- 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 14, 2006
Gorby World
Posted by on 10.14.06 @ 1:28PM
Everyone's favorite small-c communist
imparts his timeless wisdom:
"Today our American friends are suffering from an illness worse than AIDS. And I would say this is the victor's complex," Gorbachev was quoted as saying in an interview with the Netzzeitung.
Unable to extricate itself from its Cold War mentality, the United States was playing a dwindling role in world politics, while Russia, China, Brazil, Europe, India and Japan were becoming stronger, Gorbachev said.
Funny how the US managed to both become a global hegemon unique in world history and play a dwindling role in world affairs. Of course Russia, in absolute terms, has become stronger over the past fifteen years; as a great power Russia had nowhere to go but up. One would hope, too, for their sake, that the Chinese leadership would be able to strengthen party and country relative to their position in the wake of Tianenmen. Strengthening India and Japan are deliberate policies of hegemonic America; Europe as we know it could hardly have become stronger without the full-flank advancement of the West past the fallen iron curtain of failed Soviet hegemony; and, well, the might and authority of Brazil on the world stage speaks for itself. Sorry, Gorby. Stick to your day job.Re: Outing and Sign Up
Posted by on 10.14.06 @ 8:36AM
Bravo, Hunter. Though it seems to me we church types will always be regarded as some exotic species, like Trobriand Islanders -- by a certain section of the self-designated elite.
As for third party voting, remember Ross Perot -- and what the votes for Perot got us.
All the Beautiful Democrats
Posted by on 10.14.06 @ 8:16AM
Sure, Heath Shuler, the Democrat challenger to Rep. Charles Taylor, R-N.C., may be pretty cute:
Research has shown that if candidates invest a little effort in their looks, the payoff can be huge. Campaign consultants hover around candidates, ordering them to change their hairstyles, get in shape and update their wardrobes.But don't forget this:
Meanwhile:
Politicians today, said (George Washington University political science professor Lee) Sigelman, strive for "the personality and looks of talk show hosts." The goal is to be "well turned out."Careful, certain folks on Capitol Hill might get horny at that thought.
Throw Twinkies if He Enters the Cafeteria
Posted by on 10.14.06 @ 7:42AM
Schools in Burleson, Texas are training students to fight back if a gunman threatens their schools, according to The Associated Press:
"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.
That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among
schools, and some fear it will get children killed.
How about another idea that is "unheard of among schools," one that might actually save lives -- arming teachers?
Friday, October 13, 2006
Re: The Stupidest Law
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 4:52PM
Interestingly enough, the two biggest online poker rooms interpret the law differently. PartyPoker says it makes it "practically impossible" to fund US players' accounts. But PokerStars says the law doesn't apply to poker. Poker is a game of chance in the short run but a game of skill in the long run, and the "is poker gambling?" question is a staple of poker forums. The question now is how the feds will answer it.
Democrats: The Small Government Party
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 4:16PM
Bill Clinton says:
"This is an election unlike any other I have ever participated in. For six years this country has been totally dominated - not by the Republican Party, this is not fair to the Republican Party - by a narrow sliver of the Republican Party, its more right-wing and its most ideological element. When the chips are down, this country has been jammed to the right, jammed into an ideological corner, alienated from its allies, and we're in a lot of trouble ... The Democratic Party has become the liberal and conservative party in America. If you want to be fiscally conservative, you've got to be for us. If you want to conserve natural resources, you've got to be for us," he said. "If you want a change of course in
Iraq ... you've got to be for us."
Andrew Sullivan, citing
It's interesting to see that Sullivan's blog has degenerated from criticism of the Bush administration to outright stumping for Democrats.
I am as utterly disgusted as anyone by the era of runaway spending that has been ushered in by the Republican Congress and the Bush administration and think they deserve every bit of criticism they have gotten on fiscal matters. It's one thing to say that divided government will gum up the works and lead to slower spending growth, or to argue that a Republican loss is necessary to send the message to GOP leaders that they need to return to their small government roots, but to go to the other extreme and hold-up Democrats as the great hope for limited government is utterly absurd.
Yes, I'm aware that spending grew at a lower rate during the Clinton presidency, but that had more to do with the so-called "peace dividend" as well as the fact that for a few years, the Republican Congress was at least somewhat serious about reducing the size of government than it did with a desire by Clinton to slash spending. Republicans routinely returned budgets that were lower than
Republicans may have, unfortunately, lost all claims to being the party of limited government, but the philosophy of the Democratic Party is still rooted in big government. While small government conservatives oppose the prescription drug plan because they don't think it should be the government's responsibility to pay for people's medication, Democrats oppose it on grounds that it is a windfall for drug companies. Sullivan, in his recent debate with David Brooks, lamented the growth of unfunded liabilities under President Bush, but when Bush actually made a concerted effort to reform Social Security last year, the Democrats responded with demagoguery, distorting the president's views and irresponsibly downplaying the crisis. Democrats have used scare tactics to block any serious effort at entitlement reform for decades and yet Sullivan wants us to look to the party to save us from Republican excesses.
