The mature follower of Jesus stops asking, "Who's going to meet my needs?" and starts asking, "Whose needs can I meet?" Do you ever ask that question? -- Rick Warren
Check out the Charles Pickering Blogad on the left. It actually has a quote from RWN in it. Pretty cool, huh? I had no idea they were going to do that, but I'm certainly flattered.
Pickering's book is a good read as well, although I personally enjoyed the first 2/3's or so, where he talked more about the great legal issues of the day more than the last 1/3, where he talked about the confirmation process. Not that the end wasn't interesting, too, but because active judges can't afford to really tell people what they think if they'll have to face the confirmation process again, we don't hear enough about some of the key legal issues that affect our country. That's why it was particularly refreshing and informative to read someone as sharp and well spoken as Pickering talking about the issues so many other conservative judges can't discuss.
Also, you can read the RWN interview with Pickering here.
Question: "Surely you HAVE to have some issues with the way the Iraq war has been managed / budgeted / generally executed, right? I mean, even if one agreed with the general idea of an invasion, why the rush to action? Why wasn't more input outside of the general bush 'circle of eight' at least studied or considered (even if they were eventually rejected--state department has been pretty clear about this point, by all objective accounts)? Troop size, management on the ground, Chalabi, poor management of money......anything?? And, lastly, do those concerns give you any lessons as we look forward to evaluating the Iran question?
...I have been reading this blog for a LONGGGGG time (Betsy of betsy's page was my middle school teacher, and youre from north carolina as well...go panthers and lets go duke, lets go duke) and I really respect your perspective on things...and these are questions that I think matter to a lot more people than you'd think." -- Immortal_Technique
Answer: First of all, thank you for the kind words. They're much appreciated.
OK, let's take 'em one at a time.
"why the rush to action"
There was no, "rush to action." In fact, if I'd had my druthers, we'd have started seriously preparing to invade Iraq almost as soon as we ran the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Giving Saddam all that extra time to prepare was a mistake.
Furthermore, our de facto US policy since the Gulf War has been to get rid of Saddam. Clinton even made it official back in 1998. Add to that 19 UN Resolutions, Bush spending more than a year essentially threatening Iraq with war, and the months the UN inspectors spent getting the run-around for Saddam. If all that still constitutes a, "rush to war," in some people's minds, then I'd suggest that the right time would have never come for them.
"Why wasn't more input outside of the general bush 'circle of eight' at least studied or considered (even if they were eventually rejected--state department has been pretty clear about this point, by all objective accounts)?"
Bush conferred extensively with his top advisers, including Colin Powell from the State Department, the British government, and Tommy Franks and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were on board every step of the way. There were also countless other people whose opinions undoubtedly were solicited at some point or another. Who else should have been involved that wasn't? Madeline Albright? Jimmy Carter? It seems to me everyone who should have been in the loop, was in the loop.
"Surely you HAVE to have some issues with the way the Iraq war has been managed / budgeted / generally executed, right?"
As to mistakes that were made, there were plenty. I think we should have gone in earlier. I think we should have done (and should still be doing) a better job of rebuilding the infrastructure there. The original plan, which was to have members of the Iraqi army policing the country obviously didn't work. I think we should have killed Muqta al-Sadr long ago. We shouldn't have allowed the looting to occur after Baghdad fell.
Of course, it's very easy for me, and you, and everyone else to point out those problems in hindsight. What apparently hasn't been easy for a lot of people is to note that throughout history, wars, including wars we've participated in, have been bloody, messy, and full of mistakes. That's the nature of warfare.
However, when you compare this war to other wars, not to some idealistic version of what a war should be, things have not gone perfectly, but could be said to have gone extremely well.
For example, people love to compare Iraq to Vietnam. What they should be noting about that comparison is that we haven't been in Iraq nearly as long, we have a fraction of casualities we sustained in Vietnam, the enemy isn't nearly as strong or popular, and that unlike Vietnam, we'll probably be in a position in 2007, where the Iraqis will be able to handle the terrorists with very minimal or possibly even no help from us.
Even if the Democrats in Congress are as feckless as they were after Vietnam when they cut off the promised money, supplies, and air support to the South Vietnamese -- which for all intents and purposes was as good as handing the people we fought with side-by-side over to the enemy -- it probably won't matter much because next year the Iraqis will be too far along to be easily derailed.
But instead of looking at the big picture on the war, which has been very successful by historical standards, too many people allow themselves to get bogged down in politically driven minutia like our relationship with Chalabi or whether some country that sent 50 guys to Iraq is going to be staying in or pulling out.
"And, lastly, do those concerns give you any lessons as we look forward to evaluating the Iran question?"
The biggest concern we should have with Iran, given our experience in Iraq, is that our intelligence on how long it will take them to produce a nuclear bomb probably isn't all that reliable. Maybe our estimates are a few years off or maybe, literally, we just have a few months to go. If anything, that should make us less complacent about waiting around for the UN and EU to get their acts together. So, it's entirely possible that we, or the Israelis, may need to bomb Iran sooner, rather than later. Let's hope the Bush administration is working feverishly behind the scenes to get prepared for that eventuality and will do whatever it takes to prevent the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons.
Q&A Friday #33: How Do You Become A Professional Blogger?
Question: "Any suggestions for those of us who would eventually like to make a career out of blogging (ex: affiliate programs to join, partnerships with other bloggers, how to sell advertising effectively, the best methods & places to advertise a site etc...)?
I've read your blogging tips a number of times, but I wondered if you had any updated thoughts since (I believe) you initially wrote your suggestions before you started working RWN full-time." -- Buckley_F_Williams
Answer: I'm planning to write a longer article on this at some point, but here's the short version:
Of course, the most important thing is.....
