Last night, several hours after I weighed in on the search of Wm Jefferson's office (to the effect that the caterwauling about the search was misplaced and that the search was okay), the highly esteemed Mark Levin said the same thing, and explained it very well, over at NRO. Methinks Hastert and Company ought to listen to Levin and Viet Dinh and stop their self-destructive complaints.
The Spectacle Blog
Today in The Hill, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner continue their public moaning about the supposed unconstitutionality of the FBI search last weekend of the office of troubled Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA. As Archie Bunker would say, they should stifle themselves. Their complaints are going over VERY badly politically with an American public increasingly outraged about horrible congressional ethics and Congress' mentality of being entitled to favors and special deference. Even if they truly believe there is a constitutional problem with the search, they should pursue their complaints less publicly; their moaning makes them look as if they care more about their own prerogatives than they do about what appears to be horrible bribery in their midst. Meanwhile, they probably need a refresher on the COnstitution itself: A carefully crafted search warrant will not, on its face, violate the "speech and debate" clause in the COnstitution that protects Congressmen from prosecution for political speech or action.
James, Is that an original moniker for Mr. Hicks?
After resisting Idol for years, I finally gave in this season. Slate's music critic surmises that curmudgeons like me are coming around because its quality has increased. Maybe so. But at the end of the day/show, it is good, fun, clean television.
I offer a third prediction for Taylor Hicks. He has the spirit and the voice despite his cheesiness. Katherine McPhee, despite her looks and potential, just falls flat.
In another stroke of genius, the Congress this year threw out our longstanding prohibition against turning stamps into bite-sized pieces of junk mail. Here come the little billboards, one for each envelope, another open-ended burst of perpetual marketing in what only a fool can think is really a saturated market. When the public and the private sector sell each other out, diversity meets totalitarianism and the sky's the limit. I'm saying, then, that this is a bad thing...?
AOL News, I see, has picked up yesterday's front page New York Times story on the Clintons' marriage, or as the paper put it, their "Delicate Dance of Married and Public Lives." Drudge teased the story on Monday, though in a way that suggests his leakers might have misled him. "NYT: STATE OF CLINTON MARRIAGE A QUESTION FOR DEMS," his headline announced. While raising this point, the story essentially declares there's no need for such concern. Leon Panetta, the first prominent figure quoted, dutifully notes, "...you know there's something there that basically bonds them."
As y'all will see from my posts below, I got waylaid from my original intention to report on the Pence immigration speech at Heritage. I promise I'll do so by noon tomorrow:It's important! For now, though, here is a link to his speech. I really do think it is the answer, in terms of a smart and true middle ground that offers a way out of the legislative morass on immigration.
Okay, the often-reliable Eric Pianin of the Washington Post has a book review in the front section today on the new book by former House Budget Chairman John Kasich that offers a skewed version of history. First, while Kasich deserves a lot of the credit in the successful fight to balance the budget, he never deserved quite SO MUCH of the amount of credit he was given then and that Pianin gives him today. Pianini writes: "Kasich was responsible for translating into reality the GOP's plans for balancing the budget, reforming welfare and slashing taxes." Not exactly. Kasich helped, but the budget committee is merely responsible for a broad fiscal outline. The nitty gritty is done by the Approps Committee and by the Ways and Means Committee; with a large GOP majority, the Budget Committee's work was the easy part. Go back and look at how many subcommittee hearings and how many pages of legislation Approps and W&M produced in 1995, versus the much lighter number from the Budget Committee, and you'll see what I mean.
DoD sent the new report on Chinese Military Power to the Hill today. (The best report on it is in WSJ). It's much like last year's (see Showdown for the full discussion) but has a few new items of considerable significance.
One of the points I've been arguing is that we can derive China's intents from the capabilities it is acquiring in its hell-for-leather military buildup. The new report contains as direct a proof as I could imagine. Here's the money quote from Lt. Gen. Liu Yazhou, deputy political commissar of the PLA Air Force:
"When a nation grows strong enough, it practices hegemony. The sole purpose of power is to pursue even greater power...Geography is destiny...when a country begins to rise, it should first set itself in an invincible position."
Now what was all that about "peaceful rise" we heard from Hu Jintao last month?