SPEAKING OF FOLLIES

Former NSC counterterrorism agent Daniel Benjamin writes today under the header "Rumsfeld's Follies" in Slate, about why invading Iraq was a mistake. One reason given:

[T]he radicalization of the Muslim world is deepening. That means more sympathizers, more fund raising, and more recruits for the jihadist camp. ... You don't win hearts and minds through military occupation, and there are too many countries where extremism is on the rise.

Is that a tacit agreement that Saddam Hussein's Iraq really did matter to the Muslim fascists of al Qaeda and related groups? Good, then he shouldn't mind knocking out the worst of them and trying to replace it with a moderate example for the rest of the Arab world.

Oh, but he does. What should we do instead?
 

It would require reinvigorating a Middle East peace process and sticking with it, the ticket of admission to being taken seriously in the Muslim world.

Yes, that's it! Let's entrust our safety and the future of the region to the goodwill of Yasser Arafat. That will surely work. And he's got more good ideas:

Finally, it requires signing up allies because the United States is viewed as too toxic a presence for most Muslims. Was there ever a chance to pursue such a strategy? Absolutely. ... In December 2002, the State Department unveiled its Middle East Partnership Initiative, a basket of projects to encourage democratization in the Muslim world.

Oh, so a "basket of projects" will fix everything, but a war to create a liberal democracy in the region won't? Sorry, we've already been there. We've funneled billions to Egypt for decades and got little but grief for it. Worse, we're associated with the hated authoritarian government. How will making allies out of the illegitimate regimes of the Mideast work, while trying to set an example for others to follow won't?

There are more problems with this piece, more contradictions and more follies, but it's All Hallow's Een, or something, and I've got other things to do. I've got nothing against foreign aid, when assisting the right governments in the right way. But to imagine that a new package of foreign aid is the bold new step President Bush should have taken after Afghanistan is idiotic.

P.S. It may be ad hominem, but which president do you think Mr. Benjamin was a special assistant to?

IT WAS FUN WHILE IT LASTED

I don't mean to break Dan's horn after he just tooted it, but his "scoop" about Fox News threatening to sue Fox TV turns out to be a joke. The story always seemed strange to me. For one, News Corp. has always been a stellar example of what they call in the business world "synergy." Moreover, the Simpsons parody was tongue-in-cheek where Al Franken's attacks are not; Roger Ailes plays hardball -- and I thought the Franken lawsuit was a mistake -- but he's not an idiot. Anyway, Variety [sub. req.] reports:

Matt Groening ... told NPR that Fox News had grumbled about suing the show over a parody earlier this year of the cable news net's conservative stance. "Simpsons" airs on Fox Entertainment, sister broadcasting net of Fox News Channel.



Groening joked that media mogul Rupert Murdoch would never let one part of his Fox empire sue another part.



Late Thursday, Groening's show put out a statement saying that Groening was only kidding around, and that it "regretted" any confusion. (Others might call it an apology.)



"Matt was being satirical and certainly there was never any issue between the show and Fox News," statement said.



Insiders say Groening was clearly being satirical during the interview -- but not to everyone, as it turned out.



Agence France Press put out a wire story Wednesday with the following headline, "Fox nearly sued itself over 'Simpsons' parody: Matt Groening."

Ah! The French? We should have realized they would try to pull something like this.

P.S. If you were confused by the text that was here originally, it's now been moved down one post, where it belongs. Armed Prophet blames Wild Turkey. But I won't hold that against it.

SOUNDS SHERMANESQUE TO ME

CNBC has hired Dennis Miller to host a nightly political talk show starting early next year. I guess that means California Republicans can stop trying to talk him up for a Senate run next year. As I've said before, that's for the better. CNBC seems a better network to start on than MSNBC, which apparently did consider him for the 8PM slot briefly occupied by Phil Donahue. On CNBC he won't be expected to produce O'Reilly-like ratings, let alone Scarborough-like ratings. If the show catches on, like "Hardball," they can always move it over. That is, if there even is an MSNBC in a few years.

Interestingly, he'll be up against "Hannity & Colmes," where he's currently doing monologues on Friday night. (Last week's NASA rant was great.) In fact, Fox would be the most logical news network to offer him a slot. And they probably would, if they actually had any struggling shows they needed to replace.

I only wonder if he'll face some of the same constraints he might have in the Senate, viz., having to tame down his act. Sure, he's already turned it down a bit from his late, great HBO program by virtue of network Standards and Practices, but is he going to tone it down? He'd better not, but can you name many elected Democrats who would go on his show if he keeps up his rhetoric? And Zell Miller -- no relation, probably -- doesn't count.

P.S. Although I would miss seeing a draft movement going by the name of "Miller Genuine Draft." Oh well...

DEMS, TAKE NOTE

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page doesn't usually make a habit of giving advice to Democrats -- and neither does Armed Prophet -- but the following thought about the 2004 election seemed to me worth repeating:

[L]et's assume for the sake of argument that Bush wins next year. If he beats someone relatively moderate, the Dems will be back where they were after the 2002 election: The Angry Left will argue that the party betrayed its base and lost to the GOP by running as GOP Lite. On the other hand, if the losing candidate is Dean, the Angry Left will have been put to a real test and found wanting.

Naturally, this reflects the conservative argument that an angry liberal cannot win the White House, now or ever. Democrats can be forgiven for bristling at that notion, I understand. But if they'd like to think so, they can consider this their 1964 and Dean their Barry Goldwater. I mean, I doubt it -- see first sentence of this paragraph -- but it would produce more catharsis than nominating Kerry or Gephardt.

ARMED PROPHET IMITATES PEOPLE MAGAZINE

Floating around Washington are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of... ah, there's a bunch of these guides to the current session's congressional officers. They're usually 4"x10" wire-bound deals, with names and data for the senators, representatives, maps for each state's congressional districts, and guides to obscure legislative terminology ("Sine Die -- Final adjourment at the end of a session. Bills under consideration but not enacted must be reintroduced in the next session"). They're all sponsored by one lobby or non-profit or another; mine comes from PhRMA, the uber-powerful pharmaceutical research and biotech lobby. I haven't yet felt any need to write shameless defenses of the pharmaceutical industry, but now you know, if I ever start.

While flipping through Senate information researching a potential future blog post, I happened to get stuck looking through the candidates' personal bios. Who's Catholic? Who's representing a state they weren't born in? And, who are they married to? So, indulge me on this. You will learn something, though you probably won't be able to use it. Herewith, a couple of arbitrary categories:

Senators Who Are Single:

Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Susan Collins (R-ME); Jon Corzine, div. (D-NJ); Mark Dayton (D-MN); Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Herb Kohl (D-WI); Frank Lautenberg, div; (D-NJ), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD); Jack Reed (D-RI); John Warner, div. (R-VA); Ron Wyden, div. (D-OR)

Senators With Understated Spouse Info:

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), "m. Bill"

Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), "m. Robert"

Most Common Spouse Names:

Mary -- Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jim Bunning (R-KY), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Susan -- George Allen (R-VA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Craig Thomas (R-WY)

Linda -- Kit Bond (R-MO), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Don Nickles (R-OK)

Funniest Spouse Names:

Dan Akaka (D-HI) -- Millie

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) -- Honey

Max Baucus (D-MT) -- Wanda

Robert Byrd (D-WV) -- Erma

Chuck Hagel (R-IA) -- Lilibet

Fritz Hollings (D-SC) -- Peatsy

So what does this all tell us? Nothing! Just like People Magazine. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got work to do.

NO SUICIDE BOMBINGS IN IRAQ TODAY

I don't want to jinx it, but after four of the worst days since late April, that's exactly what happened in Iraq today. Or more accurately, didn't happen. Still, we're barely 24 hours from the deaths of two American soldiers north of Baghdad. Tomorrow may be different -- or more of the same -- but I hope it's not. The overall trend in Iraq has been quite good; attacks had been getting less and less frequent. I'm among those who are more optimistic than not about Iraq's future as a free, if not necessarily democratic (though that would be nice), country. And so like President Bush, I'm inclined to want to see these past few violence-filled days as more a death rattle than a genuine surge. After all, these terrorists don't have the support of most Iraqis. But that's exactly why these latest attacks are a bit more disturbing.

No longer is it merely American and coalition soldiers coming under attack, or even foreign operations like the United Nations and International Red Cross, but now also Iraqi police officers and others cooperating with us to rebuild the country. They don't just want us to leave, they want to destroy any non-fascist government that we leave behind. Get that? It's not the occupation, it's the potential for prosperity and stability.

We need better intelligence, we need to find this guy (in addition to Saddam), and then we need another bunker-buster.

