- 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, May 20, 2006
More Murtha Madness
Posted by on 5.20.06 @ 1:59PM
Cong. John Murtha of Pennsylvania -- a Marine veteran -- has become the Cut and Run Party's voice of choice to scream their demands immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Last week he condemned the November 2005 action by Marines in Haditha, accusing them of massacring innocent civilians. Something happened in Haditha, and a serious investigation is in progress. But what it will find, and what conclusions it will draw, are unknown. Murtha's irresponsible speculation serves no legitimate purpose (unless he thinks that feeding Al Jazeera's high-octane anti-Americanism is such) Al-J headlined Murtha's comments as the gospel of jihad.
Murtha, according to a Defense Department source, had asked for and received a confidential briefing by the Marines. Which confidence he totally violated, jumping to conclusions worthy of John Kerry.
Is there any wonder that the Executive Branch doesn't trust Congress? Is there any confidence its members won't break or secret they won't leak?
Delusional Daschle
Posted by on 5.20.06 @ 12:37PM
Friday, May 19, 2006
Reagan Awards for Big Government
Posted by on 5.19.06 @ 3:39PM
The cynical politics on Capitol Hill sink even lower. Human Events reports that the House Republican "Theme Team" (never heard of 'em), led by Rep. Jack Kingston, is handing out "Ronald Reagan Awards" to Members who have promoted the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
I'm sure the Gipper would smile on that.
My Kingdom for a Horse
Posted by on 5.19.06 @ 2:47PM
I’ll be rooting for Barbaro in tomorrow’s Preakness, as I root for any Kentucky Derby-winning horse until we once again have a Triple Crown winner (at which point I’ll go back to rooting for underdogs). At 27 years and counting, the Triple Crown drought has become depressing. Barbaro will be going up against a field of 8 other horses, only two of whom ran against him in the And from 2002-2004, potential Triple Crown winners were upended at the Belmont by better rested horses. War Emblem was done in by Sarava, a horse that had been in neither of the previous two races; Funny Cide was defeated by his rival Empire Maker, who skipped the Preakness; and Smarty Jones was edged out by Birdstone, who also skipped the Preakness.
Tarred in California
Posted by on 5.19.06 @ 2:30PM
Rush Limbaugh today had some fun putting down Southern California beaches after a listener complained that he had ruined his Disneyland beach towel after placing on tar-covered sand, the listener's implication that oil-drilling off the California coast was responsible for the gooky state of its beaches.
As a native of Santa Barbara I naturally know better. Its beaches (some more than others) have always been covered filled with sundry lumps of tar, all of it washed ashore after seeping up from cracks in the ocean bottom. Ever try surfing when thanks to the tar your thighs get stuck to the side of your board? That always seemed to happen to me at El Capitan Beach or a place called the Sands up the coast from the city during my high school years. After getting home the first thing one did before going inside did was scrape and clean off the tar from one's soles.
Mind you, all this was part of the everyday years before some oil drilling was permitted in the Santa Barbara Channel. I'd guess the beaches of my youth will never be tar-free until all the oil is sucked out of the offshore's geological reserves -- which of course is never going to happen thanks to our national preference for imported oil and selfish refusal to provide for ourselves by "raising" the oil we so eagerly consume.
Success in Iraq!
Posted by on 5.19.06 @ 2:04PM
Via RealClearPolitics comes this absolutely essential column that makes a very strong case that success in Iraq is achievable and that a host of important indices there are looking up. The conclusion of the much larger piece is worth quoting in full:
More sober observers should understand the real balance sheet in Iraq. Democracy is succeeding. Moreover, thanks to its success in Iraq, there are stirrings elsewhere in the region. Beyond the much-publicized electoral concessions wrung from authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, there is a new democratic discourse to be heard. Nationalism and pan-Arabism, yesterdays hollow rallying cries, have given way to a big idea of a very different kind. Debate and dissent are in the air where there was none beforea development owing, in significant measure, to the U.S. campaign in Iraq and the brilliant if still checkered Iraqi response.The stakes, in short, could not be higher. This is all the more reason to celebrate, to build on, and to consolidate what has already been accomplished. Instead of railing against the Bush administration, Americas elites would do better, and incidentally display greater self-respect, to direct their wrath where it properly belongs: at those violent and unrestrained enemies of democracy in Iraq who are, in truth, the enemies of democracy in America as well, and of everything America has ever stood for.
Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not; none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and critics to describe todays Iraq, the only one that has a ring of truth is messy. Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy. Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?
But don't just read the conclusion. Read the whole piece. It's just terrific.
Webb Not Quite Ready for Primetime
Posted by on 5.19.06 @ 1:43PM
Maybe national Dems are looking forward to a Jim Webb upset over George Allen in the fall. (The conventional wisdom predicts a Webb victory over Harris Miller, his Democratic opponent, in the primary next month.)
One very active Democrat friend, a Dean supporter who is working on a liberal Senate campaign this year, said this week in an email, "George Allen's got a fight on his hands" if Webb gets the nomination.
After seeing Webb in action at Shad Planking, I have my doubts. He hung back drinking with his small cadre of supporters. In any race, a good candidate mixes with the crowd -- even folks from the other party. George Allen has mastered that skill. Without it, I would predict that Webb lacks the temperament to win.
Webb confirmed that last night in a taped debate against Harris Miller. Both men descended into bitter-shouting-match territory just 10 minutes into the debate. At an impromptu press conference afterward, Webb told Miller to "shut your mouth."
If John McCain can win with a hot head, maybe Webb can too. But then again, Jim Webb isn't John McCain.
Da Vinci Decoded
Posted by on 5.19.06 @ 12:57PM
Since the film version of The Da Vinci Code is out today I thought I'd link to two hilarious takedowns of the much-heralded story. First, Mark Steyn on "bad writing for biblical illiterates." Here's the opening graph:
It's a good rule in this line of work to respect a hit. But golly, The Da Vinci Code makes it hard. At the start of the book, Dan Brown pledges, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." It's everything else that's hokum, beginning with the title, whose false tinkle testifies to Brown's penchant for weirdly inauthentic historicity. Referring to "Leonardo da Vinci" as "da Vinci" is like listing Lawrence of Arabia in the phone book as "Of Arabia, Mr. L," or those computer-generated letters that write to the Duke of Wellington as "Dear Mr. Duke, you may already have won!"
And then there's Tim Cavanaugh on taking in a bestseller by osmosis. A taste from the middle of a brilliant piece:
Having made the decision to enter into the Da Vinci Code phenomenon obliquely, with disciplined passivity, I am puzzled by the tagline for the upcoming film, zooming by on buses whenever I step outside. "Be Part of the Phenomenon," it reads. Is this not the stupidest tagline in the history of movie hype? You'd have to go back to another Tom Hanks vehicle, 1986's Nothing In Common, to find one that's nearly as bad: "It's a comedy and a drama, just like life." Does Columbia Pictures still believe audiences are so inert that they can be requested (in fact, commanded) to join its top-down phenomenon? I'm proof that you can be part of the phenomenon without putting another ten dollars into Opie's pocket.
