... Because Criticizing The President Is So Good For Your Military Career

David Brooks babbles about a response to any troop reduction plan for Iraq,

There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

Highly photogenic retired colonels? Because as anybody with a brain in his head knows, a colonel on active duty who screams "betrayal" at the Commander In Chief will be committing career suicide, and probably won't be holding that rank for very long.

The media seems to prefer photogenic retired generals, a lot of whom are arguing for phased withdrawal. (But when has Brooks, a cheerleader for the war, ever let such trivialities as facts interfere with his opinions.)

Law Office Blogs Should Be Part Of The Main Website

A post over at "The Greatest American Lawyer" describes how that firm, a pioneer in legal marketing through weblogs, is redesigning its primary site and integrating its weblogs into the redesign. I can't argue with the decision, as it's the approach I believe law firms should take.

When I wrote about this subject almost a year ago, it was within the context of a particular, popular employment law weblog, That's What She Said. That weblog relates HR law to what happens on a particular TV show, The Office. The website has expanded to include four different weblogs - from different law firms. That is, on top of not drawing traffic directly to the sponsoring law firm's site, the popularity of the original weblog is now being used to leverage traffic to the weblogs of other law firms and companies. Also, despite the new content, the overall popularity of the site has apparently plummeted. (A consequence of the writer's strike?)

A point where I disagree (in part) with TGAL is that I don't view weblogs as being "something special". They're an easy CMS (content management system) - a way to get content online quickly and easily and, via RSS ("Rich Site Summary" a/k/a "Really Simple Syndication"), to get it in front of people who are sufficiently interested in what you write to follow your every word. They can be a very good tool to bring attention, links and traffic - "it's all about the links". But at the end of the day you have to be careful to achieve balance - particular weblog entries fade quickly into oblivion, and often your blog-based search engine rankings depend upon the weblog as a whole as opposed to individual posts, no matter how carefully written. A good website strategy will encourage people to link to stable, authoritative evergreen content - or content you periodically review and update. To put it another way, don't just blog - post articles on your website. And use your weblog to promote your articles.

I put all of this more concisely almost two years ago:

In my humble opinion, a law firm will typically benefit from a weblog, but the weblog should be integrated into the firm's site. The firm should build a collection of articles on the firm website, and use the weblog to feature its new article content. By featuring an article on the weblog (e.g., by announcing its publication with a short excerpt and a link), the odds go up that external links (those on other sites) will be directed at the article as opposed to the weblog entry, which in turn should help that article in future search engine results.

Viral Marketers - Strike While The Iron Is Hot

It may be a week too late, but how about a JibJab-style video about the Democratic race to the wretched strains of Michael Bolton?

(If you're a Michael Bolton fan and I offended you, er, sorry? No, not really. That song consists of a string of 80's musical clichés, and the lyrics are drek. But if you truly are a fan, you have a day to bid for some Michael Bolton memorabilia and support charity.)

Is This The Beginning Of A New Beginning For McCain?

Today, Michael Gerson lavishes attention on John McCain, and repeats his standard prevarication about "the surge", followed by a "there are two types of people" generalization that would probably even make David Brooks blush.

President Bush's announcement of the surge in January 2007 pleased almost no one - neither Democrats who embraced retreat at any cost, nor Republicans who suspected the shift in approach was too little, too late.

Is Gerson truly a simpleton, or does he merely play one on the editorial pages? Seriously - people complain about The Times hiring Kristol, who is unquestionably a hack, but at least he has a brain in his head.

Gerson tries to reinvent McCain's revival as being about this new "success" in the Iraq war:

Yet the Republican candidate most closely identified with the war and the surge performs well in head-to-head polls against the Democrats. The revival of McCain's campaign was possible for one reason: the revival of American fortunes in Iraq.

Which explains why Republican voters put the Iraq war first... second... er, make that a close third (19%) on their list of priorities. Behind the economy (39%), something McCain admits that he doesn't understand, and immigration (23%).... Gerson may have sympathies with McCain's views on immigration, but (as obtuse as he often seems to be) he knows better than to make immigration policy the centerpiece of a column on the revival of McCain's candidacy.

Most categories of violence in Iraq are now down by more than 60 percent, and sectarian attacks in Baghdad have fallen by 90 percent. Sunni tribal leaders are conducting the first large-scale revolt of Arabs against al-Qaeda thuggery - which includes, we learned last week, strapping explosives to a mentally disabled woman and setting off a blast in a market.

