Hillary And the Unions

Heh… ABC has tapes of 24 meetings of the Board of Directors at WalMart.

Topic of discussion? Among other things, how to fight unions.
Guess who was on that board?

Hillary Clinton.

She didn’t object to the anti-Union plans of Wal Mart. Now, mind, I don’t either. I think any company not fighting unions doesn’t deserve my investment money.  But that she didn’t, in light of her current position on supporting unions seems problematic for her and her relationship with those unions.

But more, it exposes Hillary Clinton’s major problem… one she’s always had…. The word ‘LIAR” comes to mind.

Lots going on as regards John McCain, and people’s perceptions thereof. I see Jonah Goldberg essentially saying ‘he’s not so bad’. I see also, by way of Billy Hollis at Q&O that he’s joined a group of folks saying the same thing. Well, actually, Jonah, he IS that bad. John Hawkins Right Wing News, on the other hand, has nailed down just how badly McCain will do, if he’s the nominee… without, apparently, even intending to.

The ones with the biggest objections are the ones who will never vote for a Democrat, and who, on that basis, won’t vote for McCain… Which brings to mind the biggest image issue of all; It’s true, that the differences being discussed are quite minor, but that’s the problem. It’s just how fine the lines are that are being discussed, that’s the big issue, here. Time was,a Real Republican didn’t need to split hairs.  As it stands, most people can’t see any difference between John McCain, and the Democrats.

People are tired of the lesser of two evils… and the line between them getting continually thinner, even within our own party. Such is what happens when we put Party ahead of principle.

As to how this will affect the general election… the usual question gets asked, where are the conservative Republicans going to go? Is there anyone else they might vote for? The answer is, of course no.  However, the translation is different than most McCain apologists make it; Certainly, they’re not going to vote for anyone else, they’ll simply sit home on election day. Given the very close votes the last several cycles, with many races being decided in the percentage range of single numbers, the outcome of such a move is lamentably predictable. It won’t take many sitting home, that day, to make the difference.

There is a long-term advantage to that happening… and this is a point I’ve been kicking around for a few days, now;

The cold hard fact is that on a policy basis, you can’t fit water between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Both will therefore produce what will likely be the worst administration in history… and given some of the liberal greats like Jimmy Carter, that’s saying something.

But think, now;  If McCain gets the WH, the Republicans will get the blame, and won’t be able to win the office of dog catcher for the next 20 years. By the same token, the reaction of the voters to a Hillary Clinton WH will be to lock Democrats out of power for the same period of time and for the same reason.

Ask yourself; why does the far leftist editorial board of the New York Times endorse John McCain?  Because they see the longer term situation I describe, here. they’re always looking for the best possible deal for the leftist agenda at all turns, and in all possibilities.

The question is, assuming HIllary Clinton wins, will the Republican party get the message at that point?

Two female suicide bombers kill 27, wound 53 civilians in separate attacks

Posted: 01 Feb 2008 10:14 AM CST

FORWARD OPERATING BASE LOYALTY, Iraq (Feb. 1, 2008) – In two separate attacks, female suicide bombers struck two Baghdad markets in the Rusafa district killing 27 civilians and wounding 53 on Feb. 1.

(Bit notes: This is the story I mentioned last week, where the suicide bombers

Feb. 1 statement from Multi-National Force – Iraq condemning the bombings in Baghdad

Posted: 01 Feb 2008 09:43 AM CST

(BAGHDAD, Feb. 1, 2008) – The Multi-National Force – Iraq joins with the Iraqi people and their government to express condolences to the victims and families of those who were killed in the barbaric attacks in two Baghdad markets today.

Liberals keep telling Americans how having government take over health care will “save” money. I am a conservative. I would rather have a health system that saves lives

Don Surber.

Senator Arlen “Scottish Law” Spector in letter to N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell wants to know why the league destroyed the evidence of the New England Patriot spying on the New York Jets, from brnaz, Empty Wheel:

“That requires an explanation,” Specter said. “The N.F.L. has a very preferred status in our country with their antitrust exemption. The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game. It’s analogous to the C.I.A. destruction of tapes. Or any time you have records destroyed.”

No Senator, the NFL has no obligation to explain her internal affairs to the state.  We are not Canada, not yet.  There are no constitutional issues at stake.  There are no violation of federal laws alleged.  In short, Senator Spector, there is nothing for which you have any need to investigate.

