Some links you may have missed ...

When the census asks your race, Say Anything's Rob Port urges you to write in "NASCAR".

Andrew Griffin blogs that grocery store tabloid The Globe is reporting that Toby Keith is on an "enemies list," allegedly compiled by President Barack Obama.

Rachel Motte asks the question, "Is your church killing you?"

And finally, check out my recent column, "Mitt Romney's Enemies, Gearing Up for 2012 Fight" -- and then see Christopher Lorelli's take on it over at Race42012.

How do you gin up support from liberals by attacking George W. Bush's war in Iraq without coming off as another effete liberal dove? 

If you are Barack Obama, you simply argue that Bush picked the wrong war. 

And so, Obama constantly preached that Iraq was a war of choice, while Afghanistan is a war of necessity.  In this manner, Obama used his hawkish stance on Afghanistan to his great advantage. 

For example, accepting the Democratic nomination in Denver, Obama declared: 'When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights."

Americans who had grown skeptical of weak liberals (see Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, et al) were relieved to finally have a liberal who was smart and tough.  He was smart because he was for the right war.

But a year later, after winning the presidency, Obama was sounding a bit less pugnacious, when he told ABC this summer: "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."
[# More #]
Aside from getting his history wrong (Herihito never signed a surrender to MacArthur), it is clear the once bellicose Obama has changed his tune a bit.

As President Obama weights whether or not to give General Stanley McChrystal the 40,000 additional troops he says are needed to avoid "failure" in Afghanistan, one hopes the president will make the right decision for America, without regard for whether or not it is consistent with his campaign promises.  One would hate for a president to do the wrong thing merely in order to be consistent.

Having said, that, while the decision of whether or not to further engage in Afghanistan is an extremely serious one to consider, it is not a difficult analysis to conclude that Obama's campaign rhetoric was not fully thought out.  It was, in fact, a smart political ploy for which naive voters handsomely rewarded him.  But it was not a profile in courage.

Politically speaking, talking tough on Afghanistan was like much of Obama's campaign rhetoric -- meaning it was  sagacious but disingenuous.  Talking tough about Afghanistan gave Obama the political cover needed to pacify the left on Iraq, while simultaneously holding the middle. 

It does us little good to point out that Obama's tough talk on Afghanistan was merely a campaign gimmick, so all that is left to do is hope and pray he makes the right decision -- and this is not an easy decision to make.  A dove stance could mean allowing terrorists to use Afghanistan as a training ground for another 9-11, while a hawkish stance could result in our getting bogged down in another Vietnam.  Afghanistan, after all, is not friendly terrain.

Obama has called Afghanistan a "war of necessity," but is it still a war of necessity?  That is the question Obama now faces.

My gut tells me Obama's campaign rhetoric will be abandoned.  He will not make the mistake Lyndon Johnson made by allowing his domestic policy to be bogged down by an intractable war.  Time will tell what that means for the nation...

As World Magazine has noted, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN's Human Rights Commission, Ken Blackwell, delivered an excellent speech in Mexico City last week on “Defamation of Religions”. 

Following is an excerpt:

The [Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a collection of 56 Muslim-majority countries that first proposed a "Defamation of Islam" UN resolution in 1999,]  has stated its main complaint is the stereotyping of Muslims around the world, especially post-9/11. Although the grievance of harmful stereotyping of Muslims as ideological extremists is sincere and factual, the current effort by the OIC to alleviate religious stereotyping with an international legal protection against the “defamation of religions” is misplaced and counter-productive. Conceptually, the claim of “defamation of religions” is inadequate as a legal cause of action. Traditional defamation laws are meant to protect individuals from false truth claims and do not extend to the protection of ideas, philosophies, or religions. Therefore, “defamation of religions” turns the purpose of defamation laws on its head. Human rights are also meant to protect individual persons only. Not only do “defamation of religions” laws fail to protect individuals, but they are also used to harass individuals. Unfortunately, the vague notion of “defamation of religions” laws allows government to use such laws to suppress minority religious individuals and voices of dissent.

The symposium was sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (for which a family member of mine now consults).

You can download the entire pdf by clicking here).

