Babe Loses Head

The Associated Press is quick to clear Paul Bunyan of the dirty deed, but Babe the Blue Ox has been decapitated.

KLAMATH, Calif. - Babe the Blue Ox has lost his head. Ax-wielding Paul Bunyan is not a suspect. The head fell off the 35-foot-tall statue of giant lumberjack Bunyan's mythical sidekick Tuesday, landing snout down on the pavement in the northern California town of Klamath.

Jeff LaForest, manager of the gift shop where the statue stands, says water was seeping inside the statue. That weakened the wood inside the structure and caused the collapse.

But was it really dry rot or did Paul Bunyan finally have enough of Babe's constant kibitzing? After all, the pair has stood in the same spot for more than 50 years. Tensions can build in that amount of time.

Giant statues of Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue ox guard the entrance of Trees of Mystery, as a midmorning crowd pours off the coast highway to embrace freaky Redwood hooha. Paul's right hand gives a continual sluggish wave as his breast-pocket loudspeaker greets all who enter in cheery lumberjack fashion. "Hiya, kids. Hi, folks."

Most of Paul's banter involves describing the clothes that people at his feet are wearing, so they don't think he's a recording. "Hello, there…you're wearing a blue sweatshirt! And the lady next to you is wearing a green jacket!" He'll also answer your size questions (Paul is 49 ft. tall, has a 24 ft. long ax, and 10 ft. high boots).

We suspect that the ox pushed his luck once too often and the large lumberjack snapped and swung his ax.

Betting On Losing

Even the New York Times is acknowledging that Democrats are having to tapdance with all their might to try to avoid the trap they set for themselves on Iraq. They bet heavily on an American defeat and now have to face the fact that the situation in Iraq is improving despite their efforts and pronouncements.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”

Unfortunately, they may already be hemmed in. A lot of what they have already said that is already on record will end up coming back to bite them. A lot of people have been pointing this out all along, of course, myself included. Back in April, Daniel Henninger of the Opinion Journal wrote:

Carried aloft on the gassy fumes of politics, the congressional Democrats may be overshooting on Iraq. Six months from now, they may wish they had been more temperate. Helped finally by the right U.S. military strategy, the Iraq nightmare might be ebbing. Then what?

No such thought intrudes today on Democratic politics. Buoyed by President Bush's 30-something approval and with disaffection over the war at 60%, Senate Majority Leader Reid can promise to sign on to Russ Feingold's pull-the-plug bill; and House Speaker Pelosi, as if making foie gras, can cram an Iraq-withdrawal bill down the gullets of her chamber's membership. The polls are with Harry and Nancy. What can go wrong?

What could go wrong is that the U.S. military's "surge" could go right. The surge, led by Gen. David Petraeus and formally known as the Baghdad Security Plan, is a real strategy being executed by real people on the ground in Iraq. For the past several months, since President Bush announced the plan, the Democratic leadership has acted as if this effort were so irrelevant as to not exist. Why bother? The House leadership has its own "surge" up and running in Washington against the enemy in the White House.

That was pretty much spot on. The Democrats bet the farm on defeat. If it does not happen - or if the Democrat's Congressional tactics end up causing a funding crisis just when things are going well, they just might get one big surprise next year. Riding a tiger is fairly straightforward in theory. The big problem with riding a tiger happens when you try to get off.

There Is Still Hope

A new independent poll in Venezuela shows that opposition to (T)Hugo Chavez's constitutional changes is growing and that more people oppose the changes than approve of them. There are still eight days to go until the referendum. But if Chavez does lose the referendum, it means that there is still hope for the people of Venezuela.

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has lost his lead eight days before a referendum on ending his term limit, an independent pollster said on Saturday, in a swing in voter sentiment against the Cuba ally.

Forty-nine percent of likely voters oppose Chavez's proposed raft of constitutional changes to expand his powers, compared with 39 percent in favor, a survey by respected pollster Datanalisis showed.

Just weeks ago, Chavez had a 10-point lead for his proposed changes in the OPEC nation that must be approved in a referendum, the polling company said.

Despite the swing, company head Luis Vicente Leon said he did not rule out a comeback by the popular president.

Chavez has trounced the opposition at the polls on average once a year and can deploy a huge state-backed machinery to get out the vote, Leon said.

Still, the survey was the latest blow to Chavez. He has suffered a series of defections over his plan, including an ex-defense minister who had restored him to power after a brief 2002 putsch but who called Chavez's reforms a new "coup."

There is the political machinery that Chavez has and there is always the possibility of chicanery at the polls as well, since Chavez essentially owns all of that infrastructure. But this is the first hopeful sign I have seen yet from Venezuela.

