When a sitting or former President dies, the custom is for the flag to fly at half staff for 30 days. Such is the case for Ronald Reagan. However, the timing of this means that the flag will be at half staff until July 5th.

Of course we should mourn Ronald Reagan, but I can't help but think he wouldn't want the American flag sagging under the weight of sorrow on July 4th. He'd want the flag flying high & proudly. He'd want sunrise on the 4th to truly be morning in America, and no longer mourning in America. It's President Bush's ultimate decision on how long the flag is flown at half staff. On the 4th of July, he should raise it for the Gipper.

Drudge is reporting:

Official Washington and the entire press corps will be rocked when Hillary Rodham Clinton is picked as Kerry's VP and a massive love fest will begin!

So predicts a top D.C. insider, who spoke to the DRUDGE REPORT on condition he not be named.

I don't believe it for one second, and you shouldn't either. Kerry wants Hillary for a running mate about as much as he wants to lower your taxes and start slashing federal entitlement programs.

First, I think that a lot of the "reasoning" in that Drudge article is hogwash. To cite one example:

"Kerry believes that no one is better on national security than he is, he served in Vietnam after all, so he has that covered and the suggestion that he needs to strengthen the ticket with someone who has national security credentials is dismissed as foolish."

Second, Kerry doesn't really have anything to gain. Kerry needs the Southeast and the so called industrial states of the North and Midwest (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan). The addition of Hillary to the ticket won't do anything to help in that area. John Edwards is the clear choice to help deliver those states. (and, considering that Kerry and Edwards are diametrically opposed on issues that those folks really care about, like the Second Amendment and NAFTA, it would fit perfectly in to his flip-flop and waffle strategies.) What's Hillary going to do, shore up Long Island?

But wait, you say, "the addition of Hillary brings out the female vote!" That's true, to an extent. The addition of Hillary will get some people who wouldn't otherwise vote to get to the polls and cast a vote for Kerry solely because they want to see a woman in the White House. But it will bring voters out on the other side, too, those who would vote just to keep a woman, or, more specifically, Hillary, out of the White House. Hillary is not well liked outside of the universe of "people who are going to get out and vote for whatever Dummocrat runs, no matter who it is." Sure, you'd see the media falling all over themselves talking about how excited they are that Hillary is running, but who do you think they'd vote for if she wasn't?

Besides, even if I'm wrong about the "counter effect," and the addition of Hillary does indeed cause support for the dums to skyrocket, that effect can be "equalized" by the good guys if need be.

Third, do you really think that Kerry wants Bill Clinton in his life?

Fourth, as for Hillary, she stands to gain little and lose a lot. If Hillary Clinton wanted to run for President, the nomination was (and technically still is) hers for the asking. Why would she "settle" for VP?

I stand by my earlier assertion that John Edwards is the best choice for Kerry, and that Edwards would lose too much if he accepted. All this Hillary hullabaloo is directed at getting Edwards to accept the invitation to join. See, Edwards knows that if Kerry loses in 2004, then it's him in 2008. But, if Kerry wins in 2004, it's Kerry in 2008, effectively cutting Edwards out while he's in his prime.

I don't think he will fall for it. My VP guess is Dick Gephardt.

But what do I know, I'm just some guy on the internet.

CNN reports that John F'n Kerry has "ruled out" opening his 1988 divorce records, saying that they were "old history that had nothing to do with anyone else."

This comes hot on the heels of the recent unsealing of Illinois candidate Jack Ryan's divorce records. As you likely know, those records revealed allegations by his ex-wife that he was "in to" certain things that many would call kinky or depraved.

I agree with John Kerry that his divorce is a private matter, and that it shouldn't be of anyone's concern except for his and his ex-wife's. But the issue here isn't his divorce, it's the public records pertaining to his divorce, and there is a difference. Now, before you get all worked up and accuse me of making a distinction that is but a distinction without a difference, let me explain.

Here in the good ol' USA, we place a high value on maintaining open access to all public records. Open records help to ensure that the judicial system retains integrity and that public confidence in the system remains intact. Maintaining public confidence in the judicial system is of such paramount importance that the Cannons of Judicial conduct require that judges recuse themselves not only from cases in which they have a material conflict of interest, but also from cases in which there could be any perception of impropriety, regardless of whether a conflict actually exists and not putting a lot of weight on how reasonable that perception actually is.

I'm not citing all of this to make some convoluted argument that divulging the details of John Kerry's divorce will make America a stronger nation - instead, I cite it as an explanation as to why ALL divorce records, are, by default, open records.

That's right, if you, me, or any of 99.9% of the other 280 million people in this great nation (god forbid) got a divorce, then those records would be "open records," freely available to anyone who asked. Divorce records are no different from any other type of public record, be it civil or criminal. Like it or not, this is the way the America is and how it has always been.

I know more than a few people that were outraged to learn that records of their past traffic violations, DUI convictions, misdemeanors, criminal violations, etc., are just a mouse click away. See, for example, Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (CCAP). And it doesn't stop there - know anyone who is public employee? Did you know that information as personal as his salary is freely available, as a public record? (So are property tax records, assessor records, etc.)

I know of people who found information about themselves in one of the two above mentioned databases and tried, unsuccessfully, to have the record "sealed" or "removed" from the system. Their efforts were futile, because public records are just too important to the American system.

Of course, it is possible to get divorce records sealed in "extreme circumstances," (or if you "know someone.") In Jack Ryan's case, a judge initially ruled that given the content of the records, and given the high profile of the couple, the records should be sealed to protect Ryan's son Alex, who is now 9 years old. However, the records didn't stay sealed; as we all now know, the Chicago Tribune sued, claiming that the public interest outweighed the Ryans' concerns about their privacy and any possible effect on their now 9-year-old son. The judge in that proceeding agreed with the Tribune, and ordered the records unsealed.

I wonder, if a Judge has already ruled that the public interest in the disclosure of a Senatorial candidate's divorce records outweighs concerns over privacy re: allegations of kinky sex practices and protecting a 9 year old, then how can a court possibly find that the public interest doesn't outweigh the privacy interests of a Presidential candidate with no young children, whatever the records may contain?

