February 26, 2007
Feb 26 03:10 It's Almost Official: Flip To Coach Gophers Feb 26 04:48 Lieberman vs. Murtha, Pelosi & Reid Feb 26 09:53 Clinton Media Machine Mauls Geffen Feb 26 10:42 DFL House, Communist Car Factories Feb 26 18:42 My Kind of Snarkiness
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
It's Almost Official: Flip To Coach Gophers
Part of my Sunday night routine is to watch the Sports Show, a gossip show about Minnesota sports. The regulars on the show are Mike Max, who actually owns the show, Sid Hartman, Patrick Reusse & Dark Star. Dark Star wasn't there tonight. In his stead, Trent Tucker sat in for him. At the start of the third segment, Max kiddingly introduced Trent as the "future assistant coach of the Minnesota Gophers", then asked if he'd like to make an announcement.
After the laughter subsided, Tucker said that he couldn't "say anything at this time." With that out of the way, Max asked him how he'd go about rebuilding the Gophers. Trent Tucker said that you have to go for the best players and that the best players aren't always on the recruiting lists of the major recruiting publications. He said that he'd try & get the best players, whether they're from New York, Florida or his home state of Michigan.
The only way Trent would be the assistant coach is if Flip was the head coach. The good news for Gopher fans who've suffered through the Monson era is that a coaching team of Flip Saunders & Trent Tucker would have the Barn packed & rocking within 3 years. Trent Tucker is a great student of the game with an NBA championship ring from the Chicago Bulls/Michael Jordan dynasty. He'd also be able to sell kids on Minnesota because they'd be playing in big games & because NBA scouts would pay attention to the Gophers.
Of course, Sid tried painting this as mission impossible & that they wouldn't have much of a team for years unless they brought in Bob Knight, which is a crock. Flip & Trent Tucker are just as good of coaches as Mr. Knight & they'd be a dynamic recruiting duo.
The good news is that we'll find out just how good a recruiting duo they are starting next season.
Posted Monday, February 26, 2007 3:10 AM
No comments.
Lieberman vs. Murtha, Pelosi & Reid
Joe Lieberman has written an op-ed in today's OpinionJournal that excoriates the Democrats for their defeatist attitudes and policies. Here's a key section from Sen. Lieberman's op-ed:
Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq, or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?President Bush's plan might not succeed but he's at least trying to achieve victory. That's a far cry from the Democrats' position. Democrats should be chastised for opposing victory and for owning the defeatism market. It's never been, nor should it ever be, acceptable for a major political party to attempt so strongly to 'achieve' defeat.
If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security, meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.
Democrats, especially John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, are ignorant of what's happening in Iraq. Here's how harshly the Washington Post chastised Murtha:
Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?If you think that Murtha's quotes about bull-dozing Abu Ghraib and "getting our troops out of Saddam's palaces" are his most ignorant statements, you'd be wrong. Here's another example of his ignorance:
JACK MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE: People tend to say, well, if we leave there's going to be chaos. I don't believe that. Seventy-eight percent of the Iraqis say that's not going to happen, 78 percent of the Iraqis say it'll be,we're the ones that are causing this and al Qaeda's going to be,al Qaeda's going to disappear.Statements like Murtha's are what's driven Joe Lieberman to the brink of joining the Republican Party. There used to be a sizable wing to the Democratic Party where foreign policy hawks like Scoop Jackson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Zell Miller felt at home. That part of the Party has essentially vanished. Here's another stinging refutation of the Democrats' talking points:
Where previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.Democrats have said that we need a change of course, code for "We need a defeatist policy" because that's what their Nutroots pacifists are demanding. President Bush chose a different path, causing Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha to essentially whine that he didn't heed their defeatist wishes. Thank God he didn't. Thank God for the good news that Sen. Lieberman is talking about.
At least four of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad, the same neighborhoods where, just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in, and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army are moving out.
If the American people were told on the nightly news and on the front page of the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times that Sadr and his militia had left Iraq before they were killed by the Surge's troops, I suspect that the current skepticism might be replaced with a cautious optimism almost overnight. Democrats can't let that happen because they'd be doomed politically for a generation at that point.
But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago, with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security, and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.Democrats won't admit that there has been a change in policy and military tactics and strategy. They're likely to make Murtha-like statements instead while accusing the President of being too stubborn and not heeding the will of the people.
Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.
The bad news is that we have too many Murtha-like defeatists. Thankfully, we still have patriots like Sen. Lieberman.
Posted Monday, February 26, 2007 4:49 AM
No comments.
