November 7, 2009
Tune In to Hear Michael Barone
A reminder: in one hour, 11:30 central, we will be interviewing Michael Barone on our radio show, talking about Tuesday's election and the new edition of his Almanac of American Politics. Go here to listen live on the web.
Dictatorships and double standards, part 2
Our friend Monical Showalter writes regarding the victimization of the heroic Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez (of Generación Y) by one of the dictators with whom Barack Obama takes no issue:
Yoani Sanchez, the adorable and vividly good Cuban blogger who blogs about Castro's island hellhole from inside Cuba, using her own name, has been beaten up by Castro's thugs for the first time. Yoani described it as "professional violence." It's never happened before.
It shows that the Cuba Michael Moore touts and the left praises is nothing but a vicious police goon state. This is the real Cuba. For a long time everyone wondered how Yoani could get away with the blogging she did without coming under fire from the Castroites, and well, now it looks like she can't.
I think they've struck because Castro can't stand the truth coming out about his hellhole regime, Yoani's fame is growing, and Columbia J-School recently offered her an award that the Castroites wouldn't allow her out of the country to accept. Now these animals won't stop till they get her.
Monica directs us to this Miami Herald account as well as Val Prieto's Babalú post. We earnestly hope that Americans will pay attention and speak up on behalf of Yoani Sanchez.
Into the Teeth of Public Opinion
At this moment, the House of Representatives has begun to debate Pelosicare. Unexpectedly, the Democrats' leadership is struggling to find the 218 votes needed for passage. The immediate hurdle is abortion. The Democrats' House bill provides for federal funding of abortions, and the pro-life movement has mobilized in support of the Stupak Amendment, which would remove abortion funding from the bill. Latest word is that Nancy Pelosi has been forced to permit a vote on the amendment some time today. We'll see.
Our assumption has always been that the House Democratic leadership can pass anything they want, discipline in that body being what it is, and that the real chance of stopping a government takeover of health care is in the Senate. I still think that's probably true, but the rebellion of House Democrats is heartening. As NRCC spokesman Ken Spain put it, "If this bill is the political winner Nancy Pelosi claims it is, then why are Democrats fighting over who gets to vote against it?"
That is, indeed, the rub. The Democrats are trying to jam a deeply unpopular measure down the throats of the American people. In the Rasmussen survey, voters oppose the Democrats' plan 54-42 percent. Equally significant is this CNN/Opinion Research survey, which finds that respondents oppose "Barack Obama's plan to reform health care" by 53-45 percent. Even more striking is this breakdown: only 26 percent want Congress to pass the existing legislation with "only minor changes." A whopping 72 percent want Congress to start over, to make major changes in the existing bills, or to abandon the entire project.
It's worth remembering that the Democrats' original plan was to slip their health care takeover past the voters before anyone noticed. They intended to pass some version of the bill through both the House and Senate and have it signed by President Obama before the August recess. Only a suddenly-informed and aroused public forced a delay in that schedule. Since then, public opposition to the Democrats' plan has only deepened.
It seems obvious that a fundamental restructuring of something as important as the nation's health care system--a restructuring, in this case, that would irrevocably alter the relationship between citizen and state--should not be undertaken without public consensus in support of the measure. In the case of Pelosicare, not only is there no public consensus in favor of the measure, it flies in the face of broad and deep public opposition and even anger.
That the Democrats are willing to ram through their radical proposal under these circumstances is a tribute either to their tenacity or their foolhardiness. Time will tell which.
UPDATE: With commendable thoroughness, the Republicans have diagrammed the insanity that is Pelosicare. This chart will be featured in today's House debate; click to enlarge:
It's A Mystery
President Obama's radio address today is on the Fort Hood massacre. Byron York has the full text.
Yesterday, Obama warned us against jumping to conclusions. Now, as we predicted, it's pretty clear that Obama has no intention of coming to any conclusions, ever. He ponders the deep mystery of why Nidal Malik Hasan, whom he refers to only as "an Army psychiatrist," thought it was a good idea to murder American soldiers:
We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing.
There may be some cosmic sense in which that sentence is true; who can ever plumb the depths of the human heart? But we didn't elect Obama our novelist in chief. He is our commander in chief, and as such his prime responsibility is to protect and the defend the Constitution. And us. We make judgments about other people's motivations all the time; to take just one obvious example, juries in both civil and criminal cases are frequently required to decide "what leads a man to do such a thing."
