Never Learned History? Then Try Hysteria!

All Obama has to do is sit down and reason with these terrorists. They will listen. I have no doubt. Then he can go to Iran and offer them some of our worthless dollars and I have no doubt they too will suspend their nuclear production just as N Korea has. It is all so simple and logical. Why did not GW think of this before wrecking Iraq and spending all that money fighting terrorists? (See 1 below.)

Is the president elect constrained by reality? Can he possibly campaign one way and morph into a GW 2? Is this happening before he even takes office?

Perhaps doves will coo because he is their dove. Where is Murtha? (See 2 below.)

More reality? (See 3 below.)

For the moment Franken is prevented from stealing the election. Frankly, I would have enjoyed watching Franken. What our nation needs is more comic relief and buffoons in the Senate to balance the octogenarians who can hardly stay awake during roll call. (See 4 below.)

Could Victor Davis Hanson be on to something - government by hysteria? As I have oft repeated, when you have no learned anything about history try hysteria. (See 5 below.)

Ten reasons why hope springs eternal for Conservatives? Is Jennifer Rubin grasping at straws?(See 6 below.)

"Zig Zag Zell," one of Georgia's best governors and Senators, comes out for Saxby. Ex Marine Zell had his belly full of the Senate and retired to go back home and teach. If we only had more of his kind in the Senate we could accomplish some positive things for this nation. Zell is a Democrat with brains! More than that he has integrity and guts to speak his mind.

Zell is a Christian Lieberman but far more colorful and a very good pubic speaker. (See 7 below.)

Mumbai attacks continue. (See 8 below.)

Dick


1) Mumbai Terror Attack Updates Day 2


- Group of hostages leaves Chabad Center on second night of Mumbai's seizure by Islamist terrorists.

- It is feared that none were Israelis although several are known to be held in the building.

- Israel-India flights continue on schedule. One carried a group of Israeli doctors for Mumbai.

- The Islamist terrorists attacking Mumbai for the second day came from outside the country, believed Pakistan.

- Indian security sources report many Israeli hostages in the Oberoi Hotel, which the terrorists still control amid sustained gunfire in the lobby.

- Heavy battles resume in the Taj Palace Hotel.

- Indian naval troops board the MV Alpha freighter suspected of having sailed the terrorists to Mumbai's shore from Karachi, Pakistan.

- Anti-tanks missiles handed out to Indian commando force battling terrorists at Taj Palace hotel.

- Indian general: Four or five terrorists inside Chabad Center.

- Islamist shooting attacks and blasts spread to southern Mumbai away from the hotel district ---

- Terrorists hurl grenades at Indian forces surrounding Chabad Center and the Oberoi hotel.

- Fighting flares up anew in the Taj Palace Hotel said to have been cleared Thursday. Some hostages escaped and many bodies were found in guests' rooms.

- Terrorists are still holed up at the Oberoi Hotel and Chabad Center with hostages, including Israelis, under police-commando siege.

- A woman and child held at Chabad center came out of the building.

- The Mumbai stock exchange stayed shut.

- Police sappers defused bombs containing RDX strewn across the town.

- International airlines canceled flights to the beleaguered Indian town.

- The terrorists wear elite military unit uniforms. Each has an automatic rifle, grenades and military-style kit.

2) Doves keep the faith as Obama team tilts right
By JONATHAN MARTIN




Leading opponents of the war have mostly been silent as president-elect Barack Obama, who first built his national image on the foundation of his early opposition to the Iraq war, assembles a group of national security hands that is anything but a team of doves.

It's a disorienting moment for the peace wing of the Democratic Party, at once elated America selected a new president opposed to the Iraq war and momentarily disoriented by the imminent removal of a commander-in-chief whose every action they've opposed for the past eight years.

“Shock has paralyzed them for the moment,” said Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who writes The Washington Note, a popular foreign policy blog. “We are in an Obama bubble now. And it’s tough to step out and be first to deflate the bubble.”

Especially, he added, before that bubble takes shape.

“You’ve got some people like myself who are saying there may be an interesting design in what Obama is trying to do. Maybe it doesn’t fit easily in a neatly sculpted box of liberal pacifist and warmonger hawk. Maybe it’s more complex than that.”

Still, it’s clearly a team that tilts to the right of Democratic foreign policy thought.