I don't fault John Kerry for wanting to keep a personal issue out of the public spotlight. If it were me, I'd want to do the same thing. That's want, not do.) But, mind you, if it was me, my records wouldn't be sealed in the first place - not by my choice, I just wouldn't have a say in the matter.

See, I'm not rich. I'm not powerful. I don't know many people in high places.

In net, I'm not John Kerry, man of the people.

Hillary Clinton says, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Don't give her and the rest of the dummocrats that chance. Spend your money before they can: donate to the Bush campaign!

Even if you can't donate, you can give your time by volunteering. At the very least, register to vote and visit other like-minded sites.

You gotta love the French. Does any country make itself so easy to mock? Jacques Chirac lashed out at President Bush for urging the E.U. to get cookin' on Turkey's entry to the E.U:

"If President Bush really said that the way I read it, well, not only did he go too far but he went into a domain which is not his own," Chirac told reporters at the summit.

"It is like me trying to tell the United States how it should manage its relations with Mexico," he added.

Actually, I think it's more like telling the United States how it should manage relations with Iraq. Or, better yet, telling Poland or the Czech Republic how to manage relations with America & Iraq. But Chirac wouldn't do that. Or would he?:

The French president, in an unusually emotional outburst in Brussels after the European Union meeting on Monday about Iraq, derided the Central and Eastern European countries that have signed letters expressing their support for the American policy on Iraq for being "badly brought up," and having missed "an opportunity to keep quiet."

What's French for "hypocrisy"?

Folks, some meanies in the Bush administration are picking on journalists like Claude Salhani. Well, Claude is ready to fight back:

When monarchs, princes and potentates in days of old received news to their disliking they would kill the messenger. Human emotions have undergone little change over the centuries, and today, many are those who would, current legislation not withstanding, gladly continue that practice.

Read that again. Claude is implying that members of the administration would "gladly" kill journalists that write unflattering stories. Really? I mean, I'm sure they'd all like to punch Ted Rall in the face, but isn't it taking it just a bit far to claim they'd want to kill him (where undoubtably he'd turn crispy brown in hell).

But Claude isn't finished:

Anyone offering an ounce of criticism of the war in Iraq, the way the war on terrorism is being conducted, the economy, the USA Patriot Act, extending tours of duty for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, stem cell research, the separation of church and state, or any other hot topic of the day, is immediately labeled "unpatriotic."

First of all, when and where is anyone disagreeing with government policy "immediately" called unpatriotic? That's a liberal fantasy. Second, who is calling them unpatriotic? Is the government saying that, or are ordinary citizens expressing their own 1st Amendment rights to criticize the media? Finally, when someone says, for example, "I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.", is it really a stretch, really inaccurate to call them unpatriotic? I don't think so.

Claude condemns Cheney for "lashing out" about the NY Times headline proclaiming that the 9/11 Commission "finds no Qaida-Iraq Tie." But, that's all he says. If a reader didn't know any better they wouldn't know that Cheney was upset because the 9/11 Commission didn't find that and, indeed, the NY Times had in their hands at this time documents proving even more ties between al-Qaida and Iraq. In other words, Cheney wasn't upset because the media was criticizing the administration, he was upset because they weren't telling the truth.

Claude, not surprisingly, still doesn't get it:

Blaming the media for news we don't agree with has become an all too common practice. And there have been no lack of topics for the citizens of this good country to disagree with. Take your pick: the presidential election campaign, or whether the war in Iraq has diverted attention from the real danger -- the war on terrorism. Now even the CIA has jumped into the fray.

Don't you like how Claude slips in a huge bit of bias here as if it's fact. "whether the war in Iraq has diverted attention from the real danger -- the war on terrorism"? Claude accuses critics of wanting to "shoot the messenger" rather than "analyze the message". But the media is guilty of the exact same thing. In their rush to shoot down the Bush presidency, they're refusing to analyze facts that don't mesh with their agenda. Like how Claude himself refuses to actually, you know, analyze the 9/11 Commission report and numerous other documents and opinions from this administration as well as the Clinton adminstration supporting the assertation that Iraq has been in bed with terrorists for years.

I'm sick of journalists like Claude and politicians like Al Gore trying to demonize any criticism of the press. They whine night and day about being labeled "unpatriotic" while at the same time they label their critics as fascists bent on crushing their noble dissent. This is just a bunch of tripe and I refuse to swallow it.

This weekend, Fahrenheit 911 took in a record amount at the box office for a "documentary". I did not contribute a single dime to this $21.8 million. But, those who did say things like "every American should see this movie" or "I dreamed about it all night and still woke up angry".

I agree with those, like Ann Althouse, that have said that this film "appeals to people who are already committed to your side". But, I don't necessarily agree with the rest of her argument, that it

makes other people not want to listen to you at all. People interested in rational arguments will choose not to engage with you, which you might wrongly read as agreement, leading you to become complacent about the correctness and persuasiveness of your beliefs.

I think that the hype of F911 has given the movie an audience far beyond hardcore leftists, far beyond committed Democrats and into the realm of the undecideds. People who have seen the film, believe it. And they're spreading the word. Because of that, I think the President or at the very least, his campaign team, needs to directly respond to it.

Sure, there are plenty of websites devoted to debunking Moore. But, these websites appeal to the same kind of hardcore audience (albeit a righty one) as Moore's movies do. The mainstream media will never critically examine the film. That leaves it up to the rest of us to combat Moore. But we need the weight of the White House behind us.

By remaining silent, the White House perpetuates the myth that Moore is some kind of courageus voice crying out in the wilderness. I'm sure some will say that the White House should take the highroad and not bestow any legitmacy on Moore by bothering to respond to him. But, it's too late for that. He's been given legitmacy by the media and by all of the people who went to see the film. If the Kerry campaign made these allegations, the Bush team would be working overtime to refute them. Why treat Moore any differently?

I'm a big fan of the Wall Street Opinion Journal. If you don't already receive Best of the Web Today, I strongly encourage you to sign up.