UPDATE -- Tom Friedman agrees, and adds this thought-provoking analogy:

The people who mounted the attacks on the Red Cross are not the Iraqi Vietcong. They are the Iraqi Khmer Rouge — a murderous band of Saddam loyalists and Al Qaeda nihilists, who are not killing us so Iraqis can rule themselves. They are killing us so they can rule Iraqis.

It's not Vietnam, but it could become Cambodia.

EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

I think OXR is trying to imply that blogging is my main activity, or perhaps even that I get paid for it. Oh, how I wish it was so. Actually, you can make it so if you want to send me a check. (Inquire via e-mail.) Maybe I should get a PayPal account. Or maybe I should wait until I gain a wider readership...

I DON'T WANT TO GET OFF ON A RANT HERE...

Actually, I do. The Draft-Dennis Miller-for-Senate drum beat again yesterday at the Weekly Standard site, thanks to baton-wielder Bill Whalen, of California's Hoover Institution. Whalen must personally think it's a great idea, because it's the first time the idea has been mentioned in some weeks. He gets Arnold Schwarzenegger's spokesman, Rob Stutzman, to endorse the idea, but how big a deal is that? Miller helped on the campaign and Stutzman talks to journalists for a living. Whalen has fun reprinting some choice sound bites; they're just filler here, but I've seen entire newspaper columns dedicated to just regurgitating Miller's eruditions. It's perfectly clear that Miller doesn't mind the speculation, as he hasn't said anything at all (let alone anything Shermanesque) to knock it down publicly.

But let's be serious: Dennis Miller should not run for the Senate, and Armed Prophet don't think he's about to. Between giving up his endorsements and having to watch what he says, Miller's not filing anytime soon. But it's no surprise he's being talked up. After all, one Republican celebrity just single-handedly brought the California GOP back from the middle of nowhere; why not try another? Miller has name recognition, is poised and very intelligent, and will almost surely vote to the right of Olympia Snowe. He's the quintessential South Park Republican -- a term originating at TechCentralStation but now championed by Andrew Sullivan, meaning a social end economic libertarian who is hawkish on national defense -- and that makes an attractive candidate in California. But they're only looking at part of the picture.

For Republicans, Miller is much better as a spokesman than he'd ever be as a senator. Bill Jones or Rosario Marin or Tony Strickland, all of whom who are running, would likely file their votes more or less the same as Miller. But can any of them go on Jay Leno and get the audience laughing at Tom Daschle jokes? I guess we won't know until we see it, but I don't think I need to. Consider also that Miller is, as I mentioned, well to the left of many California Republicans on issues such as abortion, gay adoption, and -- as Arnold would say -- all of those things. Would they tolerate that in a senator? The governor has very little sayso on abortion policy, and is unlikely to bring up controversial social issues that could alienate him or her from the base of the party. But in the Senate, where the leadership of both parties jockey to bring bills to the floor on just those issues, a Senator Miller would be obligated to show his hand. And if he happened to oppose parental notification for teenage pregnancies (I doubt it, but let's suppose) then one too many votes like that could not only undermine his support within the GOP, but also the uneasy truce the business and religious wings of the party have recently made. Miller for Senate is an engaging idea, all right, just like Schwarzenegger for governor -- but governors can get away with being less-partisan; members of Congress cannot.

Also of considerable importance -- California's voters just installed an actor as governor, and it seems to Armed Prophet that they'd like to see how this pans out before electing another. Then again, you never know... Two cycles from now California could be represented by Republican Senators Dennis Miller and Kelsey Grammer.

P.S. I've been meaning to note for some time that certain writers, Whalen included, describe the recall in the first person. Here's an example from the article above: "During recall, Arnold Schwarzenegger embodied optimism..." Hmm, should I have written "Here's an example from article..."? It reminds me of the movie, excuse me, of movie "Titanic" where no one thought to call it "the Titanic." 'Oy, I won me card game! Hurry lad, or we'll miss our trip on Titanic!' Got that?

LIVING THE DREAM

Last night Armed Prophet and colleague Maxim Basa hit the DNC's fundraiser at the Dream nightclub starring Bill Clinton. We showed up at 7PM, and at first the staff and volunteers at the door seemed skeptical that we were actually credentialed journalists. Once that was settled (journalists, apparently, we were), it was in through the door for me... except I didn't realize I was supposed to wait for a DNC volunteer to escort me up to the press "holding room." (Their term, not mine.) Good thing the door security didn't realize that either, so I walked around and waited for the Basa to make it through.

From 7PM until a little after 9PM, the bar was hosted and if you tipped the bartender often enough, he'd put down the Potter's and reach for the Grey Goose. We mingled with DNC staff, volunteers, our fellow members of the Third Estate, and "the Chairman" himself, "Terry," known to outsiders as Terry McAuliffe. A little while later, I only half-accidentally insulted a minor celebrity when he couldn't think of his favorite candidate.

Eventually they took us downstairs to the second floor, where there were already 30,000 people crowding around the stage -- more people in one place than I'd seen anywhere in my life, save the Dingling Tombs outside Beijing. Our DNC volunteer led us into a corner, then seemingly abandoned us. Then he came back, saying he'd found some cameras, but didn't know where we were supposed to go, and actually did abandon us. So we pressed forward in the direction of the cameras -- and re-located the press pool. We stood toward the back of the stage, taking useless cell phone pictures of the stage and waiting for the ex-POTUS himself to come out.

Eventually -- not too eventually, but close -- he did appear. A few of his more brilliant sayings follow, such as why he's embarrassed to be an American:

I'm a little embarrassed to live in a country that gives me a huge tax cut and runs a huge deficit so that when the baby boomers retire you'll be taking care of them instead of your own kids. I don't think that's right.

On why you should not be embarrassed to donate to the DNC:

It's because you want a world where we make more friends than terrorists.

Ah, got it. Despite these flashes of brilliance, perhaps the best part was that Clinton took and left the stage to the sound of 50 Cent's "In Da Club." So while Clinton glad-handled VIPs and DNC lackeys under club lights, before an audience of thousands, this is what we all heard:

You can find me in the club, bottle full of bub

Look mami I got the X if you into taking drugs

I'm into having sex, I ain't into making love

So come give me a hug if you into getting rubbed

Nice, very nice. A few other notes on the evening:

Number of floors at Dream: 4

Number of floors we in the press were allowed to visit without a DNC volunteer: 0

Number of the two of us who found this rule to be less than hard-and-fast: 2

Number of cigarettes bummed from the bathroom attendant in two trips: 4

Amount we paid for them between the two runs: $1.00

Celebrities invited to attend: Chris Tucker, Beyonce Knowles, Big Boi from Outkast, Brian McKnight, Ginuwine

Celebrities who did attend: Harlemm Lee, YahZarah, a whole bunch of Potomac Basin Indigenous Peoples football players

Chances Big Boi and Ginuwine got moved up earlier in the program to accomodate their schedule: Decent, I suppose

How I feel about that: Depends on which one we're talking about

Which one: Guess

Number of drinks consumed between 7PM and 9:30PM: 12 or 13

Number of DNC volunteers who turned out to be a Republican: 1

Clinton's time of arrival, as estimated by the DNC: 10:30PM

Actual time Clinton actually arrived onstage: 11:13PM

How late ABC News' The Note said he was: "merely an hour and a half late"

How much The Note overestimated by: double

How strange it is that Armed Prophet is sticking up for Clinton: strange

Number of floors Clinton went up to immediately deliver the exact same speech: 1

Number of panders in said speech: I lost count

Number of Harper's Index bullet points I'll do after this one: 0

Who knows how long it'll be before I get to live the dream again. But when I do, I'll be sure to return with a lengthy blog post about it.

UPDATE: No, I was right. The lady from the Washington Post agrees with me -- Big Boi and Ginuwine ditched out.

MEMO TO JOHN EDWARDS

You're an idiot, you're running on a ruinious, fringe-left view of foreign policy, and Armed Prophet will not be disappointed to watch your candidacy crash upon the rocks of a third-place showing in South Carolina.

Interviewed by George Stephanopolous and George Will on "This Week" yesterday, Stephanopolous pointed out to John Edwards that Iraq administrator Paul Bremer -- interviwed in the previous segment -- had just addressed all of the issues that Edwards says kept him from voting for the $87 billion supplemental. Those things included a written plan for getting out of Iraq, monetary contributions from other countries, etc. So, asked the boy wonder, would you now support the resolution? The other boy wonder respons, no -- because we haven't "turned it over to the UN" yet. Gaaah! At this point in the interview, one wonders if Edwards is just looking for reasons to be antagonistic on the subject. And at this point in his campaign, you have to think the same thing.

Despite spending money on advertising in both New Hampshire and Iowa, he's still hanging out with Sharpton, Braun and Kucinich in the back. (But Braun is ready to shoot right up!) He's banking on a first-place finish in his neighbor state of South Carolina, but his recent leftward tack on Iraq policy seems a mistake. South Carolina is a big Navy state that tends to be more conservative and more willing to support military action abroad. So I can't see that playing too well at all. For Iowa, fine. But for someplace where you stand better than even odds of finishing above Dennis Kucinich, no.

