- 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
Friday, December 8, 2006
Re: Carter and Baker
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 5:25PM
From the New Yorker:
[Carter] said that James Baker had asked him to testify before the group, but that he had declined. “I’ve been so adamantly opposed to the war, since before it started, that there’s nothing I could really add.” Still, he said, “I think it’s unquestionable—and I know how Baker feels, but I’m not going to say how he feels—that one of the main obstacles to any progress in Iraq is the lack of any progress in Palestine.”
I can't help but point to last night's NewsHour interview with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a leading Shiite politician in Iraq:
ABDUL AZIZ AL-HAKIM (through translator): The Palestinian issue exists in the region, the Islamic and Arabic world as a problem. And there are resolutions and decisions by the United Nations, should deal with that problem. And I don't see any connect with that problem with the problems of
. Iraq
The ISG report, incidentally, discusses al-Hakim, and his ties to Iran.
Carter, Baker, Borat
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 4:31PM
Marty Peretz has, unsurprisingly, been railing against James Baker and his commission, particularly the parts of the ISG report, like the call to discuss a "right of return" (a.k.a. the abolition of Israel by demography), that read as if Baker put on a cowboy hat and led his fellow commissioners in a stirring rendition of "Throw the Jew Down the Well." Apropos of the discussion below, Peretz sounds a hopeful note: "The good news is that Jimmy Carter agrees with Baker, and the American public knows that Carter is a fool."
RE: More Carter
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 4:07PM
Interestingly, in "his quest for re-election" in 1980, Jimmy Carter received the lowest percentage of the Jewish vote of any Democrat since World War II: 45 percent Carter to 39 percent Reagan, with 15 percent going to John Anderson.
More Carter
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 3:40PM
As long as we're talking about Carter's plan for the Jews, it's worth noting this Freudian slip from three years ago:
Mr. Carter, defeated in his quest for re-election by Ronald Reagan in 1980, speculated that "had I been elected to a second term, with the prestige and authority and influence and reputation I had in the region, we could have moved to a final solution."
Carter and The Wall
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 3:29PM
What Carter calls an "imprisonment wall" has been responsible for reducing terrorist attacks in Israel by an estimated 80 percent. Not only has this saved at least hundreds of Israeli lives, but by reducing the number of suicide bombings, it has prevented the need for as many Israeli retalitory measures, thus saving Palestinian lives. If Jimmy Carter's friends in the West Bank and Gaza were to stop indoctrinating their children with the belief that dying in the process of killing Jews is the ultimate good, if they were to stop electing leaders dedicated to Israel's destruction, there wouldn't be a need for such a security barrier in the first place.
Incidently, even French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy recently did an about face on the security fence, and now supports it.
Re: I'm Not Anti-Semitic
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 2:16PM
Aw c'mon, David, Jimmy is just being himself:
I'm Not Anti-Semitic; BTW, It's The Jews' Fault
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 2:01PM
Jimmy Carter is really a piece of work:
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations - but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
***
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel… Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive.
***
An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.
Maybe this caller wasn't all that out of line after all.
Feeling Depressed?
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 1:36PM
If the previous post has you down, maybe you should have your doctor prescribe some of this.
Bad Year
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 1:31PM
What a lousy year for conservatives!
GOP loses Congress. John Bolton loses post as U.N. Ambassador. Milton Friedman dies, and now Jeane Kirkpatrick is gone.
Oh well, there's always 2007...
Back to the '90s
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 11:11AM
So President Clinton wants dialogue with Iran. Of course, he is not the only one, but it is always entertaining to see him recycling his failed policies as new suggestions for today. (It reminds me of 1960s "spirit of Vatican II" Catholics who think we still need to try reaching the kids through "the media.") As I wrote last year, between calling Iranian elections as "progressive" and meekly asking Khatami for a little help in investigating the Khobar Towers bombing (that Iran probably aided), Clinton's policy toward Iran might be best characterized as a sabbatical.
Obama v. Clinton
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 11:00AM
Over at the Washington Post, their reporters work hard to continue the legacy of Woodward and Bernstein's investigative journalism:
In the fishbowl of the Senate, interactions between Clinton and Obama are frequent and closely scrutinized. During a routine vote yesterday morning, Obama and Clinton brushed past each other on the Senate floor. Obama winked and touched
on her elbow. Without pausing, she kept walking. Clinton
I call for hearings!
Jeane Kirkpatrick, R.I.P.
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 10:39AM
Former Reagan UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick has died at age 80. The American Enterprise Instititute has a notice up on their homepage.
Pulp Edwards
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 10:27AM
As Purposeful Tourist John Edwards turns his adoring gaze back to his first love, my colleague and friend Jon Sanders pens (OK, keyboards) a dime-store novel version of the former senator's fleeting romance with the University of North Carolina. A saga not to be missed.
