There Is Still Hope

I often wondered why John Edwards wasn't pulling out of the race, but I'm not one of the legions who figured John Edwards would stick to the campaign forever in order to (1) stoke his galaxy-sized ego and (2) become a power broker at the convention, thereby stoking his galaxy-sized ego. Many pundits certainly assumed he would.

But no:

Sen. John Edwards today will end his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination where he began it 14 months ago — in New Orleans, where his signature issue of poverty is a stark part of everyday life.

Democratic sources said he will not immediately endorse either of the front-runners, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). He's scheduled to make remarks at 1 p.m.

So there is hope. For a while there, I thought there were enough stupid people in America to fall for this snake who raised prices all over America through his self-motivated class-action lawsuits, then wandered out from his 25,600-square-foot home to secure the votes of gullible fools concerned about "two Americas."

It turns out Edwards ran out of fools.

But let's not be too optimistic about the mental state of America. He did garner 64 delegates before falling on his gilded, jewel-encrusted sword.

Poll Check: South Carolina Update

With 95 percent of precincts reporting in South Carolina, here's an update on this morning's Poll Check post. Real Clear Politics polling averages on the eve of voting are first; actual results are second:

Obama -- RCP: 38.4, Actual: 55
Clinton -- RCP: 26.8, Actual: 27
Edwards -- RCP: 19.2, Actual: 18

In South Carolina, the polls had it pretty right, as we see the undecideds breaking nearly entirely for Obama.

Now, let's revisit the questions I set up this morning:

First, if Edwards can't carry the state he was born in, the state next door to the state he represented in the Senate, why is he still running?

Who knows, but his staff says he is in fact still in the race, according to one Edwards staffer who was quoted on Fox tonight. Today's results proves that the man is attractive to too few, and useless to any Dem ticket. The man's wife has breast cancer; every day he remains on the campaign trail is a disgusting, egomaniacal day.

Next, what do the polls tell us about racial voting in the South? The hard data isn't in yet, but based on the exit polls, Obama got well but about 25 percent of black voters were with Obama, and all but about 25 percent of white voters split their votes between Clinton or Edwards. So, why do we bother to listen to the Dems about civil rights? This is change? I don't think so.

And finally, if Obama finishes with a lead of these proportions, what does it tell us about his future as a prez wannabe? He won a state where 50 percent of the Dem voters are black. He hasn't yet shown us if he can win a major, diverse state -- but this was a great day of Obama going into those big states.

Fox just announced that Caroline Kennedy will have an op/ed in tomorrow's NYT endorsing Obama, saying he has the impact on her that she's always heard her father had on others. That should help Obama greatly in New York, especially if she shows up on TV.

The Pandering Party Gets It Wrong (Again)

John Edwards voted for the Yucca Mountain (NV) nuclear storage facility when he was in the Senate. Now that the Dems are whoring for votes in Nevada, guess what? He's against it!

Here's the NYT live blogging segment from the debate on the Yucca yuks:

10:27 p.m. | Yucca Mountain All three Democrats want to end the nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, in the same state where this debate is taking place. That happens to be the position of the Democrats’ majority leader, Harry Reid, who is from Nevada.

But Mr. Edwards takes his time to draw a difference among them, that Mr. Obama wants to build new nuke plants, Mrs. Clinton is agnostic on the question, and he, Mr. Edwards, is against any new plants. This gives Mrs. Clinton the chance to point out, gently, “But John, you did vote for Yucca Mountain, twice.”

Interesting that she’s been studying up on his record. What else is in the suitcase tonight?

While it's not mentioned there, Obama's against Yucca, too. What a shocker.

In an only slightly less irresponsible comment, Obama said he opposed dumping at Yucca even though his home state of Illinois has the most nuclear plants. Let's see whether we follow the logic: His state is contributing more to the problem than any other, but he opposes the only likely solution. (USA Today)

So among the potential Dem next presidents, one has found Gaea and is pandering to the Deep Greens, who want to forsake nuclear power forever, all the while bemoaning global warming, and two are OK with nuclear power, but only if you store the waste at each power plant site, where it cannot be secured for centuries, where it's close to big population centers, and where it's vulnerable to terrorist attack.

That's vision, my friends! That's CHANGE!

That's also why we can't trust the Dems with our future. If there were another site secure enough to deal with the Achilles heel of nuclear power, we would have found it. There isn't; it's Yucca Mountain or nothing.

Clinton and Obama are too terrified to make this point in Nevada, home of Harry Reid, and home of Dems who have made it their premier head- in- the- oh- so- prevalent sand issue in desert Nevada. Why? Because unlike the GOP, the Dems don't understand concepts like "greater public good."

This is curious, because at the macro level, i.e., when they're hiding in the distant bowels of Congress, they put the government above the individual, driving us to the Nanny State. At the local level, however, they stand for the Glorious Individual, who is supreme ... but only when you have to look those individuals in the eye.

Being the president of America requires having to make difficult decisions. Once again, the Dems have proven than pandering is their expertise, not leadership. And unfortunately, America is a country where the majority are registered members of the Pander To Me! Party.

Oh, did I say Yucca Mountain was the only viable nuclear waste disposal site? Today's USA Today editorial proves me wrong:

In the East, a spot that has been discussed as a promising place to store nuclear waste is the granite formations of, yes, New Hampshire, home to the nation's first presidential primary. As if!