The editor of that feature, James Taranto, along with Leonard Leo, have put together Presidential Leadership, which rates all of our Presidents. In addition to ratings, short essays on each President are written by the likes of John McCain, Robert Bork and Peggy Noonan.

I like the book, but it's hit or miss. The essays on Presidents from the mid-twentieth century on suffer from one-sidedness. For example, Robert Bork's essay on FDR concentrates on his domestic failures and frankly, glosses over his leadership in WWII. Similarly, the essay on Reagan rather begrudgingly praises him for winning the Cold War, but completely ignores his domestic tax cuts that set the stage for a 20-year boom. FDR and Reagan are the two giants of the 20th century. Their records deserved to be examined by people who could at least pretend to be objective, otherwise their high rankings just look misguided at best.

The essays on some of our more regrettable and/or forgetable Presidents are more enlightening. My favorite passage in the book relates to Herbert Hoover (ranked 29th, by the way):

Hoover's image was slightly rehabilitated by Harry Truman in 1945. Learning that Hoover was in Washington, staying in a hotel, Truman telephoned and asked if he would come and see his "old home." Hoover accepted, so Truman sent a car. Hoover walked into the White House and broke into tears when he was asked to survey world food supplies. "Mr. President," he said, "since 1932 no one has asked me to do anything for my country. You are the first one."

Hoover's administration wasn't a success, but that doesn't mean he was evil, an idiot or didn't have good ideas. I liked the Hoover essay because, what I wanted to read about, in addition to an evaluation of the President, was an evaluation of the man. But, too many of the profiles deal with specific policy decisions and results. But, leadership isn't just about results. No one really writes about the intangible qualities of leadership, yet, most of the highly ranked Presidents had it.

The essays on various aspects of Presidential leadership are better than the individual profiles, particularly the essay on leadership in economic policy by the late Robert L. Bartley. With a few exceptions, he argues that either Presidents didn't believe they were in the business of setting economic policy or they were grand failures at it.

All in all, it's an interesting read, but it could have been so much more. I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10.

I'm in the middle of reading "Presidential Leadership" and some of the passages remind that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Presidents are often seen very differently with the benefit of hindsight. Who does this passage refer to:

"There is a cowardly imbecile at the head of our government," warned one newspaper. "Disgust with our government is universal," said another critic. In one of the unkindest cuts of all, the dapper Massachusetts senator [I'm removing the names to keep you guessing] called him a "dictator", while another senator XX of Ohio, speaking for the elites of Washington society, wrote him off as "poor white trash."

This is what some people thought of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s, yet, it certainly sounds similiar to criticisms leveled at George W. Bush today. It's far, far too early to compare Bush to Lincoln, but both Presidents have certainly remained steadfast in their goals (saving the Union and defeating Islamofacism respectively) while those around them wanted to take the easy way out.

I thank God America was blessed with leaders like Washington & Lincoln. I thank God that when Roosevelt died, a man like Truman was in place to follow him. I thank God Ronald Reagan was there to lead us out of the 70s malaise. And, I thank God Bush defeated Gore. I can't imagine what America would look like with President Gore nearly 3 years removed from 9/11, but I can't help but think it'd be a far, far worse place, both in terms of terrorist threats and economic downturns.

It seems that the US government has decided to adopt a policy that can only lend validity to the Arab world's widespread policy of ignorance and hatred. Actually, I shouldn't blame the whole US government, this is coming from these two bozos. Reuters reports:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israeli-made bullets bought by the U.S. Army to plug a shortfall should be used for training only, not to fight Muslim guerrillas in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), U.S. lawmakers told Army generals on Thursday.

Yep, that's really from Reuters, not from The Onion, The Borowitz Report, or any other satire or fictional news source. When we first registered the domain "dummocrats.com" we thought that we'd have no trouble always finding material to post about. But never did I think that we'd ever find something as patently idiotic as this.

Res Ipsa

Though one does have to wonder what the PC police would do if we had a Jewish president. Would they demand that he 'recuse' himself from the war? On that note, perhaps we should be keeping all of our Jewish soldiers on the sidelines of this war as well?

Anyway, the only way to react to such idiocy is to make fun of it, and others have done a fine job of that already.

Allah Pundit has a couple of great banners prepared to help get the word out. (each image links to allah)

    

Protein Wisdom has a pretty funny entry on it.

And Spoons expresses some very appropriate outrage in an RCOB moment.

As a side note, does anyone think that Reuters is trying to be cutesy by using the term "plug?"

Slant/Point pointed me to sharp as a marble, where you can get your own, actual, Gore-inspired digital brownshirt.

It seems that there are other competing images out there as well, for example this one at Jessica's Well.

And it's not just images: Avoca Pundit has uncovered the digital brown shirt underground.

In case you have no idea what a "digital brown shirt" is, it's a (what else?) Nazi Reference of the type that the left is so fond of making when attacking their political opponents. Is it just me or does this constant likening of anything that they disagree with to Hitler trivialize the unspeakable horror and very real suffering of the Second World War?

So Bush is Hitler. Anyone who disagrees with the Dummocrats is a Nazi. Anyone who is sick and tired of hearing their constant whining and tells them to shut the hell up is a Fascist. Now bloggers that have dissenting opinions are "Brown Shirts."

You know, when the Allies liberated my grandmother from a Nazi death camp she weighed about 80 pounds. She spent the next 5 years living in a relocation camp waiting for the opportunity to come to America. In case you don't know what a relocation camp looks like, think of a dirt-filled shanty town with sheets as doors and communal showers, only even worse. Believe me, I've seen pictures. I've also seen pictures that she'd taken in the aftermath of the war - piles of bones, piles of bodies, piles of teeth, 20 feet high. She keeps the picture book in a plastic bag buried in her backyard. I guess that she doesn't want to get rid of it, but she also doesnt want to keep it. Does that make any sense to you?

It doesn't make much sense to me; but then I know that I can't fully understand it, because I didn't live through it. I wasn't taken from my parents when I was in 7th grade, never to see them again. The last image that I have of my mother isn't a Nazi guard kicking her in the face when she tried to get close enough to the flatbed truck to say goodbye to me. I didn't endure years of hell on earth through which I was starved and beaten, forced to work like a slave, and had god-only-knows-what-else happen to me.

