The Republic Is Safe . . . For Now

The AP reports a comforting story indicating that one threat to peace and freedom in the United States and the world seems to have been neutralized.

Faulty Reading of the Intel in War Planning

The anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War has occasioned plenty of retrospective pieces on the Bush administration's justification for the war. Largely and predictably, these have focused on statements about WMD and Al Qaida connections that for the MSM are now patent falsehoods. NPR, for instance, led off with such a story on today's Morning Edition.

Such assertions have more to do with interpretation than with facts alone. The conclusion that Saddam didn't have WMD is based on the fact that no large supplies of WMD have been found in Iraq. Isolated chemical weapons have been located, and various government and military officials have offered accounts, none verified to the public, of weapons being sent to Syria (which, if it has Iraqi WMD, no doubt now figures the costs of their use to be far greater than any benefit). And evidence of Saddam's mothballed WMD programs, awaiting the end of UN supervision to resume production, are clear enough to all. Further, it is clear enough that Saddam consistently cultivated the impression that he was hiding WMD, in effect acting like the person in a bank who holds his hand in his coat pocket and says to the teller that he has a gun (who by law is guilty of armed robbery even if his pocket held only his hand). But "there were no WMD" is the mantra of the MSM.

Likewise we are told that Saddam's alleged connections to al Qaida were nonexistent. Here the key phrase is "operative connection." However, no one would reasonably deny clear evidence that Saddam's Iraq did not provide cooperation and safe haven to terrorists with whom his regime had common cause. Such, however, is assumed not to be a sufficient provocation for war. Hence, "Saddam had no ties to al Qaida" is another MSM mantra.

But enough of all that. Let's requote what the indispensable James Taranto quotes for some real cooking of the intelligence prior to the war:

• "In launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing--weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. . . . Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold numbers of Iraqi civilians could be killed."--Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002
• "Not so long ago, prominent German politicians were outdoing each other forecasting worst-case scenarios for the Iraq conflict. The predictions ranged from 'millions of victims of U.S. rockets' to 'millions of Iraqi refugees desperately fleeing the country.' "--San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2003
• "It is also likely that in the early stages there will be a large segment of the population requiring treatment for traumatic injuries, either directly conflict-induced or from the resulting devastation. Given the population outlined earlier, as many as 500,000 could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries."--U.N. report on "likely humanitarian scenarios," Dec. 10, 2002
• "Up to four million people could die in a war on Iraq involving nuclear weapons. A more contained conflict could cause half a million deaths and have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond. It could also damage the global economy and thus indirectly harm the health and well-being of millions more people across the world."--executive summary, "A New Gulf War: The Real Cost," Medact ("a UK-based charity taking action on key global health issues"), Nov. 13, 2002

In the political battle that preceded the military one, it seems that both sides may have used some Weapons of Mass Deception. But from the SWNID perspective, the administration's case still looks like the less hyperbolic one. Taranto cites iraqbodycount.net, a committed antiwar site that as we write puts the total number of Iraqi war dead, civilian and military, between 33,710 and 37,832. Those are big numbers, representing human beings, each of whose lives has incalculable value. War is at least heck, if certain generals are to be believed. However, 38k is closer to zero than a 500k, much closer to zero than to a million, and definitely, with apologies to the Senior Senator from the State of Inebriation, a told* number.

_____________________

*As the inspiration for this expression we offer a tip of the SWNID hat to Edwin Newman, journalist and English stylist, who objected to the common expression "unsung hero" because there is no such thing as a "sung hero." A "sung hero," he observed, sounds like an Italian sandwich in a Chinese restaurant.

Grim News from Afghanistan

No one said that war solves everything, gentle readers.

The ultra-despotic Taliban may not be in power in Afghanistan anymore, but it's not a paradise yet. Australia's Herald-Sun reports that a man who has allegedly converted from Islam to Christianity in Afghanistan faces trial and possible execution for "abandoning Islam."

Don't expect this to get much coverage in the United States, of course. Our media don't want to cover problems in Iraq or Afghanistan unless they directly impugn the Bush administration's prosecution of the war. Christians being persecuted isn't news, after all.

