Will Alabama Democrat Parker Griffith Be RINO?

This post is updated, here: "Parker Griffith, a Blame America Democrat, to Face Conservative Primary Challenge."

**********

Everyone's getting all excited about Alabama Representative Parker Griffith. A first-term Democrat, Griffith has announced he's switching parties. Griffith serves Alabama's 5th congressional, and by changing parties he'll "become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district."

But what matters is the voting, naturally. A 5th district voter e-mailed Michelle Malkin with this warning:

Michelle,

Parker Griffith DOES NOT passionately oppose government health care takeover. He voted for SCHIP, and you should have seen his campaign commercials – every one of them spoke of health care for all! He only changed his tune once the backlash for his vote for Pelosi as Speaker and the huge turn in local public opinion against government health care set in. You should have seen us at the April 15th Tea Party in Huntsville.

I live in Huntsville. I voted for Wayne Parker, a conservative Republican. I was sad to see that a Republican has never been elected to represent our congressional district. Griffith changing his party does not necessarily mean that it is a win for conservatives. He is a chameleon and afraid of losing his seat in ‘10 to true conservatives. Give Mo Brooks or Les Philip a ring – two leading conservatives who will challenge him in the next election.

I agree this is a blow to the Democrats, but whether or not it will be a true win for conservatives remains to be seen. We deserve someone who is solidly conservative (not just when to polls tell them to be) – and honest!

Your humble admirer and loyal reader,

Rebecca H.

No matter. Griffith obviously feels extremely vulnerable serving in the party of tyranny (Obama-Reid-Pelosicrats). I doubt he'll be the only congressional Democrat to change sides. But conservatives want the real thing, not RINOs. Griffith's going to have to demonstrate some bona fides in 2010, or a party switch won't preempt a primary challenge from a true limited government candidate.

Voters Oppose ObamaCare

Two related pieces on the totalitarianism of ObamaCare.

First, from Quinnipiac, "U.S. Voters Oppose Health Care Plan By Wide Margin, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Say 3-1, Plan Should Not Pay For Abortions":

As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters "mostly disapprove" of the plan 53 - 36 percent and disapprove 56 - 38 percent of President Barack Obama's handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters also oppose 72 - 23 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

American voters also disapprove 51 - 44 percent of President Obama's handling of the economy and disapprove 56 - 37 percent of the way he is creating jobs. But voters favor 52 - 42 percent his plan to use $200 billion left over from the bank bailout for a new stimulus package to create jobs rather than to reduce the budget deficit.

Only 31 percent of voters say Obama's policies will help their personal financial situation, while 37 percent say his policies will hurt and 30 percent say his policies will make no difference. Among voters in households where someone has lost a job in the last year, 37 percent say Obama policies will help them personally, while 37 percent say they will hurt.

Looking at the health care plan, independent voters "mostly disapprove" 58 - 30 percent, as do Republicans 83 - 10 percent. Democrats "mostly approve" 64 - 22 percent.

Obviously, not change folks can believe in.

But check out Erick Erickson, who clearly reflects this national disapproval, "We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare":

If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

More at the link. (Via Memorandum.)

Also, Pundette & Pundette, "Tyrannical majority tramples rules and rights."

A Theory* of Racist Smears and the Case of Robert Stacy McCain

Barrett Brown, who was included in my post the other day, quickly snagged his opportunity to exploit my comments in furtherance of his smears against Robert Stacy McCain. See, "A Reply to Donald Douglas and a Restatement of My Offer to R.S. McCain." In turn, Brown's post was picked up by the Lizard Freak, Charles Johnson, and his essay, "Regarding Barrett Brown's Offer to Debate White Supremacist Robert Stacy McCain."

Barrett's piece is politely said, if not quite accurate. For example, I've never sought to establish myself as some kind of expert on Robert Stacy McCain's journalistic legacy. I've even said so, noting previously that, "I'm not in the habit of following along all that closely." What I have done is taken my personal experience with Robert and laid that out as measure of the man's character (see, "Take It From Me, An Interracial Man in an Interracial Marriage, Robert Stacy McCain is No Racist!"). Despite all of this, Barret Brown takes me to task, opportunistically, to forward his meme of Robert as an "evil" racist redneck -- or, in Brown's words, "a white supremacist with significant past ties to the neo-Nazi community."

Boy, that's heavy stuff, all of it. But there's actually not that much too it. As I've said before, Robert Stacy McCain can fend for himself, but what little evidence Barrett Brown offers is wholly tainted as products themselves of ideological smear campaigns. Exhibit A is this post from "Sergey Romanov," entitled, "Meet Robert Stacy McCain, a Neo-Confederate Wacko Extraordinaire." The entry's basically a long crib sheet of allegedly "vile" articles and comments from Robert's days as an associate editor at the Washington Times. This includes a long bibliography of comments Robert's said to have posted around the web, at places such as Free Republic. All of this is supposed to be damning. But looking at them, I see nothing there that's any more inflammatory than, say, what the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington argued in his penetrating but politically-incorrect book, Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity. Indeed, as far back as 1993, Huntington gained tremendous notoriety for his seminal essay "The Clash of Civilizations?" The reaction was immediate and furious. As always, anyone who proposes that America's historic Anglo-Protestant culture is superior to the rest will be labeled racist. American exceptionalism is out of vogue on the left, for it proposes a certain model of traditionalism that has deep roots in the multiple traditions of American conservatism. Major leftist pushback thus goes with the territory. Huntington, who was a former president of the American Political Science Association, handled the attacks with grace and reason, in contrast to many of the truly "vile" attacks by his critics, seen as literally unhinged. When Huntington passed away, the left's radical gay activists cheered. See, "Racist Samuel P. Huntington Is Dead."