Edwards Gives Up Completely On Iraq

John Edwards, seen here shoveling what appears to be his daily output of bovine fecal matter, has given up completely on Iraq and the Iraqis. He has finally articulated his cut and run, wave the white flag strategy in its starkest, most defeatist, terms:

SIOUX CITY, Iowa (NYT) — John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months.

Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.

“To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq,” he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.

In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.

Wife Elizabeth tried to salvage this disaster by saying the candidate didn't really mean he'd stop all training -- he'd just make sure the training happened outside Iraq.

Uh-huh; thereby increasing the cost of training, limiting its effectiveness, and ensuring that al -Qaeda will still have the US in the region as a cause d'etre.

In November 2005, when Edwards reversed his earlier position on the war, he called for more and better training of Iraqi troops as part of “a gradual process.” What has happened since then to change his mind to this more extreme position, which would basically leave the nascent Iraqi democracy to die, condemning the Iraqi people to years of devastating violence?

Certainly, many more American soldiers have died in the ensuing 14 months, but not for no reason. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is much less capable of carrying out attacks and the militia have have quieted considerably, resulting in much more calm in the nation. Despite the drone of a car bomb a day, the violence and death toll had dropped considerably, and refugees are returning.

The government, while still falling short of ambitious milestones set for it by the US, which is asking more of Baghdad than colonists asked of Philadelphia, is still in business and still moving forward.

Infrastructure improvements continue, with schools open, power exceeding pre-war levels, and construction projects facing fewer terrorist attacks, so therefore progressing more quickly.

And finally, with the apparent success of the surge, American support for the war is increasing again.

Against this backdrop of success, Edwards has seen fit to be Kucinich-like in his position on the war, abandoning all our troops have fought and died for, all the Iraqi nation has accomplished since the fall of Saddam, and pulling off a Vietnam-like exit. I can see the helicopters on the embassy roof now.

Can Edwards see what will follow? The killing fields? The crackpot despots? The diminishment of freedom and human dignity? The step-up his action will give a faltering Islamist movement?

Apparently not. John, spend less time looking in the mirror and more time looking at reality.

hat-tip: Real Clear Politics

Candidates' Response to Bhutto Assassination

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto presented a pop quiz for the candidates on the subjects of foreign policy and "acting presidential." Here are their grades, starting with the key Dems:

Hillary Clinton: B. Worthy of an A was Hillary's quick, thorough and strong response, post on her Web site. But a big negative was Clinton's continued deceitful grandstanding on her relationship with Bhutto.

Her website promptly posted a lengthy statement on the assassination in the form of a Wolf Blitzer interview and summarized her position as follows:

... Hillary Clinton outlined five steps she believes must be taken to address Pakistan in the wake of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Clinton called for an independent, international investigation, reiterated the need for free and fair elections, proposed the appointment of a special envoy, discussed revamping U.S. foreign aid, and a renewed commitment to a stabilized India-Pakistan relationship.

Her call for an independent international investigation was politically astute for a Dem, but problematic. The Rafiki assissination investigation in Lebanon has gone on interminably, and has yet to yield an indictment; the course of events in Pakistan is likely to sweep by such a lengthy investigation. Further, it would have been diplomatically more tactful to call on Musharraf to conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation and suggest that he request the assistance of Interpol and others.

Barack Obama: F. His Web site reveals only a brief statement that is cursory, revealing neither depth of analysis nor understanding of the complexities:

"I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity. She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world."

WaPo found just how abysmal Obama's response was:

Then Mr. Obama committed his foul -- a far-fetched attempt to connect the killing of Ms. Bhutto with Ms. Clinton's vote on the war in Iraq. After the candidate made the debatable assertion that the Iraq invasion strengthened al-Qaeda in Pakistan, his spokesman, David Axelrod, said Ms. Clinton "was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in the event today."

It's not unexpected for a politician to respond to news politically, but low-blowing Hillary is not the response the American public wants when critical issues burst forth in the War on Terror, putting peace and the lives of our soldiers at greater risk.

John Edwards. A. His Web site statement is brief and quick to condemn Bush:

Benazir Bhutton [a big, nasty sic], the former Prime Minister of Pakistan was assassinated a number of hours ago. Nawaz Sharif, another former Prime Minister, was right when he said it was a tragedy for her party and Pakistan. I submit that it is also a tragedy for the whole world and another powerful symbol of the total failure of the President's Global War on Terror.

Since bashing Bush at least hints at a foreign policy statement, Edwards' statement is way ahead of Obama's. It also shows he knows who he's playing to and is keeping his eye on the ball -- no matter how much I may disagree with him.

Then, according to the same WaPo story linked above, Edwards did something presidential: He picked up the phone and called Musharraf. WaPo describes the call:

The candidate said he had encouraged Mr. Musharraf "to continue on the path to democratization [and] to allow international investigators to come in and determine what happened, what the facts were."

Edwards not only showed a boldness none of the other candidates replicated, he was more diplomatic than Hillary, encouraging Musharraf to bring in international investigators, rather than demanding it.

Now the GOP biggies, none of whom performed as well as Hillary or Edwards:

Mitt Romney. C. Romney's Web site promptly posted the transcripts of numerous media interviews given following Bhutto's assassination. They show a clear understanding of the threats radical Islamism poses:

"This really underscores the fact, of course, that what's occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan is not unique to those areas alone, that there is a radical, violent Jihadist effort throughout the world that's trying to topple not just Western governments but moderate governments in the world of Islam. We as a nation are going to have to work together with other nations to help moderate voices within the world of Islam with a wide array of support. But this is something we're going to have to do not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq, but everywhere from Indonesia to Nigeria. There's a big amount of work ahead to help Muslims become strong enough to reject the extreme within them." (Hannity and Combes)

None of Romney's posted statements, however, spell out any specific action he'd take or conversation he'd have with Musharraf -- a missed opportunity.

