Saturday, September 16, 2006
Posted by John Tabin on 9.16.06 @ 4:47PM
Instapundit has a good round-up of
reactions the the Muslim Street's latest hissyfit. I particularly
like Jacob T. Levy's
contribution, drawing the distinction between a political
leader, who of course shouldn't be in the business of judging which
religion is right, and a Pope, who absolutely must be in that
business. The problem, of course, is that much of the Muslim world
doesn't accept this distinction. And note Levy's footnote:
*(And therefore, in religious substance, the speech is
a much more serious attack on various kinds of Protestantism,
including the President's, than it is on Islam; the status of
reason and philosophy in Islam is complicated and contested,
whereas in the personal-revelation brands of Protestantism it's
pretty much dismissed.)
And yet you don't see too many Evangelical Christians burning
Benedict in effigy on CNN, do you?
topics: Business, Religion, Islam, Protestantism
Posted by James Poulos on 9.16.06 @ 2:57PM
Various and sundry Muslims are in a tizzy about Benedict's
treatment of violence, Islam, and logos
(that is, reason in faith). But the content of the Pope's
discussion has won positive reviews from people as far apart
doctrinally as paleocons and A. Sullivan.
It all suggests in heavy tones that there's a real issue here,
and the scattershot offended reactions coming out of places like
Turkey and Lebanon and from organizations like the Muslim
Brotherhood reflect a general confusion over the danger of freely
and frankly discussing identity today. Benedict's words are felt by
turns to be insulting, dangerous, Crusaderist -- or so it would
seem if you take the content of the backlash at face value. Don't.
Here's my take on why.
topics: Islam
Posted by Paul Chesser on 9.16.06 @ 7:55AM
They will be patrolling the Euphrates.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.15.06 @ 4:25PM
Shortly after Hamas's landslide victory in January's Palestinian elections, I predicted that a Hamas leader would one day win the Nobel Peace Prize. This is starting to seem more and more likely.
Reuters reports:
European Union foreign ministers agreed on Friday to back a Palestinian national unity government being formed by President Mahmoud Abbas with the Hamas Islamist movement, despite U.S. misgivings.
It may take years, but it's only a matter of time before Hamas is seen not only as an acceptable organization, but a peacemaker. Just like Arafat, Hamas leaders have such a reputation as being terrorists, that any empty overtures of peace they make will come across as a major breakthrough. If I may indulge myself a bit with a quote from Henry IV, Part I:
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
topics: Islam, European Union, Oil
Posted by John Tabin on 9.15.06 @ 2:33PM
As ethics investigations against Senator Robert Menendez
threaten to propel Republican Tom Kean into the Senate, the
WSJ editorial page warns that the Dems may
pull a Lautenberg.
topics: NATO
Posted by John Tabin on 9.15.06 @ 2:22PM
AP:
WASHINGTON - Consumer confidence zoomed to a
seven-month high as lower gasoline prices made people feel a lot
better about the current economic climate and their own financial
standing.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen's daily tracking poll shows
President Bush's approval ratings
peaking due to "resurgence of support among the President's base."
I doubt they'll break yesterday's high of 47% -- one would expect
the anniversary of 9/11 the be Bush's best day of the fall -- but
the new burst of economic good feelings could easily give Bush a
higher floor than he's had in recent months. If that trend lasts
through election day, that's got to have some effect on the
results.
Posted by John Tabin on 9.15.06 @ 1:49PM
Phil: The line you quote from Ramesh's op-ed bothered me a bit.
The implication that the 1992 loss lead directly to the Contract
With America approach to the '94 campaign is unfaithful to the
actual history of how the Contract came about. Newt Gingrich and
Dick Armey were lobbying for something like the '94 campaign from
the mid-80s on, carefully shaping and reshaping an agenda that was
both economically conservative at its core and made up of planks
that were popular enough that most Republican candidates were
willing to sign onto it. Maybe the Republican Study Committee has a
similar ongoing effort underway, but unless Mike Pence and his
allies are positioned to capture the leadership in the wake of a
loss it's hard to see how we can count on such an agenda going
anywhere.
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.15.06 @ 1:07PM
Phil: Let me give a preview of my column next week: These folks
are also over-selling the benefits of having the Dems run the
House.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.15.06 @ 12:53PM
Jonah Goldberg joins the list of conservatives who see a bright side to Republicans losing control of Congress this year. I cannot think of one good reason why Republicans deserve to win this year, but at the same time I wonder whether Republicans losing Congress would have the long-term positive effect on the party that conservatives hope it would. In my view, the most compelling argument for a Republican loss is the hope that if they lose because of a drop-off in turnout among conservatives, they wouldn't take conservative voters for granted in the future. But there's also just as much of a risk of them turning to the left in response to a defeat. Ramesh Ponnuru addressed this fear in his NY Times piece earlier in the week:
Some conservatives worry that Republican officialdom will see defeat as a reason to turn left. But that didn’t happen after the last major Republican defeat in 1992. Then, conservatives were able to persuade the party that it had not lost power because it was too far right.
While his point is valid, I think he's only selectively citing history here. After Clinton's reelection victory in 1996, Republicans, who felt they had lost the battle over the government shutdown, backed away from their small government agenda. When Republicans pushed through pork-laden spending in the fall of 1998, it hampered conservative turnout and they lost seats in November. However, instead of renewing their commitment to small government in response, we got "compassionate conservatism."
If Republicans lose control of Congress this year, they may interepret the loss as being the result of alienating small government voters, but they may also dismiss that explanation and see their defeat as a referendum on the Iraq War and an unpopular president.
topics: Iraq, Conservatism
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.15.06 @ 12:32PM
The suicide tragedy might have been avoided had the folks who
run CNN had any brains at all. How on earth did someone who is as
obnoxious as Nancy Grace ever get on TV in the first place? And how
has she managed to stay on the air for longer than one week? For
example, take a look at this clip from her show back in May.