#1) First and foremost, you've got to have traffic. Without eyeballs, you can't make money, so you need to build an audience.
#1-A) Although, I do this full-time, I have simple tastes and live in a rural area that's considerably cheaper than a big city. So, if you have big-time bills to pay, a family to support, or like living a little high on the hog, you'll have to be bigger than I am to do this for a living.
But, let's say you are RWN's size and bigger. What do you need to do to go full-time?
2) Have a few months' worth of money, if not more, saved up and ready for when you go full-time. You don't want to have a couple of bad months and end up having to go to work at Wendy's to keep from starving to death.
#3) As a general rule, advertisers want space as high up at the top of your blog as possible. That's why, in my view, it's important to have two side columns instead of one on your blog. If you only have one column, like most bloggers, you've cut out an enormous amount of ad space because advertisers don't want to buy spots way, way, down your page.
#4) Knowing which ad companies to use can be a little confusing sometimes, too. I regularly get solicited by different companies that want to advertise on RWN, some that even want to handle all my business. Right now, I work with Blogads and 3 other companies, as well as running my own banner ads.
The advice I'd give you in working with these companies is:
#4-A) Blogads is the best in the business, bar none. You can make good money with them, they're honest, and they're going to be around and getting bigger for a long time.
#4-B) As far as working with other companies goes, personally, I think it's fine, but remember that a lot of times these companies don't necessarily like each other and they will compete for the exact same spots.
Because of that, you need to be polite but firm with these ad companies and really know where your bread is buttered. In other words, don't throw the goose that's laying the golden eggs for you out of the barn because someone you don't know much about is promising you a platinum laying chicken.
#4-C) A word to the wise from someone who has been running web pages in one form or fashion since 1997: making money and getting paid aren't always the same things on the net. There are definitely some very skeevy business practices that go on, sometimes because these companies are crooked and sometimes because they're incompetent, but whatever the case may be, the blogger who serves the ads is always the one who gets screwed. That doesn't mean all these ad companies are out to take advantage of you, but it does mean you should be cautious, ask lots of questions, and if your intuition is telling you, "look out," then you better pay attention.
#5) Last but not least, I think the amount of money in the blogging game will keep going upwards, perhaps significantly. This might sound crazy now, but within a year or two, I think you might see bloggers regularly making $30,000-$40,000 a year off of blogs with 10,000 readers. There's no guarantee of that, of course, but were I a betting man, I'd put more than even money on it.
I've always been a big supporter of Ann Coulter, but she's been going way over the top more and more often lately. Talking about "raghead(s)" is dumb, offensive, and not funny so I'm certainly not going to defend her for it. In fact, she should come out and apologize, although Ann rarely apologizes for anything, so that seems unlikely.
Ann Coulter is a brilliant woman with a lot of guts, who has a knack for making incisive points that other people don't make with lots of research to back it up. But, if she can't tone it down a few notches and stop being so deliberately outrageous (and yes, it's all deliberate), she's going to be written off like Pat Robertson by a lot of conservatives sooner, rather than later (It's worth noting that a lot of conservatives have already said good-bye to Ann).
It would be a shame for someone as talented as Ann Coulter to self-destruct like that, but that's what it will come to if she doesn't pull it together.
Question: "Is there any one underlying reason that the Democrats are in a Kamikaze death spiral into irrelevance?" -- n_obrain
Answer: Here's their problem in a nutshell:
Liberals are much farther from the American mainstream than conservatives are. In fact, if the left ran on the sort of liberal agenda that people like Kos, Moore, Sheehan, and Kennedy actually believe in, it would utterly destroy the party everywhere except the biggest liberal enclaves in the country.
However, because this wing of the Democratic Party supplies so much money, energy, and campaign workers to the Democratic Party, the more middle-of-the-road Democrats just can't afford to ignore or better yet repudiate this wing of the Democratic Party.
So Democrats who don't live in liberal districts or states get trapped in political hell. They need to appeal to the middle-to-win, but that tends to aggravate the lefties. They also need to appeal to the lefties, but that aggravates the middle.
That's why Democrats, both liberal and moderate, so often end up running these mushy campaigns where they spend a lot of time slamming Republicans, but are extremely fuzzy about where they stand on anything. That's the only way they feel like they can thread the needle between the yowling liberals and the Americans in the middle they need to win.
This is a big problem and unfortunately for the Democrats, the only cure for it long-term is to continue to lose elections. That's because eventually, if they lose enough, it may convince enough Democrats in the middle and on the left that they need to make a big change.
However, the Democratic Party has been going downhill since George McGovern revolutionized the Party in 1972 and yet, they still haven't gotten the message yet. So, who knows how long this will take.
Question: "Why is it that when I put “rightwingnews” in Yahoo the top links are sites like Stormfront and your site is nowhere to be seen? It doesn’t do that on Google, and unless “rightwingnews.com” is entered in Yahoo your site doesn’t even show up on the top of the results. I haven’t bookmarked the site on my PC at work, although I usually drop while I eat lunch. Is this some sort of plot by some savvy left-leaning computer geek to lump you with the skinheads?" -- Charles Zambori
Answer: I don't have a real answer to this question, but the bloggy computer geek in me thought it was interesting enough to post on and see if a read knew what was up.
If you go to Google, the preeminent search engine on the planet, RWN comes up first for rightwingnews, right wing news, or rightwingnews.com. That makes sense since it is a highly linked, fairly decent sized blog called "Right Wing News."