Which brings me, sort of, to an interesting and almost good article in Salon this morning. Michelle Goldberg comments on the ANSWER-sponsored "anti-war" protests here in DC this weekend, and points out the grave folly of a) opposing everything President Bush does just because he's the one doing it, b) talking as if one wants to give up on creating a decent state of Iraq, and c) believing we can just pull out and let the UN handle it. She quotes the writer George Packer, as saying:

Hatred of Bush and the opportunism of Democratic politicians has created a tactical alliance between mainstream Democrats and the fringe. It's disappointing to see both presidential candidates and leading members of Congress really fail to see the importance of what's going on in Iraq right now. You can object to no bid contracts, you can object to cronyism and waste as I do, without undermining the basic understanding that we are committed to this and we have an enormous obligation to the Iraqis. I don't see why you have to choose between disliking Halliburton and supporting the Iraqis in their efforts to create a decent society.

Hey, John -- I think he's talking about you.

P.S. As for that Ashton Kutcher endorsement... does anybody else think Edwards is just getting punk'd?

THE BRAUN BOOMLET CONTINUES

Armed Prophet has already written that the Democrats' only hope to win the presidency next year is Carol Moseley Braun, and it seems that William Saletan of Slate, who caught the Sunday night debate in Detroit (I didn't) almost agrees with me:

Braun continues to be the candidate who best elucidates why it's coherent to have opposed the Iraq war but to support the country's rebuilding and the continuing presence of American troops. "We blew the place up; we have to fix it back," she said, echoing a theme she's returned to in each debate about the moral responsibilities of those who wage war. To my ear, Braun's dovish lucidity on this subject is a harsher rebuke to John Kerry and John Edwards (the two candidates who voted for the congressional war resolution but voted against the president's subsequent $87 billion request) than the similar critique offered by the hawkish Joe Lieberman. Braun doesn't have a prayer of becoming the next president of the United States, but the campaign she's waging to rehabilitate her reputation is proceeding nicely.

Not a prayer? Saletan is a smart guy, but he clearly doesn't know everything...

FLOG™ GOES NEGATIVE AGAINST ARMED PROPHET!

He also broke his promise not to talk about the Schiavo case again. Unless this about to get real ugly, I think this is the last thing about it. And true to the blog credo, we thrashed it about without settling anything. Nor have I made up my mind

P.S. At least no one had to invoke Godwin's Law.

P.P.S. Mickey Kaus, late as usual, is informative as usual. Who knows whether Mr. Schiavo should be allowed to put down Mrs. Schiavo, but the NPR only thinks there's one side.

HOWARD DEAN'S "ATTACK AD" or QUIT YOUR WHINING

Howard Dean, once a fixture on this blog in those long-ago days before the Rise of the Machine (and likely to become one again now that Judgment Day has passed), has two new advertisments playing in Iowa and New Hampshire this week, and now everyone is whining that Dean has "gone negative." The objections center on two words that appear in each ad. Here's the relevant text of his NH ad, spoken by Dean himself, and let's see if you can spot which they are.

A hundred and thirty thousand troops in Iraq, with no end in sight and a price tag that goes up daily and the best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war. I opposed the war...

To the untrained eye, it might be hard to see. But the two offending words were "my opponents." Yes, just the mention that one is in a race against other candidates is "negative." (The Iowa ad is about health care, but goes about the same. Also, what's snipped is mostly puffery by Dean about how he'll take back the country.) John Kerry, who at this date has revealed himself to be both for and against the war, issued the following statement almost immediately:

We need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush, not each other.

And Jim Jordan, a campaign manager for... Kerry! had this to say:

No one here can remember any Democratic candidate going up with negative ads in October. It's surprising, even from a candidate who's been personally on the attack for many months, and it strongly implies that his staff is seeing something alarming in their polling.

So Howard Dean notes that his fellow Democrat presidential candidates -- none of whom are named in the ad -- held a different position on the war, and this is apparently a problem. Kerry criticizes Dean for pointing this out, and Jordan attacks Dean as an attacker. Since the ad debuted Wednesday, other candidates and pundits have fired back, all criticizing Dean. Dennis Kucinich is demanding free air time if Dean's ads aren't taken off the air because, Kucinich reminds us, he was always anti-war, too. Quoth Kucinich:

I was the leader in the House opposition to the war effort. This ad does damage to me.

Hey! Kucinich just accused Dean of "damaging" him! That's way more negative than what Dean said, right? So what gives?

Well, first of all, they're all damn hypocrites. Before and during every televised debate, each candidate's campaign fires off round after round of press releases attacking the other candidates' positions on everything from Medicare to tax policy and, of course, the war. On a daily basis, all the candidates' henchmen offer snide comments about the other candidates to reporters on the other end of the phone. (Lieberman's press secretary, Jano Cabrera, has made an art of this.) Plus, they all forward potentially damaging news articles about the others to any media outlet with an email address or fax machine.

What gives is, there's a double-standard accepted by the political media treating differently those attacks vocalized by a candidate and those attacks vocalized by a candidate's staff (which are of course implicitly authorized by the candidate). Also, advertisements are treated differently than individual statements, including antagonistic comments by the candidates themselves (though those usually draw sharp responses). There's some rationale to this, as most TV ads reach more people than most newspaper columns. But if intent matters, then there is no difference. Everyone goes negative some of the time.

So who went negative first? Hard to say. Impossible at this point, because the campaign unofficially began the day after Al Gore finally conceded in December of 2001, so it's been about two years since the race got underway, and in some cases, even before. There never was a "positive" campaign. And if Dean has just gone negative, then what do you call it when someone eventually runs ads bashing Dean for having been endorsed by the NRA? That's negative -- something Dean didn't exactly have control over, and which is largely irrelevant given the issues most important to the 2004 election (viz., terrorism and the economy).

Every candidate went negative long before the "official" post-Labor Day start of the campaign (which is to say, not), every candidate has gone "negative" by doing oppo -- opposition research -- and hell, given the response to Dean's ad, one could say they'd all gone negative the moment they acknowledged that they had rivals for the nomination.

Memo to all current and future candidates: Quit your whining. If you want to fight back, fight back, but make sure to project yourself as calm and rational when doing so. Or if you think you can get away with it, take a page from President Bush and politely decline to comment. But seriously -- quit your whining.

P.S. Armed Prophet would be badly in error if I did not point out that Dick Gephardt apparently does grasp this point. The above comments therefore do not apply to him. Showing up on "Fox & Friends" this morning, he said of the ads:

They're legitimate debates about issues. ... I'm happy to have this debate with him and the other candidates. This is what you do in elections.

Exactly! Kudos to him for not being as thin-skinned as Kerry. Especially considering that Gephardt is threatened by Dean in Iowa like Kerry is in New Hampshire. Gephardt has always struck me as a sensible man, and for grasping this point, he deserves some credit. Unfortunately, he doesn't grasp the value of NAFTA or of free trade in general. So don't take this as an endorsement.

P.P.S. In a campaign almost as closely followed as this one, Arnold Schwarzenegger aired negative television commercials against Gray Davis in the final weeks of the recall campaign, even though he pledged not to during one of his early press conferences. Why all the furor over Dean, but not Ahnuld? One reason might be that most of the state, even those who voted against the recall, already agreed that Davis had horribly bungled stae matters. Another may be Schwarzenegger's "teflon," proven a week later when the sexual harassment allegations against him didn't stick. Probably there are other reasons as well. But the selective outrage on the part of the media -- here's a New York Times headline from Thursday: "In New Ads, Dean Becomes First in Campaign to Attack Fellow Democrats" -- is strange. Especially curious because Arnold ran and Dean is running, the "outsider." The NY Times ran no such articles about Schwarzeneggger. So why the disparity?

P.P.P.S. Is it only because Dean is not a Republican that Kerry has not yet accused the former governor of impugning his patriotism?

DELAYED RESPONSE

Danimal, compelled as if by some need to show off his familiarity with legal matters, offers details from some interesting cases showing just how confused Florida law is on matters like the Schiavo case. But now he's done. And neither do I care to go on much longer about the specific details, but as per Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature, I'm curious about one line from one of his next-to-almost-last posts on Schiavo, etc. Dan writes:

Bush demonstrated a lack of judicial restraint not by hinting that the legislature should grant him a new power, but by immediately using it.

