- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- 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, November 4, 2006
Compare and Contrast
Posted by on 11.4.06 @ 6:11PM
A reporter being waterboarded by American counterterrorism experts versus the medieval rack picture that Andrew Sullivan likes to post when he's throwing around war crimes charges.
Friday, November 3, 2006
More Pence
Posted by on 11.3.06 @ 4:34PM
I find it amusing that Matt Yglesias has pointed to a column I independently wrote as evidence that "Mike Pence is already trying to gin up support for a leadership bid in the wake of a GOP electoral defeat." Pence may be angling for a leadership post, and I hope he obtains one, but I had absolutely no contact with Pence's people in writing the piece.
More substantively, Yglesias calls the analysis that the Republican Party needs to return to its limited government roots "pretty daft" adding that "if the GOP really does react to defeat by moving in the direction of Pence-ism, I think they'll find it doesn't help them."
Putting aside the fact that that there is a moral case to be made for supporting small government, adhering to a small government philosophy makes for good politics. Ronald Reagan won landslides in 1980 and 1984 by running on a small government platform. Bush I won in 1988 when he ran as Reagan's heir, but lost in 1992 when he broke his tax pledge. The Republicans won control of Congress in 1994 promising "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." Bill Clinton may have won re-election in 1996, but he did so after declaring the "the era of big government is over" and signing Welfare Reform. President Bush may have veered toward big government conservatism in 2000, but he still had to woo small government voters with tax cuts. The post-9/11 elections have been dominated by national security, which has helped Republicans maintain support of conservatives despite big spending, but this year we are starting to see more of an erosion of support for the Republican Party among conservatives as a result of their abandonment of small government. The bottom line is that since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, Republicans have done pretty well running as defenders of limited government. On the flipside, during the same time period, the Democrats have not won a single election running on progressive themes. In fact, the sole Democratic president of the past quarter century was able to win only by sounding like a proponent of small government.
C'mon, who's being "daft" in their analysis?
Haggard Circles the Drain
Posted by on 11.3.06 @ 3:10PM
Now Rev. Ted says he bought drugs but chucked 'em, and met Mike "we got a thing goin' on" Jones for a massage at a hotel. That second claim drew a "silent stare" from his wife.
The truth is certain to come out, but it doesn't look like Haggard is going to be the immediate source.
On Praising The Troops
Posted by on 11.3.06 @ 2:28PM
Ezra Klein, over at Tapped has this to say about
I loathe the tendency -- by politicians and pundits, liberals and conservatives -- to dreamily speak of the great sacrifice, magnificent courage, inspiring intellect, and extraordinary characters of our troops. It's bullshit. And it's bullshit designed to make us feel better, so we don't have to face what we've done to these young people, and don't have to imagine the toll a warzone takes on real humans, rather than imagined supermen.
It would be easy to take the bait and jump on this post as another example of liberals disrespecting the troops and respond with outrage and play the caricature of the foaming at the mouth conservative, but I'm not going to do that. While I do find these comments abhorrent, I think Ezra's post is so misguided that it deserves a more nuanced criticism.
To argue against the lionization of soldiers who are just "kids," Ezra uses the example of a friend of his who enlisted in the army post 9/11:
I had a friend who ended up a biohazard unit during the early days of the invasion. He's an amazing person: gentle, empathic, wise, and courageous. He went to a top college and enlisted after 9/11. He's precisely the soldier we like to describe. But he spent his days terrified, waiting for calls back home, waiting for his tour to close. He performed his duties well and displayed enormous personal strength, but he was just a kid, and his expression of patriotism had landed him in hell. He made that choice, and he bore it well. But he bore it as we all would -- with fear, and imperfection, and frustration, and pain. It wasn't a magnificent experience. It wasn't a war novel.
Though I am one of those who admires the bravery, courage and sacrifice of our troops, I do so not because I am under the impression that they are all superhuman. Quite the contrary. A person is not courageous by virtue of being some sort of fearless Rambo figure--if you aren't afraid, it doesn't take much guts to fight even in a brutal war. In my view, a person is courageous if he feels pain, experiences fear and terror, but fights on in spite of it.
Ezra also acts as if he's breaking new ground with the notion that fighting in a real war isn't like a war novel, as if all of us who admire the troops have some sort of cartoonish view of war. But while he may not realize it, his own argument is so prevalent in popular culture that it is already a cliche -- you can trace it as least as far back as Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory, made in 1957. Yes, there was a time when Americans watched John Wayne movies that glorified the heroic aspects of war, but now, we get films such as Saving Private Ryan, or, more currently, Flags of Our Fathers, that seek to portray the horrors inherent even in "good" wars such as World War II.
Ezra really misunderstands what people have in mind when they praise our troops. I admire the troops not out of ignorance that they're just human, but precisely because I know they are just human. I admire them not because I think war is glorious, but because I know it is hellish. Ezra may argue that I feel the way I do to somehow absolve my guilt for supporting the use of the military to defend our nation, but there's a reason why I support a volunteer army rather than a draft.
Re: Convenience Voting
Posted by on 11.3.06 @ 2:23PM
Well, I can attest to the trend. I just voted absentee at our Town Clerk's office, dead easy, for no better reason than that I'm driving south to play golf and grab some warmer weather next week.
Any AmSpec golfers in the Fairfax, Virginia area on for a round?
4.4 Percent
Posted by on 11.3.06 @ 12:57PM
That was the ridiculously low unemployment rate for October--the lowest rate in five years. It corresponds with a booming stock market, low inflation, and solid economic growth. In addition to low unemployment, wages are up enough to trigger fears of inflation:
Workers' average hourly earnings climbed to $16.91 in October, a sizable 0.4 percent increase from September. That increase was bigger than the 0.3 percent rise economists were expecting. Over the last 12 months, wages grew by 3.9 percent.
