Internet Scofflaw

Jonathan Weisman writes for the Washington Post:

Dogged by persistent questions about his faith in God and country, Sen. Barack Obama today journeyed to Harry Truman’s birthplace to lay out his vision of patriotism, conceding that he has learned in this campaign “the question of who is — or is not — a patriot all too often poisons our political debate.”

“Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given, ” Obama said. “It was how I was raised. It was what propelled me into public service. It it why I am running for president. And yet at times over the last 16 months, my patriotism [has been] challenged – at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.”

Curiously, Obama did not name a single person that actually has attacked his patriotism. Is there any national figure who has actually done so? Sure, there are anonymous emails propounding fevered conspiracy theories, and there might even be more of them targeting Obama than others (although I sincerely doubt he can beat Cheney), but I’m not aware of any major media outlet or public figure who has done so.

No, I think that Obama has learned the value of attacking a straw man, as he has done on race and campaign finance. And, I think the reason he chose today is to distract from yesterday’s attacks by Wesley Clark — his campaign surrogate — on John McCain’s military experience:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk,” [Clark] said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. . .

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” Clark said. “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded _ that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

Clark is right I suppose; McCain didn’t command a squadron until after the war. During the war, his promotions got stalled for some reason. (I’m reminded of this again.)

POSTSCRIPT: Part of the reason Obama has had troubles in the area of patriotism is the ridiculous flag pin controversy. As the record shows, Obama manufactured that controversy himself, with his unwise decision to attack the patriotism of those who did wear flag pins.  Too clever by half, it turned out.

A eugenic first?

Doctors in the U.K. reportedly say they have helped conceive a child genetically incapable of developing hereditary breast cancer.

According to the Times of London, doctors screened out embryos that contained a gene that may have given the baby up to an 85 percent chance of getting disease.

The British couple agreed to go through IVF (in-vitro fertilization), although they had no problem conceiving, to allow for the embryos to be screened. They produced 11 embryos, which doctors tested, and found five to be free from the gene, the Times reported.

Two of these were implanted in the woman’s uterus, and she is now 14 weeks pregnant.

Nine discarded embryos to get two that are less likely to develop breast cancer in middle age.  It won’t just be breast cancer for long, either.  Soon people will be selecting eye color and cheekbones.

John Hinderaker thinks Barack Obama should debate his staff.

Wilmette and Morton Grove will suspend enforcement of their gun bans. (Via Snowflakes in Hell, via Instapundit.) Both towns are somewhat infamous for their gun bans. Morton Grove had the nation’s first. Wilmette made the news four years ago by prosecuting a man who shot an intruder in his home.

BONUS: This is nice:

“The [Heller] ruling puts [Justice Antonin] Scalia and the four other conservative justices squarely on the side of the gang-bangers who terrorize far too many of urban American neighborhoods today,” [Oak Park Village President David Pope] said.

Ooo-kay. I’m not sure that’s the kind of argument for the left to be making right now.

At Instapundit.

Obama has tried hard to distance himself from his campaign’s earlier statement in favor of the DC gun ban, but I think he’s nailed here. This time it isn’t an aide’s statement to be disavowed. Obama nods and says “right”, twice, as his interviewer asserts “you support the DC handgun ban and you’ve said that it’s constitutional.” He then spends over a minute focusing on more moderate gun-control measures that he supports, but never disputes the earlier assertion.

Hot Air has the YouTube video (search to 1:15 if you’re impatient).

The difference between then and now is, back then Obama was competing with Hillary Clinton for the votes of DC liberals. Back then, extreme gun-control positions paid. Now he wants to appear more centrist.

BONUS: Howard Kurtz tracks Obama’s changing positions on guns, and how they’ve been portrayed in the media. (Via Instapundit.)

Well, this is awkward:

Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama’s victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.

Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president’s future campaign role is a “sticking point” in peace talks with Mrs Clinton’s aides.

The Telegraph has learned that the former president’s rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could “kiss my ass” in return for his support.

If the Obama campaign induces the left to learn a few things about their favorite President’s character, it won’t have been a complete waste.

(Via Cadillac Tight.)

When you eliminate oil, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric, you’ve already eliminated every plausible technology to address our energy needs. But why stop with the plausible ones? Wind power is bad (either for environmental concerns, or because it spoils the beachfront views of our ruling class).  Geothermal disrupts the earth.

