Just for the heck of it, a few comments about blogs & bloggers around the net...

-- Where oh where has Rachel Lucas gone, where oh where can she be? Come on Rachel, you're too talented to let your blog waste away.

-- Et tu The Lemon, et tu?

-- I have always loved Dawn Olsen's writing. It's a brilliant mixture of personal stuff you can't believe she revealed and incendiary political opinions that demand a response whether you agree with her or not. If she posted 3-5 articles a day, 5 days a week for 6 months, she could get up in the 1500-2000 daily uniques per day range IMO.

-- Want to know the two most overrated blogs on the net? Talking Points Memo where Josh Michah Marshall's reasonable tone disguises the fact that he's a complete hack and Spinsanity where coming off as bipartisan seems to make more of an impression on people than the poorly reasoned articles that they write.

-- I've always wondered why more people don't do "links of the day" type posts like IMAO & Blackfive? It shouldn't take long to put together, it's a good way to give your readers more entertaining material to look at, and I'm sure that in the long run it leads to a lot of "payback links" too.

-- I have to wonder, what does it take to get on the list of Great Satans at Allah Is In The House? I have admitted that I work for the Mossad & that I'm part of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I even got 4 mentions on Allah's blog last week. Ariel Sharon can't top that! Where's the love Allah? Where's the love?

-- Ravenwood's Universe is a funny, well written, long running, consistently updated blog. So why hasn't it ever taken off? My theory? The page colors are the problem.

-- My favorite website run by a left of center blogger? Political Wire run by Taegan Goddard. It's a daily stop during the week. Also, if you like Political Wire, you'll probably like the The Hedgehog Report too.

-- I've always thought Fight Fire With Sapphire! was a funny blog with a great concept behind it. If it were ever updated enough, I think it could it really take off one day.

-- Considerable Quotes is another concept blog I like. In fact, I have been thinking about collecting the best quotes that I run across all over and putting them in sort of a "week in quotes" piece that runs on Friday. What do you think? Good idea, bad idea?

France today lodged a formal complaint at the United Nations over the new design of the U.S. Nickel. The reverse of the new nickel commemorates the bicentennial of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, when the U.S. bought 800,000 square miles of French territory for four cents an acre.

"The government of the United States is taunting France," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who is man), "They think it is très drôle that they put one over on us. I will remind the jackals that in 1803, four cents was real money. One could take his girlfriend to a movie, buy popcorn and share a Coke for four cents."

A spokesman for the U.S. Mint said the coin was not meant to mock France, "although you can't help but think that if it were 1803, and you dropped one of these nickels in a French vending machine, you would get more than an acre of land."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott you can read more of his at Scrappleface.

As we all know, Gray Davis set California on fire in vengeance for people recalling him. It could happen again, and thus I set my crack research team to find out all they can about brush fires so people can be more prepared in the future.

FUN FACTS ABOUT BRUSH FIRES

* Brush fires are caused by the combination of brush and fire.

* The conspiracy between brush and fire started when both became dissatisfied with the government in the 60's.

* If the conspiracy of brush and fire joined with the Zionist conspiracy, then we'd all be screwed.

* I just saw Matrix Revolutions last night. Do you think when anything goes wrong in the machine city, they blame it on a Zionist conspiracy?

* A brush fire has two main modes of attack: burning using its fire and suffocating using its smoke. It also has a special attack, but first needs to power up.

* To avoid brush fires reaching your home, dispose of all your brush by tossing it over the fence into your neighbor's yard.

* If there is a brush fire, you may see panicked animals flee the forest. Stay and fight, you pansy-ass animals!

* If a brush fire is coming towards your house, lock your doors. Fires can't operate locks.

* If you run into a brush fire, don't panic; it's more scared of you than you are of it.

* There is no reason to have lots of brush congregated in one area. Brush should be destroyed... just not by fire.

* If you wake up and find your room on fire, that's a house fire - not a brush fire. Those are common, so don't worry about it.