Rudy Giuliani -- D+. Giuliani's posted response was not quite as strong as Romney's, and showed the same weaknesses:

“The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us.”

Another missed opportunity, although HuffPo reports that Rudy's new ad, which in their Lib words "finally -- and unsurprisingly -- plays the 9/11 card," may give him a bit of a Bhutto-boost.

Mike Huckabee: F. The Huckabee Web site news room has nothing at all posted on the assassination. The Swamp posted an interview with Huckabee where he clumsily over-plays the fear card:

DES MOINES -- The day after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Republican Mike Huckabee said Friday that the killing “changes the world” by adding a new level or turmoil to the Middle East and raises concerns about terrorist attacks on America.

“The assassination of Bhutto I think creates not only new heightened tensions there but it reminds us just how delicate that situation is,” the former Arkansas governor said during an interview Friday morning on KCCI-TV. “If you think about Pakistan, that’s where if we have another terrorist attack, it’s going to be postmarked: Pakistan. That’s where Osama bin Laden is most likely hiding.”

Then Huckabee focuses his attention on Pakistan's frontier with Afghanistan, "where the terrorists are hiding." This continues Huckabee's string of foreign policy gaffes, since concerns about Islamism in Pakistan go far beyond what's happening in the frontier.

John McCain: B-. McCain's statement was fairly lengthy and played to his foreign policy strengths. After a paragraph of condolences, he said:

"The death of Benazir Bhutto underscores yet again the grave dangers we face in the world today and particularly in countries like Pakistan, where the forces of moderation are arrayed in a fierce battle against those who embrace violent Islamic extremism.

"Given Pakistan's strategic location, the international terrorist groups that operate from its soil, and its nuclear arsenal, the future of that country has deep implications for the security of the United States and its allies. America must stand on the right side of this ongoing struggle.

"In my numerous visits to Pakistan - to Islamabad, to Peshawar, even to the tribal areas of Waziristan - I have seen first hand the many challenges that face the political leadership there, challenges so graphically portrayed by today's tragedy. There are, in Pakistan, brave individuals who seek to lead their country away from extremism and instability and into the light of a better day. America, I believe, must do all we can to support them."

McCain appropriately touted his experience and put the right foreign policy perspective on the assassination, and was the only GOP candidate to mention Pakistan's nukes. But like all the GOP candidates, he just analyzed the situation and said nothing about what he would actually do. Good swing, but the ball went just foul.

Once again, Edwards shows himself to be, if nothing else, a masterful campaigner. And the GOP candidates continue to fail to stand out from one another -- except Huckabee, who's standing out in all the wrong ways.

Gee, Maybe He Just Seems Gay ...

This just in from the National Inquirer ... which is surprising accurate when it comes to big celebrity scandals:

NATIONAL ENQUIRER WORLD EXCLUSIVE: JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD SCANDAL! — The woman linked to Presidential candidate John Edwards in a cheating scandal is more than six months pregnant and telling a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her unborn child, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

Go ahead and indulge your prurient interests ... you know you want to.

Sorry: The link provided by memorandum and The National Enquirer is currently broken. This link will get you some news, though.

Hat-tip: memeorandum

With Friends Like Kerrey ...

As Barack Obama made a big show yesterday of going to church -- not mosque -- to dispel rumors he's a stealth Muslim, Sen. Bob Kerrey, while endorsing Hillary Clinton, paid Obama a very Clintonesque compliment:

"I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal." (Source)

Yeah, and you know, I like the fact that Mike Huckabee doesn't know a thing about foreign policy. There are at least a billion people on this planet that don't know a thing about foreign policy, so I think that experience is a big deal.

I also like the fact that John Edwards can pretend to care about health care and the downtrodden, as he sits in his 10,400-square-foot home, enjoying the cash he won from settlements that drove up costs we all, rich and poor, pay for health insurance. There are at least a billion hypocrites in the world ...

But most of all, I like the fact that Hil and Bill are so good at smiling warmly as they systematically destroy their opponents. There's no one in the world as good at it as they are, and that experience, especially if it lands Hil in the White House, would be a very , very big deal, and I trust there are millions of people here in the USA intelligent enough to see through it.

Sunday Scan

Tell Me If This Hurts

This hurts, Doc. From an op/ed on health care solutions in today's OC Register:

Many more doctors and nurses have been hired [by Britain's National Health Service]. Unfortunately, their productivity has declined, as the number of patients seen by each physician has declined over the same period.

Britain has imported more than 20,000 physicians from Third World countries in the past three years, as after 60 years of experience the NHS has failed to attract and retain British physicians. Most of the imports are undoubtedly well-qualified, even those few who blow up cars and airports in their spare time.

The author, Richard Ralston, a health care advocate, notes that the NHS is a model for many who would reform America's health system along Socialist lines. Cou-Hillary!-gh. He highlights for us some elements of the model:

• No knee replacements for women weighing more than 180 pounds and men more than 218 pounds.
• Heart bypasses denied for smokers.
• "Patients 80 years and older have been denied treatment for stroke because, after all, what is the point?"
• No longer changing sheets between patients -- just turning the sheets over, instead. Staph, anyone?
  
• British patients taking "surgery vacations" so they don't need to wait for surgery at home.
  

