The Occasional Observer

First, from David Brooks at the NYT, who sums up the speech and the generally positive reactions that followed:

[Mitt] argued that beneath the differences among America’s denominations there is a common creed, a conception of a moral order described in the Declaration of Independence, and lived out during the high points in the nation’s history. He recounted Sam Adams’s plea for unity in a time of crisis, and how his own father’s commitment to the basic American creed caused him to march with Martin Luther King Jr.

From Neuhaus, Romney borrowed the conviction that faith is under assault in America — which is the unifying glue of social conservatism. He argued that the religious have a common enemy: the counter-religion of secularism.

He insisted that the faithful should stick stubbornly to their religions, as he himself sticks to the faith of his fathers. He insisted that God-talk should remain a vibrant force in the public square and that judges should be guided by the foundations of their faith. He lamented the faithlessness of Europe and linked the pro-life movement to abolition and civil rights, just as evangelicals do.

It is not always easy to blend an argument for religious liberty with an argument for religious assertiveness, but Romney did it well. Yesterday, I called around to many of America’s serious religious thinkers — including moderates like Richard Bushman of Columbia, and conservatives like Neuhaus and Robert George of Princeton. Everyone I spoke with was enthusiastic about the speech, some of them wildly so.

Here's more. First, the conservatives:

Noonan (largely positive)
Cost (mixed to negative)
Lowry (positive)
Parker (positive)

Liberals:

Kusnet, TNR (negative)
BloGlo editorial (negative: surprise, surprise)
Dionne (mixed)

...and he loved what he heard. I haven't heard his speech yet, only excerpts, but from what I understand it was even better than people expected it to be. We'll see how this translates in Iowa.

This story, that Huckabee had more commutations and pardons combined than the neighboring 6 states, might play right into Rudy's hands in particular. Rudy can play up his outspoken defense of NYPD in the face of assault after assault from liberal MSM, and then attempt to paint Huckabee as soft on crime. Not sure how much this will resonate with Republican base, though, and whether Rudy and others will be successful in suggesting that a soft record on crime will translate into a soft policy on national defense.

Here's an update on the story that baffled me yesterday.

Washington County District Attorney Todd Martens said the comment left by James Buss was offensive and disgusting, but was protected speech under the state and U.S. constitutions...

Martens said he could not charge Buss with a crime because the blog was not likely to incite "imminent lawless action." He said it was unclear whether the comment advocated violence against teachers, and even if it did, its language was not likely to incite others to act...

Police had asked the district attorney to charge Buss with disorderly conduct and unlawful use of computerized communications systems. But bloggers and free speech advocates had called on him to drop the case.

Which gets back to the question of, was this a lawful arrest? I'm surprised the police would arrest someone in their home, who is not an imminent threat to anyone (a point now confirmed by the DA), in a case where it is likely that "probable cause" never existed in the first place. At a minimum, the A/O would have been wise to seek an arrest warrant just for CYA. I wouldn't be surprised to see the West Bend PD getting sued.

smart, and a man who knows how to put in a good smoking effort.

Way to go, Muggsy. Hope you enjoy watching the dissidents continue their death rattle over the next few years...

Republican Candidates

12/05/07 (since 10/5/07)
Rudy 17% (-2%)
Huck 20% (+14%)
Fred 10% (-11%)
McCn 13% (+2%)
Mitt 13% (-3%)

From the "something to do while you're bored at work" file, let's play: "YOU GUESS THE CANDIDATE"! Can you spot a dime's worth of difference?

Below are the unlabeled opinions of Huck, Rudy, McCain, Fred & Mitt, taken directly from the issues pages of their respective campaign websites. First, let's see if you can identify who is who (not sure if I could have). Then, let me know who makes the most sense to you, or if they're all exactly the same.

Quote #1:

...America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America's weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities...

...As President, Candidate1 will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.

Candidate1 believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and teach the doctrine of hatred and despair.

