Blogger Norman Geras on the aftermath of the election:

“Liberals and leftists should stop wailing and ask themselves some tough questions: first and foremost, where they themselves might have gone wrong (so many of them), repeatedly wrong, in their alignment within international conflicts - and why. You lose a democratic battle, you fight on, that's all. You make the argument again or differently. You look to see whether there are mistakes, misconceptions, bad assumptions, bad practices, on your own side. You try to persuade people. You show some elementary civic respect to those on the other side.”

Good advice, I think. Read the whole thing.

The heart-breaking, horrifying slaughter of Theo van Gogh by Islamic extremists in Holland was a story that rather got lost in the midst of the election drama over here. It shouldn’t have done.

Now comes the tale (via the Live from Brussels blog) of what happened when Rotterdam artist Chris Ripke reacted to the killing by painting a mural that included the words "Gij zult niet doden" ("Thou Shalt Not Kill"). Fair comment, you might think. Apparently not. The head of the nearby mosque complained to the police that this text was 'offensive' and 'racist'. As a result, the police came and sent in city workers to sandblast this inconvenient text into oblivion.

“Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Erased, obliterated, unacceptable.

Much like Theo van Gogh.

From another reader:

Your correspondent is being silly. Brooks isn't saying that lefties would be morally superior had their opponents beaten them on an anti-gay-marriage agenda. He's saying that they would FEEL morally superior, by their own definitions of "moral" and "superior". When your moral code elevates gratification of self over the integrity of the institution of marriage, and an absolutist conception of "choice" over the right to life of unborn children, you can feel "morally superior" without being so. And someone else can acknowledge your conceit without validating it.

An interestingly different take, from a reader:

Brooks' column contains a pernicious underlying assumption: He implies that, if it were true that Republican votes were largely motivated by values such as gay marriage and abortion, then the liberals would be correct in feeling morally superior. Brooks cites Pew Research findings that (fortunately) indicate that this was not the case. Republicans were chiefly supporting Bush because he has made them feel safer. But what if it turns out that Pew is wrong, and that many Republicans were indeed voting socially conservative values. Why does Brooks concede to the liberals that these voters would then be morally inferior? What is wrong with wishing to preserve traditional marriage and to oppose abortion? Brooks doesn't say; he simply accepts at face value the idea that such views would say something distasteful about Republicans. I am concerned that Brooks undermines the conservative movement with such assumptions.

A press release from Centcom on what the "insurgents" are up to. Let's see how much the media plays it up:

November 5, 2004 Release Number: 04-11-12

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

INSURGENTS TARGET CHILDREN OF RAMADI

CAMP RAMADI, Iraq – An Army unit assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force, discovered and defused an explosive-laden youth center in Ramadi Nov. 4, which was rigged by insurgents to detonate and potentially kill dozens of Iraqi children. They also discovered more than two tons of explosives hidden in a mosque.

The discoveries were made during a sweep of the city looking for improvised explosive devices.

After a thorough investigation of the youth center, the Soldiers discovered that the explosives were rigged to detonate three ways: through a light switch, a remote control and by wiring that ran from the youth center to the nearby Al-Haq Mosque, where the unit discovered the firing mechanism.

At another mosque, a search yielded the discovery of more than two tons of ammunition, explosives, mortar systems and RPGs. Artillery rounds; assault rifles and various IED-making materials were found, as well. Fifty suspected insurgents were also detained during the sweep.

Mosques are granted protective status due to their religious and cultural significance. However, when insurgents violate the sanctity of the mosque by using the structure for military purposes, the site loses its protective status.

Great care is taken by the Soldiers, Sailors and Marines of I Marine Expeditionary Force, who are committed to assisting Iraqi Interim Government in providing security to Iraqi people.

Quite a few folks have been asking me about the case of Elizabeth Nickson. She's a Canadian columnist for the National Post who was fired for allegedly plagiarizing a column of mine. These are the details, according to the Globe and Mail. I really don't know anything more than what appears in this article. I was notified by a reader a couple months ago about the plagiarism, but to be honest I never followed-up on it because I was so busy at the time and then I just plum forgot. I trust the editors of the National Post did what they think was right and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the whole thing.

The morning after the Feb. 3 primaries, which vaulted Kerry into a virtual-ly insurmountable lead, the candidate was fuming over his missing hairbrush. He and his aides were riding in a van on the way to a Time magazine cover-photo shoot. Nicholson had left the hairbrush behind. "Sir, I don't have it," he said, after rummaging in the bags. "Marvin, f---!" Kerry said. The press secretary, David Wade, offered his brush. "I'm not using Wade's brush," the long-faced senator pouted. "Marvin, f---, it's my Time photo shoot."

