Ed Morrissey has the scoop on the changes at the CIA

Ed Morrissey has a series of posts about Porter Goss's resignation and his possible replacements. The first was Goss Abruptly Quits, Leaves Questions Behind. The second was Who Comes After Goss?. The third was Hayden May Have Helped Goss Out The Door. The fourth is called Be Careful What You Wish For. Ed concludes:

UPDATE: Time Magazine has this quote:

President George W. Bush stunned Washington on Friday by accepting the resignation of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, and Republican sources told TIME that the White House plans to name his replacement on Monday: Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, who as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence has been a visible and aggressive defender of the administration's controversial eavesdropping program. His nomination is sure to reignite the battle over the program on Capitol Hill, where one House Democrat promises "a partisan food fight" during the confirmation process.

Though Hayden, who has a close rapport with Vice President Cheney, has not been formally offered the job, he is the leading candidate and the announcement is planned for Monday at the White House, the sources said. The President frequently extends a formal offer immediately before an announcement, to cut down on leaks and allow for last-minute developments.

I think the "food fight" will be forthcoming within minutes of an announcement naming Hayden as Goss' replacement. I do find the last paragraph puzzling, especially since the substance of what Bush wants to avoid exposing has already been leaked to Time and CNN. It looks like Bush wants to take the weekend to gauge opinion on the Hill regarding Hayden, and will offer it to him on Monday if the trial balloon does not get shot down. That's an interesting strategy, but it indicates that the White House is concerned with the political meltdown that may occur with Hayden's nomination. It will be interesting to see whether the Democrats go ballistic this weekend, and whether that produces a different appointment on Monday.

Do you want to let the Democrats run things?

Ed Morrissey writes, at Captain's Quarters, about the dissatisfaction among a segment of Conservatives with the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. He does say that if you withdraw support from the Republicans, you then are letting the Democrats gain power. I am getting increasingly tired of whining from those Conservatives who are ready to torpedo their own goals to teach President Bush and the Republicans a lesson. Ed writes:

This delves into the question of priorities for conservatives. Does it make sense to tone down their frustration with GOP leadership (especially on spending and immigration) in order to retain at least some influence on the legislative process? Even more basic, does criticism and threats of Election-Day boycotts hurt the GOP or force it to improve? Even if it hurts, does it make a difference in the long run?

I would argue that it does hurt, it does make a difference – but now is not the time to stand down and offer unqualified support. We need to keep pressing our agenda, calling out our own leadership, especially on spending and immigration issues. Conservatives should look for worthy alternative candidates for primaries in order to get better representation of our agenda. Politicians who scornfully dismiss constituents for their concern over pork-barrel projects (Trent Lott), immigration policies, and First Amendment rights (John McCain), need credible opposition in their next elections to either mend their ways or be replaced by more responsive representatives. After all, the purpose of primary elections is to make sure the party’s overall values are reflected in our candidates. If we abdicate at that stage, we hardly have room to complain in the general election.

Once the primaries have concluded, conservatives should continue to press their agenda but need to be realistic about the choices given them. In a national sense, the parties offer very different agendas, and rational voters will have to choose between them. Abdication by voters on all ends of the spectrum only hurts the candidates closest to their own positions by robbing them of support. Conservatives need to remember that a walkout will likely return power in the House to Democrats, and the advantages of incumbency could make that stay in the wilderness lengthy.

The time will come for big-tent solidarity and practical calculations on the best way to promote conservative values in government. That time, however, has not yet arrived, especially while critical issues remain in play for this Congress and administration.

I knew her before she made the big time

I find it interesting to see how people have progressed over time, since I first met them. I had worked with Giuseppina Mecchia's husband in 1995, in Colorado Springs. She was teaching at Colorado College, at the time. Her husband followed her there, and was able to find work, after arriving. We were both doing Smalltalk programming, on contract, at the time. Giuseppina and her husband eventually moved to Pittsburgh, where she is now an Assistant Professor in the Department of French & Italian at the University of Pittsburgh. She must have lefty tendencies, given the nature of her recent work. My wife and I had a bit of time with she and her husband, before I left Colorado. We had met them in Denver, where I was living, when I was doing Smalltalk consulting in Lakewood. We had a good time and enjoyed socializing with them. Politics need not affect how you interact with people. That was Marc Cooper's point, really, that it would be better if we could disagree, but restrict the disgreement to "work", but still be able to socialize, outside of "work" hours. That is what used to happen in the Senate, prior to the 1990's, when it was the most exclusive social club around. The really rabid, radical leftists seem not to be able to operate that way.