Now, solar is bad for the environment too.  (Via Instapundit.)  So what’s left?  Is there any form of energy, even impractical, that can satisfy the demands of the greens?  (Perhaps this is where they imagine society should be going.)

According to France’s Europe Minister (!), American neo-cons were responsible for the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty:

France’s Europe minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, has said that Europe has enemies in Washington, suggesting that neo-conservatives played a significant role in the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty earlier this month.

French daily Le Monde reports Mr Jouyet as saying that “Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No.”

(Via the Corner.)

This is sort of funny, but since “neo-con” is used in many circles as code for “Jew”, it also might be a bit sinister.

When Obama recently backed away from his earlier statement in favor of the gun ban (“Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”), his campaign refused to admit he was changing his position. Rather, they said that it was an “inartful” attempt to explain Obama’s position. Evidently, “artful” means “too clear”.

By that standard, Obama’s latest statement in the wake of the Heller decision is more much artful:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

(Emphasis mine.) There’s a lot of obfuscatory (“artful”) blather here, but the statement may not quite be artful enough. Not the emphasized sentence, implying that Chicago’s gun ban works. Presumably, if it works, it must be constitutional, right?

The problem is, the Chicago gun ban is virtually identical to the unconstitutional DC gun ban, and will likely be overturned in short order. As Michael Goldfarb points out, Chicago Mayor Daley’s angry response to the ruling indicates he expects that to happen.

So is Obama saying that the Chicago ban is constitutional? His campaign turns on the art:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is hedging on whether Chicago’s ban on handguns is constitutionally permissible in the wake of Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a similar law in Washington, D.C. . .

But Obama’s spokesman says that the reference to “what works in Chicago” does not indicate his view on the constitutionality of Chicago law.

“He didn’t point out anything specific except for the fact that they are two different places where different solutions are often appropriate,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

So the mention of Chicago, the city obvious to all as the next battleground in gun rights, was just a meaningless turn of phrase?  Please.

I’ve been thinking. The war in Iraq is 5 years old, but the war on poverty is 44 years old. Isn’t it high time that we cut off support for the poor? Wouldn’t that surely induce them to resolve their own problems?

Todd Zywicki thinks the current disfunctional state of judicial confirmations is permanent.

First, read this “curious” exchange from today’s House Judiciary Committee meeting between Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) and David Addington (chief of staff to Vice President Cheney):

Addington had acknowledged earlier in the hearing that he took part in discussions with CIA lawyers over the agency’s interrogation policies. Delahunt tried to find out what Addington knew about the use of waterboarding on suspected Al Qaeda terrorists, or more specifically, whether Addington knew it was approved as an interrogation technique.

Addington told Delahunt he couldn’t discuss specific techniques being used, or even discussed for use, by CIA agents because terrorists may be watching his appearance and would gain insight into what U.S. intelligence agents are up to.

“You kind of communicate with Al Qaeda if you do. I can’t talk to you because Al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN,” Addington said.

Delahunt responded: “I’m sure they are watching. I’m glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington, given your penchant for being unobtrusive.“

(Emphasis mine.)  What did Delahunt mean?  Surely he couldn’t have meant that he’s glad Al Qaeda can target Addington now, could he?  (Allahpundit thinks so.)  Could he really have sunk so low that he cannot resist expressing revenge fantasies in public?  These guys are running the country, for pete’s sake.

Last November, the Obama campaign said the DC gun ban was constitutional and should be upheld:

The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’

Since then, he has backed off that position, and refused to express an opinion:

Asked by ABC News’ Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms at ABC’s April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”

Now the campaign has explicitly disavowed its earlier statement, but as usual, he cannot admit he has changed his position:

The Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

“Inartful” means “too clear”, I guess. In contrast, his position now is quite “artful”, because he won’t say what it is. (Whatever it is, it’s definitely consistent, though.)

By the way, as Ed Morrissey points out, Obama was a constitutional law professor! Isn’t this the sort of subject on which he actually ought to be able to give an informed opinion? John McCain, on the other hand, despite not being a law professor of any kind, is on record with a clear and consistent position. He even went so far as to sign an amicus brief.

Heh.

Or so he says, Broadcasting and Cable reports.  (Via LGF.)

The beginning of the end for species-ism in Spain? I am not making this up:

Spanish apes are one step closer to receiving the same [rights] to life and freedom humans have.