Growth in wages is good for workers, but a rapid and sustained advance makes economists fret about inflation flaring up. That's not good for the economy or workers' pocketbooks, ultimately, because inflation can eat into everybody's buying power.
Shakespeare on Haggard
Posted by on 11.3.06 @ 10:58AM
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven;
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,
And recks not his own rede.
Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3
Yes, I know, thus far Ted Haggard has only been accused of having an affair with a male escort, but it's a great quote to keep in mind as the story unfolds. I think the fact that Haggard resigned without denying the allegations and said he would "seek both spiritual advice and guidance" makes it likely that the allegations are true. And according to one report, he has already admitted at least some of the allegations.
This story will get a fair deal of attention because of the hypocrisy angle and because it fits into notions about people who publicly condemn homosexuality being privately homosexual. But I've yet to see a good argument for how it could affect any elections. The idea that Bush consulted him on occasion doesn't mean much politically, as the President consults with a lot of people. It would be a different story if Haggard were actually part of the Administration of if he held some other official political office.
Foreign Health Care Sucks
Posted by on 11.3.06 @ 10:49AM
For something non-election, see my editorial in the Examiner today.
There They Go Again...
Posted by on 11.3.06 @ 10:20AM
The AP reports:
test-fired dozens of missiles, including the Shahab-3 that can reach Iran , in military maneuvers Thursday that it said were aimed at putting a stop to the role of world powers in the Israel Persian Gulf region.
Those who choose to downplay the threat of Iran argue that there is no evidence of a military buildup in the Islamist state. I guess this was just some Persian equivelent of a July 4th fireworks display. Also worth noting that the type of missiles being fired are believed to have been obtained from North Korea. Remember that whole silly Axis of Evil thing?
Politics is Combat, Not a Playground Game
Posted by on 11.3.06 @ 8:19AM
Dr. James Dobson has alleged that a male escort who claims he had an affair with National Association of Evangelicals leader Ted Haggard timed his announcement to affect Tuesday's election.
Well, Dobson is right -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Dressed to Kill
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 11:59PM
Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh disagree over whether a suicide bomber costume is offensive at a Halloween party. Submitted without comment (and with thanks to a friend with a long memory): The Iraqi insurgent costume that American Prospect scribe Matt Yglesias donned two Halloweens ago.
Rudy and NH
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 4:13PM
Rudy Giuliani's scheduled appearance at New Hampshire's "First in the Nation Forum" is a sell-out:
"After the response to our initial announcement, we expected strong turn out, but New Hampshire is so accustomed to national political figures paying us a visit, that you usually end up selling tickets at the door," said Harry Levine, co-founder of Victory NH, "but when America's Mayor comes to town to help protect America's Primary, the people of New Hampshire know this is one event they don't want to miss."
Re: The Conservative Vote
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 2:49PM
My first thought is, I wouldn't be surprised if some conservatives deliberately mislead pollsters about their voting intentions. Knowing the history of the mainstream media to get things wrong, a number of poll respondents might not mind helping them get it wrong again. It's tempting to do so when the MSM loves to ask questions to elicit the answers they want, then turn them into front page news, using them to bash conservative policies and people.
Re: Running Against San Francisco
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 2:37PM
One example of a Republican candidate tying Pelosi (and Hillary and Dean) to his opponent is here in North Carolina, where 11th District Rep. Charles Taylor is defending his seat against former NFL quarterback Heath Shuler. This particular ad has the look of desperation, however. Shuler has led polls for a while now and most pundits have the race at least "leaning" Democrat.
The Conservative Vote
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 1:45PM
According to exit polls, President Bush received 84 percent of the conservative vote in 2004. A new NY Times/CBS News poll finds that just 59 percent of self-described conservatives plan to vote for the Republican House candidate in Tuesday's elections, with 25 percent saying they would be voting Democratic and 16 percent undecided. It's hard to know how seriously to take these results. For instance, perhaps some conservatives simply say they'll vote Democrat in a poll just because they're frustrated, even though when push comes to shove, they'll vote Republican. But this could also be a sign that the much-publicized disenchantment among conservatives will indeed hurt the GOP.
The Message about Marriage and Law
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 1:36PM
When I was with Georgia Family Council in the first years of the millennium, we spent a lot of time trying to show people the value of marriage and the intact family as social institutions. In other words, marriage is better than divorce. Marriage is better than living together. Having children with both parents present is superior to the alternatives. There is a strong statistical case to be made for all of the above.
I'm happy to report that more influential persons seem to be picking up the case in Georgia. Check out this excerpt from a Washington Post column by Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears:
These figures are typical of what is happening in every state. For judges, they represent a difficult workload. For families, they represent an astonishing level of necessary but intrusive government oversight. For government, they represent a mountain of resources that could be used for other purposes. For children, they are a tragedy.
As a judge I am often frustrated that I must work within a system designed only to pick up the pieces after families have already fallen apart or failed to come together. We must work to prevent family fragmentation, because the consequences for children and society are severe.
If we look for solutions, we will find them. What we do not yet know how to accomplish, we can learn. Americans believe that problems, no matter how difficult, should be addressed and not merely endured. Whether it is racism, crime or poverty, Americans believe that we can find ways to make a difference. Accepting the decline of marriage as inevitable means giving up on far too many of our children. They deserve better than that.
Re: Running Against San Francisco
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 1:32PM
Philip, I would tend to agree with you, but I also think there are a few achievements the GOP can run on, as Cal Thomas discusses in his column today:
Cal also cites Vice President Cheney, who makes some good points on the economy. He concludes by writing, "conservatives should vote Republican and then work to continue advancing conservative goals. Those goals are more likely to be reached under Republicans than under Democrats."
