Jesse Helms and the "quota" ad (12:35PM)

Former Senator Jesse Helms, the great anti-Communist, has died. This will prompt Democrats and liberals to decry the famous ad Helms ran during a Senate race in 1990 in which Helms' opponent was an African-American. The ad showed a white male receiving a rejection letter. The narrator said:

"You needed that job. And you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is. Gantt supports Ted Kennedy's racial quota law that makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications. You'll vote on this issue next Tuesday. For racial quotas: Harvey Gantt. Against racial quotas: Jesse Helms."

Gantt would later say of the ad: "It dealt with people's worst fears. In one sense, we thought the ad was political genius. In the other sense, we couldn't believe that someone in 1990 would run an ad like that."

But the real issue is not whether the ad played on fears, or whether Gantt could believe the ad was run. The real issue is whether Gantt supported legislation that would lead employers in some instances to deny "best qualified" whites a job. If so, then there was nothing wrong in depicting that result in the ad, since the fears the ad "played on" would be legitimate.

This issue turns on the nature of the Kennedy-Hawkins Civil Rights Act to which the ad refers, and whether Gantt supported it. There is no dispute as to the latter point. As I recall, it's also the case (though this point is not essential) that the legislation failed to pass the Senate by only vote, and thus would have passed if Gantt, not Helms had been representing North Carolina.

As to whether the Kennedy-Hawkins bill is fairly called "a racial quota law," the issue is a bit more complex. Certainly, nothing in the proposed legislation (which was enacted in substantially modified form as the Civil Rights Act of 1991) expressly called for racial quotas. But there are substantial arguments in favor of viewing the bill as paving the way for quotas. National Review made that case here; the Heritage Foundation here. This was also the view of various organizations that represent businesses.

Kennedy-Hawkins could reasonably be viewed as paving the way for quotas in two ways. First, it proposed to change the standard of proving discrimination, and the burden of proof, in ways that would induce employers to adopt quotas. In essence (and to simplify a bit), under Kennedy-Hawkins evidence of the statistical under-representation of minority group members in an employer's workforce or a particular job category would create a presumption of discrimination. The employer then would have to meet a higher standard of proof in defending its selection devices than previously existed. This would lead to quotas because some employers would voluntarily balance their workforces along racial lines to avoid lawsuits. I know from having represented employers that some think and act this way. The less rigorous the standard for proving discrimination through numbers, the more often employers will rig their numbers through the use of quotas. When that happens, the color of your skin can indeed be more important than your qualifications.

Second, Kennedy-Hawkins proposed to overturn a Supreme Court decision holding that persons who are not parties to an employment discrimination consent decree containing racial preferences (i.e. quotas) can challenge decisions taken as a result of the decree in a subsequent employment discrimination suit of their own. In other words, whites harmed by a quota contained in a certain form of settlement, would be unable to sue thereafter. These whites would still have the right to object to the quota prior to the entry of the decree, but as a practical matter that's not likely to happen. Folks like the gentleman depicted in Helms' ad generally first learn of a quota, if at all, when they get the rejection letter or its equivalent.

In sum, though Helms' ad cast the Kennedy-Hawkins legislation in a highly inflammatory light, there's little doubt that its passage would have resulted in some "best qualified" whites being passed over for jobs that, in the absence of the law, they would have been selected for. For better or for worse, inflammatory ads are the norm in tough political contests. One can argue that they should be avoided when the topic is race, but I don't find that argument persuasive. Race remains a key issue, and debate over it should be no less robust than over other matters.

Liberal Democrats pull no punches when they think they detect discrimination against minorities, and conservatives should pull no punches when they think they detect "reverse discrimination."

To comment on this post go here.

Celebrating Independence Day in Baghdad (11:40AM)

In what is being described as the largest re-enlistment ceremony in the history of the American military, 1,215 servicemen and women signed up for a combined 5,500 years of additional service earlier today in Baghdad:

General David Petraeus oversaw the ceremony:

Petraeus, reiterating earlier remarks made by Command Sergeant Major Hill, said that the unprecedented ceremony sends a “message to friend and foe alike.” He told those assembled that it is “impossible to calculate the value of what you are giving to our country . . . For no bonus, no matter the size, can adequately compensate you for the contribution each of you makes as a custodian of our nation’s defenses.”

Fittingly, the re-enlistment took place in one of Saddam's former palaces.

To comment on this post go here.