And this bit from July is just classic. Put the video
to the one-minute mark, listen to Grace's question and then watch
Elizabeth Smart's reaction. Priceless.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.15.06 @ 11:02AM
A recent New Yorker profile available here.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.15.06 @ 10:52AM
In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank writes about Nancy Pelosi unveiling the Democrats latest slogan, "A New Direction for America":
It was a handsome booklet, full of homey photographs and popular proposals, but there was a problem. Democrats have had more "New Directions" recently than MapQuest.
Among the party's campaign slogans this year: "Culture of Corruption," "Culture of Cronyism," "Do-Nothing Congress," "Rubber-Stamp Congress," "Together, We Can Do Better," "Together, America Can Do Better" and, most recently, "Six for '06."
topics: Nancy Pelosi
Posted by David Holman on 9.15.06 @ 10:13AM
Oriana Fallaci, a truly brave journalist, died in Italy
today.
Michelle Malkin has a comprehensive roundup of her jeremiads against jihad. George Neumayr
wrote
last year about her troubles with the Italian authorities.
Posted by Shawn Macomber on 9.15.06 @ 8:58AM
Congrats to former AmSpec editor and hypocrisy enthusiast Jeremy
Lott for picking up the
Competitive Enterprise Institute's Warren T. Brookes fellowship
this week.
Posted by Jed Babbin on 9.15.06 @ 8:45AM
I'm subbing for Hugh again today, and there's no lack of things
to talk about. We'll discuss the special place in hell reserved
for Richard Armitage, the McCain/Graham/Warner obstacle to the
president's legislation on detainee treatment and a bunch more.
Guests include the Beltway Boys (Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke)
and Larry Kudlow. Hope ya can tune in. We'll be asking you to
drink from the information firehose.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.14.06 @ 3:26PM
In a post on TAPPED, Robert Kuttner writes:
The Republican story on Connecticut and Rhode Island, repeated a little too credulously by much of the press, is that the Dems shoved aside their moderate incumbent, Joe Lieberman, while the Republicans wisely kept theirs, Lincoln Chafee. But hold on a minute. Didn't voters in both states' primaries choose the guy who is opposed to Bush's Iraq War?
I'd just note that Bush lost Rhode Island by more than 20 points in 2004, so the fact that an incumbent liberal Republican with the backing of the RNC won a primary doesn't mean much in terms of being a referendum on Iraq.
topics: Iraq
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.14.06 @ 3:23PM
As I noted earlier in the year, The New Republic's
rhetoric is getting more extreme in what is probably an attempt to
win back the left-wing subscribers it lost in the last few years.
(Or, maybe it's because the folks at TNR genuinely want to turn
hard left--not sure which is worst).
Today TNR continues the trend by labeling Club for Growth as
"tax-cutting maniacs." What, exactly, have the people running CFG
done to warrant the term "maniacs"? Be vigorous and uncompromising
in promoting the issues they care about? If so, does that mean that
we can now refer to NARAL as pro-abortion maniacs or Families USA
as government-run health care maniacs?
That is one of the results of adopting the mentality of the
political extremes: you don't much think about the consequences of
using inflammatory rhetoric.
Of course, it's not as bad as saying something like "moronic brownshirt f***s", but you can only
go so far when you are trying to stay respectable.
topics: Health Care, Abortion
Posted by Paul Chesser on 9.14.06 @ 3:20PM
Belo's largest circulation newspaper is downsizing:
The Dallas Morning News said today that 111
newsroom employees have accepted buyouts.
"The number of confirmed acceptances meets our strategic
newsroom realignment goals, and we have a very deep and capable
team of about 450 professionals to continue producing a newspaper
of distinction," Jim Moroney, publisher of the paper, said in a
statement. "As we empower reporters and photographers to further
apply methods in new media to communicate stories, our emphasis
will remain squarely on excellence in every regard."
Translation: The writers and graphics
people we have left will largely depend on trolling the Internet
for information.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.14.06 @ 3:03PM
Shawn, not to make your wardrobe decisions more complicated,
but given that you live near Cambridge, I might consider
this t-shirt which reads, "I am Democratic, I voted for
Hamas."
topics: Israel
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.14.06 @ 2:45PM
An article in today's Washington Post reads:
Virginia's U.S. Senate race turned nasty Wednesday as Republican Sen. George Allen launched a character attack on his Democratic opponent's past views toward women in combat, signaling the start of a two-month barrage of negative campaigning in what has become a close race.
The background is that in a 1979 article for Washingtonian magazine, opponent James Webb argued against women in combat. Whether or not you think this should be an issue, at least Allen is criticizing something Webb actually wrote. It's worth noting that back in January, Democrats, in a desperate attempt to derail the nomination of Samuel Alito, made a huge issue of his supposed links to a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Ted Kennedy read sexist and racist passages from old issues of the group's magazine at the confirmation hearings in an attempt to make Alito guilty by association, even though there was no evidence that Alito was an active member of the group. The Washington Post wrote about the issue at the time, but it didn't lambaste Kennedy for turning the confirmation hearings "nasty" or for launching a "character attack" on Alito.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.14.06 @ 2:08PM
As conservative pundits line
up against Republicans, over at RealClearPolitics, Scott
Rasmussen
says the GOP base may actually be returning home:
The political season has kicked into high
gear this week and the initial news cycle features a bounce in
President Bush's
Job Approval ratings. Our numbers today show the President
at 47%, up six points in a week and the best numbers he's
enjoyed since mid-February. What's fueling this? The Republican
base is coming home. Today, 85% of the GOP faithful voice approval
of Bush's performance. Earlier this year, that level of support had
fallen as low as 66%. Of course, it's still early. It's just one
poll. It might be statistical noise or perhaps a temporary bounce
following the 9/11 activities and the President's recent speeches.
However, it might also be an early signal that the White House
strategy to re-focus the debate is starting to energize the base.