Vomitoriums
Posted by on 12.8.06 @ 10:12AM
Wlady:
Your call for vomitoriums is even more relevant this morning, with news that President Bush is awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to …. Norman Mineta!
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Bible bipartisanship
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 7:03PM
In this post at The Plank noting the tendency of politicians to quote Bible verses in front of those wacky evangelicals, we learn that TNR's Noam Schieber is going to let us in on "the real deal behind [Sam] Brownback's religiosity." Oh boy, stay tuned!
This is a reminder of why Barack Obama's comfort level with evangelicals is such a remarkable thing.
ISG and Political Cover
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 3:36PM
The NY Times editorializes today that the ISG report provides President Bush with the political cover to change his administration's policies in Iraq. It's worth noting, however, that the report does not provide political cover for Democrats. Had the report recommended a clear timeline for withdrawal, rather withdrawal by 2008 if certain conditions are met, Democrats could have come out and simply argued that the Bush administration should adopt the recommendations of the ISG and set a timeline. But now they have to decide whether they want to go further than the report does, and create a binding timetable to bring home U.S. troops, as Russ Feingold has suggested, or merely press for "change in Iraq," as Harry Reid has done. So far, Democrats have proven themselves unwilling to adopt the Feingold line, but if they "stay the course" with the "change in course" argument, it could cause restlessness among their base, which went to bat for them this year largely because they wanted to see an end to the Iraq War.
Carter's Critics
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 2:43PM
Former President Jimmy Carter's new book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid isn't fostering peace and understanding over at the Carter Center. Dr. Kenneth Stein, a former executive director of the center and longtime Middle East adviser to our 39th president, has resigned in protest.
In his resignation letter, Stein said the book is "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments." Who knew Carter was capable of errors, superficialities or glaring omissions?
The humantarian from Georgia was a bit chilly in his response: "Although Professor Kenneth Stein has not been actively involved with the Carter Center for more than 12 years, I regret his resignation from the titular position as a fellow."
RE: All You Can Stomach
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 2:22PM
Wlady: It just makes me want to throw up. I hate the term "bipartisan". It is doublespeak for "liberal policy disguised as faux consensus." It enables the left to get away with bad policy ideas without the media calling them on it.
Bipartisan is determined not by the make-up of the group or committee supporting a policy, but by the type of policy. If it's liberal, it's bipartisan. If it's conservative, it's partisan.
All You Can Stomach
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 2:02PM
As Iraq Study Group member Vernon Jordan told the Washington Post, "The good of this report is that civility has been rediscovered." Or as he noted, "Nobody was storming out of the room, nobody was screaming at anybody," he said. But how could they, having spent Tuesday night at Jordan's house "for a celebratory dinner of crab cakes, beef and soufflé"? It's hard to scream when you're filled to the gills.
But for sheer unsatirazable decadence, you'd have to have been at the Kennedy Center memorial service for official Washington's most celebrated glutton, R.W. ("Johnny") Apple, Jr., late of the New York Times. It all gives new meaning to government (party) waste. As in Rome during its prime, does Washington's prime real estate now include vomitoriums?
Olmert Responds...
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 2:01PM
The Jerusalem Post reports:
RINOs An Endangered Species
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 12:14PM
The Washington Post, which is well known for its concern for the electoral health of the Republican Party, frets about the dearth of GOP moderates in the next Congress. The paper correctly notes that moderate to liberal Republican members were especially hard hit in this fall's elections. In many cases, their districts were filled with registered Democrats and their moderation didn't save them.
This doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans lost because they were not ideological enough, as many conservatives believe. But it does cast doubt on the conventional wisdom that the best way for the GOP to regain its majority is through a revival of the party's Rockefeller wing.
More Thoughts on the ISG Report
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 10:28AM
I had some additional thoughts on the Baker-Hamilton report that I didn't get to in my column this morning but that I think are worth touching on. While I noted that helping the U.S. in Iraq would not be in the interest of Iran and Syria, the report does make a convincing case that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States do have an interest in stability in Iraq because "battle-hardened insurgents from Iraq could pose a threat to their own internal stability, and the growth of Iranian influence in the region is deeply troubling to them." Perhaps a diplomatic effort that reinforced for these nations the dangers they would face in the wake of an abrupt U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would convince them to cooperate with us more than they are currently. One potential downside is that increased involvement, for instance, by Sunnis in Saudi Arabia could add fuel to the fire of sectarian warfare and increase regional tensions.
