California Burning

A couple updates. I had a commenter ask why And Still I Persist was offline - if the fires had damaged something. I emailed Bruce Webster. It is a server problem that he is working on. That's good news. Meanwhile, Lex took his family and evacuated - even though he was not under a mandatory order.

Ensconced ourselves - rather informally, from the standpoint of military regulation - at my working digs, the place being otherwise vacant what with orders keeping all but “critical personnel” at home. Our boss told us the work wasn’t going anywhere, take care of family - good man himself.

The work place seemed as likely as any - I’m pretty much the HMFWIIC of the building I occupy, and we slept unmolested after a brief stop by McP’s in Coronado for comestibles. Your correspondent being more in need of strength than nurture took his refreshment courtesy of the gentlemen from Saint Jame’s Gate (and many thanks to occasional reader Bryan who threw a preemptive fin in the tin, for to help in the paying of it). Didn’t have the heart to bear with sleeping on a gym floor among a cast of thousands, but the office floor wasn’t so very much better - apart from the fact that the gentle exhalations of those sleeping around me were familiar to me. Note to those who follow after: If you’re going to bring the family cat, bring the litter box. Otherwise the little beasts will make do.

His post is updated. So far, he and his family are safe and well.

How To Win

I have seen a few items about this pop up today, but waited a bit to post about it. Is a serious dislike of Hillary Clinton enough to head her off in the presidential race? A lot of smart people think that it is not - most definitely.

That wasn’t the limit of the Hillary effect. The National Republican Senatorial Committee saw its donations surge when it asked supporters to banish the Clintons from Washington once and for all. By the middle of 2000, the committee raised $20 million, twice as much as it had raised in 1998 and triple what it raised in 1996. “She’s now the Republican Party’s No. 1 fundraiser,” said a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee to a reporter from The Hill.

It was a simpler time. This past July, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out a “quiz” to donors that warned, “Hillary Clinton is calling Senate Democrats to push a passage of measures to institute government-run healthcare.” Imagine, a President Hillary Clinton with a massive Senate majority to do her bidding! But appeals like that have done nothing for the NRSC: their Democratic counterparts have out-raised them by $34.1 to $18.1 million. The month of the quiz letter, the Democrats beat them by $2.7 to $2.2 million.

It’s the same story in the presidential race. Since the start of the year, the nine remaining Republican candidates have raised about $104 million. The Democrats, including Clinton, have raised $144.3 million. When John McCain campaign manager Rick Davis sent out an 11th-hour fundraising e-mail, he played what he thought was his strongest card: “There are many reasons to support John McCain, but as we approach this quarter’s fundraising deadline Saturday at midnight, let me remind you of just one of them: John McCain is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton.” That was the prelude to a weak finance report and a staff purge that completed McCain’s descent to hobbled dark horse.

And those efforts have been absolute triumphs compared to the third-party anti-Hillary efforts and PACs. The first sign that conservative donors were growing less animated about the Clintons was the launch of Stop Her Now in February 2005. Republican strategist Arthur Finkelstein planned on raising $10 million for a campaign along the lines of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 2004 group that raised $27 million to attack John Kerry’s Vietnam service and his homeland antiwar activism.

Finkelstein failed. The group recorded a radio ad that was never broadcast and from its founding through June 2005, reported only one $500 donation. Over the next year, Clinton glided to her Senate re-election as the group raised only $25,000, and she out-raised her opponent by nearly ten to one.

As David Weigel notes in the title of his article (worth reading the whole thing) it takes more than a dislike of Hillary Clinton to win: it takes an agenda. Some others who have weighed in have good points. James Joyner:

While negative campaigning and pointing out the weaknesses of one’s opponent can be quite effective, there hasn’t been a presidential election in my lifetime decided on that basis. (Off the top of my head, I can’t think of an example of that happening, period.) Drawing a contrast with Hillary Clinton will be effective in mobilizing the base. But Republicans won’t keep the White House if they don’t inspire the public with a positive agenda of their own. (His update addresses criticism from Kevin Drum and is worth reading just for itself. It pretty much proves the point.)