I'm still not sure how Jeb can demonstrate "judicial" anything, except in the metaphorical sense. More importantly, why should he not immediately use it? The law was passed to deal specifically with cases like Schiavo's, and I'm sure I have to remind nobody that time was of the essence. When Congress authorized Jeb's older brother to make war on al Qaeda and the Taliban in September of 2001, was that not also a lack of "restraint"? When legislation is passed to deal with a situation that's happening right now, you act on it once it has the executive's signature.

P.S. I really am done with this. But if you're not, Reason's Ronald Bailey does a good survey of the medical issues, though the last sentence is entirely unwelcome. And Slate's Dahlia Lithwick goes further into the legal matters, explaining why it's best that the spouse makes the decision on matters like this. What do I think? I just know I don't like it one bit.

P.P.S. Why do I bother arguing legal issues with law students? Or the relative success of competing platforms when I can barely install new programs on my own laptop? I need to get a specialty, or maybe I should just hang it up until there's another war, or another recall, or preferably, both.

ELLIOTT SMITH'S COBAIN MOMENT

Some days you just want to top yourself. I think Thom Yorke said that, using that Anglo slang the way he does. Well, today Elliott Smith decided today was that day. If only the Academy had given him that Oscar, maybe this all could have been averted...

P.S. I could be wrong, but I don't believe Rolling Stone ever did a feature on him. That's about to change, all right. Plus, do they feel bad about giving "XO" only three stars? I sure hope so.

P.P.S. I almost forgot this, from one of the first AP stories:

His New York-based publicist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also confirmed his death.

So much for anonymity!

I DON'T GET IT

Armed Prophet colleague Maxim Basa just pointed out to me that the top story on The Onion today, "Muscleman Put In Charge Of World's Fifth-Largest Economy," reads almost exactly like a regular Reuters news story. Apart from a few quintessentially Onionian riffs, and the fact that David Gergen was never called on to comment about the recall, the story reads almost exactly like a Los Angeles Times recall summary. Here's an extended passage:

Political observers are struggling to understand exactly how, on Oct. 7, Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian-born, movie-star muscleman with no political experience, was elected to govern the state of California, the world's fifth-largest economic region.



[snip]



"One fifth of America's imports and exports pass through California, and this results in extremely complicated tariff and tax-jurisdiction issues," U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said. "We're a leading, yet internally conflicted, agribusiness powerhouse, with influential landowners constantly vying for political power. We have issues of poverty, crime, housing, and race equality. Not to mention that California is the country's second-largest energy-consuming region and struggles to meet its power needs amid continued debates over deregulation."



"Californians elected a celebrity governor once before, but that man had at least served as president of the Screen Actors Guild," Feinstein said.



The Republican muscleman defeated Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who will retain his position in the new cabinet. The governor-elect's policies are said to be centrist-conservative, although it's difficult to confirm this, as the beefy actor has offered only a few words regarding his plans for California's future.

Hahahahaha... uh, didn't I read that in the San Diego Union-Tribune a week ago? Not quite, but pretty close. How far has The Onion fallen? It stopped being consistently funny a couple of years ago now, but its condition today is even more dire: now it reads just like a real newspaper.

SMOKIN' JOE FRAZIER WOULD LIKE TO PUNCH THE DIXIE CHICKS' LIGHTS OUT

Okay, he didn't really say that. But he did say this about President Bush and the Iraq war:

They did a fine job, as far as I'm concerned. A lot of people don't like it, but we can't let this keep happening to us -- we have to raise out kids, we can't have our buildings, our bridges, our hopes, collapsing on us. I don't think the Lord would agree with that at all. The President of the U.S., he had to get the job done.

In seemingly unrelated news, a Democracy Corps poll revealed that just one percent of Iowa Democrats named terrorism as their top concern. They could learn a thing or two from the old pugilist.

SCHIAVO REDUX

Prior to being seized by the idea that I knew enough about the computer market to comment (see below) I was seized by the idea that I knew enough about Florida's legal system to decide the legislature had done the right thing in passing legislation to have Terri Schiavo's feeding tube put back in place (see further below). Danimal isn't so sure over at FLOG™, questioning the wisdom of giving the governor authority equal to that of the courts:

Jeb Bush, who publicly sympathized with Schiavo's parents, stated repeatedly that his hands were tied: He had no authority to intervene in decisions of the courts. Taking his cue, the Florida legislature put together a bill that gave him just that authority.

Danimal thinks this shows a "comparative lack of judicial restraint" on Bush's part. Without perusing the legislation itself -- at this moment, the Florida newspaper coverage is useless on this point -- I can't tell if this means Bush now has "judicial power," but I can't imagine so. Rather, he now has power in an area where the courts did, too. Danimal notes that we have separation of powers written into the Constitution to prevent conflicts like this, but it isn't that simple. Different branches of the government actually share powers, too. Both the president and the Congress can make war, for example, though only in the latter case is it "declared war," a distinction that's become virtually meaningless in the past half-century.

But I do agree that rushed legislation is typically bad legislation, and it sounds as if a court may strike down this bill sooner rather than later. (I don't know why, either because the reporters haven't themselves read the case, or think we readers have the legal capacity of middle schoolers, or perhaps themselves have the legal capacity of middle schoolers.) As an avowed incrementalist (read: wobbly libertarian) in matters concerning the intervention of government into the private matters of citizens, this kind of seat-of-their-pants legislation worries me a lot. So if it is overturned, perhaps they'll come back with a better-written bill. Danimal argues the current bill is suspect because it

was intentionally drafted as narrowly as possible, limiting it to cases where the patient left no living will, is in a persistent vegetative state, has had nutrition and hydration tubes removed and where a family member has challenged the removal. In other words, limiting it only to Terri Schiavo. The narrowness of the bill underscores legislators' awareness that they're treading on shaky (state) consitutional ground, but it doesn't excuse the intrusion.

Isn't that narrowness a strength? Doesn't that guard against its abuse? (And by abuse, by the way, we're talking about keeping people alive. Seems an allowable risk.) Schiavo's precise circumstance is indeed uncommon, but conflicts between family members. Indeed -- full disclosure, here -- this blogger was witness to a situation that might have gone down this route. Without getting into specifics, a friend of mine was severely injured in a car accident and was comatose for a long while. A potential conflict emerged between his mother's religious beliefs and his grandparents' legal guardianship (prior to his turning 18). It never materialized, the Schiavo bill would not have applied in this place, and not just because this wasn't in Florida. So I find it unlikely that it will be "abused." But under applicable circumstances, the law would be invoked. And so it should.

Now, it's more of an instinct than an argument to opt in cases like this for continued life than ending it, but one offers at least the possibility for recovery. The other, by its very nature, does not. Until and unless I get more of an argument on this point, I'll leave it as is.

To recap: I don't think the bill gives Jeb judicial powers, and even if this rushed legislation turns out to be bad legislation, better legislation will soon follow, and really, as a matter of consequence this bill can't be all that "bad."

iTUNES iWILL iRULE iYOUR iUNIVERSE -- iAND iBY iTHE iWAY, iAPPLE iISN'T iGOING iAWAY iANYTIME iSOON

Readers of Armed Prophet who know this blogger personally are well aware of the fact that I have been a stalwart Mac enthusiast, sometime evangelist (and onetime defender, back in those long-forgotten days when the OS could crash). I usually don't discuss such issues, partly because I tend to focus on issues such as the Iraq war, the 2004 White House race, the California recall, and on occasion, car chases and hurricanes. And partly because my atcual knowledge of computers is limited to what I notice as a casual user.

But with Apple's iTunes software and attendant Music Store (iTMS) having just debuted for the Windows platform -- which I use at work five times a week, in case you think I've locked myself in a Mac bubble -- I've been following the developments. The best Apple blog I've found is As The Apple Turns, and they've been keeping close track of what's up.

So what's up? First, unless Apple is lying through its press releases, the Windows version is off to as big a start as its Mac version. Yes, there are more PC users by many orders of magnitudes, but it seems to this amateur a pretty big feat to convert Mac-antagonist PC users into a million sales in less than four days.

Plus, the oracle called Slashdot reviewed the Windows version of iTunes, and came away somewhat more than impressed. (We Mac users could have told them -- we've known this for awhile now.) They also discussed the wider implications this has for Apple, which has (minus a couple of ill-advised Jobsless years) manufactured its own hardware and (save QuickTime) kept its software on the Mac platform. Potentially, Apple has a lot to lose by letting PC users in on iTunes. Slashdot observes:

Is Steve Jobs crazy? Like a fox.

iTunes stands to ensure that Apple will be a major player not just in personal computing but ingeniously in music, for a long time to come. The iTunes store is by calculation the second time Apple has let PC users in on Apple's superior product. The first was, as you surely know, the iPod. Currently -- and this is not to be underestimated -- a full third of the portable MP3 players in the pockets of buyers are iPods.

