Something for Congress to Aspire to

And it's just a short walk from the Capitol:

No known ghosts -- but the Historic Congressional Cemetery is home to a number of storied Americans, including Abraham Lincoln's most famous photographer; one of the conspirators who was hanged for Lincoln's assassination; the original twentieth-century G-Man; and the composer who gave the "Monte Python" gang their start.

Not too shabby for the graveyard long overshadowed by its more famous cousin across the river, in Arlington.

Tucked away in Southeast Washington, a short walk from the Capitol Building, the Congressional Cemetery began as the burying ground for the local parish of Christ Church, and welcomed its first souls in 1807. For decades, the cemetery served as the capital's sole place of burial for members of Congress. In all, nineteen senators and seventy-one members of the House of Representatives lie here.

And the good news is there's room for plenty more.

To All Who Contributed, Thanks for Making "Racist" a Meaningless Word

If figured there might one day come a time when we would no longer hear the word "racist". That would be day that Martin Luther King's ideal of a world in which people "are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin" had come to pass.

That day has clearly not come, but thanks to Jimduh Carter, Maxine Waters, and a host of Dem political leaders and mainstream media pundits, the day has come in which the word "racist" no longer has any meaning. It has now lost its sting, its power to rebuke, its power to shame.

There was a time in America when the worst thing you could say about a person was that they were "racist". The word carried a stigma worse than "murderer" or "rapist". O.J. Simpson killed two people, but all the defense had to do was throw "racist" at the cops who investigated him and the case was toast.

But all that has changed. Thanks to the notion being promoted by the usual collection of race-baiters that all opposition to Obama is "racist", the word no longer has power to shape the debate. It's pretty much as powerful as calling someone a "poophead".

Having been called "racist" more times than I can count thanks to my conservative views, political incorrectness and opposition to Obama's vision of a socialist America, I'm personally grateful to the poopheads that have madly waved the race card since Obama became a candidate. They've overused the word so badly, that like the boy who cried "wolf!", when the boys and girls who cry "racist!" scream forth, nobody cares.

Maybe Obama will be a post-racial president after all.

Maxine Waters: Investigate the Protesters!

Now that dissent is the highest form of racism, wacky Los Angeles Congresswoman Maxine Waters wants the protesters investigated:

The media should investigate the racial views of conservative activists like the ones who descended on Washington last weekend, one liberal congresswoman said Wednesday.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said that it's not enough for African-Americans to levy allegations of racism against the right-leaning protesters, and that the media must look into their views.

"I want those people talked to; I want them interviewed," Waters told the liberal Bill Press Radio show in a podcast. "I want journalists to be all over those rallies and the marches with the birthers and the teabaggers."

"What I'm looking for is the very people who carry the signs who are referring to the policies in very, very strange ways like 'Obamacare' and 'Bury Obamacare with Kennedy,'" she said. "What I've been interested in is hearing from those people that everybody's referring to -- everybody on the Mall, in the rally."

Obama's America.

A Hippie-Whomping Reunion

Back in 1968 the Democrats gathered in Chicago to nominate Hubert Humphrey as their presidential candidate. Along with the Democrats came thousands of antiwar protesters who had a pretty grand time of it as punching bags for the local cops.

Top of the Ticket tells us that the cops on duty at that time are planning a reunion, and may be joined by some of the whompees:

And so naturally, Chicago being Chicago, today in Obama's adopted hometown the aging city policemen who were on duty that violent week and their contemporary colleagues are gathering for a fun reunion for old time's sake at the Fraternal Order of Police Hall out on West Washington.

And you'll never guess what else?


The aging, long-haired protesters who so angered the father of today's Chicago mayor (Richard M. Daley) are also gathering in that city now to -- wait for it -- protest the officers celebrating the reunion for beating up the same folks who were protesting back then.

The protesters protesting the police who beat the protesters held a news conference this week to denounce what they call provocative language used by the police who say they're celebrating officers "for their contributions toward maintaining law and order -- and for taking a stand against Anarchy."

The protesters' news conference this week had folks from the old National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and relatives of Black Panthers. Lots of old faces were there; and we do mean old.

Even Don Rose was there, a committee spokesman, oh, those many years ago. And he's sure got a whole lot less hair now.

The whole gang of protesters is gonna gather this evening at Union Park and then, you guessed it, they're gonna march out to confront the police at the reunion celebrating their last confrontation last century.

It should be a great time sharing old memories.

Hopefully, someone remembers to bring the tear gas and bags of human excrement so they can have something familiar to throw at each other again just like the old days.

