Right Wing Nut House

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Is the Iraq War lost? We’ll discuss that and the midterms.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

For those anticipating another scintilating bit of culture and politics from me and my radio show today, I must once again disappoint.

Kender’s having problems with one of our machines. He is battling with the beast as we speak but may not survive the ordeal. Until he is triumphant (hopefully later today), the Rick Moran Show will broadcast only in the outer reaches of your imagination.

Tomorrow, fer sure.

REX “THE WONDER DOG” GROSSMAN

My beloved Bears may be undefeated, untied, and untouched this 2006 season. But that doesn’t mean it’s gone to their heads. Their latest challenge against the Phoenix Cardinals will be no less a test than any other NFL team. Brian Urlacher and Co. appear to be ready for the multi-faceted Cardinals offense when they take the field Monday night before a national television audience for the second time in three weeks.

The AZ offense has the potential to give the Bear’s corners nightmares with talent galore at WR and a quarterback in Matt Leinart who appears to be the real deal. The Cardinals also feature an aging but still dangerous Edgerrin James as running back. James may have lost a step but he is still a mortal weapon catching passes in the flat. And WR Anquan Boldin is an emerging star in the league with speed to burn and terrific hands.

Anyone who saw the USC-Notre Dame game last year knows that Matt Leinart, while still young and raw, is a competitor of unusual intensity. His ability to avoid the rush will be sorely tested but he is extremely capable of running out of trouble if the situation calls for it. And he seems to be poised beyond his years in the pocket.

But the Bear’s defense, while fairly young themselves, are nevertheless a mature group of professionals and do not plan on taking the Cardinals lightly:

We’re impressed with them offensively, especially Leinart,” said safety Mike Brown. “He’s very impressive; the poise that he shows, the confidence that he shows. He’s playing pretty well. He’s definitely not playing like a rookie. He’s playing like a veteran type of guy and we definitely have our hands full because they’ve got some great skill position players.”

The old Chicago/St. Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals franchise is a rival from the pork and beans days of the NFL. When the franchise was lodged in Chicago (1922-59), the Cardinals were the city’s poor stepchild; a mediocre club barely eking out a living, playing their games at the old Comiskey park before a small, but rabid fan base. It is said that skinflint Charles Comiskey, in addition to charging rent to the Cardinals for playing in his precious ballpark, also billed the NFL team for damage to the turf (in addition to taking a hefty slice of concessions and ticket revenue).

Where the Bears dominated the league in the 30’s and 40’s, the Cardinals were stuck on awful. Posting 9 losing seasons in a row, they finally broke through with a championship season in 1947. Their playoff record was 1-1 - another playoff appearance in 1948 being the limit of success for the franchise.

Strangely, there never really developed the kind of intense rivalry with the Bears that one might expect during those years the Cardinals stunk up Comiskey Park. At least from the Bear’s point of view. Usually out of the running for the championship by mid season, the Cardinals looked forward to their games with the Bears immensely but there are really no storied games that jump out of the series’ history as evidence of any special feelings of hatred or revenge. Although the game in 1953 may rank as one of the most bizarre from the standpoint of motiviation.

The Cardinals were heading for another winless season and were scheduled to play the Bears the last game of the year. Coach Joe Stydahar of the Cardinals let it be known that he would withhold their final game checks unless the players came through and avoided the winless record. Sure enough, the motivated Cardinals came through, taming the Bears 24-17 to finish the season 1-11.

And that was pretty much the story of the franchise’s existence. Moving to St. Louis in 1959 (just prior to the league becoming hugely popular) and then angering St. Louis fans when owner Bill Bidwell took the team to Arizona for the 1988 season, the Cardinals have been to the playoffs only twice since they moved from Chicago. They may be considered one of the most unsucessful franchises in the history of the NFLm having never won a playoff game and never been to the Super Bowl

But ex-Vikings coach Dennis Green has the Cardinals playing hard and smart this year. With Leinart, they almost certainly have a stellar quarterback for the future and may even help them to the playoffs this year. So my beloveds better not come out flat against these Cardinals lest they come in for a rude awakening.

Look for a close game through 2 1/2 quarters with my beloveds pulling away in the second half to win big.

Final: Bears 37 - Phoenix 6.

CORRECTION:

I mention above the Cardinals have never won a playoff game. This is obviously incorrect since they won the Championship in 1947. And Gwain’s Ghost painfully reminds me that in 1998, the Cardinals went to the playoffs and upended Troy Aikman’s Cowboys.

When I lived in St. Louis, I got so used to hearing that refrain - Cardinals have never won a playoff game - that I totally forgot about ‘98.