Check out the proposals of Democrats' "New Direction For America." They include: raising the minimum wage, expanding college aid and passing laws to end "price gouging" by oil companies. They also propose to "fix" the Medicare prescription drug plan to "negotiate lower drug prices" and "stop any plan to privatize Social Security."
Does this sound like the party of limited government to you?
South Koreans Want Nukes
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 1:36PM
My friend Mingi Hyun has some interesting details from Korean language news sources. A new poll shows 65 percent of South Koreans want their country to be nuclear-armed, and nearly as many believe that South Korea's dovish "sunshine" policy toward North Korea has failed.
's 17 former defense ministers have apparently advocated the return of American nuclear weapons to South Korea as a deterrent against South Korea , according to the Donga Ilbo. North Korea They believed the current nuclear debacle to be the greatest emergency for the Republic of Korea since the Korean War of 1950-53, and that the current crisis required the South Korean government to revise its overall national defense system, including Seoul's North Korea strategy and tactical plans. If recent administrations have been competent with regards to their handling of
's national defense, these changes should've already been in the works, if not ready for implementation. From what I've heard in South Korea , 'tis not the case. Seoul Commenting on the ministers' request, a South Korean Defense Ministry official told the Hankyoreh, a left-wing daily, that the physical placement of American nuclear weapons on the peninsula need not be necessary when they could be flown in from elsewhere. Tactically, that makes sense. Strategically? I'm not so sure.
Re: The Stupidest Law
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 1:10PM
Dave, just to add to your post the obvious point about personal liberty: What business is it of government whether law-abiding adults play poker online in the privacy of their own homes? While I disagree with them, people who argue against the expansion of actual casino gambling at least attempt to justify their position on the basis of the "community effects" of casino gambling. But that clearly isn't an issue with online poker.
Full disclosure: My father has worked in the casino industry for over 20 years, though not for any online gaming sites.
The Stupidest Law?
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 12:34PM
While Sarbanes-Oxley probably takes the prize for most destructive law passed under the Bush Administration, today's signing into law of the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" is in the running for the stupidest law. Slipped into the homeland security appropriations bill because it couldn't pass on its own merits, I predict that that enforcing this law will quickly become an exercise in futility, not to mention a waste of law enforcement resources. Of course, it's not like law enforcement has anything better to do.
First, some "full disclosure." I play poker online at home, and will continue to do so. Congress will get the mouse out of my hand when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Yet I take my poker seriously, have learned how to win, and have built up some funds in my account at the site I play at. Thus, since I won't have to transfer any funds (unless I have a terrible run of cards) I doubt this will effect me all that much.
Okay, now on to why this law is just stupid. Internet gambling is a billion-dollar business, and lots of Americans love to do it. Thus, if you think there aren't a bevy of lawyers already scouring the law looking for loopholes, then you are just as stupid as the law. Markets are very dynamic, and they often find ways around laws and regulations, especially when so much money is at stake.
I've read the law (go here, type in HR 4411, and select the "Bill Number" option) and it appears that it only applies to transactions where one of the parties to the transaction is in the U.S. Thus, it seems as though I can't use my bank to send funds to a gambling site in, say, Costa Rica. But what would prevent me from sending funds from my bank to an online account service that is located outside the U.S., and then using the funds in that account to pay an internet gambling site?
Perhaps I'm wrong on that, and if there is someone who is more familiar with the law, please feel free to correct me in the comments section. But even if I'm wrong on that, how would the U.S. Government be able to enforce it? Ban all transactions from U.S. financial institutions to any foreign financial institution that does business with an online gambling site? Good luck with that. Maybe come up with a list of foreign online account services that are known for doing an inordinate amount (however that will be defined) of business with online gambling sites, and forbid U.S. financial institutions from doing business with any institution on the list? Once a business is on the list, the proprietors will simply start up a new one under a different name.
Finally, keep in mind that I'm just one person without a law degree coming up with these ideas. I can only imagine what the folks who do have law degrees and work on this full time are coming up with.
That the sponsors of this law didn't think about that shows just how stupid this law is. Indeed, if stupidity were water, this law would float every riverboat casino in the world.
Gay Republican Outing
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 11:44AM
I've been to the website where Mike Rogers is "outing" gay Republicans. The whole thing makes me laugh.
As the resident evangelical Christian apologist here at the AmSpecBlog, I find it more than amusing that these Democrats actually think we "Christianist" types will curl up in horror and say, "Well, I won't be voting for those Republicans! They have sodomites in their ranks!"
The folks running this scam claim to be "the reality-based community." I'm more and more getting the sense they don't get out much. They certainly must not know many evangelicals.
Here's the primer. Listen up:
We understand that there are such things as homosexuals.
We further understand that they are capable of different political and spiritual viewpoints than the ones you think they should espouse.
We actually know some gay people! Yes, it's true!
Some of us are friends with gay people! Crazy, I know!
It is possible to think someone is wrong about a deep moral and spiritual value and not want to violently rid the planet of them. (Of course, we also understand you disagree on this point and would like to rid the earth of us, violently if need be.)
Please noodle on all this a while. In the meantime, please continue to point out people who are putting their worldview compass ahead of their sexual gratification politically speaking. I applaud them.