In this particular case, Hasan seems to have left a pretty good trail of clues. But Obama has no interest in following them. Instead, the lesson he draws from the "tragedy" at Fort Hood is a paean to the diversity of our armed forces:
They are Americans of every race, faith, and station. They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers. They are descendents of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America. But what they share is a patriotism like no other.
That's generally true, of course. But one soldier who didn't share that "patriotism like no other" was Nidal Malik Hasan. And, based on the fragmentary information available so far, it appears that there were pretty clear indications, well before Thursday's massacre, that Hasan had no business serving in the armed forces. One of the subjects that needs to be investigated is what set of assumptions, values and perhaps political pressures led responsible officials to allow Hasan--at best, an obviously troubled individual--to continue serving as a psychiatrist to wounded servicemen. That, along with "what leads a man to do such a thing," are questions that need to be investigated honestly and objectively, not viewed through the fog of Obama's politically-motivated agnosticism.
Dictatorships and double standards revisited
Stephen Hayes invokes Jeane Kirkpatrick's classic 1979 essay on Jimmy Carter's foreign policy in his his Weekly Standard article of the same title on Barack Obama's foreign policy. Hayes updates the the continuing saga of the Obama administration's appeasement of the Islamic Republic of Iran. By contrast with its valentines for the mullahs, as Hayes reports, the administration last week had harsh words...for Fiji.
Hayes doesn't mention the Obama administation's reaction to Israel's seizure of the Francop and its cache of weapons from Iran for Hezbollah. Caroline Glick observes:
The US did not denounce either Syria or Iran for breaching the UN Security Council resolution barring Iranian arms shipments as well as the Security Council resolution prohibiting nations from arming Hizbullah. The US did not state that in response to what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called a "smoking gun," it will reconsider its decision to send an ambassador to Damascus or its commitment to appeasing Iran through its nuclear talks in Geneva. The only thing a State Department official could bring himself to say was that the US is concerned about "Hizbullah's efforts to rearm in direct violation of various UN Security Council resolutions," and remark that the groups remains, "a significant threat to peace and security in Lebanon and the region."
The administration's treatment of Iran in the face of the events discussed by Hayes and Glick is in its own way a "smoking gun" demonstrating Obama's absurdity.
The Circle Game
Visiting a friend in Boston in the fall of 1968 I caught a live show with James Taylor opening for Joni Mitchell in a basement dive with benches for seats. It was an incredible show for the price of the $3.00 ticket. Taylor's debut album on Apple hadn't even been released yet, but both Taylor and Mitchell had developed followings based on the songs they had contributed to Tom Rush's "Circle Game" album earlier that year. (According to Sheila Weller's Girls Like Us, Mitchell's affair with Taylor followed shortly after.)
Mitchell was the star of the show I saw. She had only recently arrived on the scene, having turned up with two dozen finely crafted songs that instantly put her on the map and a restless spirit that has kept her an artist of continuing interest. In her first batch of songs was "Both Sides Now," which Judy Collins had already turned into a massive hit by the time I saw Mitchell in 1968.
One of the highlights of her career must be her appearance at the Band's Last Waltz Thanksgiving concert in 1976. The video from the film captures Mitchell's performance of "Coyote," a song that gives a bittersweet taste of a musician's life on the road. (Weller, incidentally, reveals that "Coyote" is the playwright Sam Shepard.)
The blissful counterpart to "Coyote" is "Night Ride Home." It's the Fourth of July fifteen years later. Mitchell is on vacation in Hawaii and on the road with the man she loves beside her -- "far from the overkill, far from the overload." On the banks of the Amstel River in Amsterdam, accompanying herself alone and looking her listener straight in the eyes, Mitchell brings this beautiful song to life in this video.
Yesterday Mitchell turned 66. As she anticipated in "The Circle Game," we are now old enough to drag our feet and try to slow those circles down.
November 6, 2009
The 1959 World Series, Game Six -- improbable champions
Sometimes you hear it said that baseball's post-season reveals weaknesses in teams that went undetected during the regular season. I've never really subscribed to this view. The 162 game season (and its 154 game predecessor) should expose any true weaknesses. The much shorter post-season (only four to seven games in the old days) has more to do with chance than with revealing hidden truths about a squad.
On the other hand, I believe the post-season can reveal things about managers who, due to the pressure and the format of an elimination series, can find themselves managing quite differently than they did during the regular season. Sometimes, to put it bluntly, they panic. And, at the risk of contradicting my opening paragraph, when managers panic in the post-season, their decisions tend to reflect their innermost fears - justified or not - about weaknesses in their squad that were not apparent during the regular season.