Slashdot continues:

So what Jobs has done is managed to increase the market for two of his newest alternative revenue streams (iPod and iTMS) without singificantly compromising the revenue stream that's funding everything (Mac sales). Brilliant, and very pragmatic, so unlike Jobs.

Ha! Armed Prophet, all told, isn't much of a Jobs booster, either. The more I read about him, the more he seems like a dick. (And just because he got screwed over by Bill Gates doesn't make him any more sympathetic.) Although he has been a genius when it comes to the Apple brand. And who knows how much he really has to do with Pixar, but between both "Toy Story" movies, "A Bug's Life," and "Finding Nemo," something -- some je ne sais quois -- is so institutionally right with that company, that Jobs probably deserves some credit. Like HBO, that company must surely have a guardian angel smiling from above.

But, yes. The iTunes music store and the iPod is surely in the ascendancy, as they say. And the rest of Applies iWhatever line must surely benefit. That doesn't mean PC users will all run out and buy a Mac when the next generation comes down the line, but it ensures Apple's long life, and two generations down the line, when many may well.

On a different, but similar note, Apple's decision to build the future of itsOS on Unix will eventually bring the programming-minded to Apple in a way they were not, say, ten years ago.

A blogger I respect quite a great deal, Steven Den Beste, has been prognosticating Apple's demise for some time. He's called Apple's entrance to the music an "exit strategy," noting the eventual drop-off of Motorola's ability to provide competitive processors. Yet his expectation that the IBM 970 would prove more expensive and so economically untenable. But after the release of said microprocessor, that belief appears to be unfounded. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.

Long live Apple. (HBO, too.)

Am I in over my head here? Of course! I don't know the first thing about computers. Such is the fun of blogs -- just ask Gregg Easterbrook. If I'm totally wrong, I invite all Armed Prophet readers to sound off in the "Dare to prophesy?" comment section. But the more I read, the stronger Apple looks in both the immediate future and the long term.

Additionally: PCs have long benefited from being the platform from which to play computer games. Slowly, too slowly, that has been changing. But now, most popular titles once availble solely on the Windows OS are simultaneously available for the Macintosh.

THE IRAQ WAR AND THE CONCEPT OF IMMINENCE

Andrew Sullivan has done yeoman's work on debunking the (sadly widespread) myth that President Bush and his administration sold the war on the supposed argument that there was an "imminent threat" posed by the Iraq's ex-dictator, but Shark Blog provides a long list of links to news stories and a succinct summary proving beyond any doubt the dishonesty of this belief. Not to mention the inexcusable laziness of newspaper reporters, who failed even to recall the words they and their colleagues had written only months before.

Check out the link above, and note that this wasn't just a misconception borne out of the postwar struggle -- the lie (if I don't stray too close to Al Franken territory to call it that) is more than a year old. And the first citation should make us -- and the people of Iraq, and with time, the whole Middle East -- extremely thankful that the Florida Supreme Court was so overturnably inept.

P.S. Armed Prophet loves applying the term "ex-dictator" to Saddam Hussein. It felt weird and good when I first typed it out at my day job in late April, but now it just feels good.

TWO THOUGHTS ON TERRI SCHIAVO

Armed Prophet has said absolutely nothing so far on the case of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who has been in a coma since a 1990 car accident, and her family's fight over whether she would have wanted to be kept on life support or not. Her parents say she should be kept alive. Her husband Michael Schiavo insisted that she'd claimed to want no such thing. This week, her feeding tube was removed. Late this afternoon the Florida legislature passed and Gov. Jeb Bush signed a law allowing -- well, requiring -- for the feeding tube to be replaced.

On a serious note, I feel like I should say something about it. After all, I hail originally from the only state in the union to have legal assisted suicide, and I support it in spite of some serious reservations. So I've done some thinking on the matter of purposeful life-ending, and I'm not just spouting when I say that Florida did the right thing today. Despite what was apparently years of debate, Mr. Schiavo could never produce any proof that this was her wish -- much less a living will, which is the legal document in which one legally files such wishes. Yes, she was only 29 at the time of her accident, but anyone over the age of 18 who feels strongly on the matter should sign one. If not, then there's no case. And so I don't think her husband is right. When in doubt, I come down on the side of life.

On a less serious (and potentially more offensive) note, I have to wonder maybe if Jeb and the rest overreacted a wee bit. According to the Associated Press,

Schiavo's feeding tube was removed last Wednesday. Doctors have said the 39-year-old woman will die within a week to 10 days without food and water.

Ten days? Are they sure? Need Florida officials have acted so quickly? After all, don't we have definitive proof that without sustenance she could have lived at least another 44 days? Well?

LaROUCHE VS. ARNOLD

Ah, Lyndon LaRouche. What's left to say about this tax-evading crackpot and shunned-yet-still-a-perennial-Democrat-candidate that May McKenzie hasn't already? Well, it turns out he's got a radio ad that will be playing in the DC market starting today -- and one of the targets is none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger. In the spot, LaRouche says:

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a "beast-man," in the sense of Nietzsche's idea of the superman. If we had the Democratic National Committee doing what I did, Schwarzenegger could not have been elected. They failed. I'm going for Cheney's impeachment or resignation, as soon as possible. Many people are now working on that. We're pushing for his resignation, and we're
going to do something about the Democratic Party leadership which failed totally in this California situation.

Heid! Pants! Now!

P.S. For more anti-Schwarzenegger propaganda, visit LaRouchein2004.net. Better yet, print out a stack and hand them out at your nearest Metro stop!

AND TAKE YOUR SACAJAWEA DOLLARS WITH YOU!

FLOG™, on the new peach-colored twenties:

The Treasury Department sure is hot and bothered about these nifty new peach $20 bills. They're even running ads. Never before have I seen an advertisement for MONEY. Christ, I'll have to run out and buy me some of that! How much is it?

I'll give you till three. One...

GANG OF FOUR

James Taranto, who does the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web feature, identifies four US senators who "deserve particular scorn":

• John Kerry
  
• John Edwards
  
• Tom Harkin
  
• Ernest Hollings
  

Why them? They voted for authorization to go to Iraq this time last year but last week voted against the president's request for money to support the troops and rebuild Iraq. At least the other eight -- whom Taranto also lists -- were consistent in their mistake.

Particularly irritating -- hopefully to war opponents as supporters like this blogger -- is that two of the above weathervanes stand a decent shot of winning the Democrat nomination for president. But if that's how they choose to go down, all the better. Besides, as I've already pointed out, the Dems' only hope now is Carol Moseley Braun.

MAUREEN DOWD STRAYS PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO LIBEL -- AGAIN

Let me start by saying something about this op-ed in the Tacoma News Tribune. It's bad. Bad. I can laugh at Harvey Wasserman two posts below because he's a fringe nutjob (although he probably with a wider readership than yours truly). But I can't dismiss the News Tribune's David Seago so easily. He may not write for the New York Times, but he's as bad as some who do.

If you haven't read the editorial, read it. At least the first ten paragraphs. And while you're at it, read this column by Maureen Dowd. Then consider the following:

Though there is much to loathe in this column, worst of all is that he seeks to equate a quote by Sen. Patty Murray with her challenger, Rep. George Nethercutt. Last December Murray said UBL was

out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?

Last week Nethercutt, upon returning from Iraq, said (according to MoDo):

The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."

Seago defends Murray in one paragraph, but uses all the others to trash Nethercutt. So, arguing that bin Laden is (or was) a more benevolent force in the world than this country is better than arguing that the rebuilding of a country is more important than losing American troops? To paraphrase: praising bin Laden as more moral than the US is better than saying soldiers will die for a noble purpose. Like I said: bad.

But it gets worse. Here are the first four paragraphs from the original P-I story whence the Nethercutt quotes come from:

Rep. George Nethercutt said yesterday that Iraq's reconstruction is going better than is portrayed by the news media, citing his recent four-day trip to the country.



"The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable," Nethercutt, R-Wash., told an audience of 65 at a noon meeting at the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs.



"It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."



He added that he did not want any more soldiers to be killed.

Emphasis added, of course. If Nethercutt's offense was insensitivity to the families of dead soldiers, then hello!, he'd already acknowledged this. So Dowd took Nethercutt out of context. But then, that's not the first time she's done that. Of course, this time she's misquoted poor George Nethercutt, not the President of the United States, so I doubt Spinsanity will bother to take on the case. Nor has anybody else, so far as I can tell. A Google search yields mostly links to Dowd's original column.

Now, I've almost forgotten Seago entirely, but let me come back to him for a moment. His column goes asserts that Nethercutt's comment was

a blatant and clumsy example of the administration's latest spin campaign to counter the bad news coming out of Iraq.

That is, as if Nethercutt were merely a useful idiot turned loose by the White House. (Even Dowd doesn't go this far; she says that Nethercutt "chimed in to help" Bush, which is better, if still dismissive.) Is Seago aware that Democrat congressmen too have come back from Iraq saying that things are better than we've been told? Probably not, and it seems unlikely that it would change his mind if he did.

