- 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, October 7, 2006
If Californians Elect Phil Angelides…
Posted by on 10.7.06 @ 12:39PM
…they get what they deserve.
Angelides comes off as the quintessential slick, trial lawyer. He'll pander to anyone. Just saw him on the news, and he said he wants "to balance the budget, give a tax cut to the middle class, and roll back tuition increases for college students."
And, watch him pull a rabbit out of his hat!
The New York Times Reporting Studds
Posted by on 10.7.06 @ 10:01AM
In a New York Times article assessing post-Foley GOP House election prospects today, reporter Adam Nagourney makes this assertion:
Talk radio hosts, working off a list of talking
points distributed by Republican Party officials, recounted how two
decades ago, House Democrats stood behind Representative Gerry E.
Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, after he engaged in sex with a
male page.
Talk radio hosts working from GOP talking points -- as though
they were taking marching orders? I didn't detect in the story that
Nagourney had interviewed any talk show hosts to ask them if they
were reading from a Republican game plan. Nor did he even quote any
on-air remarks.
On the other hand I have seen and heard the Studds reference
made in countless news articles, opinion pieces, and in broadcast
media. It's a widespread no-brainer comparison point. But not to
Nagourney, who thinks talk radio hosts have been pushing it because
Republicans told them to.
Re: Great Moments in Punditry
Posted by on 10.7.06 @ 9:24AM
That's the same Charles P. Pierce who writes for the Boston Globe Magazine, who penned a paean to Ted Kennedy that was outright embarrassing, ending with the words, "Mary Jo Kopechne would have been 68, and Ted Kennedy would have taken care of her in her old age." And he apparently thought this was some sort of compliment.
Pierce is one of the more unbearably ambitious leftist characters, has got himself a pretty regular slot on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me," a current events quiz show that spends a lot of time bashing George W. Bush in whatever terms are fashionable. It's on Saturdays at noon here in the Boston area, and I recommend it for insight into what liberals are really thinking, and how they are really behaving.
Friday, October 6, 2006
Great Moments In Punditry
Posted by on 10.6.06 @ 9:33PM
I thought most people who followed these things closely understood almost as soon as Joe Lieberman decided to run as an independent that a Lamont general election victory was pretty close to mathematically impossible. But over at TAPPED, Charles P. Pierce is apparently just now realizing that Ned Lamont might not win.
Resurrection Song?
Posted by on 10.6.06 @ 12:04PM
My friend David J over at the great blog Resurrection Song details his reasons, both pragmatic and philosophical, for sticking with the Republicans in the upcoming election and sparks some debate in the comment thread for his decision.
Swing Jihadists
Posted by on 10.6.06 @ 11:49AM
In his column today, Charles Krauthammer makes an important point on whether or not the war in
It is an issue of time frame. The bombing of the Japanese home islands may have increased short-term recruiting for the kamikazes. But success in the Pacific war put a definitive end to the whole affair.
This is a key distinction that is lost on the Left. Fighting an enemy may get them increasingly angry, but once you defeat them it's immaterial. It should go without saying that 9/11 took place before the Iraq War, so al Qaeda obviously had no shortage of grievances with the
One may still respond that yes, there may have been Islamic fundamentalists prior to the Iraq War, but that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq War has made it easier for terrorists to recruit new ones. Talking about jihad against the
For the sake of discussion, let's say that the Iraq War did allow terrorist groups to win over more "swing jihadists," thus increasing the quantity of terrorists and/or the fervor with which they carry out attacks. What would have happened if we never invaded? What if, instead of invading
It would be difficult to argue that we could have fought terrorism at all had we not gone into
And let us not forget that while a hardened terrorist with a suicidal outlook may be willing to fight us until the bitter end, the average "swing jihadist" wants to know that they are fighting for a winning cause. There's no better way to send them the message that the terrorist team is winning than than for the
To quote bin Laden in 1998:
So, when they left
Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War...
Re: Hastert
Posted by on 10.6.06 @ 11:38AM
Jed, I refer you back to my first response to Quin yesterday: "(Hastert) doesn't get it. The issue isn't about when he knew about e-mails, IMs, or when and whether he did or didn't decide to do something about them. The issue is that the Foley disaster represents one more in the long list of ethical breaches (Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, etc.) on his watch, not to mention the abominations of legislation...." It's not just this one thing; it's the pattern of things.
But no panic here, as I'm ready to accept whatever the election results bring. I'm only interested in what I believe is the right thing to do. First-hand, direct culpability is irrelevant in this case. It's about Hastert's leadership abilities which he continues to demonstrate are inabilities. He could do as much damage -- arguably more damage -- to the party's prospects next month by staying as he could by leaving. Especially when he keeps faulting Democrats, Soros and ABC while the average voter (especially outside the Beltway) is reading Foley's disgusting IMs and thinking, "He's blaming who?"
