Shut Up, Chuck.

Yeah, yeah yeah. Tell me we’ve not seen this happen before….Chuck Hagel’s making noise about running as an independant. And of course the lefties are eating it up.

Forgive me if I’m not impressed.

 “I am not happy with the Republican Party today,” Hagel said. “It’s been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors.”

So says Hagel.

 Well, I’m not overly happy with The Republican party, either. It has people like Hagel in it. And McCain. Hagel, for his part, is up to blaming the Republicans for his lack. McCain hasn’t gotten to that stage yet, but mark this well… he will.

Yeah, I know… big news flash, huh?

Addendum: (David L)   Allahpundit has posted the video on Hot Air.  “Shut up, Chuck” becomes sound advice.   Hagel is incoherent and becomes the first republican to make Barack Obama sound intelligent in comparison.

James Joyner says this morning:

Steve Bainbridge thinks we should take a break from good ol’ boys next November and elect a non-Southern president who’s knowledgeable about high culture, science fiction, football, and is otherwise very much like Steve Bainbridge.

I’m not fully sold on those criteria, however, which is not surprising considering that I’m a Southerner who doesn’t smoke cigars and, like Alan Jackson, prefers his sushi Southern fried.

Oh, of course it was offered in half jest, by Bainbridge as well as by Joyner. But…. things offered in jest often get one thinking….(sigh) OK, here goes….

I wonder if there isn’t something deeper to be said about this. The Democrats tapped into this one to a limited degree over the last few cycles, talking about a government that ‘looks like America’, usually reffering to inclusion of moniorities.

(Arguably, they included the minority to the exclusion of the majority which was the reason for ’00 and ’04, and I would argue their vision of what America looks like is the result of some hallucinogen or other, but all that’s perhaps beside the point for this outing.)

There is something in each of us that wants to see people in leadership positions that is not unlike we ourselves. We are comforted by the concept that their experiences and thereby their viewpoints, are not all that different from our own.

Based on this concept, I suggest two things:

1: That’s why the trend has been away from voting, the least number of cycles… people see nobody that fills that need, and thereby feel they have no real connection with those asking for votes.

2: By the same token, the popularity of a candidate is going to mesh almost exactly with how well said candidate looks to a particular group of voters, because of the need I spoke of. Which I take to be one reason Fred Thompson has been doing so well, without even saying he’s running. There’s a lot of identification with his style, and his way of looking at things… something that’s been transmitted to us loud and clear of late, inclduing during those Paul Harvey broadcasts of late.

There’s a lot to be said also, for the idea that the illness the Democrats created… Bush Derangement Syndrome… is alternatly serving them, and coming back to bite them. The left end of the party is looking for leaders who are taken with their illness. And the remainder of the party is just begining to understand that people with that illness are an unreasoning lot, and are likley to disconnect them from the middle-right, where most of the voters are. Thus, no more Clintonesque majority come ’08.

It’s going to be an interesting cycle.

?

I am sure Karl Rove is losing sleep over this one.  Chuck Hagel is floating the idea of running as an independent with Michael Bloomberg.  I am sure that a Hagel-Bloomberg ticket could get four, or even fives votes.  The ticket would pose a greater threat to which ever leftard emerges on the democrat side.

Evidently Howard Dean does not like the reporting that he told Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius Katrinaize the recent Kansas tornados.

Sister Toldjah has the low down on Dean’s thugs at the DNC trying to intimidate Free Republic.   It is not working. 

Noted in passing;

Michelle honoring the memory of Marine Master Sgt. Michael Wert, who…

…drowned this weekend while saving two children in distress at Atlantic Beach, N.C.  “He was always there to help,” said Lt. Col. William Conley, commander of Marine Wing Headquarters Squadron 2.

WJRT-TV has an interview with his family
Picture is courtesy of the News and Observer, who reprints an AP story on the incident here.

I can do no more than add my small voice to his honors.

Noted in passing, a nugget of truth:

“When is the last time you heard of a Jew or Christian with a bomb strapped to their body?”

Of course, the usual suspects are all upset by the question.  But the fact is, that that link cannot be denied.  Which, I think, is what upsets them most of all.

Look; you can run all kinds of “educational” programs, which are intended to describe to us what Islam is supposed to be all about.  Including, of course, the fallacy that Islam is the “religion of peace”.  All one needs to do to defeat that argument, is to pick up a newspaper on any day of the week.  Thus it is that such attempts to cast Islam as not being at the epicenter of terrorist violence, falls totally flat.

Message to CAIR: Who’s kidding WHO?

McQ notes Nancy Pelosi politicizing mother’s day as a part of the HufPo bit David linked;

Women have always been the peacekeepers of our societies. When I became the first woman Speaker of the House this year, I was honored to assume this position and humbled by the responsibility it brought. Nothing in my life will ever compare to being a mother – …….