Thus the controversey rages on...
New Orleans Blues?
Posted by on 5.19.06 @ 11:05AM
My friend Deroy Murdock has a warm and moving story out on NRO today about the current state of my home city of New Orleans. Well worth a read. Meanwhile, in this series of articles and interviews from the Washington Post -- here, and here, and here and also here -- the national media finally begin to really pound home what I've been writing (based on excellent New Orleans Times-Picayune reporting, of which the linked article above is just the most recent example, including this incredibly gut-wrenching interactive graphic) here for months, namely that the awful tragedy in New Orleans occurred, first, because of FEDERAL malfeasance, on the part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which ignored several warnings that its floodwall designs were dangerously insufficient. Meanwhile, in the mayor's race in New Orleans which culminates with tomorrow's elections, the embarrassing Mayor Ray Nagin still has a real chance of winning, multiple sources tell me, because of tacit help from the White House.
Google and Smut
Posted by on 5.19.06 @ 9:30AM
Two days ago, the Christian Coalition announced that it was joining with Google to support regulation of the Internet through what is called "Net Neutrality."
There was talk among Hill lobbyists that the Coalition was promised as much as $50,000, and it isn't clear that any money has yet changed hands. But money could be the only reason the Christian Coalition would sell its soul to get into bed with companies that get into bed with the Chinese government and facilitate profits for pornographers. Now, there is is this story out of South America. No one can blame Jack Abramoff for this one.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
House fails again!
Posted by on 5.18.06 @ 10:25PM
Every time I look up, Congress is doing something else bad or failing to do something good. The failure of this attempt to lift the ban on offshore drilling is an atrocity. I mean, this should have been easy. First, it only applied to natural gas, not oil, and natural gas evaporates anyway so it doesn't cause oil slicks, etc. Second, all the lifting of the ban would do is let states have the choice to opt out of the ban. So under the proposal, if Florida still wanted its precious little ban in place, it could keep it, even if the proposal passed -- but Virginia, which does want to let gas drilling occur, would have that option. What's so wrong with giving the states the option?!? This just infuriates me.
Facts as Obstacles
Posted by on 5.18.06 @ 8:24PM
BellSouth is upping the ante on the NSA phone record story, calling for USA Today to retract it.
My money says that won't stop Pat Leahy from using the USA Today as a prop in the Hayden hearings.
SS for Illegals?
Posted by on 5.18.06 @ 5:00PM
Mary Katherine Ham has the report, here, on a flabbergasting vote in the Senate: Illegals will NOT be barred from collecting Social Security benefits. See for yourself.
Kos Stalks Lamont
Posted by on 5.18.06 @ 4:30PM
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (he of Daily Kos) appears in a new Ned Lamont ad. Like he's stalking him or something. The screen shot captures it, but watch the ad if you want more.
Hot Air got creative with some overdubbing.
Monkey Media
Posted by on 5.18.06 @ 3:58PM
The White House press corps is a joke. They spend their days being fed questions and information from left-wing special interest groups so that they can zing the President and Tony Snow, and they don't take the time to understand the people and the issues that they cover. How do we know? Why, their White House pool reports, of course. Special thanks to Washington Times reporter Stephen Dinan, who with a fine eye for the important facts filed today's pool report from Air Force One, and noted that while most folks in Washington and elsewhere were watching the confirmation hearing of Gen. Michael Hayden, the White House press corps onboard was watching ... "King Kong." But you know what? Those press guys will almost certainly have thoughts on Hayden's performance, and they will certainly expect the President and his his advisers to be on top of every little factoid from the hearing.
Today on Kudlow & Co.
Posted by on 5.18.06 @ 12:48PM
Larry Korb and I will go at it again. The CIA mess and the Hayden confirmation. About 1730 EDT on CNBC. See ya there.
Hayden's Statement
Posted by on 5.18.06 @ 10:16AM
Just got the opening statement Gen. Hayden will deliver in his confirmation hearing today. As with any confirmation statement, it's cautious. And it isn't something that will discomfit the CIA bureaucrats. Money quotes:
Over the past few years, the Intelligence Community and CIA have taken an inordinate number of hits, some of them fair, many of them not. Yes, there have been failures, but there also have been many great successes.
...Internally, I would regard it as a leading part of my job to affirm and strengthen the excellence and pride of CIA's workforce.
This is troubling on any number of levels. Have the failures been balanced by the successes? Hard to see how. "Strenghen the excellence and pride"? How about raising the standard of excellence?
Hayden will be confirmed. But he seems a very unlikely candidate to clean out the Langley version of the Augean Stables.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Posted by on 5.18.06 @ 4:26AM
The America's Future Foundation is hosting a debate on that topic in Washington, DC tonight. Frequent TAS contributor Sean Higgins is moderating. Occasional TAS contributor Ivan Osorio is on the panel. Details here.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Re: Good Fences, Neighbors
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 10:33PM
Quin: You're entirely right. Jeff Sessions is terrific, keeps turning up at the right place with the right ideas. Gotta keep an eye on him.
And what will tomorrow bring? Gen. Hayden has his day in the Senate, the Intel staffs and members are probably already leaking what they were briefed on today to the NY Times, and the CIA is getting ready to welcome in a new boss who will defend the bureaucrats' turf against all comers. You think it's bad now? Just wait'll tomorrow.
End of a Great Mystery?
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 6:43PM
Aw, c'mon, if they find Jimmy Hoffa, we'll start to run out of mysteries. Next thing you know, Saquatch will come out of hiding and the unicorns will all emergy from the shadows. And one day they'll even find girls that disappear in Aruba. Then again, that's a sad story that long ago ought to have been solved already.
Grover's Good Idea
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 5:17PM
Captain's Quarters reports that Grover Norquist has a really interesting idea to put term limits on membership on the Appropriations Committees in Congress. At first glance, it makes sense. It probably will make sense no matter how many glances one gives it. As a former staffer of the House Approps Committee, I tentatively approve. Go, Grover!
Good Fences, Neighbors
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 3:39PM
Wow -- Jed will be pleased. Alabama's Jeff Sessions (a great guy, by the way) was just successful in getting a border fence through the Senate. This is a bit of a surprise (that it passed so easily), but it should mollify conservatives at least a bit. He noted that good fences make good neighbors. That wisdom is usually correct. Some say it will always be thus.
Inconvenient Uncertainties
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 3:24PM
Ronald Bailey of Reason turns his able scientific eye on a few of the apocalyptic claims in the new Al Gore movie, An Inconvenient Truth, putting Bailey somewhat at odds with the film's tagline, "Nothing is scarier than the truth." (And, no, this frightfest isn't a new adaptation of Love Story starring Al and Tipper. It's a movie about global warming, which, incidentally, is one thing Gore is proud to say he didn't invent.)
Re: The Tony Snow Show
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 12:45PM
Everyone agrees that Tony Snow is one of the nicest people in public life. But just to remind him who's boss, the Washington Post today, alongside Dana Milbank's useless story on yesterday's first official televised briefing, runs three of the most hideous photographs it could concoct of Snow in action. You can get a sampling of at least one of them here. Put three of those in a row, and the effect is purposely, vilely grotesque.