Only time will tell.
Pundits tend to be more cynical
than voters, so maybe Rasmussen is on to something.
Posted by Reid Collins on 9.14.06 @ 2:08PM
Every tragedy contains a little lesson. The Montreal killings
informs us that the perpetrator, Kimveer Gill, was fond of playing
the Internet game, "Super Columbine Massacre." The lesson: there
is such a game. Derivative lesson: it can't be long
now.
Posted by Shawn Macomber on 9.14.06 @ 1:35PM
...which would
better fit a fall wardrobe? The "Ho Chi Minh: Eternal Glory" or
the "Death to Parasitic Capitalism" T-shirts. Living as close to
Cambridge as I am, I want to strike that perfect revolutionary
collegiality balance.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.14.06 @ 11:51AM
Last night, I read David Remnick's very very long New Yorker profile on Bill Clinton, in which he follows Clinton around Africa as Clinton does work on AIDS. For those who don't have time to read the whole piece, this press release highlights many of the key parts and the magazine's website also posted an interview with Remnick, in which he discusses the story. Putting aside Remnick's gushing over Clinton, which is par for the course for the New Yorker, I thought the piece went on far too long and lacked a clear focus. Remnick obviously had a high degree of access, but I think he assumes that the reader will be as interested as he was in every little detail of his trip with Clinton.
One thing that I was reminded of by reading the piece is Clinton's obnoxious habit of acting humble and self-critical when he's actually being arrogant and boastful. One example is how he says that having his father die young made him want to fit two lifetimes into one and that, "most of the personal and political mistakes I made in my life were because I tried too much and was exhausted. But I also got a lot done." Also, he expresses remorse for not doing more about AIDS in Africa while he was president, and relates a story about how Chelsea gave him a C+ on the matter in a thesis she wrote for Oxford. "She said, 'You didn't do nearly enough. But you did more than anyone else in the world.'" Remnick quips that, "Clinton told the story with such good humor that you would have thought he'd received an A-minus."
With all that said, another thing that clearly comes across in the piece is why Clinton has been the only Democratic president since FDR to be elected for two terms: "'It would really be crazy,'" Clinton says, "'if the anti-war element of our Party thought that the most important thing to do was to beat up on the Democrats, and gave the Republicans a free ride.'" That statement rings true in the context of the Democrats' McGovernite turn in the Lamont/Lieberman race and is clearly a preview of the arguments that Hillary Clinton will use to assuage the concerns of the hard-line anti-war Democrats in her party as she seeks the presidency. The anti-war Left will be the perfect foil for Hillary to come across as more moderate ahead of the general election.
Remnick's piece explores in detail how Bill Clinton could provide a big boost to Hillary both in terms of strategy and on the campaign trail in 2008 (Bob Kerrey is quoted in the piece saying Bill is worth 200 million in free media).
At the end of the day, of course, Hillary Clinton will have to win on her own, because people vote for or against the candidate at the top of the ticket, not the vice president, the First Spouse, or anybody else. While Hillary may be disciplined, and understand what she needs to do strategically, the problem is that her strategy is so transparent and she comes across as so telegraphed and robotic, a stark contrast to the smoothness of her husband. No matter what he said or did, there's something about Bill Clinton that makes a majority of people like him, whereas, Hillary Clinton has the opposite effect on most people -- they tend to dislike her no matter what.
Don't get me wrong. I still think Hillary can win in 2008, but it depends on the political climate two years from now as well as whether Republicans nominate someone lame.
topics: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Africa, Oil
Posted by Lawrence Henry on 9.14.06 @ 11:03AM
Hunter, the "radical Christian" trope is a tired staple of the
left, as you know. Some years back, Andrew Sullivan put it forth
most tiringly, and I wrote a column, called "The Politics of
Horniness," for Enter Stage Right,
here.
I concluded:
What does Andrew Sullivan really mean? If Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson are no better than Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, what
should we do? Send Green Berets to root out The 700 Club? Or does
Sullivan mean that Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden are no worse
than Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? If so, we could simply exile
them from the A list of the Eastern seaboard. Maybe let them host a
late-night down-market cable television show.
topics: Television
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.14.06 @ 10:45AM
In today's
column, Robert Novak disputes Richard Armitage's version of
events surrounding the Plame leak.
Posted by Paul Chesser on 9.14.06 @ 10:20AM
He was
apparently visiting the Golan heights while his wife was in the hospital after giving
birth, according to two audience members at the "Oprah Winfrey
Show" taping.
Posted by Paul Chesser on 9.14.06 @ 9:37AM
The Republicans put forth an impressive effort in
Rhode Island, according to The Washington
Post. Would seem to bode well for them in November.
As someone who grew up in Rhode Island (with a
lot of family still there), I think there is no way in hell that
Laffey was going to win there. As much as Chafee triggers my gag
reflex, there is something to be said for making the strategic
choice in this situation. Retaining the majority in the current
unstable, insecure atmosphere of terror and war is important.
Unless Chafee wins and then fails to vote for the GOP caucus
nominee for Majority Leader. Then you can throw what I wrote above
out the window.
Posted by Paul Chesser on 9.14.06 @ 8:45AM
The Washington Times today
has a "we're not Softees on terrorism" article about the
Democrats, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi determined not
to be "Swift-Boated:"
Part of national security, said the House's top
Democrat, is protecting the environment.
"We are advancing tough and smart national security policies to
keep the American people safe," said Mrs. Pelosi, adding that
Democrats' national security agenda aims "to fight terrorism and
defeat it, stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
to stop global warming and any other threats to the safety and
security of the American people."
Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader John A.
Boehner, said the remark reflects a broader national security
weakness by Democrats.
"The American people want a strong posture against the global
scourge of terrorism and all Democrats can offer is Nancy Pelosi's
babble putting that fight on par with global warming," he said.