We have seen how Milwaukee Braves manager Fred Haney tried to get through the 1958 World Series by having Warren Spahn and Lew Burdette pitch 51 of his team's 63 innings. It didn't work, nor should Haney have believed it would.
In 1959, Al Lopez went into the World Series with six pitchers in whom he had real confidence - Early Wynn, Bob Shaw, Dick Donovan, Billy Pierce, Jerry Staley, and Turk Lown. That's a little thin, but probably not fatally so. By way of comparison, his opposite number, Walter Alston, had perhaps four pitchers he trusted greatly - Don Drysdale, Roger Craig, Johnny Podres, and Larry Sherry -- and perhaps three more he trusted up to a point -- Sandy Koufax, Stan Williams, and Clem Labine. This year, the Yankees and Phillies both seemed to have about eight pitchers they mostly trusted.
When relievers Staley and Lown struggled early in the Series, Lopez seemed to lose faith in them, even though during the regular season they had formed one of the best relief tandems in the history of baseball to that point. Facing elimination in Game 5, Lopez had used Donovan and Pierce to relieve Shaw, instead of Staley and Lown. This meant that in Game Six, Lopez felt constrained to hand the ball to Wynn, age 39, even though he had only two days rest.
The result was disastrous. In the third inning Wynn gave up a two-run homer to Snider (this was the 11th and final home run for this Dodgers legend, who had not started the previous three games). In the fourth, Demeter singled, Roseboro sacrificed him to second, Wills singled him in, and Podres, the pitcher, doubled in Wills.
Lopez then brought in Donovan (not Staley or Lown), even though he had started Game Three and relieved in Game Five. Donovan walked Gilliam and allowed a double to Neal. After Moon then homered, the Dodgers were up 8-0.
The White Sox rallied in the bottom of the inning. Kluszewski smashed a three-run homeer off of Podres and the White Sox then loaded the bases with two out. However, Larry Sherry, who had helped load them, retired Aparicio to end the inning. Sherry gave up only three hits over the final five innings, and the Dodgers cruised home to victory, 9-3.
For the Dodgers it was an improbable championship. They had finished seventh in 1958, and in 1959 had only the fifth best run differential in the majors. I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if, in the days of 16 teams and no post-season other than the World Series, any team ever won a championship with the fifth best run differential. The Dodgers could also count themselves lucky that the Yankees imploded in 1959. The 1958 and 1960 Yankees would have been favored against the '59 Dodgers. But then, so were the White Sox, if I remember correctly.
The 1959 championship came at the exact mid-point between the Dodgers' previous one in 1955 and their next one in 1963. The '59 team was a mixture of holdovers from '55, such as "Boys of Summer" Hodges, Furillo, and Snider; mainstays of the 1963 team like Drysdale, Koufax, Roseboro, and Wills; and solid but unspectacular players for whom this would be their only championship with the Dodgers, e.g., Demeter, Neal, and Larker. Larry Sherry, who won two games and saved the other two Dodgers wins in this Series would play only a bit part on the 1963 team. The only Dodgers who contributed meaningfully to all three championships were Podres, Gilliam, and of course Alston, the skipper.
For the White Sox, 1959 was a great success despite the World Series failure. They had won the pennant for the first time since 1919, the year of the Black Sox, and in doing so had broken the Yankees streak of four straight pennants.
The future didn't look great, however. Of Lopez's core pitchers, only Shaw was under age 30, and Wynn and Staley were 39 and 38, respectively. Among the eight non-pitchers who started most often in the Series, only Landis and Aparicio were under 30.
The White Sox would double down on aging veterans in 1960. Hoping to make one more run at a championship, they added Minnie Minoso (37) and Roy Sievers (33). The result was another very good team, probably better than the 1959 version, but not quite good enough to stave off the resurgent Yankees. New York finished 10 games ahead of Chicago, albeit with an almost identical run differential.
The White Sox would not make it back to the post-season until 1983 and their next World Series (which they won) was not until 2005 - a wait that exceeded by six years the seemingly interminable one that had ended in 1959.
Uighurs In Paradise, Part II
The Uighurs are Muslims from East Turkmenistan who no doubt have legitimate grievances against the Chinese who have conquered and colonized their country, if such it ever was. But some of them decided to pursue jihad against China and went to Afghanistan to train with al Qaeda. They were there at the end of 2001 when we routed the Taliban and captured a number of terrorists and terrorist trainees. The Uighurs fell in the latter category.