Re: Running Against San Francisco
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 12:49PM
Paul, I think the strategy of running against Nancy Pelosi, and by extension,
Convenience Voting
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 12:14PM
Regarding the panel I mentioned below, it's also worth noting some of the comments made by John Fortier, author of Absentee and Early Voting: Trends, Promises, and Perils, who discussed the evolution of the trend of so-called "convenience voting." Up until the late 1970s/early 1980s, a voter had to either be in the military or give an otherwise compelling reason to vote by absentee ballot. In addition, absentee voters had to have a notary public watch them fill out the ballot and sign on to it. But those restrictions went away and in the 1980s absentee voting became more about convenience. The convenience voting trend grew in the 1990s with the expansion of early voting. In 1980, 5 percent of the public voted before Election Day, but in 2004, about 25 percent did. In Oregon, everybody votes by mail because the state did away with polling places altogether. Some voters send their ballots in as early as September, meaning that they miss out on a significant amount of election news, including candidate debates. Also, according to Fortier, there's no evidence that convenience voting boosts turnout. Fortier argued that from a civics standpoint, we lose a lot from moving away from Election Day in favor of a system of convenience voting. Nonetheless, he acknowledges that the practice is here to stay, and believes that if we have to choose one or the other, a short period of early voting is preferable because at least if it's done at a polling place there's less opportunities for fraud, or for mistakes, such as ballots being lost by the post office. Either way, it's definitely a discussion we should be having now, rather than when in the midst of a nasty disputed election.
Carry the Day
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 12:05PM
Two interesting things in Howard Kurtz today. He agrees with Power Line's John Hinderaker's "fault[ing] The Washington Post for not front-paging" the Kerry stuck-in-Iraq story. (Not that Kurtz's clout at the Washington Post could compel it to run the bias-testing "Halp Us Jon Carry" photo in today's edition.)
Second, Kurtz includes an ample excerpt from a Daily Kosser's defense of Kerry. It amounts to an attack on all Bush administration officials and defenders who haven't served in the U.S. military. Among those faulted: Condoleezza Rice and Ann Coulter. Now that's a new standard: Chickenhawkettes? Should they have risked having James Webb attack them as horny? And where does it leave Democrat women, say, Hillary, who has set her sights on the post of Commander in Chief? So far as anyone knows, she didn't even bother to join the Arkansas National Guard. Of course, it's possible she was part of the Nepalese military escort that accompanied Sir Edmund Hillary up Mt. Everest. There are also rumors she served with Rommel in North Africa.
Florida Redux?
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 12:05PM
Yesterday I attended an AEI panel on John Fortier's new book Absentee and Early Voting: Trends, Promises, and Perils. John Fund spoke, and expanding on his OpinionJournal article from earlier this week, he argued that it's possible we may have a "November Surprise" in which the outcome of the election isn't known for days or weeks after Election Day. He pointed out that Congressional Quarterly, which has a solid track record of accurately predicting the outcome of midterm elections, has projected control of the House coming down to 18 tossups and Senate control depending on 3 tight races. Because of the prevalence of absentee voting, it could be a long time before we know the outcome. For instance, in
Though Fund paints a frightening picture, it would still take a dozen or so seats to be really, really, close in districts with a significant amount of absentee voting for a worst case scenario to occur. It is, however, worth preparing for the possibility. Obviously, we'll know more a week from now, but if Fund's nightmare scenario becomes reality in the current environment, it will be an even uglier scene than in 2000. While it didn't seem so at the time, we were living in a relatively benign political climate back then. After the memory of
Would Al Gore Kill Stem Cell Research?
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 11:27AM
In the late seventies, Rep. Al Gore Jr. was the leader in pushing for the elimination of any kind of buy/sell market in the United States for human body parts. While there are obviously two sides to this ethical question, it is also obvious that many people have died in the last 40 years who would have lived with a purchased kidney, etc.
Now - in 2006 - Tennessee has an embrionic stem cell measure that will empower women to sell their eggs for research. Who - other than the economically least fortunate - will participate in this?
So - does Al Gore support the embrionic stem cell initiative in his home state?
Elections and Foreign Policy
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 10:38AM
Robert Kagan has a thoughtful piece in today's Washington Post arguing that whether or not Democrats win, the U.S. probably won't withdraw from Iraq or back off from international entanglements in general. Among the points he makes:
Indeed, the preferred European scenario -- "Bush hobbled" -- is less likely than the alternative: "Bush unbound." Neither the president nor his vice president is running for office in 2008. That is what usually prevents high-stakes foreign policy moves in the last two years of a president's term.
I have always taken that into account when considering whether or not the U.S. would take military action against Iran. Under the circumstances that Kagan lays out, it's possible that with nothing to lose in 2008, President Bush would authorize air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
A Product of Her City
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 9:25AM
The New York Times reports today that some Republican candidates are trying in their advertisements to invoke the idea of boogeyman Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the next House Speaker. Some interviewed for the article -- including Pelosi herself -- say it is a likely-to-fail strategy, because few people in the country know who she is.
But they know what San Francisco is, which is why it just might work.
That's So Yesterday
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 8:54AM
Kerry apologizes? That's old news, not even worthy of the front page of The New York Times. Instead, it's time for the mainstream media to change the subject!
Reaction to Romney
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 8:34AM
George Will may think Mitt Romney "will emerge from this bruising (election) season with enlarged prospects" (no, not a Mark Foley line) for the presidency because of Sen. George Allen's missteps on the campaign trail, but the Massachusetts governor got booed in his home state yesterday at a Red Auerbach tribute.
I know, I know, it happens all the time to politicians at sports-related events...
The Next Tancredo?
Posted by on 11.2.06 @ 8:19AM
Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia, in a Washington Times article today, makes some reasoned arguments for more manpower at the border with Mexico. He wants President Bush to deploy 50,000 troops to the southern and northern borders:
Mr. Norwood...said Mr. Bush's deployment in May of 6,000 National Guard troops on the southwestern border is a "weak response" to the flood of illegal aliens....