1960s Still Can't Be Resurrected

Per news reports, "thousands" took to the streets today to protest the Iraq War on the third anniversary of its beginning (who can forget Dan Rather's gravid updates on the war, ending with "and now back to basketball," so somberly intoned?). The problem is that the thousands seem to have been but a few hundred or less at each of the many dozens of sites, far fewer than the number who protested the war at the beginning, and far fewer than organizers had told the press to expect.

All this just goes to show that it hasn't been 1968 for, well, about 37 years and three months.

The yearning of the left for a revival of 60s-style protest culture will go unfulfilled for a number of reasons. One is that we will never again see a demographic in this country so skewed to middle-class white teenagers, the products of the baby boom who fueled the antiwar protests. Another is the absence of the draft, which, more than the war itself, was the real source of angst. As long as college students don't need to worry about their own lives being interrupted, they're unlikely to take a day out of spring break revelry to march around the block yelling antiwar slogans.

Of course, the real truth is that the antiwar protests probably had little positive effect anyway. In 1968 both parties nominated candidates with virtually identical positions on the war. By 1972 a true antiwar candidate got a nomination, but he managed to lose the election by a gargantuan margin. The one "victory" of the movement was to persuade Congress in the post-Watergate era to cut off any funding for the South Vietnamese government, consigning it to doom when the North launched its final offensive.

So the effect was there: thousands of South Vietnamese seeking refuge as "boat people" while millions experienced the enslavement of Communist totalitarianism. But who would call it positive?

Unfortunately for the Democrats, this romantic yearning for the idealized 60s continues today to hobble their party's foreign policy, if one can call it that. Aside from Joe Lieberman, no one dare offend the antiwar left. It controls much of the party's money machine, and its voters will stay home or vote for third-party candidates at the least provocation.

Unfortunately for all of us, the 60s antiwar movement continues to influence broader political discussion. By the Ford Administration, Senator Frank Church became the functioning spokesman for the movement. He led in the move to eliminate funding for South Vietnam. But more important for the present, under his leadership the Senate Intelligence Committee initiated the "reforms" that produced the limitations on American intelligence gathering and covert operations that have largely set the stage for today's dysfunctional debate on intelligence gathering versus civil liberties.

We, of course, grant that the protection of civil liberties matters much, even in wartime. However, as long as one side of the issue's debate refuses to believe that there are bad people in the world who can only be restrained by force, and as long as they are more concerned for the theoretical purity of their own government's operations than for its effectiveness in protecting its citizens, we will continue to discuss whether civil liberties are imperiled when the NSA listens to cell phone calls between Khalil in Brooklyn and his Al Qaida contact in Pakistan.

So, leftists, you can keep listening to the classic music of the 60s. But get over your preoccupation with protest movements. It's time to get a haircut and a job.

Gang War, Not Civil War

Ralph Peters at the NY Post continues to be a realistic and sober voice on the situation in Iraq. Today he offers the following analogy:

As Operation Swarmer corners terrorists and insurgents north of Baghdad, the bloodshed elsewhere remains far below the civil-war level. Rogue Iraqis are turning on each other. You're seeing gangland violence on amphetamines.

Think of it as the Mafia shooting it out with the Ku Klux Klan and the IRA. With automatic weapons and car bombs. . . .

The gangs are now at each other's throats. A lot of those bodies turning up aren't innocent democrats. Many are thugs who enraged other thugs. . . .

Iraq doesn't need a Grant or Sherman. It needs an Elliot Ness. On steroids.

Peters notes that different steps at the beginning of the war--sending in more troops, being prepared to impose the rule of law immediately--might have squelched the present mess. We're actually skeptical about that, unless those steps included extensive Arabic language and culture lessons for 350,000 American troops prior to the invasion.

There's a SWNID aphorism involved here: Those who make no mistakes aren't spreading themselves thin enough. Waiting to do things absolutely right generally means waiting forever. Utopian plans never yield utopia.

But what's important now is not what should have been done in light of what's happening now. A wise, animated, Buddhist baboon once said, "It doesn't matter; it's in the past." What matters is what should be done now in light of what's happening now. What's happening is gang warfare. What should be done is to continue to build the Iraqi military and police so that they can, over time, make it so dangerous to be a bad guy in Iraq that few will try.

He who bears the sword bears it not in vain.

