PowerlineBlog: Daily Digest

Daily Digest

Let the Games Continue Posted: 06 Jan 2009 01:34 PM PST The battle over Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's unexpired Senate term is one that we Republicans can only sit back and enjoy. This morning, Burris showed up at the Capitol but was blocked from taking his seat. Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid and with Obama's support, say that Burris lacks the proper credentials because Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has refused to sign the document in which Blagojevich appointed Burris. It's far from clear to me that this argument is valid; the Governor has the power of appointment, and the Secretary of State's signature is, as far as I know, entirely ministerial. Be that as it may, this all-Democrat spectacle can only help Republicans by keeping Blagojevich and Reid, two of the Dems' least-appealing figures, in the public eye.

French TV Shows Gazans Killed By Hamas, Blames Israel Posted: 06 Jan 2009 01:28 PM PST Public television network France 2 has admitted that earlier today, it showed photos of dozens of bodies of members of Hamas and civilians who it said were killed in an Israeli bombing raid on January 1. Only problem: the photos were actually taken in 2005, and the people depicted were killed not by Israel, but when "a truck full of explosives blew up in the Jabaliya Refugee Camp." The terrorists, in other words, blew themselves up accidentally and took a number of civilians with them.

Basketball Game Suspended in Turkey Posted: 06 Jan 2009 01:22 PM PST A ULEB Eurocup Group D basketball game between Israel's Bnei Hasharon and Turkey's Turk Telekom in Ankara was suspended today when Turkish fans began chanting "Israel, killers!" and throwing objects at the Israeli players. A referee suspended the game and ordered players back to their dressing rooms. No word on whether the game was ever resumed.

Media Alert Posted: 06 Jan 2009 07:53 AM PST I'll be on the Dennis Prager show this morning at 9:20 Pacific time, 11:20 central, to talk about the Minnesota Senate recount. If you're in the Hartford, Connecticut area, I'll also be on Jim Vicevich's excellent show on WTIC at 11:10 eastern time.

Sheik Ahmad Yassin Hospital opens in Gaza? Posted: 06 Jan 2009 05:15 AM PST The Jerusalem Post reports that Hamas has opened a hospital for terrorists: Hamas has set up an independent hospital in the Gaza Strip to treat its operatives wounded in fighting with the IDF - and, according to Israeli estimates, it is pilfering a significant portion of the medicine allowed into the Strip, senior defense officials told The Jerusalem Post on Monday. Despite this estimate, the Defense Ministry said Monday that it would continue facilitating the transfer of food and medical supplies into Gaza. The humanitarian convoys, defense officials said, played a key role in garnering international legitimacy for the IDF's operations in Gaza since it showed the world that Israel distinguished between Hamas terrorists and Palestinian civilians. Ah, the uses of a "humanitarian crisis." To comment on this post, go here.

The fat lady hasn't sung in Minnesota Posted: 06 Jan 2009 04:31 AM PST In "MInnesota Senate Recount, Update XVI," John Hinderaker presents a lucid exposition of the issues still at play in Al Franken's 225-vote victory over Norm Coleman in Minnesota's Senate election. First came the canvas, won by Senator Coleman. Then came the mandatory recount, won by Franken. Now comes the election contest, which Senator Coleman's team has vowed to file today. The filing of an election contest prevents state authorities from issuing a certificate of election in favor of Franken. I offer a Reader's Digest-style condensed version of the issues in the New York Post column "No one's laughing amid all these doubts." Bottom line: The issues raised by the Coleman campaign are legitimate. Resolving them has been expressly reserved by the board and the state Supreme Court for the election contest - the final stage of Minnesota's election process. They do not constitute the complaints of a sore loser. Nov. 5 wasn't long ago. It was the day when Al Franken demanded that every vote be counted (once). But it's already ancient history in Minnesota. Today's Star Tribune carries a fair editorial on the election contest. John McCormack's "Can Coleman win?" is also illuminating. Among the several issues remaining to be determined is who will appoint the three-judge panel that is to rule on the election contest. Minnesota law provides that it is the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. However, Chief Justice Eric Magnuson served on the Board of Canvassers whose handiwork will be at issue in the contest. Chief Justice Magnuson has recused himself so far from Supreme Court proceedings involving the Board of Canvassers. To comment on this post, go here.

