SOME CONJECTURE ON 2008: THE LEFT, THE RIGHT AND THE THIRD WAY

Joe Klein of TIME asks:

How is it possible—with 2,500 U.S. solders dead, no discernible progress on the ground and a solid majority of the public now agreeing that the war in Iraq was a mistake—for the Democrats to seem so bollixed about the war and for the President to seem so confident? A good part of it is flawed strategy. Democrats keep hoping that the elections can be framed as a referendum on the Bush policy, and Republicans keep reminding the public that elections are a choice, not a referendum.

This is obviously TRUE WHEN THE ELECTION IS PRESENTED AS A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO CANDIDATES - between Bush and the GOP or Murtha/Sheehan/Kos and the doves of the Dem-Left - the GOP will win EVERY SINGLE TIME, in spite of spending too much and having a weak immigration policy.

But NOW - because of their low popularity - Bush and the GOP cannot win if a third party enters the contest. And this might be VERY likely. WHY?! Well, I see something else at play, a change which may signal something deeper: I believe the fact that the GOP have gained in the last two elections ('02 & '04) because what the elections were reduced to TWO CHOICES. The electorate is VERY diverse: there are liberal hawks and conservative doves - and each io these grous have diverse opinons on stem cells and gay marriage etc..

And as the electorate splits, elections can be WON by politicians and political parties which do NOT have the support of a majority, and which poll poorly popular overall -- as long as they come out number one. This is SORT OF LIKE IN THE UK'S SYSTEM - (OR ANY PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, PERHAPS), WHERE LABOR CAN SWEEP INTO POWER DESPITE ONLY GETTING 35% of the vote.

Bush and the GOP have pretty low numbers overall - especially considering that the economy is great and the GWOT is going well (not the MSM is reporting it!). But Bush and the GOP have low numbers MOSTLY because of leakage of conservative support (and partly because of leakage of the support of independents).

These disgruntled right-of-center voters are NOT likely to EVER vote for the doves of the Dem Left - (who want to cut & run overseas and raise taxes at home).

These disgruntled voters are more likely to (a) stay home, or (b) vote for a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE - even one who runs in a single issue, or (c) hold their noses and vote GOP. If the GOP can paint the Dems as weak on national defense and risky on traditional culture than most of the disgruntled voters will vote GOP, and the GOP will win a two=party contest.

But, I think (b) might actually be the most likely eventuality because since 1980 we've had 7 presidential elections and 4 have had third party candidates who effected the outcome (Anderson, Perot twice, and Nader in 2000).

The scenario for 2008 might be one of these: If McCain wins the GOP nomination in 2008, I'd expect a third party run for the right (an anti-immigration/anti-stem-cell/anti-campaign-finance-reform candidate) - which would lead to the election the Dem dove. If McCain loses the nomination then he, or another Left-of-center hawk, will probably run as a third party candidate and thereby elect the Dem dove.

I think some type of a repeat of the Perot/Clinton/Bush contest may very well be the norm of the next four elections. There might be a 3rd party made up of anti-immigration Righties or of Daily Kos/cut&run Lefties. And if this happens then the USA will elect Leftists as president. (As Spain and Italy have done, recently ). This will be a DISASTER for our side in the GWOT.

I also think this scenario is most likely because I don't sense that there's a candidate in either party who can unite either party - and attract independents.

Well, maybe Mitt Romney can unite the GOP: (he's a conservative and a hawk but still managed to pass some sort of universal healthcare coverage in liberal Massachusetts).

But - as far as the Dems are concerned, I think that the Kos Krowd is so loony that they're incapable of settling on a Dem moderate in order to win, and therefore will end up supporting a third party candidate; (Webb in VA is NOT a true centrist because he is a DOVE).

A third party candidate from the Left could make the Dems appear as if they occupied the CENTER if the Dems nominate DLC centrists and therefore they might win (by getting the independents and the disgruntled GOP voters - as Clinton did). I think that the only two candidates who could do this for the Dems are Warner and Richardson - or a Warner-Richardson ticket. Or Bayh. A Dem ticket made up of any two of these three would easily win a three way race and be tough to beat in a two-way race. Tyhe Kos Krowd is not likely to allow this to happen.

WILD CARD: Condi. "Romney and Rice" wins - no matter what the rest of the field looks like.

THE DECEPTION OF A THIRD PARTY

Daniel Greenfield tells how the Israeli left is technically fooling people with the aid of a phony third party:

The left has done well with fake third parties. It’s a testament to its basic unpopularity that it needs to trot out a fake third party.

The fake third party this time is Kulanu, a media manufactured party headed by Moshe Kahlon a hack from Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party who is looking for his 15 minutes of fame and the goodies that come with it. Technically Kulanu is actually a fake fourth party considering that its role was filled last time around by Yesh Atid, which is still in the running.

These fake third parties are typically focused on equality and reform, they play at being non-partisan and consisting of smart people who just want to fix a broken system. And there are idiots who fall for it every time.

Currently the conservative parties are losing seats to Kulanu, because the party (obviously) targets their base. That is its whole purpose. It’s not so much that the left is gaining as that a stalking horse party for the left is gaining.

The majority of Israelis do want Netanyahu by 48 to 34. But the left is really good at gaming a parliamentary system and voters are often unwilling to understand how they play into the hands of the left.

Even if Labor doesn't manage so well, Kulanu is still a valid concern if it takes away votes from the right and gives them to the left. Speaking of which, Kulanu does have some members who qualify as fairly leftist. Similarly, Yesh Atid is also a worry, to the point even Labor is worried about them, and is attacking them in some of their ads now the week before the election. Kulanu is too, but they're still not exactly a party whose potentially bad influence should be taken lightly.

