Eddie Haskell Slaps Beaver Cleaver!

Kerry belittles Edwards, then takes it back!

It's a tempest in a teapot, but Kerry did manage to work in that he served in Vietnam. And check out the snap of the two - the French guy is looking mighty dilapidated.

What is it about the Iowa caucuses that keeps bringing me back to Dave Barry?

Iowa's decision huge, until maybe tomorrow

DES MOINES -- It's caucus day, the day when hundreds of thousands of Iowa voters, finally getting their chance to respond to months and months of campaign rhetoric, will stay home.

I'm not kidding. Officials here are predicting a ''record turnout,'' but it turns out that ''record turnout'' means ``at least 75 percent of the voters will not be turning out.''

I blame the political attack ads. Every time you turn on the TV out here, there's an announcer saying something like: ''What do we REALLY know about Howard Dean's role in the JFK assassination?'' You watch 17 of these ads in a row, and the LAST thing you want to do is caucus. You want to crouch in a closet, whimpering.

But those Iowans who are strong enough to get out and caucus this year will be rewarded, because they will be helping to make a decision that will reverberate throughout the annals of American history, loud and clear, until about noon tomorrow, at which point all the candidates, pollsters, media, etc., will have gotten the hell out of here, headed for New Hampshire, leaving the Iowans safe, at last, to turn on their televisions again and start following the Michael Jackson story like everyone else.

I'm hoping for a tie among the "big four" so that the comedy can be prolonged up to the last possible moment!

Look for the union label ... on government employees

John Fund has an interesting piece at the WSJ on the changing nature of the labor movement and the Donk candidates they support - Meany vs. Deanie. Here's the big picture:

The industrial unions may be declining in membership, but they have redoubled their investment in politics to the point that some unions now routinely deplete their entire treasury in election years. The industrial unions are also now completely unforgiving of any deviation from protectionism.

I'm sure the union members had nothing better to do with the cash, but this isn't all that new. What's new is:

On the other side of the labor divide, government and white-collar union members are more secure but growing ever more powerful within the Democratic Party. "The big story in labor in the last 15 years is that the hard left has taken over the public-sector unions, and no major Democrat will stand up to them," says Steve Silberger, who was chief Washington lobbyist for AFSCME from 1980 until 1988 and now mourns the leftward shift of the union movement. "The Democratic Party is becoming a pure party of government--the public interest is being subordinated to a special interest that prospers when government grows."

Should Howard Dean win Iowa and go on to become the Democratic nominee, it will mark a major shift in the power structure of the union movement. Back in the 1950s, only 5% of union members worked for the government. In 1983 that figure had reached 32%. Today, a full 46% of all union members are in the public sector. David Denholm of the Public Service Research Foundation notes that in 2002 private-sector unions lost 445,000 members while their public-sector counterparts gained 165,000 members. "Within a few years, a majority of union members will work for the government," he says. That could have a profound impact on the Democratic Party. "Private-sector workers tend to want companies to grow and prosper even if they want more pay and benefits," says pollster Scott Rasmussen. "That was the philosophy of the late George Meany and the AFL-CIO in the 1970s. But public-sector workers want government to grow first, and the overall health of the economy isn't as relevant to them."

Since they zone out when the source of taxes is discussed, we're in for a rough ride.

Today's Hoot!

Mark Steyn:

Where are we going to find the un-Dean? That was the cry of Democratic power brokers as Howard Dean rose unstoppably through last year, and the wise old birds fretted that he was unelectable. Judging from the polls, New Hampshire Democrats seem to have found their un-Dean. It's Wesley Clark.

So now the Dem big shots can all start looking for the un-Clark.

If they aren't already, they ought to be. Dean might be bad for the health of the party, but that's no reason to go from bad to Wes. If the rap against Dean is that he's gaffe-prone, shoots from the hip, says loopy stuff, that goes tenfold for Clark. Let me say, by the way, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that I don't believe Howard Dean is nuts. From my perch in New Hampshire, I watched him across the river governing Vermont for a decade, and although he was certainly mean and arrogant, the chief characteristic of his political persona was its blandness. But this is no time for a Democratic candidate who feels your pain. Democratic activists want someone who feels their anger, and Mad How the mad cow was pretty much invented by the somnolent Governor Dean to fit that bill.

So I'd say Howard Dean is a sane man pretending to be crazy. Whereas General Clark gives every indication of a crazy man pretending to be sane.

Copious examples by following the link.

Turmoil Amongst The Kool-Aid Drinkers!

Soured on Howard for "Being Like Bush"

DES MOINES, Iowa - Call them the Dean Defectors - they used to like Howard Dean, but now are so turned off that some offer the ultimate insult for a Democrat: He reminds them of President Bush.