PA Pay-Raisers Booted
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 12:40PM
Read all about it: Pennsylvania's liberal Republican leadership suffered serious losses in primaries yesterday, in a backlash against those who voted themselves unconstitutional pay hikes last year. Among the losers: Senate Majority Leader David J. "Chip" Brightbill, Senate President Pro Tempore Bob Jubelirer, and 12 House members.
Jubelirer denies that the pay hike was to blame. He said, "It's everything," including the Iraq war, gas prices, and immigration. I'm going to go out on a limb and say politics are a bit more local than that.
The War on Contraception?
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 12:35PM
Huh? Hillary Clinton just sent out a campaign email claiming "There's a quiet war going on in America -- against the most basic rights of Americans to make their own personal decisions about family planning."
Whoa. Sounds ominous. Surely legislators are banning contraception sales, or calling for the courts to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut?
Nope. It is just that the Deficit Reduction Act of last year allowed states to cut back coverage there. It is no longer guaranteed.
So the battle cry, "We must be outspoken and determined to support every woman's right to make her own decisions about family planning," rings hollow. It is fear mongering.
Women still can make this decision. Hillary just wants the federal government to help them choose contraception.
Spirited But Respectful
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 8:33AM
After the Polipundit kerfuffle, Lorie Byrd rightly urges conservatives to keep cool heads even as they discuss issues very important to the movement and the country.
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.17.06 @ 5:55AM
Jed and Wlady:
If Bush had said, "First, we need to get control of our Southern border," and then had put forth a program that would do it, the American people would have forgiven him everything else. And it's a reasonable thing for even a semi-dove on immigration to do. Reasonably: You can't develop any kind of domestic immigration policy until the flow is legal, and under control.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Little Man Hate
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 9:16PM
U Penn selects Jodie Foster to deliver commencement address. She attempts inspiration by quoting Eminem.
Too late for graduates to receive full tuition refund?
Tony Snow's New Show
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 8:18PM
Fishbowl DC says Snow performed very well and that his talk radio skills came in handy. That should bode well. Hot Air has video.
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 7:53PM
Wlady: I agree. We can't just write them off, and they won't go away. That's not my desire or my idea. We have to assimilate most of them and toss back those who are guilty of crimes other than crossing the border. But - and this is one heckuva big but - I still say we have to close the border to more before we can do anything else.
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 6:15PM
Jed: I don't believe I said the choice comes down to either shipping all illegals home or doing nothing. My basic point, again, is that our expanding economy will continue to create demand (and opportunity) for cheap labor. Who will fill those jobs if our borders are "closed" -- a condition certain to stymie economic growth as well. Immigration can be controlled, but it can't be shut off. And I think we'll have to do better than simply dismiss countries from which illegals come as "ratholes." The point is that most are in our neighborhood, our sphere of influence, and as such we share a certain history with them -- which is one huge reason we have this illegal problem in the first place. They're not going to go away just because we try to write them off.
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 4:16PM
Wlady: Tancredo isn't a leader. He is, as you say, a single-issue obsessive. We need the president to take a harder stand. The pool of illegals will increase. But don't we want to limit it? We are a nation of over 300 million. One estimate says that the Hagel bill will allow immigration by as many as 100 million. Neither our economy nor our security can withstand that. I'm not for deporting them all, as I've said and written many times. But the choice you pose isn't real. The choice isn't between shipping them all home and doing nothing. I insist that there is another choice, which begins with taking whatever action is needed to close the borders. Unless we do, we may as well just let everyone and anyone in. There's no way to solve any problem without going to the source. We can't solve the internal problems of every rathole nation that people want to flee. But we can make it much harder - almost impossible - for them to come here. And we must.
Unabashed Liberals
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 3:39PM
Some liberal Democrats are tired of hearing that their party has no ideas, no agenda. So they're stepping out with their own.
Our Values:
• quality public education
• universal healthcare coverage
• fair taxes and responsible social policy
• corporate accountability
• good jobs, living wages and secure pensions
• civil and human rights
• a clean and sustainable environment
• clean elections laws
The 21st Century Democrats' agenda is not innovative -- it's a return to all the issues liberals have long known and loved.
But what is markedly absent from their website's sections on "vision" or "issues" is some sort of overarching philosophy. The whole project belies its stated intent: they say they're presenting "bold ideas and a vision to lead America forward in quantum leaps" (press release), but only offer the typical amalgam of liberal issues.
The Ward Churchill Investigation
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 3:22PM
Has concluded at the University of Colorado. After the five-member committee found serious misconduct, for which Churchill was completely unrepentant, three recommended dismissal. Read the whole pdf here.
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 2:15PM
But, Jed, we do have a leader ready to take up the charge -- Rep. Tom Tancredo. But as so often happens, a single-issue obsessive is not likely to gather broad support. Bush did what a consensus leader had to -- he tried to square the circle. The fit may not be there, but at least he's working with the pieces he has no choice but to deal with. Veep Cheney was just on Rush Limbaugh and mentioned that in recent years we've turned back some 6 million illegals at the border. Now for all we know these might include illegals who regrouped and got through on the second or third or tenth try. But the fact remains that some border enforcement is being attempted, and is likely to intensify still. This won't change the fact that our labor market continues to create ever new demands for cheap workers. One way or another the illegal pool is likely to expand, so long as our economy continues to expand. Would we settle for an economy in free fall if it meant ridding ourselves of illegals?
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 1:54PM
Wlady: I agree. The ten or twelve million already here are an internal problem. But two things: first, I'm worried more about the next ten or twenty million that will soon be here if we don't close things down; and second, no matter what we do, the libs will want to repopulate the welfare state with illegals and re-enfranchised felons. We need to deal with the external problem first, and find a leader to head up the charge. Unfortunately, it's pretty apparent W doesn't want to.
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 1:34PM
Jed: It's too late to think of the 10 plus million illegals in our midst as an external problem. That's why it imperative to open closed liberal minds on assimilation and welfare matters. As for security issues, let me quote from the excellent John Tierney in today's N.Y. Times. "Mohamed Atta did not have to hire a coyote or swim across the Rio Grande. He and the other hijackers entered the country legally...." I cannot recommend his column strongly enough (available, alas, only to Times Select subscribers).
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 12:50PM
Wlady: The problem is both internal and external. I don't care about opening closed liberal minds. We have to focus on the security of our country, and the illegals' unassimilated threat to it. Are we going to let ten million become citizens? Twenty? One hundred? Before we can do anything else, we need to understand that our ability to assimilate them, and the costs they impose before they assimilate, is very limited.
We have to control the flow of people into the country before we can do anything else. Unless we do, our arrogance at proposing finely-tuned programs to let them work, be schooled and cared for medically, to get them to pay taxes and learn English is the arrogance of France, or ancient Rome. Start with the external problem. Until that's solved, nothing else can be.