McQ at QandO:

I'm betting Republicans, regardless of how much they have to hold their nose, end up deciding that half a loaf is better than none. They know 50% of voters have said they won't vote for her. But I think they'll also know that they have to show up to make that enough to keep her out of the White House. And I think they will.

And BitsBlog:

I was about to say the reverse in the defeat of Carter… Negative campaigning was huge in Regan’s victory… the difference being it was negatives he didn’t have to spout… the American people decided on those negatives themselves… 21% inflation, Iran Hostages, gas lines, interest rates through the ceiling and the economy in the WC.

I think that the polls already indicate that a lot of Americans do not like Hillary Clinton. So that is already a huge hit against her. But the fact remains that without a real agenda to make people want to get out and vote, negatives are not enough. And there are real, good agendas the Republicans can use. Regardless of who wins the nomination, Fred Thompson's immigration plan is a political winner when more than 2/3 of voters are in favor of closing the borders. A high fence and a wide gate is a real vote getter. With a good agenda and a loathed opponent, all things are possible. Add to that a coattail effect and this election may not turn out the way the media is already pimping it. After all, Charlie Cook is worried.

Comment Spam

A couple of changes to the way the blog works for commenters need to be noted. First, comments are now closed after a week - that is fairly liberal compared to some sites, pretty harsh compared to others. But for the most part, the vast majority of comments are placed within a few days. (I may have to revise that downwards if the spam continues at the current levels. It is pretty bad right now.) This measure is to cut down the blog's target for the spammers. Also the spam filters are set to "vicious" and a lot of people are being sent to the spam queue. I try to rescue regulars' comments if I find them before the automatic flush date. I may or may not be successful every time.

When Pandas Go Bad

Well, we try to warn people about the true nature of animals. Particularly the ones that people think are "cute." The cute ones are usually hiding something evil behind that cuddly camouflage. Last year, Gu Gu the panda proved our point by trying to eat a drunk. As we warned then, Gu Gu had obviously developed a taste for human flesh. Guess what? We were, as usual, right.

He may look cute and cuddly but Gu Gu is out for revenge.

The eight year old giant panda was startled last year when a drunken tourist jumped into his pen and bit him on the back.

So this week, when a second tourist tried to join him in his pen, he took no chances and savaged the visitor - a teenage boy - by ripping flesh off his legs.

The 15-year-old boy, believed to be called Li Xitao, jumped over the 4ft 7in barrier to the panda enclosure "out of curiosity" at Beijing Zoo on Monday afternoon.

However, the startled 240lb panda responded by biting his unwanted visitor on both legs.

Emergency medical officials said the teenager was so viciously attacked, his bones were showing and chunks of flesh were left behind in the ambulance.

Oh, it's not like the evidence hasn't been there all along. One of our operatives took this picture of Gu Gu in his enclosure with one of his keepers.

(unaltered photo by Lightmatter)

Global Warming Causes Stupid Politicians

Harry Reid has succeeded in making an even bigger ass out of himself than usual. First, he tried to blame the wildfires in southern California on global warming - then, when a reporter called him on it, he denied saying it. In the same press conference only a few minutes after announcing it.

After a closed door policy meeting with other Senate Democrats, Majority Leader and utter buffoon Harry Reid of Nevada took to the microphones just outside the floor of the United States Senate, and fielded questions. 

In response to a question on the energy bill, Reid said the following:

As you know, one reason that we have the fires burning in Southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado Basin is going dry is because of global warming.

Six questions later, a reporter followed up on Reid's amazing statement.

Question: Senator, on the California fires, you said that the reason the fires are burning in California is global warming?

Reid: No. Here's what I - I didn't say the reason the fires were burning in Southern California was global warming…

First, Reid is an idiot because tried to use global warming as a prop in a current news story in order to advance his energy bill agenda.  When called on it, he denied he said it.  It's on tape.  You can listen to it here.

As Duane Patterson points out, San Diego is - and always has been - a desert. Remember, people move there because it is always so nice and sunny. If it's always nice and sunny it isn't raining. And it does not rain to speak of in San Diego. The average annual precipitation is less than 12 inches - and there is virtually none - ever - in the summer. San Diego has also seen explosive growth with more and more houses built in areas where the fires used to rage and just burn brush. The Santa Ana winds blow every single year and there are always fires.