The Uighurs posed no great threat to the U.S., notwithstanding their extreme Muslim beliefs, and the Bush administration would have been happy to let them go. But the only country that wanted them was China, and the Chinese government would have killed them the moment they got off the airplane. So, for humanitarian reasons, the Bush administration held the Uighurs at Guantanamo Bay and tried to find someone who would take them.
The Obama administration finally succeeded in that effort, but at considerable cost. The first batch of Uighur terrorist trainees were resettled in Bermuda. We wrote about it here. Going from East Turkmenistan to a training camp in Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay to Bermuda may not be quite like dying and going to Heaven, but it's awfully close.
Now the second batch of six Uighurs has been resettled, in Palau. Palau has little in common with Bermuda except that both are island paradises. The Associated Press reports:
Palau, a clutch of islands east of the Philippines that is home to some 20,000 people and still relies on funds from Washington, offered to take all but one of the Uighurs. Both sides denied the offer was linked to U.S. aid. ...
[President Johnson] Toribiong is taking a personal interest in the resettlement. He turned out to welcome them when they arrived before dawn Sunday. On Wednesday, he plans to treat them to a boat trip and picnic in Palau's Rock Islands, the country's main tourist destination and one of the world's top diving spots. ...
Earlier, the Uighurs spent time at an Internet cafe, setting up e-mail accounts and contacting relatives in Australia and four fellow former detainees now living in Bermuda.
Nearby, their government-supplied home has spotless hardwood floors, a fresh coat of paint, new furniture and appliances, and a sweeping view of the ocean. Washington is paying for the Uighurs' housing, job training, food and other costs in Palau.
To the men's visible relief, a large air conditioner was delivered Tuesday afternoon to help them cope with the tropical heat. High speed internet--a rarity in Palau--and cable television are scheduled to be installed on Wednesday.
Here is a photo of the resettled Uighurs, having shaved their long beards to fit in with the local population:
Here, a couple of the would-be terrorists go wading in the Pacific Ocean:
Here, they are grilling beef skewers on the beach:
Here, they board a boat for the picnic in the Rock Islands referred to above:
It's hard to know what to make of this, apart from the fact that the world is a weird place, and getting weirder all the time. I'm fine with resettling the Uighurs, but is it really necessary for U.S. taxpayers to fund "spotless hardwood floors, a fresh coat of paint, new furniture and appliances, and a sweeping view of the ocean"? Not to mention housing, job training, food, and all other living expenses, including air conditioning, cable television and high-speed internet, which is a "rarity" in Palau. If the administration is looking for volunteers to live at government expense in an island paradise, count me in.
No doubt these expenses are a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions that the Obama administration is wasting here at home. But could it be any clearer that we are living under a government that treats our tax money--which is to say, our work; our time; our lives--with contempt?
Tune In Tomorrow
Tomorrow I'll be on the radio from 11 to 1 central, as usual, with my radio partner Brian Ward on AM 1280 the Patriot. You can listen on the internet here. At 11:30 central, 12:30 eastern, we'll be interviewing Michael Barone. Tune in to hear Michael's thoughts on Tuesday's results and the new edition of his Almanac of American Politics.
Living in a World Gone Mad
Mark Steyn, at The Corner:
The Headline of the Day, from the BBC:
Shooting Raises Fears For Muslims In US Army
Really? Right now the body count stands at:
Non-Muslims 13
Muslims 0...Even if you take the view that it would be grossly unfair if all Muslims were to be tarred by Major Hasan's brush, it is, to put it at its mildest, the grossest bad taste to default every single time within minutes to the position that what's of most interest about an actual actrocity with real victims is that it may provoke an entirely hypothetical atrocity with entirely hypothetical victims.
The BBC article is actually worse than the headline. There is, though, a certain black humor to this kind of news coverage. For example:
Kamran Memon of the organisation Muslims For a Safe America says the subject splits America's Muslim community down the middle.
"Those at one end of the spectrum say we should have nothing to do with the US armed forces as they are involved in wars with our fellow Muslims abroad," he told the BBC.
"Those at the other end say we should definitely serve and help defend our country against those who wish to attack it."There is no easy answer to this."
It's a puzzle, all right.
Mr Memon says the vast majority of Muslim citizens in America are "able to live peaceful lives", even though they have probably suffered some discrimination, if only a hostile look, since the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Raise your hand if no one has given you a hostile look since 2001. I actually get a lot of them, but then, I'm a lawyer.
