- 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, September 23, 2006
Re: Cross References
Posted by on 9.23.06 @ 8:17PM
Paul, all your points are quite well taken. But in the interest of stirring up trouble (or as "we" say in academia, "critically interrogating architectures of power"), I might make a couple points:
(1) NBC's egregious error isn't in editing God out of VeggieTales -- it's in failing to tell Phil Vischer about their intentions, which are absolutely material to the contract at issue. In a twist that Jed is sure to love, had this controversy arisen in France, NBC might have been prohibited from violating the moral right of Vischer, the artist. The idea is that Picassos cannot be bought up, hacked into pieces, and sold a la carte. Not bad...except it's out of sync with the whole of Anglo-American jurisprudence. But is there a duty to be contractually clear about what the buying of rights really means -- particularly when it intersects with what could be conceived of as the "whole point" of the work?
(2) I've tried to hit Madonna -- like the zombie she is -- square in the head over the small matter of her parodying/not parodying the crucifixion of Christ. Like most postmoderns she can try as she might to have it both ways. And maybe her feeling of Jesus's pain is real, or at least genuinely felt. But even if corporeal Jesus, "alive today" in corporeal form, staged his own death for the benefit of global togetherness (not joking, I swear), it does not follow that said Jesus would enact, say, any four out of five selected other things that Madge has seen fit to do...for reasons, it's safe to say, that have about as much to do with Jesus as shotgunning a beer.
Cross References
Posted by on 9.23.06 @ 8:00AM
Conservative Christians are in an uproar over two decisions made by NBC. The first is the network's removal of "most if not all of the references to God and the Bible" from its Saturday morning broadcasts of "VeggieTales," which co-creator Phil Vischer said he never would have agreed to if he knew beforehand that's what NBC would do.
The second is the planned airing of a Madonna concert, in which
she performs one song "while mounted on a cross, in imitation of
the Crucifixion of Jesus," The New York Times reports,
adding "that part of Madonna's current concert tour has drawn
protests around the world from people who believe it is blasphemous
or offensive to Christians."
(NBC broadcast standards executive Alan) Wurtzel said NBC did not believe it had deleted the show's religious message; he said the network had bought the rights to "Veggie Tales" because of its positive religious themes but that it did ask for changes to comply with its standards.
"We are not a religious broadcaster," he said. "There
are universally accepted religious values that we do think are
appropriate," but the promotion of "any particular religion or a
particular denomination" is not allowed.
"Clearly the show has religious themes," Mr. Wurtzel said. "It puts forth some very specific religious values. We had to make a decision about where it went further than we considered appropriate."
So don't expect the network to conduct any interviews with athletes who give glory to Jesus Christ in the future, either. Meanwhile, Madonna stepped forward in her role as God's spokeswoman."Rather," it went on to say, "it is my plea to the
audience to encourage mankind to help one another and see the world
as a unified whole. I believe in my heart that if Jesus were alive
today, he would be doing the same thing."
Uh, Madonna, Jesus is alive
today.
"I'm not blasphemous!"
Re: Oppressively Low Prices
Posted by on 9.23.06 @ 6:49AM
The News & Observer of Raleigh has its own story today on the response to Wal-Mart's $4 generic drugs story, with two notable quotes:
"Matching them for a cash-paying customer is probably something we'll be forced to do," said Scott Townsend, who owns Wake Forest Drug with his wife, Debbie.
"I think what they're doing is in very poor taste. If we don't respond in kind, then we look like the bad guy, when in fact they're not doing anything that's truly a benefit."
Very poor taste? If it's not truly a benefit to the consumer, then how can you possibly look like a bad guy? And if it's not truly a benefit, why does that prohibit you from responding in kind? The story makes it clear, by the way, that it really is a great benefit, especially for the uninsured. It's amazing how Wal-Mart draws irrational reactions out of people. But then there's this clear logic:"The end result is that the expenses are lower and the premiums are lower," he said. "This is an opportunity to save some money."
Friday, September 22, 2006
The Personal Is the Political
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 8:36PM
The Allen campaign blog has posted a couple videos worth commenting on.
George Allen went on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer
yesterday.
This interview is just what the doctor ordered. Instead of
retreating into silence, the Allen campaign is pouring it on and
saying they have nothing to hide. I don't know if it is an act or
what, but this is the most personal I have ever seen Allen, and I
would guess many others as well.
That is what this Jewish issue amounts to -- a personal drama for George Allen and his family. It should not be the stuff of campaigns. But my guess is that the more the Webb campaign plays it up, the more it will backfire.
Evidence of that is the second video.
Webb has a hard time answering for his staff at Raising Kaine.
But the real question is: will either of the candidates for the U.S. Senate from Virginia celebrate the Jewish New Year tonight?
Re: Health Care Stats
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 3:08PM
Lawrence: That wouldn't surprise me, and if you can find the source of that, please send it to me.
Here's a quick run-down on why infant mortality stats are unreliable.
First, some nations use different definitions. For example, Switzerland does not count any baby born that is under 30 centimeters, regardless whether the baby showed signs of life. That excludes a lot of at-risk infants from the statistics.
Under-registration is another problem. That is, a lot of babies that dies shortly after birth are simply not registered. This removes them from the statistics, obviously. This can be seen by comparing the proportion of infant deaths that occur within the first 24 hours after birth. Here is a partial table (for a full table, go here and scroll down to Table 3).
| Ratio of Infant Deaths In First Day |
Taxing Our Memory
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 2:22PM
Yeah, I know -- I'm reading The New York Times too much. But today they also report on President Bush's (and Republicans') new election season offensive against Democrats on taxes, after weeks of focusing on national defense and terror. The emphasis: if Dems get control of Congress, taxes go up.
But Democrats said that Republicans were distorting Democratic positions on taxes affecting the middle class and that by this point, Republican attacks on tax cuts had become so familiar to voters that they would not have much effect.
"Our candidates have all announced they're for middle-class tax proposals," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, who is leading the Democratic effort to take back the House.
But the president yesterday called upon a Tampa audience to remember what happened last time Democrats were in control:And if they remember just a year earlier than that, then-candidate Clinton was also promising a middle-class tax cut. Hard to tell who to believe, huh?