Clinton Media Machine Mauls Geffen
No, I'm not talking about Howard Wolfson overreacting like he did with Barack Obama. I'm talking about the Clinton media machine at the NY Times. Here's what the NY Times' David Carr wrote in this morning's edition:
Instead, the conversation was all about the media mogul David Geffen's drive-by maiming of the Clintons earlier in the week in remarks he made to Maureen Dowd of The New York Times. For over an hour, the people at the table debated his decision to take on Hillary Clinton, who is pursuing the Democratic nomination for president.Doesn't Carr sound just a wee bit touchy about David Geffen's "drive-by maiming" of Hillary? That paragraph sounds more like it was written by a Clinton campaign staffer than by a reporter, though it obviously wasn't written by Wolfson. Had Mr. Wolfson written it, it would've been far nastier than this was.
Mr. Geffen, 64, would no doubt have been pleased. A billionaire with manifest interests, he has a lot of time on his hands now that DreamWorks, the mini-major studio he formed with Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, has been bought and folded into Paramount. With a net worth that has been estimated at $4.5 billion and no more worlds to conquer, Mr. Geffen finds himself, well, inserts himself, in the middle of conversations over the future of Paramount, The Los Angeles Times and now the republic itself.
This is just further proof that the Agenda Media aren't interested in reporting real news. They're only interested in furthering their agenda. Why would the NY Times waste a minute of time covering a get together at Arianna Huffington's Brentwood home? Yes, she's a celebrity who's dabbled in politics but it's not like she's particularly intelligent. Hell, it isn't like she's even coherent.
Make no mistake about this: The Clintons will have attack dogs strewn throughout the media, ready to pounce on any negative statement anyone makes about 'Her Highness'. Hillary isn't tough as much as she's simply thin-skinned. She's best described as being bossy rather than as a leader.
Carr quotes Geffen from his quotes in Maureen Dowd's column:
"Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling," he told Ms. Dowd.This is Carr's commentary on the interview:
(Of course, many of Mr. Geffen's former business partners say that he has had his own idiosyncratic relationship with the truth.) Calling the former president a "reckless guy" deftly put the issue of Bill Clinton's behavior in the present tense. And at a moment when some of the smart money was poised to line up behind Mrs. Clinton's candidacy, Mr. Geffen was signaling that backing her may not be so smart after all.Somebody should check Hillary's FEC report to see if they've bought this article like they bought the North Carolina Democrats' endorsements or if the NY Times is paying him for writing this drivel. It wouldn't surprise me either way. It's possible that he's a NY Times writer because Carr's writing has all the subtlety of a Frank Rich or a Paul Krugman
You have to hand it to him: here it was, Oscar weekend, and at least nobody was talking about the failure of "Dreamgirls," Mr. Geffen's pet project, to get a best picture nomination.
Ms. Huffington got something right here:
"David Geffen gave voice to the collective unconscious of many people here," said Ms. Huffington, whose opposition to the Iraq war and Mrs. Clinton's candidacy has been on display on the Huffington Post Web site for some time. "The story would have been dead in a day if he was just speaking for himself, but these things are on everybody's mind."She's right that this would've blown over had Geffen's statements been over-the-top or if they hadn't struck a nerve. Mr. Geffen's quotes were him saying what everyone knows: that Bill Clinton is a brilliant man who can't control himself and that Hillary is the most ruthless, ambitious woman in America.
If Mr. Carr isn't paid by the Clinton campaign, he should be. He's a political shill posing as a journalist. The NY Times shouldn't be allowed to pay this man's salary without it counting as an in-kind campaign contribution to the Clinton campaign.
The NY Times should be embarrassed that they'd hire a shill like this. They won't be, though. They'll just accept the fact that this is part of their operation.
Posted Monday, February 26, 2007 9:56 AM
No comments.
DFL House, Communist Car Factories
You're undoubtedly wondering what the DFL House has to do with Communist car factories. Here's a list of similarities between the two:
1. Low productivity levels (passed five bills of low controversy or low importance in 22 days of potential floor discussions).You've got to hand it to the DFL. They campaigned on major changes, which they've certainly done. The GOP-controlled House at least worked on bills that mattered before Democrats took over. As I've chronicled, the DFL legislature has wasted hundreds of man-hours (person-hours?) working on some of the silliest legislation in the history of Western civilization.
2. Low consumer demands for products (did anyone campaign on cultural centers, $20 tax cuts for teachers, windmills, voting machines, or water commissions?)
3. Lots of slogans, unmatched by results.
4. Lots of self-congratulation.
5. Daily doses of petty tyranny.
6. World is hopeful that low productivity will continue. (No news is good news from both facilities. Does anybody want to open a "ZIL" dealership?)
