Soft Power Hotness!

From Great Satan's Girlfriend, "Soft Power":

As best understood, 'Soft Power' is the ability to attract people to the fun, free and totally cool League of Hot! Democrazies side without coercion.

Legitimacy is central to soft power. If a people or nation believes Great Satan's objectives to be legitimate, more better and more likely to persuade them to follow that lead without using threats and bribes.

Legitimacy can also reduce opposition to—and the costs of—using hard power when the sitch demands.

Appealing to others’ values, interests, and preferences can, in certain circumstances, replace the dependence on carrots and sticks. Cooperation is always a matter of degree, and it is profoundly influenced by attraction.And that is the rub.

Unfree, unfun and nigh unhinged illegit regimes generally have ZERO values, interests and preferences in common with Great Satan and all she stands for.

More a GSGF!

RELATED: "Obama's Soft Power Slump."

'So In the Morning ... Please Don't Say You Love Me...'

Following-up, "The Faces, Featuring Rod Stewart and Ronnie Wood, Reportedly Recording New Music."

In the morning
Don't say you love me
Cause I'll only kick you out of the door

I know your name is Rita
Cause your perfume smelling sweeter
Since when I saw you down on the floor
guitar

Won't need to much persuading
I don't mean to sound degrading
But with a face like that
You got nothing to laugh about

Red lips hair and fingernails
I hear your a mean old jezebel
Lets go up stairs and read my tarot cards

Stay with me
Stay with me
For tonight you better stay with me

Stay with me
Stay with me
For tonight you better stay with me...

Obama Donors Get Clinton-Era Perks: White House 'Transparency' Spin Begins

Dana Loesch has the background, "Democrat Donors Awarded with White House Perks."

But here comes the White House cover up, from Fox News, "White House Fires Back at Report Claiming It Gave Special Access to Donors":

The White House on Wednesday fired back at a report claiming President Obama gave special access top Democratic donors, claiming it has "instituted the toughest ethics and transparency rules of any administration in history."

While the administration acknowledged that it allowed the Democratic Party to distribute tickets to White House events among supporters and contributors, it downplayed a Washington Times report that said Obama had "rewarded" donors with "VIP access."

Fundraisers who pledged to individually donate $30,400 or to bundle $300,000 in contributions toward the 2010 congressional elections were promised access to senior White House staff, according to The Washington Times.

That access also covered VIP privileges ranging from a birthday visit to the Oval Office to use of the White House bowling alley to a golf outing with the president in Martha's Vineyard.

"We're the first administration in history that will soon provide a list of each and every person that visits the White House -- something that's never been done before," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters during his daily briefing.

"The Democratic National Committee does not accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists or political action committees and hasn't done so since President Obama became the party's nominee last year. I think as the statement that we issued said, a contributor -- contributing doesn't guarantee a visit to the White House, nor does it preclude it," he said.

Mocking a question about whether the White House has engaged in quid pro quo, Gibbs quipped about his son, "I can report to you that Ethan Gibbs, with the bumpers down, bowled a couple of games while eating chicken fingers.

Actually, this just continues a long pattern of deception and cover-ups. See my report from last year, "Obama’s Fundraising Fraud."

RELATED: From the Washington Post, "White House Rebuts Allegation That Big Donors Get Special Perks" (via Memeorandum).

Image Credit: Voting Female Speaks, "Barack Obama, a Kamikazi Communist; All In, Win Lose or Draw."

Swine Flu Hysteria: Perfect Timing for Democrats' National Health Emergency

From Fred Burks, "Swine Flu Cases: CBS Reports CDC Deception on Swine Flu Cases":

President Obama has declared a national emergency for the swine flu, noting a "rapid increase in illness." A recent CNN article covering this critical topic goes on to quote CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden, "since the H1N1 flu pandemic began in April, millions of people in the United States have been infected, at least 20,000 have been hospitalized and more than 1,000 have died."

Yet excellent investigative reporting by CBS News shows that the number of swine flu cases is being significantly exaggerated. The lead paragraph of this CBS article states, "If you've been diagnosed 'probable' or 'presumed' 2009 H1N1 or swine flu in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 flu. In fact, you probably didn’t have the flu at all. That's according to state-by-state test results obtained in a three-month-long CBS News investigation."

