- 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, December 23, 2006
'08 News
Posted by on 12.23.06 @ 3:29PM
Bob Novak says Obama is definitely running, and his advisers have been surprised by how much he seems to have spooked Hillary. Considering the latest polls in Iowa, Hillary's jitters aren't so mysterious.
Novak also reports that Bill Simon is running things for Giuliani in California. And the Des Moines Register looks at how Rudy is set to begin reaching out to conservatives in Iowa.
Replace Maliki?
Posted by on 12.23.06 @ 2:16PM
Reuel Marc Gerecht says no, while Dave Price disagrees. I'm inclined to split the difference; Gerecht's military advice (clear and hold Sunni areas of Baghdad before confronting the Sadrites) and Price's political point (it's up to the Iraqis, not us) both seem sound. The risk of intra-Shiite fighting following a political realignment is probably lower than Gerecht thinks but higher than Price thinks.
RE: Wash Times on Rudy
Posted by on 12.23.06 @ 1:14PM
John, events could prove me wrong, but I'm betting that, as a pro-McCain supply-sider, Kudlow is going to be an outlier. Also, as you noted, Kudlow's reasons for admiring McCain seem almost entirely unrelated to economics -- and rightly so.
On fiscal policy, McCain is probably strongest on spending (at least of the wasteful variety -- he can be terrible on size of government issues) and weakest on taxes. He voted the Lincoln Chafee line on the 2001 Bush tax cuts. He campaigned in favor of a smaller tax cut, with less of a reduction in marginal rates, in 2000. He championed a significant tobacco tax increase in the late '90s. And his campaign finance reform law wasn't kind to anti-tax groups.
Both McCain and Giuliani have personalities and national reputations that lend themselves well to winning support from people who disagree with them on any number of issues. But I doubt many people who are as committed supply-siders as Kudlow will be willing to overlook McCain's record in this area.
However...
Posted by on 12.23.06 @ 11:34AM
Right now I'm betting that social conservatives just aren't feeling the love from the GOP. Of the three most prominent potential nominees for the Republican nomination, one (Guiliani) is a social liberal, another (McCain) has called evangelicals "agents of intolerance" and "corrupting influences," and the third (Romney) seems to be a social conservative when it is convenient.
Can't we do better?
Re: Wash Times on Rudy
Posted by on 12.23.06 @ 11:28AM
I am leaning toward Rudy myself, although I haven't yet made up my mind. The problem is I bet a friend $100 that Rudy wouldn't win the nomination due to his social views. Alas, the sacrifices I must make for the good of the nation.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Southern Appeal Ends with the Winter
Posted by on 12.22.06 @ 8:54PM
I began reading Southern Appeal almost immediately when it started and was run by an anonymous clerk for a federal judge who called himself "Feddie." Upon moving into private practice, "Feddie" declared himself to be Macon's Steve Dillard. The blog became a part of the Georgia political scene and maintained healthy alliances with National Review Online and the folks at Red State.
Though I quit the Reform Club to blog at American Spectator, I couldn't drop Southern Appeal because it was the place where you could get a raging (but friendly) theological discussion going between Catholics and Protestants or find out where the best barbecue festivals in the South were held.
Now, for reasons Steve has chosen not to reveal to the public (but are really prosaic and non-sensational), Southern Appeal has to end. None of us were interested in contributing without Steve. It would be like Glenn Reynolds doing a hand-off of his site. Unthinkable.
This is the end of a little piece of blog history. Hopefully some of those Southern Appeal readers will join us here in the friendly confines of TAS.
Positive Libertarianism?
Posted by on 12.22.06 @ 6:21PM
Since my brief against "liberaltarianism" was based around the negative liberty/positive liberty distinction, I thought I ought to comment on Jonah Goldberg's argument that some libertarians have started to emphasize positive liberty, albeit not of the state-enforced variety. I think Jonah's more or less got Nick Gillespie's number. Here's Gene Healy summarizing a debate on the viability of libertarian-conservative marriage that the America's Future Foundation hosted last year:
Nor was there much agreement about what it means to be a libertarian among the libertarian panelists. Jeremy Lott saw no inconsistency between libertarianism and moderate social conservatism, so long as it's not enforced by the state. Nick Gillespie, on the other hand, argued that a monomaniacal focus on the state left out some important aspects of liberalism. He rejected the notion that libertarianism could be limited to the realm of political philosophy. At one point, he noted that we were dramatically freer than we had been decades ago, because, among other things, in 1970 it was difficult for an unmarried couple to check into a hotel together. Afterwards, I wondered what the hell that had to do with libertarianism, and a friend cracked that I must have skipped the part about hot-pillow joints in Locke's Second Treatise.None of this means that a lib-lib alliance of the type that Brink Lindsey envisions is viable. It does mean that certain types of libertarians are uncomfortable with the libertarian-conservative alliance, but (as I mentioned in my podcast with Dave Weigel last week) that's always been true for various reasons.
