The editorial staff at National Review Online make a compelling argument for the former Speaker to quit the race for the Republican nomination:

At the moment Rick Santorum appears to be overtaking Newt Gingrich as the principal challenger to Mitt Romney. Santorum has won more contests than Gingrich (who has won only one), has more delegates, and leads him in the polls. In at least one poll, he also leads Romney. It isn’t yet a Romney–Santorum contest, but it could be headed that way.

We hope so. Gingrich’s verbal and intellectual talents should make him a resource for any future Republican president. But it would be a grave mistake for the party to make someone with such poor judgment and persistent unpopularity its presidential nominee. It is not clear whether Gingrich remains in the race because he still believes he could become president next year or because he wants to avenge his wounded pride: an ambiguity that suggests the problem with him as a leader. When he led Santorum in the polls, he urged the Pennsylvanian to leave the race. On his own arguments the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit.

My emphasis.

And yet high-profile conservatives like Sarah Palin continue to flirt with a Gingrich endorsement. One can only wonder at what would happen if Palin did publicly endorse Newt Gingrich…

The Republican National Committee has launched ObamaGetAway.com/ObamaDebtWatch, where you can find (and get embed code) for this dandy little debt ticker:

Now, as I talked about earlier this week, I think that the line-of-attack that the President “is absent” because he’s on vacation is plain wrong:

To equate vacation time (within reason) with work ethic would be a mistake, particularly as it relates to one of/the most stressful jobs on the planet. And, as Frum points out, the President never really gets a vacation.

That said, the little debt watch embeddable thing is effective. You copy & paste into your blog/site and the rapidly increasing number really gets the viewer’s attention.

Afterthought: visit the ObamaGetAway.com/ObamaDebtWatch site and you’ll notice the beach theme (because the President is on vacation silly). Along with that visual, there is some background noise. It appears that the GOP wanted to go with a beachy-sounding effect — but honestly, the sounds just make me want to pee…

So, as I was drinking my coffee and combing through my Facebook feed this morning (because I just don’t get the Google+ thing), I stumbled across this article and found it most interesting:

South Sudan has become the world’s newest nation, the climax of a process made possible by the 2005 peace deal that ended a long and bloody civil war.

Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon are among international dignitaries attending celebrations in the capital, Juba.

Sudan earlier became the first state to officially recognise its new neighbour.

The south’s independence follows decades of conflict with the north in which some 1.5 million people died.

Celebrations in Juba began at midnight (2100 GMT). A countdown clock in the city centre reached zero and the new national anthem was played on television.

South Sudan became the 193rd country recognised by the UN and the 54th UN member state in Africa.

However, despite all of the celebration, the new nation has some heavy challenges ahead:

The new country is rich in oil, but one of the least developed countries in the world, where one in seven children dies before the age of five.

Unresolved disputes between the north and south, particularly over the new border, have also raised the possibility of renewed conflict.

Still, independence rarely comes easily.

Now, call me crazy, but this seems like the type of news that I should have seen on the teevee or heard on the radio — not found haphazardly via a friend on Facebook.

Given our own nation’s tumultuous start in 1776, followed by a bloody war for independence against our colonial parent country, I would think that the story of South Sudan might have gotten a bit more attention in American media.

Then again, this was no Casey Anthony trial.

Over at The Daily Caller, there is a piece up that features Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) commenting on Herman Cain’s famous ‘Muslim litmus test’. In his comments, Rep. Ellison makes the point that:

“Well, you got violent Christians and good Christians,” he said. “You got violent Jews and good Jews. You got people of all — what he said about Muslims is true for every community. So it’s absurd that he would make a distinction when it comes to Muslims. Look, Mr. Cain has made a lot of statements about his hostility toward the Muslim community. Now trying to backtrack but not doing a good job of it.”

Ellison offered some advice for Cain – to review the Pledge of Allegiance and what it means in terms of inclusiveness.

“I would ask him to say look, the Pledge of Allegiance said ‘and liberty and justice for all.’ ‘All’ means all and doesn’t mean ‘except one group or another.’ I would ask Herman Cain to review that Pledge of Allegiance he swears when he gets up.”

