- 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 28, 2006
Re: More Michael Savage
Posted by on 10.28.06 @ 2:39PM
Hunter: It's kind of you to remember, but I wasn't exactly interviewed by our friend Michael Savage. In the several minutes I was on his show last year (to talk about Laura Bush's White House Correspondents' Dinner speech, which I had criticized and which Savage was happy to firebomb), I'd say most of it was dominated by his insistent bellowings that barely if at all were reactions to any comment I had managed to get in edgewise. I was rather amused by the experience. I'd compare his shtick to a mixture of fake professional wrestling and Roller Derby. There must be a reason why this fellow chose to call himself "Savage."
More Michael Savage
Posted by on 10.28.06 @ 10:47AM
We need to get Wlady in on this. He was actually interviewed by Savage.
If you listen to Savage much, which I did for a couple of years when he was my drive-time conservative talk radio guy, it's hard to imagine he would ever back Jerry Brown if he was really drinking his own kool-aid. Brown is against everything Savage claims to be for.
You're quite right that Savage is actually Michael Weiner, a Ph.D. nutrition guru from way back and that his old affections could explain his donation to Brown, but I think it just cements the case that "Savage" is a concoction designed to make money and doesn't represent what he really thinks. It's more like he said to himself, "Nobody is doing a really great job of appealing to everyone's worst instincts. Let's have a shot at it and see if there's money to be made." Not surprisingly, there are a lot of dollars swimming at the lowest common denominator.
Re: Michael Savage - Liberal
Posted by on 10.28.06 @ 9:24AM
Hunter, I don't know if I can buy that Michael Savage is a put-on. I do absolutely agree with your description of him, however. I've thought, since the moment I first heard him, "This is what liberals think conservatives sound like." Chalk up his contribution to Jerry Brown to an old-time hippie fondness -- Savage was a health food guru, after all.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Michael Savage: Left-Winger
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 8:36PM
I've always known there was something wrong with Michael Savage's schtick. It's intolerable. He talks like an absolute madman. He is just about as intemperate as you can get and still be on the radio.
Now I know what was wrong. The whole thing is a put-on:
Supporting a candidate out of your own wallet
may be the most accurate gauge of what a donor believes in his
heart. So it should come as a shock to fans to learn where their
hero distributes his own political gifts. Which are not ungenerous.
Just ask Jerry Brown, the decidedly liberal candidate
(pro-abortion, pro-gun control, etc.) for California attorney
general.
As the San Francisco
Chronicle reports,
Savage is a top contributor to Brown's campaign against
conservative state senator Chuck Poochigian. His gift of $5,600,
the maximum allowable under state law, was merited, Savage told
the Chronicle after
being outed. Why? Because "You have to make choices in an imperfect
world."
RIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHTTTTT.
Re: Webb's Eroticism
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 3:19PM
Phil, Larry: We should count our lucky stars we don't live in Iran. Otherwise Allen would have issued a fatwah against Webb -- assuming Allen had survived the fatwahs already issued against him.
The Gathered Storm
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 3:16PM
Dave Weigel takes Rick Santorum to task for speaking of our modern day threats as a "Gathering Storm" akin to Hitler, and criticizes Republicans in general for blowing threats out of proportion. I'm closer to Santorum than Weigel on this one, but I differ with Santorum in that I think it's unhelpful to refer to terrorism as a "gathering storm." Terrorism (and Islamism in general), was a "gathering storm" in the 1990s, but now, we're already in the midst of the storm. Since 9/11, there have been major terrorist attacks in
Weigel complains that "Pro-war Republicans refuse to take responsibility for the conduct of the
Re: Webb's Eroticism
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 2:31PM
Larry, thanks for the clarification on James Webb's novels. My comment was more referring to the erotic parts, which read to me like a cheap romance novel. Looking back at my post, I shouldn't have painted with so broad a brush. I also agree that it's completely silly of Allen to try to make a campaign issue of this.
