Instapundit writes:

Several readers email to say that a Thompson/Rice, or a Rice/Thompson, ticket would suit them just fine for 2008. The GOP could do worse. And probably will!

Weren't we just talking about the general ineptness of the Republican leadership? Glenn's probably right, sad to say.

But putting Thompson on the ticket would be a smart, smart move. People love that man: even liberals find themselves responding to his conservative character on Law & Order.

If I were a democrat, I'd be very afraid of Thompson and Rice—no matter who was at the top of the ticket. I'd be happier to have Rice there as VP versus not being on the ticket at all.

These people are gold.

Here's the man behind the "draft Thompson" campaign, and here's your portal to the "draft Condi" movement.

Grass roots, baby. Get on it.

Posted by: Attila at 12:01 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . summarizes the deal for averting procedural changes in the Senate:

We favor an end to the obstruction of judicial nominees via filibuster, and it strikes us that this agreement is likely to accomplish that, at least for this Congress (after which the agreement expires). If so, the nuclear option will have shown its value as a deterrent.

The agreement binds the 14 senators who signed it to vote for cloture (i.e., against a filibuster) of the three remaining nominees the Democrats have most demonized: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor. The compromisers expressly "make no commitment to vote for or against cloture" of two additional nominees, William Myers and Henry Saad. The status of two other nominees, Brett Kavanaugh and William Haynes, is unclear. Early this afternoon the Senate voted 81-18 for cloture on Owen's nomination; an actual confirmation vote should come by tomorrow.

The 14 also agreed not to filibuster judicial nominees except "under extraordinary circumstances" and to oppose the nuclear option. Since there are 48 Republicans and 38 Democrats (including Jeffords) who are not parties to the agreement, at least three compromising Democrats would have to find "extraordinary circumstances" in order to sustain a filibuster. If at least two Republicans disagreed and thus concluded the Dems were violating the agreement, they could abandon the pledge and go nuclear.

All this may be academic, though. The most crucial passage in the agreement may prove to be this one: "Each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such ['extraordinary'] circumstances exist." As a practical matter, this applies only to the Democratic signatories, since no Republican has ever voted to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee.

The seven Democratic signatories, that is, have now declared that they will decide how to vote on judicial filibusters rather than take directions from the party. Two of them, Robert Byrd and Daniel Inouye, probably did so largely to preserve "Senate tradition"; but the other five--Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Ken Salazar--are all generally moderate, and all from red states except Lieberman. Their inclinations and political interests diverge from those of Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and other far-left blue-staters.

If left-wing Democrats want to filibuster another nominee, they will have to persuade Minority Leader Harry Reid to risk another nuclear confrontation and persuade at least one of the moderate compromising five, plus Byrd, Inouye and every single uncompromising Dem, that it's worth it. It could happen, but we're not betting on it.

Which appears pretty accurate. Now go to the site: it's the best of the web, after all.

Posted by: Attila at 11:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

. . . has plenty to say. Go to his main page and scroll down.

Each of the RINOs wanted something for their vote. Frist unlike LBJ don't play that.

And now the Rs are going to strangle their party for funds; because they do not know how to play finesse politics. Where is LBJ when you need him?

So back to square one.

What can the RINOs and Republicans agree on? Get that passed. Forget the rest. This is not religion where absolutes rule. This is politics. And politics has its limits.

I have been saying this since May of '03. Evidently some of you have not been reading my memos and taking them to heart.

And now you want to give up the game because you can't win all the marbles.

Republicans are not going to remake the judiciary. The best they can hope for is to move things a bit in the desired direction. Isn't that enough?

Any idea why the Rs are called the stupid party?

I have a few.

Posted by: Attila at 02:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Sissy Willis publishes excerpts from Brown's writing, explaining why the liberal establishment could not abide the advancement of such a powerful thinker and writer who knows the evils of collectivism.

Particularly one who is black.

It's true that her advancement is of some importance. Perhaps tremendous importance.