Ignatius Affirms SWNID Analysis: Iraq in Crisis Moves Forward with Leadership

David Ignatius, un-looney liberal columnist for the Washington Post, today notes that things are looking up in Iraq. Specifically, he cites the efforts to form a national unity government that have moved forward under the midwifery of American Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. To quote Ignatius:

[Khalilzad] said of this week's gatherings: "These are the best meetings of Iraqis I've seen since I've been here."

The U.S. ambassador's upbeat account is believable because it is echoed by Iraqi political leaders. Adel Abdul Mahdi, Iraq's vice president and a representative of Hakim and his powerful Shiite party known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, told me Wednesday: "We have a common understanding on major issues -- on the need for consensus and on a national security commission. What makes me confident is that I think we are building up a sense of understanding among different communities." He said the message of the new government must be: "No one is outside of the law, whether the Badr Organization [the Supreme Council's militia], the Mahdi Army or the insurgency."

With characteristic humility we point out, to borrow a phrase, we told you so.

Photoshop Is Truer Than Truth

We offer a tip of the SWNID chapeau to the unknown creator of this delightful rendition of the heart and soul of our republic's loyal opposition party.

Dionne, Demographics, And Why Political Stereotypes Are True

E. J. Dionne is not in step with SWNID's seldom-wrong ideology, but he does have the sense to take facts into account periodically. In today's Washington Post, he does that very thing, citing a paper by a cadre of leading political scientists on our two-party, polarized republic. Remarkably enough, it makes sense of some political stereotypes by careful analysis of demographics and voting patterns.

Here's how:

• The wealthy Republican stereotype is belied by the observation that blue states tend to be richer than red states. However, it is supported by the observation that in red states, gaps in income tend to be larger overall, and the wealthier in those states tend to be the most consistent Republican voters and supporters.
• The elitist Democrat stereotype is belied by the observation that higher income brackets nationally tend to vote Republican. But it is supported by the observation that many of the most visible and generous Democrat boosters are in homogeneous subcultural enclaves in blue states (NYC, Boston, SF, LA, Seattle/Redmond), in which states party preferences tend not to correlate with wealth.

The result is that both sides represent their polarization as a class war: the Ds say the Rs are rich oppressors looking to give themselves a free pass; the Rs say the Ds are wealthy coastal elitists who don't give a flying fig for the values of the heartland.

Dionne, of course, implies that the Ds are more truly populist than the Rs. We, of course, disagree, but not because we think the Rs are deliberately populist.

No, conservative political ideology is populist because in the long run it offers the best chance for the most people to live decent, orderly lives with a reasonable degree of prosperity. Conservatives are indifferent to the liberals' favorite complaint, the "widening gap between rich and poor." Conservatives care little that the few have an exponentially greater pile of stuff than the many. They care whether the many have the means and opportunity to contribute to the general well being through productive labor and entrepreneurship and so provide for their own needs reliably and with dignity.

Economic theory and history argue powerfully that free-market capitalism, not redistributive governmental programs, offers the best chance of that outcome. The only place for informed debate is the level of economic regulation necessary to maximize the outcome.

This observation takes us back to the demographics. The study Dionne cites doesn't go here, and we have nothing except our own seldom-wrong impressions to support the upcoming assertion, but that never stopped us before.

Here it is: the difference in voting patterns among the wealthier people of red states versus blue states has much to do with when and how they acquired their wealth.

• Red-state rich folk tend to be closer to the original and common experience of obtaining wealth. They are more often first-generation entrepreneurs who have built their own startup businesses into modest successes (N.B. that "wealthy" in this instance refers to incomes over $100k/year). They're new-money people. They adhere to conservative ideology not to catch a further break for further wealth but because they see conservative ideology as demonstrated and ratified by their own success in the free market.
• Blue-state rich folk, however, tend more often to be removed from the original or normal experience of obtaining wealth. Some are heirs. Some are entertainers. Some are seeking the acceptance and approval of the former categories. They're old-money people, or old-money wannabes. For them, wealth is really "fortune," winning "life's lottery" (was it Joe Biden who said that?) through exceptional talent or luck. Most others can't possibly expect to do the same. And from their lofty height, they can't imagine that a life of labor for a wage has any dignity or joy to it at all. So they are persuaded that redistribution of wealth is all that can raise the standards of the unwashed masses.

