Some responses to the news that Bill Clinton will campaign for Joe Lieberman:

Remember that Clinton is part of the DLC movement, which believes that the country has moved right and that a centrist Democratic thrust is necessary to achieve electoral success. That meant compromise with the right. And who else has been more willing to compromise with the right: Lieberman.

And:

It's On Days Like This That [sic] I really think we have to consider a new political party and let the Democratic Party destroy itself.

As for President Clinton, "He questioned why antiwar Democrats are seeking to oust a fellow Democrat, saying that instead of seeking to retire Republicans they were pursuing 'the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life.' "

I agree with President Clinton. The two quotes above highlight the tremendous divide between the disproportionately vocal far left wing of the Democratic Party and the rest of us, who are more or less centrists. Let's face it: the reason the Democratic ticket won in 1992 and 1996 was that the candidates were centrist Democrats. History proves that a "centrist Democratic thrust" is essential to winning the presidency.

The commenter who says that "We have to demonstrate that we can beat the Republicans our way, not the Clinton way. We can rant and rail against the Clintons, the DLC, Lieberman, and the lot, but unless we win elections, it's all academic." demonstrates the essential psychosis of the left wing: They want to win their way or not at all. If the Democratic party follows "their way," it'll be not at all. Again.

Dukakis lost in 1988 by moving left. Kerry lost in 2004 by going [or being] left. Benjamin Franklin said long ago that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." If true, then these left wingers are nuttier than a fruitcake. They don't speak for me or, I believe, for the majority of the Democratic Party.

What was life like in 1906? Check this out:

The average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years.

Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.

A three-minute call from Denver to New York City
cost eleven dollars.

There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S., and only 144 miles
of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more
heavily populated than California.

With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st
most populous state in the Union.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower!

The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents per hour.

The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year .

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,
a dentist $2,500 per year, a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. took place at HOME .

Ninety percent of all U.S. doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which
were condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used
borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
entering into their country for any reason.

Five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars.
Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and
Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.

The population of Las Vegas, Nevada, was only 30!!!!

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea
hadn't been invented yet.

There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

Two out of every 10 U.S. adults couldn't read or write.

Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.
Eighteen percent of households in the U.S. had at least
one full-time servant or domestic help.

There were about 230 reported murders in the ENTIRE ! U.S.A. !

Remarks by Rabbi Marvin Hier of Los Angeles:

Let us be very clear, this is not a conflict over borders, not about 1967 or 1948. This is about enemies who have one purpose in mind, a Middle East that is Judenrein, free of Jews.

For years, the critics of Israel opined that when Israel pulls out of Lebanon and Gaza, when it allows the Palestinians to write their history, to define their own destiny, when they are empowered to rebuild their own economy, then they will devote their energies to peace.

Well, Israel pulled out of Lebanon, after guarantees by the international community that the Lebanese government would exercise jurisdiction over its territory and control Hezbollah. But it didn’t and look what happened? An unprovoked terrorist attack and the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers.

In the South, Prime Minister Sharon withdrew from Gaza in a bold attempt to jumpstart the peace process. What was the Palestinian response? They went to the polls and elected Hamas, a terrorist government whose undisputed leader Khaled Meshaal lives in Damascus. Almost immediately, Hamas began firing more then 1,000 rockets at the city of Sderot which is not disputed territory, but an uncontested part of Israel.

Day after day, month after month, the rockets fell, but the world watched and did nothing. Hamas felt emboldened and dug a tunnel into Israel, kidnapping Corporal Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier and holding him hostage, but again, the world took no concrete action.

Hier's point illustrates the Bizarro world in which we live: for years, Israel has been importuned to get out of "occupied territory." Now, to the West, "occupied territory" means the West Bank and Gaza. To the Arabs, "occupied territory means all of Israel. Thus, the Arab call to relinquish "occupied teritory" means, to them, the abandonment of the State of Israel completely.

Many people, including me, were apprehensive at the Sharon government's bold move to unilaterally pull back from Gaza. The naysayers foretold that the Arabs simply would fire rockets, unimpeded, from the Gaza territory into Israel. The Israeli government and people nevertheless took a chance in good faith that the "Palestineans," essentially having been ceded the land they had wanted, would leave Israel alone. Alas, the naysayers were right, the "Palestineans" continue to kill innocent civilians to gain more territory.

This continued use of terror killings over the past year appears to have escaped the notice of the world community. Continued Arab violence, both in Gaza and in northern Israel, undersocres the fact that the Arabs want Israel destroyed. Nothing less. Israel has no choice but to do all in its power to destroy the destroyers before it's too late.

This Comments thing is interesting, for a change if nothing else. One commenter believes that a blog is not a blog without Comments enabled. Instapundit doesn't have comments, so I'm not sure I agree. We'll see how this [not so] grand experiment goes, though.