The United States of Song (08:50AM)

With a post today on songs of Texas, our old friend Norm Geras of the aptly named Normblog has completed his series of posts on the United States of song. The series is his tribute to the music of America. Norm explains:

It's a series devoted to listing songs in which the 50 states of the United States of America feature. I'll start with Alabama and finish with Wyoming. The rules of the series, as decided on by me, specify that a song is eligible for the list for any given state when the name of that state figures in either the song's title or in its lyric or both....

For each song I give its title, a relevant section of the lyric, and links whenever they are available.

Conducting my own quick quality check, I found Norm passing by virtue of his inclusion of Johnny Cash's "Big River" among the songs of Minnesota (as well as a great Emmylou Harris catch). The series is a feat to be savored at leisure.

UPDATE: Norm invites your comments via email (normblogATyahoo.co.uk).

Or, you can comment on this post here.

A case for Fargo North, Decoder (08:04AM)

In "Buyer's remorse?" John Hinderaker asked whether antiwar Democrats would be disappointed by Obama's modulation of his previously staunch position in favor of retreat and defeat. John's question was prompted by Obama's statement at an airport press conference in Fargo yesterday:

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

Later that day in Fargo, however, Obama called an impromptu press conference to reiterate his staunch retreat and defeat antiwar position:

"Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war," he said. "On my first day in office, I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war responsibly, deliberately but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month. And again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time."

The New York Times covers Obama's comments in Fargo yesterday here, the Los Angeles Times here.

What is to be said? This is another instance of the phenomenon that I tried to describe in "Opportunism knocks, part 3." It would be a mistake to take Obama's articulation of his antiwar position seriously in roughly the same sense that it would be to take his modulation of his antiwar position seriously.

One can observe the deliberation and calculation that Obama devotes to the formulation of his position on any given issue at any given time without being able to deduce his real view, if he has one. The story of his life nevertheless tells us that he is a dedicated, if opportunistic, man of the left. D.H. Lawrence's literary lesson can be put to good use here: Trust the tale, not the teller.

JOHN adds: I'm not sure whether it qualifies as buyer's remorse, but the New York Times is certainly up in arms about Obama's new-found moderation. Charles Krauthammer, meanwhile, finds that he had underestimated Obama's capacity for opportunism. Like me, he expects Obama's stated position on Iraq soon to be indistinguishable from John McCain's.

To comment on this post go here.

The Eternal Meaning of Independence Day, part 2 (06:39AM)

President Calvin Coolidge rose to the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1926, with a speech providing a magisterial review of the history and thought underlying the Declaration. His speech on the occasion deserves to be read and studied in its entirety. The following paragraph, however, is particularly relevant to the challenge that confronts us in the ubiquitous variants of progressive dogma that pass themselves off today as the higher wisdom:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

To comment on this post go here.

The Eternal Meaning of Independence Day (06:37AM)

On July 9, 1858, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas gave a campaign speech to a raucous throng from the balcony of the Tremont Hotel in Chicago. Abraham Lincoln was in the audience when Douglas prepared to speak. Douglas invited Lincoln to come join him on the balcony to watch the speech. In his speech Douglas rang the themes of the momentous campaign that Lincoln and Douglas waged that summer and fall for Douglas's Senate seat.

Douglas paid tribute to Lincoln as a "kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good citizen and an honorable opponent," but expressed his disagreement with Lincoln's June 16 speech to the Illinois Republican convention that had named him its candidate for Douglas's seat. In that speech Lincoln had famously asserted that the nation could not exist "half slave and half free." According to Douglas, Lincoln's assertion was inconsistent with the "diversity" in domestic institutions that was "the great safeguard of our liberties." Then as now, "diversity" was a shibboleth hiding an evil institution that could not be defended on its own terms.

Douglas responded to Lincoln's condemnation of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision -- a condemnation that was the centerpiece of Lincoln's convention speech. "I am free to say to you," Douglas said, "that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine."

Lincoln invited Douglas's audience to return the next evening for his reply to Douglas's speech. Lincoln's speech of July 10, 1858, is one of his many great speeches, but in one respect it is uniquely great. It concludes with an explanation of the meaning of this day to Americans with matchless eloquence and insight in words that remain as relevant now as then.

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometime about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty---or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,---with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,---we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves---we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men---descended by blood from our ancestors---among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe---German, Irish, French and Scandinavian---men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration [loud and long continued applause], and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down" [Douglas's "popular sovereignty" position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice---"Hit him again"], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---"me" "no one," &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of "no, no,"] let us stick to it then [cheers], let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

(Posted annually since 2004.)