Re: Wash Times on Rudy
Posted by on 12.22.06 @ 5:49PM
Jim, your economic conservatives back Giuliani, social conservatives back McCain scenario is strangely plausible. But what to make of today's paean to McCain by econ-con extraordinaire Larry Kudlow? (Of course, he doesn't mention economic issues.)
Giving, Not Government
Posted by on 12.22.06 @ 1:47PM
I mentioned Arthur Brooks's new book the other day in my most recent column. Katherine Mangu-Ward has a nice piece about Brooks and Who Really Cares? The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism over at Reason.
A Rape Case No Longer
Posted by on 12.22.06 @ 1:42PM
Prosecutors have dropped the rape charges against the infamous three former Duke lacrosse players. The rest of the case, however, could still move forward.
RE: Wash Times on Rudy
Posted by on 12.22.06 @ 1:37PM
I think Phil's right that the conventional wisdom on Giuliani is changing. Unless Mitt Romney or some other candidate emerges as a viable conservative alternative to the front-runners, I think we could see an interesting dynamic in the 2008 Republican presidential race: John McCain could become the candidate of single-issue voters on abortion, guns, and gay marriage.
Or we could see economic and social conservatives back different candidates. There is a credible case to be made that Giuliani is to McCain's right on fiscal policy while McCain is to Giuliani's right on social issues. This match-up would be unsatisfying to conservative activists for all sorts of reasons, but the vast goodwill McCain and post-9/11 Giuliani have built up with the electorate may make it happen anyway.
Wash Times on Rudy
Posted by on 12.22.06 @ 10:06AM
Little by little, the conventional wisdom that Rudy Giuliani is unelectable is starting to fade. In just the past few days, Jonah Goldberg, Michael Barone, and Tom Bevan have written about how Rudy could win the nomination. Today, the Washington Times reports:
"John McCain and Mitt Romney have been working hard in South Carolina over the past year," Mr. Malyerck said. "Even though Rudy Giuliani has not formally gotten his campaign up and going, he has been treated like a rock star across the state at rallies and fundraisers alike."
Dems And '08 Congressional Races
Posted by on 12.22.06 @ 9:52AM
The leaders of the incoming Democratic Congress are already taking steps to ensure that the party maintains its majority in 2008. The NY Times reports:
Their names will be affixed as co-sponsors atop big-ticket
measures on ethics and stem cell research that are to be voted on
in the first 100 hours of the new Congress, Democratic leaders
said.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Some People Believe The Darndest Things
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 11:03PM
Such as public sector health care is more efficient than private sector. My thoughts over at the National Center Blog.
Our Holiday Schedule
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 8:08PM
A note about our Home Page posts during this most Christmassy of times: Today's Holiday lineup will have to last us until Wednesday, December 27, when we resume a full schedule. AmSpecBlog will remain on duty throughout these coming days. Now it's off to Santa's sleighland for extra delivery rounds. Don't wait up, just keep the porch light on and the alarm system off!
Speaking of Romney
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 7:50PM
Ramesh Ponnuru has a thoughtful post on The Corner about how pro-lifers should deal with questions regarding Mitt Romney's changing abortion views:
I think we ought to be unsentimental about this question. Those of us who favor Romney’s position on sanctity-of-life issues ought to care less about its sincerity than about its stability. We ought to care about whether he will abandon the position, that is, not whether he truly believes it.
As I’ve said before, I can’t judge Romney’s sincerity -- his timing is suspect but past signals plus his eloquence on life issues may indicate there is something to his conversion. Yet he didn’t switch only once, like George H.W. Bush.
In 1994, Romney accepted an endorsement from Massachusetts Citizens for Life while running for the Republican senatorial nomination against a pro-choice primary opponent. He emphasized his opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion and the Freedom of Choice Act, which threatened to codify Roe.
Then, when challenged on the issue, Romney emphasized that he was in fact pro-choice, had been since before Roe, and recounted the tragic circumstances that he said led his family to support legal abortion. Romney suggested he might support a modified version of the Freedom of Choice Act and that he believed Medicaid funding of abortion should be left up to the states.