However, there have been some high profile incidents in recent years that have fuelled tensions.
At a camp in Kuwait, as his unit prepared to move into Iraq in March 2003, Sergeant Hasan Akbar threw hand grenades and opened fire on a tent full of sleeping soldiers in the early hours of the morning.
Yes, that could tend to fuel tensions. Maybe even lead to a hostile look. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for that hypothetical atrocity, as Mark put it, with its hypothetical victims.
Jumping to Conclusions
President Obama took another pass at commenting on the Fort Hood massacre in the Rose Garden this morning:
This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow servicemen and women. We don't know all of the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts.
"Don't jump to conclusions" is an all-purpose tautology, like "Don't panic." It's hard to argue with. One wonders, though, exactly what conclusions he has in mind. I think it's safe to predict that President Obama will never reach those conclusions, let alone jump to them.
The most informative and straightforward account of the massacre I've seen is in London's Sun newspaper. It pays tribute to policewoman Kimberly Munley, who was on a routine traffic patrol and became the first officer on the site. (There were lots of soldiers there, of course, but they were all unarmed because it was a "gun-free zone"--sort of a microcosm of the adage that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.) It would have been easy for her to conclude that this incident was way beyond her pay grade and wait for reinforcements, but instead Sgt. Munley sought out the murderer, confronted him and shot him four times while being wounded herself. The Sun quotes Base Commander Lt. Gen. Bob Cone:
Often you circle the building and wait for back-up. But the thinking is if you act aggressively and take-out the shooter you have less fatalities.
Presumably that doesn't constitute jumping to conclusions.
PAUL adds: Suddenly, President Obama doesn't want to jump to conclusions. He had no such compunction about jumping to conclusions when his friend Professor Gates harangued a police officer.
I think we can jump to a few in this case. The shooter hated the United States and its armed forces. The shooter's grievances were political and religious in nature. In addition, the shooter may have had grievances specific to things that were said and done to him. Any such grievances cannot remotely explain or justify his resort to violence, much less mass killing. The killings are best viewed as an act of terrorism grounded in radical Islam.
A FEW MORE CONCLUSIONS (jumped to by Paul): The shooter should be executed. If the shooter is not executed, this country is in more trouble than I thought. There should be an investigation into how the shooter remained in the Army, given his increasingly obvious anti-American radicalism.
The rule against soldiers carrying weapons on military bases should be revisited. The rule against soldiers having their weapons "locked and loaded" on bases in combat areas (yes, a friend who served in Iraq tells me there was such a rule on his base) should be revoked.
Today's Unemployment Figure In Context
Unemployment has reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent. Today the House Republican Conference sent out this graphic, which is essentially the same as the chart that we've been following for some months now; click to enlarge:
It's gone past the point where we could officially declare the "stimulus" bill a failure. At this juncture, I don't see how to avoid the conclusion that the administration's economic policies, taken as a whole, have been misguided.
UPDATE: Heh.
Pro Musica Hebraica
Pro Musica Hebraica is an organization devoted to presenting Jewish classical music -- much of it lost, forgotten, or rarely performed -- in a concert hall setting. It is the project of Charles and Robyn Krauthammer (respectively, the chairman and the chief executive officer). Charles Krauthammer discussed the project in some depth during this interview with the Jerusalem Post.
Pro Musica Hebraica's concerts take place at the Kennedy Center here in Washington. Each concert focuses on the music of a particular era and a particular venue.
Last night, my wife and I had the pleasure of attending what I believe was the third concert. Its focus was on baroque music from Holland and Italy in the 1600 and 1700s. The music was performed, wonderfully, by the Apollo Ensemble of Amsterdam, which was making its United States debut.
Two of the selections were by Salamone de Rossi, described as the premier Jewish composer of the Italian Renaissance. The "show-stopper," however, was a piece called "Dio, Clemenza e Rigore" (God, the defender, and the prosecutor). It is an anonymous composition from 1733, created in the Jewish community of a small town in the Piedmont region of Italy for the seventh day of Sukkot. Its origins, however, go back to 16th century Safad, an amazing town in northern Israel and the center of Jewish mysticism.
In this composition, God summons Clemenza and Rigore to argue for and against mankind before He issues His final verdict. Rigore makes a compelling case against us all (the lyrics were translated on an overhead screen for the audience), while Clemenza pleads for forgivenes.. Ultimately, God rules in favor of compassion.