Hat tip: Memeorandum.

• Nice to see Billy made it home. By the way, Billy, I caught the Blue Man Group in HD the last few days, and the show had a fairly close clip of the light control desk. Wild… I’ve seen audio desks didn’t look that complex. I’ll see if I can grab a still of the thing and send it along; I’ll bet you’d know what it was straight away.
• Some seriously angry emails regards my post of “The Impossible Choice” earlier today. Well, I didn’t expect to make many friends, on the point. I get the feeling in going over some of David’s older posts that if we’re not spot on with each other, we’re pretty much are on the same page with this one.
• Speaking of that, I noted Ann Coulter on Cavuto, just now, suggesting that there’s not an ounce worth of difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, in terms of policy… both are equally bad. The difference is, with McCain, the Republicans will get the blame for the resulting mess, which will result in several years of Democrat domination. If Hillary wins, the same mess, except the Democrats will get the blame, and we’re going to end up with Republicans dominating things for quite a spell… REAL Republicans.  I have to admit, it’s not too far off what I was thinking earlier, and looks ahead, too… and she’s got a point. I’ll take it a step farther; You can’t fit water between the Clinton, McCain, and Obama. As I said earlier today, the only advantage Obama has is he has no history on which to judge his grandiose words.
• Freezing rain at 3pm or so. Trees and wires….(Sigh) Snowing like crazy at 4pm. Gonna be a long night.
• The general consensus on the hot computer topic of the day:Yahoo/Microsoft, is that Resistance is Futile. I hold to my comment earlier; this is not about taking on Google directly. This is about chipping away at the market so as to maintain a monopoly.
• OTB’s Chris Lawrence is shocked to find laws being contemplated where restaurants will be prohibited from selling to the obese. It’s not like we’ve not been sounding the warning about this stuff for 7 years, Chris.
• I see the Islamist nut jobs are continuing to get worse. Jawa passes along a story where apparently the suicide bombers are using the mentally disabled to wear their bomb jackets. Do you need any further indication of just whom it is we’re up against, people? They also mention there’s a number of cables being cut around the middle east, of late.  They think it no coincidence, and I tend to agree.

Addendum: (David L)

To say that Mrs. Clinton, Barack Obana and John McCain are all rats, does not mean that all rats are the same.  While I do love Ann Coulter, she can be just a wee bit emotional.

As to the war on terror, I trust Mrs. Clinton over Obama.  She at least realizes that there are Islamist who want to kill us.  In contrast, Obama only wants to talk to our enemies,abandon our ally Israel, and attack our ally Pakistan.  Mrs.  Clinton is the sane one.

Mrs. Clinton is more predictable.  She is a socialist.  Obama is not revealing what he is, and may not even know himself.

Patterico suggests that McCain would appoint better judges.  Then who couldn’t appoint a better judge than Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  Are we ready for three more Ginsbergs on the Supreme Court?

The only quality of McCain in which I am confident is his patriotism.  Then as Thomas Sowell writes, Benedict Arnold was a military hero before he became a traitor.  U.S. Grant was a pretty good general, out generaled Bobby Lee, but a mediocre president.  The hero card is should not be a free pass.

Then aside from being a military hawk, McCain’s security judgment is horrible.  He opposes water boarding.  Better to let a terrorist hijack a plane than to get his hair wet.  McCain wants to close down Gitmo to put terrorists into our criminal justice system, to be freed by Carter and Clinton appointed judges.

Are three Ginsbergs a good price to pay to keep McCain out of the Oval Office?  I thinking about it.

Addendum: (Bit)

First, those who don’t know themselves are certainly not driven by principle, and those not driven by principole invariably lean left, since it’s by far the easier short term path to take.  In the end, Obama and Hillary will end up the same. Granted, there’s a greater possibility of variance from the leftist mantra with Obama, and your observation speaks to that… but in the end, it’s not more than a statistical burp, in my view.

Secondly, Unlike Paterico,  I am unconvinced McCain will put up better judges. His own words address that point rather nicely. Again, the difference between the two likely isn’t worth writing home about.