EVEN MORE PROOF HUNTSMAN IS OBAMA'S STALKING HORSE: WHITMAN OF AMERICANS ELECT ENDORSES HIM FOR 3RD PARTY RUN

HOT AIR:

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman seems to have picked up a new fan in the person of former New Jersey Governor and EPA chief (under George W. Bush) Christine Todd Whitman. Seeing Whitman jumping in for something (or somebody) outside the conservative mainstream is nothing unusual, and this is no exception. She’s not necessarily pushing for Huntsman to get the GOP nod, but rather for her new, third party initiative.

Former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, who is leading a group to draft a third-party presidential candidate, is encouraging Jon Huntsman to make an independent bid for the White House.

“I would hope he would do it, frankly. He’s someone that I would support,” Whitman said Friday in an interview with POLITICO.

Whitman, a Republican, said a third-party effort by Huntsman is the way to go because she believes it’s unlikely he has much of shot at the GOP nomination. “I don’t see that kind of traction unless he can pull off a surprise in New Hampshire, where independents are allowed to vote,” she said.

Whitman is a board member for Americans Elect, an initiative to get a third party candidate directly selected by independents around the country on the ballot in all fifty states.

"I TOLD YOU SO" - LIKE A DOZEN TIMES.

ABOUT HUNTSMAN AND AMERICANS ELECT.

BEFORE ANYONE ELSE ANYWHERE.

NY CD 26 SHOWED THE DEMOCRATS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN WIN: GET A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE TO DRAIN AWAY 3-5% OF THE GOP/ANTI-DEM VOTE.

I BELIEVE HUNTSMAN HAS PLANNED ON THIS FROM THE VERY START.

WE HAVE TO SLAM OBAMA DOWN BELOW 40% IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS ROUTE POINTLESS.

A WISE MAN'S PREDICTION: Palin will start speaking at Tea Party Rallies around the country‏

UPDATED BELOW!

A WISE MAN'S PREDICTION:

Palin will start speaking at Tea Party Rallies around the country‏.

She will become the leader of the conservative/libertarian coalition by doing so.

GLENN HAS AN AWESOME ROUND UP OF THE TEA PARTIES YESTERDAY:

NEW JERSEY: Thousands take part in ‘tea party’ protest against high taxes in Morristown.

TEXAS: Sen. Cornyn booed at Capitol “tea party”. “‘You’re the problem,’ a crowd member hollered.”

Also, Thousands attend America’s Tea Party protest at Southfork Ranch.

NEVADA: Fourth of July Marked with Tea Party in Reno: “The tea party, in which ‘tea’ stands for ‘taxed enough already,’ was one of five held in Nevada on Saturday and was organized locally by Republican Debbie Landis. Landis estimated 3,000 people participated through the course of the day.”

MASSACHUSETTS: Pride, concern share stage at Quincy Tea Party Freedom Celebration.

Also, ‘Tea Party’ crowd fills center of Hanoverton.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Tea Party protesters rally against big government, massive spending.

INDIANA: Hundreds show up in rain for second local tea party.

IDAHO: T.E.A. Party In Idaho Falls.

ARKANSAS: TEA Party Packs Bomber Stadium.

MICHIGAN: Genesee TEA Party holds Independence Day tax protest, plans campaign against Hurley millage.

MINNESOTA: Tea Party calls for less government, people’s rights.

FLORIDA: Apopka TEA Party Has Big Turnout.

NEW MEXICO: TEA Party Rally Focuses On Nation’s Values.

CONNECTICUT: Norwich tea party protest draws 500.

This is just what was at the top of Google News under “tea party” this morning. Nothing systematic about it. But as Michael Silence notes below, it’s a widely distributed phenomenon.

YUP: IT'S A GROWING MOVEMENT.

UPDATE: 8+ hours after we posted this Glenn Reynolds has opne of his longest posts EVAH on the same subject - PALIN and the TEA PARTY movement, only Glenn attacked the subject from a different angle: that Palin might co-opt the Tea Party movement and make it a Third Party.

WE DISAGREE.

We think she will galvanize the movement and make it an influential libertarian wing of the GOP.

OBAMA'S THIRD PARTY STALKING HORSE TAKING SHAPE - JUST AS I PREDICTED

(AS I WROTE HERE), THE SPECIAL ELECTION IN NY26CD PROVED THAT OBAMA NEEDS a 3rd PARTY TO SIPHON GOP VOTES IN ORDER TO WIN RE-ELECTION.

REPEAT: OBAMA CAN WIN ONLY BY DIVERTING THE ANTI-OBMA VOTES AWAY FROM THE GOP AND TO A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE.

THAT 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE COULD BE RON PAUL AND/OR A RUN BY SOMEONE OUT UP BY THIS NEW GROUP:

Americans Elect is a collection of Republicans, Democrats and independents who say they're fed up with the polarization that has poisoned American politics. Some of its backers have previously contributed to Obama, Romney or other candidates. Several are fans of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has flirted with the idea of running as a third-party centrist. The group's central figure is Peter Ackerman, a wealthy investor and former banker who considers himself an independent and who was active four years ago in a similar effort called Unity08.

The group plans to hold a national primary election on the Internet — a mass-participation exercise that anyone can join. Candidates can nominate themselves, and voters can form committees to "draft" candidates, including politicians drawn from the major parties — Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, or Jon Huntsman. ...

... Who will its candidate be? Bloomberg is frequently mentioned, even though he says he doesn't plan to run. So is Huntsman, even though he says he's only interested in the Republican nomination. It might be former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, who has been trying to break into the Republican race; former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who retired after denouncing both parties; or independent business figures such as Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who has called on his fellow moguls to stop giving money to politicians.

Americans Elect says it plans to choose a presidential nominee (and a vice presidential candidate, who by the group's rules can't come from the same party) by June.