The Plot(s) Sicken

Good lord. The New York Post reports some poll results that should make thinking people very nervous.

November 24, 2007 — Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government had warnings about 9/11 but decided to ignore them, a national survey found.

And that's not the only conspiracy theory with a huge number of true believers in the United States.

The poll found that more than one out of three Americans believe Washington is concealing the truth about UFOs and the Kennedy assassination - and most everyone is sure the rise in gas prices is one vast oil-industry conspiracy.

Sixty-two percent of those polled thought it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials turned a blind eye to specific warnings of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Only 30 percent said the 9/11 theory was "not likely," according to the Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

I cannot find the poll itself. I'm hoping that the poll is just plain wrong here. It was bad last year, but this shows an enormous deterioration. This is madness writ large. Without the raw data from the poll, it is impossible to judge how good the poll results are or how much overlap there is in the groups of conspiracy theorists. I would like to see all that before I write anything further on this matter.

It’s The Courts, Stupid

James Taranto profiles one of Rudy Giuliani's key advisers, Ted Olson. Giuliani and Olson have been friends for decades and Olson is supporting Rudy for President. For some very good reasons: the courts and who will sit on the bench.

WASHINGTON–Rudy Giuliani doesn't always follow Ted Olson's advice. "I remember conversations with Rudy before he became mayor when he was thinking about running," Mr. Olson says. "I was asking him, 'Why in the world would you want to do this? A, you can't get elected. You're a Republican; it's New York City. And B, there's nothing that can be done about New York City. It's too big; the problems are too deeply engrafted onto the city; the city's in the grip of labor unions, crime, high taxes, heavy burdens. The city's a terrible place, and it's too big to govern.' "

Just as Mr. Olson was sure Mr. Giuliani couldn't get elected in New York because of his party, it has been a common assumption that the former mayor cannot win the Republican presidential nomination because of his liberal positions on social issues, particularly abortion and guns. Mr. Olson is one of the nation's top conservative lawyers, having represented President-elect Bush in Bush v. Gore and served as Mr. Bush's solicitor general. As chairman of Mr. Giuliani's Justice Advisory Committee, he intends to help the candidate defy conventional wisdom again.

Sitting in Mr. Olson's law office during our early-morning interview, I ask how his candidate can reassure social conservatives. Mr. Olson points to the judiciary: "Judges have taken some of those decisions off the policy table, taking them away from the people by constitutionalizing these issues. The only thing that someone elected president can do about those things is appoint good, solid judges who will act as judges–interpret the law, not make it up; not create new rights that weren't there in the Constitution. I am convinced . . . that Rudy knows how important it is to appoint the right kind of individuals as judges, and that he will do that."

Olson, you may recall, has a horribly personal take on the events of 9/11. His wife, Barbara, was on American Airlines Flight 77 when it was crashed into the Pentagon. So his connection to Rudy on fighting terror is very, very strong. So is his opinion of Giuliani's response to the events of that day.

If 9/11 was personally devastating for Mr. Olson, it was politically transformative for Mr. Giuliani. The mayor's calm in the face of catastrophe made him a national hero. As Time magazine put it in proclaiming him Person of the Year, "When the day of infamy came, Giuliani seized it as if he had been waiting for it all his life, taking on half a dozen critical roles and performing each masterfully."

Mr. Olson echoes the sentiment: "You can't prepare as a leader for something like that. You don't know what you're going to do. You don't know what you're going to be made of. His instincts were the kind of instincts that we need in a leader. He went to where the problem was. He understood what the people needed in terms of compassion, in terms of stability, in terms of determination, in terms of inspiration. 'We will fight back. We are New Yorkers. We will not be defeated. We are Americans.' Those are the things people needed to hear."

Regardless of who ultimately wins the Republican nomination, the main thing to remember is the courts. Obviously, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment as an individual right. Yet I am very nervous about how the court will rule on the District of Columbia v. Heller case. I would be more than just worried if the court was packed with left-leaning activist judges.

Remember, it's the courts. Don't be stupid and forget that.

A Right That Resides In Plain Sight

The Opinion Journal comes out again today with strong support for the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. There is no doubt where they stand on this issue. They use the words that form the title to this post in the first paragraph of the editorial.

The dispute arises from the first four words of the Second Amendment, the full text of which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the first two clauses were omitted, there would be no room for ambiguity. But part of the legal controversy has centered around what a "well regulated militia" means.