McCain seems well suited to deal with this kind of evil - precisely because he would diagnose it as evil.

Whereas the other candidates would diagnose it as... oh, what's the word I'm struggling to find... evil?

In case it is necessary to restate my position, the military achievements in Iraq have been impressive. From the total domination of the country in the early days of the war, through the surge and its military goals of suppressing violence to make room for political progress. On the other hand, the Iraq war has been a political disaster, from the Bush Administration machinations that got us into the war, to the incompetent decisions made following the occupation (including extreme de-Baathification and the dissolution of the Iraq military, which laid the foundation for two of the most intractable problems, bringing Baathists into a unification government and a large, widespread insurgency.) Lest we forget, although the occupation was not the "cakewalk" we were promised, there was a two-year downward spiral following the invasion. Two years of squandered opportunity, due primarily to the Bush Administration's refusal to face reality and lust to unilaterally impose its own goals on the state of Iraq. Where was Gerson during that period abject incompetence? Oh, yeah....

In the general election, his ideological heresies will suddenly transform into strengths. Because of his immigration views, he is the only Republican candidate who can make a serious appeal to Hispanic voters. His positions on global warming and campaign finance reform will ease his outreach to independents.

If Gerson were paying attention to the voices of voters instead of the voices in his head, he would realize that McCain's present success arises from his "outreach to independents". The closer to the center you are, the more likely you are to support McCain. The hardcore Republicans, those who put immigration as an issue above the Iraq war? They're not likely to be thrilled with McCain's reach toward the center. Gerson might dismiss this with a, "Who else are they going to vote for?" That, however, is an attitude likely to lead to reduced voter turnout.

Gerson sees one, and only one, flaw in McCain. His attempt to reinvent himself as a supporter of Bush, leading to the infamous "hug" picture that is sure to feature prominently in Presidential campaign ads? Not a problem. His flip-flopping on the religious right, and attempt to mend fences with the likes of Pat Robertson? Not a problem. His legendary temper? Not a problem. His off-the-cuff comments, such as the idea of a 100+ year Iraq war? Gerson probably views them as an attribute.

No, to Gerson, McCain's one big problem is that he doesn't care about domestic issues.

McCain's foresight on Iraq has carried him far. But eventually he will need to engage Democrats on issues from health care to education to poverty. And being right on the war will not be enough.

Health care? Doesn't Gerson read his own paper? (Seriously, though, that was a weak analysis.) Can McCain argue persuasively on issues he doesn't care about? I don't recall that he has ever really tried, suggesting that he is either sticking to issues he cares about or is ultimately forgettable when he speaks about anything else.

Here's McCain filling up a couple of minutes with his views on education policy. Here he is promising to continue GW's economic policies.) When McCain is memorable, it's usually when he betrays his lack of understanding of the economy - that is, when he says things like "I wish interest rates were zero" and "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

And let's not forget, Gerson is assuming McCain is "right on the war". The majority of Americans want a strategy that gets us out of Iraq. McCain doesn't have one. The majority of Americans want a strategy that brings our troops home. McCain's willing to commit them to Iraq for 100 years or more. The military success of the surge doesn't overcome the reality that the public wants the war to end, nor does it substitute for political progress. As previously noted, by the President's own standards the surge is a total political failure.

For a better summary of the more probable dynamics being McCain's resurgence, see Daniel Larison's comments at Eunomia.

As The Race Boils Down To Two On Each Side....

It's Super Tuesday and you want to know who to vote for? Here are some thoughts on the candidates that are both unfair and far too brief to be helpful! (Don't look at me like that. Pretend I'm a pundit, or something.)

Hillary Clinton

Pro's:

• Despite the criticism of her "experience", she does in fact appear to be the Democratic candidate most prepared to be effective from day one.
• She has proved adaptable, and seems to recognize when to borrow opponents' ideas to improve her own.

Con's:

• She seems inclined to achieve policy results through back room deals and manipulations - politics as usual, perhaps, but....
• There will always be a block of people who oppose whatever she proposes merely because she's the proponent.