Feeling Insignificant

An anonymous LAT editorial took a swipe at those who would stand up to the secularization of American culture. Writing on the SCOTUS decision not to take up the forced removal of a cross from LA County's seal, the ever-tolerant LAT scathed:

The county offered up a new cross-less seal that also banished the Roman goddess Pomona (we can't show favoritism to pagans, you know) and replaced oil derricks with a cross-less view of Mission San Gabriel. People went berserk. The deaths of inmates in county custody, or patients at county hospitals, or children in county-supervised foster homes attract only a fraction of the invective that the change to the ridiculously insignificant county seal brought.

No criticism was directed the ACLU's way for bringing the lawsuit, even though if the seal were "ridiculously insignificant," criticism is certainly due. Instead, the LAT reduces to "ridiculously insignificant"' the concerns of those of us who see a very real threat in the ACLU's efforts to remove God from the public square, and paints us as a "berserk" bunch who would put this trifling concerns above whatever issue du jour concerns the godless heathens editorial writers at the Lost Angels Times.

The Trouble With Mormons

Now that the NYT has stopped forcing us to pay to get angry at Maureen Doud, I'm reading her again. Good thing. She's clarified what's so wrong about Mormons. Here's what she wrote today about the Mormon temple near her hometown:

It did seem like an alien world, an impression that was enhanced when we took a tour of the temple and saw all the women wearing white outfits and light pink lipstick.

Ooooh. There goes my vote for Mitt.

To ice her case, Doud turns to Jon Krakauer, who's Under the Banner of Heaven was not a kind portrayal of Mormon history. He delivers for her this line:

“J.F.K.’s speech was to reassure Americans that he wasn’t a religious fanatic,. Mitt’s was to tell evangelical Christians, ‘I’m a religious fanatic just like you.’”

Doud then jumps on the "religious fanatic" theme:

The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial.

Sure we are, Mo. Just a bunch of fanatics stuck in a time warp; not that different from the Mohammed Teddy bunch in Sudan.

Ignorance and intolerance has found a Petri dish it loves to fester in at the NYT.

Edwards Answers Oprah

Yeah, this should work:

Democrat John Edwards announced Sunday that actors Kevin Bacon and Tim Robbins will join him on Iowa's frigid campaign trail.

Edwards' announcement came as media mogul Oprah Winfrey stumped here for Barack Obama during the weekend ...

Just last week, Edwards was joined on the stump by actresses Jean Smart, who plays the first lady on the popular FOX series "24," and Madeleine Stowe, who has appeared in such films as "The Last of the Mohicans" and "Twelve Monkeys." Last month, performers Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne campaigned in Iowa for Edwards.

Bacon, Robbins, Smart,Stowe, Raitt and Browne between them have the drawing power of Oprah's little toenail.

And perhaps someone should remind Pretty Boy that the entertainment industry has done oh so much for politics, proving its worth with Al Gore, then re-proving it with John Kerry.

Academics (Snark!) For Ron Paul

Twenty-one, count 'em, twenty-one academics have signed an Academics for Ron Paul statement as of this writing.

These are an illustrious bunch. Netz Katz. Ivan Pongracic, Jr. Ralph Raico. Aeon J. Skoble. Household names all.

And darn good grammarians, too:

Paul is the only presidential candidate with a proven record of defending academic freedom across-the-board.

That would be "defending academic freedom across the board."

Pass the Methane, Mom!

Gee willikers, there's less then 10 years left to deal with global warming!

Does that mean -- puleeeze, God! -- that by 2018 we won't have to listen to this tripe anymore?

Probably not, but it's a good enough intro to this story:

A new species of bacteria discovered living in one of the most extreme environments on Earth could yield a tool in the fight against global warming.

University of Calgary biology professor Peter Dunfield and colleagues discovered a methane-eating microorganism in the geothermal field known as Hell's Gate, near the city of Rotorua in New Zealand. It is the hardiest "methanotrophic" bacterium yet discovered, which makes it a likely candidate for use in reducing methane gas emissions from landfills, mines, industrial wastes, geothermal power plants and other sources.

"This is a really tough methane-consuming organism that lives in a much more acidic environment than any we've seen before," said Dunfield, who is the lead author of the paper. "It belongs to a rather mysterious family of bacteria (called Verrucomicrobia) that are found everywhere but are very difficult to grow in the laboratory."

Methanotrophic bacteria consume methane as their only source of energy and convert it to carbon dioxide during their digestive process. Methane (commonly known as natural gas) is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and is largely produced by decaying organic matter.

Set if we let these little guys go free in methane-rich environments like landfills, they'll convert the methane into CO2, screwing up every single global warming model the Warmies have created.

Ironic, isn't it, that all these big believers in anthropomorphic global warming believe we've screwed everything up, but can't imagine that we can actually fix things. So they don't factor human ingenuity into their models, just assuming we'll go roasting off to oblivion, like so many overheated lemmings.

U.N. Solves Global Warming!

Not content to deal with pursue practical approaches like methane-eating microbes, the UN jet-setted 8,000 Warmie bureaucrats to Bali to emit hot air endlessly.

The UN is big on symbolism, and they've done a magnificent job of being symbolic in Bali:

Further rigors, according to a report from China’s Xinhua News Agency, include the demand that all motor vehicles entering the beach area surrounding Bali’s Nusa Dua conference complex run on biofuels.

Claudia Rosette harumphs:

That sounds problematic, if the Xinhua report is accurate that only a few gas stations in Indonesia routinely sell biofuels, and they not on Bali, but are clustered around the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, on the island of Java, more than 500 miles from the UN conference.