As President, Candidate1 will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong - an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

Quote 2:

Candidate2 believes winning the war on terror is the great responsibility of our generation. America cannot afford to go back to the days of playing defense, with inconsistent responses to terrorist attacks, because weakness only encourages aggression. Americans want peace. We’re at war not because we want to be, but because the terrorists declared war on us—well before the attacks of September 11th. Candidate2 understands that freedom is going to win this war of ideas. America will win the war on terror.

Quote 3:

I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life... I will fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves.

The top priority of the president as Commander in Chief is first and foremost protecting our own citizens...

While I prefer America to be safe and secure within her own borders rather than loved and appreciated abroad, I believe we can accomplish both goals...

...As president, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might...

...It's an enemy conducive to being tracked down and eliminated by using the CIA and the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command. We can accomplish a great deal, we can achieve tremendous bang for the buck, with swift, surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units, working with friendly governments, as we've done with the Ethiopians in Somalia. These operations are impossible without first-rate intelligence. When the Cold War ended, we cut back on our human intelligence, just as we cut back on our armed forces, and both have come back to haunt us. As President, I will beef up our human intelligence capacity, both the operatives who gather information and the analysts who figure out what it means...

...The long-term solution to terror is to empower moderates in the region. My goal in the Middle and Near East is to correctly calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy... First, we have to destroy the terrorists who already exist, then we have to attack the underlying conditions that breed terror, by creating schools that offer an alternative to the extremist madrassas that take impressionable children and turn them into killers, by creating jobs and opportunity and hope, by encouraging a free press and other institutions that promote democracy...

...If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force...

Our current armed forces aren't large enough...

Quote 4:

The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people, the homeland, and our way of life. Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan—the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America - or an America that appears weaker - will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere. As Commander-in-Chief, the president must ensure the United States has the means to achieve victory. Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it. I am committed to:

-A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests...
-An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation.
-A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from.
-A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests.
-A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.

Quote 5:

Radical Islam has one goal: to replace all modern Islamic states with a worldwide caliphate while destroying the United States and converting all nonbelievers, forcibly if necessary, to a fundamentalist form of Islam.

Merely closing our eyes and hoping that Jihadism will go away is not an acceptable solution. U.S. military action alone cannot change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims. In the end, only Muslims themselves can defeat the violent radicals. But we must work with them. The consequences of ignoring this threat – such as a radicalized Islamic actor possessing nuclear weapons – are simply unacceptable.

To meet today's challenges, we must mobilize and integrate all elements of national power in unstable areas where traditional civilian agencies cannot operate effectively and traditional military power alone cannot succeed.

Create A Special Partnership Force (SPF). The SPF will integrate all elements of national power under a new force with leadership drawn from a core group of our Army Special Forces trained to work with civilian governments and intelligence personnel to form a new capability that is:

-Focused on locally-targeted efforts to win support in the community while identifying, isolating and eliminating terrorist elements.
-Highly integrated and able to mobilize all elements of national power, including humanitarian and development assistance and rule of law capacity building.
-Closely coordinated in partnership with local governments.
-Intelligence driven.
-Agile and flexible in its operations.
-A sustainable effort in contested areas and sanctuaries of Jihadist groups.

Launch A New Type Of Marshall Plan Unifying Nonmilitary Sources Of Power To Support Moderate Muslims. As President, Governor Romney will call together our Middle East allies and the major nations of the developed world to establish a "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity."

This Partnership will assemble the resources of all developed nations to assure that threatened Islamic states have public schools, micro-credit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic health care, and competitive economic policies. Resources would be drawn from public and private institutions, and from volunteers and NGOs.

Strengthen Global Alliances. The failure of efforts such as the United Nations Human Rights Council has given multilateralism a bad name. America’s strength is amplified when it is combined with the strength of other nations.

Finally, from Ron Paul (you'd have guessed it anyway):

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Hyperlinks (don't look till you've logged your guesses):

Candidate1
Candidate2
Candidate3
Candidate4
Candidate5

Don't know if you caught this story:

Buss, a former president of the teacher's union, allegedly wrote that teacher salaries made him sick because they are lazy and work only five hours a day. He praised the teen gunmen who killed 12 students and a teacher before committing suicide in the April 1999 attack at Columbine High School.