Barack Obama

Pro's:

• He is the most effective campaigner of this group.
• His campaign tactics suggest that he is prepared to engage in some bare knuckle tactics, yet the press seems to overlook his actions or forgive him.
• If he proves able to inspire and simultaneously to be an effective leader, he could be a very effective President.

Con's:

• He seems stubborn in some of his policy positions, and as ill-defined as they are at the moment that doesn't bode well for him as President.
• Lofty rhetoric that does not translate into action quickly reduces to "We ought to make the pie higher."

John McCain

Pro's:

• Relatively candid for a political candidate, even though some of his statements undermine right-wing support and probably hurt his chances in an election.
• He has enormous experience getting things done in Washington, sometimes to the great consternation of his own party.
• He's unlikely to become beholden to the factions that which to continue the "GW Bush legacy" - you know, the people currently claiming that GW is a "liberal".

Con's:

• Even after this many years in public life, some of his "candid" statements seem to be poorly conceived and non-reflective.
• He appears to be stubborn, have a thin skin and to hold grudges.
• He endorses "endless war" but has given no apparent thought to prevent our current wars from being endless.

Mitt Romney

Pro's:

• Hey - I'm still waiting to be introduced to him.
• He has, um, nice hair (any guesses as to what he pays per haircut?)... and Ann Coulter's endorsement?

Con's:

• No, that belongs here. He has Ann Coulter's endorsement, and openly welcomes it.
• He seems so openly willing to say whatever it takes and change any long-held position, if it helps him get elected. Accepting Coulter's defense (this is the "real Romney" and he was lying to get to this point), he's still a shameless, unpredictable liar.

And yes, as long as you vote, after election day you are entitled to declare, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."

Google Approved!

For all of Google's virtues, it sometimes astonishes me how certain types of spam elude its filters.

"Xanax Lethal Dose From Google Approved Pharmacy"? Um... leaving aside for the moment my skepticism¹ that the endorsement is genuine, that's not quite what I was looking for.
____________

1. In case I actually need to spell it out for anybody, I have no doubt that the endorsement is fake. I am surprised, though, that Google doesn't filter for such abusive uses of its trademark.

Did I Understand That Correctly?

Peter Wehner, "formerly deputy assistant to President Bush", says,

A second reason Republicans appreciate Obama is that he is pitted against a couple, the Clintons, whom many Republicans hold in contempt. Among the effects of the Obama-Clinton race is that it is forcing Democrats to come to grips with the mendacity and ruthlessness of the Clinton machine. Conservatives have long believed that the Clintons are an unprincipled pair who will destroy those who stand between them and power -- whether they are political opponents, women from Bill Clinton's past or independent counsels.

When the Clintons were doing this in the 1990s, it was viewed by many Democrats as perfectly acceptable. Some even applauded them for their brass-knuckle tactics. But now that the Clintons are roughing up an inspiring young man who appears to represent the hope and future of the Democratic Party, the liberal establishment is reacting with outrage. "I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons," writes Jonathan Chait of the New Republic. Many conservatives respond: It's about time.

So after all this time, Wehner's telling us that the real reason Republicans hate the Clintons is because they supposedly adopted a subset of the Republican book of dirty tricks? Sort of a Andrew Sullivanesque "Dick Morris was Karl Rove before Karl Rove was cool" argument?

Not that Wehner has anything against Karl Rove. I'm sure his response would be an ever-so-reasoned, "That's different," roughly translating into, "But he was on our side." It's only dirty politics, after all, if the dirt gets into the eyes of Wehner's buddies.

Yet I'm sure Clinton's worst sin in Wehner's eyes wasn't that he kicked some dirt - it was that, no matter how much dirt was dumped onto him, he would shake it off. Kerry got hit by the smear machine once and, despite the absurdity of the accusations, never regained his footing. I can't even count how many times Clinton was hit with a scandal, fake or real, and they barely broke his stride.

Wehner on Obama: "Barack Obama is among the most impressive political talents of our lifetime."

Wehner on Rove - "Some day books will be written about what a phenomenon of nature this man is."

Make of it what you will.

Lincoln-Douglas, the Movie

Starring Jack Black and Adrien Brody? It's not my idea - they appear to have modeled for the waxworks at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum.

Winning By Expressing Admiration And Emphasizing Common Ground

It is interesting to see where the extreme right of the Republican party attack McCain for such "atrocities" as questioning tax cuts that are not accompanied by spending cuts, campaign finance reform (attacking [corporate] free speech), immigration reform ("amnesty")....