On the John Edwards post from a couple of days ago, one commenter said this: "Rove actually said following the 2004 election that Edwards was the Dem he feared the most. He lucked out and got Kerry. He won't be as lucky in 2008." That's quite interesting, except I don't believe Rove "lucked out." They wanted to run against Kerry, and look who they ran against.

As to the tried and true bromides that Edwards couldn't even win his own state, we don't really know that, because with Kerry and his baggage in the mix, there's no way to accurately extrapolate what would have happened with an Edwards/Mr. X ticket. And, if the ticket had been switched to put Edwards in the number 1 slot, I think it at least possible that he would have taken at least one southern state, which has for years been the Democrats' achilles heel. If anything, 2004 suggests that the significance of where the VP candidate is from is overstated.

Just for yucks, I have enabled the comments feature of this blog. I've never done this, in over three years of on and off blogging, so it ought to be interesting.

So weigh in, all you dozens of faithful readers!

This MUST be right: "07/13/06 FOX News Poll: Democrats Favored On Most Issues; Bush Approval Down." After all, consider the source!

Glenn links to a good interview with John Edwards on poverty and its societal consequences.

Which leads to an interesting hypothesis: Americans are less interested generally in specific issues, such as foreign policy, than they are in how government and society is going to make their lives better [or worse]. Thus, one of the reasons the Clinton administrations were so popular was that peoples' lives improved during that eight year period.

We keep hearing that the economy is strong, that the war in Iraq is progressing, but people here at home are worried, incomes don't seem to buy what they used to, gas prices are through the roof, there's a lingering vague apprehension of terrorist activity domestically, and there's no general sense we are moving forward or getting ahead. Republicans used a fear-mongering strategy in 2004 to keep the White House, i.e., we can't trust Kerry or the Democrats, things are too dangerous to make a change, it sends a bad signal to terrorists, etc. My sense is that with the passage of time, the public has realized that we can live our lives, even with the potential for terrorism in the U.S. The restlessness of the public may then be ascribed to dissatisfaction with the government's progress at helping improve peoples' lives.

In that respect, a guy like Edwards, as he would have in 2004, would make a choice candidate for the Democrats. It doesn't help that he's got that certain something that draws people to him. It's that intangible that Kennedy, Clinton, and even Reagan had. He's got positives, where Hillary Clinton or Kerry have negatives.

It is also noteworthy that he is completely off the Republicans' radar screen. I believe that the Republicans have for years been remarkably adroit at pushing to the front in the public eye the candidate they want to run against. Consider McGovern in 1972, Dukakis in 1988 and Kerry in 2004. I think they didn't want to run against Clinton, and did everything possible to deep six his campaign in the primaries, to no avail, based on Clinton's extraordinary campaigning skills and determination to persevere. The fact that nary a word has been said by MSM or Republican punditry about Edwards suggests that they fear his ability to contend strongly with whichever Republican emerges from the pack. That's especially important in the upcoming 2008 cycle, because the Repubs don't have a "Natural" to rely on.

In this respect, I am reminded of Hal Holbrook's great speech from the movie All The President's Men:

DEEP THROAT:
Nationwide--my God, they were
frightened of Muskie and look who
got destroyed--they wanted to run
against McGovern, and look who they're
running against. They bugged, they
followed people, false press leaks,
fake letters, they canceled Democratic
campaign rallies, they investigated
Democratic private lives, they planted
spies, stole documents, on and on--
don't tell me you think this was all
the work of little Don Segretti.

To place the analogy in 2004 context, they were frightened of Edwards and look who got destroyed--they wanted to run against Kerry, and look who they're running against. Not to belabor it, but in 1992 context [had it worked out the way they wanted it to]: they were frightened of Clinton and look who got destroyed--they wanted to run against [Tsongas, Jerry Brown, whoever], and look who they're running against. Let's face it: with a lesser campaigner than Clinton, the whole barrage of Gennifer Flowers, draft status, and "I didn't inhale" would have been fatal. For details on the 1992 shennaigans, read Carville and Matalin's All's Fair. Unfortunately, I absolutely believe that the Republican leadership will do almost anything to steer national elections in the direction they favor.

In any event, I don't know if Edwards is considering another run in 2008, but he ought to. If he does, however, he should watch his back, because they'll be comin' for him.

Here's a cute take on the NSA domestic spying program, courtesy of Newsday.

Hey! I got published, kind of.

Karl Rove:

"Like too many Democrats it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough, they fall back of that party's old platform of cutting and running. They may be with you for the first few bullets but they won't be there for the last tough battles," he said.