Hooray for Big Hollywood! Posted: 06 Jan 2009 03:56 AM PST Big Hollywood is the brainstorm of Andrew Breitbart. It is a group blog that is intended to provide a forum for heterodox voices talking about popular culture and encouragement to conservatives working in the Hollywood vineyards. Andrew explains the purpose of his new venture in "A million stories to tell." He has appointed editor John Nolte to preside over a team of interesting contributors in his new venture. Nolte has contributed several interersting reviews that are accessible on the home page, as well as his editor's statement "Big Hollywood loves the arts." Andrew has invited me to participate, and I have posted a short note on Hollywood's 2007 anti-war flicks. As always in the case of such left-wing pap such as Peter Berg's disappointing "The Kingdom," commercial expectations were high and, as always, filmgoing audiences had a mind of their own. Among the contributors helping Andrew roll out the site tody are Orson Bean, who asks "Where are the cinema heroes today?," and Andrew Klavan, who says "Hooray for Big Hollywood." I'm wondering who among the hearty contributors to Big Hollywood will take up the challenge of addressing Steven Soderbergh's epic tribute to the Commmunist murderer Che Guevara. Soderbergh's tribute assumes its position in a line that includes Richard Lester's 1979 bomb "Cuba," which I refer to in my Big Hollywood post this morning. The line also includes Robert Redford's 2004 paean to Che, which I took a look at in "Motorpsycho Diaries." For the moment, I refer interested readers to Mark Goldblatt's "Revenge of Che" and to Jay Nordlinger's unfortunately still timely 2004 article "Che chic." To comment on this post, go here.

From Paris to Poland, from Beirut to Amman; Hamas is a two-face, a worrisome thing Posted: 05 Jan 2009 07:49 PM PST The Washington Post, in a story by Sudarsan Raghavan, reports as follows on international protests against Israel's military operation in Gaza: From Paris to Poland, tens of thousands of protesters called for an end to the Israeli offensive. In the Muslim world, thousands marched in Beirut and in Ankara, Turkey, and Amman, Jordan. This is good alliteration but poor writing. Raghavan leaves it unclear (perhaps deliberately) roughly how many people protested in Paris and Poland; which European cities "from Paris to Poland" experienced protests and of what magnitude; and (to me perhaps the most interesting question) how the size of the European protests compared with the size of the protests in "the Muslim world." In addition, Raghavan declines to go near the question of the extent to which the ranks of the protesters n Europe were made up of Muslims. If most of the protesters in Europe were Muslims (which is how it looks in the film I've seen), there may be less than meets the eye, for purposes of this story at least, to Raghavan's distinction between "from Paris to Poland" and "the Muslim world." To comment on this post, go here.

A suitable director for a post-modern CIA? Posted: 05 Jan 2009 07:28 PM PST My first reaction to Barack Obama's selection of Leon Panetta as CIA director was puzzlement. After all, Panetta has no real background in intelligence gathering or analysis. But on reflection, Obama's decision may make sense on the merits. The CIA's primary importance these days arguably has less to do with intelligence gathering or analysis than with political gamesmanship. The CIA's highest profile assessments this decade -- that Iran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and that Iraq possessed WMD -- weren't important as reflections of reality. Indeed, it is quite doubtful that either assessment accurately reflected reality. The assessments were important because the CIA made them and because, as such, they could serve as justification for action or inaction. In this context, it is understandable that, in selecting a CIA director, Obama would place a higher premium on political acumen than on background in intelligence. I don't mean to suggest that intelligence gathering is peripheral to the CIA's mission. But it does seem these days that the CIA is a political actor first and an intelligence operation second. The selection of Panetta may reflect this "post-modern" reality. It may, in addition, reflect the plausible view that one need not have experience in the field of intelligence to run an agency that does an effective job of gathering and assessing intelligence. To comment on this post, go here.

Leon Panetta, CIA Chief? Posted: 05 Jan 2009 07:15 PM PST I have nothing in particular against Leon Panetta, who seems to be a classic Clintonite pragmatist. That said, he has no evident qualification to be CIA Director other than general administrative ability. So why has Barack Obama nominated him for the post? Obama preferred someone with intelligence experience, like John Brennan. The problem is that just about everyone who fits that description had, like Brennan, some involvement in devising the intelligence strategies of the last seven years. Those strategies, including but not limited to the interrogation of terrorists, have been spectacularly successful. Normally, participation in them would be a major plus in a candidate for CIA director. But the Democrats have committed themselves, for political reasons, to harsh criticisms of these and other aspects of the Bush administration's anti-terror campaign. So Obama had to abandon Brennan's nomination, and he is now stuck with someone who not only had nothing to do with the Bush administration's highly successful policies, but was adamantly opposed to them. Panetta fits the necessary political profile, so he will be CIA Director even though he has no experience in intelligence. Thus do political considerations sometimes constrain a President's ability to put the right people in executive posts. UPDATE: Paul and I were working on posts on Panetta's appointment simultaneously; it's interesting to see how our takes on the appointment are both similar and different. It's notable, I think, that both of our post titles ended with a question mark. To comment on this post, go here.