Bruce’s comments are quite correct… The woman is shameless.  But what struck out in my mind, is the very first line of his quote above ” Women have always been the peacekeepers of our societies”…

I guess that statement only works, if you consider that a military standing ready isn’t a peacekeeper. Go ahead, Nancy, and tell us how you support the troops.

Indeed, to my mind, military readiness is the only real peace keeper. Peace through superior firepower, and all that. It is certainly not a shock to my system, that she gets this one exactly backwards.

Liberals wonder why most Americans hate the United Nations so. The UN itself keeps providing the answer.

Don Surber

?

Mrs. Pelosi wrote a truely disgusting piece of pabulum for the Puffington Post

There are numerous reasons to end this war – the cost of lives and limbs, the cost in dollars, the cost to our reputation in the world, the cost to our military and National Guard – but it is as a mother, that I am most committed to ending this war, because war hits mothers in an especially painful and personal way 

Mrs. Pelosi invokes the words of the immortal Julia Ward Howe to plea for the impossible, an end of the war in Iraq.   The only power we to end the war in Iraq is vanquish the war makers.  Surrender can not end this war, nor any war.   Surrender did not end the warring inf Vietnam.   Wars can only be ended with Victory.

Mrs. Howe recognized a just cause:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored  He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on.

The Battle Hymn of the Republic   Mrs. Howe wrote of marching towards victory.  Mrs. Pelosi only writes of retreating back in surrender.  How many mothers in Iraq is Mrs. Pelosi willing to deprive of their husbands, sons and daughters?

Ovaries neither made Margaret Thatcher nor Golda Meir weak.  Testicles neither made Neville Chamberlain nor Edward M. Kennedy strong.  Mrs. Pelosi should stop thinking wth her genitals and start using her brain.

More, Don Riehl, Riehl World View. 

Kevin Drum, over at Washington Monthly, shows his usual keen understanding of political history when he asks:

Here’s a question for any old-timers who might be reading this blog: was George Romney’s Mormon faith an issue for him when he ran for president in 1968? I know that Romney self-destructed with his “brainwashing” comment so early in the campaign that nothing else really mattered, but I’m just curious about whether this was something that was even an issue at the time. Anyone know?

The issue of his not knowing the story there aside, as well as the issue of his either laziness or inability to look it up, I’ve a better question for Drum and his followers; Was it an issue for Harry Reid, when he ran for and assumed office?  Why was it never an issue when Mo Udall ran? Why is it only an issue with Romney? Gee… it couldn’t be because Romney is one of them thar Republicans, huh?
Now, mind you, I’m not too happy about Romney running.  If it comes to a choice between Romney a Democrat I will vote Romney, but don’t expect me to be turning handsprings over it.  Still, my support of Romney or the lack of it, is not the issue here; The central issue is once again the double standards of the left.

Mr. Eric Blair…. otherwise known as George Orwell, told us, in the pages of “Animal Farm” of how socialist leaders tend to take for their own the best while expecting the others to not only shouler their burdens, but do so with less in the way of comforts.

Not much has changed. Witness this report about Barrack Obama:

The Democratic presidential contender was in Detroit on Monday, oozing charisma and environmental awareness as he chided local automakers for building too many big vehicles and not enough fuel-efficient hybrids.

So his choice to drive a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C emits a whiff of hypocrisy along with its exhaust fumes. Obama’s choice proves once again that fuel economy is seldom the No. 1 factor when Americans buy cars. The 340-horsepower 300C has plenty of room for the lanky senator, his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters. It gets 25 miles per gallon on the highway, good for a big sedan, but far short of hybrids and compact cars.

So reports the Detroit Free Press.

Yet another case of a Democrat playing the hypocrisy game.  Hybrid, underpowered sardine tins for fuel savings, except for the Democrat party biggies.

And remember, folks, he’s not the first one to do this. Al Gore, Norman Lear, Hillary Clinton, etc etc etc.

The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs’ mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.

“Comrades!” he cried. “You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,” cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, “surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?”

Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone.

Just call me “Boxer”, and sing me a round of “Beasts of England”, OK?

Michelle Malkin has the story, with all kinds of links, of Tufts University jihad against free speech, at least the conservative kind. here.

Tufts, as a private school, has the right to establish any kind of speech code they alone see fit.  However Tufts should not on one hand pretend to support free speech while on the other hand opposing it.

(H/T photo:  Pajama Media )

Charles Babington, Associated Press, repors on more allegators found in Mrs. Pelosi’s Swamp:

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Mrs. Pelosi sure talked a good game before she picked up the speaker’s gavel.  Sadly all of Mrs. Pelosi’s many promises were just so much hot air.   Rather than draining the swamp as promised, Mrs. Pelosi is infesting her swamp.