Posted by: Attila at 12:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

First of all, I do think John McCain is one of the most unfortunate legislators in history. The man should be in the sequel to National Treasure: he's certainly done tremendous damage to a document that's pivotal to our history. (Though of course it's the Constitution he's trashing, rather than the Declaration of Independence. He's been especially destructive to the First and Second Amendments. You know: the important ones.)

That said, the rightosphere should take a chill pill regarding today's compromise in the Senate. There's a lot going on here, and everyone has his or her own theory; here's Blackjack's:

I'm not going to sugarcoat it -- the Republicans probably could have gotten a better deal than they did. What I can do for you is tell you why they jumped on the deal and it is also the reason why this deal is ultimately a net win for Republicans. The answer is just three words long:

Janice Rogers Brown

Did you honestly think that opposition to Janice Rogers Brown was based on political philosophy? Yeah, right -- and I'm Pat Freaking Boone. The reason that Democrats didn't like (read: were scared to death of) Brown is because they know two things:

1. Their most solid voting bloc is African-Americans
2. This bloc is slowly eroding over time.

True enough. But the real reason behind this compromise—in my mind—is a second proper noun:

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The odds are good—or, if you like, the risk is real—that she'll end up in the White House in 2009. If you believe (as I do) that her true convictions are considerably to the left of her behavior in the Senate, you should take very seriously the idea of her nominating judges, particularly to SCOTUS.

The judicial filibuster is a tool that we may well need someday in the not-too-distant future.

I know everyone's going to get mad at me for saying this, but I'm with George Will on this one:

Some conservatives say there is a "constitutional right'' to have an up-or-down Senate vote on nominees. But in whom does this right inhere? The nominees? The president? This is a perverse contention coming from conservatives eager to confirm judges who will stop the promiscuous discovery by courts of spurious constitutional rights. And conservatives eager to confirm judges respectful of the Constitution's text should not read its stipulation that no nominee shall be confirmed without a favorable Senate vote as a requirement that the Senate vote.

     Some conservatives oddly seem to regret the fact that the government bristles with delaying and blocking mechanisms—separation of powers, bicameral legislature, etc. The filibuster is one such mechanism—an instrument for minority assertion. It enables democracy to be more than government-by-adding-machine, more than a mere counter of numbers. The filibuster registers intensity, enabling intense minorities to slow or stop government.

     The crucial, albeit unwritten, rule regarding judicial nominees was changed forever 18 years ago by the Bork confirmation fight: Now both sides in the Senate feel free to judge and accept or reject nominees on the basis of their judicial philosophies. So, conservatives, think:

     The future will bring Democratic presidents and Senate majorities. How would you react were such a majority about to change Senate rules to prevent you from filibustering to block a nominee likely to construe the equal protection clause as creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage?
   
 And pruning the filibuster in the name of majority rule would sharpen a scythe that one day will be used to prune it further. If filibusters of judicial nominations are impermissible, why not those of all nominations—and of treaties, too?

Let's try to think long-term, here.

Hat tip: Jeff G., with whom I cannot agree this particular time.

Posted by: Attila at 11:32 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.

. . . which party was filibustering civil rights legislation.

Posted by: Attila at 01:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Mark Steyn, in his essay "Not Over the Hill" (should be at the top of this page for a while), tells us why we should be concerned about Hillary's impending candidacy.

Why, in short, he thinks she'll probably win.

Posted by: Attila at 12:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to Jane at Armies of Liberation for pressuring the Yemenis to do the right thing for a change by enforcing their own laws.

Of course, if they want to be taken seriously, the religious persecution within their country has got to stop.

But let's give credit where credit is due: they recovered al-Wazer, and he is apparently safe from both the kidnappers and the crooked people inside his own government.

I was ready for some good news.

Posted by: Attila at 04:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Jane reports that Nabil al-Wazer was kidnapped in Yemen; please drop by to express your support and your hope that he will be found and released, rather than killed (accidentally on purpose) by the government.