Another point worth noting is that the report, in emphasizing the risks of a premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, says: "If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return." One of the arguments that many opponents of the Iraq War have made is that they believe in fighting terrorism and attacking terrorist bases, but Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. If, however, the U.S. leaves Iraq and Al Qaeda establishes terrorist bases in Western Iraq, by that logic, the U.S. would have a legitimate reason for military action in that region. This made me think of an op-ed Al Qaeda expert Peter Bergen wrote in October, which is sounding more and more like the right strategy in Iraq:
While withdrawing a substantial number of American troops from
Iraq would probably tamp down the insurgency and should be done as
soon as is possible, a significant force must remain in Iraq for
many years to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Creating a stable democracy in Iraq would be great, but it clearly isn't achievable in the foreseeable future and the patience of the American people is wearing thin. Therefore, it's best to pay less attention to those groups only interested in internal Iraqi issues and concentrate our efforts on weakening those groups who, once we leave, would potentially come after us on our own soil.
RE: Iraq Study Group
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 10:06AM
Hunter, George Will's column about the events in Iraq leading up to the ISG ought to be Exhibit B in the case for libertarianism.
Iraq Study Group
Posted by on 12.7.06 @ 9:10AM
I can vaguely understand the point of putting together blue ribbon commissions like the ISG in order to deliver solutions from a source that seems above politics. I get that.
But doesn't the whole exercise severely undermine one's faith in our entire national security and foreign policy apparatus? I mean, presumably, we pay a large number of highly expert persons quite well to conduct these affairs, and yet, a group of ex-politicians is supposed to be able to take several weeks, compile some data, and tell us what to do next? Isn't the best course of action something our very expensive Departments of Defense and State are supposed to be able to provide?
I think the ISG is exhibit A in favor of libertarianism.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Looking for the Meaning of Advent?
Posted by on 12.6.06 @ 9:52PM
Try this recording of Lessons and Carols at the Chapel of St. John's College, Cambridge, from BBC Radio 3.
Changing of the Guard
Posted by on 12.6.06 @ 6:09PM
Roberts Gates was confirmed by a Senate vote of 95 to 2. A rout by the realists?
Hensarling Beats Tiahrt
Posted by on 12.6.06 @ 3:21PM
Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas won the race to succeed Mike Pence as chairman of the Republican Study Committee. Hensarling, a former Phil Gramm aide, has recently been the group's point man on spending and budget issues.
At least the RSC has opted to elect aggressive conservative leadership.
About That Report
Posted by on 12.6.06 @ 2:00PM
It doesn't seem like there is yet a consensus about what Washington's new Iraq consensus really is. Over at Hit and Run, they are blogging "Course So Far Stayed." CNN's website headline? "Iraq Study Group: Change Strategy Now."
Perhaps the next commission will explain.
The Iraq Study Group Report: Now What?
Posted by on 12.6.06 @ 12:22PM
Ok, ladies and gents. Some of you will laugh. Some of you will cry. Some of you may hurl. But maybe some of you'll cheer, even. Inviolable sovereignty for Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine? A privileged place at the table for Russia? My crazy plan for success in the Middle East is yours for the reading at Postmodern Conservative. Bring it on.
Deputizing Local Law Enforcement
Posted by on 12.6.06 @ 11:03AM
A Charlotte-area sheriff, Mecklenburg County's Jim Pendergraph, has seen a tremendous success rate after implementing an illegal immigration enforcement program in cooperation with the federal government. Over a seven-month period his deputies have identified 930 aliens among arrestees in his jail population, causing a space problem. Of those, 128 have already been deported and the remainder of them are in process to be shipped out.
But it looks like that tremendous success isn't enough to get Congress and the president to increase their (financial) support for these local immigration enforcement programs. Too bad, because there are a lot of interested local police who want to be part of it.
Getting It Done
Posted by on 12.6.06 @ 8:24AM
So reporters and pols alike are dismayed at having at work a five-day week in the new Congress. (That is, five days beginning Monday night and ending early Friday afternoon.)
My thoughts are mixed. Typically, Congress leaving town is something to celebrate: they nearly always manage to disappoint while in session. Still, as the article points out, our elected representatives still haven't finished passing spending bills for the fiscal year that began over two months ago. And who likes them working 103 days in a year, much less during a two-year Congress?
But something tells me the problem isn't a lack of time. After all, Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe have time to step far beyond their constitutional responsibilities (and power?) to write a bullying letter to ExxonMobil, threatening them for funding balanced global warming research.
Libs aren't the only ones wasting time and money on the Hill. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) plans to show today that two can play the bully pulpit. He is holding a hearing on how the media distorts global warming science. Well, bully for him, but isn't that something he should do on his own time? At the conclusion of the hearing, in which he will surely find that which he set out to find, will he introduce a bill mandating better coverage? Small government seems to be a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do act among Congressional Republicans.
The lesson: less show hearings, more legislating.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Bolton's Departure
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 7:01PM
Ok, listen up pilgrims. I am not now -- and despite the (I hope) joking suggestion by many of you, will not be -- a candidate for president. However, if the president wants to replace John Bolton with someone who could serve at the UN for two years and continue what Amb. Bolton has begun, I could be available. And let's not even think about a confirmation hearing. I'd have less chance at confirmation than Bolton did.