In any case, what's mosting interesting in looking at the Sergey Romanov post is the reactions. As one commenter there indicated with respect to Charles Johnson:

Johnson has heaped equal moral approbation on conservatives for essentially every stand any conservative has taken on anything since 1/20/2009.

In the sequence of johnson's disengagement from the right, this Stacy McCain thing is the most recent. His allegations came at the time they did at a point at which his credibility and assumptions about his good faith where at their nadir already ....

Johnson now believes that the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights is a "racist dogwhistle". His criteria for identifying racism on the right is now as obtuse as once was his criteria for identifying antisemitism on the left.

Many other observers of Charles Johnson's descent to hell have made similar points. Visiting Little Green Footballs one sees in insanely quixotic mission to destroy difference -- yes, just difference -- on the right of the spectrum. For example, just today, "Malkin Links to 'Buzzworthy' Anti-Israel Rant at White Nationalist Website":

But with regards to Barret Brown himself, I've found this really interesting bit of information at one of Robert's responses to the smears. It's this screencap below, to this blurb on the 'Godless Americans March on Washington" from 2002. And Barrett Brown is listed as "Communications Director" at Enlighten the Vote. So, what kind of organization is this? Enlighten the Vote is a political action committee of the American atheist movement. The PAC is apparently so bad that no one -- and I mean absolutely no one -- wants anything to do with them.

Frankly, I have to admit my ignorance on this group, or Barret Brown, for that matter. But my inclination all along, since I first noticed how Barrett Brown was getting picked up by the Lizard King, is that the True/Slant blogger was soldier in the radical left's campaign for gay marriage, if not for pure homosexual licentiousness. And lo and behold, what do I find searching around a bit? Brown attacks James Dobson as a "degenerate old fascist."

Of course, now it's fair to say that Barret Brown is dreadfully wrong to suggest that I'm "in no position to know what the 'bulk of these charges' may be" against Robert Stacy McCain." No, actually, despite my disclaimer, I wasn't wrong in the first place, and I'm not wrong now. And let me disabuse Barret Brown of his notion that "the totality of the evidence" that he's offered "unambiguously" convicts Robert Stacy McCain as "a white supremacist with significant past ties to the neo-Nazi community." It does nothing of the sort. I've looked through everything he's linked. I've visited American Renaissance, and I long ago dismissed those of the Southern Poverty Law Center and Michelangelo Signorile as race and sexual-orientation shakedown artists who'd make Jesse Jackson proud.

Screw these people. The only thing Robert Stacy McCain's guilty of is speaking his mind. Perhaps you might throw in a little bravado or stupidy for having posted at websites and message boards advocating white supremacy and race war, but none of Robert's actual quotes are particularly inflammatory -- unless you're looking for a "racist" target. The most Barrett Brown, Charles Johnson, and now Patrick Frey, can do is alleged R.S. McCain's "racism" twice or three times removed from those who could be accurately described that way. As I've already shown, for example, there's nothing inherently racist about not favoring interracial marriage. If that were so, we'd have to call most Americans white or black "racist," since they prefer to marry someone of like ethnic charateristics.

No, what I've shown all along --- the "general theory" proposed here -- is that "racism" is all these idiots have left. And of course, it's basically checkmate when you throw in they nihilist gay rights advocacy for these twerps. Even Patterico's in favor of gay marriage, which explains his motives for joining in the smear campaign against Robert Stacy McCain. Again, see my previous post on the left's victimology industry, "Take It From Me, An Interracial Man in an Interracial Marriage, Robert Stacy McCain is No Racist! And see also, South Texian, "The McCain Defamation":

... Robert Stacy McCain did not and has not exhibited racism, nor has he ever excused it. As Stacy himself likes to say, "there are facts and there are witnesses to those facts." The fact is that Stacy is a good man, and you may consider me one of the witnesses.

* The theory holds that in the presence of firm conservative views among movement activist and leaders (those who privilege the superiority of traditional culture and values), radical leftists will resort to unprincipled, morally-bankrupt demonizations and unsubtantiated hearsay smear-campaigns in the absence of effectively superior argumentation or irrefutable evidence for their allegations. (In other words, when all else fails, play the race-card.) This ends up being a law-like proposition, which is theoretically correlated with the deterioration of race relations in America upon the accession to power of Barack Obama as president. (Polls suggest that CRITICISM of the administration is tantamount to racism, when it's anything but). In other words, "conservative = racist." See, "The Function of General Laws in History":

A universal hypothesis may be assumed to assert a regularity of the following type: In every case where an event of a specified kind C occurs at a certain place and time, an event of a specified kind E will occur at a place and time which is related in a specified manner to the place and time of the occurrence of the first event.

Added: Robert Stacy McCain, "Resolved: Barrett Brown is a Putz."

America's Socialist Revolution

From Matt Patterson, "The Socialist Revolution Has Come to America"

Many will tell you that it was the financial crisis that led to the election of Obama in 2008. It is certainly true that John McCain’s erratic response to that meltdown did nothing to enhance his chances. But the Republican goose was cooked long before Lehman by years of war, seemingly endless reports of our soldiers struggling valiantly to hold back chaos in faraway lands for reasons that were growing less clear by the day, and a Republican president who seemed frighteningly inarticulate and uncomprehending throughout. The public had simply had enough.

