- Jan 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Feb 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–28
- Mar 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Apr 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- May 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Jun 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Jul 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Aug 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Sep 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Oct 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Nov 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- Dec 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Re: And They Say We're Nuts
Posted by on 4.15.06 @ 5:54PM
Wlady, I'm not so sure I'd characterize the piece as a "loving portrait," if that's what you were implying with the Montana militiamen reference. The author did call the Angry Left "crass."
Still, the backhanded reference to some widespread angry right was cheap and lazy. The author considers his Newt Gingrich reference sufficient evidence without any actual example of a Newt comment rising to the level of unhinged vitriol of these folks. It's almost as if he believes the junk the Clintons peddled after Oklahoma City: that Rush Limbaugh was to blame. Rush, Newt, and the mainstream right may be passionate, but their tone doesn't approach the Angry Left's irrational hate.
As anecdotal as it sounds, take a look at the top blogs. Compare the top three liberal blogs (Kos, Eschaton, and AMERICAblog) and the top three conservative blogs (Instapundit, Malkin, and lgf... and Power Line if you don't count Instapundit. I'm not sure he would). The difference in tone is night and day.
Re: And They Say We're Nuts
Posted by on 4.15.06 @ 2:00PM
Dave: Something about that Post piece bothered me. I think it's right here, in a genuine nutgraph. I've hightlighted the key sentence:
What's notable about this isn't only the level of anger but the direction from which it is coming. Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack. And with Republicans in control of Washington, they have much more to be angry about.
In other words, it's okay. Just payback time, in response to what the crazy right started. Though somehow I don't recall coming across loving portraits of Montana militiamen in the Post's Style section back then.
St. Jack, St. Tom, St. Bobby, etc.
Posted by on 4.15.06 @ 9:52AM
Heavens, having two editors fight over one of my reviews. I blush.
I vastly admire Jack Nicklaus. Either my comparison of his book with Jones's was an interesting contrast, as I think it was, or it was a gratuitous aside. Considering I devoted an entire paragraph to the comparison, I don't think it's gratuitous.
The original description of Jack as a kind of stuffed shirt -- along with the "Karnack" nickname from Tom Watson -- you can find in John Feinstein's "A Good Walk Spoiled," 1996. It's an established story. Of course, the least criticism of Nicklaus will irritate some people; has for a long time.
Watson himself can stick his nose in the air, too. It was he who wrote the letter to the Masters Tournament Committee that got CBS's Gary McCord kicked off the broadcast for remarks Watson saw as unbefitting the dignity of the tournament.
It all gets to be a little bit much, and makes me remember fondly such players as Brian Barnes, who once marked a putt with a beer bottle.
And They Say We're Nuts
Posted by on 4.15.06 @ 8:37AM
You just can't make this stuff up. Remember "angry white men" in 1994? They've got nothing on the Angry Left. The Washington Post has the goods today in a devastatingly hilarious snapshot.
The main subject of the piece has a blog with fairly strong readership. This is how she describes her evolution:
Then George W. Bush was elected. Then came 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act, secret prisons, domestic eavesdropping, the revamping of the Supreme Court, and the thought "It has come to the point where the worst people on Earth are running the Earth." And now, "I have become one of those people with all the bumper stickers on their car," she says. "I am this close to being one of those muttering people pushing a cart.
"I'm insane with rage and grief.
"But I also feel more connected than I ever have."
Howard Dean, your troops are ready. It gets better.
The front door opens and in comes her 6-year-old son, Terry, home from school, who starts batting around a blue balloon at the other end of the living room, batting it closer to her, closer, closer. She searches through her iTunes library until she finds one of her favorite downloads -- not music, but a speech by a character named Howard Beale in the movie "Network." She presses "play" and turns up the volume. "I want you to get mad!" Beale shouts at one point. "I want you to get mad!" she shouts along, startling Terry. "What?" he says, backing away with his balloon.
When a parody of an angry man gets you revved up and scared your kid, something's wrong.
The Post found a colorful subject for the story, but strongly implies she's one among many. The Kossacks will be hoppin' mad over this.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Re: Big Dog and the Ankle Biters
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 7:12PM
Ned and Tony DiP: Thanks, guys. This is important. Rumsfeld is one of the people who's making a big difference - for the better - in this war. I have every desire to see him stay as long as he can stand it.
Mrs. Jackson, MLG, R. Trotter and Evelyn: Many thanks for your notes. I think - given the President's statement today and the expressions of support from people such as you - the Big Dog will be here for the rest of the Bush administration. And that's a very good thing.
Big Dog and the Ankle Biters
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 1:55PM
I'll be on Fox with Neil Cavuto today, about 4 pm EST talking about Rumsfeld vs. the generals. Hope you can catch it.
Heritage for RomneyCare?
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 11:49AM
Why is the Heritage Foundation's top health care researcher at Romney's bill signing ceremony (see the photo)? Has Heritage gone big-government pragmatic?
Maybe a Bad Metaphor
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 11:40AM
This is what happens when sportsmen discuss immigration: our current policy is referred to as "catch and release." Illegals are like fish?
Affection for Jack
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 11:36AM
Wlady -- Jack already was the subject of warm affection by the early 1970s, when I first started paying close attention. He already was admired for his sportsmanship in conceding a key putt in the Ryder Cup and for his graciousness in handling the public's abuse ("Miss it, Fat Jack!!!!") while he was supplanting Arnie. He became a real fan favorite early in the 1970s -- I believe it was the 1971 PGA, but my memory could be a bit off here -- when one of his young sons ran and jumped into his arms in the middle of the 18th green. This was shortly after Jack let his hair grow out beyond buzz-cut length, and the photo of the devoted father with little boy in his arms became iconic. By the Masters of 1975, he was clearly and unambiguously the fan favorite in the epic battle with Weiskopf and Miller.
But, to repeat, I loved the vast bulk of Larry's review. I just didn't understand the need for the asides about Nicklaus.
Re: Nicklaus Slighted
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 11:28AM
Quin: I don't understand this need to speak about Jack Nicklaus in hushed tones. Isn't one St. Jack (Danforth) enough? In his heyday everyone respected Jack Nicklaus as not only our finest golfer but toughest competitor. As such he was always quite an intimidating presence who by design or not always kept opponents on their guard -- and the public at a distance. He probably didn't become a subject of warm affection until he stunningly won the Masters at 46 twenty years ago. I don't think Larry Henry was being nasty toward Jack -- just blunt, with a bit of friendly needle, in a way Nicklaus of all people would appreciate. Larry was above all dealing with Jack as a golf book author and contrasting the cold, impersonal corporate tone of Jack's ghosted volume with Bobby Jones's authentic voice. He also notes: "Nicklaus got much more human in his later years." That pretty much sums it up for me.