A different kind of Everton fan (10:08PM)

I've noted before that Paul McCartney, though not a big soccer fan, is an Everton supporter. So I've always been puzzled by the homage McCartney pays to Liverpool great Kenny Dalglish on one of his live albums (Scott may know which album). At the end of a song (I forget which one), the crowd starts chanting McCartney's name. McCartney responds by chanting back "Ken-ny-Dal-glish."

The mystery is solved, I think, in this interview with the Observer, which McCartney gave as part of his campaign to help the British Paralympic team. McCartney reveals the following:

1. He was "hopeless" as a footballer, and gave up playing once his peers moved on to the "formalized" game. That's "how it was with the Beatles; none of us was very sports-minded. . . .We were sports wimps and proud of it." McCartney likes "watching the football on the telly" and goes to the "occasional match," but is not a "massive fan."

2. His family "are officially Evertonians," and McCartney himself has always been an Everton supporter.

3. However, years ago at a concert at Wembley Stadium, which McCartney desperately wanted to fill, Dalglish led the entire Liverpool team, dressed "in light grey suits, white shirts, red ties and look[ing] really cool," into the stadium. Dalglish and McCartney became friends.

4. McCartney thus decided "against all the laws of sport and supporters" to back both Everton and Liverpool.

5. However, "if it comes down to a derby match or a crunch or an FA Cup final between the two, I would have to support Everton."

6. It was John Lennon's idea to put old-time Liverpool forward Albert Stubbins on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Everton legend Dixie Dean, the Babe Ruth of English soccer, was considered but the Beatles went with Stubbins because his name was funnier. These were just "names we had heard when we were growing up, we really didn't know very much about them."

In explaining how he can support both Everton and Liverpool, McCartney says "I don't have that Catholic-Protestant thing" and jokes that "I did have to get special dispensation from the Pope." Here, McCartney buys into the notion that the Everton-Liverpool rivalry has a sectarian component. I've studied this a little bit, and believe it's a misconception. As I understand it, very early on Everton had many Irish players and thus drew heavy Catholic support. These days, however, religion doesn't really factor in.

That's not to deny the blasphemous nature of backing both teams. But if anyone deserves a dispensation, it's McCartney.

Buyer's remorse? Part Two (08:36PM)

Earlier today, John wondered whether a lot of Democrats who voted for Barack Obama on the theory that he was a staunch antiwar candidate are having second thoughts. It's a legitimate question, and it extends beyond the Iraq war. In fact, it turns out that an "internet petition" has been launched to pressure Obama to flip back to opposing legislation that would immunize telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless intercept surveillance program.

Perhaps I'm overestimating Obama, but it's difficult to imagine him switching his position on this matter yet again, and least of all under pressure from leftists nearly all of whom will vote for him regardless. For some leftists, I suppose, signing an internet petition is a partial antidote for buyer's remorse.

The interesting question is not whether Obama will continue to tack towards the center as a candidate -- that's a virtual certainty. The interesting question is what he'll do if elected president.

In that event, it's quite likely that Obama will move back towards the left, since that's where his sympathies have always been and since, once elected, he'll feel less constrained in the short term. But it's almost certain that Obama won't satisfy his leftist supporters when it comes to foreign, defense, and security policy. That's mostly because Obama is far too intelligent to embrace leftist indifference to obvious national security concerns.

Thus, for reasons of pragmatism and patriotism, Obama will be quite keen, for example, to prevent a successful attack on the homeland. Indeed, I suspect that Obama's current position with respect to surveillance of terrorists (including suits against companies that cooperate in that surveillance) is not just the product of strategic political thinking but also a reflection of what he'd like to be able to do as president. Let's hope so.

If Obama is elected, I expect the left quickly to divide into those who express their remorse and those who sublimate it and get with the program. Both factions should be well represented. In other words, expect lots of internet petitions.

Whose hysteria? (08:11PM)

Dana Milbank thinks he detects “new levels of hysteria” in relations between the U.S., Iran, and Israel. But the only hysteria on display in Milbank's latest “Washington Sketch” is his own and that of Seymour Hersh.

The U.S. certainly isn’t exhibiting new levels of hysteria. President Bush says, as he’s said for years, that “all options are on the table, but the first option for the United States is to solve this problem diplomatically.” The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is far from eager to see the military option invoked by either the U.S. or Israel. He says, “this is a very unstable part of the world and I don’t need it to be more unstable.”