Okay. Pledge of Allegiance. Good argument Congressman — but let’s take it a step further, shall we?

Let me back up a bit. Here are Herman Cain’s comments from earlier this year on Fox News Channel:

[A] reporter asked me would I appoint a Muslim to my administration? I did say no. And here’s why. But the reporter didn’t tell you this.

I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this United States. And many of the Muslims, they are not totally dedicated to this country. They are not dedicated to our Constitution. Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country.

My emphasis.

Mr. Cain professes to have a strong affinity towards the Constitution of the United States of America.

So, my question to Mr. Cain is this: have you actually read the Constitution? In particular, Article VI, Paragraph III:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now, one could make the argument that White House staffers and Presidential appointees are not covered in this statement. But, my point is that, if Cain so highly regards the document, he should use it as a template for running his (hypothetical) administration.

If he’s going to use the U.S. Constitution as a guide in his decision-making, then there is no way that he should be comfortable with using religion as a factor in making staff appointments.

At the Republican Primary Debate in New Hampshire, Cain had to address this issue again:

[T]he statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn’t appoint one. That’s the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey — there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have — my term, not his — a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn’t ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let’s make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their — you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization –

KING: When I asked — I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn’t you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew?

CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it’s not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

The bizarre applause after the Sharia law comment aside, if Herman Cain had simply said the words that I have emphasized, I wouldn’t be writing this post. Looking at a person’s education and record should be the only factors used when deciding whether or not to hire them.

This idea that you need to administer a religious litmus test — because no matter how much he protests, that is what Cain is suggesting — is insanity, pure and simple.

Roger Simon has an excellent op-ed at POLITICO, and I think that his words are very poignant:

You want to live in a country that has a litmus test for Muslims? You want to live in a country that demands loyalty oaths from Muslims?

Fine. Today, it will be the Muslims. Tomorrow, it will be you.

Indeed.

Hi. Remember me? Probably not, but that’s okay.

It’s been nearly 18 months since my last contribution here at The Donk. For that, I apologize to you — the reader — and even moreso to our benevolent host, Mister Gardner.

Since my last post, I have gone from being a stay-at-home-dad/pajama-clad-political-blogger to being amongst the gainfully employed. This is the primary reason for my blog-hiatus (although, admittedly I have kept my own blog relatively up-to-date).

Now that I’m 18 months into the job, I feel as though I “have gotten my sea-legs” and am ready to burst back out into The Donkle-scene — that is if you and Justin will have me. I’m ready to start posting again.

So, with all of that out of the way….

In his last post, Justin talked about the Anthony Weiner scandal and asked the question, “Why isn’t this guy stepping down?”

A great question to be sure. My response?

David Vitter.

If the junior Senator from the state of Louisiana doesn’t have to step-down after his own scandal, why should Congressman Weiner?

Don’t get me wrong, they both should step-down. But hey, these are politicians — they are above the rest of us peons.

Oh, and if you are interested, I just posted my reactions/review of the GOP debate in New Hampshire last night. Check it out.

Hey gang, I know it’s been a while for me. I still visit The Donk everyday — because where else am I going to get top-notch discussion without all of the ridiculous name-calling — I just haven’t posted in quite some time. For that, I apologize. Although, it’s not like my writing has been missed — there are some really great contributors here (I’m looking at you, Nancy, mw, donar, Frank and The Man himself). Okay, enough chat…

So, I have been following the back-and-forth between NBC, Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien (and every other late-night host) for the past several days. I had a phone conversation with a friend yesterday and together we came to an overwhelming consensus: NBC is stupid.

I am old enough (and fortunate enough) to remember when Johnny Carson hosted The Tonight Show back in the day (which was a Wednesday by the way). Carson hosted the show for what, a billion years? (actually: 30) It seems to me that the host of a long-running show such as TTS eventually becomes the something of a de facto host for a certain generation. Carson was the host for much of the time that my grandparents watched Tonight.

After Johnny retired, Jay Leno took over the reins and sat at the desk for 17 seasons. By my aforementioned ‘de facto host’ rule, Leno has been the host for the Baby Boomers (my parents and folks between the ages of 40 and 65?). Last year, when Leno passed the baton, presumably Conan O’Brien would be the host for my generation (Gen X, Gen Y, Internet, ‘N’, Millenials, et al).