Vice-president-elect Joe Biden initially backed the war in Iraq and has supported other military interventions in his long Senate career. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton also supported the Iraq war resolution, a vote that Obama framed as a critical failure of judgement during the primary. She's also taken a harder line on Iran than the president-elect—and is in line to be his Secretary of State.

Jim Jones, a retired Marine General who advised Clinton, Obama and John McCain during the campaign and has refused to disclose his partisan leanings, is slated for National Security Adviser. And running the Pentagon? For at least the first year of his administration, it’s virtually certain that the new president will retain Robert Gates—the Secretary of Defense appointed by President Bush.

Liberals scored one victory, though, when a top candidate to take over the CIA withdrew from consideration this week after concerns surfaced over his views on the agency’s interrogation methods. In a letter taking his name out of consideration, John Brennan said he didn’t want to be a “distraction” to the president-elect.

Yet most leaders on the left are keeping to themselves any criticisms of the centrist quartet that will help shape and implement Obama’s foreign policy.

For now there is a measure of trust from liberals who believe Obama will hold to the principles he espoused during the campaign: end the war in Iraq, negotiate with adversaries and restore America’s standing in the global community.

“We should have a simple sign on our wall saying, ‘It’s the policy stupid,’” said Tom Andrews, the former Maine congressman, riffing off James Carville's 1992 Clinton campaign mantra. “Many will give President-elect Obama the benefit of the doubt about who is executing the policy as long as there is no comprise or backtracking on the policy itself,” added Andrews, who now heads the group “Win Without War.”

There is, Andrews noted, a reluctance to carp before Obama is even sworn in. “He hasn’t been president for one second yet,” the former congressman observed.

Progressives who knew Obama before his ascent onto the national stage also suggest that he’s remaining on the same course he's always charted – one that hews closer to the middle than those on the right will give him credit for or those on the left would prefer.

Maryiln Katz, a veteran of the peace movement dating back to her days as a member of Students for a Democratic Society, helped organize the October 2002 rally in Chicago’s Federal Plaza where Obama declared his opposition to what he called a “dumb war.”

But, Katz recalled, the then-state senator also made certain to point out he was no pacifist.

“He asserted his own position in contradiction to [the] anti-war movement,” she said. “He wasn’t us. He didn’t pander to the crowd.”

But Katz, a well-connected Chicago public-relations executive, said that some liberals chose to ignore the part of the speech where Obama stressed that he was not against military force and actually urged more aggressive pursuit of al Qaeda.

“A lot of people took his position on Iraq and projected our politics onto him,” she said. “And that was never him. It was never true.”


Still, President Obama sounds a lot better than President Bush to a peace movement whose members have spent the last seven years in a posted of principled, if often powerless, opposition—and who now have to find a new point of orientation.

“It’s a real challenge to those of who have grown up in opposition to everything,” said Katz. “How do we behave in a way that it expands the progressive point of view? How do you maintain an independent NGO, issue-based infrastructure based on something other than a culture of complaint?”

Some clues could come in Chicago, where from January 1st to the 19th (MLK Day and the day before Obama’s inauguration), a coalition of liberal groups will rally in Hyde Park at what they're calling “Camp Hope” to push for various liberal priorities at home and abroad. Still, the language of their "presence" -- they do not call it a protest—highlights the confusion as to how to relate to an incoming president who is, at the least, less adversarial to their agenda.

The group will congregate daily to "congratulate Senator Obama as our new President-elect and recommit ourselves to progressive actions he promoted on his campaign trail," states the message on their Web site, which adds, “We earnestly hope his presidency will signal the dawning of long-needed progressive change in the United States.”

To be sure, there are some voices who haven't hesitated to take on the president-elect when he's departed from their line, but those voices have found themselves increasingly marginalized by the press and those in the peace movement willing to give Obama a chance.

"He is violating the people's mandate," complained Jodie Evans, a Code Pink co-founder who emailed from Tehran, where she was meeting with government officials and other peace activists. "The people elected him over her precisely because of their different foreign policy stances. Here we are in Iran, working to establish citizen diplomacy, hearing the concerns of the Iranian people and how it feels to have [Clinton] say she wants to obliterate Iran. Those comments are not taken lightly and [are] seen as policy positions here."