The Iranian foreign minister isn't exactly rattling the saber either. He has discounted the likelihood that his country will be attacked, and is touting the prospects for diplomacy.

Milbank duly reports all of this non-hysteria, and offers no countervailing evidence of any value. He notes that Iran has talked about closing down shipping lanes and that the U.S. has said this would be an act of war which would require a military response. This is old hat. Iran makes this threat from time-to-time, and the U.S. has never suggested that it would let such action stand. To make such a suggestion would be quite odd.

Milbank also cites the views of Liz Cheney, the Vice President’s daughter. But putting to one side the obvious fact that she does not speak for the administration, her statements on Iran to the Center for Strategic and International Studies simply reiterated, if forcefully, that the use of force should be on the table. (Milbank, of course, presents no argument or analysis in favor of taking the use of force off the table. Milbank doesn’t do argument or analysis; he does snark).

The main basis for Milbank’s hysteria is an article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh suggesting that Israel and the U.S. may be planning to attack Iran. But as Max Boot shows, Hersh’s reporting here is based on “misunderstanding, or outright deception.” Hersh bases his claim that large-scale military action is being planned on reports that the U.S. has undertaken a covert action program in Iraq. But, says Boot, “it’s far more likely that such a program, if it exists, is designed to be a substitute for military action.”

There is a serious possibility that Israel, a nation Iran has talked about destroying, will launch an attack. That serious possibility has existed for years and, absent a change in Israel’s government, it increases very slowly but very steadily as Iran moves towards developing nuclear weapons. However, David Hazony makes a pretty good case that the struggling Olmert government isn’t likely to launch a strike before the American presidential election takes place in November. It seems to me that if McCain wins, Israel won’t be in a rush to attack after the election either. If Obama wins, however, Israel may feel it has a limited window in which to act with U.S. cooperation.

In any event, the fact that Dana Milbank couldn’t find a good congressional hearing, i.e., one in which an administration official is being harassed, to report on yesterday doesn’t mean that the likelihood of an Israeli or U.S. strike has changed appreciably in recent days.

To comment on this post go here.

Buyer's Remorse? (05:44PM)

You have to wonder whether a lot of Democrats who voted for Barack Obama on the theory that he was a staunch antiwar candidate are feeling had. During the primary season, his position on Iraq was unequivocal. This statement is still up on his website:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

But, like everything Obama says--remember that word, "everything"--his Iraq position was subject to being rendered inoperative. That time has now come. Later this month, Obama will visit Iraq. Today he laid the groundwork for a reversal of his long-stated determination to withdraw, based on what he learns there:

As he arrived for a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr. Obama told reporters on Thursday that he intended to conduct “a thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy during a forthcoming trip to the country. He stressed that he has long called for a careful and responsible withdrawal of American forces, but he declined to offer a fresh endorsement of his plan to remove one to two combat brigades a month.

“My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe,” he said. “I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.”

He added, “I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

That represents an inversion of Obama's position in the primaries, which was that Iraq was not stable and could not be made stable--it was in the midst of a civil war, remember? An hour or so ago, after he started taking heat today for backing off the trademark stand that won him the Democratic nomination, Obama denied that he had changed anything at all:

Senator Barack Obama held a second news conference today to address criticism that an earlier statement that he would be open to “refine” his policies, signaled a softening of his stance on troop withdrawl from Iraq.

“I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill-conceived,” Mr. Obama said. “That it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I have also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out. That I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades a month and at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.”

Obama will continue to drift centerward over the next four months. By November, his position on Iraq will be hard to distinguish from John McCain's. Both candidates will say that we want to get our troops out as soon as possible, but should only do so at a pace that does not endanger Iraq's hard-won stability. This, by the way, is why the Democrats are so determined to peddle the myth that McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. That's dumb, obviously. McCain, like President Bush, would like nothing better than to bring our troops home. But the Obama camp needs to distract attention from the fact that Obama's current position on the war represents an admission that McCain was right all along.

If the candidates' positions on Iraq not only converge between now and November, but are widely seen as converging, Iraq may be largely taken off the table as an issue, and the election will be won by the candidate who most vigorously advocates drilling for oil and natural gas.

To comment on this post go here.

