Posting A Warning

Yesterday I linked to an op-ed in the Washington Post by Robert Kagan that argued that not much would change in American foreign policy whoever wins on Tuesday. One caveat was in Kagan's column, though:

But congressional elections rarely affect the broad direction of American foreign policy. A notable exception was when Congress cut funding for American military operations in support of South Vietnam in 1973. Yet it's unlikely that a Democratic House would cut off funds for the war in Iraq in the next two years.

One of my regular commenters, TC, is from Staten Island and is very familiar with the man who would be chairman of the Ways and Means committee if the Dems take the house pointed out that that 1973 scenario was not unlikely. I've mentioned Charles Rangel's threat before, of course. Now the New York Post has some warnings about Rangel in an editorial today.

November 3, 2006 — John Kerry's insult this week of, supposedly, the "president, not the troops" overshadowed another story: Top New York Democrat Charlie Rangel's own vitriolic outburst, calling the vice president a "son of a bitch."

In an interview with The Post, the aspiring chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee lashed out at Dick Cheney, suggesting the veep seek "rehab" for "whatever personality deficit he may have suffered."

Don't Dems have any respect for America's highest political offices? (Maybe they should be called the Gutter-crats.)

….

But Rangel made sure to vote in favor of President Clinton's tax hikes in '93.

And he's supported "targeted" tax breaks (i.e., disguised spending measures) for favored groups, like those who invest in "distressed" areas or who spend money on child care.

Yeah, Rangel will extend Bush's tax cuts - for five minutes, maybe.

Even though not extending them could jeopardize the economic recovery.

Wednesday, Cheney poked fun at Kerry for now claiming his slur of the troops - er, the president - was a "botched joke."

"He was for the joke before he was against it," the veep quipped.

Rangel could use a similar excuse: He was for higher taxes before he was against 'em.

Either way, if Dems win the House, Americans can kiss their cash goodbye.

And the troops in Iraq, their ammo.

So, one more voice out there warning about the effort to defund the troops. Because the magic formula the Dems say they'll follow - defund the war without affecting the troops - is nonsense. Any cuts would directly have a negative impact on the troops, protestations here are quite meaningless. Just another thing to think about before you vote.

Apology Not Accepted

Furthermore, it never will be accepted. Ronald R. Griffin explains why in today's Opinion Journal.

I missed the joke. You must forgive me, for there just is not a lot of room in my life for even good jokes–and there is absolutely no room for "botched jokes"–when the subject of the joke is my son who was killed in Iraq. I know exactly what came out of Sen. John Kerry's mouth, and in those words there is no interpretation required. His attempt to convince us–and, I believe, to convince himself that that there was really a botched joke buried deep within his insult is in fact a reaffirmation of his ever-present condescending nature. He actually believes that we are stupid enough to agree with him and start laughing simply because he said it was a joke. Mr. Kerry said exactly what he meant and meant exactly what he said. In those words Mr. Kerry did in fact wash completely away the facade of his support of our magnificent troops and revealed for all to see his true colors.

All one had to do is look into the face of Mr. Kerry as the last word came out of his mouth, and it was painfully obvious that he knew that he had just disparaged the entire military. As the firestorm grew, the calls for an apology filled me with unease. It is not up to him to determine if an apology is in order. That decision most certainly rests with the millions of individuals he offended, and then they would decide if they were going to accept one or not.

As Sen. Kerry began his soon-to-be-reversed "I apologize to no one" rebuttal to a call for an apology, I was driving by the memorial built in honor of Kyle, my son, and the other fallen heroes from my town. As I listened, I tried unsuccessfully to make sense of the meteor shower of thoughts that were streaking through my mind. Then came one remembrance that brought all those other thoughts to an instantaneous halt. Last year I had written an editorial and I received a number of written replies. Among those was one postmarked from San Diego addressed simply to "the father of a hero" and my town of Emerson, N.J.

It started off friendly enough then quickly became argumentative and before the first paragraph was completed this individual had written, "I am glad that your son got killed for he probably was an idiot just like you". My first reaction, and really the only reaction I have ever had, was sadness for an individual who is so consumed with anger that he felt it necessary to lash out at me for my beliefs.