It seems like there is a substantial portion of the Republican electorate that can be deterred from voting for McCain (or at least stripped of its enthusiasm) if the Democratic candidate runs a positive campaign which expresses admiration for some of these political stances, and emphasizes common ground between McCain and the Democratic candidate's platform. That would certainly not done across-the-board, as there are also many differences to emphasize ("Unlike my opponent, I'm not willing to commit to 100 years of war and untold trillions of taxpayer dollars, particularly in the absence of compelling evidence that our strategic goals are being achieved"). But on the hot button issues of the hard right, there's a lot of "common ground" to work with.

Foreshadowing For A Clinton Campaign

Attacks on the Clintons? For those who think they've seen it all, here's the latest product of Charles Krauthammer's fevered mind.

What they don't understand is that for Clinton, there is no legacy. What he was doing on the low road from Iowa to South Carolina was fighting for a legacy -- a legacy that he knows history has denied him and that he has but one chance to redeem.

* * *

Except for the spousal loophole. Hence his desperation, especially after Hillary's Iowa debacle, to rescue his only chance for historical vindication -- a return to the White House as Hillary's co-president. A chance to serve three, perhaps even four terms, the longest in history, longer even than FDR. The opportunity to have dominated a full quarter-century of American history, relegating the George W. Bush years to a parenthesis within Clinton's legacy.

It was to save this one chance, his last chance, to be historically consequential that Bill Clinton blithely jeopardized principle, friendships, racial harmony in his own party and his own popularity in South Carolina.

Why not? Clinton knows that popularity is cheap, easily lost, easily regained. (See Lewinsky scandal.) But historical legacies are forever.

He wants one, desperately. But to get it he must return to the White House. And for that he must elect his wife. At any cost.

By what reasoned analysis would anybody think that Bill Clinton will get credit for Hillary Clinton's achievements as President, any more than she gets credit for his? (Or Laura gets credit for GW's? Or Nancy gets credit for Reagan's?) History may not be as harsh to him as Krauthammer suggests - he may become known as the last President to preside over a vibrant economy and U.S. global hegemony, before G.W.'s disastrous policies undermined our nation's financial, political and military dominance and for decades to come. Or perhaps history will remember his ham-handed efforts to force a final status deal in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and his atrocious use of the pardon power on his way out the door. But whatever history decides, it will be based upon his Presidency, not his wife's.

I don't think Krauthammer's the drooling idiot he seems to be when he writes stuff like this - he's giving us a preview (or perhaps a test run) of a new way to attack Hillary Clinton's candidacy through her husband. This follows on the heels of Republicans sophomorically sniggering about what Bill Clinton will do if he returns to the White House with no official responsibilities. That followed the apparently ineffective (yet continuing) strategy of suggesting that a Clinton victory would inevitably mean a "co-presidency".

Krauthammer capably illustrates is how somebody with an overblown ego, a propensity toward mendacity and a national platform can launch dishonest attacks on a political candidate. Point conceded. But it verges on hilarious that Dr. Krauthammer can diagnose that speck in Bill Clinton's eye, while....

On a peripheral note, given the choice between a spouse of a candidate who attacks an opposing candidate to benefit his wife, or a candidate who belittles his wife to attack an opposing candidate, I'm not so sure that I prefer the latter.

What A Brilliant Ad Campaign

I just spotted a new McCain ad:

The ad cleverly evokes the spirit of Harry Truman:

Breaking News

Nicholas Kristof has figured out that Bill and Hillary Clinton are related.

If Hillary Rodham Clinton serves two terms, then for 28 years the presidency will have been held by a Bush or a Clinton. By that point, about 40 percent of Americans would have lived their entire lives under a president from one of these two families.

Wouldn’t that make our democracy seem a little, er, Pakistani?

No. For that we would need a military coup.

I have previously shared my thoughts on "dynasty" and my conclusion,

I personally have some real problems with Hillary Clinton's ascendency, but they aren't about dynasty. With no offense intended, as good as the Democratic slate of candidates looks when contrasted with the Republican slate, is this truly the best we can do? I think not, so perhaps it is time for our nation to spend some time thinking about why those we would truly like to serve as President are turned off of politics, or are unable to get any traction within the major political parties. With no slight intended to Ms. Clinton as compared to anybody else in national politics, if our political system were currently elevating our best and brightest to the leadership positions of our nation we wouldn't be having this discussion.