The CBS report goes on to point out that the CDC strangely advised states to stop testing and to stop counting the number of swine flu cases last July. The CDC website explains that states are no longer differentiating between the regular flu and the swine flu, reporting instead all influenza and pneumonia-related hospitalizations and deaths in one count.

Naturally, then, from Bloomberg, "Swine Flu Vaccine Scarcity Stirs Anger in U.S. Cities."

And see, "Swine Flu Emergency: What Obama's Declaration Means":

While illnesses are normally designated public-health emergencies, in which hospitals and medical personal are subject to various procedures for providing information and disposing of bodies (among other things), President Obama’s motivation for escalating H1N1 to national-emergency levels can be found in his formal declaration: “The rates of illness continue to rise rapidly within many communities across the nation, and the potential exists for the pandemic to overburden health care resources in some localities.” This parallels the World Health Organization’s June upgrade of H1N1 from phase 5 to a phase 6 pandemic (the WHO’s highest level), meaning that while swine flu may lack the drama and spectacle of terrorism, it does constitute a real risk to the American public.

Although conditions like martial law (which would be allowed under any state of emergency) are still possible, the governmental changes invoked by Obama’s declarations have a far more benevolent intent. Hospitals are given the power to set up care sites outside of hospitals—in parking lots, schools, and the like─without federal interference. This not only slows the spread of the speedy virus but allows additional space for treatment and frees emergency rooms for more severe cases. While hospitals are generally limited to setting up alternate treatment centers within 250 yards of the hospital to qualify for federal funding, reimbursements for vaccinations will be given where they would otherwise be restricted. In some cases, hospitals can modify patient check-in procedures, minimizing paperwork and other time-consuming practices to allow faster treatment during busy times. Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance program requirements that might interfere with treatment, including seasonal rules and one-time vaccination coverage, can be changed or waived for the length of the emergency. Simply put, hospitals are given the ability to fight swine flu without getting wrapped in the red tape of federal procedure and, in turn, Americans will have faster treatment for and defense against the spread of the virus.

See also, "Swine Flu Increases State Power." And, "Why You Can't Get the Swine Flu Vaccine."

Cartoon Credit: William Warren at Americans for Limited Government.

Damn! Too Bad Schwarzenegger's RINO

For all of "Ahnold's" disappointments since 2003, he's always been good for a kicker or two.

Jules Crittenden's got the story, "Live & Learn":

It’s about that partisan civility thing. Turns out, if you yell “You Lie!” and say things like “Kiss my gay ass!” there can be consequences. Not just consequences, but cleverly embedded snark! It’s Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s two-fer response to California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s request for help and his rude outburst.

See also, "Schwarzenegger Gives California Legislature a Hidden Finger."

McCain to Obama: Make Afghanistan Decision Now!

From the Boston Globe, "McCain to Obama: Send Troops Now":

Senator John McCain, President Obama's Republican foe last year, has largely supported his rival since the election.

But now, the Vietnam War hero and Iraq troop surge supporter is putting increasing pressure on Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan -- and do it soon.

The president has held six war councils and counting to decide the strategy going forward, and some expect him to wait on deciding on his top commander's request for as many as 40,000 additional troops until after the Nov. 7 Afghan presidential run-off election.

But McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS this morning that the war policy in Afghanistan "has been reviewed time and again" and it's time to act because the long delay "is not helpful to our effort" and is frustrating military commanders and making allies nervous.

And in an op-ed posted online on CNN today, McCain calls on Obama to move as quickly as possible to grant General Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops.

McCain notes that he supported the Afghanistan strategy that Obama laid out in March, when he announced his decision to dispatch 21,000 more US troops. And the senator also stresses that he backed Obama's appointment of McChrystal as the top US commander on the ground -- so the president should listen to the general now.

See McCain's article at CNN, "Why We Can — And Must — Win in Afghanistan."

RELATED: Common Sense Political Thought, "Is President Obama's Foreign Policy Making a Difference Yet?"

Car Bomb Kills Dozens in Pakistan: Hillary Clinton to Islamabad, 'No Biggie, Our Relationship Goes Beyond Medieval Slaughter of Innocents'

From London's Guardian, "Bomb Kills Dozens in Pakistan as Hillary Clinton Arrives":

The deadliest Taliban bombing in two years ripped through a women's market in the Pakistani city of Peshawar today, killing almost 90 people.

The attack happened as the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, began a three-day visit to Pakistan.