Jesus and Mao
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 12:45PM
The new documentary "Jesus Camp" is the second by filmmakers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady "to explore the molding of young minds," reports Stephen Holden in The New York Times' review of the film. Having watched the trailer (see below), it appears to be a skillfully shot and edited piece of propaganda designed to paint the entirety of evangelical Christianity as raving lunatics thirsting for power at all costs. In fact, the film was so effective it led Holden to this conclusion:
Re: Oppressively Low Prices (from Yesterday)
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 12:16PM
The New York Times' "analysis" today of the Wal-Mart plan to sell some generic drugs for $4 per 30-day supply is (surprise!) not all it was initially cracked up to be:
Yeah, it's really not a good deal because unrelentingly capitalistic Wal-Mart is only offering some of the drugs at a great deal and is not willing to take a bath on much more expensive pharmaceuticals. Liberals aren't happy until businesses lose money in the process of giving their workers unlimited benefits. Wait, that's not true, because I don't know of anybody who's too happy about Ford and GM right now...
The Deal on Torture
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 11:04AM
Jed Babbin says the compromise is "a near-total win for the White House" unless "the House-Senate conference mucks it up again."
Meanwhile, the NY Times quotes Sen. Lindsay Graham on water-boarding: "It is a technique that we need to let the world know we are no longer engaging in."
Wars and Christendom
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 10:54AM
Kevin Drum takes issue with another part of the Krauthammer column I linked to below. In his column, Krauthammer gave some examples of Christians fighting religious wars, and correctly noted, "However, the inconvenient truth is that after centuries of religious wars, Christendom long ago gave it up."
Drum reacts:
It's this kind of blithe, self-congratulatory nonsense that makes me wonder where the "clash of civilizations" crowd parks their brains. Cleverly, Krauthammer restricts himself here to "religious wars," and it's true that Christendom hasn't had a genuine religious war in quite a while. But Christendom sure as hell hasn't given up on war - not among ourselves, and not against others. Just to name a few, and just to stay within the past few decades, we have Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, Malaysia, Suez, Iraq again, Greece, and Germany. And it would be easy to add a dozen more if I felt like it.
But Drum is missing the point. Krauthammer isn't using the term "religious wars" as a cheap rhetorical trick. Krauthammer's column was about the link between violence and religion. There's a huge distinction between people who happen to be Christian being involved in a war and fighting a war in the name of religion, with the purpose of spreading that religion, and with the backing of religious leaders. Yes, Christians may have fought in Vietnam, but the purpose of the war was not to convert everybody to Christianity and you didn't have Catholic bishops egging on Catholic soldiers to slaughter civilians in the name of Jesus.
Wrong To Bear Armitage?
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 10:52AM
He's back with another, er, bombshell. On behalf of -- as CNN puts it -- "bully" America, Armitage is alleged to have threatened "ally" Pakistan with stone-age destruction after 9/11! (Armitage denies the allegation. In so many words. At present.) But how did Pakistan wind up as such a reliable ally anyway? My take on the incredible truth here.
Islamism and the Pope
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 9:48AM
Charles Krauthammer puts it well:
In today's world, religious sensitivity is a one-way street. The rules of the road are enforced by Islamic mobs and abjectly followed by Western media, politicians and religious leaders.
This war against Islamic fanaticism must be fought on many fronts, and the cultural and intellectual realm is one of them. When the free world capitulated to Muslim mobs after the Danish cartoon furor, and when the Pope was forced to apologize for his comments about violence in Islam, it was just as much of a defeat for civilization as a loss on an actual battlefield.
A Ryder Cup strategy
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 9:31AM
Occurs to me that some future captain might want to put together a team of fearsome-looking, tough-guy golfers for the sake of intimidation. A current squad from the U.S. PGA Tour might include Hank Kuehne, Bill Glasson, Frank Lickliter, Jim Furyk, Chris DiMarco, David Duval, Marco Dawson, and Tommy Armour III. As I scan the PGA Tour money list, looking for plug-uglies, there's a problem, however: Golf seems to self-select for a certain attractiveness. And many golfers who might look scary, like Jason Gore, spoil the effect by smiling all the time.
Re: Health Care Stats
Posted by on 9.22.06 @ 7:10AM
David, I don't remember where I read this, but it appears U.S. infant mortality figures look a little high because our docs save more babies in the birth process -- babies that would not have even made it to term in other countries, and would not have figured in other countries' infant mortality stats.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Apparently Harkin Didn't Get the Memo
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 8:57PM
Regarding Democratic talking points on Chavez, apparently Iowa
Sen. Tom Harkin didn't get the "don't attack our
president" message that Pelosi and Rangel harmonized on earlier
today:
"I thought they were incendiary comments, certainly," Harkin said, adding, "Let me put it this way: I can understand the frustration and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies."Realizing his goof, Harkin released an e-mail statement late this afternoon:Harkin, also said immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, every country in the world, including Venezuela, supported the United States.
"Just think - in five years, President Bush has squandered all that, just totally, totally squandered it all," Harkin said. "I can understand the anger and frustration of a lot of poor people around the world, who see us the richest country in the world putting $350 billion in a war, unnecessary, unprovoked war in Iraq and yet they can't get clean water."
"While I understand the frustrations of many in the international community because of George W. Bush's policies, I do not believe that gives them the right to come to our country and personally insult and attack the President of the United States."It's our fault and our responsibility to get other countries clean water? Is that what Chavez's problem with us is?
Does U.S. Health Care Really Suck?
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 7:28PM
A couple of comments about the Commonwealth Fund's new report (PDF) that gave the U.S. a failing grade for its health care system.
First, here are four different stories (1, 2, 3, and 4) about the report. Can you find a single comment in any of them critical of the report? I can't. Talk about bias. I guess it is just axiomatic among the press that the health care system in the U.S. is terrible.
So let me provide a bit of balance. When comparing our health care system to other nations, the Commonwealth Fund relies on infant mortality and preventable mortality. Infant mortality is measured too inconsistently across nations for it to be a reliable indicator of a health care system (see my writing on that here.) Preventable mortality is based on a measure called "amenable mortality" which includes "deaths before age 75 from diseases or conditions that are preventable or treatable with timely, effective medial care." The measure comes from a 2003 article in the British Medical Journal. But unlike the folks at Commonwealth, the authors of the article were far more sanguine about the limits of that measure. They state that
amenable mortality has itself some limitations. The diagnostic categories and the age range used involve some choices that are inevitably arbitrary. A major limitation is that, for many conditions, death is the final event in a complex chain of processes that involve issues related to underlying social and economic factors, lifestyles, and preventive and curative health care. Partitioning deaths among the categories is an inexact science. The example of ischaemic heart disease is instructive. Accumulating evidence suggests that advances in health care have contributed to the fall in mortality from ischaemic heart disease in many countries, yet it is equally clear that large international differences in mortality are caused primarily by factors outside the healthcare sector.