* A brush fire can be identified by its strong, smoky smell. If you see a large fire coming your way, see if it has a smoky smell.

* Since fire needs oxygen, a good place to store your brush is on the moon.

* Much like the Wicked Witch of the West, a brushfire can be killed by water.

* Water can also kill the aliens from Signs.

* I'm sorry if you haven't seen that movie yet and I ruined it, but someone ruined The Sixth Sense for me and I'm still bitter.

* I don't know if dropping a house on a brush fire would kill it just like it did the Wicked Witch of East, but it's worth a shot.

* That probably would also kill one of the aliens from Signs.

* In a fight between Aquaman and a brushfire, Aquaman would only be able to be identified afterwards by his dental records. If only Aquaman actually had some Aquapowers.

* A giant brush fire can be an awe inspiring site to watch, but it can be canceled in case of rain and replaced with a movie.

* You can't kung fu fight a brushfire. Then again, I've never tried it.

* I once set a hairbrush on fire. It like totally melted! It was so cool!

* Having caught the 10:15 showing of Matrix Revolutions last night, I am very sleepy right now. Hopefully some conniving brush fire won’t use that to its advantage.

If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.

Here are the two money paragraphs from New York Times cartoonist & popular left-wing columnist Ted Rall's latest screed that I think illustrates the childlike approach to the issues that many people on the left take today...

"It's high time that victorious Democrats stop being suckered by reckless Republicans into cleaning up their messes. Walking behind the elephant with a pail and a smelly broom might be the right thing to do, but it doesn't earn you any respect after the parade. All Democrats worthy of the name ought to sign a pledge to ignore problems caused by Republican administrations and leave them to their Republican successors. Let the GOP deficit ride, and pass socialized medicine while you're at it. Keep the bloated HomeSec bureaucracy on the payroll, and change its mission to something useful, like making a serious attempt to guard our borders. Run up the deficit like there's no tomorrow. Withdraw our troops; when the Iraqi civil war spreads throughout the region, some smart future Republican president will figure it out.

I can hear you grumbling: but that's irresponsible! Yes. It. Is. But playing the sap to Republican fait accomplis is like paying off your drunken kid's gambling debts. It makes you an enabler of destructive behavior--and that's even worse than throwing your hands up in the air and walking away. Let's give the GOP some tough love."

Of course, I could easily make the case that for about the last 35 years or so it has largely been Republican Presidents cleaning up messes left to them by their Democratic predecessors. For example, the Intifada, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's war on America, the Iraqi problem, North Korea's nuclear program, the recession, the corporate accounting scandals, and the 9/11 plot were all in the works the day that Bush took office. Given that, I think it's pretty safe to say that Bill Clinton isn't getting a "thanks for the good work" fruit basket from W. anytime soon. But that isn't the point. I'd like to think that the candidates running for the Presidency are not so venal & petty that they would want to deliberately ignore America's problems just so they can attempt to poke a thumb in the GOP's eye.

Yet, the same attitude Ted Rall displays in this editorial is common on the left when it comes to foreign policy. Many Democrats, including front runners like Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, & Joe Kerry (this doesn't fit Joe Lieberman & because I'm feeling generous I'll leave out Dick Gephardt for now) talk as if being popular with the French and Germans is considerably more important than stopping future 9/11s from happening. In fact, their philosophy might as well be, "Defending America is a problem for the Republicans to deal with". That was basically how Bill Clinton approached foreign policy, but since 9/11 hadn't happened yet, he at least had some sort of excuse for his timidity about guarding America from foreign threats. The General, the duck, "Mr. Vietnam," & Ted Rall can be given no similar pardon for their apathy about protecting Americans from the fanatical terrorists who have openly said they want to kill us.

Hat Tip to A Small Victory for pointing out this editorial.

I currently have 27 interviews up on RWN and I thought it was about time that I put together a selection of quotes from them. So I sorted through every interview and picked out my faves from Coulter, Tancredo, Steyn, and the rest. Hope you find the quotes to be enlightening and entertaining! (Cont)

After the disastrous 2002 elections, I followed the debate on the left about what went wrong with great interest. What I noticed was that two schools of thought emerged.