On the other hand, if you go to Yahoo, which is supposedly built off of the Google engine, it's a completely different ball game.
rightwingnews.com does bring up RWN first. But there are no direct links to RWN as deep as I checked (50 deep). However -- and this is odd -- the first link is Brass Knuckles Webzine, which was created before RWN, and is now aliased to RWN.
Then at rightwingnews, there are again no direct links to RWN as deep as I checked (50 deep). However, the overwhelming majority of links that go 50 deep are references to RWN, although most of them are old. The Stormfront link CZ mentioned? It's a forum post from those Nazis complaining about my ripping on them from way back in 2002 (By the way, it's kind of cool to have Nazis mad at me).
I really don't think it's any sort of plot, but something does seem to be a little odd there. Any of you search engine prodigies out there have any idea what's happening with Yahoo and RWN?
Q&A Friday #33: Coretta Scott King's Funeral Vs. Reagan's
Question: "Was Coretta Scott Kings funeral more or less political than Pat Tillman and Ronald Reagans respective funerals? Is it partisan to speak the truth?" -- faithfull
Answer: No comment on Pat Tillman's funeral because I didn't see it and have never even heard anyone suggest that it was "political" before.
As to Reagan's funeral, it wasn't political, it was about Reagan, which is how it should be. The people who spoke, who attended, who paid their respects, treated Reagan as he should have been treated. They didn't get up there and grandstand. You didn't have Bush taking the opportunity to slam Clinton. Margaret Thatcher didn't rip France. Michael Reagan didn't call his brother a liberal twerp.
It was all about Reagan!
To try to use a celebrity funeral to score political points and, "get your name out there," like Jimmy Carter and Joseph Lowery did is disgusting, despicable, and disrespectful to the dead.
The fact that so many liberals have defended their actions and the truly grotesque Wellstone service is disturbing, because it just goes to show that there is something fundamentally wrong with them on a basic level.
Maybe they're just so consumed with politics that they can't see straight. Maybe they're just so selfish that they even look at other people's funerals as being, "all about them." Maybe they're just so cynical that they just look at a funeral as another event they can exploit to try to move their agenda forward.
Whatever the case may be, it's inappropriate and wrong.
When someone dies, even if he or she is a political foe, at the very minimum human decency demands that we should try to be sympathetic to their families, avoid speaking ill of them at least until they're in the ground, and we should show respect for the dead if we attend their funerals.
Why so many liberals don't get this is baffling...
Q&A Friday #33: Should The Media Face Legal Repercussions For Publishing Classified Info?
Question: "In the face of the severe damage done to our intelligence gathering efforts by the wiretapping story, what, if any, reforms do you think would correct the problems and environment that led to this disastrous leak?
Do you believe that our laws need changing to allow legal action against media outlets that publish such classified information that, if released, could (and did) cause grave damage to US national interests?" -- Bone
Answer: Laws allowing the government to go after media outlets for publishing classified info could be too easily abused. So, that's not something I would support.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that the reason we keep having these damaging security leaks is not because of the media per se, it's because we keep letting the leakers get away with it.
Every time there is a security leak that significantly damages our national security, like the leak of these NSA wiretaps, the Bush administration should make sure there's a Patrick Fitzgerald on the case hunting down the leakers. You put some of these leakers in jail for 20 years and the blabbing will stop.
We don't need new laws. We just need to enforce the ones we have.
Question: "I have a question, John: What's your position on statehood for the District of Columbia? I realize that might not be a question of great interest to everyone else but I'd love to have a conceptual framework within which to consider the constant whining and keening here in the DC area and I greatly respect your ability to identify and characterize the basic bones of contention in complex issues." -- Grognard
Answer: DC is just too tiny to be a state. "DC has only 68 square miles of area. The smallest state, Rhode Island, has 1,231 square miles, and second-smallest Delaware has 2,396 square miles."
Of course, in answer to that, proponents of statehood for DC tend to point out that it "has 567,000 people, while Wyoming has 493,000". However, DC is only the 27th biggest city in the US. You could make a much better case for making New York or LA its own state on that front.
The truth is that the real driving force behind these pushes to make DC a state is getting the Democrats another couple of seats in the Senate. If not for that, few people would care about making DC a state and those who did would be pushing to make DC part of Maryland instead of trying to acquire statehood.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
The lefty impeachment bandwagon seems to be picking up steam. Here's a pic from another one of these liberal loon groups taken by Bryan Preston at CPAC:
Let's see: they chose a grab bag of dubious, highly partisan charges, none of which are supported by the facts, and claim that Bush should be impeached because of them. Sounds about right for the left these days.
Every time these Democratic groups run around claiming Bush should be impeached, especially over national security matters, it just drives that many more voters into the GOP column. So, all I can say is, "You keep fighting the power, boys!"
Lesson: If you want Europe to adopt sharia (Islamic) law, simply threaten then.
My guess is that next Muslims will demand an end to public displays of pornographic material, something common in Europe. Also expect a demand for the prohibition of Christian missionaries trying to convert Muslims in the near future, sex-segregates schools, and tax supported mosques.
In fact, European Muslims are already demanding all of the above. Given that native Europeans have a very low birthrate, Europe has high numbers of Muslim immigrants (legal and illegal), and that Muslim immigrants have a very high birth rate, it is only a matter of time before Europe once again becomes part of Dar al-Islam. But I had always supposed this would be a hundred years or more in the future. But if Europeans are willing to cave to the fascistic demands of a minority that is still rather small, it seems inevetable that as that minority becomes larger they will cave even faster.
Could Europe adopt Islamofascist sharia law long before Muslims become a majority on the Continent? It seems more likely every day.
