In what must be a right of passage for we center-right, newbie polibloggers, I’ve been labeled a rightie blogger today by professional journalist and erstwhile lefty blogger (ah, come on, can’t I send it back across the net and with a little backspin?) Barbara O’Brien in this deliriously delicious post at her popular left-of? (well, I’m not quite sure) blog, The Mahablog.

Gee, I feel as though I’ve been knighted. She found me at the Daou Report this morning and with what ever other travels she made through the blogosphere determined that my post was among her favorite rightie fulminations of the day. Accordingly, I’m honored. No, that’s not the word. I’m exhilarated.

Fact is, it’s been a red letter (better yet, “red state”) kind of day for me. Betsy Newmark, over at a favorite blog of mine, Betsy’s Page, linked to the same post as Barbara O’Brien, and as did the “Daou Report.” That’s made the ol’ Site Meter skip a few gears and raised my systolic pressure. If Nancy Reagan and Barbara Boxer call this afternoon, I’ll really know I’ve made some synapses spark.

Actually, I was tempted for a moment to write an email to Barbara O’Brien to thank her, and genuinely so, for the link. But she advises that she’s not good about replying to emails. So, I’ve opted to thank her in another way. I put her blog in my blogroll, albeit under the heading, “Caveat Emptor.” As Don Corleone advised son Michael: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer!

Now, then, what would be a fitting finale to the day? How about the “New York Times” reporting that Hillary Clinton didn’t pass out from a bout of the stomach flu after all, that truth be known a member of her staff had slipped her a printed copy of B.A. Higgins’ delirious post before she went on stage and she simply had trouble digesting it.

This report from Associated Press indicates that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) collapsed while delivering a speech today on Social Security. Her fainting spell may have been brought on by a touch of the stomach flu. The report indicates she has since resumed her day’s itinerary. We hope she’s recovered and that there’s nothing seriously wrong.

This column from John Podhoretz will get printed and go into one of those bulging files of mine where I keep things that stir me and raise goose bumps. Credit Lucianne for linking to John’s gem and the New York Post for publishing it.

Betsy Newmark over at Betsy’s Page links to and quotes from this curious query from none other than Mickey Kaus: namely, and I paraphrase, that Ted Kennedy, having given an inflammatory anti-Iraq War speech just a matter of days preceding what turned out to be (and beyond the expectations of many pundits) a most successful national election in Iraq, cast himself at least temporarily like a fool and Mickey wonders what would possess the Senator to do that — to set himself up for a potential tumble. Mickey’s wonderment over Kennedy’s political judgement was published in this article in Slate.

Betsy answers Mickey’s question for him, succinctly: Perhaps Kennedy is a fool.

Kennedy must have been intrigued by Kaus’ question, because he chose to answer it in this fashion right on the heels of the massive voter turnout in Iraq.

My own answer is that Kennedy is only a national figure because of his brothers, John and Robert — a beloved, assassinated president and an aggressive, assassinated U.S. Attorney General — and his seniority in the United States Senate. He’s a left-of-Left liberal in the grand tradition and he has well-known character flaws. His judgement has been bad, both personally and professionally, numerous times and, more often than not, he lands on the wrong side of issues. Americans have an abiding curiosity with celebrity, so they’re drawn to this man. But Ted’s politics have never resonated nationally. In other words, what he did just before the Iraq election and just after it were altogether predictable, rather than aberrations. And let’s not forget that it was Ted Kennedy who put his Party clout and campaign staff behind John Kerry’s candidacy and then couldn’t get the baby delivered last November (or if he did, it was arguably a breech delivery).

Mickey Kaus is being disingenuous and is simply distancing himself from Kennedy’s bumbling. Good move, Mickey!

