- By Monday, the primary defeats of Joe Lieberman and Cynthia McKinney were not surprising.  Both had been behind by a significant margin for over a month.  Thus, it's not accurate to call either victory by their opponents, Ned Lamont and Hank Johnson, respectively, an upset.

- Let's start with Lieberman first.  It was reported a week ago that Lamont was leading by double digits over Lieberman.  By Monday, that lead had been cut in half, and he only won by four percent of the vote.  That's a pretty big shift in a short time, and it doesn't bode well for Lamont in the upcoming general election.

- Lieberman immediately announced his intention to run as an independent in the general election, and has already collected the 15,000 signatures needed in order to be placed on the ballot.

Don't be surprised to hear of the Democrats, along with the Lamont campaign, going to court to attempt to block Lieberman from having his name on the ballot.  That should be expected.  After all, what the Democrats can't get at the ballot box, they'll get from the courts.

Lieberman should have seen this challenge coming during the 04 Democratic primaries.  The far left has been very critical for quite a while and a challenge to his spot was forthcoming.  I would have thought he would have took a stance similar to Zell Miller, and steered clear of the Washington Democrats while still proclaiming himself a member of the party.  However, it seems that the Democrats, led by the nutjobs on the far left, are going to kick him out first.

- As I noted in a post over a week ago, the reason Lieberman lost the primary was not simply because of the war.  After all, there are several Democrats that don't support a pullout, and never have.  Lieberman didn't lose because he supported Israel.  There are plenty of Democrats that do.  However, Lieberman lost because he supported both of these as well as having the nerve to be Jewish.  And because he was Jewish and a staunch supporter of all of these, he became one of the most hated figures within the Democratic Party faithful, and the left's #1 target.

If this was a Republican primary, and say, a long-time black incumbent politician was defeated because he supported affirmative action and/or supported issues that went against the Republican platform but benefited Africa, there would have been countless media stories about the level of anti-black sentiment within the Republican party (and you really don't need that scenario to have those stories published now).  However, don't anticipate the anti-semitic/anti-Israel stories about the Connecticut race being published anytime soon.  After all, Democrats/leftists can't be bigots, at least if you let the media tell it.

- I really don't see the hype in McKinney's loss.  All you're doing is replacing a loud leftist with a quiet one.  At the end of the day, there's still going to be a leftist representing Georgia's 4th District, and the district will be no better off than when McKinney was there.

I was excited when McKinney was defeated by Denise Majette in 2002.  However, Majette decided to hightail it just over a year later to run for U.S. Senate - probably the dumbest political move in recent memory.  At the ballot box, Majette showed that she wasn't much different than McKinney when voting in the Senate, and there's nothing to suggest that Hank Johnson will be either.  Thus, the 4th District loses either way.  Big deal.

- Can McKinney and her staff ever have an election where they actually behave themselves and act like they have some sense?  In 2004, it was her father cutting up, with the infamous "J-E-W-S" comment.  This time, one of her staffer's places his hands on a local NBC cameraperson after an appearance this afternoon.  Then tonight, her goons are at it again, attacking members of the media after a boom mike supposedly hit someone from the McKinney campaign from overhead while she was leaving.  Boy, is she going out in style.

Yesterday, NC Governor Mike Easley signed a law that created a "Innocence Commission", the first of its kind in the nation.

What is it exactly?  From the AP:

The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission will review innocence claims from people who can present new evidence that hasn't been considered in court.

The eight-member commission will begin accepting claims in November. If five or more commission members agree there is enough evidence of potential innocence, the case would be sent to a panel of three Superior Court judges. Overturning a conviction would require a unanimous decision by the three judges.

Easley, a former prosecutor and attorney general, said North Carolina residents should be proud of the commission.

"Its creation gives our criminal justice system yet another safeguard by helping ensure that the people in our prisons in fact, belong there," Easley said in a statement after signing the bill without a public ceremony.

I like it, and I expect the rest of the states to take NC's lead.  This is probably one of the better decisions the state legislature has made all year.  Although I haven't heard much from anyone opposing this commission, I dont see a negative here. 

The only counterargument was made by NC's Conference of District Attorneys, and that was only to a provision that would allow criminals that pled guilty to a crime to be able to bring their case to the commission after two years.  Nevertheless, I believe it's fair, because some criminals do plead guilty due to the mounting evidence of the prosecution, and trying to avoid more jail time than the defendant would have otherwise gotten.

