We can be Heroes, Just for one day

Tonight, Heroes runs an episode called "Company Man." As it happens, Global TV up in Canuckland ran the episode last night, so already there is some buzz about it. Thankfully, I got away from the discussion forum over at TelevisionWithoutPity without being spoiled, other than a comment from one person that this episode is to Heroes what "Three Stories" was to House.

If you know that show, then you know that's some high praise.

Polarizing

Kevin Drum fears for our very existence.

Still, it's faintly unnerving to see just how far ahead of the field Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are right now.

That would be a hell of a campaign, wouldn't it? Two New Yorkers, playing out the unfinished grudge match of their 2000 Senate race. A mayor vs. a senator. The first major party female candidate in history. And just possibly the two toughest, most polarizing, most single-mindedly ambitious politicians on the national stage today. I hope we all survive.

I have no problem with half of his assertion. Hillary is polarizing. Partly that is of no fault of her own, but stems from her involvement in her husband's administration.

But Rudy is one of the most polarizing? How exactly? This is a moderate-to-liberal Republican. I suspect the only reason that liberals find him to be polarizing is because he succeeded as a Republican in the most liberal city outside of San Francisco and Washington D.C.

This is a man who has a three to one difference between his favorable and unfavorable opinion ratings in public opinion polls. Polarizing to an underwhelming minority of voters, I'd say.

I know, I know. They will come back and scream Amadou Diallo and make hay over his approach to law and order. I think this is a mistake both on the idea and in impact. Probably no other Republican candidate would work more with Democrats (if they are willing) and would meet them half way more often than Giuliani. Further, do the Democrats really want to try to make the case that his proven, successful, tough-on-crime approach is what makes him polarizing? Do liberals have a compulsion for trying to prove true every stereotype about them that the right has claimed for the past several decades, so that they must eagerly and aggressively promote a soft-on-criminals mentality?

This is what it would have been like if Republicans had lamented Joe Lieberman's 2004 Presidential bid by saying he is one of the most polarizing candidates in the nation. The only ones who are driven batty by Lieberman, or by Giuliani, are strident liberals.

Surge working?

Patrick Ruffini thinks it is.

All I know is that, in February so far, only three days have gone without any deaths of U.S. soldiers. And most days this month have had 4 or more soldiers killed.

I know there can be progress even with casualties. But until our men and women are not being killed on a day-to-day basis, I won't consider our efforts as 'working.'

Unsatisfied "Christian Right"

I have nothing against most people who would fall into the designation of "Christian Right" who I have ever met or had dealings with. By and large, they tend to be normal people. Naturally, they tend to be more religious than most, but they also tend to be kind, generous, and polite, if sometimes a bit stiff.

On the other hand, I find most of this group, namely Rev. Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, and Grover Norquist to be people I could simply do without. I find them insufferable, and I think that our nation's politics would be considerably healthier without their influence.

With that in mind, I find the fact that they are uncomfortable with the current crop of 2008 GOP Presidential contenders to be a very encouraging thing.

A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn...

But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.

Many conservatives have already declared their hostility to Senator John McCain of Arizona, who once denounced Christian conservative leaders as “agents of intolerance,” and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, a liberal on abortion and gay rights issues who has been married three times.

But many were also deeply suspicious of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; the council has been distributing to its members a dossier prepared by a Massachusetts conservative group about liberal elements of his record on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights and gun control. Mr. Romney says he has become more conservative.

The fact that they are unhappy with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney is an encouraging sign for each of those candidates.

Now Why Didn't I Think of That?

Professor Bainbridge has the solution to the polarization of Congress.

The national disgrace of gerrymandering has created a system in which the vast majority of House seats are safe for one of the two parties. As a result, the real action is in the primaries, which tend to be dominated by activists. As a result, we see the polarization of Congress, as GOP candidates tend hard right to win their primaries and vice-versa for the Democrats. Now the netroots plan to exacerbate the problem.

The solution seems obvious. A national system of nonpartisan redistricting designed to maximize the number of truly competitive seats. In such a system, candidates would succeed by appealing to the center rather than the extremes, which in turn would reduce the destructive influence of the rabid partisans on both sides of the net.