Snooper at Take Our Country Back asks:

So now that Reid has publicly raised the global warming specter…that is, before he lowered it again in classic John Kerry fashion, it makes you wonder what's worse for Harry Reid's environment? Letting the fires burn, or polluting the ozone with all the hydrocarbons that come out of the exhaust of the DC-10's and helicopters that are frantically dropping water and fire retardant on the hot spots? Should Reid be calling for the removal of the firefighting from the air in order to minimize the footprint the fires are already putting in the air and remain consistent with his radical environmentalism?

It's official: global warming hysteria causes politicians like Harry Reid to go into negative numbers on their IQs.

If You Thought Flaming Squirrels Were Bad…..

….Wait until you hear what the Animal Uprising™ has unleashed against the electrical infrastructure now. Drunken elephants.

GAUHATI, India - Six Asiatic wild elephants were electrocuted as they went berserk after drinking rice beer in India's remote northeast, a wildlife official said Tuesday.

Nearly 40 elephants came to a village on Friday looking for food. Some found beer, which farmers ferment and keep in plastic and tin drums in their huts, said Sunil Kumar, a state wildlife official.

The elephants apparently decided that a utility pole would be a fun thing to play with and took it down. The wires, of course, also came along.

Will Pelosi and Reid Cost The Dems The White House?

The media-pushed, nutroots endorsed, conventional wisdom is that Republicans are doomed in 2008. Unfortunately, Charlie Cook is convinced that the antics in Congress could cost the Dems the White House.

Cook criticizes Congressional Democrats for scheduling a vote on the Armenian genocide resolution, then pulling it from consideration. He says that it highlights the weakness of Democrats on foreign policy issues. He then says:

It is important to remember that the Democrats' only presidential victories since 1976 were in 1992 and 1996; the first two elections after the Iron Curtain fell and the Cold War was over. At that point, the foreign policy aspect of the presidency was pretty much discounted, and Democrats nominated Bill Clinton, widely considered to be a moderate.

While many voters might disagree with the Bush administration on foreign policy issues, it doesn't mean Democrats get a free pass. They have to be very careful…

But the important takeaway is that while Republicans might not be a credible threat in terms of recapturing majorities in the House or Senate, congressional Democrats should still be more concerned about the consequences of their actions on their party's chances of winning the White House next year.

Voters seem angry enough at Republicans today to take the presidency away from them, but putting a Democrat into the post can't be seen as a risk.

Cook is right, but the question of the Armenian genocide is the minor one; the real question is whether Democrats will be seen as credible on national security. If the situation in Iraq continues to improve, some swing voters will reconsider how much might have been lost by the precipitous withdrawal pushed by Democrats.

There have been more missteps than that. Pelosi's trip to Syria to gladhand with a dictator who just happens to have been running a secret nuclear program doesn't look good, either. People remember things like that. The Stark incident made the Democrats look unhinged. People remember that, too. Harry Reid's rapidly eroding support back home is a leading indicator that all is not well with the electorate and that the Dems in Congress may, indeed, hurt themselves.

No Reason At All

I have said for a long time that there is no reason at all why this nation cannot have both good border security and a liberal immigration policy. I have also said that if the border is secured, a lot of other things can be worked out. Apparently, Fred Thompson feels the same way.

Thompson’s two-pronged plan, which can be found in its entirety at www.fred08.com, is based on two principles: Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law, and Improving the Legal Immigration Process.

Here's the bullet points on enforcement:

• No Amnesty. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States.
• Attrition through Enforcement. Adding “at least 25,000 agents” to the Border Patrol and doubling the number of ICE agents.
• Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Rejecting sanctuary cities by cutting federal discretionary funds to states and local governments that ignore existing immigration laws.
• Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Require U.S. employers to use the E-Verify system to determine if a person can legally work here.
• Bolster Border Security. Finish building the wall along our border.
• Increased Prosecution. Go after coyotes, alien gang members, and criminals.
• Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking.

What's important here is that Thompson also has plans to make it easier for legal immigrants to get here and become Americans. The entire plan is here. This is a realistic platform that could be a real winner for the Republicans. 70% or so of all Americans want the borders secured. This kind of a sensible plan could draw a lot of votes.