Other rumored national security priorities for the Democrats: The
war on poverty, Wal-Mart, and stopping media misrepresentations
like ABC's "Path to 9/11" miniseries.
topics: Nancy Pelosi, Environment, Global Warming
Posted by Hunter Baker on 9.14.06 @ 12:18AM
In Your Heart, You Know He's Right.
But it looks like the upcoming HBO documentary about Barry
Goldwater is not going to be a right-wing affair, or even balanced.
Check out the paragraph at the HBO site telling us who will be
featured:
"Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater includes interviews
with Senators Edward Kennedy, Hillary Rodham Clinton (a onetime
"Goldwater Girl") and John McCain (who succeeded Goldwater in
Arizona); former TV anchorman Walter Cronkite, humorist Al Franken;
TV correspondent Robert MacNeil; former Washington Post editor Ben
Bradlee; author George Will; 60 Minutes Andy Rooney; CBS News' Bob
Schieffer; White House reporter Helen Thomas; political consultant
James Carville; former White House Counsel John Dean . . ."
What's missing from this list? How about Bill Buckley? How
about William Rusher? Pat Buchanan, maybe? How about a few extra
conservatives? I'm predicting a screw-job along the lines of how
the party has lost its way, unlike the pristine Dems, of course.
topics: John McCain, NATO
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Posted by Hunter Baker on 9.13.06 @ 11:40PM
Rosie O'Donnell brought forth a nice round of applause from the
live audience of The View when she
proclaimed that "Radical Christianity is just as dangerous as
Radical Islam!"
A few observations and questions here:
1. I'm guessing the network execs were thrilled. Insulting giant
swaths of the potential viewing audience is always a great
strategy. Is it just possible that the stay-at-home moms available
to watch the show might be more likely a bit on the traditional
side?
2. What does Rosie mean by "Radical Christianity"? I tend to
think Mother Theresa. I mean, she was really sold out for the
gospel and was really, really pro-life. Christians who would run
around blowing up innocent people would qualify as bad Christians
by virtually any standard. I don't know enough about Islam to say
the same about Muslims.
3. Is Rosie aiming for a political show in the timeslot behind
Keith Olbermann? How can a man be so right about sports and so
terribly, terribly wrong about politics and culture?
4. Rosie really needs a reality check. What comparable worldwide
and organized group of Christians mirrors Al Qaeda? If she means
something like the Family Research Council or Focus on the Family,
then she's comparing polite lobbiers and letter writers to literal
bomb throwers and head removers. Somehow, I just don't think the
comparison is apt.
topics: Sports, Islam
Posted by James Poulos on 9.13.06 @ 9:06PM
Quin, I'm not so hagridden with doubt over Baker. April Glaspie
said what she said (you can read the
Wikiversion here), but my understanding is that the alleged US
"green light" for an Iraqi move on Kuwait was based on the
consistent understanding that at issue was no more than a border
dispute. My understanding is that this border dispute involved
claims that Kuwait had been oil drilling, at an angle, across the
(disputed) borderline -- that is, down into Iraqi deposits.
According to this interpretation the United States took the not
inane stance that if Iraq wanted to move troops a mile or so into
Kuwait to correct this scheming behavior then America would not
rain holy hellfire down on Baghdad.
It thus (as I understand it) came as a rude embarrassment when
Saddam decided to move not a mile into Kuwait but a mile within the
Saudi border. At that point Baker really took over -- crafting the
first and last multinational alliance to include both the USA and
the Soviet Union. (Although Baker's superhuman efforts fell short
of the likes of Yemen he roped in Syria, too.)
So the remnant question, as you put it, is whether anything
short of "victory" is acceptable. Well, according to Bush himself,
Concept A is that the US stands down as Iraq's national army stands
up. That is, as soon as a national Iraqi government -- however its
people decide to posture it -- reaches the point of sufficient
self-defense, we pull up stakes and declare the job done. Although
this could be termed victory under the circumstances, it is an
unusual victory under traditional terms. But this has been an
unusual war. It's conceivable that Baker could suggest pulling out
before Iraq can hold itself together, but based on his realist
credentials and superlegitimacy among the Middle Eastern kingdoms
-- particularly Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- it seems far more likely
to me that Baker won't present the Sunni monarchies with a plan
that will play the south of Iraq straight into the hands of Shiite
theocracy. This is their nightmare scenario. And it might as well
be ours, in several significant ways.
So I have to ask: what sort of plan would reassure our
modern-day Arab allies that would work against American interests?
I'm not persuaded there is one. Baker is that rarity among American
power-brokers -- the statesman -- and though some might question
his willingness to think outside the box of a very venerable
foreign-affairs tradition, his chops as a negotiator and
problem-solver are unquestioned. And there isn't any doubt that
right now we could all use a gentlemen like that.
topics: Iraq, Oil
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.13.06 @ 7:46PM
Mary Katherine Ham has more on the Think Progress story.
Posted by Shawn Macomber on 9.13.06 @ 4:48PM
The best bit in that Think Progress article for me, Dave, is the
last graph:
Radio giant Clear Channel is so committed to progressive
talk radio that, this week, it will announce a partnership with the
Center for American Progress and MSS Inc. to conduct a nationwide
search for the next Progressive Talk Radio Star.
Wait, I thought Clear Channel was the arm of the Evil Empire
homogenizing American culture and signaling the End of All Things
Good? I guess corporate behemoths are alright if they're carrying
the right (left) bucket of water.
This is nothing new, by the way. I wrote about progressive's
love/hate relationship
with Clear Channel a while back. None of that is going to stop me,
of course, from trying my very best to be America's next
Progressive Talk Radio Star.
