He has not spoken to any other campaign or any other candidates, nor does he intend to at this time.

He will not endorse, I am told by this source close to Thompson.

I am also told, "he has no interest in a vice presidency or a cabinet position." At an "appropriate time" he will outline his plans for the near future.

This source believes that the race has demonstrated that whatever happens from here on out, the GOP has to stand for consistent conservative policies across the board.

At one point, I asked this source if the attitude was, 'if you can't be Reagan, be Goldwater,' and the source responded, "exactly."

Waiting For Reagan

William Krisol at The Weekly Standard makes an interesting point about the Republican presidential candidates:

"Conservative editorialists, radio hosts, and bloggers are unhappy. They don't like the Republican presidential field, and many of them have been heaping opprobrium on the various GOP candidates with astonishing vigor."

"And it's true the Republican candidates are not unproblematic. But they are so far performing more credibly than much of the conservative commentariat. Beyond the normal human frailties that affect all of us, including undoubtedly the commentators at this journal, there is one error that is distorting much conservative discussion of the presidential race. It's -Reagan nostalgia.

It's foolish to wait for another Ronald Reagan. But not just because his political gifts are rare. There's a particular way in which Reagan was exceptional that many of us fail to appreciate: He was the only president of the last century who came to the office as the leader of an ideological movement."

While Krisol has a valid point I think many conservatives are wary of candidates like John McCain because they have a tendency to go astray on issues, i.e. campaign finance reform, taxes and illegal immigration, which should be decided on basic conservative principles. Without Fred Thompson as the nominee, conservatives will be working overtime to make sure the other candidates stay "on the reservation". I also think the reason the "conservative commentariat" has been so hard on the Republican candidates may have less to do with waiting for another Reagan than Bush fatigue.

You Can Say This About Winter

This morning we awoke to -14 wind chills. James Lileks observes:

"(W)hen it’s five below at one in the morning and the wind makes worried moans, it’s good to be inside with a fire and a toddy and similar boons of civilization. But let’s say you do step outside. The dog has to go, and you might as well share the pain, if only to file away this moment for the day six months hence when you complain about the heat. You look up: no clouds. Three hardy stars. A moon as hard and bright as a spotlit polished pearl. It’s beautiful.

Then the dog barks, angry, as if you should be able to do something about this. Blame the moon, dog. Do you just as much good."

CWCID: Instapundit

Quote Of The Day

On the eve of the South Carolina primary:

"I know nothing grander, better exercise, better digestion, more positive proof of the past, the triumphant result of faith in human kind, than a well-contested American national election."

- Walt Whitman

Sideways

I enjoy more than my fair share of wine; it is, without a doubt, my adult beverage of choice. But unfortunately, scientific studies such as this one just published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences only confirm the common stereotype of the "wine snob" (CWCID: Instapundit):

"Despite the importance and pervasiveness of marketing, almost nothing is known about the neural mechanisms through which it affects decisions made by individuals. We propose that marketing actions, such as changes in the price of a product, can affect neural representations of experienced pleasantness. We tested this hypothesis by scanning human subjects using functional MRI while they tasted wines that, contrary to reality, they believed to be different and sold at different prices. Our results show that increasing the price of a wine increases subjective reports of flavor pleasantness as well as blood-oxygen-level-dependent activity in medial orbitofrontal cortex, an area that is widely thought to encode for experienced pleasantness during experiential tasks. The paper provides evidence for the ability of marketing actions to modulate neural correlates of experienced pleasantness and for the mechanisms through which the effect operates."

In other words, the more we think it costs the more we actually like it.

As an experienced wine drinker I call bullshit. These test subjects need to watch "John Cleese - Wine for the Confused" (yes, that John Cleese) which is one of the more informative programs about wine I have ever seen. Cleese saves the best for last when he invites around a dozen friends over for a wine tasting party. The labels are covered and he tells everyone that there are bottles ranging from $5 to $100 on the table. All he wants his guests to do is rate the wines from best to worst. Long story short, no one gets it right. And the moral of the story is to drink what you like, not because it comes in a fancy bottle from a prestigious winery but because you like it. Now, I'll drink to that!

The Huckster Channels Edwards

Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO has this to say about Mike Huckabee's recent comments in Michigan:

"For those of us for whom summer is not a verb, for those of us who didn't go to fancy boarding schools on the east coast, for those of us who didn't grow up with a silver spoon, who were lucky to have a spoon — ask those folks and they'll tell you the economy is not doing well for them," says Huckabee.