The blast ripped through cosmetics stalls and clothes shops in Peshawar's old city, filling the narrow streets with burning debris and trapping dozens of victims under wreckage and charred roof beams. A two-storey building collapsed as firefighters doused it with water.

Television footage showed wounded people sitting amid debris as others attempted to rescue survivors and get them to hospital.

A spokesman for the Lady Reading hospital said it had received the bodies of 87 victims, many of them women and children. Provincial officials said over 200 people were injured ....

Clinton said the US was turning a "new page" in the decades-old relationship to include more than just security-related issues.

"Our relationship goes far beyond security... the terrorists can destroy but they cannot build. That is where we have an advantage," she said, pledging funds to rebuild the dilapidated electricity infrastructure that has led to large-scale power rationing in recent years.

The US has for years pressed Pakistan to hunt al-Qaida militants hiding in its tribal belt.

Earlier, Clinton admitted relations between the two countries had developed a lot of "scar tissue" and said: "We also recognise that it's imperative that we broaden our engagement with Pakistan."

Great. Blame the U.S. for a "deterioration" in relations. That'll send a message to the barbarians!

See also, the Los Angeles Times, "Car Bomb Kills More Than 80, Wounds 200 in Pakistan":

Video Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit, "Massive Car Bomb Kills 80 In Peshawar, Pakistan."

Obama Tees-Up, Leaves Troops Hangin' in Afghanistan

From Cold Fury, "'I Will Never Rush the Solemn Decision of ... Hand Me the 5-Iron, Would You?'"

AN ADDRESS TO THE TROOPS, GOOD SPORTS THAT THEY ARE

"At ease, team.

I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way … or of sending you reinforcements once you’ve already been sent.

Nor will I rush through the sandtraps to send more equipment even though I’ve consistently said we must win this war. I shall not be hurried through the water hazards to have more helicopters; I will not–no, must not fly through my fairway game to approve more F-22s. That is my pledge to you...

And, from Andrew Klavan, "Obama Hits the Golf Course, Dithers over Afghanistan."

Also, Allahpundit, "Obama to Troops: 'I Will Never Rush the Solemn Decision of Sending You Into Harm's way'."

Democratic Values: Carol Shea-Porter Extols Alan Grayson's 'Moral Compass'

Representative Carol Shea-Porter illustrates once more the total bankruptcy of today's Democratic Party. From Big Gov't, "Rep. Shea-Porter: I Love Alan Grayson and His Moral Compass Is Wonderful to Behold":

“I love both of these men and I will tell you that they are both driven by a moral compass that is just wonderful to behold,” said Shea-Porter while appearing with Rep. Grayson on a panel at the Netroots Nation summit in August. “And we share almost all the same kinds of goals and values and Alan and I do as well.”

Also, from Kim Priestap, "Democrat Alan Grayson Calls Federal Reserve Senior Advisor a 'K Street Whore'":

What a pig. I mean, really, does he kiss his mother with that mouth? That he refers to anyone in such a disgusting manner is unbecoming language from a member of the United States House of Representatives.

Where does Nancy Pelosi stand on Grayson's calling a female Federal Reserve senior advisor a whore? More importantly, where do his constituents stand?

Actually, Speaker Pelosi blew off Grayson's "die quickly" smears from the House floor, so no doubt she'll be standing up for him again. See, "Pelosi Plays Down Grayson Remark."

Plus, Grayson's not apologizing, "Alan Grayson Stands by "K Street Whore" Comment" (via Memeorandum).

Fred to Newt: STFU

I'm impressed with the way Fred Thompson's getting organized for the 2012 primaries. He's definitely on the right track with his dissing of Newt Gingrich's RINO defense campaign. From the Politico, "Fred to Newt: We're Not 'Deaf, Dumb'" (via Memeorandum):

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson brushed back former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday over Gingrich’s warning that the Republican Party is wrong to thrown in its lot with the Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Dede Scozzafava, the GOP’s candidate, in the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district.

Gingrich has called the many prominent national Republicans – including Thompson – who have endorsed Hoffman over Scozzafava in recent days “misguided,” arguing they are making a “mistake” to back a third-party candidate over the party’s nominee.

The conservatives who back Hoffman point to Scozzafava’s support for abortion right and ties to local union leaders ....

Thompson, a 2008 GOP presidential candidate ... asked of Gingrich: “Who’s applying the litmus test here?”