What happens then depends mostly on the shape of the contest between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

I EXPECT OBAMA AND SOROS AND PODESTA GET THEIR WAY AND THE 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE TO BE HUNTSMAN/BLOOMBERG ON THIS LINE - AND THEY MIGHT EVEN GET RON PAUL TO RUN AS A LIBERTARIAN.

(YEAH: SOROS & PODESTA: I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THEY FUNNEL MONEY THROUGH SHADOW GROUPS TO PAUL AND AMERICANS ELECT.)

MORE HERE.

OBAMARXIST: 12 YEARS AGO, OBAMA RAN FOR OFFICE AS AN OUT-AND-OUT MARXIST...

... Now he tries to hide it!

IS THIS RELEVANT?

YES: A DOZEN YEARS AGO HE WAS ALREADY A LONGTIME MEMBER OF WRIGHT'S BLACK RACIST CHURCH. DESPITE ALL WE'VE LEARNED, HE'S STILL A MEMBER OF TRINITY.

AND, HE'S STILL A COLLECTIVIST AT HEART.

FACTS FROM HYSCIENCE:

Barack HUSSEIN Obama's Old party was called the New Party. The party was a Marxist Political coalition. This was not a guilt by association thing. Senator Obama sought out their nomination. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers:

Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party. (edit: As in today's Democratic Party?)

HYSCIENCE HAS MORE LINKS. RTWT.

MORE FROM JBLOG:

In 1996, three of the four candidates endorsed by the New Party won their electoral primaries. The three victors included Barack Obama (in the 13th State Senate District), Danny Davis (in the 7th Congressional District), and Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party's support.

... In 1997 the New Party's influence declined precipitously after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that electoral fusion was not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause. By 1998 the party was essentially defunct. Daniel Canto and other key party members went on to establish a new organization with similar ideals, the Working Families Party of New York

I know PERSONALLY some key people in the Working Families Party - they are Marxist anti-Americans. This is the same crowd who backs ACORN - more here from RICK MORAN. AND HERE TOO.

• OBAMA IS THE MOST EXTREME LEFTIST EVER TO MAKE A SERIOUS RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.
• AND THE LEAST QUALIFIED MAN EVER TO RUN - OF ANY ILK.
• HIS ELECTION WOULD BE A CATASTROPHE.
• EVEN ELECTING MCCAIN WOULD BE BETTER.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

USING LICHTMAN'S 13 POINT SYSTEM, I PREDICT OBAMA WILL ONLY CARRY DC

ALLAHPUNDIT:

Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”

They’ve been right seven elections in a row about the popular vote.

... For fair-use reasons, I can’t excerpt Lichtman’s analysis of how the 13 Keys will play out for Obama next year, so follow the link up top and read through.

He’s got The One winning on nine of 13 counts:

1. No contested primary
2. Incumbency
3. No third-party candidate
4. Major domestic-policy changes in his first term
5. No social unrest
6. No major scandals
7. No major foreign-policy failures
8. Major foreign-policy achievements in his first term (killing Bin Laden)
9. Little charisma by his likely opponent

The GOP wins three categories:

1. The incumbent’s party lost seats in the last House election
2. The long-term economy looks poor
3. Little charisma by the incumbent

Let's fisk them, shall we:

1. No contested primary

MAYBE

2. Incumbency

OKAY - 1 FOR 2

3. No third-party candidate

MAYBE

4. Major domestic-policy changes in his first term

BUT OBAMA'S CHANGES FAILED TO LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT OR HEALTH COSTS WHILE ADDING 4 TRILLION TO THE DEBT AND GETTING US OUR FIRST EVER DOWNGRADE

5. No social unrest

TEA PARTY

6. No major scandals

FAST AND FURIOUS

7. No major foreign-policy failures

NOT IF YOU ASK THE LEFT:

HE FAILED TO CLOSE GITMO OR BRING THE TROOPS HOME FROM IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN AND THINGS ARE WORSE IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN AND EGYPT AND SYRIA.

8. Major foreign-policy achievements in his first term (killing Bin Laden)

SEE ABOVE

9. Little charisma by his likely opponent

PERRY HAS MORE CHARISMA - AND EVEN ROMNEY EVINCES MORE WISDOM OVER THINGS ECONOMIC AND MANAGEMENT IN GENERAL.

RIGHT NOW, OBAMA GETS 1 0F 13 - not 9 of 13.

HE COULD CLIMB UP TO 3 IF HE GETS NO CHALLENGE IN THE PRIMARY AND IF THERE'S NO 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE,

PREDICTION: OBAMA WILL ONLY CARRY DC.

PREDICTION: THIRD PARTY AND FOURTH PARTY CANDIDATES WILL RUN IN ALL BATTLEGROUND STATES - TO HELP OBAMA

THE ONLY WAY OBAMA CAN WIN IS IF:

(A) 1-2% OF CONSERVATIVES STAY HOME IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE TICKET,

AND (B), IF THERE'S A RIGHT-OF-CENTER THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE TO SIPHON OFF VOTES FROM THE GOP BASE...

AND (C) IF THERE'S A CENTRIST-TYPE CANDIDATE TO SIPHON OFF VOTES FROM THE INDEPENDENTS.

SO I LOOK FOR THE MSM TO START PLAYING UP THE IDEA THAT MITT INEVITABLY THEN - ONCE HE GETS THE NOMINATION - THAT HE IS VERY LIBERAL.

AND I EXPECT RON PAUL TO RUN ON A THIRD PARTY LINE AND GET A LOT OF MSM ATTENTION.

AND I EXPECT HUNTSMAN AND/OR BLOOMBERG TO RUN ON A CENTRIST LINE.

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY OBAMA CAN WIN. (HE MAY ALSO STILL NEED A CHITLOAD OF VOTER FRAUD.)