Looks like no playoffs this year either…

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

More fallout from North Korean nuke test this morning. We’ll also look at a different kind of fallout - political fallout from the Foley mess.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

All was peaches and cream late last month when President Bush sat down with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to discuss the situation in Afghanistan as well as efforts by Musharraf to help the United States fight the War on Terror. That is, if you believe the public pronouncements of the three heads of state.

In fact, there were several strained moments between Karzai and Musharraf that illustrate the rising tensions between the two countries. Karzai has complained bitterly about Musharraf’s lack of action in closing off the border to Taliban incursions into Afghanistan while Musharraf accuses Karzai of not doing enough to defeat the Taliban who have already established a toehold in the southern part of the country.

All three men have tried to put the best face on what is rapidly becoming a crisis situation. Indeed, President Bush had this to say about Presidents Musharraf and Karzai in his remarks at the dinner:

“These two men are personal friends of mine,” Bush said, with Karzai and Musharraf standing by his side, not looking at each other. “They are strong leaders who have a understanding of the world in which we live. They understand that the forces of moderation are being challenged by extremists and radicals.”

What was left unsaid is that regardless of how well Musharraf understands the situation, he is rapidly becoming powerless to do anything about it - a result of internal Pakistani politics, external pressure by the United States, and the perilous state of his own hold on power in a country sliding toward religious extremism and potential rebellion.

It is not possible to overstate the danger Musharraf and by extension, the United States is in as a result of several recent developments in Pakistan that have backed Musharraf into a corner where all he can really do is play for time. With his own life in constant danger from half a dozen different sources and with his need to satisfy both domestic factions as well as the United States, his chief economic benefactor, Musharraf has been attempting to juggle an anti-terrorist and pro-terrorist policy that has only served to please no one and make his own situation dicey indeed.

Simply put, Musharraf has promised too much to both the United States and the Taliban and is unable to satisfy either side. Throw in the growing power of religious political parties and the constant interference and independence exercised by the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) as well as a brewing crisis in Baluchistan where separatists have resumed their 50 year old rebellion against the central government and one can see where Musharraf is being overwhelmed by events and circumstances.

On top of all this, his power base in the Army must be tended while fending off calls for him to step down next year in time for elections. Those elections (if they are held) could legitimize religious extremists in sympathy to both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The people of Pakistan are extremely angry at Musharraf for his cozying up to Washington and they may, if given the opportunity, raise up anti-Western leaders who would make Pakistan a Taliban ally rather than a country on the front line in the War on Terror.

To deal with all of this, Musharraf has chosen to give in to pressures placed on him by external forces while trying to keep some of the internal factions from uniting against him. His policies - sometimes wildly contradictory - reflect the realities of a nation being buffeted by militant extremism and a desire among its intelligentsia for modernity. Pakistan has been an “on again, off again” democracy in its turbulent history with democratic forces usually thwarted by a strong military who seize power from time to time when the army feels itself threatened by civilian control.

Musharraf came to power in a coup in 1999 when then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attempted to remove him from the position of Chief of Staff. Refusing to leave, the army backed Musharraf and he took over in a bloodless revolution, later making alliances with some of the larger religious parties in Parliament to push through a measure naming him President.

These alliances with the religious parties have proven to be problematic. When the United States requested that he close some of the more radical Islamic schools or Madrasses where anti-western hate is regularly preached, Musharraf tried to oblige but was ultimately blocked by those same religious parties who supported him in Parliament. Now those Madrasses are being used by the Taliban to radicalize their fighters before sending them off to fight in Afghanistan.

As with so many other promises he has made to the United States, Musharraf says he has already done what we have requested or is trying his best. The fact is, much of what Musharraf claims as cooperation with the US would be described otherwise by all except those with a stake in pretending things are going smoothly in our relations with Pakistan; namely, our own State Department and the Administration who seem to walk on eggshells when it comes to criticizing anything Musharraf has done.

And what he has done recently has been a shocking example of his weakness in the face of threats to Pakistan’s independence. His recent deal with what Washington and Musharraf describes as “northern tribal elders” but who are in actuality Taliban leaders and their al-Qaeda allies in North Waziristan virtually assures the Taliban and the terrorists a safe haven where they can live, train, and plan for attacks on Afghanistan which is just across the border

While Mushrraf points out that the Taliban promise in the agreement not to carry out any cross border raids into Afghanistan, there are plenty of indications that they have already violated that part of the agreement:

Taliban attacks along Afghanistan’s southeastern border have more than doubled in the three weeks since a controversial deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban militants, the US military said yesterday.

Pakistan’s military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, had promised the agreement with militants in North Waziristan would help to bring peace to Afghanistan. But early indications suggest the pact is having the opposite effect, creating a safe haven for the Taliban to regroup and launch fresh cross-border offensives against western and Afghan troops.