The UN is nothing if not a good source of comedy.

Show me a country anywhere that can match this chart, with the possible aberration of China, and I'll be stunned.

Prepared by the U.S. Treasury Dept. from a scan of nearly 100,000 tax returns (vs. polls of 1,100 that purport to tell the electorate's whims), the study shows that America continues to be a nation where people move up.

Over 90% of the people in the lowest income bracket over up in income between 1996 and 2005, as did over a third in the second lowest, and nearly a quarter in the middle income bracket.

And those super rich, who just keep getting richer at the expense of everyone else. A quarter of them saw their income nose-diving, which is the other part of America's great free market capitalist machine. John Edwards, you'd better tax the daylights out of them now before their income (like yours, presumably) starts to tumble.

In presenting this data in an editorial today, the WSJ concluded:

All of this certainly helps to illuminate the current election-year debate about income "inequality" in the U.S. The political left and its media echoes are promoting the inequality story as a way to justify a huge tax increase. But inequality is only a problem if it reflects stagnant opportunity and a society stratified by more or less permanent income differences. That kind of society can breed class resentments and unrest. America isn't remotely such a society, thanks in large part to the incentives that exist for risk-taking and wealth creation.

The great irony is that, in the name of reducing inequality, some of our politicians want to raise taxes and other government obstacles to the kind of risk-taking and hard work that allow Americans to climb the income ladder so rapidly. As the Treasury data show, we shouldn't worry about inequality. We should worry about the people who use inequality as a political club to promote policies that reduce opportunity.

Opportunity is knocking, so there's no need in America to open the door to populism or more big government handout programs.

Parsing Hillary

clipped from www.youtube.com

This Web ad is declared by NRO On-Line to be the best of the current season thus far.

It is good. I just reviewed the famous Hillary clip from the debate muffing the drivers licenses for illegal question and realized that you can't get just how bad she was unless you do some editing in your head.

The John Edwards team did that editing masterfully. Is it the best web ad yet? In true Hillary speak, I'm not the best judge of that; it may be; I haven't seen them all.

But I'd have trouble giving an ad that ends with the word "Parsing" such praise. How many voters do you think know the meaning of the word? Most probably think it's some sort of vegetable.

A Big Hollywood Tip To Hillary -- Plus A MoveOn Slam

It's a funny political world we live in when one of the nation's top timber processors newspapers leads off the day's coverage with:

Director Rob Reiner, one of liberal Hollywood's most courted presidential fence-sitters, said Wednesday that he has decided to endorse New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination. (LA Times)

Yes, Meathead is even going to throw Bill's gal a 60th birthday party/Hollywood fundraiser, the equivalent of giving her his ring. And it's big, big news from Malibu all the way to the Hollywood Hills.

The article is a hoot -- and a piece of one-sided Hillary boosterism -- that's a fun read. We learn of the other Hollywood fence sitters and their response to the news of the Meathead endorsement. You can almost hear paparazzi jostling in the background.

Reiner began telling his friends about his decision last week. He ran into [former studio exec Sherry] Lansing on Friday evening in the valet line at Morton's restaurant, a film industry favorite, where he sprang the news.

"He said, 'Have you made up your mind yet?' " Lansing said. She told him that she was still busy fundraising for all the Democrats and she didn't plan to make a decision until after she holds her own event for Edwards. "He said, 'Well, I'm coming out for Hillary.' I told him that I think it's great. I think she's wonderful," Lansing said in an interview Wednesday.

Reiner also informed [irritating has-been Norman] Lear, considered by many as political Hollywood's elder statesman, about his decision. Lear was supportive, although he said he was not yet ready to pick a candidate.

Brace yourselves Breck Boy fans, because the next paragraph contains some bad, bad news for your boy.

"I certainly support Hillary," Lear said. "I certainly support Obama, and I support Edwards. It will take me a little more time."

Lear, man of nuance.

What's interesting in this Hillaryfest is that the LATimes -- self-professed chronicler of "The Biz" -- failed to mention anywhere in the story of David Geffen's early endorsement of Obama, his bitter comments about the unusually finely honed lying ability of the Clintons, and Hil's subsequent hissy fit.

How can you write about self-effacing, society-debasing Hollywood luminaries and not write about Geffen? You can't, unless you're pretty sharply focused on promoting Hil for prez.

BTW, the story contained this gem:

[Reiner] said Wednesday that he found it "deplorable" that MoveOn.org recently characterized Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, as "General Betray Us" in a controversial New York Times ad. "This is a guy who is a military officer who is working hard to do his job," said Reiner, who has made ads for MoveOn.org in the past but is not sure if he will in the future.

Kudos, man. What a blessed relief to find at least one icon of the Left that is ready to stand up to the despicable anti-Americanism of MoveOn.org. As we all know, Clinton couldn't find it in her to criticize the hardcore left of the party about the ad.

Which goes to show that Rob is a better man than Hillary.

Dem Promises Vs. Fiscal Reality

It's pretty funny really.

When I clicked on the WashTimes story Democrats can't afford '08 promises, right next to it up popped an ad asking, "Do you know your credit score?" I may not know mine, but I know what the national credit score will be if the Dems get elected: Low and falling lower.

If you thought W was bad for never vetoing a spending bill, think of what will happen when the spending bills are dreamed up in the Oval Office.

All the major Dem Prez-seekers have big plans for spending their way into the White House, and all of them have a popular way to pay for them. I'll let the guy with the monster house in the Carolina woods and the bank account stuffed with other peoples' money stolen earned during his legal career speak for the nearly matched set:

"I've got a way to pay for it," [John Edwards] boasted at the Service Employees International Union conference this week. "Let's get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year."