The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.
Sure, the code will be 'voluntary'. We believe you.
And if the EU doesn't adopt 'the code', Muslims in the U.K. are pressing for one. Clarity And Resolve:
Muslim scholars holding emergency talks called for a change in the law to stop insulting pictures of the Prophet Muhammad being published.
Officials from the Muslim Action Committee (MAC) meeting in Birmingham also called for the Press Complaints Commission code to be tightened to restrict British newspapers from following European media in printing the caricatures.
A protest march from Trafalgar Square to Hyde Park on February 18 involving around 50,000 Muslims would be staged, Shaikh Faiz Saddiqi, spokesman for the MAC, said.
Birmingham, I would note, is home to a notoriously radical group of followers of Omar Bakri Mohammed. Bakri has said that the cartoon blasphemers should be executed. It was Bakri's followers who staged the London demonstration where signs such as 'behead those who insult Islam' were seen.
This content was used with the permission of the The Jawa Report.
A few years back in Zimbabwe, uber-genius dictator-for-life, Robert Mugabe, came up with a "brilliant" idea: persecuting all the white farmers in the country and stealing their land. Granted, these people were pretty much feeding the entire country, but hey, who needs food, right?
Well, now that the country is in the middle of a famine and the IMF and Europe have "tut-tutted" Mugabe as much as he can stand, Mugabe has finally figured out that getting rid of all those farmers was a bad idea. So, he's inviting them all back:
"President Robert Mugabe has begun to reverse his "insane" land grab and offer some white farmers the chance to lease back their holdings in Zimbabwe.
With the fastest shrinking economy in the world, Mr Mugabe has had to backtrack on six years of chaos and his own determination to rid the country of all white farmers.
In an orgy of violence, Mr Mugabe seized the land, homes, equipment and infrastructure of about 4,000 white commercial farmers who produced almost half of Zimbabwe's foreign currency.
The U-turn is expected to be announced within days. The ruling Zanu-PF party's politburo has been informed and selected journalists in the state-controlled media have been briefed on how to spin the policy reversal.
About 250 whites remaining on small portions of their farms will immediately be offered state leases for the land they used to own. Some will be hoping that their full land holdings will be restored at a later stage.
The leases will, farmers hope, give them some legal protection from local warlords continuously trying to evict them or seize their equipment or crops.
In a second stage, the leases will be extended to some white farmers who have already been evicted, particularly where there is no activity on that land. Some fled to Britain, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa and are desperately homesick.
The government is expected to admit in the next few days that it has only used about 50 per cent of the land it seized. In reality, land economists say the figure of idle land is nearer 80 to 90 per cent.
...While this is a reversal of Zanu PF's policy to rid Zimbabwe of all white farmers, some of those who lost their holdings are cynical about any offers from the government. Many will need convincing that the offer is genuine unless it is openly endorsed by Mr Mugabe and, even then, they may still be sceptical about a president who has broken promises in the past. "The government vastly underestimates the damage of its insane policies," said one of Zimbabwe's former top cereal producers. "They probably believe that allowing some of us to return will turn the economy around in a single season. We won't be able to do anything without international finance, and we won't get that until there is political reform," he said.
"It's bloody miserable out there. All our friends have gone, our equipment has been broken, irrigation has been vandalised, our homes have been wrecked, the roads are a mess, our workers have gone so why should we return? I am sure there will be some clots who are so damn miserable in other countries or living in towns that they will go back.
"We should be campaigning for compensation, not going back to help people who wrecked our country."
Let me tell you, if you're "desperately homesick" enough to go back to a hellhole like Zimbabwe that's still run by the same racist, maniacal despot who was crazy enough to run you out of the country in the first place, you must have rocks in your head. Given that, this idea will surely fail and the country will continue its slide into oblivion.
Quite frankly, there's not much that can be done to fix things in Zimbabwe as long as Mugabe is still there and since the US isn't going to dispatch him to the afterlife unless he gets involved with terrorism, the country will probably remain a mess until he keels over or is dispatched in a coup.
Excerpt Of The Day: Goldberg On Today's Democratic Party
"Some Democrats are furious that their party doesn't have its own ideas. Other say they do have ideas, they're just keeping them secret for now. That sounds a lot like the high school geek who insists that his girlfriend is really hot but lives in an undisclosed location in Canada.
...A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks," George Orwell once observed. This seems to capture nicely the dynamic of the Democrats' shame spiral. Success in politics is measured by winning elections. On this score, Democrats have been failures for a while now. In response, they're getting drunk on a brew of partisanship and Bush-hating.
It is amazing how obvious — OK, even trite — is the Democratic plight. Democrats need the money and energy of their "progressive," blog-addicted base, but in order to get it, they turn off mainstream voters. In other words, they can't get escape velocity.
....Pelosi has become enamored with the idea that one needn't be for anything, as long as one is opposed to Bush. No doubt that's the feedback she's getting in her echo chamber.
In the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid has infuriated Republican moderates such as Arlen Specter more than GOP conservatives by obstructing legislation and hurling partisan insults. This is exactly the opposite strategy required for clawing out of the hole the Democrats are in. But anti-Republicanism trumps everything. And that's a roadmap for the Democrats to go ever deeper into the wilderness." -- Jonah Goldberg
Right Wing News is often unfairly labeled as a partisan, conservative blog when really, this blog is just dedicated to presenting people a fair, balanced, and unbiased look at the news. Just like the New York Times and CNN!