They've proposed legislation that mandates seatbelts being installed in shopping carts; building regional community centers miles from population centers; creating a bureaucracy that would monitor "hair Transplant facilities" and "create permanent budget increases for the Local Government Aids program which shifts money from all townships and most suburbs to all large cities and many mid-sized communities."
If you think that's productive, check this out:
TWO MONTHS OF WORK ON THE HOUSE FLOOR OF A DFL HOUSEI'm praying that the House 'maintains' this pace because, with this bunch in charge, no news is indeed good news.
1. WED, JAN 03: The DFL House met, adopted temporary rules, adjourned.
2. THU, JAN 04: The DFL House did not work, although the Senate met.
3. MON, JAN 08: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
4. THU, JAN 11: The DFL House passed HF 8 (Federal Tax Conformity Bill) by 132-0 margin. DFL rejects all pro-worker amendments.
5. MON, JAN 15: The DFL House takes a breather, does not meet on the Martin Luther King Holiday.
6. TUE, JAN 16: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
7. WED, JAN 17: The DFL House shows up to hear Governor Tim Pawlenty's "State of the State" Address, then adjourns to criticize the speech.
8. THU, JAN 18: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
9. MON, JAN 22: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
10. THU, JAN 25: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
11. MON, JAN 29: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
12. THU, FEB 01: The DFL House passed HF 110 (Include Minnesota in an international Great Lakes Commission) by a 97-35 margin.
13. MON, FEB 05: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
14. WED, FEB 07: The DFL House did not work, although the Senate met.
15. THU, FEB 08: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
16. MON, FEB 12: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
17. TUE, FEB 13: The DFL House passed HF 160 (minor changes in election rules) by a 106-25 margin.
18. THU, FEB 15: The DFL House adopted a schedule of deadlines for guiding the House.
19. MON, FEB 19: The DFL House passed HF 87 (Pre-design funds for an Asian-Pacific Cultural Center in St. Paul) by a 124-8 margin and SF 4 (loophole-filled schedule to add more windmills in Minnesota) by a 123-10 margin.
20. WED, FEB 21: The DFL House did not work, although the Senate met.
21. THU, FEB 22: The DFL House took a few minutes to shuffle papers.
22. MON, FEB 26: The DFL House approved permanent rules and adjourned.
In the next 23 days, the 40 committees of the DFL House must complete work on all policy bills, if their deadlines have any meaning.
On a serious note, it's difficult to fathom just how unproductive the DFL legislature has been. They've found time to pass per diem increases in the House and Senate but they House refuses to debate several GOP tax cut proposals.
I'd doubt that that sounds like the type of 'leadership' you voted for. In fact, I'm betting that you don't think of that as leadership even if you use that term loosely. I'm further betting that you think that it's an outrage that you're paying these legislators to waste time on such frivolous legislation.
I ask you this: Will this type of legislation produce the type of Minnesota you want to live in? I'm betting that you want a refund on the DFL legislators' salaries for wasting this much time.
Rest assured that plenty of MOBsters will be keeping a watchful eye on the DFL's leadership.
Posted Monday, February 26, 2007 10:42 AM
No comments.
My Kind of Snarkiness
Katherine Kersten's latest column is up & it's one that you shouldn't miss if you enjoy snark. Here's a healthy dose of Ms. Kersten's snark:
Since Gore invented the Internet as a U.S. senator, he's gone from triumph to triumph. Gore has ceased to be a mere ex-vice president, almost president and political preacher. He's a movie star. He convinced audiences that his "shock and awe" docudrama, "An Inconvenient Truth," was worth eight bucks a head. Today, he's basking in the afterglow of an Academy Award (no recount necessary).I'm glad that Ms. Kersten has decided to lampoon Al Gore. She starts by mocking Gore for his idiotic statement that he invented the internet, then mocking him for conning people into actually paying money to see his 'documentary'. (Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that documentaries were about reality, not fiction.)
Still, Oscars are for mere mortals from tinsel town. Gore has got a shot at dizzier heights, a Nobel Peace Prize nomination that could elevate him to international sainthood, with the likes of Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat.I can't think of another person more deserving of sharing honors with President Carter and Yasser Arafat than Gore. Coming to think of it, Gore wouldn't just share it with those illustrious winners. He'd share that honor with Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev.
If Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, he could team with the worst foreign policy president in our nation's history, a terrorist and the Soviet 'leader' who oversaw the collapse of the USSR. You can't buy your way into that rarefied air.
Posted Monday, February 26, 2007 6:42 PM
No comments.