These are, of course, stereotypes as well. But as Dionne demonstrates, there's a reason for stereotypes. We're waiting for someone to correlate voting patterns not just with how much money the voter has, or even with where the voter lives, but with how and when the voter got the money.

More Contrarian Election Handicapping

Today's opinion pages contain several tasty bits of congressional and presidential election prognosticating from experts whom SWNID respects.

First, Michael Barone, always distinguished by basing his views on data rather than buzz, offers that the Ds will have an exceedingly hard time recapturing the House in '06. He notes the following on the way to that conclusion:

• There's no perceptible political realignment among the electorate (groups formerly aligned with one party shifting to the other) as there was in 1974 and 1994.
• The statistical odds are against the Ds, who lack enough targeted seats to get past the post by historical standards.
• The Ds lack a sufficient number of strong candidates to seriously challenge Republican control

We believe that the last point is most telling. As long as elections are between two candidates, the party that wants to win had better have a good candidate. When the best the Ds can do is the likes of the brittle tort lawyer from tony Indian Hill, Paul Hackett, who is seen as some kind of national Democrat hero for having lost an election against a weak Republican nonincumbent, they continue to look highly Whiggish.

Second, Jay Cost, co-blogger of the utterly indispensable RealClearPolitics enumerates the following reasons why the Ds will not fulfill predictions of triumph in November:

• Democratic Party failure cannot be ascribed to a failure to unify because of a failure of leadership, as the Ds have not been unified since assuming majority-party status in the 1932 and yet still managed to win a lot of elections. Hence, the expectation of a unifying national platform is unrealistic.
• Republican disunity offers no real opportunity for Ds, as the Rs are still more unified than the Ds have been since William Jennings Bryan was the D standardbearer.
• Negative poll numbers about the country being on the "right track" don't help the Ds, either, who showed in 2004 that capitalizing on discontent is not their strong suit right now.
• Negative poll numbers on Congress don't help the Ds, as voters generally vote on their congressman, not the whole lot of them, in congressional elections.
• Likewise, Bush's negatives don't help the Ds, as his name is not actually on the ballot in November.
• Party-preference polls don't mean much either, as Ds always lead those. In Cost's impeccable analysis, that situation goes like this:

In America, your average respondent will say, “Yeah, I want the Democrats!” in May, even in October. He will get to the ballot box in November, only recognize one name on the House ballot, recall that he likes that fellow, and vote for his Republican incumbent.

On the presidential side, Peter Brown, pollster for Quinnipac University, notes that Giuliani phenomenon and counsels a grain of salt. His reasoning for caution is the conventional and still-open question as to whether the Republican primaries, which tend to be dominated by social conservatives, will be friendly to Rudy.

What Brown doesn't consider is the dearth of socially conservative candidates who offer alternatives. Senator Bill Frist is doomed because of the title in front of his name: he will forever be seen as an ineffectual compromiser because of his role as Senate Majority Leader. Mitt Romney may not seem all that conservative to the right wing of the party, and his Mormonism makes him suspect to many as well. We believe that Romney provides a real challenge to Rudy and would be happy for either to lead Lincoln's party to victory in '08. But after Mitt, there's nothing for the right. And he doesn't have the national standing that Rudy has.

Of course, Giuliani doesn't seem to be campaigning yet. But such is the approach of the candidate who has a chance to be nominated by acclamation or demand.

Mallory's First 100 Days: Incremental Progress

The Cincinnati Enquirer this week published an interview with Cincinnati Mayor and SWNID neighbor Mark Mallory marking his first 100 days in the mayor's office. The full transcript of the interview, notably longer than what was printed in the paper, is available here.

Some points to highlight:

• Despite the fact that it hasn't been high on many political agendas, Mallory is working proactively on Cincinnati's public transportation needs.
• He insists that the crime problem is a police issue but also a community issue and continues to call for community support to fight crime.
• In a notably conservative vein, he calls for greater attention to fatherhood as a way to address social ills.
• And then there was this delightful remark:

Well there's a tremendous amount of pressure on me based on a lot of things - the fact that I am my father's son, the fact that my mother continues to say: "You have to make me proud." You know. It's one thing to hear that at 7 or 8 years old, but you know, I'm the mayor now.