"They knew how to deal with the overpaid teacher union thugs. One shot at a time!" he wrote, adding they should be remembered as heroes.

The comment disturbed at least one teacher, who called police in West Bend, 40 miles north of Milwaukee and home of the blog's administrator. Police traveled to arrest Buss at his home in Cudahy, south of Milwaukee, last week after the blogger gave them the anonymous poster's IP address.

After his arrest, Buss spent an hour in the Washington County jail before he was released on $350 bail. He did not return phone messages and e-mails seeking comment, and it was unclear whether he had a lawyer.

Washington County District Attorney Todd Martens is considering whether to charge Buss with disorderly conduct and unlawful use of computerized communication systems.

OK, first for my procedural beef here. Maybe it's just b/c I'm familiar with NY and not with WI procedure, but how can this guy be released on bail if there are no charges yet filed? Wouldn't he have to have been arraigned to be released on bail? Also, wouldn't the police need an arrest warrant (and hence the DA's cooperation) to arrest a man in his home when there were no exigent/emergency circumstances (i.e., the post didn't say, "I'm going to shoot those teachers in 2 hours")?

Now to the more substantive issue: what the heck? No one who knows me will confuse me with an anti-police lefty, but (I can't believe I'm saying this) this case almost makes me glad the ACLU is out there. OK, not really. Can't overlook all the other sins of the organization, but this is a truly disturbing arrest.

In the daily national GOP tracking poll, Huckabee has caught Giuliani and is now tied for the #1 spot. Whether Huck's recent spike proves to be lasting or short lived, nobody knows. But his rise has been shocking. Especially to the Giuliani camp, who was rooting Huck on as the candidate likely to trip up Mitt and leave a wide opening for Hizzoner. Well, I'm guessing they're starting to sweat now.

For a little more context on just how important today's poll could be, and how dominant Rudy had been, let me throw a few numbers at you:

# of polls included in the RCP tracker (starting 1/1/07)for the GOP race (national): 163

# of polls showing Rudy leading: 151

# of consecutive polls Rudy had led before being tied by Huck today: 34 (dating back to 9/24/07)

# of polls showing McCain leading: 1
# of polls showing McCain/Rudy tie: 1
# of polls showing Fred leading: 8
# of polls showing a Fred/Rudy tie: 1

And now, # of polls showing a Huck/Rudy tie: 1

Huck is certainly peaking at the right time, with less than 1 month to Iowa (where he is also leading in the polls as per the RCP average).

And a particularly grotesque example thereof. Especially in light of the Rep. Foley and Sen. Craig scandals that took place recently and the whirlwind of attention they both received. In terms of depravity and criminality, this episode probably falls somewhere in between the previous two. Rep. Foley personally placed young adults that were in his charge into danger. Sen. Craig was involved in consensual activities with other adults, though they were depraved. He made an arse out of himself and should have had enough shame to resign.

The current case, involving Sen. Cantwell's scheduling aide Mike McHaney, are scandalous and perhaps worse than Rep. Foley's, in that it was a boy and not just a young adult involved. Of course, Maria Cantwell can say that it wasn't her, "just a staffer," which is why she won't get burned as bad as Foley.

Of course since she's a Dem, she probably won't get burned at all. No questions for the Senator that a Republican in a similar circumsatnce would get. Questions like:

"What did you know and when did you know it?"

"Did Mr. McHaney quit on Friday, 11/30, or was he fired? Isn't it a bit coincidental that his employment ceased 3 days before being arrested?"

"If your office knew of his malfeasance, why was said information not passed on to the authorities?"

Perhaps there are legitimate answers here, but if it were a Republican, you at least know the hard questions would be getting asked. Other than Drudge, I haven't seen hide nor hair of this one in the MSM. Having looked on the front pages at CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times, and the politics page at the Slimes, I've uncovered zero mentions.