Into this breech stepped a charming, charismatic, seemingly moderate Democrat (he even promised tax cuts!). Barack Obama made everyone feel good — about him, about themselves, about themselves for supporting him. And America wanted, needed to feel good again; they had spilled too much blood, had too much of their own blood spilled, in the preceding eight years.

A Republican Party in tatters, a nation exhausted and desperate. Are there any other conditions under which the American people could have turned to a man like Barack Obama? For just under the smooth, smiling facade lurked a man of deep allegiance to the radical left, counting among his associates both an avowed terrorist and a raving radical preacher.

But Americans didn’t want to hear it and the media obliged them. The ideologue was soon ensconced in the White House, where he acted swiftly to upend the entirety of American society through a comprehensive, two-pronged assault:

1. The government moved to take greater control of medical care and thus one-sixth of our entire economy. The excuse? Some people don’t have insurance, don’t you know? What are the details? Good question: specifics hatched in back rooms behind closed doors, utterly incomprehensible bills that may as well be carved in hieroglyphics. What will it mean for you? Why, whatever they want it to mean, of course.

2. Efforts to criminalize a particular naturally occurring compound, CO2, picked up pace. Why have they so singled out this substance? Because it is a byproduct of work and, indeed, life itself — every time you turn on your heater, every time you drive to work, every time you sit down to eat: don’t you know these sinful behaviors must be curbed, because you are “poisoning the planet” with your every move?

Success in this double strategy would amount to nothing less than a socialist revolution. A revolution of legislative opacity and bureaucratic fiat, to be sure, but a revolution just the same, for there is literally no part of your existence they couldn’t justify controlling under the cover of “health care” and “emissions” reform. Resistance would be met at first with peaceable punishments, fines and such. But the history of such revolutions shows that, sooner or later, they enforce their dictates with bars and boots.

Think it can’t happen here? History is littered with the wreckage of free states that gave way, sometimes with a scream, often with a whimper, to autocracy and absolutism. The city that gave birth to the world’s first and greatest republic was also home to Caesar and Mussolini.

America is not immune to these forces. The tides of history are inexorable and sooner or later pull every edifice into the sea.

Image Credit: The People's Cube.

Beyond Purity: Brutal Backlash Against 'Hammering' Jane Hamsher, Netroots' Most Despised Hypocrite

I noticed this earlier, from "Hammering" Jane Hamsher, "Left/Right Populist Outrage Will Defeat Senate Health Care Bill":

And now, from Moe Lane, "Let me just push back on the Left’s attempt to co-opt…"

... the anti-health care rationing movement:

The Online Left wants to see the Tea Party movement – and the GOP, thank you very much – collectively die in a fire. They’ve been screeching about those evil, evil corporations for the last year, and fuming impotently because they can’t get any traction on it while a bunch of center-right activists put together an opposition movement that dwarfed theirs. In other words: they very, very, very badly want to try to co-opt what we (generic) built to serve their own ends.

To put it more simply: these people are not our friends ...

I'll say. Now, while Moe's not primarily focusing on Jane Hamsher, she IS the most freakin' hypocritical in all of this. No one's deployed the slur "teabagger" more gleefully than Hammering Hamsher -- and that's counting Janeane Garofalo! Recall this post from August, "Calling Colorado: Malkin’s Teabaggers Targeting Pelosi in Denver":

And of course, Hammering Hamsher's one of the left's most despicable racists. Even Daily Kos took her to task -- quite effectively, I'll add -- over her racist black-face demonology of Senator Joseph Lieberman. And linked there is an out-of-this world quotation on Hammering Jane's expedient alliances (with Phyllis Schlafly, no less!):

The left-right coalition sent a letter to members of the Senate today includes Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert Borosage, Americans for Taxpayer Reform president Grover Norquist, FireDogLake blogger Jane Hamsher, Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly Campaign for Liberty president John Tate and Center for Economic and Policy Research president Dean Baker.

This is interesting, considering how the media's always focusing on "purity" tests for the right, and not to mention how much attention idiots like Charles Johnson generate by smearing folks like Robert Stacy McCain. Indeed, this is beyond purity. Folks just REVILE Jane Hamsher. A few of the other diarist at Daily Kos have jumped into the fray. See, "On Jane Hamsher and Manufactured Outrage," and "Jane Hamsher's Staff." And apparently, she's been pissing folks off on that side for some time. See, "Jane Hamsher can pucker up her Noam Chomsky lips and blow me."

And just in time, Hammering Hamsher's responded, "An Invitation to De-Lurk":

It’s a pretty contentious time in the blogosphere. People have very different opinions about what should happen with health care reform — at FDL, we’re working to kill the Senate bill, while the top-rated diary at Kos is “Thank you Senator Reid, Senate leadership, and Staff.” Emotions are running high. Last night, this top-rated diary – which was written in response to this post that I wrote about people on the left and right joining together to oppose the Senate bill — alarmed a lot of people and brought them over here.

All of these things are okay. It’s good to have diversity of opinion and healthy debate.

Actually, no Jane, it's not okay. (And isn't "lurking" another slur? Nice way to "welcome" folks to the community!) Go back and take a look at some of those diaries. You're not just unliked, you're despised.

How's that for a demonstration of some unified left/right outrage!

RELATED: Mickey Kaus, "Health Care: Will Kabuki kill Pong?" (via Memeorandum).