"I was interested in Dean, but he turned me off," said college student Katy Cunconan, 21, of Des Moines. "It's like he talks before he thinks. His remark about the Confederate flag is what started it. Then in the last debate, he seemed like he got too angry.

"In the way he comes off, he just reminds me of Bush. He just doesn't sound as intelligent as the other candidates. I don't want another president who will embarrass us," added Cunconan, who now backs John Kerry.

Apparently no humor intended.

More crunchy granola politics by following the link.

Cracker Barrel Swami Predicts the Winner in Iowa Caucuses!

Beats the heck out of me!

I can't even figure out how the durn things work, although William Saletan and Matt Schiller try their best to 'splain it in Slate. Frankly, it makes my head hurt.

Dave Barry also tries to 'splain it and his version sounds like more fun:

I've been covering these things since 1984, and I have never once heard a coherent explanation of how Iowans caucus. We know that they do it indoors, at night, and they form little groups, and eventually there are Jell-O shots and something called ``The Happy Pants Dance.''

Also the largest man present must smear his naked body with margarine and fight a boar.

But beyond that, it's a mystery.

Dave is actually in Iowa covering the snooze, and offers a brief assessment of the erstwhile leaders:

Usually, this [the winner] is Rep. Dick ''Dick'' Gephardt, five-time winner of the World's Whitest Man competition. Dick comes from Missouri (a state near Iowa) and has won the Iowa caucuses 14 times, although once he was edged out by Sen. Tom Harkin, who is actually FROM Iowa.

In any event, when the caucuses are over, everybody moves on to New Hampshire, and nobody thinks about Iowa again for years. This time around, however, Iowa is in turmoil. Dick is here again, of course, but he is threatened by a newcomer named Howard Dean, who is from Vermont or possibly Rhode Island, neither of which is anywhere near Iowa.

Yet Howard is making a strong showing, thanks in part to thousands of young campaign volunteers who have come to Iowa out of a sincere and idealistic desire to skip classes. They are highly organized: According to a Washington Post story, ``the Dean field operatives have purchased mountains of bottled water and granola bars, and cell phones and flashlights by the dozen.''

Yes, flashlights. The Post doesn't say why. Maybe it has to do with ``The Happy Pants Dance.''

More of Dave's coverage of this milestone event in A big carrot calls for peas on earth and See nice and manly men at a rally near you.

What is it about the Olympics that gets my goat?

I think it's the insufferable hype. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that someone else is grumpy too. Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner - Olympic Joy:

In any list of poisonously sanctimonious, excruciatingly dull and grotesquely self-important institutions the Olympic Games must rank high, up somewhere near the United Nations and the League of Women Voters. Horrifyingly, London is now joining New York and the other lemming cities that want to host this ghastly event.

Samizdata’s David Carr is not impressed:

“No. Non. Nein. Njet. Let the French have it. Or the Russians. Or the Brazilians. Or somebody. Anybody. Just not here. Go away. Sod off. Scram. Sling your hook. Get lost.”

He’s right.

Yeah, it's like the United Nations except it only pops to annoy every four years instead of continuously.

Here's swell news

Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden'

Sir Ridley Scott, the Oscar-nominated director, was savaged by senior British academics last night over his forthcoming film which they say "distorts" the history of the Crusades to portray Arabs in a favourable light.

The £75 million film, which stars Orlando Bloom, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson, is described by the makers as being "historically accurate" and designed to be "a fascinating history lesson".

The only problem is that the "history lesson" is what would have been thought up by a not-too-bright 7th grade child of Kumbaya spouting parents. Lots of details by following the link, but here's my fave:

The Knights Templar, the warrior monks, are portrayed as "the baddies" while Saladin, the Muslim leader, is a "a hero of the piece", Sir Ridley's spokesman said. "At the end of our picture, our heroes defend the Muslims, which was historically correct."

Prof Riley-Smith, who is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, said the plot was "complete and utter nonsense". He said that it relied on the romanticised view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics.

"It sounds absolute balls. It's rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."

And catch this:

The script depicts Baldwin's brother-in-law, Guy de Lusignan, who succeeds him as King of Jerusalem, as "the arch-villain". A further group, "the Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians", is introduced, promoting an image of cross-faith kinship.
...
Prof Riley-Smith added: "Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin against Saladin, yes, but he wasn't any badder or better than anyone else. There was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense."
...
Dr Philips said that by venerating Saladin, who was largely ignored by Arab history until he was reinvented by romantic historians in the 19th century, Sir Ridley was following both Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad, the former Syrian dictator. Both leaders commissioned huge portraits and statues of Saladin, who was actually a Kurd, to bolster Arab Muslim pride.