ACTUALLY, THE BEST HOPE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THE LEFT IS IF OBAMA ANNOUNCES HE WONT SEEK A SECOND TERM.

BOB TURNER'S HUGE WIN GUARANTEES THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL SECRETLY SUPPORT A THIRD PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

THE DEMS LOST IN NY-9 YESTERDAY EVEN THOUGH THEY USED MEDISCARE.

BUT THEY WON IN UPSTATE NY'S NY-20 --- AND SURE THEY USED MEDISCARE, BUT THE REAL REASON THEY OWN WAS THAT THERE WAS A FAKE-TEA PARTY CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT - THOUGH THAT'S NOT HOW THE NYTIMES REPORTED IT:

Democrats scored an upset in one of New York’s most conservative Congressional districts on Tuesday, dealing a blow to the national Republican Party in a race that largely turned on the party’s plan to overhaul Medicare.

IF HE HADN'T BEEN ON THE BALLOT THEN THE GOP WOULD HAVE WON: HERE'S PROOF (SAME LINK):

On Tuesday, she captured 47 percent of the vote to Ms. Corwin’s 43 percent, according to unofficial results.

A Tea Party candidate, Jack Davis, had 9 percent.

CLINTON NEVER GOT OVER 50% BUT WON 2 ELECTIONS BECAUSE PEROT WAS ON THE BALLOT BOTH TIMES.

FOR OBAMA TO WIN RE-ELECTION, THE DEMOCRAT HAVE TO GET A CREDIBLE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE TO RUN --- ONE WHO WILL DRAINS OFF MORE GOP VOTES IN CRUCIAL STATES.

I GUARANTEE YOU THAT THE BIG-TIME DEM PLAYERS ARE SEARCHING FOR THIS GUY RIGHT NOW.

WHO MIGHT IT BE? WHO MIGHT THEY BE FUNNELLING MONEY TOO?

RON PAUL.

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS ONLY TWO OPTIONS NOW:

EITHER THEY GET RON PAUL TO RUN, OR THEY GET OBAMA NOT TO RUN.

DOES THE RADICAL LEFT HAVE A SECRET STRATEGY TO TAKE OVER THE SENATE?

CF VIA GLENN:

Tea Party of Nevada: Real Third Party, or False Flag?

I've seen several articles today and have read some comments about the formation of the Tea Party of Nevada and their intention to run an unknown against struggling Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

As others have noted, there isn't a great deal of information online about the group or its principles... but there is enough to start wondering whether the group is remotely serious, or just a bunch of cutups.

You need look not further than Barry Levinson to know that the group is a farce. Levinson, former attorney for John Wayne Bobbitt is the Secretary of the organization, and holds a seemingly bizarre pedigree for a Tea Party patriot. According to his own blog, Levinson is a disgruntled Obama supporter:

IF MODERATE DEMS DROP OUT - AS BAYH DID - AND ARE REPLACED ON THE BALLOT BY HARD-LEFTIES, AND IF THE OBAMA-SOROS MACHINE RUNS FALSE-FLAG TEA PARTY CANDIDATES TO SPLIT THE GOP/RIGHT VOTE, THEN MAYBE THEY THINK THEY CAN ELECT MORE HARD LEFTIES TO ENACT THE OBAMA-SOROS SOCIALIST PLAN!?

MAYBE THEY THINK THE PUMA/HILLARY VOTE WILL MIGRATE TO THEIR FALSE-FLAG THIRD PARTY AND THAT WILL LEAVE THEM WITH A MAJORITY INN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND PLURALITY IN THE GENERAL AND MORE SENATORS!?

RIGHT ON CUE, THE MSM STARTS TO PREPARE THE GROUND FOR A THIRD PARTY RUN - (THE ONLY WAY THEIR CANDIDATE OBAMA CAN WIN)

I PREDICTED IT. AND I WAS THE ONLY ONE.

NOW THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA IS STARTING TO REV UP IT PARTISAN BULLHORN AND TRUMPET THE INEVITABILITY OF A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE (THUS TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE LIKELY):

HOT AIR:

Matt Lewis -

Chuck Todd: There’ll be a third-party challenge if Perry’s the nominee

“If Perry’s the nominee,” Todd told Kornheiser, “I think there’s going to be be a serious effort of some sort of moderate Republican linking up with a conservative Democrat of trying to run in some sort of like, ‘let’s throw all the bums out — let’s crash the party,’ you know, a la [Ross] Perot …”

“I just continue to believe that’s what’s coming,” he said.

Read the Article

I PREDICTED THIS HERE - BASED ON COMPARING THE DEMS NY-20 WIN TO THEIR NY-09 LOSS.

I WAS THE ONLY BLOGGER TO DO IT.

REGULAR READERS KNOW WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME: AHEAD OF THE PACK WITH SHARP ANAYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD, FOLLOW US, BOOKMARK US, BLOGROLL US.

Lessons from Britain Could Save the GOP?

Much has been written lately regarding how the Republican Party might re-form itself into a winning operation. Of course, this debate has been around for a long time, but our recent losses have reignited the debate. This time, however (perhaps having learned from liberals that "progressive" sounds better) -- the moderates have re-branded themselves as "modernizers", "reformers", or "pragmatists". And to give their revolution some historical credibility, they have given themselves a new hero: British Conservative Party Leader David Cameron.

Cameron has repositioned his party closer to the center of the political spectrum. However, moderation in itself has not always worked for him. In fact, one of his biggest plans to seize the middle-ground blew up in his face. After his election as party leader, Cameron almost immediately adopted environmentalism as his key issue and launched a new party slogan: "Go Green, Vote Blue" (Blue being the color symbolic of the party). That slogan is long gone today (it's one of the few pieces of the Cameron experiment not to have succeeded). Now, to be sure, environmentalism is still a big part of the party's appeal. Actually, the party has always been seen as strong on that front considering the left-wing Labour Party's association with not-so-green labor interests such as coal miners. However, it is still safe to say that the "Go Green" marketing gimmick flopped.