Toothless Hyenas
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 1:28PM
I am watching the White House press briefing with the incomparable Tony Snow, and I am just amazed at how unaware the White House press corps is that they come across like a pathetic pack of starving but toothless hyenas. Again and again they ask about Dick Cheney's "dunking" comments and insisting that the Veep is endorsing waterboarding (not, as Seinfeld would say, that there's anything wrong with that), and again and again Tony keeps his humor and repeats the rest of the Veep's answer, immediately thereafter, that he does NOT endorse torture. After a while, the viewer is left with this thought: Who the $#&^&*@ cares? I wish all Americans were forced to watch this nonsense. Americans care about providing for their families and making sure they are protected from criminals and terrorists. They don't care whether a "dunk" in the water is the same as or different than a technique called "waterboarding," when the dunkee is a suspected terrorist. Yeah, they don't want anybody subjected to the sorts of painful treatment, the actual torture, that John McCain suffered from in Vietnam -- but they aren't too concerned about bad guys getting wet. They care more about gas prices, and taxes, and safety, and jobs. But the White House press corps absolutely splutters and twists itself in knots trying to score a "gotcha" point against Tony Snow about a wholly, entirely, absolutely, totally unimportant point. To pluralize a favorite Bugs Bunny expression, "What maroons!"
The Tribes Vote -- A Followup
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 1:16PM
In my column of a couple of weeks ago, I wondered which way the political and ethnic tribes of Massachusetts would vote in the gubernatorial election between Devel Patrick, a Democrat and a black man, and Kerry Healey, the Republican Lieutenant Governor, and a woman. The polls have apparently revealed the result.
The tribes have done what they do best, which is get a really good hate on -- for Healey. They're going to show that persnickety Beacon Hill WASP bee-eye-itch,and hand her a 25-point loss. This place! There's a joke about Venezuela, where somebody says to God that he's given Venezuelans everything, resources, mountains, forests, fertile land, the sea, and God says, yes, but I made it up by giving the country Venezuelans. It's kind of like that in Massachusetts, one of the loveliest states in the union, populated some of the grouchiest, nastiest, most narrow-minded people in the country. Who will cut off their noses to spite their faces over and over again.
Re: Webb's Eroticism
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 1:09PM
Phillip, I can only assume you haven't read James Webb's novels. I long ago read and admired every one. He started out as a kind of clumsy tough-guy military writer, and advanced in skill to profound effectiveness, in The Emperor's General. In many respects, his fiction-writing career parallels Joseph Wambaugh's, in whose books you will find many similar images. Why? Because both men were in settings where such things happened, and were said. Nowhere in the criticism of Webb has it been mentioned that almost all the scenes -- especially the ones most emphasized -- take place in third world countries, among third world peoples. These "revelations" show more about the profound illiteracy of most Americans than they do anything else. You want to ask these complainers, "Ever read Last Exit to Brooklyn? Tropic of Cancer? Fear of Flying, for Pete's sake?"
I suppose the novel excerpts may put the last nails in the coffin of the Webb candidacy, but I think it's silly.
Webb's Eroticism
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 11:55AM
Who would have predicted that the latest turn in the Virginia Senate race would be Webb's really, really, bad erotic fiction writing.
Did I mention that he's a really bad fiction writer?
Obama and '08
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 10:01AM
In his Washington Post column today, Charles Krauthammer joins those pundits giving political advice to Barack Obama. The big question, of course, is should Obama run in 2008, or wait another four years so he isn't such a novice? Krauthammer says he should run to gain more experience, even though he'll ultimately lose.
I'm not so sure I agree with Krauthammer. Right now, Obama has a spotless record as this young, fresh-faced politician. Should he run and lose the nomination fight, I think there's a danger that he loses his aura and becomes just like any other politician. Krauthammer says that by running, he puts himself in the position to get a vice-presidential nomination. But I think he can acomplish the same thing merely by flirting with the presidency, which has already generated a lot of buzz and demonstrated his star power, without having to go through a bruising political campaign. By sitting out, he kind of shows deference to his elders, doing something for the good of the party, which I think could be rewarded with a vice-presidential nod.
Of course, my calculation is based on my view that national security issues will dominate the 2008 presidential election, which is why I think that Giuliani can overcome his liberal stances on social issues to win the Republican nomination. If I'm right, then Obama would not have a prayer of winning in 2008 because of his lack of national security credentials.
However, there clearly is a growing section of the electorate that's tired of war and the deep divisions in this country during the Bush presidency. In my view those who don't understand the nature of the threat we face are living in denial, but regardless, there are those who want to return to a world where we aren't in a prepetual state of war. So, for those looking for the antidote to the bitterness of the Bush years, they may find it in Obama, who clearly projects a sort of sunny optimism.