“Are we saying that as Americans you’ve got to have an ‘R’ by your name before you vote for them? Where do you draw the line?” he continued. “If somebody with a record like this gets our seal of approval, regardless, only because she’s got an ‘R’ by the name… You know, just because we’re Republicans doesn’t mean that we’re deaf, dumb, and blind.”

Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace; or, Pro-Palestinian Destruction of the Jewish State...

Sorry for the French again (or British urban, be that as it may), but Spencer Ackerman's just an bleeding-asshole here, a concern troll par excellence who couldn't care one goddamned bit about Israel's right to exist:

If Israel doesn’t get out of the West Bank soon, demographic realities will force Israel to make the most painful existential choice of its life: whether to abandon Jewish democracy or whether to abandon Jewish statehood in favor of a binational homeland. Both of these options, in fundamental ways, represent the end of Israel. Not from an Iranian nuclear weapon. Not from a super-empowered Palestinian intifada. But from political failure and international diplomatic failure, the end of Israel can, actually, be achieved.

In question is Matthew Yglesias' post, "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace." It turns out that Yglesias debated Jonathan Chait during an Israel panel at the J Street conference (the one where no one who is anyone of the big-name attendees ending up attending in the end). I've long identified Yglesias as one of the most hardline leftist foreign policy commentators around, and he's actually pulling some punches above, considering his propensity for Hamas-Intifada Halloween costumes:

Yglesias' proxy demonization for Israel is the "nation-state" - if we didn't have them, we wouldn't have Israel. He can only go so far in this, for in getting rid of the nation state one doesn't stop at Israel, but the entire international system (and its most important actor, the United States). So, in his roundabout way Yglesias can condemn Israel to destruction without actually saying so, and he can in fact say he's pro-Israel when he's really not:

Readers will know that I’m not a big fan of nationalism and I am a big fan of trans-national projects like the European Union and the United Nations. And it’s even true that I really kind of hope that hundreds of years from now there won’t be national states at all, instead we’ll all be lumped in with the Vulcans and the Andorians in a United Federation of Planets and off we’ll go. But there’s clearly no prospects for the abolition of the nation-state in the short-term. And the Jewish people’s claim to a nation-state is just as strong as the Finnish or Dutch or Thai claim. Or, for that matter, as the Palestinian claim. By far the best way to secure a just resolution of those conflicting claims is through a two-state solution—an independent Palestine, and a democratic Jewish Israel.

As you can see, it's quite smooth to elevate Palestinian aspirations to the existentialism of Israel's future. Either way, it's about destroying the Jewish state, for folks on the left simply don't stop with the "two-state" solution: In the end, they always demand the "right of return," and that of course is the direct path to Jewish annihiliation. The slow path is Ackerman's demographic time bomb of legitimizing a multicultural Israeli state that ultimately becomes non-Jewish. Yglesias is silent on this eventuality, but Ackerman's lobbying for it, demonically - and remember, Ackerman's one who peppers his commentaries with Arabic prayers for jihadi success: insh'allah (God willing).

But let's not forget Robert "Moral Abomination" Farley. He too wants his cake and to eat it too, claiming to be pro-Israel while also condeming the establishment of the Jewish state as "brutal, murderous work," just like the founding of the United States and the European democracies. You see, there's nothing special (that'd be American exceptionalism) about the United States for Farley (and Yglesias and Ackerman, for that matter). He'll condemn the U.S. and the whole lot of great power national states, and let them perish. That'll clear the way for the heavenly neo-communist utopia that's the real end stage of history for these pro-Palestinian airheads.

It's pretty convoluted, but not hard actually, once you figure out where these fools are coming from.

See also, Michael Goldfarb (a near-somebody who went ahead and attended J Street after all), "The Space Between Pro-Israel and Anti-Israel."

More at Mememorandum.

Hoffman, Palin at Center of GOP Future

It's not a big deal for anyone who's been toiling away all year in the trenches of conservative activism. But for the press, the ideological insurgency against the Republican Party in New York's 23 congressional district is political apostasy.

Here's a look at the headlines:

* Chris Cillizza, "NY-23 as 2012 Litmus Test?"

* The New York Times, "Right Battles G.O.P. in a Pivotal Race in New York."

* The Politico, "Gingrich: NY-23 'Purge' 'Guarantees Obama's Reelection'." (Via.)

* The Washington Post, "Ideology Trumps Party for Palin."