Most of the program did, however, succeed. If you go to the party's website or watch their ads you will see a much more hopeful message than you did a few years ago. Gone is the old logo, a rather intimidating hand grasping a torch. It has been replaced by a very happy-looking tree. Everything about the new message is hopeful, sunny, and forward looking -- and the focus is now on "quality of life" issues like family, healthcare and education. Granted, the old "taxes and national security" message is still there, but it comes packaged as part of a larger message that the Conservative Party cares about people. Cameron also makes a point of being modern and tech-savvy, as illustrated by his "WebCameron" video blogs. These are all fantastic moves, and the Republican Party should move quickly to implement them (of course, technology is philosophically neutral). By the way, the people who are broadening this discussion here in America are conservative governors like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal. They are the real "American Camerons" in my mind.

Another big part of the Cameron approach was solidify and reassure all wings of his party, including the "traditionalist" right wing. In fact, one of the first moves was to give plum positions in his "Shadow Cabinet" (essentially the cabinet in-waiting) to the two right wingers he defeated to win the party leadership. Runner-up David Davis was given the hugely powerful post of Shadow Home Secretary, while third place candidate Liam Fox became Shadow Secretary of State for Defense. Furthermore, two of Cameron's predecessors as party leader scored influential positions as well, with William Hague (leader from 1997-2001) becoming Shadow Foreign Secretary and Iain Duncan Smith (leader from 2001-2003) heading up the party's new Social Justice Policy Group. All of these people became genuine players on the Cameron team, and Cameron has benefited from this inclusive approach. Far from jettisoning the right wing or the traditional leaders, Cameron has made a point of including them in his revolution.

Another thing that David Cameron would never consider is taking social issues off the table. In fact, he is largely responsible for putting them back on the table as a way of making his party look more compassionate than the left wing alternatives. Now, the Brits don't deal with the same social issues we do - abortion is considered a non-issue and the main issue is keeping marriages and families from breaking apart rather than debating gay marriage. However, Cameron has revolutionized the social debate by hijacking the left wing term "social justice" and lumping the protection of marriage and the family in with other "social justice" issues such as healthcare and education. Of course, that wasn't really a Cameron idea. It was the brainchild of the more "traditionalist" former party leader Iain Duncan Smith, who founded the "Centre for Social Justice".

Cameron saw the genius of Duncan Smith's idea, made it a major piece of the platform, and put Duncan Smith himself in charge of party policy on that front. So, again, Cameron didn't throw the SoCons overboard - he incorporated them, revitalized them, and utilized them to his advantage. In fact, family issues seem to animate Cameron like few others. Watch his recent rant about a high-profile domestic violence case and British social services - I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that this man doesn't care about social issues.

On some issues, Cameron has even put forward some proposals that (for Britain) are extremely conservative. For instance, he has been extremely solid on reforming the UK's bloated welfare state. Instead of swinging to the center and embracing these big government programs, Cameron is proposing a welfare-to-work program he says is "the biggest shake-up of the welfare state for 60 years." One might point out that Margaret Thatcher took office only 29 years ago, so if Cameron can live up to his rhetoric, then he actually intends to go further than Thatcher in his crusade to get Brits off welfare.

The key thing to remember about David Cameron is that he dramatically changed the way his party approaches the issues. He shifted the focus onto new issues and made conservatives think of themselves as smiling, forward-looking change agents rather than brooding, tax-obsessed fear-mongers. Still, he didn't change the basic values that the party holds dear. In a lot of ways he's like Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Both are seen as a little moderate because they try to be optimistic pragmatists rather than ideologues, but they also fit into the broad conservative mainstream in their respective nations.

More here

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

DO THE GITMO PRISONERS DESERVE ANYTHING?

The Geneva Convention is NOT international law; it is a TREATY which ONLY applies to SIGNATORIES.

To gain certain rights for its POWS a signatory must guarantee the same rights for all POWS of other SIGNATORIES.

These rights are limited to POWS, and POWS are defined as UNIFORMED fighters.

Non-uniformed fighters from third-party nations are NOT covered by Geneva -- no matter what the liberals on the SCOTUS might say.

But NO SANE SUPPORTER of Geneva could RATIONALLY argue that NON-UNIFORMED FOREIGN FIGHTERS FROM THIRD-PARTY NATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO MORE RIGHTS THAN POWS.

But this is EXACTLY what they argue.

After all. POWS are NOT given attorney's or the right to sue their captors in court. They are held until the cessation of hostilities.

SO... WHY GIVE ENEMY COMBATANTS (non-uniformed third-party fighters who are NOT covered by Geneva) MORE RIGHTS THAN POWS!?!?!?!?

It makes no freakin' sense. ZERO. Bupkuss. Zilch.

But it's exactly what the Left has successfully argued.

It sickens me.

Especially since these foreign fighters obey NO RULES OF WAR THEMSELVES.

All this effort (to give these enemy combatants MORE rights than POWS) does is HELP THE ENEMY.

Those who underwrite and undertake these efforts are traitors.

Traitors not only of the USA, but CIVILIZATION.

MORE FROM THE WSJ/TARANTO HERE.

HILLARY AND HUGO: TWO FOR THE ROAD TO SERFDOM

TEXAS RAINMAKER HAS PROOF OF THEIR THE EERILY SIMILAR AGENDAS.

I WONDER WHY!? COULD IT BE... THERE BOTH SOCIALISTS? YES. (VIA HYSCIENCE.)