Re: Hastert
Posted by on 10.6.06 @ 11:21AM
Paul: You're enormously overheated on the Hastert issue. There's no proof -- even alleged -- that Hastert knew about "attempted pedophilia." Why the panic?
The 527 Media have made this a story, and people who keep going on it are playing into their hands. Booting Hastert now does the same, and corrects nothing. Part of leadership is taking the heat. And part of campaigning is keeping your head when your adversary wants you to lose it. You may not believe that dumping Hastert -- before any proof of culpability -- would help the Dems. But that doesn't prove it false.
Ms. Magazine's Latest Survey...
Posted by on 10.6.06 @ 10:21AM
...ain't exactly feel good material. There aren't even any questions about Eva Longoria's latest fashion choice or a box to check to signify whether I'd prefer Jen to end up with Vince or Brad. What gives?
Re: Hastert Obnoxious
Posted by on 10.6.06 @ 9:37AM
Leaders are supposed to lead. They set the tone for how their organization is to be run. They establish their expectations of what their organizations' moral and ethical standards should be and expect everyone to follow them.
Have you ever heard out of Hastert's mouth "this is the way it's going to be and we will tolerate no less," or words to that effect? Have you heard him make any bold statements against ethical breaches, self-serving pork, or any of the other crap that has taken root under GOP control -- at least any the media has latched on to? Yeah, he's supposedly "taking responsibility" for the Foley lapse, but what the heck does that really mean? Calling for an investigation? Big step! And as far as Hastert condemning it...gee, that's really stepping out bravely when one of your soldiers has been hitting on teenagers.
Sure, Hastert is probably personally ethical (as much as anybody who has to compromise with Democrats on laws is capable of doing)...nice guy...former wrestling coach...but does training grapplers make you qualified for one of the three or four most important leadership posts in the country?
Life is full of leaders taking the fall because of failures amidst their subordinates. Happens in the corporate world all the time. Coaches and managers in professional sports suffer the blame when their players underperform, whether it's their direct fault or not. Joe Girardi got fired by the Florida Marlins this week and his team performed above expectations!
The only difference with Hastert is the imminent election and the distasteful prospect of Democrats in control of Congress. So does the fact that the competition is gaining override the need to replace a leader who has allowed corruption to take root and Byrd-style earmarks to proliferate? And if attempted pedophilia on the part of one of your members, after all the other ethical problems under your tenure, does not make it time for removal, then when is it time?
Besides, Jed, I don't buy the premise that Hastert's removal (or getting a commitment to not run for leadership again) dooms the GOP. There are plenty of good reasons for rank-and-file House Republicans -- many of whom undoubtedly feel the same way that many conservative pundits calling for Hastert's resignation feel -- to move now. No quivering lip or tearful apology needed...just tell Denny "thanks for your service" and let Boehner step in, at least until the next Congress. Hastert is not a good face for the party right now and his Soros/ABC-blaming is proving it. Boehner is still relatively new in his post so for him to take interim control improves the image while controlling the damage.
The Clinton Octopus
Posted by on 10.6.06 @ 9:29AM
A guest commentator for Canada Free Press absolutely nails the current dilemma here.
John Burtis, a retired firefighter and cop, writes:
"Shortly after Bill Clinton was sworn in as President, the Democratic Party became nothing more than a single arm of the growing parasitic Clinton octopus.a'
And he absolutely nails it. Read it all.
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Re: Hastert Obnoxious (or Not)
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 7:45PM
Whoa, gents. What did you want Hastert to do? Turn the whole thing over to Barney Frank? Apologize, with quivering lip, as Lil' Billy would've? He did what he had to do: take responsibility, order up a slew of investigations, and not commit ritual seppuku to please ABC news. I have no real desire to see Hastert continue as speaker, except if the choice is him or Pelosi.
If we're going to throw Hastert to the media sharks, we're nuts. If we do that, he'll be followed by every other Republican leader. On the other hand, we should rid ourselves of him for the right reasons.
I've sat there listening to Hastert explain why earmarks and pork-barrelling are the way Congress shows its constituents it's working for them. I'm sick of him and all who sail with him. By all means, let's get someone in that job who can actually cut government spending. But let's not throw our lot in with the 527 Media who want to blow this whole election.
The Republicans don't deserve to win. But we don't deserve what will happen if they lose.
Chesser is right
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 6:16PM
Paul -- Thanks for your thoughtful and highly lucid response below, re Hastert. I was particularly disappointed in Cheney's statements -- from both the standpoint of its substance AND its politics. The LAST thing the White House needs to do is to associate itself with Hastert right now. That just inserts Bush and Cheney into a story they should be staying away from. They don't have to actively work to oust Hastert, but fergoshsakes, they should just back off and let the chips fall where they may.