Here is an initial assessment, current through January 10, 2005, of the impact of the cataclysmic Asian tsunami of December 26, 2004, on south and southeast Asia, provided by the Asian Development Bank. It sounds all too clinical and antiseptic to me. While it duly notes the tremendous loss of life (estimated at 165,000 persons and with a potential, owing to health-related problems, of reaching 300,000, according to UNICEF) and the likelihood of even greater poverty for those impacted in the rural areas who were already hard-pressed to eke out an existence, it basically concludes that the macroeconomies of south and southeast Asia will weather this natural disaster just fine, bounce back quickly and, by implication, banks will be unscathed and new buisness opportunities for them should abound.

As I read through the report, I kept thinking about the incessant appeals for money backdropped by the numerous firsthand reports of United Nations officials on the scene living high on the hog, affected governments interfering with relief efforts, tourism returning to posh, beachfront hotels even before bodies had been recovered, and the recurring question of whether the aid will get to the people who need it most. Even Colin Powell at one point, and risking international criticism, said the brakes had better be put on the charitable giving, as coordination efforts couldn’t keep up with the supplies and money pouring in to these countries from the world community. Meanwhile, however, former presidents Bush and Clinton continue to appear in television commercials asking for contributions to the broadening relief efforts.

I welcome a different perspective from those in the blogosphere who have been monitoring the response to the devastating tsunami more closely than I.

Among the conclusions of this report:

… it appears that despite the unprecedented scale of loss of human life, homelessness, and displaced populations, the macroeconomic impact of the disaster will be limited and marginal. The damage is largely confined to rural areas, rather than key economic and densely populated urban centers and industril hubs. Still, the economic impact will be felt severely at the local and community levels, dragging hundreds of thousands of people into even deeper poverty.

Judging by the extent of the damage, the economies of the Maldives and Sri Lanka are the most affected due to their smaller size.

While Indonesia has been severely affacted in terms of losses of human life … the overall Indonesian economy will be barely affected.

The same applies to the case of India, where due to the size of its economy the macro impact will be minimal.

In the case of Thailand … most of the country’s tourist spots, including Bangkok, have been spared.

… following strong growth from 2001 to 2003, the economies of India, Indonesia, malaysia and Thailand should be in a position to overcome the tragedy.

The direct economic impact of the December 26, 2004, events will come through the negative effects on consumption and business activity in the areas affected. The disaster should not have an impact on the financial markets, much less lead to a financial or economic crisis.

The tourism sector could be negatively affected for a short period of time …

The aid process has already increased demand for a range of domestic goods and services, including food, drink (water), medicines, building materials, and clothing, as well as transport and communication services, which will benefit a number of domestic businesses. Therefore, it is possible that the overall impact could well end up somewhat positive.

If previous experiences with natural disasters provide any guidance, we should expect some decrease in economic activity followed by a policy response that tends to involve government spending, leading ultimately to economic recovery in about a year.

As of January 10, 2005, the relief aid pledged by the international community amounts to USD 5.0 billion.

One of the factors that has led to the initial assessment that the GDP impact of the tsunami will be slight is that most people affected in the agriculture and fishing sectors have been bypassed in the rapid growth of the last four years.

… for the same reason that the macroeconomic effects may be slight, the poverty impacts may be substantial, especially at the local level. Poverty is potentially the most important effect of this natural disaster.

Rush Limbaugh has rightly warned President Bush that a debilitating schism could develop within Party ranks, undermining the president’s entire second term agenda, if Bush doesn’t rein in profligate federal spending and secure this nation’s borders. In this WSJ Opinion piece by John Fund, Limbaugh is quoted as saying: We cannot maintain our sovereignty without securing and protecting our borders in an era when terrorists around the world seek entry to this country. Fund elaborates: Many Republicans are steaming about what they see as White House obtuseness on immigration.

Count this writer as one Republican who is sorely unhappy with the president’s “Guest Worker” proposal which, in my view, is tantamount to blanket amnesty for millions of illegals in this country and just another in a continuing series of concessions to Mexico’s Presidente Vicente Fox. I’ve written a number of posts this month on this very topic and intend to make immigration reform a focus of this blog.

