Right Wing Nut House

A worker at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating plant outside of Phoenix was being questioned by police after what appeared to be a pipe bomb was found in his truck:

The worker was stopped and detained at the entrance of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, said U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor Dricks. Security officials then put the nuclear station on lockdown, prohibiting anyone from entering or leaving the facility.

Authorities described the device as a small capped pipe that contained suspicious residue.

Capt. Paul Chagolla with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office said sheriff’s officials have rendered the device safe and that investigators were interviewing the worker.

The plant was operating normally and there was no threat to the public, Palo Verde spokesman Jim McDonald said.

Palo Verde is the largest nuclear plant in the US. Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the plant was considered such a strategic target that National Guard troops were deployed to protect it.

What kind of damage could a small pipe bomb do? No direct threat to the reactor can be imagined. However, damage to specific control systems by someone who knew precisely where to set off a device could conceivably cause some problems. Probably not a meltdown or any release of radiation. But the very act of setting off a device inside a nuclear plant would be statement enough.

The point is, that’s the kind of information that a terrorist would know if an actual attack were planned. Such vulnerabilities would not be easily deduced but could be inferred by knowledgeable confederates.

This may be nothing more than some one with a weird hobby who accidentally happened to leave one of his creations in his truck. Or the guy could be a member of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, in the US for years, employed at the plant by design, and has now been activated to kill us all.

My thinking tends toward the former. But that should in no way lessen the significance of the event. Our nuke and chemical plants are soft targets and the terrorists know it. They’ve been hardened since 9/11 but has it been enough? Maybe the best thing to come out of this is a re-examination of security at these plants in order to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to protect ourselves.

UPDATE

Malkin is reporting that nearby schools were also in lockdown. Must have been a tense few minutes there after they found the device.

Might do an update if the situation warrants it.

Step outside your door and smell the air. Go ahead, take a whiff. What do you smell?

The stink of war is in the air.

Whether this is an atmosphere deliberately fostered by those in the Administration who wish to insure that Iran does not develop the capability to construct a nuclear weapons or whether there truly are signs that the world is preparing for the worst if we attempt to take out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is impossible to tell. That’s because the consequences of such an attack simply cannot be foreseen. As hard as we try to game out all the scenarios of the attack, there is a real and palpable sense that the dominoes are all set up and ready to topple if we were to go ahead and do what many believe needs to be done to protect our friends and keep The Bomb out of the hands of those seen as irresponsible, messianic fanatics.

It was different with Iraq. Many of those who gave lip service to condemning our attack were privately cheering us on, seeing the toppling of Saddam as a desirable end. But the confrontation with Iran is much more complex and problematic undertaking. There is the real possibility that the Iranians would unleash their proxy armies in Lebanon and Iraq not to mention goading Syria into attacking. If that were to happen - and it is difficult to imagine a reason Iran would forgo the opportunity - the very real possibility of a general Middle East war with the rest of the world choosing sides is not beyond imagining.

A worst case scenario? Pie in the sky fear mongering? Idiotic speculation? Ask the Pentagon. Even the best case scenario involves risks for our troops in Iraq not to mention Israeli civilians. The point is simple; war with Iran involves tremendous risks. And the startling realization is that the best we can do is set back the Iranian nuclear program a few years.

Is it worth risking so much for a gain of so little?

Proponents of bombing Iran point to the possibility of regime change, whether as a result of our attacks or due to encouraging those already fighting the Islamic regime. I reject the liberal argument being made that this would be as bad as bombing. Their reasoning (or lack thereof) is that fomenting revolution is an act of war in and of itself.

Let me know when the left is through wringing its hands that nothing can be done about the possibility of Iranian nukes. Then the grown ups can allow them back into the conversation. After all, they refuse to acknowledge that Iran considers itself already at war with America, having demonstrated that fact time and time again since 1979. Anything short of endless, fruitless negotiations (”As long as we’re talking, we’re not shooting at each other.”) is neocon warmongering in their view.

But an exception to that liberal futility is surprisingly coming from Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. In an interview with the New York Times, Obama outlines a very interesting diplomatic scenario that includes some pretty strong incentives for the Iranians as well as the outline of a “Grand Bargain” on Iraq:

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of what he pledged would be a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.

Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”

Obama is not the first to propose such a quid pro quo; guaranteeing Iranian sovereignty in return for constructive engagement by the mullahs in Iraq. I wrote about it many months ago, drawing a parallel with the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis and Kennedy’s pledge to respect Cuban sovereignty:

Kruschev wrote in his memoirs that the reasons he placed missiles in Cuba in the first place was to redress what the Russians saw as a strategic imbalance between the two countries and to protect his client from a Bay of Pigs repeat. The missiles were removed only after Kennedy promised privately to retire the obsolete Jupiter missiles based in Turkey (which were as provocative from the Soviet point of view as missiles in Cuba were to the United States) and a further guarantee that the Americans would not invade or use a proxy army to overthrow Castro. Later, Bobby Kennedy reasoned that such a promise did not include attempts to assassinate Castro, which continued until at least 1965.

Would such a Quid Pro Quo work with the Iranians? Could we guarantee the sovereignty of the Iranian state in exchange for intrusive inspections by the IAEA and a promise by the mullahs not to enrich uranium?

All would depend on whether or not the leaders of Iran are indeed rational and fear war with the United States and the destruction of their regime. And much would also depend on the IAEA, an organization that would have to prove itself to be more than the nuclear enabler it has been in the past.

There are other carrots we can hold out to the Iranians including unlimited access to enriched uranium for their power plants as well as joint enrichment projects on Iranian soil with other nuclear powers. These are similar deals we’re making with the North Koreans and hold out the promise to end the threat of nuclear weapons from that country.