Posted by Quin Hillyer on 9.13.06 @ 4:02PM
Just now catching up on smaller news items from yesterday and,
behold, amidst the justifiable rejoicing that occurs as Congress
passes language requiring more transparency for spending earmarks
(a hat tip to The DC Examiner's Mark Tapscott and many conservative
bloggers for that one), there is much reason, again, to be
disgusted with Congress: According the the WashPost, this worthy
earmark-related bill is supposed to suffice as the entirety of
internal congressional reforms, after promises in January from
Speaker Hastert and others that serious lobbying reform/gift reform
would take place. So citizens can remain assured that their Reps
and senators are still able to accept golf junkets and ritzy free
meals while pretending that they aren't swayed legislatively as a
result. These people are incorrigible. If not literally, then at
least figuratively, they are crooks. Bleep every last one of
them.
To be clear, the problem is NOT with lobbyists, it is with a
Congress whose rules and behavior makes lobbying, by virtual
invitation, a matter less of exercising reasoned persuasion than of
spreading around enough goodies to be paid attention to.
The lobbyists are doing their jobs. It is the congressmen who
are corrupt.
topics: Earmarks, NATO
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.13.06 @ 3:32PM
Get a load of this headline over at Think Progress:
Air America To Declare Bankruptcy, But Progressive
Radio Remains Strong
Here is the, um, reasoning:
The right wing is sure to seize on Air America's
financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular.
In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn't
exist: the progressive talk radio format. That format is now
established and strong and will continue with or without Air
America. Indeed, many of the country's most successful and
widely-syndicated progressive talk hosts - Ed Schultz and Stephanie
Miller, for instance - aren't even associated with Air
America.
Problem is, Air America is pretty much the elephant in the pup
tent. To say that progressive radio remains strong despite the
demise of Air America is like saying that the Roman Empire is still
strong despite the sacking of Rome.
Posted by The Prowler on 9.13.06 @ 2:35PM
The Maryland Democratic primary did not turn out the way the
Republican Party might have liked, and Real Clear's analysis is
interesting, but folks need to remember that the key to Rep. Ben
Cardin's victory was Baltimore City, which he has represented
forever. This will not be an easy race for Steele, but he has the
money and the backing to pull it off, particularly if he can exceed
the African-American support that he got back in 2002.
topics: Africa
Posted by Quin Hillyer on 9.13.06 @ 2:09PM
This report in Washington Monthly could be good news, or it
could be bad. It says that Jim Baker is becoming the key man for an
end game in Iraq. While Baker clearly is good at managing end
games, and is ruthlessly competent, I think more of the tea leaves
here point to the WRONG end game. It looks to me like Baker is
intent on managing an exit strategy, when what is needed is a
VICTORY strategy. Anything that involves the former without the
latter would be a cop-out and a betrayal of all who have fought and
been injured or died in Iraq. Of course, it was Jim Baker's State
Department (April whassername) who gave Saddam the clear impression
that he could waltz into Kuwait unmolested in 1990 in the first
place, and Baker has always been far less of a friend to Israel
than to wrongheaded (and in effect, anti-Israeli) notions of
"stability" on a region. Sept. 11 of 2001 showed us what a fat lot
of good "stability" did us.
But now let me step back from the conclusions I was jumping to.
Baker is so secretive that he may be doing just what we all want,
which is devising a means to victory. He certainly is smart enough
to have a chance at pulling off that feat. So this isn't awful
news, necessarily... but it still makes me very, VERY nervous. To
repeat, a exit strategy without victory would be a defeat worse
than Vietnam, and would be a craven, cowardly way to end our
involvement. So there.
topics: Iraq, Israel
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.13.06 @ 1:05PM
Ramesh Ponnuru argues that it would be better for the GOP if they
lose the House this Fall.
I'm not convinced, but I'll leave that for a later column.
Posted by Quin Hillyer on 9.13.06 @ 10:49AM
This entry from the Real Clear Politics blog explains why the
most fascinating race to watch in November, and perhaps the one
that's most exciting for conservatives, might be Michael Steele's
battle for U.S. Senate. Really interesting stuff.
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.13.06 @ 7:58AM
Which means that in November Rhode Island voters will have a
choice between a Democrat and a Democrat.
Indeed, going into the primary Chafee even adopted the worst
tactics of the Dems, making baseless charges of voter intimidation.
Add to that the shameful way the National Republican Senatorial
Committee treated Steve Laffey, and this whole episode stinks like
three day old fish.
topics: NATO
Posted by John Tabin on 9.13.06 @ 2:15AM
Indeed, Chafee has won. In the Maryland primary,
Ben Cardin is leading; he'll be a tougher
challenger for Michael Steele than Kweisi Mfume, but he'll also be
a less-bad Senator than Mfume.
(As long-time readers may recall, I live in a neighborhood where
there aren't any seriously contested Republican primaries in which
the victor has a real shot at winning office, so I'm a registered
Democrat. I took the risk-averse route and voted for Cardin.)
topics: NATO
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Posted by John Tabin on 9.12.06 @ 10:31PM
I'm hanging out with the Club for Growth gang, following returns
in the Rhode Island primary. Pat Toomey looks very unhappy -- which
is to say, it's looking like Chafee is going to win.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.12.06 @ 2:12PM
Washington
Monthly publishes essays by conservatives Jeffrey Hart,
Christopher Buckley, Bruce Bartlett, William Niskanen, Bruce Fein
and Richard Viguerie -- all arguing that Republicans should lose
the midterm elections.
I challenge anybody to make the case for Republicans -- without
mentioning Democrats.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.12.06 @ 2:00PM
The Globe and Mail reports:
U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, who surprised many with the patriotic flavour of his new film World Trade Center, hinted in Moscow yesterday that he is considering a more controversial follow-up investigating the "conspiracy" around 9/11.
"There is a great story in a movie, a conspiracy by a group of people in the American administration who have an agenda and who used 9/11 to further that agenda," he told journalists in Russia.
Link via Alarming News.
topics: Trade, Movies, Russia
Posted by Shawn Macomber on 9.12.06 @ 12:18PM
...of Glenn Reynolds
from Sept. 11, 2001.