That may end up looking like the Maxine Waters/David Obey "Battle of the Geriatric Congresspersons" on the House floor yesterday.

Maxine Waters Goes to War Over Her "Monument to Me"

This is too funny. Seventy-year old congresspersons battling over self-aggrandizing monuments:

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) engaged in a late afternoon shouting match on the House floor after Obey reportedly rebuffed Waters on a $1 million earmark request, aides and witnesses said.

Witnesses, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it appeared that Waters pushed or shoved Obey.

The pair were seen shouting at each other and had to be separated by members -- who were gathered on the floor casting final votes before heading off to a party at the White House.

Waters, according a Democratic staffer familiar with the situation, approached Obey to ask him to fund one of her longstanding earmarks, the Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center.

Obey -- who irked Waters a few weeks back by banning "Monuments to me" funding projects named after the politicians that earmark them -- told her no, emphatically enough to be heard across the chamber.

"I'm not going to approve that earmark!" Obey shouted.

The two veteran Democrats -- each pugnacious and 71 years old -- began shouting, with the L.A. area-Congresswoman following Obey around the chamber, reportedly suggesting he channel the vocational money through a local school district.

At some point, they collided, witnesses say, with one Obey ally claiming the lean Waters "tried to shove" the stout Obey.

Sorry, Maxine. You'll have to pay for your own monuments to your greatness.

Protecting Us From the Wrong Things

You just know this isn't going to work out well:

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is calling for new financial "rules of the road" that he says would protect Americans from devastating future economic crises.

The president's broad set of changes in financial regulation would give the Federal Reserve new authority and create a new agency to protect consumers in their banking transactions.

Obama said Wednesday that an absence of oversight over Wall Street resulted in systematic and systemic abuse that increased financial risks for both families and large firms.

He said his plan is the biggest transformation in financial rules since the Great Depression. The plan will now be considered by Congress.

So, where is the agency that will protect us from congressmen who insisted that lenders make loans that people couldn't repay? It's wasn't a lack of oversight that collapsed the banks and Wall Street firms, but the heavy hand of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and others who wouldn't let them make prudent lending decisions.

Where is the agency that will protect us from the inflation that's bound to occur thanks to massive federal deficits? Who's going to stop the devastating expansion of the federal government that will rob us of our money and liberty?

Obama is protecting us from the wrong things.

Maxine Waters Wants Her "Monument to Me"

Rep. Maxine Waters (Nut-CA) is not happy that self-named monuments are no longer allowed in earmark legislation:

A plan by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) to ban “monuments to me” in this year’s appropriations bills has been sharply criticized behind closed doors by a senior Democrat who wants to direct $1 million to an employment center in her district bearing her name.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) confronted Obey in the Democratic whip meeting Thursday, complaining about his refusal to fund her earmark request for the Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center in the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education appropriations bill, according to another Democratic Member and aides.

And who are the people in Waters' California District that will be denied having an employment center bearing her name? These folks.

Political Quote of the Day

From Jim Geraghty at Campaign Spot:

"Watching Maxine Waters berate Tim Geithner with garbled questions and conspiracy theories makes me weep for the future of the Republic."

I hear ya, Jim.

UPDATE: Video here.

Maxine Waters Goes Into Psychotic Rage in House Hearing

We've always known that Los Angeles Democrat Maxine Waters long ago crossed the line from sanity to psychosis, but today it was on full display during a House hearing with various bank CEOs (from Free Republic):

Democrat Maxine Waters just had a psychotic break during the House grilling of top bank CEOs regarding what happened to the $ 350B they got but somehow never made it to customers.

Maxine -- never the calmest of souls -- got on an incomprehensible tear and, her voice rising and becoming a low-level screech, began accusing the CEOs assembled of piracy, lying, and gross abuse of bank customers. She lit into a litany of every Leftist Lunatic grudge against capitalism in general and banks in particular. Wild-eyed and shaking, she stopped actually asking these poor guys questions and simply yelled accusations at them, telling them to "raise your hands" if they pled guilty. No one could get a word in edgewise. Finally, as Maxine reached the level of Howard Dean screaming at his audience, the chair interrupted and tried to get her to stop self-destructing on TV. Maxine ignored him and kept her screechfest going. Finally, the chair simply stopped her, telling her that she needed to submit her "questions" to the CEOs after the hearing ended. Moment of stunned silence. Then the grilling continued by another, saner Dem.

Gateway Pundit has the video.

Will Facts Matter in November?

Thomas Sowell wonders if anyone cares about the facts when it comes to Barack Obama:

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.

It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.

Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?

We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.

Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?

Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.

Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.

Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!

