Joust The Facts

Let Me See If I Understand This ...

The polar bear is endangered by a lack of sea ice ...

ScienceDaily (May 15, 2008) — U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne  announced May 14 that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The listing, the government says, is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat.

... a lack of sea ice that, strangely enough, suddenly doesn't exist anymore.

On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were “unprecedented” for the month of April in over 25 years. Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982. This continues a pattern established earlier in 2008, as global sea ice in March 2008 was also the third highest March on record, while January 2008 sea ice was the second highest January on record.

Does anyone have an explanation?  Incidentally, while (prior to this year) northern hemisphere sea ice had been declining at 2.8% ... per decade ... southern hemisphere sea ice has been increasing at 4.2% per decade.  Will we be removing the designation if over the next year or two sea ice remains at higher levels?  Right, silly question.

This just in: The earth's climate changes, and always has.

*See the nifty graphs at Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit.

Why McCain?

Gabriel Malor, a frequent contributor/co-blogger at Ace of Spaces, and who recently completed law school (congrats), gives you a pretty darn good reason to support John McCain over Barack Obama.  While Mr. McCain could certainly be a better candidate, of the two running who have a legitimate chance to win he is clearly the better choice.  Mr. Malor dissects a ridiculous bit of puffery from a left-wing blogger, then writes:

This distortion, wherein the Left imputes political animus to the U.S. government, is shameful, dreadful stuff. It is a mild flavor of conspiracy theory. The obvious purpose--American and Iraqi authorities want the Madhi Army to stop killing people--is disregarded in favor of a dubious, but oh-so-satisfyingly nefarious one: the Americans and their Iraqi stooges are "relentlessly attacking political groups." Another Leftist recently in the news, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, would no doubt agree. He's also fond of malicious government conspiracies...

This is why the Left must lose in November. I'm not asking you to vote for John McCain. I'm asking you to vote against having a Leftist in the White House.

On top of which, I'll guarantee you that Mr. McCain knows there are 50 states, as did my 3rd and 2nd grade daughters.  Sure, it's a silly mistake, but had GW Bush made the error it would be deemed irrefutable evidence of idiocy.

As to why I'm discounting the possibility of a Clinton - McCain mano a mano for the presidency, check out this from the WSJ, and this from pollster Scott Rasmussen.  It ain't over 'til it's over, but it's very close to over.

The Celtics Are Killing Me, And Other Sports Asides

I didn't have the time or energy to blog the Big East Tournament or the NCAA tournament this spring, given the circumstances with the move to NH (see below).  I went to the former, and watched the latter.  I did pick Kansas, so a pat to my back for that.  Suffice it to say that in both tournaments I was more than a little disappointed in the performance of my beloved UConn Husky men.  They got bounced by a darn good West Virginia in the Big East, and in the next game fell tragically to San Diego in the first round of the NCAA.

Which makes it even more puzzling that Luke Winn of Sports Illustrated now has them picked number one in the nation for next year.  Sure, on paper they look awesome.  But games are played on hardwood, and the return of 7'3" center Hasheem Thabeet, the signing of sharpshooting wing Scottie Haralson, the signing of sudden five-star forward recruit Ater Majok, the signing of McDonald's All-American point guard Kemba Walker (who will be a star) and the transfers of a couple of undisciplined and marginally productive players notwithstanding, I'll be a bit skeptical until I see the product on the floor match the product on paper.  Are you listening, Stanley Robinson?

Meanwhile, the baseball season is in full-swing and the Red Sox are looking strong, but it's early.  I like the starting pitching, with young arms Jon Lester and Clay Bucholz (and Justin Masterson, for that Matter) joining Josh Beckett, Tim Wakefield and Daisuke Matsuzaka in a strong rotation.  The bullpen, with the exception of Jonathan Papelbon, needs help, and David "Big Papi" Ortiz hasn't gotten untracked yet.  The Yankees are the Yankees.  Toronto is Toronto, with Roy Halliday.  Baltimore and Tampa are better.  This'll be a fun year to watch.

