I think this past week was the official “Paranoid Left” week. It’s a new holiday from what I understand, and many on the left are religiously devoted to observing it.

To kick off this new week, many on the left seem to have chosen an old favorite, Karl Rove, as their topic. To hear them talk about this guy, he might well rule the whole world, instead of just the American government as they previously surmised.

Yes, Rove is SO scary good, he has expanded his sphere of control from this greatest nation on Earth to nations abroad. What’s next… Disneyworld?! Heaven help us!!!

One of the first shots fired was by no less than Rep. Maurice Hinchey of upstate New York who, spoke recently to constituents at a community forum in Ithica, New York (a beautiful area, by the way). The interesting thing is that a reader of one of the Internet’s most popular (and best) blogs, Little Green Footballs was present, and he tape-recorded the event and passed the information back to LGF. Here is what he recorded, including a Q&A with the very same person recording Hinchey:

Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY): Well, you know, they are manipulating the media, they did it in the very beginning through intimidation. They would intimidate the people in the, uh, in the press conference. And … they would ask — they would allow questions to be asked only of people that they knew were going to ask the right kind of questions, from their point of view. And, you know, that has its effect, had, had its effect on people. People have been — people in the media have been intimidated. The media has changed in the last four years. People have changed in the last four years. They’ve had a very very direct, aggressive attack on the, on the media, and the way it’s handled. Probably the most flagrant example of that is the way they set up Dan Rather. Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened: it originated with Karl Rove, in my belief, in the White House. They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger. They knew that he had run away from his responsibilties in the Air National Guard in Texas, gone out of the state intentionally for a long period of time. They knew that he had no defense for that period in his life. And so what they did was, expecting that that was going to come up, they accentuated it: they produced papers that made it look even worse. And they — and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only — what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They — the people there — they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it. And when they did, they had ’em. They didn’t care who did it! All they had to do is to get some element of the media to advance that issue. Based upon the false papers that they produced.

Audience Member: Do you have any evidence for that?

Congressman Hinchey: Yes I do. Once they did that —

Audience: [Murmuring]

Congressman Hinchey: …once they did that, then it undermined everything else about Bush’s draft dodging. Once they were able to say, ‘This is false! These papers are not accurate, they’re, they’re, they’re false, they’ve been falsified.’ That had the effect of taking the whole issue away.

Audience Member: So you have evidence that the papers came from the Bush administration?

Congressman Hinchey: No. I — that’s my belief.

Audience Member: OK.

Congressman Hinchey: And I said that. In the very beginning. I said, ‘It’s my belief that those papers, and that setup, originated with Karl Rove and the White House.’

Audience Member: Don’t you think it’s irresponsible to make charges like that?

Congressman Hinchey: No I don’t. I think it’s very important to make charges like that. I think it’s very important to combat this kind of activity in every way that you can. And I’m willing — and most people are not — to step forward in situations like this and take risks.

Audience: [Clapping and cheering.]

Congressman Hinchey: I consider that to be part of my job, and I’m gonna continue to do it.

It’s part of Congressman Hinchey’s job to forward conspiracy theories? Ummm… I think I want to run for congress. This job suddenly sounds like it’s a lot more fun than I thought it would be.

Next, James Taranto comes to the rescue with two days worth of Rove Conspiracy reports in his column, Best of The Web Today:

Rove Manipulates Australian Government’s Abortion Debate…
It seems Karl Rove has been busy Down Under, too. So we learn from a Seattle Post-Intelligencer (”intelligent as a post!”) op-ed by Australian writer Greg Barnes:

It’s been 25 years since Australia tore itself apart debating the rights and wrongs of abortion. But the issue has resurfaced courtesy of the preparedness of Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his advisers to take a leaf out of Karl Rove’s tactics textbook and the successful export of U.S. fundamentalist churches to Australia over the past five years.

Over the past month a group of right-wing Australian members of Parliament, sanctioned by the conservative Howard, have begun a campaign to outlaw “late-term abortions.” This group is allying itself with churches and anti-abortion groups that are borrowing heavily from their U.S. colleagues when it comes to campaign tactics.

Howard is an unashamed admirer of Rove, President Bush’s political tactics mastermind. When Howard introduced his own political strategist, Lynton Crosby, to Bush in 2001, he called him the “Karl Rove of Australian politics.”

For crying out loud, isn’t Rove’s plate full enough, what with manipulating the media and destroying the AARP and the New Deal and all?

Rove Engineers Secret Attack on AARP…
Blogger Steve Soto offers the AARP some advice:

First, if he hasn’t done so already, AARP Chief Executive Officer Bill Novelli needs to call Karl Rove and demand that the White House condemn the ad and the tactics of the USAN. Of course Rove will not do this, and Novelli should tell Rove that failure to do this will be interpreted by the AARP as a sign that the White House supports and was a partner in this smear and in future smears.

Second, the AARP should do a press conference after the call to Rove for two reasons: first, they should show the despicable ad to the media and point out to what lengths Bush’s supporters will go to smear the AARP; secondly Novelli should reveal at the press conference that he has demanded the White House repudiate the ad and the USAN smear campaign, and has received no such repudiation from the White House. As a result, Novelli should tell the media that the AARP will assume the White House supports this smear.

AARP is doing nothing of the sort; the Sun reports its spokeswoman “said the group is ‘not reacting’ to the attack ads.” But at least one Democrat, Sen. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, has called on President Bush to repudiate them.

Why in the world should the White House even dignify this ad by commenting on it? Here we come to the paranoia of the Angry Left, which is firmly convinced, as during the Swift Boat episode, that the evil genius Karl Rove is pulling all the strings. As Soto writes:

Making the USAN a pariah and calling them out for what they really are and exposing who is really behind them, while pointing out what the White House and its cronies on the Hill and at the RNC are willing to do to destroy the AARP will kill off not only the USAN but Bush’s remaining privatization effort as well.

Rove Manipulating Professional Sports?
Gwen Knapp of the San Francisco Chronicle spots yet another thread in the world-wide web of conspiracy in whose center sits the omnipotent Karl Rove:

I’d also be lying if I didn’t say that [Barry] Bonds has started sounding like a Karl Rove client. His talking points had a familiar ring.

Can’t find any weapons of mass destruction? Change the subject to democracy in Iraq.