The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.

The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.

But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.

Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.

The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

So true.

Famous Lost Words

The Wall Street Journal does the job even John McCain won't do and quote the key players in the creation of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac disaster:

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .


Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?

* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

There are lots, lots more. As you can tell from some of these quotes the only thing the Democrats were concerned with were housing goals, not the financial stability of the organizations. As long as the goals were met, nothing else mattered.

Unfortunately, McCain has chosen to make this a bipartisan problem which basically absolves the Democrats of responsibility and makes the GOP equals in incompetence. It's a losing strategy.

Today's Moment of Irony

Is it not more than a little bit ironic that in Washington today we have liberal Democrats trying to give billions of taxpayer dollars to rich bankers and Wall Street moguls while conservative Republicans try to stop them?

UPDATE - a second moment of irony:

Just after listening to Rep. Maxine Waters in 2004 praise Fannie Mae chairman Franklin Raines and excoriate a regulator who was trying to bring attention to the pending problems over there, the news break came on with Waters excoriating Wall Street and claiming she won't vote for the bailout because she "supports Main Street". Maybe if she had supported Main Street a little more in 2004 we wouldn't be where we are now.

Get Out Your Checkbooks - House Issues Apology for Slavery

There's no time to act on oil drilling or any of America's pressing problems because the House of Representative is too busy groveling to dead people:

WASHINGTON — The House on Tuesday issued an unprecedented apology to black Americans for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow segregation laws.

"Today represents a milestone in our nation's efforts to remedy the ills of our past," said Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The resolution, passed by voice vote, was the work of Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen, the only white lawmaker to represent a majority black district. Cohen faces a formidable black challenger in a primary face-off next week.

Congress has issued apologies before — to Japanese-Americans for their internment during World War II and to native Hawaiians for the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893. In 2005, the Senate apologized for failing to pass anti-lynching laws.

Next comes reparations, without a doubt. More thoughts on this issue in a previous post here.

And what sayeth the Obamessiah?

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

Reparations are coming, folks. Get out your checkbooks.

And while Congress is in the mood to apologize, where's my apology for $4 a gallon gasoline since Congress won't allow us to drill for oil on our own land? Where's my apology for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Chuckie Schumer, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, and many dozens of other fools who have been elected to Congress? Where's my apology for a Democratic Party that's so vacuous that they'd nominate Barack Obama to be president?

If we're going to start issuing meaningless apologies, I'm sure there are lots of aggrieved groups out there who deserve one just as much.

UPDATE: Scrappleface adds his unique touch to the story:

House Sorry for Slavery, Jim Crow, Affirmative Action
By Scott Ott on slavery

(2008-07-30) — The U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday formally apologized for the U.S. government role in slavery and the Jim Crow laws which legalized segregation for a century after the emancipation of slaves in 1865.

In addition to the apology for “the misdeeds committed against African-Americans” who were held in bondage and lived under segregation, the House also voted to end Affirmative Action policies which “treat black people as if they’re not as capable, intelligent or resourceful as those of other races.”

The legislation ends government discrimination in granting contracts to black-owned firms, as well as “the scourge of demeaning bias” in college admissions and hiring.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus hailed the elimination of “this last vestige of institutionalized prejudice,” and announced the dissolution of the Caucus “now that Congress has fulfilled the Founders’ promise of equality of opportunity under law.”

If it had happened that way I might have actually supported it.

Another House Democrat Wants to Nationalize the Oil Industry

First wacky Dem Congresswoman Maxine Waters suggested that the government would nationalize the oil industry if prices didn't come down, and now another Dem has suggested nationalizing the oil refineries:

House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply. ...

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling

"We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market. "

So, another Democrat looks to Hugo Chavez for their energy policy. Does anybody think that Congress could do a better job running the oil industry? Anybody??

Today's Hurricane Headlines

June 1st marks the beginning of the Atlantic hurricane season, and our first tropical storm is already beating up Central America. There are some other interesting headlines on the hurricane front, from Drudge:

Senate global warming bill 'almost certainly doomed'...

WIRE: Hurricane season outlooks of little use...

Dems seek to nationalize hurricane insurance...

I include that first item because so many ignorant congressmen think that global warming is causing more hurricanes. That bill is bad news for the U.S. economy, and should it pass, will do more damage than Katrina and Andrew combined.

That last headline should surprise anyone either. People who favor socialism are always looking for ways to expand government by nationalizing various aspects of private business. Just the other day Dem idiot congresswoman Maxine Waters theatened to nationalize (or socialize as she said) the oil companies.