A US military spokesman, Colonel John Paradis, said US soldiers had reported a “twofold, in some cases threefold” increase in attacks along the border since the deal was signed on September 5, “especially in the south-east areas across from North Waziristan”.

For Musharraf’s part, he has also reneged on the deal by not releasing several hundred captured al-Qaeda members as he agreed to do. This is in response to enormous pressure from the CIA who point out that several high level al-Qaeda leaders are among those that would have been released (and still may be). The Taliban responded in typical brutal fashion; they launched a rocket that landed within yards of the Presidential palace and were evidently planning on attacking the Pakistani Parliament before two missiles were discovered in the vicinity. Asia Times reports that the “incidents were a clear show of disapproval in Waziristan over Musharraf’s basking in ‘Washington’s charm’, and that he had not implemented a key aspect of the peace accord - the release of al-Qaeda suspects - despite numerous promises.”

Thus, a demonstration of the dangers - both personal and militarily - of trying to play both ends against the middle.

But it is in Baluchistan where the Taliban now threatens both the permanence of the Pakistani state and the government of Afghanistan. And part of the problem has been one of Musharraf’s own making when he had the army assassinate Nawab Akbar Bugti, a respected tribal elder and former governor of Baluchistan.

That assassination set off waves of violence directed against Pakistani infrastructure including a vital natural gas pipleine that supplies badly needed foreign currency for the government. And it is here that the confluence of an incipient rebellion, the Taliban, and rogue elements in the ISI have all combined to endanger the government’s hold on the province as well as cause huge problems for NATO troops in Afghanistan directly across the border.

The recently concluded “Operation Medusa” in the southern Panjwai district largely involving British and Canadian troops, caused the almost unprecedented call by NATO commanders for the alliance to deal with the political situation in Pakistan which allowed the Taliban to cross the border from Baluchistan with impunity:

The cushion Pakistan is providing the Taliban is undermining the operation in Afghanistan, where 31,000 Nato troops are now based. The Canadians were most involved in Operation Medusa, two weeks of heavy fighting in a lush vineyard region, defeating 1,500 well entrenched Taliban, who had planned to attack Kandahar city, the capital of the south.

Nato officials now say they killed 1,100 Taliban fighters, not the 500 originally claimed. Hundreds of Taliban reinforcements in pick-up trucks who crossed over from Quetta – waved on by Pakistani border guards – were destroyed by Nato air and artillery strikes.

Nato captured 160 Taliban, many of them Pakistanis who described in detail the ISI’s support to the Taliban.

Nato is now mapping the entire Taliban support structure in Balochistan, from ISI- run training camps near Quetta to huge ammunition dumps, arrival points for Taliban’s new weapons and meeting places of the shura, or leadership council, in Quetta, which is headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, the group’s leader since its creation a dozen years ago.

Incredibly, NATO discovered two Taliban training camps over the border near Quetta while the terrorists are using hundreds of Madrasses to fire up their fighters before sending them over the border. Many of those Madrasses are run by Jamiat-e-Ullema Islam, the main Baluchi political party who helped organize the Taliban back in the 1990’s.

NATO commanders are asking that Bush and Blair confront Musharraf over this blatant support for the Taliban by the ISI but to no avail. Besides, it is probable that Musharraf is powerless to do anything about it even if he wanted to. There are few Pakistani troops in that area by both agreement with the tribes and tradition. The fiercely independent Baluchis have never overtly acknowledged being part of Pakistan so it unclear what Pakistan could do to alter the situation.

So Musharraf is forced to let the situation work itself out. He is currently negotiating with the Baluchis so it is possible we may see some kind of a deal similar to the fig leaf agreement he signed with the tribes in North Waziristan - something that satisfies NATO with regard to atmospherics but falls short when it comes to implementation.

Beset as he is on all sides, is there anything to be done with Musharraf? Outside of supporting him as much as we can, there really is nothing to be done. Replacing him is out of the question because the chances of someone coming to power who would be much less friendly to the United States and more accommodating to the Taliban are too great. And the likelihood of elections throwing up even more radical extremists is very high.

In this way, Musharraf is almost like an American tar baby. We’re stuck with him for as long as he can survive.

How long that will be depends on Musharraf’s knack for avoiding the assassins blade and his complex political manoeuvrings. Because like it or not, Musharraf is still the best ally we have in the War on Terror. And he will remain so as long as he can continue to juggle the clashing interests and competing factions that threaten to bring him down at any time.

UPDATE

Bill Roggio covers much of the same ground I do above and adds the speculation (via the SAAG) that perhaps the attempts on Musharraf’s life were by Balochi rebels. Bill himself dismisses the speculation, pointing out that being able to get so close to Musharraf’s compound implicates the army or the ISI.