Re: Libertarian Voters
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 11:06AM
John, you make a good point regarding the "gridlock vote."
As for the treatment that Boaz and Kirby give to national security, they say that libertarians may move away from the Republican Party "If terrorism is not as critical a decision point in upcoming elections, or if support for Bush's handling of terrorism declines." However, it should be pretty clear that terrorism will be the dominant issue for the foreseeable future, and even if support for Bush declines, libertarian hawks will still gravitate toward the candidate who would be the best on national security, so the economic/social libertarian swing voter won't really be "in play" anyway. Or, more accurately, less votes will be "in play" than Boaz and Kirby suggest.
Armey v. Dobson
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 10:47AM
Dick Armey describes why economic conservatives and social conservatives share a common interest in small government. A taste:
We must avoid the temptation to use the power of government to perfect our society and its citizens. That is the same urge that drives the Left and the socialists, and I can assure you that every program or power we give government today in the name of our values can be turned against us when the day comes where a majority of Congress is hostile to us.
The whole thing is well worth a read.
Hat tip: Ryan Sager.
Does The Left 'Do' Free Speech?
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 8:56AM
Peggy Noonan is on fire this morning. A sample:
What is most missing from the left in America is an element of grace--of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together. The Democratic Party hasn't had enough of this kind of thing since Bobby Kennedy died. What also seems missing is the courage to ask a question. Conservatives these days are asking themselves very many questions, but I wonder if the left could tolerate asking itself even a few. Such as: Why are we producing so many adherents who defy the old liberal virtues of free and open inquiry, free and open speech? Why are we producing so many bullies? And dim dullard ones, at that.
Read it all.
Dude, Where's My Humvee?
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 8:35AM
Canadian troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan have come across quite an obstacle: "Almost impenetrable forests of marijuana plants 10 feet tall," Reuters reports. The soldiers tried to torch them to get at hiding Taliban fighters, said General Rick Hillier.
One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana'."
Re: The Libertarian Vote
Posted by on 10.13.06 @ 1:58AM
Philip: You're right about the libertarian divide on national security, though in fairness to Boaz and Kirby they do cover this in their paper (pdf):
Like other Americans, libertarians who worried most about the threat of terrorism preferred Bush to Kerry. In 2004, according to the ANES data, libertarians accounted for 13 percent of the total adult population of the United States. Of those, half told pollsters that "terrorism" was the most important issue in the last four years. Others were widely split, citing the economy, the war in Iraq, civil liberties,vor other issues as most important. Of those libertarians who identified terrorism as the most important issue in the last four years, 80 percent voted for George W. Bush, while 20 percent voted for John Kerry. Of those who identified anything else as the most important issue, 56 percent voted for Kerry, and 39 percent voted for Bush.32 In other words, libertarians for whom terrorism was the most important issue were twice as likely to vote for Bush. If terrorism is not as critical a decision point in upcoming elections, or if support for Bush's handling of terrorism declines, then perhaps libertarians frustrated with big-government Republicans will be less likely to stick with them on national security grounds. ...(This is followed by a footnote citing Reason's 2004 who-will-you-vote-for symposium.)Anecdotal evidence from prominent libertarians confirms the importance of the issue of terrorism in 2004. Libertarian-leaning Louis Rossetto, who started Wired magazine, intended to vote for Bush: "Bush may bewrong about everything else, but he is right about the issue that matters most for my children's future: stopping Islamic fascism." David Kopel of the Independence Institute said: "This will be the first election in which I have ever voted for a Republican for president. We're in a war in which the survival of civilization is at stake, and Bush is the only candidate who realizes the gravity of the danger we face and who is determined to win World War IV," language echoed by Vermont libertarian author and gadfly John McClaughry. Law professor Eugene Volokh also cited the war on terrorism in his decision to vote Republican.
An issue that Boaz and Kirby don't get into, oddly enough, is what might be called the gridlock vote. There's a line in Table 13 of their paper noting that in a 2000 poll more than half of libertarians expressed a preference for divided government. I'd bet that that number has risen; certainly lots of libertarian who supported Kerry in 2004 made an appeal to gridlock (there was even a graphic going around that advocated ticket-splitting under the slogan "Block the Box"). My hunch is that there's a sizable chunk of libertarians who will vote for a Republican presidential candidate if it looks like there'll be a Democratic congress and vice versa (and that the contapositive holds for congressional races). While these libertarians may be a certain species swing voters, they're not the sort of swing voters that either party can expect to reliably win over.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
The Coming Republican Surge
Posted by on 10.12.06 @ 4:34PM
I'll probably elaborate on this in my column here next week, but for now, let me just note again that I expect Republican fortunes to surge between now and election day. Does this mean I expect a big win for the GOP? No. But it does mean I expect that these elections won't be a total bloodbath. The battle for control of each house of Congress will probably go down to the wire. But watch for an upset in at least one race, by a Republican, to provide a crucial seat in maintaining a majority. Watch, for instance, Randy Graf's race in Jim Kolbe's Arizona district. Or Mark Kennedy for Senate in Minnesota. Or, as I earlier wrote, Santorum for Senate in Pennsylvania. Or Bob Hogue for the House in Hawaii. Or even, in a December runoff, Joe Lavigne against scandal-plagued William Jefferson in New Orleans.