As for the Celts, it's been interesting to watch the defensive breakdowns in Atlanta that don't happen in Boston.  Offense is pretty, but defense wins.  Atlanta is filled with young talented players, but had the Celtics played 48 minutes of their style of defense for any one of the games in Atlanta they'd be looking at round two now.  Bet Danny Ainge is wondering whatever happened to the Joe Johnson the Green drafted several years ago. He's torching your wing players, Danny, that's what.  Game 7 is tomorrow, and I'm picking the Celtics, but they'd better be smarter with the ball on offense, take good shots and draw fouls, make the layups they get, rotate back on defense, and keep Josh Smith and Al Horford and Josh Childress off of the offensive glass.

I'll take Boston in a game 7 in Boston that should never have been.

Stress, And Catharsis

Hi.  I know, it's been quite a while.  How's everyone been?

This post is from the "We're from the government and we're here to help you" edition of my last two months, and addresses a situation that caused a bit of a scramble in my practice to keep things moving along until the behemoth federal bureaucracy got its act together.  By way of explanation ...

Moved In, Still Lots To Do

The great Joust The Facts blog hiatus of 2008 is going to continue a little while longer.  While there's been much to discuss politically, particularly the two hollow shells of candidates remaining on the Democratic side of the aisle and their travails**, it's been good to focus on the things that are so important now in our big move out of the People's Republic of Massachusetts.  New Hampshire still has a gritty New England "Live Free or Die" attitude that, for relatively independent-thinking and self-reliant physicians, makes practicing medicine much more appealing than in the current (and likely future) environment in the neighbor to the south.

The new offices sparkle, but they need a bit of finish work, and we're still trying to get the neonatal ancillary businesses off to a strong start.  One is in the NICU, and the other is home but still dependent on Mom and Dad for everything.

I did attend the Big East Tournament last week, and was a bit disappointed in the performance of my Huskies of UConn.  They seem to give up big nights to good players; or maybe it's that the best players get themselves fired up to play a team that's won two national championships in the last 8 years.  In any event, they should beat San Diego but will have their hands full with Drake, unless the defenders can both defend the three and cut off drives to the hoop.  If they get to the sweet 16 they'll meet UCLA most likely, and that will be a very entertaining game.

I don't have the time to do a full pre-NCAA run through, but perhaps a bit of live-blogging the games tonight, tomorrow, Saturday and Sunday might be in order...

**See "Wright, Pastor" and "Clinton, NAFTA" for primers.

Almost Home

This is it.  This weekend my office moves from northern Massachusetts to southern New Hampshire.  The new building is ready ... I think ... and within about three weeks the new entities should be fully past the transition, up and running.  Well, two of the three anyway.  The third still needs a little work, but it's getting there.

My latest blog hiatus has been longer (since Feb. 10) than I thought it would be.  I've had a boatload of post ideas, but by the time I would have gotten to them they would have been stale, so well hashed out in the rest of the blogosphere that anything I could add would likely have been redundant.  I still won't be posting much until the babies are secure in their beds.  I am hoping to blog March Madness as I have traditionally.

I have been following the twists and turns of Mssrs. McCain and Obama and Ms. Clinton.  I do have to point out what I wrote in my last post, on Feb. 10, about Mr. McCain.

The McCain Media Honeymoon will be over soon.  The media has soft-sold him thus far because, of the Republicans, they clearly preferred the maverick-ness of the author of McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy who voted against the Bush tax cuts.  But now that he's the presumptive Republican nominee, media outlets like the NY Times and Boston Globe that had endorsed him will find all sorts of reasons to attack him, the predominant one being that he still has an 'R' after his name.

The NY Times?  Eleven days later?  It was all too easy.

Furtive Glances - "And Then There Were Three" Edition

Okay, so some of these will be a little stale.  I'm sorry.  I'm very busy and gearing up for my practices move across the border to New Hampshire, and the level of daily activity and business decisions has been escalating relentlessly.  I've needed a lot more of my remaining few minutes during the day for "down time," and cranking out blog posts in those few minutes right now doesn't make the list.

Okay, you got me.  I'm simply in mourning over the Patriots loss to the Giants in Super Bowl XLII and the BU Terriers loss in the opening round of the Beanpot to BC last Monday, in OT.  OTOH, the Connecticut Huskies have been on a nice little mid-season winning streak.  They've finally figured out how to play defense the way Jim Calhoun likes them to play defense.  Looking forward to the Big East Tournament in New York and the March Madness to follow.

Without further delay, some furtive glances at the headlines and the blogosphere.

• Congratulations, Ace.  I'm not going to make any cheap jokes about either your appearance or your speech.  I'll leave that to the beloved crowd of blog visitors that you call "morons,"  affectionately I'm sure.