Her leftism notwithstanding, Hillary really could be elected. Especially if McCain runs on a third party line. What would an accurate Hillary slogan sound like? THIS:

PRESIDENT HILLARY: SO FAR TO THE LEFT, SHE'LL MAKE CARTER LOOK LIKE REAGAN.

PRESIDENT HILLARY: SHE'LL DO WHAT HENRY WALLACE AND MCGOVERN NEVER GOT TO DO.

YOU GET THE IDEA... ANYBODY BUT HILLARY. (OR OBAMA. OR EDWARDS...)

Note - regarding Henry Wallace:

Following his term as Secretary of Commerce, Wallace became the editor of The New Republic magazine, using his position to criticize vociferously Truman's hawkish foreign policy. On the declaration of the Truman Doctrine in 1947, he predicted it would mark the beginning of "a century of fear." He left his editorship position in 1948 to make an unsuccessful run as a Progressive Party candidate in the 1948 U.S. presidential election. ... Historians Schapsmeier and Schapsmeier argue (1970 p 181)

"The Progressive party stood for one thing and Wallace another. Actually the party organization was controlled from the outset by those representing the radical left and not liberalism per se. This made it extremely easy for Communists and fellow travelers to infiltrate into important positions within the party machinery. Once this happened, party stands began to resemble a party line. Campaign literature, speech materials, and campaign slogans sounded strangely like echoes of what Moscow wanted to hear. As if wearing moral blinkers, Wallace increasingly became an imperceptive ideologue. Words were uttered by Wallace that did not sound like him, and his performance took on a strange Jekyll and Hyde quality—one moment he was a peace protagonist and the next a propaganda parrot for the Kremlin."

... In 1952, Wallace published Where I Was Wrong, in which he explained that his seemingly-trusting stance toward the Soviet Union and Stalin stemmed from inadequate information about Stalin's excesses and that he, too, now considered himself an anti-Communist.

Wallace - like Hillary and McGovern - was pink to the core. All three underestimated the biggest enemy of their time. Wallace later saw the error of his ways. But had he been elected in 1948, we'd all be speaking Russian and working in collectives.

But beyond that: Nothing Hillary has ever said or done has ever given me the feeling that she "gets" WW4 - or has the executive ability to be a wartime CinC.

ADDENDUM: Wanna see what Hillarycare would really be like - then check out these video-taped HORROR STORIES of socialized healthcare in Canada.

IRAQ, KATRINA AND THE DEMOCRAT'S FATAL DIVIDE

On one side of the Party you have Leftie Dove Democrat Senator Russ Feingold, who was opposed to the Iraq War (as he was opposed to the 1991 Gulf War), and who has proposed setting a deadline for withdrawal.

Another part of the party is represented by Centrist-liberal Senator Joe Biden, who was in favor of the Iraq War (unlike the Gulf War which he opposed), but has consistently criticized the Bush Administration and consistently called for MORE TROOPS to be sent to Iraq, as if that would improve security; (the military people in charge do NOT believe we need more troops; one reasonmthey give is that a bigger footprint would only create more supply needs, and it is the supply-lines which are our weakest points/targets; therefore, they argue, more troops would only make us more vulnerable - but nevermind: Joe Biden thinks he knows better than the generals in charge!).

There are NO DEMOCRAT HAWKS anymore.

The divide between the Feingold/Kucinich/Dean wing of the party and the Biden/Hillary wing is UNBRIDGEABLE.

Even if the primaries are restructured to prevent the activist/Leftist wing of the party to pick a nominee early (by spacing them out again, and by making the larger states - with more expensive campaign hurdles - have more influence in order to weed out the "grassroots leftists, and allow a centrist to have chance at winning the nomination), the left will eiother stay home or vote for a third party candidate.

This inner structural weakness is compounded by demographic facts which make it tougher and tougher for the Democrats to win nationally: the red states are growing while the blue counties are shrinking.

I do not believe ANY potential candidate in the Democrat Party can bridge the inner gap and win in November (by gaining votes in red states).

That's why I believe the Democrats are in MAJOR NEGATIVE ATTACK MODE. Their ONLY hope is to destroy the GOP.

If Bush nominates a black woman to the SCOTUS, he'll peel off enough black voters to make the Democat Party as powerful as the Whigs, and about half as relevant.

PREDICTION: By the time the 2006 elections come up, Iraq will be seen as a huge victory - (check out this NYTIMES GRAPHIC for proof that most things are going very VERY WELL there!) - and New Orleans and the Gulf Coast will likely be well on their way to recovery. (And, after the dust has settled and water receded, most of the blame for the less than perfect first 4 days of recovery effort will be seen as due to incompetence and bad decision-making by Blanco and Nagin, and NOT incompetence or callousness by Buhs or anyone at FEMA or DHS.)

As a result, the GOP will pick up seats in Congress. YES: THE GOP WILL GAIN AGAIN, in spite of the MSM carrying the water for the Left by saying over-and-over-and-over-and-over that Bush is a failure.

2 members of Lieberman's party want a right-wing government

Avigdor Lieberman's facing pressures within his own party to cut out undermining the formation of a government:

Lawmakers from the secular rightist Yisrael Beytenu party are pressing party chairman Avidgor Liberman to help Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu form a narrow right-wing government if talks for a unity government fail, Channel 12 reported Tuesday afternoon.

According to the Channel 12 report, senior Yisrael Beytenu members, including MK Oded Forer and MK Hamad Amar, are pressuring party chairman Avidgor Liberman to join a narrow rightist government led by Binyamin Netanyahu, rather than let Israel go to its third general election in a year, if unity talks between the Likud and the Blue and White party fail to achieve a breakthrough.

“The State of Israel cannot bear a third election in one year,” the two MKs are reported as saying to Liberman. “There is a country here to run. Blue and White said that they’d put ‘Israel ahead of everything else’, but they are turning down every offer.”