Given Me A Break Marie! Part 2
Posted by on 10.12.06 @ 2:16PM
This is how Coco comes to her conclusion that Americans really want some form of Hillary Health Care:
More than 90 percent of those who participated in community meetings or responded to the commission's questions and polls said they believed every American should have affordable coverage. A clear majority wants a mandated, basic benefit for everyone and is "not comfortable with bare-bones benefit packages.'' There's agreement, as well, that if doing things more efficiently and reshuffling current government subsidies don't generate enough money for expanding coverage then - ahem - people are willing to pay higher taxes. "We found, across the board, that majorities of the population were willing to pay more to ensure that all Americans are covered,'' the commission said in its report.
Ha! Such meetings are always dominated by activists and union members, hardly a representative sample of Americans. As for the polls, this is what I wrote when the Working Group released its report:
The report also relies on some pretty meaningless poll results to support their first recommendation to "establish public policy that all Americans have affordable health care":In the discussion of underlying values and perceptions that began each community meeting, 94 percent of all participants agreed with the statement, "It should be public policy [written in law] that all Americans have affordable health care." Additionally, most respondents to the Working Group's Internet poll strongly agreed (80 percent) or agreed (12 percent) with that statement. People at many of the community meetings expressed the desire for "cradle to grave" access to health care, guaranteed in law.Gee, who isn't going to answer affirmatively that all Americans should have affordable health care? However, any public policy that aims toward that end inevitably involves trade-offs, which a feel-good poll question like that above does not capture. Start asking questions like "It should be public policy that all Americans have affordable health care, even if it means higher taxes," or "It should be public policy that all Americans have affordable health care even if it means government must ration health care," and you might not get quite the 90-plus percent affirmative response.
Coco should look at the times when universal health care has been put to the voters. It doesn't seem to fare quite as well as it does in the polls. In 1994 Californians voted 73-27% against Proposition 186 that would have provided universal coverage in the Golden State. In the state of Oregon -- not exactly red county central -- voters rejected a similar measure even more handily, 79-21%, during the 2002 election.
Coco may think the time is ripe for universal coverage, but the voters have other ideas.
Give Me A Break Marie!
Posted by on 10.12.06 @ 2:09PM
Marie Coco is carrying the water for the Citizens' Health Care Working Group that I blogged about a few weeks back. According to Coco:
More than a dozen years after Hillary Rodham Clinton's grand experiment in reshaping the health insurance system died in a pyre of overheated political argument and hysterical claims, it turns out the public wants pretty much what Clinton tried to deliver: Coverage for all Americans. A nationally mandated, guaranteed set of core benefits to replace the current patchwork that leaves even many people who have insurance with inadequate coverage for some illnesses and treatments. A national policy that refuses to let a family be crushed financially if someone becomes very ill.Hmmm…I wonder if that "body politic" would consider it fair if people who smoke should pay more or people who don't watch their weight should pay more. I'm betting that the body politic would, but I'll further bet that won't enter into any financing mechanism that the Working Group or Coco envisions.All this would, naturally, be financed in a way the body politic considers "fair'' - without creating an undue burden on sick people and in a way that's related to a family's ability to pay. The most popular means of raising additional funds is through "some form of progressive, or 'sliding scale' income or payroll tax (like the Medicare payroll tax) specifically dedicated to supporting health care for all.''
Also, I suppose I should be amazed that Coco thinks she can speak for the entire "body politic" based on the finding of one committee, but then I long ago failed to be surprised by a liberal's ability to claim that she speaks for all Americans. And about the Working Group, Coco states,
No, this isn't a script for a Democratic candidate's campaign commercial. And they're not talking points for an interest group pushing this health care solution or that.These are the conclusions of an official, nonpartisan government commission set up by Congress as part of the Medicare prescription-drug legislation. What the commission now tells us - after taking soundings in 37 states, collecting tens of thousands of responses to polls and written questionnaires and listening at 98 community meetings - is that Americans see clearly what is wrong with the health care system, and have on their own achieved a remarkable degree of consensus on how to fix it.
"Official, nonpartisan government commission"? Puh-leaze! I am amazed that Coco thought she could get that one by her readers. Clearly she's trying to paw off the Working Group as some sort of objective, unbiased group just dutifully doing the nation's business. But as I noted in a press release for the National Center for Public Policy Research,
Members of the Working Group were appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker. As is often the case with government commissions, the Working Group is heavily tilted to the left. Of the 14 participating members, one (Joseph Hansen) is the head of a union, another (Therese Hughes) has been involved with the liberal group Environmental Defense, and another (Deborah Stehr) has served on the board of the leftist group USAction. Another three members - Richard Frank, Frank Baumeister and Catherine McLaughlin - have contributed money to Democratic politicians and organizations. It included not one member of a free-market health care organization.
The Working Group was designed to come up with a command-and-control, government-knows-best approach to health care. "Nonpartisan" is increasingly an all-purpose smokescreen used by such commissions and their apologists to disguise their true agenda.