The trouble is, that won't generate nearly enough to pay for Edwards' $120 billion health care plan, or Hil's bundle of new plans estimated to cost $170 billion, or Obama's give-aways, which start with a $50 billion health care plan. (Obama does promise a balanced budget, but good luck doing it if the economy shrinks, as it probably will, following Dem tax hikes on business and the wealthy.)

One little thing Clintbamawards fails to point out is that the Bush cuts are due to expire in 2010 unless Congress extends them -- and the current Congress won't -- so it's hardly truthful for these wannabes to declare their tax cut-cutting ways to be leadership.

And then there's the balancing of the books to deal with. WashTimes pegs the immediate revenue gain from cutting the cuts at $55 billion -- a $55 billion that's being spent, re-spent and recycled by the Dem Prez-seekers, with Hil the money-blowing queen:

At a recent cancer forum, Mrs. Clinton said she would "double" the National Institute of Health's $28 billion budget and the National Cancer Institute's nearly $5 billion budget over 10 years. After the Minnesota bridge collapse last month, she proposed spending $1.5 billion per year for public transit and $10 billion over 10 years to redesign and reconstruct ailing bridges.

Her universal pre-kindergarten plan would cost $5 billion the first year and $10 billion after five years. She has proposed $1 billion to help at-risk mortgage borrowers avoid foreclosure. Smaller-ticket items range from $25 million for cancer-survivor groups to $36 million for school physical-education programs.

Faced with deficits and trying to at least put a happy face on their campaign promises, the successful Dem candidate will be forced to look elsewhere for money. Look for more taxes, more fees, big defense cuts, reductions in democracy-building foreign policies (which are far too threadbare already), other disastrous fiscal and foreign policies,and a rising deficit.

Don't trouble the Dem voters with such harsh realities. After all, they'll be able to feel good and self-righteous about pre-kindergarteners skipping off school for free, even if it means they've just nationalized a perfectly functioning service industry.

Judges Gone Wild

Here's the sad, sad conclusion of DC Administrative Law Judge Roy (as in "destroy") Peterson's failed foray into consumer protection:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The owners of a dry cleaner who were sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants have closed and sold the shop involved in the dispute, their attorney said Wednesday.

The South Korean immigrants are citing a loss of revenue and the emotional strain of defending the lawsuit. They will focus their energy on another dry-cleaning shop they still own, said their attorney, Chris Manning.

"This is a truly tragic example of how devastating frivolous litigation can be to the American people and to small businesses," Manning said in a statement.

As Mark Steyn comments the the Corner:

The only way this is going to end is if John Edwards is elected President and one of the two Americas launches a class action suit against him for losing the Coatless Girl's coat.

A Dead Helmsley Over A Live Edwards

"We don't pay taxes," a former Leona Helmsley maid testified the hotelier said, "only little people pay taxes."

Whether Helmsley ever actually uttered those words or not, they engraved Helmsley's image as the "Queen of mean" on the public mindset, and they were remembered by the nation today as news of her death broke.

Helmsley went from the self-anointed spokesperson of the Palace Hotel, standing in a jeweled gown at the entry, pronouncing that the Palace was the only hotel in the world "where the Queen stands guard," to serving 21 months in prison for tax evasion. She was so thoroughly awful that a judge added 150 hours to her 750 hours of community service after it came to light that she had forced employees to perform her required service for her.

Helmsley earned her Queen of mean title unfair and unsquare, terrorizing employees, stiffing contractors, quibbling over bills and hatching plots against competitors for the Helmsley Hotels crown. An utter, unrepentant bitch, she died at 87 in one of her many luxurious homes.

Were she alive, I'd vote for her in a minute over John Edwards, the utter, unrepentant poser.

Edwards' revolting fawning over the poor while he lives on a 102-acre estate, his railing against mortgage lenders while he pockets $479 million from mortgage lenders, his $400 haircuts ... one can't imagine a more self-aggrandizing, despicable liar. (Just as one can't imagine that a sizable number of Democrats see him as a viable president.)

Helmsley tried for a while to project a public image of something other than what she was, but after her conviction and prison time, she allowed herself to fade into obscure, genuine nastiness. Meanwhile, Edwards seeks out the spotlight as he continuously tries to sweep his real self under the carpet, thinking he can fool the little people into seeing him as something other than what he so obviously is.

Edwards Worked For, Profited From "Predatory" Lenders

Campaigning in Iowa a few months back, Dem Prez wannabe John "pat a little more on my nose" Edwards, had this to say in his ongoing campaign on behalf of the poor against mortgage lenders:

"While Washington turns a blind eye, irresponsible lenders are pulling a fast one on hard-working homeowners,'' Mr. Edwards said a few days later. ... It's time to put an end to the shameful lending practices that are compromising our strength as a nation."

And just a couple days back, it was this:

"We have a housing crisis on our hands. It's time for the president to show real leadership and stop protecting irresponsible lenders. Because of President Bush's failures, millions of American families are at risk of losing their home and everything they've worked for. The president must stop blaming homeowners, and wake up and realize that our nation's economy has been put at severe risk by irresponsible corporations."

Today, WSJ reports that the most transparently hypocritical of the major candidates may talk a nasty talk, but when it comes to investing, he's more than happy to be the predator, profiting off the very "predatory" lenders he so regularly attacks.

As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006.