But he can't wait for that next Dowd column, so he knows what to write about.

P.S. If you think it's important, I've made a few post-initial publication edits to this post. An off-subject paragraph has been deleted, and the title has been changed so as not to associate this blogger with a certain leggy invective-hurler.

___

Note: I'm not going to bother deleting the post immediately preceding this one. It was supposed to be a marker for this post, so I could come back to the thought later today (now) and go into some detail. But no! I hit "Post & Publish" instead of "Post," and before I knew it, I had a comment. Worse, my reply to that comment accidentally incriminated me as the anonymous commenter to this post at the Commentator blog. So, it's been a tough day for Armed Prophet. But I won't delete it. It's history. It's there.

worst editorial ever

Tribnet.com - Opinion

CAN ARNOLD HELP BUSH? or WHO IS HARVEY WASSERMAN?

That debate is going on right now, and Armed Prophet is at the moment undecided. Right now I lean toward those who say President Bush would probably be winning 48 other states before California fell into his column, but my mind isn't made up. While reading up on the topic, I found an opinion that's very... interesting. Writes somebody named Harvey Wasserman:

In 2000, Gov. Jeb Bush guaranteed his brother's grab of the White House. There were many twists and turns, but the core of the coup came with the systematic removal of more than 50,000 "convicted felons"---people of color and other suspected Democrats---from Florida's voting lists. Computer voting machine manipulations may have cost Al Gore thousands more votes with a few keystrokes. But ultimately, it was Jeb's control of the Florida state house that gave his brother the White House. ... [big snip] ... Make no mistake about it: Arnold is being spammed straight from the White House. He's there to purge those voter rolls, sabotage the state legislature, and do to California what's been done to Florida and Texas... and the nation.

That's right -- Arnold Schwarzenegger will be stuffing ballot boxes for Dubya about this time next year. Isn't that something? I sure thought so. Then I scrolled down the page a bit and found out that Harvey Wasserman is the author of the book...

HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

You don't say! Looks like we're dealing with an amateur Howard Zinn here. How fun. I just located an archive of his columns dating back to 2000. I think I've just found my new "favorite" columnist.

WRM, CMB, WMD, NYT & DEMS DOA

Walter Russell Mead is still a Democrat -- as far as Armed Prophet knows -- but in the LAT this morning he's predicting good things for the US both in Iraq and on the economy, and the point is not lost that this is bad for the Democrats seeking to oust George W. Bush. On Iraq:

[T]ime is on Bush's side. The distance between the U.S. and the rest of the world over Iraq will narrow. ... Iraq is making progress toward forming a new government, and that government will be able to assume more and more security responsibilities. By next spring, the new Iraqi police and army will be deploying, enabling the administration to start pulling out U.S. troops well before the November elections. That will be the best possible news for the Bush administration. With troops coming home, most voters will move on to other issues.

And they already have -- Bush will not be turned out of office because WMDs haven't turned up in Iraq, though the Beltway media (TNR, I'm looking in your direction) doesn't realize this. Perhaps a bit surprisingly, most of the Dems after the White House -- minus, of course, Dennis Kucinich -- have let the issue go.

So they're with Bush on the war now? Of course not! This week, all the congressionally-employed presidential candidates save for Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman voted against the $87 billion Iraq request. David Brooks goes to work on them here. Of the non-congressional candidates, only Carol Moseley Braun indicated she would have voted for it. This insane, to criticize the White House for not adequately planning for postwar Iraq but then to vote against current plans. It probably won't hurt those candidates in the primary, but it certainly might in the general election. How much? Armed Prophet thinks a lot. If Tucker Carlson believes -- as he said on Chris Matthews' show this morning -- that Howard Dean's mid-90's Medicare heresy can cripple his primary hopes then I think it's fair to say that voting against support for our troops in Iraq can cripple those candidates' chances for the general election. They've McGovernized themselves.

Couple that with a very interesting National Journal [sub. req.] column by Jonathan Rauch this week about the "rule of 14" -- save for LBJ

no one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president.

That counts out both Gep and Lieb, not to mention a fair number of the others I counted out. So who's left? Yes! Carol Moseley Braun. By process of elimination, she is the only candidate who can possibly take on George Bush next fall. Democrats reading this, you better give her money, pronto.

Okay, back to Mead. He writes on the economy:

The administration's other big problem, the economy, also appears to be turning around. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 32% from its 2003 low, while the Nasdaq is up 53%. Although Germany and France are scaling back their growth projections, the U.S. looks set to return to 4% annual growth next year. ... The early stages of a rebounding economy are notoriously "jobless." That is, gross domestic product rises, the stock market goes up, but unemployment refuses to budge. The main reason is that business is cautious; it doesn't want to make new investments or restart hiring until it is sure the recovery is more than a mirage. It's beginning to look that way now.

As Fred Barnes noted on the Beltway Boys this weekend -- transcript not yet available, so pardon the lack of quotes -- virtually all of the economic indicators are looking up. But that doesn't stop the NYT from peddling doom and gloom again this morning. Maybe the point of the article is correct -- I have no doubt that outsourcing and overcapacity depress job growth -- but it shouldn't be taken as a complete picture of the economy. Yet Louis Uchitelle doesn't put it in any context; it's as if this is the single determinant of how the economy is doing. Assignment desk: Mickey Kaus, who "assigns" stories like this fairly often and who's made an art out of exposing the NYT's institutional interest in talking down the economy.

So, to recap: Iraq gets better, economy improves, Dems foolishly nominate somebody other than Carol Moseley Braun and the GOP takes the White House for the seventh of ten presidential elections. You won't hear Armed Prophet complain.

P.S. Wait, yes you will. Unless Bush significantly backs off his protectionist tendencies, curtails Ashcroft's prosecution of Tommy Chong and the like, doesn't get around to expanding the voucher system and puts off Social Security reform for another presidency, then yes, you will.

P.P.S. Thanks to OXR for posting to the comments a non-subscription link to the Rauch column.

FRANK RICH IS A MORON

But we knew that. In the NYT this morning, he quotes estensively from a WSJ op-ed by Daniel Henninger on Arnold's victory party. The relevant passage:

On the right-wing editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, the celebration of the Rat Pack revival's cultural values began on the Schwarzenegger victory night. "He's cool," wrote the paper's deputy editorial page editor, Daniel Henninger, in his mash note to Arnold. "It looks as if the first party to get totally wired-in to a mega-celebrity is, incredibly, the G.O.P. Something weirdly attractive was coming off the Schwarzenegger camp's victory stage on TV round about midnight Tuesday." To make his case, he swooned over Maria Shriver, Jay Leno's "funny introduction," Rob Lowe, Eunice and Sargent Shriver and "a sea of young, attractive faces." Somehow, Mr. Henninger missed Gary Busey, but never mind. "Liberal pundits will mock this scene unmercifully," his essay concluded, "but in terms of mass-market politics it was as hip as any politician could ever hope for."



Mock this erotic fantasy? Coming from the same editorial page that devoted years to tut-tutting about the whereabouts of Mr. Clinton's penis? Not me.

You just did! And what's "erotic" about it? Or fantastic? Either Rich is trying to stretch "weirdly attractive" to mean something it doesn't, or he's referring to "mash note" -- Rich's words!

And the rest of it is just as pointless, a weak contrivance of declaring that the Rat Pack is back because it's the early days of another Vietnam and that the new rat pack is either P. Diddy, Ashton Kutcher and Jamie Foxx or it's Arnold, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett. Cleverness to a fault is a Rich trademark, and like other columns, the analogy that holds it all together is pretty weak. No link from me.

UM, NO!

OXR at the Oregon Commentator blog points out Tim Cavanaugh's recall wrap-up for Reason, now almost a week old. A couple of errors caught my eye:

[Arnold's] platform of getting the state's budget under control without painful taxation is more promising, but then wasn't that stuff on everybody's platform?

See title of post. Only the Republican candidates promised that. Most of the other candidates were left of center or left of left of center. Cruz Bustamante talked openly of raising taxes. Even Republican Peter Ueberroth wouldn't rule out the possibility.

On personal morality, the meaning of Schwarzenegger's victory is now well established. The public soundly rejected concerns that were raised over his marijuana use, sexual history and early (1977 or before) support for gay rights.

Yes, they did. In California. Cavanaugh neglects to mention that this probably holds for the Western states but not in the Midwest or South. Let's not get carried away here -- these things still matter. Schwarzenegger benefited from the state's permissive attitude, anger at a late-breaking story that at least appeared to be a planned hit, Schwarzenegger's charisma and not least, the Democrats' post-Clinton lack of credibility on the subject.