While in
Romney certainly may be sincere. But so far, he hasn’t been stable.
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part XII
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 6:03PM
RomneyCare hasn't even gone into full effect yet, but that hasn't stopped everyone else from jumping on the bandwagon. From the Boston Globe:
Liberals are setting aside old demands for a single-payer system, while conservatives are showing a willingness to consider more government involvement in the provision of healthcare.With Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, an architect of the state's plan, mulling a presidential run in 2008, healthcare is likely to be a big topic in the both the GOP and Democratic presidential primaries, party officials say. The attention the Massachusetts plan is getting in individual states, especially Iowa, the site of the nation's first presidential caucuses, is also pushing the healthcare issue to the forefront.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy , Democrat of Massachusetts and the incoming chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said he will call hearings in the new Congress to explore using the Bay State plan as a national model.
And some Republican senators think the plan might help US companies compete in the global market by easing the burden of rising healthcare costs. Representative Edward Markey , Democrat of Malden, said he will push for similar hearings in the House.
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part XI
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 5:55PM
Supposedly Governor Romney's health care reform will lower health insurance costs for those in the individual market. The problem is that it will shift the cost to the small-group market by mixing the small-group pool and the individual pool together. According to Robert Flynn:
The new law merges non-group and small business risk pools and experts predict a premium increase from 2 percent to 8 percent. If we add that to our current medical and pharmacy trends, we could see cost increases of 16 percent to 22 percent in 2007.The new law also addresses and extends health care for longer periods those who lose their IRS dependent status. Actuaries will have to include this risk into their rates, which will then be passed onto the employers.
Re: Will on Blogs
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 12:35PM
Our pals at No Left Turns have picked up the meme too, starting with the WSJ instead of Will. What more is there to add? Most blogs, like most components of everything, are unimportant. Is there anything that makes worthwhile information less worthwhile because it comes out in blog format? What is "blogging" anyway? Is there a word limit to blog posts? A topical restriction? It's pretty plain that bad content can don the garb of any kind of media. The redeeming quality of even the worst blogs is -- at least for now -- you have to seek them out, and they don't come a-knockin' with advertisements as the battering ram. More than the major dailies can say, isn't it?
Goldberg on Rudy
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 12:28PM
In the LA Times, Jonah Goldberg explains that Rudy Giuliani could win over conservatives if he can make some of the debates over social issues "secondary to a broader defense of American civilization."
Dershowitz On Carter
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 12:15PM
Dershowitz throws down the gauntlet:
Carter's refusal to debate wouldn't be so strange if it weren't for the fact that he claims that he wrote the book precisely so as to start debate over the issue of the Israel-Palestine peace process. If that were really true, Carter would be thrilled to have the opportunity to debate. Authors should be accountable for their ideas and their facts. Books shouldn't be like chapel, delivered from on high and believed on faith.What most rankles is Carter's insistence that he is somehow brave for attacking Israel and highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people. No other conflict in the world -- not even the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan -- evokes more hand-wringing in the media, universities, and human rights organizations than the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Jimmy Carter isn't brave for beating up on Israel. He's a bully. And like all school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, there's a nagging insecurity and a fear that one day he'll have to answer for himself in a fair fight.
Pre-Christmas Cheer
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 12:12PM
People react differently to my cell phone ringing. When it does, it plays "Off we go into the wild, blue yonder." Yesterday, I stopped by at the offices of an Asheville, NC law firm I'm working with. Walking rapidly down the hall, my phone went off just as a nice young lady came up from the opposite direction. Hearing it, she immediately smiled broadly and started to skip down the hall in time with the music, waving her hands like a cheer leader. That one encounter cheered me up more than anything else has in months. Onward and upward.
Will on Blogs
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 12:12PM
George Will writes that "There are expected to be 100 million bloggers worldwide by the middle of 2007, which is why none will be like Franklin or Paine." Will's piece comes on the heels of a Joseph Rago column in yesterday's WSJ along similar lines.
I think that analysis of the blogosphere is often weighted to the extremes: those on one end who think it will rule the world, and those who believe it's useless, even detrimental to political dialogue. The truth, as is often the case, is somewhere in between. Blogs will never do away with the need for traditional writing and reporting, because they're responsible for feeding blog content, and a brilliant essay will always have more staying power than a blog post. The ease of posting something on a blog is a big reason why most of them are dreck, but the freewheeling nature of blogs also allows people to engage in lively debates and throw out interesting ideas that may not justify a formal column. Blogging isn't a substitute for the traditional media, but when it's intelligent, it's a useful supplement to traditional media.