Of course, NATO was complaining about ISI assistance to the Taliban in Balochistan so perhaps the possibility of Balochi involvement should not be overlooked.

To my legions of fans out there, I must apologize for once again failing to sit in the big chair and dispense my unique brand of wisdom, intelligence and mayhem from the studios here on the banks of the Fox River.

I am still fighting a chest cold. I was feeling much better on Saturday when I made the mistake of going outside and mowing the grass. By Sunday night I had a temperature again and was clogged up to the point where I had trouble breathing.

Hope to be back by Wednesday.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Since his election to the papacy in April of 2005, Pope Benedict has bent over backwards in an effort to assuage the concerns of Muslims over issues that place them in conflict with the west. It is therefore something of a surprise that he would knowingly challenge radical Islamists by quoting a long dead 13th century Byzantine vassal Emperor on the “evil and inhuman” practice of forced conversion to Islam.

The fact that both his words and intent were twisted by the fanatics in order to gin up the emotions of their ignorant followers should not have come as a surprise to the Pontiff given similar reactions to other faux “outrages” like the Muhammed cartoons and the fake story about the desecration of the Koran by US soldiers at Guantanamo. This makes one wonder if indeed the challenge was deliberate and designed to augment his main thesis regarding radical Isam; that violence and reason are incompatible and therefore, ungodly.

What is surprising about Benedict’s challenge is that he had given no inkling up to now that he was interested in rocking the boat when it came to relations between Rome and the Muslim faith. He had actually condemned the publication of the Muhammed cartoons saying:

“In the international context we are living at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced that, to foster peace and understanding between peoples and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected”.

Benedict added that “believers should not be the object of provocations that wound their lives and religious sentiments.” While many free speech advocates criticized this stance as appeasement, the statements made by Benedict were fully in line with Vatican policy regarding respect for the symbols and beliefs of other religions.

It was thought when the Pope ascended to the throne of St. Peter that he would perhaps offer more of a challenge to radical Islam than his predecessor. In fact, Benedict seemed to go out of his way to avoid this kind of confrontation with Islam. His entreaties to fellow Europeans for interreligious dialogue with Muslims as well as a call for tolerance and understanding of Muslim practices and traditions was felt by some to undercut any effort at Muslim assimilation into European civilization. This may have been unfair given the Catholic Church’s careful nurturing of their relations with mainstream Muslim groups, especially in Europe.

As recently as July the Pope condemned Israel in their war with Hez’ballah, criticizing their attack on a “free and sovereign nation” while telling the people of Lebanon that the Vatican “assures its closeness to these people who already have suffered so much to defend their independence.” The Vatican has also long advocated a separate Palestinian state and Bendict’s recent criticism of Israel regarding the war in Gaza and the West Bank was placed in the context of resuming peace negotiations with Hamas.

The Pope’s solidarity with Muslims doesn’t stop with his condemnation of armed conflicts in Lebanon and Gaza. He has also severely criticized the United States for its invasion and occupation of Iraq. In short, wherever Muslim sensibilities have been touched by Western challenges, the Pope has addressed their concerns in a sensitive and conciliatory manner.

Why then did the Pontiff break with the past and throw down the gauntlet at radical Isamists? The dilemma for the Pope as well as the West has always been a question of whether or not to engage the fanatics by challenging them or try and address their grievances and appease them. Has the Pope finally decided to cast his lot with those who seek to challenge the extremists? It would appear that the Pope has done so and on a plane that he seems uniquely suited to occupy; bringing his considerable intellectual gifts and moral authority to bear in an effort to encourage moderates to step forward and work with him to marginalize the terrorists.

Risk attends both the engagement and appeasement strategies. Engagement, we are told, plays into the radicals hands and strengthens the terrorists. By challenging the fanatics, we create more terrorists and make it more difficult for moderate Muslims to support us. On the other hand, getting to terrorism’s “root causes” appears to be an exercise in futility while agreeing with the extremists critiques of the western response to terrorism only seems to embolden them.

The Pope seeks a higher plane in the conflict. By risking offense, he goes beyond the superficial dialogue between Christian and Muslims of the past and begins a conversation where it should have been all along; on the nature and practice of Islam in the modern world and how that religion can co-exist with a west infused with Christian values.

In this, the Pope’s recent critique of western materialism and secularism which drew plaudits from several moderate Muslim groups in Europe can be seen as a starting point in that it lays out common ground between pious followers of both faiths. And his lecture condemning violence in the name of God also contained several well aimed swipes at those in the west who abandon faith in the name of reason. Both the Pope’s criticisms can be echoed by Muslims opposed to violence in that what even moderates fear the most is that modernity necessarily means the secularization of their culture. They have seen what has happened to Christianity in Europe and are adamantly opposed to the abandonment of Islamic values.