It's really important that we shine a bright light on this situation. Please.

Posted by: Attila at 04:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

My cousin Attila, the Pillage Idiot, muses on the protocols involved in having a female president, and quotes the Anchoress, who wonders whether the upcoming Geena Davis series on that subject is supposed to prime the public and make us "ready" for that step.

He would also like to know what the rules will be for flashing the Presidential jugs. Very important to know.

What if the Hollywood establishment got everyone ready for a female President, and that person turned out to be Condi? There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth, for sure.

Posted by: Attila at 10:10 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . discusses the notion of marrying neocon ideals to energy conservation.

I disagree with so much of what he says, yet I find the overall idea so sexy.

Mostly because I'd love to see us in a position wherein we could someday tell the Saudis to take a hike.

I just cannot imagine buying high-gas-mileage vehicle right now (unless it were a classic car, for weekend use only—but if I could do that, I'd be rich).

I'll do what I can, as long as it doesn't mean buying a current-production Prius: they've started to look like hump-backed whales, and they don't get the mileage one hears about. (Check the Consumer Reports figures before you buy one of those things. Really.)

Posted by: Attila at 09:12 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Listen. I'm aware that there are some smart so-cons out there. Heck: a lot of my readers are highly intelligent social conservatives.

But there are a few who are just dumb as boards. The hubub over the First Lady doing a comedy routine is a perfect example of the idiocy within the right wing of the party. The Coalition for Traditional Values actually presumes to guess what the "structure" of the First Family is, based on a series of jokes by Laura Bush. Utterly amazing.

Via Outside the Beltway.

UPDATE: Oh, thank God. It was a joke after all. The sun is shining; birds are singing. My beloved war machine coalition can skip merrily around the playground together. Yay!

UPDATE 2: I've been asked how I can leave up a post that shows me being taken in by a hoax. I've also asked how I could have been so stupid as to fall for the old fake-letter-from-a-real-organization ploy.

1) I really try not to take down posts. I've done it, but it seems like an extreme measure. People should be able to figure out what has happened by following trackbacks and reading through archives. Gaps are bad. Truth is good. This is not enough of a public embarrassment to me to be worth taking a post down.

2) It has to be remembered that I was in a Christian cult when I was 12-14, and the attitude expressed in the fake letter is not far from the real thoughts and feelings of my co-religionists at that time. Remember Betty Ford's statement that she hoped her daughter wouldn't have premarital sex, but if that were to occur, she hoped the lines of communication would stay open between mother and offspring? This was condemned in my church as condoning immorality.

I know these people. They exist. That's why I found the letter believable. Thank Bob Hymers.

UPDATE 3: Eric at Myopic Zeal sniffs that

This sounds like something from the Clinton White House, not a comedy routine you would expect to hear from Laura Bush:

Eyebrows were raised by the first lady’s bit about the president’s ranching skills, which Mrs. Bush said her husband lacked because the elite schools he attended, Andover and Yale, “don’t have a real strong ranching program.”

She then added:

“He’s learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What’s worse, it was a male horse.”

Then he remarks:

While the milking the male horse joke may be funny, it simply does not fit the public persona that Mrs. Bush has groomed. I wonder why the change.

He implies that I'm dumb for being taken in by a hoax based on negative reactions to the First Lady's routine. This is irony you could cut with one of the chainsaws at the Crawford ranch.

And anyone who suggests that I was referring to all—or even most—so-cons as dumb should re-read my post. Okay?

UPDATE 4: Okay. Got the names straight, finally. I must bring my fact-checking mindset with me when I blog. The Traditional Values Coalition is the real one, which issued this statement:

The hoax press release distributed under the name of the Traditional Values Coalition is the most recent tactic in an ongoing campaign of harassment of the conservative church group over the past year, according to the CoalitionÂ’s Washington office.

So I took that to mean that the names matched. Not quite. The joke press release purported to come from something called the Coalition for Traditional Values. From a Rev. DeLong, which should have tipped me off—but did not.