Evans, who with her husband helped raise money for Obama during the primary and general election, hinted at how the new president-elect has kept the left-wing at bay since winning the election—by focusing on the issue that first brought them to his side.

Recalling her interaction with Obama at fundraisers, the veteran liberal activist said: "It has gotten to the point where he sees me coming and before I am close he just keeps repeating, 'Jodie, I PROMISE, I will end the war, I promise I will end the war.' It is effective in limiting the amount of time I have to complain about what ever is up [to] at the moment."

Those vested in power, though, are less inclined to complain just yet.

"My immediate reaction was that I feel sure that President Obama knows that he was elected on a campaign of change, and that includes on foreign policy," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a Bay Area liberal who co-chairs the House Progressive Caucus, when asked about the new commander-in-chief. “Regardless of who advises him, he must and I believe he will embrace a bold agenda that uses our non-military power,”

Woolsey said others in the peace movement are holding their fire because they are “so relieved that we will have a leader they can trust,” even as, she said, they are “counting on the progressives in the Congress to keep his feet to the fire."

So far, though, Obama's yet to feel the flame.

Observed Clemons: “It’s very hard for even leaders of the left to poke holes because too many of their followers will say, ‘give the guy a break—he hasn’t even been in there yet.' You should see the ridicule or hate at anyone that tries to poke a hole in the Obama myth right now

3) The New Republic: Trading Up
By Bradford Plumer

The recession's here. Let's tax carbon!


The first hundred days of any presidency rarely go off as planned, but, for now, Barack Obama seems to know what's at the top of his to-do list. In late October, he told Time's Joe Klein that "a new energy economy" would "be my number-one priority when I get into office." But then, as if to cut off a lurking objection, Obama quickly tacked on a qualifier: "assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation." The caveat seemed to nod at a nascent conventional wisdom: Now that the United States is staring down the barrel of a nasty recession, many Washington types wonder if Obama will have to tear up that to-do list and rein in his ambitious climate and energy proposals.


True, not all of Obama's green ideas are controversial: You can't pick up a newspaper op-ed page these days without seeing yet another economist argue that government spending on clean energy and eco-friendly infrastructure could provide the Keynesian boost necessary to haul the economy out of its mire. But the linchpin of Obama's energy platform wasn't new spending; it was an economy- wide cap on carbon-dioxide emissions, in which a decreasing number of tradeable pollution permits would be auctioned off each year, so as to ratchet down greenhouse gases and help avert drastic global warming. Energy experts tend to agree that it's not enough for the government to fund alternative-energy sources; the only way to usher in the "new energy economy" Obama envisions is to make it costlier to burn fossil fuels. But that's the catch: Since Obama's cap-and-trade proposal would essentially act as a tax and increase the price of oil, gas, and coal, he downplayed this aspect of his plan on the trail--and it's the one idea that now looks most vulnerable. As House energy and commerce chair John Dingell recently told The Wall Street Journal, "In times of economic downturns, members [of Congress] are extremely reluctant to add burdens to the economy, and we're going to confront that problem."

The queasiness is understandable. On the surface, it really doesn't sound like a hot idea to impose broad new regulations on a struggling economy. In this case, though, the fear is misguided. Global warming is urgent enough that the next administration will need to go all-out on the issue, passing not just a green stimulus package but especially a cap on carbon. And, not only is the recession a poor excuse to hold back, it may even be all the more reason to act.

If there's any upside to a recession (and it's hardly much consolation), it's that the accompanying decline in energy use gives us some breathing room to meet long-term emissions targets. (The rough consensus among climate scientists is that the world should aim to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal that sounded increasingly preposterous in recent years as countries were belching up carbon dioxide at a pace exceeding even the direst forecasts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.) The downside, however, is that the fall of oil and gas prices is forcing investors to shelve alternative-energy projects: The WilderHill index of clean-tech stocks has tumbled more than 50 percent since September, and even T. Boone Pickens is putting aside his beloved wind farms for now. The main reason the solar and wind industries aren't facing total collapse is government policy: Some 30 states have laws requiring utilities to get a fixed percentage of their electricity from renewable sources by a certain date.