Thirdly, you’re correct about Ann getting emotional.  By the same token, so was Peg Noonan, last week.That’s what she gets paid for. Still, as overstated as she gets on much of the rest of it, she has a point about who gets the blame for the next four years, and the implications of that blame for the next 20.

It’s telling, in just how far to the left the Republican party has gone that this conversation is even taking place.

And finally, perhaps they’re not all the same. But where are the ‘good’ Democrats? You know… the ones objecting to these two being the future of their party…. even as we object to the likes of McCain and Huckabee being the future of the Republcians?

James Joyner over at OTB notes that Microsoft has submitted an offer to buy Yahoo for B$44.

$44 billion would be quite a premium, and James wonders what the fuss is about.

The BBC Article he quotes wonders openly:

According to its letter to Yahoo, Microsoft attempted to enter talks about a deal a year ago, but was rebuffed because Yahoo was confident about the “potential upside” presented by the reorganisation and operational activities that were being put in place at the time. “A year has gone by, and the competitive situation has not improved,” Microsoft’s letter said.

But there has been some concern about the price that Microsoft is offering. “To me, the premium seems exorbitant, for what is a dwindling business,” said Tim Smalls from the brokerage firm Execution LLC. “I personally don’t see how the synergies of Microsoft-Yahoo is going to take on Google.”

I don’t either, at this stage. Then again, I can’t think of a better pairing to make a go at Google.

The real boon for Microsoft isn’t in the search engine business, though that would be substantial.  The real boon is Yahoo mail and Yahoo (IM) chat businesses… Microsoft’s chat and Hotmail haven’t exactly been leading… and in those areas, Yahoo has been Microsoft’s biggest completion…and Google hasn’t exactly been competitive there, either. Microsoft would have a working monopoly in those areas, then. It won’t take out Google, but it IS a real plus for Microsoft.

Yahoo is up $10/share in pre-market trading this morning.

As it stands, as of Noon 20 January next, well have a President who does not believe in personal liberty.  I find that thought more chilling than this morning’s ice storm.

I give B.J. Clinton, but not Mrs. Clinton, credit for one thing.   B.J. recognized  that fighting anthropogenic global warming will require dampening down our economy.  In  contrast, idiots like John McCain, and Mrs. Clinton who never run any business so much as a lemonade stand, blabber out some new hypothetical green economy.   I don’t even see a proposed model, much less a working prototype, of this imaging green economy.   Yet we supposed to take the word of these two anti-free market types that such an economy can be made to work.  Sure.

Both Mrs. Clinton and McCain have admitted to not understanding economics.  So pardon me if I don ‘t accept the visions of some new totally redesigned economy.

Speaking of climate change, we have projection of a coming ice age, via  Memeorandum:

The Canadian Space Agency’s radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue.

Like the number of sunspots, the Flux Density Values reflect the Sun’s magnetic activity, which affects the rate at which the Sun radiates energy and warmth. CSA project director Ken Tapping calls the radio telescope that supplies NASA and the rest of the world with daily values of the Sun’s magnetic activity a “stethoscope on the Sun”. In this case, however, it is the “doctor” whose health is directly affected by the readings.

This is because when the magnetic activity is low, the Sun is dimmer, and puts out less radiant warmth. If the Sun goes into dim mode, as it has in the past, the Earth gets much colder.

At least a coming ice age, might improve the local sking.   

I see the economic stimulus package, which I don’t see that we need, is bogged down in the Senate, in part, because people who don’t pay taxes want tax rebate.  How about a name for this, wanting a rebate on something for which you did not pay – greed.

I want to know from where Mrs. Clinton would find her constitutional authority to force people to purchase health care which they neither need, desire or can afford.   Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposal amounts to a tax on good health, and the federal government has no authority to tax your health.

Addendum: 

DIAIWIHToT: 

Paging the Goracle, Al Gore pick up the courtesy phone

JammieWearingFool.
 

As this election season ramps up, I am finding more and more that I am faced with what I consider to be an impossible choice; I can either chose to support the person whom I will call the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, or I can sit this election out, thus putting the Clintons in place, again. Neither choice is attractive, and in fact both border on the unlivable.
There is a slight chance of getting Romney to be the Republican nominee, granted.  But frankly, the way this primary season has gone thus far I’m not holding out a great deal of hope.