The Libertarian Vote
Posted by on 10.12.06 @ 1:27PM
Cato has a study up by David Boaz and David Kirby that contains the most thorough analysis I've seen on libertarian voters, including estimates on how large of a voting block they are and how the block is potentially capable of swinging close elections. It is also pretty honest about some of the problems libertarians have in gaining political influence, especially their inability (or unwillingness) to organize. From the abstract:
Not all Americans can be classified as liberal or conservative. In particular, polls find that some 10 to 20 percent of voting-age Americans are libertarian, tending to agree with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on personal freedom. The Gallup Governance Survey consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents giving libertarian answers to a two-question screen.
Our own data analysis is stricter. We find 9 to 13 percent libertarians in the
Gallup surveys, 14 percent in the Pew Research Center Typology Survey, and 13 percent in the American National Election Studies, generally regarded as the best source of public opinion data. For those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, it may be most notable that the libertarian vote shifted sharply in 2004. Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush's margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry. Congressional voting showed a similar swing from 2002 to 2004. Libertarians apparently became disillusioned with Republican overspending, social intolerance, civil liberties infringements, and the floundering war in
Iraq. If that trend continues into 2006 and 2008, Republicans will lose elections they would otherwise win. The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it.
Hat Tip: Hit and Run.
The trouble with the analysis comes when you take into account national security. I'm sure that in just about any quiz you gave me that was limited to economic and social issues, I'd come out as a libertarian because I favor a small government approach in both realms. However, given that I supported both the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, I don't think it's accurate to include me in the same voting block with those who oppose both those policies with fervor. I tend to think of the fight against terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism as an epic battle in history of Western Civilization, but many (if not most) self-described libertarians would say that this is blowing things completely out of proportion. I see the wiretapping program as a prudent measure to protect the nation against terrorist attacks, whereas libertarians who may agree with me on other issues see the wiretapping program as a gross violation of civil liberties.
It would be one thing if national security were a fringe issue, but it is clearly going to be the dominant issue for the foreseeable future and one in which differences are irreconcilable. I think this has two ramifications for the libertarian voting block. 1) The 10-to-20 percent of Americans who may be libertarian on economic/social issues will continue to split into two groups when you take into account national security. 2) Libertarian votes are less "in play" than Boaz and Kirby believe. There is a segment of the libertarian block that is so vehemently antiwar, that they would never vote for the more hawkish candidate, regardless of that candidate's views on economic/social issues. Likewise, hawkish libertarians would not vote for the candidate who is perceived as being more dovish. How large a block of libertarian voters are there who would be willing to set aside disagreements on national security to vote for the candidate who is closest to them on economic/social issues? I'm not sure, but I would surmise that it's a lot less than 10-20 percent.
I think a huge test of this will be how a Rudy Giuliani presidential candidacy is greeted by libertarians, assuming he runs. As far as economic/social issues go, Giuliani is probably closer to libertarians than any potential candidate. However, he has supported President Bush in all of the major national security debates, including the Patriot Act. His record as a crime-fighting mayor was built, in part, on pushing the envelope on civil liberties. All of this would make him unacceptable to many libertarians, despite his record on tax cuts, government spending, and gay rights.
Incidently, Boaz himself was quoted in the September issue of TAS as saying:
"Giuliani pioneered the use of the mid-day, televised 'perp walk' for white-collar defendants who posed no threat to the community, and many of whom were never even charged with a crime," says Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz. "It was a brutal way to treat people who were, after all, innocent until proven guilty -- a combination of demagoguery and prosecutorial abuse that does not recommend him for an office whose executive powers have been vastly enhanced under Bush."
RE: Carter Speaks
Posted by on 10.12.06 @ 11:49AM
Indeed, it looks like no one does take him seriously.
Re: Warner Not Running
Posted by on 10.12.06 @ 10:15AM
That's pretty surprising, if true. I had always thought of him as the most-electable Democrat, and the one with the best chance to beat Hillary. But as you say Paul, it seems that now there's no sense in fighting the tsunami.
No Sense in Fighting the Hillary Tsunami
Posted by on 10.12.06 @ 10:09AM
Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner will announce this morning that he won't run for president in 2008, the Washington Post reports.
Sign Me Up for Mindless Voting
Posted by on 10.12.06 @ 8:51AM
It's the time of year when lots of fellow conservatives will make the case that we should vote for a third party and send a message via Howard Phillips, Pat Buchanan, or the libertarians.
Put me down for voting in the GOP, dissatisfying as it is.
When I worked as public policy director for a conservative advocacy group in Georgia, the state legislature was still controlled by Democrats. In a parliamentary body, it is extremely simple to bury the other sides issues at the committee level, particularly if the petitioners don't have the media on their side. I saw that dynamic up close.
If you register a protest vote and help the Democrats get elected, the entire conservative slate of issues will go underwater and exist in committee and sub-committee purgatory until another change of power occurs.
I'm not in the conservative lobbyist business anymore, but I sure don't wish that frustration on the guys and gals that are. So, I'll just keep pulling the lever for the Elephants.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
A-Team v. Banacek
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 10:31PM
Jed, I'm tempted to defer to you in this battle over classic TV, but I just can't.