More problematic still, a recession makes it trickier for politicians to contemplate new environmental rules. Conservatives like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe have been thundering that an emissions cap--or any policy that raises the price of carbon--will be the death blow for an already atrophying economy. Now, climate-change skeptics are always saying that carbon caps will put us in the poorhouse, recession or no. (Last year, when the economy was still chugging along, the Chamber of Commerce aired an anti-cap-and-trade ad showing a family forced to cook breakfast by candlelight and huddle together in bed for warmth.) The question is whether Obama should pay these naysayers more heed during a slump, or whether he should follow the example of European leaders like Nicolas Sarkozy, who, despite the financial crisis, are working to tighten the EU's emissions-trading regime.

As it turns out, a recession isn't a bad time to get started on climate legislation. Even if Congress raced to pass a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, it would take some time--likely a few years--just to set up a complex new regulatory regime. Moreover, as David Wheeler, a climate-policy expert at the Center for Global Development, points out, an economic slump actually offers a prime opportunity to start trading: If Congress sets the initial economy-wide cap at pre-recession levels, then pollution permits will be exceedingly cheap as long as the economy--and hence energy use--is still shrinking. (Indeed, the downturn in Europe has caused the price of carbon to hit rock-bottom levels.) This would give companies time to learn the system and plan for the future without being assailed right away by high prices.

Congress could then use the interim years to go full speed ahead on a green stimulus package. Both Obama and Al Gore have stressed the need for a new electric grid that could link up to faraway wind and solar farms and better manage electricity demand. It's a good idea: According to a new report by the North American Electric Reliability Council, any attempt to make major emissions cuts could put unbearable strain on the grid unless it's revamped. Other programs to boost the energy efficiency of the economy--retrofitting buildings, say, or capturing and using waste heat from factories--are also needed. All these measures would help utilities and businesses make reductions more cheaply once the cap does start clamping down.

Granted, no cap on greenhouse gases will be totally cost-free. But it's important to be clear about what those costs really are. One recent survey of five respected economic models from academic and government groups found that cap-and-trade policies like the Lieberman-Warner bill considered by Congress this summer would shave off about three-hundredths of a percentage point of the country's annual GDP growth. (The size of the U.S. economy, in other words, would reach $26 trillion in April rather than January of 2030.) Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon's Electric Industry Center, explains that the bulk of cuts under a cap-and-trade regime would likely come from the country's electric utilities--and he estimates that the electric-power sector could avoid or capture 80 percent of its emissions for about $65-$90 billion per year, on average. That, he notes, is comparable to the cost of compliance at the peak of the original Clean Air Act, which, contrary to doomsday predictions from industry lobbyists, didn't put any noticeable dents in the economy. (The law did, however, help midwife new businesses that sold scrubbers, particulate matter filters, and flue gas desulfurization technologies to the rest of the world.)

Of course, it's one thing to suggest that emissions restrictions won't be half as crippling as opponents claim, but is it possible that cap-and-trade could actually bolster the economy? Perhaps. If, for instance, the revenues raised by auctioning off pollution permits were rebated to consumers, most families could see their incomes rise, according to one University of Massachusetts study. What's more, the certainty that clear rules on carbon are finally on the way could help get private investment flowing again. As Chuck Gray, the executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, explained, "climate-change legislation is essential no matter what the economic situation," because "it will remove many of the uncertainties that are preventing state regulators, utilities, and others from planning and financing new electricity investments." Venture capitalists have lately been dipping their toes in the clean-tech pool--investing $2.2 billion in more than 200 deals in 2007--but many financiers, as a recent New York Times Magazine story made clear, are still waiting for a more supportive policy framework to emerge. Sounds like cap-and-trade should be at the top of someone's to-do list after all.

4)Senate recount: Franken loses bid to add ballots: The state Canvassing Board's rejection of Al Franken's bid to count rejected absentee ballots stirred new rancor.
By KEVIN DUCHSCHERE and BOB VON STERNBERG

4th time
Looks like Coleman will win for the 4th time. Those who voted for Franken now need to go get some education and learn how politics works … read more before voting for someone who has no right running for senate.

Democrat Al Franken suffered a setback Wednesday when the state Canvassing Board unanimously turned down his campaign's request to include rejected absentee ballots in the U.S. Senate recount, prompting a Franken attorney to threaten to go all the way to Washington if necessary to get them considered.