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 12:28PM
Jed: We have met the enemy and it is us -- or at least those of us who are liberal and insist on telling newcomers they should never assimilate into White Anglo Male Americanness and by the way if you want to be on welfare and register as card-carrying-Democrats that can be arranged too. Closing borders won't open closed liberal minds. The problem is much more internal than external, in other words. It requires nonlibs to challenge the fundamental premises of contemporary multicultists. Building a Great Wall of China along our southern and northern borders won't do a lick of good on that front. (Incidentally, the Great Wall didn't do China much good either -- at least not until Western tourists turned it into a favored destination.)
Re: What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 12:03PM
Wlady: I agree with you, in part. We're not going to deport 10 or 12 million people, so we have to make sure that those who stay assimilate. To do that, they have to start with some sort of guest worker program and eventually gain citizenship. If we don't do this, we'll be the functional equivalent of France or Chechnya in a few decades. And this has to be accompanied by the utter destruction of the barriers to assimilation the libs have constructed over the years. All the multiculti bilingual nonsense has to be erased.
My problem is that none of this can possibly work unless and until we close both borders. If we don't do that first, nothing else can be done. And the president is unwilling to bite the bullet on that. All the rest, without closing the border and controlling the flow of people in and money out, is just blue smoke and mirrors.
What Would Reagan Do?
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 11:57AM
The Wall Street Journal probably went to press last night too soon to react to the Bush immigration address. Instead it ran this fine editorial, "Reagan on Immigration." I can't recommend it enough, especially to those who today are fulminating against Bush, turning him off minutes into his speech, shutting off debate, burying their heads in the desert sand instead of squarely facing our long, complicated history with labor streaming up from the south in response to our own economic demands and enriching our nation' economy as a result.
Perfection is the enemy of the good -- we're not going to settle decades of history via presidential fiat. Conservatives used to be the first to know that life is unfair -- and it is unfair whether you're a fugitive low-wage laborer in a foreign environment risking deportation at a moment's notice or whether you're the same laborer who might luck into permanent resident status after years on the denigrated margins. Is it really a problem if sometimes the last shall be first?
And can anyone really disagree with this Bush observation, "... yet, we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives"? He also noted the basic conundrum: "They are a part of American life -- but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law." To change the latter part will require recognition of the first. They are a part of American life, and as such they will have to become Americans. I see no other alternative.
Pro-Life Promise
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 11:28AM
Over at Abortion Watch, Pepper Bryars has an interesting idea for a pro-life "contract." It's an interesting addition to the ongoing debate on this high-emotion topic. Well worth a read.
Wal-Mart Profits
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 11:20AM
Are up by 6.2 percent in the first quarter. Next thing you know, Bill O'Reilly will accuse them of price gouging, and Bill Frist will propose rebate checks.
Wisconsin No, but Maybe
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 11:02AM
Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson this week announced he would NOT run for his old job, which leaves the GOP field to promising but less known candidate Mark Green. But the story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel did contain this news:
Bob Wood, a former chief of staff for Thompson in Madison and Washington, said Sunday that Thompson's statement deliberately left open the possibility that he might still run against U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). That is considered unlikely, however.Thompson "will make that (Senate) decision this week," Wood said.
Thompson left Madison on Sunday and was not available for further comment, a spokesman said.
This Senate thing should be of interest to all political junkies, because a race between the extremely popular Thompson (one of the best governors ever, ANYWHERE), and the also popular, fairly congenial Kohl would be one of the most fascinating and closest Senate races anywhere in a long, long time.
Re: Bush's French Proposal
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 10:14AM
If you want to see how really bad, and unserious, all this is you need to read Hugh Hewitt's interview with Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief Julie Meyers at Radioblogger.com. Fence? What fence?
A Reader Reacts: "Milk and Cookies"
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 8:59AM
While our readers may be across the board on the President's speech last night, I expect many will agree with these sentiments:
The President turned me off 2:13 into his speech. I turned him off 23 seconds later. The opener should have been something about, um, the barbarians are inside the wall -- but no. Milk and cookies.
Good people are trying hard to make it seem as though it wasn't so bad -- but it was. The bones he threw us will be eaten by feral dogs, a booming industry in Pathway-To-Citizenship fraud will enrich an army of fixers, and we shall be overwhelmed.
Bush's French Proposal
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 8:14AM
The setup to one of the best French jokes asks, “How many Frenchmen does it take to defend
And he's still not trying. Six thousand National Guard troops can help, but they are not nearly enough to do the job of sealing the border. And the proposal to end the "catch and release" program? That's what he promised last year and hasn't accomplished.
Walls work. Ask the Israelis. (Or, if you could, the ancient Chinese). Significant troop deployments with enough people, ground vehicles and aircraft to do the job (and just who gives a rat's hind end if Vicente Fox doesn't like it?) are needed urgently while we take the time to build the barriers along both borders. Yes, it will put more strain on an already overburdened force. But the choice is to do something seriously or just fiddle. Last night, the president continued fiddling. It was a speech worthy of Dominique de Villepin or Jacques Chirac.
Meltdown
Posted by on 5.16.06 @ 2:41AM
Is the popular conservative group blog PoliPundit a microcosm of the American right? Let's hope not. Here's how PoliPundit himself responded to Bush's speech last night:
El Presidente is speaking now, and every word coming out of his mouth is a lie. He is trying to bait-and-switch us yahoos into buying an unprecedented sell-out of America to Mexico.And here was the reaction of his coblogger Alexander K. McClure:
If you think that [Bush's proposal] is amnesty, then you are either a moron or a liar. If you ar [sic] truly a Republican to begin with, if you are truly a conservative, then you will applaud this speech and support the reforms he has articulated. Otherwise, you are not a Republican. You are not a conservative. You are a LIAR. A LIARI was trying to figure out which line was sillier, when the page updated with this notice from Lorie Byrd:
The fact is that I believe this is the last time I will be blogging at Polipundit.What could have possibly given Ms. Byrd the impression that the tone of the debate had gotten out of hand?I received a lengthy email from Polipundit tonight alerting us to an editorial policy change that included the following: "From now on, every blogger at PoliPundit.com will either agree with me completely on the immigration issue, or not blog at PoliPundit.com." ...
...What is really ironic about this is that the split is over the immigration debate and that is not even one of "my issues." I always deferred to Polipundit on the issue due to his background and passion on the subject. Lately most of my posts have not even dealt with immigration, but the ones that have were more about how I thought the tone and tenor of the debate had gotten out of hand, rather than the actual policy positions.
Monday, May 15, 2006
An Initial Reaction
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 10:53PM
I'm getting to the speech at a late hour (thanks to the wonders of C-Span). My quick reaction is that the substance is generally strong. The deployment of technology and the Guard is heartening, if 6,000 troops are enough. Ending catch and release and employing some sort of employment verification are good starts.
But some rhetoric is troubling: there is an absence of a sense of injustice over the wanton violation of American laws. I wonder if President Bush would be as forgiving of marijuana use or any other systemic crime. The temporary worker program is more of the same -- but as we know, the devil is in the details of fines, how long people have been in the country, etc. The White House and Senate plans we have already seen are essentially automatic plans to citizenship, or at least cheap forgiveness. Both of which sound an awful lot like amnesty to me.