That is exactly how I feel about John Kerry. His anger was in full bloom as he tried desperately to control the damage that his words had caused. He knew full well that he could not defend his remarks, so he attacked President Bush. In doing so he reinforced his now fully revealed condescending attitude towards our troops. He talked over them, as he always does, never even beginning to understand that there might be individuals who were truly and deeply offended by his remarks. The explanation for that is quite simple: He firmly and deeply believes that anyone who would be so stupid as to join the military is beneath the high moral perch on which he thinks he sits.

I strongly urge you to read the entire thing. It is a very, very powerful piece. The people who think about our armed forces in the way John Kerry does, or the editorial writer for the Tennessean that I posted about yesterday simply do not understand the offense that was given. They are incapable of understanding how deeply those words struck, botched joke or no. They cannot comprehend the level of pain that those words inflict. Because they cannot understand, they ascribe the outrage being expressed to political spin. They do not understand. 

They do not, indeed cannot, understand what really motivates most of the men and women who choose to serve in the military. So they ascribe base motives and strut in supposed superiority. Their right to speak and think and act as they do is secured only by the people they denigrate. People like Mr. Griffin's son, Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin. Or like Spc. Benjamin James Slaven. They do not understand the depth of respect many people do have for those who choose to enlist and serve. Real and genuine respect, not spin, not phony expressions of support.

And their excuses pretending to be apologies will not be accepted.

Compared To What?

Charles Krauthammer asks a question about The Greatest Electoral Defeat In Recorded History Ever™ that the media keeps cheering like a mystical spell. Channeling Henny Youngman, he asks, "Compared to what?"

WASHINGTON — According to the pollsters, pundits and pols — Democrat and nervous Republican — a great anti-Republican wave is a-coming. Well, let's assume major Democratic gains: between 20 to 25 House seats, and four to six Senate seats. The House goes Democratic for the first time in 12 years. The Senate likely stays Republican, but by such an excruciatingly small margin that there is no governing majority.

What to say about such a victory? Substantial, yes. Historic, no. Before proclaiming a landslide, one has to ask Henny Youngman's question: "Compared to what?'' (His answer to: "How's your wife?'') Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats and six Senate seats. If you go back to Franklin Roosevelt's second term, the House loss average jumps to 35. Thus a 25/6 House/Senate loss would be about (and slightly below) the historical average.

….

Nonetheless, even if just one chamber falls to the Democrats this time, it will be interpreted as a repudiation of two things: Bush and Iraq. The Democrats have certainly nationalized the election by focusing on Bush and the war — with an overwhelming number of Democratic campaign ads doing little else than showing their Republican opponent hugging or praising or merely shaking hands with the president.

Indeed, the anti-Bush feeling is so strong that Democrats — ignoring the niceties of federalism and enjoying the benefits of guilt-by-association — have been running ads linking Bush with Bob Ehrlich, the popular Republican incumbent in the Maryland gubernatorial race.

Yes, the campaign has been nationalized. But will the results be? In the House, a good five seats (Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Don Sherwood, Mark Foley, Curt Weldon) are very likely to be lost to scandals having nothing to do with Bush or Iraq. Of the losing Senate races, only Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania can be said to be dying for the sins of their party.

But the other races, if lost, will be lost largely for local reasons. In Ohio, the state is rocked by an enormous Republican scandal at the gubernatorial level that is taking the whole party down with it, Sen. Mike DeWine included. In Montana, Conrad Burns is in trouble because of his association with Jack Abramoff, not George Bush.

In Virginia, a state that should not even be in play, George Allen has run the worst campaign in living memory, stumbling onto one ethnic land mine after another — macaca, the Yiddishe mama, N-word allegations. And in New Jersey, the one Democratic seat that could conceivably go the other way and save Senate control for the Republicans, the drag on Sen. Bob Menendez is the very non-national issue of official corruption.

Krauthammer points out that all this means that although the Democrats have said this is all about Iraq, it really has not been. That will be the conventional wisdom that the media will report if at least one chamber changes hands. It will not be true any more than the CW that says Kerry lost because of the Swift Boat Vets. (Kerry lost because Kerry is Kerry, as been amply demonstrated this week). It is not really clear that there will be a loss even though the CW at the moment says there will be. We'll see in four days or so. (Or longer depending on how many lawyers get work after the polls close.)