Feds Bungle New Orleans
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 10:27AM
As I wrote here, my home city of New Orleans still has reason to complain about federal/Bush administration fumbling and bad decision-making in response to Katrina. The latest confirmation of just about everything I wrote comes in today's Washington Post. This lead sentence captures the first part of the problem: "Nearly eight months after Hurricane Katrina triggered the nation's largest housing crisis since the Second World War, a hastily improvised $10 billion effort by the federal government has produced vast sums of waste and misspent funds, an array of government audits and outside analysts have concluded." Meanwhile, though, the second problem is that even with all the funds spent, not much aid actually reached the people it was supposed to reach, as in this summary from a White House report cited in the Post: "The Federal government's capability to provide housing solutions to the displaced Gulf Coast population has proved to be far too slow, bureaucratic, and inefficient." Among the other findings:
- FEMA spent $900 million to buy 25,000 manufactured homes and 1,300 modular homes, most of which cannot be used because agency rules say they are too big or unsafe in flood zones.- The agency spent $632 million to subsidize hotel rooms for tens of thousands of families at an average cost of $2,400 a month, three times what it later paid families to rent two-bedroom apartments.
Meanwhile,
Congressional impatience has mounted. Chairman Susan M. Collins (R-Maine) and ranking Democrat Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee wrote Chertoff last month, characterizing the government's "inability to help thousands of Americans who were forced from their homes" find housing "simply unacceptable," and called for improvements.They were joined April 5 by the Senate Appropriations Committee, led by Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), which approved a $27 billion Katrina relief bill that would bar Chertoff from using housing funds until he submits a comprehensive plan. It also expressed continued frustration "with the lack of a housing policy for the Gulf Coast.
And, of course, it was only two days ago that the feds finally released their new zoning requirements for new and rebuilt homes in New Orleans, which is why so many homeowners had not been able to rebuild on their own: They couldn't build until they knew what the specs were.
All of which is why the "Baker Bill" for a "Louisiana Recovery Corporation" was/remains so desperately needed -- and why the Bush administration's opposition thereto is so inexcusable.
My blood boils.
Nicklaus Slighted
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 9:44AM
Lawrence Henry writes a marvelous piece today in honor of the great and admirable Bobby Jones.... but why so nasty to Nicklaus? For many years before the 1974 ghost-written book that Larry pans, Nicklaus was known to be gentlemanly, a good sportsman both in victory and defeat, and very patient with the press. I certainly can say that the several times I've been around him (and, for that matter, around his saint of a wife, Barbara), as a fan or as a reporter or as an eager member (at discount rates) of a new club he was formally opening, he was gracious and approachable. Maybe his book sounded imperious, but if so, blame ghost-writer Bowden, not Jack. Not all good men are good writers, and I hate to fault Nicklaus just because he didn't live up to Jones' standards as a purveyor of fine prose.
That said, I otherwise loved Larry's review. It's always worth reminding people that sports "superstars" like Jones can be multidimensional and admirable, unlike certain steroid users, wife abusers, and druggies who litter our playing fields today.
Ankle Biters and the Big Dog
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 8:59AM
The Ankle Biter Chorus - the usual columnists, pols and activists - are again trying to get between the president and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The latest (post-Zinni) round comes from Generals Newbold, Swannack and Batiste who call for Rumsfeld's firing because he didn't do what they and their fellow officers recommended in Iraq. Problem is, as Gen. Peter Pace said the other day (and as former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers said many times) Rumsfeld DID follow their advice, though he put them through a tough reasoning wringer to argue their points.
Now we hear from WaPo columnist David Ignatius who argues today that Rumsfeld should be replaced in order for the president to gain public support for Iraq. Problem with that is the Big Dog is more popular than the president is. Replacing him makes it worse, not better. And Ignatius suggests that Rumsfeld be replaced with people such as Joe Lieberman, Chuck Hagel or John McCain. The first two have absolutely no credentials on defense, and -- worse -- Hagel is a war wobbly who couldn't command a press conference, far less a war. McCain has long military credentials. But his problems are too numerous to mention. And the president knows this. If Bush wants to anoint McCain his successor, that would be a bad way to do it.
No, Rumsfeld should -- actually must -- stay where he is. The long rocky history of civilian leadership of the military is full of conflict. That some generals don't like Rumsfeld is the sign of a strong leader, not a failed one. Keep the Big Dog running as long as he's willing.
Romney's Misfire
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 8:58AM
If you're a governor looking at a presidential run, how much can you compromise to look good before it starts looking bad? That may be a question Mitt Romney's asking himself.
Scott Lehigh in the Boston Globe casts the bill signing ceremony as a carefully crafted presidential campaign photo op that quickly unraveled. Even though he nearly gave away the farm to his Democratic rivals, Romney won't find them praising his "bipartisanship" when the TV cameras come calling. (This is what happens when Republicans compromise their principles -- different from a little political horse trading -- Democrats, sensing weakness, will show no gratitude but instead ask for more.)
For more on those conservative principles, don't miss David Hogberg elsewhere on the site today. He details just how damaging Romney's health care plan is. And he raises a very important question: does Romney's presidential posturing here hurt his chances for 2008? I think it has to. Most informed conservatives are fed up with big government conservatism (a la President Bush, Congress, and the prescription drug benefit). Here comes another "pragmatist" who does something essentially liberal and slaps a conservative "personal responsibility" label on it.
Chapter 7, Iran War Warning, part 4.
Posted by on 4.14.06 @ 1:35AM
1. Best signals source says that Tehran chief brain and strategist Rafsanjani is now in Damascus for a round of meetings with the terror camps, from the al-Assads to Nasrallah of the Hizb to the usual suspects of PFLPGC, Hamas, IJ, Al Aqsa: the topic is agreed: the struggle to liberate the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the whole of Palestine, is the same struggle as to liberate Iraq. Iran means to crush Israel and retake Palestine just as if this was the end of the second crusade.
2. The Damascus meetings turn on what is to be done to prep for the pre-empt that the Iranians aim to launch before October showdown with the UNSC. The collective attack on Israel will soften the resistance to the general assault in the Gulf region on the oilfields.
3. Rafsanjani next heads to Kuwait to warn the Sunni princes of oil that they either turn the Americans out of their back acres or they will burn with the Americans. This same message will be delivered to Bahrain and the UAE. Burn later or surrender now.
4. The Tehran regime will not wait for the expected American punch under cover of the UNSC. The IRGC will pre-empt, forcing an escalating scale of strike/counter-strike.