I realize my conservative brethren are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads at this point. The IAEA? ElBaradei’s nuclear enablers? Obviously, such a deal would depend on full disclosure of the Iranian nuclear program and unconditional cooperation by the mullahs in the kind of monitoring and inspection regimes that would be effective. It would take time to negotiate and set up and in the end, may not even be 100% satisfactory to the United States and our allies.

But as an alternative to war, it’s a good start.

I don’t believe an Obama Administration should be the entity to negotiate such a deal. I prefer a little more steel in the backbone of our negotiators. Perhaps a Clinton or Giuliani Administration would be able to accomplish more given both candidates statements on their willingness to confront the Iranians militarily if negotiations fail.

The point is that negotiations are going to occur one way or another prior to the outbreak of hostilities. What are we prepared to offer in order to get what we want? A package of incentives that include a promise not to invade Iran or support groups that wish to overthrow the mullahs may - just may - be enough of temptation to the Iranians for them to talk about their nuclear enrichment program in the past tense.

We may very well one day be forced to prevent the unthinkable reality of Iranian nuclear weapons by bombing them. But war should only be considered after all diplomatic options have been exhausted. And this is one option I think we can’t afford not to try.

A twofer for you since I neglected to post last week’s results as well.

Results from October 19

Council

1. Carrolling by Done With Mirrors

2. Texas Gang Rape and Murder Case Puts America’s Sovereignty In Jeopardy by Joshuapundit

3. NY Times, Al Gore and the “Stolen” 2000 Election by The Colossus of Rhodey

Non Council

1. The Problems and Course of Rebuilding in Iraq by Dumb Looks Still Free

2. MSM Bias and Pallywood: Incompetence or Malice? by ShrinkWrapped

3. When Heidi Met Mehmet in the Meadow by The Brussels Journal

4. Timeline of the Amazing Disappearing Blog Posts and Comments at the L.A. Times by
Patterico’s Pontifications

Results from 10/26

Council

1. The MSM’s Rush Limbaugh Horror Story by Bookworm Room

2. (tie) An Inconvenient Demographic Truth by Big Lizards and
2. Walking Back the Cat x 2 by Soccer Dad

Non Council

1. Resistance Is Futile by Michael Yon

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers vote, go here and follow instructions.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

What is it about the candidacy of Ron Paul that has attracted the paranoid fringe of American politics?

Clearly, there are Ron Paul supporters who are rational and grounded, not given to spouting conspiracies or blaming “neocons” for everything bad that happens in the world (neocons being a blind for anti-Semitism). For all we know, they may be the majority of his voters.

But just as clearly, there is a dark underbelly to the Paul campaign - a ruthless, mob of internet ruffians who seek to intimidate those who would dare criticize them, the Paul candidacy, or most especially, one of their pet conspiracy theories about 9/11, the “New World Order” (an amorphous term that generally means the imposition of a one world government), or something as mundane and silly as planting a computer chip in every new born in America.

The question isn’t whether Ron Paul believes in any of these conspiracy theories, although he has said on at least two occassions that he believes the investigation into 9/11 must be reopened to explore “unanswered questions” about the tragedy. It is his apparent pandering to this lunatic fringe that must be explored and reasons for it demanded from the campaign.

I say “apparent” pandering because there is the possibility that Paul is completely clueless that his anti-government rants (a subjective word but apt if you listen to his speeches or watch him in the debates) full of dark hints of conspiracy and wrongdoing by the highest officials in the land, actually ring a Pavlovian bell for the paranoid conspiracy freaks causing them to flock to his banner.

For example:

A lot of times they think subsidies and welfare goes to poor people. Now there’s some welfare that goes to poor people, but sometimes I think they’re crumbs. The real big welfare in the system that we have goes to the military-industrial complex and the big banks, that’s where it goes. [applause]

Speak to a crowd of conspiracists and mention the “military-industrial complex” and visions of sinister men meeting at Bretton Woods and the Council on Foreign Relations are immediately conjured up. And the inclusion of banks as a beneficiary of government “welfare” may be true but is a curious choice nonetheless. Banks get nowhere near the federal dollars that defense contractors get. Why include them?

Every anti-Semite worth his salt knows exactly what Paul is talking about when he mentions banks in the same breath as the military-industrial complex conspiracy - Jewish control of the financial destiny of this country.

Paul is no anti-Semite. But is he pandering to the fringe by speaking like this? When he talks about “neocons” - which for some in this country is a codeword for the Jewish conspiracy and Jewish power in Washington - is he aware of the effect on his more bigoted supporters?

In fact, Paul’s rants against “neocons” have been so vicious and full of deceitful half truths that National Review columnist Michael Ledeen thought of suing Paul for libel:

On July 10, Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, delivered a tirade against his version of neoconservatism. He called it “Neo-Conned!” and he posted it on his website and had it distributed as best he could. A considerable part of it is devoted to his version of my writings, and is so inaccurate, so distorted, and so nasty, as to make me wish once again that this country had a decent libel law so that I could at least get some money from him and give him a healthy dose of the public humiliation he deserves.

[snip]

A final point: Paul’s accusations are not simply political disagreements, and his language is not merely critical. He is trying to demonize an entire group of people. He says we are not only wrong, but morally evil and an active danger to American society and the peace of the world. His attack, like those coming from the likes of Pat Buchanan and extremists on the other end of the political spectrum (look at David Frum’s recent encounter with some of my leftist attackers), are incitements to personal violence.

It once again begs the question; are Paul’s speeches against neocons designed to attract that segment of the population that believes neoconservatives have an agenda created in Tel Aviv and are nothing more than tools of Israel? Or is he just a crank who is oblivious to the impact his words have on the fringes of American politics? I am not one who believes that everyone who criticizes neoconservatives is an anti-Semite. But in Ron Paul’s case, he has attracted the support of white supremacists largely because they believe that his attacks on neocons validate their view (link goes to hate site) that the neoconservatives are agents of Israel and part of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy to destroy America and the white race.