This is not to say the article is all bad. It's a good read, actually. And Cavanaugh is definitely right about one thing:

One of the fondest third-party wishes for the recall -- and a critical selling point for voters disenchanted with both the Republicans and the Democrats -- was that its 135-strong roster of candidates would open the field up to everybody, and possibly create a wild-card situation where a fringe ticket might actually win. Fat chance. Schwarzenegger's win dramatically demonstrated the immovability of the major parties, and the absolute hopelessness of third-party challengers.

He sure got that right. In fact, Armed Prophet wrote an editorial for the OC about the futility of believing a third party can contend with the current two in modern politics. It's available here in PDF form, starting on page four. It's a bit dated -- who remembers that John McCain was calling himself Luke Skywalker in early 2000? -- but I think it holds up. I wrote:

That the two parties are so similar speaks volumes about the political nature of Americans. The ideological differences between the mainstream left and right are so miniscule, one wonders why they waste the time of holding elections in the first place. Minority political views are ignored not because they are threatening and politically dangerous, but because not very many share those ideals.

I agree with me (although I do believe in holding elections). Arianna Huffington speaks for almost no one. Do you think she's learned her lesson? Me neither.

PLUGGING AWAY

Armed Prophet has yet neglected to mention the launching of two blogs that I will surely be stopping at on a near-daily basis from here on. If Instapundit -- surely you don't need me to provide the link, do you? -- goes by too fast for you or Andrew Sullivan's -- same deal, right? -- explication of the word "imminent" has driven you over the edge, give these guys a try.

The first and slight senior of the two is appropriately named Blog. So far as I can tell, it's published on the sly out of a Comcast office somewhere in the Portland metropolitan area. The author, "McRodriguez," loves to complain about tax cuts and hates people who don't know a mullet when they see one.

The second upstart is by "Dan" and is curiously titled FLOGâ„¢. Why not? Best I've been able to discern, this blog is written out of a men's bathroom in the law school at the University of Oregon. "Dan" likes to compare himself to LBJ and hates it when his feet itch.

Links have been added along the side. Enjoy.

RAISING CAIN ... AND THROWING HIS WEAK POLITICAL ANALYSIS TO THE GROUND

The too-frequently-quoted UC Berkeley professor Bruce Cain was asked by the New York Times about what help Arnold Schwarzenegger can be to President Bush during the 2004 election. Quoth Cain:

It may be that you can't take Arnold on the road to, say, South Carolina. He has political views far to the left of most mainstream Republicans. His lifestyle issues were swept under the rug during the election, but still bothered many social conservatives. And he may have to raise taxes to resolve the budgetary crisis, and that won't sit well with fiscal conservatives.

I really wouldn't argue with the above points; Schwarzenegger's social views are much in line with the libertarian West but not at all compatible with the very-reserved Bible belt. That isn't really analysis; it's just observation. Well, allow me to ask a question that's not much deeper but far more interesting: Are there states where Schwarzenegger would be an asset?

Does James Cameron have a big ego?

Here's a useful list presented in no particular order:

• Minnesota
  
• Oregon
  
• Michigan
  
• Illinois
  
• Connecticut
  
• Wisconsin
  
• New York
  
• Hawaii
  
• Washington
  
• New Hampshire
  
• Maryland
  
• Delaware
  
• New Jersey
  
• New Mexico

The above states fall into two categories:

1) So-called "battleground states" that Bush either won narrowly or lost narrowly to Al Gore.



2) So-called "blue states" where Republicans have succeeded -- particularly as governors and congressmen -- because the party has nominated appealing social moderates. We can now throw California in there, but on this subject that's a given.

Arnold indeed is a huge asset. Of course, he will also be very, very busy trying to govern a state so often derided as "ungovernable." It probably isn't that, but it will be very difficult. Schwarzenegger won't have time to run off to all of the states mentioned above, but if he can get a few weekends off to hit some of them -- preferably, landing in his Gulfstream IV caravaning with Air Force One -- he could make a difference on the trail. Not just for Bush, but maybe also for Senate candidates in states like Illinois and Washington.

Any state that has a large and swingable independent contingent or a GOP with a proven moderate streak is a great place to take Schwarzenegger campaigning. If he has time.

P.S. Let me be fair: Cain may have indeed said such a thing but it didn't make the paper. We can then blame the Times' John Broder and Richard Stevenson. But having read months of mediocre Cain "analysis" and at least one remarkably evenhanded recall summary by Broder, Armed Prophet is leaning toward blaming it on the guy from Berkeley.

WHY AM I ALWAYS THE LAST ONE TO FIND OUT THESE KINDS OF THINGS?

Neil Postman, the media critic, NYU professor and author of the influential -- just ask Roger Waters -- anti-television book Amusing Ourselves To Death, has died. Over a week ago, in fact. Too bad. I can't say I agreed with everything in that book, but it was thoughtful and well-argued and made me think twice about the medium itself, particularly television news broadcasts. That is, even though I happen to be watching cable news right this minute.

JUST ARMED PROPHET AGAIN

One more recall* note, though. I just saw the "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" last night, and noticed an unusual credit in the "Special Thanks" category: "Governor Gray Davis"! Sure, some of the movie was shot in the Golden State, but it isn't as if Tarantino thanks "Governor Shintaro Ishihara," of the prefecture of Tokyo. Who knows? The producer, Lawrence Bender, is a huge donor to Democrats, but apparently not to Gray Davis. Maybe they put that in at the last minute, as consolation. Hey, it was the least they could do...

__

* I'm not forgoing any coverage of the upcoming Schwarzenegger administration -- not at all. But the "recall" is over; anything I write about it from here on out will be about the "Schwarzenegger administration."

STOP SNUBBING DARRELL!!

Armed Prophet considers Darrell Issa one of the recall's big winners; he's a hero for getting it on the ballot, a hero for getting out early and a hero for recognizing the wisdom of backing Arnold Schwarzenegger. Issa is too conservative and has too questionable a background to be a plausible statewide or federal candidate, but he certainly deserves his newfound clout in GOP circles. But how far will that clout go in Schwarzenegger's Sacramento? Not very far, if recent events say anything.

I've seen reports twice now that some in the GOP, and in Arnold's team in particular, have snubbed, ignored or forgotten about Issa at most unfortunate moments. The first was by Mr. Tabitha Soren in his terrific New York Times Magazine piece two weekends ago -- which, maddeningly, you'll have to pay for if you want it -- in an anecdote about the GOP convention in Los Angeles last month:

Darrell Issa called Arnold to let him know that he planned on endorsing him. Instead of getting through, he was told by Arnold's campaign people that Arnold was busy. Issa should sit down with some staff member. And that was that: no endorsement.

Lewis speculates that the Schwarzenegger camp is wary of letting so-called "right-wing crazies" -- a term Arnold himself has regrettably used -- get too close to the candidate. This may be true, though in what was obviously a private phone call, I doubt that's really it. Further casting doubt on this reading is the fairly important fact that Issa did eventually endorse Schwarzenegger, who happily accepted, and the two appeared together at campaign rallies.

Yet the Weekly Standard's Matt Labash reports in a tossed-off anecdote for his new story:

I ask how [write-in candidate Paul Walton] even got [into the Century Plaza Hotel for Arnold's victory rally], let alone all the way up to the stage, without the proper bracelet. He knows the hotel like the back of his hand, he tells me -- he comes here for awards shows -- and he slipped in with Darrell Issa, the congressman and publicity tapeworm/father-of-the-recall. "He was denied!" Paul says. "He couldn't even get in. He had to find his own way in through a service elevator. Woo-hoo!"

Why single out Issa for such mistreatment? Obviously, I have no special insight into the matter, so it's pointless for me to speculate. Maybe he's not getting singled out, perhaps they're simple miscommmunications and maybe this thing has happened to everybody a few times. After all, every big name actor seems to have a story about being denied entry to the studio lot where they are the main attraction.

But it's worth noting; it does seem to suggest -- for Arnold's team -- the sort of Hollywood what-have-you-done-for-me-lately-ism that people don't like. A populist governor can't well turn his back on those who helped get him there. Issa might not be of much use at the Capitol building, but he sure will be at the Lincoln Clubs and at party events. Alienating him would not be a good strategy.

To Issa's credit, he doesn't sound too alienated right now. In public, he sounds positively enthused, telling people at a recent Schwarzenegger rally:

My candidate can beat Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante with one McClintock behind his back!

Issa is indeed a hero to the California Republicans, at least as much as Arnold now is, if not in fact more so. Arnold should keep that in mind.

MORAL AUTHORITY

From Slate's June Thomas comes a truly laughable quote from an editorial in the Russian newspaper Nezavisnaya Gazeta:

Hollywood actor Schwarzenegger's victory over a professional governor has once again showed the defective nature of the American electoral system.