Mr. Norwood's staff helped in a House investigation last year that found the government could sustain the Minuteman Project's success by deploying 36,000 to 48,000 National Guard troops or state militia on the border to work with the U.S. Border Patrol. He said Mr. Bush "could make it happen" with an executive order.
And can we please stop hearing from the "fence won't work" red-herring specialists who act like immigration reformers play only that single note?
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
Speaking Of Kerry
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 10:42PM
Wow! Go here and look at all the Democrats finally doing the right thing and criticizing one of their own.
You'd think there was an election or something.
Kerry May Not Save The GOP
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 10:33PM
Also, said friend told me he was at a party for GOP volunteers where the mood was quite glum. Lots of dispirited people complaining about Iraq, gay marriage, immigration, and spending. Some were declining to volunteer this time around on election day. Others were looking foward to 2008.
The party ended early.
The Law Of Unintended Consequences
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 10:25PM
A friend sends me the link to this article:
Reps. Christopher Shays, Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons - GOP moderates in a Democratic-leaning state - have been on everyone's vulnerable list for months. Democrats need to gain 15 seats to win the House, and the three Connecticut districts consistently have been part of the calculation. Lieberman has the support of 73 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents, according to a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday. Schlesinger trailed far behind in single digits in the head-to-head matchup. Lieberman's coattails could carry the GOP incumbents to re-election and undercut Democratic hopes of majority control of the House. "It does help me," Shays said in a recent interview. "I know there will be a lot of Republicans who will vote for him, as well as a lot of independents and Democrats. ... Joe is the kind of person who reaches across the political divide, and I am like that as well."
Said friend writes:
SO ... a Lieberman victory could mean that the GOP retains control of the House ... IF SO, then we can thank the fact that Lieberman had to run as an independent because Ned Lamont beat him in the primary. Otherwise, Lieberman would have had a ho-hum, ordinary Democrat incumbent race ... THAT BEING THE CASE, we can thank Daily Kos for that, since he boosted Lamont enough to make him a contender in the first place ... IF THIS COMES TO PASS, watch Kos's head explode on Nov. 8 as he learns that he is personally responsible for the GOP retaining control of the House ...
Re: Delay
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 9:00PM
Yes, the article I linked to described the write-in procedure as well, and you're right, most likely it's too complicated and Republicans will lose the seat. But the conventional wisdom has been that the seat is a sure pickup for Democrats, so I found it worth noting that a Gibbs win is within the realm of possibility.
IF DEMS WIN – GAS INSTANTLY WILL BE $7 per gallon
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 7:32PM
ATT MR. and MS. MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY
Would gas at $7 per gallon - jumping up all at once - influence your lifestyle?
If so - be worried - because $7 / gallon is roughly the monetized equivalent of letting the Democrats allow the Bush's tax cuts to sunset out.
Figure one thousand gallons of gas per year, and figure a tax rise (including vanishing child tax credits) of $4,000. Place those four thousand dollars onto the thousand gallons of gas and - voila - you have $7 at the pump.
Be warned.
Re: Delay's Seat Up For Grabs?
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 7:07PM
Phillip: In theory, the seat is up for grabs. In practice, I doubt it. The mechanism for casting a write-in vote, explained here, is just way too cumbersome. (Since Sekula-Gibbs had to drop the hyphen from her name in campaign materials to accomodate the voting machines, why didn't she go ahead and campaign as the easier-to-spell Shelley Gibbs?)
Kerry Apologizes
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 6:51PM
This is about as good as could have done. I think this story is pretty much over, in the sense that there's nothing much left to put Kerry or other Democrats on the hot seat over. But it may have some lingering electoral resonance; Kerry really pissed off a lot of people (particularly people in military families), and reminded them why they don't quite trust the Democrats. Perhaps enough of them will be motivated to turn out and punch the "R" to make a difference somewhere.
Delay's Seat Up For Grabs?
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 5:51PM
In other news, Perry said that he thought Republicans actually had a chance of winning the Tom Delay seat, and he cited the recent Houston Chronicle poll. That poll found that 35 percent planned to vote for a write-in candidate, which was statistically even with the 36 percent who said they would vote for Nick Lampson, the Democrat. Most of those saying they would support a write-in candidate identified Republican Shelly Sekula-Gibbs as their choice.
Gov. Rick Perry
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 5:49PM
In this morning's edition of The American Spectator's Newsmaker breakfast, Texas Governor Rick Perry spoke, and spent most of his time discussing his initiatives on border security, Operation Linebacker and Operation Rio Grande, which he called a "blueprint" for how to effectively patrol the border. Perry said that since beginning the initiatives last year,
As far as his own re-election, he was confident that he would prevail in a crowded field that includes Kinky Friedman, and the polls back him up. He was also optimistic that he would receive the highest Hispanic vote of any Republican gubernatorial candidate in the history of the state, explaining that his border security initiatives have actually helped him in this regard by reducing crime in Hispanic neighborhoods.
Re: Kerry & the U.S. Troops
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 4:38PM
Don't forget what Kerry had to say about the troops almost one year ago on "Face the Nation:" "...and there's no reason...that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids, children, women...."
The French Love Affair With Mickey Rourke
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 2:16PM
It looks like there's going to be a movie made based on a treatment novelist Jim Thompson wrote on commission for Stanley Kubrick, which is pretty cool. The New York Times tells the story:
There were a couple of false starts. Mr. Hobbs originally approached the French company Pathé - partly because the French hold Jim Thompson in the same esteem as Edgar Allan Poe and Mickey Rourke...Wait, what?
Obviously, this is supposed to say Mickey Spillane. How did that slip past the Times proofreaders? The web edition even has a link to Mickey Rourke's filmography.
