The best way to handle a political mistake? Acknowledge it, be willing to laugh at yourself and move on. The Boston Globe reports:

DALLAS -- If you're Mitt Romney, and you're in Texas, and you've recently endured a slew of embarrassing stories over your claims of being a life long hunter, what do you do? Have a good laugh at yourself.

Romney, speaking to a Reagan Day Republican fund-raiser in Dallas on Wednesday night, recounted last week's hunting flap, in which he was forced to defend his hunting claim by saying he had shot small rodents at various points in his life.

"I want you to know that those small animals can be ferocious," he said. Then Romney pulled out his "trophy" kill: a toy squirrel mounted on a piece of wood. (The squirrel even squeaked, which Romney said was "the sound I heard just before I let it have it.")

On a roll now, Romney continued the joke by saying how disappointed his grandchildren were this year when the Easter Bunny skipped the Romney household.

"He heard I was packin' heat," Romney said, and the room erupted in hearty laughter.

I bet even our resident strident, anti-Romney commenter Joe will admit this is pretty smooth politicking.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

Not that you really need to read anything more about the Don Imus thing, but if for some reason you have the urge to delve deeper into the affair, check out the Baseball Crank’s marvelous summary of the whole mess. The always estimable Crank has outdone himself with this piece, and there’s not much left to say that he lefts unsaid.

Except this: One of the scandal’s subplots is the tarring of Imus’ frequent guests for appearing in such a bawdy and undignified forum. Imus’ roster of regulars include included political figures and elite members of the commentariat. The laughably stumbling Chris Dodd even went so far as to announce his entry into the presidential race on Imus’ show. Which brings up an almost existential inquiry: Which is funnier, that Dodd announced his candidacy on Imus’ show or that he’s running in the first place?

Anyway, the point of the guilt-by-association charge is premised on the fact that the comment that got Imus fired wasn’t exactly uncharacteristically juvenile or offensive; it was more or less par for the course, even though it clearly inched over the edge that Imus typically danced on. All his frequent guests knew Imus’s shtick, and kept coming back for more. In other words, the Chris Dodds of the world now look pretty silly.

My question is whether a similar guilt-by-association charge will ever land at the feet of Huffington Post and Daily Kos diarists like John Edwards, Barack Obama, etc. I think such a development is inevitable, but what do I know?

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

My new Townhall.com column is up. One graph:

Good humor is the secret of broadcast success in 2007 and forward. It is why Franken failed so miserably, but why conservative talkers thrive and grow, and indeed why O’Reilly and Hannity run rings around their cable competitors, why Larry King is still going strong, why Anderson Cooper and Larry Kudlow are gaining and why Brit Hume and his merry “Fox news all stars all” continue to dominate: They are generally and genuinely happy people. Their teeth do not grind at night. They are not consumed with paybacks and venom venting. They would no more particularize their political agenda into the comparison of a one of the country’s greatest legal minds to a Nazi mass murderer than they would abuse the Rutgers women basketball team. Sure, they play hardball –politics ain’t beanbag, as Mr. Dooley noted. (Look it up Keith, look it up.)

And a new HughTube ad has arrived.  It is musical.

Rules here.

The transcripts of yesterday's interviews with Mark Steyn, James Lileks and the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks are up.  Here is the exchange with the very-knowledgeable-about-the-war Ricks on the number of the enemy:

HH: All right, now I’d like to talk to you a little bit about something I kicked around with your colleague, E.J. Dionne earlier this week, which is your understanding of the size of the enemy…

TR: You’re like becoming a liberal outlet here.

HH: I talk to all you folks.

TR: Washington Post columnist, Washington Post reporter…

HH: I consider myself the Kissinger between real America and the Beltway. I shuttle back and forth.

TR: (laughing)

HH: I asked E.J. how numerous he thought the enemy was, and he didn’t have an estimate. You’ve covered this war for four years. How numerous do you consider the worldwide jihadis to be, those who would actually kill, or would desire to kill Americans or their Western allies in the course of the war?

TR: I have no idea. My only worry is that the number is much larger than it was on September 10^th, 2001, because of some of the responses of the U.S. government over the last four years. What I do know is in Iraq, the amazing thing to me, is they keep on telling you there’s 20,000 hard core insurgents, but they also tell you they’ve captured about 20,000, and they’ve killed 20-40,000, which means that what you have is a self-regenerating organization that has had four years of training in fighting the U.S. military, and through a Darwinian effect, is much better than it was four years ago. And that’s not a happy picture.
Read More...