The MSM success in tarring President Bush

Tom Elia, writing at The New Editor, has a long piece about how the public, in polls, is not recognizing that the economy is doing extremely well. Hurricane Katrina gave the MSM the opportunity to paint a largely untrue narrative about President Bush and the Federal response. the constant hammering on that story line has succeeded in driving President Bush's poll numbers to ridiculous lows. That has been aided by the ineptitude of the administration in public relations and communications, in general. Tom writes:

Let me walk you again through some of the statistics about this current economic expansion -- but instead of looking at what's happened from the official recession bottom in November 2001 to now, let's also look at what happened from April 2003, which is the last month-end before the tax cuts were enacted into law.

Let's start with the stock market. From the recession bottom to April 2003, the S&P 500 actually lost 18%. Since April 2003, the S&P 500 has gained 51%. Now that's a bull market -- but you just have to start at the right place.

From the recession bottom to April 2003, 1.03 million payroll jobs were lost, and the unemployment rate actually went up from 5.5% to 6.0%. Talk about a jobless recovery! But since April 2003, payroll jobs have increased by 5.11 million, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 4.7%.

From the recession bottom to April 2003, real GDP grew 3.2%. Since April 2003, it has grown 11.3%.

From the recession bottom to April 2003, S&P 500 earnings increased only 7%. Since April 2003, earnings have grown 59%.

From the recession bottom to April 2003, manufacturers' new orders fell 5%. Since April 2003, they have increased by 38%.

From the recession bottom to April 2003, non-residential fixed investment fell 1%. Since April 2003, it has increased by 35%.

And here's the most remarkable of all. From the recession bottom to April 2003, federal income tax receipts fell by 11%. Since April 2003, they have increased by 26%, and now stand at all time record highs. Think about that one for a second. We cut taxes on personal incomes, capital gains, and dividends -- and tax receipts went up.

Let's hear it for voodoo economics. It works.

Why does it work? It's really so simple. Tell people they will get to keep more of the fruits of their labors and the fruits of their investments, and they will labor more and invest more. The economy will grow -- and so will tax receipts.

But there's something else at work when you cut the taxes on dividends and capital gains in particular. By doing that, you've directly removed a disincentive to risk-taking and capital formation. There has never in history been any kind of economic growth that came from anything else. Risk-taking and capital formation are what it's all about -- and when you lower the taxes on them, you get more of them. So you get more growth.

It really puts Dr. Charles Wheelan's piece, "Debunking One of the Worst Ideas in Economics", in a bad light. He doesn't believe that tax cuts generate enough revenue to pay for themselves (he is a columnist at Yahoo Finance). You have to suspect that Charles Wheelan must be of the lefty persuasion.

Marc Cooper on the reaction to his comments about the Monthly Review

Marc Cooper writes about the personal attacks made by the far left on him. Fortunately, Marc seems to firmly based that he can handle the sort of inflamatory rhetoric that his critics are spouting:

But isn't it lovely that in the very same moment we've got two, count'em TWO revolutionaries -- you know, those impassioned battlers against all forms of discrimination and oppression and who will lead us to a more compassionate and equal New Society -- resorting to fat fotos as their line of argument? It's no accident, comrades, as Stalin would say. Intellectual and political bankruptcy can be viral.

I'm not offended in the least. After a lifetime of pudginess I've embraced my corpulence and made the best of it by eating with great gusto and frequency without having to worry or fret. If I were ticked, I'd hardly be inclined to link to these comrades and give them the free traffic and, um..exposure...they'd otherwise not have. But, frankly, I just couldn't resist. I think their posts say much, much more about them than I ever could and I wanted them to speak loudly and widely (no pun intended).