The Gay Marriage of 2006?
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 11:24AM
Over at RealClearPolitics, Jeremy Lott makes the case that the minimum-wage increases on state ballots in November were a crucial turnout-booster for Democrats. He suggests they not blow a good thing by hiking the federal minimum wage.
He also offers them timeless political advice: "...tell voters the Man is keeping them down."
Remember the Harry Browne Administration?
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 11:16AM
Jonathan Chait doesn't either.
Wash Post on Romney
Posted by on 12.21.06 @ 11:08AM
The Washington Post plays catch-up today with a front page piece on Romney's wavering social views. Nothing that would be new to readers of this blog, but I wanted to make note of this:
Paul M. Weyrich, who is head of the Free Congress Foundation, said Romney should not underestimate the problem he may face as he prepares to launch his campaign.
"I think it's very serious," he said. "Our position is that, if a candidate can change his position sort of overnight, what would he do once he got in office? Would he do the same thing?"
To me, that gets to the biggest downside with Romney. He has a very limited political record, and all we know of it is that he's always taken positions that were the most politically advantagous at the time. He ran two campaigns as a moderate Republican with liberal positions on social issues, and once he decided to run for president, he began to stake out conservative positions on those issues. Were he to get past the primaries and capture the White House, he would no longer be beholden to conservatives, but to the broader public. His record doesn't inspire much confidence that he'd actually govern as a conservative if he's no longer worried about the Republican primaries, especially given the type of pressure that is put on a president by polls, the media, political advisors, etc. This stretches beyond social views. Would he cut a deal with Democrats on Social Security that involved a payroll tax hike? Would he compromise with Democrats on a disasterous universalized health care bill in search of a legacy? Would he be convinced to negotiate with Iran and Syria? Conservatives can't say with any confidence that he wouldn't, and that's a problem.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
RE: Liberaltarians Again
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 5:51PM
There's an additional problem with Brink Lindsey's argument. Democrats were able to make gains with libertarian voters without doing anything to specifically court them, so there isn't much incentive for Democrats to suddenly risk alienating their base to pursue polices being pushed by Lindsey, such as "restructuring" of entitlement programs, just to win over more libertarian votes. From the Democrats point of view, a growing number of libertarians will be inclined to vote for them on the basis of national security and social issues anyway, so there's no need to seek reconciliation with libertarians on economic issues.
Liberaltarians Again
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 4:50PM
Brink Lindsey revisits the "liberaltarians" debate over at TNR. I think most of the points made against his thesis by Jonathan Chait from the left and John Tabin from the right still stand, but I'd nevertheless like to quibble with one minor detail of Lindsey's political analysis.
Lindsey writes, "According to data analyzed by David Boaz and David Kirby, Democratic House and Senate candidates in 2006 did 24 percentage points better with libertarian-leaning voters than they did in the midterm elections of 2002... So much for the idea that gaining ground with libertarians is doomed to be a net vote loser."
But the "libertarian" vote shift toward the Democrats actually occured in 2004, when the rest of the electorate swung the other way. Democrats don't seem to have gained any new ground among libertarians in the last two years, though they gained plenty with other voters. So I'm not sure there was some successful appeal to libertarians that failed to offend nonlibertarians. The data doesn't seem to show one.
RE: Tax Increases Coming?
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 4:35PM
It would be a serious misstep by the Democrats if they allow Bush to bait them into proposing a tax increase. Fortunately for them, the political acumen needed to do so hasn't been on display at the White House since the 2004 elections.
A Compromiser not a Conservative
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 2:43PM
Byron York over at NRO lays out here the challenges Gov. Mitt Romney faces over his compromising on policy and evolution on what should be hard and fast positions on life issues.
Increasingly it appears that Romney has had more positions on abortion and other issues than Brigham Young had wives, and this will continue to be his biggest handicap moving forward toward primary season.
RE: Tax Increases Coming?
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 1:47PM
Phil,
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it seems to me that Bush is trying to avoid tax increases. The exchange suggests that he doesn't want to give any credence to the idea--i.e., if the Democrats put it on the table, so be it, but Bush will not put it on the table himself.
Letting the opposition put something on the table is a far cry from agreeing to it. As I recall, Reagan didn't tell Gorbchev that Gorby couldn't put SDI on the table at Reykjavik. SDI was on the table, but Reagan in the end said no to Gorby's demand that the U.S. not pursue SDI. They walked away from that meeting with no deal.