"Yeah Man, You're Looking at Big Daddy"
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 1:41PM
Sen. Robert Byrd is apparantly now doing public appearances while stoned out of his mind.
(I'm not entirely kidding, by the way. Byrd's health can't be great, and there are a number of medical conditions where a doctor will say "You can't tell anyone I said this, but smoking some pot might help." I find it discomforting to think that a U.S. Senator would act like this without being high...)
GOP Strategist Castrates Balz
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 11:51AM
I am all for journalists using anonymous sources in appropriate circumstances, like when they are unable to obtain important information otherwise for stories that hold government accountable. But The Washington Post's Dan Balz, in an election "analysis" piece (not labeled as such, at least on the Web site) that discusses whether President Bush is a boon or a drag on the Republican ticket, unnecessarily and annoyingly grants anonymity to a source.
Why in the world is a Republican strategist so important to a story that he must be given anonymity to get his honest views? Surely there are other knowledgeable conservatives out there who would be willing to say something similar.
What's worse about this is "mainstream" newspapers like The Post and The New York Times often will find one or two moderate or liberal Republicans (like Christopher Shays, Lindsay Graham, John McCain -- you know the usual suspects), get them to say something negative about the president or about the party, and then portray it as legitimate rebellion or a trend within the party that is disturbing to its leadership.
So in this case, the anonymity of the GOP "strategist" enlightens no one. Where is this person in the Republican tent? Is he (or she) a mainstreamer? A conservative? A liberal? A malcontent? I guess we'll never know.
And I Have No Sense Of Irony
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 11:12AM
Reading this article in the New York Times (hat tip: Best of the Web), I couldn't help but recall this passage found in a personal ad on a dating website that I saw a few weeks back:
I am open minded, independent, appreciate different cultures, and love a good political conversation. But...if you are conservative and pro-war, then don't bother.
AARP Lies Again
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 10:16AM
I've noted before the AARP's decpetive tactics. The WSJ catches them again.
Re: Kerry and U.S. Troops
Posted by on 11.1.06 @ 12:26AM
Since I spend a lot of time in this space explaining how Andrew Sullivan is wrong, it's worth acknowledging when he gets something exactly right:
What Kerry said he must apologize for. Sooner rather than later. He may not have meant it the way it came out. That doesn't matter. It's wrong to talk about the military that way - wrong morally, empirically and ethically. And the way he said it can be construed as a patronizing snub to the men and women whose lives are on the line. It's also dumb politically not to kill this off in one news cycle. Is Kerry not content to lose just one election? Does his enormous ego have to insist on losing two?Meanwhile, Tom Maguire carefully explains (scroll down to "FROM HOTLINE:") why, while it's probably true that Kerry merely botched a Bush-is-dumb joke, it's not crazy to think that Kerry might say something that meant exactly what it sounded like he meant. Maguire's argument is bolstered by the various lefties who have reacted to this by saying things that sound a lot like "well of course people in the military are less educated than regular people like you and me."
Those with long memories will remember a flap about a decade ago when Donna Shalala said that those who served in Vietnam weren't "the best and the brightest sons." The condescending view of the military as a victim class runs deep on the left, and those who hold it are often baffled when it makes people angry.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
She Didn't Think This One Through
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 3:06PM
The Washington Post's Lisa de Moraes reports today on Oprah Winfrey's latest "giveaway" to one of her studio audiences. In the past she has lavished automobiles and diamond watches, but she called this her "favorite giveaway ever." This one placed a $1,000 debit card in the hands of each audience member, but there was a catch:
De Moraes took notice of the obvious audience letdown.
"That's the feeling I want to pass on to you. I want you to have that feeling this season," she said.
But wait, there's more.
"To document your good deeds,
because I want to make sure you document your good deeds," Oprah
said, working hard to keep up their spirits, "we are lending
everybody in this audience our favorite Sony DVD
Handycam.
Lending a Handycam? Couldn't that at
least be the consolation prize for being the vessels for someone
else's charitable deeds? Others got to walk away with Pontiacs or
iPods; these ladies get to return a camcorder along with the
feeling that they were just a delivery stooge for generosity that
originated elsewhere (and not even with Oprah, by the way).
Democrat Goose
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 2:25PM
Maybe John Kerry would have been better off donning hunting gear and bagging some goose in Ohio. Instead he shot himself in the foot and his beloved party -- right between the eyes. But JFK remains a gift that keeps on giving in other ways too. His first explanation was that he was actually referring to Bush, ha, ha, a rather stupid thing to say if only because Bush had better grades than Kerry at Yale. Now he's apparently revised that to say it was all a joke. In other words, it was something he picked up last Christmas in Cambodia. Who needs an Osama intervention when we have John Kerry reporting for duty instead?
Re: Kerry and U.S. Troops
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 2:20PM
This is the real John Kerry, everything anyone needs to know about the man. His defenders will be out any moment to claim that what he said wasn't meant to slight the troops, and Kerry himself will respond with his usual weasel qualifications, but it's there for anyone who wants to listen.
This goes beyond the traditional lefty critique of military service as class-based victimhood. Instead, Kerry places the "blame" for being a soldier on the troops themselves: if you hadn't been out drinking beer and chasing girls all the time, loser, you wouldn't be worried about IEDs right now. You'd be doing something really useful to humanity, like writing ad copy or studying post-structuralism. You'd probably be invited to parties where you could talk about global life expectancy charts, early child learning, and global warming. Your life would have attained the highest desirable state, that of complete removal of all risk and danger and the pursuit of abstraction. Your hands would be soft, your skin fully moisturized, and your fiber intake right where it needs to be. Instead, you threw it all away.