Let me get this straight -- this guy, who as far as I know never saw a day of combat, is saying this about twodecorated combat veterans? Besides, he's wrong:

* WWI was started by Woodrow Wilson, a Democratic President. WWI was finished in victory by Woodrow Wilson, a Democratic President.
* WWII was started by Franklin Roosevelt, a Democratic President. WWII was finished in victory by Harry Truman, a Democratic President.
* Korea was started by Harry Truman, a Democratic President. WWII was finished by leaving before winning (or "cutting and running in Rove parlance) by Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President.
* Vietnam was started by John Kennedy, a Democratic President. Vietnam was escalated by Lyndon Johnson, a Democratic President. We began withdrawing before winning (or "cutting and running in Rove parlance) under Richard Nixon, a Republican President. withdrawing before winning (or "cutting and running in Rove parlance) under Gerry Ford, a Republican President.
* Grenada -- fricking Grenada? -- was invaded under Ronald Reagan, a Republican President. Grenada -- fricking Grenada? -- was finished in victory under Ronald Reagan, a Republican President.
* Iraq War I was started by George HW Bush, a Republican President. We left before removing Saddam Hussein from power (or "cutting and running in Rove parlance) under George HW Bush, a Republican President.
* Bosnia war was started by Bill Clinton, a Democratic President. Bosnia was won by Bill Clinton, a Democratic President.

Not that accuracy makes a difference. All this guy is doing is playing into the Republican-created and perpetuated stereotype of Democrats being wimps. Hell, even George McGovern was a decorated WWII veteran as a B-24 pilot. Let us all keep in mind the Hitler/Goebbels lesson of the "big lie:" The bigger the untruth, the easier it is to get people to believe it en masse.

Ben Fong-Torres gets the Howard Stern treatment: "Back in San Francisco, I heard from people who'd caught the show. Stern and Quivers, they said, had treated me with respect. Is that what you call it? But it's true. Through all the grilling and joking, they'd maintained an all-in-fun tone. In exchange, I'd had my 10 minutes of (almost) fame."

Ben Fong-Torres gets the Howard Stern treatment: "Back in San Francisco, I heard from people who'd caught the show. Stern and Quivers, they said, had treated me with respect. Is that what you call it? But it's true. Through all the grilling and joking, they'd maintained an all-in-fun tone. In exchange, I'd had my 10 minutes of (almost) fame."

Ben Fong-Torres gets the Howard Stern treatment: "Back in San Francisco, I heard from people who'd caught the show. Stern and Quivers, they said, had treated me with respect. Is that what you call it? But it's true. Through all the grilling and joking, they'd maintained an all-in-fun tone. In exchange, I'd had my 10 minutes of (almost) fame."

The "Jersey Girls" respond to Ann Coulter:

"We have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day," the women said.

Extremism, or zealotry, whether on the left or the right is equally bad. Coulter, who has made a name for herself largely on the fierceness of her invective and her looks (would she have gotten on the cover of Time had she NOT been an attractive, leggy blonde?) exemplifies the reprehensible natrue of the right's approach. While The Anchoress condemns Coulter's statement, her phraseology on this topic is telling:

To me she is embodying everything I currently cannot abide in the “conservative movement,” the arrogant presumption of absolute moral certitude (which is ugly, ugly, ugly coming from the left, so honey, it’s not pretty when it’s from the right, either), combined with the sense of over-confidence which is sending so many on the right into a self-destructive Roy Moore/Tom Tancredo plunge off a cliff.

Thus, if it comes from the left, its "ugly, ugly, ugly," but whenit comes from the right, it's mere'l "not pretty." I hope that's just her turn of phrase, but I believe that right wingers see the distinction in just that way.

Shredder Trucks? Shredder Trucks??

Well, before we jump to conclusions, maybe it's all an innocent mistake. After all:

With identity theft on the increase, State Farm wants to keep customer information out of the wrong hands. State Farm spokesman Richard Ludke said the company works to maintain the confidentiality and security of private records.

"It would be of course cost-prohibitive to maintain every document, obviously, and so we've implemented this program to orderly dispose of the records we don't need.

"But we do issue litigation hold orders so that we make sure we retain the records that may be needed for specific litigation."

On the other hand:

at least one shredded document was an engineering report that went missing after Attorney General Jim Hood subpoenaed such State Farm reports for a grand jury investigation. Scruggs said he also had subpoenaed that report and others for his lawsuit against State Farm.

But wait:

The employee was told that State Farm was transferring paper records to computer images, then shredding the original paper.

Well, that's fine, except:

while computer imagining works fine for photographs, the quality at the State Farm office is so poor with printed documents that they are almost impossible to read.

How do we know this? A State Farm employee explains:

The employee first learned while working on a policyholder file that an original engineering report had been destroyed. The copy scanned to images could not be located, either.