RE: An Inconvenient Truth, Redux
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 5:25PM
Watched the latter half of this, so I must have missed Marlo.
I'll just say that Oprah treated Al Gore will all the skepticism of a four-year-old.
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part X
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 4:36PM
Liz Mair has an excellent column on what I suspect will become an albatross around Mitt Romney's neck. Money quote:
Romney said he would not need to raise taxes to pay for the program.Of course, he was right. RomneyCare has not even been fully implemented yet, and a cost overrun of $151 million in 2007 alone is already in the cards, perhaps because the RomneyCare financial model assumed the wrong number of uninsured in Massachusetts (the Census Bureau puts it at 748,000, but RomneyCare assumes only 500,000). But any needed hike in taxes won't be pushed through by Romney-he'll be out of office when the bill comes due, and when extra federal dollars will likely have to be allocated to Massachusetts to help cover the shortfall between RomneyCare's cost and its budget.
They're Both in Labor
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 4:01PM
The Associated Press reports that former No. 2 House Democrat David Bonior will manage John Edwards's yet-to-be-announced-but-that's-a-formality presidential campaign for 2008.
Re: Presidential Handicapping
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 3:31PM
I haven't read the Barnett commentary on Brownback, but I must add that any lengthy exposure to the Senator is a most impressive experience. Last year, in D.C., I was waiting in the car for my sister and heard Brownback interviewed at length on C-SPAN. If our soundbite culture gives him a chance, I think he'll make a terrific impression on voters across the spectrum. He's a first-class person, accomplished, genuine, and admirable.
Probably I shouldn't have said anything. My last two early-cycle early picks for President have been John Ashcroft and Phil Gramm.
Libertarian/Liberal Fusion
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 1:08PM
For a long time, I have been skeptical about the libertarian Democrat argument in all of its incarnations, but lately I can see the case for it if you differentiate between theory and practice, between intellectual conservatism/liberalism and the Republican/Democratic Parties as they actually exist today. In his column this morning, John T. does an excellent job explaining why Brink Lindsey's desire for a "movement that, at the philosophical level, seeks some kind of reconciliation between Hayek and Rawls" is impossible. At the philosophical level, libertarianism is diametrically opposed to liberalism. Libertarians believe that the function of the government should be limited to protecting individual freedom; liberals believe that government should be used as a means to help alleviate suffering, even if it means encroaching on individual freedoms (i.e. more taxes, regulations, etc.). To libertarians, capitalism is not only the most efficient economic system, but the most moral one. Liberals may acknowledge that it's the most efficient, but find the income inequality it produces immoral, and believe in a government that actively reins in capitalism to make it more equitable. At the ideological level, libertarianism is still more compatible with conservatism, which also holds that government should be limited to protecting individual freedom. The difference is that conservatives also believe that the existence of certain cultural values is crucial to maintaining a free and prosperous society (this has caused a greater gulf between libertarians and conservatives in recent years). That brings us to what the Republican and Democratic Parties are actually like in practice.
If you divide political issues into three main categories (economic, social, and foreign policy) it's pretty easy to understand why libertarians may now be more comfortable with Democrats. Since Republicans have proved themselves at least as dedicated to big government as the Democrats, the economic category has become a wash. While in the past Republicans used social issues symbolically, during the Bush years (faith-based initiatives, stem cells, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, etc.) they began to translate more often into actual policy. Of course, the War on Terror is the dominant issue of our time and will be for the foreseeable future. And as John points out, dovish libertarians find themselves in much more agreement with liberals on WOT-related matters.
The bottom line: Lindsey's idea of a "real intellectual movement" fusing liberalism and libertarianism is pure fantasy, but based on what the political parties are actually like today, it makes sense that dovish libertarians will remain more comfortable with Democrats. And given that in my view, we'll be fighting the WOT for a very long time, that alliance of convenience between liberals and libertarians may be here to stay.
RE: Moron Fusionism
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 11:47AM
I think this is why Brink Lindsey's formulation is ultimately so unsatisfying. I've argued that the problem with the current fusionist bargain is that many conservatives and libertarians have developed markedly different goals for their ideal political order. But Lindsey fails to show that libertarians and contemporary American liberals are any closer on this question.
Consider how little it seems to take to qualify as a Libertarian Democrat. Jon Tester gets credit for his anti-Patriot Act stance; his fellow Montanan Brian Schweitzer is pro-gun. Fair enough. But is combining these civil libertarian stands with economic statism really all that much more libertarian than a conservative Republican who combines support for Social Security privatization with opposition to gay marriage?