My heartfelt response to all of what’s happened, and all that’s been said, is that I will not be voting Republican, in the event that John McCain is the Republican nominee. Given all the qualities the man has, and all he’s said and done coming on scene some years ago, sitting the election out is the only logical thing to do. It’s to the point where McCain has things 180 degrees wrong, on nearly every topic. He’s openly been leaning left, though he denies it now. These points of variance from the Republican mainstream, to say nothing of conservative ideas and ideals, have been documented both here and elsewhere, at great length. Immigration is one example of this.  His signing on to the global warming scam is another.

On the one thing where McCain does get it mostly right, the war on terror, there’s a huge asterisk; He’s not willing to use all means possible to win the war we MUST win going all wobbly on us on what gets called, inexplicably, “Torture”. First of all, it’s not torture, secondly, McCain hands our enemy several individual victories by calling it so. Plus, he’s been all too willing during time of war to be critical of the current leadership for his own gains… namely, Bush and Rumsfeld, thus heartening our enemies…. Not unlike the Democrats. That should have been the first clue that the Republicans in general and McCain in particular had some serious problems.

And before you start in on me about Reagan’s 11th commandment, I will point out that with that critisism of Bush and Rumsefeld McCain is the one who first broke Reagan’s 11th commandment, and thus both he and his supporters should not seek it’s protection from his detractors, such as myself, now.

In Mr. McCain, we have what is likely the least attractive front runner we in the Republican party have ever had, someone only to be topped in his unattractiveness by Ron Paul, should we have had the misfortune of having him as a front runner. McCain has become what amounts to what we used to call “Rockefeller Republicans“.. a group of supposed moderates who leaned left so much the party had almost given up the ghost by the time Reaganism arrived in scene..

As a result of all of this and more, I am very close indeed, a hair’s width, from saying I won’t vote for McCain if he’s the nominee. Based on what we now know of McCain, most Democrats could hardly do our country worse.

Yet, Hillary Clinton is hardly ‘most Democrats’, being instead half of a tag-team duo who is unquestionably the most corrupt pair of ‘public servants’ this world has ever seen. It’s a close call which would be worse for the country and the world… which in the end would be the final determining factor in my casting a vote. I see others such as Ann Coulter saying if McCain is the nominee, she’s going to campaign for Hillary Clinton.  Glenn Beck, as well. That’s a suggestion that of the two Hillary is the better choice…. That’s not a choice I’m prepared to make. I rather doubt it ever will be.

Nor am I interested in Obama, having problems all his own, which are not unlike that of Hillary Clinton.  The only real difference between the two that I can see is that most people don’t know about Obama’s history.

However, without some other determining factor, which I trust and hope will come along between now and November, I find myself at a logical impasse, with an impossible choice.

The best we can hope for at this point is that Romney will do well on Super Tuesday, and will thus get the nomination… but that’s asking quite a bit, given the way things are going.

Addendum: In answer to some email: Unity with what? If you see something as wrong, do you really want to be unified with it?

Well, actually, not hail, just sleet and ice, and perhaps some snow and wind behind it.

Which means, possibly, I’ll be possibly losing both my  internet connection, and my power, later today. David, maybe, too, though he’s on the other side of town from me here at the house of Bit.

If I’ll be posting normally, until I can’t. If that flow stops, you’ll understand why.

BBCT: Intellicast  for the radar pic shown here and for being there when I hit the button. You guys are the best.

• Look at it this way, Dale; The Berkeley City Council serves Humanity as a bad example, if nothing else. And FWIW, I’m with you on cutting off their funding by the same token that they’re acting, here. Thing is I doubt anyone currently in a position to do that has that kind of moral fiber.

• I have a full load of Novell networking manuals… They took up a whole bookshelf. CNA, CNE, and lots more. Back in the day, these things were worth a bloody fortune. . the CNE and CNE books alone were $160 alone, and in 1980 dollars, too. Not sure just what to do with them, today. Hate to just chuck them, given the initial cost. Anyone care to complete a collection? Feedback me.