When Kerry is comfortable enough, he says what he truly means. He said it to Matt Bai of the New York Times during the 2004 campaign, when he longed for the days when terrorism was a mere "nuisance." Those tranquil days of yore, when handicapped passengers were pushed to their deaths into the sea and 242 U.S. Marines were killed in their barracks.
Of course, they wouldn't have been there if they had only made "an effort to be smart."
Kerry has swift-boated himself.
GOP's Bad Coverage
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 1:45PM
Unless you've been traveling the hinterlands with Borat the last
few months, you probably already know what the Center for Media and Public
Affairs is confirming today: that coverage of Democratic
candidates during this campaign season is overwhelmingly favorable to them. Among the
findings, as reported by USA Today:
- Seventy-seven percent of on-air evaluations of Democratic candidates and members of Congress were positive during the first seven weeks of the campaign. Only 12 percent were favorable towards their Republican counterparts.
- Coverage has been dominated by two major themes: the effects of the Foley scandal, and the impact the Bush presidency is having on the party's congressional candidates.
- Because of the focus on Foley, the re-election race of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was featured in 42 stories. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was featured in 10 stories, even though he's not up for re-election this year. Sen. Hillary Clinton's possible 2008 presidential run was grist for nine stories.
The media really has kicked their efforts into higher gear in this go-round.
Kerry and U.S. Troops
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 1:08PM
I'm sure by now most readers saw John Kerry's comments:
You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in
Iraq.
In case you haven't seen the video, you can watch it here.
What struck me about this comment beyond the obvious fact that it is insulting to our troops, is just how politically incompetent John Kerry is. Here we are, a week before Election Day, Democrats are favored to win back control of the House and possibly the Senate, so you'd think it would make sense for the party's leaders to play it safe. Republicans have tried very hard to convince voters that Democrats don't support our troops, a charge that Democrats have been countering by saying that they do support the troops, only that they oppose the war and want to bring the troops home. But in this video Kerry, the party's most recent candidate for President and one of it's most recognizable figures, is out there calling troops fighting in Iraq a bunch of morons. The RNC should run an ad featuring this video in every competitive race in the country. Just like his "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" helped Republicans portray him as a flip-flopper, Kerry's recent remark succinctly captures what Republicans have been trying to say about Democrats all along--that they are anti-military and can't be trusted on national security.
Bloomy and '08
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 11:56AM
Bold prediction: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will not be our next president.
Richard Cohen has a column in today's Washington Post speculating that the billionaire "might" run, and he bases this on some groundbreaking investigative reporting:
I say "might" because Bloomberg has gone from the firm "no" he offered me some months ago to a more intriguing "I'm considering it" that he offered someone I talked with recently. Indeed, among this city's moneyed, journalistic (not, alas, the same thing), entertainment, financial and other sorts of elites, there are always one or two at the table who say, with great solemnity, that they happen to know Bloomberg will indeed run for president as an independent. Knowing my duty, I called the Bloomberg people and asked if that is the case. By press time, as they say in the movies, I had yet to hear back. I take that as a wobbly affirmation.
It's difficult to think of a candidate that would have less appeal to anyone than Bloomberg. He's a tax-raising lifelong liberal Democrat, which would mean he could forget conservative votes, and having governed as mayor with an R next to his name would turn-off many Democrats. His crusades against smoking and trans fats won't endear him to any libertarian voters either.
Cohen argues that Bloomberg could do better than Ross Perot did in 1992 because he's richer than Perot and "sane" rather than "deranged." But there's a huge difference between 1992 and 2008, and that's national security. Bloomberg has absolutely nothing to offer on that issue whatsoever.
Bloomberg is a gambler, Cohen says, which means he may just be willing to bet a half a billion of his fortune on a longshot presidential run, just like he spent $74 million and $84 million in his 2001 and 2005 runs for mayor. But clearly, running for mayor cost much less money and offered a far greater chance for success than a bid for the presidency. He may be a gambler, but he's also a businessman.
Re: 1994 vs. Today
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 11:08AM
Paul, just to add to your point about 1994 being different. Not only is there the national security issue this time around, but Democrats still haven't run an ideologically-based campaign the way Republicans did in 1994. Democrats have largely benefited from Republican mistakes rather than advancing a broad agenda to reform Washington rooted in a governing philosophy. The closest thing they have to a "Contract With America" is the "New Direction For America," but it reads like a laundry list: raising the minimum wage, negotiating lower drug prices, expanding college aid, etc. Of course, there's one other important difference between the two election years. In 1994, Republicans needed to gain 40 seats (they ended up gaining 52), but this year the magic number for Democrats is just 15.
Re: Gridlock
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 10:43AM
If you only care about spending, then perhaps you can make the case for divided government. But, even then, it depends on the circumstances. The 1994-2000 period was a special case where you had a Republican Party that (at least early on) was dedicated to shrinking the size of government, and a Democratic president who was willing to triangulate. But should the Democrats gain control of one or both chambers of Congress, they certainly won't be slashing spending, and President Bush has shown absolutely no interest in doing so either. Perhaps, as some have suggested, he would be more willing to veto spending bills coming from a Democratic Congress, but that's a big question mark--after all this is the man who gave us No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescrition drug benefit. Perhaps, in another time, it might be worth taking the risk and voting for divided government. But, as David pointed out, there's that whole issue of fighting terrorism.
Gridlock Good?
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 9:28AM
I hate to take issue with my friend Bruce Bartlett, but his column today arguing in favor of a Democratic takeover of Congress misses the mark. In particular, this paragraph seems off:
I believe that the good economic times of the late 1990s resulted largely from gridlock -- Democrat Bill Clinton couldn't get his plans through a Republican Congress and he blocked its initiatives. So for a blessed six years government was basically on automatic pilot. The result was budget surpluses instead of deficits, low unemployment, high wages and a skyrocketing stock market. Who wouldn't go back to those times if we could? Bringing back gridlock could to the trick.
