Thursday's links and comments
Bob Novak updated his predictions for the upcoming House and Senate elections. He is still predicting a Dem takeover of the House but by a closer margin. Beyond his predictions he gives an explanation of why he feels Jim McTague's prediction in Barron's magazine is wrong.
The Hartford Courant looks at Harry Reid's Flubs.
Ann Coulter is at her best in her column titled "DEMS' FAVORITE HALLOWEEN COSTUME: PATRIOT." She makes a point I wish I had. The pundits and politicians on the left who claim that Iraq is just distracting us from the "real war on terrorism" in Afghanistan are the same people who claimed we had no chance of victory in Afghanistan.
The beauty of Democrats' pretending to be hawks on Afghanistan is that most people can't remember what liberals said five minutes after they said it, much less five years later. In fact, during the brief five weeks it took American forces to take Kabul and send the Taliban scurrying, liberals were not the flag-waving patriots they would have us believe.
In October 2001, Sen. Joe Biden gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations saying that America's air war in Afghanistan made the United States look like "this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do."
Four weeks before U.S. troops completely vanquished the Taliban, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, said on CNN's "Capital Gang" that the Taliban would not soon be toppled. He cited his experience with the Taliban, saying: "I think they can hold on for a while. They were very resilient."
Except for a few idiots, most politicians -- who have to run for election -- duly voted in favor of the war in Afghanistan and let their mouthpieces in the media bash it for them. (Remember: A lot of them voted for war in Iraq, too.) Democrats who would not have to face voters -- we call them "reporters" -- were calling Afghanistan a "quagmire" approximately six minutes after we invaded.
Is the Tide Turning in the 2006 Campaign? by Newt Gingrich. Remember the only poll that matters is the one taken for real on election day.
Seven Reasons Why Karl Rove Is Optimistic. Here is the seventh - he has to be optimistic.
7. This final reason is perhaps the most important. If Karl Rove evinces one shred of doubt about the fate of Republican congressional control, he’d be lucky if half of the volunteers who diligently show up to Republican victory centers across the country pack up and go home. Optimism breeds faith. And more importantly, optimism could mean the difference between losing 14 seats and losing 35. The base will pick up on signs of Bush’s pessimism, of Mehlman’s pessimism, of Rove’s pessimism.
Deroy Murdock has "A look at what happens if Democrats win Congress" and it isn't pretty.