Der Gropenfhurer Stumbles

First he breaks the promise he made to investigate himself regarding the many charges of sexual misconduct. Fine - no surprise. Those who believed the promise in thefirst place are getting what they deserve. Ahnold, the Gov. of Caleefornya, has no intention of facing the consequences of his past indescretions. And you, theCA public don't give a s**t. You get the governor you deserve. Live with it.

Then, he sends Caleefornya into a great deal more debt than it was in when he took office. (Compare the current debt after the $15 BILLION debt offering with the pre-car tax repeal debt G Davis left. Its simple math - no politics necessary) The Gropenfhurer won no spending concessions from the legislature which he has treated as non-existant, .....surprise, surprise. Does this Austrian muscle-goon understand the basic tenets of democracy? Or is he simply fine student of the modern reality-TV world of minute-to-minute opinions? This is no governor. This is democracy run amock. God help us if this presages the state of American democracy. I had hoped for better. Silly me?.......................

ARROGANCE
The left blathers own about the Bush Administration's arrogance. Here's Tina Brown, who, as far as I can tell, has never accomplished anything of consequence other than getting invited to Manhattan dinner parties. This little piece of self-important keyboard masturbation discusses attending a "media-heavy Manhattan dinner party", attended by (I'm shocked to tell you) "mostly Democrats, with a smattering of moderate Republicans." Must be "liberal" Democrats, though I'd doubt she'd recognize it.

This tripe drones on about how Republicans are monosyllabic, paternal punishers -- "cowboys" if you will, while the Democratic candidates (and Hillary), are oh, so much smarter, more refined, sophisticated. To this airhead, Kerry has an "aristocratic let-us-reason-together authority," while Bush is a "subarticulate comic book action hero." I guess this plays well among her "friends" -- I'm sure most Manhattan dinner party guests sat in the corner in grade school reading Pride and Prejudice while the rest of us were outside playing army or cops and robbers or cowboys and indians or Batman and Robin.

I'm comfortable with the Republican party being the party of men, and if that means some straight talk like "bring 'em on" or "good riddance", or a State Department that "lacks finesse" but still gets the haughty French and Germans to play nice with the rest of Europe and the United States, fine. The Democrats can govern like the Oprah After Show and worry about the feelings of the Belgian street (or whatever old Europe military powerhouse they care about).

Americans like arrogance, because we are arrogant and we have a right to be. The problem for the Tina Browns and Democrats of the world, is that Americans prefer cocky over pompous any day. George W, cocky. Al Gore, pompous. Bill Clinton, cocky. George H.W., leaned pompous. I'll be voting for the cowboy who's checked out on the F-102.

DEAN STILL IN THE LEAD
The latest CBS poll of nationwide Democratic voters showing Dean with a substantial lead over his nearest rival. Dean pulls 23% of Democratic support, while Lieberman and Clark trail at 10%. Of course, focusing on these nationwide numbers tells us little about how momentum can swing during the primary season. Lieberman will no longer be a viable second place after he gets plastered in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Clark needs to win South Carolina to have any chance of getting to March, and polls show him tight with John Edwards there, even though Edwards is at 2% in the nationwide poll, trailing such luminaries as Al "Tawana" Sharpton and John "Fuck, what about me?" Kerry.

But I still contend that John Edwards has the second best chance of claiming the nomination. If he wins South Carolina, then he becomes the alternative to Dean, but only if he stakes out some real differences between him and Dean. He needs to do more than just call for investigations about flu vaccines, but he should adopt the hawkish rhetoric of Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt (if he believes it). Lieberman actually made a 4 point move in the nationwide poll, probably because he has been most vocally critical to Dean's Iraq statements. If Edwards does go hawkish, he could sweep up the southern delegates and be viable in the west. If he doesn't, then Gephardt becomes the alternative, and he just won't beat Dean.