Though I think running in 2008 would be a risk, waiting could also be a risk. If he runs now, he may turn out to be ready for superstardom a la LeBron James, who came from the NBA right out of high school and proved that he was ready for prime time. But if Obama doesn't strike while the iron's hot, he could risk the Matt Leinart syndrome. Leinart, of course, would have been a sure No. 1 pick in the NFL draft in 2005, but by staying an extra year at USC, he dropped to the 10th pick.
As the Cowboys Turn
Posted by on 10.27.06 @ 9:57AM
Doesn't the "Dallas Cowboys" starring Tony Romo sound like a Quinn Martin production?
Thursday, October 26, 2006
TV and More TV
Posted by on 10.26.06 @ 2:56PM
Sorry I've not been posting as regularly as I should. Lots of SGO.
I'll be on CNBC tonight "On the Money" about 1930 EDT talking about China and Friday night on Kudlow (CNBC) about 1730 talking about Rumsfeld and how the war in Iraq is going. Hope you can catch both.
So True.
Posted by on 10.26.06 @ 2:26PM
From Arnold Kling's latest:
We have to expect mediocrity from political leaders. They are selected by a very unreliable process. In general, I try to avoid contact with narcissists who spend their time pleading for money. Those are hardly the intellectual and emotional characteristics that make someone admirable, yet they are the traits of people who go into politics.
Meeting With Bush
Posted by on 10.26.06 @ 1:44PM
Yesterday, President Bush met with eight conservative columnists. Michael Barone recounts it here, and U.S. News & World Report has also posted a transcript and an audio recording.
Racial Politics and Tennessee
Posted by on 10.26.06 @ 12:49PM
Along with other liberals, Josh Marshall is in a tizzy over an RNC ad against Harold Ford Jr. that he calls the "uppity negro ad." But after watching it several times, it's hard to see what he sees. The one part of the ad that has drawn criticism from liberals when a bimbo says she met Ford at a Playboy party and at the end of the ad winks and says, "Harold, call me." The bit is just one part of the ad that also criticizes his positions on wiretapping, gun control and estate taxes. However, to Marshall:
If you watch the ad closely it is clear that the racist appeal -- about Harold Ford having sex with white women -- is the centerpiece, the entire point of the ad.
While the presence of the bimbo is a bit silly, the point is not to be racist, but to convey the hypocrisy of Ford running a values campaign even though he went to a party thrown by Playboy. That's why they also have the guy in sunglasses saying Ford took money from porn movie producers. As Tom Bevan points out over at RealClearPolitics, the fact that the bimbo was white is not because the RNC wanted to be racist, but "only because the 'ditsy blonde bimbo' is a more accurate caricature of what we all picture when we think 'Playboy bunny.'" The whole ad uses caricatures, including the guy talking about Ford's position on guns being dressed in hunting gear.
As if Marshall isn't being ridiculous enough he cites as racist a Bob Corker radio ad in which Marshall claims "jungle drums" are played every time Ford is mentioned. If you listen to the ad closely, you can hear the drums, but they're just a pretty standard beat in political ads to make one's opponent seem more ominous. Not much unlike this anti-Bush DNC ad that
Marshall, meanwhile, uses the Ford-Corker campaign as evidence that the GOP is the racist party:
Again, let's be honest with ourselves. Racism is one of the key building blocks of Republican politics in theUnited States. Don't look at me with a straight face and tell me you don't realize that's true. That doesn't mean that all Republicans are racists. Far from it. It doesn't mean that a lot of Republicans don't wish the stain wasn't part of their party's recent political heritage. They do. But racism and race-baiting is the hold card Republicans take into every election.
Talk about projection. It is the Democratic Party that, when the going gets tough, will always play the race card. No sane person viewing either the anti-Ford TV or radio ads would see the racial overtones that Marshall and other liberals did. But with Ford's chances of victory growing dimmer, the only thing left to do is to cry "racism."
For more on this, see Robert VerBruggen's piece on our main site.
Al Qaeda and Iraq
Posted by on 10.26.06 @ 12:12PM
Al Qaeda expert Peter Bergen argues in today's New York Times that a
Whatever one thinks of whether the War in
Andrew's Hissy Fit
Posted by on 10.26.06 @ 10:21AM
Well, John, you're going to have a much harder time arguing that we should keep taking Sullivan seriously after hearing him on Hugh Hewitt's radio show.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
NJ Supreme Court, Continued
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 5:01PM
I don't see this opinion causing the kind of backlash that would single-handedly save the GOP at the polls, as Mickey Kaus has suggested a ruling in favor of gay marriage might; opposition to civil unions isn't nearly as broad as opposition to gay "marriage" by that name. (It's not hard to see why -- civil unions aren't a sacrament.) In granting marriage rights but leaving the semantics to the elected branches of New Jersey's government, the Court showed the sort of political savvy here that perhaps judges shouldn't have.