Perhaps the violent reaction to the Pope’s words was anticipated by the Vatican. Even if it wasn’t, the extremists tend to prove the Pope’s point. Unfortunately, even so-called moderate Muslims have been forced to either echo the ignorant criticism of the extremists or keep a low profile.

But once the smoke clears from this episode, there may in fact be a second look by moderates at what the Pope said. This Op-Ed by Souheila Al-Jaada in The Daily Star of Lebanon is encouraging in that regard:

At the same time, rather than lash out at provocative statements, Muslims should welcome such criticisms of the faith because they offer religious leaders an opportunity to explain Islam through dialogue and by example. Muslim leaders should respond by emphasizing the commonalities that bind Christians and Muslims together. They should stress the fact that the two faiths believe in the Ten Commandments. Both revere the Prophets Abraham, Jesus, Noah, Isaac, Jacob and many others. Both religions place the Virgin Mary in high esteem and the Koran includes an entire sura, or chapter, entitled “Maryam,” or “Mary” in Arabic.

But the most important similarity that we must remember is that both religions hold firm to the Golden rule: “Do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

It is those “commonalities” that Benedict can build upon in order to bring moderate Muslims to the task of confronting the violence perpetrated in the name of the Prophet. He has expressed his solidarity in the past with many issues that confront Muslims in their efforts to co-exist peacefully with the west. One hopes that both sides take the opportunity afforded by the controversy to dig deeper than ever before into the complex relationship that has existed between two of the world’s great religions. At stake may be the difference between a world at peace and a world at war. In that sense, they couldn’t be any higher.

Glenn Reynolds:

THE FATTENING OF AMERICA: So the Insta-Daughter and I went for lunch at Ruby Tuesday’s. That’s not news, as we go there regularly. They had a new menu, which isn’t news either, as they get new menus on a near-monthly basis.

What’s new is that almost everything on it was fattening to the max.

They used to show the calories on the menu, along with other nutrition information. Not any more, and with good reason. A simple Cheeseburger is 1120 calories — equal to two Big Macs — and even the Turkey Burger, which you’d expect would be healthy (and which used to be) is 824 calories, more than a Whopper with cheese. And it’s that way across the menu.

I don’t mind that they have fattening stuff on the menu, but they seem to have stripped off almost all the old healthy favorites. The steaks are the lowest-calorie offerings left.

We got up and left without ordering; there wasn’t anything we wanted. We won’t be back until they change the menu again, which is too bad because we’ve always liked the place.

I think it is marvelous that most restaurants are now catering to those on diets or who wish to eat healthy food. In that cutthroat industry, anything that can put fannies in the seats can help a business stay afloat longer than the 2 years that the National Restaurant Association says the average restaurant survives.

But I would take exactly the opposite approach. For you see, I’m one of those mossbacks who believes that going out to eat is an occasion, a time to throw off the constraints imposed by diet and healthy eating in order to make an absolute pig of oneself. And if it ultimately takes a few days off my lifespan, I would consider that a small price to pay for the sheer pleasure of filling up on the greasiest, the fattiest, the most obnoxiously decadent repasts that the human mind is capable of contemplating.

As such, I would open my very own restaurant which would cater solely and exclusively to those who worship Dionysus and Bacchus and wish to indulge to excess their desire for artery clogging, calorie topping, diet busting, life shortening vittles.

I would call it “The Fat People’s Republic” and there would be no finger-wagging or head shaking when a customer ordered a double cheeseburger with cheesefries and a large coke. Nor would anyone bat an eyelash when someone wanted extra mayo with their liverwurst. All employees would receive training in keeping a straight face and civil tongue in their heads regardless of what kind of greasy slop a customer ordered.

But my innovations would extend far beyond the food served. These would included extra wide chairs with a half moon portion of the table carved out so that those with generous paunches would be able to get close to the table. And the bread basket would be on railroad tracks so that no one would ever have to reach for the fresh rolls. The basket would have a string leading to each seating placement (color matched to the table cloth, of course) that each diner would be able to pull on in order to bring the freshly baked hot bread to the watering mouth of the customer.

Also, there would be a scientifically designed table layout that insured no one would ever have to endure someone’s overly ample rear brushing their shoulder as they moved toward their table. Leg rests for those wishing to prop their feet up after they eat would also be made available. Everyone knows that elevating the legs after eating assists digestion.

No calories would be listed on the menu. No fat counts. It is assumed that the diner knows the consequences of eating Lardo Pizza or Fatty Duck so that no warnings would appear anywhere on the menu regarding the life shortening fare I would offer.