The A-Team was one of the most intriguing shows I had ever seen when it premiered after the Super Bowl so many years ago, BUT . . .
If I ever have to watch an elite squad of deadly fellows weld a bunch of scrap iron into armor and rig up non-lethal projectile weapons in order to drive a group of bullies out of a small town ONE MORE TIME, it'll be one time more too many!
However, I DO agree with you that Columbo was the class act of the Movie Mystery Wheel. I've got seasons 1-5 sitting on the shelf to be consumed one by one with the bride on select nights after we put the kiddies to bed.
Re: Tired of Wallowing
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 7:01PM
Hunter: BETTER than the A-Team? Impossible. Yes, Banacek was very good, but didn't come close to Columbo. And better than Hannibal Smith? Not a prayer, sir. Not a prayer.
Tired of Wallowing in Temporary GOP Misery?
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 3:50PM
Then I invite you my friends to take time out and ponder something truly sublime.
I am referring, of course, to the old NBC Movie Mystery Wheel and George Peppard in his prime. No, not The A-Team. Better, much better. Banacek, the solver of impossible crimes and the greatest Polish television character of all time.
After a great deal of pestering from me, occasional TAS contributor and full-time senior editor at the Heartland Institute S.T. Karnick, has finally written a blog post about Banacek and the Movie Mystery Wheel of which it was part.
In his Indianapolis home, Karnick guards his own full-run of the series on VHS from the potential threat of drainpipe climbers and other ne'er-do-wells who might wish to deprive a good man of his innocent pleasures.
RE: Carter Speaks
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 2:58PM
Phil: Does anyone really take him seriously anymore?
The America Show
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 2:53PM
My friend writer/comedian Julia Gorin is developing a version of the Daily Show with a pro-American/conservative bent. She has a sample up on YouTube, and it's viewable here.
I Am a Naked American
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 2:04PM
The AP reports that Scott Blauvelt, a Hamilton, Ohio city prosecutor, was caught on camera walking naked around a government building after business hours.
"Scott Blauvelt is an American with a disability," he said.
Glad he cleared that up, or undoubtedly his naked a-- would have been issued a letter ordering him to show up for a deportation hearing.Sorry, couldn't resist...
Carter Speaks
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 12:54PM
The former President writes in today's NY Times that all was swell in North Korea after he negotiated with the regime:
But beginning in 2002, the
branded United States as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime. North Korea
Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way,
withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices. Pyongyang
Khatami? Khatam you!
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 11:31AM
Responses to my AmSpec piece on Khatami's visit to Harvard have slowed to a trickle, but they're still coming in. Here's one from yesterday:
It would have been better if someone had told Katami that the American Dream, which it seems he admires, was perverted by the Hamiltonians into a trick to thieve the Nation's wealth for the Rich. The World needs to be aware of the maggot that has eaten the heart out of America and brought us all to the verge of final extinction.
Okay, sir, point taken. But does this mean you won't be supporting George W. Bush for a third term?
Onion Layers
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 10:38AM
Russian President Vladimir Putin's comments on the gangland slaying of journalist Anna Politkovskaya are sort of telling in a funny/sad way, methinks:
"We have information, and it is trustworthy, that there are people hiding from Russian justice and nurturing plans to sacrifice someone as a victim to create a wave of anti-Russian sentiments worldwide," he said through an interpreter. "(Politkovskaya) had minimal influence on political life in Russia. This murder does much more harm to Russia and Chechnya than any of her publications."
Duh, world! Look at the evidence! Politkovskaya wasn't important enough to kill!
The Population Blurb
Posted by on 10.11.06 @ 10:22AM
Today's New York Times editorial on America's imminent 300 millionth person spends a good deal of its word count refuting claims in the recent Pat Buchanan book by insisting, "if you take the longer view of our nation, you will see that it has been fed and nourished by immigrants, and has an iron stomach for seemingly undigestible newcomers."
I'm closer to the Wall Street Journal than Pat Buchanan on immigration, certainly, but if the New York Times is going to argue effectively in favor of immigration liberalization, shouldn't they try to couch their descriptions of immigrants in more, um, digestible language than seemingly undigestible newcomers? "You're going to need an IRON STOMACH in the New America!" isn't exactly the most tantalizing pro-immigration argument I've seen.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Cafferty Addendum
Posted by on 10.10.06 @ 5:23PM
UNBELIEVABLE. Cafferty just did a mail call, reading e-mails sent to CNN in response to his earlier commentary. ALL FIVE e-mails he read were harshly critical of Allen. Not a single one said anything positive. So not only did Cafferty get to shoot his angry load at Allen, but he got to reinforce it with five more loads of the same sort.
Mr. Cafferty: You are a louse. At long last, sir, have you no decency?
Don't Quit Your Day Job
Posted by on 10.10.06 @ 5:21PM
Mark Lord, apparently a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, fancies himself a, um, poet.