Meanwhile, for those in the DC area, the local Fox affiliate is gonna interview me in a few minutes, I guess for use on its 11 pm newscast, on the political ramifications of this whole sad case. Anybody who wants to watch, please do, and don't hesitate to send in feedback tomorrow. Thanks.
Re: Hastert Obnoxious
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 5:12PM
Quin, I missed Hastert's press conference but I'm not surprised in the least nor do I doubt your assessment of it. He doesn't get it. The issue isn't about when he knew about e-mails, IMs, or when and whether he did or didn't decide to do something about them. The issue is that the Foley disaster represents one more in the long list of ethical breaches (Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, etc.) on his watch, not to mention the abominations of legislation (like the prescription drug program, earmarks, No Child Left Behind, etc.) that he has pushed through his chamber. In short, it's an absence of leadership, and if the buck truly stops with him as he says, he should step down.
More evidence that Hastert and other Republicans don't get it (courtesy links from Drudge):
Baltimore Sun article on Hastert: "When the base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy. The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros." - This comes off as just so much whining. You had an aspiring pedophile in your midst, and you expect your political opponents and the media not to hammer you? The only points the Republicans ought to be pressing is that they are shocked this individual could do such a thing; that they want him fully investigated; they want the page program fully evaluated; and they want any criminal behavior prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In other words, they need to exhibit a large dose of humility.
Newt Gingrich, who reportedly told a South Carolina audience that Democratic sex scandals have been far worse: "What we don't have to do is allow our friends on the left to lecture us on morality. There's a certain stench of hypocrisy." - There is plenty of evidence of hypocrisy to heap upon both parties, so this is another example of GOP whining. "He did it too, and worse" playground-type fingerpointing won't resonate with a public (electorate) disgusted by Foley's actions. And since when are Democrats a measuring stick for behavioral standards?
Vice President Dick Cheney in the Washington Examiner: "I'm a huge Denny Hastert fan - I think he's a great speaker. And it makes no sense at all for him to think about stepping down." - I really like and respect the vice president, but he is misidentifying greatness in leadership here.
Let's hope whoever the next Speaker is demonstrates strength and authority, lays down the law that no unethical behavior will be tolerated, and that a renewed effort to adhere to conservative principles will be followed.
Re: Page Prank?
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 3:51PM
Good point, John. And lets face it, if it was all some sort of joke that didn't mean anything, why would Foley have resigned?
Hastert Obnoxious
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 3:35PM
Frankly, I thought Hastert's press conference just now was obnoxious. He sounded exactly like a politician trying to change the subject, rather than a leader trying to right a wrong. He still doesn't "get it." He still gives evidence of an incredible arrogance of power. In trying to sound strong, he instead sounded almost breezy, not really concerned in his gut but instead just like he was trying to swat away a fly that was bothering him. He is a TERRIBLE symbol for the GOP. He should announce that he will serve out his term just to avoid unnecessary disruption, but that he will NOT stand for re-election as speaker. Only when he gets his large rump out of the way can conservatives have enough breathing room to turn the story around and fire back at the liberals on multiple fronts. Finally, I note that Hastert read the new Tip-line number incorrectly, reversing two digits...so anybody listening only, rather than watching the news screen that presented the correct number, would have reached the wrong number. That's not a moral or ethical fault, of course, but it's just one more example of how he can't get anything right.
Re: Page Prank?
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 3:31PM
Matt Drudge really hasn't distinguished himself this week. When you say the IMs were "a prank," it sounds like someone put them together as a joke, and that Foley didn't actually participate. Of course that's not at all what happened. Read the story, and all it says is that the page who was IM'ing with Foley wasn't actually gay, and was playing along with Foley's sick game just to laugh at the old perv. That really doesn't change anything important about the story-- but if you just read Drudge's headline, you might think that the whole scandal was a hoax. Let's nip this one before it confuses people as much as Drudge's last bit of reporting did.
On A Lighter Note
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 3:22PM
Page Prank?
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 3:21PM
Drudge reporting that the IM's that lead to Foley's resignation were part of a "page prank gone awry."
RE: Free Speech, Columbia Style
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 3:16PM
Phil: The Lone Star Times notes something odd about the rioters' banner.
I wonder, what do you think the odds are that the Columbia administration will discipline any of those students?
Free Speech, Columbia Style
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 1:45PM
Minuteman Jim Gilchrist came to speak at Columbia University, but a fistfight broke out as protestors rushed onto the stage, and the event never took place. The Gothamist has a detailed account, and video.
Via Alarming News.
Re: No Help For Foley
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 11:57AM
Whether or not the page was 18 or 17, while obviously important for legal reasons, does not change anything ethically. As far as I'm concerned, Foley's actions were disgusting because they were about abusing power and taking advantage of his position as a congressman.