On my radio show moments ago I asked Mark Steyn about the current issue of The Atlantic which does not have one of Steyn's wonderful obituaries.  (A collection of these magnificent send-offs, Passing Parade, is here.)  Mark revealed that he and The Atlantic have parted ways after a disagreement.

So, no need for me to purchase The Atlantic anymore.  Steyn's byline was for me the reason to always buy the magazine, especially when moving about the country through airports.  Other interesting stuff was always there, but the purchase was automatic because Steyn's obit was a must read.  Now he's not going to be in there, and I'm not going to be buying it. 

The byline has become the brand as I have often argued over the past few years.  Editors and publishers who haven't figured this out yet are really living in the past, and The Atlantic has definitely enrolled itself in the club of the clueless in this regard.

The latest HughTubes ads are in.

Entry #1.

Entry #2.

Entry #3.

The deadline is Sunday night.

And here is Lileks' much apprecaited review of A Mormon In The White House:

My friend Hugh Hewitt has written a political biography of Mitt Romney, and I can recommend it for one solid reason: this marks the second time in my life I have looked for my name in the index, and found it. Aside from that, I can recommend it on several levels.

I should preface this by saying I’m not a Romney guy. It has nothing to do with his creed. I think his accomplishments are impressive, his public persona solid and direct. I think he is what he seems to be. You could say that’s the case with many other candidates, and I agree; inasmuch as all politicians show us a polished carapace, I think Guiliani and Obama are the Genuine Article as well - in different ways, of course, but when they smile I don’t see the wires leading back to the Calculating Machine. Romney has all the hallmarks of a polished robot whose public persona is a buffed and tailored suit, a shell that hides something raw and convoluted. But I never got that impression. There are happy confident rich guys with great family stories, you know.
Read More...

I’ve been trying to digest Hugh’s interview with E.J. Dionne for a couple of days now. It hasn’t gone down well. It’s one thing that E.J. was so ignorant about the Jihadists. It’s another thing that he’s so comfortable with his ignorance. As Hugh did, I found the following exchange particularly revealing:

HH: Now numerous, do you think, are the hard core jihadis, who would, if they could, strike at Americans or Westerners generally, with the intent to kill as many as they could? How many of them do you think there are?

EJD: I don’t…I guess I’d try to make a preface of not answering questions where I honestly cannot put a number on them.

HH: How about a scale, though? Is it more than 10,000? Is it more than 100,000?

EJD: I honestly don’t…I don’t know how you count this. I also don’t know how you count people, how many sympathizers are there, how many people would actively be willing to engage in suicide attacks. I don’t know the answer to the question. (Emphasis added.)

Because E.J. obviously needs some tutoring, I’ll give him some help. This is an especially kind deed on my part since we also learned during his time with Hugh that he reads this site. So please, E.J., pay special close attention. Most of what follows will be familiar to most of the readers here, but it will apparently come as news to you.

Not too long ago, they held an election in what is commonly called Palestine – you know, Yasser Arafat’s old stomping grounds. Among the parties was Hamas, a hard core terrorist organization dedicated to things like suicide bombing and eliminating the Zionist entity. Hamas won that election. Honestly, I’m surprised that this development escaped E.J’s notice. It was in all the papers, including his own. Because so many people voted for Hamas, I guess you could say that a solid majority of Palestinians “sympathize” with things like suicide bombing.

But wait – it gets worse. Much worse. If free elections were held in Jordan, the diminutive Hashemite, King Abdullah, would not win. The Jordanian people (who are 70% Palestinian) would almost surely elevate a Hamas-like entity to power. What would happen elsewhere in the region if free elections were held? In Egypt, the radical Muslim Brotherhood sect would almost certainly supplant Hosni Mubarak. In Saudi Arabia, a Wahabbist sect sympathetic to Osama bin Laden would enjoy a victory that would send the House of Saud hurtling to history’s ashbin.

Among the Islamic countries in the region, there are a few question marks. Some people think the Iranian people hunger to be friends with the West. Personally, I find scant evidence to support this notion, but we’ll put Iran in the merely pessimistic column. In Syria, the populace is historically apolitical and docile. These characteristics make Syria one of the region’s brightest long term hopes.

The honor of being the region’s brightest long-term hope belongs to Iraq. As we’ve seen, the populace’s hunger to join the community of nations and do civilized things like recognize Israel’s right to exist has been less than overwhelming. Nevertheless, we’re right to be making a stand in Iraq. It was the logical place to start what will likely be a very long, bloody and protracted struggle.