In sum, we believe the results so far vindicate our fervent endorsement. But it's still early.

There's plenty to like in Mallory's collaborative approach where everyone has a say and everyone gets credit. It's bound to bring together the fractious fiefdoms of the metro area. Many other officials, County Commissioner Phil Heimlich not among them, have applauded Mallory's consistent outreach.

Mallory cites Columbus, Ohio Mayor Michael Coleman as a role model. If Cincinnati can begin to mirror the renewal and growth that Columbus has experienced in the last decade, few in the city would complain.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Follows SWNID's Advice

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Rationality), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, explains today in USA Today (hence, he explains very briefly, using little words and short sentences) what the committee is going to do about all that "warrantless wiretapping" that the Bush administration has been doing.

In short, they're doing what SWNID has recommended: exercising reasonable oversight as the legislative branch but not bringing to a halt the President's war powers as they relate to intelligence gathering. Specifically, a subcommittee of seven senators "will provide enhanced oversight and will help ensure that any legislation related to the program is based on fact, not speculation."

Note as well that this approach was worked out quietly between Congress and the Executive, without any public hearings in which Senator Kennedy (D-Glennfiddich) hectored NSA officials.

When following the link to read Roberts's article, don't miss his artful opening remark that the whole program came to public attention because of a criminal act on the part of the person who leaked it.

Hillary Still DOA, Rudy Still Rules

The NY Daily News, the liberal NY tabloid newspaper, today reports a poll from Sienna college that reaffirms what we've been saying for months: Hillary Clinton will lose the presidential election in 2008.

The specific data: Six in ten New York voters believe she will run, but almost half said that they won't vote for her. That includes three of ten Democrats.

If Hillary can't carry her "home" state decisively, one wonders whether she might join Walter Mondale with the distinction of losing a statewide election in all 50 states.

Meanwhile, Quinnipac shows that Rudy Giuliani is still the most popular candidate, still ahead of MSM favorite Senator John McCain (R-Opportunism). Rudy gets a 63.5 nationally on a scale of 100 on how warmly people feel toward him. Hillary's at 50.7, ahead of only Senators Russ Feingold (D-Utopia) and George Allen (R-Nowhere).

So before gentle readers say, yes, but Rudy won't get through the primaries because Christian conservatives like me won't vote for a pro-choice Republican, we'll quote columnist Howard Fineman from the article linked above:

A few weeks ago in Florida, [Giuliani] did the drop-by of all drop-bys as the "surprise guest" at the annual convention of the Global Pastors Network. He wowed them with his energy and his revival-style witness to his faith in Jesus. Ralph Reed, a godfather of religious conservatives, thinks Giuliani's charisma may help him overcome his social-issues liberalism in the Bible belt.

"He can take control of a room better than any politician I've seen," said Reed. The key moment with the pastors was in the private holding room, where he spent quality time among their leaders. Giuliani told them that the key to his final decision on whether to run would be whether he thought he could raise enough cash. But he didn't sound as if he had much doubt.

This is probably why the Quinnipac poll finds that Rudy "gets a higher rating from self-identified white evangelical voters who either don't know or don't care that he favors abortion and gay rights."

Obviously the people who were polled read this blog.

Dubai Ports: Good News for Rs in 11-06

The massive Republican revolt against the Dubai ports deal is being heralded by many in the MSM as the first sign of the impending Democrat surge leading to a change in the control of Congress this November. But like most prognostications of the MSM, and all about which this blogger prognosticates the opposite, this will not come to pass in this way.

John Podhoretz, at the opinion-rich NY Post, knows why. The Rs saved W on this as they did with Harriet Miers. So the Ds can't claim partisan advantage. More than that, it's March. Barely. And the election is in ... April? No, wait ... November!

So here's how the Congressional debate will go when Americans start paying attention after having thrown out their jack o'lanterns.

D: My Republican opponent can't be trusted with national security. Just look at the deal that the President approved to allow Arabs to run US ports.

(Voters: What is he talking about?)

R: Actually, I voted against that deal in committee. So did all but two of my Republican colleagues. We don't hesitate to differ with the President, whose overall work in this area I applaud, when we think he's wrong.

