He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither

You hear this phrase, which is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, quite a bit. Mainly it's used as a gotcha line for those that object to national security policies. It's a fair enough point, but I wonder why those who shout this at the top of their lungs don't apply it to economic liberty. Doesn't Medicare, social security, welfare, food stamps, workers' comp, etc. sacrifice individual liberty at the altar of perceived economic security? Doesn't this type of big government turn us into a nation of sheep beholden to our masters in power?

Are you frustrated with palmetto politics as usual?

Look on the bright side: at least you don't live in New Jersey.

Bill Clinton shows his hand

On the stump the other day Bill Clinton bluntly told reporters and voters that if Obama wins the Texas and Ohio primaries, then Hillary's presidential aspirations are finished (Here). This looks like a classic poker tell. Follow my logic:
1. If Obama does win, then Hillary's toast. Bill said so himself.
2. If we assume that Hillary would bow out gracefully when she faces long odds for the good of the Democratic party, then Bill is simply stating the obvious.
3. On the other hand, if we assume Hillary will continue to claw as long as she has hope for the nomination, regardless of the resulting scorched earth, then he wouldn't gamble and set his tag teammate up for failure, unless he knew something the rest of us don't.
4. Hillary's entire life has been mere prologue to capturing the presidency. Thus we must assume #3.
5. In other words, Bill is so confident in Texas and Ohio that he's willing to go all in before he's had a chance to play all his cards (i.e., the super delegates).

Shrewdly, Bill also sets up Hillary as the next comeback kid in the process. Rumors of her impending concession, such as these, play into this trap.

In other words, don't bet on Obama yet.

Reminding McCain haters about that Bush kool aid

Tom Coburn has some good words in today's Philadelphia Inquirer for some McCain bashers. Here's the bulk of his argument:

I respect my conservative friends who don't share my enthusiasm about Arizona Sen. John McCain. Yet, I'm troubled that many critics are focusing on the specks of dust in McCain's eye while ignoring the plank in their own eye. The plank in the eye of some self-appointed conservative jurists, particularly those from former Republican leadership ranks, is this:

Under their leadership, Republicans grew the government faster than the Democrats we replaced. Under their leadership, Republicans attempted to secure a governing majority through the corrupting practice of earmarking. Under their leadership, Republicans passed the largest entitlement expansion since Lyndon Johnson, passing on more than $9 trillion in new debt to the next generation so we could win the 2004 election. McCain fought against all of those trends while many so-called conservatives were marching our party off a Bridge to Nowhere. John McCain isn't perfect. But he is by far the best candidate to tackle what many conservatives believe are the two greatest challenges facing our country - radical Islamic terrorism and a Congress that refuses to correct our unsustainable fiscal course.

Strong. I actually think McCain will be good for the conservative movement in that some healthy space will develop between the movement and the Republican party. Conservatives not only need to make the party compete for their votes but also stop drinking the party kool-aid.

My name is Barack Obama...

And I approve of this message.

Obama has peaked

Although it may be too late for Hillary to take advantage, the Obama crest is over. Democrats should be careful what they wish for because he may be the weakest of the two candidates. As the Godfather explains here, critics need only point to his record and policy positions.

McCain: The media's darling no longer

After John McCain became the presumptive Republican nominee a week or so ago, many people predicted it was only a matter of time before the media turned on its favorite maverick Republican. The New York Times wasted no time with this story.

The rumor is that the Times ran this story because the New Republic planned its own story about the Times' failure to act on this gossip. However, I think the timing is suspiciciously convenient. With Romney out of the race, McCain's nomination is all but official. But the hardcore conservative wing of the party has jumped on the bandwagon. This story could have been calculated to push the conservative outrage against McCain over the tipping point. If McCain is no longer the Republican's guy, then the nomination falls, in Dale Earnhardt's words, to the first loser. There's simply no way a weakened party can win with its second string guy.

Ironically, I'll go out on a limb and predict that this will have the opposite effect. Nothing will endear McCain to party holdouts than an innuendo laced smear campaign from the paper they hold in such disdain.

Sharon Stone: Islamofascism's Useful Idiot

Like anyone else, The Blame America First Crowd has the right to voice essentially whatever ludicrous ideas it wants. But I can't stand people hiding behind the First Amendment in defending the merits and consequences of their ideas, which is a distinct issue from one's right to speak.

Here's some evidence that the Anti-War Left is actually emboldening our enemies overseas. Criticize tactics, strategy, etc., but once the fighting starts the time for debating the moral decision to initiate war is over.

I imagine Stone still "supports the troops" though.

Damn That Marketplace of Ideas

Good word today by Christopher Hitchens.

Bush's Judicial Nominations Likely Won't Receive a Senate Vote

The State has the story here. I'm going to predict that Democrats won't give these guys an up or down vote, which is a shame.

The Kingdom

Just saw this movie tonight. I think its the best action movie I've seen in years but must warn that it is very intense.

Demint is de man

Our tolerant friends in Berkely California have passed a resolution stating that the US Marines are not welcome in the town. Foxnews has our senator's response here. I'm guessing that depriving the city of the funds to run the ferry service will hit them where it hurts.

For you law geeks, here's the US Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, which held that the Congress could withhold federal funds from law schools that refused to allow military recruiters access because of the don't ask don't tell policy.

McCain a fluke of history?

Perhaps, says Tony Blankley. Check it out here?

Sure, McCain may be maverick, but Romney ain't no Iceman

But this is still pretty funny.

50 cent endorses Hillary Clinton

Check out the story here.

What's next, Chuck Norris endorsing Mike Huckabee and Sylvester Stallone endorsing John McCain?

More on McCain and the Supreme Court

Prominent Federalist Society member, Steven Calabresi, and his colleague at Northwestern Law School, John McGinnis, are backing John McCain as the best chance the conservative movement has against the "living constitution" crowd. Simply put, McCain is more electable than Romney, and is bound to nominate judges head and shoulders better than either Democrat. Here's the thrust of their argument:

We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.

The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.

They conclude:

Conservative complaints about Mr. McCain's role as a member of the Gang of 14 seem to encapsulate all that is wrong in general with conservative carping over his candidacy. It makes the perfect the enemy of the very good results that have been achieved, thanks in no small part to Mr. McCain, and to the very likely prospect of further good results that might come from his election as president.

Read the whole thing here.

UPDATE: The Federales have the leading candidates posting their thoughts on judicial appointments here.

David slays Goliath

It was hard not to root for Eli Manning as he drove his team down the field to win the Super Bowl. Especially after this fiasco. Thankfully we can now focus our attention on something a little more important.