From a policy perspective, I sort of hope the elected branches do call it marriage; the spread of new institutions like domestic partnerships and civil unions strikes me as more likely to undermine the institution of marriage than opening marriage to gays. This could cause some legal shockwaves, though; unlike in Massachusetts, there's no law against non-resident marriage in New Jersey, so legalizing gay marriage there is likely to lead to lawsuits in other states. The Lambda Legal lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in this case made it pretty clear during oral argument that he'd like to challenge the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which says that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. I doubt that challenge would succeed in federal court, but the possibility does make the Hatch amendment option that was bandied about a couple years ago seem more attractive.
Shocking Headline? Nope.
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 3:49PM
From a Zogby press release this afternoon:
Arab American Voters in MI, OH, FL and PA Give Dems Strong Nod in Key Races: Voting Bloc Stands to Play Pivotal Role in Tight Races.
Similar trends have recently
been reported with the old "security moms" voting
bloc.
NJ Supreme Court Splits The Difference
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 3:37PM
Here's the ruling in Lewis v. Harris, as paraphrased in the Clerk's syllabus:
Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.In other words, gay couples in New Jersey are entitled to more recognition than they now get under New Jersey's Domestic Partnership Act, indeed to every right that comes with straight marriage-- but the state is not compelled to refer to gay unions as "marriage."
Is It OJ Day?
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 3:24PM
Eugene Volokh comments on "the mental tyranny of legal concepts." It's a very smart post, but I found it a bit unsettling to read Volokh's joke about calling OJ Simpson an "intentional tortfeasor" instead of a "murderer" almost immediately after leaving an OJ-related comment at Chez Poulos.
The Dems Make a Major Mistake
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 3:00PM
At first blush, I think the Michael J. Fox ads on stem cell research scare people on the right. Here we have an actor who is very well liked and sympathetic in his plight making a call for political help.
Don't worry. I'm pretty sure this is going to end up helping the GOP quite a bit. Two related reasons:
1. The Democrats have so far succeeded by existing almost entirely as a protest to the Iraq war which has been costly and semi- (dare I say it?) quagmire-ish. Putting the stem cell issue out on the table is a stupid diversion from a good strategy. Instead of "We're not Bush," they are now saying, "And we want to start pushing the envelope on bio-ethical issues just like we have been on questions of sex."
It's a big reminder of the life issue and whether you believe it or not, that one is becoming a big loser for the left. Pro-life will eventually be what anti-racism became.
2. By focusing attention on stem-cells, the Democrats re-emphasize to evangelicals and Catholics that they'd better not stay at home because of things like Supreme Court appointments. Instead of wondering whether they might send a message to Bush about inadequate attention paid to faith-based initiatives or uneasiness about spending, they are once again focused like a laser on the need to keep pushing against Roe and its progeny.
The Democrats have possibly already blown it in Missouri with this tactic and they may manage to up-end other apparent red-state gains in the process.
Re: The Bush Doctrine And Iraq
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 2:23PM
Not only that, Philip. Contra Ackerman, the case for democracy promotion is not limited to the narrow question of what kind of states directly sponsor terrorism. It also extends to the American interest in reform of the sorts of repressive political environments where radicalism is likely to arise.
By the way, it's quite odd that Ackerman thinks it's really signficant that Kaplan's piece doesn't contain the word "al-Qaeda." Kaplan's reference to democracies' "thin history of exporting terrorism" very obviously does allude to al-Qaeda and similar groups.
The Bush Doctrine And Iraq
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 1:47PM
At TNR, Lawrence Kaplan argues that the Bush Doctrine of preemption, democracy promotion and unilateral action should survive beyond Iraq, prompting Tapped's Spencer Ackerman to criticize the "misdguided but deep belief, as Doug Feith later put it, that 'Terrorist organizations cannot be effective in sustaining themselves over long periods of time to do large-scale operations if they don't have support from states.'" As evidence that this belief is misguided, Ackerman writes: "al-Qaeda doesn't have
However, the question is not whether Al Qaeda is still dangerous – of course it is – but whether President Bush's policies have made it less dangerous. Clearly, Al Qaeda's ability to carry out large scale attacks against Americans has been severely compromised as a result of losing
Sob Story
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 1:27PM
A guy named Michael Bywater has a new book coming saying that we're all "big babies," infantilized, needy, unaccountable, and awful. You would think I would jump up and down about this, because it sounds so right. That I would agree because that's what I say too. But I don't. WHY NOT?