At the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe the majority of Ron Paul supporters are haters. But reading my emails over the last 72 hours following my postings about some of the supporters of Ron Paul’s candidacy as well as my experiences on my own personal blog and the experiences I’ve read about from numerous bloggers, writers, pundits, and media outlets, I have no doubt that the haters, the paranoid conspiracists, and even some anti-globalist anarchists are the most committed and most visible of his campaign volunteers.

The blog RedState recently felt it necessary to ban the “Paulbots” as they’re called because of their personal attacks on commenters as well as their continuous spouting of outlandish conspiracy theories:

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I’m guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be.

For those not familiar with Paulbot tactics, the attacks are usually well coordinated with similar arguments used by most emailers. Hence, the euphemism “Paulbots” since it is almost like an attack by spam bots.

They have driven on line polls sponsored by bloggers out of existence thanks to their gaming the system. Apparently, some kind of sophisticated email campaign is at work because no sooner would a poll on a blog go up than the Paulbots would swarm to the site and vote for their man. Following the Fox News debate in Orlando, Paulbots inundated the online poll measuring the winner of the debate and Paul got 34% of that vote. Unfortunately for Paul, the focus group disagreed:

After the debate 34% of Fox News viewers said that Ron Paul won the debate with 27% saying that Mike Huckabee won the debate. That was in stark contrast to the Fox News focus group who when asked if Ron Paul won nobody raised their hands.

The focus group was chosen by pollster Frank Lunz and done according to accepted scientific methods. Tell that to the Paulbots and they’ll talk about a conspiracy to deny their candidate his debate “victory:”

Constant attention is paid to Technorati and other blog search engines so that the most minute negative mention of Paul will bring several commenters rushing to his defense. Some are indeed polite and accommodating. Most are not. Personal attacks are common as are charges that the blogger is part of a conspiracy against the candidate.

Most bloggers are sick of the attacks. And the fact that the Paulbots seem come out of nowhere is disconcerting. Most of us who blog know who our commenters are and are familiar with their positions. The Paul supporters are what are known as “Drive bys” - commenters who drop by specifically to comment on one topic only and have no desire to read anything else or visit the site again. It is obvious from many of their comments that they don’t even bother to read what is written about their candidate.

This was brought home last summer when Digg, the hugely popular social networking site, banned Ron Paul articles from being promoted to the front page of the website because of an organized “Digg” campaign to favorite any post mentioning Paul thus moving the article to prominence. Such gaming of the system was explained here:

When I say “Ron Paul supporters,” I mean that these people ONLY digg stories about Ron Paul, and many of them don’t read the actual content of submissions. My “history” post had Ron Paul’s name in the title (Digg Dirt: From the Digg Army to Ron Paul) but had only the minutest mention of him in the article – I referenced how a push from Digg may have resulted in him getting on the Daily show. The piece itself had NOTHING to do with Ron Paul!

So why the Diggs? Who are these people? The “Ron Paul Army” has a very strong and unified presence on Digg, but no one calls them out on it – at least not on the individual level. Ron Paulers are organized and networked. They are “friends” on Digg. Their mission: Digg every story with even a slight mention of Ron Paul in order to keep his name in the public eye. How can I say that? RyanUnderdown.com has done a pretty good job of cataloging memos related to the planned Digg manipulation. Check them out here.

(Note the comments in this post from the blog on which I found the link to the above story for a good example of Paulbots in action.)

The link above goes to a site that lists 12 separate email lists that urge Ron Paul supporters to game Digg. Here’s an example:

I previously explained about Digg.com and how their recent addition of non-technology topics (e.g. Politics, Business & Finance) has opened an opportunity for pro-market/pro-liberty articles to get an airing at this very popular news site.

Stories are “promoted” to the Digg.com front page by “digging” (voting) for a story. To coordinate efforts to promote free market and libertarian articles I have started a list of libertarian diggers. As I write this I already have 45 people on it. We have once again this morning been successful in promoting an article. In this case, today’s Mises.org Daily Article on inflation and the Fed. Head over to Digg and join the heated discussion about the article, (you will need to set up a free account).

If you want to join our merry band of libertarian diggers, here are the details…

E-mail me and send me your Digg Username (you login to Digg with this). I will add you to my list of Friends which is serving as our list of libertarian diggers.

No doubt there are Technorati email lists as well as others begun by Paul supporters. And then there’s this curious notion of below the radar email lists illuminated in this piece by The Nation that points to far right network that is fairly nebulous but effective. The spread of stories and rumors mimics uncannily the speed of response to postings by Ron Paul supporters. A legitimate question could be asked about whether or not this email network is also part of the Paul unofficial communications apparatus.

Finally, there is this email campaign we reported on earlier where Ron Paul spam from several different countries from around the world ends up in thousands and thousands of mailboxes.

No doubt Paul adherents will point to this networking with pride and boast how organized they are. And they would be correct. But with Ron Paul a blip in all the polls, garnering less than 2% from likely Republican voters nationally according to the latest Fox Poll, one wonders how they can make their grandiose claims of winning on line polls and having legions of supporters. Are Republican primary voters lying to pollsters? If not, Paul supporters must accept the fact that their candidate is a fringe candidate and has zero impact on the race for the nomination.

And if he is a fringe candidate, it is almost certainly partially a result of his curious relationship with perhaps the strangest radio host in the country.

Alex Jones has been positing conspiracies for more than a decade. Prior to 9/11, most of those conspiracy theories involved secret societies who had gotten control of the government and were plotting to rob us of our freedoms and sovereignty, folding us into a one world government run by rich, powerful men.

It’s “The New World Order” on steroids and there are literally dozens of conspiracies associated with it. For example, a perusal of Jones’ website reveals the following:

Hurricane Katrina: Katrina served as a testing ground and precedent setting case for the coming Police State, with forced gun confiscations and deliberate withholding of aid by FEMA.