• The Obamissle hit its intended target over the weekend, sweeping Washington, Maine, Nebraska and Louisiana.  Meanwhile, here's a definition of 'money laundering' for those who think that Mrs. Clinton's $5 million becomes completely free and clear of any taint once it was in the Clinton bank account.

DEFINITION: Concealing or disguising how illegally obtained funds (such as from drug trafficking, gun smuggling, corruption, etc.) is generated to avoid a transaction-reporting requirement under state or federal law.

I wouldn't say "illegally obtained," but "questionably obtained?"  It certainly didn't come from her Senate salary.  And now she's revising the campaign staff.  Shuffling the deck chairs, as it were?  This Arianna Huffington post is an interesting and, in a way, sad look at the person taking over.

Chung ended up visiting the White House 51 times, many of these visits taking place after the National Security Council had described him as a "hustler" who should be treated with "suspicion." But to hear Maggie Williams tell it, Johnny Chung was a poor, innocent waif, a sort of diamond in the rough, an Eliza Doolittle grossly in need of expert counseling in the finer points of fund-raising etiquette from Mrs. Clinton's staff -- who, after all, are responsible for the social niceties at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. "A prime example of his ... misguided behavior," Williams testified, "was his persistent request to give money directly to Mrs. Clinton. On more than one occasion, I told Mr. Chung this was not possible, although his offer was much appreciated."

• The McCain Media Honeymoon will be over soon.  The media has soft-sold him thus far because, of the Republicans, they clearly preferred the maverick-ness of the author of McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy who voted against the Bush tax cuts.  But now that he's the presumptive Republican nominee, media outlets like the NY Times and Boston Globe that had endorsed him will find all sorts of reasons to attack him, the predominant one being that he still has an 'R' after his name.  In re-reading those endorsements I almost fell off my chair laughing at this line in the Globe:

In 2000, McCain's insurgent candidacy almost succeeded in stopping the George W. Bush juggernaut. This time around, McCain is running further back in the pack of candidates.

"Insurgent candidacy?"  As I recall it, Mr. McCain was the 'pre-race favorite.'

• Patterico has found another liar on the pages of the LA Times Dog Trainer.

• Mitt Romney gave a superb withdrawal speech at CPAC.  RTWT.  Whether Mr. McCain wins or loses in November, Mr. Romney will be back.  It disturbs me more than a little that many people refused to vote for him because of his Mormon faith, particularly since in his public life he's never let that influence his decision making.  Other political considerations have influenced him, certainly, but not his faith.

Super Sunday - Not So Perfect Pats

18-1.

The Giants did it with a determined pass rush that gave Patriot QB Tom Brady very little time and almost no room to maneuver.

The did it with an attitude of "nothing to lose" that was an absolutely accurate description of their situation.

They did it with a little lot of luck on their final drive. including two passes, or possibly three that could have (and probably should have) been intercepted but weren't, and a couple of sacks that should have happened but didn't.

They did it with a QB who was disparaged to the point of being the subject of one of the funniest sports posts ever only a little over a year ago.

And they did it with - am I the only one who spotted this? - what seemed to be an illegal pick on a key 3rd-and-11 play keeping that final drive alive. Rookie wideout Steve Smith lined up in the slot on a three wide right set, Patriots safety Brandon Merriweather drawing the assignment.  But Merriweather got picked off by the 2nd wideout crossing with Smith as he headed to the flat.  Smith was wide open in the right flat, and picked up the first down.  A key first down.  Instead of fourth and about 20 from the 36 it's first down at the 15.  Next play?  Touchdown Plaxico Burress.

So the Giants have the Super Bowl title, and the Patriots have the "what if's" to think about.  The biggest "what if" is this:  Bill Belichick, renowned for creating defenses that confuse and lock down an opponent, couldn't generate a pass rush consistently enough, even with a variety of blitzes, to make Eli Manning's knees wobble.  His defense was, sad to say, passive, playing "bend but don't break" instead of forcing the action.  Manning was able to run the Giant offense the way he wanted.  And with the Giants defense playing lights out on the other side of the ball, he could afford to be conservative, to throw short slants and hooks, and to wait for his openings.

It's hats off to the Giants.  And for the Patriots?  An offseason of "what if's."  Lots of "what if's."