“The time has come to make them pay a price. Blue and White and Yair Lapid need to know that if they continue to refuse [offers for a unity government], then the alternative will be a narrow right-wing government in order to prevent new elections.”

Well that's pretty amazing somebody's willing to talk the sense that should've been brought up before. I don't think Blue & White even cares if there's to be a 3rd election, and Lieberman probably doesn't either. They're just undermining stability, much like attorney-general Avichai Mendelblit is, and if these members of Lieberman's party really care, they'll break off from what's clearly a party centered around one man only, and join up with the rest of the right instead. This whole charade's gone too far already. It's time for it to stop.

LESSON #1 FOR THE OWS MORONS: "AS MUCH AS THE TRAFFIC WILL BEAR" IS NOT GREED

REPEAT:

"AS MUCH AS THE TRAFFIC WILL BEAR" IS NOT GREED.

Getting the highest price you can if you are the seller, or getting the lowest price you can if you are the buyer is how the free-marketplace operates.

As long as no one is coerced into a deal, then it is fair and square.

When A-Rod became available to the highest bidder, nobody knew better what he was worth than the team owners. Do you want some bureaucrat determining what baseball players should make? What ticket prices should be? What the beer and the hot dogs should cost?

The market determines that more efficiently and FAIRLY than any third party can.

The idea that some third party better knows the value OF ANYTHING - and should intervene to set the market price independently of those who are selling and buying is absurd and ultimately statist. And it has always failed - and created shortages and black-markets along the way.

If centrally directed market pricing worked, then the USSR would be the best and most successful economy in the world.

What is sinful and evil is not the imagined greed of folks trying to get the best deal possible in the free-marketplace, but the covetous envy of the left.

The Left so desires what other people have earned that they want a powerful government to step in and take away the private property of those who have earned it and give to their pals and cronies and their favored "victim" groups.

YES: There are imbalances in the marketplace, but they are all caused by a government that is too big, too invasive, and too cozy with certain players in the market.

In other words, the problem is that government is too big and too involved in the economy.

The solution isn't more involvement o as those on the Left argue.

The solution is less government, smaller government - LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

Government that doesn't bailout its pals and steer loans to its cronies, but - in the free marketplace - lets the chips fall where they may.

If the OWS dupes really and deeply want fairness, then they should stop demanding things from the government and start working alongside the Tea Party (after they bathe!) and demand that the government shrink and return to the small limited size that the Founders envisioned and that the US Constitution allows.

Then crooks and cheaters everywhere - on Wall Street, in the so-called "green economy" - won't have anyone to bribe in order to get favors.

IF YOU WANT TO PUT AN END TO CRONY CAPITALISM, THEN A FREE-MARKET AND SMALL LIMITED GOVERNMENT IS THE ANSWER.

EUGENICS, EUTHANASIA AND THE LEFT

Leftists might be best defined as people who want to predetermine outcomes - they don't trust the marketplace, or individuals; they want the state to pick winners and losers. (If that's too oblique, then read two books by Hayek and call me in the morning!)

The ultimate outcome which a Leftist can control is LIFE AND DEATH. And when presented with this choice, the Leftist almost always come down on the dark side:

they favor abortion on demand; they favor euthanasia, and they favor life sentences for convicted MURDERERS.

Recently, Leftists in Massachusetts argued in favor of euthanizing/murdering a little girl who was in a coma as a result of child abuse. The Left argued - as they did in the Schiavo case - that she was "virtually brain-dead". People who wanted her to live won the legal battle. And now she is continuing her remarkable comeback. MORE HERE.

Also in the news this week is a new practice made available - RIGHT NOW - to people undergoing IVF, (but it could just as easily be made available to people conceiving naturally); it's called PGD - pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and it amount to SCREENING a propsective embryo/family member for potential diseases before implantation. EXCERPT:

[Critics say that...] It raises the specter of eugenics, they say, in the most personal terms. “It’s like children are admitted to a family only if they pass the test,” said Denise Toeckes, 32, a teacher who tested positive for a BRCA mutation. “It’s like, ‘If you have a gene, we don’t want you; if you have the potential to develop cancer, you can’t be in our family.’ ”

Other critics oppose preimplantation diagnosis on the grounds that it could be used to select against homosexuals, women or people with disabilities. It reduces people to their genes, they say, and paves the way for the pursuit of children designed to suit parental ideals and for discrimination against those born with perceived imperfections.

I think this is an apt description. This is eugenics, and it's amoral at best.

[ASIDE: Why does the Left consistently come down on the dark side!? Why do they favor euthanasia and abortion and appeasing the enemy!?

It's because they are moral relativists: lacking any belief in any universal truth or in universal and innate/God-given human rights, they have nothing that they feel is worth fighting for - or dying for --- OR EVEN LIVING FOR. Most Leftists just want third-party pay/universal healthcare, third-party pay retirement, and the right to have sex with anything that turns them on: whether it's the same gender or underage.

This moral relativism is, IMHO, a result of post-modernism. Post-modernism was an overreaction to WW1: confronted by that war's horrific casualties, post-modernists rejected nationalism, colonialism, capitalism and the West. This was when intellectuals began to become fixated with anti-West/anti-bourgeoise ideologies: Dadaism, Surrealism and Marxism. And it reignited their fixation on "primitive" culture and the Third World; they began to romanticize both, just as they demiograted traditonal Western values and mores. It's why the Left aggrandizes the murdererous thug and totalitarian Che.

Post-modernism and its concommittant moral relativism are currently predominant only because the Left has dominated the MSM and the Academy - and the perennial bureacracies within US State Department and the CIA - since the 1930's. This is why we must end the domination of the MSM over the newscycle, and why we must bring political parity back to the Academy. Only after the Left's stranglehold on these two organs of propaganda is ended will Leftism be relegated to the ashheap of history where it belongs.