In other words, preventable mortality is affected by many factors not related to a health care system, making it a pretty crude measure.
Finally, I'd note that many health statistics are collected inconsistently across nations, making international comparisons difficult if not impossible. The Commonwealth Fund itself has a cooperative project with the OECD that is trying to come up with better measures. Its initial report is here (PDF) and it lists the measures it is focusing on right now on page five. There are quite a few measures, but infant mortality and preventable mortality aren't among them.
I'll end with the following question: why did the Commonwealth Fund use measures in its report on the U.S. health care system that it did not use in its project on quality indicators?
Ryder Cup Prognostications
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 6:35PM
A week or two ago, Johnny Miller said that, "on paper," the United States had "its weakest Ryder Cup team in years." Given the presence on the team of four rookies, that may be true -- and the show ponies haven't performed all that well in recent Ryder Cups either.
I got a look at the four rookies' press conferences yesterday. Here are my impressions.
J.J. Henry will be fine.
Zach Johnson's tight swing will probably stand up, with some of the usual rookie jitters.
Vaughn Taylor's syrupy smooth swing may break down in the rainy conditions predicted for the tie, and he does not look confident.
Brett Wetterich will end up sitting down a fair amount. He's scared to death.
Thai Coup - a Thought
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 6:31PM
When the Thai military plotters pulled off their coup, they, like many another gang of revolutionaries before them, took over the radio and television stations in the Thai capital. Thank heavens for the Internet, talk radio, and other alternative media. In that respect, we've had a coup in the United States almost since the beginning of the Bush administration.
The Democrats and Chavez
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 5:05PM
Nancy Pelosi deserves credit for her strong condemnation of Hugo Chavez:
"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.Amen. Even if Pelosi is saying this only for political reasons (it's a rare opportunity to tack right on foreign policy without offending a significant portion of the Democratic base), it's still a very good thing that she said it. When the world sees headlines like "Leading Bush critic at home calls Chavez a 'thug'" it's a very healthy thing."Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."
I wish I could offer the same praise to Charlie Rangel, but I can't shake the feeling that there's something a little off in his condemnation of Chavez. His press release says that "demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us." That's pretty obviously not true, isn't it? And look at what he said at his press conference (video):
I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State.The garbled syntax makes it hard to tell, but it sounds as if Rangel is not only making the perfectly cogent point that what may be fair comment by some excited blogger is inappropriate coming from a visiting head of government, but actually going further and saying that the offensiveness of a criticism turns on the critic's nationality. If that's what he means, it's just crude nativism; the implication is that what's okay for Rangel to say is not okay for a non-citizen like (for example) Andrew Sullivan to say. That strikes me as a non-patriot's bad impression of patriotism.
Defending Charlie
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 3:56PM
I think you're being too harsh Jed. I think Rangel deserves credit for saying the right thing (for once). I'd love to see more of the same from the Democrats.
Charlie, Hilarious
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 3:40PM
Who - after Michael Moore and Howard Dean - would be the last person you'd expect to defend George Bush? Gotta be New Yawk Congressman Charlie Rangel. But he did. And only I can tell you why. Rangel slammed Hugo Chavez for condemning Bush in his visit to Rangel's "You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State." Why? What's Rangel's beef with Chavez for saying things Dems say every day? Only one reason. Cheap oil. Chavez is using Citgo, the Venezuelan government-owned oil company, to give cheap oil to poor families in Rangel's district. Charlie ain't upset at what Chavez is saying. Charlie is livid that someone would be giving a handout to his liberal voters that he can't take credit for.Â
Oppressively Low Prices
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 3:24PM
Paul, this is standard operating procedure for Wal-Mart critics, and a lesson that Wal-Mart appears not to learn very well.:
Wal-Mart capitulates. Critics say, "It's not enough."
Just watch: they'll think about this for a couple days, convene the concerned citizens groups, and decide this is really a bad thing since it'll run "mom 'n' pop" drugstores out of business. Poor CVS.
Permanently Anesthetized
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 1:53PM
Wal-Mart
plans to cut prices of many (291) of the generic drugs it sells
to $4 per 30-day supply -- an unheard-of deal -- but that's still
not good enough for its critics:
The initiative - the fourth since last October that Wal-Mart has adopted to improve health benefits - drew criticism from one of its most vocal union groups, Wake Up Wal-Mart.Wake up, morons -- they just did."While lowering prescription drug costs is a good thing, Wal-Mart cruelly ignores the fact that it fails to provide company health care to over half of its employees which leaves 46 percent of its workers' children uninsured or on public health care," said Chris Kofinis, spokesman for Wake Up Wal-Mart. "Wal-Mart needs to answer one very simple, but serious question - why not just improve the health care coverage of its employees?"
Re: George Allen's Jewishness
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 12:16PM
The response was pitch perfect in the context of the debate. I should have linked to the whole video, instead of the excerpt.
I could see how it looks so defensive and strange -- like Allen is offended at being called a Jew, as if the very insinuation were offensive.
But the undercurrent to the question provides the context. What Peggy Fox was suggesting, her response to Allen's question shows, was, "Why won't you admit you're Jewish?" This isn't out of left field. Fox had done her homework from the Forward article. It just wasn't the place, especially coming right after questions about the macaca incident. Allen was back on his heels, with the suggestion of racism in the air. Then Fox hits him with the equivalent of, "C'mon, admit you're a Jew." Whether he is comfortable with his newly discovered ethnicity or not, it's an offensive insinuation. The crowd picked up on it -- they weren't overwhelmingly "jeering supporters." The Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debates are usually very restrained events. This question was over the top, and the crowd's reaction reflected that.
There Ahmadinejad Goes Again...
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 11:39AM
Apparently, Americans who take issue with his desire to wipe Israel off the map are being too "sensitive." More from the Iranian president's interview with Anderson Cooper, and links to video, here.
Question(s) of the Day
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 11:30AM
If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts continues to refuse to allow me to use my credit card to buy lottery tickets, how will I ever score really, really big? And, considering recent UN speeches by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, when will Eddie Van Halen finally join Wyld Stallyns and put and end to all this world turmoil?
