IT'S NEVER TOO EARLY
More offensive than a mall decked out for Christmas in September, here comes the 2008 handicapping. There have a already been a few polls looking ahead to the nominations in 2008, so I slapped them into a spreadsheet to see who's got the early upper hand.

As new polls come out, I'll update (oh, I'm so ashamed). I call it the 2008 Nomination Barometer - because it isn't exactly a poll composite. You'll find a permalink to the right. The page will also tracked President Bush's job approval level.

As I'm sure you'd guess, the early numbers show a battle for the Republican nomination among Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. The Democrats could be a fight between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry.

We'll find out in 2007 who's actually going to run. This barometer should give some folks an idea whether they should try.

A CUSHION FOR THE HAMMER
The Republicans have changed a party rule that would remove Tom Delay from its House leadership if he is indicted. Yes, I understand the reasoning. Is it fair to force somone to lose their leadership position merely because of unproven allegations? After all, a prosecutor can indict a ham on rye. And wouldn't a rule like this give a heck of a lot of power to rogue Democrat prosecutors?

Sure. Good arguments against the rule. But that doesn't change the fact that it was stupid of Republicans to change the rule only now that Tom Delay is under threat of indictment. The proper responses should be (1) ask The Hammer what the heck this whole indictment thing is all about, (2) leave the rule in place, (3) investigate whether this really is a politically motivated act on the behalf of the Democrat prosecutor, if so (4) refer the matter to the Justice Department, and (5) if indicted, then worry about whether you think it really matters and only change the rule then.

But for crying out loud, don't change the rule in a fashion that makes it appear that you expect your leader to be indicted and you don't give a damn. That's just plain stupid.

PICTURE OF THE DAY

HELL, THE AERODYNAMICS WOULD TAKE SO LONG TO EXPLAIN
Time to relax. The American Film Institute - which is in the job of compiling lists these days - is putting one together of the best quotes from American movies. Think:

1. May the Force be with you
2. You can't handle the truth
3. Show me the money
4. Here's looking at you kid
5. I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that
6. To hell with those fellas. Buzzards have to eat, same as worms
7. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' For it is the doom of men that they forget.
8. This list... is an absolute good. The list is life.
9. I'm in a transitional period so I don't wanna kill you, I wanna help you.
10. Using the whole fist, Doc?
11. You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do.
12. Why don't you kiss her instead of talking her to death?
13. Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
14. We're gonna need a bigger boat
15. Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade all of that from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take away our lives, but they'll never take our freedom.
16. Hell I like you, you can come over to my house and f*** my sister.
17. Now there's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we're going to go through him like crap through a goose.
18. Last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a hook in it.

Gimme some more in the comments. And extra credit if you can identify the movies of the above.

YES MEN
The latest anti-Bush rhetoric oozing from the orifices of the left is that Bush is purging the Administration of all dissenting voices and replacing them with "Yes Men". And "Yes Women", I presume. As though the last Democratic Administration was somehow not composed of leftist lackeys and lapdogs.

This YesMen argument comes from the same crowd that would have us believe that President Bush is a moron marionnette manipulated by his evil corporate masters and the shadowy neocons. Now, they argue the President is some kind of evil genius who will reduce Dr. Condoleeza Rice and her CV to a quivering mass of indecision and ignorance. Not to mention the fact that this "incurious" President surrounded by YesMen has, for 4 years, retained Clinton appointee and Democrat Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation - even after his job became more important in the wake of the 9/11 hijackings. And Don Rumsfeld, Gale Norton, Tommy Thompson, Tom Ridge, Rod Paige and John Ashcroft were somehow weak-kneed schoolgirls in the presence of Darth Dubya. And this President has just appointed Margaret Spellings as Secretary of Education, who Ted Kennedy says is "a capable, principled leader who has the ear of the president and has earned strong bipartisan respect in Congress. I look forward to working with her to strengthen our public schools". Has the ear of the President? Just to say "yes, sir"? The NEA was positive on the appointment too. Still awaiting the outpouring of praise from the granola and birkenstocks wing of the whole foods blogosophere.