Prof Riley-Smith added that Sir Ridley's efforts were misguided and pandered to Islamic fundamentalism. "It's Osama bin Laden's version of history. It will fuel the Islamic fundamentalists."

Thanks Ridley!

The Donks need quotas!

Jay Bryant explains The significance of Carol Moseley Braun:

Carol Moseley Braun, who ended her presidential campaign this week, is frequently and accurately described as the only African-American woman ever to serve in the United States Senate.

But, assiduous newsreader though I am, I have never seen her identified by the following descriptor, which in addition to being equally accurate is vastly more remarkable:

Carol Moseley Braun is the only African-American Democrat ever to serve in the United States Senate.

Ruh oh!

Isn't that really astonishing? A political party that for the past seventy years has claimed the allegiance of as many as ninety per cent of the black voters of this country has elected precisely one of them to the Senate. And the only way Moseley Braun won was by challenging and defeating the Illinois Democratic Party's anointed and endorsed candidate – incumbent Senator Alan J. Dixon in 1992.

I paused in mid column just now and did some rough math, which suggests that somewhere between a quarter and a third of all Democrats are African-Americans. So if we applied the concept of affirmative action quotas to the Democratic Senate membership, there should be approximately twelve black Democratic Senators in the current Congress. But in fact, there are none. There weren't any in the last Congress either, or the one before that. Except for Moseley Braun's single six-year term, there have never been any black Democratic Senators.

There have been three black Republican Senators: Hiram Revels, Blanche Kelso Bruce and Edward Brooke.

Oh, Democrats will let African-Americans serve in the House of Representatives, but only after carefully carving out black-majority, which is to say segregated, districts for them. Well, you can't expect white Democrats to vote for one of them, can you?

So the Democratic Party's policy, throughout the modern, post-World War II era has been to create separate-but-equal congressional districts. Keep blacks in the ghetto – the urban plantation. The handful of African-American Republican members of Congress, by contrast, have come from suburban and rural areas, where they have been, often enthusiastically, supported by Republican voters. Moreover, whenever the Republican Party has attempted to run black candidates in black areas, they lose overwhelmingly, and this pattern holds for other offices, too.

White Republicans have no problem whatsoever voting for black Republicans, when they can find one to vote for. Black Democrats won't vote for a black Republican. White Democrats won't vote for a black Democrat. Which is the racist party?

Much more by following the link. When are Jesse and Al holding the press conference?

They're Impurifying His Bodily Fluids! And He's Angry!

Weasley continues his challenge to Deano for the angry flip-flop crown - Pumped up Clark vows he'll beat down Bush.

Stepping up his fiery defense of perceived flip-flops on Iraq, retired Gen. Wesley Clark yesterday said he relishes Republican claims he once backed the war - and vowed to ```beat down'' President Bush if he ever used it against him.

Hmm, but after he gets finished thumping his chest and howling:

But, asked again why he said he ``probably'' would have voted for the resolution authorizing force in Iraq, Clark said, ``that was also a strategic mistake. It was a bobble, and there's no explaining it.''

Though apparently admitting he gave conflicting comments on the war, Clark wouldn't acknowledge a change in opinion.

I'm going to have to start calling him the Bobble from Burpelson.

Bernadette Malone has a catalog of Weasley "bobbles" and an assessment in the Union Leader - Old style' voters getting wise to Clark:

IN WESLEY CLARK'S opinion, "old style politics" has got to go. "Old style politics" is Clark's defensive response every time someone asks him to reconcile two conflicting statements he's made — often within hours of each other. It means holding candidates accountable for what they said. It's what New Hampshire does best, but it's dismaying the former general. That is, the former praiser of Republicans, who conveniently switched allegiances in time to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
...
I'm sorry for being recalcitrant, but it's hard to feel comfortable with all Clark's back and forth, yes and no, "Don't-you-dare-question-my-inconsistencies" approach to leadership. His biggest asset is his experience as a general, but I can't imagine him winning the admiration of his troops if he behaved like this. It makes me think long and hard about what the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said about Clark: He was dismissed from the Balkans as NATO commander because of "integrity and character" issues. Clark dismisses those comments from Gen. Hugh Shelton because the North Carolinian and former chairman serves as an adviser to John Edwards, the North Carolina senator also running for the Democratic nomination.

So we shouldn't believe Gen. Shelton because he's involved in an opponent's political campaign. But Gen. Clark, you're involved in your own political campaign, so why should we believe you? Oops, old style politics again. Dirty tricks. Nasty smears.

Impure bodily fluids.

All you really need to know about Weasley is that the odious mound, Michael Moore, is introducing him at campaign rallies. Check out this snap of Stan and Ollie groping each other. Has Mikey grown another chin?