Uh, Josh

From TPM:

Why did Fred Thompson accuse Barack Obama of not opposing infanticide?

Think I'm exaggerating? Look at his words ...

And we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.

And McCain approved it.

Hey, Josh, the reason Fred Thompson accused Barack Obama of not opposing infanticide is that he doesn't.

"They're both not ready. . ."

Of course neither Senator Clinton or Obama is ready to face the challenges of the war on terror and keep our country safe. We knew this.

But, why take it from me when you can listen to Sen. Obama's foreign policy advisor Susan Rice:



If you're serious about defending our country, you have one choice.

Today's Awards

Sly Innuendo Award: The crew responsible for the ridiculous attempted hit piece on McCain in today's NYT.

Holy Crap! Award: I agree with Talking Points Memo! I do believe that this is a first.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, "heh": The Times Upholds Its Standards, by John Hinderaker at Power Line.

I can't add much to that discussion. From the Times, this sort of thing is less surprising than lamentable, but there we go.

Electoral Compass

My boy Nick did this and I thought it was cool, so I did too (if the picture's too small, click it):



I suppose this is a fair place to put me in the American political context, although with a different set of questions I could come out on the other side of the libertarian/authoritarian line. In fact I do, on the Political Compass:



One of the things that my buddies on talk radio could stand to learn is that any given election will serve up issues that may be somewhat misleading as to a candidates ideological position. Looking at a candidate's outlook more generally is probably a better indication of what they'll do than their individual positions. The fact that I agree with Ron Paul on some issues that have been discussed in this particular election does not mean that I think he'd be the best candidate.

I may develop this further in another post; I want to talk about the Republicans' choice in the 2000 Presidential primary and how it relates to this point.

Feel the McMentum!

When even the TownHall crew is moving toward McCain, you can feel the fat lady warming up.

So, think about where we could be: a balanced budget, the war in Iraq won, a conservative Supreme Court, border security increased, the Republican Party's reputation much improved, and McCain leaving office in 2012. Can you really tell me that sounds so bad?

Yes, indeed.

How the Democrats can lose this election

It'll be a challenge, but they might just be up to it. Eating their own is probably a good start.

One of the things that I find most obnoxious about the Bush administration and the state of the Republican right is the insistence on orthodoxy. Like the Party in 1984, their command is not "Thou shalt," it is "Thou art." Our friends in the netroots despise this unwillingness to acknowledge the good faith of the other side, as do I.

Apparently, their solution is to emulate it. I don't think that is a winning position.

Today is what's right with America

For horse-race punditry, go somewhere where it's followed closer than it is here. But, today, in New Hampshire, they choose a leader. My boy is John McCain, and here's his final thought. Whoever you favor, in New Hampshire or somewhere else, think about this as you vote:

Thank you for your support. Please vote for us tomorrow. But most importantly, I cannot tell you what an honor it is for me to have had the great privilege of sharing so many wonderful, wonderful experiences with you about the most important part of democracy, the best part of democracy in a nation that is still a shining city on a hill. Thank you very much, thank you for being here, God bless you and God bless America.

(H/T: Byron York)

ABC Debate

My boy Buckeyenewshawk is probably not watching the debate (with the Steelers on) so I'll fill in with some thoughts on the GOP debate:

• What was with Romney pushing the health care mandate? He was taking a reasonable position, but can't be a winner in this primary, can it?
• Yes, yes, we know. Mitt is a flip-flopper. Thanks, boys.
• The measuring contest on who can be tougher on illegals was kinda silly. Fred Thompson was generally pretty good but he was unnecessarily shrill here.
• It was nice to see my boy John above the fray somewhat -- he jumped on Mitt a couple of times but given the format, it must have been tempting to come at him more. I guess when you're the front-runner, you can play it safe.
  
• Thompson, as the not-front-runner, could have been a little more aggressive. It's one thing to say "flip-flopper!" or "amnesty!" and another thing to offer your own policy proposals and contrast them with others'.
• I still like McCain, but I thought Romney won the show. He showed mastery of the various issues in a way the other candidates didn't.
  

Happy New Year

Yeah, so I haven't been so good about posting. Consider a regular appearance here to be a New Year's Resolution.

Check out this story from some guy in LA. Of particular interest is this graf:

Supporters of right-to-work statutes tend to be anti-collectivist, libertarian wannabes who elevate personal choice to iconic status, and are willing to be paid less and accept substandard benefits in return for the right not to have to join a big, bad workers' collective. When you consider the simple arithmetic involved, this antipathy to unions, this flat-out rejection of economic advancement via strength-in-numbers, isn't merely irrational, it's pitiful.

That could be. It's also possible that they don't want to pay for the "privilege" of supporting political causes they don't believe in. It's also possible that they would like to speak for themselves, and not have their talking done for them by a body that may not represent them. Or, maybe they believe in a collaborative working environment, that their job ultimately depends on the success of their employer.

But, sure, people who believe in right-to-work must be stupid.

First Monday

Here come the Supremes -- and as we turn to the month on the calendar where eight (well, nine, until tonight anyway) cities are focused more on other groups of nine contesting the baseball playoffs, the Supreme Court will begin its session today. Many big cases are on tap; for the best coverage anywhere, take a leap past Linda Greenhouse at the NYT and go straight to the recently redesigned SCOTUS blog. If the law is as interesting to you as it is to me, you'll enjoy the read.

Which brings me to my main point for today. I have no brief for the current crop of Republican presidential candidates, except for McCain, who probably won't win. In fact, if it ends up being

Giuliani vs. HRC, there isn't much difference on policy positions and on intangibles I would probably prefer Hillary.

But, I would have to vote for Rudy in that case. The most important difference is that Rudy will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will respect the Constitution and the other branches of government for the next 20 years. Hillary will appoint justices who will rewrite the constitution to achieve their policy objectives. That is more important than anything else, in my opinion.