Now most people might say, "But John, the blog is called Right Wing News! You spend all day, every day ripping liberals and talking about things that interest conservatives. In fact, as a general rule, you only criticize other people on the right when they do something you think is embarrassing or when they don't live up to conservative principle." On the other hand, some guy once sent me an email saying that RWN wasn't a real conservative blog and that it was too far to the left for him. So, as you can see, I get it from both sides.
However, to prove that RWN truly treats both sides equally, this post will focus on an important Democratic Website: ImpeachPAC.
These spunky Dems have already raised more than $60,000 in 4 months and they're going to use that dough to support Democrats who want to impeach Bush for not finding WMDs in Iraq, wiretapping terrorists, getting bad press for the administration's Katrina response (Will Nagin and Blanco be impeached, too? Inquiring minds want to know!), forgetting to brush his teeth, beating Al Gore and John Kerry, and pretty much anything else that comes to mind.
Every single reader of RWN should bookmark this website because no one wants to miss one bit of wacky impeachment news. For example, if you weren't reading ImpeachPAC, would you know that:
-- "(T)he City Council of Arcata, Calif., passed a resolution demanding the impeachment or resignation of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney."
-- "(T)he Executive Committee of Democrats Abroad France unanimously passed a resolution calling upon Congress to determine whether impeachable offenses have been committed by the Bush/Cheney Administration and if necessary to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney."
-- "North Carolina Democratic Party Endorses Impeachment"
-- "Maxine Waters Says Bush's Spying Is Impeachable Offense."
That's right, folks, apparently the final stage of Bush Derangement Syndome is impeach-a-mania, an overwhelming desire to see Bush impeached for anything, just because -- grrrr -- you know, that smirk, argh, oooooh he just makes liberals so angry!!!
So, head on over and take a look around ImpeachPAC and if they ask who sent you, for God's sake don't tell them it was RWN. They'll think it's part of a Karl Rove plot or something!
Bloggers Weren't The Decisive Factor In Stopping Harriet Miers. We Just Helped A Little
Jim Geraghty of National Review's TKS had a column in the Washington Times today giving bloggers most of the credit for stopping the Harriet Miers nomination.
"The withdrawal of the Miers nomination and the subsequent dynamics of the fight over Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito demonstrate that the debate in Washington is now set by blogs -- and that this phenomenon has dramatically different effects on each of the two parties.
When Miss Miers was nominated, the right half of the blogosphere wasn't quite united in opposition -- radio show host and blogger Hugh Hewitt fought a relentless battle to boost Miss Miers until the day of her withdrawal. But by and large, Miss Miers' critics operated on the Web. Each time the White House came up with an argument to support her nomination, her doubters assessed it and picked it apart, usually within hours. The blogs of the Miers skeptics -- David Frum, Ramesh Ponnuru, and many other contributors to National Review Online's "Bench Memos," ConfirmThem.com, RedState.com and others set the pace, generating compelling counterarguments a lot faster than the White House could generate arguments. Other prominent conservatives, like former nominee Robert Bork and columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will, gave her the thumbs-down, and their skeptical comments rocketed around the Web to a mobilized, energized, disappointed GOP grass-roots.
Conservative Republican senators on Capitol Hill read these blogs. They picked up on the grumbling, and echoed it to the White House. Soon it became clear that Harriet Miers was a disappointing choice to a significant chunk of Mr. Bush's base, and that no Democrat was willing to lift a finger to help her chances.
So, Mr. Bush went back to the selection process -- with the help of a supremely classy Harriet Miers -- and picked Samuel Alito."
Geraghty then goes on to give credit to the left side of the blogosphere for the ill-fated and foolish filibuster attempt the Senate Democrats mounted against Alito. He's certainly right about that.
However, we bloggers have a tendency to take a little too much credit for things that happen on the political scene. That's not to say that as a whole we haven't made a big splash on RatherGate, costing Trent Lott his Majority Leader spot, helping to get Eason Jordan fired, etc.
But truthfully, bloggers weren't the decisive factor in stopping Harriet Miers. Of course, that's not to say we did nothing.
-- Bloggers gave immediate and highly negative feedback on Miers' nomination that helped catch her supporters off guard.
-- We did come up with new arguments and help torpedo the pro-Miers arguments that were out there as well.
-- Furthermore, when there seemed to be lulls in the battle, the blogosphere kept the waters churning and let people know this issue wasn't going away.
However, we weren't the heaviest hitters by a long shot.
George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan all wrote tough columns, fairly early in the debate when a lot of conservative heavy weights seemed reluctant to take sides, that were huge difference makers -- particularly the Krauthammer and Will columns.
Furthermore, although Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham were as fiery as Coulter or Will on the subject, the fact that neither of them supported the nomination had a big impact.
We also can't forget the legal eagles like Manuel Miranda, Mark Levin, and most importantly, Robert Bork, who fought the nomination tooth and nail. Quite frankly, if a man like Robert Bork -- who is a prototype of what a conservative justice should be -- didn't like Miers, that's one heck of a big negative.
Then there was David Frum and John Fund who both tirelessly and effectively hammered away at the nomination. Frum was basically the de facto leader of the opposition and Fund did big significant damage with his anti-Miers scoops.
It also wouldn't do to forget National Review and the Wall Street Journal, two flagship conservative publications that fought Miers. It was particularly damaging to have the WSJ coming out against Miers given that one of her selling points was supposed to be that the "business community" really loved her.