Picture of the Day, 12-21-09

Courtesy of Bloviating Zeppelin:

RELATED: Epic Fail of the Day, "Democrats Expect Health Care Bounce" (via Memeorandum).

Plus, runner up, "CBO Pegs Nelson's Nebraska Medicaid Deal Cost at $100 Million."

ADDED: Pamela Geller e-mails to remind me that the bill is very much alive. I'm actually seeing this as a metaphor for the Dems' electoral chances next year. Those folks are going need some catastrophic care after next November! See Atlas Shrugs, "Another New Low for the New Low."

Paul Krugman: A Dangerous Nutroots Blogger

A couple of points need to be highlighted regarding Paul Krugman's opinion piece at New York Times today, "A Dangerous Dysfunction." (Via Memeorandum.)

The first is that the essay's a good indication of the outsized influence of unhinged radical bloggers have on people like Paul Krugman, a Princeton professor and Nobel prizewinner. For example, just last Saturday, Krugman cited America-basher Matthew Yglesias in a blog post about the progressive foundations of the ObamaCare legislation. (For the extremist context there, recall that last month Yglesias argued moral equivalence between GOP senators filibustering healthcare and first-degree murderers.) In his essay today, Krugman's recycling the months-long argument for killing the filibuster, a proposal most notoriously circulated by Ezra Klein at the Washington Post (who himself argued that Joseph Lieberman's threat of a filibuster would "cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people"), and distributed further by Yglesias et al.

But the second thing is perfectly related to the first. It turns out that last week Krugman announced, "By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy." And very oddly, in his essay today, after mentioning Tom Harkin and Joseph Lieberman in the same breath, Krugman inserts this passage in parentheses, "(Management wants me to make it clear that in my last column I wasn’t endorsing inappropriate threats against Mr. Lieberman.)"

WTF.

Seriously, what's that supposed to be? As Jennifer Rubin points out, "A more insincere apology would be hard to find." And she adds:

What is clear is that for all the Times’s snooty condescension about the blogosphere, the editorial pages of the Gray Lady are no better than the average netroot blog. Journalistic ethics? Puh-leez! Common decency? Fuggedaboutit!

That's perfect.

RELATED: From the comments at the Political Carnival, "Why in effigy? Just kidding. But ol' Joe sure sold us down the river ..."

Not kidding, obviously. And of course, not surprisingly, Charles Johnson's not trolling the comments on the nutroots side of things. Just saying ...

Change Nobody Believes In

Really, is it any wonder why Americans hate this administration?

From the Wall Street Journal, "Change Nobody Believes In" (via):

A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.

And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.

Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world's greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new "manager's amendment" that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what's in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24.

Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.

RTWT. Hat Tip: Patriot Room.

RELATED: From Theo Spark, "Twas the Week Before Christmas and They Said on the Hill ... Who Cares if it's Bad, Let's Just Pass a Bill ..."

Nation's Tallest Christmas Tree - Fashion Island, Newport Beach, California

I took both boys over to Fashion Island tonight.

That's me, your local tour guide, having a bite to eat at the food court (photo by American Power progeny #2). The mall features both indoor and outdoor amenities, like the Japanese koi pond in the second and third shots below (both boys are seated at center, third picture down, looking away):

Every Christmas the shopping center imports a massive white fir tree from the Mt. Shasta area, in the Cascade mountains of Northern California. Here's the "story" of the tree:

The second paragraph reads:

The Christmas tree represents Fashion Island's dedication to preserving the environment while providing our with the best of holiday traditions. Please enjoy this spectacular tree with peace of mind, knowing that tremendous care was taken to preserve the environment.

My youngest boy took this next shot:

I stepped back a little for this one. Might be a little under 100 feet tall, or at least it doesn't seem as tall as the tree they had a couple of years ago. Either way, it's big:

Around to the left, I walked up to take this shot, holding the camera low:

The ornaments at bottom are massive, the size of cantaloupes. Here's a shot of the base of the tree with "presents":

Here's this from an information page:

Normally a white fir from northern California's Mt. Shasta, the tree features 17,000 lights and ornaments, and weighs approximately 20,000 lbs. It requires a 10-man crew approx. two weeks to decorate the giant beauty. The enormous tree makes its home in the Bloomingdale's Courtyard of Fashion Island.

I should have some pictures from the Spectrum Mall in Irvine tomorrow or the next day. They build an outdoor ice rink every year, which is quite fabulous.

Obama's Jokers

From Gateway Pundit, "We Will Never Forget — Here’s Our Promise to Democrats Who Vote to Nationalize Health Care":

Claire McCaskill — Don’t Think We Will Forget This.

We can’t stop them from passing their radical, unpopular, rationed health care legislation but we can promise them this:

We promise to actively and openly campaign against every democrat who votes for this bill no matter if you are a red state democrat or a blue state democrat.

We promise to forever kill the myth that there is such a creature as a bluedog democrat.

We promise to donate to campaigns to defeat the democrats who vote for this radical expansion of the federal government.

We promise to make it known how you bought your votes with our taxpayer money to pass this bill.

We promise that we will never forget how your party leaders and your state-run media called Americans who opposed this lousy nationalized health care bill – mobsters, radicals, Nazis and teabaggers.

We promise to never forget that you voted to force taxpayers to fund abortion by voting for this bill and that your bill requires a monthly abortion fee.

We promise to never forget that your plan allows for government coverage of illegal aliens.

We promise to attend your town hall meetings and confront you about your vote to takeover one-sixth of the nation’s economy. Not even your SEIU and ACORN thugs will keep us away.