Posted by: Attila at 01:41 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 4 kb.

1 We socons may be dumb as boards, but we weren't the ones punk'd by this piece of satire.

Posted by: craig henry at May 02, 2005 02:08 PM (ordG1)

2 I think the first and second comment posts tell the story of the entire debacle. Post 1 - Liberal/libertarian (feminist?) gets her panties all wadded up, ending her post with ALL CAPS!!! Post 2 - Conservative Christian calls BS on the story. I scanned forward through the next twenty or so comments, and the pattern seemed to hold. Oh yes. That speaks volumes. I'm not going to claim I wouldn't have been taken in, as I backed into this story after the truth came out, but reading through the article, I have a hard time believing that anyone would have taken this seriously, and if they did, why it would not have been immediately obvious that this "Coalition for Traditional Values" is some kind of fringe group of loose cannon nutcases. Maybe it takes a Conservative/libertarian Christian to recognize how unlike most Conservative Christians this fictional group of people is, and how absurd their assertions sound, even to us. But as far as feeding into the stereotypes and deep seated prejudices of the left and the non- (or nominally) Christian right--trolling for a rise out of them--the piece was brilliant. Knuckle-draggers indeed...

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 02, 2005 11:21 PM (xdX36)

3 Actually, DC--it's a real group. They were utterly dismayed by having a fake press release sent out in their name.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 03, 2005 11:53 AM (U8eQl)

4 Why feel bad about being taken in? It's hard to satirize these people, they're so extreme. A Bear Flagger told me he thinks women who have abortions should be sterilized & the doctors killed. WHACK JOB

Posted by: jeff at May 03, 2005 12:20 PM (jKipy)

5 reading through the article, I have a hard time believing that anyone would have taken this seriously, and if they did, why it would not have been immediately obvious that this "Coalition for Traditional Values" is some kind of fringe group of loose cannon nutcases. That's exactly my point, DC. There are "fringe group loose cannon nutcakes" out there. And the fact that the Coalition for Traditional Values doesn't happen to be one of them doesn't negate the fact that they exist.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 03, 2005 12:36 PM (U8eQl)

6 A couple of points. 1. I agree with not taking down posts. I've definitely created (and left up) my share of regrettable posts. 2. I didn't mean to imply you were dumb, only that I thought it was funny that you called others dumb for getting upset at LB's routine. 3. I was not upset at her routine, I was quoting the bogus news source (yep, me too!), but my comments were more about my surprise at the "out of character-ness" of her routine, not personal objection to the content itself. Anyway, no offense intended, I know you're not dumb, I just love irony. And I'm glad I could add to the irony surrounding this story with my own chainsaw-worthy post. :-)

Posted by: Eric at May 03, 2005 02:01 PM (4G1j9)

7 I have always subscribed to the "leave it up there and just post an update" theory. people make mistakes, get caught in webs, etc. It happens. It is just honest to leave it up there. Plus, it makes for great Bonfire of the Vanities material

Posted by: William Teach at May 03, 2005 02:24 PM (TFSHk)

8 As far as I'm concerned AG, highest of high marks for honesty. If you can't change a position when the known facts change, you might as well be in office (Bush senior knows all about that one.) Don't let the whack jobs (so-called) become the poster children of conservatism!

Posted by: douglas brown at May 03, 2005 03:04 PM (gBb7M)

9 It's the painting with the (perceived) broad brush that is objectionable. (BTW, the Coalition for Traditional Values does not exist, but a group called the Traditional Values Coalition does.) Let me frame this a different way. Let's say I came across an article purportedly written by a member of a particular minority group--African Americans let's say--that played upon the stereotypes and prejudices that some people still hold about them. Let's say I took the opportunity of that article to say something like, "I know there are blacks who are intelligent and cultured. In fact, some of my readers are highly intelligent African Americans. But there sure are a few dumb n*****s out there." When it turned out later that the article was written by a spoof site with racist inclinations, and the worst I got was someone saying that it was rather telling that I was taken in by the fake article, I would have gotten off *really* easy, don't you think? I don't think claiming that I know a few blacks just like those in that article would have helped me much. I know I know, it's different because it's just Christians we're talking about, right? Just saying.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 03, 2005 05:20 PM (n/TmV)

10 Alright who here hovered over the "dumb as boards" link and looked in the lower left just to make sure your site wasn't there. Yeah, me neither.