The environmental committee of Spain’s parliament approved resolutions that urge the European country to comply with the Great Apes Project — a plan developed by philosophers and scientists who say the animals deserve the same rights as their closest genetic relatives, the Reuters news agency reported.

UPDATE: Stephen Green thinks that European-style human rights isn’t much of an aspiration for the apes:

Try looking at it this way. Your average EU country doesn’t really recognize individual rights; there are just some facets of human existence Brussels hasn’t gotten around yet to regulating fully. So why not give “rights” to chimps? It’s not like they’ll gain much, when half or more of Europe is already one very posh, very nice zoological garden where people are kept on display in a semi-natural state.

Heck, Madrid, or even Brussels, could extend the franchise to dogs who think they’re people, at it wouldn’t make one bit of difference to how the place is governed.

UPDATE (7/14): The NYT picks up the story.  (Via Instapundit.)

Apropos of my earlier post, in which I asserted that nuclear power is extremely safe, I uncovered a short report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Three Mile Island accident. The TMI accident is important because it and Chernobyl are the most frequent arguments against the safety of nuclear power. Chernobyl was a Soviet design far below any standards ever employed in the West, so it isn’t actually relevant. On the other hand, TMI was an American design.

One counter to the TMI example is that designs and procedures have changed completely since the TMI accident. Moreover, modern pebble bed reactors are based on an entirely different technology that is self-limiting, and therefore incapable of melting down.

The preceding is by far the more important argument, but there is another to be made: If by “serious” one means “affecting the health of at least one person,” then there has never been a serious nuclear accident in the United States, TMI notwithstanding. In the words of the NRC report:

Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.

In the months following the accident, although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident. Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs were collected by various groups monitoring the area. Very low levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the accident. However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several well-respected organizations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.

Of the two million affected, the average person got one-sixth of a chest x-ray. The maximum effect to anyone was equivalent to one year of natural background radiation.

Obama is optimistic about alternative energy:

“The possibilities of renewable energy are limitless,” Mr. Obama said in an energy policy speech Tuesday in Las Vegas.

He’s quite a bit more pessimistic about real technologies, though. In his energy speech yesterday, not only did he blast nuclear power, the one technology that can resolve our electric problems, but he also opposed oil sands, which could help reduce our dependence on OPEC.

While politicians prattle on about “renewable” (but uneconomical) energy sources such as solar and wind, or yet-to-be-invented silver bullets, there already exists one practical and economical way to generate all the electricity we need. Nuclear power is cost-effective, generates no greenhouse gases, and is extremely safe with modern technology (especially pebble bed designs).

Despite being the only existing technology that can solve our electricity problems, nuclear power has been crippled in America by demagoguery and NIMBYism. Recently, however, the rising price of oil, increasing concern over greenhouse gasses, and dwindling reserves in electrical generating capacity have let to a resurgence of interest in nuclear power, even among some on the left (eg, Nancy Pelosi).

ASIDE: If you’re not concerned about generating capacity, consider this: Washington DC is projecting rolling blackouts within three years if it cannot drag in power from elsewhere in the country.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama made clear yesterday that he opposes nuclear power (despite earlier indications that he might support it), and prefers to rely on uneconomical and/or nonexistent technologies instead.  Speaking in Nevada, which has managed to block the opening of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, he blasted McCain’s proposal to begin building nuclear reactors again.  He did say that he might support nuclear power sometime in the future, provided we can find a way to deal with the waste that doesn’t involve putting it somewhere. (Alas, I am not making this up.)

If our nation’s capital starts suffering rolling blackouts in a few years, or if we’re forced to rely on coal for electricity, I hope people will remember why.

A new AP poll reveals that people think success would be better than failure and experience is a plus.

The AP reports:

Barack Obama said Tuesday evangelical leader James Dobson was “making stuff up” when he accused the presumed Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible.  Dobson used his Focus on the Family radio program to highlight excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.

Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane before landing in Los Angeles, Obama said the speech made the argument that people of faith, like himself, “try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us.”

Obama added, “I think you’ll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.”

I guess Obama’s idea of “open and vigorous debate” doesn’t allow for any actual criticism.  (And what a strange ad hominem it is to accuse Dobson of acting “for his own purposes”!  Of course he’s acting for his own purposes, as is Obama and everyone else.)