Governor, I didn't have silver spoons or boarding schools or a verb summer, but I know enough to thank God for the job creators, the natural economic stimulators, capitalism. Is this the Republican primary or a John Edwards rally?"

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it must be an Edwards rally! The Huckster is not and has never been a conservative and his populist shtick is beginning to wear thin. Is it just me or is it becoming increasing obvious that in the arena of ideas Governor Huckabee can best be described by the old Texas adage "He's all hat and no cattle"?

Tee Shirt Time

The closer Fred's commercials get to his IMAO tee shirt (Kill the terrorists, Protect the borders, Punch the hippies) the better he sounds.

I Have A Dream

Kathryn Jean Lopez posted this e-mail from an NRO reader:

"I have a crazy idea I'd like to float by you.

The two candidates most acceptable to conservatives, Thompson and Romney, are in not so good shape. The three least acceptable, Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani, are in relatively good shape. It's entirely possible that the two conservatives will be knocked out early and the eventual nominee will be unacceptable to a large segment of the base.

Fred has chances to win SC; Mitt has chances to win MI. I want both to win and I think there is a way to make it happen.

Two months ago, in a WSJ interview, Mitt opined that the federal government should have a Chief Operating Officer. He himself would be the perfect choice. He "loves data" - he loves working with details.

My crazy idea is that Thompson and Romney join forces now. Thompson would be the President and CEO, Romney would be the COO. Each would play to his strengths. Fred would work on broad principles and policies (many have commented that he has the most complete set of positions on taxes, entitlements, etc.); Mitt would actually run the government on a day-to-day basis. He would tear into the Washington bureaucracy, reorganize it, and fix it - exactly what he wants to do and has done so well before.

I think this ticket might very well sweep the primaries. They could even invite McCain to join them as SecDef. And maybe Giuliani could be Sec of Homeland Security.

If they announced this "merger" they could avoid months of potentially acrimonious campaigning with tens of millions of dollars of expenses. They could get a head start on campaigning against the Democrats instead of against other Republicans. If the team declared they would stop earmarks and other wasteful spending they might put some spine into Congressional Republicans and thus develop a campaign issue for them.

I believe that this ticket is the best possible ticket for Republicans and could be the best ever administration in terms of restructuring and downsizing Washington."

The only problem with this scenario is that the guys with the biggest egos in the room all want the same job. And it makes waaaaay too much sense.

It's A Digital World

This amusing paradigm shift is from an article in The Economist (CWCID: Instapundit and Samizdata):

"IN 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. “That was the moment we realised the game was completely up,” says a person who was there."

In the 40 odd years I have been listening to music the format has changed numerous times and with increasing velocity - 45's and vinyl LP's to eight track tapes to cassette tapes to CD's and now, finally, digital downloads. It always reminds me of the scene from Men In Black where Tommy Lee Jones explains to Will Smith that MIB markets alien products on Earth:

"This is gonna replace CD's soon; guess I'll have to buy the White Album again..."

Do you have any idea how many times I have purchased the first four Led Zeppelin albums?

Anyway, 2007 was the year that I became familiar with what the teenagers mentioned above already knew. About a year ago I purchased an IPod and began to "digitize" my music collection. Ripping CD's is tedious at best and as of this writing I just can't seem to bring myself to add my voluminous jazz collection. 2007 also marked the year that I stopped purchasing CD's and began downloading my new music - with one major exception. Paul McCartney released Memory Almost Full, which, in an admittedly weak moment, I decided I needed - except that the only way to obtain it was on CD - at Starbucks. My journey into that brave new digital world had suddenly been sidetracked and when I paid the clerk I told her "This is just wrong on so many different levels ..."

FDT In SC

Recently Colette posted the following comment to a post about Fred Thompson in Iowa:

"You know...I hear he did not do well in his showing....'tis a shame - I actually have a lot of respect for him....hope he can clean up in SC. But I just don't know...."

Well, after his performance in the most recent debate held in South Carolina, it seems Fred has bestirred himself and turned in the finest debate appearance of any candidate in either party to date. He was the hands down winner with the press, the pundits and more importantly, the public. Now he needs to turn it into momentum and a win in South Carolina.

Update: Even The New York Times thinks so too!

Godwin's Law

I have to admit that I had never heard of Godwin's Law until it was referenced during Glenn Reynold's recent interview with Jonah Goldberg. Courtesy of Wikipedia:

"Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages."

Will The Last Person Leaving North Korea Please Turn Off The Lights

This is a night satellite photo of Korea. The only dot of light in the north is the capital Pyongyang which is home to 3 million people. Somehow I don't think their nuclear expertise is being used to generate electricity.