5. Iran possesses several nuclear warheads purchased from Central Asia and the Black Sea Fleet in the 20th century. It also has up to 3 hand made plutonium bombs acquired from the North Koreans. The Chinese and Russians both know that Iran has these weapons and will use them at the point the escalation rounds become unbearable in Tehran. The Chinese especially understand, because Bejing is proliferator in chief. Those cascades in Iran are built with Pakistani, Iraqi, North Korean, Chinese technicians. The Iranians are working with the North Koreans because the warheads they aim to produce must fit on the North Korean missiles and use the North Korean warheads.
6. The question unanswered is: Does the US State Department asknowledge that Iran is a nuclear weapon power with the capability of launching warheads on the command of the National Comand Center (Ayatollah K)?
7. My Israeli signals source estimates two rounds of consultations at the UNSC through the summer months, heading to a final series of resolutions for sanctions in October. Israel is not surprised by anything so far. Israel does not know what the US president will do as the confrontation deepens into tactical options.
8. Best signals source indicates that Iran will treat any UNSC sanction as an act of war and will escalate the attacks on Israel and the US interests in the Gulf . Iran will use the oil weapon like turns of the screw. An open source suggests a possibility that the Sauds believe China will pay $90/barrel as a floor. The oil weapon will threaten the US economy first and foremost and will stagger the Bush GOP chance to retain command of Congress. Cynical question: do the Dem wannabees who are hawking the Iran-not-nuke-for-ten-years yarn count on the Bush team losing to Tehran in a catastrophe, and does this mean that the Dems will inherit a hobbled giant for a generation?
9. The UN is on a glide path to Chapter 7, Article 42. No one state can turn it off. Point of no return already passed. The Tehran regime welcomes the showdown. The Tehran regime may be manipulating the showdown.
10. Best signal identifies shooting by November election, since the Tehran regime believes thet the Bush Admninistration cannot handle a foreign policy crisis in an election year.
11. In the event of airland battle, the winter months will bog down troop movements and will make airstrikes sloppy in poor weather. Tehran believes the UN will bargain for a ceasefire that will leave Tehran triumphant in the region and the US in retreat from Iraq.
12. Endgame is acceptable up to the unknowable: Will the US national security apparatus resupply the beleaguered region with naval forces that the Iranians will strike with a nuke? What will the US response be to such a calamity?
13. This is a war warning, part 4.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Re: Count Me In
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 6:09PM
As we've been pooling our despairs, the better to get all our arms around them, I'll have to pitch in a black cloud that has nothing to do with foreign affairs and little to do with beltway politics: the unfashionableness of adulthood, and the loss of faith or interest among what seem like so many in contributing to the permanence of a culture. Nietzsche wrote a while ago that everyone will become an "actor" and cease to be a "stone" -- and without "stones," we can no longer build a lasting society, a true civilization. Bemoaning a whole culture's early retirement into easygoing entitlement isn't quite politics, but will it shape our politics? Yes. And has it already, led by our hippest of hip vanguards? You bet.
Ha!
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 5:32PM
Read this headline, and you'd think - ever so hopeful - that Rep. Tom DeLay finally did what so many Republicans would pay a lot of money to do.
But no. Rep. Patrick "Patches" Kennedy just got hit in the mouth with a tool. Of course, reading the headline quickly, you'd think it was simply affirming the general state most people believe a Kennedy to be in: Hammered.
Cowardly Central, Continued
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 4:40PM
A commenter suggests that the censorship panel in South Park was just a gag. Wrong. See here and here.
Re: Google
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 4:18PM
Both of those pages are the result of "googlebombing." Here's how it works: Google ranks search results according to relevant links. If you get a whole bunch of people from different websites to link to a page with a certain word or phrase, you can push that page to the top of the search results. "I'm feeling lucky" simply grabs the first search result.
Google discourages googlebombing, but they've yet to figure out what to do about it. The comment and trackback spam that plagues many blogs, by the way, is a form of googlebomb; the scoundrels are trying to raise their search-engine profiles. (The American Prospect was actually shut down by comment spam earlier this week.)
Remember the AMT
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 4:14PM
Tax Day is quickly upon us. Some of you are still working out those last-minute returns. For you others, don't forget the Alternative Minimum Tax is still out there and growing as a threat to your income. As Daniel Gross points out, the President and Congress bleat about it every spring, but fail to act. If a GOP Congress and White House won't squelch an outrageous hidden tax hike, who will?
Google Shrug
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 3:52PM
Quin, don't jump the gun here. This works both ways: when you type in "French military victories" and hit I'm Feeling Lucky, you get an outside site made to look like a Google results page that says those terms did not match any documents and, "Did you mean french military defeats."
So if these guys were smart enough to game the system, who's to say Google's responsible for the President Bush/failure stunt? We don't know if they are. And if we assume they are, then they have a sense of humor that works both ways.
Google Outrage
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 2:40PM
Courtesy of Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO comes this outrage. To save you the trouble, I'll tell you what happens: When you go to Google and type in the word "failure" and then press the "I'm feeling lucky" button, what you get is the official White House biography of President Bush. That's outrageous. I'd suggest boycotting Google, but, well, it is so dadgummed convenient.
Thanks, Prowler! Plus....
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 2:20PM
The Prowler is right on target (not just because he agreed with my earlier blog, but because his prescriptions are, as usual, also quite sage) in saying that Brett Kavanaugh deserves confirmation and that the GOP should put judges front and center. To add to that thought, I repeate a litany I have written before and which should be repeated as often as possible until the Senate blockheads finally understand it: When the issue is judges, we win.
By "we," of course I mean conservatives. And we win for a number of reasons. We win first on substance because the AMerican people instinctively know that predictable and understandable interpretations of the COnstitution and laws are essential to fair governance... which means that "originalism" and its related conservative ideals of jurisprudence are political winners (which, by the way, Alito and Roberts both helped demonstrate).
We also win, though, because when judging is framed as purely political issues, the results play to our advantage as well. To be clear: Conservatives do not believe in "result-oriented jurisprudence." But because it is liberal judges who tend to engineer bizarre and unpopular results (because normal majoritarian processes yield opposite results from what the liberal social engineers want), the usual run of things is that conservative (originalist, textualist, etc.), restrained jurisprudence usually yields results that in themselves just so happen to be popular, too.
E.g., when the subject is abuse of eminent domain to take private property for other private use, we win.
When the subject is partial birth abortion, we win. When the court case at hand involves the Pledge of Allegiance, we win. On judicially imposed homosexual unions, on judicially mandated taxation, on hostility to all forms of faith in the public square (or lack of such hostility, which is the conservative position), on bizarre expansions of the regulatory state, and especially on issues of law and order, we win, win win, we win, we win, and we win again!