Judge Silberman's opinion argued, with convincing historical evidence, that the "militia" the Framers had in mind was not the National Guard of the present, but referred to all able-bodied male citizens who might be called upon to defend their country. The notion that the average American urbanite might today go to his gun locker, grab his rifle and sidearm and rush, Minuteman-like, to his nation's defense might seem quaint. But at stake is whether the "militia" of the Second Amendment is some small, discreet group of people acting under government control, or all of us.

The phrase "the right of the people" or some variation of it appears repeatedly in the Bill of Rights, and nowhere does it actually mean "the right of the government." When the Bill of Rights was written and adopted, the rights that mattered politically were of one sort–an individual's, or a minority's, right to be free from interference from the state. Today, rights are most often thought of as an entitlement to receive something from the state, as opposed to a freedom from interference by the state. The Second Amendment is, in our view, clearly a right of the latter sort.

This is so obvious that one hopes even a court can see it. The Bill of Rights does not detail the rights of the government but of the individual. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the right to free speech or the right of assembly dictates government privileges. Yet that is exactly the position that advocates for "collective" rights to gun ownership are doing when they argue that the word 'militia' in the Second Amendment denies the individual the right to keep and bear arms.

Voting In Tyranny

William Ratliff pens an op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times that looks at the developing dictatorship in Venezuela. He points out that (T)Hugo Chavez is using a mask of democracy to usher in his dictatorship. He starts by listing all the ways Venezuelan rights will be eliminated or severely curtailed by the changes Chavez is making, There is a cautionary tale here:

Why would Venezuelans vote to curtail their own liberties like this? First, because the people remember that previous governments failed to serve popular interests, while Chavez promises them perks, such as six-hour workdays, and redress of their grievances against domestic and foreign oppressors, including the United States.

Self-destructive voting also can be understood in the context of the region's centuries-old Indian-Iberian culture, which historically stresses a paternalistic relationship between rulers and people, even if this paternalism in reality serves the wishes of the few over the needs of the many……

…..By the time Chavez's supporters realize they've been sold a bill of goods, they may find themselves living under a system that allows no more freedom to choose than Fidel Castro has allowed in Cuba over the last half-century.

The Venezuelan experience demonstrates clearly that when voters' perspectives are incomplete and their passions are ripe for manipulation, popular democracy may not serve their interests, but instead may lead to their virtual enslavement. Venezuelans can still block this steamroller by rejecting the reforms. If they don't, by the time they wake up, it may be too late.

What is happening now in Venezuela is precisely what the founders of this nation feared. That is why this nation was intentionally organized as a constitutional republic. Ultimately, the former government of Venezuela was voted out by the people. They will find that they no longer have that ability once these changes are made by Chavez. But they will awaken too late.

No There Anywhere

Mark Steyn points out that the problem with the Republican presidential candidates is that there is so much diversity in their positions:

Rudy Giuliani was a brilliant can-do executive who transformed the fortunes of what was supposedly one of the most ungovernable cities in the nation. But on guns, abortion and almost every other social issue he's anathema to much of the party. Mike Huckabee is an impeccable social conservative but, fiscally speaking, favors big-government solutions with big-government price tags. Ron Paul has a long track record of sustained philosophically coherent support for small government but he's running as a neo-isolationist on war and foreign policy. John McCain believes in assertive American global leadership but he believes just as strongly in constitutional abominations like McCain-Feingold.

So if you're a pro-gun anti-abortion tough-on-crime victory-in-Iraq small-government Republican the 2008 selection is a tough call. Mitt Romney, the candidate whose (current) policies least offend the most people, happens to be a Mormon, which, if the media are to be believed, poses certain obstacles for elements of the Christian right.

This is why the Republican race is so wide-open, of course. There is so much diversity in the positions of the various candidates that it is hard to see clearly who is really ahead where - and why. No matter who wins the nomination in the end, some element of the base is going to be unhappy. Steyn also points out that the exact opposite problem exists for the Democrats: the candidates there are virtually indistinguishable:

Over on the Democratic side, meanwhile, they've got a woman, a black, a Hispanic, a preening metrosexual with an angled nape – and they all think exactly the same. They remind me of "The Johnny Mathis Christmas Album," which Columbia used to re-release every year in a different sleeve: same old songs, new cover. When your ideas are identical, there's not a lot to argue about except biography. Last week, asked about his experience in foreign relations, Barack Obama noted that his father was Kenyan, and he'd been at grade school in Indonesia. "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations," he said, "is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia." When it comes to foreign relations, he has more of them on his Christmas card list than Hillary or Haircut Boy.