(Voters: I think I can trust the incumbent Republican. He sounds sensible. The Democrat sounds like a politician.)

And Now for Something Completely Different: NPR Covers Positive Impact of Christian Missionaries on Social Structures

National Public Radio (motto: "Still longing for Daniel Ortega to return to power") every once in a while manages to cover something out of the ordinary. Today's Morning Edition had one of those occasions.

A regular Morning Edition feature is excerpts from "Storycorps," a Library of Congress project where ordinary people make recordings about their memories for an oral history archive. Today's excerpt featured Joyce Lee interviewing her mother, Hee-Sook Lee, about her experiences as an immigrant to Los Angeles from South Korea. Mrs. Lee recounted that she learned English in Korea in the home of American missionaries, but that she also learned a different way for husbands and wives to interact with each other than the one to which she was accustomed.

Follow the link and listen to the full story, which should be posted today after 10 a.m. EST. Don't just read the summary on the web page: they left out the parts that connect the dots.

Blackwell Broo-Ha-Ha Demonstrates Fear, Political Ineptitude of Opponents

Gentle readers in Ohio have doubtless been following this week's political tempest about the posting of Social Security numbers on the web site of Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

You haven't? You mean that you don't pay close attention to a gubernatorial election eight months before it happens? Well, what if the primary is only two and a half months away? Really? We just assumed that everyone thinks about electoral politics all the time.

And that revelation is what exposes the ineptitude, born of fear, among Blackwell's opponents on both sides of the political aisle.

The controversy, in sum and employing our signature bullet points, is as follows:

• The Secretary of State in Ohio is responsible for the filing of various business paperwork required under law.
• These forms are matters of public record.
• Legislation therefore requires that they be posted on the internet at the Secretary of State's official web site. Alteration of forms before posting is forbidden.
• Some of these forms allow but do not require the listing of the applicant's SSN.
• Such SSNs are therefore accessible from the web.
• Jim Petro, Ohio Attorney General and Republican primary opponent of Blackwell, has accused the Secretary of State of facilitating identity theft by this legally required posting. He has been joined by various Democrats.
• Blackwell's office has countered that they have no legal means to take the forms off the web or to "redact" their contents.
  

After two days of hysterical reporting on the issue, the Cincinnati Enquirer today expresses what has become exceedingly rare on its opinion pages: a thoughtful opinion. Noting that Petro, the state AG, has said that Blackwell should have redacted the forms yet offered no legal authority that he possessed to do so, the Enquirer blames the legislature for failing to act.

So that's the story, but let's get to the politics. Petro is looking to tar Blackwell as insensitive and incompetent. Fear of identity theft, he hopes, will drive the Rs to him despite his association with the Taft RINO preserve. Ds, meanwhile, fear a Blackwell candidacy more than the mutation of Asian Bird Influenza, so they'll support anything to defeat him, even if it means helping Petro.

But the whole thing has been handled with such supreme political ineptitude that it will come to nothing. First, it's way too early to expect that anyone will notice or care. Voters are still doing their income taxes and speculating on NCAA tournament bids. This will be over long before anyone thinks about the fact that Ohio even has a governor.

Second, nobody looks good in this. Petro is the AG, and he has done nothing (admittedly like Blackwell) to address this problem except to draw attention to it for political purposes. Dems in the legislature haven't introduced legislation to address it either. Pants are down on all sides.

Despite its likely insignificance, this story may get some big play in the big media outlets. Pundits anxious for a national story in the off-year elections, are portraying Blackwell's candidacy as a bellwether. It is hugely significant, as we have noted before, that the Rs have several strong candidates running for statewide offices who happen to be African-American. Their success will inevitably erode the Ds stranglehold on the African-American vote, to the eternal detriment of their moribund coalition and its bankrupt political philosophy. Eleanor Clift (motto: If only Bill Clinton would return my passionate love!) would love to make Ohio the turning point for the national Ds while disparaging the "handful" of black Rs like Blackwell (memo to Ms. Clift: how many black Ds are running for or serving as governor in our republic?).