The Tsunami: Was the high death toll a result of incompetence, greed, deliberate weather warfare, a combination of all three or none?

Bohemian Grove: From Nixon to Clinton, Arnold to George W, all have been initiated into and are regular visitors to the Satanic hideout known as Bohemian Grove.

Bilderberg: Hundreds of high powered world figures, politicians to film directors meet every year to direct world events and formulate plans for the takeover.

Ron Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones show several times. He has accepted money from Jones and even appears in Jones new film “Endgame.” What’s it about?

Estulin explains that the Bilderberg Group control the world by means of a process called systemic methodology, where they carve up the globe into numerous different pieces and then place their designated frontmen in charge of the major institutions that govern each part of the world.

By this method, Bilderberg were able to merge the nations of Europe into the EU under the guise of trade deals, and the same process is now unfolding with Canada, the U.S. and Mexico being conglomerated to form the North American Union - but not without committed resistance on behalf of the American people.

That resistance is being countered by the beefing of a brutal police state nationwide and the increasing use of U.S. troops in domestic law enforcement. Endgame exposes how the elite are trying to overcome opposition to their agenda by instituting the framework of martial law with executive orders that are designed to combat “domestic insurrection,” as President George Bush officially announces a fiat dictatorship.

Needless to say, Paul’s appearance in such a film calls into question his judgement, if not his sanity. And being interviewed on The Alex Jones Show several times raises a serious question I asked at the beginning of this piece.

Is Paul pandering to the conspiracy nuts in America, knowing their enthusiastic support for him will assist his campaign or is he unaware that by appealing to the basest emotions brought to the surface by his dark hints involving dark forces carrying out a campaign to take away our freedoms, he is giving the paranoid, the fearful, the ignorant haters a standard to rally around?

He is a foolish man if he believes he can control these forces. In the end, they can only destroy him.

UPDATE

Wired latches on to the UAB study of “criminal botnets” spamming Americans from overseas that AT had earlier in the week.

If Texas congressman Ron Paul is elected president in 2008, he may be the first leader of the free world put into power with the help of a global network of hacked PCs spewing spam, according to computer-security researchers who’ve analyzed a recent flurry of e-mail supporting the long-shot Republican candidate….

Perusing the blogs and the political wire this morning, one would think that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy just received a death blow from which she will be unable to recover.

I’m talking, of course, about her non-answer to the question of whether she agreed with the program being proposed by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

“Clinton on the Ropes!” screams Andrew Sullivan.

“Clinton Stumble Provides Dems an Opening,” opines The Note.

“Hill Trips Over Spitz Debate,” gasps the New York Post.

“Hillary’s Big Blunder,” says a satisfied Malkin.

To political junkies, Hillary’s answer to the question about drivers licenses for illegal aliens showed a chink in her armor:

McKinney said Clinton grew testy when pressed on whether she agrees with a proposal her home state governor has to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. She first expressed support for the idea. But when Dodd objected, Clinton grew defensive and said she wasn’t saying it should be done, although she recognizes why the governor is trying to do it even though she doesn’t think it’s “the best thing for any governor to do.”

Edwards pounced. “Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes,” he said. “America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”

Obama piled on. “I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it,” he said. He said he supports the idea.

Ed Morrissey sums up Hillary’s play nicely:

Hillary Clinton cannot have thought that the policy would go unremarked during the debate. In New York, it has created a firestorm of controversy for Governor Eliot Spitzer, who has seen his approval ratings plunge in the first months of his term of office, thanks to tone-deaf manoeuvrings such as this. With immigration policy on the forefront of both political parties this year — and with MSNBC so desperate for new material that they started asking about UFOs (see below) — Hillary should have prepared an answer for this question.

Clearly, she did not. And just as clearly, the result left her looking shifty, pandering, and unsure of herself. It also brought out her public personality problems — showing her to be cranky and rather unlikable when on stage. Worse yet, it made her look indecisive, a quality no voter wants in a President, and the same quality that made Kerry such a lousy candidate.

While all of this is true, aren’t we used to this sort of thing from the Clinton’s by now? These guys have made straddling a preferred sexual position. It gets them off every time with the majority of the American people. For the Clinton’s, there is no real history; only quicksand and painted over memories. Was Clinton really against welfare reform before he embraced it as his own? Not according to him. Was Hillary’s health care plan really defeated because the insurance companies and doctors ganged up on her and brainwashed the American people into writing their Congressman to reject it? Or did citizens not like the idea of the government making so many health care decisions for them?

There is a political art to the straddle and the Clinton’s have been masters at it for more almost 20 years. True, Hillary’s rather inelegant response to the drivers license question was perhaps not her best attempt at appealing to all sides of a question. But the point wasn’t to win the argument but simply not to lose it.

Did she anger anyone beyond the beltway elite and political class? I doubt it. Citizens from both sides of the debate heard what they wanted to hear which is what you get when you examine Clinton’s tactics on just about any issues but especially controversial ones.

Think about her position on Iraq. She mouths platitudes about leaving while slamming George Bush. Meanwhile, she makes it clear she will stay and if not finish the job, not withdraw willy nilly thus endangering American interests all the while slamming George Bush. She says she opposes the war but refuses to apologize for her vote authorizing it all the while slamming George Bush.

Do we see a pattern here? She has successfully made Bush’s policies in Iraq the issue not what she will do about the place once she gets into office. Perfect triangulation.

If Clinton loses any ground because of this flap I will be shocked. The beltway boys in the media may desperately wish to see a competitive race on the Democrats side given the orgasmic coverage that Obama is getting and would continue to receive. But it’s extremely difficult to see such a race developing since Obama has forsworn using the kind of attack politics that would give him a chance to get back in the race. His “campaign of hope” may be what the people crave. But beyond that, Democrats want to win very badly. Torn as they are in being tempted to give their messiah Obama a shot at the nomination, hard headed realism tells them - correctly - that Hillary would be a better candidate to go against the Republicans. Therefore, her little slip in the debate last night won’t matter a fig.