No salad bar. But nachos, 3 different kinds of fritos, 10 different varieties of potato chips, and 11 different dips would be available for appetizers.

Desert would be mandatory or double the check. And speaking of desert, gimme some of this!

ANTONY Worrall Thompson never does things by halves. He “gives it large” every time he cooks, from the enourmous steaks he serves in his organic-beef theme restaurant in Britain to the rich dessert now described as the fattiest food ever.

A single slice of the Worrall Thompson’s Snickers pie dessert contains more than 1250 calories, according to Britain’s Food Commission.

The recipe includes five Snickers bars with mascarpone, eggs, sugar, cream cheese and puff pastry.

Each serving contains the equivalent of 22 teaspoons of fat and 11 teaspoons of sugar, the Food Commission said.

I think my restaurant would thrive for decades. Unless the thin people take over the world in which case I would have to go underground. Or be reduced to selling Twinkies and Ho-Ho’s off the back of a truck.

Despite the recent uptick in both the President’s approval rating and the GOP’s performance against the Democrats on a “generic” ballot of party choice, things are not looking good for Republicans in November.

The most recent Evans-Novak report has 39 Republican seats at risk. Of course, only in an absolute electoral meltdown would the GOP lose that many House members. But since the Democrats only have to net 15 seats to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House (if she’s not successfully challenged), Republicans by any measure have an uphill climb to keep control of the lower chamber.

Things look a little better in the Senate but it is almost certain that the Republican advantage will decrease by as many as 2 and possibly 4 members. Such an outcome could set off the Jefford’s scenario; the Democrats courting two or perhaps even three Republican Senators to switch parties, an admittedly remote possibility but not out of the realm of the possible.

The most obvious candidate for such a switch, Lincoln Chaffee, is up for re-election this year and would find it hard if not impossible to switch parties after running and winning as a Republican. However, if the Democrats fall one Senator short of a majority, they’d be stupid not make the attempt. Jeffords was bought off rather cheaply. He was given the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee which he lost when the GOP reestablished control of the Senate in 2002. Chafee already has a seat on that backwater Committee as well as seats on the much more important Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committees. Since Joe Biden will use the high profile media access that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee gets as part of his Presidential nominating strategy, it is unlikely he would step down.

But how about the Homeland Security Committee? The current ranking member for the Democrats is Joe Lieberman, who has been promised by Harry Reid that he will not lose his Chairmanship if he wins as an independent. So unless they offer Chafee a backwater Committee chairmanship (or perhaps a chance to keep his Foreign Affairs seat), it would be highly unlikely that despite the Senator’s discomfort at being around a bunch of goober chewing, red neck yahoos from Red State America, that he would be eager to leave a party in which he has built up so much seniority.

The House however is a different story. Evans-Novak:

The overall House picture for Republicans is bleak, although not hopeless. The British apprehension of the sky-bombing plotters has at least briefly helped Republicans catch up with Democrats in the generic ballot survey. But aside from that spike, if the election were held today, the GOP would probably lose 26 seats and their congressional majority.

There is still time left, but the buzz on the Hill is that many Republican staffers — including those working for safe members — are seeking employment elsewhere, dreading the miserable possibility of life in the congressional minority.

The Democrats’ chances at the House are very real right now. Republicans are hobbled by the fact that they have so many shaky seats to defend and so few that they can legitimately target. If they are to tighten the gap — and a USA Today poll released Tuesday indicates that they may now be doing so on the generic ballot — they must give voters a reason to come to the polls for them. They will probably lose any election that merely pits them as the status quo against Democrats who could be even worse — who could, for example, impeach President Bush. Republicans must also offer something positive to voters, but their lack of legislative accomplishments in this Congress makes it difficult.

The big X-factor is the Republicans’ vaunted micro-targeting turnout program, which is light-years ahead of anything the almost non-existent Democratic National Committee will be able to put together this year. The GOP turnout program produced a minor miracle in 2004, as new Republican voters showed up in droves. How many of those new voters will show up again this year? Republicans are honing the 2004 model and will experiment with new methods, as they typically do in off-year elections. Given the historically low turnout in mid-terms, how much this could soften the blow of 2006 is unknown.

I might mention that it is SOP for staffers to retool their resumes prior to any election for the simple reason that you never know when opportunity will come a’knocking. Elections always scramble things on the Hill with some people leaving for Committee work, others move on to think tanks, with many others taking lucrative lobbying jobs. This kind of churning before an election is not unusual.

As for turnout, there are pundits like Michael Barone who say that the outcome of midterms can be predicted based on turnout from previous election cycles. Barone points out that the Rovian magic formula could turn the predictions of all the prognosticators on their heads:

The slight uptick in Republican percentages in 2002 and 2004 can be explained by higher Republican turnout. Looking ahead to next November, there is reason to believe that the Republican base is turned off — by high spending, by immigration — and may not turn out as heavily. But if so, how much difference will that make?