As my friend exclaimed to me over the telephone, “Conan is ‘our’ generation’s Carson or Leno! NBC is losing an opportunity for establishing a long-term brand in Conan O’Brien.” Indeed. I cannot see myself at age 50, sitting on the couch with TPW, and laughing at another ‘Jaywalking’ bit. For my money, ‘In The Year 2000‘ is much more funny.

The National Broadcasting Company is indeed missing an opportunity to carry The Tonight Show franchise to a higher level: the next generation. Add to that this little nugget… the only person who looks good in all of this is Conan O’Brien. Think about that.

1) NBC looks disorganized because they are shuffling hosts around after only a seven-month ‘trial’.

2) Jay Leno looks terrible because — rightly or wrongly — it appears as if he was displeased with his 10 o’clock show and now is turning around and asking for demanding that he get his old show back.

All the while, Conan looks like the proverbial Little Guy on whom the big corporation and big star are picking.

Lastly I’ll just say it: I think Conan is funnier than Leno and Letterman combined (Kimmel definitely has his moments). His nerdy appeal (schtick?) resonantes with me because, well, I’m something of a nerd myself (shocker). Seriously though; what other late-night host would put his show up for sale on Craig’s List:

Yeah. That’s how he rolls.

No matter how this fiasco ends, I’ll be firmly in the column supporting Conan. Here endeth my lesson on late-night-shenanigans. Now we return you to your regularly-scheduled Donklephant programming.

So, I read Doug’s take as well as John’s angle and followed it all with Justin’s comments and Jacob’s snark.

The bottom-line (as far as I’m concerned) is that this really is not a big deal. I understand the interest and argument posited by Doug and John, but I think that the answers to their questions are simple.

Did the President bow a little bit lower than was appropriate? It certainly looks like it.

Was he declaring his — and by default our — allegiance to the Emperor of Japan? Absolutely not.

The President bowed to a foreign dignitary, as Presidents do, and he simply limbo’d too low.

As Justin said:

I hope you don’t unsubscribe because of a couple posts rubbed you the wrong way. After all, that’s sort of the point of this site.

That is indeed the point of this site. Where else would you go for reasoned debate (usually) and civil discourse (most of the time)?

=)

Donklephant has been nominated for ‘Best Political Blog’ in the 2009 Weblog Awards. You can vote for the nomination here.

Also, do check out some of the other categories, as there are many great blogs (and bloggers) that are nominated every year.

Matt Lewis breaks it down:

Today, the perfunctory, “next in line” theory suggests that the most likely GOP nominee will be former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. While Romney dropped-out of the 2008 campaign earlier than Mike Huckabee, most conservatives concede that Romney finished in second place – and that is certainly the view held by the McCainiacs. So, by the logic that led to the nominations of McCain and Dole, it’s Romney’s turn. Even if rank-and-file conservatives find him less than perfect concede that he’s paid his dues.

But what about the other model? Who is this year’s Goldwater — and, just maybe, our Reagan? Who is the person movement conservatives really want? It sure ain’t Mike Huckabee. And it might be Sarah Palin.

Palin is the only potential candidate on the Republican side with star power. It’s hard to quantify that trait, but Reagan had it. Ever since his time, Republicans have been convinced that charisma is king. And, as a friend recently told me, “When liberals continuously deride her, many conservatives take it as an attack upon themselves.” That’s a powerful rallying mechanism. Nominating Palin is a way for conservatives to stick it to Eastern elites.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the Republicans would win; Goldwater certainly didn’t. If Obama is going to be tough to beat, the question becomes almost a philosophical one: If you’re going to lose anyway, is it better to lose atop the horse you really want to ride?

If you ask me (and if you are still reading this then you have done so by default), based on Lewis’ assumptions, Mitt Romney will be the candidate of choice for the Republican party.

Sure, he’s not perfect, but what candidate is? It’s not necessarily that he will win over the hearts and minds of the GOP faithful. Rather, it’s that he’s a better choice than Sarah Palin. For one glaring reason…

Sarah Palin quit her job. Period. All Mitt Romney has to do is run ads that say, ‘I finished the job in Massachusetts — you may not always agree with me, but at least you know that I’ll stick around’.