Anyway, the AP article doesn’t give any of the substance of the debate.  It just presents it as a he-said, she-said sort of disagreement.  (I suppose from the AP’s perspective, how could anyone be right?  It’s just the Bible, after all.)  But, since it’s already established that Obama doesn’t understand the Bible (or doesn’t believe it, at least), I suspect that Dobson has the right of it.

So says Jennifer Rubin:

Barack Obama is endangering his status as the media darling of the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, he has been the villain in the campaign story over the last few days. Two decisions — one small and one large — showed the dangers he faces. And a third showed that the post-racial candidate is no longer in evidence.

It is no secret that the media has been openly rooting for Obama for months. His gaffes would have felled other candidates, his relationship with hate-mongering preachers would have disqualified mere mortal candidates and, of course, his lack of any national record of accomplishment might have prevented all much the most ego-inflated from even mounting a White House run. But it was hanging together fairly well until last week.

(Via Instapundit.)

Pretending he was already elected didn’t go over that well.  (Via Instapundit.)

I laughed out loud at this:

When the stormtroopers wear clown shoes instead of jackboots, it’s easy to forget that they’re still stormtroopers.

After Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty, the EU commissioned a poll to find out why. But it seems they didn’t like what they found, according to Open Europe Blog, who observe that the EU appears to have lied about the results.  They claim that 40% voted no because they didn’t understand it, when the actual (pdf link) number is 22%.  (The article specifically mentions Eurobarometer, so it does look like they’re talking about the same poll.)

Why does this matter?  Here’s why:

There is a growing feeling that European leaders meeting in Brussels tomorrow for their six-monthly summit will want another Irish referendum next year to save the treaty, which they regard as vital for the streamlining of the EU.

and:

“Of course, we must respect Ireland’s constitutional system, but we must also respect the vote of the 18 countries which have already ratified the treaty. The Irish ‘no’ cannot be the last word.”

The only thing that is final is a yes vote.

Gallup’s latest poll has public confidence in Congress falling again, to 12%.  And well it’s deserved, too.  The military notches 71%, which is also well-deserved.

(Via JammieWearingFool, via Instapundit.)

The Washington Post editorializes:

The [Iraqi] foreign minister [Hoshyar Zebari] said “my message” to Mr. Obama “was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.”

(Via BOTW, via Instapundit.)

It’s curious that this news is appearing in an editorial and not in any news report. (At least, I couldn’t find one, except second-hand stories referring to the editorial.) Additionally, according to ABC’s Jake Tapper, Obama denied to him that the conversation went the way the Post reports. But, that was before the editorial came out, so he wasn’t denying a specific report. Also, the Goulsbee controversy showed that Obama’s denials don’t mean anything (except perhaps in a ultra-literal way, such as denying an entire story because it took place at the Canadian consulate rather than embassy).

Anyway, not every flip-flop is bad, so this is potential good news.

The audacity of presumption.  I hope he’ll understand if we go through the formality of an election.

(Via the Corner.)

The New Atlantis has an article on public opinion regarding stem cell research.  Two results stand out.  First, people are strikingly ignorant, especially those who think they are not:

In fact, professed familiarity with stem cell research in the prior question turned out to be a leading indicator of actual ignorance with respect to this question of therapeutic uses. Almost 40% of those who claimed some knowledge about the research in the earlier question believed, incorrectly, that embryonic stem cells had yielded therapeutic results.

Second, people’s opinion on embryonic stem cell research depends largely on the way the question is framed.  When phrased to emphasize potential cures for diseases, embryonic stem cell research is supported by a margin of 54%-39%.  However, when phrased in terms of ethics, it is opposed by a margin of 62%-33%.  Other phrasings gave results in the middle.

There’s material there for anyone to cherry-pick numbers to support their position, but if we can draw any honest conclusion, it’s that most people don’t know what’s going on.

(Via the Corner.)

Since February, American intelligence has been crippled since the House Democratic leadership refused to allow a vote on a compromise bill and also allowed a temporary measure to expire. During that time, any terrorists anywhere in the world could escape surveillance by the simple expedient of communicating over the Internet.

Finally a new compromise has been struck and it includes House Democratic leaders, so there’s good reason to expect it will actually be voted on, and pass. Andrew McCarthy of National Review says it’s a good deal on balance. So does Phillip Carter of the Washington Post.

