[August 12, 2000]

Dan has a new discussion going on the Keys to the White House - under the doormat, or in the potted plant by the window? In related news, Al Gore has made some progress pre-convention, but still has a double-digit poll gap to overcome: Gore Cuts Bush LeadW

[August 11, 2000]

Recycled linkSpooned from gagne: Discover the true origin of the pompatus of love. Contrary to what you might think, this is not an STD. Neither pompatus, NOR Gagne, that is. W

Today I'm off to take the MPRE - the ethics test which is the last examination required in my application to the Virginia Bar. I've studied, but I'm still unlcear on one thing: Can I take money from a client's trust account to pay for booze, drugs, and hookers, or can I only do that if I'm the Mayor? W

[August 10, 2000]

Oh, God, no... Gervase: "If the money's right, the pants may come down." W

A Florida woman woke up to find man on top of her with a knife to her throat, so she pulled her handgun out of the nightstand and killed him. Just as the gun fired, the would-be rapist was probably wishing Florida had a trigger-lock law. W

The media has drastically scaled back coverage of the Democratic and Republican conventions, complaining that they're too scripted, dull, and predictable. Now here's a convention that's none of the above - it's completely unscripted, its outcome may not be fully resolved for weeks after it's over, but see if you can find it on any of the major networks this week. As a side note, this is a perfect example why publically financed elections are a bad idea - you get buccaneers like Buchanan, with little or no public support, looting the grave of a party that has even less public support without him. Without that tempting booty, Pat would have lowered the Jolly Roger long ago. W

I won't be holding my breath: Gore pledges no personal attacks against Bush W

More bombast from Mr. Baum, who continues to mistake rhetoric for reason. His latest post makes no more sense than his first. (Note to Steve: go look up the difference between "sentence" and "paragraph" and once you've conquered those basics, we'll move on to discuss logical fallacies and which ones you've used.) I must have touched a really raw nerve to inspire such flaming vitriol with so little coherence. In any case, go read what he said, then read what I said and see if he's even on the same planet as me. Here's a recap of points I made which Mr. Baum either failed to read or failed to understand, since he didn't address them in his "rebuttal."

To Mr. Baum's credit, he as much as admitted my ultimate conclusion - that the Clinton administration is lying to us about our military readiness. As for the rest, better luck next time. W

[August 9, 2000]

UPDATE:

Alcorn has also apparently criticized the Democratic Party for taking blacks for granted. W

So far, the only anti-Semitism has come out of the Democrites, first from DNC chair Ed Rendell, and now the President of the Dallas NAACP chapter:

So I think we need to be very suspicious of any kind of partnerships between the Jews at that kind of level because we know that their interest primarily has to do with money and these kind of things.

That's what Lee Alcorn said on the radio Monday... Is Bryant Gumbel reporting thisW

Gore Lie for the Day: "I agreed with it at the time.W

Let the jockeying for 2000 begin.

Several Kerry confidants were described as "shocked'' at Gore's decision but were already laying the groundwork for a presidential run in 2004, if Gore loses in November.

As we have already observed, this can only serve to undermine the Democrite ticket this fall. W

Adam apparently belives I single-handedly balance out the numerous mob of liberal webloggers:

It was definitely naive of me to believe that webloggers are an overwhelmingly liberal (and if not that, at least apolitical) bunch. For proof of my prejudice, check out [WOIFM].

I have to say, I'm flattered, but there's a lot more of them than there are of us. W

[August 8, 2000]

Ethel the Blog has taken exception to my earlier post. Reading between the rhetoric, I have discerned two main points: 1. The two-major-theater strategy is not the only readiness option; and 2. that pre-Clinton readiness wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I'll address each in turn:

First, it is true that some have offered rational arguments for force sizes less than the traditional "two theater" standard which was the norm until 1993. It is axiomatic, however, that a military which is only ready for two medium-sized conflicts is not ready for two large ones. We've already had the argument over what the readiness level ought to be - current policy calls for the same level as before - two major theaters. This would be fine if the policy was the reality, but it's not. The Clinton-Gore administration, after fighting for a 40% cut in the Defense budget, proposed a force level suitable for, essentially, one-and-a-half major theaters. When that proposal was shot down in flames, the administration proposed the very same force level but recast it as a two-theater force level - in short, they lied. (I know, hard to belive, from this adminsitration, but they did.) So let's a call a spade a spade - our current defense policy calls for a force level which is drastically reduced from force level targets before 1993. Ready at a lesser level is simply less ready, across the board.

Mr. Baum (the publisher of Ethel) also digs out a 1988 (!!) report from the Cato Institute regarding Reagan-era defense readiness. In the process, Mr. Baum calls the Institute a "conservative think tank" and dares all comers to label it as "ultraliberal." Anyone who has any familiarity with Cato (Mr. Baum apparently does not) would know that each of these labels is equally inapposite. The organization labels itself as "libertarian" and has consistently argued for reduced military spending on the premise that a larger military increases the power of the state as a whole.

Not only does Mr. Baum misrepresent Cato, he also misrepresents what their report says. Without descending into too much needless detail, the report criticizes the Reagan-era choice of emphasizing procurement and research over increasing force levels. air enough. But it is ridiculous to suggest that this 1988 report offers any conclusion as to the state of military readiness, and sufficiency of force levels, in 1992 or sheds any light on the known force reductions of the Clinton-Gore years, or any provides real guidance on what defense policy may be appropriate now. The report does not conclude what Mr. Baum claims it does - there is no finding whatsoever that our military was below stated readiness levels in 1988. The argument it did make (capability of our personnel and weapons systems) was adequately rebutted by the performance of our personnel and weapons systems in the Persian Gulf under the command of Powell, Cheney, and President Bush.