Fox-Limbaugh
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 11:38AM
Michael J. Fox should not be above criticism for the controversial stem-stell research ad for Claire McCaskill, but criticism should focus on the fact that he was being misleading about the science and policy of stem cell research. I think Rush Limbaugh went too far by saying, without any evidence, that, "In this commercial, (Fox) is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act." Even if you were to argue that he didn't take his medication in advance of the ad (which we don't know), that still means that his natural state is to shake, and thus not "purely an act." I think one can acknowledge that someone is truly suffering while still arguing against an expansion of funding for stem cell research on moral grounds and questioning the soundness of the science of stem cell research. And certainly, on that front the ad is shameless by implying that Jim Talent is standing in the way of Michael J. Fox and millions of Americans getting cured.
RE: Perception Can Become Reality
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 10:48AM
I think that the media narrative of an impending Republican defeat can cut both ways. Perhaps, as has been suggested, it will lead conservatives to be dispirited, thus hampering turnout. On the other hand, the constant media harping on how Republicans are going to lose could instead annoy conservatives and motivate them to hit the polls in large numbers to prove the liberal media wrong. Also, one of the primary arguments that Republicans are making in an attempt to turnout the base is to get them to imagine what Congress would be like under the control of Nancy Pelosi and/or Harry Reid. By annointing Pelosi the Speaker with several weeks remaining in the election, the media, in a sense, is already doing half of the RNC's job.
Re: Expanded Definition of 'Defeatocrat'
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 10:37AM
As I mentioned in my previous post, CNN's "Broken Government" series focused yesterday on how Democrats are considered "wusses" and are having difficulty overcoming their defeatest attitude. But little did I know that last night's broadcast on which the network's Web report was based would turn into an hour-long campaign ad for Heath Shuler, who is challenging Rep. Charles Taylor in North Carolina's 11th District. Most handicappers rate the race as a toss-up.
Home Video Boosts Party's Chances
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 10:24AM
In response to my column last week, reader Keith Huylebroeck home-produced this video that seems to me to be as effective a political message as almost any professionally produced commercial I've seen in a long time. One need not endorse the message to recognize its simple and powerful clarity. Very impressive indeed! It makes one wonder why the so-called "pros" are often so unable to understand what makes voters tick.....
'I Can't Come to the Phone Right Now'
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 10:14AM
John Edwards is rarely at the office.
RE: Perception Can Become Reality
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 9:50AM
Shawn: I think McIntyre's theory is a valid one. To the extent that the Democrats can make the "dispirited GOP base" a self-fulfilling prophecy, they will. The more conservatively-inclined voters that stay home, the better for the Dems.
Is the press playing along? Well, just take a look at the Jim
Webb Megaphone the Washington Post. 'Nuff said.
In fairness, it is hard to make something a self-fulfilling prophecy unless it is based on something tangible. Clearly there is unrest in the GOP base this year, and one can hardly blame the Dems for trying to capitalize on it. If it were the Dems who were dispirited, you can be sure the GOP would be trying to take advantage of it--all's fair in love and war and politics.
Re: Sullivan and Libertarianism
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 8:15AM
I'm with you, David. Andrew Sullivan long ago jumped the shark. He cares only about his own sexual desires and placing those desires first in the universe. That's his entire belief system. The rest is just well-educated, energetic verbosity.
October Surprise This Afternoon?
Posted by on 10.25.06 @ 6:38AM
At about 3:00 PM Eastern Time, the Supreme Court of New Jersey will be issuing a ruling in Lewis v. Harris, in which seven gay couples have sued the state, demanding marriage certificates. Judging by the oral argument from February, which you can watch online, the plaintiffs have a very good chance of prevailing. Two of the seven justices asked no questions; if I'm reading between the lines of the others' questions correctly, the state can count on only one vote while the plaintiffs have two for certain and another two that seemed to be leaning in their direction. New Jersey has a reputation for activist jurisprudence, which isn't surprising given that the state's constitution opens with a sweeping declaration of vaguely enumerated rights. The case for gay marriage by judicial fiat isn't really such a stretch in light of declared "natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of ... pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."