 I'd imagine this would also allow the appeals process to go though faster for those with legitimate arguments of innocence, particularly with DNA evidence and such.  This can go a long way in justice truly being served, as it helps the defendant get a hearing to truly prove he's innocent. 

It also helps to reduce the embarrassing spectacle of keeping an innocent man locked up for, say, 18 years:

Among the high-profile cases of wrongful conviction was that of Darryl Hunt, who served 18 years in prison for the 1984 murder of a Winston-Salem newspaper employee before he was exonerated in 2003 by DNA evidence. Easley later pardoned him. In 2004, Alan Gell, a onetime death row inmate, was retried and acquitted in a 1995 killing after it was revealed prosecutors withheld key evidence.

It may not completely hinder the chances of this happening again, but any safeguard that can be reasonably implemented in order to stop this from happening again is well worth it.

...Lamont has ditched the moonbat blogosphere.

Sad, isn't it?  But can you blame him?

Let's start from the top: Jane Hamsher, who writes on the blog FireDogLake and tends to be one of the most inflammatory bloggers on the left, decided she would take the time to doctor a picture of Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman.

The result?

Nice.  Very classy.  Of course, this isn't the first time a blogger has dabbled with blackface doctoring, as black leftist nutjob Steve Gilliard did the same thing to Michael Steele.

However, Michelle Malkin, Public Enemy #1 of the moonbat wing of the blogosphere, got hold of it yesterday.  Now, within the span of 24 hours, Ned Lamont has become senile, acting as if he's never heard of a blog.  When questioned by a local reporter, Lamont said this:

{Lamont:}I don't know anything about the blogs, I'm not responsible for those, I have no comment on 'em -

{reporter} she raised money for your campaign...

{Lamont}Independent blogs, I can't say anything about it.

Now, I'll give Lamont the benefit of the doubt, and say that he "pretended" not to know anything about the Huffington Post.  However, that doesn't excuse his ignorance of knowing who Jane Hamsher is.  As Malkin notes, she has had a pretty big impact in his campaign, including chauffering him and his staff, helping to create his first videoblog, and raising money.  As of noon, FireDogLake still serves of one of the few links to "independent blogs" on his blogroll.  Ironically (or is it?), so is the Huffington Post.  And for the record, there are only 10 blogs on his blogroll.

I haven't seen much coverage, if there is any, of this on television.  There is a Washington Post article, buried inside of the paper, of course.  Do you think it would have been buried had it been a Republ.....

You know what?  Never mind.  I've said that so much while watching this primary that I'm tired of saying it.

Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open to see if this story gathers steam.

It's not surprising to hear reports of the Israelis losing the war in Lebanon coming from the media.  After all, defeatism and terrorism cheerleading is what they do best.  However, I have started to see a lot of the same things coming from commentators that would be considered conservative, whether it's from National Review, WSJ, or the NY Post (hat tip:  Instapundit).

Most of their arguments dwell upon the PR war, rather than militarily.  Israel isn't necessarily losing ground; it simply isn't gaining ground fast enough.  While these and several other statements were made before Israel moved into Eastern Lebanon and expanded its ground assault, it'll be interesting to see how a number of the defeatists can explain this one.

Of course, the rules for Israel in this offensive are not the same as they have been for wars past and present.  As Frank Gaffney states in OpinionJournal today, the US would have never accepted the limitations or condoned the condemnation that Israel has been subject to in this war.  Israel now has to worry not only about Hezbollah and their supporters as they move from town to town, but they have to worry about a "clock" of sorts that is rapidly ticking away that will pull the plug on their chances to destroy Hezbollah.  As long as Hezbollah can hang on until time runs out, they'll "win".  And it is by this clock that the defeatists are judging Israel.

However, thinking of this conflict in those terms does nothing but undermine any chance of winning the War on Terror, whether it's Israel conducting military operations or anything else.  Instead of succumbing to these limitations, and indeed, using them to judge Israel's effectiveness, conservatives should be outraged by them.  Instead of getting used to the idea that terror will be a normal fixture in the lives of Israelis, and to a smaller extent, the entire world, we should apply more pressure on the terrorist organizations, and the countries who continue to harbor them.

Lebanon, and subsequently it's government, has been labelled a "moderate" Islamic country, and with a significant Christian community it's resistance to Syrian intervention was lauded for not falling prey to Islamic fundamentalism.  But as we are seeing, "moderate" Muslims condemning occasional attacks are only the tip of the iceburg to end radical Islam.  Instead, actions need to be taken by not only the respective governments that have terror in its midsts.  The destruction of Lebanon is a perfect example of a government and of a society that was more than willing to make excuses and allow the existence of terrorism, and look what it got them.