Excuse me? Editorialists from Russia, which is backsliding into near-dictatorship under the "strong presidency" of Vladimir Putin, is lecturing us on "defective" democracy? Please. And what's with that "professional" politician bit? Only lifelong politicians are worthy for high-level political office? Maybe they're still smarting over Ronald Reagan.

And from the British Independent -- which, by the way -- publishes the notoriously self-loathing ranter Robert Fisk, speculation that the recall

is profoundly anti-democratic and militates against the strong but unpopular action that governments have to take from time to time.

This was Bill Clinton's line when he arrived in California a few weeks ago. But of course, it is precisely that Davis did not make any decisive-yet-unpopular decisions while in office that precipitated his downfall. Oh yes, and "anti-democratic"? Surely that argument is inoperative following the overwhelming mandate delivered to Schwarzenegger.

I mean, really.

MARK WILLIAMS = DR. LAURA?

An interesting point from -- sigh -- the San Francisco Chronicle:

[Conservative talk show hosts] changed ... over the 10-month life of the recall. They evolved from petition-gathering cheerleaders in its early days, to Schwarzenegger legitimizers at its midpoint, to hand-holders at the end -- assuring listeners it was OK to follow their heads (supporting the moderate, electable Schwarzenegger) instead of their hearts (voting for conservative state Sen. Tom McClintock). 'They became pseudo-therapists,' said Larry Gerston, a professor of political science at San Jose State University who will be co-author of a book on the recall. 'And about that time, you saw Schwarzenegger's numbers spike.' 'We became a political Dr. Laura,' said Mark Williams, who hosts shows aired on KFBK-AM 1530 in Sacramento and KNEW-AM 910 in San Francisco."

Actually, all the good points from people quoted by the Chron.

When the Los Angeles Times and most every other newspaper in California (and throughout the United State) failed to recognize the frustration and anger among average folks in the Golden State, talk radio had its ears to the ground and picked up the fight. Gray Davis' incompetence and ineffectivity were crucial, as was Darrell Issa's money, but without talk radio, the recall could never have got off the ground.

THE CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR ARNOLD

Larry Kudlow goes where others fear to tread: pointing out that Arnold Schwarzenegger stands to the right of George W. Bush on fiscal matters. Actually, that isn't Kudlow's line -- no chance of that. But Schwarzenegger doesn't seem the type to boost tariffs. (That is, of course, if he could.) Kudlow writes:

If you're a conservative, what's not to like? Sure, Schwarzenegger may describe himself as liberal on social issues, but he is against late-stage partial-birth abortion, favors parental notification for minors seeking abortions, and has no appetite for massive social-service spending on illegal immigrants.
Conservatives should also enjoy Schwarzenegger's repeated attacks on liberal interest groups. He made it clear that government employee unions, teachers unions, trial lawyers, and the casino Indian tribes conspired to support a highly liberal government in Sacramento

Hear, hear. On social issues Schwarzenegger is indeed something of a Christie Todd Whitman Republican, but his main policy imperatives are all rock-solid conservative. (And his thinking-wishful environmental policy is not far off the one Bush laid out in his State of the Union speech this January.) Bo knows football, and Kudlow knows conservatism.

STREET-WISE?

Why does John Street, Democrat, think playing up the FBI bug in his City Hall offices will help his re-election campaign for mayor of Philadelphia? Today he was on several network and cable news programs -- including the only one that really matters, the "Today Show" -- all but blaming John Ashcroft for orchestrating it as a political hit.

That's why! Following the Florida 2000 debacle, Texas congressional redistricting and the recall of Gray Davis, what better tactic is there than blaming it all on the Bush White House? Well, plenty! Don't forget, Democrats ended up losing all of those confrontations, and that Republican Sam Katz, who challenged Street last time, trails only narrowly. But like Davis, Street's mayoralty has been dismal (especially in comparison to now-Gov. Ed Rendell and he has alienated many likely supporters. If this election proves to be a referendum on his term in office, as Davis' was, he could be unemployed very soon.

But what about that bug? Obviously, Street is under investigation. Why? Well, maybe because of the Molotov cocktail alleged to be found at a Katz campaign office, and the apparent threats that preceded it? True, there has been little afterward to substantiate the specific claim -- and no claim of interstate involvement, as would trigger an FBI inquiry -- but as Arnold concedes, "where there's smoke, there's fire."

Who knows why Street's office is under investigation? Armed Prophet certainly doesn't. But to make the baseless insinuation that Bush or Ashcroft are taking special interest in the mayoral race is crass and likely to backfire. If ex-Gov. Mark Schweiker couldn't deliver Pennsylvania to Bush in 2000, there's no reason to think a Mayor Katz could do the same in Dem-heavy Philadelphia.

P.S. Is this great story Philly-philic M. Night Shyamalan's opportunity to make a political movie? Don't count it out!

P.P.S. Wow, did I just post something not about the recall? Maybe it's high time to change that title...

THE TELEGRAPH

On election eve this Tuesday, well after Armed Prophet beat the Drudge Report to report that both the recall and Arnold would win handily (I didn't have numbers, but I was hours ahead), I also noted that Chris Matthews was speaking of Davis in the past tense, hours before the polls closed (scroll down for both posts). Now Slate's token libertarian Jack Shafer makes good use of his Nexis access to report more:

The coverage of yesterday's California election illustrates their duplicity perfectly, with NBC and the Fox News Channel playing the most laughable peek-a-boo with the data before the polls closed at 11 p.m. ET. The coverage of yesterday's California election illustrates their duplicity perfectly, with NBC and the Fox News Channel playing the most laughable peek-a-boo with the data before the polls closed at 11 p.m. ET.

It wasn't just Matthews, it was everyone. Though one can see why the television news networks would have been well advised to hold off during the very, very close 2000 presidential election, it was comical to watch the talking heads dance around the obvious lopsidedness of the recall vote. But Shafer criticizes them for broadcasting most all exit poll data save for the results of the two key questions, and I don't think that's fair. After all, it's at least conceivable that while voters overwhelmingly disliked Gray Davis, a fact not likely to be swayed by the previous week's Gropergate allegations, yet voted to retain him on principle. So I think the media made the best of a bad situation, at least given the unambiguous results. In a closer race, they wouldn't be speaking of Davis in the past tense and the exit polls wouldn't be pointing so clearly to a Schwarzenegger win.

But these are new issues, and the news media is still sorting them out. And yet the 2004 presidential, which at this point stands to be much closer than the 2003 gubernatorial, probably will not resolve the issue, either. Armed Prophet expects this debate is likely to stick around for some time to come.

WHY ARNOLD'S CELEBRITY MATTERS

I've heard from a few places the criticism that Arnold won because of star power -- and implicitly, money -- period. Though I agree his celebrity made the race his to lose, he very well could have lost it. (After all, the other Arnold enjoyed a high name recognition, too.) He won because he picked the right issues and the right enemies and convinced the voters that he was to be taken seriously.

But at the same time, let's not discount the advantages conferred by his charisma and (from that) his personal popularity. Consider this point, as editorialized by the Wall Street Journal [reg. req.] today:

It's now up to Governor Schwarzenegger to do something about the "progressive" train wreck he's inherited. That won't be easy with hostile Democratic majorities in the legislature. But Arnold brings considerable assets to the fight, not least of which is his star power. The state legislature in Sacramento has been operating under a rock for 20 years with almost no news coverage. Mr. Schwarzenegger can turn over that rock, shine a light and threaten to take issues to the voters if the legislature resists.

Bingo. Though the recall was initially covered with such intensity on account of its screwy nature (and derided because of it), the story went international when Schwarzenegger threw his hat in the ring. Had an alternate universe invaded our own and the race had come down to, say, Dick Riordan versus Cruz Bustamante and Tom McClintock (whom, by the way, I now think I would have supported in such an event), the recall might have fallen off the pages of newspapers outside the (once and future) Golden State. Because of Arnold, Japanese TV reporters were compelled to set up an office California (and who knows, they may stay).

On this point, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- which has been very friendly with Arnold in the past -- surprised some by endorsing Schwarzenegger over McClintock, when the former hadn't signed a no-tax-increase pledge while the latter had. But in explaining this decision earlier this month, the foundation's president, Jon Coupal, clearly grasped this concept. He said:

[When Schwarzenegger] started talking about taxes, how many cameras were there? How many millions of people were listening? With all due respect to guys like myself and Tom, we often find ourselves preaching to the choir.

Correctamundo. Keeping tax rates low so business flourishes is always a wise course of policy, but in a state like California, the less exciting (and notoriously stubborn) McClintock is not the right man to deliver the message. Arnold is.

The media focus on California over the past three months can essentially be boiled down to the following aphorism: come for the circus, stay for Arnold. They did, and -- even if not with the same intensity -- they will.