Polls are not good predictors of turnout — only elections are. Last week, we had a special election in the 50th district of California, whose Republican congressman resigned in disgrace and went to prison. In 2004, the 50th district voted 55 percent for George W. Bush and 44 percent for John Kerry. Last week, the district voted 53 percent for Republicans (there were 14 candidates, the winner among whom goes on to a June 6 runoff) and 45 percent for Democrats. There were only two of them, and the leader, Francine Busby, got 44 percent of the vote — the same percentage as Kerry. That may be 1 percent higher when the last absentees are counted.

Republican turnout was down more than Democratic turnout, but only very slightly. Of course, things may change by November. But it looks like Hypothesis Two is still in force, and if so, Democrats will have a hard time winning control of the House.

One might note that the Evil One has almost dropped out of sight in recent weeks. This is not exactly true as Rove is criss crossing the country speaking before small groups of GOP activists, bucking up morale as well as laying the groundwork for the most sophisticated “Get out of the Vote” operation in the history of American politics. Can he do it again? Is there one more miracle up his sleeve, one more rabbit in the hat?

Alas, no matter how sophisticated Rove’s GOTV operation may be, you still have to have a base that’s motivated to go to the polls in the first place. It is not at all clear that in many of these “in play” races, that GOP voters could find a reason to support more of the same from incumbents who spend like drunken sailors, pork out with earmarks, and appear to be beholden to a bunch of fat cat lobbyists. A drop off in turnout of even 5% could doom most of the vulnerable Republican candidates.

Democrats on the other hand, energized for the first time in a decade and mad as hornets will almost certainly match and probably exceed their turnout numbers from 2002. And even though they haven’t advanced a single concrete idea on any national issue and continue to shoot themselves in the foot on national security matters, there is a clear sense in the country born out in poll after poll that the United States is headed in the wrong direction. Already, several high profile incumbents have been defeated in primaries, a sure sign of voter discontent. Whether that translates into a Democratic victory in November will not be up to either party because as it stands now, both Republicans and Democrats are hostage to events.

Gas prices, Iraq, inflation, terror plots, the Middle East, and most especially Iran could push and shove the electorate this way and that between now and election day. Since neither party is running on any grand ideas, these events will shape voter perceptions right up until the individual voter walks into the booth.

Most of those issues mentioned above are trending against the GOP which makes their problems even more difficult. On some level, the competence of the President is involved in each of those issues. The Democrats may not succeed in “nationalizing” the election by making Bush a major issue. But you can’t completely eliminate him from the mx either. Bad news on any of those fronts means bad news for Republicans.

With 10 weeks to go, the Democrats are confident and appear to be taking nothing for granted. The electorate seems to be moving their way. And perhaps not even the magic of Karl Rove can save the Republicans this time.

JOE LIEBERMAN BEING GRILLED BY (L-R) ATRIOS, HAMSHER, AND MATT STOLLER (DUAL PURPOSE HOOD). NOT SEEN: JOHN KERRY.
*******************************************************

NO ONE EXPECTS THE “LIEBERMAN INQUISITION!”

Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.
(TBogg: A Really Stupid Blogger)

It’s been a couple of weeks since Little Neddy Lamont beat Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, thus causing every netnut this side of the planet Mongol to go into contortions of orgasmic pleasure not seen since the last AVN Awards Show. Since then, the world has moved on to other, more important things like war, peace, and answering the Ultimate Question of the Universe: Does one tell the truth when one imbibes a wee bit too much of the crature?

For a while there, I thought that Mel was going to take the place of Joe Lieberman in the netnut’s dock. The moralizing morans who were shamelessly cheering on Hizbullah during the war and who wouldn’t mind seeing the Israelis pushed into the sea by those long suffering, gentle souls in Hamas must have realized the laughable disingenuous of their criticism of Gibson and moved almost immediately back to savaging Joe. Good thing too. They only have about 9 weeks left to gloat because come election day, Lieberman will almost certainly make Little Neddy wish he hadn’t squandered his trust fund so recklessly in a quixotic campaign to appear as a reasonable candidate rather than the liberal fruit basket he actually is.

In this respect, John Kerry was quite helpful. He reminded voters of two things with his appearance yesterday on This Week; 1) why they voted for George Bush; and 2) the utter cluelessness of the Senator from Massachusetts:

Kerry accused the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate of “adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney,” on the issue of Iraq.

“Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut,” Kerry added, insisting Lieberman’s stance on Iraq, “shows you just why he got in trouble with the Democrats there.”