Steele-Cardin Neck-and-Neck
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 11:13AM
Steele ahead 48-47 in the latest SurveyUSA poll.
Re: George Allen's Jewishness
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 11:04AM
I've seen the video, and I'm not sure I'd call Allen's response "pitch perfect." I find it odd that he became that angry over the question. He could have just said, "that's not relevant to this campaign" without getting so melodramatic (citing Jefferson, etc.) With that said, it's certainly understandable how he could have reacted in that way. The reporter, Peggy Fox, had already asked him about the Macaca incident, and then asked him about his Jewish background as a follow-up. In other words, she lumped together the Macaca episode and his Jewishishness as if they were both offensive. The way she asked the question, "Could you please tell us whether your forbearers include Jews...?" --as if his grandfather were a member of the KKK--was more offensive than anything Allen said. I can see why a frustrated Allen, egged on by his jeering supporters, would react the way he did. But I wouldn't say it was "pitch perfect." What's most surprising to me about this whole episode is that a Christian politician finding out late in life that he has a Jewish grandfather has become a political issue, whereas it should be confined to being part of a Jackie Mason comedy routine.
City: Get Your Own Damn Coffee
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 10:01AM
A Fayetteville, N.C. ordinance against "human-propelled wheels" on sidewalks has put a 10-year-old's delivery enterprise out of business.
George Allen's Jewishness
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 9:23AM
So George Allen is a born Jew. Hear all about it.
The Corner featured some misguided responses to his debate answer earlier this week.
But in the context of the debate and the campaign, it just felt right. Watch the video for yourself, and you'll probably agree with Rich Lowry's assessment: his reply was pitch-perfect. That's how it struck me as I watched the debate -- the man was thinking on his feet and was rightly angry at such a ridiculous question. If a reporter is writing a profile, and could lightly couch the question, it might be appropriate. Debates are for issues, not gotcha.
Why gotcha? When Allen turned the tables on the reporter, Peggy Fox, she said she asked the question because, "Honesty, that's all." Shaun Kenney was rightly suspicious: "Of course, this idea of 'coming clean' about being Jewish isn't an isolated idea." Kenney suggests this issue smacks of anti-Semitism. Either that or the Webb supporters expect Allen's Jewishness to peel off support from Allen's base. Expect the clamor to only increase today when folks read in the Washington Post that Allen's mother told him about it last month -- and so Allen knew Monday at the debate.
The Allen-is-a-closeted-self-hating-Jew story line (yes, that's the undercurrent of "What does George Allen have against Jews" posts) is simply not supported by the evidence. The guy just confirmed it with his mother last month, Michael Shear reports in the Post story. (Allen's mother is not known for her discretion, so the likelihood of this account being false is very low.) She swore him to secrecy. So Allen is expected to betray his mother for an irrelevant question from some reporter? I'm not buying.
Ann Nails It
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 8:19AM
As much as I think Ann Coulter crosses way over the line at times, the fact that she does have balls that are big and made of brass comes in handy:
By the way, how did the Geneva Conventions work out for McCain at the Hanoi Hilton?
Yep, that pretty well hits the nail on the head.
Give The President A Foil?
Posted by on 9.21.06 @ 8:07AM
Bruce Bartlett makes a good point, that having the House of Representatives in the hands of the party not in control of the Presidency can be good for the party that does control the Presidency. However, there are plenty of counter examples, where the party that won the Presidency was in charge of both the Presidency and the House. That includes Bush in 2004, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and FDR in 1936, 1940, and 1944.
Let me further point out that there are examples of a party losing the Presidency despite the opposition party being in charge of the House. That would include Nixon's loss in 1960, Ford's loss in 1976 and Gore's loss in 2000.
Thus, the historical evidence does not lean heavily enough to one side to conclude that the probability of the GOP keeping the Presidency goes way up if the Democrats are in charge of the House.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
That Little Wimp On The Sports Reporters
Posted by on 9.20.06 @ 4:50PM
Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters are facing jail time if they do not tell prosecutors who were their sources on the Barry Bonds-steroid story. Who is to blame? Why, George W. Bush, of course! From Mike Loopy-ka:
Fainaru-Wada and Williams became the heroes of a story that began with an IRS raid on what was then a little-known Bay Area company called BALCO. They did not deal in the kind of half-truths that this administration used to send us into war in Iraq. Fainaru-Wada and Williams told us the truth. That has become a risky business, though, in George Bush's America.
Warner: Hillary Slayer?
Posted by on 9.20.06 @ 3:34PM
Today's DC Examiner profiles Mark Warner and analyzes his presidential prospects, while RealClearPolitics points to this New York Observer piece about Warner's recent visit to New York City to woo Democratic donors in Hillary Clinton's "home" state. In my view, Warner is the most electable Democrat in 2008, and perhaps even the only electable one. Hillary Clinton may be the Democratic frontrunner, but she still faces a huge likeability problem and the major handicap of being a senator rather than an executive of some capacity. By contrast, Warner comes across as likeable and reasonable, and was the popular governor of a red state as well as a successful business executive. Whereas Clinton has had to repeatedly defend her support for the Iraq War, angering many anti-war leftists in the process, Warner has been able to quietly oppose withdrawal while still remaining generally popular even among the anti-war left. The big problem for Warner is his lack of national security credentials. I see this hurting him less in the Democratic primary, which will ultimately be more about "Who can beat the Republican?" then, "Who will be the best wartime commander-in-chief?" In the general election, the Republican nominee will determine how much of a problem his lack of national security credentials will be. If McCain or Giuliani are nominated, I think national security will hurt Warner, if Romney were the Republican nominee, I think the national security credibility issue becomes more neutralized.
Chavez Loves Chomsky
Posted by on 9.20.06 @ 12:47PM
The Terrorist's Intellectual, Noam Chomsky, got a big boost from Hugo Chavez at the U.N. Chomsky should be embarrassed, but I'm guessing he's having an orgasm right about now. Chomsky loves the company of thugs!
The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good
Posted by on 9.20.06 @ 12:31PM
All of these comments have been made here in the UNITED STATES in the last 24 hours at the United Nations General Assembly:
The Ugly
"The devil came here yesterday…. He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world." - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
Ugly Runner-Up
"If they have difference with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order?" -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Shameless.