We promise to let Americans and seniors know that democrats just cut $470 billion from their Medicare.

We promise to let Americans know that you voted to ration their health care.

We promise to NEVER FORGET that you voted against the wishes of the people you represent.

We promise…

See also, "Claire McCaskill 'Obama’s Joker' Signs Seen in West County."

Remember, that goes for all of Obama's Jokers. (Via Memeorandum.)

P.S. I wonder how Howie Klein like them apples?

Scotland Yard Issues Blunt Warning of Mumbai-Style Terror Attack on London

This is the first I've heard of this report. It overlaps with my analysis from yesterday at "Global Challenges in 2010."

See the Times of London, "Police expect Mumbai-style terror attack on City of London":

Scotland Yard has warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style attack on the capital.

In a briefing in the City of London 12 days ago, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, said: “Mumbai is coming to London.”

The detective said companies should anticipate a shooting and hostage-taking raid “involving a small number of gunmen with handguns and improvised explosive devices”.

The warning — the bluntest issued by police — has underlined an assessment that a terrorist cell may be preparing an attack on London early next year.

It was issued by the Met through its network of “security forums”, which provide business leaders, local government and the emergency services with counter-terrorism advice.

During a “commando-style” raid by 10 gunmen on hotels and cafes in Mumbai in November 2008, 174 people were killed and more than 300 injured over three days.

Officials now report an increase in “intelligence chatter” — communications captured by electronic eavesdropping agencies. One senior security adviser said the police warnings had intensified and become much more specific in the past fortnight.

“Before, there has been speculation. Now we are getting what appears to be a definite plot to carry out a firearms attack on London,” he said.

Earlier this year, police, military and intelligence services held an exercise in Kent to see whether they could defeat a commando raid in London by terrorists.

“The exercise brought out to those taking part that the capability doesn’t exist to deal with that situation should it arise,” said a military source.

Security sources said concerns had been raised by “chatter” on a prominent jihadist website two weeks ago.

One contributor suggested fighters could use automatic weapons to strike places such as nightclubs, sporting venues and Jewish centres.

There's more at the link, for example, the piece notes that in Mumbai, most of those killed were shot within the first half hour of the attack.

And recall my warning yesterday:

I don't think the world will experience another 9/11-style catastrophe. I do think we'll have more Mumbais, sadly, and they'll be launched in the developed states (and thus keep an eye on the implications from that 21 percent for AfPak).

I mention Afghanistan/Pakistan since that's the location for the center of Islamic fanaticism in today's world. I expect the hinterlands near Waziristan to continue to grow as the main crossroads of international terrorism. Just last week, the five Americans arrested in Pakistan had traveled to join jihad. And of course, it's a round trip destination, with the jihadis entering in the insurgent campaigns with the Taliban and both Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as with other groups such as Lashkar, which is said to be associated with Kashmiri separatists. For more on these relationships, see Paul Sperry, "Homegrown Insurgency."

Hillary Clinton in 2016?

I've been suggesting this very scenario to students during lectures. There's an especially compelling case in the event of a one-term Obama presidency. From the Telegraph UK, "Smart Money is on Hillary Clinton for 2016":

Driving past the White House the other day, my eye was caught by the bumper sticker on the shiny black Toyota Prius in front of me. It read: "We love you Hillary - Clinton for President, 2016".

A year ago, I'd have snorted at the slogan and kept my distance from the vehicle - judging the driver to be a delusional Clintonite diehard still desperately fighting the reality that the former First Lady's presidential aspirations were history.

Now, the person behind that wheel seems to be on the money. Having elected Barack Obama amid near national euphoria, America is experiencing something akin to buyer's remorse.

Obama's popularity is the lowest of any American president at the end of his first year in office since polling began. Yet as his approval ratings have nose-dived, those of his Secretary of State have curved elegantly upwards.

A recent poll by the Clarus Research Group found that Hillary Clinton had a 75 per cent approval rating compared to 51 per cent for the man who defeated her in their epic battle for the Democratic nomination.

These are very early days to handicap 2016 but it's already clear that she has gone from being the supposedly inevitable 2008 nominee who had blown her one big chance as odds-on favourite to be the next Democratic president.

When Mrs Clinton accepted the job of Secretary of State many of her supporters feared she was falling into a trap. Fearing that she could be a rival source of power from Capitol Hill, Obama calculated she would be less of a threat if he brought her inside his tent.

The downsides for the former First Lady were obvious. She would give up her cherished seat as Senator for New York, which gave her an independent power base. Her voice on domestic policy would be silenced.

And her fortunes would inevitably be linked to the man whom she fervently believed was not up to the top job.

It is a sign of Mrs Clinton's astuteness that she said yes and now finds herself ideally placed to succeed Mr Obama or, in the increasingly plausible scenario that he becomes a one-term president, the Republican who ousts him in 2012.

More at the link.

2016 is a long way off. I'm more interested in "ousting Obama in 2012, and totally confident's the Dems will be beaten, and badly. It's going to start in 2010, in fact. 1994 redux. We'll worry about HRC later.

Failure Gets a Pass: L.A. Unified Teacher Tenure Under Fire

I'm going to try to do some education writing over the next few days. I still get U.S. News and World Report in hard copy, and the December issue, featuring "America's Top Best Schools," came yesterday. The magazine also features some analysis on the Obama administration's education policies, for example, "Will Obama's School Reform Plan Work?" I'm 100 percent skeptical of President Obama's program (does anyone even know what it is?), mainly because there's been absolutely zero urgency on this front so far -- or at least, from what I've seen compared to the Herculean efforts the Dems have put into bankrupting the country through ObamaCare.