The economy isn't exactly in the doldrums right now. Unemployments is low, the Dow has reached a record high, wages don't seem to be increasing but total compensation is, and the deficit is shrinking. On that point, going back wouldn't yield huge improvement.
Furthermore, do we really want to go back to a period when the growing threat of Islamofacism was largely ignored? But that's where we are headed should the Dems win. A Representative who says this election "shouldn't be about national security" and a Senator who boasts about killing the Patriot Act? Giving the keys to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is a surefire way to take a drive down Not-Serious-About-Fighting-Terrorism Street.
Amerika Uber Alles?
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 9:22AM
On the heels of the New EuroTrash idiocracy story comes word from No Left Turns (via the European press) that Germans are leaving their country -- primarily for the USA -- faster than it can replenish them with new immigrants. Since you can imagine that none of the new immigrants are German and many are not European, and that the Germans in Germany presently can't reproduce quickly enough to keep birth rates coming, you have to wonder how a project like the EU can sustain itself as everyone who thought it up is starting to disappear.
1994 vs. Today
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 8:29AM
Charlie Cook yesterday reported that there "is no ebb in the wave" for Democrats, and he predicted losses of 20 to 35 seats for the GOP in the House. He said Republicans should expect to lose, most likely, five or six Senate seats.
In 1994, Democrats were in trouble because of tax increases, a failed health plan, and the crime bill (read, guns). There were also a myriad of scandals that started in the late 1980s that moved voters, including many Democrats, to reject the party's candidates, including some once-popular incumbents.
One huge issue that Cook is ignoring, that was a non-factor in 1994: national security. That could make up the difference for Republicans.
Honoring the Marines
Posted by on 10.31.06 @ 8:17AM
Raleigh's News & Observer today offers a preview of the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, due to open Nov. 13. Realism is the goal, although many in the article say it is not achievable.
Monday, October 30, 2006
RE: Excessive Film, Gore
Posted by on 10.30.06 @ 10:40PM
Paul: While the NY Times could quote the alarmist, guess they couldn't be bothered to find a scientist who might support the editor.
Speaking of editors, maybe the Times should hire the guy from Maine. Would be a big improvement.
In the Eyes of an Islamist Radical
Posted by on 10.30.06 @ 3:48PM
Bad:
The country's top Islamic political
leader said American planes were used in the pre-dawn strike
against the school -- known as a madrassa -- and called for
nationwide protests Tuesday, claiming all those killed were
innocent students and teachers.
Good: Any attack on Western or Israeli establishments in which
innocent people are killed.
More Echoes Needed for This Voice
Posted by on 10.30.06 @ 2:20PM
Bill Cosby, God bless him, is at it again -- this time at a forum called "Education is a Civil Right," held at a church in inner-city Los Angeles. A sampling:
"We've got parents who won't check the bedrooms of their children to see if there's a gun," he said.
He chided teachers for not explaining clearly to students who ask, "Why do I need to know this?" that their algebra and English classes can help them obtain higher-paying jobs.
"I'm not asking you to entertain the children," he told listening teachers. "If you teach English, and you can't answer this child … then you're in trouble, and we've been in trouble. We can't answer these children, because nobody's given them any goals...."
...Even some churchgoers drew a rebuke. Cosby riffed on the common expression "The Lord will find a way," adding, "So I'm just going to wait for Jesus to find a way."
He said: "Too many people are waiting for Jesus to come along and cut your grass. And Jesus isn't going to come along and cut your grass."
Big Spending and GOP Troubles
Posted by on 10.30.06 @ 2:00PM
In an excellent essay in the Washington Post yesterday, Dick Armey made the case that Republicans' current predicament stems from their abandonment of small government principles. Matthew Yglesias countered that the Iraq War is what's actually hurting Republicans, pointing out that "all of the key policy steps that Armey's citing actually came before the 2004 election, which went fine for the GOP." However, Yglesias is oversimplifying things by neglecting to mention other developments during the past two years and ignoring important distinctions between midterm and presidential elections. In short, the spending problem has gotten worse since 2004, and because this year's election is less consequential, disgruntled limited government conservatives seem more willing to sit out than they were when the presidency was up for grabs.
Here's what I mean. By 2004, there was already plenty of frustration among conservatives with big spending Republicans, but the stakes were a lot higher in that election. The idea of John Kerry as president during wartime was all that was needed to energize conservatives and get them to volunteer and show up at the polls in large numbers. No serious conservatives were arguing in 2004 that it would be better if Republicans lost, but this year many prominent ones have made precisely that argument. While limited government conservatives may have been disappointed by Bush's first term spending record, things got progressively worse in his second term. Congressional Republicans abandoned Social Security reform without putting up a fight, went on a post-Katrina spending spree, and passed the pork laden energy and transportation bills. Meanwhile, the true cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit became more apparent. At the same time that the frustration with Republicans has grown, the consequences of defeat have diminished. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that this election is inconsequential, but just that the stakes are not as high as they were in 2004. This year, we are electing individual senators and representatives, not a commander-in-chief, so limited government conservatives may be less motivated to volunteer and more willing to "send a message" by staying home than they were during the last presidential election. It's also worth noting that during midterm elections, turnout, on average, tends to hover around 40 percent, meaning that energizing the base becomes even more crucial. Therefore, the effect of disgruntled conservatives sitting out becomes magnified, and thus the spending issue becomes a bigger factor.
It's also worth mentioning this poll, which suggests that frustration with big government Republicans isn't limited to the conservative base:
A quarter century after the Reagan revolution and a dozen years after Republicans vaulted into control of Congress, a new CNN poll finds most Americans still agree with the bedrock conservative premise that, as the Gipper put it, "government is not the answer to our problems -- government is the problem."