Thanks to the ever-entertaining Paul Sands for pointing out
the link.
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.12.06 @ 11:51AM
Actually, it isn't made by a conservative, but by a liberal over at The New Republic, Bradford
Plumer:
The point is this: Any big-government program on the
progressive wish list will likely prove even more difficult to pass
than the 1986 tax reform or 1993 budget. Single-payer health care?
Card check for unions? Reductions in carbon emissions? It won't get
done without an orgy of earmarks to entice the inevitable skeptics
in Congress. That won't be pretty, but if the price of, say,
universal insurance is a bit of borderline corruption here and
there, it's a tradeoff worth making. And, while it's also true that
conservatives can use earmarks to pass their own massive spending
programs--the prescription-drug benefit comes to mind--in the long
run, institutional mechanisms that are biased toward activist
government will favor liberals.
If the right ever needed an air-tight reason why to oppose pork,
that's it. Let's hope Plumer's column gets read by every
Congressional member of the GOP.
topics: Trade, Health Care, Earmarks, Unions
Posted by Shawn Macomber on 9.12.06 @ 11:24AM
Brendan Conway follows up his fine AmSpec piece of a few months ago with
a further exploration of the Fightin' Dems' "exceedingly little
basis in reality."
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.12.06 @ 11:22AM
The AP reports:
BRISBANE, Australia The death of the "Crocodile Hunter" appears to have triggered a war on stingrays in Australia.
A fisheries department official says up to ten of the normally docile fish have been found dead and mutilated on Australia's eastern coast since Steve Irwin was killed by one last week. At least two had their tails lopped off.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.12.06 @ 11:09AM
Hamas has put on a good show for the world by agreeing to form a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah in a bid to win back the international aid that was rightfully cut off when the terrorist group was elected.
According to the NY Times article, Hamas will implicitly accept working toward a two-state solution by recognizing all previous agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians and will allow Abbas to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians.
What this really means is that Hamas will use Abbas as its public face to make overtures of peace to the world so that it can rake in more money to fund its terrorism against Israeli civilians. And whenever you hear talk of Hamas implicitly accepting a two-state solution, you should always keep in mind this statement from Hamas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, made this January, just before the elections:
"Hamas supports the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital in the territories occupied [by Israel] in 1967 - as an interim solution. However, Hamas will continue to maintain its views regarding the boundaries of historical Palestine, and [in terms of] refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation."
In other words, Hamas sees a two-state solution as an acceptable first step in the process of destroying Israel eventually.
Unfortunately, Hamas's transparent extortion scheme already has already been welcomed by the EU.
topics: Israel
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.12.06 @ 10:25AM
Bush said what needed to be said last night, but ultimately no
speech is going to make much of a difference in public opinion,
especially with regard to Iraq. A majority of Americans are set in
their opinions on the war, and those who are swayable won't be
swayed by words, but only an actual improvement in conditions in
Iraq. I'm also having a harder and harder time taking Bush's tough
talk seriously. Bush said, "The safety of America depends on the
outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad." He said he
believes that Iraq is the central battle in, "the decisive
ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our
generation." If Bush truly believes these statements, then he's
going to have to do more than stick with the same strategy that
obviously hasn't been working too well. William Kristol and Rich
Lowry have a piece in today's Washington Post, arguing
for more troops to reinforce Baghdad. Perhaps more troops is
the answer, perhaps it's too simple of a solution to a far more
complicated situation. But if that's not the answer, then Bush is
going to have to consider other ways to "adapt to win."
topics: Iraq
Posted by Paul Chesser on 9.12.06 @ 9:42AM
Someone at USAToday.com's Sports
page is having a little too much fun this morning...
topics: Sports
Posted by Hunter Baker on 9.12.06 @ 8:45AM
Want the latest on the Francis Beckwith (formerly my grad
advisor) tenure battle?
It's all at the Chronicle of Higher Education. Yep, it's a big
story now.
This thing is growing into one very unhappy situation. It's
still under appeal at Baylor.
One of the prof's quoted in the story, Stephen Evans, is a
liberal democrat who I think may actually have voted for Howard
Dean. He threatens resignation over the way Beckwith has been
treated. Bless you, Prof. Evans.
By the way, you can check out Beckwith's C.V. at his website.
topics: Education
Monday, September 11, 2006
Posted by John Tabin on 9.11.06 @ 9:42PM
Tim Russert seems to think it was terribly rude and political
for the President to talk about Iraq in his speech, and that
Democrats will make hay over that. What do you suppose would be the
reaction if he had given a speech tonight and not
discussed Iraq?
topics: Iraq
Posted by Amy M. on 9.11.06 @ 9:36PM
From the President's speech tonight: "This struggle has been
called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for
civilization. We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed
by free nations."
Posted by Amy M. on 9.11.06 @ 5:32PM
I would like to pay tribute today to Jason Sabbag, a high school
friend of mine. Jason went to Georgetown, worked for Fiduciary
Trust, and was only 26 years old just five years ago.
He worked at the World Trade Center.
Jason: you were a good friend, a fun classmate, and are missed
by many.
God bless you.
topics: Trade
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.11.06 @ 3:12PM
That's about the only charitable explanation I can find for this
dunderheaded editorial.
I could go into detail about why this thing is so absurd, but
I'll leave most of that to our readers. Please comment away.
I'll just point out this. In the middle the editorialists
claim:
The long war against the insurgency in Iraq has further
inflamed Mideast opinion against the United States without
enhancing US security.
Toward the end they claim that Bush can point to some successes
such as "the decision of Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy to end his
support for terrorists."
As I recall, Khadafy made that decision in the wake of the Iraq
War. Well, if Khadafy's decision enhances US security, and he made
that decision after seeing what happened to Hussein, the logical
conclusion is that the Iraq War has made us more secure.