But Janet Hook's piece at the Los Angeles Times really captures how different establishment thinking is from conservatives on the ground and in the know, "New York Race at Epicenter of a GOP Mutiny":

Silvan Johnson adores Sarah Palin, belongs to a conservative discussion group and fumes at President Obama's spending policies. But when it comes to picking a new congressional representative for her upstate New York district, she is in no mood to help the Republican Party.

In fact, Johnson and many other conservatives want to use a Nov. 3 special election to teach the GOP a lesson about sticking to conservative values -- even though that lesson could mean the party loses a House seat it has held for decades. The conservatives are backing a third-party candidate, splitting the Republican vote and giving the Democrat a lead in some recent opinion polls.

"Both parties seem to be more for big government," said Johnson, a probation clerk in Fulton, N.Y. "The Republicans need to learn that the people they are running [for office] do not represent the views of the people."

The conservative rebellion in northern New York is showing that the anger among disaffected voters, which became prominent this summer during the "tea party" anti-spending rally in Washington and at town hall meetings on healthcare, has become a baffling political force that even Republicans are having a hard time harnessing.

The fight on the right has also made this district the epicenter of a national debate about the future of the Republican Party -- leaving party leaders to ask whether they are better off emphasizing the GOP's small-government and socially conservative values, or trying to broaden their appeal to reach independent and moderate voters.

That part about a "third-party candidiacy" is factually correct, but it misses so much of the reality at issue. Dede Scozzafava's RINO. Virtually the entire modern conservative establishment - including top personalities in the Republican Party - has backed Doug Hoffman in the race. Newt Gingrich - whoa to him - continues to berate the right-wing; but from California to New York, activists are telling the GOP where to put it.

Frankly, for conservatives, winning office in 2010 and 2012 will be less important than upholding moral values of protecting life, limiting government, and securing ethics and competence. Dede Scozzafava's the exact opposite for anyone with a brain in partisan politics today. If there's any lesson for the GOP from last year's presidential race, it's that Sarah Palin was the necessary ingredient to McCain's campaign; her addition to the ticket prevented a Democratic rout of genuine landslide proportions.

It's mindboggling today that folks like Newt Gingrich have forgotten how utterly wrenching were the Republican primaries last year. Perhaps the Democratic drama of identity politics overshadowed the shakeout on the right. But the right's ideological fissues were bright and lasting, particularly when it became clear that the Arizona Senator would be the party's standard-bearer. There's simply not going to be room in the GOP coalition for half-hearted big-government, open-borders Republicans. Someone like Olympia Snowe - who's currently enjoying fleeting power as a swing-vote Republican on health - is the last of a dying breed. It's totally inconceivable that a pro-ObamaCare, bailout-backing Republican today will have any truck with the tea-party/town hall base. Folks on the ground have seen the enemy, and he's both Blue and Red.

But check out J. Robert Smith for more on that, "A Conservative Earthquake, in New York and Beyond":

Smug GOP establishmentarians are proving again that their political seismographs are badly calibrated. The GOP has lined up behind the wrong candidate at the wrong time. Conservatives aren’t going to follow their lead, in New York or elsewhere, anytime soon. Party bosses need to get back in touch or risk hard-to-fix ruptures with conservatives in 2010 and beyond. Conservatives, great and small, are coalescing behind Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee..

New York allows minor parties on election ballots, giving the establishment Republicans a false sense of security as most other states don’t make such allowances. But the old logic that conservatives will have to fall in line elsewhere or risk electing Democrats may not hold. Conservatives are playing by new rules now, and the GOP isn’t showing any signs of getting it.

And one more thing about that "third party" deal. Doug Hoffman is really the legitimate conservative in this race, and he'd be the GOP candidate had not county Republicans picked Dede. This is not a moment of third party ascendency in American politics. If Hoffman loses in New York, he'll immediately emerge as the conservative frontrunner for the 2010 primary, and activists will redouble their efforts elsewhere. RINO's are dead meat. Nationally, Sarah Palin's got the pulse of the party. Her decisionmaking's been exquisite since leaving office earlier this year, and the timing of her new book couldn't have been better. It's just a bit over 12 months until the 2010 midterms. After that, the race for the GOP nomination will begin, and then as now, folks like Doug Hoffman and Sarah Palin will be at the center of the GOP future. Establishment RINOsaurs better get with the program or face extinction.