But the truth is that this campaign will turn on Blackwell's appeal as a candidate. With his impeccable and utterly consistent conservative principles and long-term cultivation of conservative organizations, he will have a solid conservative base working hard at the grassroots. With two terms as Secretary of State and lots of media coverage along the way, he's got the best name recognition of any candidate in Ohio. At six-foot-five and with a stentorian bass voice, he's an impressive stump speaker. And as a for-real product of Cincinnati's segregated West End, he will appeal to a segment of voters whom the Ds have treated like stepchildren.

India Deal Is a Big Deal

Bush's trip to India looks like it may be the single biggest thing that he will do in his second term. And that's not to denigrate his second term, which is going like most second terms do: a little ragged, a little tired, lots of missteps, but still with a commitment to acting on the core principles of the first term. It's to say that a deal with what needs to be a crucial economic and military ally for the rest of the century is a very big deal.

Note the following:

• India is the world's largest democracy and has been for some time.
• India is the second largest Muslim country in the world, a fact seldom reported on this trip.
• India is right next door to the Middle East, America's problem, and to China, America's rival.
• India has a large diaspora in this country, largely still engaged with its homeland in positive ways.
• Shaking off its tragic experiment with socialism (fly, as SWNID did two years ago, to India via Seoul/Inchon and Delhi, observe the quality of the airports and of the cities that surround them, then ask yourself which country suffered from a devastating war and which suffered from a devastating economic experiment, then ask which is worse, war or socialism), India's economy is growing at a breakneck rate of 8% per year, thanks to its people's commitment to education and its government's commitment to liberalizing business regulations.
• India has had nukes for a generation and has never used them.

If nobody messes this deal up in the near future, India and the United States are poised to cooperate in ways that will make Asia safer militarily and richer economically. Remember when the cliche, "Finish your dinner; there are starving children in India"? Well, many in India are still hungry, but today the cliche is, "Work harder; there are outsourcing firms in India ready to take your job."

So where's the media on this. Center-right opinion writers get it. We draw attention to the following:

• The Telegraph, capping a modest summary of the impact of Bush's visit, offers typically restrained but notably warm praise: "After five years in the White House, the 43rd President of the United States continues to surprise us."
• The Wall Street Journal opens with this dry observation: "Critics of the Bush Administration often lament that its policies have alienated America's traditional allies and embittered just about everyone else. Everyone except, apparently, a billion or so Indians."
• Conservative pundit and favorite of Mrs. SWNID Rich Lowry notes how remarkable the whole development is and how unreasonable media coverage has been and will be: "That the U.S. is friends with both India and Pakistan has a lot to do with circumstances (the end of the Cold War and the advent of the War on Terror), but it also speaks to a certain level of Bush-administration diplomatic finesse. The administration won't get any credit for it since it runs counter to the media's favored 'unilateralist behemoth alienates the world' storyline."

Indeed, nothing illustrates the MSM's inability to see beyond the bias of its templates than this event. NPR's All Things Considered actually allowed reporter Philip Reeves to say that in response to the Bush visit the "mood" among government officials, the English-language press and the intelligentsia is "euphoric." Reeves went on to say that demonstrators against Bush were largely from Muslim and Communist groups. Yet the web page that archives this report has the bleak heading, "India Deal Could Sour U.S. Relations with Pakistan."

We add the following observation, which is entirely impressionistic. Christianity in India has moved forward with the weakening of traditional cultural strictures that inevitably comes with economic development. So Bush's visit may be significant in yet one more, and in our Seldom Wrong opinion more important, way.

Best Oscar Predictions

Gentle reader and number one commenter jb in ca directs our attention to the Oscar predictions prognosticated by conservative sledgehammer Ann Coulter. We agree that these are priceless predictions, especially as they have not been unfairly influenced by Ms. Coulter's having seen even one of the nominated movies (gentle readers no doubt know that the Oscars are awarded for various social, economic and political reasons that have nothing to do with the artistic merits of movies). Our favorite quotation:

The best original screenplay will be "Good Night, and Good Luck" as Hollywood's final tribute to the old Stalinists (Hollywood's version of "The Greatest Generation"). George Clooney has been mau-mauing the awards committee by going around boasting that conservatives have called him a "traitor," although I believe the precise term was "airhead."

