The Spectacle Blog

Ode to Hezbollah

By on 8.10.06 | 10:29AM

On the front page of today's Washington Post, there's a story about how Hezbollah was transporting Iranian "supplies" accross the Litani River now that Israel has destroyed every bridge. It reads:

They worked with precision -- everyone had a job, hardly a movement was wasted.

And they worked with speed -- no one knew when one of the distant sounds might signal an Israeli attack.

"It's dangerous," one young man said, nerves quickening his pace, as he lugged loads of bread, "but Hezbollah is strong."

Wow, those guys are good. Maybe as part of the cease fire agreement we can get them to drop their careers in martyrdom and come over to America to work on road construction.

Terror Plot

By on 8.10.06 | 10:08AM

As you'd expect, the NutRoots are having a field day with the overnight terrorism arrests in London.

At some point, you'd think psychiatrists at a research facility would want to study this mania that exists in places like Daily Kos and My DD and the DU. Medication probably wouldn't help.

Here's a bet that within 24 hours an aide close to Howard Dean - if not the man himself - and / or Ned Lamont goes on the record as saying that the arrests in London could not be merely a coincidence given the stunning primary results in Connecticut.

That's right. The Brits are simply scared of a world where Ned Lamont could lead and would do anything to block it. Actually, who could blame them?

Re: Rules of the Game

By on 8.9.06 | 9:12PM

Wlady, I didn't catch that, thanks to my news exile (which ends when I get "wired" again next week). But what strikes me about it is the shamelessness. Usually, such threats are veiled. But dragging the kids' tuition into it? That seems like a cheap Godfather-ish move. You do this for the Don, and you can enjoy a fine retirement. Otherwise, it's Stafford loans for you! Sheesh.

Rules of the Game

By on 8.9.06 | 4:43PM

I don't know if anyone has commented on the eye-opening cynicism reflected in the paragraph below, from yesterday's Washington Post report on Abramoff-tainted Rep. Bob Ney's decision not to seek re-election to his Ohio seat:

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) met with Ney last week to urge him to step aside, reminding him that with a son in college and a daughter nearing college age, he will need money, according to several congressional Republican aides. If he lost his House seat for the party, Boehner is said to have cautioned, Ney could not expect a lucrative career on K Street to pay those tuition bills, along with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees piling up.

Political disgrace is now no impediment to cashing in? Mind you, this under conservative Republican supervision and with conservative Republican approval and encouragement...

Re: Lamont, Good for Republicans…

By on 8.9.06 | 3:14PM

David, your point is well taken, but one thing to keep in mind is that it isn't Lamont alone who matters, it's that Lieberman's defeat in the primary shows Democratic leaders that they will have to pay more attention to the far left of the party. Even if Lamont doesn't stand a chance in November, Democratic leaders will give more lip service to the loony left. In a joint statement with Chuck Schumer today, Harry Reid said:

"the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction."

The thought of a Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who is more beholden to the far left taking America in "a new direction" will, I think, motivate many conservatives, even if they are disgusted by the current crop of Republicans in Washington.


By on 8.9.06 | 1:26PM

The real winner yesterday? American football, not exactly a cut-and-run sport. When Joe Lieberman wins his fourth term next November, people will remember his comeback was launched with his brilliant football reference to the effect that while Lamont might have won the first half of the game, he'll win the second half.

Meanwhile, yesterday the NFL owners selected a new commissioner, who survived a treacherous election process a lot more worthy of the Vatican than of a lowly small state at its primary stage -- 185 original candidates, five election rounds. From all accounts, new commish Roger Goodell is tougher than his late father, a cut-and-run Republican when such a thing was still imaginable. But that's another story.

RE: Lamont: Good for Republicans…

By on 8.9.06 | 1:02PM

...Bad for Conservatives

Phil: I wouldn't be so pessimistic. I think the frustration among alienated GOP voters is so intense that one victory by the far left is not enough to motivate them. They might be motivated if the left wins a lot more, but do you see any other such high-profile races out there? I don't.

Furthermore, this will likely prove a pyrrhic victory for the far left. Chances are Lieberman will win in November, and Lamont will only ever see the inside of the Senate as a tourist. As November approaches, it will become clearer that Lamont doesn't have a chance, and whatever alarm that currently exists among the GOP base will dissipate.

It's going to take a lot more Ned Lamonts before those disaffected GOP voters hold their noses and return to the voting booth this November.