Don’t want to answer questions about what you said to the BALCO grand jury? Pretend that it’s a pending legal issue, even though you have immunity and the federal prosecutor in the case has already said that all the athletes can repeat their testimony in public.

President Bush, of course, used to be in the baseball business, and in his 2004 State of the Union address he actually mentioned the subject of steroids. We’re not sure what Rove is up to here, but we look forward to having it explained by the left-wing blogs.

You know, if Rove is as good as Democrats and Liberals say he is, then you might as well give up hope now. Anyone this good is destined to become the first official “Ruler of The World.” Or maybe he is already and we just don’t know it!

Finally, there is some definite irony to the level of obsession over Rove. I know that I was obsessive with my anti-Clinton rhetoric at times during his two terms. I look at all this stuff and I realize how silly I looked at times. Not that Clinton didn’t do some ridiculous things, but those of us on the right over-obsessed for sure at times.

Well, the left has taken our playbook and added its pages too it seems. With that said, at least those of us on the right understood that it was President Clinton in charge, not someone else. Liberals can’t even get that part right.

What is the ultimate lessons-learned here? That, when Hillary announces that she’ll be running in 2008, we’ll need to moderate our tone. I know that many on the right have strong feelings regarding Senator Clinton. However, behaving like our counterparts above will surely help the Senator, both in the Democratic Primaries and in the election itself, should she win the primaries.

Just a bit of food for thought.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Aren’t reporters supposed to post articles and/or opinion-pieces that include, you know, real reporting? That is, as opposed to what you might find on my site, which may include some research, but which may not, depending on my mood and the time I have available to do the research.

Well, Dotty Lynch of CBS News seems to have decided that, “if I can’t beat the blogs, I might as well join them,” with her opinion piece entitled “Rove-Gannon Connection?” You see, even the title sounds like something you would see on any given blog.

And the question mark at the end of the title? Apparently, Ms. Lynch has no idea if this is true, but is hoping against hope and is willing to spend some time throwing out a few possible theories of how these two are connected, so that she can then turn around and make this moralistic statement:

Planting or even just sanctioning a political operative in the WH press room is a dangerous precedent and Karl Rove’s hope to become a respected policymaker will be hampered if the dirty tricks from his political past are more apparent than his desire to spread liberty around the globe.

Does this woman sound “blogger-esque” or what?!

Either CBS News, which seems to be in the process of tearing itself to pieces, is trying out this blogging thing just for kicks, or they are in worse shape than I thought.

Hat tip to Ratherbiased.com.

Today several news sources, including the New York Times and ABC News broke the story regarding what they are calling “the Bush Tapes.” Where did these tapes come from? Doug Wead, a so-called “friend” of the President, secretly taped conversations with him over the span of about two years.

Here are a few excerpts from those articles:

NY Times:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 - As George W. Bush was first moving onto the national political stage, he often turned for advice to an old friend who secretly taped some of their private conversations, creating a rare record of the future president as a politician and a personality.

In the last several weeks, that friend, Doug Wead, an author and former aide to Mr. Bush’s father, disclosed the tapes’ existence to a reporter and played about a dozen of them.

Variously earnest, confident or prickly in those conversations, Mr. Bush weighs the political risks and benefits of his religious faith, discusses campaign strategy and comments on rivals. John McCain “will wear thin,” he predicted. John Ashcroft, he confided, would be a “very good Supreme Court pick” or a “fabulous” vice president. And in exchanges about his handling of questions from the news media about his past, Mr. Bush appears to have acknowledged trying marijuana.

Mr. Wead said he recorded the conversations because he viewed Mr. Bush as a historic figure, but he said he knew that the president might regard his actions as a betrayal. As the author of a new book about presidential childhoods, Mr. Wead could benefit from any publicity, but he said that was not a motive in disclosing the tapes.

The White House did not dispute the authenticity of the tapes or respond to their contents. Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said, “The governor was having casual conversations with someone he believed was his friend.” Asked about drug use, Mr. Duffy said, “That has been asked and answered so many times there is nothing more to add.”

ABC News:
Feb. 20, 2005 — The friend of the Bush family who secretly recorded nine hours of conversations with George W. Bush says he never intended for the tapes to become public but felt he had a duty to accurately represent a man who he believed would one day become president.

Doug Wead, the author of the new book “The Raising of a President,” surreptitiously recorded his conversations with Bush beginning in 1998, when Bush was governor of Texas and considering a run for president.

The candid conversations suggested Bush’s strategies to deal with questions about whether he used drugs, to reconcile his born-again Christian faith with a tolerance toward gays, and other issues.

Wead, who has written extensively about other first families, including the Kennedys and the Roosevelts, believed Bush would become a “pivotal figure in history.”

“I had a choice to either write propaganda about the Bushes or write accurately and fairly based on what I knew,” said Wead in an exclusive interview with “Good Morning America.”

This is, of course, a developing story. One thing is certain, Doug Wead is no friend of the Presidents.

Note to other political figures. If Mr. Wead seems to be paying undue attention to you, you might want to check him to see if he’s wearing a wire.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com’s Best of The Web Today posted this commentary yesterday:

Blogger Joe Fairbanks notes a hilarious exchange between Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D., Calif.) and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. As the latter testified Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee, the former tried but failed to catch him in a misstatement of fact:

Sanchez: Unfortunately, as I said, this committee has had a hard time assessing where we really stand with the Iraqi army as an effective fighting force. Over the past year, we’ve received incredibly widely fluctuating estimates of that. And I think you have a real credibility problem on this issue.

Rumsfeld: Fluctuations of what?

Sanchez: The fluctuations of–the numbers that you bandy around about how many troops we really have out there that are Iraqi police, et cetera, et cetera. . . .

Rusmfeld: Now, you say we bandy around numbers. They’re not my numbers. I don’t invent them. They come from Gen. Petraeus. . . .

Sanchez: I have Petraeus’s numbers. They’re different than your numbers, by the way.

Rumsfeld: Well, what’s the date? They aren’t different because these came from Petraeus. He may have two sets of numbers, but they are not different if the date’s the same. The date on my paper here is Feb. 14. What’s yours?

Sanchez: Dec. 20.

Rumsfeld: Not surprising there’s a difference.

Sometimes it seems as though Congress is run by a bunch of amateurs.

Okay, despite the fact that I’m more addicted to Taranto’s BoTW than I am to caffeine, I’m going to disagree in one small way… It’s not Congress which is looking amateurish these days, it’s the Democratic Party. And Ms. Sanchez is a perfect case in point.