Dems Threaten Nationalization of Oil Industry

If you think there are problems in the oil industry now, wait until the liberal nationalize it. This little gem came from the transcript of the congressional hearings the other day (video here):

John Hoffmeister from Shell Oil: I can guarantee to the American people because of the inaction of the United States Congress ever increasing prices unless the demand comes down and the five dollars will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves and new opportunities to increase supplies.

Rep. Maxine Waters: And, guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be about socializing... uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.

So, Maxine Waters' ideal oil industry solution is the same as Hugo Chavez' in Venezuela. Can we just go ahead and call her a communist and get it over with?

Hoffmeister was very good in his testimony. When challenged on oil prices he calmly informed the panel that one of the main reasons for high prices is the lack of a free market in the United States. In a free market oil companies would be allowed to explore for new sources and build new refining capacity. Democrats won't allow either of those.

The GOP needs to aggressively remind America of the Dems obstinance and refusal to operate in the best interests of the country. It's not enough to hope the public figures it out as they pay $4+ for a gallon of gas.

MoveOn Abandons Principles to Support Pelosi

MoveOn.org, usually a reliable anti-war organization, has apparently decided to abandon those principles to support San Fran Nan and the passage of the $124 billion Iraq war supplemental bill:

The most outspoken critics of the $124 billion wartime spending bill in the House are facing withering support in their fight to defeat it.

California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.

They also cited MoveOn.org's endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.

"This is the process: people who feel strongly about this issue hold out as long as they can," said Waters. "A lot of pressure comes to bear and they can't hold up under the pressure."

The $124 billion emergency spending bill, backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), includes not only more funds this year for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also new military readiness standards, benchmarks for the Iraqi government and an Aug. 31, 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Of course, the Dems have decided to attract votes from the "out of Iraq caucus" the old fashioned way - they're bribing them. The bill is littered with pork projects and taxpayer give aways designed to attract one vote here, and two or three there. There are millions for spinach growers and peanut farmers among other things. All vital to the war effort, I'm sure. The members they haven't been able to bribe have instead been threatened:

One congressman, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from leaders, bristled at how aggressively he was being pressured to vote for the bill, singling out Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) as especially forceful.

"I really resent this," the lawmaker said. "Rahm Emanuel told us a vote against this bill is a vote to give the Republicans victory."

The congressman also noted that Democratic leaders had "made clear" to him that they might yank funding requests he had made for projects in his district if he did not support the measure.

They haven't yet resorted to waterboarding or torture, but it's probably not far behind. The anti-war caucus is not impressed with the methodology used by MoveOn.org:

Some anti-war activists assailed MoveOn.org's approach to the Iraq bill, alleging that the organization had used a skewed poll to conclude that 85 percent of its members backed the measure.

"MoveOn put out a dishonest poll that did not offer its members a real choice to end the war, and now the peace movement is lobbying activists to reform MoveOn or drop off its list," David Swanson, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, said in an e-mail to The Politico. "I unsubscribed from MoveOn this morning."

In the poll, MoveOn.org gave its members a choice of supporting, opposing or being "not sure" of the plan proposed by the Democratic leadership, according to an e-mail sent to members Sunday by MoveOn.org official Eli Pariser.

It did not mention a more aggressive withdrawal proposal backed by Woolsey, Waters and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).

MoveOn's never been known for presenting a complete picture about anything, so it isn't exactly a surprise that they'd ignore inconvenient ideas.

Seeking Office Just Because You Can

Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic (hardly a right-wing rag) has a rather blistering review in the Wall Street Journal of One-Note Ned Lamont and his run to oust Joe Lieberman:

We have been here before. Left-wing Democrats are once again fielding single-issue "peace candidates," and the one in Connecticut, like several in the 1970s, is a middle-aged patrician, seeking office de haut en bas, and almost entirely because he can. It's really quite remarkable how someone like Ned Lamont, from the stock of Morgan partner Thomas Lamont and that most high-born American Stalinist, Corliss Lamont, still sends a chill of "having arrived" up the spines of his suburban supporters simply by asking them to support him. Superficially, one may think of those who thought they were already middle class just by being enthusiasts of Franklin Roosevelt, who descended from the Hudson River Dutch aristocracy. But when FDR ran for, and was elected, president in 1932, he had already been a state senator, assistant secretary of the Navy and governor of New York. He had demonstrated abilities.