On the one hand, you had Democrats saying that the party was coming across as too shrill & too far out of the mainstream. They were of the opinion that the party needed to move back towards the center in an attempt to pull in Independents and middle-of-the roaders.

That point of view lost out to the people who believed that the problem the Democrats had in 2002 was that they had moved too far towards the center to begin with. The people who bought into this said that the Democratic party should loudly and proudly move to the left in an attempt to turn-out the base in 2004.

Although I'm sure that many people on the left will disagree, the problem with that sort of approach is that it will cost the Dems far more votes in the middle than they'll gain on the left. So while loudmouthed & combative, partisan pacifism may be quite popular with the base, it is driving a lot of potential Democratic voters into the arms of the GOP.

I have already pointed out the mammoth gains in party identification that the GOP has made since 9/11 in many swing states (for example: +15 in Arkansas, +12 in Iowa, & +9 in Michigan), but there are plenty of anecdotal examples that show how the Dems have lost out as well. The biggest name so far is of course Zell Miller who has NEVER voted GOP for President before. He explained why he was going to do so in 2004 in part by saying,

"I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign--the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost--with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign--watch your wallet; we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country."

Then if we look a bit further around the blogosphere, we see other voters that the Dems may have lost with their "take a hard left turn away from the center" strategy. Take Michele Catalano for example...

"I have been voting since 1980. Although I am, and always have been, a registered Republican, I have never voted for a Republican for president.

As long as terrorism is my most important concern - and there is no reason to think that will change within the next year - I will be, for the first time, voting for a Republican president. I placed my faith in Bush two years ago, when I was a sworn liberal, but had to trust the president to guide us out of the wreckage of 9/11 and to make sure that it never, ever happened again. Not to us, not to anyone."

If the Dems want to throw the votes of people like Miller and Catalano away, heck, if they want to just write off the whole South by comparing the confederate flag to a swastika and by imperiously demanding that Southerners stop basing their votes on "race, guns, God and gays", we'll happily bring all those people inside the big GOP tent. But by Nov of 2004, I suspect that the Democrats are going to sorely regret all those votes that they so thoughtlessly cast away.

I knew the Germans were more than a little nutty, but this has got to be off the charts on the wackymeter...

"Children will be allowed to vote in Germany if some leading members of the country's parliament have their way.

"Politicians will only take children seriously if they know they could be voted out by them," Haupt said, according to the news service."

The right to vote from birth? Have the Germans gone mad...ehr, again? They're going to have Barney the Dinosaur challenging for Chancellor and Schroeder will have to run on a campaign slogan of a "PS2 in every house" to beat him. This idea that a bunch of kids who spend their days watching Sesame Street and their nights playing "Candyland" should actually play a part in deciding who the next Chancellor of Germany is just boggles the mind.

So the next time you hear some Democrat ranting about how Bush is a unilateralist because he can't get the sheltered loonies in Germany (among others) to approve of the war on terrorism, I want you to remember that there are apparently a significant number of German pols who think children should be able to vote five minutes out of the womb. That should give you a good idea of the type mentality Bush has to deal with behind the scenes.

The New York Times revealed today that Saddam Hussein desperately tried to avert the Coalition attack on Iraq in March but could not find the phone number to the White House, or No. 10 Downing Street.

The Iraqi dictator reportedly wanted to offer sweeping concessions, and even "unconditional terms", but his intelligence officers could not find a way to directly contact Prime Minister Tony Blair or U.S. President George Bush.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who is running for president as a Democrat. "The Bush administration didn't do enough to publicize the White House phone number. This New York Times report clearly shows that Saddam was contrite and ready to cooperate with any and all U.S. demands. We have no one to blame but George Bush for overthrowing this repentant man."