And Republicans are dreaming if they think they can nail Clinton to a cross of flip flops and double talk on any issue during the general election campaign. She’s too clever and is so good at parsing her responses that it will be like trying to nail down a Mexican jumping bean. Best that the GOP concentrate on her far left agenda while reminding people why they don’t want to elect another Clinton to the presidency. That way lies a better chance of success in what is still promising to shape up as a Democratic year.

The Rick Moran Show will go live in just a few minutes at 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM central time. Join me for a discussion of the “State of the Race” for president.

Both parties - all candidates. We’ll have the very latest state and national polls and some expert analysis from top pros. This will be you one stop shop for getting yourself up to speed on exactly where the race stands as we head into November, 2007 - one full year before the election.

You can listen to the show live by clicking the button below. A podcast of the show will be available around 4:30 PM.

If you’d like to call in and discuss the race for president, the number is (718) 664-9764.

UPDATE

You can download the podcast by clicking the button above. Or you can stream it by activating the player below.

Ever since George Tenet won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the award seems to have lost some of its luster. It’s much like the Nobel Peace Prize; once you have given the award to someone who exhibits the exact opposite qualities that should be recognized, all credibility in the prize is lost.

In the case of the mis-named Peace Prize, you can point to several recipients in the last quarter century who have been named champions of peace but were actually murderers and thugs. Yassar Arafat comes immediately to mind. Then there were to enablers of murderous thugs like Kofi Anan and Jimmy Carter. The moral universe inhabited by the Nobel Committee is not the same one you and I live in. They have forever cheapened an award that at one time, was recognized as a singular honor.

The same holds true for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 2004, the “Triumvirate of Failure” that included Tenet, Paul Bremer, and Tommy Franks all won the award. Bremer’s incompetence in Iraq has been well documented as has Frank’s wrong headed insistence on pursuing strategies that helped turn the population of Iraq against us and fire up the insurgency.

But it is Tenet - the most spectacular failure as a DCI in history - who should never have even gotten a whiff of the Medal of Freedom. As DCI, his responsibility was to see that our elected officials had the best intel available in order for them to formulate plans and policies to protect us from foreign threats.;

A glance at Tenet’s record of “surprises” he presented policymakers should make anyone who cares about the Medal of Freedom honorees weep in frustration:

* Failed - African embassy bombings in 1998

* Failed - No clue that Pakistan was ready to conduct nuke test - 1998

* Failed - USS Cole terrorist attack - 2000

* Failed - September 11, 2001

* Failed - Iraq WMD

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more screwups that are classified. Blunder after blunder can be laid at the feet of this man and yet, George Bush saw fit to elevate Tenet and place him on the same pedestal as Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks, Elmo Zumwalt, Gerry Ford, and Irving Kristol. It was the most incomprehensible choice in the history of the award.

This is the burden recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom must carry this year; the realization that the award has forever been cheapened by naming an incompetent and vindictive public servant as a prize winner.

Be that as it may, there are several deserving individuals on this year’s list. Some of them include:

* Oscar Elias Biscet, Cuban human rights activist who is serving a 25 year jail term in Castro’s workers’ paradise for “disorderly conduct and counter-revolutionary activities.”

* Francis S. Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. Collins importance to the project cannot be overstated. He fought long and hard to keep the project out of the hands of for-profit corporations who wanted to patent discoveries made before releasing the information to the scientific community. Collins won out and the spectacular results of his research - sequencing nearly 3 billion base pairs which has resulted in an explosion of knowledge the likes of which has rarely been seen in the history of science - is immediately available to any scientist in the world.

* Benjamin L. Hooks led the NAACP for more than 15 years. One of the only black leaders to endorse Republican presidential candidates, Hooks nevertheless felt GOP Administrations never did enough for the inner city poor or for public education. His self-help message for African Americans was also a cause of friction with many civil rights leaders. He sought to make the NAACP something more than just another Washington lobbying group by educating young blacks about the struggle in the 1950’s and ’60’s for civil rights. In the end, he was less than successful in this effort as the NAACP has since become the most prominent proponent of the “victim culture” in the country.

* Brian Lamb, CEO of C-Span. It can be argued that Lamb’s singular vision of a network that broadcasts what is going on in the people’s house changed our politics forever. It’s not the numbers of people who watch the three C-Span networks that makes Lamb a deserving recipient. It’s the idea that democracy is a participatory form of government and that people must be well informed in order to make decisions on who should lead us. And the fact that C-Span has grown into a forum for not just legislation, but politics, books, film, and culture is a testament to Lamb’s remarkable leadership.

Other recipients of this year’s award can be found here.

I’m taking a break from political blogging today since I have two political columns to write later and don’t wish to spoil my mood this early in the day.

It’s getting harder and harder to find something enjoyable to write about when it comes to politics. How many different ways can you write “They all suck?” Or come up with amusing ways to accuse the left of treason? Or the right of being heartless monsters? I’ve exhausted the thesaurus coming up with hateful adjectives to describe the utter stupidity of it all.

Besides, the left hasn’t really done anything treasonous lately which has kind of put a crimp in my style. It is very hard to save western civilization from the perfidy of liberals if they don’t cooperate by doing something totally outrageous and unpatriotic. So I would hope all my lefty friends would get their heads together and come up with some really gross, spectacularly anti-American action like spitting on John Wayne’s picture or something.

I probably won’t have too long to wait if the past is any guide…

And how in God’s name can I maintain my undeserved reputation as a basher of extremists on both sides of the political spectrum if the religious right behaves itself for more than 24 hours and doesn’t call for jailing homosexuals or burning feminists at the stake?