Finally, in all recent election cycles, when GOP Senate candidates campaign hard on the issue of judges.... well, guess what? Gee, how did you guess: THEY WIN!
So why does a Republican Senate still sit on its haunches rather than moving hard and fast to confirm solid judicial nominees more quickly? Either they are just flat-out moronic and ignorant of the importance of judges on principle, or moronic and unprincipled.... or else they don't actually want to win. I think they do want to win. Which doesn't say much for their motives or their, uh, judgment.
Cowardice All Around
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 1:45PM
Brett Kavanaugh deserves an up or down vote.
Hillary Clinton should stop using the likes of Dick Durbin to hide behind (her staff organized a rolling hold on Kavanaugh's nomination so that she could not be fingered as the main culprit, and her leadership of Harry Reid and Durbin obliged).
Republicans in the Senate should force a change of rules that reveals who has put a hold on judicial nominations so the American public knows what games are being played. And why. They know it is a problem. Why don't they do something about it?
The White House should once again put the judiciary front and center on its agenda this summer. The President speaks passionately about the issue (good) and the voters eat it up (better). And conservatives win on the issue (best).
ABA's Political Hacks
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 1:06PM
If anybody needed any more proof that the ABA is little more than just another heavily politicized liberal lobby group, witness its new rating of DC Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a superbly credentialed and highly liked and respected lawyer who just so happens to work in a top job in the Bush White House. Because of Democratic stalling tactics, he has been rated by the ABA not once, not twice, but three times. The first time, the ABA committee by a "substantial majority" gave him its highest rating of "well qualified," while a minority rated him "qualified." The second time he was rated, he earned the exact same designation. This time, though, after being subject to a senatorial "hold" because, indirectly at least, Hillary R. Clinton seems to have a Whitewater-related personal vendetta against him, his ratings suddenly changed. Now a "substantial majority" rate him "qualified," while only a minority rate him "well qualified."
This is truly bizarre. How can somebody become less qualified than before while working as the staff secretary (a high position) at the White House? His resume hasn't changed for the worse in the past three years (or even the past year, since his second rating of "well qualified); it has only gotten better. The only way to explain the downward change in his ratings is to ascribe it to pure politics. Now that it's known that Hillary REALLY objects to him, suddenly the supposedly nonpartisan ABA committee has at least somewhat soured on him. What a total crock of horse manure!
Granted, for most of the committee to say he is qualified and several members to rate him well qualified is for him to still rank well enough to produce no confirmation problems based on the ABA rating alone. In other words, his rating is still solid. But this is a guy with terrific Yale credentials, clerkships for federal appellate judges and for a Supreme Court justice, and substantial work at the top of the legal field both in public and private practice -- without any blemishes along the way. How could he be anything less than "well qualified"? And how could he become less qualified than the ABA already pronounced him?
In the end, it really shouldn't matter. The ABA makes itself, not Kavanaugh, look bad here. All the ABA is, is a supercilious guild with a not-very-well-hidden political agenda. Forget "well qualified" or even "qualified": I find the ABA clearly "not qualified" to render judgment on a nominee's fitness for the bench.
Not Ready to MoveOn
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 11:17AM
Once in blue moon an op-ed can open readers' eyes. Wade Zirkle's in today's Washington Post is one such. Congressmen John Murtha and Jim Moran don't come off too well, as in this description of a MoveOn.org backed anti-war town hall meeting that Virginia congressman Moran sponsored and Iraq war critic Murtha spoke at earlier this year:
The tenor of the town meeting was mostly what one might expect, but during the question-and-answer period, a veteran injured in Afghanistan stood up to offer his view. "If I didn't have a herniated disc, I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops," said Mark Seavey, a former Army sergeant who had recently returned from Afghanistan. "I know you keep saying how you have talked to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. The morale of the troops I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back despite the hardships....""And, Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just arrived back from Afghanistan -- we never got a letter, we never got a visit from you, you didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got was a letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to, but the morale of the troops is very high."
What was the response? Murtha said nothing, while Moran attempted to move on, no pun intended, stating: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was a statement."
Now who was the dolt Virginia governor who sent that letter? Mark Warner better hope it was his successor...
McCain Watch: Conservatives Remember Well
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 10:17AM
ABC News found no shortage of conservatives in Iowa with good memories and grave concerns about the senior senator from Arizona.
If You Needed a Reminder
Posted by on 4.13.06 @ 10:16AM
Of the horrific evil committed on 9/11, or if you're even a casual student of history, don't miss reading the transcript of the flight recorder on UA Flight 93.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Cowardly Central
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 11:11PM
Tonight's episode of South Park was the conclusion of a two-parter dealing with the Inkifada, free speech, and the merits of the show's cartoon competition. Last week the show strongly implied that an image of Mohammed was coming, and ended with the question, "Will TV executives fight for free speech, or will Comedy Central puss out?" Well, when the pivotal scene came, it was censored out with the note that Comedy Central refused to air it -- even though The Prophet has appeared before without incident. Pathetic.
One of Their Own
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 10:19PM
At least someone in the media isn't apoplectic about McCain's re-evolution into a conservative: Slate editor Jacob Weisberg assures libs that he'll be back. And he will.
Re: Bad News and Count Me In
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 9:37PM
Fitz: Chesty also said, "You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Which is as good advice in the political arena as it is in the military. Pete, there are plenty of alternatives on Iran. But I see what you mean. Those who claim there aren't any want to ignore the problem. These people, being fungible, can be labeled either Democrats or French.
Re: Wish Herman Well
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 7:28PM
I almost mentioned this earlier in this space after receiving an email from Herman about the diagnosis, but wasn't sure how widely that email was sent...
Now that it is "out there," let me say:
Herman Cain is one of the most important players on the scene when it comes to the future of our movement, as anyone who has spent 5 minutes with the guy I am sure can attest.
Captivating. Genius. A true inspiration.
I love the guy, and he is in my prayers.
Having said that, I am entirely confident that he will come out of this just fine.
If you don't know Herman, start to get to know him by clicking here.
Wish Cain well
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 5:42PM
Herman Cain, that is. Southern Appeal alerted us to this. Herman Cain is a terrific American. Let's wish him a speedy recovery!
Jed on target, as usual
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 5:34PM
Jed -- That was exactly my point in writing the column. You, of course, said it much more pithily. Well done!
