Apparently Algore has stark raving mad. For a thorough thrashing, please read Pedro at The Quietist.

But what really strikes me is Algore's repetitive use of the term "digital brownshirts". Its use displays ignorance or stupidity at the highest level.

The brownshirts were the SA, the Sturmabteilung, also known as Storm Troopers. Their mission: inflict violence and mayhem and intimidate people from voting. They were the early street thugs of NASDAP in the 1920's. As of yet, I know o no violence conducted by bloggers, and am aware of no intimidation of voters. Politicians? Maybe. The press. Sure. Voters? Hardly.

Now, there's a second thing about the brownshirts which Algore is probably unaware. Once in power, Hitler grew to fear them and eventually, with the urging of the army, had the leadership liquidated and the organization disbanded. Now, how many bloggers have been killed? None that I am aware of. Last time I checked, blogger, typepad, and the others are all still up and running.

Gore's use of such a phrase reflects a complete lack of understanding or complete descension into paranioa. Does he really think he's being targeted for violence or intimidation? The man has truly lost all connection with reality.

I don't think Bush fears the blogosphere. He certainly didn't pander to them with his latest SCOTUS nominee. In fact, who has the right-wing blogosphere been most agressive against? The mainstream press. For years the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and even taxpayer funded NPR ran the show. But those days are over. They determined what was news, what was shown, and what the news consumer read, heard and saw. Now that sounds kind of like, oh well, nevermind.

The left-wing blogosphere has been relentless, merciless, and downright disgusting in attacking Bush and his supporters. Is Gore perhaps upset with them?

If he wanted to draw attention with his hyperbole, all he managed to do was reveal his ignorance, simplistic grasp of history, and complete lunacy. And to think, this guy this close to being president.

Almost a year ago, I made the pronouncement that It's time to pick sides:

While the recent operations in Fallujah have been successful, and the base of operations for the insurgency has been dealt a serious blow, the fighting rages on. Samarra, Ramadi, and Mosul have seen escalating violence. The insurgency is using hit-and-run attacks aimed keeping the coalition continually chasing shadows. They are operating at a pace they can't maintain unless we stop pursuing and pressuring them. However their aim is not to defeat us, but to break our will.

There is however, a much better alternative, and I am sure this option has been floating around the halls of the pentagon for a while. It is time to pick sides.

From the beginning we refused to pick sides, be it Shia, Kurd, or Sunni. We didn't focus rebuilding efforts in any one area, and we tried to show fairness and balance. We were more concerned about offending any one group lest we alienate them.

Great idea, bad results.

Today's WaPo is worried that Iraq is slipping away.

There are many flaws in the proposed constitution, but the most serious is its facilitation of a de facto partition of Iraq into several mini-states. Minority Kurds plan to preserve their existing statelet in northern Iraq and add to it the ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk and the oil fields nearby. Shiite leaders have meanwhile announced plans for a nine-province "region" in southern Iraq that, with its own constitution, courts and security forces -- and control of some of the world's largest oil fields -- would very likely become an Islamic republic closely linked to Iran. Left behind by these schemes would be the residents of Baghdad; Iraqis around the country who hoped for a secular and democratic state; and the minority Sunni population, which ruled the country under Saddam Hussein and constitutes the bulk of the armed insurgency. In such an Iraq, even moderate Sunnis would have an enduring source of grievance. Worse, they could be convinced by the upcoming referendum that seeking redress by political means is useless: It now seems likely that Sunnis will vote overwhelmingly against the constitution, and that it nevertheless will be ratified by Shiite and Kurdish votes. If, against the odds, the constitution is voted down, Shiites and Kurds could turn to violence.

This is the wrong analysis. The Shia and Kurd won't turn to violence. They have no reason to, and in fact have all the reasons not to. Those who might turn to violence, the Sunni, won't either. But for an entirely different reason, they can't.

Iraq is their country to govern. We had a guiding document, the Articles of Confederation, written after the Revolutionary War and it turned out to be very problematic. And the issue that proved this was in fact violence, Shay's rebellion. When the framers met in Philadelphia in 1787, they had this event fresh on their minds. The inability of the government to quell the uprising necessitated a far more powerful central government.

Iraq spent 30 plus years under oppressive Ba'athist rule. That they'd want far greater local autonomy is not only unsurprising, but expected. We wanted the same almost 240 years ago.

We are mired in the present, captured by the moment. If they choose a loose confederation, and it proves unteneble, then surely they'll change it. Any outbreak of violence, even larger scale civil war will not only impact the Sunni areas, but spill over into the more peaceful Norhtern Kurdish and Southern Shia regions. And they will suffer as well.

It might take a violent period to bring all sides together. Would that be the worst possible solution? I think not.

It has been almost three years since Saddam was overthrown and a civil war has not broken out. Surely, the paltry forces (according to all the "experts") we have in Iraq could not stop one should it break out. And if it hasn't happened so far, what possibility is there that one would break out later.