And you know, despite all of that happening to her, my grandmother stayed there after the War, by choice, for five long years, living in abject poverty, waiting for a chance to come to America. She recently told me that she and my grandfather could have gone to Canada two years earlier, but they held out for America. She said that it didn't matter how long it took, they would have waited forever, just to come to America.

I am not sure exactly what it was that made the "idea" of America worth that extra two years of suffering, but I think that I have an inkling.

One thing that I am sure of, though, is that it wasn't because she wanted to hear useless idiots like Al Gore and Michael Moore compare the situation in the most free, most prosperous, most opportunity-laden nation in the history of the world to that of Nazi Germany, circa 1945.

Too often, conservatives are reviled for not caring about the poor. Liberals point to budget cuts to try to prove that conservatives don't care about the poor, the old, or the children. In their minds, to prove you care about these people, you must support the government spending money on them. In a recent press release, John Kerry says:

We can and must do better. We must raise the minimum wage to ensure that people working hard and playing by the rules can earn enough to put food on the table. We must use existing government programs more effectively in order to end hunger first among children and seniors. We must form real partnerships between the government and community-based nonprofit groups to help feed more people and improve local nutrition. And across the board, we must have create economic policies that give low-income families hope and opportunity.

Kerry, like a typical liberal, believes government is the solution to all of life's problems. But, the thing is, conservatives don't hate the downtrodden. They just don't believe government programs are the most effective way to help them.

Personally, I've always believed that the flip side of voting for small government is that you're obliged to give generously when you're able. Conservatives believe government isn't the solution, not that there are not problems. We just believe individuals and local groups are better at solving those problems.

Americans do give a lot. Just yesterday, the Goodman brothers jewelers in Madison, WI gave $2 million towards a city pool. The Goodmans have always been generous members of the community:

The brothers have already provided help to more than 60 groups, including orchestras, hospitals, churches, arts groups and more, including the 154-acre Irwin A. and Robert D. Goodman Jewish Community Campus with aquatic center in the town of Verona and UW-Madison's Goodman Diamond softball stadium.

I don't know whether the Goodmans are liberals or conservatives (but, they're from Madison so I suspect they're liberals), but in any case, the Goodmans have the power to give their money to whatever causes they believe in. They're not worrying about their tax dollars supporting some inefficient or nonsensical program.

Kerry wants to create and fund elaborate government programs. He wants the government to decide who gets what. Bush wants to create an economy that makes it possible for Americans to be successful and to have the ability to decide for themselves what charitable causes they want to support. What system do you think will work better?

This post on cablenewser.com links picks up on a Washington Post story about CNN losing audio for 20 mins yesterday. The Post reports:

After CNN lost audio, its audience plunged by nearly 300,000 viewers from the 420,000 who had been watching between 12:30 and 1 p.m., when the network was still offering the convenience of sound.

Still, from 1 to 1:30 p.m., CNN averaged 121,000 viewers; simultaneously, 139,000 people watched "MSNBC Live" with anchors Alison Stewart, Laurie Jennings and Sam Shane talking about former president Bill Clinton's autobiography, the South Korean then held hostage in Iraq, and the murder trial of Scott Peterson.

Ok, so CNN lost 300,000 viewers, and this article points out that they *still* had about as many viewers as MSNBC. Very cute. But is the following “lesson learned” being cited in jest or in seriousness?”

Among the lessons learned: It appears 18-to-34-year-olds would rather watch CNN without sound than MSNBC with sound. In that Monday half-hour, about twice as many viewers in that demographic were tuned to CNN as MSNBC.

Is this really the lesson learned? Why isn’t the "lesson learned" instead “it appears that about 100,000 CNN viewers aren’t even actually ‘viewing’ CNN - instead they flip on CNN then leave for the day.” I know that CNN is on all day long at airports, restaurants, lobbies, etc. Is anyone actually watching?

I ask the question in all seriousness, especially in light of the recent newspaper circulation scandals at Newsday and the Chicago Sun Times. In case you haven’t been keeping up, it seems that both of those papers, and possibly others, have been grossly over-reporting (e.g. lying about) their circulation numbers. If CNN loses sound and 100,000 people still watch, isn’t that the same thing as a newspaper putting out a blank edition and still claiming 100,000 “readers?”

I realize that there are differences in the reporting mechanisms, and that CNN at least still had video, but really, it begs the question. Philosophers contemplate the age old question, "If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Similarly, if CNN falls silent on 100,000 TV sets, and no one bothers to change the channel, is anyone really "watching?"

If I were an advertiser, I'd sure like to know.

The headline in today's Capital Times (Madison, WI) says it all "Peace activists find no peace in visit to Iraq." Could this be, perhaps, because there's a war going on?

Marion Stuenkel, of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, comes back from Iraq full of sound and fury. She says Fallujah was her "My Lai":

We were committing a massacre in Fallujah," she said.

"The soldiers are going to come home after doing terrible things. They are going to come home to us broken."

If we were killing terrorists in Fallujah, is that a bad thing? At all? In any case, the activists go on to accuse American soldiers of looting and, worst of all, of causing Iraqi children to not be able to sleep at night! They offer no proof other than their hysterical rantings and allegations that the media is lying. I'll agree with them about the media, but I sincerely doubt they're making the situation in Iraq look better than it is.

Here's the worst part of the article:

During a question-and-answer session, a young man in the crowd asked what to make of the idea that America is exporting democracy to Iraq.

Activist and Vietnam veteran Will Williams, sitting in the back of the room, piped up.

America is governed by powerful corporations that pull the strings of its politicians, he said. Before the war in Iraq there were protests around the world, and the people were ignored.

"If democracy in Iraq is anything like it is here, they are better off without it."

"The people" were ignored before the war? Uh, no. Most Americans agreed with the decision to go to war. Just because you disagree with the majority doesn't mean that democracy doesn't work. It means you were overruled. Plus, the "around the world" part of that sentence doesn't cut it. France & Germany don't control our foreign policy. Thank God.

