I’m amazed that even Dana Milbank could write tripe like this with a straight face:

Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who like Shrum favors hardball politics, protested that “we Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome.” Lehane said the NARAL ad “was great, and exactly the type of offensive that breaks through in the modern age.”

Chris Lehane plays by Marquis of Queensberry Rules? That would be hilarious if it weren’t so nuts. I mean, not even the moonbats at Kos can take that one seriously.

You know, amidst all of the calls to pull the ad, maybe I’ve missed them, but I haven’t seen any that did so because it was scurrilous and false–the line generally seems to be that it should be pulled because it was counterproductive. In other words, lying is all right, if it helps the cause. It reminds me of the “Palestinians” who have disavowed murdering Israelis, not because there’s anything wrong with it, but because it was failing as a tactic.

In my puerile, naive youth, I cast my first presidential vote for Jimmy Carter, an act that shames me to this day. I’m a little sad that so many continue to foolishly worship him, a man who never met a dictator (or, apparently, America-hating polemicist) he didn’t like, in light of things like this:

As a candidate, Carter promised only that as president he would never tell a lie, thereby leaving himself a loophole for his post-presidential career as a fabulist.

I mean, most of them think money and greed are evil, anyway, right?

Amidst the financial scandal at Air America (which (not so) shockingly, seems to get little attention from the MSM), they seem to be having trouble meeting their payroll.

This (though off topic) is a little irritating, though:

Written by company Vice President/Finance Sinohe Terrero (this article confims Terrero’s corporate role), it inferred the payroll processing company was to blame…

No. It implied. The author of the above inferred. This confusion between the two words, apparently suffered by many, is one of my pet peeves (like the inability to distinguish between “loose” and “lose”).

Remember all the Bush haters who promisedthreatened to move to Canada if he won? Well, it turns out that American emigration to Canada actually dropped after the election.

Maybe it’s because they heard the (no doubt terrible) news that the Canadian government may be on the verge of giving up its monopoly on health care.

Ah, well. They’ll alway have Paris. Not that they followed through on that promisethreat, either.

Andrew Stuttaford points out an example of what he mistakenly views as bad government–removing a law that requires legislators to show up to work in order to get paid. But actually, considering how much damage and thievery they engage in when they do show up, I actually like my proposal better.

Is John Kerry really the best representative of the Democrat Party to be demanding that someone release documents?

It’s political acumen like this that accounts for his spectacular performance in last fall’s election.

The Patriot Act was renewed yesterday, this time without the sunset provision, despite a valiant attempt to keep it, from people like Dana Rohrabacher. He made the argument for it eloquently:

Rohrabacher said he supported the Patriot Act in 2001 because of the threat faced by the country after 9/11, but only under the belief that once the emergency was over, “the government would again return to a level consistent with a free society.”

“We should not be required to live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws that were passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard once the crisis has passed,” he said, drawing applause from his colleagues.

Exactly. And of course, this principle applies to much more than the Patriot Act. Almost every piece of legislation is put forth to address a “crisis” of one type or another–crises that often pass (if indeed they even ever existed at all), yet the legislation stays on the books forever absent explicit repeal. Sadly, it wasn’t to be, though:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

He also said 13 of the 16 provisions up for renewal have not been controversial, including one allowing increased communication between the FBI and CIA.

“Why sunset legislation where there’s been no actual record of abuse and vigorous oversight?” Sensenbrenner said.

This seems like a weak argument to me. The fact that it hasn’t been abused in the past doesn’t mean that it can’t be in the future. Anyway, I think that every federal law should have a sunset provision.

Charmaine Yoest has the story.

Now this is the kind of reparations initiative that I can get fully behind.

At risk of violating Glenn’s copyright, I can only say, heh.

John Tierney has another tale of insanity in our War on (Some) Drugs. This is cruel punishment. Sadly, it’s no longer that unusual.