Oy Vey! Gingrich Slams Right-Wing for 'Purge' of GOP

Somebody please tell Newt Gingrich to stop digging. From The Hill, "Gingrich Calls GOP Support for Hoffman a 'Purge'":

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) late Monday had some choice words for Republicans supporting Conservative Party party candidate Doug Hoffman (N.Y.), accusing them of conducting a "purge" of the GOP.

Many national Republican figures, such as Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) and ex-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), have backed Hoffman over GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava in the 23rd district's special election this year. The district has been long-held by Republicans, but many conservatives have shied away from Scozzafava for her socially liberal positions and the local GOP's selection process that they say was not transparent.

Gingrich broke the mold and backed Scozzafava, saying her candidacy gave the Republicans the best shot of regaining a congressional majority. The former Speaker faced a push-back from the right after his announcement but he upped the ante on Monday.

"This idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests and all across the country we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent; that guarantees Obama's reelection, that guarantees Pelosi as Speaker-for-life," he told Fox News last night.

Yeah. Right.

See Michelle Malkin's response, "Yes, Newt, the GOP Should be 'Purged' of Left-Wing Saboteurs."

Image Credit: The Blog Prof, "Song: Karl Marx - 'Dede' - Marx Endorses Dede Scozzafava!"

Islamic State of Iraq Claims Responsibility for Justice Ministry Blast: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Cheers Inside Job, Questions Baghdad Gov't Legitimacy

Rachel Maddow all but applauded the terror in her report last night on the Ministry of Justice attack in Iraq that killed nearly 160. Yet, reports from both the BBC and the Washington Post indicate that al Qaeda in Iraq affilates mounted the carnage, and neither of the reports raises questions of an inside job. See, "Al-Qaeda Group Claims Iraq Blasts," and "Extremist Group Claims Responsibility for Baghdad Bombs."

From the BBC's report:

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said the attacks showed that increased international support for the country was "vital and important".

The blasts drew comparison with an attack on 19 August, also claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq, in which truck bombs hit two ministry buildings and killed at least 100 people.

Iraq then blamed foreign fighters and accused Syria of involvement, demanding a UN investigation.

Mr Zebari said Sunday's blasts had strengthened that request for "a senior international envoy to come to Iraq and evaluate the degree of interference targeting stability in Iraq".
The US state department said it would support a United Nations investigation into "very serious allegations" of foreign involvement in Iraqi violence.

"What happened was so utterly horrific that the circumstances surrounding it need to be looked into," spokesman Ian Kelly was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

Overall, violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq compared to a year ago, but sporadic attacks still continue in several parts of the country.

See also, Astute Bloggers, "HUGE SUICIDE ATTACK IN BAGHDAD - 150+ DEAD; 500+ WOUNDED."

Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out...

Bruce Springsteen's not one of my all-time favorites, but I've enjoyed some of his music over the years. Check out this old clip, from 1975, of the E Street Band's "Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out":

Tear drops on the city
Bad Scooter searching for his groove
Seem like the whole world walking pretty
And you can't find the room to move
Well everybody better move over, that's all
'Cause I'm running on the bad side
And I got my back to the wall
Tenth Avenue freeze-out, Tenth Avenue freeze-out...

More lyrics here.

My good friend Tony at PA Pundits International is again an inspiration for my rock-and-roll posting. See this week's Sunday night music-club entry, "Sunday Music – Reelin’ In The Years."

Also, thanks to Theo Spark for generous inclusion in his hot blog roundups.

P.S. I chose Springteen after listening this morning to a medley of piano-rockers on KSWD - The Sound 100.3 FM (Elton John, Toto, etc.). Check out the station for live Internet streaming. Great stuff!

Measuring Counterinsurgency Success

This is vital contribution to the ongoing debate on Afghanistan: See Jason Campbell, Michael E. O'Hanlon, and Jeremy Shapiro, "How to Measure the War: Judging Success and Failure in Counterinsurgency."

The authors apply comparative analytical metrics to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq war is broken down into three periods: The initial campaign to topple the Baghdad regime (marked by military victory and the subsequent rise of armed resistance); from 2004 to the end of 2006 (where Americans nearly lost Iraq to insurgency, transnational terrorism, and civil war); and 2007 to the present (a period in which security improved so much that the levels of violence in Iraq was less than that of Russia and South Africa for the same period).

Campbell, O'Hanlon, and Shapiro are not rosy-eyed optimists. The authors indicate that while the insurgency in Iraq was more deadly overall, Afghanistan begins from a much lower level of development. On many comparative indicators, the Aghans rate dead last in human developmental indices - the population is poor, largely illiterate, with little scientific and technological (human capital) infrastructure from which to build a modern state.