According to the Times story, Saddam Hussein attempted to contact the White House by...
-- sending Hassan al-Obeidi, chief of foreign operations of the Iraqi Intelligence Service,
-- to speak with a Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage,
-- who spoke with Michael Maloof a Lebanese-American working as an analyst in the Pentagon,
-- who introduced Mr. Hage to Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle.

Eventually, Mr. Hage met with Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service who offered, among other concessions, to turn over al Qaeda operative Abdul Rahman Yasin, an indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said his office had monitored Mr. Hage's contacts with Saddam's government, but eventually rejected the information as unreliable.

"After all," said Mr. Rumsfeld, "Everyone knows that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda or any other global terror network."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

There are some things that you really shouldn't have to explain to people. You know, like don't put your hand on a hot stove, don't spit into the wind, and don't buy into the notion that Jews "rule the world by proxy". Of course, that's a reference to the now infamous speech that ex-Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made at an OIC meeting. The scary part wasn't that a man who is widely considered to be a "moderate" Muslim from a "moderate" Muslim country made those remarks; it's that none of the other Muslim leaders at the conference seemed to have a problem with them. (Cont)

The numbers you're about to see are the changes in party identification since 9/11 in key swing states for the 2004 election. Although I have often said that I believed 9/11 moved America a couple of steps to the right, even my jaw dropped when I saw this...

"Arkansas: current -- GOP, 33 percent; Democrats 34 percent; 1997-2000 -- GOP, 21 percent; Democrats 39 percent; GOP +15 percentage points (Bush won)

New Hampshire: Current -- GOP, 29 percent; Democrats, 20 percent; 1997-2000 -- GOP, 30 percent; Democrats, 19 percent -- GOP -2 percentage points (Bush won)"

I have to tell you, folks; those are ugly, ugly looking numbers for the Dems. No wonder Hillary and Gore don't want to run against Bush in 2004...

New York - Continuing with their successful “Re-Imagining History” series, CBS network today announced that it will broadcast “Betsy Ross: Crack Whore” during the upcoming Fall sweeps period.

“Yeah, we know we’ll probably catch some flak from the nit-pickers,” said CBS VP Leslie Moonves. “But, like, is everyone so anal these days that we always have to be 100% ‘accurate?’ I mean, hello, yeah, there’s not much evidence that Betsy Ross was hooked on crack, but can you prove she wasn’t? Huh, didn’t think so.”

In related news, ABC announced that it will begin production on “Pimpin’ John Adams” with Rudy Ray Moore starring as the second President of the United States. NBC is also believed to be close to a deal with Meg Ryan to star in “Good Time Dolly,” a mini-series about the sexual exploits of First Lady Dolly Madison during the “free love” days of the War of 1812.

If you enjoyed this satire by William Grim, you can read more of his work at Broken Newz.

A misconception contained in a post about bloggers on Free Republic caught my eye and I thought it was worth commenting. Weimdog says...

"Bloggers only imagine they have influence because they influence each other. If you asked the average politically aware conservative if he's heard of Glenn Reynolds or Mickey Kaus, he'd give you a long, blank stare."

For the most part, Weimdog is correct about the size of audience that most bloggers have. However, I think Glenn Reynolds is a poor example given that he had a higher Alexa ranking than well known political websites like The Nation, Mother Jones, & the The Atlantic Online in "The 125 Most Popular Political Websites On The Net" article I did a while back. But still, I'll grant you that Reynolds, Kaus, & the other "big" bloggers are small fry in the traffic department compared to the real powerhouses like Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, & ABC News.

However, a lot of the top blogs have influence far out of proportion to the number of readers that they actually have. That's because a lot of opinion makers read some of the better known blogs. For example, just from the interviews I've done, I can tell you that Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, David Horowitz, & Mark Steyn all read Little Green Footballs. So even though what Charles Johnson is writing may not be directly getting out to a truly massive audience, people who can and do influence vast audiences are soaking up the message Charles Johnson is trying to get across.