Bill's Nonsense Words

A lot of bloggers and others are focusing on these words from former president Bill Clinton's speech in Denver yesterday.

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions '...

To be fair, he doesn't actually demand or advise that we do that, but with these words he overtly confirms the economic-based criticisms of Kyoto-style emissions caps and other global warming alarmist remedies.  But I think a more important sentence is this:

The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren.

Okay, you got me.  What, exactly, does that mean - other than the "saves the planet for our children and grandchildren" part?

1/31/08 2235: Apparently nonsense sentences run in the family.  Here's Mrs. Clinton discussing drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants: (ht Hot Air)

Here's a transcript:

I do not think it is either appropriate to give a drivers license to someone who is here undocumented, putting them frankly at risk, because that is clear evidence that they are not here legally.  And I believe it is a diversion from what should be the focus at creating a political coalition with the courage to stand up and change the immigration system.

That first sentence.  Translation, anyone?  Where is the 'or' to go with the 'either'?  Is she saying that she's not in favor of licenses for illegals because keeping them from getting licenses would make it easier for them to stay here illegally?  Sheesh.

And Then There Were Four*

Earlier today both John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani officially ended there run for the presidency, though in reality both had to have known for at least a month that it was not going to be their time.  Mr. Edwards has declined to endorse one of the two remaining candidates.

Edwards said he has spoken to both of his Democratic rivals, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

"They have both pledged to me, and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency," he said.

"This is the cause of my life. I now have their commitment to engage in this cause," Edwards said.

Following his announcement, Edwards told ABC News' David Muir that that he was willing to continue a dialogue with Clinton and Obama about what they plan to do going forward in their campaigns. He would not say which candidate he would endorse, if any.

Perhaps he's unaware that there already has been a "War on Poverty."  It didn't work.  Or, rather, it had an effect opposite the intent, creating a large non-participating underclass dependent on the government.  Good luck with that life work.  Mr. Giuliani has made an endorsement.

Rudy Giuliani, who sought to make the leap from New York mayor to the White House, bowed out of the Republican presidential contest Wednesday and endorsed front-runner and longtime friend John McCain.

"John McCain is the most qualified candidate to be the next commander in chief of the United States," Giuliani said. "He's an American hero."

How Mr. Giuliani managed to squander his name recognition and early lead will be an interesting side story as the race moves on without him.  And so we are left with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and John McCain.  Each has weaknesses, both within their party battle and within the general election.

I am still hoping Mr. Obama picks up some steam, not for any particular affection for him or his policies, though he is refreshingly honest about them, but mainly so that I no longer have to see and hear Clinton flacks like Terry McAuliffe tell me that his clearly flawed candidate has no flaws, that all she thinks and does glows like molten gold and smells like freshly-picked flowers.  For instance, have a look at the death in California of HillaryCare 2009.

And I'm hoping that Mr. Romney can begin to coalesce true conservatives and Republicans around him to win enough delegates next Tuesday and thereafter that the runaway McCain train can be slowed.  Why?  This top ten list gives you a good start.  That kind of class warfare I'd expect from Senator Kennedy, or certainly from Mr. 'War on Poverty.'  Then there's ANWR.  And McCain-Feingold.  And McCain-Kennedy. And - well, you get the picture.  This is dangerously close to a Romney endorsement, isn't it?  A lengthier piece on Mr. McCain is at Protein Wisdom, and well worth reading.  MDS, indeed.

*Yes, Ron Paul hasn't dropped out.  Does it matter?

 

Not Giselle?

Media Day at the Super Bowl apparently brings some interesting participants to the festivities.  A reporter apparently decided that three time Super Bowl winning QB of the Patriots Tom Brady might be available, and showed up in a shorter than usual white wedding dress to ask for his hand.

GLENDALE, Ariz. (AP) -- Welcome to the Freak Show.

It starts on my way through the security checkpoint at University of Phoenix Stadium, where, after clearing the metal detector and reclaiming a set of rental-car keys, a handful of loose change and a cell phone, I have my first encounter with a vision in white (and red, if you make it down to the towering pumps).

I gaze upon the veil flowing down her bare neck, the strapless, thigh-high wedding dress that must have come from the Britney Spears Collection, the garters holding up her lacy stockings. Clearly, she's got matrimony on her mind and a bunch of wealthy bachelors -- potential husbands all -- waiting on the stadium floor.