President Obama wants longer school days and a longer school year. 

Will more time at school = more time for this???

The Week in Blog: Another Fantabulous Edition Obama’s UN address and blame-gaming commentary (07:09)
Bill on Obama’s climate speech: Not one for the ages (04:54)
Matt sees Republicans retaking the House in 2010 (02:50)
Is Glenn Beck bad for the conservative movement? (08:09)
Olympia Snowe and the soap opera of health care scoring (02:49)
Public option fading, conservative confidence rising (09:39)

Some cool links you might have missed ...

The Club for Growth calls out big Republican spenders.

'Spanking lowers I.Q.' - Dr. Melissa Clouthier

'Camp David Syndrome': Explaing Obama's addiction to the Middle East peace process - Ken Blackwell, American Spectator

Obama's Swing-State Blues - Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal

Kent Conrad: You're Too Dumb to Understand Health Care Bill - Rob Port, Say Anything Blog.

Merle Haggard on the government ... and UFOs - Andrew Griffin, Red Dirt Report

Giles: The ACORN Suit Is 'Silly' - Robert Costa, National Review

Christians attend Web Conference - Rachel Motte

And lastly, an Extreme Close Up of Jim Pinkerton

Here's the new Bob McDonnell ad.  Does it work?

A few weeks ago, the DC Examiner's Michael Barone astutely wrote,

In the 2006 campaign season the Washington Post ran more than a dozen front-page stories on Senator George Allen’s reference, at an August 11 campaign stop almost 400 miles from Washington, to an opposition campaign staffer as “Macaca.” One of these stories, perhaps, had enough news value to be worthy of the front page; the others were placed there with the obvious intent of defeating Allen and electing his Democratic opponent Jim Webb, who did indeed win by a 50%-49% margin.

Now there’s a campaign on for governor of Virginia, and the news editors of the Post seem to be using their front page once again to defeat the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell, and elect Democrat Creigh Deeds.

Barone, of course, is not alone in seeing the parallel.  It could be argued that it was not coverage of the "Macaca" comment itself -- but the Washington Post's relentless daily assault on Allen -- which ultimately doomed his candidacy. 
[# More #]
Barone is also correct in noting that the Post seems to have had similar intentions regarding the Bob McDonnell thesis story.  But something went wrong.  While Deeds appears to have gained on McDonnell since the story broke, the barrage of anti-McDonnell columns and articles do not appear to have been a game-changer. 

So what went wrong?  According to state senator Steve Martin, chairman of the Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition, "The Washington Post has failed in its effort to 'Macaca' Bob McDonnell because he's simply not the man they portrayed him to be."

That may well be true, but anyone who follows politics knows that sometimes false attacks do work.  In my estimation, there are many other reasons why the Post couldn't replicate their previous success of taking down Allen.

First, the current political environment is completely different (and more favorable for Republicans) than it was in 2006.  George Allen didn't realize it at the time, but he was up against a tsunami.  Second -- fair or not -- George Allen's image and persona of being a "good old boy" may have helped him as governor of Virginia in the 90s, but in 2006, it made him susceptible to charges he was out of touch and might even harbor some latent racism.  Simply put, whether true or not, the Post's attacks on Allen had the benefit of seeming believable. 

Conversely, Bob McDonnell's manner and image is that of a modern-day, urban professional.  As McDonnell's recent TV ads successfully show -- without directly stating -- it simply not believable that this well-spoken, handsome man is some sort out-of-touch neanderthal. 

Images matter more than words in politics, and whereas the images of Allen saying "Macaca" were shown over and over again, there is no image (at least, not yet) of McDonnell saying controversial things.  The Post has his college theses but, so far, their columns and articles aren't complimented by the presence of any  video.  Conversely, McDonnell's TV ads have effectively portrayed him as being a mainstream Republican whom you might bump into at the Whole Foods store in Arlington, Virginia.  Meanwhile, McDonnell's opponent, Creigh Deeds, a state senator representing a rural area, seems frumpy.  McDonnell is clearly winning the optics war.