Nicholson was having a bad day. Breakfast had been late and rushed and not quite right for the senator. In the van, Kerry was working his cell phone and heard the beep signaling that the phone was running out of juice. "Marvin, charger," he said without turning around. "Sorry, I don't have it," said Nicholson, who was sitting in the rear of the van. Now Kerry turned around. "I'm running this campaign myself," he said, looking at Nicholson and the other aides. "I get myself breakfast. I get myself hairbrushes. I get myself my cell-phone charger. It's pretty amazing." In silent frustration, Nicholson helplessly punched the car seat.

I went to the eye doctor. He put drops in my eyes. I can barely read the screen. That's why I've been absent.

Doing CNN around 3:30-3:45, not sure exact time.

Will also be on Inside Politics Sunday this, uh, sunday.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New U.S. jobs soared at the sharpest rate in seven months in October, the government reported on Friday, helped by a surge in construction activity as hurricane-battered areas in the Southeast were rebuilt.

Q: Clearly, you won a tremendous personal victory last night. But given the fact that the Republicans lost two seats in the Senate and that you didn't win as many seats in the House as you lost in the 1982 elections, how much of a mandate can the Republicans claim for next year?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I feel that the people of this country made it very plain that they approved what we've been doing. And we're going to continue what we've been doing and, if need be, we'll take our case to the people. But we have the same number of Senators that we had in 1981 when we got this program passed. And there's a possibility -- I know that there are some seats still to be decided in the House -- but there's a possibility of as many as 17, and that's more than have happened in elections of this kind -- mid- or second-term elections -- for Presidents in the past.

Q: Are you claiming a mandate then, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm claiming that I think the people made it very plain that they approved of what we're doing….And that's what we're going to continue to do.

Kyl's not getting enough phone calls. his office in tucson said i was the first today. can you remind everyone to call the local offices, too? i've had a tough time getting through to some washington offices, but got a friendly "hi, thanks for calling," from nearly every local office i've called. specter must, must go.

He is an abortion-rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial preferences, a bitter foe of tort reform, a firm friend of the International Criminal Court — the list is long. When Citizens Against Government Waste recently listed Specter in its "Pig Book" as one of the Senate's most profligate spenders, he shot back: "If they left me out, I'd be worried." In 1995, Specter briefly ran for president and pursued the unique strategy of attacking the base of his own party: His announcement speech lobbed a grenade at "the intolerant Right." After pressing this theme for several months, one poll showed him attracting support from a grand total of 1 percent of Republicans.

Yikes. Here I am, a new subscriber and ardent fan since Election Day, and you subject-line a post "You go, girl"?

Your apologies are not enough. You say it "just sounds cliched." Again, I must say, yikes.

In the sitcom business, we call that a clam. No one knows where the term originates, several people claim "clam" as their own, but the term describes any phrase which has had all traces of humor or wit sucked out by constant and careless use. "Houston, we have a problem." "Is that your final answer?" "Who are you are what have you done with Kathryn?"

Clams can also be references that have lost what little zing they might have once had. Viagra. Gandhi. White House interns. Milli Vanilli. (You can see that sitcom writers are a rigorous bunch.)

Using a clam is beneath you. Don't make me say, "You are the weakest link. Goodbye." (Which I believe broke the record for instantaneous clam status, becoming unfunny before it was ever funny.)

For much of Tuesday, campaign workers exuded confidence after surveys of voters leaving the polls showed Mr. Kerry with an edge over Mr. Bush. But as the night wore on, the real results told a different story. The critical moment came at 12:41 a.m. Wednesday, when, shortly after Florida had been painted red for Mr. Bush, Fox News declared that Ohio--and, very likely, the presidency--was in Republican hands. Howard Wolfson, a strategist, burst into the "boiler room" in Washington where the brain trust was huddled and said, "we have 30 seconds" to stop the other networks from following suit. The campaign's pollster, Mark Mellman, and the renowned organizer Michael Whouley quickly dialed ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC--and all but the last refrained from calling the race through the night. Then Mr. Wolfson banged out a simple, two-line statement expressing confidence that Mr. Kerry would win Ohio once the remaining ballots were counted.

I think contacting the members of the Judiciary committee is a wise suggestion. However, I would refrain from discouraging people from contacting Frist. He has already begun to run for President. Social conservatives pushed the president over the finish line this week. It would seem that Frist is the senator over whom we currently have the most leverage. I don't think he would want to alienate the conservative base out of the gate. It would doom him, and he would certainly be the fall guy if there is a problem. Frist needs this resolved favorably for the base as much as anyone does.