• Cheeseburger in a can? The Cellar has it.  BBCT: Conservative Grapevine …. I think.
• We see the New York Times endorsing John McCain. Has it occurred to any of you why such a leftist paper would want to endorse McCain?
• Speaking of John McCain and endorsements, it occurs to me that the endorsement of Arnold Schwarzenegger may not be worth all that much.  In the short term.. as in the primaries, Arnold isn’t exactly popular among the Republicans in his home state. And in the longer term…. the general election… he’s not exactly Mr. Popularity among Democrats and independents, either. So I’m really not sure what such an endorsement brings to the table. But it IS yet another indication of McCain being supported by someone who isn’t really a Republican.
• And finally, on McCain, I note a story posted at Michelle’s place about Jerry Perenchio. He’s the McCain 2008 FInance Co-Chair.  He’s also the founder of Spanish Language channel Univision.  He’s also tied by millions of dollars to the ultra-left-ultra-greens.  He’s also tied to a serious effort to prevent California from teaching English. That’s an effort that saw the channel’s owner providing millions of dollars of free airtime in promotion of it. Where’s the outcry about money in politics from McCain?  Starting to see a pattern, here America? Michelle has far more, of course.
• James at OTB notes their fifth year online. Congrats to ya, newcomer, and many more.
• Not that it’s any shock, but Limbaugh has noticed Billary playing the race card. Rush’s gotta start reading this blog more often. I wonder, though, when we reach the ‘break even’ point, with attacks on the Clintons.  I mean, at some point we’ll end up with the Democrats paying attention, and shifting support to Obama. I think Obama beatable in the general election, but we’d have to work at it harder.
• Mark Steyn in NRO says “First they came for Piglet”. Boortz, meanwhile, cites another example of the bowing and scraping going on regards Muslims. I’m convinced us that the best thing we can possibly do in the war on terror is bomb them with good barbecue pork.
• Oh, speaking of Boortz and Muslims, did you note the list, yesterday?  You may be a Taliban if:
  • You wipe your butt with your bare left hand, but consider bacon “unclean.”
  • You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

  There’s lots more, of course.

• It’s pretty much back to normal after the storm yesterday. 15° out this morning, and not much wind. Not much in the way of longer power outages, this time… most of the really weak links were taken out by the storm of two weeks ago. I’m reminded, though, of the way it works around here… the cold snap that follows such a wind storm is always felt more deeply by those who lose power from the wind.
• I said last night that the President should be ordering, as a national security priority, domestic oil exploration and drilling it where it’s found. EPA laws on the subject should be over-ruled by this national security priority. I will expand that now with something I should have added last night; A call to add diversified locations in refining capacity. It makes no sense for us to have most of our refining capacity right where they can be knocked out by every hurricane that comes through.  while we have added a good deal of refining capacity in the form of expanding the already existing refineries, that still doesn’t solve the problem of diversifying locations.  What needs to happen is environmental laws and zoning laws need to be ignored and refining capacity needs to be built up in other locations in the country.  This can be done by presidential order… simply turn over former military bases to refining companies with the proviso that they get those refining capacities online within three years.

Eloise Harper, ABC News,  Reports:  

ABC News’ Eloise Harper Reports: Senator Hillary Clinton, in an interview with ABC News’ Cynthia McFadden for ABC News’ Nightline, was asked about President Clinton’s controversial comments about race and Senator Obama  in the past weeks. Clinton apologized for her husband.

“I think whatever he said which was certainly never intended to cause any kind of offense to anyone,” Clinton said, “if it did give offenses then I take responsibility and I’m sorry about that.”

“Can you control him?” asked McFadden.

“Oh of course,” Clinton replied.

Control B.J.!  Since when?   Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results is an indication of insanity.  When Mrs. Clinton says she can control B.J., when she never has, is she sane?  Do we need a delusional president with her finger on the nuclear button?

No comment were provided by Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick Hickey Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky for that matter B.J.  Clinton.

Hat tip:  Lucianne

Addenudum:

I’ll take my bows now.  Proof that Mrs. Clinton lied when she said she could control B.J.   From last nights debate, via Byran, Hot Air:

Video:

[wp_youtube]SrZa3MGO6lM[/wp_youtube]

Her deer caught in the headlight laugh.

It is time that a voice be raised on behalf of the 73 million, pointing out that profit, property rights, and freedom are inseparable and you cannot have the third unless you continue to be entitled to have the first two.

Ronald Reagan, via Michelle Malkin.    Read Miichelle’s entire piece.