Nutroots Meltdown Alert

AllahPundit reports that Representative Pete Stark has apologized to President Bush and to his colleagues for the deranged rant he put on last week. This after a censure motion from John Boehner was voted down.

That was enough for Pelosi, evidently: after he initially refused to apologize, after the fight-fight-fightin’ nutroots very predictably made it a point of pride that he not apologize, the good congressman has duly considered the Speaker’s rebuke from Friday and … apologized.

Too little, too late. But as Allah points out, this should send the nutroots into full frothing rage mode. He anticipates a good deal of viciousness. Get out the popcorn.

Close Encounters Of The Kookoo Kind

According to longtime friend Shirley MacLaine, Dennis Kucinich Had an encounter with a UFO and received directions from the craft.

"Dennis found his encounter extremely moving," MacLaine writes. "The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him.

"It hovered, soundless, for 10 minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."

Poor Dennis. With friends like Shirley, he isn't exactly a shoo-in for the presidency, is he? We haven't the heart to tell him that what he encountered was not a UFO. It was actually Uncle Guido with his home built hovercraft. And Dennis misunderstood. He wasn't being given direction from the craft. Guido was asking for directions. Here's Guido on a test flight.

A Derailment On The Way To The Trainwreck

The Hill is on a roll today. They have another article about the way Nancy Pelosi keeps getting shot in the foot - by members of her own party. Mind you, she takes aim at her own foot often enough as it is, so things like Pete Stark's foolishly incendiary comments during the SCHIP debate really don't help much.

Last week’s vote on overriding President Bush’s children’s health insurance veto should have been a brief respite from a pretty tough week for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

After being forced to back away from votes on Armenian genocide and intelligence surveillance law, she could watch Republicans stick with an unpopular president on an unpopular position.

But when Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) fired off a comment about troops being sent to Iraq “to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement,” Pelosi saw her message machine hop the rails.

It’s a situation that’s played itself out with surprising regularity — usually on YouTube — since Democrats took over earlier this year.
There was House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey’s (D-Wis.) dressing-down of a Marine Corps mom about war funding, shouting in a Rayburn Building hallway about “idiot liberals.” Obey later apologized.

Then Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) threatened the spending earmarks of a member who questioned the millions Murtha was sending to a drug intelligence center in his district. Murtha later apologized.

Then Republicans succeeded in getting floor votes on whether Democratic lawmakers would publicly condemn an ad by the liberal group MoveOn.org calling Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us.”

Republicans gleefully posted these moments on YouTube and each was relentlessly flogged by the Republican leadership through websites, e-mails and media appearances.

For example, when Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) lined up on CNN with House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) on healthcare, Putnam changed the topic to whether Clyburn should apologize for  Stark.

“The Republican leadership has been very clever,” said John Feehery, a regular contributor to The Hill’s Pundits Blog who was a communications aide to Republican leaders while they were in power. “They’ve drawn Nancy Pelosi into these debates by demanding that she apologize.”

In other words, they've been successfully using the exact same tactics the Democrats used against a Republican majority. And they have learned the power of the YouTube moment. Paybacks aren't much fun when you're on the receiving end, are they?

Pelosi Worried

If you only take one thing away from this article in The Hill, it should be that Nancy Pelosi is very, very worried about the possibility of an anti-incumbent wave from the electorate come November, 2008.

Nearly one year after recapturing control of Congress, House Democratic leaders will embark on a publicity blitz starting in November to combat a dismal 25 percent approval rating.

Democratic leadership aides huddled with rank-and-file chiefs of staff, legislative directors and press secretaries on Monday to persuade them to do more to promote a positive message. Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, and Mike McCurry, one of President Bill Clinton’s former press secretaries, also were on hand to press for a concerted effort.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent last week to lawmakers, the six senior House Democratic leaders noted that bipartisan majorities have passed lobbying and ethics reforms, an increase in the minimum wage, a massive increase in student aid, legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations and other initiatives that President Bush has signed into law.