Lastly, it is unfortunate Bush is drawing a line by insisting that border security must be linked to his neo-amnesty program. The program is optional -- border security is just doin' the job.
The Speech
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 8:38PM
Here's the whole text: The President, 8 pm:
Good evening. I have asked for a few minutes of your time to discuss a matter of national importance – the reform of
The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions – and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting images. And in
We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the
Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals ... strains state and local budgets ... and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life – but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.
We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a Nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals –
First, the
I was the governor of a state that has a twelve-hundred mile border with
Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my Presidency.
At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors … infrared cameras … and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings.
Training thousands of new Border Patrol agents and bringing the most advanced technology to the border will take time. Yet the need to secure our border is urgent. So I am announcing several immediate steps to strengthen border enforcement during this period of transition:
One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems … analyzing intelligence … installing fences and vehicle barriers … building patrol roads … and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities – that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, respond to natural disasters, and help secure our border.
The
Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities. So we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important resource – and they are part of our strategy to secure our border communities.
The steps I have outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally. At the same time, we must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. But when we catch illegal immigrants from other countries, it is not as easy to send them home. For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called “catch and release,” is unacceptable – and we will end it.
We are taking several important steps to meet this goal. We have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more. We have expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we are making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions, we have ended “catch and release” for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end “catch and release” at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they will be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.
Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to
Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks. And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.
A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their families while respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers – and make it less likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border. It would ease the financial burden on state and local governments, by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.
Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law – and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.
Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully – and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.
Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant – and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the
Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of
Tonight, I want to speak directly to Members of the House and the Senate: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together – or none of them will be solved at all. The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate should act by the end of this month – so we can work out the differences between the two bills, and Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law.
I know many of you listening tonight have a parent or a grandparent who came here from another country with dreams of a better life. You know what freedom meant to them, and you know that
We will always be proud to welcome people like Guadalupe Denogean as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what they have always been – people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And
Tonight's Auto da Fe
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 6:45PM
The White House is sending around excerpts from the president's speech tonight. Here's the one that may make me turn off the tv:
"The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to
to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across." America
How do we know if walls and patrols can't stop it unless we try? If we are to take this as an auto da fe -- an act of faith -- what is our faith supposed to be based upon?
BIG News: A Brit Impersonator
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 5:54PM
In the blog post immediately below, I report on the apparent false identity scam used, according to our friend Mark Corallo, by lefty blogger Jason Leopold, in the course of spreading apparently false stories to the effect that Karl Rove had been indicted. Now it gets even better/weirder: In the course of talking to Corallo under the identity of a reporter for a British publication (conversations Leopold himself reported on, but without the little detail about having used an alias), Leopold gave Corallo a number to call back on. When Corallo tried back, Corallo said, the number didn't work. Well, just in the few minutes since I posted the tale below, I got the following e-mail from Corallo:
"Gets better - at 4:00 p.m. today I got a call from a guy named Joel Loria of the London Sunday Times!! He was a bit miffed (to say the least) that Leopold used his name. And the phone number was one digit off!"
This is really getting fun! Calling Janet Cooke, in addition to Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass.....
VERY Weird Rove/Corallo Story
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 5:38PM
I spoke today with Mark Corallo, PR man and straight shooter extraordinaire, who told me a whale of a story about the whole crazy rumor over the weekend (on Lefty blogs) that Karl Rove had been indicted and would resign. Rather than repeat the whole thing, let me give you this left-leaning blog site, Talkleft, which has the full run-down (a run-down Corallo himself confirmed to me was accurate). The long and short of it is that it seems as if the lefty blogger who first reported the indictment story not only got it all wrong, but then (according to Corallo) represented himself under a false identity to Corallo. More from Byron York on this here. This has the whiff of Jason Blair/Stephen Glass stuff. Stay tuned.
Hail to Rep. Montgomery
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 5:12PM
As promised earlier today, I take this opportunity to mourn the passing of a great American, a true patriot and gentleman, Mississippi's former longtime U.S. Rep. G.V. "Sonny" Montgomery, who died last Friday at age 85. Montgomery served 30 years in Congress; was a great (but wise and realistic) advocate for this nation's veterans; revamped the GI bill in 1984 (and helped boost recruitment for the all-volunteer force), served in active duty in WWII and Korea, supported the military, helped track down the fate of POWs and MIAs, supported most of President Reagan's economic agenda, helped establish and remained a leader of the House Prayer Breakfast, and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. (Hat tip to Wash Post for all the above info.) All of which made him a wonderful, admirable public servant, and one who also was wise. I write especially, though, to add a little human flavor to Montgomery's obituary. You see, Montgomery was an avid tennis player, at least well into his mid-70s, meaning at least up until about a decade ago. I was working on Capitol Hill at the time, and I joined a Capitol Hill tennis association through which Hill workers met on weekends and played friendly, round-robin matches (often of not very high caliber). While Sen. John Breaux supposedly was a member of the group, he almost never showed; nor did other congressmen (if there were any other congressmen who were members) -- with the exception of Sonny Montgomery. He was there most weekends, and he was an absolute delight to play with (as a doubles partner) or against. On his 75-year-old legs he wasn't very mobile anymore, to say the least, but he had great court sense and decent strokes and a joyful attitude about it all. Competitive but self-deprecating, always patient with partners' mistakes or opponents' foibles, always the perfect gentleman, Montgomery was my favorite person out there. We even won a couple of good matches together. I will remember his very fondly.
May this good man who served his country extraordinarily well rest in peace and in God's love.
Rove Hits Home
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 4:36PM
Now, to return to what was supposed to be the main point of my coverage of the Rove speech at AEI this morning: Overall, it was a tour de force. Rove did quite well what the administration long needs to have been doing better and more often -- and what our feckless Congress has not done with even a smidgen of energy or success -- which is to tout the brilliant results, overall (at least short-term; the higher spending is more a long-term problem than a short-term one), of Bush's economic policies.
The fact is, as I argued here, we in the United States are living today in the best economic times in human history. Without making such a sweeping claim as that, Karl Rove brilliantly reviewed the evidence: By December of 2000, BEFORE Bush took office, business leaders meeting in Austin with the Pres-elect quite rightly told Bush he would be inheriting "a hurtin' economy" -- because the NASDAQ had lost 50% of its value just since March of that year, the broader stock indices were all down since January of that year, the tech bubble had burst, and the recession had already started (which was confirmed with the next quarter's statistics). And that was BEFORE the 9/11 attacks caused $100 billion of economic losses, before the corporate scandals (Enron, etc) that had occurred before Bush took office came to light (roiling the markets and the economy even more), before the economy lost 1 million new jobs in the next year (again, this was all before the first Bush economic measure even began to take effect). Yet the Bush policies of tax cuts and trade liberalization (and to a tiny extent, regulatory relief, although Rove didn't talk about it) kept the bottom from falling out, kept the recession short and shallow, and then spurred a phenomenal rebound.