In any case, more on that later. It turns out that this morning's Los Angeles Times has a really interesting piece, which is by no means unrelated to the larger educational crisis in this country. I've read about some of this before, but the Times has a full investigative report up today, and worth a look. See, "FAILURE GETS A PASS: Bar Set Low for Lifetime Job in L.A. Schools":

Altair Maine said he was so little supervised in his first few years of teaching at North Hollywood High School that he could "easily have shown a movie in class every day and earned tenure nonetheless."

Before second-grade teacher Kimberly Patterson received tenure and the ironclad job protections it provides, she said, "my principal never set foot in my classroom while I was teaching."

And when Virgil Middle School teacher Roberto Gonzalez came up for tenure, he discovered there was no evaluation for him on file. When he inquired about it, his school hastily faxed one to district headquarters.

"I'm pretty sure it was just made up on the spot," Gonzalez said.

There is nothing to suggest these teachers didn't deserve tenure, but the district did little to ensure they were worthy.

A Times investigation found that the Los Angeles Unified School District routinely grants tenure to new teachers after cursory reviews -- and sometimes none at all.

Evaluating new teachers for tenure is one of a principal's most important responsibilities. Once instructors have permanent status, they are almost never fired for performance reasons alone. The two-year probation period, during which teachers can be fired at will, offers a singular opportunity to weed out poor performers.

It is a chance L.A. Unified all but squanders, according to interviews with more than 75 teachers and administrators, analyses of district data covering the last several years, and internal and independent studies. Among the findings:

* Nearly all probationary teachers receive a passing grade on evaluations. Fewer than 2% are denied tenure.

* The reviews are so lacking in rigor as to be meaningless, many instructors say. Before a teacher gets tenure, school administrators are required to conduct only a single, pre-announced classroom visit per year. About half the observations last 30 minutes or less. Principals are rarely held responsible for how they perform the reviews.

* The district's evaluation of teachers does not take into account whether students are learning. Principals are not required to consider testing data, student work or grades. L.A. Unified, like other districts in California, essentially ignores a state law that since the 1970s has required districts to weigh pupil progress in assessing teachers and administrators.

"I can't believe that," said Gary K. Hart, California's secretary of education under Gov. Gray Davis, when told of The Times' findings. Tenure "is not something that everyone off the street who wants to be a teacher should be granted."

"The saddest part is that the most critical element of whether our children are successful is being ignored," said Julie Slayton, the district's former director of research and planning and now a USC professor of education. "It's ridiculous and should be changed."

On Thursday, Supt. Ramon C. Cortines announced that change was coming. After hearing The Times' findings more than a week ago, the superintendent pledged to scrutinize probationary teachers more closely so poor instructors are ousted before they become tenured.

"Too many ineffective teachers are falling into tenured positions -- the equivalent of jobs for life," he said.

An easy path to tenure is not unique to Los Angeles. Schools across the country have failed to grade teachers, even their rookies, and rarely dismiss poor performers. In response, the Obama administration has made teacher accountability a key requirement in the competition for $4.35 billion in education grants.

Some of the nation's major school districts, including in New York City and Washington, D.C., have already made significant reforms, such as requiring multiple evaluations by expert teachers or objective evidence of student growth.

A task force in Los Angeles has only begun to consider such sweeping changes, which would go well beyond the pledge Cortines made Thursday.

"It's a sign of how backward things are that the superintendent has to make this kind of clarion call," said Ted Mitchell, chairman of the task force. "There is a little Alice in Wonderland quality in some of this: You mean you haven't been doing that?"

Lots more at the link.

As for L.A. Unified, the district sounds totally unprofessional (and unserious). I recall my tenure process at LBCC. Probationary faculty are on a four-year cycle. Year-three is an off-year, and year-four feels like a perfunctory graduation year to tenured status (by that time it's probably too late to let someone go -- that is, most of the serious liabilities would have been seen earlier). So, it's the first and second year reviews that are critical for weeding out the unqualified.

And I know that this is an extremely emotional process. There are huge emotional, personal reasons for making the process less rigorous. I mean, who wants to fire someone? But it's got to be done. Some teachers just should not be in the classroom. There's a temperament to good teaching, and because, ironically, it can take so long for qualities of excellence to emerge, the first couple of years under evaluation become even more crucial. In fact, the Times had a report on just this last week. See, "Controlling a classroom isn't as easy as ABC." But I'm going to hold off on further comment for now. As much as we have to hold teachers accountable for their performance, we can't minimize the heightening crisis of the culture that's making education the last priority for too many kids. A lot of this has to do with technology, as I will argue later (the wireless culture of music and phones is in the classroom and killing learning). But that's something for later, and I'll have lots of personal examples from my teaching, as well as a guest essay (or two) from a student this semester who I found out was a phenomenal writer.

Check back regularly, and don't forget to tweet my posts!

Tonight’s Gonna be a Good Night...