Fund continues:

Even though the political impact of anti-immigration sentiment can be exaggerated, Mr. Bush would be wise to take steps to ensure that immigration doesn’t become what crime and abortion became for the Democrats: wedge issues that drove many voters to the other party. He will not come close to passing a guest-worker program until he proves his bona fides in areas of legitimate concern on immigration.

Immigration is certainly more complex than many border-control advocates would have you believe. But supporters of rational reform that would regularize the flow of immigrant labor should recognize that it must be accompanied by measures to address the legitimate concerns of Americans who worry the federal government has completely lost control of the borders. Many voters don’t trust any plan coming out of Washington, whether it’s by Mr. Bush or anyone else. It’s that concern that is driving Rush Limbaugh and other supporters of the president to send up political warning flares.

The Democratic Party National Committee’s Executive Board voted yesterday to recommend Donnie Fowler as the Party’s new Chairman, replacing Terry McAuliffe. The Howard Dean candidacy appears to have collapsed, much as he self-imploded in the Democratic Party primaries last year after having gained early momentum. The Party’s Executive Board apparently had misgivings about Dean, seeing him as too mercurial and ideologically controversial.

The election to select a new Chairman takes place on February 12th.

For information (and a photograph of) on Fowler’s background, kindly click on this link.

UPDATE: Howard Dean has prevailed handily over rival Donnie Fowler in a vote of the state chairs and despite an earlier DNC Executive Board endorsment of Fowler. Dean seems back on track now and with a full head of steam propelling him towards the Democratic Party Chairmanship.

Harry Reid, the Democrats’ Senate Leader, will join House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today in echoing Ted Kennedy’s pusillanimous call for an exit strategy to return troops home from Iraq. Seems the Democrats are beside themselves over the Bush Administration’s success in pulling off national elections in Iraq over the weekend, so rather than salute the Iraqis who courageously turned out to vote in big numbers, they’d rather signal to the insurgents that at least one major American political party is ready to pull the rug out from under a people striving clearly now to free themselves from terror’s grip. They appear, more and more, to be the Desparation Party, and Reid seems ready, willing and able to take his Party right over the cliff in lockstep with the Kennedy-Kerry-Boxer-Pelosi wing of the Party. Hillary Clinton, eyeing the 2008 race, isn’t being as precipitous.

If you’ve read my post entitled WHAT DO DEMOCRATS LIKE, ANYWAY? then you’ll come to the same conclusion as I in reading this post of Michelle Malkin’s.

It would appear we’re on the same page in decrying Democrats for neither having anything positive nor substantive to say on the heels of the historic election in Iraq in which bravery and fortitude were on display and under the watchful gaze of a mostly cynical world. The Iraqis have deserved better from our nation’s Democratic leaders.

I’m not as pithy as Michelle, obviously; I guess I had to vent. Hope you stayed the course with me. If so, you have my appreciation! Please return for another visit.

If you’re feeling a deep sense of pride this evening for what American fighting men and women, and this country’s true allies, accomplished in ushering in a new dawn of liberty in Iraq; and, if you’re equally proud of the bravery in evidence in the amazing voter turnout in yesterday’s democratic election in Iraq; then, please, read this post from “GOP Bloggers” and bookmark or blogroll that site, if you have not already done so.

Have a good evening, and visit again!

The thought occurs that Democrats — the professional “pols” and their obsequious handlers and panderers — are an unhappy lot. They bray and thump their chests and wring their hands, and just “Kerry” on so. It seems anymore that not a thing pleases them. I imagine Barbra Streisand is at her keyboard tonight venting and baring teeth. Dean’s probably having a histrionic fit somewhere testing his falsetto. Boxer’s no doubt punching the heavy bag with tears streaming down her cheeks, raging at dull-witted Ohioans. Heinz-Kerry is castigating the First Lady for her naivete and schoolgirl devotion.