No Help For Foley
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 11:07AM
Be careful of making too much of Drudge's reporting today. One of the lurid IM exchanges took place after the page was over 18. But another one clearly didn't (there is, in fact, a line where the page warns Foley that he's not 18 yet, and Foley responds that he's "just dreaming"). As NewsBusters notes, ABC has changed the wording of its story to reflect this (it now says the IMs that it has were with "two different boys who began their exchanges with Foley at the age of 16 and 17, and continued through the age of 18").
Since Glenn Reynolds seems to think that Drudge's story says all of the IMs took place when the page was 18, I guess this needs clarifying. (UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, Glenn's already amended that post.)
U.S. Warns N. Korea
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 10:42AM
The AP reports:
— The United States passed a warning to WASHINGTON not to conduct a nuclear test, the chief North Korea envoy to stalled disarmament talks with the communist country said Wednesday. "We are not going to live with a nuclear U.S. ," he said. North Korea
Boy, that's a huge relief. I was under the mistaken impression that we were living with a nuclear North Korea.
The Rightward Shift
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 10:38AM
Jonah Goldberg has a long, must-read post putting the Foley matter into perspective. The insight that Americans, gays included, have moved significantly to the right strikes me as especially important. I would take it further and say that shifting attitudes about homosexuality have civilized homosexuals. The prevailing attitude when Gerry Studds was elected was that, whether you thought homosexuals should be shunned or accepted, homosexuality was entirely different from heterosexuality and would naturally operated under a seperate set of rules. The acceptance in gay culture of "man-boy love" would seem to fit well into that paradigm, which helps explain the thinking of old-school gay activists like Harry Hay. These were the people who thought closing the bathhouses in response to the AIDS epidemic was somehow a step backward for gays. Since then the emphasis has shifted toward the insistence that, as Andrew Sullivan has put it, homosexuality is just like heterosexuality but with the genders changed. The corrolary to that is that homosexuals require the same restraints that civilization places on heterosexuals, and we should be encouraged at how easily this seems to have sunk in.
And in This Week's Other Shocking Story
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 9:43AM
As a homeschooling father, this paragraph from Cal Thomas's column today on the Amish killings resonated with me:
Foley Trivia
Posted by on 10.5.06 @ 8:32AM
Former Rep. Mark Foley's godfather is former Boston Red Sox star Jimmy Piersall, who was the subject of the movie "Fear Strikes Out."
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Fordham Speaks
Posted by on 10.4.06 @ 4:51PM
The AP reports:
A senior congressional aide said Wednesday that he alerted House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office two years ago about worrisome conduct by former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage pages.
Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene."
The conversations took place long before the e-mail scandal broke, Fordham said, and at least a year earlier than members of the House GOP leadership have acknowledged.
An earlier story about Fordham's resignation that appeared on ABC's website said Fordham "had urged Republican leaders last spring not to raise questionable Foley e-mails with the full Congressional Page Board..." Clearly, Fordham didn't want to be the fall guy. If he's telling the truth, this just adds to the evidence that, at the very least, Hastert was asleep at the switch. Time will only tell how much Hastert actually knew, but the bottom line is that the more questions are raised, the more stories like this come out, the less time will be available for Republicans to get their message out on national security in the crucial weeks ahead of the election.
Foley and the Doom Spell
Posted by on 10.4.06 @ 1:45PM
I typically try to err on the cynical side. It prevents disappointment. Sometimes I go out on a limb, like I did on Alan Keyes*, and get knocked dramatically back to earth, but generally I look for worst case scenarios.
Strangely enough, I'm feeling fairly Pollyanna in the midst of all the gloom and doom over Rep. Foley's moral malfunction. The Dems released this one way too early to be decisive. We're still a month away from the election. The news cycle has time for about five to ten good turns before then.
The idea of an October surprise is passe'. It's so seventies. The Foley thing is not a deathstrike. It's just a shot by the Dem fundraisers to keep the donors in the game and cut down the GOP advantage.
I'd be looking for something bigger from either Team GOP or Team Dem a few days after Halloween. There's an eternity to go. The fourth quarter has just started.
Sidenote: I'm a little surprised at how big the Foley thing is playing. This is nothing more than the gay version of older men making plays for teenage girls. Immature. Unethical. Hardly groundshaking. Remember Camille Paglia's famous statement about gay life: It's just boys without girls. Without girls, there's more naked sexuality and the impulse restriction is not as carefully governed. Footnote: See San Francisco.
*On Alan Keyes, I didn't predict victory, but did believe he would actually run a good race and not embarrass the party. Mulligan.