Re: Bad News and Count Me In
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 5:06PM
Quin and CJ: I agree. Things look pretty bleak, and are likely to only get worse as the year goes on. Especially when you consider the accelerating
Steyn plants the flag
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 4:27PM
If you haven't yet read Mark Steyn's "Facing Down Iran" in City Journal, do it here.
Count Me In
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 11:15AM
Quin's thoughtful piece on the homepage this morning really resonated with me and I hope our readers will take a moment to read it.
I too have been deeply demoralized by recent developments both at home and abroad. I joked to a friend the other evening, "Eh, the way things are going, I'll give civilization another 20 years at best. Perhaps it's time to stop caring and just start partying….."
I felt awful about that joke. What would my idol, Ronald Reagan, think of a conservative saying something like that, even in jest?
On the surface things are grim indeed and seem to be getting grimmer. But as Quin so ably reminds us, beneath that surface lie many small (and not so small) successes both foreign and domestic which, taken together, add up to enormous potential. We have an opportunity -- well, actually, a mandate -- to profoundly change the World (to paraphrase Newt) and now is not the time to go wobbly, (to paraphrase Mrs. Thatcher).
It is a beautiful day in Washington, DC. This morning, as usual, my commute in to the office took me across the Memorial Bridge. With the Lincoln Memorial facing me and Arlington National Cemetery in my rear view mirror, I slowly passed a hearse going in the opposite direction -- toward the cemetery. I could see the coffin in the hearse only because of the bright colors of the American flag that draped it. In all likelihood, it contained the remains of a young American who gave his life in pursuit of the aforementioned mandate…then, to arrive at the office to find Quin's post, well….lots of food for thought this morning.
Quin writes, "In this Easter week, all our eggs are in (a) rickety basket. All the more reason for us to redouble our efforts to make sure the basket doesn't fail."
Count me in.
Latin Dance
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 11:09AM
Dave Weigel has an interesting column over at Reason, arguing that the Hugo Chavez's efforts to move Latin America to the left have been much less successful than they appear at first blush. But what to make of this conclusion?
The Venezuelan president is trying his hand at interventionism. He's doing what James Monroe, Teddy Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger tried in Latin America for decades. Their efforts created some democracies, a lot of unfree states, and a basically bottomless well of anti-American sentiment. If four years of boosting Chavez's poll numbers haven't taught us that, Chavez's own bumbling attempts at king-making really should.That's an awfully facile way of looking at the history of US policy in Latin America. The purpose of the Monroe Doctrine was to keep the European powers out of our backyard where they could threaten American security. The purpose of the Roosevelt Corollary was to prevent Latin American countries from inviting intervention from across the Atlantic. The purpose of Nixon-Ford Latin American policy was to counterbalance the Soviets. Judged on their own terms, these policies were for the most part successful. Neither Monroe nor TR nor Kissinger were primarily concerned with either the nature of Latin American regimes or with US popularity in Latin America; even if one were to argue that they should have been, it doesn't follow that the problem was interventionism per se. Besides, Latin America is doing a lot better, regime-wise, than regions where European colonialism ran unchecked by US intervention; with the exception of Cuba and Haiti, every country in the Western Hemisphere is ranked "Free" or "Partly Free" by Freedom House. That's a big reason why anti-Yanquiism, while still playing a role in Latin American politics, has become relatively benign over time -- something to keep in mind during the political evolution of the Middle East, by the way.
The Suicide of the West (Chapter 949)
Posted by on 4.12.06 @ 9:11AM
If you missed Brit Hume's broadcast last night, you missed the otherwise unreported story about the EUnuchs' latest descent into dhimmitude in the form of restricting free speech. Here's the money quote from "The Political Grapevine":
The European Union says it will no longer use the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" to describe attacks carried out by Muslims. Instead, EU press releases will use the phrase "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam."The words "Islamist," "Fundamentalist," and "Jihad" will also be banned, as part of a new "lexicon" that seeks to avoid offending Muslims.
The EU's counter-terrorism chief says the government is taking great pains to use language that "makes clear that we are talking about a murderous fringe that is abusing a religion and does not accept it."
The EUnuchs are also considering a "non-binding" code of conduct for the press to prevent future incidents such as the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Re: Rice is Served
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 11:32PM
Wlady: Applebaum's description of how confident and controlled Rice is around "ordinary mortals" brought to mind the nervous and off-balance Rice at the 9/11 hearings in 2004, where she more than once seemed flustered, even intimidated. For me that was the moment in time when the Rice image of imperviousness came crashing down for good, and I've never been able to put it back together again. Reading this month's Spectator isn't going to help, either, not after coming across Angelo Codevilla's view of Rice: "A daughter figure, a pleasing mediatrix, intellectually insecure, whose career consisted of Bush family favors." If the shoe fits ...
Rice Is Served
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 9:33PM
Anne Applebaum, the Pulitzer Prize winning author who is currently a Washington Post columnist and editorial board member, recently penned a profile of Condoleezza Rice for the Spectator of London's April 1 issue. It includes this delicious anecdote, which you probably would have never read in the Post itself:
Once, a couple of years back, Condi came to lunch at the Washington Post. What was said was off the record, but it hardly mattered; Condi, at least in my very limited experience, almost never says anything off the record that she wouldn't say on the record anyway. In any case, what was most interesting about this particular meeting was not what she said, but the fact that while seated in a room where some 15 people were happily eating two courses plus dessert, Condi herself ate nothing at all. She swept in with her entourage, took a seat in the middle of the table, refused everything but water and answered questions for an hour. Then she got up, shook hands and swept out again."Ice princess" isn't quite the word for this ex-figure-skating, ex-piano-playing, ex-academic star, since she's invariably amicable, even cheerful, and always upbeat. But to ordinary mortals, that level of self-control not even a piece of bread, for goodness sake is intimidating. As, of course, it was intended to be.
Best Line of the Year!
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 5:51PM
To my earlier post on the situation in France, a reader ID'd as "GMS" came up with a comment so good it bears repeating here: "The French have reached a state perfection of sorts. They have surrendered to themselves." Now THAT'S funny, and insightful. And it gives me the chance to urge more readers to use our "submit a comment" option, which is in red at the bottom of each blog entry, and to check out the "view comments" option, also in red at the bottom of each blog entry box -- because we can get some good give-and-take going in that manner! Meanwhile, thanks to GMS for making my day.
Immigration Bill Full of Holes
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 2:23PM
That is, at least, a polite term for it. Rush was talking about Sen. Jeff Sessions's statement on it. You can -- no, darn well should -- read the whole thing here. Sessions, a pretty cool head, has it dead bang right. Anyone who votes for this travesty should be held accountable at the voting booth.