McCain and Alito

Today, Robert Novak rambles about whether John McCain is a "conservative", based upon rumors that McCain would have picked John Roberts for the Supreme Court but not Samuel Alito.

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."

Personally, I would not pick either of them.

That's not about ideology, as such. It's about personality. I am not particularly enamored with people, no matter how bright and accomplished, who appear to possess authoritarian personalities. Nor am I particularly enamored with people who seem to be locked into a particular ideology, where "All roads lead to Rome." It's a bit like seeing Scalia concoct a brand spanking new version of "sovereign immunity", which I'm sure he would insist is 100% consistent with the intentions of the founding fathers (even if he was the first to notice). I'm not thrilled with eagerness with which the Roberts Court approaches voting rights - not with an eye to protecting voters, but what seems to be an eye for preventing challenges to unconstitutional laws until after an election is over. Gerrymandering? Reproductive freedom? Habeas Corpus? What surprises do you expect?

When you take any particular question going before the court, nine times out of ten you can guess how the various justices are going to vote before you read the decision. If you are handed a decision and get the vote count, probably 19 times out of 20 you can accurately guess which Justices joined the majority opinion, and which dissented. And that's if you're not a Supreme Court scholar, but just a passive observer of the court. The factions of the political right that are infatuated with Roberts and Alito like to skewer the court's "swing voters" - those who don't consistently fall under their preferred ideology. It isn't that those factions know something about the law or Constitution - their only concern is the advancement of a specific political agenda.

Maybe I would feel differently if I were President, and had the opportunity to appoint a justice so rigid in his beliefs that I was confident that he would provide a consistent vote for my political agenda - continuing perhaps for decades after I left office. But I'm not the President, I get to be more idealistic, and I want justices who actually wrestle with the issues rather than consistently falling back on ideology. And I would just as soon avoid having any authoritarian personalities on the Court.

If You Smooth Out All The Bumps....

Sites like Alexa are fun, but how good is their data? The blue line in the following graph is Alexa's interpretation of my website's "reach" - . The red line is an estimate of reality, based upon my own analytics data. Unfortunately I did not actually experience the frenzy of activity Alexa shows for mid-2005 through early 2007, and my traffic has increased considerably since what Alexa shows as a "peak".

I like the actual statistics bit better than Alexa's version, as in reality I have slow, steady growth in my website's traffic, not a peak followed by a decline.

A Mistake? On Our Website? Impossible!

After a couple of days trying to book a flight on NWA.com, and receiving a variety of error messages, I received an error message instructing me to call their reservations center. So I did. The person who answered instructed me that she could take my reservation, but it would cost an extra $10 per person. I objected on the basis that I had to call because there was an error on their website. The rather condescending response? No, the problem was that I was entering my information incorrectly, and if I wanted she could put me through to technical support so somebody could tell me how to enter it correctly.

I explained again that the problem was with the website. I was told again, no, the only possible cause of an error had to be me. But she could book the flight for that extra $10/person fee. So I instructed her that if there was somebody who could magically fix the problem with their website over the phone, I would love to speak to that person. (Yes, a little bit of condescension in return.) Again, "There isn't anything wrong with our website." So, I instructed her, by all means, please... transfer me to the magical person in technical support.

I know - you'll be shocked to learn this. It took about thirty seconds for their technical support person to recognize that they had an error on their website which was preventing my online reservation.

The tech support person was great. But as we could not work around the error on the website, ultimately she had somebody from reservations book the flight.

Really Dumb Spammers

Okay.... Here are the back-to-back emails:

On 1/31/08 6:14 AM, "Hadley Sandford" (lnghax@gmail.com) wrote:

> Hello ,
>
> My name is Richard Thompson and I am interested in having a link on your
> website (workerscompensationinsurance.com
> ).
> I will be very thankful to you if you give me some prices for the following
> ads:
>
> 1) text link on your homepage/all pages
> 2) text box ad 120x60, 125x125 on homepage/all pages
>
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Richard Thompson

(If you want a non-work-safe set of search results, google "Hadley's" email address.