You could argue, I suppose, that the Patriot Act is such a unique threat to freedom that a Democrat who opposes it deserves a pass for backing national health insurance. But in this case, it would be the conservative Republican and not the Libertarian Democrat whose policies, if enacted, would actually bring about a smaller federal government.
Moron Fusionism
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 11:06AM
Forget anti-discrimination laws, how do libertarians get past the aggressive attempts to socialize 12% of the economy in a single swipe?
More on Fusionism
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 9:57AM
Daniel Drezner writes that I've made "good but not devastating points" against Brink Lindsey's argument for a liberal-libertarian fusion:
Both Tabin and Yglesias assume that all libertarians are so dogmatic that they cannot compromise in the interest of pursuing larger gains. Most libertarians -- including, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of the 28 million voting-age Americans that Boaz and Kirby identify as libertarian -- will not automatically blanch at, say, anti-discrimination laws as a deal-breaker.I didn't mean to conflate intellectual libertarians with what Boaz and Kirby somewhat optimistically identify as "the libertarian vote," and I don't think Matt did either. Matt's argument was that the rugged individualism of the interior west isn't really libertarian per se, and that Democrats can tap into those votes not by becoming more libertarian but by emphasizing the same old positive liberty agenda that they believe in already. My argument was that the intellectual tensions between libertarians and liberals are even more problematic than those between libertarians and conservatives (particularly with a Democratic majority). I don't deny that libertarians and liberals will occassionally find themselves allied on certain issues. But Lindsey quite explicitly called for "a real intellectual movement, with intellectual coherence... that, at the philosophical level, seeks some kind of reconciliation between Hayek and Rawls." Lindsey suggests, I think correctly, that such intellectual reconcilliation is necessary for a liberal-libertarian fusion that endures beyond the occassional election or policy fight. I just don't see such a reconcilliation happening.
Long Arm of the Feds
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 9:29AM
You can debate whether the policy is proper in the first place, but a decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to withhold child car seat funds from North Carolina over a technicality is just stupid:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not like a provision in state law that says children younger than 8 don't have to be in car seats when their "personal needs are attended to."
As a result, the state could lose $1 million a year
over six years....
The phrase about personal needs has
been in the state's law since 1982, said Darrell Jernigan, director
of the Governor's Highway Safety Program. The state has received
federal grant money for child car safety for at least six years
based on the law, he said, and the personal needs clause had not
caused a problem until now.
So, now how safe are the kids? Duh-uh.
Re: Presidential Handicapping
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 9:13AM
As if self-aware conservatives haven't supported "unelectable" candidates during the primaries to influence the whole party before. Brownback can't be dead on arrival simply because he covers a part of the field nobody else does. Whether he can convert this into the sort of expandable niche support that, say, Buchanan accomplished is of course an open question. But the game is his to lose in that regard.
Presidential Handicapping with Dean Barnett
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 8:20AM
Writing from his relatively new perch at Hugh Hewitt's blog, Dean Barnett has prounced Sam Brownback's possible presidential run to be seriously dead on arrival. Let me preface what I'm going to say by mentioning that I'm very fond of Dean Barnett's work. But I'm going to disagree with him here.
I relied heavily on Dean (and the famed "Geraghty the Indispensable" as Hugh Hewitt likes to call him) to keep my spirits up with magical predictive brews of success as the November electoral disaster loomed, but he was wrong about that and I think he may be wrong about Brownback, too. As the Prowler noted yesterday, Brownback is going to get a lot of support from evangelicals and Catholics, particularly since he has been an observant churchman in both camps and is the most clearly pro-life candidate in the mix. I also have to point out that Kansas is not so far from Iowa.
I'm a long way from saying Brownback will capture the nomination, but to treat his run as laughable, which Dean does, is neither fair nor especially prudent.
Tabin and Liberal/Libertarianism
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 7:54AM
John, I agree completely with your analysis. I think you could underscore your point with a review of the recent history. The progressivist left was at some points enthusiastic about the Soviet Union and was never excited about opposing it, even when it was obviously a totalitarian nightmare. They've always been into Castro's Cuba with defenses based on how many doctors Cuba has or how many people can read. Never mind the cars are all about 40 years old and buildings are literally crumbling. And what about the failure of free political discourse, voting rights, property rights, etc.? "There are other important rights than civil rights. There are economic rights," the apologists say.
How libertarians could get along with a movement that was essentially a fellow-traveler to a total government solution is beyond me. And now oil-fueled communism is rising in our own hemisphere. Libertarians definitely have to flank to the right.
Romney and Race (Not the Presidential One)
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 7:29AM
My colleague at the Locke Foundation Jon Ham (poppa of Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham) noticed the extreme lengths (all the way to Guatemala) The Boston Globe went to find some illegal immigrants who worked on Mitt Romney's yard. His conclusion: The Globe expects Romney to engage in racial profiling.