So many emails about here. I can't/won't post that many because she really does speak for herself better than we can do it for her. But here's a good/common point:

I do not read Slate, it's good someone does and can point to the odd, random article worth reading.

For me the best part of Smiley's effort is when she denounces the
Gadarene swine ... er ... Red State Voters (see Belmont for more
on that notion) for their Manichean worldview, while at the same time
insisting that the nation has been divided into the Land of Light and
the Domain of Darkness.

The irony of that comes pretty close to exceeding my Required Daily
Allowance of irony, frankly.

Specter's biggest impact probably has come on the Judiciary Committee. That makes sense, because he was a prominent lawyer before arriving in Washington. In addition to his work on the Warren Commission, he was twice elected district attorney in Philadelphia, where he earned a tough-on-crime reputation. On the Judiciary Committee, he has been tough on Republican judicial nominees. In 1986, Ronald Reagan selected Jeff Sessions of Alabama for the federal bench, but Specter joined his Democratic colleagues in defeating the nomination — it was only the second time the Judiciary Committee had turned down a nominee since the FDR era. Attorney general Ed Meese called it "an appalling surrender to the politics of ideology." Sessions didn't vanish from public life; in 1996, he was elected to the Senate. Now he sits with Specter on the Judiciary Committee. The two men don't talk about what passed between them 17 years ago, but Specter admits he made a mistake: "I've gotten to know him. I regret my vote."

Specter doesn't regret a more famous vote that took place the following year, on the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. This was a watershed moment in Washington politics, when left-wing histrionics began to play a leading role in judicial confirmations — and the term "borking" was born. Bork had an impeccable record as a law professor and judge, but the debate over his nomination was dominated by the fevered rhetoric of his enemies, who said that confirming him would condemn women to back-alley abortions and blacks to segregated lunch counters. Fresh from his first re-election a few months earlier, Specter couldn't make up his mind about what to do. He questioned Bork for hours in his private chambers and at public hearings. In the end, he decided to vote against confirmation. "He called and said that he couldn't be sure about me," says Bork.

"I've never known what he meant by that." Specter's announcement doomed the nomination. As Bork lobbyist Tom Korologos put it at the time: "Specter hit the game-winning RBI." Conservatives, of course, resent that he was batting for the wrong team.

If you've been waiting for one writer to combine all of the sandpounding stupidity and visceral hatred of the left's reaction to "red America" this may be what you're looking for.

Just giving Airpower guy some grief. From him:

Jonah,

Re: strafing an elementary school.

Well, THAT would be a spirited debrief.

A couple of things:
-having a school 3.5 miles from a military firing range doesn't strike me as
the wisest zoning plan, and

-night range rides are challenging enough for guys who fly regularly, much
less Guardsmen who may not do this as often.

A nighttime bomb/strafe pass is disorienting enough as it is...sit in a
chair in a dark room, put a bag over your head, lean over one arm of the
chair, then roll out and stand up while staying bent 90 degrees at the
waist. That's about what it feels like to roll in on even a shallow pass in
the dark. Note: do this alone. Otherwise, Cosmo and the Fair Jessica might
start wondering about you...

This was a goof, obviously, but if he only fired 25 rounds, with a Vulcan
cannon, that was a really short burst, which leads me to believe he probably
thought something was wrong as soon as he pulled the trigger. Also, the
press reports said the bullets were made of lead. Um, I don't think
so--steel more'n likely.

Anyway, night ops can be really squirrelly even if you're current/proficient
and night range rides involve a lot of unnatural actions...thank God it was
only 20mm and that it happened on Wednesday, not Tuesday. Otherwise, I would not be surprised it being characterized as another attempt by Karl Rove to
intimidate Pennsylvania voters.

Cheers,
Instapilot

When Reagan won big for conservatism in the 1980s, the official line from the media was that he's telegenic, that he's an actor, that he's a smooth talker. But the line about Bush all along has been that he's lousy on TV (the debates), that he's abrasive (the swagger and the bluntness), and doesn't speak well (the gaffes). Now, W. has won big for conservatism. Isn't it time to admit that it's conservatism itself that wins big?

In the military, your boss yells at you when you do this right?

F-16 Accidentally Fires on School Thursday, November 04, 2004

LITTLE EGG HARBOR, N.J. — A National Guard F-16 fighter jet on a nighttime training mission Wednesday fired 25 rounds that tore through a Little Egg Harbor elementary school.

No one was injured.

The military is investigating the incident that damaged Little Egg Harbor Intermediate School shortly after eleven o'clock.

Police were called to the area when a custodian heard what sounded like someone running across the roof of the school.