The Bad
"Unless we end foreign occupation and suppression of Muslim peoples, terrorism and extremism will continue to find recruits among alienated Muslims in various parts of the world..." --Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
Rich coming from one of our allies.
The Good
"As long as the Security Council is unable to end this conflict, so long will respect for the United Nations continue to decline." -- UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
Imagine that.
Losing In November
Posted by on 9.20.06 @ 11:18AM
On our main site, David Hogberg does a great job countering the arguments of those conservatives who say that losing in November would be a good thing.
I have my own mixed feelings on this issue. First off, when discussing this topic, it's important to differentiate between the short-term and the long-term. There's no doubt in my mind that conservatives will be worse off in the next two years if Republicans lose control of Congress. In the long run, depending on what lessons Republicans learn from the loss, it could be bad, but it could trigger the type of soul searching that could renew small government conservatism. The question is whether conservatives want to accept a Speaker Nancy Pelosi for at least two years and risk having Democratic control for many more just for the mere chance that a principled Republican Party that learned the exact right lessons from their loss will re-emerge in two years.
One thing is clear to me though. The fact that we are having a serious debate on this so close to the election does not bode well for Republicans. I can't recall any prominent conservatives arguing in 2004 that we'd be better off if John Kerry won. Even if this feeling isn't pervasive among conservative voters, if the sentiment exists on the margins, then it may be enough to hamper turnout and swing close elections to Democrats if their base proves itself hungry and energized.
Should the Republicans lose, the immediate task of conservatives will be to make sure that Republicans do learn the right lessons from their defeat. It's crucial that Republicans know that if they lose, it's because they betrayed their base, not because of
Hmm...There Appears to be a Coup Happening
Posted by on 9.20.06 @ 8:39AM
So reads the title of a post from yesterday on Heather Roscoe's wonderful blog about her life and times as a volunteer in Thailand, Lost on Earth. While I would highly recommend the site any day, Roscoe's blurb on the normalcy of life outside of Bangkok during this time of political upheaval is worth checking out.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Come up, Pence
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 9:17PM
Good comments all re: this morning's breakfast -- an excellent event and even better kickoff. And yes, anchoring the awful titular pun is the idea that conservative Republicans will get their comeuppance in '06 according to Pence's zippy formula: what we need are more conservative GOPers, not more liberal democrats. It sounds fine as a stump line, but there's just one problem: Congress is so tightly polarized that a handful of switched seats, particularly in the Senate, can tip the balance in favor of the Dems.
I like and trust Pence -- he has a first-rate team working with him at the RSC, too -- but the argument can be made that the party won't bet on real conservatives unless those conservatives hold seats vital to the party's fortunes. And that means sitting conservatives, the status quo. Regardless of whether or not this is fair, the question must be asked: how can Congress possibly add new -- that is, more -- conservatives, particularly in a hunker-down, circle-the-wagons election cycle? (I'd hoped to ask this question, but duty called in Georgetown.)
Honestly, the answer I suspected seemed too deeply rooted in the establishmentarian malaise that Pence himself articulated with a short (and nominally praiseworthy) story about Tom DeLay. Conservatives who find caving on their principles less tolerable than risking unpopularity on the Hill rise to the challenge of a fiscally bloated leadership who can't say no -- and then when they win, they're pulled over to stand beside the President and praised for sticking to their guns on rock-bottom ideals that otherwise would have been left standing at the altar. Right?
There is, as everyone in that room this morning knows, real discontent a-brewin' -- not just among the base but among the press intelligentsia, too. The power that conservative bloggers have demonstrated in setting the tone and even the content of major debates about federal policy in general and the posture of the GOP specifically is not nearly as beholden to party as some might hope. Pence and his ilk must rise in the leadership -- not remain, along with everything else -- at a dissatisfying status quo. And to the extent that Republicans focus above all else on holding their ground, that seems unlikely. When will conservatives, for their decisive role in a series of most decisive elections, be at last rewarded with the reins? But perhaps the initiative is never something that's just handed to you.
Spending A Pence
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 5:42PM
After Pence excoriated the GOP for being seduced by big government, I was surprised to hear him say that he thought that the chances of getting more serious spending restraint next year was "better than even." I would have been happier if he had said that the road ahead was difficult--although, to be fair, I did ask him to put the chances in percentage terms.
The Disconnect Between Cause and Effect
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 5:33PM
Got an email today from FamiliesUSA with a link (PDF) to one of its publications criticizing state-based Taxpayer Bills Of Right (TABOR). I found this passage enlightening when it comes to the political left's ignorance (often willful) of economics:
While the reduction in state revenues and limits on spending required by TABOR will be damaging to many state programs, health care will be particularly hard hit. That's because TABOR allows tax revenues and state spending to increase with inflation, but health care spending has been going up faster than inflation. The TABOR formula adjusts for inflation based on increases in the CPI. But medical inflation has increased by at least 8 percent each year for the past six years, rising more than twice as fast as the CPI.5 Consequently, TABOR will squeeze health care programs sooner-and harder-than other kinds of state programs.And health care inflation just "happens." It's not like the provision of free medical care by state governments drive up the demand for health care, thereby driving up health care prices. Of course not. That's just conservative drivel.In recent years, as health care inflation has driven up Medicaid costs, states have responded by either raising taxes or cutting Medicaid. States that adopt TABOR amendments will be unable to consider the first option (raising taxes) due to TABOR constraints. Instead, TABOR states will face pressure to cut optional Medicaid benefits and/or drop Medicaid enrollees, thereby increasing the number of uninsured.
There are ways to reform Medicaid so that it has a much less inflationary effect on health care. But FamiliesUSA opposes those too.
By Enforcement on Employers Too
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 4:50PM
Wlady -- Actually, when you read the full white paper by the Krieble Foundation (to which I have linked numerous times), which is the basis of the part of the Pence plan that you question, it all does start to make sense. Basically, the plan provides major incentives for employers to buy into it (and disincentives for them not to do so), which means that they WILL NOT hire illegals when/because legal "guest workers" are available. So the "short-term" labor you worry about (outside of proper Ellis Island Center channels) won't even be available, because employers won't be willing to provide it. I, too, had major doubts along the same lines, until I read the plan for about the fourth time AND heard Pence explain it in person. But I've come to believe that it actually is quite workable. --Quin
Pence For Your Thoughts
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 3:52PM
Quin: Thank you for your comprehensive reports on Rep. Pence's comments at our breakfast earlier today. In keeping with the polite tone of the proceedings, I can understand why you didn't raise your eyebrows (at least in print) regarding the excessively kind words Pence had for Speaker Hastert -- whom you excoriated in excellent column a few months ago ("Hastert La Vista Baby") in calling on him to step down from the leadership for deviating from conservative principles. But right there was a troubling sign -- wouldn't it be better if Hastert felt Pence was planning to oust him rather than butter up to him?