But logic is hard to employ when you're taking puffs from the
pipe.
topics: Iraq
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.11.06 @ 2:57PM
Jonathan Rauch says
that:
Now is therefore as good a time as any to jump to a
conclusion: the question history will ask is whether Bush's
presidency was as bad as Richard Nixon's or only as bad as Jimmy
Carter's.
and,
For the disenchanted--again, including me--the relevant
points of reference now are not Churchill or Truman but Nixon and
Carter.
Is there no middle ground between Truman and Carter? Maybe an
Eisenhower or Woodrow Wilson?
Rauch says there are four things that will lead to Bush being
compared to Carter and Nixon: the fiscal mess, the Iraq mess,
international opprobrium (i.e., the international community doesn't
like us), and the extralegal terrorism war (i.e., wiretapping).
I'll largely concede the fiscal mess, although Bush might still
get some relief on that one if the deficit keeps heading in the
direction it currently is.
As for the other things, Rauch overlooks other possible
interpretations. Is it really international opprobrium or that
Bush's actions have exposed the international community for the
paper tiger that it is? Iraq is messy, but a thuggish totalitarian
was removed and elections have since been held, not to mention much
the same in Afghanistan. As for wiretapping, has Rauch not noticed
that we have not had another attack in five years? And if we have
no more attacks by the time Bush leaves office, that would seem to
be a pretty big plus in his column.
Sure, Bush is no Churchill, but he didn't cover up a third-rate
burglary, he didn't dither in the face of an international crisis,
and he didn't go on TV and tell America that it faced a crisis of
confidence.
Uncritical comparisons of Bush to the greatest leaders of all
time aren't very helpful. Neither are ones comparing him to the
worst.
topics: Iraq
Posted by The Prowler on 9.11.06 @ 2:26PM
For all the talk today about outreach to the Muslim community
and communicaions, there is one man who has played a critical role
in doing it the "right" way. Kenneth Y. Tomlinson.
We have a number of friends who formerly worked with Tomlinson
at the Voice of America and at Reader's Digest, before it
went leftish and became irrelevant. Everyone sings Tomlinson's
praises for his leadership and vision.
Now Democrats on Capitol Hill are using the tried and true smear
tactic of a leaked "investigation" into Tomlinson's management of
the office that oversees all foreign broadcasts, including the
successful Arab-language programming, to block his re-nomination to
the board. This op-ed in yesterday's
Washington Times lays out the non-case pretty well.
Conservatives should be paying attention to this fight. They
should do what they can to defend Tomlinson and not let another
left-wing smear undercut a true giant in the conservative movement.
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.11.06 @ 12:38PM
Of all the things I have seen or heard about 9/11, this may be the most disturbing.
Posted by Shawn Macomber on 9.11.06 @ 12:10PM
Hitchens' bit on 9/11 in the WSJ is a welcome bit of
fire in an otherwise maudlin series of tributes:
One must have a blunt answer to the banal
chat-show and op-ed question: What have we learned? (The answer
ought not to be that we have learned how to bully and harass
citizens who try to take shampoo on flights on which they have
lawfully booked passage. Yet incompetent collective punishment of
the innocent, and absurd color-coding of the "threat level," is the
way in which most Americans actually experience the "war on
terror.") Anyone who lost their "innocence" on September 11 was too
naïve by far, or too stupid to begin with. On that day, we
learned what we ought to have known already, which is that clerical
fanaticism means to fight a war which can only have one victor.
Afghans, Kurds, Kashmiris, Timorese and many others could have told
us this from experience, and for nothing (and did warn us,
especially in the person of Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of
Afghanistan's Northern Alliance). Does anyone suppose that an
ideology that slaughters and enslaves them will ever be amenable to
"us"? The first duty, therefore, is one of solidarity with
bin-Ladenism's other victims and targets, from India to
Kurdistan.
The rest lives
here.
topics: Law
Posted by Shawn Macomber on 9.11.06 @ 12:07PM
I'd like to talk about doors
for just a minute. When I was little, my boxer dog's bark meant that Dad was
coming through the back door. He was finally home, and the fun
could begin. When I
became a married man, walking through the kitchen door was the
happiest moment in my day. Everything that had been occupying my
concerns was suddenly unimportant. When my boys were growing up, my passage
through the back door meant I'd soon be tackled, rolled to the
floor, and engaged in a tickling contest.
Now the boys have grown, married
and have children of their own. When Christmas vacation approaches,
they make their way home. No matter the busyness of the moment or
the lateness of the hour, Ann and my ears are perked. When the door
opens, celebration begins.
Today, we mourn because of
doors that no longer open, open to fathers and mothers fresh from
work; open to sons and daughters home for dinner; open to husbands
and wives waiting an evening's embrace. Because crazed fanatics broke down the
fragile doors of their Boston-based aircraft, the doors of so many,
many lives are now empty and shadowed. It is hard for our minds to contemplate a
human darkness so vile that it celebrates murder and destruction of
innocent lives.
But we can celebrate the
bright memories of the fallen. Each person, whether taken in
unknowing sacrifice or resigned to death after heroic struggle,
stands in our mind's eye in the brilliant light of love and faith
and patriotism. 'Sweet land of liberty, long may thy land be
bright, with freedom's holy light.' They are the holy illumination
of our free land.
You, their loved
ones, have by now begun to open new doors in your lives. New doors,
new passages are ordained of Providence. Those of the Jewish
tradition acknowledge divine guidance in their doorways by affixing
a Mezuzah to the door post. It is my hope that your new doorways
receive the blessing of heaven as well.
But I know that the doorways
of your past are also open. The doors of your hearts, open to the
lost loved ones, will never be closed. They are open to memory and
open to the hope that someday, you will greet them
again. America's
heart also will always be open, open to the memory of her lost
heroes, proved in liberating strife, and open to the sentient
sorrow of still grieving husbands and wives, mothers and fathers,
sons and daughters. They and you join the hallowed halls of heroes
to whom we owe so very much.
