The Hound Of Ulster

THIS is no surprise.

Frist, a surgeon who served two terms, had been preparing for a possible presidential run for more than a year but said he decided this was not the time.

“In the Bible, God tells us for everything there is a season, and for me, for now, this season of being an elected official has come to a close. I do not intend to run for president in 2008,” Frist said in a statement.

Dean Barnett LIKES the move - and the guy.

Myself, I think he tried to be “all things to all people,” as best illustrated by the stem-cell about-face. And he succeeded in being nothing to anyone.

Politicians.

Every now and then, I’m reminded of why former star players make such bad color guys (or head coaches, for that matter). Often, folks that are extraordinarily gifted at something are acting on a more “instinctual” basis than the rest of us regular humans. As a result, they rarely understand what they are doing “intellectually.” Instead, they just do it.

How else can one explain the presence of Joe Morgan?

I’m sure there are exceptions, but I can’t think of any at the moment. I do know that it’s not Bret Saberhagen, though.

Former Royals pitcher Bret Saberhagen doesn’t hold any illusions about his chances of making it into the Baseball Hall of Fame. But Saberhagen had some startling words for Hall voters about what he’d do if he got in. “I’d have to decline,” Saberhagen said by phone. “I wouldn’t accept it unless the Hall decides to put Pete Rose in, which is where he belongs.” – Kansas City Star

The simple fact is that Pete Rose cannot be in the Hall of Fame. So how can he “belong” there? People like Bret are always forgetting that the Hall’s CRITERIA contains this little tid-bit:

Any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

The interesting thing is that Rose has a unique clause in his “banishment.” Rose is allowed to apply for reinstatement once a year for as long as he likes. “As of 2006, he has applied for reinstatement seventeen times and has been turned down every time.”

But the actual fact is that Pete Rose does not belong in the Hall of Fame. It’s a simple matter of logic. The very essence of the Hall excludes him - it’s built in. That could change, of course. The Hall could modify its rules, or MLB could reinstate Pete. To say that he belongs there now is to ignore actual facts.

But Bret was a good player, so that’s probably the real problem.

Throw-ins can make or break teams. And THIS is probably my favorite example. (I’m sure part of it is my deep and abiding hatred for the Giants. But part of it is it’s such an extreme example.)

The Twins already had pried a future All-Star closer (Joe Nathan) and a projected innings-eater (Boof Bonser) out of the Giants for catcher A.J. Pierzynski.

But what really elevated that November 2003 deal to legendary status was the last name to make the list: Francisco Liriano, then a Class A lefthander.

If Liriano wasn’t a throw-in, he was darn close.

Ouch.

Plus, the Hated Ones don’t even have A.J., if I remember correctly. I think they kept him for about a year. Ouch.

Here are a couple sides on the “Keith Ellison Swearing In on the Koran” flap: PRO and CON. (Actually, maybe that should say “con” and “anti-con.” That would be more accurate. Bainbridge is pretty much responding to Prager.)

Schumer says REAGANISM is dead, which seems unlikely.

And Nancy took things in a somewhat unexpected DIRECTION.

Congressman Alcee Hastings and I have had extensive consultations, and today I advised him that I would select someone else as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Alcee Hastings has always placed national security as his highest priority. He has served our country well, and I have full confidence that he will continue to do so.

This whole “nominate and support someone that will lose so you can look bad” model of Congressional Leadership confuses me. A new approach, that’s for sure. Still, as much as I would like Pelosi to look bad, I think this is almost certainly good for America. (Good for the GOP, maybe not so much. But that’s not the main criteria right now.)

THIS doesn’t help my judge obsession, I must say. Wow. That’s absurd. My uncle’s blind, and he’s never had a problem with this. Sure, he might not know what bill it is, but that’s not the same thing as thinking it’s unfair. By that criteria, one might argue that life is unfair to blind people. It’s just the way things are, but some people can’t accept that. They need to be normal.

At least American Papist has some GOOD news, though.

It’s still there. The November elections did not change that, at least.

Dean Barnett REMINDS us of something we seem to be forgetting:

6) What makes it idiotic? Is it not a salient point that FDR and Truman were able to subdue the Axis Powers in less time than it’s taken Bush to do whatever he’s done in Iraq?

No, it is not a salient point. If the goal were to defeat Iraq and the Iraqis as we defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan, it could be accomplished pretty readily. For instance, if we gave Baghdad the Dresden treatment, I have a feeling incidents of sectarian violence would undergo a sudden, dramatic and marked decline. But we don’t want to do that, rightfully so, because it wouldn’t be nice. Lots of innocents dead, an outraged Kofi Annan – it would just generally leave a mess.

Idiotic might be a strong word, but i was pretty shocked to see the “We’ve been here longer than WWII” stuff when it came out. I have no idea why Iraq is compared to Vietnam, and WWII makes even less sense. (Actually, saying I have no idea isn’t quite right. I know why they do it. It just isn’t right.)

Check out Flopping Aces for a STORY that’s going all around the blogs today - spreading like a wild fire. In general, I think the media reporting on Iraq is somewhere between appalling and deliberately manipulative. (Thank goodness for guys like Mike FUMENTO.) But this one seems like it’s either “much ado about nothing,” or a huge, huge mistake on the part of the MSM. I know which one I’d like to be true; I’m just not sure the MSM is quite that blind yet. Not saying it’s impossible, mind you. But I’m not convinced.  Yet.  (Michelle’s got a whole lot MORE, including an interesting letter from the Army.)

Mark Levin has a general ADMONITION that seems very timely:

Nobody is talking about victory. We had many very severe setbacks during all of our major wars, from the Revolutionary and Civil Wars to World Wars I and II. Our country brought together the greatest minds NOT to devise ways to hold discussions/negotiations with the enemy, but to develop strategies to defeat them. That doesn’t exist today, or if it does, those voices are drowned out by a variety of “I told you so” claims. Other than a few lone voices, led by our own Michael Ledeen, where are the discussions about taking down the regime in Iran (a Jimmy Carter creation)? Most distressing, we hear nothing about this from any elected leaders of either party. Yet, that’s the surest way to ensure victory in Iraq, is it not?

The tone seems to have shifted drastically over the last couple of weeks, and that’s bad. Iraq is not Vietnam. But we could turn it into one in a hurry, if we’re not careful.