For now, that sort of indirect influence is the coin of the realm for the better known bloggers. But, give it a few years and as I've said before, I believe that you'll see bloggers who have hordes of journalists reading their blogs AND who have "Drudge like" traffic numbers. Time will tell, but I don't see any reason why the cream of the crop in the blogging world can't reach those heights one day.

Conservatives have been raising holy hell about the Reagan mini-series that CBS was going to put on. The complaints about the movie have been largely centered around loathsome bits of dialogue that were made up out of whole cloth. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about...

Ronald Reagan: "It's Armageddon... that's what it is. Armageddon. The Leader from the West will be revealed as the anti-Christ, and then God will strike him down. That's me. I am the anti-Christ."

Don Regan On Nancy Reagan:: "So, Deaver -- tell me. You've known Madame Fuhrer a lot longer than I have. How the hell do you manage to put up with her?"

Ron Reagan On AIDS Patients: "They who live in sin shall die in sin".

Here's more from Patti Davis, Reagan's daughter...

"Reading the script actually made me feel better in some ways. It is, quite simply, idiotic. Everyone is a caricature, manufactured and inauthentic. My father is depicted as some demented evangelist, going on about Armageddon every chance he gets. My mother is cast as a female Attila the Hun, and I and my siblings are unrecognizable to me. There are absurdities, like depictions of Mike Deaver and political aides camping out at our house during my father’s early political career — in every scene, there they are, hanging around the house day and night. I suppose this is meant to explain why, when my sister Maureen visits, my mother tells her to sleep on the floor. Funny, but I have no recollection of any of this. Nor do I remember conducting an impromptu yoga class at my wedding reception. (I promise you, no one at my wedding was chanting Om or Shanti.)

But the idiocy of the script can’t dilute the cruelty behind it. To deliberately and calculatingly depict public people as shallow, intolerant, cold and inept, with no truths or facts to back up the portrayals, is nothing short of malevolent."

Here's more from Reagan's son, Michael Reagan...

"It's horrendous, it's absolutely horrendous," Michael Reagan complained after viewing eight minutes' worth of excerpts of the film, which stars James Brolin, husband of Reagan-hater Barbra Streisand, as the 40th president.

..."The eight minutes' worth of clips that I saw [showed] Nancy as the head of the government and Dad was just the buffoon going along for the ride, with everybody laughing at him," Reagan said. "It is so sad."

Taking all this into consideration, I think it's safe to say even without having seen the mini-series, that "The Reagans" can be categorized as a political hit piece. Given that, I think that it's entirely appropriate to slam CBS for planning to run it & to threaten boycotts against the advertisers. Were I CBS, I wouldn't even give this mini-series over to Showtime, I'd shelve it permanently.

Now some people call this censorship, but it's actually just consumers voting with their wallets. CBS could have chosen to run the mini-series if they were willing to take the furious criticism and greatly reduced advertising revenue that would have gone along with it.

But you'd think that since networks make money by putting on programming that their viewers want to see, CBS would have known that it was a poor idea for them to put together this kind of movie about a revered figure like Reagan who of course can't even defend himself because of his Alzheimer's. But as I've pointed out before, "don't ever expect a conservative to get an even break from the mainstream media".

Here's a quote from that best selling author and beloved icon of the left, Michael Moore about the United States...

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pr*cks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

I'm tempted to say, "Well, speak for yourself and the people that buy your books Michael," but I would be remiss in leaving it at that.

I say that because Michael Moore is not alone in his incredible contempt for his fellow Americans. To the contrary, the idea that Americans are a bunch of stupid, greedy, embarrassing jerks who need "geniuses" like Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Michael Moore to tell them what to do and how to live is not uncommon at all on the left.

That's why Moore's popularity isn't going to be diminished by these remarks that would destroy the career of any conservative pundit who made them. Views like this may be anathema to conservatives, but they're bread and butter to the Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, & Ted Rall crowd.

The only mistake Moore made was making those remarks in public, instead of at some swanky cocktail party where his adoring fans would just knowingly nod their heads at his vicious attack on the American people.