Ms. Coulter adds a few predictions about what Hollywood will give us next. In line with the theme of Brokeback Mountain, she suggests the following:

"Westward Homo!"
"The Magnificent, Fabulous Seven"
"Gunfight at the K-Y Corral"
"How West Hollywood Was Won"

More Bad News for Bush: Patriot Act Passes

After much huffing and puffing about how terrible the Patriot Act is, the Senate has reauthorized it with minor revisions by a vote of 89-10.

Of course, as far as the NY Times is concerned, this is more bad news for Bush. As they frame the issue:

But reaction to today's vote signaled that the Patriot Act will continue to be debated in the United States long after Congress has approved it. The senators opposing the bill, all Democrats except for the independent James Jeffords of Vermont, argued that the civil rights protections written into the measure were too modest.

Oh no! A debate! Nine Democrats plus Jim Jeffords will continue to talk about how bad the Patriot Act is. The horror! Bush is finished!

All this consternation kept the Times from reporting in this article what changes were made to the original Patriot Act with this reauthorization. For that, one must look to other sources. The politics, even in a massively decisive vote like this, matter more than the substance to our Newspaper of Record. On the Christian Science Monitor we find that the new bill contains such massive changes as (we cut and paste from the article):

• Recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations will have the right to challenge the requirement that they not tell anyone about the subpoena.
• In addition, recipients of such subpoenas will no longer be forced to provide the FBI with the name of their lawyer.
• Finally, the civil liberties package clarifies that most general-purpose libraries are not subject to demands made in so-called National Security Letters for information about suspected terrorists.

Whew! We don't know about you, but we now believe that our fragile rights are safe again. Anyone want to make a celebratory trip to the library to check out some books on high explosives?

On the Outrageousness of Hip-Hop as Significant Art

Stanley Crouch writes with about as much insight on as wide a range of topics (from Louis Armstrong to George W. Bush) as anyone alive. Today he assesses the move to exalt popular rap recordings as art that actually describes the situation of African-American people. As Crouch puts it, rap doesn't express the suffering of Black people; it causes it.

But it gets better:

This arrives through a media that has been bamboozled into thinking the expression of "black culture" can be reduced to gold teeth, pistol-waving, hedonism, whorishness, pathological narcissism, misogyny, drop-down pants and illiteracy.

And there's historical perspective:

When Elvis Presley and the early rock 'n' roll bunch appeared, they knew what they were and so did their fans: entertainers followed by teenagers. With the '60s came all of the pretensions and college students, assuming that whatever they liked should get the same credibility as what adults appreciated. We then saw the arrival of rock magazines.

It did not take long for the hustlers in rap to get the drift.

Put Crouch's column in the SWNID Must-Read Hall of Fame.

Renegade Reporters Factualize SWNID Prediction

The NY Post has taken on the glorious role of reporting on the fulfillment of a SWNID prediction. Reporter Ralph Peters in Iraq files a dispatch that opens with (emphasis original):

The reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.

Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?

And he continues, explaining the outcome along the lines of our Seldom-Wrong prognostication:

And the people here have been impressed that their government reacted effectively to last week's strife, that their soldiers and police brought order to the streets. The transition is working.

Most Iraqis want better government, better lives — and democracy. It is contagious, after all. Come on over. Talk to them. Watch them risk their lives every day to work with us or with their government to build their own future.

Meanwhile, the LA Times can only maintain a sense of uncertainty, not itsdoctrinairee defeatism, in a report from the delightfully named Max Boot:

As we drove through town, I saw Iraqi army and police checkpoints everywhere. Not only are more security personnel in the field, but they are also not running away from a fight, as they did in 2004. Fisher told me that when insurgents recently attacked a police checkpoint, the cops chased them down and arrested them. This combination of toughness (withstanding attack) and restraint (bringing back the attackers alive) augurs well for the future of Iraq.

Nor is this an isolated example. A few days later, while visiting the Green Zone in Baghdad, I was briefed on the progress being made in standing up Iraqi forces. A year ago, only three Iraqi battalions controlled their own "battle-space." Today, the total is up to 40 battalions and counting. Those units have achieved impressive results in some rough neighborhoods. As I discovered firsthand, it is now safe to travel down Route Irish between the Green Zone and Baghdad airport — once the most dangerous road in the world.

Y'know, being this right could go to a guy's head. We might get to the point where we're Never in Doubt.