Let me answer this question with a very simple answer. None. Back in January, I wrote:

4) All other options are bad.
Actually, they go from bad to worse. If the Sunni don't participate, they are ending any chance they had at representation in the new government. And they'll have nobody else to blame but themselves. Who's going to come and help them out? Syrian or Iranian involvement would be seen as a violation of territorial sovreignty, aimed at overturning a legitimately elected government. And surely the US would have something to say about that as well.

Should they provoke a civil war, a remote possibility, the odds are decidely against them. They know they can't win. The Kurds are armed, the peshmerga a fierce fighting force. The Shia will certainly field a force more than willing to exact revenge. That Sunni would start a war they cannot hope to win, and worse, one they know will crush them, is highly unlikely. The few jihadis who harbor their own jihadist gotterdammerung are going to find few happy warriors among the mostly educated populous. They know that all options go from bad to worse. And go that way in a hurry.

The fact is this: for a civil war to happen, one side has to actually think it has some chance of either winning, or at least gain. For the Sunni, there's absolutely none, and they all know it.

Iraq isn't even close to being the same country it was just one year ago. It might not be what we envisioned, but it is certainly not what was predicted by the critics either. It is clearly taking on a more Iraqi appearance, as if that should be a surprise.

Getting back to my prescience, I think the administration has finally picked sides, just as I said they should. You can't very well let twenty percent of the population derail progress. And it isn't even twenty percent, but a small minority among them. We've decided in essence to let Iraqis sort out and solve the problems themselves, in a manner consistent with their aspirations. And we've chosen their side. Finally.

The WaPo makes this claim:

Yet Iraq's prospects would be better if its leaders heard the American president clearly describe the likely consequences of their current strategies. Iraq is risking a civil war, and Americans are not likely to support the further sacrifice of lives in defense of a Shiite Islamic republic, or a rump state of Kurdistan.

I believe the president has made clearly the consequences of failure in Iraq many, many times.. It seems that the opponents of the war never wanted to hear them, that is until now. Suddenly, Iraqi success is vital to US security. Yet, the clear dichotomy of their newfound concern doesn't trouble them in the slightest. Before the war, Iraq was a diversion. Now, it's success is vital. I guess we'll call that intellectual dexterity.

What does failure actually look like? I'm not sure, but I'm fairly certain it looks like whatever will result. It will be imperfect, thus a failure. There will be unresolved issues, thus a failure. There will be inequities, thus a failure. There will be the potential specter of civil war, thus a failure. Hmmm...sounds alot like another constitution I read once.

But back to Iraq. Iraq is, and has always been, central to the war on terror. That this is becoming obvious to even the harshest of critics is highly amusing were it not so serious. The fact is Iraq did not become central to defeating terrorism, it was always. And that is ultimately the final judgement. Iraq in any of the potential guises, an agent of change and progress in the Middle East, is victory. Iraq, free from overt support of terror, development of weapons of mass destruction, and threatening its neighbors is not only victory but also has the nice effect of making us much, much safer.

I have asked in the past What is it with apologies? I don't understand the need of some to offer, and others to receive, apologies. As if that's all it takes.

The latest apologygate revolves around Bill Bennett and his crime/abortion comments. Forget for a moment that he's a private citizen, not serving in the government in any capacity, and simply a talk radio host. It matters not at all that he served previous administrations nor in what capacity.

Within hours of his on air comments, many, including leading democratic senators demanded an apology. Why? What were they hoping to accomplish? I know they were certainly attempting the quantum leap of logic, that by painting Bennett as a racist, and by pointing out he's conservative, thus "proving" Bush is racist. I guess that counts for logic on the left.

But so what if does apoligize? What does it prove? It doesn't change what he said, or the reasoning behind it. But what it does do is stifle any meaningful debate about the crime rates, especially within the black community, where the majority of victims are black. It is undeniable that black on black crime is the undiscussed epidemic facing urban areas.

Yet the only answers are just to say sorry. We shouldn't expect much more from the self-esteem uber alles approach of the left. Just make them feel good, tell them you care more, and damn the consequences.

California is having a special election. Arnold tried to get the legislature to enact modest reforms and was shot down like a duckon opening day. So, he did what any evil Republican does. No, he didn't stage a coup, nor disenfranchise millions, nor steal elections. He simply took his case to the people. For a party that is so determined to "count every vote", why is it they oppose so many elections?

So, my good friends (yeah, them again) have decided to mail out a flier to help inform us. So, what does the governator want to do?

"Directly attack our students, our public schools, and our profession"

Sounds reasonable to me.

I open the flier and what do I read? Arnold wants to "blame teachers". According to the CTA/NEA, proposition 74 seeks to:

extend the probation period for new teachers from two to five years and change the dismissal process, allowing districts to fire any teacher who has recieved two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations.

So, by blaming teachers, Arnold wants allow district to dismiss teachers who recieve unsatisfactory evaluations. Stop the presses.

As for proposition 75 the "silence outr voices" iniative:

targets public employees like teachers and nurses with new political restrictions so we can't speak out to protect education and teachers' rights.