Anyway, I’ve harped on this theme with the DNC too many time over the past few years, so I won’t go there again, for now. I’m just glad to see I’m not the only one whose taken notice of the trend.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Good post on The Conservative Cat that is definitely worth reading. Seems that NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) is trying to reach out to pro-lifers to find common ground. Perhaps common ground to them is something akin to the utterly ridiculous suggestions made by the Boston Globe regarding ways that liberals can be even more liberal in their politics while STILL winning moderate votes. I had a good laugh when I read their suggestions, which are summed up nicely by James Taranto of the Opinionjournal.com’s Best of The Web Today:

The Globe’s specific proposals are as follows:

* Reverse “outdated laws” that “still forbid adoption by unmarried or single parents and gay couples.”

* Improve “access to reliable birth control,” which the Globe suggests would include handing out condoms in high schools, making “morning after” contraception available over the counter, and requiring pharmacists to dispense birth-control pills even if they have conscientious objections to doing so.

* Provide poor women with “support in raising their children”–meaning more-generous welfare benefits–if they choose not to abort.

Yeah, that’ll work.

Anyway, in my mind, this move on the part of one of the most radical abortion groups in existence strikes me as just a wee bit desperate. The abortion debate has actually been a losing one for at least the past two election cycles, perhaps even three, and liberals who support the NARAL line of “abortion-on-demand” are fast becoming an endangered species.

However, being the optimist that I am, I would say we propose a test in order to measure NARAL’s true willingness to find common ground. Will they help fund abstinence-based education?

Enquiring minds want to know!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Well, conservative author, talk show host, and movie critic Michael Medved was accused again yesterday during his show of playing the part of spoiler for the controversial Eastwood movie, “Million Dollar Baby.” As the whole world likely knows now, the movie features a scene of assisted suicide.

When the movie was first released, Michael Medved was very critical of the fact that this part of the plot had remained a carefully guarded secret, and was instantly assailed and accused of trying to damage the movie’s box office results. Here are some of the comments made by Medved via his “Eye On Entertainment” site:

Warner Brothers never tells you the truth about a key plot twist that turns this pedestrian boxing movie into an insufferable manipulative right to die movie. With one of the characters horribly handicapped begging for assisted suicide.

Yes, quite a harsh statement regarding the movie. But is Medved hoping to hurt the movie’s box office receipts? If he wanted to do that, touching off a controversy is the worst thing he could do, right?

Think about the controversy over movies such as “The Passion of The Christ” and “Fahrenheit 911.” These two movies are worlds apart. One was created to appeal to people of faith, the other to critisize President Bush and the Iraq War. Yet, controversy helped power each of them to a bottom line that they NEVER could have otherwise enjoyed.

So, really, if Medved wanted to hurt “Million Dollar Baby,” he would have been better off simply calling the movie “a dud,” or something to that effect, rather than starting a controversy over assisted suicide. Right?

Finally, I want to comment on the ridiculous claim that the movie will not send a message to someone one way or another regarding the issue of assisted suicide. Many of the movies proponents have insisted that it is “neutral” to this issue.

Such a claim is bogus! The movie WILL influence people, whether you like it or not.

This lame argument reminds me of some of our prominent professional players in the United States who, after being critisized for negatively influencing kids with their bad behaviour, like to say, “I never asked to be a role model.” You didn’t? Then why did you enter professional sports?

If you don’t want to be a role model, don’t become famous!

Similarly, if you don’t want to send a message one way or another on assisted suicide, DON’T INCLUDE ASSISTED SUICIDE IN YOUR MOVIE!

I apologize for the shout emphasis there, but the level of ignorance coming from those espousing this view is incredible. Seems to me that a lot intelligent people are dumbing themselves down so that they can ignore the obvious.

What do you think?

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

I was in a local convenience store tonight buying milk for my two little girls when I overheard an interesting conversation. I had just gotten into the checkout line to pay for the milk when I overheard two older gentlemen who were chatting nearby while in the process of buying scratch-off tickets.

One said to the other, “I used to buy these things for fun, but now I’m just addicted to them.” The one went on to say, “it’s been bad lately because I haven’t won ANYTHING in the past month.” The other gentleman grunted sympathetically.

The first gentleman droned on regarding all the money he was spending, and the fact that he wasn’t getting anything back. I was so tempted to ask the guy if he had ever heard the rule, “the house always wins”? I held my tongue, paid for the milk, and went home.

But listening to this guy discuss his lottery/scratch-off addiction reminded me of yet another conversation I heard last week while paying for coffee (my preferred addiction) at a local gas station. The guy was collecting money from a winning scratch off, but was he happy? No! Instead, he was complaining about the fact that it was the first time he’d won in a while and he wasn’t even breaking even with this ticket. Ummm… Duhhhhhhh!

Repeat after me, “THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS!”

In this case, the perhaps we can say something like, “the State House always wins.” Yes, your elected officials are, in effect, feeding off the poor to, in some cases, support the very poor they are trying to support with the funds they gain from state-run lotteries and scratch-off games.

Did you get that? I know… it’s confusing.

What’s more, in the state of Maryland, where I live, they are always coming up with new games for people to try, then spending tens of thousands (if not more) to advertise those new games. Do you think they are spending huge sums to advertise just for fun? Of course not, they’ll reap MILLIONS in profits. All of which, of course, is above and beyond the normal tax revenues they collect.

Well, in some sort of harmonic convergence, I was browsing through the Washington Post Online and I found this article, “Gambling’s Man.” Here is an excerpt:

Over the course of a year, more than 17 billion — that’s right, billion — scratch tickets will be stamped out in this plant, enough to girdle the globe at the equator 44 times. About 70 percent of all the cards sold in this country are designed and manufactured here, then sent to state lotteries, then to stores, where they are snapped up in droves that keep growing. Last year, we dropped $22 billion on scratch cards. That’s more than we spent on movie tickets and video games combined.

Apparently, we’re just getting warmed up. State lotteries say the sweet spot of this market is pricier cards with bigger jackpots — $10 and $20 cards and million-dollar payoffs are now common. Fifty-dollar scratch tickets will likely debut by the end of the year. Some of these games are designed to take 15 minutes to play.

Whoa! How exciting! Scratch, scratch, SCRATCH your way to addiction and depression! Bring the kids; it’s family fun!!!!