Now don't get me wrong, it's nice when bloggers get credit for what we accomplish. However, we shouldn't want to soak up all the accolades at the expense of others who deserve them more. Plus, we bloggers have big enough heads already without hogging all the credit for stopping Miers ;D
The Mainstream Media Wimp Out On The Danish Cartoons Continues
Cox & Forkum, who may be the best editorial cartoonists on the planet, take aim at the American mainstream media for refusing to show the Danish cartoons:
They also note that CNN is actually running a little disclaimer on their articles saying that "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam." Gee, does any remember CNN ever showing that kind of respect for Christianity? Of course, Christian don't drive truck bombs into your corporate offices or kidnap and behead your reporters.
That's why CNN should just be honest and say: "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons because we're afraid Muslim extremists will kill us."
At least that would be honest.
But here's an interesting question: how can we expect moderate Muslims to stand up to these lunatics, who threaten to murder people for simply posting silly cartoons like this one...
...if the American press doesn't have the guts to stand up for free speech? Heck, we're in a country that has a small, very moderate Muslim population. How much harder must it be to be in a country like Jordan, Turkey, or Iraq and stand up and say: "These cartoons are offensive, but so are you idiots who are out in the street making Muslims look like bloodthirsty savages!"
In my view, the Western media, particularly the American media has a duty here to stand up not just for free speech, but to show everyone that the Islamic extremists cannot get their way through intimidation.
*** Update #1 ***: Are you ready for an irony overload? The New York Times ran a story on the Muhammad cartoons and they did finally post a pic -- of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung! The hypocrisy and cowardice of these papers just boggles the mind...
A Brief Statement Of Position On Bush's Warrantless Wiretaps
I haven't talked a lot about Bush's warrantless wiretaps, so I thought I should take a few moments to unequivocably let people know where I stand.
This was a secret program and revealing it to the world helped our enemies. That's why I believe the people responsible for leaking the details of it to the press deserve to be ferreted out, prosecuted, and sent to jail for a long, long, time in jail.
Furthermore, I believe what Bush did was very sensible, legal, and would like him to continue doing it. Moreover, because I hold that opinion, I see no reason to change the law or hold politically motivated hearings that would likely lead to more classified information being leaked to the press by partisans with axes to grind.
It's also worth noting that the political grandstanding on this issue, mostly by Democrats, but also by a few Republicans, reveals a fundamental lack of seriousness about defending this country and a ridiculously skewed sense of priorities.
Summing it all up: without question, we should continue to spy on conversations between terrorists and people in this country. Kudos to President Bush for having the common sense to take very reasonable measures to stop terrorist attacks in this country, whether his detractors like it or not.
Friends Don't Let Friends Write Insane Columns In Counterpunch
Paul Craig Roberts, a man who was once, (admittedly long, long, ago) a fairly reliable conservative, has now gone so far off the deep end that even the likes of Pat Buchanan may start to get a little nervous about associating with him.
From Roberts' latest editorial in Counterpunch (Counterpunch! What self-respecting conservative would ever write for that digital rubber room for liberals?):
"Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.
Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why President Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government. The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif.
The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and democracy itself. The "liberal press" has been co-opted. As everyone must know by now, the New York Times has totally failed its First Amendment obligations, allowing Judith Miller to make war propaganda for the Bush administration, suppressing for an entire year the news that the Bush administration was illegally spying on American citizens, and denying coverage to Al Gore's speech that challenged the criminal deeds of the Bush administration.
The TV networks mimic Fox News' faux patriotism. Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda.
The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite online porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.
....Consider the no-fly list. This list has no purpose whatsoever but to harass and disrupt the livelihoods of Bush's critics. If a known terrorist were to show up at check-in, he would be arrested and taken into custody, not told that he could not fly. What sense does it make to tell someone who is not subject to arrest and who has cleared screening that he or she cannot fly? How is this person any more dangerous than any other passenger?
If Senator Ted Kennedy, a famous senator with two martyred brothers, can be put on a no-fly list, as he was for several weeks, anyone can be put on the list. The list has no accountability. People on the list cannot even find out why they are on the list. There is no recourse, no procedure for correcting mistakes.
...How long before members of the opposition party, should there be one, find that they cannot return to Washington for important votes, because they have been placed on the no-fly list?
...Many readers have told me, some gleefully, that I will be placed on the no-fly list along with all other outspoken critics of the growth in unaccountable executive power and war based on lies and deception. It is just a matter of time."
Roberts is completely out of his mind.
"They're blackmailing the Democrats and the press! They're going to block Democrats from voting by putting them on the no-fly lists. They're going to put me on a no-fly list and then I'll be grounded for life! Gargle floppity floop!"
Someone put Paul Craig Roberts back on his medicine before he writes another insane editorial in Couterpunch. In fact, let me make a plea: if you're one of Paul Craig Roberts' friends, a family member, maybe even someone who used to be a pal of his: pick up the phone, call him right now, and say, "Paul, you're acting a little crazy and I'm concerned about you." Hey, Paul Craig Roberts, back when he was sane, would have done it for you.
Remember, friends don't let friends write insane columns in Counterpunch.
Originally, the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten commissioned and posted the now notorious Mohammad cartoons to prove a point: that members of the media were self-censoring themselves out of fear of Muslim extremists.
As we've found out since then, not only was that occurring then in Europe, it's still occurring today. More importantly, our own mainstream media here in the United States is engaged in exactly the same sort of self-censorship that we've seen in Europe.
The very same newspapers that never show the slightest hesitation to publish cartoons offensive to Christians and that gleefully published images from Abu Ghraib that they knew would help inspire Muslim anger towards our country and our military, now refuse to publish these Muhammad cartoons, which quite frankly are extremely tame by the standards of American newspapers.
All sorts of laughably lame excuses have been offered for not showing these cartoons, which are undeniably newsworthy and fall well within the bounds of decency usually observed by the mainstream media.