"I can tell you I was in a file that was supposed to have an engineer report. No one could find the engineer report and the person I was working with was told it had been shredded because they'd decided to scan it into images.

No problem! Just get another copy from the engineering firm, right? Except:

The employee's co-worker was about to call the engineering firm for another copy, but a claims manager said not to. Instead, an employee authorized to talk to the engineering firm called and requested another copy of the report.

The firm sent over another report, the employee said, adding, "but of course at that point you don't know if it's the one we originally got or not."

I feel like I'm watching a tennis match. These charges are serious, though, and if it's demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that State Farm is destroying evidence, the court ought to be imposing severe sanctions based on spoliation of evidence. Moreover, if State Farm destroyed subpoenaed evidence [i.e., a court order to produce], then it ought to be held in contempt of court.

By the way, if a plaintiff was caught doing what State Farm is alleged to have done here, then you can bet the defendant insurance company would be pushing hard for sanctions, including dismissal of the plaintiff's case.

By the Numbers:

$44.8 Billion: Record profit of insurance companies in 2005

18.7%: Increase in insurance industry profits over 2004

$427 billion: Total insurance industry surplus

So I guess I don't feel too much sympathy for the insurance industry in its efforts to deny liability for hurricane losses in 2005

No, Glenn is not the antichrist. And no, that's not a comb-over, either.

Nice fake smile, though....

God is the chairman of the Texas Republican Party.

Well, I guess I really am on the wrong side.

Glenn says that Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal fisks the Kennedy article. Well, not precisely, as Blumenthal states at the outset of his post:

First, despite its weaknesses, the Kennedy article raises some important and troubling questions about real problems in Ohio in 2004. As Ohio State University Law Professor Dan Tokaji puts it, the article is "useful in exposing how shoddy election administration practices can result in lost votes, and how some recently enacted laws will make things worse rather than better." The summary of problems deserving attention includes long lines in minority precincts, efforts of the Republican Party to selectively challenge (or "cage") new registrants and the many examples of pure incompetence by local election officials. And then there is partisanship of Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, now his party's nominee for governor. Blackwell will need to answer to Ohio voters for, as Salon.com's Farhad Manjoo writes, having "used his powers for partisan gain," issuing "a series of arbitrary and capricious voting and registration rules that could well have disenfranchised many people in the state" (but interests disclosed: I am a Democratic pollster with clients in Ohio)

Second, while I have devoted 68 posts and tens of thousands of words to the exit poll controversy since Election Day 2004, I have never argued that the exit polls can be used to rule out or disprove the possibility that vote fraud may have occurred in Ohio or anywhere else during in 2004.

Blumenthal's overall point: the discrepancy between the exit polls and the eventual announced vote tabulations does not affirmatively demonstrate electoral fraud. As indicated by his disclaimer as quoted above, he doesn't rule it out, either. Blumenthal clearly thinks Kennedy and Rolling Stone are making too much of the exit poll issue, though.

And while maybe I'm dense [maybe?], I don't see how this is an embarassment for RFK and Rolling Stone, any more than the polemics of, say, an Ann Coulter or Mark Levin are for the radical right. Well, OK, maybe it is embarassing, considering those two....

Remember the wildly inaccurate exit polls in the 2004 presidential election? In a documented and sourced piece from Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. argues persuasively that the exit polls were not inaccurate:

In January, a team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state's exit polls against the certified vote count in each of the forty-nine precincts polled by Edison/Mitofsky. In twenty-two of those precincts -- nearly half of those polled -- they discovered results that differed widely from the official tally. Once again -- against all odds -- the widespread discrepancies were stacked massively in Bush's favor: In only two of the suspect twenty-two precincts did the disparity benefit Kerry. The wildest discrepancy came from the precinct Mitofsky numbered "27," in order to protect the anonymity of those surveyed. According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.

Such results, according to the archive, provide "virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount." The discrepancies, the experts add, "are consistent with the hypothesis that Kerry would have won Ohio's electoral votes if Ohio's official vote counts had accurately reflected voter intent." According to Ron Baiman, vice president of the archive and a public policy analyst at Loyola University in Chicago, "No rigorous statistical explanation" can explain the "completely nonrandom" disparities that almost uniformly benefited Bush. The final results, he adds, are "completely consistent with election fraud -- specifically vote shifting."

Read the whole article. Considering the likely shenanigans in Florida in 2000 -- whose election mechanism also was controlled by Republicans -- I tend to be convinced. Remember, the reason the Nixon Administration is justifiably castigated is not because their people broke into Democratic headquarters, it was the overall pattern of subverting the electoral process. If it is true that the Republicans threw the election to Bush -- a conclusion that is statistically inescapable, according to this article -- then the subversion of everything this country is about is even more massive and pernicious. I fear for the electorate that fails to cry "foul" and bring the wrongdoers to justice.