All I can say is, "keep talking buddy and let everyone see what you and your fans really believe".

Someone named Starpass wrote the following at the Democratic Underground today in a post titled, "I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq"...

"Well, that should bring the bats out of the attic with fangs dripping. I won't be hypocritcal. It is politically correct, particularly in any Dem discussion to hope and pray and feel for our troops and scream "bring them back now". I'm fighting something bigger.

The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a sh*t hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts."

As I write this, the reaction to this whole "I hope our soldiers die so it will hurt Bush" position was decidely mixed at the DU. While there more than a few people upset by the vile & unpatriotic sentiments expressed in the original post, several of the people ripping into Starpass seemed to be primarily concerned that this would get out on right wing websites -- like this one ;).

Unfortunately, it's a little late to worry about that now, fellas!

The government of Sri Lanka (which is a nation) today announced it would "ditch the wacky names" in a bid to attract more foreign aid from the United States. Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, now receives a few million dollars annually in U.S. aid, and has been torn by civil war for 20 years.

"Our focus group studies show that Americans would be more interested in our plight if they could pronounce the names of our top government officials," said President Chandrika Kumaratunga. "From now on, please call me President Chad."

Yesterday, President Chad fired her defense, interior and media ministers while Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was visiting Washington D.C. in preparation for a meeting with President George Bush on Wednesday.

"The ministers refused to change their names, so I fired them," she said. "Can you imagine George Bush trying to pronounce the names of Defense Minister Tilak Marapone, Interior Minister John Amaratunga and Information Minister Imthiaz Bakeer Markar. I would love to be a fly on the wall in Bush's meeting with Ranil Wickremesinghe."

President Chad said she had also renamed Sri Lanka, which will now be known as Sanka.

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

Last week, I got together with Michael Medved for a 45 minute long phone interview. For those of you unfamiliar with his work, Michael Medved has written 8 books and used to be one of the premier film critics in America. But today, his columns regularly appear in USA Today and his syndicated talk show reaches 1.8 million listeners in 124 markets.

We talked about a number of things including Michael Medved's classmates at Yale, Bill & Hillary Clinton, his former boss, Barbra Streisand, Libertarians and why Medved calls them "Losertarians", how Medved became conservative, the war on terrorism, Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion" which Medved has seen, how the Anti-Defamation League is trying to split apart Christians and Jews, and Hollywood's love of the "F" word.

Medved pulls no punches in this controversial interview and you won't want to miss a word of it. (Cont)

***Update #1***: The Libertarians at Reason's Hit'N'Run have pulled 138 comments about this interview although a good chunk of those posts were because Paleo-conservative/whacko Justin Rainmondo committed a threadjacking....

Two positive references to the same Democrat on the same day on RWN? Who'd of thunk it? But this quote from Zell Miller about the Democratic candidates for President in the WSJ (free registration required) was just too good to pass up....

"I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign--the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost--with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign--watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country."

Actually, Zell is touching on the same two points I said that the Bush campaign should run on in 2004, the war and taxes...

" I'd go with, "We cut your taxes and brought the economy back. The Dems are going to raise your taxes. When times were tough for America after 9/11, we fought the terrorists. Can you trust the Democrats to do the same? The War on Terrorism is still going on and we've had so much success, do you want to change horses in mid-stream?" Taxes and the war on terrorism would be the 1-2 punches I would beat them with constantly assuming the economy keeps looking good."

If we have a solid year of economic growth, which looks entirely possible given the good news that's flooding in, the economy will be a huge plus for Bush.

As far as Iraq goes, six months from now, I expect the casualty numbers coming out of Iraq to look about as they do in Afghanistan for the same reason. We'll have Iraqis doing most of the fighting by then -- which is appropriate since it's their country -- with American air support and back-up. If the casualties drop down to a trickle by then and the American people start to see that their foreign aid was put to good use -- which seems to be happening -- I think the numbers for the war will go back up to their natural level which I think should be about 60+%.