Voting Republican
Posted by on 10.4.06 @ 12:40PM
On our main site, Quin makes a good case for the merits of the "As bad as the congressional Republicans are, the Democrats would be worse" argument. Over at Alarming News, Karol Sheinin writes a letter to Republicans arguing against the "losing to win" theory. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, the mere fact that conservatives have to make these arguments to counter other conservatives so close to the election --rather than it being a given that everybody would be rallying around Republicans -- is a bad sign. But according to one reader, I'm ignorant of the way things are going in the rest of the country:
Well Mr. Klein, it appears the beltway conservatives have thrown in the towel. Fortunately, many of us outside the beltway bubble don't pay a lot of attention to media cycles or late night comics.We leave that stuff to you nuanced guys. We get what's happening. We've heard the Democrat orchestrated phone calls on the heals of this media induced frenzy. We know who's really exploiting the children's issue.We know ABC sat on this story for months. We also know that flawed Republicans resign but flawed Dems. get rallied around. Why don't you do something constructive with your access to TAS, try a blog on how the Bush economy topped the vaunted
Clinton stock market, or did the late night comics already do that?
You've Heard of the Runaway Bride...
Posted by on 10.4.06 @ 11:38AM
...now meet the Takeaway Bride, Julianna Redd!
Pence Defends Hastert
Posted by on 10.4.06 @ 11:31AM
As part of a joint statement with Joe Pitts, Mike Pence comes out against a Hastert resignation:
"Regardless of our reservations about how this matter was handled administratively, we believe Speaker Hastert is a man of integrity who has led our conference honorably and effectively throughout the past eight years. Speaker Dennis Hastert should not resign."
Foley: The Final Nail
Posted by on 10.4.06 @ 10:45AM
It's looking more and more as if the Foley scandal is the final nail in the coffin for the Republican majority in the House, if not the Senate as well. To me, the House was up for grabs this year, and it all depended on whether the news cycle broke in favor of one party or the other in the weeks before the election. Last month, it seemed as if the tide was turning in favor of Republicans as the focus shifted to national security. But the Foley scandal, which has entered the mainstream and become fodder for late night comics, reinforces the idea that Republicans have simply been in charge for too long and have become drunk with power. Also, as far as voter turnout is concerned, national security is probably the one issue that the otherwise fed up conservative base will rally around Republicans on, but it's hard to think of something that will sap their enthusiasm more than a Republican congressman abusing his power to take advantage of teenage boys.
Re: Music To My Ears
Posted by on 10.4.06 @ 10:19AM
Thanks for that Shawn. Just wait until he announces he's going to run later this year/early next year.
Supporting Bossie, the WTimes, etc.
Posted by on 10.4.06 @ 10:03AM
Dave Bossie, Michael Reagan, the Washington Times and others who have called for the political scalp of Speaker Hastert deserve credit for their courage in taking on the bloated, sclerotic, spoiled, self-absorbed GOP Washington establishment. As I wrote on this blog yesterday, the problem isn't merely that Hastert was asleep at the switch when told about what to him appeared only slightly icky e-mails from Foley; the problem is that his ethical blindness is part of a longstanding pattern of treating incumbent congressmen of both parties (see the idiotic rush to the defense of Rep. William Jefferson), but especially of Republicans, as if congressmen are a protected class immune to ordinary ethical concerns. There has long been something rotten in the state of the congressional leadership, and this latest outrage should be the cement block that breaks the dinosaur's back. Bossie, Reagan, et al are to be commended for stepping forward immediately to say so.
Music to Philip's Ears
Posted by on 10.4.06 @ 7:45AM
From Politics NH:
* Victory NH has rescheduled its inaugural First in the Nation forum featuring former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani from October 12 to November 3, to accommodate unexpected demand for tickets. The event will take place in Manchester and a specific location will be announced in a few weeks. Hizzoner will still take part in a fundraiser for New Hampshire House Republicans on October 12.
(Thanks Granite Grok.)
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
Corruption Everywhere Past & Present
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 9:21PM
Former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, who last year spent 10 months in federal prison for accepting lavish gifts from contractors who did business with his state, spoke today at a luncheon here in Raleigh sponsored by the John Locke Foundation (my employer). His speech, titled "The Arrogance of Power," was a timely one, as our state legislature is under fire for ethical lapses, chiefly related to the passage of a state lottery last year. In fact, a former lottery commissioner is currently on trial for his failure to disclose his financial ties to Scientific Games, a vendor that planned to compete for the contract to run North Carolina's lottery. Our governor, Mike Easley, testified today in that trial.
Rowland said the longer politicians stay in power, the more likely they are to develop an entitlement mentality, and they usually are surrounded by enablers (staff, friends and family) who typically won't hold them accountable because they develop the same mentality. While in prison he said he grounded himself in his Christian faith, and provided a convincing testimony of God's grace in his life.
C-SPAN taped the whole thing, so when it is scheduled I will post it...meanwhile, you can view a clip at our Web site.
Update 8/4 8:10 a.m.: Full-length audio of Rowland's speech is now up.