This could have profound implications, both politically and legally. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Re: Andrew Sullivanism vs. Libertarianism
Posted by on 10.24.06 @ 11:19PM
David: Almost everyone who supported Kerry in '04 thought he'd be better than Bush on a range of issues, terrorism included. I don't think we can dismiss them all. Sullivan's ideas are well-expressed and widely-diseminated, idiosyncratic yet influential, and very often not only wrong but wrong in an interesting or revealing way. All those things make him well worth engaging.
RE: Andrew Sullivanism vs. Libertarianism
Posted by on 10.24.06 @ 6:22PM
John: Why do you bother to take anything Sullivan has to say
seriously these days? I mean, this is the guy who supported John Kerry in 2004 because he thought
Kerry would do a better job on gay marriage fighting the War
on Terror.
Is This The Best 'Thinking' The Left Has To Offer?
Posted by on 10.24.06 @ 6:08PM
If George Lakoff really wants to turn around the fortunes of the left, maybe he should start by coming up with descriptions of conservatives that are little more than caricatures.
Andrew Sullivanism vs. Libertarianism
Posted by on 10.24.06 @ 4:42PM
Glenn Reynolds cast an early vote in Tennessee the other day. It wasn't clear from reading Instapundit over the past couple months who he was supporting in the Senate race -- he'd been criticized from the right for being too nice to Harold Ford, Jr. -- until he revealed that he'd voted for Bob Corker:
I liked Harold Ford, Jr. when we interviewed him, and I wouldn't shed any tears if he were elected; he'd raise the caliber of the Democrats in the Senate. But when push came to shove, I voted for Corker. I liked him, too, and ultimately the combination of Ford's "F" rating on gun rights and the sleazy "outing" behavior of the Democrats was such that I just felt I had to vote Republican in this race. (In our interview, Corker said he'd look favorably on federal legislation to require states to recognize each others' gun-carry permits.)Andrew Sullivan took this opportunity to call Glenn a GOP stooge and question his libertarianism. Glenn responded by pointing out that on most of the social issues that Andrew cares about, Ford isn't even vaguely libertarian. Andrew's response:
So is Reynolds saying that Corker is more libertarian than Ford on these issues? That's the only relevant question when picking between the two of them on libertarian grounds, and Reynolds ducks it again.Well, no. If a libertarian sees no meaningful difference between the candidates on those issues, he looks at other issues. Andrew has either forgotten or is deliberately ignoring how the exchange began, with Glenn citing "Ford's 'F' rating on gun rights." Andrew might not care about this issue, or even bother to attempt to understand it, but it is generally important to libertarians. (While we're on the subject, libertarians also usually don't like estate taxes, gasoline taxes, and over-the-top anti-drug rhetoric.)
Expanded Definition of 'Defeatocrat'
Posted by on 10.24.06 @ 1:18PM
CNN's Candy Crowley reports today (make sure you watch the "wuss" video segment embedded in the story) that not all Democrats are feeling confident about their election prospects in two weeks:
"Don't underestimate our ability to blow it," he
said.
There is a reason Democrats are on edge. They have
lost so many elections where it seemed they were running with the
wind, the phenomenon is known in political circles as Democrats
"embracing their inner-defeatist."
...CNN asked self-identified Democrats around Miami, Florida, Chicago, Illinois and Los Angeles, California, how they view their party. It was word association, "I say Democrat, you say ... " Not scientific, but instructive.
Here is some of what we heard:
• "Disorganized"
• "Afraid to take a stand"
• "Not giving us anything better to look at"
• "A little soft"
So, 'defeatocrat' is not merely limited to war-related activities, and apparently is not
an obsolete term when connected to the upcoming election.
Our Screwed Up Justice System
Posted by on 10.24.06 @ 12:40PM
Enron's Jeff Skilling gets 24 years in prison. According to Judge Sim Lake, "His crimes have imposed on hundreds, if not thousands, of people a life sentence of poverty."