Time will tell, but I think Bush still looks like a VERY tough opponent to take on in 2004, especially given the relatively weak strength of the "naive nine" as Zell Miller calls them.

Zell Miller has weighed with some keen observations about why the Democrats are losing in the South and I agree with everything he wrote. But as a Southern boy who has grown up in North Carolina and who currently lives in Charlotte, I think I can sum things up for the Democrats in three easy steps.

1) First and foremost, Southern Democrats just tend to be much more conservative than the Democratic party as a whole. So as Miller pointed out in the editorial linked above, the very things that a Democratic candidate has to do to win in places like Iowa and New Hampshire are going to turn off a lot of Democrats in the South. Down here, it's not unusual to find Democrats who like guns & hunting, who are serious about national defense, and who actually LIKE Bill O'Reilly's socially conservative rants. These are not "Ted Kennedy" Democrats.

2) Again, as Miller says, "If Southern voters think you don't understand them -- or even worse, much worse, if they think you look down on them -- they will never vote for you." The reality is, a lot of Southerners believe -- quite correctly I might add -- that many Northern liberals look down on them as ignorant, racist, hicks.

Now, why is that? I think a lot of it has to do with #3....

3) Many left-of-center Northerners do not understand how the Civil War and the Confederate flag are viewed by many people in South. MOST Southerners are not ashamed of their heritage & they don't believe that Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc, were bad or evil people. While they're likely to admit that the rich Southern plantation owners were fighting to keep slavery (although you're almost as likely to hear people say and believe that the Confederates were really fighting for states rights), they will also tell you -- correctly -- that the average Southern soldier was out in the field risking his life to keep the Union army from menacing his home and his family.

So as you'd expect, the overwhelming majority of Southerners are not pro-slavery, they're not racists, and they're not waiting for the day that the "South will rise again". To the contrary, they view the war between the states much like a terrible spat between brothers that got a lot of good, decent, & honorable men killed on both sides, rather than some cataclysmic battle between good and evil that their ancestors were on the wrong side of.

So when a Democratic candidate sneers at the Confederate flag as if it were a Swastika, he is also sneering at the way a lot of good and decent people in the South view themselves and their history. As a general rule, Republican candidates seem to almost intuitively understand all of this which is another big reason why the GOP has been getting stronger and stronger in the South over the years while the Dems continue to sink.

***Update***: I just wanted to respond to something kghahn said in the comments. In part, he said, "Some of my ancestors probably fought some of John's. I have no affection at all for the Confederacy."

I have no idea what my family history looks like past my grandfather who fought in WW2. I don't even know which side my ancestors fought on in the Civil War (maybe both, ya never know), which country my relatives came to America from, or much of anything about where my family roots were planted. Maybe I'll look into it some day, but to be honest, that sort of thing has never peaked my interest.

Faced with the unexpected prospect of running against George Bush during an economic recovery, the Democrat National Committee (DNC) today called on Americans to boycott American products and services.

"If consumers continue to spend money and business owners continue to ramp up production," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, "then there's nothing to stop a second Bush term. And we all know how bad that would be for the economy. The only way to save this economy is to boycott American products and services so we can elect a Democrat to the White House."

The DNC said it will devote about $100 million to the boycott campaign, using consultants and talent from other countries as much as possible.

"Most of our ad dollars will go to NBC, by virtue of its merger with Vivendi, the French company," said Mr. McAuliffe. "We regret that some Americans will benefit from our 'Boycott America' campaign, but with this global economy it's really hard to completely avoid financing the Bush economic recovery."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

Bernard Goldberg's book about how the media slants the news, "Bias," was a huge success. Well now Goldberg is back with a new book about the foibles of the media, "Arrogance".

"Arrogance" isn't actually going to be released until today, but I was sent an early copy and I got together with Bernie on Thursday for a 45 minute phone interview. We did a really superb, in depth, interview about the media. I think you're going to really enjoy it! (Cont)