To call for a premature ceasefire before the elimination of terror in that country, and to also  force Israel to make a "prisoner swap" (which is absolute garbage, as those soldiers were kidnapped, not arrested) gives the upper hand to those organizations who feel they can commit terror in order to gain concessions.  You're going to see more terrorism, along with more liberties being taken against not only Israel and it's military, but also the United States.  Conservatives should realize the grave mistake that exists if this is allowed to happen and rally against it, rather than wallow in pity because of the appeasement mentality of the internationalists.

On Monday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee went after Montana U.S. Senate Democratic Nominee Jon Tester for his affiliation with the Daily Kos website.

Maybe the criticism is fair game, but the reasons weren't, IMO:

"An anti-Israel diary posted today on radical web site 'Daily Kos' includes the expression 'screw you Israel,'" said NRSC Spokesman Brian Walton. "By continuing to accept Kos' support, using his blog to raise money, and even linking to it from his own site, Jon Tester has assumed responsibility for comments like this. Jon Tester should remove the link to 'Daily Kos' from his site and repudiate Kos' hate-filled politics

The criticism of blogs and websites being attached to their readers is nothing new.  Little Green Footballs, Atrios, Wizbang, and others have been unjustly criticized due to the statements of those who visit or are members of their websites. 

The attack on Tester, and indirectly, Kos, by the NRSC is cheap.  Attacks like these do nothing but encourage bloggers not to have comment sections or other interactive material on their sites.  That also hurts the spread of ideas and expression, a couple of things that the blogosphere excels at.  The blogosphere gives people a voice that they more than likely didn't have before. 

I find it ironic that it's usually the bloggers or other entities that seldom provide any kind of voice for its readers that tend to criticize the content shown on the sites that do.  God forbid they open up any kind of dialogue to show how potentially ignorant or bigoted their readers are.  If the NRSC provided a chatroom, or a diary site on their website, do they or anyone actually believe that it would be devoid of some very extreme opinions?  I don't think so. 

If the NRSC, or anyone else want to criticize Kos, his website, or people that are linked to Kos, use the blog posts that Kos actually makes, or at least the ones done by his staff (volunteers, or whatever they are).  Believe me, there's plenty of material that you can use.  Kos, nor any other blogger or website that has discussion boards, comment threads, or chatrooms should be held responsible for the views that their viewers/members have.  Hold them accountable exclusively and individually.

The hottest story in the 2006 political election season is the U.S. Senate primary in Connecticut between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont.

Lieberman is the 3-term incumbent senator, former Democratic vice-presidential nominee, and presidential candidate.  Ned Lamont is more or less a political upstart, yet recent polls show Lamont with a slight lead.   Now, Lieberman is a bonafide leftist, a consistent supporter of government regulatory practices, and he's never met a tax hike he didn't like.  Lieberman generally leans left on virtually every position....except Israel.

And that's where the problem comes in, and where you understand why Lieberman has so many problems winning the Democratic primary despite being a loyal Democrat in a strong Democratic state.

Lieberman is losing the primary because he is Jewish.  Plain and simple.

You can't say it's simply because Lieberman supports the War in Iraq.  Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh have supported the war, and while they have received criticism, not to the extent that Lieberman has experienced. 

Lieberman's Jewish heritage and his staunch support for Israel makes him a key target for the left, which has a extreme dislike for Israel and blames the country for the unrest in the Middle East.  In certain circles they still believe that Israel talked Bush into going into Iraq for their own safety.  Thus, Lieberman is placed as a symbol of American support for Israel and a foreign policy that the left despises like no other.

If this had been a Republican primary, you would see tons of stories in the media "discussing" the hidden anti-semitism within the Republican Party, and the vocal dislike for Israel.  Hell; they just went through that with the Dubai ports deal debacle.  Of course, it won't be discussed in detail, and the primary race will only be depicted as the up and coming political novice taking on the Washington insider and the Jewish lobby, when it is actually so much more.

CNN.  He had just been sentence to four years, before it happened.

I'm sure Austin had to come off of some money, and the State Department had to pinch em a couple of times.

But here's the real question:  Will Austin actually come out and thank Dr. Rice and the State Department for saving his ass?  It's obvious that they had something, even if it was just the consulate's influence, in getting Austin out of jail.  You think any UAE citizen would have gotten off of a drug rap?  Right.

Anyway, screw this.  It's cookout time.  And afterwards, I'm going to play ball.  Enjoy your Independence Day.