As to John McCain’s attempt to both inherit the Reagan mantle and to be virolently anti-free market, Senator McCain, I knew President Reagan, and you sir are no Reagan.

As I was growing up, one of the lessons I learned from my folks was that if you don’t lie, you do’t have to worry about who you told what, later. That lesson seems to apply well to John McCain.

Bob Novak says:

As John McCain neared his momentous primary election victory in Florida after a ferocious campaign questioning his conservative credentials, right-wingers buzzed over word that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative. In response, McCain said he recalled saying no such thing and added that Alito was a “magnificent” choice. In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.

McCain, as the “straight talk” candidate, says things off the cuff that he sometimes cannot remember exactly later. Elements of the Republican Party’s right wing, uncomfortable with McCain as their prospective presidential nominee, brought the Alito comments to the surface long after the fact for two contrasting reasons. One was a desperate effort to keep McCain from winning in Florida. The other was to get the party’s potential nominee on record about key issues before he is nominated.
….
That was the background for conservative John Fund’s Wall Street Journal online column the day before Florida voted. Fund wrote that McCain “has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito because ‘he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.’ ” In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, “I don’t recall a conversation where I would have said that.” He was “astonished” by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, “We’re going to have justices like Roberts and Alito.”

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund’s source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts….

Novak goes on to relate the tale.

We have two possible answers to this, neither of which makes McCain look all that good. The first is the obvious age problem taking on the form of a practical objection… the old boy’s memory is slipping. The second is even less attractive; and Clintonesque in it’s style; McCain is relying on nobody being able to recall, much less find evidence of, positions he has taken previously which counter what he’s saying currently.

Addendum: (David L)

Clintonesque?  Old B.J, new B.J. or Mrs.?   In this hayday, B.J. used to be smooth and glibe liar.  Now both B.J. and the Mrs. are just shrill liars.   McCain has always been in the latter mode.

McCain’s style has always been to be savage with republicans but to  be politite towards democrats    It kept his standing up wth the New York Times.    If McCain garners the nomination, the Times support is a lost cause.    So will McCain resort to his republican, read savage, style with democrats?  I think so.

This is McCain’s last shot at the prize, to which he thinks he is entitled.   Expect McCain to campaign ugly to get what he feels he deserves.

James Joyner:

Ben Smith and David Paul Kuhn argue that poor showing in this campaign “seems also to mark the beginning of the end of a period in Republican politics that began on Sept. 11, 2001.”

“There’s a paradox for Rudy,” said former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who was a member of the 9/11 Commission. “One of the things he did very well on 9/11 was say, ‘We’ve got to get back to normal.’ And that’s what’s happened. We’ve gotten back to normal.”

[…]

“They never made the pivot from success as a leader after 9/11 in New York to the ability to make success as a leader in federal or national government,” said Matt Dowd, the chief strategist for George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign. “They over relied on 9/11. There was no reason to talk about that. It was baked into his DNA. What they had to do was to make the transition from why what he did in the aftermath of 9/11 why that would make him a great leader at the time of any situation.”

Instead, Giuliani managed to do something that would have been unthinkable a few years earlier: He turned 9/11 into a punch line. The late-night television riffs bubbled into prime time during a Democratic debate in October, when Sen. Joe Biden dismissed the former mayor scornfully. “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and 9/11,” Biden said.

That remains the best line of the campaign to date.

But Dowd is right: It’s not so much that 9/11 has faded from the national consciousness – though it has – but that Giuliani thought hammering audiences over the head with his leadership in the ensuing days was enough.

I’m not convinced, though I can understand why some might want us to think so… particularly those supporting Democrats who to this day look altogether weak and just flat out wrong on the War On Terror. And what is McCain doing, if not running on the results of 9/11, when he talks about how he’ll deal with the war on terror? And, Romney, for that matter. Sorry, I don’t see 9/11 going away anytime soon.  It will loom large in the general election, too. ANd so it should.

But as for Rudy… well, Rudy had a few problems, most all of which were repairable. In reality, Rudy’s biggest problem was, he spent all his time on that point the the apparent exclusion of all else I said when he started down that road it was much the same as John Kerry having ‘served in Vietnam’ inserted into his name.  Mono-credentialed people simply don’t do well. If he’d been out there a bit more, he might have had enough publicity to add more depth. As it was….