What's perhaps the most important section of is the discussion of public support for the Karzai government and potential support for the alternative: a return to the Taliban's theo-authoritarian regime:

Public opinion ... serves as a helpful way to transpose the various data onto local expectations, providing needed perspective even if it is notoriously difficult to poll in conflict zones. After all, it is the civilians that are the focal point of counterinsurgency missions. Recent polling sheds light on some interesting points that belie the widely perceived severity of decline in Afghanistan. When Afghans were asked what the biggest problem in their local area was, in a 2008 bbc poll, insecurity received only 14 percent of the vote, tying for the sixth most popular answer behind a host of quality-of-life concerns such as unemployment, electricity, access to potable water, roads, and health care.7 Another popular theory challenged by polling is the sense that public support for Karzai and the central government has reached dangerously low levels, creating an opening for a return of Taliban control. True, approval ratings for Karzai and the central government have declined since 2005 (from 83 percent to 52 percent for Karzai and from 80 percent to 48 percent for the central government). However, when asked who they would rather have ruling Afghanistan, the overwhelming majority (between 82 and 91 percent in annual polling since 2005) reply “Current Government,” with “Taliban” gaining the favor of only between 1 percent and 4 percent of the respondents. Additionally, public disdain for the Taliban has remained static, with between 84 and 91 percent of respondents stating they have a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of the group.8 Tactical innovations by insurgents, particularly suicide bombings that kill civilians, have not always increased the insurgents’ popularity with the larger population, even in areas where they enjoy traditional support. One can infer that while there is palpable frustration with the continued ineffectiveness of the central government, the Taliban are not viewed as a viable alternative by the vast majority of Afghanistan’s people.

The authors suggest that Americans take the long view on the mission. In the near-term, folks shouldn't expect much improvement in metrics until the end of 2010 -- and that's if the mission's been successful to that point. Patience is key, as noted:

Counterinsurgency campaigns, especially successful ones, last on average over a decade. For this reason, political leaders rightly counsel patience. But skeptical publics rightly demand interim measures that can demonstrate that progress is being made. Both points of view are legitimate, even if they are in tension. On balance, however, patience is required in Afghanistan, since the main task there is to build up institutions and Afghan government capacity — inherently difficult and slow enterprises.

Video Hat Tip: Theo Spark. (If President Obama abandons the deployment, he'll be forsaking the huge sacrifices this country has made for liberty and security in that nation so far, and he'll be damning the Afghan people to a regime of political authoritarianism they do not want.)

Dems to Cram 'Public Option' Down Throat of American Public

As far as I'm concerned, the public option was defeated last summer, when conservatives protested Democratic health policy at town hall forums around the nation. Reputable polls continue to show tepid support for a government run health plan, which is why papers like the Washington Post have published bogus polls to help the Democrats deceive the American people.

Now here's this from Breitbart, "Pelosi: Health Care 'Public Option' Needs New Name" (via Memeorandum):

A government-sponsored "public option" for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.
In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as "the consumer option." Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi's side and used the term "competitive option."

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

"You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this,'" Pelosi said. "When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars."

Pelosi said that was a misconception and that any taxpayer money used to start up the public option would be repaid. She also said such an option would ultimately drive down government health care costs.

The speaker said the "competitive option" idea emerged during her closed-door roundtable at the Sunrise Senior Center with advocates of seniors and others who work with older populations. Wasserman Schultz suggested the term might be here to stay.

Right. A competitive option? These idiots got nothing!

See also, Verum Serum, "Public Option Marketing by Dems Finally Jumps the Shark." Plus, from William Jacobson, "Harry Reid: 'I Have Nothing to Announce, So Pay Attention'."

RELATED: The Wall Street Journal, "Senate on Verge of Health Bill."

Gingrich Doubles-Down Support for RINO Scozzafava: Attacks Conservatives as Hoffman Surges in NY-23

I thought Newt Gingrich was one of the sharpest analysts in contemporary politics? He's not looking too bright right now, and in fact, he's downright stupid if he's now seriously contemplating entry into the race for the 2012 GOP nomination.

Last week the former House Speaker came out in favor of electing RINO Dede Scozzafava to Congress from New York's 23rd congressional district. And now Gingrich is stepping up his attacks on the grassroots/tea party base, and amazingly, this is just as public support is putting Hoffman on top in the polls.