MOUTH OF SAURON
Andrew Sullivan has this fine quote on the opening night of Return of the King:

"Evil, that is, has every advantage but one--it is inferior in imagination. Good can imagine the possibility of becoming evil--hence the refusal of Gandalf and Aragorn to use the Ring--but Evil, defiantly chosen, can no longer imagine anything but itself. Sauron cannot imagine any motives except lust for domination and fear so that, when he has learned that his enemies have the Ring, the thought that they might try to destroy it never enters his head, and his eye is kept toward Gondor and away from Mordor and the Mount of Doom." - W. H. Auden

And here are good and evil, separated at birth.



Hat tip to Big Arm Woman.

THE FIRST CENTURY OF AVIATION
Today is the 100th anniversary of the first powered flight. Wilbur and Orville took turns flying the first Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903. Although we're often told that the first flight lasted 12 seconds and covered 120 feet, that doesn't sound too impressive. Almost like something a glider could do. But they flew three other times on December 17. The longest: 59 seconds, 852 feet. Now that's an impressive flight.

Here's a timeline of the history of flight in winged aircraft (they don't seem too interested in rockets). Also, check out the home page of Aerofiles, with a proper message to the Wright Brothers: "Thanks, fellas. You really started something!"

More milestones in flight.

It sure would be nice if we were to continue our flight advances. How about some breakthrough propulsion? Maybe an anti-gravity shield? Let's at least go back to the moon. Don't let what the Wrights started end at the Concorde and Space Shuttle.

SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
Well, not to power, really, but to ineffectual irrelevencies. The Iraqi Foreign Minister asked the U.N., in so many words, what the hell are you doing here? Here's what he said:

Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people.

Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold.

One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.

The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure.

The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again.

Now that the people most directly effected by the worthless cowardice and terrorist appeasers of the U.N., Kofi Annan is not in the mood for anyone to "pin blame and point fingers." Of course not. Reality is a tough nut to swallow.

USA SUPPORTED SADDAM. SO?
I love how the left continues to demonstrate their complete misunderstanding of political realities. Or is it their inability to remember history? Perhaps they are just dishonest. In any case, it's funny that they continuously point out that the United States once supported Saddam (see Eric Alterman, "yes, I’m quite pleased that a monstrous mass murderer (though a former ally to Messrs. Reagan, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld"). As though that support (a) was wrong, or (b) somehow undermines our current efforts. If our prior support was wrong, then why is it now wrong to do the right thing and bring Saddam down (or up out of his rathole)? Does the left prefer that we continue to support this tyrant in order to merely avoid the label of hyprocrite?

And if that prior support was wrong, what should have been the enlightened leftist policy? Perhaps we should have opposed Saddam in the 1980s, joined sides with the Ayatollah Khomeini, and helped the Islamo-fascist Iranians create a greater Iran throughout the fertile crescent? Or, we could have remained neutral, which would have had the same result. No, we have a better world today because of our support of Saddam in the 1980s. Otherwise, we would have had a longer war against the Greater Iranian Republic stretching from Jordan to Pakistan, and it would be much tougher occupying Baghdad and Tehran today. And if you think it's difficult dealing with a nation of Sunni-Arabs, Shia-Arabs and Kurds, just stir in a few million Persians and see what happens.

WE GOT THE BASTARD ROUNDUP
Blogs for Bush reactions and a roundup of opinion.

The left - quoted at Tim Blair -- Straight from the source at Democratic Underground, quagmire, sanctions worse than Saddam, Saddam wanted to surrender anyway, news is crippling for Dean, Bush peaked too early.

Capture doesn't matter. -- Atrios.

Al Jazeera rounds up experts.

WE GOT HIM
So, this is good news. Any Democrat that says "this is great news for the Iraqis" and then follows that up with an argument that we shouldn't have set in motion the events that led to this great news is going to look like a fool. John Kerry will get his first chance as a guest on Fox News Sunday (unless he's smart and backs out). Gephardt on Face the Nation can explain again how he thinks this President is a "miserable failure." Joe Lieberman, though, will be able to remain consistent in his appearance on Meet the Press.

Now, Saddam is probably in a room with the American military facing questions like, "So, where'd you put those WMDs?"