Let There Be No Mistake
Posted by on 12.5.06 @ 5:03AM
Please note that, as the AP caption makes clear, Bill Clinton is second from right in this picture. We wouldn't want anyone to be confused. (Hat-tip: Tim Blair.)
Monday, December 4, 2006
Souljah-ing On
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 8:07PM
Mickey Kaus notes that Donny Deutch's decision to have a child out of wedlock with his ex-girlfriend could make for a Sister Souljah moment: "Hillary doesn't need any more Souljahs, of course (she needs whatever the opposite is). But Barack Obama might." Andrew Sullivan catches Obama taking on a more obvious Souljah-style target: the Kos Kidz.
Re: The Perils of the Senate
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 7:15PM
I know the last refuge of a philosopher scoundrel is in cooking up ominpotent-demon-related thought experiments -- but ...
Am I the only one who would take, hands down, an immigration compromise whereby all new illegal immigration was ground to a halt in exchange for eventual citizenship for all resident illegals?
I know, I know -- "this is impossible;" "Reagan tried this, it failed -- flamboyantly;" "so what if it did stop, you're still rewarding bad behavior;" etc. etc.
Yet I think the thought experiment stands, because it fashions a colorful reminder that the collapse of the rule of law and the basic integrity of the sovereignty of America is the dominant issue, the issue that puts all the others in shade. Not that they aren't present, because they are. And we could take those illegal-halting resources and aim them at illegal-deporting instead, but do we really want to do that? Or is it, quite simply, not worth the trouble -- whereas sealing off the flood of illegals is? What does more damage, more inspirational damage to the rule of law in that regard? A sliding amnesty program, or a completely broken border system?
I'd be curious to see if anyone (else) would take the trade.
Wake Up Starbucks?
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 5:02PM
Gee, I thought that being socially responsible, caring for the environment, providing workers with health care, and selling Sara McLaughlin CDs was a surefire way for a corporation to buy peace with the political left.
Zinni's Speech on Iraq Today
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 4:20PM
Retired USMC Gen. Anthony Zinni spoke at a luncheon today in Raleigh for the John Locke Foundation, and discussed the problems in the Iraq War and where the United States should go from here. He wasn't as critical of the Bush Administration as I thought he would be, but still laid plenty of responsibility at their feet.
He said the U.S. has been unable to cope with "non-state actors" who are not constrained by the obligations that nation-states must adhere to. Such free-wheelers include Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, international drug cartels, and warlord groups.
"They don't have a capital or an organized military force," Zinni said. "These non-state actors have been our biggest problems," and the trouble caused by instability in the countries where they operate have "washed up on our shores."
The difficulty in Iraq has been heightened by the flawed structure established by the U.S. to reconstruct the country, Zinni said. The U.S. is poorly organized, inhibiting the ability to implement our ideas. As before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Zinni said government agencies don't communicate with each other and instead of "building them for the 21st Century," we ended up with an even more bloated bureaucracy. For example, he said the Department of Homeland Security operates much the same way that the rest of government does, with earmarks, cronyism, and rewarding incompetency. Zinni did not speak much to specifics about what President Bush should do in Iraq, but more to the fact that whatever he decides to do, he needs the competent structure and plan in place to carry it out. Having the Department of Defense run the economic reconstruction, and shutting down factories just because they were state-owned under Saddam Hussein's regime, were examples of poorly thought out decisions, Zinni said.
He also said the nature of the enemy in Iraq cannot be identified as a single, monolithic force. "I defy anybody here to tell me who the enemy is," Zinni said, adding that each opposition group requires a different approach. To carry out a successful Iraq reconstruction, he estimated it would require from 5 to 7 more years and in the short term, more troops.
In fact, part of the original miscalculation was the insufficient number of troops used to try and stabilize Iraq, Zinni said. He said shortly after the end of the Cold War the military became enamored with technology, reducing the overall military personnel. "A few of us objected to this," he said. He said a study group he was a part of recommended up to 400,000 troops for Iraq, because the problem wasn't taking out Saddam, but in stabilizing the region. "These situations are manpower intensive," he said.
As for the structure that President Bush had to work with in government, Zinni gave him somewhat of a pass.
"I can't blame this administration for what it inherited. It inherited a bloated bureaucracy," he said, noting that the practice of earmarking, K Street lobbyists' influence, and pork barrel politics were "centuries in the making."
But the president's key mistake, according to Zinni, was in failing to tell the American people honestly why an invasion of Iraq was necessary. He said the information he saw showed that Saddam Hussein had no active program in 2002 and 2003 for weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had the ability to reconstitute such a program, but U.N. sanctions were successfully containing him. Zinni called the justification "an exaggeration that was going to burn (the Bush administration) in the end." Besides the insufficient troops and prosecuting the war on the cheap, Zinni said the administration "doomed themselves by the rationale for the war," likening it to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which granted President Lyndon Johnson permission to escalate involvement in Vietnam.