Pence was excellent in taking Republicans to task for trying to play Democratic-style big government politics as a way to secure their majority position, as Phil Klein has noted. Yet if he's so sober on this score, how on earth did he come up with the privatized Ellis Island solution to illegal immigration, based on what strikes me as the utterly unworkable notion that millions of illegals will agree to return home and jump through sundry hoops before being allowed back as guest workers, assuming they have proof of employer backing -- when, just to point to one problem with this scheme, most illegal labor is short-term, if not daily, in nature. Too bad we never got into that today. But one has to wonder how do such political schemes arise? What's the angle?
Other Notes and Discussion Welcome
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 1:16PM
Come on, everybody else who was there, let's keep the conversation going about the Pence meeting this morning. What did I or Philip miss that Pence said that is worthy of discussion? What is your take on all the things he said? Inquiring minds want... etc.
Pence on the House Leadership
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 1:14PM
Pence could not have been more clear in his praise of Speaker Dennis Hastert's "integrity" and other good qualities. And he was emphatic in stating that "the antidote to what ails this Congress is not more of them [Democrats; liberals], it's more of us [Republicans; conservatives]." But as I listened to him discuss the frustrations of being a real conservative and thus a minority within the Republican majority in the House, I found it easy to understand why so many conservative voters are intensely displeased with the course of GOP congressional leadership for the past eight years. (To be displeased is not to allow even worse folks to be voted in, but it is to be firm and open about that displeasure in any other way or means possible.) The most jaw-dropping account of Pence's was his description of how the conservative Republican Study Committee in January 2005 had developed a list of some 20 fiscal reform measures that it proposed the House Republican Conference adopt -- and how, one by one by one, the first 15 of them or so were all voted down as if they were nuisances.
The abandonment of fiscal discipline is a betrayal of the first order. I will never forget serving under then-House Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston in 1995-1996 as we sweated and slaved and took plenty of arrows for our insistence on getting spending under control; and how, in actual dollars (not just projected dollars) we saved $50 billion for the taxpayers in just two years, thus paving the way for four years of budget surpluses (and for an economic boom led by investors thrilled by the sight of such fiscal probity).
But now all that hard work is down the tubes. And no amount of endorsements from Pence about the decency of Hastert can mask the fact that the last eight years has been an utter disaster for the Goldwaterite cause of limited government.
Pence on Immigration
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 12:57PM
Pence also had some interesting things to say on immigration. I've written multiple times in the past about how smart his own immigration proposal is, and intelligent folks like Newt Gingrich and our friend David Keene of the American Conservative Union agree; some other conservatives (especially at NRO) have reacted as if Pence had committed some apostasy. Before we get to what Pence said today, a reminder is in order: the Pence plan incorporates almost the entirety of the House "get tough on the border" bill and then adds a free-market, no-amnesty provision by which wannabe guest workers must first leave the country, and then can return but only through an employment center, for a specified job, with a biometric ID card, after passing a security check, under strict conditions -- and those employment centers would be run by competitive private enterprise, not the government. Still, the good folks at NRO have seemed to miss some crucially important parts of Pence's proposal (this is all Quin's summary so far, not Pence's), so it was good to hear Pence emphasize them in this morning's event sponsored by TAS.
First, it cannot be stressed often enough: Pence would first incorporate the House plan that builds a security fence and does plenty else to increase border security. Again: The Pence plan is "security first," and it includes all the things those other conservatives praise in the House bill that they all have endorsed.
Only AFTER the House plan has been implemented in its entirety, AND in place and certified effective for two full years, would the rest of the Pence proposal (the "leave the country first in order to return" guest worker program) kick in. Furthermore, those workers (even assuming they have kept their job for two years; if they don't, they must go back home) would continue to face growing requirements in order to stay. Chief among these, Pence stressed today, is that after two years they MUST show a proficiency in English in order to remain our guest.
So, to repeat: Two years of border security first (and continuing border security forever), followed by a free-market, enforceable, strict, biometrically ID'd guest worker program afterwards. It's a really good plan. And (here is me editorializing again) it's a brilliant solution for the long haul, both in terms of practicality and in terms of good politics.
More on Pence
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 12:43PM
Philip got most of the big points from Pence today; let me add a few more from my notes. First, I found it quite interesting that he said that "the path to the majority [in the House] goes through Indiana." I think he's right, and he was not just exhibiting Hoosier bias. While most of the media focus is on the endangered GOP moderates in the Northeast, the fact is that it's hard to see a scenario where the GOP loses the House if it holds its endangered seats in the heartland; Indiana and Iowa are key here. Pence noted that Indiana Reps. Chocola, Sodrel and Hostettler are all supposedly under the gun, but he offered hope for all of them. Chocola (one of my favorite House conservatives, by the way) has, Pence said, run a "flawless campaign." Sodrel will win, Pence said, because his opponent Baron Hill is wrong on abortion and on homosexual "marriage" in a district that is "pro-family and pro-life." And Hostettler, likened by Pence to a sturdy piece of limestone (or something like that), has "the most effective grassroots apparatus" anywhere in the country.
If Pence can help all three of his Hoosier colleagues survive, Republicans will indeed be in decent shape -- and conservatives, it should be noted, will have saved three of their stalwarts.
Breakfast With Pence
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 12:27PM
Just got back from our inaugural Newsmaker Breakfast meeting featuring Congressman Mike Pence of
Pence said the Republican Party's drift toward supporting big government arose out of a mistaken perception among Republican leaders that they could try to beat Democrats at their own game. The justification for No Child Left behind was "Democrats have a huge advantage on education." A similar rationale fueled the Medicare prescription drug plan. The reality, Pence argues, is that both policies alienated conservatives without winning anybody else over -- and neither programs are popular. "We will never win by being them, we will only win by being us," Pence said.