The problem isn't that Skilling got a tough sentence. Surely he deserved one. The problem comes when you compare that to terrorist-enabler Lynne Stewart:
Southern District Judge John Koeltl gave Ms. Stewart a sentence of only 28 months. The government had asked for 30 years behind bars.Stewart helps a cold-blooded murderer contact his thug minions, but will serve only two-plus years in prison because she's really a nice person who has helped the "disadvantaged" in her life.Weighing in Ms. Stewart's favor, the judge said, were her years of service to the poor, the disadvantaged and the unpopular; her battle with cancer and the fact that her actions, though reprehensible, did not result in violence.
Well, isn't that precious?
Happy Halloween
Posted by on 10.24.06 @ 11:53AM
This e-card from Blue Mountain has been circulating around the Internet. One might say it's Hillar-ious.... Enjoy!
Perception Can Become Reality
Posted by on 10.24.06 @ 11:24AM
Tabin, Hogberg or someone else worth their political handicapping salt could probably work out whether this John Mcintyre theory is valid or not better than I. My instinct on how elections will go is usually wrong, so I'm of little use here. But some of this does seem plausible on a gut level:
This is a calculated tactic on the part of the Democrats that they have been using very effectively as other reporters, pundits and the blogosphere pickup on the headline to play up the story that more and more GOP House districts continue to be thrown into play. This is all designed to build up the impression that the bottom is totally falling out for Republicans. Perception can become reality if the GOP is not careful and Republicans have been behind the eight-ball this entire cycle in managing the public relations campaign.
Ratings Worse Than Kenny Rogers's Hand
Posted by on 10.24.06 @ 7:47AM
Boston Herald sports columnist Gerry Callahan comes up with another gem/zinger in his piece today about that mysterious "clump of dirt" discovered on the hand of the Detroit Tigers' Kenny Rogers Sunday night:
The difference between Kenny and Katie is
that someone actually was watching the pitcher.
Monday, October 23, 2006
The BBC admits...
Posted by on 10.23.06 @ 8:36PM
it's biased. At least according to the Daily Mail.
Hat tip: A Tangled Web.
Over the Eleanor Clift, Through Middle-Class Woods
Posted by on 10.23.06 @ 5:54PM
This interview with Nancy Pelosi from Newsweek is funny stuff:
You're presented as a
wealthy woman from San Francisco when you're really this
middle-class kid from Baltimore
…
Little Italy-downtown
…
I have some sympathy for Pelosi here. It is terribly difficult these days to get the lunkheaded electorate and the poisonous right-wing media establishment to acknowledge you are a middle-class kid from Baltimore when there's this little technicality of being a wealthy United States Representative from San Francisco. Get over it people! She's just like you! I mean, Lawd in Heaven, what's a wealthy woman have to do to earn her Class War Proletariat Points these days, anyway? Dress in the Russian peasant circa 1910 hand-me-downs she wore back when she was middle-class?
How do you get more of
who you are across?
Somebody said to me recently that modesty is a private virtue and a
public vice. You have to self-promote at some point, and that's
probably the hardest part of this job for me. But if we win, I
think it won't be so hard. The spotlight will be there. I've just
got to do the job I do with the respect I have from my
colleagues-they know how impressive I am.
[Emphasis added]
Yeah, it seems extraordinarily tough for her. Somebody let me know when this self-confessed impressive woman actually starts self-promoting. I have a sneaking suspicion that might be quite a show.
Oh, and I wish this had been a "Do-Nothing Congress." If it had, I might actually be looking forward to casting a ballot.
Rest here.
RE: Movie Selections
Posted by on 10.23.06 @ 4:10PM
Guys: Many thanks for the recommendations. As it was, we settled for Bruce Willis's "The Last Boy Scout," which ends with a former all-star quarterback (Damon Wayans) saving the life of a bad guy senator by hitting him in the nose with a hard-thrown football. I think there's a metaphor of the 2006 election in there somewhere.
Re: Movie Selections
Posted by on 10.23.06 @ 3:21PM
Jed: This may be too late to cure those Brunell-induced, Redskins-lose-again blues, but a few titles come to mind: To Hell and Back. Fail Safe (ends with the big one being dropped on NYC); One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; A Tale of Two Cities (ends with the QB's beheading); The Longest Yard (Burt Reynolds version -- a nice prison stint, come to think of it, might be just what Dan Snyder's boys deserve); and finally, Rudy. Word on the street is that its eponymous hero has agreed to be the 'Skins next free agent signing.
Re: Movie Selections
Posted by on 10.23.06 @ 1:43PM
Jed, one of my favorites is The Cowboys, in which John Wayne, as a beleaguered rancher, is forced to take on a crew of boys to drive his cattle to market. The Duke teaches the boys to be men, and the boys ultimately rescue Wayne's enterprise. Very inspiring, directed by Mark Rydell in the best Howard Hawks style.