Meanwhile, companies like Scientific Games, which prints all those tickets, grows ever more sophisticated in their ability to take money from those who are, generally, the least able to afford it. On top of all that, here in Maryland, they are even working on a bill to legalize slots.

Well, since our state government wants us to gamble, I thought I would propose a new scratch game. You could say that it’s the “scratch game to end all scratch games.”

Each scratch game ticket would cost $100,000, with a one-in-five chance of winning. If you scratch and win, you get to take the seat of the state legislator in your district! Until another person scratches and wins, of course.

Think about all the money the state would rake in! And the beauty of this game is that, unlike other scratch games, which tend to be popular with those in lower income brackets, this game would only be accessible to those with large amounts of disposable income.

What do you think? Should I approach Scientific Games with the idea?

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

This can only be filed under “what were you thinking?” The New York Newsday reported this comment from new DNC Chairman just the other day:

No one expects Dean, famously outspoken, to completely muzzle himself. Dean jokes that the Washington insider’s definition of a gaffe is “when you tell the truth and they think you shouldn’t have.”

During a meeting Friday with the Democratic black caucus, Dean praised black Democrats for their work for the party, then questioned Republicans’ ability to rally support from minorities.

“You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?,” Dean asked to laughter. “Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”

His style ever will be blunt: “We have to never be afraid to say what we believe,” he insists.

So, does Howard Dean believe that members of the Black Community are disproportionately represented as hotel staff in this country?

It’s demeaning, it’s belittling, and I’m completely floored that he would level such an insulting remark upon this community. If ever members of the African American community in this country wanted evidence of how much they are taken for granted by the Democratic Party, this is a perfect example.

One last comment before I go get some antacid to help me deal with my roiling stomach…

Why can’t Democratic leaders expect the very best in the way of professionalism and behaviour from their new Chair? Dean made this ignorant statement ONE DAY before he officially took his new post; but, obviously, he was already in the role when speaking to the Democratic Black Caucus.

The man is the new Chairman of the DNC! He is the one who sets the tone for Democrats. Well, if this is the kind of tone he wants to set for his party, 2006 will be another banner year for Republicans.

Hat tip to the Opinionjournal.com’s “Best of The Web Today.”

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Thanks to Bill Roggio of Easongate.com for clueing me into the fact that CNN quoted my post “Bloglust?” today. Trey Jackson had also sent an email out with the same information.

The attention of the MSM. Both a blessing and a curse. It was very interesting seeing my site quoted on CNN, but, at the same time, I wish they had discussed my post in a balanced way rather than taking just one line out for their show.

Oy!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

I’m a bit concerned. Okay, forget “concerned,” that’s a word you use to nicely say either, “I’m angry,” or “I’m worried/afraid.”

The fact is, I’m worried. Perhaps I don’t need to be, you can weigh in.

I’m wondering if this whole “Easongate” situation was little more than a successfully executed witch hunt.

Not that I’m saying Eason Jordan was completely innocent. He obviously said something very ignorant, and used his words in such a way that left open the possibility that our troops would deliberately target journalists. Just the thought of someone blithely trying to lay down such a load of bull gets my blood boiling.

So Eason’s an idiot. We’ve known that for a long time, haven’t we? After all, he was the one who admitted that he had not reported some of Saddam’s atrocities because he didn’t want CNN to be kicked out of Iraq. We saw then the soft underbelly of CNN. But if Mr. Jordan was not fired for revealing THAT whopper, why would he get “resigned” for this?

Question 1: Was this ridiculous statement of his — meant to be accusatory without directly accusing, then, when pressed, quickly withdrawn — stupid enough to have earned his career a death penalty? Believe it or not, the organization which originally broke this story, the WSJ’s Online Opinion site, Opinionjournal.com asks the same question:

…Easongate is not Rathergate. Mr. Rather and his CBS team perpetrated a fraud during a prime-time news broadcast; stood by it as it became obvious that the key document upon which their story was based was a forgery, and accused the whistleblowers of the very partisanship they themselves were guilty of. Mr. Rather still hasn’t really apologized.

…[T]he worst that can reasonably be said about his performance is that he made an indefensible remark from which he ineptly tried to climb down at first prompting. This may have been dumb but it wasn’t a journalistic felony.

The editor of this opinion column goes on to make many good points. I recommend you read it in full. And for those who read the column, disagree, and want to label Opinionjournal.com as “liberal” or “mainstream,” think again. Opinionjournal.com is a mainstay of conservative thinking and writing on the Internet.

Question 2: Is there a growing edge of bloodlust (or, as I’m calling it, ‘bloglust’) in the Blogosphere? Everyone who cares about what I call the “Open Source Media” has felt good regarding the growing influence we’ve had with both the public and the mainstream media. I know I have.

And taking down Dan Rather and the others who tried to fraudulently smear President Bush’s military record was a beautiful thing. But what about this situation with Eason?

Ultimately, I know I’m taking a very difficult stand. This guy, Eason, is certainly no saint. He has a pretty consistent track record of misusing his media voice. You could easily list out all of his past statements and conclude that his ouster was a long time coming.

But, now that we’ve gotten a bit closer to the line between legitimate outrage and witch hunt, are we not just a BIT tempted to step over? Think about it?

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

It’s official! Howard Dean will take the reins of the DNC and Mr. McAuliffe will head into retirement.

No offense to the outgoing DNC Chair, but his fundraising skills, which are spectacular, could never possibly make up for his lack of leadership skills. In essence, former President Clinton and the DNC made the same mistake so many other organizations, companies, and corporations have made, they mistook a particular talent — in this case, Mr. McAuliffe’s phenomenal ability to raise the kinds of funds needed for national campaigns — for leadership ability.

Haven’t you seen it before? A salesperson in the company who outsells everyone, promoted to Sales Manager, only to find that s/he has no clue how to lead an entire organization? I think, unfortunately, this is what happened in Mr. McAuliffe’s case; a phenomenally talented person asked to do something for which he was not fully prepared.

I’ve blogged often regarding statements from Mr. McAuliffe and other party leaders which were, simply put, undisciplined and unprofessional. And in many of those same articles, I’ve expressed confusion over how such an organization could act in such a confused and disoriented fashion.

The fact is, since Bush’s 2000 inauguration, the Democratic Party has become the party of “NO!” Really, it reminds me of my favorite TV ad, next to the GEICO ad where the Gecko does “The Robot,” in which David Spade is a customer service rep who constantly says “NO” to customers.