"Whether it is at the county level, before the Canvassing Board, before the courts or before the United States Senate, we don't know yet. But we remain confident these votes will be counted," said Marc Elias, the campaign's lead recount attorney, who added that he won't appeal the board's decision.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., termed the Canvassing Board's decision "cause for great concern" and called on Minnesota officials to "ensure that no voter is disenfranchised."

Cullen Sheehan, campaign manager for Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, called Elias' and Reid's statements "a troubling new development." He asked Franken to accept the recount results if he loses, and to promise Minnesotans "that he will not allow this election to be overturned by the leadership of the Democratic Senate."

With 88 percent of the vote recounted by Wednesday night and the number of challenged ballots surpassing 5,600, Coleman's advantage over Franken was 282 votes, according to a Star Tribune compilation of results reported to the Secretary of State's office and gathered by the newspaper. That was 67 more votes than the margin Coleman held at the start of the recount. His campaign had challenged 147 more ballots than Franken's.

The board members -- Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, Associate Justice G. Barry Anderson, Ramsey County Chief District Judge Kathleen Gearin and District Judge Edward Cleary -- agreed at their hour-long meeting Wednesday that the panel doesn't have authority under state law to include rejected absentee ballots in a recount. The board said it was not ruling on the merits of the Franken argument.

Board members gave Franken a glimmer of hope when they said they will consult with the attorney general's office and both campaigns to decide whether local election officials should sort through rejected ballots. That would help determine whether ballots were wrongly excluded and also help prepare for a court challenge that all seemed to expect.

Ritchie estimated that 12,000 absentee ballots were rejected. A Star Tribune analysis of those rejected in 39 counties shows that 84 ballots appear to have been turned aside without officials giving one of the four reasons specified in state law. The analysis did not include ballots from Hennepin County.

Another important factor in the race is the 5,600 ballot challenges made to date. In those cases, the campaigns have challenged an election official's decision on the voter's intent, and the Canvassing Board will be the final arbiter. On Wednesday, board members urged both campaigns to reduce the challenge total by weeding out frivolous challenges from their respective stacks.

The board will meet Dec. 16 to rule on challenged ballots and certify the final results in the statewide recount, which began last week and will continue through Dec. 5. The board aims to be done by Dec. 19, but it will take as long as needed.

Behind the board's decision

At Wednesday's meeting, Justice Anderson moved to reject the Franken request on the grounds that the board didn't have the authority to include the rejected ballots in the recount. His colleagues quickly agreed, although Cleary and Gearin said they were reluctant to do so.

The two Ramsey County judges said they believed that absentee ballots that were wrongly rejected should be included in the tally, and urged that they be separated into a "fifth pile" that could be reviewed by local election officials for possible inclusion in their counts. (Ballots rejected for the four reasons specified in state law would go into four other piles.)

Anderson said the "fifth pile" plan would help identify issues for the litigation almost certain to come, but suggested that some input from the attorney general's office may help. Magnuson said that at some point "you have to stop counting," and asked Ritchie when that time will come.

"When we sign the paper" certifying the results, Ritchie replied.

In the end, the Canvassing Board agreed to encourage elections officials to begin sorting rejected absentee ballots, while awaiting further instruction and advice from the attorney general, the campaigns and other interested parties.

Fritz Knaak, the senior counsel for the Coleman campaign, said he believed many counties were already separating out valid absentee ballots that had been rejected. In any event, he said, the campaign's analysis indicates that there are so few of them out there -- perhaps a dozen, he said -- that they wouldn't make much difference in the recount anyway.

Knaak said he wasn't surprised by the board's decision on the Franken request, which he characterized as "a strategy ... preparing themselves for an election challenge."

Cutting the challenges

Knaak welcomed the board's directive on challenged ballots, saying that both sides know that there has been "a big mass of ballots" that never should have been disputed. He said he planned to talk to Elias about looking for ways to whittle down the ballots to make things easier for the Board next month.

Elias said that the Franken campaign plans eventually to withdraw an unspecified number of challenges, but declined to say how many or when. He dismissed a late-night call Tuesday by the Coleman camp for a truce in ballot challenges as a gimmick to "try to shape what the press does," noting that Coleman is still ahead of Franken in overall challenges.

Elias said the campaign was disappointed by the Canvassing Board's ruling but won't appeal it. He said he was encouraged, however, that it left open the possibility of sorting the ballots.