Game. Set. Match.

Kind of:

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, trying to knock off a veteran Democratic incumbent senator in the primary, will get an endorsement Monday from somebody who succeeded in doing just that: Connecticut’s Ned Lamont.

Lamont defeated Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary, largely by running against the Iraq war and Lieberman’s support of the Bush administration’s war policy. But Lamont did not win the general election. After losing the nomination, Lieberman ran as an independent in the fall, defeating Lamont and the Republican nominee.

Sources close to the Sestak campaign confirmed that Lamont is the “mystery endorser” it announced would be coming to Independence Hall Monday.

The strange thing here is that there are some eerie parallels to the Ned Lamont versus Joe Lieberman versus Republican Dude** campaign that was waged in 2006.

B-Diddy [a conservative contributor at my site] and I have talked about this before (because we are both from Pennsylvania). Take a walk down Hypothetical Lane with me here, won’t you?

What happens if (when?) Arlen Specter gets beaten by Joe Sestak in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial primary election? The answer is simple, or at least obvious: Specter switches his party affiliation (again) to Independent — a la Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senatorial election in 2006.

After Senator Specter puts an ‘I’ after his name for the general election, we’ll have a three-way-race between Sestak (the Democrat), Pat Toomey (the Republican) and good ole Arlen, fresh off of the Independent Express.

The question then becomes more complex; will Specter be able to defeat a Democrat who vanquished him in the primary as well as a Republican challenger? Things will indeed get interesting if it comes to this.

If all of the above indeed comes to fruition, Specter will have a rough time defending his multiple party-switcharoos. He started as a Democrat, switched to a Republican in 1965 when he ran for District Attorney in Philadelphia. In April of this year Specter returned to the Democratic party saying that he found himself “increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy”. If he were to change (yet again) to Independent, he will be all-but-writing the attack ads for his political opponents.

Or, as I have suggested before, if Senator Specter loses the primary next spring, perhaps it is simply time for him to hang up his proverbial spurs. Personally, I don’t mind Specter (except for all of the party-swapping). He is a moderate Republican Democrat, and I usually find myself gravitating toward politicians that sit somewhere in the middle of the road. However, Specter has indeed had a looooong career in Pennsylvania politics. Maybe we need some fresh blood in there to replace him…

** does anyone remember the Republican candidate’s name from that election? Yeah, I had to Google it — the guy’s name is Alan Schlesinger.

Jon Henke points to Steven Hayward’s op-ed “Is Conservatism Brain-Dead?” which makes some very salient points. Chiefly:

The best-selling conservative books these days tend to be red-meat titles such as Michelle Malkin’s “Culture of Corruption,” Glenn Beck’s new “Arguing with Idiots” and all of Ann Coulter’s well-calculated provocations that the left falls for like Pavlov’s dogs. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these books. Politics is not conducted by Socratic seminar, and Henry Adams’s dictum that politics is the systematic organization of hatreds should remind us that partisan passions are an essential and necessary function of democratic life. The right has always produced, and always will produce, potboilers.

Conspicuously missing, however, are the intellectual works. The bestseller list used to be crowded with the likes of Friedman’s “Free to Choose,” George Gilder’s “Wealth and Poverty,” Paul Johnson’s “Modern Times,” Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind,” Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” and “The Bell Curve,” and Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Man.” There are still conservative intellectuals attempting to produce important work, but some publishers have been cutting back on serious conservative titles because they don’t sell. (I have my own entry in the list: a two-volume political history titled “The Age of Reagan.” But I never expected the books to sell well; at 750 pages each, you can hurt yourself picking them up.)

But, therein lies the crux of the problem for conservatism; people don’t want intellectualism (or at the very least they do not appear to want intellectualism). The modern conservative movement, led by the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, wants to be spoon-fed right-wing talking-points like so many tiny jars of Gerber baby food. If people would be willing to pick up a 750-page book by a conservative intellectual once in a while, our political discourse might sound a bit different right now. I would venture a guess that there would be a lot less ‘socialist!’, ‘fascist!’ and ‘racist!’ invectives being thrown around, no?