I’ve heard many times that “NO” is not a strategy, or that “NO” is not a plan. Actually, it is. But, it’s a losing one.

It’s a losing strategy because you can never win if you are always playing defense. “NO” is a purely defensive posture and, thus, always a losing one. Let me offer a relevant example.

Before Bush became President, Clinton, Daschle, and other Democrats were gung ho to reform Social Security; and quite a few of them offered ideas related to the partial privatization of SS. But as soon as the recently elected President Bush echoed his support for this kind of plan, Democrats have given an unequivical NO.

Ted Van Dyk, a staunch Democrat who was an active party member for fourty years underscores my point:

The party’s visible leaders and voices are pursuing an entirely different strategy today. It generally amounts to angry opposition on all issues all the time…

For many years Democrats, more than Republicans, pointed to the need to reform Social Security for the long term. Social Security, after all, was a Democratic invention and a cornerstone of the party’s commitment to economic security. Yet, in the face of the Bush reform initiative, many senior Democrats have chosen simply to deny the need for change. That is not a viable policy or political position…

Memo to Democrats: It is time to return to the old-fashioned way. Ask the questions: What are the needs of our country? What are our constructive proposals to meet them? How can we best push those proposals forward? If Democratic leaders and candidates ask those questions, and try seriously to answer them, voters may once again be prepared to let them govern.

There is much more to this article and I urge everyone to read it in full. This is not an article intended to compliment Republicans but rather to spur Democrats in Washington to change their approach and meet Republicans head-on with their own vision, their own strategy, and their own dreams for a better nation and safer world.

So, will Howard Dean answer this call and work to move the DNC to a more moderate position? What will Democrats stand for over the next 10 or 20 years? What are they FOR rather than against? What is their vision?

While I have my doubts as to whether the new DNC Chair will have the ability to leave his ultra-partisan politics behind, I guess we’ll have to wait and see how Dean shapes up as a party leader. I wish him well while, at the same time, I would urge my fellow Republicans not to underestimate him.

Competition is a good thing, even in politics. I hope Howard Dean will make his party more competitive.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Blogcritics, a site where I post nearly all of my material has been getting quite popular of late, with 20,000+ unique visits a day. Well, unfortunately, all that traffic lead to a bit of a server meltdown yesterday.

The good news is that all systems are now GO again and I checked and all my posts are back up as well. Just to tell you how much I enjoy posting and commenting there, currently, I have 112 posts I’ve made to Blogcritics and have left 688 comments on mine and other posts. I’ve never spent so much time in any one place on the Internet as I have on Blogcritics.

Are you a blogger? If so, you should consider re-posting to Blogcritics to increase your viewership, and even to just have fun. Eric Olsen is the owner of the site and he’s a great guy who loves blogging himself and loves to see new bloggers enter the Blogcritics community. If you are interested, just email him at “Ecolsen2003@cs.com.”

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Today, during the third hour of the Michael Medved radio show, Jim Wallis, author of Gods Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, appeared to discuss his critiques of both the left and right political wings of this country. The conversation started well as Mr. Wallis did seem quite moderate on the issue of abortion, agreeing with Michael that they should be made as rare as possible.

In just about every other way, unfortunately, Wallis showed himself to be liberal with a capital “L”. From the 2004 election, to the war in Iraq, he spouted the same sillinesses I hear all too often:

1. The Iraq war was immoral and illegal
2. The President & VP are making money off of payments to Halliburton.
3. President Bush’s policies have all failed
4. The government has a duty to redistribute wealth for the good of all
5. Karl Rove is actually a space-alien who is controlling the President

Okay, maybe not that last thing, but everything before that, and much more to be sure. All-in-all, it was rather disappointing to hear Mr. Wallis parrot some of the most senseless and baseless lies of the left. Can someone please tell Mr. Wallis that Halliburton is an AMERICAN company that employs tens of thousands of AMERICAN workers, and pays oodles of taxes to the AMERICAN government?

I mean, really; liberals love to accuse President Bush of allowing jobs to go overseas, then they turn around and complain that we are using an American company in Iraq to support the troops! Would Mr. Wallis and other so-called “Progressives” prefer to hire a French company?

Interestingly, Mr. Wallis and some others from the Christian Community (of which I am a member), call themselves “Progressive Christians” (meaning they lean to the left and describe themselves as Christians). I understand that Christians come in all shapes, sizes, and dispositions, but I have a problem with someone who mixes faith and politics in this manner.

To be fair, I’ve often described myself as a “conservative Christian.” But what I mean by this is that I’m a cultural conservative, as well as Reformed in my theology. Politically speaking, I’m a moderate-to-right leaning Republican who calls himself “a Republican.” Go figure.

Wallis, on the other hand, seem to have mixed faith and politics in a rather strange manner. Furthermore, in writing a book called, “Gods Politics,” Wallis has clearly declared, before the first page is read, that he is mixing religion and politics in a way that Progressives often detest.

And this is a key point! Senator Kerry repeatedly asserted during the runup to the 2004 election that, no matter his beliefs, he could not “force his morality on others.” He hemmed and hawed over issues like prayer and abortion. Meanwhile, the President said forthrightly that he wanted to promote a culture of life where abortion is rare and that he prays often and feels “uplifted” by the prayers of others.

Every time the President mentioned his faith, prayer, his support for a marriage amendment, and other faith-related issues, Christians like myself took heart. Not because we think he’s going to force Christianity down the throats of every citizen, but because he was firm and unapologetic in his beliefs. He loves the Lord and he knows his place in this universe. He may be the most powerful man on the planet, but, next to God, he is no more significant than you or I, and just as accountable for his actions as anyone else.

As for DNC leaders, they have a fit any time the President talks faith. These so-called progressives, as well as many liberals working in the media, seem to hate Christianity and all it stands for.

So, would liberals be amenable to becoming more “faith-friendly?” I seriously doubt it. What liberals in general and the DNC in particular expects is for people of faith, like Mr. Wallis (who seems truly to be a sincere in what he believes), to sublimate that faith and follow the party line.

It’s one of the problems with a party that tends to be more socialistic in its bent. Party leaders are the elite, the educated, and the anointed. Average members are, therefore, not qualified, not “pedigreed” enough, to set the agenda for the party.