Posted by: Don at May 03, 2005 11:31 PM (FsGoB)

11 Rush Limbaugh was taken in by it too for at least a few minutes. Not the worst company to be in by any means.

Posted by: Tom Hanna at May 04, 2005 12:13 AM (Phe8c)

12 Desert Cat: Let's begin with the double-standard problem. It's real, though I'm not sure your analogy is 100% perfect: after all, what's that old chestnut about street profiling?--picture yourself walking alone after dark. Four black guys are coming toward you. Suddenly, you discern that the objects in their hands are Bibles. Do you feel better? But, okay: let's talk about race. The first time I was mugged, it was by two black guys. The second time I was mugged, it was by two black guys. I had to think about that, because I didn't want to let my experiences turn me into a racist. But I was sure tired of getting mugged: it was a terrifying experience. I decided that indoors, race didn't matter. I only mattered on the street. I just didn't let men (black or white) near me for a while. The third time I got mugged it was by a female, and so I wouldn't let women near me unless they were carrying babies (or maybe maybe maybe a bag of groceries). Our experiences leave scars. These scars can be hidden, or they might show. But they are there. Do I get mad at black people because they cannot control the tiny group within their population that likes to commit crimes? No. Obviously not, because 1) blacks suffer much more from black crime than whites [that is, despite the fact that black-on-white crime loomed large in my life, I know black-on-black crime is a bigger problem]; and 2) white people can't magically make white criminals stop, either. The real divide is those who live their lives within the law and according to basic decency vs. those who do not. So. I know there is a lot of prejudice against Christians, especially those who really try to practice a more orthodox, "pure" form of the faith. And I understand that Christians are not protected by PC rules prohibiting public discussion of their faith, as black people are by the strange state of public discourse. So there's a double standard, and it isn't fair. But I'm not sure the answer is for society to be muzzled in its discussion of faiths and the faithful to the same degree as it has been with respect to race. I'm sorry if you were offended; I certainly didn't mean to offend you and I selected my words very carefully, so that you and a few others would (I hoped) not feel that my contempt was aimed in your direction. But I suffered some terrible things at a very tender age by people posing as fundamentalist Christians, and it's left a mark on me. I have scars, and I'm not going to go out of my way to cover them up. What I can do is promise to try to understand your POV as much as possible, and to make an effort to portray people of faith in the best light consistent with my personality and my perception of the truth. After all, I'm a Christian myself, though not a terribly good one. (I content myself with the fact that God famously likes to use broken vessels.) One more thing: there are a lot of people in this country who claim to agree with you on theological matters, yet would never ever socialize with prostitutes (as our Lord did). To what degree do you identify with them?--or is there a distinction to be drawn between those who truly live their faith and those who see it as a way to fix others--not themselves?

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 04, 2005 01:29 AM (U8eQl)

13 I have known Desert Cat all his life, and I can assure you that he is definitely not one to judge or condemn anyone.

Posted by: Dad Cat at May 04, 2005 12:12 PM (xdX36)

14 I know, Sir. Thank you for stopping by. DC is one of my favorite bloggers (and commenters). We do have discussions, and he's always conducted himself with decency and treated others with respect. His political views, also, are not those of someone who wants to enforce a universal code of morality at the point of a gun. So that is understood. When I spoke of those who judge others, it was with the understanding that this would not be DC's approach. I'm hoping that he read it that way, though if I were perfect in expressing these things he and I wouldn't be having the present debate at all