Police Chief Mark Siino says police officers noticed punctures in the roof. Ceiling tiles had fallen into classrooms and there were scratch marks in the asphalt outside the building.

Folks, Moby's blog is High-larious. I found it because I was reading a "What now?" symposium at Salon. I never wondered why Moby's counsel isn't sought at the highest levels of government, academia and finance before, but I found the answer anyway. An excerpt:

.. some of us might long for a secession wherein certain parts of the country declare their sovereign autonomy, but given our current state of quasi-united states, well, bush won. tonight i realized that although america is possessed of a lot of progressive people, america is essentially a right-wing republican country. we might resist this fact, but it is a fact. it's not a fact in manhattan. it's not a fact in l.a or san francisco. but for 100+ million people it's a fact ... and now we ask ... what now? with another 4 years of a republican president/senate/house, well ... what do they want? the right-wing have re-asserted their dominance. what do they want? i do hope that the democrats in the house and senate do their best to impose sane restrictions upon the more extreme tendencies of the newly empowered right-wing ... the sun will rise tomorrow, and the people who voted for bush will: a) send their sons/daughters off to war in iraq; b) complain about unemployment; c) lament their lack of health care; d) complain about the high price of prescription drugs; e) complain about a low minimum wage; f) complain about high gas prices/heating oil costs; g) and so on; h) and so on ... the people have made their choice. and now, for better or worse, they have to live with their choice ... can someone remind me why secession is not an option at this point? i mean let's be realistic, we live in a divided country. can't we have the breakaway republics of 'north-east-istan' and 'pacific-stan'? wouldn't the red states be happier without us?"

November 3, 2004 Transcript

JORDAN: Senator, you didn't talk about the Judiciary Committee, it is something you are expected to Chair this January. With 3 Supreme Court Justices rumored to retire soon, starting with Rehnquist, how do you see this unfolding in the next couple of months and what part do you intend to play on it?

SPECTER: You know my approach is cautious with respect to the Judiciary Committee. I am in line, Senator Hatch is barred now by term limits and Senate Rules so that I am next in line. There has to be a vote of the Committee and I have already started to talk to some of my fellow committee members. I am respectful of Senate traditions, so I am not designating myself Chairman, I will wait for the Senate procedures to act in do course. You are right on the substance, the Chief Justice is gravely ill. I had known more about that than had appeared in the media. When he said he was going to be back on Monday, it was known inside that he was not going to be back on Monday. The full extent of his full incapacitation is really not known, I believe there will be cause for deliberation by the President. The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent, the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to, I wouldn't quite say ignored, but close to that. My hope that the Senate will be more involved in expressing our views. We start off with the basic fact that the Democrats are have filibustered and expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad range of acceptability. I think there is a very broad range of Presidential Discretion but there is a range.

ODOM: Is Mr. Bush, he just won the election, even with the popular vote as well. If he wants anti-abortion judges up there, you are caught in the middle of it what are you going to do? The party is going one way and you are saying this.

SPECTER: When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v Wade, I think that is unlikely. And I have said that bluntly during the course of the campaign and before. When the Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my statement that Roe v Wade was inviolate. And that 1973 decision, which has been in effect now for 33 years, was buttressed by the 1992 decision, written by three Republican justices-O'Conner, Souter, and Kennedy-and nobody can doubt Anthony Kennedy's conservativism or pro-life position, but that's the fabric of the country. Nobody can be confirmed today who didn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education on integration, and I believe that while you traditionally do not ask a nominee how they're going to decide a specific case, there's a doctorate and a fancy label term, stari decisis, precedent which I think protects that issue. That is my view, now, before, and always.

ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother to send somebody up there like that.

SPECTER: Can't hear you

ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother or make the move to send somebody up there who is clearly anti-abortion.

SPECTER: I don't want to prejudge what the President is going to do. But the President is well aware of what happened when a number of his nominees were sent up, were filibustered, and the President has said he is not going to impose a litmus test, he faced that issue squarely in the third debate and I would not expect the President, I would expect the President to be mindful of the considerations that I mentioned.

JORDAN: However, Senator the President has President has sent up, as you know, a number of very very conservative judges socially, you have made a point in this campaign of saying that you have supported all of those ______ at least I the last two years, how is this going to square with what you are saying today about wanting the Republican party to be big tent and moderate.