My guess is that Bush will let the Democrats use it as a bargaining chip, but he will walk away from any plan that has a tax increase. Bush's biggest domestic legacy is the tax cuts. Part of that is the fact that he has not raised taxes in any significant way. That's a lot to give up to get a deal on Social Security.
RE: Double-0
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 1:28PM
David: It will be Jed pouring the martini's that evening!
Re: Double-0
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 1:19PM
Lady G: Pour one for me too, please. Shaken, not stirred.
Tax Increases Coming?
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 12:15PM
Quin, I agree with you that calling Donald Rumsfeld one of the best Secretaries of Defense ever, and saying the army needs to be bigger is quite a contradiction.
But I think this was the most troubling exchange of the interview:
Just on that point, are you willing to sit down with Democrats in a commission that puts all the options on Social Security on the table? Not just reductions and benefits, not just private accounts, but also some kind of revenue increases, tax increases?
I don't see how you can move forward without people feeling comfortable about putting ideas on the table. I have made it clear that I've got a way forward that can do it and I want to hear other people's opinions. And that's what Hank Paulson is telling both Republicans and Democrats. It's going to be very important for people to feel there can be a full, wide-ranging discussion about how to move forward.
And specifically, tax increases on the table then?
Well, specifically, personal accounts; specifically, everything that the Democrats think will work, as well.
Well, they talk about tax increases.
Well, let them; that's fine. They can come to the table and talk about them. I proposed a way forward that doesn't require tax increases. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing their opinions.
It makes no sense to me why Bush would even consider raising taxes. What would he gain politically? All he would do is cut off the one remaining leg he has to stand on among conservatives.
Cognitive disconnect
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 11:57AM
I hate to say this, but there is a serious cognitive disconnect within the remarks of President Bush quoted by the Wash Post today. On the one had, he says both that we are not winning right now in Iraq (this after nearly four years!) AND that our Army overall needs to get bigger. On the other hand, he says that Donald Rumsfeld is one of the best Defense Secretaries either -- even though it is Rumsfeld who insisted on smaller forces overall, smaller forces specifically in Iraq, and who was in charge of securing the peace in Iraq that we have not yet won. Now I like Rumsfeld in that I think he is a dedicated public servant, a patriotic American, and a man who has for decades served his country well. But to say that he has done this particular job extremely well at the same time you say the job is not going well and that we need to do just the opposite (a bigger Army, not a smaller one) overall of what Rumsfeld for six years has pushed, is to be utterly self-contradictory. I leave it to readers to decide WHICH half of this supposed equation of the president's is right and which wrong, but I see no logical way to assert both postulates at the exact same time.
When I was reading the Post's stories this morning, I thought Bush sounded like the Queen in Through the Looking Glass, who bragged about once having believed "six impossible things, all before breakfast!"
Robots With Rights? Does Not Compute
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 10:11AM
The British government issues its most worthwhile report yet.
RE: Baker & Novak
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 9:32AM
I suppose I don't see "Palestinians understanding" any time soon that they had better shape up or ... carry on in the same fashion that's been pathologically institutionalized in the Occ. Terr. for generations. There's a big difference between sovereignty and autonomy -- the first creates a list of formal rights and duties, the second a list of uncertainties and excuses. I wasn't one to cheer for holding democratic elections in Palestine -- it was a "bold move" of the kind, say, Ford has to rely on, but, by nature, elections can't change the character of a people, and the Palestinians, as a people, include some individuals for whom peace shall never be an option. If these individuals wish to form a political party which is also a terrorist organization, we should take advantage of their self-selection and work to isolate them out. Disengagement is one way. But given the pressures posed by Hezbollah and Iraq, I wonder if we have the luxury of waiting for Palestinians to see the light at the end of their own tunnel before ours comes into view.
Israel doesn't "have to" negotiate with the "best partners it has" -- Israel can, with our help, create better partners. I know the lesson of Arafat is that this "never works," but if Fatah gets to choose between statehood and a death-struggle with Hamas, I guess they'd pick the former. And if you're worried about Hamas staging a second coup -- this time seizing the reins of sovereign government -- I suspect as part of a broader effort our Arab friends who so quickly denounced and still dread Hezbollah would remain disinclined to see that happen.