Particularly important were the dividend and capital gains tax cuts signed into law on May 28, 2003, Rove said. And he's right. He noted that they worked exactly as promised: Between that date and Sept 30, 2005, top American corporations raised their dividend payments a whopping 727 times, thus helping shareholders and pensioners, etc. immensely. The stock market is again nearing the record highs it last reached a full year before Bush took office. Tax revenues, even adjusted for inflation, are at an all-time high. And the tax burden is falling MORE heavily, not less, on the wealthy: The share of overall taxes being paid by the top 1% of earners ($317,000+) is up 1.5% since May 28 of 2003; it's up 5% for the top 3% of earners; and up 3 percent for the top 5 percent (141+K) of earners. Overall revenues, BECAUSE OF (not despite) the tax cuts last year were $274 billion (15%) greater than the official forecasts; so far this year, they are exceeding forecasts by 11%, or $137 billion. Despite the recession of 2001, real disposable income in the U.S. has grown 14% since Bush took office. Yet inflation so far (and for the entire Bush presidency) has stayed in check; for the past 12 months, Rove said, it has run at 2.1 percent. The American economy in recent years has added more jobs than have economies in the entire European zone and Japan combined.
Which is why, on the investment tax cuts, Rove is right to say that "The President's critics ...could not have been more wrong."
Finally, kudos are in order for Rove for NOT backing down from the administration's advocacy of personal retirement accounts within Social Security. Although the White House tactics on this issue last year were muddled and ineffective, and although the vast bulk of congressional Republicans cut and run, on what COULD have been and may one day be a winning issue, like so many skittish jackrabbits (and that is being KIND to the cowards!), the president's courage on the subject was extraordinary, and he was right on the substance. Anyway, Rove this morning again explained the necessity and the wisdom of personal retirement accounts within Social Security.
The quote of the day, though, came later on, when answering a question from CNN's John King about political considerations. "Get the right policies," said Rove, "and the politics will take care of themselves." Too few GOPers on Capitol Hill understand the profound but oft-proven truth of this statement. But Rove is right. Do the right things, for the right philsophical reasons backed by the best empiracal evidence, and the results will be good and the American people will respond positively. Ronald Reagan proved that time and again. Rove, for all his alleged cynicism (if you believe the mainstream media), truly seems to understand and believe this Reaganesque insight -- and so does President George W. Bush.
These guys play hardball sometimes, but idealists (NOT ideoLOGUES, by the way) as well as cynics can play hardball; and Rove and Bush are far more idealistic, in the best sense (i.e. a realistic sense, not a dreamy one) than anybody seems to give them credit for.
Memo to White House: Get Rove out in public more often. He does a very good job.
The Border, By Numbers
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 3:57PM
Some figures to keep in mind during President Bush's speech tonight:
3 - The number of days it takes to train and deploy auxillary personnel that could back up the Border Patrol, according to Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus report on a Minuteman Project experiment in Arizona.
36,000 - The number of auxillary personnel it would take, according to the same report, to seal the southern border.
2 - The number of years it takes to fully train a Border Patrol agent.
Bottom line: Putting a few thousand national guardsmen at the border as a stop-gap measure while Border Patrol agents are added is not the most efficient way to go about beefing up border security.
Candor on Spending
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 3:45PM
Okay, to continue the thoughts on Rove's speech from this blog post earlier (which itself continued this one), here's the only way I can think of that Rove and Company can stop conservative support from hemorrhaging in response to the outrageous federal spending (which, by the way, I failed to note earlier, has also been greatly worsened by the outlandishly expensive prescription drug bill for Medicare):
First, rather than selectively (and misleadingly) using cherry-picked but meaningless statistics to try to pretend that Bush actually has been an effective budget disciplinarian, try a little candor instead, and an apology. Conservatives can forgive eight-plus straight years of over-spending (yes, it pre-dates Bush, because the GOP Congress has been horrible at this since the fall of 1998) a little more easily if they sense that the White House, first, recognizes the problem and the legitimacy of conservative complaints and, second, can believably claim to be making a NEWfound commitment to fiscal sense rather than trying (without any believability) to be merely continuing what the White House claims is already a successful record of keeping spending in check. (It's worth noting that even Fred Barnes, whose recent book on the Bush presidency is overwhelmingly positive, notes in the book and in several columns that Bush just flat-out is not a "small government" conservative and that he can make no real claim to fiscal discipline.)
Second, make a strong case that no more foolishness will be tolerated. Rove could/should try something like this:
"You know what? You're right: Overall spending and the deficits have not been kept within the bounds that we would have liked. And it's not all war-related. Congressional earmarks and budget gimmicks are out of control. And while we have insisted, successfully, that the growth rate of official measures for non-security discretionary spending has declined each year, the fact is that the overall size of government, even excluding the military, has grown too much. It's a problem that long pre-dated this administration, but it's one we have not fixed. The American people see thousands of local pork earmarks and they see the overall budget growing rapidly, and they have a right to be concerned. And, frankly, this administration has had to choose its fights; and while we are engaged in an important war against terrorists and opposed for political reasons by the other party no matter what we do, we have not chosen to fight Congress too hard on the spending front because we need to keep everybody, and especially every Republican (since the Democrats are so obstructionist regardless) on board for the bigger, more important battle against terrorists. Now we will argue forever that the spending outlook isn't anywhere near as bad as our critics would assert -- for instance, federal spending as a percentage of the overall economy is lower than it was under four of the last five presidents -- but that doesn't mean we don't recognize that the record could and should be better, and that our fiscal-conservative allies have a point. THEREFORE, we are making a commitment to do better than we so far have done, to hold Congress' feet to the fire, to use the presidential veto if need be, in order to make a so-so record on spending discipline into a superb record in the next three years.
"In short, WE HEAR YOUR COMPLAINTS, and we will respond constructively to satisfy them."
There: That's far from perfect, but something like that.
Ronald Reagan proved that a leader can prosper by admitting mistakes and believably pledging to do better. George W. Bush has done enough right, by conservative lights, on other fronts, that if he and his team show they accept conservative criticisms on this front as legitimate and worth ameliorating, conservatives might (and should) cut him some slack. To claim a bad record is good is to stick a needle in conservatives' eyes (because it belittles our concerns); but to acknowledge a so-so/mediocre record and promising to do better is to show both humility and magnaminity that can help a team (the nationwide team of conservatives, as it were) come together again in common cause.
Now, as for what Bush has done right by conservative lights, Rove hit those points quite well at AEI, and that will be the subject of my next blog entry.
Partying Like a Kennedy, One More Time
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 3:41PM
I've got one last look at the Patrick Kennedy story over at Reason, where I examine at the Ambien "sleep-driving" panic that Kennedy's excuse-making invoked.
Tractors, not Prom Queens
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 3:09PM
Okay, I found the old Mobile Register editorial I wrote that spoke of waste in the Homeland Security "first responder" grant program. I couldn't find what I remembered about cars to transport prom queens (as discussed in my post below), but here's the "nut graph" that does give other examples:
.... found the money going places like Tiptonville, Tenn., a town so tiny that it doesn't even show up on a rental car map.