[...]

Gomez Mont sets her standards high: the supermodel-dating, ruggedly handsome quarterback of the 18-0 Patriots.

"Would you marry me, Tom?" she asks Brady.

No chance. He decides to stick with the play he called, Gisele Bundchen.

Ah Giselle.  Excellent choice.

(Photo - and others - at Daily Buzzer)

Then again ...

Maybe worth a second look?  Nah, he turned her down.

If Only The Press Felt The Same ...

Barack Obama on Good Morning America this AM, on the Clintons' campaigning proclivities:

"This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate."

Which would be most of the time.  For instance, it would have been interesting for the press to dissect Mr. Clinton's claim that the DNC's caucus setup in Nevada made some votes "count five times as much."  I certainly never saw any quantitative discussion that confirmed that number.  Perhaps, like in high school, it would be best if he showed his work.  I found the quote at Wizbang! this evening, and Kim Priestap, who wrote the post, also found a discussion of the Clintons' campaign tactics from Michael Tomasky in The Guardian.

I don't know who on this planet has the stature to go face-to-face with Bill Clinton and look him in the eye and tell him he behaved in a discreditable fashion. His wife? His buddy Vernon Jordan? Whoever it is, someone had better stop him. He campaigned against a fellow Democrat no differently than if Obama had been Newt Gingrich.

Mr. Tomasky is currently the editor of Guardian America, the Yank version of the UK Guardian.  Formerly, though, he was the editor of the very left wing American Prospect.  What's wrong with the comment selected above is that, implicitly, Mr. Tomasky is confirming that such campaign tactics are acceptable to him if used against Republicans, particularly someone as loathsome as Mr. Gingrich.  Heaven forbid the Clintons' should illegitimately smear a fellow Democrat!

Mr. Obama's campaign is serving a useful purpose, and that's to shine the light, finally, on the Clintonian principles, or rather, the absence of them.  If only the press were so inclined on their own.

Addendum: Here's a discussion of Nevada's delegate apportionment.  I can't make heads or tails of the discussion, but nowhere is there a suggestion of a 5:1 strength of certain precincts.

1/21/08 1820: (via Memeorandum) Well, now this is getting interesting.  From the "If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail" department, Hillary Clinton spokesflack Howard Wolfson claims that Barack Obama's commentary about the former president's truthfulness is a ... yes, you guessed it ... "right wing talking point."

"From time to time the Obama campaign has used right-wing talking points against Bill and Hillary Clinton," Wolfson said at one point in response to questions about Obama's appearance. Asked whether Obama's claim that Bill is fibbing is one of them, Wolfson said: "Yes."

Welcome to the "vast right wing conspiracy" Barack.  This is both an attempt to smear Mr. Obama with primary voters, and to bully those easily bullied into toeing the Clinton line.  If Mr. Clinton wants to be above criticism then it should be because what he's saying and doing is well-founded and grounded in fact.  When he "stretches" the truth, sometimes to the point of rupture, he opens the door to those criticisms.  I know it worked back in the 90's to label every criticism as part of the VRWC, but that was largely because of the press' protective tendency to uncritically accept that defense.  But that dog won't hunt when the criticisms are coming from someone who is every bit as left wing as his wife.

Mr. Wolfson will need several more tools to finish the job.

Friday Night Funny

So I'm watching the Celtics struggle ... again ... in this evening's tilt with the Philadelphia 76ers, and shlumping around the net (or is that schlumping?) and I come across two side-splittingly amusing posts.  The first from Iowahawk (ht:AoS), requires a little research.  You'll need to be familiar with this article, anecdotal evidence at best.  Then read the Iowahawk version.  Best satirist, bar none.

The second is this, and it's brilliant.  (content warning for language in the subtitles)

Wow.  I didn't know he was that big a fan.

Vizzini's Sister And The Substanceless Debate

And as the heir** to Inigo Montoya I feel entitled to point out, "she keeps using those words.  I do not think they mean what she thinks they mean."  What words?  Let's have a look at the first question in last night's Democratic debate.

MR. WILLIAMS:  As we sit here this, as may you may know, is the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday.  Race was one of the issues we expected to discuss here tonight.  Our sponsors expected it of us.  No one, however, expected it to be quite so prominent in this race as it has been over the last 10 days.                            