Though I will admit that the ‘more Buckley less O’Reilly’ comparison is a bit off for my tastes. I feel that (with my recent warm-fuzzy feelings for him — if you can call it that) Bill O’Reilly is not nearly as divisive and, frankly, offensive as Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.

Oh, and for the record, this is not a problem that is exclusive to conservatism. The Keith Olbermanns and Ed Schultzs of the world aren’t as bad as their conservative counterparts, but they are not necessarily helping the progressive movement either. This is a knife that does indeed cut both ways.

——
Photo: Jan Lukas/Little, Brown

Something has been bugging me all weekend.

I’ve never been to Chicago. From what friends and family have told me, The Windy City is indeed a great place. There is lots to see and do.

But you wouldn’t be told that if you asked any number of right-wing-talking-heads. To these folks, Chicago is a cesspool of corruption, filth and slime.

Michelle Malkin:

Goodbye, “Yes We Can.” Hello, “No, You Can’t.” Like Icarus, President Obama’s giddy ego flight has ended with melted wax and fallen wings.

Laura Ingraham:

R-I-O! May this be the first of many defeats for Chicago-style politics!

Jon Henke (whom I normally associate with being a reasonable conservative) tweeted:

Rush Limbaugh:

The worst day of Obama’s presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama.

Erick Erickson:

So Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him.

So much for improving America’s standing in the world, Barry O.

… and he also tweeted:

Wow. We get it everyone, you don’t like Barack Obama. That is painfully clear now. But rooting for Chicago to lose its bid to host the Olympics? Really?

Maybe you guys don’t like Chicago. Maybe you visited Chicago as a youngster and the strong winds blew your balloon out of your hands. Maybe in your young adult years, you visited Second City and were made to cry instead of laugh. Maybe you loathed The Blues Brothers. Whatever the reason you don’t like Chicago, surely it has to be more than ‘well, that’s where Barack Obama is from’, right?

You see, this notion that because Barack Obama is from Chicago his political opponents must actively root for that city to lose its Olympic bid is nothing short of asinine. Why? So that you can say something negative about the President?

It’s no secret that I was no fan of George W. Bush. I didn’t like 95% of his presidency and even more of his policies. However, if the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was considering Crawford, Texas as a potential site for the Summer Games, I would be all for it. I would support that consideration not because I liked the former President, but because that city is on American soil. It’s called patriotism.

In my view, the largest fallacy of the anti-Chicago-hosting-the-Olympics movement is the financial issue. The vast majority of the Chicago naysayers are free-market, pro-capitalism conservatives. That in itself is a contradictory stance. To be anti-Olympics-coming-to-a-city (any city, not just Chicago) is essentially the same as denying that city thousands of new jobs and millions (billions?) of dollars in revenue generated by tourism. What city wouldn’t want those things?

Lastly, let me say this; I am not saying that these people are unAmerican. They have every right to speak their mind on any issue they choose. To claim that a dissenting opinion is unAmerican or unpatriotic is dangerous and irresponsible — and I won’t do that.

However, what I will say is that this posturing makes absolutely no sense to me. I cannot understand why someone wouldn’t want the United States to host an Olympic games. If the criticism was directed at President Obama for traveling to Copenhagen to make his ‘sales pitch’, then I would understand. But that is definitely not the case (see: Erickson’s tweet). These critics wanted Chicago to fail — and fail it did.

Now it is Rio de Janeiro that will get the jobs and potential economic growth.

There we were on vacation. [side note: I just got back from a week-long hiatus] Able, for once, to actually watch news as-it-happens. The Wife and I decided to take a break from reading various novels and making piña coladas to watch President Obama address a joint session of Congress — and the nation at large.

Maybe it’s because I’ve always been fortunate enough to have good health care. Maybe it’s because the subject is rife with minutiae that is, for the most part, well beyond my realm of comprehension. Maybe it’s because I’m lazy. Whatever the reason, I have been more-than-somewhat reticent about weighing-in on the issue of health care reform.

Now, I think I’m ready.