Jack Cafferty is Horrendous
Posted by on 10.10.06 @ 5:08PM
I just watched CNN's Jack Cafferty, on Wolf Blitzer's "The Situation," do one of the most despicable hit jobs I've ever seen. He ripped into Virginia's Sen. George Allen as if Allen were some sort of David Duke type. He intimated that Allen was lying about having only recently discovered that his mother was Jewish as a child. He made Allen's stock option kerfuffle--a perfectly believable misunderstanding: after all, the options haven't been worth a dime under current pricing--sound like a major ethical violation. Cafferty all but said that Allen is a raving racist. And he said it is unbelievable that such a lout could possibly still be leading in the polls. And so on.
Question for CNN: When, oh when, will you ever let a conservative do such a hit job against a liberal in a commentary during what otherwise is (supposedly) a straight news hour??? Do your producers have even a sliver of character themselves? How can they possibly claim to be fair when they so consistently skew things in the same direction?
It is perfectly possible to present news that fits reasonable standards of objectivity and balance and fairness even if you yourself have strong ideological opinions. The trick is to ACKNOWLEDGE, in your own mind, that you have such a bias, and therefore to double-check everything you do, and even have a good third party also double-check it, to make sure that your bias isn't creeping sub rosa into your coverage. (That's what I did when I was editing a weekly in New Orleans. And not a single liberal ever complained that our straight news items were written with a rightward bias.)
I hereby challenge CNN to let somebody right-leaning balance Cafferty, perhaps on alternating days, in its "Situation" commentary. While I'm at it, I volunteer for the job. And I guarantee that I could do it in a way that, even if liberals didn't agree with what I said, would not strike them--as Cafferty's commentary struck me--as being sneeringly obnoxious and utterly unfair.
Meanwhile, let it be known that Cafferty may be a fine fellow, but he came across today as a supercilious jerk.
Re: 7 to 30
Posted by on 10.10.06 @ 1:00PM
Notice the slick expectations-management on the part of NRCC bigwig Tom Davis:
"If you are a Democrat, you have to like the atmosphere," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), a top campaign strategist for the GOP. Davis said Republicans could lose as many as 30 seats if conditions worsen.As Davis must know, conditions would have to "worsen" quite a bit to make that prediction plausible; as of now a loss of around 25 seats looks like the absolute worst-case scenario. But no matter how bad the GOP is doing, reporters are always eager to believe it's doing even worse, so it was no problem getting the Post to play up a possible 30-seat loss. Now, even in the face of an election night disaster, GOP strategists like Davis can still claim that Republicans have exceeded expectations, and all thanks to the brilliant work of... GOP strategists like Davis.
An Offer China Can't Refuse
Posted by on 10.10.06 @ 12:37PM
Cliff May makes a good point about perhaps the one bit of leverage we have over China:
“If you won't stand in the way of a nuclear
, we won't stand in the way of a nuclear North Korea . Continue along the present course and soon, you will face an Japan Asia where your adversaries are armed with nuclear weapons.”
David Frum touches on this as well in a column for today's NY Times. America certainly would have a partner in Japan's new hardline Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe.
Forget Jimmy Carter
Posted by on 10.10.06 @ 11:55AM
Here's an example of how you get real diplomatic results. In light of this momentus development, Simple Life season seven should be filmed in the Korean Demilitarized Zone with Paris and Nicole each assigned a nation and the ultimate goal of peace.
If Paris Hilton is busy, I thought Doug Bandow's thoughts on the Korean conundrum were pretty good, too, though.
7 to 30
Posted by on 10.10.06 @ 10:55AM
That's how many House seats "Republican campaign officials" expect to lose, according to an article on the front page of today's Washington Post. As far as the debate over whether Republicans would learn their lesson by losing and show a renewed comittment to limited government, the article makes this seem unlikely. Rather than attributing the GOP's bad prospects to abandoning small government principles, the article cites "sustained violence in Iraq and the page scandal involving former GOP representative Mark Foley."
Socialized UFOcare
Posted by on 10.10.06 @ 10:40AM
Following the news that a German lawyer plans to sue the government for compensation on behalf of people who say they've been abducted by aliens, I couldn't help but think that the government would save a lot of money were it to purchase UFO abduction insurance. It's only $19.95 for a lifetime policy!
Nuclear Dud?
Posted by on 10.10.06 @ 10:32AM
In today's Washington Times, Bill Gertz reports that
Either way, this was clearly an intentionally provocative act by
Monday, October 9, 2006
Mosque of the Red Death
Posted by on 10.9.06 @ 5:51PM
Frequent AmSpec contributor James Poulos responds to some of Mike Tucker's contentions in his usual dazzling and erudite way here.
French Marxist Meet Economic Reality
Posted by on 10.9.06 @ 3:57PM
Left-wing French daily's 'last chance' rests with capitalists
Now This Is Funny
Posted by on 10.9.06 @ 3:56PM
From al Reuters:
A German lawyer hopes to drum up more business by pursuing state compensation claims for people who believe they were abducted by aliens."There's quite obviously demand for legal advice here," Jens Lorek told Reuters by telephone on Thursday. "The trouble is, people are afraid of making fools of themselves in court."
U.S. Proposes Embargo, Sanctions...