It's been my honor these four years
to commemorate this debt, for which I thank you.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.11.06 @ 11:16AM
Rudy Giuliani writing in today's USA Today:
There is a reason thousands of rescue personnel rushed into enormous danger to save men and women who were strangers to them. The reason was respect for the value of human life. It can also be described as love -- the kind of love expressed in a biblical phrase, "Man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his friend." This respect for human life and love for others, including strangers, form the core of Western civilization. It is the driving force that helped us create freedom.
What I learned from Sept. 11, 2001, is that free people have much greater strength than they realize. Ultimately, free people prevail over oppression.
As they say, read the whole thing.
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.11.06 @ 11:04AM
From The White House:
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
On the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, we recall the fire and horror at the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field. America will always remember the thousands of innocent lives taken by the enemies of freedom that morning.
In the face of these unspeakable attacks, we were reminded that the great strength of America is found in the hearts and souls of our citizens. We witnessed firefighters, police officers, other public safety officials, and ordinary Americans demonstrate extraordinary courage, risking their lives to save innocent victims. We saw our country united in compassion as Americans came together to provide relief and bring hope to others.
Today, America is fighting a war that is testing our Nation's resolve. We are once again answering history's call with confidence, and we know that freedom will prevail. Our brave men and women in uniform have stepped forward to fight our enemies abroad so that we do not have to face them here at home, and we are grateful for the courageous individuals bringing terrorists to justice around the world.
We are also confronting the extremists in the great ideological struggle of the 21st century. September the 11th made clear that, in the long run, the only way to secure our Nation is to advance liberty and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. By working together with our friends and allies, we are helping spread the blessings of freedom and laying the foundations of peace for generations to come.
The events of September 11, 2001, will always be a defining moment in our history. We hold the victims and their families in our hearts, and we lift them up in our prayers.
By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-89), the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as "Patriot Day."
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 11, 2006, as Patriot Day. I call upon the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half staff on Patriot Day. I also call upon the people of the United States to observe Patriot Day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and remembrance services, to display the flag at half staff from their homes on that day, and to observe a moment of silence beginning at 8:46 a.m. eastern daylight time to honor the innocent Americans and people from around the world who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.
GEORGE W. BUSH
topics: Trade, Law
Posted by Lawrence Henry on 9.11.06 @ 10:48AM
Discuss as we may which scenes were altered and which were cut,
this film deserves high praise for its unflinching portrayal of our
evil enemies, as bad a collection of bad guys as ever infested a
big screen, a small screen -- or the real world.
Posted by Hunter Baker on 9.11.06 @ 10:00AM
I knew yesterday morning that the fuss over ABC's 9-11 film was
going to end up being overblown. As I checked out with emergency
baby supplies at Target, the elderly female cashier smiled and
asked me if I'd be "watching the Mannings tonight?"
Based on the ratings, it looks like the Mannings were the
overwhelming choice of viewers. I was one of them. For what it's
worth, Peyton is substantially better than little brother Eli at
this point, but the Giants have a heckuva running game. It's hard
to believe they lost given the way they were imposing their will on
the ground.
Posted by Shawn Macomber on 9.11.06 @ 9:14AM
Dershowitz
on Khatami. The Crimson defends not
only the decision to invite Khatami, but also Fidel Castro in 1959.
And that bit about not backing down from the execution of gays
rankled the
Crimson reporter more than most from the mainstream media outlets,
so kudos to her for not letting it go without note. For the record,
I'm with Dershowitz here.
topics: Mainstream Media
Posted by Philip Klein on 9.11.06 @ 9:14AM
CNN
Pipeline is rebroadcasting CNN's coverage of 9/11/01, live as
it happened. Among the stories that morning was a report from NY
fashion week on maternity clothing. I'll never forget how quickly
everything changed that morning.
Posted by Shawn Macomber on 9.11.06 @ 8:50AM
A couple of readers have already written in to ask why I didn't
link to more information on the Canadian journalist mentioned in my
story. Sorry! The event went late, busses were delayed and I ended
up writing deep into the evening and not including as many links as
I normally do. By way of reparations, here is a good
resource on the tragedy that befell the Canadian journalist and
here is
an example of what a good friend Khatami is to the Jewish
people.
topics: Law, Iran
Posted by John Tabin on 9.11.06 @ 5:48AM
Thousands of bloggers are writing tributes
today to each of the 2,996 victims of 9/11. (3,412 bloggers are
participating, so some victims have two tributes.) Don't miss
this one.
UPDATE: They seem to be having server problems. If the link
above doesn't work, use this one.
Posted by John Tabin on 9.11.06 @ 2:03AM
You'd be crazy to try to predict the elections this far in
advance. Jeremy Lott and Dave Weigel are
nuts! I think I know where they'll be wrong: Don't bet on Santorum
(as Jeremy does) or against Lieberman (as Dave does). As for the
rest, I'm not predicting anything yet. This cake ain't baked.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Posted by David Hogberg on 9.10.06 @ 11:45PM
Jed: When the NYT editorialists call for a total ban on the
reporting of the secret programs used to combat our enemy, I'll
start taking them seriously again.
Maybe.
Posted by Jed Babbin on 9.10.06 @ 9:19AM
Today's
NYT lead editorial suggests a total ban on carry-on luggage, as
well as cell phones and computers. Let me make this perfectly
clear: if I cannot take my cell phone, I will not fly. And they
can have my VAIO when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Posted by Paul Chesser on 9.10.06 @ 5:57AM
The Traditional Values
Coalition has posted six
scenes it says were removed from ABC's "Path to 9/11"
miniseries after complaints from former Clinton administration
officials. I didn't have time to watch them all, but the first is
the one in which Sandy Berger fails to make the call to take out
bin Laden -- and it's an extremely unflattering portrayal.
One of these days I'd like to see some actor -- maybe John
Goodman -- acting out Berger's removal of classified documents in
his pants and socks.