Lastly, could it be that Americans are more outraged by charges of racism than by charges of sexism?  Allen was essentially accused of being a racist, and it doomed his candidacy -- and his presidential ambitions.  Conversely, McDonnell has essentially been accused of being a religious zealot and of sexism, but the smart money is still on him to win in November.  Could it be that the difference is really about what they were accused of?

In 1994, 'Blue Dog' Democratic Rep. Jane Harman won re-election to her 36th district seat in California by a mere 812 votes.  As Republicans seek to turn 2010 into a similarly big year, Harmon may once again face a formidable challenge. 

Republican Mattie Fein, a political consultant and wife of prominent conservative lawyer Bruce Fein, has launched an exploratory committee to consider challenging Harman.  And while national Republicans are waiting to see what kind of organization she can build, there is some excitement about the possibility of running a credible and well-connected female candidate against Harman.  This is a point that does not escape Fein.
[# More #]

One presumable reason a female Republican might fare better than previous male candidates is that she might feel less inhibited about aggressively attacking Harman.  "My grandmother used to say, 'look, sometimes in life -- you can't always be a lady in a streetfight'," Fein told me during a telephone interview. 

"I think you'd have two feisty, demonstrative women that will probably make this one of the most exciting races in the country," Fein added.

While Harman is a member of the 'Blue Dog' coalition of 'moderate' Democrats, her website biography says,

"Her life-long commitment to progressive issues is reflected in her record on a woman's right to choose, on issues of interest to the gay and lesbian community, seniors and veterans, and has earned her top ratings from advocacy groups including Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign, and the California League of Conservation Voters."

With Democrats being pressured by fellow Californian Nancy Pelosi to support liberal policies such as ObamaCare, it is not surprising that Harman -- who has previously received primary challenges from the left -- has increasingly embraced the liberal agenda. 

"I think Jane is moving further to the left," Fein tells me. 

While Harman is not considered one of the most vulnerable incumbent Democrats in Congress this year, Republicans believe there is a chance for something big happen in 2010 -- and they want to be prepared.  As such, Republican leaders I have spoken to tell me they are focused on ensuring there are "enough ships in the water." 

Essentially, this means fielding quality candidates in hundreds of races, as opposed to focusing solely on a small hand-full of "targeted" races. 

What is more, Republicans believe that by challenging committee chairmen (such as Harman), they will force Democrats to spend resources that they might otherwise use elsewhere.

With Democrats already worried about defending numerous seats around the nation, Fein's likely entry into this race provides them with one additional thing to worry about.  Speculation is Fein may make it official in the next week or so.

On November 29 of last year, former New York Giants star wide receiver Plaxico Burress entered a nightclub on Lexington Ave in Manhattan with a gun. 

He then proceeded to accidentally shoot himself in the leg with the .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol he had tucked in the waistband of his blue jeans.

Burress did not shoot anyone else, nor did he brandish the gun at the nightclub.  But because he was a celebrity -- and because of New York's strict gun sentencing laws -- on Tuesday, he was sentenced to two years in prison.  This is a travesty.

Because he is 32 years old, it is entirely possible his career is over.  But that's the least of his worries.  Prison life is never easy, but try doing it as a celebrity.  The best case scenario is that he is, for his own protection, isolated from the inmate population.  But being essentially alone for two years is a pretty harsh sentence, as well.

To be clear, I am not arguing that Burress was a boy scout -- or that what he did wasn't incredibly stupid.  It was.  But does anyone really think his "crime" warrants being sent to Rikers Island? 

In fact, this entire story raises a lot of questions for me, including...

... Isn't shooting yourself in the leg punishment enough?

... Does Burress' crime really warrant more jail time than Donte Stallworth and Michael Vick got for their, in my opinion, more serious crimes?  Stallworth and Vick did harm to other people (or animals).  Burress only harmed himself.

... Does anyone think that if he were just some 'regular Joe' that his sentence would have been this severe?  (Of course not, they were making an example of him because he is a celebrity).

... Does anyone think there's any chance Burress is a risk to ever do this again?

... Does anyone think that Burress will be a better person after serving two years in jail?

... Why aren't more prominent conservatives and 2nd Amendment groups speaking out on this?