So, again, we just have a flailing, aimless left, latching on to the latest comforting psychobabble to reassure themselves of their superiority. Clearly, they won't be pleased until the Cabinet is as diverse and effective as the U.S. Senate or they have a mole in the west wing with a hotline to The New York Times op-ed page.

GROUPTHINK IN THE ACADEMY
In an excellent article, Mark Bauerlein discusses how groupthink can take over an organization that shares a common purpose, lead to a false consenus, culminating in polarization - that is, becoming more extreme as a group than the individuals were when they entered the group. Bauerlein applies the groupthink paradigm to the university, showing how the insular conclave of liberal professors can lead to extreme views and a loss of touch with reality. I would argue that this groupthink disease has taken over many of the blue counties of the blue states, leading to far more lopsided results in favor of the losing presidential candidate than in many red state counties or red states. Hence the unhinged extremism of talk of stolen elections and secession.

As if on cue, certain professors and students at the University of North Carolina are demonstrating the principles of groupthink in their knee jerk reaction against the endowment of a Western Civilization course of study in Chapel Hill. The John William Pope Foundation has offered up to $15 million to UNC. That Foundation has, in the past, been a thorn in the side of, and a big contributor to, the university. A thorn recently because it funded a group complaining about the assigned summer study of the Koran. The Foundation also is a major contributor to conservative organizations such as the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy and the John Locke Foundation.

So, not content to merely complain, it seems the Foundation has decided to just jump in with both feet and put its money where its mouth is. If it has complaints about the academy's movement away from a study of Western Civiliation, how bout funding the program. You'd think a university that is constantly at the legislature with hat in hand, sobbing about becoming a second class university because of lack of money, would welcome $15 million dedicated strictly to an academic program (and some of that money will go directly to professors).

But you'd be wrong. The liberals are freaking out as though this were some kind of blood money not even as good as Saddam's oil-for-fraud payments to Russia and France. As usual, the lefto-ignorant arguments can be reduced to placards: "UNC should not take $$$ from an organization with a racist, homophobic, sexist and anti-poor record."

"Stop the hate, stop the fear, we don't want their money here."

Such extremist attitudes certainly reinforces Bauerlein's groupthink thesis. And to further insure no diverse thought may challenge the dogma of liberal academia, UNC Professor Barbara Harris, history professors and, get this, chair of the women's studies program, says - and this is not from Scrappleface.com- worried that the $15 million dollar donation "would invite meddling from outsiders."

Can't have outsiders meddling in a state supported, publicly funded school. Your tax dollars at work.

But if the University accepts and the Foundation still agrees to give the money, perhaps the best result would be ensured. History Professor Judith Bennett said she would quit.

UPDATE: In completely unrelated news, an across the board state government budget cut is requiring UNC Chapel Hill to return $2.85 million to the state. "It's a signification amount of money." "Officials said the cut will put a strain on the University".

Temper Whatever Optimism You Had
This is what we are trying to deal with in the Palestinian issue. How can peace be made with this sort of start? Here is a man who represent the moderate Palestinians - yes, there are moderates who realize that Israel is not going away and Muhammad cannot return to the house that Menachima and his family have live in for 40 years now - and many of his people want to do him the way the Egyptians did Sadat for recognizing Israel and dealing with us. The Palestinian moderates do not run the show. Hamas and Islamic Jihad do. (This is a microcosm of the larger struggle within Islam all over the world.) Civil war may be coming because it is the only way this deep chasm will be overcome - its increasingly clear that it is not going to be bridged peacefully. Could be some lessons here for Iraq, as well. These are two points on which I would love to be wrong. Send me some reasons to reconsider and restore my short-lived optimism on this front.