Tiptonville used its $183,000 for a snazzy ATV and for defibrillators it keeps handy at high school basketball games. Converse, Texas, used its grants for a "homeland security trailer," which saw its first duty in hauling riding lawnmowers to the annual local lawnmower races. And Washington, D.C., which unlike some grantees is obviously a terrorist target, nevertheless used $100,000 to send sanitation workers to a Dale Carnegie course.
Roving Afield
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 3:03PM
My final (I think) post on the Rove speech at AEI today, which FOLLOWS this one, will highlight the parts of Rove's substance that were right on target and that he explained well. Here, though, a very important criticism: On the issue of spending, the man is full of Bullfeathers.
Rove continues to try to push the tired old White House line that it has done a good job keeping a lid on excess spending. The line is sheer bunk. He said the federal government under Bush's leadership has "reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending every year in office." The way he is using this, it is a meaningless statistic. What really has happened is that Congress and the White House keep redefining what counts as domestic discretionary spending so that they look more fiscally responsible (by far) than they actually have been. More and more and more often, spending items that would be included in ordinary domestic Appropriations bill are instead hidden in numerous other ways. Let me highlight some of the ways:
1) They might be included in a regular defense spending bill. Presto -- suddenly some goofy museum or other counts not as domestic discretionary spending, but as military spending instead, even though it does absolutely nothing to improve the defense of our country.
2) They might be included in an "emergency" supplemental appropriation. In fact, the use of this trick has reached epidemic proportions. Hence the Senate can lard up a bill for Iraq war costs and Katrina relief with about $14 billion in purely local -- non war-related, non-hurricane related -- pork, yet can avoid officially "counting" it as domestic discretionary spending.
3) As in example one, purely local pork and all sorts of other social spending has been snuck into the appropriations bill for Homeland Security -- a new category, obviously, in the past five years, yet one which Rove and Co. do not count as "non-security domestic spending." It's for homeland security, see, so it's for security -- even if it (in the case of "first responder" grants) pays for cars primarily used to take the local prom court to the homecoming game, or defibrillators in some podunk town that the local high school keeps handy in case some parent gets overexcited at the local hoops match. (Those examples are from memory; I'm checking them for accuracy now, but for these purposes they can be used as illustrative examples of the KIND of waste and mis-labeling of pork that occurs during the process.)
4) Finally, Congress can find other ways to push spending "off budget," meaning it doesn't get counted in the normal "domestic discretionary" accounting for a particular fiscal year. But it still gets spent. It just gets pushed into the next year, or pushed into some other category, or...whatever. Just a couple of months ago, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter was openly calling these shell games "gimmicks," and bragging that Congress' ever-more-successful attempts to use (and abuse) such gimmicks proves that Congress has finally become "liberal" -- which, again, Specter clearly thought was a good thing, worth not complaining about but rejoicing in.
But, as I say, it still gets spent. So when the final budget deficit figure for each year is calculated, it is astronomical, at the very same time that Rove and company try to claim with a straight face that they are being so fiscally disciplined.
As a matter of fact, in responding to a good question at AEI (from Jeanne Cummings of the Wall Street Journal) about the budget-busting transportation bill, Rove sort of unintentionally acknowledged this game playing by, after first claiming that the Transpo bill was the ONLY time, from among Bush's 39 veto threats, that Congress "breached his target," then turning around and trying to say that the target wasn't really breached because Congress had found a "face-saving ability" to go beyond the target while using budget legerdemain to hide the true amount of the spending in the official budget "scoring" of it. In other words, he admitted that Bush allowed them to cheat.
And, for that matter, he didn't mention the important note that Bush kept moving the goal posts as to what actual dollar figure (it kept getting higher over the course of two years) would trigger a veto in the first place, games or no games.
Okay, this blog post has gone on too long, so my next one will continue this subject with some advice re the spending mess, before I do what eventually will be a fourth blog post re Rove that returns to praising him.
Google Response
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 3:02PM
We've heard from Google related to our item this morning regarding MoveOn.org's involvement in the "Net Neutrality" fight.
Google sent along a statement that reads, in part:
Google Inc. is not a financial supporter of MoveOn.org as your article of May 15 entitled "Internet Nationalization" asserts. As a result it is unequivocally incorrect to state that MoveOn has received "…more than $1 million from Google and its lobbyists..."It is wholly accurate to say that network neutrality is an issue of great importance to our users and to Google as a result. Broadband providers should not be permitted to use their market power to control what consumers see and do online. For 100 years telephone companies have been prohibited from telling consumers who they can call. For two decades Internet carriers have been prohibited from dictating what users do online. Broadband carriers should not now be allowed to pick winners and losers in the competitive Internet market.
We'll have more on this issue later.
Underwhelmed by Rove's Substance
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 2:58PM
Overall, Rove seemed to offer more of the same, albeit well put. Why give this speech now? There was no recent economic numbers on which to hang the speech. Sure, the tax cuts were extended last week, but as Grover Norquist told ($) the Wall Street Journal in today's editions, "that's last year's homework turned in late." Indeed. It's not only late, but short: what happened to making the tax cuts permanent? Rove didn't call for that.
Okay, so Bush inherited a poor economy, and tax cuts have aided Americans in launching a solid recovery. And free trade is also a boom to the economy. No arguments here, but again, nothing new.
And then we come to Rove's claim that this administration has restrained spending. This is where Rove's confidence becomes gall, and his wonkish command of details becomes spin. Yes, the Bush administration has reduced non-security discretionary (NSD) spending and continues to do so. Yet by the looks of their own numbers, NSD spending increased for the first four years of the Bush presidency. Annenberg's FactCheck.org reported after the State of the Union that NSD spending is only 16 percent of the overall budget -- which has increased by 42 percent during the Bush presidency.
As for the big picture, Rove said that "the administration issued 39 veto threats on 6 major spending bills. And Congress responded to those veto threats by restraining spending at the level proposed in the President's budget." Perhaps Rove can parse this statement into a truth, but it is laughable on its face. The $295 billion highway bill only made the President's maximum of $284 billion through budget gimmicks. And the $284 billion number was a moved goalpost: the President previously threatened to veto a bill so large.
I didn't get a chance to ask which bills Rove had in mind, but Jeanne Cummings of the WSJ asked about the transportation bill, which notoriously exceeded the President's target. Rove replied that Congress "did reach the target" -- through "face saving gestures."
It's wonderful that the White House and Rove are doing their jobs and defending their economic policies. But that's basic stuff. Our expectations have fallen so low that we're excited when the administration does things it should have been doing all along. On the major problems for the President -- spending and immigration -- the White House still appears to be in denial that problems even exist. They may finally acknowledge a problem with immigration tonight, but if Rove's speech is any indication, they still believe that their budget performance is slim and trim.
On Rove's Style
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 2:55PM
I attended Rove's speech at AEI this morning, and I must confess to a different reaction from the Prowler's. I found it underwhelming. Like Quin, I have a lot to say, so I'll split it into two posts. First, on style.
His willingness to take questions certainly demonstrated fight and focus for the months ahead. And his best qualities were on display: an uncanny ability to match poll and policy numbers with any critic. He was also quite engaging with the press corps.