Okay, more on pop culture! My oldest kid (American Power progeny #1) immediately changes the radio station when he gets in the car. He's got a bunch of channels, but one of them especially, KIIS-FM 102.7, has been playing the Black Eyed Peas "I Gotta Feeling" like crazy! Cool band. Cool song. What can you say? Enjoy:

I'm a pretty good pop commentator on rock and roll, etc., but I've got my lacunae -- especially mid-to-late 1980s, when I had some hearing problems (among other things). So, if readers have favorite songs they'd like to see posted, let me know. Kreiz, my ace commenter and long-time reader, suggested Earth, Wind, & Fire's "September" a while back, so there's some precedent there. My great neocon hottie GSGF also suggested a video recently, from the Cardigans, but it's not my favorite, LOL!

I'll be posting more punk rock, as well as more contemporary hits. So, don't forget to make those suggestions. The music's in you! And boy, do we need the relief from the Democrats!

Political Science and Pop Culture Blogging!

I've been reading Professor Daniel Drezner's blog for years now -- in fact, I started blogging largely because of him. He's a pretty big scholar in the political science discipline. In fact, readers might enjoy his recent article (which I blogged about earlier), "Bad Debts: Assessing China's Financial Influence in Great Power Politics." But Drezner's also a culture blogger. He used to routinely post photos of Selma Hayek, the fabulous movie star also known for her endowment. (He linked recently to an article with Ms. Hayek's picture at the Wall Street Journal.) Interestingly, Ms. Hayek majored in international relations before turning to acting! And you know, there's something about hot women and politics. Fox News' Courtney Friel is a political scientist!

Anyway, I'm mentioning all of this after checking Drezner's blog this morning. He's updated the look a bit, with that new picture of him across the nameplate, which reads, "Daniel W. Drezner: Global Poltics, Economics, & Pop Culture."

And as readers have noticed, I've been discussing my own blogging around here, and while I may cut back on the output a bit in the new year, I'll continue to provide commentary on celebrity news and pop culture, with lots of babe blogging. I know some of my feminine readers could do without the breasts, but hey, us political scientists need our hotness diversions as well!

In any case, if I could just get Dana at Common Sense Political Thought to post some cheesecake once in a while, I'd be good!

Superhuman Blogging!

Okay, here's a follow-up to last night's post, "One Million Hits at American Power."

I should respond to the comment from my good friend Wordsmith, who wondered, "I seriously do not know how you blog so prolifically, with such quality, and still have a professorial job and family life." Well, I'll tell ya, I couldn't do it without a little help from my friends:

Not pictured is my super-duper best friend, American Power progeny #2. I don't generally post pictures of him, although you can find him third image down at my photo-essay from Halloween (he's wearing his Marvel shirt there, so you can tell he's an expert in these matters).

So, the first rule of superhuman blogging: Keep your friends close (and in my case that means family, since my kids and my wife are my best buddies). You see, I don't like doing anything without 'em. Oh, sure I go out to movies by myself, or to Barnes and Noble, or shopping. But I don't like going out of town without my family. They're always with me, even when I'm blogging, like right now. My kid helped assemble the superhero team of the Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and Wolverine. I couldn't perform such miraculous feats of investigative blogging without these guys!

Other than that, I'm a professor, so it's totally cool to blog at work. Most folks I imagine don't have that luxury. But I'm on the computer all the time, reading the news and thinking about the hot issues of the day. So, it's a pretty seamless transition between work and home. Honestly, at home, since my kids are still small, I'm more in the Daddy Daycare mode. My wife's a full-time career woman, and since she's in retail she's especially busy around the holidays, like right now. So, it's mostly hangin' out, unless I'm running the kids to birthday parties or school events.

But as I noted at "One Million Hits," I've got some changes planned for the blog in 2010. I hope to do even more original reporting, but other than that I need to write less and get out on my own more often -- especially for exercising. I'm overweight by about 25 pounds. I need to pick up hiking again, and while I don't make New Year's resolutions, if I had one that'd be it. Actually, I can blog my hikes, so that'll be fun.

Anyway, I'll close with my previous comments on "loving what you do," which I published earlier at "How to Become a Successful Conservative Blogger":

For me, I'm simply combining my career as a professor of political science, and my love of politics, with blogging. Blogging has become a part of what I do. Frankly, I'm not so much interested in scholarly publishing, although because I maintain professional currency with the literature, I can blog on anything from the most sophisticated academic studies in international relations to the most ordinary stories in the news and popular culture. My enthusiasm comes and goes. Sometimes blogging's an addiction, but sometimes it feels like a chore. That's going to happen, so balancing the online life with all the other responsibilities is challenging. But you can't be successful unless you're willing to elevate the blog to a central place in your personality and being. It's back to my "Rule 1" above. Have commitment, and make it fun and personal. But also have a healthy understanding of the consequences of your work.

I guess that's the second rule of superhuman blogging: love it or leave it!

The Democrats, Health Care, and the 2010 Elections

There are a lot of different memes on what's happening with the ObamaCare debate. For one thing, the legislation's not passed yet. And while I'm not sure if we'll stop it, protesters are gearing up. See Nice Deb, "EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE RALLY, Omaha, NE, Sunday 12/20." Plus, watch the opposition on the House side. See, "Stupak Ready to Pounce, Vows to Kill ‘Unacceptable’ Nelson Abortion Deal," and "Stupak Aims to Sink 'Unacceptable' Abortion Compromise" (from Ben Smith, via Memeorandum). But somehow, I get the feeling the Dems will pass this monstrosity one way or the other, and so I'm looking ahead. See, "'The Health Care Bill is Political Suicide.' That Doesn't Matter to Democrats, Obviously; They Getting Used to Obama Serving Up Lukewarm Half-Measues" (quoting Sean Trende):