Like most leftists, these activists only see democracy as working when they get their own way. They deny that any individual can honestly disagree with them. When somone does disagree, they're dismissed as a tool of "corporations". They remind me of nothing so much as whiny children denied their demands. So, instead, they stamp their feet and hold their breaths until they get their way.

These people hate America. They think America is an awful place. So awful that, in fact, they believe an Iraq abandoned to terrorists, mullahs and Saddam's henchmen would be a better place than America. Seriously.

What's almost funny is that if, God forbid, one of them would have been captured by terrorists, the terrorists would still hate them. The terrorists would still kill them. And, the Americans they so despise would still be filled with anger. The Americans they despise would want to avenge their deaths. The Americans they despise are the ones who will make Iraq free enough that someday, Iraqi leftists can follow in their footsteps.

The Associated Press has taken to calling members of al-Qaida in Iraq and Saudi Arabia "militants". For example, today "Militants focused their anger on Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his government" or "Saudis offer Militants One Month-Amnesty". What's the big deal. Well, here are the definitions of "militant" and "terrorist" (actually "terrorism" too). Read them and try to tell me that the AP isn't making a statement with their naming convention. Tell me that "terrorist" isn't the far more accurate label.

Militant: A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

Terrorist: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I think Americans are afraid to love their country. For every man, woman or child that proudly waves a flag or proclaims a love of country, it seems there's another man, woman or child sneering behind their back at what a simpleton they are or, worse yet, attacking them for being a jingoistic nazi.

But lately, some Americans aren't afraid. Some, like John Hawkins today at Right Wing News are proud to shout out the virtues of this great nation:

Before you rip America...

-- Name a country that has freed more people from tyranny?
-- Name another country that powers the world economy the way we do?
-- Name another country that has had our level of military superiority over the rest of the world that hasn't used it for conquest?
-- Remember which nation is standing between the Chinese and Taiwan?
-- Remember which nation is standing between South & North Korea?
-- Remember who's sticking with Israel against its genocidal neighbors?
-- Ask yourself which nation is the heart and soul of NATO?
-- Ask yourself which nation has done more to fight Communism or terrorism?
-- Name a country that has done more for the world than the United States?

The truth is that the United States has done more make this planet a better place to live than any other 10 nations combined.

Damn straight. But when you say things like that today, you have to be prepared for the inevitable backlash:

But, that doesn't faze the sort of people who seem to believe that freedom & democracy is something civilized people talk about over caviar with Kofi Annan, not something you're supposed to risk blood and treasure for. America doesn't look at it like that and that's why they call us "cowboys".

Well let me tell ya something pard, not only are we cowboys, we're every character Clint Eastwood & John Wayne ever played all rolled into one. While "shopkeeper nations" talk the talk, but hide like rabbits when there's trouble, our country, and our "posse", nations like Britain, Australia, Italy, & Poland, are out walking the walk.

These days, proclamations like this are few and far between, even in times of war. As Michelle Malkin points out:

Once upon a time, there were people in Hollywood who loved America. And when America came under attack from enemies abroad, these actors, producers, screenwriters and directors put aside their partisan differences and created movies that -- unlike Michael Moore's new schlockumentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- made all moviegoers proud to be Americans.

Too often, our citizens learn to hate America. Teachers are all too quick to point out the flaws and mistakes of America and are almost embarrassed to talk about the millions of good things we've done in our history. Our movies are afraid to show our enemies as evil and liberal democracy as good.

Even our Olympians are warned against displaying patriotism. Hopefully, younger Americans, like Elizabeth Cochran, raised in the age of Reagan, will help turn the tide. We're proud to be Americans. We shouldn't be ashamed of our country and we shouldn't let our enemies (within and abroad) let us think we're somehow to blame for their barbarity.

She's young. She's a fashion designer. She lives in New York City. And, she's a conservative. What??

Talon News reports on Elizabeth Cochran, who has launched a line of pro-Bush products, just in time for the Republican National Convention.

"Young people need to know that it's 'cool' to vote and that they do count -- but most of all, that it's even 'cooler' to vote Republican," Cochran explained.

Cochran told Talon News that she regularly meets Bush supporters who approach her, identify themselves as fellow Republicans, and assure her "We're out here. Don't worry," as she wears her own clothing line around the city.

She's right. Conservatives are out there. They just don't whine and make noise like the liberals do. Cochran sells her clothes on the web at iheartgwb.com.

I’ve always felt like a Wisconsite first and an American second. I love my state and take great pride in it. On the morning of September 11, however, I felt like an American. Before then, I couldn't have cared less about the people of New York City or Washington, DC. I mean, obviously, I didn’t hate them and want them to die, but I felt no more connection to them than I would have to someone in Dublin or Toronto or Madrid.

September 11th changed that. America was attacked. The people in the Pentagon or in the World Trade Center or on those planes died simply because they were Americans (or working in America). They died because of our way of life. How could I not feel like, even though I was lucky enough to be out of danger that day, this was an attack on me, everything I care about and everyone I love.

I wasn’t the only one. For an all-too brief moment, America was united. Now however, the events of 9/11 are being used to divide America up into partisan little blame boxes. The WSJ’s Opinion Journal features a column today by Debra Burlingame. Her brother was the pilot of Flight 77. She eloquently expresses the same fears about the 9/11 Commission and the way their findings are being reported. It’s worth reposting some of it here:

As the 9/11 Commission puts the finishing touches on its findings and recommendations due next month, I am steeling myself for the media's breathless rush to publish all the shocking revelations that show how incompetent we are as a nation. While I am skeptical of the commission's stated determination to keep politics out of its final report, I have no doubt whatsoever that with the presidential election just months away, those editors and producers who package the news will find it impossible not to do what they've done since Watergate changed the face of journalism: find a smoking gun, present it to the American people, and congratulate the effort as "what distinguishes us from our enemies." Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and his murdering tribe will sit back with satisfaction as they watch the infidels tear themselves apart.