UPDATE: Actually, the House already passed the bill.

Michael Ledeen reports on mass protests in Mashad, one of Shia’s holy cities.

Sadly, there’s not a peep from the mainstream media in three pages of Google news results. (Although there is this story in an Italian paper about Iran barring the media from Mashad.)

As expected, Obama broke his pledge to accept public financing of his campaign. But in a fit of chutzpah, he presented his opportunistic reversal as a matter of principle. As the Washington Post put it:

Barack Obama isn’t abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it’s in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn’t about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he’d get if he stuck to his promise — and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. . .

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama’s earlier pledge to “aggressively pursue” an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. “It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters.

Mr. Obama didn’t mention his previous proposal to take public financing if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same . . . Instead, he cast his abandonment of the system as a bold good-government move. . .

Fine. Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they’re doing it.

And that’s not the end to the hypocrisy:

“John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs,” Obama said in his message to supporters yesterday. “And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

To date, no conservative 527 groups have materialized.

On the other hand, there are liberal 527s out there, repeating Obama’s dishonest talking points while he ostentatiously holds them at arms length.

The Washington Post also reports that Obama has rejected McCain’s proposal for a series of town hall debates:

Although campaign finance issues rank low on lists of voter concerns, the McCain team pounced on Obama’s move, along with his rejection of the 10 town hall meetings that McCain has proposed, as evidence that his claim to represent a “new politics” is empty rhetoric.

(Via Extreme Mortman, via Instapundit.)

There is some potential good news here; this stuff was all reported and editorialized.  As Glenn Reynolds put it, the media bloom may be off the Obama rose.  Obama has benefited from breathtakingly positive coverage, and if he loses that, he may find that it was worth more than he’s gaining.

I don’t know if it’s true (everyone denies it, of course), but for your amusement:

Matthews denies he wants to host “Meet the Press”: “I love what I do. My Sunday show is a perfect fit for me. I hope they find a perfect fit for ‘Meet the Press.’ ”

Meanwhile, Matthews’ MSNBC cable cohort Olbermann, who was also at the memorial, is “threatening to quit if he isn’t installed as Russert’s replacement,” another insider said. “I know, it sounds ludicrous, but, then, Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.”

A rep for MSNBC said, “All of this is utterly untrue.”

Russert himself wanted Chuck Todd, the NBC News political director he hired, to succeed him, said one source, who added that MSNBC hosts don’t stand a chance of landing “Meet the Press.” The insider said, “They’re cable. They’re far too partisan. They have no gravitas. If gravitas is eight letters, they’re about seven letters short.”

(Via Jammie Wearing Fool, via Instapundit.)

They ought to try to get Cokie Roberts.  She’s liberal (which is probably a requirement), but she’s smart and not overly partisan.  She also has experience on that sort of show.

The artists reportedly softened King’s face to make him look less “confrontational and like a socialist leader.”  However, officials with the King memorial foundation refused to release a picture.  What’s that about?

(Previous post.)

They’re fact-checked by the NYT, of all people:

Because advertisement fact-checking reports like this one are never viewed as widely as the spots themselves, a good many people may take from this advertisement that Mr. McCain is supporting 100 years of an overwhelmingly unpopular war.

That’s the point.

(Via JustOneMinute, via Instapundit.)

Last February, Barack Obama spoke out against NAFTA, saying he would tell Canada and Mexico “that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.” However, Canadian television reported that a “top staff member” of the Obama campaign reassured the Canadian government that this was only (in CTV’s words) “campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.” The Obama campaign furiously denied the story, at times denying even that a meeting took place. (Obama put it plainly, “It did not happen.”) But then CTV named the representative, Austan Goolsbee, and the AP obtained an official memo regarding the meeting:

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

Then unable to deny the meeting, the Obama campaign changed its tack, denying only the substance of the report, and claiming never to have denied the actual meeting:

In an interview with the AP, Goolsbee disputed a portion of the memo that quotes him as saying that campaign rhetoric “that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

“That’s this guy’s language,” Goolsbee said of the memo’s author, Joseph De Mora. “He’s not quoting me.” . . .

Burton stood by the campaign’s handling of the story, saying the denials were in response to the “substance of the matter at hand” about whether someone representing Obama was consistent about his position on trade.