At least in this sense, Mr. Lamont comes to this campaign for the U.S. Senate from absolutely nowhere--and it shows in his pulpy statements on public issues. Here is a paradigmatic one: "We need to provide parents and communities the support they need to assure that children start their school day ready to learn." Of course, he also thinks that U.S. troops should be replaced by the U.N. in Iraq. Does he know anything at all about the history of the idea that he so foolishly rescues from the dust? So what we have in this candidacy is someone, with no public record to speak of but with perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars to his name, who wants to be a senator. Mr. Lamont has almost no experience in public life. He was a cable television entrepreneur, a run-of-the-mill contemporary commercant with unusually easy access to capital.

[...]

Now Mr. Lamont's views are also not camouflaged. They are just simpleminded. Here, for instance, is his take on what should be done about Iran's nuclear-weapons venture: "We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate." Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one. Anyway, this sort of plying is precisely what has been going on for years, and to no good effect. Mr. Lamont continues that "Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table." And what is so plainly wrong with that? Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be more agreeable if he thought that we had disposed of the military option in favor of more country club behavior?

Finally, the contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the world. Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr. Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration. Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability, rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such armed doctrines, in Mr. Lieberman's view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed.

Almost every Democrat feels obliged to offer fraternal solidarity to Israel, and Mr. Lamont is no exception. But here, too, he blithely assumes that the Palestinians could be easily conciliated. All that it would have needed was President Bush's attention. Mr. Lamont has repeated the accusation, disproved by the "road map" and Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, that Mr. Bush paid little or even no attention to the festering conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. And has Mr. Lamont noticed that the Palestinians are now ruled, and by their own choice, by Hamas? Is Hamas, too, just a few good arguments away from peace?

The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Rove's dream come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic party will lose the future, and deservedly.

I heard part of a Hugh Hewitt interview with Mr. Peretz, and despite his clearly leftward tilt, this is a guy who is not at all excited about the possibility of a Dem takeover in either house of Congress. He's looked at the roster of Dems who would assume committee chairmanships and finds them wanting.

If stalwarts of the left can't stand Neddie, that's all the more reason to endorse him.

Give My Check to the Caribou

Everybody's trying to come up with an election year plan to combat high gas prices. Here's the dumbest:

Senate Republicans advocate sending $100 rebate checks to millions of taxpayers, and a Democrat is leading the campaign for a 60-day gasoline tax holiday.

Either way, it seems no one in Congress wants to be without a plan, however symbolic, to attack the election-year spike in gasoline prices.

A vote is possible as early as this week on the Senate GOP approach, which calls for $100 rebate checks for taxpayers to cushion the impact of higher gasoline prices. The measure seems unlikely to prevail, at least initially, since it includes a highly controversial proposal to open a portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

First of all, a temporary suspension of gas taxes will only delay that impact of the higher prices until the suspension comes off, and then up they go again. How about a permanent reduction in gas taxes?

And I can't believe the $100 check idea is coming from Republicans. That sounds like something L.A. congresswoman Maxine Waters would dream up. She's always trying to get the government to send checks to her constituents (of course, most of her constitutents already get government checks).

I've got an idea! Since the hang-up on the $100 check plan is the requirement for drilling in ANWR, how about sending my check to the caribou, and when combined with the checks of millions of other Americans, the noble herds can buy a new place to live away from the drilling rigs. It's the American thing to do! Surely Democrats will get behind any plan that seeks to buy Americans off with government money.

Mad Maxine

Those of us in Southern California are blessed to have some real wackos representing us in Congress. Take for instance Maxine Waters from South Central L.A. If you look up "hateful" in the dictionary, you'll probably find Mad Maxine staring back at you.

She's always crying racism or moaning about some perceived injustice to the black community, and she is definately an avowed Bush-hater.

Tomorrow the electoral college results will be presented to the Congress for acceptance. It's at this point that the new president is actually considered elected. There are procedures for objecting to the vote, though they've been rarely used. There is some talk that Barbara "Dumb as a Box of Rocks" Boxer will join in a challenge which will be brought by John Conyers of Detroit (who has a little turkey problem on his hands right now). The whole thing is of course for show and will quickly be voted down by the Senate.

Back in 2001 Waters decided to challenge the electoral college vote, but didn't like having to deal with the rules of the Senate. Here's how the exchange went (courtesy of The Corner):

The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WATERS) rise?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electorial votes.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the objection in writing and signed by a Member of the House and a Senator?

Ms. WATERS. The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a Member of the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will advise that the rules do care, and the signature of a Senator is required. The Chair will again put that part of the question: Is the objection signed by a Senator?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Vice President, there are gross violations of the Voting Rights Act from Florida, and I object; and it is not signed by a Senator.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from California. On the basis previously stated, the objection may not be received.

Look for more of this kind of stupidity tomorrow.