Yes, let's have a debate, but let's stop this self-battering, which is weakening us in the only place where al Qaeda can never penetrate, the core of who we are. Instead of pulling together at such a crucial time to prevent even more lethal attacks in the future, we are displaying a divisiveness that energizes our adversaries. They know us better than we know them. Their strategic kills in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and beyond are aimed at breaking our resolve to root them out at home and hunt them down abroad before they can do us more harm. We will not win every battle, but we will only prevail in the war on terror when we unite, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans.

Amen.

"We shall make no distinction between those who commit these terrorist acts and those who televise them."

Let’s make something clear: these terrorist whack jobs that keep murdering "infidels" in the name of “Allah” are playing to the television cameras. They want a platform to spread their message of hate, and these arab "news" stations are giving them that platform by televising their statements, demands, and cold-blooded murders. It’s high time that we do something to stop these killings. It’s high time that we take away their soapbox.

"We shall make no distinction between those who commit these terrorist acts and those who televise them."

By not acting now, here is the message that we’re sending: if you do something shocking enough, something crazy enough, we’ll put you on TV. We’ll help you get your message out. By not acting now, we’re aiding and abetting terrorists everywhere. By not acting now, our hands are stained red with blood.

What is wrong with knocking Al-Jazeera or Al-Arabiya off of the air? Critics will say that "free speech" and "free press" principles forbid such action. Why? This has nothing to do with free speech. This has nothing to do with the so-called fourth estate. This is about taking the tools of terror away from those who abuse them. Adopting a media policy that prohibits coverage of events like these is no different than developing a policy that prohibits bludgeoning another to death with a television camera.

It is indeed a sad and telling time when we allow these people to use western technology, technology that is capable of beaming their message around the world to a billion eager viewers in under a second, to rage against the west and preach their backwards system that wouldn’t allow for enough "progress" to build a tin-can treehouse telephone.

We shall make no distinction between those who commit these terrorist acts and those who televise them.

President Bush, it’s time to get the message out.

Tim Groseclose, a Professor at UCLA and Stanford and Jeff Milyo at the University of Chicago set out to statistical show whether or not major media outlets exhibited a conservative or liberal bias.

Their method was to count the number of times members of Congress cited various think tanks as "as if it were a disinterested expert on the topic at hand" and then compare it to the number of times major media cited these think tanks.

To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score (a standard measure of political liberalism) for each media outlet.

As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign to the New York Times.

So what were the results?

Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present both sides of the issue. Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist's own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.

That's pretty damning stuff. You can see all the tables in the report, but I think it's most interesting to compare the estimated ADAs of various news outlets with specific members of Congress we all know (and er, love). Note, the ADA is based on 2002 voting and the higher the score, the more liberal.

e-Claire delivers a world class fisking of a whiny Michael Moore letter that ended up on al-Jazeerah. My favorite part:

A Republican PR firm has formed a fake grassroots front group called "Move America Forward" to harass and intimidate theater owners into not showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Ya mean a firm owned and/or employed by a Republican? Or is the firm a branch of the GOP? Fake 100,000 members?

...And they are spending a ton of money this week to threaten movie theaters who even think about showing our movie.

Threats consisting of "I won't spend money in your theater to see this pile of crap lies." O vile and vicious right, insisting on veracity! [and they can read your thoughts, too.]

The post goes on to point out the hypocrisy of men like Moore. When they disagree with someone, they're expressing a dissenting opinion. When we disagree with them, it's censorship.

Exactly.

According to Volokh, John F'n Kerry, as quoted in Time Magazine, Feb. 9 2004:

Question: What kind of Democrat are you?

Answer: A thinking Democrat.

We're not surprised that Hanoi John publicly demonstrated what we here at dummocrats.com have been saying for years: that Dummocrats, by and large, do so little thinking that when one actually does let the hamster take a few laps he feels obliged to immediately point it out, presumably to distinguish himself from the rest of the dolts in his party.

Don't hurt yourself, John.

Those Waffles they are a-burnin'...

A great blurb on Kerry's campaign:

John Kerry is spending money almost as fast as he's collecting it, leaving him with less than half the cash reserves of President Bush and under pressure to continue a record-breaking fund-raising spree.

I, for one, have complete confidence in Kerry's ability to raise money and spend it. After all, he's been a tax and Spendator for the past 20 years!

1. Where are the "peaceful" Muslims denouncing the now almost commonplace beheadings of Westerners, Christians, Jews, etc.? Where are the moderate clerics? Are they afraid of the extremists or do they just not really exist?

2. The Bush administration can't get a fair shake in the media, whether it's on what's really in the 9/11 Commission's report or on the economy. Bloggers galore have posted on the studies revealing (surprise!) the media's own liberal leanings, but how much blame should the administration itself take? They're not getting their message out. I wish that Ari Fleischer was back. Sure, Bush was in a post 9/11 honeymoon period, but his press coverage was far more favorable in the Fleischer era. I think he was a popular guy and, ideology aside, the press will write more flattering stories if they're dealing with someone they like. It's human nature.

Will the madness never end?

Today, out of San Francisco:S.F.proposes limited non-citizen voting

A plan is being considered that allow non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to vote in San Francisco school board elections.

In the past month or two, we've seen stories out of California about drives to let 17 year olds vote in primary elections and to let FOURTEEN YEAR OLDS vote.

Californians: What in the holy hell is wrong with you people? Hey, I have an idea, why don't we start letting the Chinese vote in our elections. You know, like actual inhabitants of China. After all, California's economy is so tied in to the world's that I'm sure China has a valid interest in the outcome of the election, right? While we're at it, let's let our dogs vote, too. At least in city elections. I mean, after all, who is more affected by leash laws than dogs? They should have a bigger say. And don't even get me started on the Redwoods! Surely they are a suspect class traditionally discriminated against. REDWOOD SUFFRAGE, THE TIME IS NOW!

Anyone get the reference? Anyway, we found this on A Small Victory and want to play too.