"DIo, Clemenza e Rigore" is operatic, presumably in the fashion of the Italian operas of the time. But it also reflects both the Jewish liturgical tradition and the influence of the new mysticism.
The musical score was lost for two centuries until finally being discovered in 1964 at the Lenin State Library in Moscow, of all places. In 1992, it was edited in Israel and made available for artistic revival.
Pro Musica Hebraica's next concert will be on April 29, 2010. It will consist of an evening of French Jewish music from the 19th and 20th centuries. We don't intend to miss this one, and I'm hoping that Power Line's regular music critic, Scott Johnson, will be able to make it to town for the occasion.
The Truth Leaks Out
It's remarkable, really, how often voters somehow figure out the truth, despite the fog of obfuscation that frequently passes for news. A case in point: Rasmussen finds that 72 percent of voters believe that "passage of the proposed health care plan could lead companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their employees. Forty-eight percent (48%) say it's very likely." Moreover, 53% say it would be a bad thing to be forced out of a private insurance plan and into a government-run plan.
They're right. I'm not sure quite how the truth leaks out, but I hope we have a tiny bit to do with it, along with a great many others.
Still "50-50 nation"?
The unemployment rate has jumped to 10.2 percent according to figures released today, three days after the 2009 election. This is the highest rate in 26 years. It is also almost exactly one-third higher than the unemployment rate on election day 2008.
I don't blame Obama, except for over-promising. However, I suspect a great many voters blame him, and blame the governors of their state and their representatives in Congress, especially Democratic ones.
It is for this reason that I agree only with half of Charles Krauthammer's analysis of Tuesday's election. Krauthammer writes:
November '08 was one shot, one time, never to be replicated. Nor was November '09 a realignment. It was a return to the norm -- and definitive confirmation that 2008 was one of the great flukes in American political history.
There should be no dispute that the 2008 election did not reflect the political norm. But neither did this year's -- not with the economy in such bad shape.
A normal election, if there is such a thing, would take place in a normal economy and in a time of international uncertainty, but not war. The 2000 election might qualify, although the presence of a third-party candidate interfered somewhat with "laboratory conditions." The electorate divided 50-50 in that one.
Demographic changes may have tilted the playing field somewhat in favor of the Democrats. But when all is said and done, I don't think we're too far from being a "50-50" nation.
Kill the bill
Congratulations to Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann for her rally against Obamacare yesterday in Washington. Called on short notice, the event appears to have been a great success. One of the highlights was Jon Voight's heartfelt remarks at the event (video below), including his tribute to Michele.
Rep. Bachmann is smart, beautiful and conservative. I first met her when she was running for the state senate seat representing Stillwater, Minnesota, after she knocked off the liberal Republican incumbent for the party endorsement in 2000 (I think). I was blown away by her presentation. As far as I can tell, she lives her beliefs. She drives Democrats and their media wing nuts. May she go from strength to strength.
Via Big Hollywood.
Democrats' Civil War, Continued
Byron York has been following MoveOn.org's effort to enforce left-wing conformity on the Democratic Party. The latest news is that MoveOn has raised nearly $3.6 million to defeat any Senate Democrat who has the temerity to vote against government takeover of health care. Then there's this:
And now, working in conjunction with Howard Dean's old organization Democracy for America, MoveOn is starting a drive to take away the committee chairmanships of any Democrat who fails to live up to MoveOn's progressive standards.
The Democrats' problem is compounded by the fact that not only most of the party's energy, but most of its money is on the far left. Perhaps the ill-fated Ned Lamont campaign was only the beginning, and we are about to witness an all-out attack on Democratic moderates.
No time for Sergant
Musician Gary Eaton has written a theme song for Yosi Sergant and the saga of the National Endowment for the Arts in the Age of Obama. The song is called "Yosi Needs a Hug." Big Hollywood has posted an audio clip of Eaton's engaging performance of the song here together with the song lyrics. Addressing Sergant's forced departure from the NEA, Eaton shows how the truth of a particular incident can illuminate a larger phenomenon. The chorus really scores:
Blame it on Glenn Beck
Blame it on Faux news
If that doesn't work
You can blame it on the Jews
What will Eaton do for an encore? Sergant's demise, which Eaton memorializes in the song, is already old news, even if the chorus remains timely. How about something for NEA chairman Rocco Landesman...maybe something along the lines of "Rocco Can Really Hang You Up the Most."