From the Politico, "Newt Gingrich: Doug Hoffman Support a 'Mistake'":

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is warning conservative activists that their support for a third-party candidate in a key upcoming New York special election is a “mistake.”

In a video captured last week and posted on YouTube Friday, Gingrich told tea party organizer Lisa Miller at a book-signing event that conservatives are inadvertently hindering the cause by backing Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Dede Scozzafava, the Republican Party’s nominee.

“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,” Gingrich said. “If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.”

A number of top national conservative voices have endorsed Hoffman in the last week, while others have yet to weigh in on behalf of either candidate. Gingrich, however, is one of the few prominent conservatives to support Scozzafava.

Asked why he chose to back Scozzafava, who supports abortion rights, same sex marriage and has ties with local labor leaders, Gingrich responded, “Let’s just start with she is the nominee of the local party. My bias is to be for the nominee of the local party, and I don’t second guess the local party.”

His bias is obviously toward radical lefist ideological carpetbaggers.

More later ...

Momentum's With Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd Congressional

From the Club for Growth, "Hoffman Surges Into Lead in NY-23"(via Memeorandum):

A poll released today by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army.

The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009, shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and 22% undecided. The poll's margin of error is +/- 5.66%. No information was provided about any of the candidates prior to the ballot question.

This is the third poll done for the Club for Growth in the NY-23 special election, and Doug Hoffman is the only candidate to show an increase in his support levels in each successive poll. The momentum in the race is clearly with Hoffman.

Notice the absence of push-polling methods.

The findings match up with my comments at my previous post, on the dynamism of the conservative movement, "Gallup Poll: Conservatism is Top Ideology; Meanwhile, From Newsweek: Right-Wing Has 'Overstayed' its Welcome."

Gallup Poll: Conservatism is Top Ideology; Meanwhile, From Newsweek: Right-Wing Has 'Overstayed' its Welcome

Gallup reports that conservative ideology is backed by a large plurality of Americans, "Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group":

Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

Compare that to Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's discussion of current partisan trends, "The Great American Ideological Crackup" (via Memeorandum):

Shortly after the 2004 presidential election, I was chatting with a senior figure in the Democratic Party when, inevitably, the talk turned to why John Kerry had lost. My interlocutor's theory of the case: the voters did not know the truth about George W. Bush. Why didn't they know the truth? I asked. The reply: because of Roger Ailes.

On hearing that a particularly dopey man we both knew had gone to rehab for drinking, a friend of mine once sent me an e-mail that said: "You know, that's an awful lot to blame on alcohol." To adapt the image, the 2004 victory is an awful lot to credit Ailes with. The head of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel, Ailes (whom I know) is a talented and influential man. He rose from The Mike Douglas Show to become a maker of presidents, from Nixon to Bush 41, and his channel is a big player in our politics. But if he and Fox News were as omnipotent as Democrats fear, John McCain and Sarah Palin would be in the White House.

Still, to many liberals, Murdoch and Ailes are the scary Wild Things of the last decade or so in American politics, the men on whom many of the evils of the world can be blamed ....

The whole thing feels like the last war, or a song that has not worn well, or a guest who has overstayed his welcome. The White House–vs.–Fox News mini-saga belongs to an era that effectively ended last fall, when President Bush radically enlarged the role of the federal government in the economy and Obama won the presidency. It was clear then, and is even clearer now, that the issues which long defined the right-left divide (hawkishness abroad, a limited role for government at home) are in spectacular disarray.

It's mindboggling, really, this elite media-bubble that envelops folks like Jon Meacham.

Forty percent of Americans identify with conservatism, we've had nearly a year of grassroots conservative and libertarian protests against the excessive government of both parties, and the most dynamic political movement in the country right now is the conservative's grassroots election campaign in New York's 23 congressional district.

That's what should be on the cover of this week's Newsweek, not Anna Quindlen's lame paean to President Obama's first year in office, "Hope Springs Eternal."

I'm doubling-down on my prediction that Obama's a one-term president. The left just doesn't get it: Democrats won no mandate to reengineer society in 2008. Folks want competence and good goverment, and instead they've been hoodwinked by a dopey-changey ideological Pied Piper of socialist nihilism.

It's almost unbelievable, but a real ideological crackup's coming ... conservatives just need to keep the pressure on.