But the congressman said he "vehemently" disagrees with those conservatives who argue that things might be better if Republicans would lose control of Congress. He said, "We don't need more liberal Democrats, we need more conservative Republicans." He expects Republicans to maintain their majority and believes that in the next Congress, Republicans will be more committed to small government and spending restraint. His theory was that after the mid-terms, the start of the presidential campaign season will spur a debate among Republicans on the future of the party. Republicans will realize that Democrats will be bringing their A game in 2008, and to win Republicans will have to offer "a choice, not an echo" and reestablish themselves as the party of limited government. I'll believe that when I see it.
On other issues, he said that he's confident that the immigration issue will be resolved by 2008 (though Democratic control would mean an amnesty plan).
On
TV for the People
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 9:55AM
Lost in the midst of security votes in the Senate is another issue important to American consumers: video choice.
According to Capitol Hill sources, the Senate does not intend to bring Senator Ted Stevens' video-choice bill to the floor any time soon, perhaps not at all before the legislative year expires. The bill would streamline telecom and other companies abilities to offer consumers an alternative to cable TV, which in many places across the country has a monopoly hold on local TV franchises.
Now comes word of a bipartisan poll that shows that the vast majority (82%) of likely voters favor choice in cable TV because it would likely result in lower prices, better customer service (81%), delivery of new technologies and enhanced services to customers (78%).
The video choice bill is a winner for Republicans, if only because it represents a "hidden tax" cut for consumers, about $100 to $200 less annually in lower cable TV bills per household, according to a study by Banc of America.
"We know it's a winner, which is why we aren't going to let it reach the floor before election day," says a Democrat leadership aide. "We aren't going to give Republicans a victory on anything if we can avoid it."
Another sticking point; Sen. Harry Reid's support of Internet regulatory language some far-left members of his caucus support and want included in the video-choice legislation.
UPDATE: We should note that the poll cited above was one commissioned by Verizon, a company that is one of the big proponents of the video-choice legislation. And it isn't just video-choice that Democrats are blocking. There are a series of politically helpful tax-cut and appropriations bills that are being held up due to election year jockeying.
Today on the Michael Reagan Show
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 9:50AM
A new gig has come my way. I'll be subbing for Michael Reagan on his radio show today (and Monday thru Wednesday next week). Today, we'll be doing more tributes to Richard Armitage, reviewing the McCain problem on the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (tortured law, not tortured prisoners) and talking about today's UN events. Hope ya can tune in, 6-9 pm EDT on RadioAmerica.
Frist Building Fences, Not Bridges
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 9:45AM
While Democrats sing "Don't Fence Me In" on immigration policy, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is doing just that to Democrats with his move last night to bring a vote to the Senate floor on legislation that would build about 700 miles of real fencing, and high-tech border security for the rest of the southern borderland.
Political hiccups aside, Frist deserves credit for lining up some interesting and politically exculpatory legislative votes moving into the election-year recess. It isn't an accident that Republicans are seeing an up tick in opinion polls. While the White House has been doing a good messaging job, the fact that Frist's leadership team was able to lower Congress's profile and hit on issues important to Americans is another reason the GOOP will hold on to both the House and the Senate in 2006.
Google Political Ambitions
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 9:41AM
Google is announcing that it is creating a political action committee named Google NetPAC. Google's political activities have been an embarrassment to the company in the past year as almost all donations from the corporation's executives flow to Democrats or extreme-left wing causes, and money Google has used to fund Internet industry activities have gone almost exclusively to groups like MoveOn.org.
To blunt this criticism, Google hired a former Bush Administration official for its Washington office, and created the impression that she would be directing Washington policy. Apparently that was simply a ruse, because well-known Democrat, Alan Davidson, Google's Washington policy counsel, has created the impression in the media that he will oversee the PAC. So much for Google's outreach to Republicans.
Red-Letter Politicking
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 8:44AM
The religious left is rising up -- again -- in an effort to counter the power of evangelical conservatives, The Washington Times reports today. This time it's through the formation of a group called "Red Letter Christians," who "says it bases its actions and political philosophy on the words of Jesus, which appear in red lettering in some versions of the Bible."
Also yesterday, Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced its new initiative against election-year politicking in churches. It will mail more than 117,000 letters to churches in 11 competitive election states informing them of Internal Revenue Service regulations.That's right, the non-political Americans United is only concerned about IRS violations in "competitive election states."Its executive director, the Rev. Barry Lynn, said the IRS has issued new guidelines to ensure churches don't endanger their tax-exempt status by endorsing or opposing candidates. He criticized Focus on the Family for seeking coordinators in evangelical churches to distribute voter guides and engage voters.
"This is nothing less than an old-fashioned political machine," Mr. Lynn said.
'Precious Human Capital' On Display
Posted by on 9.19.06 @ 8:28AM
One expects built-in counter-biases where challenges are put to prevailing biases -- particularly when the challenger is the academic establishment, and the challenged is the establishment's fevered vision of what it thinks the academic establishment really is.
And we all know that what it really is is systemically biased against women. "Biased," in this case, means not rigged to produce a certain robust outcome: "more" women scientists and engineers. How much more? And why that particular amount? Silence! Bow thy head and ponder the vast evil of such institutional phenomena as this, propounded by the Panel Report of the National Academy of the Sciences: "anyone lacking the work and family support traditionally provided by a 'wife' is at a serious disadvantage."
Yes, fools, now you see: just as unsupported bachelor men have had a terrible track record of success in the academy, so too are single women woefully deprived. And to the extent that you can't give a woman a wife -- not everyone wants one, it turns out -- well, we've got work to do.
Or so says the Esteemed Panel. This gem, the report, carries a title florid enough for any martyrdom operation: "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering," suggesting, you guessed it, even those barriers which aren't a result of bias must come down. Otherwise? We suffer the academy's version of General Jack D. Ripper's life-altering anticommunist paranoia: the "underuse" of our "precious human capital."
Now that you've stopped laughing: another phenom we're
accustomed to is the packing of these such panels with Certain
Friendly Faces, but how is anyone supposed to make it through this
little vignette (New York Times, another
stunner) without a crescendo of groans?
Along with Dr. Shalala, the panel included Elizabeth Spelke, a professor of psychology at Harvard who has long challenged the "innate differences" view, and Ruth Simmons, the president of Brown University, who established a widely praised program for aspiring engineers when she was president of the all-female Smith College.
The report was dedicated to another panelist, Denice Denton, an electrical engineer who until her suicide this summer was chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a forceful advocate for women, gays and minority members in science and engineering.