Don’t agree with me? What else would explain the fact that millions of moderate Democrats in this country are wondering what in the hell happened to their party? And yet, Mr. Wallis seems to believe that he can, with his book, persuade DNC leaders to lose their elitist, anti-Christian, mindset and learn to embrace those of us whose faith is central to our lives. For sure, there are some Democratic leaders who are not only willing, they are already there, but these folks have been isolated and marginalized.

I think Joe Lieberman is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. He’s a moral man who is truly moderate in his views and truly appreciates the faith that Americans hold so dear. Yet, in the primaries, he received marginal support from Democrats.

So, does Mr. Wallis really think that his party will do for him what it wouldn’t do for an important man like Senator Lieberman? I seriously doubt it. More likely, they may call upon him to help them “talk-the-talk” of faith, not realizing that we’ll see through them as easily as we saw through Senator Kerry.

As for Mr. Wallis’s insistence that the government should do more in assisting with foreign aid and social ills here in the US, he’s just as deceived as so many others on this issue. First of all, the United States as a whole is the most generous nation on Earth.

Guess what? We give more than just money. The US has the greatest international transport and communication infrastructure in the world.

The government may not dump buckets of cash into some efforts, but they employ their resources to deliver supplies in hours or days, where, otherwise, it might have taken weeks, months, or even longer. That and we donate tons of surplus items that may or may not ever be counted as bottom line contributions.

In addition, the US government does something virtually no other government does; it created one of the world’s greatest incentive programs for helping average people give their money to worthy causes. So I can tithe to my church, and give to those causes which matter to me, and the government allows me to claim those donations on my taxes, and actually get money back.

Why do you think that virtually every economic advisor in this country will urge you to donate some of your money each year? Which is why there are no people in the world who give as much as Americans.

THIS is the kind of social program which I support! Not the kind where the federal government raises taxes, then wastes most of it on infrastructure costs, but the kind which gives me incentive to do the right thing and use my money far more efficiently and effectively to boot!

Finally, in regards to Mr. Wallis’s insistence that President Bush is waging an “immoral” war, based on the fact that the Pope and other religious leaders have spoken out against the war, he seems to be forgetting what his Bible says regarding the power of the government:

Romans 13: 1-7
Submission to the Authorities
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

President Bush and congress (you know, the body which authorized the war?) are the governing authority of this nation. THEY decide whether we go to war, not a religious leader of any faith or denomination. Yes, I know we have guidelines for what constitutes a just war, but it’s a guideline, and even then, President Bush, in my opinion, met those guidelines.

We can argue until we’re blue in the face on this issue, but I would advise Mr. Wallis to think long and hard about an issue that liberals obsess over, the “seperation of church and state.” Though I view the First Amendment as more of a restraining order on the federal government, I would love to hear from him whether or not he felt it appropriate to call upon leaders of mutiple faiths to exert undue influence over our President in a time of war? Or any time, for that matter.

Again, isn’t this the kind of thing liberals freak out over? What would the media be saying of Wallis if it were President Clinton who was in office? There’s an interesting question… WWMD?

All humor aside, Mr. Wallis seems to have the liberal double-standard trick down pat. War, homelessness, jobs, the economy… All these are things that challenged President Clinton during his two terms, yet to most liberals, he could do no wrong. But, of course, we are not so lenient with a Republican President, are we?

Of course not. But then, I’m used to it; and so is the President. It has not made one bit of difference in the past four years and it won’t make a difference over the next four years.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Well, the recent remarks made by Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis are making their rounds both with the MSM as well as the Blogosphere. First things first; lets read the entire remark as quoted by the AP:

Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, an infantry officer who has commanded Marines in both Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites), made the comments Tuesday while speaking to a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror. Mattis is the commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va.

According to an audio recording of Mattis’ remarks, he said, “Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. … It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.”

He added, “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis continued. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

After reading this, I can see why some people are getting upset over it. With that said, I think Gen. Mattis’ statements are indicative of how far we’ve come as a civilization… that is, how far we’ve moved in the right direction!

I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard complaints on how brutal this nation’s history has been. Ask Ward Churchill, the guy who recently found himself (happily) embroiled in controversy over his remarks which called 9/11 victims “little Eichmanns,” and called the suicide attacks which killed 3000 innocent people “gallant sacrifices,” and described the terrorists themselves as “combat teams.”

Mr. Churchill will gladly recount in lurid detail every wrong — real and imagined — performed by this country. And, of course, in some of it he would be right.

The United States has done some horrible things, not the least of which is institutionalized slavery. If you think about it, we could even say that we’ve been, through much of our history, equal opportunity oppressors. We’ve oppressed African Americans, Native Americans, women, children (both born and unborn), Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, and I’m sure a host of others.

In my opinion, the US is more guilty than other nations because of our founding declaration, which declared that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Declaration of Independence, 1776

So, the bedrock principle of this country has been from the beginning that everyone was created equal by God Himself, and that our universal equality is a immovable, incontravertable truth of His creation. At the same time, we continued to allow slavery, the oppression of women, the brutalization of Native Americans, etc., etc., etc.

So, who is more guilty; a person who has been taught all his life that certain people are inferior and whose national beliefs are in line with that teaching, or someone whose national philosophy is that everyone is equal but whom continues to oppress another person or group? By the way, this is a rhetorical question.

But, in this country, we’ve been working hard to bring our cultural norms and our personal and/or corporate philosophies in line with the truth; that all people are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit.

We have, admittedly, a long way to go, but, as a Christian, I don’t believe there is such as thing as perfection on Earth. We need to push towards our highest ideals, but I don’t believe we’ll ever have perfect equality or perfect justice on the Earth. Perfection is something we’ll see with God’s kingdom, not man’s.

With that said, we need to make every effort to achieve those things, and Gen. Mattis’ statements are indicative of how far we’ve come along that road. Why would I say such a thing? Because, the core meaning of his statement is that he, as both a soldier and an American, find the brutal repression of women to be abhorrent.

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis continued. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

What can I say, I’m with the General. To those who show no mercy, no mercy shall be given.

Not that I would ever say that “it’s fun” to shoot any human being, even one who brutally oppresses women and children as the Taliban did and as the Sharia system of Islam tends to treat them. But I think the General’s statement was not that he enjoys killing oppressors, but that he SO completely hates these forms of oppression that there is a unique sense of satisfaction in taking them on.