Ritchie is a DFLer, and Magnuson and Anderson were appointed by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Gearin was elected to the bench in 1986, and Cleary was appointed in 2002 by Independent Gov. Jesse Ventura.

5) The Hysterical Style
By Victor Davis Hanson

Politicians now predict the implosion of the U.S. auto industry. Headlines warn that the entire banking system is on the verge of utter collapse. The all-day/all-night cable news shows and op-ed columnists talk of another Dark Age on the horizon, as each day another corporation lines up for its me-too bailout.

News magazines depict President-elect Obama as the new Franklin Delano Roosevelt, facing a crisis akin to the Great Depression. Columnists for The New York Times even dreamed that George Bush might just resign now to allow the savior Obama a two-month head start on his presidency.


We are witnessing a new hysterical style, in which the Baby Boomer "me generation" that now runs America jettisons knowledge of the past and daily proclaims that each new development requires both a radical solution and another bogeyman to blame for being mean or unfair to them.

We haven't seen such frenzy since the Y2K sham, when we were warned to stock up on flashlights and bottled water as our nation's computers would simply shut down on Jan. 1, 2000 -- and with them the country itself.

Get a grip. Much of our current panic is psychological, and hyped by instantaneous electronic communications and second-by-second 24-hour news blasts. There has not been a nationwide plague that felled our workers. No earthquake has destroyed American infrastructure. The material United States before the September 2008 financial panic is largely the same as the one after. Once we tighten our belts and pay off the debts run up by Wall Street speculators and millions of borrowers who walked away from what they owed others -- and we can do this in a $13 trillion annual economy -- sanity will return.

Gas, now below $2 a gallon, is still falling, saving Americans hundreds of billions of dollars. As housing prices settle, millions of young Americans will buy homes that just recently were said to be out of reach of a new generation.

If it was once considered a sign of economic robustness that homes doubled in value in just a few years, why is it seen as a disaster that they now sell on the way down for what they did recently on the way up? If we were recently terrified that gas would reach $5 a gallon, why do we now just shrug that it might fall to $1.50?

Unemployment is still below 7 percent; it was around 25 percent when Franklin Roosevelt became president. Less than 20 banks have failed, not the 4,000 that went under in the first part of 1933.

We all wish Barack Obama to succeed as president. But there is no more reason to panic and circumvent the Constitution for his early assumption of office than there was for Bill Clinton to prematurely step aside in November 2000 in favor of then President-elect George Bush.

We have now forgotten that by year-end 2000, the American economy was sliding into recession. Lame-duck President Clinton had been impeached. Vice President Al Gore had ostracized him from his presidential election campaign. In the presidential transition, Clinton was considering pardons for Puerto Rican terrorists and most-wanted fugitive Mark Rich.

George Bush is neither the source of all our ills nor the "worst" president in our history. He will leave office with about the same dismal approval rating as the once-despised Harry Truman. By 1953, the country loathed the departing Truman as much as they were ecstatic about newly elected national hero Dwight Eisenhower -- who had previously never been elected to anything.

As for Bush's legacy, it will be left to future historians to weigh his responsibility for keeping us safe from another 9/11-like attack for seven years, the now increasingly likely victory in Iraq, AIDS relief abroad, new expansions for Medicare and federal support for schools versus the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, the error-plagued 2004-7 occupation of Iraq, and out-of-control federal spending. As in the case of the once-unpopular Ulysses S. Grant, Calvin Coolidge and Harry Truman, Bush's supposedly "worst" presidency could one day not look so bad in comparison with the various administrations that followed.

But these days even that modest assessment that things aren't that bad -- or all that different from the past -- may well elicit a hysterical reaction from an increasingly hysterical generation.

6) Ten Reasons for Conservatives to Be Thankful
By Jennifer Rubin

Republicans were the turkeys in 2008, but they still have much to be grateful for this Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving brings time for reflection and appreciation. We all have many reasons to be grateful for the blessings in our personal lives. But in a year in which so little has gone right politically for conservatives it is good to recall ten things which should engender gratitude — and indeed rejoicing — from conservatives.