His speech focused on economic policy. The White House could use someone banging the drum of the country's economic success and the President's role in that. While this unfortunately helps feed the perception that the federal government is the economic hero or villain (as opposed to the market), the White House must combat its critics.
Next post: on substance.
Yost on Cavuto
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 2:31PM
Mark Yost, who authored "Second Chances at Life: The Untold Revolution in Combat Medicine" for our February issue, will be on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" today at 4:30 p.m. (EDT). He'll preview his next piece for The American Spectator -- about the unsung heroes of Iraq.
Rove Impressions
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 2:19PM
To amplify (at great length, over the course of probably three full blog entries; stay tuned for the other two) on what the Prowler wrote below about Karl Rove, I was at the AEI speech earlier this morning, and can confirm that Rove is in fighting trim, that he is engaged and focused and upbeat. The simple truth is that Karl Rove is one of the best communicators at the White House. The White House should get him out there more often, both for the president's sake (because Rove does an excellent job conveying the president's message) and for his own sake, because the more he is out there, the more that Americans can see for themselves that he is not the ogre that the mainstream media paints him as. The caricature of him is so unfair as to be obscene. Instead, if Americans see and hear him more often, it will probably redound to Bush's benefit, because they will see that Bush's most famous aide is competent and smart and thoughtful and reasonable, etc., all of which makes not just Rove but the president also look good.
Not only was Rove's speech, on economic policy and the Bush economic successes, clear and effective, but his command not just of issues but of useful facts and figures -- exact numbers, etc., off the top of his head -- was/is superb. It was superb not just because he showed that he knows his stuff, but because he showed he knows how to use the facts to clarify his case. Some policy wonks start spouting statistics and put you to sleep, because they don't know how to relate numbers and facts to their point; they don't clarify and argument, but merely drown their argument in minutiae. Rove isn't like that. He uses the statistics -- and only those that are relevant -- in a very focused way, to build his arguments and support his message.
More later on what was good about that message itself. In my next blog post, though, get ready for some important criticisms of Rove's speech.
Rovian Rumblings
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 1:30PM
Karl Rove addressed expectant conservatives today with a speech sponsored by the American Enterprise Instituite. He didn't disappoint, even taking a few questions.
This speech follows another address that he made last Friday, which generally followed the same talking points:
Rove understands the mood of the country. He gets it. He also gets the poll numbers (and the difference between job approval and personal approval).
What came across in both Rove appearances is that, one, he's engaged, focused and ready for the hand to hand combat that Republicans should be ready to wage in the coming months with Democrats.
Another interesting note, at least to us, was Rove's seeming interest in Social Security reform. He noted that personal retirement accounts would not solve the problems of the Social Security system, but would help individuals with the retirement issues. We got the sense that perhaps that Rove -- and by extension the President and his Administration -- want another bite at that apple. That they do, given what has transpired, indicates that they think there are still policy debates to be had in this town before they leave town. This we find interesting if not encouraging.
Sign of the Times
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 11:56AM
Grievance liberalism is on perverse display at Washington's Gallaudet University, where students are resisting the appointment of Jane Fernandes as president of the school. Her sin? She's not "deaf enough," evidently, because she first learned how to speak and read lips before studying sign language, in which, according to protesters, she is not fluent enough. Regardless of how she conveyed it, she was fluent enough to capture a further side of what might be called brave new world liberalism, when she told the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt, "Progress in genetics is leading to the idea that you could choose not to have a deaf child." In other words, someday there may be no need for schools for the deaf such as Gallaudet.
Another Miers Moment
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 9:51AM
That's what we'll get tonight. The prez, having reassured our pal Mexican President Vicente Fox that all this is just temporary, is about to lay another slab of cheese out for the public mice to nibble. It'll be the border security equivalent of nominating Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court.
Sonny Montgomery
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 9:43AM
I'm running out the door right now, but here is notice that I intend when I get back to post an entry in fond and respectful memory of former Rep. Sonny Montgomery (D-Miss), who died late last week. A true gentleman and patriot. Anybody who wants to post something nice about him in the meantime, until I return, please have at it.
Iran Arming al-Qaeda in Iraq via Hezbollah?
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 8:26AM
That's what a report in the Iraqi newspaper Azzaman says: "Strela-type SAM-7 surface-to-air missiles, modern explosives, and a large number of personnel arms including Kalashnikovs and BKC machineguns." Omar at Iraq the Model notes the similarity to a report from last month from al-Sabah, a paper "that is not normally in agreement with what Azzaman publishes."
The Supply-Side Times
Posted by on 5.15.06 @ 1:17AM
A Saturday front-pager in the New York Times focused on Treasury Secretary John Snow and why he's still around. The piece was as bizarre as Snow's situation -- he dutifully continues to serve even though it seems obvious to everyone that the Bush White House would like to replace him ASAP. So why hasn't it replaced him? "Largely because the White House has been unable to find a replacement, administration officials say." Isn't this, then, the real story? Who, pray tell, has been approached and turned the President down?
Meanwhile, it took this report to get out sterling economic news the N.Y. Times would otherwise have never conveyed, given how well the news might reflect on the Bush economy.
Thus, John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable and someone who knows Snow well, is quoted as saying: "This is an economy that by any statistical measure would be the envy of any administration of any party...."
Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth, credits Snow, according to the report, "for trumpeting President Bush's tax-cutting, 'which has been the biggest cause of these good economic times.'"
If there is one complaint about Snow, is that he hasn't done more to talk up this economic success and seen to it that Bush gets the credit -- though how one does that after being consigned to limbo is anybody's guess. Still, it is amusing to see the Times join in this criticism of Snow for not being more boastful about "some of this administration's successes -- low unemployment, a healthy stock market, tax cuts." Are we all supply-siders now?
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Amnesty for Illegals?
Posted by on 5.14.06 @ 2:11PM
If you were lucky enough to miss Meet the Press today, you did miss one important point. Talking to Tim Russert, Newt Gingrich let slip that tomorrow -- just in time for W's big speech -- the Heritage Foundation will release an analysis of the Senate bill that shows it will result in amnesty for more than 30 million illegals, three times the number already here. Here's Gingrich's words, the money quote:
But for you to establish the principle that we're now going to reward those who have broken the law the longest, we're going to create an entire forgery industry so people prove they've been here as long as possible, breaking the law, and you don't think we're going to send a signal to the entire planet:
Show up in the U.S. for the next amnesty. It was three million last time, it's going to be-the estimate, by the way, which I think will come out from the Heritage Foundation tomorrow is that the bill in the Senate is between 30 and 50 million people ultimately allowed to become citizens under the extended family provision in this bill. Thirty to 50 million people. You don't think 10 years from now we're going to face another wave of illegals who are sitting there saying-I-by the way, 53 percent of all Hispanic-Americans, people who have citizenship, agree with the provision, that you should enforce the law. Because remember, many of them have relatives who've been sitting at home, waiting and obeying the law, hoping to get a legal visa. And now they're about to be told that somebody who has been breaking the law for 11 years has a better place in America than somebody who waited back home to obey the law to come to the U.S. legally.
Over to you, Mr. President.
- Down in the Desert
- Republic, Regained
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