Ask the women of Afghanistan what they think of Sharia law in general and the Taliban in particular, they’ll probably say they have few, if any, problems with General Mattis’ sentiments. After all, under the Sharia system, a woman who begs for money and food in public just to feed her hungry children can be — and were quite often in Afghanistan — thrown in jail.

So, to those who think that it is inappropriate to force our cultural values onto others, in this instance, I quite disagree. I think this is one of those clear situations when we should declare our values to be superior, and that, in fact, we are right and they are wrong in their beliefs. Not only are they wrong, they are SO wrong that we cannot stand by and allow such brutality to continue while we have an opportunity to intervene.

Just from sheer volume of injustices in this world, it’s impossible for us to address them all, but, in Afghanistan, men like General Mattis were able to make a difference and give women there a better future. So, to General Mattis I say; thank you for defending those who were unable to defend themselves and for tearing down a government which brutalized women, children, and anyone who did not believe as they did.

For other great commentary on this whole issue, I would recommend visiting Stonescryout.org. They have links out in all directions on this issue.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Michelle Malkin — author, blogger, and Fox news analyst has an excellent post regarding Chris Matthew’s conspiracy theory on the hug between Iraqi voter, Safia Taleb al-Suhail, and Janet Norwood, the mother of a marine who died serving his country in Iraq.

If you remember my previous post, “The Hug Heard Round the World,” I posted an excerpt from “Hardball” with Matthew’s accusation that the whole thing was staged. I think Michelle Malkin sums this incident up perfectly:

CHRIS MATTHEWS SLIMES A MILITARY FAMILY
By Michelle Malkin · February 03, 2005 06:39 PM

Last night, MSNBC blabber Chris Matthews suggested that the powerfully moving hug between Safia Taleb al-Suhail, who recently voted in the Iraqi elections, and Janet Norwood, mother of a Marine who died in Iraq, was staged. Matthews sneered that fellow MSNBC host Pat Buchanan was being “naive” for arguing otherwise.

Exactly right, the newly crowned “Big Giant Ass” — a special award that I just invented for Mr. Matthews — slimed a military family. Even worse he implied with his statements that the Norwood’s would dishonor the memory of their son by participating in a political ploy. I think the honorary title of “Big Giant Ass” fits perfectly, don’t you?

BGA needs to apologize for his assinine remarks [yes, the pun was intended].

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

The other night, during the President’s SOTU speech, he honored the parents of a fallen soldier. Here is an excerpt of the President’s comments and a description of what happened next from James Taranto:

Iraq synecdochically thanked America for its freedom last night. During his State of the Union address, President Bush introduced a couple who were sitting with the first lady, Janet and Bill Norwood. The Norwoods’ son, Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood, was killed during the liberation of Fallujah. Said the president:

His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, “When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said, ‘You’ve done your job, Mom. Now it is my turn to protect you.’ ” Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom’s defenders, and our military families.

Whereupon another honored guest, Iraqi human-rights advocate Safia Taleb al-Suhail, stood, turned and embraced Mrs. Norwood, who was seated behind her. It would take a bitter cynic indeed–a man like Tom Shales–not to be moved by this.

Immediately following the President’s speech all the talking heads on the left began obsessing about “The Hug.” Was it a setup? Was the President cynically manipulating these parents for political gain, yadda, yadda, yadda. Here is an excerpt from Chris Matthews’ show, Hardball, where Matthews REALLY gets extreme:

MATTHEWS: I guess the only question is whether that Iraqi woman was prompted to go up and hug Janet Norwood by some staffer.

O‘DONNELL: Oh, who cares?

MATTHEWS: Who cares?

REAGAN: I don‘t know that that…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I think some people care.

REAGAN: Yes, I don‘t know that—I wouldn‘t go that far.

MATTHEWS: It‘s a question. It‘s an open question. I think the emotion was spontaneous.

REAGAN: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: It‘s a question as to how much P.R. went into that thing.

REAGAN: Yes.

Both things are true. There is spontaneous emotion there. And I certainly would honor it.

And, Joe, you can call it cynicism if you want. All I‘m saying is, it makes me uncomfortable when people are being used for a reason that is political. Now, if they got something good out of it, then that‘s more important. But that is simply an observation on my part…

MATTHEWS: You know what I think?

I am asking the question because I live in Washington and have watched these. And I will bet you, within the next couple of days, what we are speculating about now, we will know more about, which White House staffer takes credit for putting them so close to each other, who might have indicated to the Iraqi woman it would be appropriate at that moment, when the president addressed Ms. Norwood, that she could go up and embrace her.

You never know how much goes on behind the scenes when everything it seems isn‘t true.

That sounds almost like Matthews wants to launch a full congressional investigation. “What did these people know and when did they know it?!” Please!

As always, I have a theory.

Perhaps some on the left are so outraged by this hug because it was, in one spontaneous act, a complete vindication of our belief in the mission that our troops have been fulfilling these past two years. It was a beautiful moment when an Iraqi citizen, fresh from the monumentally successful vote this past week, embraced the parents of a fallen soldier in a heartfelt thank you for all that our troops have done for that nation.

Ironic, don’t you think, that Ron Reagan Jr. should accuse the President of using the Norwoods as a political prop when he and other members of the left have been using our troops for that purpose since the war on terror began. And that goes to the heart of my argument… People like Ron Reagan, Jr., Chris Matthews, etc., would rather invent a conspiracy than believe that our troops are doing the right thing.

Sad but true.

Finally, let me just offer one more excerpt from an excellent article that I read today by Charles Krauthammer (hat tip to Laura Ingraham):

Iraqis turned out to vote in great numbers, with great enthusiasm and determination. Surprise. The media have not been as surprised, noted a friend of mine, since the Nicaraguans turned out in their 1990 election to kick out the Sandinistas…

The liberal cliche of the time was that Third World people care more about food than about freedom. This kind of contempt for the political and spiritual dignity of people who live in different circumstances never goes away. It simply gets applied serially to different sets of patronized foreigners…

Leading Democrats are discomfited by this demonstration of Iraqi support for the Bush Doctrine. John Kerry urges that we not “overhype this election.”

Sorry that the quote is kind of snipped up, but I would rather not pull too much out of a story that should really be read in its entirety.

Whether you read the story or not, there is no doubt in my mind that Krauthammer is right on the money with his points. Iraqis are dancing in the streets, celebrating the end of tyranny, and expressing their gratitude for the part our troops have played. Meanwhile, so many left-leaning talking heads and DNC leaders (not all, but too too many) are trying to downplay it all.