Re: Bolton Out
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 1:31PM
If Bush really wants to stick it to the anti-Bolton crowd, he could do no better than to recess-appoint Jed Babbin in his place...
'Liberaltarians'
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 1:15PM
Brink Lindsey proposes a liberal-libertarian fusion is the new New Republic (subscription only, though Sebastian Mallaby summarizes Lindsey's argument in the WaPo UPDATE: Here's Lindsey's piece at Cato). Lindsey is hardly the first to cover this ground; some libertarians were proposing an alliance with the New Left 40 years ago. The argument hasn't gotten much more convincing.
Lindsey writes that "If a new kind of fusionism is to have any chance for success, it must... at the philosophical level, seeks some kind of reconciliation between Hayek and Rawls." Unless one is willing to embrace something along the lines of the very un-libertarian "positive freedom" agenda, that just isn't going to work. What Lindsey credits as common ground between liberals and libertarians are really superficial overlaps in policy that emerge from very different philosophical approaches, and which lead to different logical endpoints. As positive freedom fan Matt Yglesias has put it,
a lot of the views liberals tend to think of us libertarian-ish liberal positions aren't actually especially libertarian at the end of the day... Liberals believe in a certain notion of human liberation from entrenched dogma, prejudice, and tradition, but this isn't the same as hostility to state action, even in the sex-and-gender sphere...Indeed. This is a peculiar time to be proposing a new fusionism since, as Katherine Mangu-Ward pointed out last week, the new Democratic majority is poised to send libertarians running screaming in the opposite direction. In opposition, libertarians and conservatives have more common ground, not less.Proper libertarians have all heard this line of reasoning, and they disagree with it, which is what makes them libertarians.
The Perils of the Senate
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 1:15PM
The Washington Times reports that there's a strong likelyhood that the new Congress will grant citizenship rights to most illegal immigrants in the U.S. The article notes:
Democrats in both chambers say they will start with some form of legislation first drafted by Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, which was the basis for the bill that was approved earlier this year by the Senate.
Should the McCain-Kennedy bill be the starting point for an eventual immigration compromise that is perceived as amnesty by the conservative base, it could cause real problems for McCain in the Republican primary. And this is just one example of why McCain's job as an active Senator creates an obstacle for his candidacy. Over the next year, McCain will be working hard to mend fences with conservatives, but because he has the burden of being Senator, he'll constantly be reminding them that he is at odds with them on many issues. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney may also have positions that are unpopular among conservative voters, but they won't be in the spotlight the way McCain will be, nor will they be actively advancing an agenda that conflicts with the sentiment of the base.
RE: Bolton Out
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 12:59PM
I say "Good Riddance!"
Not about Bolton, but about a certain Senator.
Not Just Me...
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 11:47AM
In the latest issue of National Review (subscription req'd), Richard Brookhiser makes the case for Rudy Giuliani. An excerpt:
More important, all of his radioactive positions, except on immigration, might be modified by the men and women he nominated as judges. On the eve of the mid-term elections, Giuliani hailed Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito as model judges, “principled individuals who can be trusted to defend the original intent of the Constitution rather than trying to legislate their own political beliefs from the bench.” He called their appointments “signs of promises kept.”
Social conservatives will be keen to know whom Giuliani will promise to appoint. They already know where he is coming from, and many of them seem to support him nonetheless. The idea that Giuliani’s strong poll numbers will blow away once people learn his whole record is probably a fantasy. He has been on the national stage for 13 years, and what people don’t know they can infer from his incorrigible New York-ness. Many social conservatives have already made a calculation about leadership. The Romans said that in war the laws are silent. Neither Christians nor humanists can believe that. But in war one wants a war leader, who may be otherwise unacceptable. Early in World War II
picked a washed-up journalist with a lot of sleazy friends. England
Bolton Out
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 11:30AM
We knew this was coming one way or another, but still a sad day. Sadder still that Republicans couldn't confirm him even when they ran the show.
Bayh In
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 11:02AM
Sen. Evan Bayh said yesterday he plans to form a presidential exploratory committee. As the former governor of Indiana, Bayh has executive experience and as someone who has been popular in a solidly red state, he has the ability to appeal to voters outside of the Democratic Party--all of which may serve him well in the general election. However, he'll probably be too moderate to win the nomination and his lack of name recognition will be hard to overcome in a field dominated by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Given how much money it will take to win the nomination, it will be difficult to compete. Yes, the relatively unknown Bill Clinton won the nomination in 1992, but he stood out among a field of relative unkowns (Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Tom Harkin, etc.)