Despite this red herring, the debate is not about 1988 - this debate is about today: are we truly ready for a two-theater major war? Absolutely not. When did this first become apparent? In 1993, when Les Apsin tried and failed to lower the bar in the face of Democratic budget cuts. Is the present adminsitration telling us the truth about the state of our military readiness? No way, no how. Sending Woody Allen into the ring and calling him Mike Tyson doesn't mean he's going to win - it means you're deluding yourself. Just the same, calling our current half-level forces "two theater ready" doesn't make it so. Your government is lying to you, and if that's a surprise, shame on you. W

Quoth Firda:

Just for your information, What's On It For Me? and Weblog Wannabe are now officially sibling sites *grins* We don't look too much alike for siblings, don't we? ;)

...which is a funny observation, since Wannabe looks like just about every other site on the Weblog Directory. Paternity test, anyone? W

Recycled LinkFrom mini-Wetlog: RatherBiased.com W

Roll Call's analysis of the Lieberman pick makes many excellent points:

Rowland is allowed to fill the seat until the 2002 election, unless Lieberman vacates it before Oct. 27 and allows another Democrat to take his place in the November election. Lieberman is seeking re-election to the Senate and is expected to sail to victory.

In other word, Senator, if you expect to be Vice President in January, you have a duty to your party to abandon your Senate race. If, on the other hand, you don't expect to win, well...

"He has much more in common with many Republicans than he does with Al Gore," said Terry Holt.

Especially on school vouchers, violence in the media, and privatization of Social Security. It will be awfully fun in the fall, running ads of Lieberman supporting key planks of Governor Bush's platform. W

Has anyone else tried e-iconsW

Jason is half right (which is what happens when you rely on Salon as your primary source) - Bush was wrong when he said two divisions of the Army aren't ready for combat. The real situation is much worse.

UPDATE: The normally reliable Ethel the Blog has also fallen for Salon's mistaken propaganda, that today's state of military unreadiness is due to a Cheney/Powell re-organization. That's not what the military says. This meme is truly dangerous because it's so blatantly false, yet so many people want so badly to belive it. Please, help spread the truth a little bit. W

[August 7, 2000]

This is the redesign I would have if only I'd thought of it: ctrl-alt-ego. There's lots to love about this one - nifty web skillz backed by a top notch legal mind, and a Republican to boot. It's what I'd aspire to be if I weren't such a slacker. W

Speaking from experience: If you can't get some in Tallahassee, you just can't get some. Here's the story: There's enough nookie for everybody W

I think it's disgusting that the most original thing the media can think of to say about Senator Lieberman is that he's Jewish. Why don't we discuss his record like we did Cheney's? The sharp contrast between Lieberman's record and Gore's calls into serious question whether Gore belives what he says, or, as is more likely, just saying whatever is politcally expedient. W

Note to self: add CHRISH dot ORG back to the portal. W

Here's another monkey wrench in the Dem works: Lieberman is up for re-election to the Senate in 2000. Surely the national campaign will completely divert his attention and resources from the Senate race. It's certainly possible that Lieberman could lose BOTH races unless he drops out of one. W

Latest Veep news: Gore picks Lieberman.

One Democratic ally said Gore was driven in part by a need to make a pre-convention splash, which Lieberman's religion provides. The source said the vice president has been disturbed by polls giving Bush a double-digit edge and that he fears the election will slip away unless he uses this critical two-week period to gain significant ground, particularly among independents and women.

Again, typical of the Quota Party.

Unlike the shrill partisan attacks of the Democrites, mostly praise for Lieberman has come from the Republicans. That's because, depsite his somewhat liberal voting record, he's basically a decent guy. He's so decent, in fact, it practically begs the question - is it too late to flip the ticket? Lieberman's integrity, far from insulating Gore, calls attention to his own transgressions.

One other signal sent by Gore's selction of Lieberman is a big, fat raspberry to Senator Tom Daschle, who asked Gore NOT to pick a Senator from a state with a Republican governor (in this case, Connecticut Governor John Rowland) because that governor would presumably appoint a Republican in his place, widening the Republican majority. Of course, Daschle has nothing to fear - Lieberman will still be safely situatedd in the Senate in January.

By picking Lieberman, Gore also backslid on his promise to pick a member of the "New Guard" - Lieberman's been in the U.S. Senate since 1988 and full-time politician since 1970. Which gives me a thought:

If Bush and Cheney's handful of years in the oil industry make them the "Big Oil" ticket, what do Gore and Lieberman's decades in government make them? Yeah, you guessed it - and the era of Big Government is over. W

Rich Galen, editor of Mullings, ponders:

There was absolutely no one in Philadelphia who was running for President in 2004. Not a single person wanted to be blamed for diffusing, in the slightest way, the laser beam focus on George W. Reporters might want to keep their eyes open for signs of toe-in-the-water-dippers in Los Angeles next week. That will be the surest sign yet - even more than Dick Gephardt not wanting to be on the Gore ticket - that Dems are starting to give up hope.

Is there anyone (besides Jenn of the currently-censored Malapropism) who really thinks Gore will win? W

[August 6, 2000]

And then there were four: Bayh, Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman. I can't honestly say I'm worried about any of them, although some Democrats have worries of their own:

If Joe Lieberman were Episcopalian it would be a slam dunk.

Pretty typical of the Quota Party, don't you think?  W

A word to regulators:

It's not difficult to see that such a proposal would lead HMO companies to decide not to provide coverage to any Florida counties at all.

Insurance companies, like any other companies, are businesses that provide a valuable service, for value given. When regulations make it impossible for them to stay in business, they won'tW

[archives]