Once again, they’ve landed on the wrong side of history. I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Quite a few bloggers out there have commented on the horrendous DNC response from Pelosi and Reid last night after the President’s SOU speech. Today, my fav talk radio personality, Michael Medved commented that the two had sort of a dazed look on their faces. Here’s what James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com had to say of Pelosi and Reid’s post-speech response:

Reid and Pelosi do not, to say the least, present an attractive face to America. As our friend Rich Miniter observed, Reid looked like a doctor who refuses to administer painkillers. As for Pelosi–who is known mostly for being more charming than Barbara Boxer–she stiffly stared at the camera with a deer-in-the-headlights look.

Over all, the tag-team Democratic response had about as much fizzle as a can of soda that’s been sitting out all day. To be fair, most seem to think, myself included, that the whole tradition of a post-SOU speech response is a bad idea anyway.

So, why the dazed look on Pelosi and Reid’s faces? Personally, I think it has to do with the fact that Democrats are as flummoxed by President Bush as Republicans were by President Clinton. Regardless, you would think that, at the very least, the DNC would have bothered to post the statements made by Reid and Pelosi on their website. There is a response from Terry McAuliffe, but whoever posted his response did not even spell McAuliffe’s name correctly!

I’ve been asking this question often for the past couple of years, but I need to ask it again… What in the hell is going on with the DNC?

But lets get back to this flummoxed thing.

DNC leaders have taken President Bush on time-and-again, certain of their inevitable victory, only to wind up on the ropes, wondering how they got there. It reminds me of a movie I saw just recently, “Miracle,” with Kurt Russell. The movie is, of course, the cinematic portrayal of the historic victory of the U.S. hockey team at the 1980 Olympic Games. Kurt Russell brilliantly plays the part of legendary coach Herb Brooks, who was able to devise a strategy which allowed his team to dominate nearly every rival team during the olympics and, ultimately, unseat the world-champion Soviets in dramatic fashion before going on to defeat Finland and winning the gold medal in the final round.

The movie itself is widely credited for its accuracy, which is why one part of the movie flashed into my mind while I was watchng Dazed and Confused (aka, Pelosi and Reid) give the Democratic response to the President’s speech. It was a part near the end of the movie and the US Hockey Team is up by one point with just minutes left on the clock. The Soviet team was desperately trying to score, but Brooks’ strategy, which was working brilliantly, was to continue attacking the Soviets while rotating his players at regular intervals to assure that the players on the ice were fresh and able to aggressively continue their offensive surge.

It was a brilliant strategy. That and the fact that Brooks had worked his team nearly to death to get them up to the same level of stamina as the Soviets, kept them off balance. Right around this time, Brooks’ assistant coach, played by Noah Emmerich, leaned over and said to Coach Brooks, “look at their coach.” Brooks looked over to see the bewildered Soviet coach yelling incoherently to his players on the ice. The assistant coach then said, “he doesn’t know what to do!”

Bingo! The same thing is true of the DNC leadership!

They are floundering, sticking to the same old game plan, yelling incoherently, and, most importantly, are not sure of how to counter all the momentum gained by the President over the past several months. They are even publicly disagreeing with each other on national television.

No wonder the DNC leadership is looking dazed! They cannot figure out what to do next.

I wonder what their meetings are like? You know, when the DNC leadership gathers to discuss next steps and their overall strategy for the next two years. I’m willing to bet there is quite a lot of disagreement, with not all of them (Ted Kennedy!) willing to go along with those final decisions made during the meetings. I’m speculating, of course, but it seems reasonable given the way they are all behaving in front of the cameras.

The Democratic Party is one in disarray, yes, but through no fault of loyal members throughout the US who are just as bewildered as any of us died-in-the-wool Republicans. What will happen to the DNC if they lose in their all-out bid to stop the President’s plan to modify Social Security?

Democrats could win big, but, again, they have nothing to offer which will counter in any way what the President has proposed. All they have to say regarding Social Security is, “it’s fine the way it is; don’t touch it.”

Ummm… Correct me if I’m wrong here, but that doesn’t strike me as a very smart move. It’s not even a plan, just more of a spasm.

But, hey, what do I know? I’m just a pajama-wearing blogger.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

In my last post, US Troops: Evangelists For Liberty, I was pooh-poohed for critisizing the UN electoral chief, Carina Perelli, and for heaping special praise upon our men and women in the armed forces for pouring their hearts out, and their blood, to pave the way for a free Iraq. We take a hell of a lot for granted here in the US; I wish our troops were not among those so easily taken for granted by some of us.

On January 27th, Ms. Perelli critisized our troops for being “overenthusiastic in trying to help out with these elections.” Today, however, James Taranto of Best of The Web Today noted these more recent comments from Ms. Perelli:

Carina Perelli, who has helped advise on dozens of elections from East Timor to the Palestinian territories, called the Jan. 30 election a “dignified, peaceful demonstration” of Iraqis’ will.

“I have participated in many elections in my life and I usually say that the day you lose your ability to be moved by people going to vote, you should change your career,” said Perelli, who had insisted for months that U.N. advisers would leave pronouncements on the election to Iraq’s electoral commission. “This was probably one of the most moving elections I have ever seen.”

The fact is, what the Iraqis did this past Sunday was a truly awesome display of courage. I’ve read excerpt after excerpt from Iraqi blogs, newspapers, and other sources with quotes from those who did go to vote. They woke up on election day and some of them could already hear explosions as insurgents attempted to intimidate the Iraqis out of voting.

But, rather than stay in their homes, they grabbed their friends and family members and went to vote. Amazing courage.

Here is what Friends of Democracy is saying regarding their historic election:

Iraqis proved yesterday there were stronger than any threat. There will was not affected by all the threats of men like Al Zarquawi, or by henchmen of the former regime. They stunned the entire world, showing they can challenge anyone trying to thwart their march towards democracy. In spite of all the sufferings and crises associated with the fall of the former regime, Iraqis have proven, with their fingers, that they are greater than others, and that they want to build a free, independent and sovereign Iraq.

Yes, the people of Iraq still have a long road ahead, but I get the impression they’ve turned the corner. Message to the terrorists and insurgents still hoping to destabilize Iraq:

Be afraid, be very afraid!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com