ACTUALLY, I DON’T MEAN TO COME DOWN TOO HARD ON E.J. Most people, when looking at the threat of Jihadism and Radical Islam, have flinched at the reality. That’s why longtime so-called Cassandras like Steve Emerson and Walid Phares remain on the fringes of our national dialogue. The country still isn’t ready to hear what they have to say, regardless of how true their vision is.

Additionally, E.J. is only regurgitating what he gets fed from the political establishment. John McCain gave a speech yesterday that most of us on the right hailed. His hard stand on Iraq is well appreciated. But his speech also contained this unnerving nugget:

“In the early days after 9/11, our country was united in a single purpose: to find the terrorists bent on our destruction and eliminate the threat they posed to us. In the intervening years, we have learned the complexity of the struggle against radical Islamic ideology. The extremists - a tiny percentage of the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims - are flexible, intelligent, determined and unconstrained by international borders. They wish to return the world to the 7th century, and they will use any means, no matter how inhumane, to eliminate anyone who stands in the way. But the vast majority of Muslims are trying to modernize their societies to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

The above merely reflects what has become a long-standing self-deception in Washington. Our leaders have told themselves (and us) this lie so often, I think they’ve actually come to believe it. Certainly if the Democrats believe there is a simmering menace in the Islamic world, their conduct over the past five years hasn’t given them away.

What’s especially damaging about this lie is that it denies the Iraq war’s proper context. What’s happening in Iraq is part of a much larger struggle on which depends our very survival. Without putting the fighting there into context, our sacrifices there seem to be about less momentous matters like saving face.

EARLIER IN THE WEEK, THERE WAS A LESS-NOTICED SPEECH BY A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. Mitt Romney, speaking at the Bush Presidential Library offered the following assessment of the larger war:

"I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there. We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century's conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. For radical Islam, there is one conflict and one goal – replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world.”

Interestingly, Romney’s Facebook page (believe me, typing that phrase gave me no pleasure) lists among his favorite books Walid Phares’ “Future Jihad.” Phares understands the gathering storm with a depth matched by no other current writer. His vision is not a cheery one.

But it’s a necessary one. One of the reasons, actually the main reason, I support Romney is because he has taken the time to educate himself on our current struggle, a task that has failed to interest public intellectuals like E.J. Dionne and virtually our entire political class. As much as I like Mitt personally, I wouldn’t support him politically if he didn’t understand this stuff.

He does, and honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I wish all the presidential candidates from both parties did as well.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

In a sort of frenzy of anti-Imus zeal, I invited two very smart and jovial fellows, Professor John Mark Reynolds of Biola University and Professor David Allen White of the United States Naval Academy, to spend an hour on air laying out the thirty books your freshman ought to have read in his or her first year of college if you got your money's worth.

The transcript is here.  (Producer Duane, who transcribed it, may be lying in wait to kill me.)  The audio is here.

I thought it was a very interesting conversation, but I was unprepared for the volume of mail requesting the list from across the country.  We talk show hosts tend to forget that America is full of very bright, very curious people who at least occasionally want to step back and look up.

I am tempted to ask today's guests, Mark Steyn and James Lileks, how many of the 40-odd titles thrown out by the good professors they have read.  But I am afraid it would be another exercise in humility for your host, who, sad to say, didn't even recognize Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy. 

Michael Yon’s latest dispatch from Iraq has just been posted. It’s amazing stuff. The Bristish soldiers he’s embedded with notched 26-27 kills and suffered no casualties of their own while engaging the enemy in a major gun battle. Michael said to me in an email about the Brits he’s riding with, “These guys fight like animals!”

Read the whole thing. And please consider supporting the incredible work that Michael’s doing.

Once again, Michael Yon is a citizen journalist who depends on public support to be in Iraq. His website can be found here, his “Tip Jar” here.

Lileks reviews my book.  (Which you can order here, or from the Josue-redesigned bookshelf above).  To have Lileks review your book is a little like climbing aboard Magic Mountain's Viper --which I have never done and don't ever intend to do.  (Note to book review editors across the land --you would be a genius to put Messrs Lileks and Steyn under contract for 750 book-related words a week.  Tens of thousands would bookmark your section, but I digress.)

Later in the day I shall shameless steal the entire review and post it here, but for the time being, treat yourself to a fine explication of the dangers of poking about in a candidate's faith, as well as an assessment of the GOP presidential race ten months before Iowa caucuses.

 UPDATE: GOOD NEWS/BAD NEWS DEPARTMENT:

The most recent "reader review" at Amazon.com begins: "This was really an unexpectedly excellent book."

I’ve been meaning to post on this for two days now.

Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam (the Globe actually has two columnists who I enjoy immensely – Beam and the estimable Jeff Jacoby) calls our attention to a seminal new monograph prepared by three college professors. The title: “How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment and Nation in the Third Reich”.