The only failure of the "hold fast" strategy, in my view, is that its positive consequences will never come to pass. Hamas seems to me a terminally slow learner when it comes to responsible government. Palestine can keep this up for a long time, and if there's one thing we don't have in the Middle East it's time.
Giuliani on His Rivals
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 12:31AM
The New York Times reports on what has been billed as Rudy's kickoff fundraiser, held Tuesday night in New York:
"We'll have a large number of people who support us, and then we'll figure out who has a better chance," Mr. Giuliani said.
He also praised Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, another
possible Republican contender. "We're going to have to figure out
which one of us can make the best contribution, who has the talent,
experience and background to guide this country two years from
now," Mr. Giuliani said.
I wonder if the tone will change slightly by, say, this time next year.
RE: Baker and Novak
Posted by on 12.20.06 @ 12:24AM
James, your response brings to mind the phrase "defining deviancy down." Even though the Palestinians' popularly-elected parliament is led by a terrorist group dedicated to Israel's destruction, even though Palestinians are at war with themselves, the Israelis, you say, are supposed to strike a deal that isn't worth the paper it would be printed on because it has to deal with the best partners it has. Unfortunately, Israel has been down that road before. That was the whole argument for elevating Arafat to the status of statesman, only to see him reject a Palestinian state when it was offered to him in 2000 and launch another Intifada instead. Give the Palestinians more autonomy and make them more accountable? That was the whole logic behind the Olso process as well as the recent democratic elections. The same argument was used when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza and when Hamas came to power--that now they'd be held accountable. Instead, Hamas smuggled in weapons from Egypt, used Gaza as staging ground to launch rockets at Israeli civilians, and built tunnels to kidnap Israeli soldiers. The correct response is not to ask Israel to lower its standards to negotiate under these circumstances, but to hold firm until Palestinians understand that there only way to statehood is to behave like responsible, viable peace partners. Disengagement was one way to change the status quo and preserve Israeli security regardless of whether there was a viable peace partner, but Sharon's stroke and Olmert's subsequent ascent to power decreased the likelihood that such a policy would succeed.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
RE: Double-0
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 11:47PM
Jed: When you have reached your verdict, I will take a nice, stiff whisky.
Re: Baker & Novak
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 11:35PM
PK -- What explanation isn't a list of benefits for the course proposed? The question is not so much whether the follow-on effects would be real (they would) but whether a negotiated settlement is possible on any terms. The question of whether Israel would negotiate with Hamas or Fatah seems to answer itself. Would Hamas be able to repudiate the sovereignty of a Palestinian state negotiated without them? Possibly. Would they still be able to retain significant (armed) support? Possibly. But if Palestinian society is cleft that deeply, what can anyone do about it? Why not incentivize and forge forward with the partners you've got? The alternative is to sit back, relax, and watch the chaos. And though any good paleocon would jump up and shout "Exactly!" -- at least before things took their turn in Iraq -- now we've got to ask whether sitting on both our hands instead of just one of them is the best way to retake the initiative...or whether, by simply throwing more soldiers and more money at the problem, we might content ourselves with a simulacrum of proactivity. "Keep digging, Watson" is not an adequate reaction, as Israel regrettably has learned. The status quo is now inimical to Israeli security interests -- as Hezbollah, regrettably, has learned.
Re: Baker & Novak
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 8:44PM
James, your "explanation" is a list of potential positive outcomes that could result from a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians. However, my primary point was not that peace would be undesirable, but that it's unrealistic to expect
Baker & Novak
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 7:52PM
"...they never explain why Israelis should risk the future of their country to cut a peace deal with Palestinians when the Palestinians cannot even honor a ceasefire amongst themselves."
Well, without necessarily making an endorsement of it here's what I surmise the explanation to be:
(1) The Palestinian problem is not just an Israeli problem, and directly impacts American interests abroad; (2) An official peace deal will provide the US the legitimacy required to enforce such a deal with proper military threat; (3) "forcing" Palestinians into statehood will put the ball into their court, raising the consequence bar for acts of war; and (4) peace and sovereignty will beef up the mettle of our "friends in the Gulf" with regard to Iran, and isolate Syria as well.
Any takers?
Re: Double-0
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 7:09PM
Lady G and Dave: Ok. I guess I'll have to see for myself. Will report with my verdict.
Bush Calls For More Troops
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 6:10PM
Not necessarily in Iraq, but the military in general. The Washington Post has published excerpts from an interview it had with President Bush earlier today. The major point is that Bush said he's spoken with Robert Gates about the need to increase overall troop levels:
The reason why is, it is a accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while, and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace.