Garry & I
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 10:10AM
And yet. In the space of the past year in Iraq we have satisfied
and chronologically surpassed all our benchmarks, arrived at the
point at which winning would set in, and discovered that instead of
winning virtually everything has gone backwards. [...] No, for good
or ill the ultimatum of picking up stakes creates actual urgency, namely an urgent reclamation of
initiative on the part of the USA and an urgent dumping of
initiative upon the Iraqis left holding the bag. If this is a
wretched idea it's because -- and only because -- Iraq might become
so hopelessly anarchic that the Middle East will implode, sucking
every people but the Persians into a vast hellbroth. [...] The
inability of Iraq to form a national army capable of even the
pretense of monopolized force is their fault, not ours [...].
Kasparov,
Dec. 2 2006:
So what then, to do? "Mission accomplished" jokes aside, the original goals in Iraq--deposing Saddam Hussein and holding elections--have been achieved. Nation-building was never on the agenda, and it should not be added now. All the allied troops in the world aren't going to stop the Iraqi people from continuing their civil war if this is their choice. As long as Muslim leaders in Iraq and elsewhere are unwilling to confront their own radical elements, outsiders will be spectators in the line of fire.
As for stability, if allied troops leave Iraq: What stability? I won't say things can't get worse--if we've learned anything, it's that things in the Middle East can always get worse; but at least the current deadly dynamic would be changed. And with change there is always hope for improvement. Without change, we are expecting a different result from the same behavior, something once defined as insanity.
Brownback Jumps In
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 9:24AM
Sen. Sam Brownback, by far the closest to a Reagan Republican we have in the toe-dipping presidential race now, formally opened his exploratory committee this morning.
With the exception of his foray into parts of the immigration debate, Brownback -- unlike McCain on a host of issues, and Romney on social issues -- hasn't required "evolution" to get to where he is today. Brownback has been consistent on his old campaign themes of reforming government, cutting taxes and returning to traditional values.
More important, no other U.S. Senator deserves more credit than he for scuttling the Harriet Miers nomination. In fact, Brownback and his staff's vigilence on this one issue deserves particular attention.
Also going for Brownback: his faith. As a fairly recent Catholic convert, Brownback -- who is right on all of the life issues -- deserves to have Catholics behind him. We'll be getting into this a bit more, but both McCain and Romney have hired guns working for them in Catholic outreach, whereas Brownback doesn't need 'em.
So can Brownback win? To say the least it's more than an uphill battle. But if he can push the other candidates to lock in promises on judges, taxes and life issues in a way that puts the party right, then we say he should stay in the race as long as financially sensible.
What's in a Name?
Posted by on 12.4.06 @ 9:12AM
Hotline looks at the full names of candidates seeking their party's presidential nomination. Winner for nerdiest? Willard Romney.
We'd say that he probably got his lunch money extorted from him over that name for years during elementary school, but at that point his father may have been governor of Michigan, so little Willard probably had police protection. Unless the police escort abused him, too.
Sunday, December 3, 2006
The Rumsfeld Memo
Posted by on 12.3.06 @ 12:44PM
Last weekend, former undersecretary of defense Dov Zakheim had an op-ed laying out advice for incoming SecDef Gates, which included moving US troops from Baghdad and Anbar to Kurdistan and the Iranian and Syrian borders while training the Iraqis to do the hard work of winning their own civil war. At the Corner, Mario Loyola (a DoD guy himself, until recently) highlighted Zakheim's suggestions with the note that "As former senior Defense officials go, Zakheim can be placed with former Policy chief Douglas Feith as closest in thinking to Rumsfeld himself." Sure enough, the memo leaked this weekend shows Rumsfeld advocating, among other options,
¶Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.There's a lot more to chew over, but my initial sense is that this stuff may be at least as influential as -- and significantly more useful than -- what comes out of the Baker-Hamilton Commission.¶Initiate a reverse embeds program, like the Korean Katusas, by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly Coalition squad, to improve our units' language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional U.S. troops. [...]
¶Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province. [...]
¶Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.
Avoirdu-WHAT?
Posted by on 12.3.06 @ 9:22AM
Larry, my beloved holder of the Regular Guy Chair (or so I once happily thought), I understand it now. You are, alas, a foodie and the worst kind of foodie, a thin foodie.Â
I've come down about 40-50 pounds since I wrote it, but I'm still trolling the no-man's land between the mainstream and the wonderful world of big and tall. And I still like my gravy, even if it is a bit on the gauche side for you fancy New England types.Missed Opportunity
Posted by on 12.3.06 @ 7:57AM
Sure, Democrats are really happy with the election results and taking over Congress. But had they spent even just a few bucks, they could have had one more House seat: the one belonging to Rep. Robin Hayes of North Carolina, who won by only 329 votes.
- Progressive Derangements
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- The Continuing Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