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 04, 2005 12:24 PM (U8eQl)

15 Well now ain't that just as awkward as all get-out? (hi dad...) I expanded on my previous thoughts more here, but I appreciate that you have largely and effectively addressed what I was trying to say. And I'm not offended so much as uncomfortable with the rhetoric. Them. Those people. Not like us. Wackos. Extremists. (Insert epithet here). Get the rope and the torches people, we're gonna deal with this "problem" ourselves. All PC BS aside, there is a tendency to "otherize" people who differ significantly from us in some way. I mean I love lefty bashing as much as the next conservative, but I have to say there are times and places where it clearly goes overboard. There are bloggers whose disturbed anti-hippy fantasies have led me to stop reading their site. So this "otherizing" happens sometimes no matter one's political or social orientation. I used the example of race, however flawed, because most people put a sincere effort into *not* otherizing people of different racial backgrounds--not making generalizations that are too broad, based on some individual bad experiences, and especially not on "received" prejudices. But this seems to be so easily neglected when the differences are political, social or religious in nature. TBH at a lot of sites I wouldn't have bothered, but you run a different kind of site here. "Attack ideas, not people", as the header says. You at least, seem cognizant of and sensitive to some of what is behind my concerns. And I really don't mean to take you specifically to task here, especially considering your experience with what sounds like some very unfortunate spiritual abuse. Just wanting to (to borrow a lefty term, ugh!) "raise awareness". On your last question, yes and no. Yes, I draw distinctions between myself and those who see it as their duty to enforce a moral code in society at large, based on their religious tenents. You are aware, I think, of my exodus from fire-breathing social conservative to my current location in the conservative-libertarian camp. If they are hoping to advance the cause of Christ, I think those social conservatives that actually want to do this are wrong both politically and spiritually, as I was wrong back then. And some of them I disagree with theologically too. Many people I believe, place an incorrect emphasis on the externals, when Christ was concerned chiefly about the internal condition of a person. The externals seem to work out over time when a person's heart is focused on Jesus. You probably noticed a number of people taking the fictitious Pastor DeLong to task for his faulty exigesis in the comments of that article. But I'm not looking for somewhere to draw a line between here and there and say, "past this line it's Them people who are wrong and deserving of scorn, ridicule and abuse. Over here it's Us who have the clue." I generally see a continuum of people who have beliefs and particular emphases on beliefs and values that differ from my own. And I have no idea today if I will find myself in a very different place ten years from now. This is not to say I don't sometimes do this or join with others in doing this. Lefty bashing is fun, so long as it's done in a spirit of fun. I just don't think it is necessary to otherize a person or a group of like-minded people in order to disagree, even sharply, with them. Hippies are people too, however misguided. Finally, I'm not sure what you would consider a "good Christian", but I don't count myself in that number either, whoever they are. It's a struggle for me as much as anyone to do what I know I need to do, when part of me would quite frankly just rather not be bothered. And I don't think my blog would ever be held up as an example of a "model Christian" blog either. **snork!** I mean Heavens to Murgatroid!! Look who's in my Daily Territory. And--Mabel get the smelling salts--look who I link to here!

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 04, 2005 03:05 PM (n/TmV)

16 While the tempest in a teapot over the faked quote continues, a real tempest has brewed up over a real quote by Pat Robertson on May 2. More over the top than the Somme. http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=779

Posted by: douglas brown at May 04, 2005 06:52 PM (E4Yi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

John Hawkins at Right Wing News has polled a select number of the rightosphere's best intellects (cough, cough) about their favorite columnists. The results are here: the top twenty opinion-makers of the print [etc.] world. All along, I was convinced that Christopher Hitchens would do well despite being a lefty. I was delighted when Mark Steyn won.

And I still miss Michael Kelly. Badly.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

I will not blog when I'm half-asleep.
I will not blog when I'm half-asleep.
I will not blog when I'm half-asleep.

Posted by: Attila at 11:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.