Best leave the former to Obama. As for the latter, Halloween is coming up and maybe someone will mistake Hillary for a real witch. If I was her, I wouldn’t go anywhere near Salem for a few days…

So what’s a blogger to do? I suppose I could write about sports but given the state of my dearly Beloved Bears, that’s a very sore subject at this point. And does anyone beside me really care that the Red Sox won the World Series?

In the past, I’ve given my top tens on a wide variety of subjects; Star Trek, movie villains, movie scores, movie lines. It’s a fun way to pass the time and always gets me in trouble with my readers whose choices are different from my own.

In fact, my experience with ranking Star Trek movies and series reminds me today of writing anything about Ron Paul; the nuts come out of the woodwork and use the most vile, personal language to tell me I’m wrong. The fact that most Paul supporters are reminiscent of Borg Drones is also somewhat relevant, although I’d give the Borg the edge in original thinking.

At any rate, in wracking my brains for something to write it suddenly dawned on me that a list of my favorite heroes of all time (since I did a piece on my favorite villains already) would be an interesting exercise.

What I found to my surprise was that almost all of my heroes are mythic heroes - real or imagined people who represent the best in all of us - the kind of people we should aspire to be; selfless, brave, fair, and with a personality larger than life.

Indeed, some of my mythic heroes are not the most attractive of characters. But their personalities were so gigantic that they dominated their world and had their contemporaries marveling at their deeds.

My choices and the ranking of them is sure to start an good debate in the comments. I have lifted the comment moderation function so that we can get a good back and forth going.

10. John Wayne

Probably isn’t close to most people’s top ten but think about it; is there any other film actor whose personae has leaped beyond the screen and made an impact on the consciousness of a nation? He is both icon and voodoo doll, a symbol of all that is good and evil about the United States depending on your point of view. To this day, he is the quintessential American in many parts of the world.

He was in many ways an unlovely character in the movies. He was loud, brash, given to speechifying and could be ruthless in pursuit of his goals. But he was also generous, fair to a fault, courageous, and self sacrificing. The world could do a lot worse in judging America by the actions of John Wayne in the movies.

9. King Kong

Yes, “’tis beauty killed the beast.” But oh what a beast! Kong has heroic qualities every male should aspire to; he was chivalrous, gentle, emotionally grounded, solicitous of his mate’s feelings and very protective. I much prefer the 1933 Kong to Peter Jackson’s overwrought 2005 release although the latter day ape certainly looks and acts more human.

Kong’s tragedy was in the unrequited love he felt for Fay Wray. It was a relationship that was impossible - not because they were different species but because of his size. And, of course, he could never fit in her world any more than she could live in his. But as a mythic hero, Kong had few equals in film history.

8. Roland

To the Italians, he is Orlando. In Spain, he is Rolando. To a half dozen other European countries, he exists in myth as the ultimate knight. Anyone who garners this much admiration has to make the top ten list.

Some believe Roland was a real person who died fighting the Muslims in the 13th century. If so, I hope he had his magic sword and horn with him when he perished. The Song of Roland may be one of the most inspiring works in western culture. I picture him in my minds eye as a tall, tow headed figure who fought for justice and against oppression.

7. El Cid

Yes, he was a real man (Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar) whose deeds were immortalized in one of Charlton Heston’s greatest roles. A hero in battle for both Spain and the Moors, at first glance, he may not be the most lovely of historical figures. He was vain and apparently something of a thief not to mention his desire to carve out his own kingdom later on in his life.

Ah, but the legend of El Cid is what concerns us. And the mythic Cid was every bit the hero. A tireless fighter for King Alfonso and Spain, he served his King even when he knew his sovereign was wrong - a sign of fealty that was probably not the case in real life but is certainly appealing. The film also depicts the legendary scene of Rodrigo’s death when, after getting shot by an arrow in a battle against the Berber invaders, he makes his wife Jimena promise that he will be at the head of his troops the next day no matter what. Jimena keeps her word after the Cid dies during the night by dressing him in his best armor and strapping him to his horse, sending him out at the head of his troops and leading them to victory.

Defeating an enemy while you are dead would get you on this list even if he had been a real jerk.

6. King Arthur

So much has been written about this guy that even the legends get confusing. In popular culture, you have your choice among a singing Arthur, an ex-Roman knight, an earnest demigod who has the help of a wizard to keep power, or Sean Connery dressed in a real cool blue tunic with Richard Gere not really wanting Julie Ormond but just unable to help himself.

I prefer an amalgam of the legends as portrayed in L’Morte D’Arthur. A great warrior as well as a respected leader, Arthur inspired those around him to be their best and live up to an impossible standard - the effort itself being life’s reward. As far his example of chivalrous behavior and sacrificing himself, their are elements of the life of Jesus in the story that are quite compelling.

5. Robin Hood

The legends and songs have worn well over the centuries. He is an “everyman” hero in that his deeds are used to underscore qualities in many eras from the age of chivalry to the present.

Like Siegfried and unlike Roland, his stories have remained constant through the ages; his love for Marian, the archery tournament, his first meeting with Little John - all the familiar parts of the narrative shown in a half dozen films about Robin Hood were told around medieval campfires and by Troubadours.

4. Samson

My favorite guy in the bible, bar none. He seems so real a person, afflicted with vanity and hubris as well as an independent streak that you kind of get mad at God for punishing. After all, it wasn’t his fault that he lost his hair.

But for making the case of man as mythic beast, Samson wins hands down. Slaying an entire army with the jawbone of an ass? Perfect metaphor for war, don’t you think? And taking your enemies with you when you go is a nice touch.

3. Odysseus

One of the more complex mythic heroes in that his deeds certainly make him a standout on anyone’s top ten list but his faults were equally gigantic. Overweening pride, over confidence in his own abilities (even thinking himself equal to the Gods), and a rather unattractive trickery to his methods all combine to paint him as an untrustworthy but courageous warrior.