French Surrender
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 1:26PM
Gee, who here is surprised that the French government has surrendered again, this time to a bunch of whiny young brats who are misidentified either as students (spoiled navel-gazers is more like it) or as "workers" when what they have really been demonstrating for is the "right" to be shirkers on the job without getting fired? I don't know that I've ever seen such a pathetic ccause for which to demonstrate, nor such a pathetic, spineless, feckless and incompetent reaction to it as the one by Jacques-a$$ Chirockhead, the purported French president and noted mollycoddler of crooked investors in Iraq. So this useless government of France continues to exacerbate the outrageous weakness of the French economy, with double-digit unemployment and virtually nonexistent growth.Somebody please explain to me again why this third-rate nation has a veto on the U.N Security Council. (?)
Bob Barr Is Right
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 12:48PM
The Honorable Mr. Barr is correct in his post below. The two key words are "law" and "sovereignty." We can have all the compassion in the world, and all the openness in the world, to people who will obey our laws, come here legally, and learn our language and our civics. But that doesn't mean we have to accept people who break our laws by their very entry -- and who, often as not, make no efforts to assimilate. Such people deserve nothing from us but spirited and active opposition to their very presence among us -- and a determination to send them home.
Bush Wrong
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 12:24PM
President Bush defends his lack of initiative for an effective border security program by appealing to "America's decency" and reminding us we are first and foremost a "nation of immigrants." He's wrong. It is neither indecent nor inappropriate to protect our borders against those who would diminish our sovereignty and enter or remain in America in violation of our laws. And America is first and foremost a "nation of LAWS"; at least we used to be.
It's Nice to be Noticed?
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 12:17PM
I've been quoted as a very naughty jingoistic boy by Stan Cox over at Alternet for my review of CSA a couple weeks back. Here's the bit:
Despite, or maybe because of, the film's unpalatable message, reviews of "CSA" have been overwhelmingly positive. One harshly critical exception appeared last month, predictably, on the website of the hard-right American Spectator. Shawn Macomber expressed shock that any director would, as Willmott has done, portray an America that oversees an empire of "puppet democracies," launches an unprovoked, preemptive attack on another nation (Japan, in the film), tolerates Hitler's racial theories and outlaws all non-Christian religions. Macomber seems to regard such policies as inconceivable in the good old USA.
I would have preferred Cox to include a link so the piece could be read in its full context, but, then again, perhaps that would have defeated the purpose. Specifically, my position was/is that to deny any progress has been made on issues of race and to conflate modern America with the life under the Confederacy is to dishonor those who suffered real persecution merely to feed an ongoing hero complex that regards any admission of progress as anti-intellectualism. I would imagine looking at the history of the Civil War and the terrible struggle to obtain equal rights in the decades after we should all, as I write in the piece, breathe "a great sigh of relief at the good fortune we all have to live in a country where the Lost Cause was indeed lost." To accuse me of jingoism for suggesting so says more about their agenda than mine.
Berlusconi Burlesque
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 11:49AM
For the definitive take on Silvio Berlusconi's many failings, see my dear friend Frank Rocca's report in today's National Review Online.
Re: Conflicted
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 11:31AM
The mega-clash coming on immigration is yet another symptom of something happening across and within the whole of the West. Italy's mega-close elections are an eerie reminder of our own -- and Spain's, and Germany's, and Ukraine's. The deep, broad, evenly-matched antagonism on immigration on both sides of the Atlantic is patterned across a whole slate of issues. The whole worldview of a civilization is contested. Behold! The polarization of the West...
Conflicted
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 11:26AM
Over at Ankle Biting Pundits Pat Hynes has sparked an interesting/intense debate on immigration policy by basically saying that the absurd rhetoric/actions of warring factions on both sides of the debate is making it difficult to voice support for anything. Who wants to throw their lot in with either side when they're behaving so poorly? (I can say I certainly feel similar trepidation after the apoplectic emails I've received for suggesting we shouldn't refer to human beings as "parasites" in my McCain column today.) Anyway, Hynes' post is well worth checking out and the comment string that follows it is disturbing, to say the least, if it stands as a portent of the what sometimes seems inevitable mega-clash ahead.
Re: Reuters's Man in the Senate
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 10:18AM
Tabin, you'll appreciate this from the Daily Mail: drug firms hype up diseases to boost sales, experts say. But surely an expert is more authoritative than a critic?
Re: Reuters's Man in the Senate
Posted by on 4.11.06 @ 10:00AM
Dave: The wire service, long seen as hopelessly biased, is engaging in a variation on the "critics say" trope that you highlighted last week...
Monday, April 10, 2006
Reuters's Man in the Senate
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 7:35PM
Reuters has a fawning story today on Sen. Ted Kennedy's role in the immigration debate and rally. Actually, "fawning" doesn't do this adulation justice: Kennedy is "the leading liberal voice in the U.S. Congress," and "long seen as a crusader for America's poor and downtrodden." News to me. Did Kennedy's office edit the reporter's copy?
Which Came First? The Q or the Are What?
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 7:24PM
The rather amusing report on Brit news that the MI-6 folk are creating a research center modeled after the Desmond Llewelyn character in the James Bond movies -- "Q" -- is a bit backward historically.
I've been searching for my copy of "Of Spies and Strategems" by Dr. Stanley Lovell. Lovell -- nicknamed "Dr. Moriarty" by OSS leader Wild Bill Donovan in World War 2 -- was the real "Q" long before Ian Fleming wrote the first Bond adventure novel.
Lovell and his team's record of diabolic invention spanned everything from the OSS spike (a four-pointed sharp tool that landed one point upward no matter how it was thrown on a German runway) to a totally silent and flashless small-caliber assassination pistol that Donovan demonstrated thusly.
According to Lovell's book -- and here I'm quoting from memory because I can't find the goldarn thing -- Donovan entered the Oval Office while FDR was talking to Harry Hopkins. Without a word, Wild Bill placed a small sandbag against the wall, drew the pistol and fired it from concealment, emptying the whole mag into it. Upon which he wrapped his handkerchief around the barrel and handed it, butt-first, to a startled president cautioning him that the weapon was still hot. The Secret Service was not amused.
I can't be sure that Fleming knew of Lovell in creating Q, but MI-6 surely does in creating their new group. And best of luck to the diabolicals of MI-6. You might wanna talk to those guys at DARPA. I think you'll find that you have a few things in common.