First, President-elect Barack Obama won by assuring voters he would pursue tax cuts, victory in Afghanistan, prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and go “line by line” through the federal budget to eliminate waste and unneeded programs. We can doubt his sincerity or ability to achieve these ends, but he won by recognizing and espousing center-right principles. If he pursues some or all of them, the country will be the better for it. If he doesn’t, he is unlikely to succeed or maintain the broad-based popularity needed to keep Democrats in power.

Second, Hillary Clinton, James L. Jones, and Robert Gates are on tap to fill key national security roles. This is not the crew to bug out of Iraq before the job is done, repeal FISA, rush off to meet with Ahmadinejad, or support a 25% cut in defense spending. On national security, the president-elect in essence has conceded that the Left’s vision is impractical and dangerous. To echo Ronald Reagan on the Cold War, conservatives can rightly crow to the Left in the Democratic Party: “We win, you lose.”

Third, Congressional Republicans have not been a source of pride for the GOP, but the elevation of Eric Cantor to minority whip and Mike Pence to the Republican conference slot puts two of the more articulate and attractive Republicans in the spotlight. They won’t win very many votes, but they can paint stark differences and begin to restore intellectual vigor to Republicans inside the Beltway.

Fourth, Mitch McConnell. If your numbers are down, your morale is low, and you are facing a savvy Democratic president, there is no one better situated to prevent the worst and eke out small victories. And given his toughly contested Senate race, we can look forward to an equally vigorous race against Harry Reid in 2010.

Fifth, Republican governors make up a diverse, attractive, and effective group of leaders. From the ranks of Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, and Mark Sanford will come conservative ideas, articulate spokesmen, and a raft of contenders for 2012. If President Obama fails to bring about economic recovery with a reenactment of the New Deal, this group stands ready to present alternative plans for reviving the economy.

Sixth, the MSM has never been in lower repute. Reporters and editors from their own ranks concede their bias. The stock of major media companies is plummeting. They are in bigger trouble than the Big Three auto companies. And they show even less inclination to reform. That means the opportunity exists for conservative and new media to cultivate large audiences. If alternative media outlets continue to offer hard-nosed reporting and balance the fawning analysis of the MSM, they can become the media of choice for more and more Americans.

Seventh, there is a rich — and sometimes contentious — intellectual community on the Right in think tanks, new media, and grassroots organizations which did not exist in other moments of crisis for conservatives (e.g., post-Watergate). Yes, they sometimes devolve into acrimonious bickering. But they also provide the potential for intellectual and political rebirth. There is no shortage of ideas or voices on the Right.

Eighth, we complete seven years without a terrorist attack on American soil. Despite the many criticisms of the Bush presidency, he achieved what few thought possible — a perfect record in foiling terrorist plots which would have struck our homeland and killed more Americans. If the president-elect follows the advice of Attorney General Mukasey, a good deal of the homeland security architecture erected during this administration will remain in place and will continue to afford protection for Americans. (For example, just as he did in his final vote on extending FISA, President-elect Obama’s assessment of the Guantanamo detainee cases may lead him to the same conclusion which the Bush administration reached on an important aspect of security — we need an appropriate non-civilian legal system and a secure location for dealing with very dangerous people in an unconventional war of undetermined length.)

Ninth, President George W. Bush and General David Petraeus persevered against tremendous odds and have placed us on the verge of one of the great military turnarounds in our history. We can disagree about the wisdom of the decision to go to war in Iraq, but a victory with a stable Iraq allied with the U.S. and a humiliated al-Qaeda is now within our grasp. By avoiding defeat and empowering an Arab nation to take up arms and defeat Islamic terrorists, Bush and Petraeus furthered the security of the U.S., the region, and our allies around the world.

Tenth, Republicans in Washington and around the country will no longer have George W. Bush tied around their necks. For example, Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell can run for governor on his own merits — likely against Clinton operative Terry McAuliffe — without need to defend an incumbent president as did Virginia Republicans in two losing Senate races and one failing governor’s race during the Bush years. That will be duplicated in races around the country as Republicans, freed from a horribly unpopular president, can run on their own ideas and contrast themselves with their Democratic opponents. A huge weight has been lifted.

All of this may seem small comfort to conservatives who finish the year on a losing streak. But Republicans were counted out in 1964, 1976, and 1992. Their resources are greater and their ranks are larger now than at any of those times. They can be thankful as well for the truism that nothing in politics is permanent. So for all these things — as well as the many blessings in their own lives — conservatives should indeed be grateful.