But it was his long, eventful trip home after the Trojan War that makes Odysseus one of the most remarkable figures in literature. Taking everything the Gods could throw at him and triumphing in the end (with the help of a couple of friendly deities) pegs Odysseus as one who overcame incredible odds to succeed. And once home, his sweet revenge on his wife’s suitors is one of the most shocking scenes imaginable.

2. Beowulf

The film will be out next month and I’m not particularly anxious to see it given Hollywood’s treatment of classic literature (Brad Pitt as Achilles? Really now!). But the character of Beowulf has no rivals for the sheer power of his personality and awe inspiring deeds.

He not only killed the monster Grendel but Grendel’s mother too! And if the unnamed author had thought of it, it would have been great if he had slain the monster’s father as well so marvelously drawn were the fight scenes.

Defeating Grendel by tearing his arm off after battling him hand to hand for the entire night is just great storytelling. No human weapons had any effect on the the monsters so Beowulf had to rely on his strength and courage to defeat the both Grendel and his mother. The victory made Beowulf an object of worship by the people which, while unseemly, seems about right given the ferociousness of both.

What makes Beowulf stand out for me was the nature of the enemy; terrifying and pitiless. His victory over the monsters remains the most heroic acts of courage in western literature.

1. John Carter of Mars

Surprise! I told you that these were not necessarily the most scholarly choices or even the most logical. These are my favorite mythic heroes and for my number one, I choose John Carter, Edgar Rice Burroughs swashbuckling, impossibly perfect earthling who is magically transported to Mars where for 10 pulse pounding, mind blowing books, he saves the planet as well as his “incomparable” wife Dejah Thoris.

The best adventures are contained in the first three books where his skill as a swordsman and the sheer audacity of his personality unite all the creatures of Mars - 4 armed green men, black skinned men, white skinned men, and the dominant red skins - in a one world government.

Carter exhibits all the attributes of a mythic hero; handsome, strong, protector of the weak, fair minded, decisive, and the greatest swordsman who ever lived. And his wild Martian adventures make a splendid canvass that Burroughs paints his portrait of the perfect hero over. A truly remarkable series of books that has enthralled generations of youngsters since they came out before World War I.

Well, that’s my list. Let’s see you do better in the comments.

Osama Bin Laden was once again in our gunsights. We had several different methods with which we could have dispatched him. We had an armed drone, a SEAL team, the Air Force had a bomber - and according to Colonel David Hunt, an analyst for Fox News, we didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t pull the trigger:

We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys — now, pull the damn trigger.

Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.

You cannot make this crap up; truth is always stranger and more telling than fiction. Our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders included, failed to kill bin Laden for no other reason than incompetence.

Very serious charges indeed. Taking Colonel Hunt at his word - or at least the word of his source(s) - it may have been helpful for the Fox News military analyst to give us a hint as to why we didn’t pull the trigger. The Colonel makes a charge of incompetence. Fine - prove it. Or shut the hell up.

Hunt gives us a clue, however, as to what he considers “incompetent:”

We have allowed Pakistan to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. We have allowed Al Qaeda to reconstitute, partially because of money they (Al Qaeda in Iraq) have been sending to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

We are in a war with terrorists. We are in a war with countries that support terrorists. We are in a war with people that fly planes into buildings and who never, ever hesitate to pull the trigger when given the chance to kill us. We cannot win and, I will tell you this now, we are losing this war every damn time we fail to take every single opportunity to kill murderers like Usama bin Laden. Less than two months ago, we lost again.

Hunt’s accusations need to be examined for their authenticity, certainly. But before accepting his charges, it might be best to also look at Colonel Hunt’s idea of what exactly constitutes “incompetence.”

The military and Administration are incompetent for “allowing” Pakistan to become a safe haven for al-Qaeda, and “allowing” them to reconstitute? What an ignoramus. The only way al-Qaeda was ever going to be wiped out is if we had received the permission of the Pakistani government to go into the NWFP - the tribal areas where the writ of Pakistani or any other law has never run - and take out al-Qaeda sanctuaries. That permission was not going to be forthcoming from President Musharraf for the simple reason that it was politically untenable for him to give it. The result of our incursions would have been the kind of nationwide unrest that overthrows tyrants and strengthens radicals. In this case, al-Qaeda and Taliban allies could very well have achieved power if we had been so stupid - a prospect that would have included Islamists with their fingers on the trigger of 70 nuclear weapons.

Going in without Musharraf’s permission would have set off a firestorm of criticism around the world. And despite the fact that the left is urging we take this very course, the minute we were to go in, charges of Bush “widening the war” and “Cambodia Redux” would have been heard from most of these very same folks - including Colonel Hunt.

So we were forced to accept an alternative - that Musharraf would go after the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda with his own army. This he attempted to do in 2004. After a 5 month campaign of playing hide and seek in the rugged terrain with the terrorists while fighting many of the tribes who had allied themselves with his enemy, Musharraf was forced to beat a hasty retreat and sign some humiliating “peace” agreements. These treaties gave the Taliban easy access to Afghanistan and allowed al-Qaeda to set up shop safely in the Waziristans while basically kicking the Pakistani army of the area.

Blaming Bush and the military for the internal dynamics of Pakistani politics and how that extremely delicate situation impacts our mission in Afghanistan was something I thought only idiots on the left were stupid enough to do. Evidently not.

Of course, the left is all over this story saying that there is no way in hell that it’s true. After all, the source is Fox News, right?

So everyone, what is the excuse this time? Must be Clinton’s fault I guess and remember, this is post 9/11.

As always, I have a source to back up what I say. That is more than most of the “righties” around here can ever do.

Bu-bu-but that “source” is FOX NEWS! I thought we couldn’t believe anything we hear about the Administration from Fox. Surely there are plenty of lefties out there who will dismiss this story outright because of it’s source, right?

Absolutely astounding. Uh huh… Absolutely astounding. But, yet not at all surprising to hear that BushCo botched another opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden.

Not even a teeny, tiny bit of skepticism? From a network nicknamed “Faux News?”