Beating Cynthia
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 6:51PM
Blogger Will "Dignan" Hinton lives in Georgia's 4th congressional district, and is fed up with being represented by Cynthia McKinney:
Cynthia McKinney is not unfit for her job because she is liberal. There are plenty of liberal Democrats in this country who serve their constituents well, even though I often disagree with their positions.Hinton's cri de couer has gotten enough attention that he's going forward with efforts to run as an Independent. His fundraising plea notes that "should a strong candidate enter the race that I feel has a good chance of defeating McKinney, I will refund your donation and request that you support the new candidate instead."Cynthia McKinney is unfit for her job because she is a do-nothing demogogue whose apparent goal in life is self-promotion through race-baiting and conspiracy theories.
So I am throwing down the gauntlet.
Unless a better candidate appears, I will run for Congress against Cynthia. If I have to spend every day after work knocking on doors in my district for the next 20 years, I will do what it takes to defeat her. If I have to places calls to every person in this country asking for donations to the campaign, I will do it.
Of course I would rather not have to do it myself. I will happily support any candidate who stands a better chance than I. I don't really care if they are Democrat, Socialist, Green Party, or Communist. It is absolutely impossible to be worse than Cynthia. Heck, I'd even take Rev. Sharpton over Cynthia any day. At least he has a sense of humor.
I'm surprised that Hinton hasn't thought to direct his anyone-but-Cynthia efforts toward supporting Hank Johnson, the DeKalb County Commissioner who is challenging McKinney in the Democratic primary. I know very little about Johnson, but I do know that the Democratic primary is the place to go after McKinney; Georgia's 4th is overwhelmingly Democratic (72% for Kerry). With wide financial support, Denise Majette beat McKinney 58-42 in the 2002 primary; when Majette decided she didn't like the House of Representatives enough to stick around for another term, McKinney won the 2004 primary with only 51%. The other 49% was divided several ways in '04, but this year Johnson seems to be the only Democrat other than McKinney in the race.
Re: Can't Help Falling in Love With John McCain
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 5:52PM
I have a creeping fear that in 2008 I may find myself in the utterly horrifying position of supporting McCain for president. I find McCain's signature domestic project of circumscribing political speech through campaign finance "reform" to be vicerally repugnant and downright un-American. On the other hand, there are two key qualities that I'm looking for in a Republican nominee in 2008: a serious commitment to a muscular foreign policy with political change in the Middle East as its lynchpin, and the ability to win the general election. On both counts, McCain threatens to tower over the GOP field. What a terrifying thought.
Reconquista
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 5:46PM
The New York Times’ lead piece on their web site right now, written by Maria Newman, provides a good distillation of how the use of the term “immigrant” has become an interchangeable term to describe both people who are here legally and those who are not. Her opening paragraph:
In rallies that appeared to be exceeding the expectations of organizers and the police, hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their supporters marched today in more than 100 cities throughout the country, casting off the old fears of their illegal status to assert that they have a right to a humane life in this country.
To say nothing of that last line; if they didn’t think they would achieve a "humane life in this country," they wouldn't have come here in the first place.
And again:
They were supporting immigrant rights nationally and protesting state legislation awaiting Gov. Sonny Perdue's signature that would require adults seeking many state-administered benefits to prove they are in the country legally.
And then some useless conventional wisdom:
Like many of the undocumented workers who were marching in the rallies, Abel Salgado, 30, who works in a dairy farm in theMadison area, said that most of them are working hard at jobs that Americans clearly want someone to perform for them.
I’d like to see a survey of Americans (or legal immigrants) who have lost low wage jobs to illegal aliens at even lower wages, and hear them say, “Well, you know, I don’t want to do this kind of work anyway. It’s beneath me.” Somehow I doubt it.
Meanwhile, we shouldn’t expect to hear too much in the mainstream media from Latinos who came here legally, or were even born here, many of whom (unsurprisingly) have a different view of the situation.
The Answer Is Principle
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 5:36PM
John Fund in OpinionJournal today joins the lament about the implosion of the congressional GOP, as earlier discussed in this post. He, too, is correct. And Rich Lowry at NRO makes some good suggestions on the subject. But what it really comes down to is, as Morton Blackwell often argues, good principles ARE good politics. If we fight for our principles and explain them well, we win. All too often, elected officials spend so much time trying to figure out HOW to be popular, and what positions to take and how to spin those positions, that they don't realize that the public A) tends to agree, more often than not, with conservative principles and B) tends to respect officials more if they (the public) sense that the officials are acting out of conviction, even if they disagree with their stance, than if they think the officials are pandering.
E.g., on spending and on keeping the debt low, Republicans actually WON the battle with Clinton in 1995 and 1996, even while utterly blowing the tactics. The public generically supports less government, not more.
On judges, conservatives win, because we win on the related issues of law and order, partial birth abortion, reasonable nods to faith in the public square, eminent domain, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.
On defense in general, Americans choose conservative strength and pride to liberal weakness and blame-America-firstism.
And so on.
Ronald Reagan understood this. He wasn't just a "great communicator," he was a firm believer that standing on principle was also good politics. And he proved it again and again. Since at least 1998, the congressional GOP leadership has forgotten Reagan's simple lessons. They can still salvage their majority if they start applying those lessons again.
Post Likes a Good Leak
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 4:26PM
To the great credit of the editorial board of the Washington Post, its Sunday editorial on Bush's declassification of some intelligence material is right on target. Actually, I was sitting for dinner with a college pal of mine this past weekend and he was ripping into Bush for the declassification and was incredulous that I was defending it. So I particularly appreciated the Post's editorial the very next day, because the Post said it far better than I had done the night before.
What's really bizarre, though, is that Patrick Fitzgerald is going so far afield in an increasingly odd and monomaniacal attempt to save his unraveling case against Scooter Libby. Frankly, when he first laid out the case, I was impressed by Fitzgerald, but subsequent behavior and revelations have made me think he's just lost his mind, or at least all reasonable perspective. If anybody still believes that Scooter Libby knowingly and deliberately and maliciously lied to Fitzgerald, rather than merely having gotten confused, that somebody has some 'splainin to do, because I and most other people I talk to just don't see it -- and again, I was inclined to believe Fitzgerald at first, even though it never made sense to me for Libby to have lied in the first place.
Fall of the House GOP
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 4:15PM
Two of the Wash Post's better reporters, Juliet Eilperin and Jim VandeHei, had a terrific article in Sunday's paper (plus a good op-ed the same day on a related topic), about how the House GOP lost its way and how its situation now parallels that of the Dems in 1994. (Matthew Continetti at the Weekly Standard also has a related piece out today, along with a new book on the same topic which has a main thesis that's pretty much on target even if it will take a closer read to determine if all of his particulars bear out; some particulars, mainly in one chapter, are disputed by some of the principals.) What Eilperin and VendeHei report tracks closely with what I've been writing for years, since at least 1997, most noticeably here. (By the way, in my piece I quote John Feehery, formerly with DeLay and with Hastert, to ill effect. I must note that he had a snivelling, undeservedly holier-than-thou op-ed in the Post this weekend as well that had so many obnoxious assertions that it made me and several others gag.) The point is that the House GOP right now is in trouble specifically because of its own errors dating back a full decade. Errors of ethics and errors of legislative principal, especially on spending, pork and otherwise. More on this topic in a later post.