To Sister Toldjah, it just another one Mrs. Pelosi’s broken promises, ‘[s]o much for that promised “change”, eh, Speaker Pelosi?‘

There’s a number of sub-plots involved with this post. (read it, and come back)

Full disclosure time: I’m an XM subscriber, but I don’t listen to O&A, and have never cared for that kind of radio, be it Stern, Imus, whoever. Further, I speak as one who has spent a few years on the other side of the mike, which is a perspective that only a paltry few will ever be able to speak from.  That kind of a radio is against every single one of my instincts as a broadcaster.  Every one.

I understand the reasoning behind Dale’s position.  Indeed; it’s precisely because of that understanding that I stoutly disagree with it.

The issue that Boortz raises is, I think, a valid one, though I can understand why some people would consider it to be a stretch, including, apparently, Dale. You see, I worked in radio during the arguments over the ‘fairness doctrine’, and I for one am glad to see it gone. It was most certainly NOT fair, nor was it free speech.

The issue here, to my mind, at least, is not whether not such comments can be made by the hosts.  They can. Clearly, XM is a subscription service, and they can do any damn thing they want to. At least, for the moment.

And therein…’At the moment”… lies the problem. We are not looking far enough down the road.  Trust me, my friends, if there is a way to be found to extend an FCC control , and thereby congressional control, to satellite broadcasts it will happen when the Democrats are in power, as they are now.

I will point out to you that the fairness doctrine was a logical conclusion of the EM spectrum being “public property” , which in turn was a product of FDR’s socialism. Remember, that concept was offered as a law in 1932, as a part of the communications act of that year. as to how that situation might be extended to satellite broadcasts, I would suggest to you that such a power grab might well be accomplished with the argument that regardless of what else satellite broadcasts are, they still utilize the EM spectrum goal in a somewhat different fashion; getting the signal from the ground to the bird and back to the receiver, and that thereby they still are under federal control. I would also ask you to consider the amount of control that the Congress, by way of the FCC already holds over other ostensibly private networks, such as cable television.  And those use the electromagnetic spectrum not all.

Boortz suggests:

There is nothing magical about paid TV or radio that prevents politicians from stepping in and seizing control of content. When the law is finally passed that gives the FCC the power to regulate what the political class deems to be “offensive content” on cable television and satellite radio, you “but it’s a subscription service and you can block it” can go tell your story to a federal judge somewhere. Good luck.

So far is all that goes, I think Boortz has a legit point.  Where I think he misses the boat, however, is with his idea that this O&A thing is the tool that will allow them to so extend that control.  I don’t think so.

.
The issue here is the target. Were such comments directed at Hillary Clinton, you know what the congressional reaction would be, don’t you, really?  As it is, I don’t see Democrats being all that concerned about verbal attacks on Condi Rice or Laura Bush, or any other Republican, for that matter.

On the other side of the coin, I don’t see anybody going after Al Sharpton for his remarks of the last several days.  I don’t see anybody going after Jesse Jackson for his comments , either.  Perhaps you can tell me again, why Imus got all that outrage, again? and, while you’re at it, and perhaps you can explain Sharpton’s silence on this particular issue.  Clearly, the issue is not what is said, but the targets of those comments. Mark this well; when a leftist is so targeted, that is when we will see maximum efforts to establish congressional control of satellite broadcasts.
.
If anything, this situation is best considered an object lesson in double standards for whom it is that gets protected by the outrage of the leftists running Congress, and who does not, even though they’re in the same minority.

As Boortz himself says, as an afterthought:

Let’s sit back and see if race pimps Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have anything to say about this. I fact, let’s see if CNN spends an entire day dwelling on this as they did on the Imus matter.

Exactly so.

As for first amendment rights, and freedom of speech, as a direct connection to Opie and Anthony, in this case, at what point did Boortz suggest that government intervention was required for this situation?  Indeed, that’s the very problem that he is addressing, is government intervention.  Freedom of speech, is exactly that; freedom of speech.  It’s not a guarantee of an audience.  Which, I should note, is precisely the argument that I used, during the demise of the so called “fairness doctrine”.  What Neal’s arguing for is people to react, not government.

That seems very libertarian to me, some of the comments that I’ve seen to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Finally, I see where the duo has issued an apology.  For whatever good that will do.

Linda Mason, CBS News, purports to talking about Katie Couric and her sinking ratings, but Mason could just as well be talking of Mrs. Ciinton’s campaign:

Linda Mason: I’m just surprised at how, almost 30 years after I worked on the “Evening News” as the first woman producer, that Katie is having such a tough time being accepted by the public, which seems to prefer the news from white guys, and now that Charlie’s doing so well, from older white guys. I guess they want the reassurance of a Walter Cronkite.

The public likes news anchors and presidents who are geniune, a trait both Ms. Couric and Mrs. Clinton lack.