I’m sorry. For a minute there, I thought Faux News sounded rational.

Oh wait. They did.

Of course, they are completely oblivious to this kind of towering hypocrisy. Totally clueless. They see nothing untoward in condemning Fox News when it reports something they disagree with but accept and comment on things they find agreeable.

And what exactly are they agreeing with? A single sourced story where the correspondent either refuses to divulge or doesn’t know the entire circumstances surrounding the targeting of Bin Laden. Why didn’t we fire? Colonel Hunt chalks it up to “incompetence” without offering a single bit of information to back it up. Not one.

And the lefties are agreeing with him - despite their being totally in the dark, along with the rest of us, as to what criteria Hunt is using to make the charge.

Has there ever been such stupidity, hypocrisy, and benighted callousness toward any honest intellectual standard whatsoever?

Knowing the crew in the White House and Pentagon, it would not surprise me in the slightest if the incompetence charge turned out to be true. But maybe we should have a little evidence before reaching that conclusion?

Or do you want to live you life like an rabid left wing hater who allows ideology and unformed judgements rule their thoughts?

The fires in southern California are still burning out of control in some places. People are still fleeing in advance of the inferno as the blaze has consumed nearly 2,000 homes and threatens thousands of others. A billion dollars in damage so far and there is no relief in sight for the residents and officials who are living this nightmare.

Meanwhile, it’s business as usual for the left, trying to score political points off of tragedy. This time, a couple of right wing pundits have chimed in, to the approving nods of some conservatives who have learned well the lessons of Katrina; it’s never too early to blame someone for nature’s handiwork.

Thousands of our fellow citizens are sitting in shelters not knowing if they have a home to go back to. Firefighters from all over the west and beyond are exhausting themselves to save lives and property. Federal, state, city, and local officials are working around the clock, doing everything they can to alleviate suffering, battle the numerous fires threatening the area, doling out assistance, and planning for the aftermath.

But none of this matters at the moment. Instead of doing everything we can to support these efforts, leaving the finger pointing and political gamesmanship until a decent interval has passed and life has returned to some semblance of normalcy for the afflicted, the professional bomb throwers on the right and the usual suspects on the left (almost everybody) are gleefully throwing around baseless and unproven charges of culpability.

They are enlisting the destruction of people’s lives in their battle to prove one thing or another about the President, or Republicans, or Democrats, or the War, or environmentalists. And for the left’s part, they are employing the age old political tactic of raising the spectre of race and class warfare; that the rich, white residents of San Diego County are being helped in a more timely and significant manner than the poor, black residents of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

First of all, anyone who tries to draw parallels between a Hurricane and a fire is an idiot. Hurricanes tend to be somewhat wetter than fires for one thing. Secondly, the fire is not blocking access to the shelters in the city or other designated areas so that help can get where it is needed when it is needed in a much more timely manner.

Beyond that, I found this analysis interesting:

In addition to the reverse-911 system, authorities shut down schools, halted mail delivery and urged people to stay home and off the roads if they were not in danger.

Another factor separating these fire from other disasters has been wealth. Unlike many of the poor neighborhoods flooded by Hurricane Katrina, the hardest-hit areas in California were filled with upscale homes, with easy access to wide streets. Less wealthy areas — including rural enclaves and horse farms that stretch through the mountains east of San Diego — benefited from easy road access and small crowds.

The authorities didn’t wait to evacuate citizens from endangered areas. And apparently, wonder of wonders, the city of San Diego had a disaster plan and is sticking to it! Amazing what happens when you actually follow a carefully laid out plan rather than wring your hands wailing “Whoa is us” and go on the radio, blaming your incompetence on the racism of others.

Police roadblocks are preventing wide scale looting - not even residents are allowed back into areas no longer threatened until they can be protected. As far as we know, there have been no mass rapes of babies at Qualcom Stadium where around 10,000 residents have sought shelter. No murders or suicides there either that we’ve heard about. Food, water, and the amenities all seem to be plentiful at the moment.

In short, the difference between the fire and the flood is night and day - partly as a result of the competence of local officials but much more so because the two types of disasters present different types of challenges that are taking place in a different part of the country in different settings (densely populated urban area vs. the more open suburban/rural setting of southern California). Anyone who tries to draw some kind of parallel between the two tragedies or posit some race or class reason for the differences can safely be dismissed as agenda driven screwballs. There’s no “there” there.

But this hasn’t stopped the left from trying for a Katrina repeat. And this time, the right got the drop on the left as far as the race to politicize people’s agony.

Both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have made comments trying to blame the left in some way for the tragedy. Beck’s point about the environmentalists opposing the clearing of brush and the deliberate setting of controlled fires may or may not be a valid point. But couldn’t it wait until after the disaster had been dealt with and all people and property were safe and secure?

Similarly, the lefty blogs have been full of comparisons to Katrina, intimations that the response to the tragedy is “proof” of racism and class differences, and the idea that if only we weren’t fighting the Iraq War, the National Guard could have prevented all this or, as Bill Richardson puts it, “Where is the National Guard?”

Today, as the fires rage, California has National Guard men, women, and critical equipment thousands of miles away in Iraq.

Richardson gives us a twofer in his article, reminding us that the entire reason so many died in New Orleans and why this fire is still burning is because of the War in Iraq.

I liked him better when he was lying about his Minor League baseball experiences.

There’s no evidence that the National Guard in California would be making a difference if the units serving in Iraq were here at home. But that won’t stop the left from making the argument anyway. Nor will they wait until the tragedy being experienced by the residents in southern California has passed before trying to score their political points with the public.

It didn’t used to be like this. No one would have dreamed of trying to politicize tragedy prior to the presidency of George Bush. But we’re in a different political ballgame now with no boundaries and few rules to live by. So we can expect this kind of idiocy from both sides from now on.

Both sides should be ashamed of themselves.