Edwards, caught like a cockroach in the glare of just flipped on kitchen lights, told WSJ he would divest his Fortress holdings and use his personal funds to help Katrina victims Fortress has foreclosed on.

• Will he help them with at least as much money as he made off of Fortress, both as an investor and as an employee? Dirty money is dirty money, whether it's a dividend check or a paycheck. (Fortress paid Edwards $479,512 for part-time work in 2006 alone.)
• Will he do the same for non-Katrina victims of bad mortgages, who he also profited from, or just the high-visibility Katrina victims?
  

About that half a million dollars for part-time work, which I think most of us will agree is part-time renumeration far beyond what we'll ever see, here's how the WSJ explained Edwards' explanation:

He has said his job at Fortress was to provide information about what he saw happening economically in the U.S. and overseas. He has also said he was there "primarily to learn" about finance.

... he added that he didn't fully understand the firm's complex operations ....

So financial advice from a trial lawyer from the Carolinas who doesn't understand finance is supposed to be worth $479,512 to a sophisticated, complex financial firm? And on the side, they'll pay him to learn so he can offer better advice?

The $479,512 is clearly one big bribe bit of influence-buying and is every bit as reprehensible as hawking scurrilous mortgages to easily duped people.

Hmmm ... that sounds sort of like Edwards, who hawks scurrilous political pandering to easily duped people. Maybe that's the expertise Fortress was paying so well for.

Exploiting Cancer For Votes

Elizabeth Edwards looks into the camera and intones:

"It's unbelievably important that in our president we have someone who can stare the worst in the face and not blink."

I agree. George Bush looked Islamic terror in the face and didn't blink. John Edwards looked it in the face and didn't blink, then looked at the polls and blinked, saying his support of the war against terror was a mistake, that he was fooled by a bumper sticker.

John Edwards also looked at this wife's cancer and the death of a son. Perhaps that's what Elizabeth was alluding to, perhaps not. Slate writer John Dickerson asked Edwards' staff what the line meant and ...

... got a strange laundry list. It's supposed to refer to Sen. Edwards and his wife's personal suffering, plus all kinds of other talking-point items that fall laughably short of "staring the worst in the face": his career as a trial lawyer, the fact he admitted his Iraq vote was a mistake, the poverty tour, and his universal health-care plan.

Being a trial lawyer and seeing poverty is staring the worst in the face? Maybe the former; not the latter. Of the family's loss of a son and their current fight against Elizabeth's cancer, I don't know whether blinking was involved or not, but on my list of background I'd like my president to have, this is midrange stuff at best. Certainly, a person can be seasoned by such experiences and can view life with deeper perspective, so they're not to be discounted, but they're not to be over-glorified, either.

Given the campaign's inability to come up with anything else that's an eye-blinker, it really seems like Elizabeth is exploiting her cancer in the ad. That's pretty low politics: Vote for my husband because I have cancer and Obama's wife and Hillary's husband don't.

I wish I could blink and the entire transparent, pandering, ridiculous Edwards campaign would disappear, but he's not only here, he's on top in Iowa. I thought the people of Iowa were a common sense bunch, capable of seeing through phonies, but they're disappointing me.

More Bumper Stickers For John Edwards

The global war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan to John Edwards. Noted. Here are some alternatives:

It's Just the Pakistani War on Terror:

Security forces in Pakistan have been put on high alert after intelligence agencies warned of attacks by Al Qaeda and Taliban militants on embassies, consulates and citizens of US and UK.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are planning suicide and rocket attacks on the embassies, consulates, NGOs, firms and citizens of the US and UK in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi, intelligence agencies warned in reports submitted to the Interior Ministry. (Rediff News)

It's Just the Lebanese War on Terror:

BEIRUT (Reuters) - A bomb exploded next to an empty bus in a Christian suburb in east Beirut on Monday, lightly wounding seven people, a military source said.

The bomb blast occurred near a commercial centre and church, the source said. (Reuters)

It's Just the Thai War on Terror:

Thailand authorities say two bomb blasts Sunday in the country's restive south wounded 21 people, including four soldiers.

Local authorities say the first bomb exploded during a football match in a village in Yala province, wounding 17 players and spectators.

Hours later, in Narathiwat province, a roadside bomb wounded four soldiers on a foot patrol.

Thai security forces are on high alert since Thursday, when militants in Yala province killed at least 11 government-hired paramilitaries.

While Thailand has a Buddhist majority, the south is dominated by Muslims.

At least 2,200 people have died since 2004 in near-daily violence in the region. Authorities attribute much of the unrest to Islamist separatists. (VOA News)

It's Just the Thai War on Terror (#2)

Pattani, Thailand - Separatist insurgents in Thailand's Muslim deep South derailed a provincial train Monday, injuring a score of people.

Militants had unlocked the tracks overnight so that the morning train carrying 200 people from Yala for Pattani came right off the rails, said a police spokesman. (M&C News)

It's Just the Philippine War on Terror:

Philippine soldiers defused a crude bomb left inside a packed commuter bus in the volatile south of the country, an army spokesman said on Monday.

Lieutenant-Colonel Julieto Ando said the improvised bomb was found inside a bag that was left by two male passengers after a Cotabato City-bound bus made a stopover at a terminal on Sunday night. "Our troops defused the bomb placed inside a plastic pitcher and hidden in a bag under a bus seat," Ando said, adding a watch and several kilos of one-inch nails were found attached to the explosives. ...