Battlefield Foley, Battlefield Earth
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 9:04PM
Dear Tabin & the rest of Planet Earth,
It comes as no surprise that the Representative from Palm Beach -- that island version of Los Angeles -- could unite all the hallmarks of LA dementia under the one roof of his own dark soul: same-sex child lust, substance abuse, a bad work ethic, and cultish membership. Hand in hand they walk down the aisle. Though Scientology may well have turned Beck against the trough of failure and depredation that is hipster LA, his cohort has a healthy range of straight-up cults from which to choose. Of course, swinging and comprehensive drug use may be chosen a la carte. And choose they do. No surprise the Former Congressman has been to the City of Angels, where the discreet can indulge their every delight; but what foul river of bilge connects, winding Styx-like beneath the Earth, LA to Palm Beach to New York to Washington? Is it power? Money? Bad karma? What recourse have we, as the new domino effect takes its grim toll, but to exclamations of disgust (such as mine, here, rated PG-13 for "mature themes")? Why did our leadership take the "Defend the Frat" option at the first opportunity? These errors are not, despite the Democrats' line, hallmarks of power but of powerlessness. And that taint stains.
This Just Keeps Getting Weirder
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 6:59PM
Mark Foley's got some Scientology connections, and may be in a cult-run rehab center.
Twisted Twist
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 6:25PM
David Roth, Mark Foley's attorney, is on TV now claiming that Foley was molested by a clergyman as a teen.
Where the Foley IMs are Coming From
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 5:50PM
I had no idea that Trillian, by default, automatically logs every IM conversation. I just checked, and sure enough every instant message I've sent or received since I installed the software is buried on my hard drive.
Re: The Woodward Magic
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 5:39PM
Looks like it's not working since your post yesterday, Reid.
Incidentally, has anybody else noticed how strange Bob Woodward's speech tones and rhythsm are these days? He sounds like the victim of some nervous disorder.
Sounds of Solidarity
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 3:52PM
"Most Republicans are sticking together."-- Speaker Hastert's spokesman on the Foley affair
Good grief! Isn't there another way to phrase this?
Global Warming Reference Mysteriously Absent
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 3:02PM
From Reuters: "Hurricane forecasts...have been wildly off target this year..."
It Gets Worse
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 2:48PM
More incriminating Foley IMs. This time, he's inviting a teen over for drinks, and we're not talking Sunny D.
Denny Hastert, meanwhile, is brushing aside calls for his resignation. Um, okay, but the Speaker is going to have do something in response to this matter other than issue prepared statements.
Who Can You Trust?
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 2:38PM
There's an Associated Press story out on the wire with the mis-titled headline, "Bush: Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run Congress." Of course since it's the AP, it's running on many news Web sites and will run in hundreds of print newspapers in the next day or so, with near-identical variations of the headline. ABC's affiliate here in Raleigh even puts the "Democrats shouldn't be trusted" in quotation marks, as though the president had literally uttered that statement.
I bring this up only because nowhere in the article is President Bush quoted saying such a thing. Maybe he did, but it's not in the story. In a different political environment (that is, pre-Foley) that headline would have been perfectly acceptable, because in the article the president is in effect saying Democrats can't be trusted with national security. But now that Foley has been exposed and the heat is on Congress, that headline portrays the Republicans as (even more) hypocritical by calling Democrats untrustworthy.
Watch the piling on continue!
If Alcohol Didn't Exist...
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 1:17PM
...our therapeutic culture would have to invent it:
I Said Nix to Hastert Long Ago
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 1:02PM
The calls now for Hastert to resign are all well and good, but a scandal of some sort, involving an arrogance of power that involves being blind to ethical or moral considerations, was eminently predictable for years. Back at the beginning of 2005, for instance, I lamented in The New Republic the loss of an ethical compass in the GOP leadership. In these very pages earlier this year I said Hastert should not be re-elected as speaker. In January of this year Rep. Jeff Flake and others demanded an entirely new round of leadership elections. On March 17 of 2004 I spoke to the Georgetown College Republicans about the ethical blindness (scroll down to the right date), while calling for "A New Era of Responsibility in American Life." In late November of 2003 I wrote a scathing column (I am having trouble finding a link for it) for the Mobile Register on the strong-arm tactics used to pass the Medicare Rx bill. But earlier that same year, I complained about the exact same sort of tactics on an earlier vote on the same bill -- tactics that were mild compared to the ones used later, in November (the point being that even the milder violations of protocol should have sounded warning bells all over). And so on and so forth, I and some others have made the same complaints repeatedly. It sounds like tooting my own horn (and I guess it is), but the point is not that I was so perspicacious, but that the evidence has been there for a long, long time and it should not have taken a page scandal to bring it to a head.
And lest someone think I just had it in for Hastert, I wrote a column in, I think it was, 1999, for the Mobile Register that praised Hastert to high heaven. I was a big fan of his for his first several years as Speaker. I was biased in his favor, not against him. The point is the actions, or lack thereof, not the personalities.