A Great Constituent Letter
Posted by on 10.23.06 @ 11:50AM
I got this in my email box, and it shows just how stupid the Senate version of the immigrations bill was:
Becoming Illegal (From an Maryland resident to his senator)
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Sarbanes,
As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you. My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted.
If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burden some car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car. If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms.
I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance
Name withheld.
Run Obama Run
Posted by on 10.23.06 @ 11:16AM
The big campaign news this morning has little to do with what is happening around the country in two weeks, rather, what might happen in two years.
Sen. Barack Obama -- he of less than two years experience in the Senate, a couple of foreign junkets, and a couple of books, oh, and some time in the Illinois legislature, don't forget -- was less than coy with Tim Russert on yesterday's "Meet the Press" about a run for the presidency in 2008.
Obama's potential run was given a lift when former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner dropped out of the race, at least for now. So is Obama running or not?
We're hearing from insiders that Obama has at least made some commitments to dip his toe in the water for the 2008 nomination, perhaps not in a full scale campaign, but with something a little less. That said, we're told that more than a month ago, Obama and some key advisers met with pollsters, media consultants and some of his longtime financial backers to discuss a potential run, and the message was clear: "He's going to be doing something, but just how much of a serious, national operation is yet to be seen," says someone familiar with Obama's conversations. "The conversation seemed to focus on needing the resources to mount a credible Iowa and New Hampshire operation, with enough flexibility to move on from there or not.
In the past, Obama and his Senate team have pointedly said that despite his rock star image within the media and the Democrat Party, Obama felt he needed the full six years in the Senate and extensive foreign policy experience to pull off a presidential bid. To date, Obama has done little of substance in Washington, beyond speechify and pose for photos.
It's All About the Benjamins?
Posted by on 10.23.06 @ 12:40AM
Barron's is predicting Republican victories in both the House and the Senate. Why? Well, GOP candidates have raised more money than their opponents, and... that's it. The Barron's analysis is based entirely on fundraising data.
Ramesh Ponnuru is skeptical. So am I; the blithe dismissal of polling strikes me as particularly misguided:
Polls can be far less reliable [than following the money]. Remember, they all but declared John Kerry president on Election Day 2004.It's true that botched exit polls skewed to Kerry, as I chronicled here. But the polls leading up to the 2004 election were actually very useful in predicting the outcome. Bush won with 286 electoral votes; I predicted he'd get 276, and David Hogberg hit it right on the button. How did we do so well? Read the columns for yourself; while we fine-tuned based on our senses of the state of play on the ground in each state, we both started with the state-by-state polling data.
Schrodinger's War
Posted by on 10.23.06 @ 12:22AM
A few days ago Jonah Goldberg wrote in the LA Times that "the Iraq war was a mistake by the most obvious criteria: If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003." But then at the end of his column, he wrote that "if we can finish the job, the war won't be remembered as a mistake." This struck me immediately as a paradoxical analysis. Is it really meaningful to say that the war is a mistake now while conceding that it might not seem like a mistake later?
Jeff Jacoby, responding to Goldberg in the Boston Globe, notes several wars that might have looked like a mistake in the heat of battle, but not like a mistake in retrospect. Perhaps, like the cat that seems to be both dead and alive until its state is observed, the war is both a mistake and not a mistake until we can actually look back on it.
(Of course, it's not even that simple; historians often continue to argue about wars decades and even centuries later.)
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Re: Movie Selections
Posted by on 10.22.06 @ 10:27PM
Jed, try Big Country, with Charlton Heston and Gregory Peck. Western epics just don't get any better. Last I checked, it is also one of those rare, rare films that Wlady hasn't seen.
Myself, I am about to put in Red River, with the Duke.
Movie Selections
Posted by on 10.22.06 @ 7:11PM
We need help. Sharon and I are debating what movie we should watch after the latest Redskins debacle. We are stuck choosing among:
The Titanic (not the Leonardo de Whatever version); They Died with Their Boots On (Errol Flynn, et al); The Alamo (with the Duke) and The Poseidon Adventure (the original, with Shellly Whatsername).
Any better suggestions? Hamlet? King Lear?
- Mission Implausible
- Let's Return to the Gold Standard
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