I watched the President’s speech last week and I think that, despite douchebaggery from the peanut gallery, it was an interesting and informative presentation. Obama batted down the rumors and lies, defined what will and will not be included within the health care bill and, most importantly, spoke in a language that I could understand. This was a moment for Americans to hear it ‘straight from the horses mouth’, so to speak.

After listening to the President talk, I feel much more comfortable with health care reform the likes of what is currently being considered. Health care reform needs to start with the industry itself…

To me, the most important reform in our health care system is the idea that a patient cannot be denied care or dropped because of a pre-existing condition. For too long, the health insurance industry has been shirking responsibility on this subject. No more yearly or lifetime caps goes hand-in-hand with this. For people with terminal illnesses, this is also a huge win.

No one will be forced to change doctors or insurance providers if they do not wish to do so. The President called a single payer health care system ‘unrealistic’. While I’m sure this enraged many progressives, it made me feel better about the plan. People like me do not want to be forced to change doctors or health care providers if we are happy with what we’ve got. This is an attractive part of the legislation.

I think that the only part of the health care proposal that still bothers me is the national mandate for health care coverage.

Don’t get me wrong; I get it. Just like our cars (in PA anyway), our bodies must be insured. It will help with bringing costs down (i.e. taxpayers won’t have to pay for non-insured trips to the E.R.). However, I don’t like being told what to do. It’s where the conservative in me really comes out. For example, I was proud to be a Pennsylvanian when our state legislature repealed motorcycle helmet laws a couple of years ago (these days however, the PA legislature and Gov. Ed Rendell look like a bunch of idiots). You know, “Don’t Tread On Me” and all that.

But, if getting affordable insurance to the millions of Americans who do not have it ruffles my libertarian feathers a little bit, then so be it. I’m willing to sit uncomfortably for a while so that others who heretofore have not been able to get quality health care are now able.

No program will ever be perfect (see: current system). Completely switching to a single-payer universal system would be too much, too fast. But, I think that the proposal at hand is a reasonable attempt at reform.

Oh, and for the record: this health care reform is not socialism, communism or fascism. President Obama is not Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini. If the bill passes and our health care system gets the reform that it needs, there will not be any Russian tanks parading down Main Street. Relax.

All of the above are tweets from Andrew Breitbart’s Twitter feed.

Here’s the deal: you don’t speak ill of the dead, especially when the body is still warm.

Now, before any of the conservatives in the audience get all pissy with me, you should know that I did not always agree with Ted Kennedy (and still don’t). I thought that the way that he treated Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court Justice hearings was shameful. I think that Chappaquiddick was a supremely shady incident (at best). I think that the idea that Ted Kennedy made his way up the political ladder, and got out of some, err, sticky situations simply because of his surname is downright shameful.

However, unlike other bad people in this world, Ted Kennedy turned himself around and tried to make the world a better place. There’s a great piece over at Politico that talks about that very subject. Money:

He was elected to the Senate 47 years ago this autumn, when nearly 65 percent of Americans now alive were not yet born. And it turns out longevity creates its own kind of charisma and myth-making power.

Forty-seven years was long enough to transform him in popular vocabulary from Teddy to Ted.

It was long enough for him to bleach and in many eyes redeem the most garish stains on his public image. Twenty years ago Kennedy’s name tended to be invoked first in the context of personal excess and scandal, and only secondarily in the context of public service. In later years this order was emphatically reversed.

“From 1980 to this day, I know of no one who has transformed themselves – not overnight, just steady, year by year, bill by bill, problem by problem – to, what do they say – ‘lion of the Senate,’” said former Sen. Harris Wofford (D-Pa.)

After the deaths of his brothers and his own disgrace in the 1969 incident at Chappaquiddick, Wofford said, Kennedy turned his attention to a sustained, deliberate effort to rebuild his reputation.

“He set about being a very diligent, good senator. A powerful one, rapidly, because people liked him,” said Wofford, who served as an aide to John Kennedy. “He was in his own world and he was not under the shadow of either brother. Neither of them was really comfortable in the Senate. He fit in.”