The WAPO said the cartoons, "wouldn't meet our standards." USA Today said they were "not sure there would be a point to it." The LA Times called the images "insensitive." Oblivously, The Boston Globe essentially claimed that no one was "trying to deny (Jyllands-Posten) its right to publish whatever it wanted."
Worst of all, The Christian Science Monitor claimed showing cartoons featuring Muhammad was almost like "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater," which quite frankly, makes exactly the point Jyllands-Posten was trying to prove in the first place. If simply publishing a cartoon that offends Muslims is in and of itself likely to be a dangerous act, then there is a big problem here that needs to be confronted head on.
Once you cut through all this ridiculous spin, you get to the truth -- which is that members of the MSM in this country, other than a handful of brave exceptions, are censoring what they write about Muslims out of fear that Islamo-Fascists will bomb, burn, or behead them.
Furthermore, this may seem to just be about cartoons, but what about other areas where the MSM could incur the wrath of Muslims? How much is this self-censorship affecting their coverage of terrorism, Islamic dictatorships, Iran, Israel and Palestine, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror in general?
Just what else is the mainstream media not willing to talk about because some Muslim extremist might be offended? Until the public gets some better answers to that question, perhaps they should be less trusting of what they hear from the mainstream media.
"I went to the Coretta Scott King funeral and all I got was this lousy liberal political rally." -- Cold Fury
"At a service Monday night, the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton galvanized the crowd with fiery speeches that blasted the government and public figures for trying to make the King legacy their own while doing nothing for world peace or poor black Americans.
Music and applause filled the Georgia church where mourners including four U.S. presidents paid tribute to Coretta Scott King at her funeral Tuesday.
...The day was not without politically charged references, most notably by former President Jimmy Carter — who has been a staunch critic of Bush administration policies.
Carter invoked the issue of the current wiretapping probe involving Bush by remembering that for the Kings: "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." Later, he said that Hurricane Katrina showed that all are not yet equal in America and made a veiled reference to the war in Iraq and the existing government's international strategies.
"We do not have a monopoly on the hunger for democracy and freedom," Carter told the congregation. "[The Kings] overcame one of the greatest challenges of life, to wage a fierce struggle for freedom and justice and to do it peacefully.
...The Rev. Joseph Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., spoke directly to the current administration's foreign and domestic policies.
"Our marvelous presidents and governors come to mourn and praise ... but in the morning will words become deeds that meet need?" Lowery asked.
"For war, billions more, but no more for the poor," he said, in a take-off of a lyric from Stevie Wonder's song "A Time to Love," which drew a roaring standing ovation. The comments drew head shakes from Bush and his father as they sat behind the pulpit."
Some of these Dems can't even set aside their politics long enough to properly honor the dead. What a lack of class.
When you blog for a living, deciding whether to allow an advertiser to use your site as a forum to get their message out can be a tough call. Of course, like any capitalist, you want to make as much money as you can. On the other hand, Gawd, some of these people who want to advertise -- UGH!
Three times now, I have actually declined advertisers. Out of the three websites I vetoed ad buys from, 2 were racist and 1 was homophobic. There's just not enough money out there to get me to run that sort of drek.
On the other hand, before today, there were 3 websites I had taken money from and then criticized on RWN. Those advertisers were the United Nations, National Republican Senatorial Committee (for running attack ads against Steve Laffey, Lincoln Chafee's primary opponent), and a group of RINOs who actually endorsed Kerry called Come Back To The Mainstream.
Well now, after much thought, I've decided to run an ad from a bunch of stone cold wackos called the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
This is an anti-conservative, loon website, with no redeeming virtues whatsoever. In fact, I've made fun of kook websites like this in the APOTI section many times before.
Just in case you have any doubt that these people are completely crackpots, here's an email speculating that the Bush administration might set up an attack on the Super Bowl so they can suspend elections, implement martial law, and start a Fourth Reich.
In another quip from one of their press releases, they "suggest (9/11) may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
My honest opinion is that these people are completely wasting their money advertising on a blog like RWN, doubly so since I'm taking the time to point out that they're moonbats of the worst sort. Furthermore, it's ironic that their advertising dollars are going to support a right-winger who thinks they're nuts, regularly makes fun of sites like theirs, and is strongly behind the Bush administration in the war on terror.
In any case, if you think I shouldn't have run the ad, I understand. This was a hard call for me, but in the end, I decided to go ahead, run the advertisement and we'll see how it plays out.
The Democrats Extremely Flexible Version Of Patriotism
From Carl Sheeler, a Democrat running for the Senate in Rhode Island, here's a billboard he obviously thinks will convince liberals to vote for him in the primary:
Yes, why don't more Democrats start calling for Bush to be impeached for listening in on the conversations of people talking to Al-Qaeda without a warrant and saying the exact same things Democrats did about Iraq's WMDs which, for all we know, may be sitting in Syria right now?
This makes lots of sense, right? After all, look how well the impeachment worked out for Republicans! Clinton left office with an approval rate of what, 65%? And in this case, Democrats want to try to impeach Bush, in essence, for defending America from terrorists in ways they perceive as being, "too aggressive."
Sounds like a political winner to me...for the GOP. Go for it, you Dems!
NSA Adds Alert And Choices On Tapped Calls By Scott Ott
After a day in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced tough questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee about the legality of America’s best-known secret terrorist surveillance program, the National Security Agency (NSA) said it would alter its wiretap protocol to reduce the threat to civil rights.