Posted by on 10.9.06 @ 3:32PM
as part of a proposal to the UN Security Council, the Washington Post reports. But not suprisingly, the Europeans are noncommital and the usual suspects of China and Russia sound like they'll oppose such measures:
's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said China is opposed to the North Korean test and that it is ready to discuss "how the Security Council could react firmly, constructively and prudently with regard to this challenge." Beijing But he declined to say whether
would support a sanctions resolution. "I think we have to react firmly, but also I believe that, on the other hand, that the door to solve this issue from diplomatic point of view is still open." Beijing Russia's initial reaction was somewhat ambiguous. While Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, condemned North Korea for conducting the test, he stopped short of calling for sanctions, saying only that North Korea would "face a very serious attitude" within the council.
Whether sanctions would be effective is debatable, but clearly nothing has a chance of working if China and Russia don't cooperate.
Return of the Internet Bubble?
Posted by on 10.9.06 @ 1:49PM
Don't get me wrong, I think YouTube is great. But is the company, founded in February 2005 and launched just 10 months ago, worth $1.65 billion? Google reportedly thinks so.
UPDATE: It's official.
One More Big Story....
Posted by on 10.9.06 @ 12:34PM
Jed Babbin is correct in his column today that the GOP should be nationalizing its races, not localizing them. Tactically and strategically, Republicans have been idiots all year long. That said, the Foley story hit early enough that it leaves time for AT LEAST one more big story to come out to change the momentum nationally in the campaigns. I actually expect one more big story that works in favor of the GOP, plus a stupid last-weekend effort by the Dems and media that may or may not work.
As down on the GOP as I have been for the past two years (actually, longer) than that, I do expect--just by virtue of the law of averages combined with a sense in my gut--that a big story or confluence of stories will occur in the next three weeks that shifts the momentum back to Republican candidates. It may be that soem Democratic congressmen were getting too friendly with pages (which actually would only have a small electoral impact, because people are already tired of the issue and the blame has already solidified against the Republicans); it may be that allied troops find a chemical weapons stash in the Iraqi desert; it may be that we kill or capture Osama bin Laden; it may be that Bush is mountain-biking in Crawford when he spies an illegal immigrant hustling across the arroyo with a bio-weapons-tipped shoulder-fired missile and Bush himself runs (or cycles) him down, wrestles him to the ground, and beats the bleep out of him, all on camera -- who knows? But something is sure to happen to favor the GOP, which would at least bring its hopes of holding Congress back up to reasonable from highly doubtful.
My sense of things is that the GOP will lose 16 House seats (and thus, barely, the majority) and a net of five Senate seats (a 50-50 tie). But this isn't an official prediction yet, just a sense. And my sense is that CONSERVATIVES (a different species from Republicans) will enjoy at least one surprise victory--Santorum, or Blackwell in Ohio, or Michael Steele, or McGavick, or maybe (on a smaller scope) anti-illegal-immigration candidate Randy Graf in Arizona. Keep watching, especially, Blackwell and Santorum for late surges that make their races into cliffhangers....
N. Korea Flashback
Posted by on 10.9.06 @ 12:32PM
A New York Times story datelined June 19, 1994 began:
Former President Jimmy Carter, back from meetings with the leaders of North and
, went to the White House today and proclaimed that the crisis regarding South Korea 's suspected effort to build nuclear weapons was over. North Korea
How Bad Will This Movie Be?
Posted by on 10.9.06 @ 11:53AM
Heard from a radio ad for Robin William's new pic, Man Of The Year:
Actress playing reporter: Have you given any thought to what the make up of your Cabinet will be?HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Williams: Well, I've always favored hard woods like teak and mahogany.
OHMIGAWD! I didn't see that one coming! ROTFLMAO!
Nuclear North Korea
Posted by on 10.9.06 @ 10:37AM
In July, after
The problem is, there aren't any good options for dealing with
China, the one country that has leverage over North Korea, has consistently protected its neighbor and helped prop up Kim Jong Il's regime, but it called the nuclear test a "flagrant and brazen" violation of international opinion and promised to "resolutely oppose" N Korea's action. It remains to be seen whether that's just all talk.
Sunday, October 8, 2006
Defoleyate the Campaign
Posted by on 10.8.06 @ 7:36PM
Paul: No, no, and no again. The only reason the press can keep this going is that Republicans are all too willingly go along with those allegations. As far as the evidence goes, there was NO sex, there are NO victims, and the whole thing is a sad episode in one sleaze's career. The more Republicans buy into that garbage, the longer it lasts. Time to return to reality. And it's long past time for us to stop serving as enablers of the Dems and media. Let no more be said here about it.
Re: DeFoleyate
Posted by on 10.8.06 @ 5:41PM
Sorry, Jed, but you've got a Republican scandal that features gays, sex, underage victims, all under the liberal Democrat and media microscope. Worse even than stashing money in your freezer. Should be good for at least another week or two of dominance -- maybe longer. Not that I'm happy about that.
Defoleyate the Campaign
Posted by on 10.8.06 @ 4:29PM
Ok, boys and girls: time to Defoleyate the campaign. Napalm the jungle of junk news, drop agent orange on the liberal grapevine that's keeping this side issue on the front page. Real issues, real news, anyone?
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Evolve or Die
- Bowling Alone
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