We needn't go back over all that has happened, except to say that this discussion, before it was over, involved Dr. King, President Johnson, even Sidney Poitier, several members of Congress and a prominent African-American businessman, supporting Senator Clinton, who made what seemed to be a reference to a part of Senator Obama's teenage past that the senator himself has written about in his autobiography.

The question to begin with here tonight, Senator Clinton, is, how did we get here?

SEN. CLINTON:  Well, I think that what's most important is that Senator Obama and I agree completely that, you know, neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign.

Immediately followed by:

It is Dr. King's birthday.  The three of us are here in large measure because his dreams have been realized:  you know, John, who is, as we know, a son of a mill worker and, you know, really has    become an extraordinary success; Senator Obama, who has such an inspirational and profound story to tell America and the world; I, as a woman who is also beneficiary of the civil rights movement and the women's movement and the human rights movement.  And the Democratic Party has always been in the forefront of that.

So it is really about race.  And class.  And gender.  And apparently we're going to keep hearing about it from her and her campaign ad nauseum, or ad infinitum, whichever comes first.   I'll save you the trouble.  The first five and a half pages of this nonsense were all race-class-gender discussions and questions, until finally one audience member had had enough.

MR. WILLIAMS: Tim.            

MR. RUSSERT:  Senator Clinton --                               

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Could we stop talking ?) race-based questions coming from you
two?  These are race-based questions. (Off mike) --    race-based and (gender ?)-based.

Want to skip even farther ahead?  The next five pages are much more a group therapy session than a debate.  I'm surprised that therapists "Tim and Brian" didn't just call for a group hug.

**not really

Another Primary, Another Winner

What do you get when you take a bunch of decent guys, with appeals to different blocks of voters, all with different concerns, in different states which have different population characteristics, and sequentially make them run the gauntlet of voter approval?  A different winner every time.

So Mike Huckabee came out of nowhere wooing the evangelical Christian vote to the Iowa caucuses, and won.  Evangelicals, however, are only a minor component of the "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire electorate, and independent "maverick" John McCain takes New Hampshire over the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, who had been counting on the New Hampshire primary to catapult his candidacy.  Ah, but stepping in between New Hampshire and the traditional next stepping stone, South Carolina, was Michigan, an interloper in the primary process.  Michigan, the home state of another Governor Romney, who also ran for president, came just in the nick of time for today's winner, Mitt Romney, the former governor's son.  Now Romney has the momentum ...

... until South Carolina, where a Mormon former Massachusetts governor is unlikely to be their first choice, and that's where another candidate may make a move, Fred Thompson.  Don't forget the former mayor of New York City, whose candidacy relies on Florida and Super Tuesday after essentially sitting out the early skirmishes, but who may have lost so much momentum he won't be able to climb the hill he now faces.

Being a troublemaker in general (ask my daughters) I'd love to see Fred! win in South Carolina and then Rudy! take Florida.  Five states, five winners (yeah, I know about Wyoming and Nevada.  Spoil sport).  It's getting to be an interesting horse race.  There seem to be no true thoroughbreds, and the fickle electorate is letting them each know their imperfections.

One brief comment about the Democratic race.  Please recognize what's going on (scroll down to "All you ever think about is sex", and further), and that as miserable as it is to witness such transparent bile and vindictive voter disenfranchisement, it would be an even more miserable four years of gender and race identity politics if either of the frontrunners ultimately wins the presidency.  And just think, the third entrant would be a worse choice!

1/16/08 0850: The Wall Street Journal picks up this theme today in the lead editorial.

The candidates now head into Saturday's South Carolina primary for what can only be called a free-for-all. Rudy Giuliani is delighted, because the lack of a clear frontrunner means the race might still be jumbled on January 29 in Florida, where he has staked his claim.

Another winner yesterday was Fred Thompson, who is competitive in South Carolina and is running as the conservative who can unite the GOP's fractious wings.

Of the Republican candidates, I've ruled out only Gov. Huckabee and Sen. McCain.  The former sounds just a bit too much like a man trying to remake America as a constitutional theocracy, while the latter's instincts are to pay obeisance to the opinions of his "friends" across the aisle and the editorial pages of the New York Times.  In neither location will he find many Republicans/conservatives in agreement.  He'll find Democrats, though.

Meanwhile, it's going to be really hard to win even the primary battle if the only group you carry is liberal women.