Now, you may not see it that way. Because Kennedy was unabashedly liberal, many conservatives decried that he was ‘destroying our country’. But here’s the thing: anytime you are serving the public as an elected official, you are trying to make our country better. Albeit in your own way, but better nonetheless. Not everyone will agree with you, but that’s what happens when you don’t get 100% of the votes (and who does that?).

For example, I have been very clear that I think Michele Bachmann is out-of-her-mind when it comes to issues like the U.S. Census (truth here). But, I will admit that she is trying to make our country a better place. If (Heaven forbid) she were to get hit by a truck and die today, I would never say thing like Breitbart is saying (tweeting).

After all, you just don’t speak ill of the dead. Sadly, Breitbart is not alone in his callousness.

I know that Justin already posted about this, but I wanted to add my two coppers.

I didn’t always agree with Senator Kennedy — both in politics, and in personality — but I have a respect for the man and what he accomplished in his many years in public service. Politico:

His career spanned almost a half-century of American history, and covering Kennedy was like a relay race, in which those who knew him best in the early years have long ago retired.

Education and healthcare initiatives will always be associated with his name, and the enactment this year of legislation authorizing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco is a Kennedy legacy. But this was also a senator who played a major role in airline deregulation, criminal code revisions and battles over the Supreme Court. Conservatives still resent him for his wholesale assault on Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987, and Kennedy is one of the few senators in history to see a former aide, Stephen Breyer, move up to the high bench.

Kennedy’s power base rested on three major committees: Judiciary; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and Armed Services, the first two of which he chaired at different points in his career. And he never lost an old-school style of politics, which set him apart in the increasingly impersonal Senate.

His booming voice filled the chamber when he spoke from his desk, always in the back row on the Democratic side and a gathering point over the years for younger members.

I know that there are many conservative partisans who still gleefully cite the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident anytime that Kennedy’s name is brought up — and I get that. However, I think that Ted Kennedy’s legacy will not be controversial issues like Chappaquiddick but rather things like children’s health care, his support for Barack Obama’s candidacy for president, and the various Senate committees on which he served.

The man was truly a larger-than-life character and I’m sure that the halls of the Senate will be a very different place when Congress returns from it’s recess.

Some interesting polling numbers from PPP via Pollster.com:

Favorable / Unfavorable
Newt Gingrich: 33 / 42
Mike Huckabee: 45 / 28
Sarah Palin: 40 / 49
Mitt Romney: 37 / 34

2012 President
Obama 49%, Gingrich 41%
Obama 47%, Huckabee 44%
Obama 52%, Palin 38%
Obama 47%, Romney 40%

What is most notable to me are the 2012 presidential match-ups. Mike Huckabee is the favorite right now — over Gingrich or Romney. What is that all about?

It seems that most hardcore conservatives that I know or read claim that they loathe the Huckster (and the Club For Growth certainly has a disdain for him). Most seem to favor either Gingrich or Romney. Heck, B-Diddy [an über-conservative contributor at my blog] and I even had a conversation wherein he described a Romney/Gingrich “dream ticket” for 2012. I’m not sure about that idea, but what I do know is that Huckabee has some kind of traction for 2012 already — especially since Sarah Palin continues to embarrass herself and other Republicans.

So the question remains; are Republicans going to warm to Mike Huckabee?

My head is starting to spin. Luckily for me, Conor Clarke can make some sense of it all:

What’s the logical conclusion here? Do we boycott and counter-boycott, until we’ve whittled ourselves down to country of red and blue companies as well as red and blue states? There’s nothing to stop us. Fox is well within its rights to retain the hosting services of Glenn Beck, and Wal-Mart is within its rights to take its advertising dollars elsewhere, and the readership of RedState.org is within its rights to take its paychecks elsewhere, too. And I suppose I can take my eyeballs to some other corner of the Internet. Three cheers for liberalism!

And yet I cannot help but think there is a crucial difference between GEICO’s decision to drop Glenn Beck and RedState’s decision to drop GEICO. The difference is this: Wal-Mart has a good reason to boycott Beck, because Beck actually did something idiotic and indefensible. It simply is not true that Obama is a racist. And what’s this business about “the white culture,” anyway? Tell us a bit more about that, Glenn.