This is the same kind of attack that has been continually made against President Bush, and it is about as valid (not). Our leftist buddies like Christopher Hitchins (the British Socialist gadfly) about as well. (Marc Cooper had the link to these guys, who criticized him and Christopher Hitchins).

It's all about advancing the leftist political agenda, not gas mileage

Robert Farago, writing at The Truth About Cars, explains the latest shot in the leftist political attack, via a lawsuit:

The truth is raising CAFÉ standards by a few more mpg’s won’t make any appreciable dent in domestic oil consumption. As Mr. Elton has revealed here, many car companies simply eat the CAFÉ fines as the cost of doing business. The fact that a 2002 National Academy of Sciences’ report concluded that CAFÉ-triggered downsizing caused an additional 2000 road deaths per year is, I suppose, beside the point. Anyway, what IS the point? Unless US energy consumption is drastically reduced across the board-- heating, cooling, appliances, manufacturing, agriculture, etc.-- our growing economy will obviate any theoretical “savings” made by more efficient automobiles.

As for the harmful effects of CO2 gasses on our environment, I’ll leave that to more (less?) scientific minds. Suffice it to say that the amount of “real” pollution coming out your tailpipe has nothing to do with fuel efficiency, and while new technology might reconcile America’s quest for energy independence with environmental concerns, then again, it might not. While we're waiting for THAT debate, I reckon we should file this whole CAFÉ mishegos under “Bad Landing, Wrong Airport.”

Marc Cooper on the depths to which the Monthly Review has sunk

Mark Cooper quotes a piece by Jeff Weintraub about the depths to which the Marxist rag, the Monthly Review has sunk. Marc says that it used to be an intellectually serious magazine (although seemingly goofy), but now is not:

What a long, long, long, long way down. From a sparkling theoretical journal of the intellectual left, to an agit-prop rag unintentionally (I hope) flirting with anti-semitism and soaked in conspiracy mongering.

I encourage you to read all of the links in Weintraub's full post to capture the full flavor of this serving.

This ugly episode is nothing but one more crude manifestation of the knee-jerkish "my enemy's enemy is my friend" axiom. In this case, whatever the Bush administration is for (no matter how half-heartedly or ineffectually) some "anti-imperialists" are totally against -- even it means siding with a genocidal dictatorship in Sudan. Man, does this stink.

Paul Graham has a new article: The Hardest Lessons for Startups to Learn

Paul Graham has a new article on his site, based on his experience with funding software-related startup companies (perhaps he is doing more than software, but that is his expertise). He writes:

So why do I spend so much time thinking about startups? I'll tell you why. Economically, a startup is best seen not as a way to get rich, but as a way to work faster. You have to make a living, and a startup is a way to get that done quickly, instead of letting it drag on through your whole life. We take it for granted most of the time, but human life is fairly miraculous. It is also palpably short. You're given this marvellous thing, and then poof, it's taken away. You can see why people invent gods to explain it. But even to people who don't believe in gods, life commands respect. There are times in most of our lives when the days go by in a blur, and almost everyone has a sense, when this happens, of wasting something precious. As Ben Franklin said, if you love life, don't waste time, because time is what life is made of. So no, there's nothing particularly grand about making money. That's not what makes startups worth the trouble. What's important about startups is the speed. By compressing the dull but necessary task of making a living into the smallest possible time, you show respect for life, and there is something grand about that.

Radio Blogger on "United 93"

Duane Patterson saw the movie United 93, and gives his review:

I realize the media over the last couple of weeks has done its darndest to dampen the opening of the movie by saying it's too soon to see images like this. I'm really hoping that word of mouth will give this weekend's tedid opening a solid run. We owe it to the people and families on United 93 to remember and honor their service during wartime, since they were the first ones to take up arms in the Global War On Terror.

US guided missile submarine conversions

The US has been fairly quietly converting Trident ballistic missile submarines to launch Tomahawk, or Tactical Tomahawk, land attack guided missiles. DefenceTalk.com has an article on the subject. The Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia are the submarines being converted. Florida actually launched a test missile on 14 January 2003, from the Gulf of Mexico. The submarines are also equipped to carry special forces (SEAL) and have some advanced systems for getting them ashore. The converted ships are also able to perform the traditional attack submarine role, as a secondary capability.