Under the new procedures for intercepting a telephone call from an al Qaeda operative to a U.S. resident, the two parties engaged in conversation will hear a brief alarm bell every 30 seconds, followed by a recorded announcement that says: “In order to better protect the United States from devastating terror attacks, this call may be monitored.”
According to covert NSA spokesman Louis Slipps, “the new measures carry the assumption that some Americans may be unaware that they’re talking with terrorists, or do not realize that their casual chatter with an al Qaeda buddy may aide and abet the enemy.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, who yesterday told the Attorney General that he’s concerned about “peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon. and other law-abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch lists“, today welcomed the new ‘liberty-enhanced’ secret wiretap program that the NSA dubbed “Operation Let Freedom Ring.”
“Thanks to these changes, the Quakers can stop quaking from fear and return to their regularly-scheduled quaking in response to divine revelation,” said Sen. Leahy. “And law-abiding Americans who just happen to have friends in al Qaeda, can rest easier tonight.”
In addition to the monitoring alert, Mr. Slipps said U.S. residents on NSA-intercepted calls will soon be offered a menu of options, including the following:
– To continue in Arabic press ‘one’ or say wâhid
– To hear a complete listing of the steps required to obtain a wiretap warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, press, or say, two
– If you’re a law-abiding American press, or say, three
– If you’re a Quaker, a baby or a nun and feel you have reached this recording in error, please hang up the phone and dial a number that’s not associated with al Qaeda.
– To speak with an NSA representative, remain on the line until we complete the trace. You may hear a brief series of clicks, followed by a knock at your door.
– To call in a CIA predator-drone attack on the party to whom you are speaking, press the ‘pound’ key
This content was used with the permission of Scrappleface.
Six Sentences I'm Getting Very, Very Sick Of Hearing By Damian Penny
1. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can insult people's most cherished beliefs." Actually, that's precisely what "freedom of speech" means. If only the most inoffensive opinions are protected, what's the point?
2. "We have decided not to publish the cartoons out of respect for Islam." What do you call a newspaper that won't show images that might offend religious extremists? Highlights for Children. As Paul Canniff said about comments by pro-censorship punk-rocker Warren Kinsella, this is just an attempt to buy cheap fatwa insurance.
3. "You Christians always go nuts when something like "Piss-Christ" turns up, but you expect Muslims to just quietly accept this gross insult to their faith." Curiously, you never hear people who make this argument suggest that, say, Martin Scorcese was "asking for it" because he should have known people would find The Last Temptation of Christ offensive.
4. "You never see the Pope or Jews caricatured and insulted in this manner." This argument is usually made by people who simultaneously make argument no. 3. Whatever their virtues, a finely tuned sense of irony is not one of them.
5. "The cartoons were crude and disgusting, and never should have been published in a newspaper." Some of the cartoons, especially the much-talked-about one showing Muhammed's turban as a bomb, were certainly provocative - but they were no worse than what regularly gets published in the Western media. (Certainly, compared with the work of psychopath Steve Bell in The Guardian, they were downright restrained.) What's "crude" about showing a terrified artist, fearful of religious fanatics ready to break down his door and slash his throat, just for drawing a picture of a historical figure? Don't we have a right - nay, a duty - to satirize the phenomenon of religious fanatics blowing themselves up in crowds of civilians so they can collect eternal nookie?
6. "These cartoons are just like the ones the Nazis used to publish about Jews." No, actually, these are.
This content was used with the permission of Daimnation.
As you likely remember, Charles Pickering was one of the judges filibustered by the Democrats. After spending a year on the bench as a result of a recess appointment by President Bush, the judge retired and decided to write a book.
Not only did we discuss the confirmation process, we discussed a number of other hot button issues like Roe V. Wade, Kelo V. New London, gay marriage, the First Amendment and religion, and the culture clash in our country.
You can read the transcript of our interview, which was edited for the sake of clarity and to avoid repetition, here.
Bob Fertik Spills The Beans On Rove's Plan To Attack The Super Bowl
Usually, RWN doesn't cover sports, but the day after Super Bowl Sunday is an exception. Not because of the game, but because Democratic consultant Bob Fertik over at Democrats.com must have been even more out of his mind than usual when he wrote this...
From a post called (Are you ready for this?) "Is Rove Planning a Terror Attack on the Super Bowl?"
"Which leads me to ask: is Karl Rove planning a terrorist attack during the Super Bowl, in order to set the stage for building towards war with Iran over the coming year?
....If Rove wants a war with Iran, he will have to manufacture it, because Iran (like Iraq in 2002) is not trying to provoke a war.
And how better to manufacture a war than to manufacture a terrorist attack on the Super Bowl right while the whole world is watching - and blame it on Iran?
...I pray that I am wrong. But ever since Karl Rove plucked Bush out of his drunken stupor to groom him for a career delivering speeches fed to him through an earpiece, just about everything I feared has come true."
Good news, Bob, your prayers came true! You were wrong! Maybe it was because you revealed Rove's evil plan and because he knew you were on to him, he decided to back off! Keep up the good work and maybe they'll make you the next DNC chief after Howard Dean is fired or perhaps you can lead the anti-war movement after Cindy Sheehan's 15 minutes of fame are officially up. Sure, that may seem a little far fetched now, but if there's one thing liberals love it's Bush-hating kooks and, Bob, you definitely qualify.
Hat tip to JunkYardBlog for pointing out this story.
Quote Of The Day: The American Media's Cartoon Hypocrisy
"(The American media) won’t publish (the Danish) cartoons, but they will run anything they can get out of Abu Ghraib. Both sets of images provoke Islamic anger; note how the media behaves when that anger is directed at them." -- Tim Blair