Fatah and Hamas vs. Baker and Novak
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 5:50PM
Fatah and Hamas say they have reached a new deal to stop their clashes with each other that killed six today in Gaza. A "new" deal was needed because the one they signed on Sunday fell apart within 24 hours. So-called realists like James Baker, with the support of people like Robert Novak, continue to argue for U.S.-brokered peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. But they never explain why Israelis should risk the future of their country to cut a peace deal with Palestinians when the Palestinians cannot even honor a ceasefire amongst themselves.
Guess Who Is In Trouble Again?
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 5:25PM
The "Mayor For Life" was pulled over for "driving too slowly" last Saturday night. Gee, I wonder what could possibly have been the reason why he would be driving so slow?
I think that Marion should run for mayor again when his time as councilman is up. I'd like Spectator readers to enter their suggestions for slogans in the comments section. My entry is "Don't Let The B**ch Set You Up! Vote Barry!"
RE: Double O
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 5:13PM
Jed,
Gotta agree with the Lady on this one. Craig's Bond is a bad-a**.
It inspired me to get my abs in shape, sharpen my shooting skills, and start punching walls for the fun of it. Fortunately, I'm already a pretty good poker player.
Ain't Wastin' No More Time
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 2:29PM
Bruce Bartlett respects Bob Barr's decision to bolt the GOP for the Libertarian Party, but doesn't expect it to do much good. He has written a column describing the LP as a waste of time.
Bartlett goes so far as to say: "In my view, it is essential for the Libertarian Party to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency."
Haggard's Not the Only One
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 12:21PM
Another pastor at his church steps down because of sexual misconduct.
Re: Movie Car Trivia
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 11:53AM
Lady G: The "bathtub Porsche" was also featured in Doc Hollywood, a charming comedy. I should have mentioned that the car in Two Weeks in Another Town was strikingly modern looking -- this 30 years ago or more. And I have searched for movie stills and can't find one with the car.
Slim Defense
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 11:42AM
Philip, I would cut the Chiefs some slack if they had done a better job so far. AND if they were arguing against a short-term boost to the troops in Iraq ONLY because their argument was that short-term would not be enough. In other words, if they were arguing that we should make a commitment for enough troops for as long as it takes to WIN, that would be fine. Instead, they seem to be saying, as they have all along, that no increase of troops will make any difference and that no increase can be sustained. Here's the question that the Joint Chiefs should answer: HOW DO THEY RECOMMEND THAT WE WIN? Just saying "no" to proposals doesn't do the job; if they presented a workable alternative, THEN I would cut them some slack. Until they do, though, they are no better than a bunch of McClellans.
Chiefs NOT Smoking Joints
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 11:22AM
Quin, I think you're being too hard on the Joint Chiefs, because if you examine the article closely it seems that their objections are based on the fact that the proposed increase in troop levels would be modest and temporary. In other words, the increase would be large enough to incite our enemies and provide them with more targets, but it wouldn't be big enough or be sustained long enough to get the job done right.
Specifically, the article says:
The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in
Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said. The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to
Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said. The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a
U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.
I'm a firm believer that if we had gone to
RE: Movie Car Trivia
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 10:06AM
Lawrence: Though I don't know which convertible was in Two Weeks in Another Town, my fav little convertible (and I have to say, quite a beaut) is the Porsche 356 Speedster. You might recall that this car was featured in another big movie, Top Gun.
Dumpster Scrawls and National Security
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 9:54AM
Well, the good news is you're not going to die. Bad news is, your ears might bleed.
Chiefs Smoking Joints?
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 9:50AM
Today's Wash Post reports that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are arguing hard against increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Maybe they would have some credibility if they had already shown a clue how to secure the peace there. Here we are with the most powerful and technologically advanced military machine in history, yet we can't secure the peace against a bunch of two-bit (brutal, but still rather unsophisticated) sectarian thugs. It's pathetic. In this war, where has been our Patton, our Grant, our McArthur, or even our Schwarzkopf? And where has been the president who will, Lincoln-like, recognize when his military leaders have failed and fire them and fire the next ones and keep on looking until he finds the ones who, like Grant, will WIN? As Lincoln said of Grant: "I like this man: he fights." For nearly four years our military leaders and their civilian bosses have ignored the wisdom of the ages, which is that no matter what else you do, you can't win a war or secure a peace without enough boots on the ground. As recently as the Reagan-Weinberger-Powell years (does nobody remember them, fergoshsakes?!?), the conservative doctrines of war held sway: Go in with overwhelming force, with a clear plan for what to do after you defeat the enemy troops. It was under the assumption that we would not be too stupid to remember those doctrines that people as diverse as McCain, Lieberman, and even Hillary Clinton supported the war effort not just at the start but through some obvious post-Saddam challenges -- all the while demanding, as Frederick Kagan and so many others also have, that more troops be put on the ground and that the Army overall be expanded.