"I Find Your Lack Of Faith Disturbing."

Another great Day by Day strip from Chris Muir:

Liars, Damned Liars And Pollsters

Karl Rove, in a Wall Street Journal article this morning, has this to say about the recent spate of highly inaccurate primary polls:

"The dirty secret is it is hard to accurately poll a primary. The unpredictability of who will turn out and what the mix of voters will be makes polling a primary election like reading chicken entrails -- ugly, smelly and not very enlightening. Our media culture endows polls -- especially exit polls -- with scientific precision they simply don't have."

I agree; and then the media quickly decides who should and should not be in the race based on those very polls. It certainly seems like wish fulfillment of the Fourth Estate kind.

"Human Sacrifice, Dogs And Cats Living Together - Mass Hysteria"

What other reaction should one have when The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal write similar editorials and agree with each other? It seems that all of the Democratic presidential candidates need an Iraq wake up call. And their handlers need to tell them that the surge worked.

The Washington Post said:
"AT SATURDAY'S New Hampshire debate, Democratic candidates were confronted with a question that they have been ducking for some time: Can they concede that the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq has worked? All of them vehemently opposed the troop increase when President Bush proposed it a year ago; both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama introduced legislation to reverse it. Now it's indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent, al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.

A reasonable response to these facts might involve an acknowledgment of the remarkable military progress, coupled with a reminder that the final goal of the surge set out by President Bush -- political accords among Iraq's competing factions -- has not been reached. (That happens to be our reaction to a campaign that we greeted with skepticism a year ago.) It also would involve a willingness by the candidates to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president -- a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made."

"But any U.S. policy ought to be aimed at consolidating the gains of the past year and ensuring that neither al-Qaeda nor sectarian war make a comeback. So far, the Democratic candidates have refused even to consider that challenge."

The Wall Street Journal went on to say:

"Even allowing for the stresses of the endless campaign, these responses are astonishing. Has the self-directedness of these candidates gone so deep that they now believe they can get away with saying anything at all on national TV?

We are not arguing that one had to agree with the surge or the Bush decision to go into Iraq. Dissent is a deep tradition in U.S. politics, and this war has become a bitter subject.

It is evident, though, that the opposition to Iraq after the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006 has put these candidates in a corner. For the past year, Democrats in both the Senate and House have enforced rock-solid party opposition to every jot and tittle of the Bush policy. They now have four candidates running for the U.S. Presidency who seem to believe it is to their political advantage to deny manifest reality."

The Democrats may be pandering to fringe elements during the primary elections when they evince denial on this scale but eventually they will have to go before the entire American public with this nonsense. The defense of this nation can not be put into their hands and everyone, except them, knows it. And that knowledge can change an elections outcome.

Liberal Of The Month

The January Liberal of the Month presented himself today on the pages of The Washington Post. George McGovern has written an article calling for the impeachment of the President and Vice President of The United States. Senator McGovern utilizes every discredited liberal trope ever written about Bush and Cheney in this nonsensical piece, alas - but to no avail.

It just might be time for George to pick up his buddy Jimmy on his way to the Old Liberals Home. What a maroon.

Pond Ice

Fred Strikes Back

Here is the latest from Fred in Iowa:

"Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson today questioned whether political reporters covering the race for the White House have enough ambition for the job.

“Most of these journalists seem to lack what you might call fire in the belly,” said the former Tennessee senator. “When’s the last time you read an in-depth story about what the presidential hopefuls actually believe, or have accomplished? How often have you seen a reporter place a candidate’s views in the context of the Constitution, the sweep of American history, the intricacies of global geopolitics, economic theory or even basic political philosophy?”

Mr. Thompson said most reporting on the race fits one of three categories:1) Results of the latest opinion poll.2) Embarrassing gaffes and nasty remarks.3) Reaction to one of the above.
“I’m not sure if it’s laziness, lack of ambition, or just apathy,” said Mr. Thompson, “But the American people need to know that the reporters whom they entrust with this solemn responsibility have a burning desire to fulfill the obligations of the Fourth Estate. That means you need to hustle, do your homework, ask tough questions about significant issues, put quotations in context, filter out your own natural bias, and place more value on accuracy than on speed, more on integrity than on your own petty celebrity.”

After making the remarks at a news conference, the candidate, who’s running third or fourth among Republicans in most polls, refused to answer reporters’ questions about his reaction to Mike Huckabee’s attacks on Mitt Romney."

I Love PostSecret

Some of the secrets are better than others.