Democratic leaders want the rank and file to do more to publicize those details, because they are concerned that the public is unaware of those accomplishments and that it will become more difficult to hype their message as the presidential race further dominates the news.

Those leaders expect their members to hold more press conferences and town hall meetings, send out more franked mail and develop better online strategies. Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is expected to keep tabs on which Democrats are doing their part to play up their record, leadership aides said.

Pelosi knows how badly Congress is polling at the moment and support for some Democratic politicians is tanking back home. If Harry Reid was running next year, he'd already be in deadly serious trouble. A special election in Massachusetts showed just how vulnerable the Democrats are to a strong challenge. So the Democrats will try this PR blitz, the Republicans will push just as hard to run against a do-nothing Congress. It is going to be a long year.

Discovery About To Launch

Space shuttle Discovery is about five miunutes from launch. NASA shuttle site is here.

The Terrible Turkeys Of Terror Return

Last year we reported on the terrible turkeys that terrorized Brookline, Massachusetts, pecking and chasing people and stealing lunch money from children. Well, guess what? They're baaaaaack.

BROOKLINE - On a recent afternoon, Kettly Jean-Felix parked her car on Beacon Street in Brookline, fed the parking meter, wheeled around to go to the optician and came face to face with a wild turkey.

The turkey eyed Jean-Felix. Jean-Felix eyed the turkey. It gobbled. She gasped. Then the turkey proceeded to follow the Dorchester woman over the Green Line train tracks, across the street, through traffic, and all the way down the block, pecking at her backside as she went.

"This is so scary," Jean-Felix said, finally taking refuge inside Cambridge Eye Doctors in Brookline's bustling Washington Square. "I cannot explain it."

Notify the neighbors: The turkeys are spreading through suburbia. Wild turkeys, once eliminated in Massachusetts, are flourishing from Plymouth to Concord and - to the surprise of some wildlife officials - making forays into densely populated suburban and urban areas, including parts of Boston, Cambridge and, most recently, Brookline.

Turkey stalkers are making suburban life into a living hell. The authorities are, as usual, useless. Their advice: stay away from the turkeys. This is, of course, impossible when the turkeys charge, demanding food, money or a date. (Turkeys are extremely rude that way.) The biggest problem is going to be mistaken identity. If the police do finally intervene and respond to a turkey call, they might mistakenly grab and incarcerate a politician.

Wait. That's not a bad thing.

Losing The Courts, Part 2

Gary McDowell has an op-ed over at the Opinion Journal that reminds us of the way the confirmation hearings for Judge Robert H. Bork fundamentally changed the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices. Not in a good way, either. Opponents of Bork rallied against him because he did not believe in legislation by judicial fiat.

It was immediately clear that the unprecedented vote of 58-42 against his confirmation reflected something far more historic and fundamental than an ordinary partisan standoff. The confrontation in fact had been one of the most cataclysmic and divisive events in American domestic politics during the second half of the 20th century. The reason was that Mr. Bork's opponents succeeded in making the fight over his nomination into a contest over the future of the Constitution.

The issue that united the judge's critics in their fiery, scorched-earth opposition was never his ability or reputation but rather his theory of judging. Mr. Bork's belief was that judges and justices in their interpretations of the Constitution must be bound to the original intentions of its framers. In his sober constitutional jurisprudence there was no room for any airy talk about a general right of privacy, allegedly unwritten constitutions, vague notions of unenumerated rights, or what the progressive Justice Black once derided as "any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept." For Mr. Bork, the framers said what they meant, and meant what they said.

Mr. Bork's approach had its roots in hundreds of years of common law history as well as in the political philosophy of those whose works serve as the foundation of American constitutionalism. Chief Justice John Marshall had summed up that received tradition when he proclaimed that recourse to a lawgiver's original intention is "the most sacred rule of interpretation." In Marshall's view, it is always "the great duty of a judge who construes an instrument . . . to find the intention of its makers." As with Marshall, so also with Mr. Bork.

The 2008 election is about much, much more than the presidency. It is about the future of the courts. After what was done to Bork, conservatives should be aware that while it is difficult for a Republican president to get good nominees into the Federal courts, it is still worth fighting for. Losing the courts for a generation or more would be a disaster.