The Great Divide (10:13AM)

One of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives, perhaps the most important one politically, is what they think (or how they feel) about the United States. Conservatives think the U.S. is a great country. Liberals think it is a deeply flawed, but redeemable, country. Radicals think it is hopelessly bad and should be destroyed or remade.

This difference is brought into sharp focus by the debate that has erupted in recent days over patriotism. Barack Obama gave a speech on the subject in which, as we noted here, he suggested that the height of patriotism lies in criticizing one's country. This is a common liberal conceit. To Obama's left lie his wife's claim that America is "downright mean," and, still farther to the left, Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America" rants.

One of the basic problems faced by liberals, and the reason why they tend to get sensitive whenever the subject of patriotism comes up, is that a large majority of Americans share the conservatives' view of their country. Rasmussen Reports adds up the numbers: 75% of respondents are proud of America's history, while 13% are ashamed of it. 64% say the U.S. is a positive role model for human rights.

As always, these numbers break down quite differently based on party affiliation. 91% of Republicans are proud of our country's history, compared to 64% of Democrats. Not surprisingly, there is also a racial divide: 81% of white respondents, but only 44% of African-Americans, are proud of America's history. (It would be interesting to see the breakdown for other races, but for some reason Rasmussen doesn't provide it.)

These data highlight one of Obama's problems as he moves toward the center for the election in November. His associations with anti-Americans like Wright, Ayers and Dohrn help him on the far left, the milieu from which he entered politics; don't hurt him with liberals; but they are damaging, potentially severely so, to the extent that mainstream Americans learn of them. Watch for Obama to become more explicitly pro-American the closer we get to November.

To comment on this post go here.

The Friends of Barack Obama: The Video (08:19AM)

A reader created this video highlighting Barack Obama's relationship with terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.

If you have a web site, feel free to embed it. Or you can email it to your friends. While the media have done a good job of covering the Jeremiah Wright story, Obama's relationship with Ayers and Dohrn has not gotten the attention it deserves.

To comment on this post go here.

The Limbaugh platform (07:40AM)

The New York Times has posted the long profile of Rush Limbaugh by Zev Chafets that is forthcoming in the Sunday Times Magazine. Chafets is a gifted journalist, but he goes off the rails with persistent inquiries about Sean Hannity. It's a line of inquiry that does not merit the attention Chafets gives to it and that resulted in Rush giving up on Chafets after he had opened up his life to him.

I nevertheless enjoyed the profile. I particularly enjoyed the platform of a putative Limbaugh administration that Chafets extractd from Rush:

1. Open the continental shelf to drilling. Ditto the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

2. Establish a 17 percent flat tax.

3. Privatize Social Security.

4. Give parents school vouchers to break the monopoly of public education.

5. Revoke Jimmy Carter’s passport while he is out of the country.

6. Abandon all government policies based on the hoax of man-made global warming.

To comment on this post go here.

Proof of life (07:23AM)

Over at Power Line News the Counterterrorism Blog is our blog of the season. It has two interesting posts (here and here) on the dramatic rescue of Ingrid Betancourt, three Americans and 11 other hostages yesterday by the Colombian government yesterday.

The New York Times has a good account of yesterday's events. The Times notes:

The American ambassador to Colombia, William R. Brownfield, and the United States combatant commander in the region, Adm. James G. Stavridis, were “engaged in the planning stages,” according to Gordon D. Johndroe, the deputy White House press secretary.

This was a Colombian-conceived and led operation; we supported the operation,” he said, adding, “This rescue was long in the planning, and we’ve been working with the Colombians for five years, since the hostages were taken, to free them from captivity.”

At Pajamas Media, Fausta Wertz comments: "The message is clear: Today’s spectacular rescue proves that Colombia, America’s most important ally in the region, is winning its war against terrorism — and winning big." By my review of the various news accounts, Hugo Chavez apparently could not be reached for comment.

To comment on this post go here.

Is Israel the world's happiest country? (07:07AM)

Mark Falcoff took a look at the University of Leicester's national Happiness Index for us yesterday. By the University of Leicester's calculations, Denmark comes in first. Reader Gene Schwimmer points out that the pseudonymous Spengler argued in a recent Asia Times column that Israel is the world's happiest country. Based on his plotting of fertility rates and suicide rates in 35 industrial countries ("loving life versus loving death"), Spengler argues that "Israelis appear to love life and hate death more than any other nation." By Spengler's reckoning, the United States comes in second and Denmark sixth.

To comment on this post go here.