That leaves us with absurd arguments on that side of the political divide. The debates degenerate into charge-countercharge over silly things. But there is no diversity in views. The candidates quibble over who has more experience when none of the experience the are sniping over really matters. They are in virtual lockstep over the big items. Steyn asks a question:

Let me ask a question of my Democrat friends: What does John Edwards really believe on Iraq? I mean, really? To pose the question is to answer it: There's no there there. In the Dem debates, the only fellow who knows what he believes and says it out loud is Dennis Kucinich. Otherwise, all is pandering and calculation. The Democratic Party could use some seriously fresh thinking on any number of issues – abortion, entitlements, racial preferences – but the base doesn't want to hear, and no viable candidate is man enough (even Hillary) to stick it to 'em. I disagree profoundly with McCain and Giuliani, but there's something admirable about watching them run in explicit opposition to significant chunks of their base and standing their ground. Their message is: This is who I am. Take it or leave it.

Both parties have strengths and weaknesses as a result of all this. There are huge differences in policy ideas on the Republican side, virtually guaranteeing that some base elements will be unhappy no matter who wins the nomination. But there is also an integrity there, the candidates are true to themselves because they have those strong policy beliefs. On the Democratic side there is a disheartening sameness, a cookie-cutter interchangeability between the candidates. That also leaves all of them prone to the same weaknesses. Hence they all waffle to some degree on many of the big issues that come up - like licenses for illegal immigration.

In the end, the voters will have to choose. I think integrity rings better with the average voter than opportunism.

Lessons From Flyover Country

Toby Harnden from the Telegraph just completed a road trip across America for that newspaper. (I've mentioned that before.) Today he sums up the experience and notes that there is a difference between what is taken as conventional wisdom by the political elites and the reality on the ground out in the heartland of America. Candidates from both parties need to read what Harnden writes today.

While we found many people who hated Mrs Clinton, those who loved her were few and far between. Certainly, many said they would vote for her, but the reasons cited tended to be her status as the top Democrat, the fact that she was battle-tested against Republicans and - for some women - the fact that she would be the first female president.

Such support might register in the opinion polls, but could melt away should the former First Lady lose in Iowa. And the frequently expressed nightmare for Democrats is that she will win their party's nomination but lose to a Republican next November when most Americans decide they don't much like her.

"I'm always amazed how we can screw things up," said Steve Ayers, a coffee-shop owner in Hannibal. "Maybe the way we screw it up this time is by nominating Hillary - across the Midwest that would be the only way of unifying Republicans."

Views about President George Bush ranged from vitriolic hostility to mild disappointment. But many seemed to view him as irrelevant in terms of the 2008 election, not least because no Republican candidate is trying to assume his mantle…….

……The great and the good of Washington decreed long ago that Mr Giuliani, who favours abortion and gay rights and has previously advocated gun controls, was too liberal to secure the Republican nomination. Not so in the flyover states, where in the post-9/11 world, defending America trumps everything else among conservatives.

"I have always admired Giuliani, especially after 9/11," said Grita Poehle, a German-born new citizen in San Diego. "If he can do for America what he did for New York, that would be good."

If there was a single message from Americans everywhere, however, it was that they cannot stand politicians. "They all lie all the time," stated the Hertz attendant at the airport in Wichita, Kansas. "The 2008 election? I wouldn't cross the road to vote anyone," vowed our waitress at the Village Inn in Casper, Wyoming.

Apart from the war on terror, the issue we were confronted by again and again was illegal immigration - a preoccupation of Democratic as well as Republican voters. "We did everything legally and so should they," said Ljiljana Zezelj, 38, a new citizen from Croatia. "Nothing will work in this country until we secure our borders," said Laura Dietz, a retiree in Phoenix, Arizona.

There is much more and I'd urge you to go read the whole thing. The point is that a lot of the conventional wisdom is generated cities far from the heartland. Much of that conventional wisdom bears little resemblance to the reality out in the middle of the country. Washington politicians tend to react to the loudest voices - but those strident, insistent voices don't really speak for most of the people. It is a good idea to keep that in mind.  

Howard Concedes

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has conceded the election to Kevin Rudd, accepting full responsibility for his party's defeat in the elections.

Mr Howard, who was seeking a fifth term after 11 years of conservative rule, said he had telephoned Labor leader Kevin Rudd to congratulate him on his victory.

"It has been an immense honour to be prime minister of Australia," he told supporters after election results showed a 6.3% swing to Labor.

"We bequeath to (Mr Rudd) a nation that is stronger and prouder and more prosperous than it was 11 and a half years ago," he declared.

Howard will be missed.