The media party won by a hair
Can you imagine this election with an evenhanded media? The GOP would still be in control of Congress. Our foreign policy would still be robust, rather than maidenly. Our enemies abroad, like Ahmadinejad and Chirac, would not be having a good day today. And the constant revision of history—such as the “no WMD” slur—would not be crystallizing into received truth even now.
The New Media have not yet beaten the Old. They are making a difference, but the Old Liberal Media have protected their power, at the cost of major alienation from millions of America. Over time, the Old Media will continue to move to the Net, but the political debate will continue. The New Media have a voice, but not as powerful as ABCCBSNBCPBSNPR.
Conservatives in general rely too much on individual brilliance among our leadership. We have done well in finding outstanding and creative leaders, and one failure of the Republicans in Congress was a failure of imagination and vigor, such as we might expect from Reagan, Gingrich and George W. Bush in foreign policy. Liberals build institutions, conservatives wait for individuals to emerge. Over the long run, institutions tend to win.
The media is the core institution of the Left, and it is striking that no Old Media outlet has moved to the Right—or even the Center—in the past fifteen years, while losing credibility and audience. So the Left has protected its existing fortress in the Old Media.
There are many lessons in the GOP setback of 2006. One of them is the constant need for renewal; we have not even carried out the major domestic reforms promised in 2000. I do not blame President Bush for that—he has been fighting a war, and has obviously been preoccupied with that supreme responsibility. The conservative movement still does not have an institutional basis. We have topnotch think-tanks, but no universities. We have talk-radio—thanks to the market—but only Fox as a voice on television. Our most creative thinkers have no natural place to rest and build during the inevitable interregnums.
On the plus side, the Democrats have shown no capacity for growth at all. That is bad for the country but good for the GOP. It is now a time for renewal—not blame—and we must look to the most creative thinkers to craft a message of realistic hope to the country.
James Lewis 11 8 06
|Renewing the Contract|
|By Philip Klein|
|Published 11/8/2006 12:09:29 AM|
And that’s what they were, jihad killings, as Jihad Watch readers knew in late 2003. Above is one of Lee Malvo’s jailhouse drawings. Another says, “I, Lee, will die for the revolution, jihad.” Michelle Malkin posted more last spring.
“Malvo gets life in 6 Md. sniper killings,” by Stephen Manning for Associated Press:
ROCKVILLE, Md. – Convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison for six murders in Maryland that were part of a three-week shooting spree that terrorized the Washington area in 2002.The Maryland trial in Montgomery County Circuit Court included Malvo’s chilling insider account of his trip across the country with accomplice and mentor John Allen Muhammad.
In a brief statement in court Wednesday, Malvo apologized for his role in the killings.
“I’m truly sorry, grieved and ashamed for what I’ve done,” said Malvo, his voice breaking.
Malvo, 21, pleaded guilty in October to the murders in Montgomery County, where the series of 13 shootings began and ended in October 2002.
It is unlikely, however, that Malvo will ever serve time in a Maryland prison. He has already been sentenced to life in prison in Virginia for sniper shootings there and was sent to Maryland last year for a new trial on the condition he be returned after his case ended. That could happen within the next several days, said Darren Popkin, Montgomery County’s chief deputy sheriff.
In the nine months since it came to power, and despite the PLO’s demands, Hamas has not changed its views: It refuses to recognize Israel or acknowledge its legitimacy, insists that previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements will be recognized only if they serve Palestinian interests, continues to lay claim to all of Palestine, and, in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, offers only a temporary hudna (ceasefire). In addition, Hamas continues to express reservations about the Arab peace initiative of 2002, and to support resistance, jihad, and abduction of Israeli soldiers.TO VIEW CLIPS FROM THE MEMRI TV PROJECTON HAMAS, SEE:http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=157 .
The following are statements made by Hamas leaders in the last two months:
Rejection of Israel and Its Legitimacy
In an interview, Palestinian Political Bureau head Khaled Mash’al told the daily Al-Hayat: “Why am I required to [recognize] the legitimacy of an occupying [entity] that is sitting on my land when there are millions of Palestinians who come from the land on which this entity is sitting? It is true that there is an entity called Israel, but I do not wish to recognize it.” 
At an October 20, 2006 Hamas convention in Khan Yunis, Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al-Zahar stated that “Israel is a vile entity that has been planted in our soil, and has no historical, religious or cultural legitimacy. We cannot normalize our relations with this entity. The history of this region has proven [time and again] that occupation is temporary. Thousands of years ago, the Romans occupied this land and [eventually] left. The Persians, Crusaders, and English [also] came and went. The Zionists have come, and they too will leave. [We say] no to recognizing Israel, regardless of the price we may have to pay [for our refusal].” 
In a sermon in Khan Yunis, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya said: “Israel wants Hamas to hand it the card of recognition in the hope that this would lead to recognition by other Muslim countries. Israel may have been recognized by part of the Palestinian people and by some Arab countries. However, it [now] wants something more significant – the [trump] card of Islamic recognition – and it wants to obtain this recognition through the Palestinian government and Hamas…” 
Palestine From the River to the Sea
On the issue of a Palestinian state, Khaled Mash’al said: “The [Hamas] movement has agreed to [the establishment of a Palestinian] state within the 1967 borders and to a hudna… As a Palestinian, I am interested in a Palestinian state and I am not interested in the occupying state. Why do people require the Palestinians [to accept] the existence of two states as one of their principles and goals? The Zionist state exists. I [wish to] speak of my Palestinian state that does not exist. I am the one that has been denied [the right to] a state, to sovereignty, to independence, to liberty, and to self-determination. Therefore, my main [goal] is to focus on obtaining my rights. I wish to establish my state.” 
Mahmoud Al-Zahar said: “We [aim to liberate] all our lands… If we have the option, we will establish a state on every inch of land within the 1967 [borders], but this does not by any means imply that we will relinquish our right to all the Palestinian lands. We want all of Palestine from [Ras] Naqura to Rafah, and from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river.”