1. Where were you when you heard that Ronald Reagan died?

fedora: at my sister's house watching the races leading up to the Belmont Stakes.
hat: driving a friend to BWI. i had heard the announcement that his health was failing earlier in the day; in fact, i believe that i posted about it. having grown tired of hearing the same 3 soundclips repeated again and again on the radio, i turned the radio off and spent the drive back to washington in silence, contemplating Ronald Reagan and all that he did for America. it's hard to explain, but i remember being overwhelmed with feelings of gratitude, sadness, and awe at all that he had accomplished. also, i felt and still do feel somewhat lost knowing that he's gone.

2. Where were you on September 11, 2001?

fedora: getting ready for work. i didn't have my contacts in so at first all i could see was a building with smoke coming out. my first thought was that maybe the pope died and they had elected a new one (yes, i realize that's a strange thought, i can't explain it). then, i saw the second plane hit. my drive to work was about 45 minutes so in that time the pentagon was hit and at least one tower fell.
hat: getting up, getting ready to go to work. the radio dj first reported that a "small plane" had hit the WTC. like a cessna or something. that was the
report as it came over the wire. eventually, he said: look at that smoke. that can't be from a small plane. seriously, all of you at out there, if you're near a tv, turn it on. i stayed home from work that day.

3. Where were you when you heard that Princess Diana died?

fedora: at my parent's house for Labor Day weekend.
hat: no idea.

4. Do you remember where you were when you heard Kurt Cobain had died?

fedora: no idea. all i remember about is courtney love reading his suicide note to crowds.
hat: no idea?

5. Take one for The Gipper: What's your favorite flavor of jelly bean?

fedora: grape
hat: apple

6. Where were you when Magic Johnson announced he was retiring from the NBA due to AIDS?

fedora: no idea.
hat: no idea.

7. Where were you when Reagan was shot?

fedora: don't remember, i was still pretty young.
hat: i was 4.

8.Where were you when the Challenger exploded?

fedora: at school. the nuns told us about it but at first they wouldn't let us see it. i remember being stunned to actually see it explode. i had thought it'd
be way up in space.
hat: at school. they called us all into the library and we watched. they made a big school function out of it. i think that was an appropriate way to handle it.

9. Where were you when the 0J verdict was announced?

fedora: at work. everything stopped. i was shocked and then angered. Angry at O.J. and angry at the people who were cheering for him.
hat: no idea.

10. What, no Rodney King? Okay, we're going to add it.

fedora: in the lounge in my dorm writing a political philosophy paper.
hat: no idea

Reprinted, in full, from Democrats for Bush/Cheney 2004, a seemingly dead blog with no "permalink" feature:

Friday, March 26, 2004
The Lost party of 2004

Can you imagine a Democrat saying these words today?

Slowly but surely we are weaving a world fabric of international security and growing prosperity. We are aided by all who wish to live in freedom from fear--even by those who live today in fear under their own governments. We are aided by all who want relief from lies and propaganda--those who desire truth and sincerity. We are aided by all who desire self-government and a voice in deciding their own affairs. We are aided by all who long for economic security--for the security and abundance that men in free societies can enjoy. We are aided by all who desire freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to live their own lives for useful ends. Our allies are the millions who hunger and thirst after righteousness. In due time, as our stability becomes manifest, as more and more nations come to know the benefits of democracy and to participate in growing abundance, I believe that those countries which now oppose us will abandon their delusions and join with the free nations of the world in a just settlement of international differences. Events have brought our American democracy to new influence and new responsibilities. They will test our courage, our devotion to duty, and our concept of liberty. But I say to all men, what we have achieved in liberty, we will surpass in greater liberty. Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty, we will advance toward a world where man's freedom is secure. To that end we will devote our strength, our resources, and our firmness of resolve. With God's help, the future of mankind will be assured in a world of justice, harmony, and peace.

Or these words?

We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: 'except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'

The first excerpt is from Harry Truman, during his 1948 Inaugural Address. The second, from John F. Kennedy, given in Dallas the day of his death.
Both timeless speeches that are relevent to America's philosophies. Both ideas that have been abandoned by our current party leaders.

Last week, the NY Times ran an editorial comparing and contrasting the two "aristocratic classes" of Americans: the "professionals" (journalists, lawyers, artists, professors) and "managers" (bankers, builders). The professionals were knowledgable Democrats while managers were money grubbing Republicans.

I couldn't articulate why the article made me angry, but e-Claire certainly can. Hop on over there for the entire post. It's long but it's worth it. It's a great illustration of the subtle digs and loaded words the so-called "moderate" media uses.

Terrorists have been using the prison abuse scandal to justify beheading Nick Berg and Paul Johnson, so what's their excuse for threatening to do the same to this South Korean?

These monsters are simply testing nation after nation fighting against them. Who will cower in the face of terrorism (Spain) and who won't. So far we haven't. I hope the South Koreans don't. I hope every single of these monsters get a nasty surprise soon.

What is Madison Newspapers trying to say here?
Is Al-Qaida playing at Summerfest?
Or is the head of Al-Qaida selling real estate for Century 21 now?

The Washington Post reports: Special checks on Muslims at border to end

What I find most disturbing about this article are the following six words: "senior homeland security official Asa Hutchinson"

WHAT? Asa Hutchinson is a "senior homeland security advisor?"

I suppose that he did such a bang up job at keeping illegal things out of the country in his tenure as Director of DEA. .... Yeah, that guy down the street from me isn't selling REAL drugs...

Maybe it's just me, but I'd think that if I were to ask for advice on how to effectively secure the borders, I'd ask someone who's actually, oh, i don't know, secured the borders?

What's next, are we going to get Michael Jackson as an advisor on children's issues to the Department of Health and Human Services?

Right Voices reports: Economic boom? They better blame it on GW - - It's all his fault.

Add yet another story about how the economy is doing great to the pile. (as we reported here and in countless Daily Page links.)

How long until this is front page news? How long until Dan Rather comes on TV and says "The Economy continues to soar!" ? Lord knows he had no qualms about trumpeting the alleged "failure" of the Bush tax cuts every night.

Daniel Drezner has an interesting article about restocking the Cabinet.