Can't Help Falling in Love With John McCain
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 11:01AM
It's a universal problem. Every couple of years, when times look tough, John McCain appears to be the answer. I thought so back in 2000. John Kerry thought so in 2004. And now many in the GOP think so for 2008. The New York Times reports that Jon Stewart's aghast at John McCain's political revolution (by which I mean, his political re-evolution). While McCain's triangulation on tax cuts and Jerry Falwell is alienating liberals, conservatives should still be suspicious.
Before I get into those reasons, let me say his record on the war has been superb. And he supported Bush against Kerry, for which conservatives should be grateful. Grateful enough to nominate him for president? I don't think so.
Three issues on which the senior senator from Arizona is all wet: global warming, campaign finance, and illegal immigration. These are huge. Granted, President Bush agrees with him on two out of three (he signed McCain-Feingold), but they're large issues nonetheless.
And on abortion, Falwell tells the New York Times that McCain's "certainly pro-life." Yes, he's generally pro-life. He's better than most Democrats and some Republicans. But it's not a sterling record: he has supported fetal tissue research, he's implied that Roe v. Wade is necessary, and he supports expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
I just don't trust the new John McCain. He looks too much like the old one.
Re: Escalation
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 10:33AM
Juan Williams' "civil rights" strategy is novel. But it sounds like the total nonsense he might spout on Special Report or Fox News Sunday, only for the camera to turn to Brit Hume, whose jaw is hanging open in disbelief. Then, one by one, each commentator tells Juan his opinions don't reflect the the reality on the ground whatsoever.
Similarly, likening the illegal immigration movement to the civil rights movement might fly in a sophomore political science class, but not in a serious political discussion. It's absurd both in theory and in reality. First, theory: the civil rights movement was rectifying the law to comport with rights guaranteed in the Constitution. That is, all citizens should enjoy equal protection under the law. The movement against enforcement of current laws and gaining control of our borders is fundamentally opposed to the rule of law. They're demanding rights for illegal immigrants that, as both non-citizens and illegals, they just don't have. Whereas the civil rights movement looked to the Constitution to make its case, the illegal immigration movement (again, non-enforcement, open borders) cannot do so.
As for the facts on the ground, Mr. Williams must be ignoring the sea of Mexican flags and the other anti-American elements at these rallies. He may not know that International A.N.S.W.E.R., the Communist group, has a large hand in organizing today's rallies. Or that parts of La Raza have a racist, "reconquista" agenda.
Jed's right. This is cheap. And by making the comparison, Williams implies that the get-tough-on-immigration crowd is racist. There are folks of good will on both sides of this. Juan isn't one of them.
Transatlantic Reckoning
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 10:26AM
As usual, Jed, the consolation is that at least we're not France -- where Chirac and Villepin, for the trouble of trying to salvage the national economy, have been handed by le mob a most degrading and hopeless defeat. The head of that employment reform law now lolls in the basket of the guillotine. But our own susceptibility to mass protest -- and our paralysis in its leering face -- casts an ugly light, too: sovereignty is peeling away in the USA only less quickly than in France. I see a bad moon rising.
Escalation in the Illegal Aliens War
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 9:22AM
The huge demonstrations expected today in Washington and elsewhere are a form of intimidation that the Congress is almost sure to cave in to. And the rhetoric of the left is adapting to maximize its presumed advantage in this fight.
Juan Williams's op-ed in today's WaPo is a very important escalation in this political war. He characterizes the demonstrations as evidence of an Hispanic "civil rights" movement. Williams is painting the illegal immigrant protests with the most invulnerable and inviolable label in American politics. To say that the illegals are demanding civil rights now as the blacks did in the 1960s and 1970s is Williams's attempt to label any opponent of illegal immigration a racist. This is both false and libelous. Williams is guilty of more than just rhetorical excess. His column is nothing more than another attempt at intimidating the wobblies in Congress. And it may work.
The issue of illegal immigration is not a civil rights issue. The issue of civil rights for American citizens -- as the blacks and other minorities suffering discrimination were -- is entirely separate and distinct from consideration of granting citizenship, providing societal benefits and paying welfare costs for people who have come here illegally. This isn't a civil rights movement we're seeing on our streets today. This is a hard-nosed political threat aimed at those many in Congress who are so easily coerced.
Re: Air Rifles and Such
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 9:12AM
Larry: The right to keep and bear arms was long since lost in the UK. It's a pity, but it's a dead issue there. The animal rights types have killed fox hunting and they're next on to shooting. Freedom of speech is dead there, and more and more freedoms dissolve as the EU sinks its claws into the economy. I love Britain and the Brits. But I couldn't live in a nation that so limits its peoples' freedoms.
Of Giant Rabbits, Air Rifles, and Such
Posted by on 4.10.06 @ 5:07AM
Jed:
Forget the giant rabbits. Back when mad cow disease was panicking the UK, British veterinarians were not even allowed to use single shot pistols to dispatch diseased cows.
Larry
Sunday, April 9, 2006
Apocalypse Watch
Posted by on 4.9.06 @ 11:02AM
On Meet the Press John Kerry just lamented the lack of international diplomacy once practiced by Henry Kissinger and James Baker.
Somewhere Madeleine Albright is stewing...And she could very well be upset about Kerry's comments, too.
Western European Scorecard
Posted by on 4.9.06 @ 9:39AM
Britain: Tony Blair -- doomed by cash-for-peerages taint. David Cameron -- useless and nightmarish "new Conservative."
France: Jacques Chirac -- dinosaur in tar pit. Dominique de Villepin -- approval ratings lower than Bush's.
Spain: Socialists widely recognized as unprepared for government; post-3/11 blush off rose in time for next elections.
Italy: Silvio Berlusconi -- more like Berluscrony; his tentacles wriggle over 0% growth. Challenger Romano Prodi -- center-left economics professor not the man for the job.
But since no one else is willing to predict it, even this late in the game, I'll call the Italian election. Berlusconi out. Eurodemocracy is a recipe for paralysis in action -- but only west of the Rhine. Power trio for the new Europe: Denmark, Germany, Poland?
- The Continuing Crisis
- Evolve or Die
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
