Friday, August 12, 2005
DIONNE'S WAFFLE HOUSE: It’s now a truism that the left’s only hope is the judiciary. The controversy over NARAL’s despicable anti-Roberts TV ad has revealed a new two-fold strategy: 1) character assassination conducted by hard-left groups, followed by 2) polite ho-humming from columnists who masquerade as moderates while effectively endorsing the viciousness of the original hit. Lenin had a phrase for these enablers: "useful idiots." This week E.J. Dionne volunteered for lap dog duty, actually laying the blame for NARAL’s venomous assault on … you guessed it: George W. Bush.Read more »
JIM CROW'S BACK: Imagine white racist citizens of a southern state using every means at their disposal to discourage law abiding black citizens from exercising their lawful right to vote. How would self-styled progressives respond? History tells us the answer. Genuine progressives — individuals committed to equal enforcement of the law and equal protection by the law — would stand up for justice as they did during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Four decades later, the battleground has shifted from Memphis to Michigan, and the radical left is proudly siding with a new generation of racists — this time with the support of state’s Democratic Party and Governor Jennifer Granholm.Read more »
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
HILLARY'S NEW PROBLEM: Just by showing up, Jeanine Pirro has severely complicated Clinton's life by many orders of magnitude. Pirro is pro-choice on abortion, moderate on gay rights, tough on law and order (pro-death penalty) and a believer in the free market. She's smart, sassy, tough, and articulate. In short, Pirro's a great New York candidate who forces Hillary to answer a question: To run for re-election or run directly for the White House? If Hillary stays in the Senate race, Pirro will make Hillary work hard to win re-election, when what Hillary needs is to save her money and powder for the presidential primaries. If Hillary returns to the Senate it will be by a close margin, and no doubt bruised. If Hillary decides to forego the Senate race, she thus loses the opportunity she needs to slowly keep moving toward the political center. She also loses a chance to look cagey about the White House over the next eighteen months. If Hillary drops out she'll look like she ran scared from a tough re-election battle. Hillary may be ahead of Pirro by a two-to-one margin, but that's with 30 percent of pro-Hillary voters saying they want her to promise to fill out her Senate term if re-elected. One downside for Pirro: Her husband had legal problems. But wait — didn't Hillary's husband also have some legal issues? Columnist Michael Goodwin is more optimistic about Hillary's Pirro problem.
Monday, August 08, 2005
THE UNBEARABLE LAMENESS OF BELAFONTE: In recent years Harry Belafonte has seemed determined to prove his strongest critics accurate when they say his reputation as a 20th century singer gives him no credibility to speak with intelligence about politics. That's putting it mildly. Belafonte consistently descends to Farrakhan depths of crudeness, invective and outright hatred whenever he is given a platform to opine about how "real blacks" (read: radical, left-wing, self-loathing, America-hating, Belafonte-like) are supposed to think, talk, and behave.Read more »
Sunday, August 07, 2005
THE ROBERTS KIDS: Drudge says the New York Times is questioning the "legality" of the Roberts adoptions. It's inconceivable to me that two lawyer parents of the Roberts' stature would risk their careers by skirting the law in adoption proceedings. If the Times has evidence, they should bring it forward. But if this is just a fishing exhibition, the Times will deserve the kind of backlash that nearly brought CBS News to its knees over the Bush memo forgery. If the Times is using the Roberts' adoption as a cover for its political crusade to bring down the Roberts nomination, I hope adopted children and adoptive parents throughout the nation will rise up and let the Times know they've gone down a very wrong and bad road. Disclosure: I have no personal experience with adoption. I'm not even sure I know any adopted kids or adoptive parents. But the thought that the Times might be conducting a witch hunt via these two small children is so far beyond the pale that I can't even find words. (Yes I can. It would be evil.)
SPECIES TRANSFER: As the Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection debate rolls on, I'm pleased to report that a major issue related to endangered species has been resolved. My son (age 6) and I were watching a movie featuring a talented skateboarding chimp. The flick was hilarious, heart-warming — all that good stuff. I turned to him and said, "Did you know that humans and chimps are closely related?" He gave me a look that made it clear there's more to the story than I realize. "Daddy, we used to be chimps." I paused and smiled. Before I knew what to say, he continued: "Hey, now I know why chimps are becoming endangered — they're all becoming humans!" Most the time I sense the opposite. That's probably species chauvinism, though it's an open question which species is being dissed.