Which brings up: What to do now? Well, Hastert should say he will not run for re-election as speaker. An actual resignation right now might be premature, but a pledge to honor the original terms of the Contract With America (no speaker shall serve in that office more than eight consecutive years) would be appropriate indeed.
Re: Stein on Foley Scandal
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 11:44AM
The Washington Post, in a seeming answer to Ben Stein's piece yesterday, analyzes why it is that Republicans are more susceptible to hypocrisy allegations than Democrats when sex scandals erupt. Reason, in a nutshell: the GOP's socially conservative image.
Todd thinks he knows who's to blame for this: "It's the media, to be honest. What is the standard 'gotcha' story in the media? It's hypocrisy. If we can prove hypocrisy, we have a story. . . . So in a sex scandal, the bar for Republicans is lower."
Lieberman Says Promised Seniority
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 11:04AM
The Hill reports that Lieberman said the Democratic Party's leadership has assured him that he would keep his seniority even if he beats Lamont as an Independent. If this is true, it's significant, because it reveals that Democrats have accepted the fact that Lieberman probably will win and that keeping Lieberman's seat Democratic is more important that appeasing the Kos wing of the party. The further interesting wrinkle is that if Democrats win control of the Senate, Lieberman, the most pro-Bush Democrat, would become chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel, which is primarily responsible for investigating the executive branch.
Re: Foley Ugliness
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 10:48AM
This is a huge blow to Republicans because any scandal that involves sex will reach a broad audience. After all of the hubub surrounding the Abramoff scandal, it had a relatively small amount of political fallout (if any). The Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney resignations over bribery didn't have a widespread effect becuase people discount for politicians being corrupt. But the Foley story has tabloid appeal and should continue to generate headlines. If the trail about how much Republican leaders knew and when they knew it runs dry in the next few days, the damage may be limited to Foley's congressional district. But if revelations start coming out in dribs and drabs over the next few weeks suggesting Hastert knew more than he's saying he did, this could be the final nail in the coffin for Republicans. Democrats may have in the Foley scandal the perfect symbol of Republicans becoming too arrogant with power, adding more force to the "Throw the bums out" argument.
Just in Case...
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 10:12AM
...You missed our very own David Holman discussing the newly recovered Murtha/Abscam tape on Hannity & Colmes last night, here is the segment from Fox.
Looking Increasingly Ugly for Entire GOP
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 9:06AM
The Foley fallout has prompted some strong language from fellow conservatives, some of it published today in The Washington Times. Many of you undoubtedly have seen (because Drudge highlighted it) the newspaper's call for the resignation of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, but in a news report other conservatives are similarly outraged, like Richard Viguerie:
Re: Woodward Magic
Posted by on 10.3.06 @ 12:22AM
Reid: I haven't read Hubris, but I find David Corn's defense of his anti-Bush narrative re: the Plame kerfuffle rather underwhelming. You can see Corn debate Byron York on that topic here.
Monday, October 2, 2006
Woodward Magic
Posted by on 10.2.06 @ 6:36PM
President Bush should thank his lucky stars for the Woodward book! The media love for the author assures its continual coverage, up to and including the refutations to come. Meanwhile, eclipsed by the Woodward work is a book more devastating to the Bush legacy, more complete a brief, more compelling an account. It is Hubris, by Isikoff and Corn, destined for the back shelf by the Woodward mystique.
FRC's Ridiculous Foley Response
Posted by on 10.2.06 @ 5:45PM
The Family Research Council steps out of bounds in its response to the Mark Foley scandal. It blames the homosexuals. Even if there is a link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, as FRC's Tony Perkins writes, save it for another day. To blame an ideology rather than the responsible actors is cheap politics at its worst.
Stein, Levin Discussing Foley Revelations
Posted by on 10.2.06 @ 5:12PM
I admire the work of both gentlemen immensely, but I really don't think now's the time for Ben Stein and Mark Levin (on his blog at NRO) to be zeroing in on the hypocrisy and opportunism of Democrats, despite the temptation and as long as the list of examples may be (for both political parties, really).
Former Rep. Foley, based on his immediate resignation, more or less confirmed his abominable behavior. His disgusting messages to underage pages -- which apparently include attempts to rendezvous with at least one of them -- deserve the strongest condemnation without being watered down by "they're guilty too" defenses. This guy was either a pedophile, tried to be a pedophile, or dreamed of being a pedophile. To some degree or another he acted on those impulses, probably illegally. As far as the response is concerned, political ramifications should be in the deep secondary to the strong, forceful emphasis that any threat such as this to children entrusted to Congress is unacceptable, and will be prosecuted under the full force of the law.
That, of course, should also take into consideration whether or not Foley's actions were known to others much earlier than this weekend. Let's just not let the main thing get lost in it all.