Kerry called Lieberman’s independent bid a “huge mistake” and applauded businessman-turned-politician Lamont as “courageous” for challenging Lieberman on the war.

Ed Morrissey took Mr. Kerry to the woodshed and applied the necessary instruction:

Democrats seem intent on painting Joe Lieberman as a pariah these days. The ever-ridiculous Kerry has to push it even farther with a ludicrous comparison to conservative Dick Cheney. I doubt that Cheney ever garnered a 75 rating with NARAL (identical to Chris Dodd), nor did the VP’s legislative voting record land him square in the middle of the Democratic caucus, as does Lieberman’s.

Voters in Connecticut, who may have a better idea of the mainstream in the Nutmeg State than Kerry, obviously consider Lieberman a part of it. Rasmussen’s first post-primary poll in Connecticut put Lieberman ahead of Ned Lamont by five points on August 9th. A week later, Quinnipiac’s poll puts Lieberman ahead of Lamont by 11 points, and Lieberman has 53% of all likely voters — in a three-way race.

This, of course, begs the question; is Lieberman’s apostasy on the Iraq War egregious enough to cause the amateur Torquemadas on the left to boil him in a vat of of Targ dung and rip out his toenails?

Of course not. The answer is that Joe has not shown the proper amount of contrition about his vote to go to war. He hasn’t appeared in the appropriate forum wearing sackcloth and ashes begging forgiveness from the new overseers of the Democratic party.

Since Joe has not personally apologized to the internet rabble who believe they played a major role in catapulting an empty suit to the nomination for Senator from Connecticut, he must suffer the consequences of being called all sorts of names by brainless lefty twits and photoshopped into unrecognizability by humorless harridans and harpies.

Most other Democratic Senators have already made amends and promised not to sin again. The “If I only knew then what I know now…” speech has crossed the lips of more than one of these groveling pigdogs, showing how well a Democratic controlled Senate would stand up to Ahmadinejad and his minions in Hizbullah. Perhaps they could borrow some kneepads from Clinton-era interns.

What makes the inquisition even more bizarre is that with the best chance their party has had in a decade to take control of Congress, the loons are continuing their wall to wall Lieberman bashing - as if this one race would seal their victory against Evil George and the Rethuglicans. The fact that Lieberman is almost certainly going to win running as an independent doesn’t seem to enter their pointy heads. Nor does the fact that even if Lamont wins, their victory would do absolutely nothing to advance the cause of a Democratic takeover of Congress.

Josh Marshall attempted to inject a little sanity into this approach and had his ear bitten off by rabid dogs:

Look, one of the Dems’ problems in recent years is an inability to walk and chew gum at the same time. Rove Republicans throw everything but the kitchen sink into various electoral strategies. They don’t worry if the strategies are inconsistent or even diametrically opposed. Some will work; some won’t. But you don’t know what will stick until you throw it against the wall. Meanwhile, Dems engage in agonizing strategy debates, looking for that one electoral silver bullet.

So I am all for multi-tasking: pay passing attention to the Connecticut race, while focusing with laser intensity on the races that will actually determine control of the Senate (as TPM Reader BM suggests below). Rove may be goading Democrats into fighting like hell amongst themselves in Connecticut, but that doesn’t mean we have to take the bait.

Says Baying Hound Atrios:

I’d like more of that advice going to, say, the people who gave money so that Hillary Clinton could have $22 million cash-on-hand. Does Bill Nelson need $12 million to run against Katie Harris? On the House side, does Marty Meehan, who won with 67% of the vote last time, really need to have 5 million bucks in the bank?

There is always an incredible misallocation of resources in elections and that’s the money which flows to incumbents. Sure, they’re not all safe and it’s understandable that they need somewhat of a defensive warchest just in case, but if you want to criticize where donors are directing their money (and attention) start there.

In other words, “we’re having too much fun to stop now!”

The laser-like intensity with which the netnuts have focused on the Lieberman race will probably not come back to haunt them in November. Despite what Don Lambro’s dreamy post in today’s Washington Times says about the polls being wrong, unless some unbelievable piece of good news regarding Iraq (unlikely) or Osama (possible but perhaps even less likely) or if George Bush initiates first contact with an alien civilization (more likely than the other two options), the Republicans are doomed.

So in the midst of their party’s triumph, all of us on the right will still be able to point our fingers and laugh at their stupidity in pushing Little Neddy’s candidacy right to the edge of the cliff and then watch as it tumbles over the ledge.

And Joe Lieberman will be able to laugh all the way back to the Senate floor, secure in the knowledge that those who wished to burn him at the stake for being a rational human being will be the ones wailing and gnashing their teeth in the agony of defeat.