While his post focuses on Defense, State, etc., it also brings up some interesting points about Cheney. Should Cheney be on the ticket? Honestly, I don't think so. Cheney's speech at Reagan's state funeral was the first time I could remember seeing postive coverage of him. That's not enough. Plus, Cheney won't be running for President in 2008. I worry a lot about a rift in the party then. Having a strong sitting VP as a candidate would go a long ways toward preventing that.

So, if not Cheney, who?

1. John McCain. He's the obvious choice. With McCain on the ticket, Bush/McCain would win in a landslide of Mondalian proportions. We can go on and on about how Bush & McCain hate each other, but Bush wants to win and McCain can give him that and for McCain being the VP for the next 4 years means he's got at least a 75% chance of being the next President. It'd for hard to give that up for a feud.

2. Rudy Guiliani. A popular figure that would again probably guarantee a Bush win. However, I can't see Rudy satisfied as a VP. I think he'd serve the Party better defeating Hillary in two years or in a Cabinet position.

3. Tommy Thompson. Don't laugh. Tommy has some serious positives: he would bring Wisconsin firmly in the fold (and in a close race, Wisconsin will be absolutely pivotal), while Cheney is defense-oriented, Thompson's appeal is on domestic issues. People still care about those issues and it'd be a message that Bush is, for better or worse, not just about the War on Terror. On the downside, Thompson wants to get the hell out of DC and back to Wisconsin (who wouldn't?). I suspect the VP position would make him stay, but it's not going to happen.

4. Condi Rice. A black woman on a Republican ticket? But, but, but, those Republicans are all women-hating racists!?!? Yes, her star has seriously fallen, but she could be rescued on the ticket. With her, though, it's less about what she can give Bush and more about positioning her as a top candidate for 2008.

Anyone have more candidates? I'm sure I'm missing 4 or 5 obvious choices.

Does this give anyone ideas for a great giveaway at the DNC?

From the CRNC June Update email newsletter:

When John Kerry went to Ohio to campaign among local union workers, America's favorite dolphin Flipper joined him. Although Kerry didn't really invite Flipper to the event, the Ohio College Republicans did by broadcasting the classic Flipper theme song with two large speaker systems from a neighborhood Bush supporter's lawn. The CRs drew ample attention to the Kerry-Flipper relationship, grabbing much of the attention of the 2,000 Kerry attendees. If those in attendance didn't know that Kerry's policies and Flipper's name have a lot in common, they do now!

Patio Pundit writes on the rise and fall of Howard Dean:

When you have ten people in the race and you can attract 15-20% hardcore support that's enough for first place. Once you become the front-runner and the race starts to weed out candidates you have to build on top of your core support. The trouble for Dean is that the same qualities that attracted his core supporters frightened most everyone else. Making the transition to front-runner is difficult for any politican, but it that much harder for one whose support base is very different from the rest of the electorate.

So what could Dean have done?

The only way Dean could have won the nomination would have been for him to be two different people. He would have needed to run the exact same campaign that he did up until the primaries were about to begin, and them morph into a normal politician a month before Iowa.

I think this is especially funny in light of the ongoing jokes about the constant Kerry flip flopping and waffling. But, Kerry probably does have the right strategy, the strategy Dean didn't use. As Right Wing News so eloquently put it: if John Kerry told people the truth, he'd lose the election.

Guess what? The Job Market in Northern Virginia is Hot

"Everybody is now finding the labor market very competitive, very much like it was in 1998," says Steven Fuller, a public policy professor at George Mason University who studies the area's economy.

Fuller says all sectors of the economy are looking for employees.

Well knock me over with a feather! To hear the media tell it, you'd think half of the friggin country was livin' in a box. Be sure to see joefish on this one, too. Shhhh! ...Dirty Little Secret - The Economy is Doing Great

I support George W. Bush for President. I'll vote for George W. Bush. I'll even encourage others to vote for him (or else work to get them drunk enough so they'll forget to vote for the other guy).

However, he's not perfect. He's far from it. The American Institute runs a piece today that shows how Bush is certainly not a budget-cutter in the mold of Reagan.

Ronald Reagan sought--and won--more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term. George W. Bush, in contrast, increased real nondefense spending by at least 25.3 percent during his first term.

And, lest we forget, Bush has a Republican Congress behind him. But still, his veto sword has remained sheathed. Why is this? I think the answer is that, sadly, fiscal conservatives have almost disappeared from the political landscape.

Andrew Sullivan asks, in light of Bush's spending record, "Why are fiscal conservatives still supporting him?" I think the obvious answer is that the alternative is even worse. Given the option between a tax & spender and just a spender, we'll take the spender.

But once again this makes me worry about the future of the Republican Party. The fiscal conservatives and those with a libertarian bent are being pushed to the fringes by the social conservatives. All of this points to a rough, bitter struggle in the 2008 primary season. It's going to get ugly out there.

Sad but true, from briscoe.org

Right-Thinking reports that a conservative group has prepared an ad comparing and contrasting Bush and Kerry with Ronald Reagan.

It's about time. I realize the Bush camp was under tremendous pressure to not "politicize" the death of Ronald Reagan, but the parallels between the War on Terror and the Cold War are difficult to ignore.

In the 80s, Reagan made the then revolutionary decision to not live "peacefully" with communisim. Communism was evil and it was in our long term interests to defeat it. That flew in the face of a decade worth of detente. In hindsight, Reagan was oh so right, but back in 1980 some people were seriously worried that his election would lead to a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets.

After 9/11, Bush made the decision that we couldn't afford to "peacefully" live with Islamofascist monsters. And even now, with 9/11 still fresh in our minds, some people disagree with that decision. Some people like John Kerry. Back in the 70s and 80s he wasn't willing to confront communism. Now, he's not willing to confront terrorism. He is, however, willing to put his head in the sand and pretend the problems we face don't exist.

Ronald Reagan was an optimist, but not in the dolty way the media has tried to portray it. Instead, he was optimistic because he believed in the greatness of America. However, he was also a realist. He saw the reality of the evil of the Soviet Union. His combination of optimism and realism was just what America needed.

Kerry is his opposite. He's both pessimistic and unrealistic. Not only does he believe America is no longer capable of great things, I think he also thinks great things are no longer required of America.