“At no point did we deny there was a meeting,” Burton said Monday, hours after Sen. Dick Durbin, a top Obama surrogate, denied the meeting on MSNBC. “We made it crystal clear to anyone who was covering it.”

That’s where the Obama campaign left it: he really would opt out of the treaty and his supposed reassurances to Canada were a misunderstanding.

Until now. With the Democratic nomination locked up, it’s time to roll back the protectionist rhetoric:

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

In other words, Obama’s opt-out position on NAFTA was (as CTV put it from the start) “campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.” Every single denial the Obama campaign issued was a a lie, from the actual meeting to the underlying substance.

(Via Instapundit.)

POSTSCRIPT: The campaign has admitted being in possession of all the facts when they issued their denials, so they can’t argue confusion. However, the story is muddled by the fact that the original CTV story contained some minor factual errors — such as whether the meeting happened at the Canadian Embassy or Consulate — so it could be argued that some of the denials were literally true. I’m comfortable calling a deliberate deception a lie, but if you like, you can read “lie” as “deception” in the last paragraph.

Canada’s National Post says it’s a bit late for introspection:

We don’t hold out much hope that a review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s powers to investigate allegations of hate speech will come to much. For one thing, the commission handpicked its own investigator. But mostly we are skeptical because even when calling for the review, chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch demonstrated no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it.

There can be no doubt Canada’s human rights bodies — federal and provincial — are in need of investigation. They are out of control, far more interested in imposing political correctness than defending free speech.

They have become laws unto themselves, too, routinely suspending rules of evidence that have taken centuries to perfect.

Consider that Ms. Lynch’s own lead investigator at the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), Dean Steacy, recently testified at a hate speech hearing that “freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” . . .

It is increasingly obvious these commissions were set up deliberately to lower the standard of proof and get around rules of natural justice, thereby ensuring people who would never be convicted in court are punished to the satisfaction of the activists and special interest groups that hover around the tribunals.

Third parties not involved in the alleged offences may nonetheless file complaints. Occasionally, the plaintiff has been given access to the commissions’ investigation files and given the power to direct investigators. Truth is not a defence. Defendants are not always permitted to face their accusers. Normal standards for assuring the validity of evidence do not apply. Hearsay is admitted. The government funds the plaintiff but the defendant is on his own and commission investigators may attempt to entrap suspects by getting them to say or do hateful things they might not have done on their own.

No wonder the CHRC has a 100% conviction rate on hate speech complaints.

(Via Instapundit.)

Identity politics can be a minefield:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”

They can say that it’s not their policy, but this isn’t the first time something like this has happened in the Obama campaign.  And why not?  Today’s identity politics makes this sort of thing inevitable.

(Via Instapundit.)

The problem with inexperience:

An advisor, Daniel Kurtzer, to Barack Obama says that Obama didn’t realize what he was saying to AIPAC when he used the term”undivided” in reference to Jerusalem. According to Kurtzer, Obama had “a picture in his mind of Jerusalem before 1967 with barbed wires and minefields and demilitarized zones.” Kurtzer says that only after the speech did Obama realize it was a “code word” to use the phrase, “but it does not indicate any kind of naivete about foreign affairs.”

Oh, it doesn’t indicate naivete?  That’s a relief.

ASIDE: Even I knew that “undivided” meant not sharing the city with a Palestinian state.  Although, I suppose I shouldn’t say “even I,” since I have nearly as much experience in government as Obama does.

(Via Instapundit.)

Michael Ledeen writes on our bizarre, but hardly unprecedented, blindness to the nature of evil world leaders:

Clearly, the explanations we gave for our failure to act in the last century were wrong. The rise of messianic mass movements is not new, and there is very little we do not know about them. Nor is there any excuse for us to be surprised at the success of evil leaders, even in countries with long histories and great cultural and political accomplishments. We know all about that. So we need to ask the old questions again. Why are we failing to see the mounting power of evil enemies? Why do we treat them as if they were normal political phenomena, as Western leaders do when they embrace negotiations as the best course of action?

Read the whole thing.  (Via the Corner.)

IBD doesn’t like Obama’s plan to disarm America:

In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons.

The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it’s fighting. Here is a transcript:

“I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it.

“Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.

“I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.

“Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.”

Video here, and his tone is indeed striking. (Via LGF.)