SPECTER: I have been very careful in what I have said and what I have done. The nominees whom I supported in Committee, I had reservations on. As for judge Pryor, there had been an issue as to whether as Attorney General he had raised money, I said in voting him out of committee, that he did not have my vote on the floor until I satisfied myself about collateral matters. The woman judge out of California, who had dismissed a case on invasion of privacy where the doctor had permitted an insurance adjuster to watch a mammogram, I had a reservation on it, so I wanted to talk to her to see if that was aberrational or whether that really reflected her judgment on each and every one of those cases. This may be more detail than you want, but there was one judge for a district judgeship, Judge Holmes, in Arkansas, who was first in his class at the University of Arkansas, had a PhD from Duke, had a master's degree, was touted by both Democratic Arkansas Senators, was supported by 2 pro-choice women, Senator Landrieu and Senator Lincoln, highly regarded in the Arkansas editorial pages, and for a district court judgeship I thought. He had made two statements, and they were, one was in a religious context that a wife should be subservient to a husband, that was in a religious context. Then he made a statement doubting the potential for impregnation from rape, and made an absurd statement that it would be as rare as snow in Florida in July. That was about a 20 year-old statement and I brought him in and sat down, had a long talk with him and concluded that they were not disqualifiers. He was the only judge whom I voted to confirm on the floor vote where any question has been raised and I think that was the right decision for a district court judgeship, not to make that a disqualifier. There are few if any whose record if you go back over 30 or 40 years, and not find some dumb thing, I don't want you to take a to close a look at my 40 year record.

HIGHSMITH: Talk to us a little bit beyond judgeships, you said again today and last night that your goal now is to moderate the party, bring it to the center.

SPECTER: Correct

[BREAK-Bringing the Country Together Question]

[BREAK-Stem Cell Question]

MACINTOSH: What are the characteristics that you are looking for in any candidate for the high court who might come your way in the next year or two?

SPECTER: Well I would like to see a select someone in the mold of Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo, or Marshall. With all due respect to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one. And I haven't minced any words about that during the confirmation process.

MACINTOSH: Meaning?

SPECTER: Where I have questioned them all very closely. I had an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on trying to keep the Navy base, and you should heard what the eight of them had to say to me. They were almost as tough as this gang here this morning.

ODOM: Senator, the judges you mentioned are obviously renown. Are you saying that there are no greatness on there, is that what you're driving at?

SPECTER: Yes. Can you take yes for an answer Vernon? I'm saying that we don't have anybody of the stature of Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Willy Brandeis, or Cardozo, or Marshall. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that we have a court which they're graduates from the Court of Appeals from the District of Columbia basically, some other Circuit Courts of Appeals. I think that we could use, and I am repeating myself again, a Holmes or a Brandeis.

ODOM: Would you resign to take the appointment? You're the only person I can think of?

SPECTER: I can think of quite a few other people.

JORDAN: Like who?

SPECTER: I think there's some possibility, just a slight possibility, I may not be offered the appointment.

JORDAN: Senator, who do you think would be a good candidate?

SPECTER: For the Supreme Court?

JORDAN: Yes.

SPECTER: I have some ideas but I'm going to withhold my comments. If, as, and when the President asks that question, Lara, I'll have some specific information for him. In the alternative, if you become President, I'll have it for you.

[BREAK-Election 2010 question]

[BREAK-Iraq questions]

Jordan: Do you expect to continue supporting all of President Bush's judicial nominees?

AS: I am hopeful that I'll be able to do that. That obviously depends upon the President's judicial nominees. I'm hopeful that I can support them.

[BREAK-Election question]

[End Press Conference]

Washington, D.C.- Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) made the following comments today on the judicial confirmation process.

"Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the President about anything and was very respectful of his Constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges.

"As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.

"I have already sponsored a protocol calling for a Judiciary Committee hearing within thirty days of a nomination, a vote out of Committee thirty days later, and floor action thirty days after that. I am committed to such prompt action by the Committee on all of President Bush’s nominees.

"In light of the repeated filibusters by the Democrats in the last Senate session, I am concerned about a potential repetition of such filibusters. I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead."

But like many liberals I'm betting on the Armageddon theory of politics. Bush and the GOP majorities in the House and Senate will make things so bad in the next four years that the country will never elect a Republican ever again. So here's hoping things get much, much worse!

Why were the initial exit poll results more Democratic than the actual tabulated vote? No one is sure, though the national sample at midafternoon, which showed Kerry ahead 50 to 49 percent, was 58 percent women. My own suspicion is that some Democrats-at the command level, or somewhere below-had an election-day project of slamming the results. New Hampshire, Minnesota and Pennsylvania initial exit poll results had huge margins for Kerry-much larger percentages than he won in any pre-election poll. If somebody had slipped some Democratic operative the list of exit poll sites-40 to 50 sites in each critical state-he or she could have slipped several hundred operatives into the polling places to take the exit poll ballots and vote for Kerry. The results would have show