Minnesota Senate Recount, Update XVI Posted: 05 Jan 2009 04:32 PM PST Earlier today, Minnesota's Canvassing Board certified the results of the Senate recount, with former comedian Al Franken holding a 225-vote lead. The Coleman campaign immediately announced that it will file an election contest tomorrow. The status of the recount has been widely misreported and widely misunderstood. Under Minnesota law, the post-election process has three stages: canvassing, in which the returns from the precincts are tabulated and clerical errors in reporting results are corrected; recount, in which the ballots that were cast on election day are hand-counted; and contest, in which disputes about what ballots should be counted and any other disagreements are resolved. So far, only two of the three stages have been completed. The resolution of disputed issues remains. Coleman's contest of the returns so far is not, as some have claimed, a "sore loserman" tactic. There are highly legitimate issues surrounding the election which have not yet been addressed by any body. Those issues, some of which appear highly meritorious, will be considered for the first time in the election contest. A number of issues will be raised in the contest, but two are most important. First, Coleman argues that an additional 654 absentee ballots that were rejected on election day should be counted. It was Al Franken who first started talking about the "wrongly rejected absentee ballots" when he was behind in the recount. Franken's theory was that the counties should go through the absentee ballots that they rejected, and did not count, on election day. The counties, Franken said, should identify any ballots as to which they wanted to change their minds, and add those ballots to the ones being tabulated by the Canvassing Board. Coleman objected to this procedure, in part because there was no uniform standard to guide the counties. The Supreme Court, however, directed the counties and the two campaigns to confer and identify any ballots that they all agreed had improperly been rejected. Those ballots would be counted by the Canvassing Board; any ballots on which the parties did not agree would be reserved for the contest phase. The fatal flaw in this procedure was that the counties did not approach the task in the same manner. Some--in general, the more partisan, DFL-controlled counties--approached the job aggressively and put the maximum number of ballots in the infamous "fifth pile" to be counted by the Canvassing Board. Other counties took the position that to the best of their knowledge, the decisions they made on election day were right, and they put zero ballots in the "fifth pile." The result was rampant inconsistency. The counties put a total of around 1,350 absentee ballots in their "fifth piles." The Coleman and Franken campaigns reviewed these ballots and concluded that around 400 of them were correctly rejected in the first place. (This suggests that some counties were, indeed, overzealous in selecting ballots for the "fifth pile.") The campaigns agreed that the remaining 933 ballots could go to the Canvassing Board and be counted. In addition, the Coleman campaign identified 654 absentee ballots which it believed had been wrongly rejected, at least by the standards that were being followed by the other counties, but were not put into the "fifth pile" by the counties where the votes were cast. Coleman argued that for the sake of consistency, these ballots, too, should go to the Canvassing Board and be counted. Franken, however, refused to agree to count any of these ballots. (We're not hearing any more from local Democrats about "counting every vote.") By way of example, in at least one county ballots were put into the "fifth pile" if they were witnessed by an election judge but not signed by the voter. This is inconsistent with state law, which requires absentee ballots to be signed by the voter. Most counties, therefore, did not put such ballots in their "fifth piles." Nevertheless, the ballots so identified by the county that de facto changed the statute have been counted by the Canvassing Board. Coleman argues that for the sake of consistency, ballots in the same category from other counties should likewise be counted. The Coleman campaign says that included in its 654 additional ballots are some that satisfy all statutory requirements and, in addition, were marked "accepted," not "rejected," on election day. Nevertheless, apparently because of clerical error, these ballots were put in the "rejected" pile. Franken refuses to agree to count them, so they will have to be addressed in the contest. The second principal issue relates to duplicate ballots. It appears clear that in several Democrat-leaning precincts, a number of ballots were counted twice. In some precincts, more ballots were counted than the number of voters who showed up on election day. The Coleman campaign raised this issue with the Canvassing Board, which concluded that it had no alternative but to count the ballots even though at least one member of the board said publicly that he believed they were counting some ballots twice. Coleman then took the issue to the Supreme Court, which held that it would require fact-finding to determine whether and to what extent ballots had been double-counted, and therefore the issue would have to be reserved for the contest phase. It seems likely that Coleman will win this issue, and his campaign believes it will represent a swing of 100 or more ballots in Coleman's favor. So Coleman has ample grounds to file an election contest, and he most likely will gain a number of votes when additional ballots are counted and duplicates are eliminated. It is impossible to say at this point whether such gains will be enough to win the election. One way or the other, it is going to be a photo finish. To comment on this post, go here.