Second:

On 1/31/08 5:25 AM, "Tansy Cowper" (aldonza_violet@registerednurses.com) wrote:

> Good day,
>
> My name is Edward Johnson and I am looking to buy links from good websites as
> yours (workerscompensationinsurance.com).
> I will be glad if I can have a text link or a text box 120x60 or 125x125 on
> your site. Please advise what what will be the price for each of these ads, if
> it is placed:
>
> 1. On your homepage only
> 2. On all site pages
>
> I will be very thankful to you if you take into consideration my requrest.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Edward Johnson

Third:

On 1/31/08 5:42 AM, "Tatyanna Walker" (d47p_test584@hotmail.com) wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Browsing on the Internet I came upon your website
> (workerscompensationinsurance.com
> ) and I find it very interesting and useful.
> My name is Daniel Lee and the reason I am contacting you is my interest in
> purchasing advertising spot on your site.
> I will be very thankful if you tell me how much a text link or banner 120x60 /
> 125x125 on your home page or all pages will cost.
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Daniel Lee

Fourth:

On 1/31/08 4:57 AM, "Salome Baum" (omgpnwc@hotmail.com) wrote:

> Hello ,
>
> My name is Richard Thompson and I am interested in having a link on your
> website (attorneys-usa.com).
> I will be very thankful to you if you give me some prices for the following
> ads:
>
> 1) text link on your homepage/all pages
> 2) text box ad 120x60, 125x125 on homepage/all pages
>
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Richard Thompson

I'm sure there are more to come... (and probably some deeper in my unread mail of the day.)

RegisteredNurses.com is registered to:

NJDomains / Gerald Gorman
Fax: +12124254200
90 Washington Valley Road
Bedminster, NJ 07921
US

Learn more about Mr. Gorman here, here, here and here.

A Bit Late, But....

The five most popular "stopped clock" posts of 2007:

1. The "Murder" of Vince McMahon - Nothing else came close. Maybe I should convert this blog to some sort of Perez Hilton gossip fest.
2. Unbundled Legal Services And Ghastly Legal Opinions - Apparently more than a few people agree with me.
3. Fraud on eBay? No Kidding.... - Even after two years, this post remains remarkably popular.
4. Internet Fraud Goes "Old School" - I guess the fraudulent use of my website name and logo was pretty widespread.
5. Teaching People To "Think Like Lawyers" - My somewhat stream of consciousness critique of a weak editorial by legal gossip columnist Ann Althouse. (There really is something to this gossip angle.)

Bipartisanship As The Cure For All Evils?

Bob Graham identifies five areas of Congressional "gridlock":

• Huge gaps in national and homeland security;
• Nearly 50 million Americans have no health insurance, and the number is growing;
• We have recklessly neglected our nation's infrastructure;
• We have no "real" energy policy;
• Seven of 10 Americans now believe that our children will be less well off than their parents.

Although it's a bit ugly to view it this way, those five points are not the consequence of "gridlock" - they are the consequence of Republican success in controlling legislation and policy on those issues.

It is reasonable to infer that Graham is dissatisfied with the status quo, but none of his proposed reforms in the parties' nominating process, campaign finance laws, or voter education will affect this "gridlock" in the short term. And I doubt that they will have any effect in the long term. If a party wishing to break the status quo gains control of the White House and Congress, preferably with a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they have a great deal of power to implement change against the wishes of the opposition party. If you demand that there be compromise and consensus, you will never achieve the desired change, as you will always be conceding ground to the party that opposes change.

Don't speak to me of a theoretical future where the parties hold hands and merrily agree on all the major issues. Tell me how we get the necessary majority in office to effect change, even over the strong objections and obstructionist tactics of the opposition party. Certainly you can look to building a consensus greater than 51%, but at the end of the day if you want your ideas to win you had better be ready to fight for victory.

Turning A Corner....

Or perhaps going around the bend? The Corner brings us this fantabulous display of... should we call it "McCain Derangement Syndrome"?

In November, we'll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate vs. to take on Hillary Clinton — perhaps not more liberal than Barack Obama, but certainly far less trustworthy.

This is Michael Graham's response to McCain's defeat of Romney?

Edwards Drops Out

Normally I wouldn't comment on this, but under the circumstances I wanted to dedicate a song to Charles Krauthammer. Here you go.