I guess Hamas thought Israel was joking.

Well guess what?  they weren't.  And Israel looks ready to knock Hamas's doghouse down.  Did Hamas think the idea that they're supposed to be a legitimate government was enough to deter any kind of retaliation from Israel?

Right.

This is the proper response in dealing with Hamas.  Had Israel not responded with military action, I can guarantee you that these kind of kidnappings would have happened with more frequency in the future. 

Now, with the increasing military presence in Gaza, Israel puts the ball in Hamas's court:  Either return the solider unharmed or all hell will break loose.  If Israel stands their ground, I bet Hamas or any other two-bit group will think twice before they pull this stunt again.

That's what the National Association of Basketball Coaches want.

From the AP:

Motivated in part by George Mason's remarkable Final Four run last season, coaches will urge the NCAA to expand its most lucrative championship event during the men's and women's basketball committee meetings in Orlando, Fla., this week.

"They'd love to see the tournament double to 128," said Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches. "It's based on several things. First, there are a lot of good teams worthy of making the NCAA field, and second, the size of 64 or 65 has been in place for a number of years."

Are they nuts?  I'm one of those that subscribe by the logic, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."  A number of the teams in the field of 65 can barely stay above .500.

And let's get something else straight:  George Mason's run was nothing more than a fluke, where they had some teams that they matched up well against, and were able to play good defense.  However, in reality they were never a contender for their own conference championship, much less for the national championship.  If you ran the tournament over, they'd be lucky to get out of the second round.

Adding to that fact is a very weak NBA draft that has no standouts and is probably the weakest since 1989.  Nobody's fooled into thinking that any of these guys will be future All-Stars, much less a superstar on any team.  Does anyone actually believe that Adam Morrison, a guy who broke down in the middle of the court before Gonzaga's loss in the NCAA Tournament, can stay mentally composed long enough to lead any team in the league to a winning record?  Will JJ Redick be anything more than a sixth man to shoot the occasional mid-range jumper? 

The top prospects, at least according to ESPN's Chad Ford, are Tyrus Aldridge, who led LSU to the Final Four along with a number of players who looked like they were suited for football rather than the NBA, and Andrea Bargnani, a 7'1 center from Italy who supposedly has a great jumpshot and is being compared to Dirk Nowitski.  Great; another defensive liability.<

But here's the real reason the basketball coaches want the tourney expanded:

When Haney met with NCAA officials last month, he proposed the 128-team field in part because postseason bids may help coaches keep their jobs.

So, when the fan base isn't happy, and wants to see their team succeed, what do you do?  Just lower the bar.  After all; everyone at their job does it:

- When you have a deadline, just lengthen it.

- If you're late to work, simply make your shift later.

- If you're about to break your budget, just make it larger.

- If you aren't selling enough widgets, make your quota smaller.

See how easy that is?  I wish work was like college basketball, because then life would be a whole lot easier.

It isn't surprising that the New York Times or any newspaper went to press with stories about secret anti-terror programs, or today's story about troop withdrawal.  The fact is, the Bush Administration, and to a larger extent, the entire U.S., has had to deal with a press that has done everything it possibly could to bring it down, country be damned.

There's no excuse that the New York Times can pitch to the American people that would justify the publishing of these articles.  The banking program is totally legal, has a number of safeguards on it, including a warrant requirement, and has not been accused of being intrusive or ripe for abuse.  There is no element to this story that could be seen as newsworthy to the American people.  The same goes with the troop withdrawal scoop.

However, it is newsworthy to terrorists.  Breaking these stories sound an alarm to terrorists all over the world, possibly with details surrounding the banking program.  And with the troop withdrawal story, military leaders will be back at the drawing board trying to come up with a plan that will bring our troops home without leaving the insurgency intact and ready to ambush the Iraqi government as soon as they leave.  But who cares about the importance of national security when you can get a big leak within the federal government, regardless of whether the story really has any significance whatsoever?

However callous and possibly treasonous the NYT's actions may be, this and future national security leaks could be averted if the Justice Department would cart these journalists into federal court and force them to divulge their sources, or face jailtime.  If not, the NYT and other newspapers will contnue to turn their newspapers into an government insider gossip paper anytime they can spin any activity against the Bush Administration. 

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 798 of the U.S. Code makes it illegal for anyone, "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information" and that includes, in Subsection 3, "concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government". 

The press has no right or obligation to keep the leakers protected, and the Justice Department has no excuse in not forcing them to do so.  If the Bush Administration is serious about dealing with leakers, they must deal with this situation immediately.