The poll released Friday also showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans perceive, correctly, that the size and cost of government have gone up in the past four years, when Republicans have had a grip on the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House....
Queried about their views on the role of government, 54 percent of the 1,013 adults polled said they thought it was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Only 37 percent said they thought the government should do more to solve the country's problems.
Panic! At Der Spiegel
Posted by on 10.30.06 @ 12:41PM
The Europeans are starting to catch on to the idea that they're destroying their own culture at fatal cost to the liberal project of universal progress for individuals everywhere. Yet though Der Spiegel, at least, can see clearly enough to the crisis, the worried fumbling toward awkward questions that closes out the inquiry is cause, over here, for extra concern. In all fairness, it's a devilish problem. Western liberalism may have already sown the seeds of its own demise. The European experience disproves the hypothesis that American-style underclasses are the ruin of the hegemon alone. And however much we might enjoy a laugh at the folly of idealists, there is absolutely zero guarantee that what will replace it won't be even worse.
Hunter and '08
Posted by on 10.30.06 @ 11:51AM
No, this story is NOT from the Onion:
With his prized committee chairmanship very much in peril, Rep. Duncan Hunter is poised to announce today that he is considering a long-shot run for the White House….
Hunter's ambitions come as a surprise to other Republicans, none of whom had an inkling that he might look to jump into what is likely to be a crowded field for the GOP presidential nomination. But even more shocking is that he would do this a week before the midterm election that may shift control of the House to the Democrats and cost Hunter his chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee. Hunter is running for re-election Nov. 7.
Via Hit and Run.
Dean on Iraq
Posted by on 10.30.06 @ 11:30AM
It's worth noting how Howard Dean toned down the anti- Iraq War rhetoric on CBS's "Face The Nation" yesterday. Speaking on what would happen if the Democrats took control, he said:
"The president will still be in charge of foreign policy and the military so the influence of a Democratic Congress will be I think a positive influence but I don't imagine that we're suddenly gonna force the President to reverse his course. We don't have the ability to do that, but I think we will put some pressure on him to have some benchmarks, some timetables, and a real plan other than stay the course."
Full transcript (in PDF) here. Excerpts (in HTML) here.
I think this is indicative of two things. Even though the Iraq War has become more unpopular, Democrats are still worried about perceptions that they are the anti-war party. While I wouldn't deny that growing opposition to the Iraq War is hurting Republicans this election year, I don't think the electorate has become as anti-war as the media would have us believe. Take a look at the fortunes of Ned Lamont. In a race that was billed as a referendum on the Iraq War, Lamont barely won a Democratic primary against Lieberman, who is unabashedly pro-war. Lieberman has not backed off his support for the war, and yet, by all indications, is crushing Lamont in a blue state that Kerry won by 10 points in 2004.
I think Dean's comments also reveal a desire to manage the expectations of the liberal base should Democrats win control of one or both chambers of Congress. Just as conservatives want to see action on their agenda when Republicans win elections, if Democrats are put in power, liberals will have demands. But if there's one thing about Republican and Democratic leaders that's the same, it's that they will always choose politics over principle. I'm sure that should Democrats win, they will, as Dean said, "put some pressure" on Bush, but I think they would be fearful of going overboard with the much bigger prize up for grabs in 2008. This way, when they run in 2008, they can appeal to moderates by arguing that once in power, they disproved the Republican caricatures of Democrats as foaming at the mouth anti-war liberals. Meanwhile, they'll rally the liberal base by saying they had their hands tied because Bush was still "in charge of foreign policy and the military" and the only way to truly change things is to win the presidency.
Excessive Film, Gore
Posted by on 10.30.06 @ 9:36AM
Well, at least one news editor is willing to handle modern-day scientific hysteria with a measured approach:
Michael Palmer, the general manager of television stations WVII and WFVX, ABC and Fox affiliates in Bangor, has told his joint staff of nine men and women that when "Bar Harbor is underwater, then we can do global warming stories."
"Until then," he added. "No more."
...A former staff member confirmed the e-mail message that went out during the summer after the stations broadcast a live report from a movie theater in Maine where Al Gore's movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," was opening.
Mr. Palmer began his e-mail message: "I was wondering where we should send the bill for the live shot Friday at the theater for the Al Gore commercial we aired."
Of course, the New York Times felt obliged to get a global warming alarmist to comment on Mr. Palmer's decision.
Bouchard in Michigan
Posted by on 10.30.06 @ 9:21AM
Make no mistake, few if anyone in the Senate don't understand that current Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow is perhaps one of the lesser lights in that august body. More than a year ago, she was targeted by the RNC as a pickup for the GOP in this midterm election.
Mike Bouchard - the more conservative Republican candidate in the primary - won his bid. But in the end his success is due more to hard core conservatives than the Republican Senate campaign committee and its chief recruiter Elizabeth Dole. Rather, if Bouchard pulls off what will be described in the Drive By Media as a huge upset (to the MSM, at least), credit should first go to Stabenow for running a haphazard, mistake ridden campaign. Then Bouchard for taking advantage of it, and standing on principle. Finally, to men like President Bush, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Sam Brownback (whose endorsement was the first Bouchard got from a national Republican at a time when he was not favored to win the nomination), and commentators like Hugh Hewitt and the Red State gang, who have consistently pushed the Bouchard candidacy.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Steele/Cardin Debate on Meet the Press
Posted by on 10.29.06 @ 10:38AM
First observation: Steele wins the tie selection contest-- he thought to wear Ravens colors on game day.
UPDATE: Steele aced the first half -- both candidates can talk credibly about the issues, but Steele is simply a more likable guy. But he faltered when it came to social issues, where his moral convictions put him to the right of the voters he's wooing; he stuttered his way through the embryonic stem cell questions and sounded a bit muddled on abortion. So do undecided voters switch the channels at the commercial break, or do they tune in late?