Why am I so sure that Leftism will then vanish? Because without their stranglehold on the MSM and the Academy they will be forced to compete with post-Marxist/POST-post modernist philosphies ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD, and they will certainly, absolutely lose that competition.]

IS BLOOMBERG EFFORTING TO HELP RINOS IN PREP FOR 3RD PARTY RUN IN 2012?

NYTIMES:

In an election year when anger and mistrust have upended races across the country, toppling moderates and elevating white-hot partisans, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is trying to pull politics back to the middle, injecting himself into marquee contests and helping candidates fend off the Tea Party.

New York’s billionaire mayor, whose flurry of activity is stirring a new round of speculation about his presidential ambitions, is supporting Republicans, Democrats and independents who he says are not bound by rigid ideology and are capable of compromise, qualities he says he fears have become alarmingly rare in American politics.

Next month, Mr. Bloomberg will travel to California to campaign for Meg Whitman, the eBay entrepreneur and Republican running for governor on a platform of corporate-style accountability and fiscal prudence. He visited Rhode Island on Thursday to champion Lincoln D. Chafee, a Republican turned independent who is locked in a three-way battle for the governor’s office.

And, in perhaps the mayor’s most direct confrontation with a Tea Party candidacy, he will host a fund-raiser at his Manhattan town house for Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader facing an unexpectedly forceful challenge from Sharron E. Angle, a political neophyte backed by Sarah Palin.

In his first extensive interview with a newspaper in several years, Mr. Bloomberg outlined his plans, which will include raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for candidates and represent his greatest involvement in a national election since he entered public life a decade ago.

Mr. Bloomberg described the Tea Party movement as a fad, comparing it to the short-lived burst of support for Ross Perot in 1992. The mayor suggested that the fury it had unleashed was not a foundation for leadership.

“Look, people are angry,” he said. “Their anger is understandable. Washington isn’t working. Government seems to be paralyzed and unable to solve all of our problems.”

“Anger, however, is not a government strategy,” he said. “It’s not a way to govern.”

THE ONLY WAY WE CAN LOSE IS IF THERE ARE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES DRAINING INDEPENDENTS AWAY FOR US.

IF BLOOMBERG RUNS IN 2012, THEN HE MIGHT PLAY PEROT AND RE-ELECT OBAMA.

• BLOOMBERG REALLY HAS NOTHING TO RUN ON: BLOOMBERG HAS BEEN A LOUSY MAYOR; HE'S DONE ABSOLUTELY NO HEAVY-LIFTING; WE'VE BEEN COASTING SINCE GIULIANI WAS MAYOR, AND RUDY DID A LOT OF HEAVY-LIFTING.

• BLOOMIE IS A NANNYSTATER AND A LIBERAL AND AN APPEASER - NOT A COURAGEOUS POLITICAL LEADER.

• PALIN HAS MORE COURAGE IN HER TOENAILS THASN BLOOMIE HAS IN HIS WHOLE BEING AND HIS BANK ACCOUNTS! (EVEN ROMNEY HAS ACCOMPLISHED MORE HEAVY-LIFTING AS A BUSINESS MAN, CIVIC LEADER AND GOVERNOR.)

(NO ONE IN THE LAME-STREAM MEDIA DARES TO TAKE BLOOMBERG ON BECAUSE HE'S A MEDIA HEAVYWEIGHT WHO COULD HIRE ANYONE HE WISHES - INCLUDING THEM ONE DAY!)

FROM HOLLAND: MORE PROOF THE LEFT IS THE HOME OF ANTISEMITISM: LABOUR PARTY SIDES WITH HAMAS

HAARETZ:

The Netherlands must impose economic sanctions against Israel if the new government in Jerusalem thwarts the peace process with the Palestinians, the Dutch Labor party said last week.

Members of Labor, which is a member of government as the country's second largest party, said they intended to write a manifesto on the matter to the foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, from the centrist ruling CDA party, who is largely seen as a staunch supporter of Israel.

In an interview for Radio 1, Labor's Martijn van Dam said his party insisted that Verhagen and the European Union take "concrete" action that demands Israel accept Hamas as a partner for dialog. Van Dam also lamented the Netherlands and the European Union's decision to blacklist Hamas.

Van Dam went on to call Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman "an extremist who is on the brink of racism," adding: "This is not a government with much prospect for peace."

THIS IS INSANITY: HAMAS IS A GOOD NEGOTIATING PARTNER BUT BIBI AND AVIGDOR ARE BAD!?!?!? INSANE. UTTER INSANITY.

• REMEMBER: THIS DUTCH LABOUR PARTY IS NOT SOME WACKO FRINGE GROUP; THEY ARE A MAINSTREAM EUROPEAN LEFTIST PARTY - LIKE ZAPATERO'S SPANISH SOCIALIST PARTY, BROWN'S BRITISH LABOUR PARTY AND OTHER LEFT-WING PARTIES ALL OVER EUROPE.

• THE LEFT IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE WORLD - WORSE THAN JIHADISM, BECAUSE THEY ENABLE JIHADISM AND THWART OUR ABILITY TO DEFEAT IT, AND THE LEFT - VIA THEIR FAITH IN AGW AND HATRED OF INDUSTRIALISM AND FREEMARKETS - INHIBITS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE THIRD WORLD.

• AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: OBAMA HAS LONG BEEN A PART OF THIS CAMP.

TREASONOUS ANTI-WEST POLICIES OF THE LEFT - WHICH IN THIS CASE SUPPORTS HAMAS AND OPPOSES THE PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY OF ISRAEL - IS WHY I HAVE LONG ARGUED THAT WE NEED TO DEFEAT THE LEFTISTS AT HOME BEFORE WE CAN DEFEAT THE JIHADISTS ABROAD.