On Friday, the U.S. embassy in Manila warned its citizens about a terrorist plot to bomb bus terminals and public markets in two Christian-dominated cities in North Cotabato province, on Mindanao island. "The embassy has information that terrorists may be planning to carry out bombings at bus terminals and public market places in Kidapawan and Makilala in North Cotabato, Mindanao over the next several days," the embassy said. (Reuters)

It's Just the American War on Terror:

The terror plot against jet fuel lines in New York has raised concerns about the lines at McCarran International Airport (Las Vegas). Police patrols around the jet fuel lines and tanks at the airport were stepped up Monday because of the arrests. (CBS)

And that's just today's bumper stickers, gleaned from the Global Incident Map.

Now don't brush this off just because you think John Edwards is some far out kook. According to the latest RCP polling average, nearly 12% of Dems favor him for the nomination.

Edwards Wants Anti-War Displays On Memorial Day

It's hard to believe (not really!) but the man who couldn't stop himself from giving Bill Clinton all the money he wanted to support the Muslim side in Kosovo is calling for his (lame, duped) supporters to carry anti-war signs at Memorial Day commemorations designed to honor our fallen military heroes.

From his new drippingly PC and totally anti-war Web site, Support the Troops. End the War, he lists among "10 Things You Can Do Over Memorial Weekend to Support the Troops and End the War" this gem of an idea:

“Get vocal. Buy a bunch of poster-board and markers. At a picnic or with family and friends, make signs that say “SUPPORT THE TROOPS - END THE WAR.” Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade. Then take a digital photo of yourself and your family or friends holding up the poster and tell us about it. We’ll include it in a “Democracy Photo Album” on our site.”

I can't write any better about this than Wake Up America, so please go there to read more. It breaks my heart to see America, at least some Americans, buying into the idea that it's pro-troops to undercut them in the war they volunteered to fight.

It seems like Edwards has set out to give smarmy class action lawyers a bad name. A tough challenge, but he appears to be up for it.

Art: Political Humor

Taking A Little Off The Top Of The Campaign

Four-hundred and counting: Not the bucks John Edwards shelled out for a haircut, but the number of blog hits thus far for "John Edwards haircut 400." Not bad for a story that just an hour or so old.

When news that the "people's candidate" who talks about how awful it is that there are two Americas gets $400 haircuts hits a blogosphere that is generating 10 or 15 new posts a minute, then the new American politics comes into focus. Edwards is dyed in the wool self-indulgent. Remember when he and Kerry got caught scarfing ritzy food from the tony Newburgh Yacht Club after nibbling at the local Wendy's?

Cutey Pants just doesn't learn -- or better put, he refuses to put what he's learned above what he wants for himself.

So what about Torrenueva Beverly Hills Hair Design? Here's what one reviewer says:

I was lucky to be turned on to this place by an agent I worked with. A block off Rodeo drive, it has the atmosphere of a truly luxurious salon, but with a reasonable price. The staff is always extremely friendly, always remembers me, and is always happy to fit me in at short notice. They also validate parking in the building. I'm particularly vain about my hair, and I consistently receive the best haircuts there. There is no hurrying - they take their time, and make sure everything is perfect. I can't recommend it enough.

Sounds really nice ... if you're into Rodeo Drive and lots of pretty boys flitting around to make you feel special. It appears the Leftyblogs don't share his view:

wow! pretty sweet! a real man of the people.. a real progressive there! glad i didn't contribute to this campaign.... how can anyone justify spending 400 bucks on a haircut is beyond me

the most i ever paid for a haircut was about $30...i was pretty happy with it... (MyDD)

More glib is the powerful Wonkette:

John “Lonesome Rhodes” Edwards may be lagging behind Obama and Clinton in dollars and poll numbers, but he’s miles ahead — in style!

The AP reports today, purely as fodder for us, that Edwards’ campaign committee has picked up the bill for a couple of John’s haircuts, two of which clocked in at an impressive $400 per.

Fans of specious political legends will be pleased to note that the AP repeats the tale of Bill Clinton’s $200 dollar 1993 haircut. This news means that Edwards will be twice as great a president as Bill.

Also, gay gay gay.

I don't know who Big Banana is, but he wins the prize for the best "cutting" remark. Snip, snip, snipe:

So John Edwards spends $400 per haircut. He's also spending millions to get his ass waxed in the primaries.

Ouch. If I were John, I'd hustle over to the Pink Sapphire for a nice massage and facial.

Charting John Edwards' Uncharted Territory

The most famous spouse of a cancer victim met with 40 members of the media in San Francisco today. That's him in the photo, sporting a yellow "Livestrong" wristband.

John Edwards told the reporters he just didn't know how voters will react to his decision to press on with the campaign despite his wife's illness.

"I miss her. I miss her. ...

I think [the political impact of the decision to stay in] is unknowable. We believe that the way to conduct your life, private and personal, is openly and honestly and that's the reason we disclosed the facts. We felt people needed to know. How it will affect the campaign, that probably depends on how America responds. I think this is uncharted territory." (source)

I also think the territory is uncharted, and for good reason: It's marginally OK to run for office if you have cancer, but it's not the least bit OK to subject a spouse who's suffering from incurable disease to the separation, stress, emotions and fatigue that comes with campaigning.

Edwards obviously has been hoping a lot of females will vote for His Cuteness, and now I think we can chart that particularly interesting piece of territory. Most women now will see their ex-husbands in Edwards: A man who talked a good talk, but just isn't capable of living up to it in his actions.

If he really misses her, if he really cares for her and for their children -- and any woman would hope he does -- he would be with them, not on the campaign trail. File the papers, sweetheart, and find yourself another candidate.