A national system of nonpartisan redistricting! Of course! Why didn't I think of that? It does seem obvious!

At least, as obvious as solving the problem of wars by making a weapon that destroys all other weapons, or of solving hunger by growing trees that produce unlimited fruit. Obvious, but completely existing in fantasyland.

There cannot be a nonpartisan system for redistricting, since any system will involve (to one extent or another) people. People are partisan (some more than others). The 'obvious' answer to that is to ensure that only non-partisan people (or at least, the least partisan people) end up appointed to or elected to be the ones with most influence or oversight of the 'nonpartisan' system. But then the people who would do the appointing or the electing will still be partisan, and will still use whatever means available, including this 'nonpartisan' system, for their own partisan advantage.

A nonpartisan anything never exists. The only thing that does is the claim of nonpartisanship, used to give cover to partisanship.

You know what would be cool, though? A device that would turn coldness into heat, or heat into coldness. It would solve global warming all by itself, and would also protect against global cooling. Isn't it obvious that this is exactly what we need?

This is a bigot

No more, nor no less than Andrea Marcotte. But Tim Hardaway hates gay people and can't stand to be around gay people. No different than Marcotte and her aversion to religious people.

Both suck eggs.

UPDATE: My spouse saw this story and immediately said, "I bet he was molested at some point. The only people I have ever seen say things like that have been." That would be the only way that I could find any reason to have compassion for Hardaway over his remarks. I would still think they indicate a mental problem on his part, but I would at least understand his illness.

---

For the few Marcotte apologists left-- you know who you are. You are the ones who say that you are personally atheist or agnostic, but see a difference between mocking religion and being a bigot.

Explain the difference between calling someone a "raghead" and calling someone a "godbag."

You have seen both. One you would immediately recognize as bigoted. The other, you did not even notice, because your own beliefs are oh-so-close.

Comfortable? I doubt it.

Amanda Marcotte Resigned

Joe Gandelman thinks that she could not have caused Edwards too many problems, even if she stayed on.

It’s highly unlikely Edwards’ campaign would have significantly suffered if she had not quit. The main reason: the people going after her for her previous writings are not people who would likely vote for Edwards anyway. And voters who would vote against a candidate because someone doing blog outreach and coordination had written some things they hated were probably “squishy” voters who could not be counted on.

A few things come to mind. First, I have seen a tremendous number of bloggers acting like her fall (of which this is now the second iteration) is a bad thing for bloggers, because it will mean that bloggers might have to be accountable for the things they write or have written. Given that bloggers, in general, take pride in holding others accountable, this strikes me as wanting to have the best of both worlds. Accountability is good, not bad.

Second, we are not talking about just some slightly over the line writings here. We are talking about things written that were so far over the line that it revealed a completely rotten core. Hers are the writings of an unstable, hate-filled person-- and she was chosen by a Presidential candidate specifically for the appeal of her poisonous scribing. I think it says something very disturbing about human nature that she has had so many bloggers suggest that it would be a bad thing for bloggers if Edwards canned her. Talking about God filling Mary with his hot, sticky Holy Spirit is something that should cause immediate revulsion from any American regardless of ideology; it is a matter of decorum and of proper treatment of others. For Marcotte, it is a key aspect of her popularity. But many, too many, bloggers went right past that with only token concern (if that) and went right to the impact on bloggers! What this shows is that any group will tend to be overly forgiving or blind to the failings of one of their own. And if bloggers will excuse the inexcusable from other bloggers because it would be bad for bloggers if they take a fall, it is easy to see how partisans outside of the blogosphere will tend to excuse the inexcusable from their fellow soul mates.

The third thing that comes to mind is that I certainly hope that Edwards takes a hit in the polls for his choice of hire, his flip-flop fire-rehire mush from last week, and giving her the easy way out of a resignation now rather than a firing. It showed poor judgment on his part, and suggested that, perhaps, he did not see anything all that wrong with what she wrote. This gets to my biggest concern, though. Maybe hate has become mainstream and shared by so many that it is a feature, not a bug. God help us all if that is the case.