7)Zell Miller lauds Chambliss in U.S. Senate race: Martin gets backing of police group, calls Chambliss ad ‘offensive’
By JIM THARPE

Gainesville — Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Zell Miller said Wednesday that incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss is the “last man standing” to prevent a “far-left agenda” from sailing though the U.S. Senate.

Miller spoke to about 200 people at a luncheon rally for Chambliss, who faces Atlanta Democrat Jim Martin on Dec. 2 in a hotly contested runoff that could tilt the balance of power in the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress. Miller urged attendees to back Chambliss to prevent a rubber stamp congress for the Democratic agenda, which Miller said will move the country to the left.

“(U.S. Sen.) Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has got Jim Martin warming up in the bullpen to come in and help move it along,” Miller said.

Democrats now have 58 seats in the Senate and are pushing for a 60-vote, filibuster-proof super majority. Only Senate races in Georgia an Minnesota remain to be decided.

In Atlanta, Martin dismissed Miller’s endorsement at a Wednesday afternoon press conference where the Democratic candidate was endorsed by the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.

“Gov. Miller has lost his rudder,” Martin said. “No one knows where he stands.”

Martin also slammed Chambliss for an attack ad where Marin is accused of being soft on crime. Martin’s daughter was kidnapped years back when she was 8 years old. She escaped unharmed, but Martin said the incident reinforced his support of police and tough laws for criminals.

“For Saxby Chambliss to accuse me of being week on crime is not only wrong, but it is offensive to both me and my family,” Martin said.

The Chambliss-Martin showdown has focused national attention on the state, bringing in a long list of political bigshots for both candidates. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin comes to town Monday, the day before the runoff.

But both campaigns are also employing state politicians in an effort to turn out the vote in an election that will probably see low turnout. That makes the runoff unpredictable and both sides are trying to urge voters back to the polls.

“We need North Georgia to turn out in a very, very big way,” Chambliss told the crowd.

It was the second public appearance for Chambliss by Miller, who in the 2002 U.S. Senate race backed Chambliss’s opponent, former Democratic U.S. Sen. Max Cleland.

Miller criticized President-elect Barack Obama for what he called “this income redistribution, spread the wealth kind of thing.”

Under Obama’s plan, Miller said: “You rob Peter to pay Paul hoping Paul is going to vote for you.”

8) Terrorists mount second attack on Mumbai's main railway station. Still no word on Beit Chabad hostages


Helicopters drop Indian commandoes on Chabad Center, Mumbai
Friday, on Day 3 of the assault on Mumbai, the terrorists mounted a second attack on Mumbai's main rail station already hit Wednesday. The fresh attack indicates Islamist gunmen are on the loose outside the primary three hostage locations seized Wednesday.

Early Friday, Indian commandos were dropped on the roof of the Chabad Cente 36 hours after its seizure by Islamist gunmen.

Some sources report Rabbi Gavriel Holzman, his family and others were found alive; others say that none of the hostages survived. Voices of a woman and child were heard Friday morning. Later five explosions rang out from the building.

Soldiers fired smoke bombs into the building and are clearing it room by room from the top fifth and fourth floors. The operation was agreed by the Indian and Israeli governments when it appeared that the chances of finding living hostages in the Chabad Center were declining.

From the Oberoi Hotel, Indian police report more than 100 guests have been evacuated so far, including 20 airline crew members, but the operation there continues. The Israeli consul Orna Sagiv says she cannot tell if they include Israelis as the Indian police prevent access to the rescued hostages. She reported 30 Israelis missing in India, but said not all may have been in Mumbai when the attack began.

At least 125 people have been killed and 327 injured across the city, a figure expected to rise before the episode is over.

Indian sources identify some of the terrorists as Pakistani British citizens. The ship which brought them to Mumbai is thought to be an Indian vessel hijacked and sailed to Karachi, Pakistan. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner is certain they are al Qaeda.

Indian police report 400 hostages freed from the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. However two days after the terrorist assault on Mumbai, Indian police and special forces had not finished their takeover of the three locations seized by the Islamists. While some of the released hostages are Westerners, many are Indians allowed by their captors to go free. Military sources expect the operation to continue well into Friday, Nov. 28.