If Democrats need to appeal to Independents and moderates to hold their majorities, then passing this bill is a terrible idea. The most recent polling shows that 81% of Republicans and 69% of Independents oppose the healthcare plan (with 74% of Republicans and 57% of Independents strongly opposing it). With majorities of Independents strongly opposed to the bill, it's really hard to imagine any boost in Democratic turnout from passing the plan being enough to surpass the ensuing backlash from Republicans and Independents.It isn't even clear that there will be a boost in Democratic turnout. The latest version of the Senate bill holds little appeal for progressives. As I noted on the blog, without a public option, this bill becomes a wet, sloppy kiss to the insurance industry. It doesn't even represent a substantial triumph for liberalism by significantly expanding government through taxing the wealthy; there are large new subsidies, but for the most part the subsidies are paid for by gouging Medicare and taxing union health benefits. It really reads like a bill a moderate Republican would propose; it is a slightly stronger version of RomneyCare at this point. In other words, the only remaining group that might have even arguably been excited to vote for Democrats on this bill is now at best lukewarm on it.

Cartoon Credit: Bosch Fawstin.

One Million Hits at American Power

Okay, I mentioned I'd write this post a couple of nights ago.

I racked up 1 million hits on this blog on December 1st. American Power launched October 7th, 2007, so it took just over two years to reach that milestone. Traffic really picked up in 2009. I owe a lot to Robert Stacy McCain's hit-building program, "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog in Less Than a Year." A lot of his tricks work like a charm, but go easy on rules 4 and 5 (make some enemies and find some babes) -- like fast cars, bars, and guitars, fighting and women will be your ruin!

But seriously, I wrote about becoming a blogger earlier. See, "How to Become a Successful Conservative Blogger." Check William Jacobson's post as well, "Thanks a Million!" For encouragement and links, I owe too many bloggers to thank in a brief post. Of course, getting traffic at Instapundit certainly helps in reaching the milestone, so a big thanks to Glenn Reynolds. And both Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs and Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit have been tremendously influential. Also, Michelle Malkin has become an intellectual light for really effective and rigorous conservative blogging, and I'm thrilled to have met her last month. Plus, Rick Moran has been a great mentor at Pajamas Media. I'm also fortunate for cross-posting privileges at Right Wing News, so a warm thanks to John Hawkins (who also flows some massive traffic surges my way via Linkiest). Finally, Kevin Sullivan at RealClearPolitics is kind enough to link me at RCP fairly regularly. If I missed anyone, let me know and I can link your blog below, with thanks.

Everyone loves traffic, but blog rankings are also cool. I've been fortunate to get linked widely around the web, and I imagine breaking a story here and there has helped. I just recently started checking Technorati's page, which has undergone a makeover. I'm a top-40 blog there, And if you check the link you'll see the rankings are dynamic. I'm not sure of Technorati's algorithm, but American Power ranks above a number of blogs considered big players on the web. I don't put a lot of stress on this stuff, since high traffic blogs are more prestigious, as well as those with huge communities of commenters. Wikio's rankings are supposed to be more authoritative, in any case. American Power's been ranked at 52 for the last two months. I can't recall if I've broken into the top-50 at Wikio, but breaking the top-100 was big deal a year or so ago. Anyway, my guess is that I've about peaked at this point. I've done most of things I'm able to do with the blog being a second career. I expect the pace of blogging here to ease up next year (although I've said that before). Perhaps I'll post less frequently. It depends on how I feel. I'll be writing for sure, but I'm going to think about new directions -- perhaps focusing even more on independent reporting. Either way, the blog will be here. I'll say more about this on New Year's Day, when I plan to update my comments from last January: See, American Power in 2009.

Thanks to all my readers, some who've been around for some time, others more recently. Cartoon courtesy of the Jungle Hut, "All I want for Christmas..."

Ben Nelson Gives Dems 60th Vote on ObamaCare

The New York Times has all the details, "Democrats Clinch Deal for Deciding Vote on Health Bill." (Via.) Pat Dollard's not thrilled:

Added:

* Astute Bloggers, "OBAMACARE IN FOUR EASY STEPS: WAIT IN LINE; BEND OVER; INSERT BUREAUCRACY DESIGNED BY POLITICIANS TO SERVE CRONIES."

* Camp of the Saints, "BEN NELSON IS A CHEAP WHORE."

* Dafydd ab Hugh, "Never Retreat, Never Surrender."

* Flopping Aces, "Sell Out! Nebraska’s Sen. Ben Nelson (D) Gets His Price for Health Care Vote."

* Gateway, "The Price Is Right: Senator Nelson Bought Off – Will Support Obamacare."

* Hot Air, "Breaking: Nelson will vote for cloture."

* JammieWearingFool, "Was Your Democrat Senator Too Stupid To Get a Bribe?"

* Lonely Conservative, "Nelson Bought Off, 49 States to Pay for Concessions for Nebraska."

* Nice Deb, "GOP Call To Action: This Is Our Last Chance To Stop Government Run Health Care."

* Pundit & Pundette, "Reactions to sickening Senate deal."

* The Other McCain, "Ben Nelson: Profile in Cowardice."

* Snooper's Report, "The stuff on The unconstitutional federal health care Bill."

* Sundries Shack, "Too Bad Ben Nelson Doesn’t Have to Claim His Health Care Bribe as a Campaign Contribution."

* William Jacobson, "This Is Why I Named This Blog 'Legal Insurrection'."

**********

Drop your post in the comments, or e-mail, and I'll update with additions.