ADDED: Althouse strikes a chord I am seeing too often.
I favor independent blogging, and I like to see things get interesting. Interesting... hot... sticky... whatever! Just not boring.
Maybe we should lament the reaction to Michael Richards' on-stage rant. We should favor independent comedy, and should like to see things get interesting. Interesting... slurs... whatever! Just not boring. Anything but that. And what, may I ask, is interesting about public displays of offensiveness, vulgarity, and hate?

And another added thought--I am sure a Duke-like blogger is interesting to certain racists and bigots. What does it say about someone who finds the writings of an anti-Catholic bigot to be interesting? Make no mistake, that is what Marcotte is. If one is an atheist or an agnostic does not make one a bigot. But if one finds the hateful writings of Marcotte to be interesting, then one might be a lot closer to, or over, that line than one realizes.

For comparison, Dale Franks gets it right.

Ms. Marcotte want two contradictory things. She wishes to create a public persona that spouts the most outlandish views, in the most incendiary fashion possible, then she wishes the rest of the world to ignore the public persona she created when it suits her...
Ms. Marcotte doesn't want freedom of speech. She wants freedom from criticism. I'm sure that would be a cool thing to have, but, unfortunately, freedom of speech makes that...well...impossible to obtain...

And on Danny Glover's blog, Michael Bérubé waxes sarcastically.

It's time for a full-scale purge of atheists in politics. Only then can we restore civility to public discourse. With Rush Limbaugh's help, God willing.

I find it interesting that you would try to expand the issue here from one pathetically bigoted atheist to all atheists. However, I am not sure that is wise on his part. I never really considered this to be a matter of atheists. However, if, as suggested by his snark, all atheists are like Marcotte, then frankly maybe we do need a purge of all atheists from politics.

However, I suspect that not all atheists are like Marcotte, or like Mike. As such, I do not want to purge them from politics. I am, however, open to being convinced. Not by non-atheists, but by atheists. They can make the case by emulating Marcotte.

A Matter of Survival

I have concluded that Rudy Giuliani has to win the Republican nomination, or that party is destined to spend decades in the minority.

If one looks back over the past several elections, one sees that the country has been divided pretty evenly. For a while Republicans were winning the close ones, and then all at once the Democrats won every single close one in 2006.

The fact is that both parties have to maintain every portion of their voting coalition in order to retain the balance. For a while, thanks to Ralph Nader, it looked as if the Democrats would be the party that struggled in this effort. Now, though, the Republicans are the more vulnerable.

Let's say that you are a centrist. A moderate. You are open to the Republican message, and may even feel that you are center-right as opposed to center-left. Would you be part of a coalition that never, under any circumstances, would let someone from your corner of the ideologic spectrum lead?

The fact of the matter is that Rudy Giuliani is, perhaps, the most formidable center-right (or, if you must, liberal Republican) candidate of the last half-century or so. He is accomplished and popular. Sure, he has flaws, but every man and woman has flaws; if some of the 'problems' Rudy has were disqualifying in the eyes of the public, then neither Clinton would have had any success at all. If the GOP will not have Giuliani, then moderate Republicans will have no choice but to realize that the party will NEVER accept one of their own as the standard bearer. That is the time they will realize they no longer have a party.

The Big Mo

Hamsun56 comments, over at Althouse, about Hillary's announcement that she is (surprise, surprise!) running for President:

This stops, at least temporarily, the momentum he [Obama] was building.

It does?

I Like This Idea

Via Instapundit and Bill Hobbs, I came across this ElephantBiz post that has a thought I find very appealing-- a Presidential run by Fred Thompson.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, a lawyer and actor who currently plays District Attorney Arthur Branch on Law & Order, is now doing radio commentary on the Paul Harvey show...
Might Thompson be prepping for a presidential run? He says he isn't running, but perhaps he is, unconventionally, courting Republican conservatives in case that when the field clears later this year it becomes obvious that, of the three likely to still be in the race, neither Arizona Sen. John McCain nor former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has a chance at the conservative vote, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's support among social conservatives is brittle and based less on Romney than on their distaste for the other two. In that scenario, a late entry by Thompson could rapidly erode Romney's support and likely take down McCain as well as Thompson does well with moderates and independents.