RedState does not have a similarly reasonable claim — or a substantive argument at all — unless they are seriously interested in defending what Beck said on the merits. (Are they? Is anyone? Let’s have that argument, pretty please.) The argument for boycotting the boycotters should be more than “free speech is awesome,” since the right to free speech doesn’t guarantee you the right to massive corporate underwriting.

Links added.

What I know is this: Beck cannot stand on his original statement. This is not a conspiracy of leftists, this is a result of people who are fed up with the inflammatory rhetoric (‘flamoric’?) and partisan hackery from someone who is simply trying to be shocking for shock’s (and rating’s) sake. Advertisers are going to continue to bail until Glenn Beck a) apologizes or b) loses his show (my guess is that it will be the former rather than the latter).

Either way, it’s going to likely be an entertaining ride. Now where did I put my popcorn?

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]

I’m not a huge fan of Congressman Frank. However, I will say that in this video he is exhibiting the best retort to a nutter that I’ve seen. Anyone who compares the President of the United States (any POTUS) to Adolf effing Hitler deserves to be verbally abused in this manner. Period.

If you don’t like the health care reform bill that is being proposed, fine. Argue your stance without invoking the mass genocide that took place in the 1940s. By using the Nazis as comparison for your political debate, you are cheapening the deaths six million Jews. Read Jon Meacham.

For the record, I’m not all-in for HR3200. I have some serious reservations about government health care (and other programs for that matter). However, I see absolutely no parallels to Nazi Germany (or Stalinist Russia, or any other scary ‘socialist’ or ‘fascist’ simile) and to make such a gross comparison is being uninformed and irresponsible.

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]

Shocking, I know.

Ed’s post is here — and it is indeed some very good writing.

Allahpundit responds:

For the rare distinction of having earned Olbermann’s blessing, let me be the first to say to Ed: You are the RINO king. Enjoy the throne of shame; if you need me, I’ll be at the bar adjusting to my new role as Hot Air’s “true conservative.”

Ed then chimes in, very graciously:

I’m sure people would like me to be a jerk about this, but I’ll say thank you to Keith instead for the kind words. We’ll be arguing again tomorrow, and for the … rest of eternity, probably, but I’d prefer to return graciousness with graciousness.

Look-ee-here! We’ve got no less than three fierce partisans talking about (to?) each other with some dignity and respect (and some humor).

If these three dudes can get along, maybe there is hope for the rest of us…

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]

At TMV Jazz Shaw talks about Mitt Romney’s upcoming book (‘No Apologies’) and a possible run for the presidency in 2012:

I never thought Romney stood a chance in 2008, mostly because of a combination of his “Mormon problem” and his rather abrupt conversion to hard core conservatism, which left many Republicans wondering how sincere he was in those beliefs. Personally, I liked the Massachusetts version of Romney a lot better than the one who wanted to be President, but McCain’s poor showing last fall has left a lot of Republicans with a bad case of buyer’s remorse, and they may be looking at Mitt with some new found love in their eyes next time around. This new book will probably serve as the unofficial launching point for his campaign and get him back out on the circuit of Sunday morning chat festivals to make his case to Republicans for another grab at the brass ring.

For the most part, I agree.

I didn’t see the “Mormon Problem” as much of a issue for Romney — particularly after he gave his ‘religion speech’ (a la JFK). I know that there were some conservatives who felt that Romney was party to nothing more than a cult, but most mainstreamers (the Michelle Malkins and Ann Coulters of the world) clearly had no problem with Romney’s Mormonism.

What bothered me about Mitt Romney was not his faith, but rather his devotion to his principles (or lack thereof).

The Romney who was governor of Massachusetts seemed more reasonable to me — not unlike current gubernatorial contender Charles D. Baker — in that he was more moderate in much of his approach to social policies (while maintaining conservative stances on fiscal issues). The abrupt and seemingly calculated, err, transformation to über-conservatism left me with a slimy-used-car-salesman impression. I felt that Romney was being insincere and switching his stance on several key issues to appeal to the far-right base of the party.

By the time the Republican presidential primaries roll-around in 2012, some time will have passed and it’s likely that most Republicans won’t question Romney on his conservative bonafides. Especially if the Limbaughs, Coulters and Hannitys of the movement get behind him…

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]