As Beam points out, it might seem he has fallen for a hoax. After all,

No one in their right mind would research and publish a book stating, "The Nazis created nature preserves, championed sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature." Or: "The Nazis did in fact impact the landscape in ways far out of proportion to the short twelve years they were in power."

But, lest Leo DiCaprio’s little heart leaps, all was not a green paradise under the Nazis. According to the publisher’s description of the book, “Environmentalists and conservationists in Germany welcomed the rise of the Nazi regime with open arms, for the most part, and hoped that it would bring about legal and institutional changes. However, environmentalists soon realized that the rhetorical attention that they received from the regime did not always translate into action.”

Nazis – I hate those guys!

PS – Read Beam’s whole column. It’s side-splitting fun! The title alone, “A Silent Springtime for Hitler?” is worth the price of admission.

(Thanks to reader KB.)

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.

I had Mickey Kaus and Glenn Reynolds on yesterday's program to explore the "floor" that anti-amnesty legislators ought to mark as their minimum for accepting comprehensive immigration reform. The audio of that three segment discussion is here --Mickey calls it a "usefully sharp disagreement" and he's right, though next time I have to include Tamar Jacoby just to remind my friends that the bulk of political power is on the side of amnesty-light-- and it telegraphs how difficult it will be for amnesty opponents to halt immigration reform this year because the opponents of immigration reform cannot agree on the essentials that such a bill would have to include.  Given that the Democrats control both Houses, and the likelihood that there are at least ten Republican senators who will join the pro-reform 50 Democrats (I am still not counting Senator Johnson in this number), the prospects of a amnesty-light bill are growing every day that the opposition does not organize around a set of principles.

I would think a bill that mandated rapid construction of the 700 miles of double-fencing, significantly hiked fines on employers paying illegals who could not mount an affirmative defense based upon a tamper-proof ID, and the stipulation that citizenship could never be available to anyone who had entered the country illegally and who had either not returned to their country of origin for a legal entry that was separated by a period of at least some months from their exit or had served in the military.  I think it might also be possible to insist on a constitutional amendment being sent to the states on the subject of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.

But Mickey and Glenn --smart guys who understand the art of the possible and are not, like Tom Tancredo, among the Ambrose Burnsides and Joe Hookers of the anti-illegal immigration movement-- aren't buying the idea that a floor exists.  Their point is that any regularization, no matter how carefully crafted, will immediately sow the seeds of the next big wave of illegal immigration, just as 1986 has birthed two decades of massive illegal immigration.  At a minimum they seemed to say that no regularization of any sort could happen until after the fence and sanctions had been in place for some time and the effects on illegal immigration had been studied.  What I can't persuade them of is that the inflow is a massive problem that has to be dealt with asap --especially because of security reasons-- and that a "pox on everything" approach guarantees the amnesty-light bill passing without anything useful in it at all.

Perhaps they would support a bill that saw the fence built and the sanctions in place but which guaranteed an up-or-down, filibuster proof vote on regularization in 2011 or so?  I'll have them back next week to continue the conversation, but the point seems to me to be that unless the anti-amnesty light forces get their act together, they will get rolled.  Mickey suspects my concern is all about the GOP, and while I do see the potential for the GOP to split as deeply as the Tories did over the Corn Laws or the Liberals over Irish Home Rule (I wrote about this at length in Painting The Map Red) my primary concern remains security in a time of WMD.  The 14 million illegals can easily be absorbed into our culture and economy --most already are in the former-- but we can't simply resign ourselves to "absorbing" a serious attack that begins in the crossing of packages and people over a largely porous southern border.

Glenn has written more on the subject here.  Glenn is also promoting a Lou Dobbs (D) for president campaign.  A Blue Tancredo would certainly shake up the Dems.

Dr. Steven Hayward's new DVD is out and the screenings are posted at PacificResearch.org.

Dr. Hayward was my guest on yesterday's show for three segments.  The audio is here. Bottom lines:

The earth is warming a bit.  It has done so in the past.

We humans have contributed to the warming though it is impossible to say how much.

Projections of catastrophic or even serious consequences are unreliable.

Up to 2 degrees of warming (we have had .8 in recent decades) may in fact benefit the globe.

The prescriptions offered by Al Gore and others would themselves be catastrophic for hundreds of millions of people.

Scroll down to the Shephard Smith clip. I stand by my assessment – Shep will be the 21^st century’s Cronkite, or the closest thing this century gets to a Cronkite-like presence. (It certainly won’t be that pompous windbag Brian Williams.)

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.