The 18-member panel had only one man: Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley. But Dr. Shalala noted that the National Academy of Sciences committee that reviewed the report had 10 men.
Donna Shalala and the female President of Brown, joined by fifteen other women, with lone male representation courtesy of the chancellor of Berkeley, issuing a memorial report in honor of another UC chancellor, female, whose struggle against freezing nonwhite nonmen out of the science building was either not worth fighting after all or finally too much to bear?The very model of a modern academic experts' report.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Hitchens on Secularism
Posted by on 9.18.06 @ 5:57PM
Just came back from a Claremont Institute panel featuring Mark Helprin, William Kristol and Christopher Hitchens entitled, "September 11, 2001: Five Years Later." As one would expect given the lineup, the discussion was intellectually vigorous. Toward the end of the panel, Hitchens caused an uproar when he criticized the Pope's recent comments for being anti-reason and said something along the lines of, "We are fighting a war to defend secularism." He drew boos soon after when he continued to attack the Vatican, especially for what he saw as a history of coddling totalitarian regimes (such as when Tariq Aziz was a guest of the Vatican).
Other than that, Helprin repeated what has been a theme of his post-9/11 commentary, which is that America has failed to dedicate the necessary military and civil defense resources to win this war. When asked what he would do now with regard to Iraq, he said he felt like a surgeon being asked to operate on a dead patient. That is, the mistake of sending too few troops and not fighting a war of excess has already taken its toll, and there's not much more we could do at this point to improve things on the ground.
Kristol offered a somewhat mixed portrayal of the successes and failures of the past five years. While at one point he said he thinks historical analogies are being overused because the Islamist threat is unique, he compared Bush's leadership with Truman's in the early years of the Cold War. That is, some successes mixed with big failures (especially in China and Korea).
Armitage's place in Hell
Posted by on 9.18.06 @ 5:14PM
Jed, I have for years referred to Richard Armitage as Colin Powell's familiar. Fits.
How Embarrassing
Posted by on 9.18.06 @ 3:28PM
Ezra Klein describes occassionally conservative heterodox blogger Andrew Sullivan as an "occassionally heterodox conservative." Someone needs a copy editor...
Webb De-Based?
Posted by on 9.18.06 @ 2:11PM
I am watching the Allen-Webb debate today on and off. Just caught the last couple questions about gun control and Iraq funding. Webb echoed Allen's support for robust gun rights. He then said would not vote to cut off Iraq war funding. In so doing, he implied that the anti-war movement and Nixon's domestic troubles were to blame for our loss in Vietnam. If one didn't know better, one would think he were a Republican. So who will the angry left vote for?
If you didn't catch it, Allen had a particularly strong moment early in the debate. One reporter asked him about his mother's possible Jewish ancestry. Seizing on the crowd's boos, Allen replied that the religion of his ancestors is generally out of bounds and that the debate should focus on issues that actually matter. It was good advice.
Webb is now dodging questions on his "Why Women Can't Fight" article, posed by the same reporter who asked about Allen's ancestors. Webb will only apologize for the tone, not the content.
But the real question is: why did George Allen bother to bring this up last week? Third parties would have done so, and already have. Allen strongly supporting women in combat doesn't help him with his base either, and probably will not win folks from the left or the middle.
Katie and Molasses
Posted by on 9.18.06 @ 12:27PM
What do progress in Iraq in Iraq and Katie Couric have in common? Howard Kurtz dons her cheerleader outfit today to rah-rah her prospects at CBS, her lousy ratings notwithstanding. "To be sure, Couric's more feature-oriented approach has stirred controversy," Howie writes. "But history shows that news ratings move at a molasses pace." He quotes CBS News President Sean McManus as saying, "...For some people, it's an attractive story to say that Katie is back at No. 3, when in reality this is going to be a fight for the next couple of years." Now to look forward to similar long-term understanding from Howie and Sean for the Bush Iraq policy.
National Security and 2006
Posted by on 9.18.06 @ 10:59AM
Michael Barone says that Bush has successfully reframed the debate ahead of November's elections:
For months, the central issue of the off-year election has been, Hasn't Bush kept us too long in? Now, the issue seems to have become, Who can keep us safe against the Islamofascist terrorists who want to kill us and destroy our society? Iraq The first question tends to help the Democrats. The second tends to help Bush and the Republicans.
Islam and the Pope
Posted by on 9.18.06 @ 10:25AM
Will the pope's comments trigger a reaction similar to -- or worse than -- the Danish Mohammed cartoon riots? The Daily Telegraph of Australia writes:
Muslim fanatics burned an effigy of the Pope, a Catholic nun was shot dead and terrorist organisation al-Qaeda called for holy war as protesters against Benedict XVI's comments linking Islam with violence resorted to just that.
Meanwhile:Rome's La Repubblica newspaper said the Pope had set back a quarter of a century of efforts by his predecessor John Paul to improve ties with Islam.
The
Just Objective Sports Reporting?
Posted by on 9.18.06 @ 9:13AM
Whoever is in charge of USA Today's fantasy football news is at it again:
Webb of Lies
Posted by on 9.18.06 @ 2:52AM
James Webb, in his debate yesterday with Sen. George Allen, boasted at one point, apropos his opposition to invading Iraq: "I wrote a piece for The Washington Post six months before we went into Iraq, laying out in my view this was not about WMDs, it was about our troops being turned into terrorist targets, and that there was not an exit strategy because the people in this administration who were doing this did not intend to leave."
So I found the piece in question, "Heading for Trouble; Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?" which ran in the September 4, 2002 edition of the Washington Post. As its title suggests, the op-ed made perfectly defensible arguments:
The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay.
Also in the piece Webb criticized the neoconservatives, made some deft observations regarding MacArthur's success in Japan ("In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets"), and warned that China, which he clearly suggested is America's greatest menace, would enjoy a "glorious windfall" thanks to an "American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East."
But nowhere -- nowhere -- in the op-ed did he utter a word about Saddam's WMDs, let alone cast doubt as to their existence. So why the clumsy lie yesterday?
Sunday, September 17, 2006
The Newest Patient at the 'Impeach Bush' Asylum
Posted by on 9.17.06 @ 6:21PM
Noted political correctness watchdog Pat Buchanan says the I-word.
- Down in the Desert
- Useless Wonks
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