Well, talk about having your voice silenced. Try being a conservative teacher. Or maybe just a parent.

As for proposition 76, the "cut school funding" iniative:

an attempt to overturn Prop 98, the measure that guarantees education is a top priority in the state budget

Actually, 98 didn't do that. It simply mandated that 40 percent of the budget be devoted to education.

Attacking students, blaming teachers, silencing voices, devastating cuts. Wow. Sounds like reasonable debate to me. They recommend I vote no on 74, 75, and 76. Gonna have to think on that one...

When they wonder why so many won't take us seriously, why so many hold us in contempt, they need look no further than things like this.

I have to laugh when I hear people claim Bush to be a conservative. Sure, he's to the right on a few social issues, but from spending to immigration to trade to now judges, he's been anything but. However, I will offer him one defense, and no, it's not an apology. What president in modern times has been under more brutal assault than he has? I can't think of any. I'm not talking the hardball Washington politics, but the vicious and damn near seditious attacks he's had to weather. It all started in 2000 with the election and it hasn't relented at all.

First, look at his past, and there's not much there. His life had little direction and much indiscretion until he became religious. However, that still doesn't change a person's core philosophical instincts.

I'd venture to say that his guiding influence was his father, a man he never believed he could match. World War 2 hero, businessman, congressman, etc. Bush pere was quite accomplished. Probably something nobody ever mentions is this: there's not a mean bone is the man's body. When was the last time you heard him say anything disparaging about anyone other than Saddam or bin Laden?

He's gone his entire life and people for the most part have liked him. Now, he goes to Washignton, and suddenly, he's the target of the most vicious hate speech imaginable. It'd have an impact on me without a doubt.

He tries to make nice with Teddy Kennedy who promptly stabs him in the back and and calls the "war cooked up in Crawford", says of the war justification "lie after lie after lie..." He's accused of everything from stealing an election to disenfranchising a million black voters. He's even accused of killing blacks. A vile piece of propaganda is a cause celeb for the leaders of the democratic party, and the press has been so blatantly in opposition to him they would dare to run forged documents solely to destroy him.

And that is just for starters.

Hate speech has reached new depths regarding the president. It is not only acceptable, but fashionable and even expected, and we have learned that even in public settings nothing is beyond the pale. Whoopi Goldberg's genitalia remarks were just simply par for the course.

He has relied heavily, probably more than any recent president, on his closest advisors. He tends to develop close personal relationships with people, and puts his trust in them. One thing that can be said is that he does inspire great loyalty and committment. Paul O'Neill was the rare exception, but, he wasn't a Bush confidante. I don't think he simply seeks yes men, but finds people who will not break silence.

Bush's last few years in office will only reflect this fact more and more. He will feel less attached to any one group or constituency. As Cheney has made clear his lack of intention to run in 2008, this does clear the field for Republicans to openly oppose the president and break from party doctorine. The ppresident is well aware of this, and probably resigned himself to the fact. He has nothing left to do other than finish what he started, go home, and get away from it al.

He has one legacy, Iraq and the entire War on Terror. Expect him to devote more time and effor to that. Don't expect anything on social security or taxes however.

I think the message he sent with the Meirs appointment has less to do with the court and more to do with his overall view of things. He was not from Washington and that was obvious from the start. He will leave Washington and have had little impact other than to watch it devolve into an even more partisan and bitter hell hole. On this matter, there is precious little he could have done to stem the tide.

History will judge his presdency on many levels, but one judgement will certainly not be that he was a conservative. While Ronald Reagan signaled the beginning of a conservative revolution, Bush signaled the end of it. Big governement is here to stay.

I have to say that like many conservatives, I feel mostly disappointment. But I have nobody to blame but myself. He came to office as a "compassionate conservative" whatever that is. I guess now we know what it means. Almost like a a disloyal spouse, we are shocked he would stray. But we never bothered to seriously investigate what we were agreeing to.

The real challenge for conservatives to either resign themselves to the fact that they have lost the major battles, both socially and fiscally, and work to build coalitions to stop the onslaught of the left. The left will see "victory", but have not a clue as to what they won. There is no mandate for their brand of secularism, pacificism, and socialism. They will still have to run as stealth moderates and only afterwards betray their true selves.

Their victory of sorts over Bush is Pyrrhic at best. For the conservatives, it is more akin to Carrhae or Parthia. While they lost their standard, the empire is still strong and intact. There is much angst on the right, over taxes, the judicairy, spending, immigration, et al. However, most political movement now is towards fiscal restraint (witness Pelosi's recent magnaminity), closing the borders, etc.

For the left, they expended all they had to beat Bush, and have no agenda, no goals, no enemies. They simply have hate. Even their tried and true race card doesn't play well anymore to large crowds like it used to. However, this will not serve them well in a general election, the populace not nearly as liberal as upset with Bush. And within the groups upset at Bush are people like me, for whom the rhetoric of the left will only serve to keep me voting Republican.

Bush's problem isn't that he's conservative, it's that he's not.