He quotes from a recent commentary by Thompson, that hits a chord that resonates with my view on the situation in Iraq:

Is it really in our country’s best interest to signal to the enemy that they probably only have to wait us out a little longer because congressional determination to defeat them is crumbling? Doesn’t such a resolution further diminish our chances for success at the very time our soldiers are preparing to go into battle?

Yes, it does, and not just for the coming battles in this war, but it further diminishes our chances for success for any future wars in which we end up engaged. I believe this is one goal of the most ardent anti-war advocates; they are more than comfortable with the idea of contributing to our defeat if it causes us to avoid war at all costs in the future. To be honest, part of me understands that view. War should be avoided-- but not at all costs. Rather, it should be avoided as much as is practical. All costs includes costs that are too great to bear. It was too high a cost to allow Saddam to continue to defy the U.N. resolutions. Maybe he did not have WMD (and maybe he did and they ended up in Syria or elsewhere), but he was required to prove to the U.N. that he had destroyed what he had previously had and he refused to do this. It was too high a cost to bear to hope for the best. Now, he is gone. It is too high a cost to bear to hope that all turns out for the best if we leave Iraq for the Sunnis and Shi'ites to battle over, with Al-Qaeda and Iran meddling and gaining traction as well. We have to win, and steps that make it harder for us to win are a tremendous mistake.

Aren't Leftists Fun?

Hugo Chavez has had his cronies in the Venezuela National Assembly grant him the power to bypass them and rule by decree for 18 months.

Anyone want to bet if one of his decrees will be to extend the 18 months?

The American left loves to point fingers at the right and tell all of us moderates that the danger to the American way of life comes from those fanatics. Yet, time and again, ruthless thugs come to power in other countries riding a wave of leftist populism.

I am not asking the American left to change their views. I am asking them to be just as vigilant about the totalitarians on their side as they fancy themselves as being with totalitarians on the right.

Added- Joe Gandelman snarks, "It’s sort of like watching the old TV show “Bewitched,” as another actor assumed the part of Darrin," as Chavez slips into Castro's role on the world stage. It is a good line, but the implications are more dire than the replacement of one Dick with another. But the real value in Joe's post is the excerpt he posts from Edward Ellis, writing in the Buffalo News:

It is obvious to anyone watching closely that Chavez is not a dictator. He is, however, bombastic and his recent announcement that the government plans to nationalize private companies must be understood within this context. Despite the bluster, history and common sense show there will be no expropriation of private companies in Venezuela without fair remuneration.

With words like these, it is any wonder why so many of us have grown to literally fear the blinders that the left puts on when convenient?

Most Unfortunate Book Title Of The Year

Via Memeorandum, I saw this Newsmax piece on Dinesh D'Souza's new tome, "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11."

Holy flip. Lest we think that the title is just some misguided hyperbole, D'Souza makes sure we do not:

"In this book I make a claim that will seem startling at the outset. The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11."

In a nutshell, we do things culturally that offend Muslims, and this is why they (at least the radical ones who lead many terrorist groups and many middle eastern countries) want to kill us. They fear our influence on their culture.

Except we have been having problems with Islam's militance for a long, long time.

But even if it was true, so the heck what? It would be something we should thank the "cultural left" about-- showing the nature of those who would kill us to keep us from upsetting their sensibilities.

Don't get me wrong. There is plenty in our culture which disgusts me, and I firmly believe we should work on some of our excesses. But blaming the cultural left for 9/11 shows a clear misunderstanding of who the enemy is, and comes from the mindset of a coward-- if we only submit to their norms, maybe they'll show mercy on us infidels.

Pompous

Paul at Powerline writes,

By running for president Obama will show plenty of audacity and hope. A serious country would not take his candidacy seriously. This country will.

In other words, this country is not a serious country. At least, not as serious as Paul Mirengoff.

I have to tell ya-- that is just a recipe for getting people to tell ya to pound sand. One can think that attributes other than experience are qualifying, and even necessary. One can think that a candidate offers so much in other areas that are needed at this time. And if one does not take seriously voters who do not share their own opinions on how to judge candidate qualifications, one is not likely to be persuasive to voters.