You’d think the big, brave, triumphant turnout in Iraq’s election yesterday would have inspired these people to say something nice, something inspirational, something substantive. But jackasses they are, and jackasses they shall remain. There’s not even been a show of support from the Democratic Party’s robust, radical, self-absorbed feminist wing. They celebrate abortion, so maybe it’s no wonder that 40 or 50 more Iraqi deaths matter not a lick to them. Death and mayhem are as inconsequential to them, as Condoleezza’s ascent from obscurity, or Monica’s fall from grace. Odd that they cannot applaud the liberation of Iraqi and Afghanistan women who ventured out and into the open, under risk to life and limb, to exercise their right of Choice in historic elections. Tell me, why is it that shedding a bra is more important to them than an Arab woman shedding a veil?

John Kerry went on television this morning to importune Americans not to over-hype the first democratically-held election in over 50 years in Iraq. Dozens lost their lives in the process of exercising their right to vote yesterday, and only because they chose freedom over tyranny, and found courage deep within despite threatening taunts from thugs. And so Iraqi families grieve tonight. Tears flow in shattered Iraqi homes. It shouldn’t be so, but it is so, for that is the face of terrorism — its aftermath. Terrorism hides behind hoods and slinks in the shadows to slay and wreak havoc. Cowards slayed Iraqis yesterday; now Democrats slay the dignity that the dead well deserve.

Teresa’s life-of-luxury husband had not a positive thing to say to them. Appalling, isn’t it? Indeed, neither Senator Kerry nor Senator Kennedy can find anything good to say anymore to anyone. Kennedy just drones on in his raw, raspy, whiskey-scarred voice about wanting the troops home, mirroring how he hailed the fall of Saigon and America’s ignominious withdrawal from South Vietnam years ago. He’s bigtime into retreat and appeasement, and fashions that building grand, public coffers-draining tunnels under Boston is his patriotic calling. And Kerry, of course, is not new to railing about war, while charging America and Americans alike with gross misdeeds. He decrys missle systems with the same passion that he shops for fashionable wet suits.

Kennedy-Kerry; Feinstein-Boxer; Clinton-Clinton; Jackson-Sharpton. What political tag teams for the ages. And poor ol’ statesmanlike Joe Lieberman gets relegated to the dung heap. In the Democratic Party, you see, it doesn’t pay to be an American first. Just ask Zell Miller. What pays is having a razor-sharp tongue, a rogue’s blasphemy, and a taste for the deceit and grotesque cunning of a Michael Moore. Even Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter saddled up to Moore at the DNC’s convention, basking in the notoriety of the propagandist’s fame.

And now along comes their chief financier, George Soros. Seems he can’t say anything nice either. Like the dysfunctional family that the Democrats have become, they not only find cause to slash and burn much that is good in this country and much that is right about what this country does and intends to do, but they turn ravenously on one another, like mad dogs starved, salivating, and seeking fresh carion to devour. No real surprise in this egregious behavior, however. Democrats are as parsimonious with praise as they are proligate with pretense. It takes awfully special people for the Democrats to draw ranks around them and laud. It takes a scatalogical, foul-mouthed Whoopie Goldberg monologue to get their adrenaline flowing and their hands pumping with applause.

Bush gets pilloried. Cheney gets nailed. Rumsfeld gets smacked. Rice gets berated. Clarence Thomas gets called every name in the book. Child psychologist James Dobson nearly drowns under a tidal wave of mockery. Even center-right bloggers are characterized as extremists, partisan hacks and rottweilers in sheep’s clothing. Their vitiol truly knows no bounds. No, adulation is held in plentiful reserves by Democrats only to be sanctimoniously parceled out to punks who rock, celebrities who pander, do-nothing Senators who spent Christmas in Cambodia, and presidents who have Oval Office assignations with White House interns.

And they wonder why 60 million American voters said, NO!, last November.