POSTSCRIPT: What exactly would it take for missile defense to be “proven”? Not a deployed system with 23 of 25 tests successful, obviously. I guess the only way to prove it is to shoot down an enemy missile in action. That’s the one proof we’ll never be able to get, if Obama has his way.

Instapundit reminds us of this old video. It’s got some currency again, with the latest claims that Democrats were bamboozled by President Bush.

UPDATE: Related item here.  (Via LGF.)

Jeff Goldstein looks at Obama’s accomplishments.  (Via Instapundit.)

This issue looks like a winner for McCain.  (Via Instapundit.)

The Economist, in its June 14 cover story, is the latest to see unmistakable signs of improvement in Iraq.

So says a report from the RAND corporation:

“The wolves have not encircled us yet,” the Denver Post opined in an article in 2006 entitled “Signs America’s Scientific Edge is Slipping”, “but there’s no denying the sounds of scratching at the door.”

This was a pithy summary of a mountain of reports from congressional committees, scientific panels and business groups. But a new report from the RAND Corporation’s National Defence Research Institute, “US Competitiveness in Science and Technology”, suggests that the panic is overblown.

The report demonstrates that America is still the world’s science and technology powerhouse. It accounts for 40% of total world spending on research and development, and produces 63% of the most frequently cited publications. It is home to 30 of the world’s leading 40 universities, and employs 70% of the world’s living Nobel laureates. America produces 38% of patented new technologies in the OECD and employs 37% of the OECD’s researchers.

There is little evidence that America is resting on its laurels, according to RAND.

It’s nice to hear such an encouraging report, but I think there’s still plenty of reason for worry, particularly when it comes to science, as opposed to technology.

A New York judge orders the state legislature to enact a judicial pay raise.

IHT reports:

Since taking office last year, Sarkozy has done much to roll back the legacy of French-U.S. relations left by Chirac, who had angered the Bush administration with his outspoken opposition to military action against Iraq.

That prompted some indignant Americans to rename french fries “freedom fries” and boycott products such as French cheese, drawing heavy publicity but only a modest following.

Personally, I’m still upset about the XYZ affair.

Quoted at Libertas, several European leaders tell the story of the Lisbon treaty. Nicolas Sarkozy says the (rejected) EU constitution couldn’t have passed anywhere if voted on by the people:

France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments.

How is the Lisbon treaty different? In substance, not at all, says the Irish foreign minister:

The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’.

Angela Merkel agrees:

The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.

So how is it different? Deliberate obscurity, the Belgian Foreign Minister explains:

The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing (former French President and chairman of the EU constitutional convention) expands:

The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.

The bottom line, again from d’Estaing:

Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly.

(Via the Volokh Conspiracy.)

The New York Post reports:

Two influential US senators got “VIP” loans from a leading subprime mortgage lender that saved them tens of thousands of dollars. . .  The Democratic pols, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, both received the highly favorable loans under the designation “Friend of Angelo,” a reference to embattled Countrywide head Angelo Mozilo, Condé Nast Portfolio reported.

Dodd is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, while Conrad is chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee. The two senators refinanced properties through the VIP program in 2003 and 2004, the report said. . .

The report came one day after Democratic heavyweight Jim Johnson stepped down as chief of Barack Obama’s vice-presidential search committee after revelations he’d gotten Countrywide loans at very favorable rates because of Mozilo. . .

Dodd reportedly received two loans through the program in 2003 – $506,000 to refinance his Washington town house, and $275,042 to refinance a home in Connecticut. The more favorable terms saved him about $70,000, the report says. . . Conrad borrowed $1 million to refinance his vacation home, and saved at least $10,000.

(Via Instapundit.)

As always, Europeans reject EU transnationalism whenever they are given the chance to vote on it. (Via Instapundit.) Having learned from the past, no other EU nation allowed a public vote on the Lisbon treaty, but Ireland’s constitution requires one.

UPDATE: The vote was 53%-47%, similar to when they rejected the Nice treaty 54%-46% in 2001. That time they made a highly controversial second attempt a year later in which the treaty passed.

Dan Boren (D-OK) declines to endorse Obama for President. (Via the Corner.) He does say he’ll vote for Obama, so this sounds like he’s doing a delicate dance for re-election.

UPDATE: More Democrats won’t endorse Obama.  (Via Instapundit.)