The Schizophrenic Season

You know, this has been a horrible campaign season as far as I am concerned. The nastiness is at an all time high. But worse, it is also enough to give you a headache. On the one hand, you have the media cheerleading for the coming Worst Electoral Defeat In Recorded History Ever™. This is meme is out there every, single day all over the media. Then there are the dire warnings, coming from the Democrats and the media of how if the aforementioned meme does not come to pass it will be because somehow, somewhere the Republicans had something to do with it. In other words they set up the expectation for victory and the rationale for the blizzard of lawsuits and challenges if the predictions turn out to be wrong.

Indiana will have the country's strictest voter identification law in effect on Election Day. The 2005 picture ID law, however, puts it among a dozen states that have tightened requirements lately that voters display some form of identification at the polls. The laws have spawned partisan warring, lawsuits and confusion that election experts predict could influence the outcome of some close elections.

In the Washington area, Virginia requires all voters to show identification, although it does not need to have a picture. Maryland and the District require first-time voters who registered by mail to bring identification, such as a driver's license or utility bill, to the polls.

While the local laws have not been challenged, new voter ID laws nationally are the most widespread, and most bitterly disputed, of several types of voting procedures that states have adopted after the chaotic 2000 presidential election. The procedures include statewide electronic databases of registered voters, which critics allege have in a few states improperly knocked out eligible people. In another procedure, Ohio and Florida — battleground states that have produced recent contested elections — have placed tighter reins on groups that work to register new voters.

Such rules, together with updated voting-machine technology, were touted as means to modernize and bolster public confidence in the election system. They have quickly led to new struggles over voting rights. Republicans and their allies assert that the identification requirements and other rules will lessen voting fraud. Democrats and their supporters contend the changes are ploys to suppress voting among poor, elderly, minority and disabled citizens, who are prone to support Democratic candidates.

"We believe photo ID is the kind of confidence-building measure that is warranted in light of past fraud," said Mark "Thor" Hearne, the chief election lawyer for the 2004 Bush campaign and now counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights, a conservative advocacy group. He predicted the identification laws will prompt higher turnout.

Mary G. Wilson, national president of the League of Women Voters, said identification laws, particularly ones requiring photo IDs, are "odious" and added: "There is very little evidence there's been any kind of voting by people who are ineligible to vote. We view this as basically another unnecessary hurdle voters are being put through."

(I've made my position on this clear all along. Being against voter ID is being pro-fraud. Period. All the yapping is making excuses to justify the continuance of fraud.)

Usually, politicians try to minimize expectations before an election. The Dems appear to be maximizing expectations, both of victory and of being able to scream if they don't win. I expect there will be some ugliness and many billable hours for lawyers after this election. Just guessing.

Zombie Meat

Well, this is getting ridiculous. Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly (or Hilali), the Australian mufti who compares women to meat, was reported to have stepped aside from his duties on Monday after suffering a mild heart attack. Suppposedly the board the govern his mosque had decided he should stand down for at least three months. So all quiet, right?

Nope, he was back giving another sermon today.

EMBATTLED senior Muslim cleric Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly has hit back at the storm of controversy surrounding his comments comparing women to meat by suggesting an "ethical court" be set up to try him.

Sheik al-Hilaly has called for a judge, two lawyers and two translators to form a court, which would listen to the recording of his Ramadan sermon.

He has said that he will retire from his position if the court finds him guilty of condoning rape or suggesting women are to blame for sexual assaults.

He has also said he will perform 600 hours of community service and wear masking tape over his mouth in public for six months as a penalty.  Read the full statement from the sheik here.

In his sermon at Friday prayers at the Lakemba mosque in Sydney's south-west, the sheik also called for nominations from other clerics for his role of mufti of Australia.

The sheik had earlier promised supporters a "knockout" at his sermon.

Thousands of the sheik's followers had been expected to gather outside the mosque after the sermon in a show of support, but only a few hundred have turned out. 

First off, his word is not worth much given his statement Monday and his coming back to preach again by Friday. The good sign here, I think, is that last sentence. Far fewer supporters showed up than were expected. It could well be that the community has had enough of the mufti and want him to go away.