Corporate Whining
What happened to the notion of the sanctitiy of the contract? USAirways has sought to circumvent labor agreements it made via a judge. USAirways says it will go bankrupt without this. They may well do just that, but trying to wriggle out of an agreement without the consent of the other party, while offering no suggestions of wrongdoing by said party, is just wrong. If the consequences are that dire, then open your books to the other side and prove it. If they stubbornly cling to unrealistic notions about the busienss' future and lose their jobs as you go bankrupt, well, that's how it goes in capitalism. Going running to a judge is just sad. This is what happens in competition - some companies lose - that's the very nature of competition, or did I miss something in my econ classes?

Desperation? Of Omar and Osama
It is possible that we are seeing signs of desperation from these two thugs. Osama's last video tape included the statement to the U.S. that if we abandon efforts to kil him will "automaically secure (our)selves". Omar has seen his country vote for the first time in 5,000 years. But we should not celebrate too much here. The Islamo-facist MVP de jour is Zarqawi and even if he hadn't escaped Fallujah and were killed, there will continue to be crazies ready to take his place. Unfortunately for the civilized world, terrorists do not need big bucks or training or large forces. I draw some solace from the lesson of history that while terrorism is difficult if not impossible to prevent, it is equally diffucult if not impossible to succeed(for more than a short period) in achieving political goals by means of terror. You cannot establish legitimacy using illegitimate means.

Robert E. Lee understood this and commanded his officers not to melt into the mountains and continue our Civil War in geurrilla fashion. An excellent account of this is in Jay Winik's book, April 1865: A Month the Saved the Nation, if you are interested.

Republican Divisions
Democrats are not alone in having significant differences amonst themselves. There is a big difference between the highly conservative and doctrinaire Republican leadership and their most popular figures. Arnold, Rudy, McCain......these guys are nationally popular but probably couldn't get nominated because the primaries would favor conservatives and their positions on guns, abortion, etc. would doom their chances within the party. Powell faced this fact in '96 and '00 and decided accordingly. I hope for a return to moderation from both parties but the practice of redrawing districts to make seats safer for incumbents on both sides does not bode well for this (pipe?) dream. Perhaps we'll come, as a nation, to see that having politicians in charge of redrawing districts is akin to the fox guarding the hen house. However, I've not got a silver bullet to suggest nor have I heard one suggested from anywhere else. This is not likely to get better any time soon.

How Now, Blue Cow?
Democrats need to take a long look within and make some decisions. Hopefully, they've learned that its not enough to be simply against Republicans and expect righteous indignation from their voters to propel to national leadership. They can take heart that many of the "red" states (FR color scheme not withstanding) are really more purple than not. While they can probably write off much of the solid south (Nixon is laughing somewhere.......probably somewhere with lots of heat and brimstone) but opportunities for gains in both houses of Congress will exist if Democrats can get some focus. Unfortunately, the two parties are involved in what amounts to an "incumbent protection racket" whereby congressional districts are redrawn after each census to make most seats safer and the need for compromise less. Dems missed a real opportunity when the failed to elect Harold Ford of TN as their House leader instead of Nancy "as-liberal-as-Waxman" Pelosi. This signaled business as usual and a failure to learn the lessons Bill Clinton tried to teach them about moving to the center. Americans are at heart fairly pragmatic and would respond over time to seeing the party move that way as the right-wing social conservative Republicans marginalize their Republican moderate bretheren. Will the Dems have the courage to do this, even though it means wiping the table clear of all this nominate Hillary nonsense? If am not hopeful, as yet. It may take some years in the political wilderness before the party as a whole accepts this. It will take a whole league of Obama's to turn this ship around.

Chickens Come Home to Roost
After making a career of verbal bomb-throwing - often without any proof - Bill O'Reilly, spinmeister extroirdinaire - backed off of his "vow" to fight the charges of harrassment. I know not of his guilt or innocence. I conclude from his retreat and settling the case out of court that he feared tapes being produced and the ensuing backlash. He probably made the right move if he's guilty. If he's not, he can blame himself for cowardice in refusing to fight what he claimed were bogus charges. What goes around comes around, Bill.