T'row Da Bum Out
Posted by on 10.2.06 @ 5:05PM
No, we're not talking about Brooklyn baseball. We're talking Albert Haynesworth of the Tennessee Titans. Yesterday, with malice aforethought, Haynesworth spiked an opposing player in the aftermath of a touchdown. The injured man -- Dallas' offensive center Andre Gurode -- was slashed by Haynesworth's spikes. The wound reportedly required 30 stiches to close.
Set aside the irony that despite the fact Terrell Owens was on the field, the worst offense was committed by someone else. There's no humor in this thuggery. The NFL will decide what punishment to impose on Haynesworth this week. Anything less than permanent expulsion from the game is too little.
Re: Murtha
Posted by on 10.2.06 @ 4:26PM
Fox News' teaser for "Hannity & Colmes" tonight:
Well, Looks Like We Got Ourselves a Reader
Posted by on 10.2.06 @ 4:03PM
At the kind invitation of Mr. John Tabin, I've responded to several prompts on my literary tastes. James Poulos answered the same and Tabin kicked it all off over at his home turf.
This post title comes from a great routine by the late comedian Bill Hicks, whom I wrote about for NRO a couple years back here.
Murtha: Deal or No Deal
Posted by on 10.2.06 @ 10:47AM
I will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight around 9:30 (eastern) discussing Jack Murtha's willingness to make a deal with undercover FBI agents offering bribes.
Real College Rankings?
Posted by on 10.2.06 @ 8:44AM
This new ISI study puts Colorado State at #2 and Berkeley at #49, among other revelations. What's the criterion? "Learning added or subtracted," meaning how much more or less students know after they're run the course of their education -- relative to before they began it...
Sunday, October 1, 2006
Foley Fallout
Posted by on 10.1.06 @ 5:06PM
The scuttlebutt in DC is that any candidate who received money from Mark Foley's Florida Republican Leadership PAC is going to face some heat. If you or the candidate you work for appears on this list, you'd better return those contributions ASAP.
Still More Dobson
Posted by on 10.1.06 @ 10:01AM
Shawn,
I thought I might put you off disputing the religious reason question and I apologize for any offense given. Nevertheless, it is a red herring.
In working toward refutation of my argument, you note that Dobson said God wanted him to intervene on Toomey's behalf. That's not the same thing as supporting a specific policy position by adverting to scripture or personal revelation from the Almighty. It's one thing if Dobson says, God wants me to oppose abortion. It's another if Dobson says, "God doesn't want you to allow legalized abortion" and leaves it at that. The latter instance would be what I think you were talking about earlier when you said he failed to offer public reasons in favor of restricting abortion.
I just checked a Focus policy brief on abortion. What's interesting is that they give a nice paragraph on biological development of the fetus in support of restricting abortion. They follow that with the statement that "for those who wish to consider a faith perspective" the Bible affirms the sanctity of preborn human life. This is not an exclusive or even dominant reliance on religious reason.
So, I do insist that your assertion Dobson relies only or primarily on religious reason is a canard. At no point do I think that you are wrong in saying Dobson does invoke his faith and on a regular basis. It is clearly his motivation for doing what he does, but he simply does not insist that it should be your motivation for agreeing with him. He and his organization offer arguments based on mere reason with great consistency.
And believe me, I'm not picking a fight. I have always enjoyed your work and am extremely happy to have someone out there reporting rather than simply issuing thoughts from the armchair. I just think that the left has so often repeated this silly assertion about people like Dobson offering nothing more than religious reason in support of their positions that it has polluted the media air.
For Shawn on Dobson
Posted by on 10.1.06 @ 7:48AM
Point taken on Dobson, Shawn, and I never presumed you were one of the pundits who wrote from assumptions rather than real reporting. You're too good for that.
You raise the crux of the argument when you wonder whether Dobson's rhetoric contributes to stasis rather than moving the issue ahead. The time frame 97-98 is significant here. I wrote a column called "My Christian Radio Can Beat Up Your New York Times" at about that time, and pointed out that I could listen to a whole day of Christian radio and hear nothing about politics. At about that time, on the issue of abortion, that began to change in 97-98, with Dobson and D. James Kennedy leading the way.
Why did they do that? Kennedy is plainly conscience-stricken and feels that he has to speak out against mass murder. Dobson plainly stated that he was fed up with the Republicans in power doing nothing about abortion, and threatened to leave the party and "take a lot of people with me." Made the cover of Time Magazine, he did.
So, tactically, are they doing the right thing? I don't know that either would find the question meaningful at all. They did what they had to do. And if Dobson took the issue to God in prayer and felt moved to speak out, that's the way he believes and practices his belief. I am not put off by the formulation that "God told me" to do something at all. God has told me to do some things, too.
Dobson and Kennedy and many others have left the tactics to other people. All that counts for them is the passion.
- Republic, Regained
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- The Pearls of Pauline
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