These Joint Chiefs have proven jointly to be failures. If they won't commit to securing the peace in Iraq, they should resign or be fired.
Movie Car Trivia
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 8:17AM
Jed or anyone else, I saw a bit of an old movie, TwoWeeks in Another Town (Kirk Douglas, Edward G. Robinson) a while back, and it showed Douglas and two other characters driving through Europe in one of the most beautiful little convertibles I've ever seen. A Jensen? Anybody know?
Wash Post on Rudy
Posted by on 12.19.06 @ 1:35AM
The Washington Post has a front page story on Giuliani's candidacy today. Not much new--i.e., the article says he'll have difficulty in the primaries because of his liberal social views, that he hasn't been hiring talent as agressively as Romney and McCain, and that some experts doubt he'll end up running. I've already spent a lot of time on this blog arguing against that conventional wisdom, so I just wanted to focus on one point of the story:
This is indicative of something I've sensed for a long time. It doesn't seem like Giuliani is going to flip-flop on social issues to win the nomination. He'll try his best to explain his positions, probably promise judges in the Roberts/Alito mold, and emphasize aspects of his record that would be lauded by social conservatives (cutting crime, moving people from welfare to work, cleaning up the city, fighting to kick porn houses out of Times Square and make it safe for families, etc.). However, I don't expect him to suddenly become pro-life or pro FMA. At this point he wouldn't gain anything anyway. Social conservatives who wouldn't otherwise vote for him wouldn't be swayed by such a transparent flip-flop, and such a move would turn off voters who respect him for being a real person rather than a pandering politician. His best bet is to argue to conservatives that even if they don't agree with him on every issue, at least they know where he stands, and that's why they can trust him to lead the War on Terror with steely resolve.
Monday, December 18, 2006
RE: Double-0
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 10:03PM
Jed: You do not agree that women are the best judges of manliness? Is it not women who often inspire compassion in men, and therefore the transition to a gentleman is complete -- a characteristic I personally would classify as belonging to manliness.
This episode in the Bond saga, to paraphrase the Spectator of London, was "brutal." But the point of Casino Royale was to show how Bond becomes and became a 00. Throughout the film he is tempered by the character "M" (once again played by the inestimable Judi Dench), who tells him, "Any thug can kill. I need you to take your ego out of the equation." From that point forward, we see the evolution of Bond into a man with just a touch of sensitivity. But if sensitive is not what you seek, don't worry. As with any James Bond flick, it is short-lived.
To answer your ultimate question, though (and this applies to the TV show 24 as well), women love these men (the James Bond, Jack Bauer types) not because they look good in a white tux or an old T-shirt and jeans (though it helps) -- they love them because in the end they always do the right thing.
RE: Your PS -- See the movie!
PS
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 9:45PM
And what's wrong with driving a Ford? Daniel Craig - wimp that he is - can't drive a manual shift, so they had to create an Aston Abortion specially for him. Skill through all the gears, heel-and-toeing and artful clutch use are all necessary for anyone who desires to operate my Ford SVT Mustang Cobra's 390 horsepower through all six gears. Sean Connery coulda done it.
Double-0 Uh Oh?
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 7:52PM
Dear Lady G: I haven't yet seen the Daniel Craig Casino Royale, and I will, for the moment, defer to your call on it. I know you eschew wimpery but, dearest Lady, is a dear lady the best judge of what is manly? Or is he so sexy that you and other ladies will overlook his other defects? Drinking a second poisoned martini seems more self-destructive than manly. Real men would pound down whiskey shots over a pool table (ok, ok, even over chemin de fer) in order to win money or the fair damsel, but would find a way to shoot whomever gave them a poisoned drink. Body counts are ok if there is real good old fashioned Code of the West heroism attached to creating them. Killing for the sake of killing is for sickos and other bad guys. Remember Platoon? In the modern Hollywood, I'm expecting a sensitive, corrupted, self-hating Bond who passes muster only because he looks good in a white tux jacket. Craig may be ok as Bond, but I still have my doubts. I will take this as a challenge and see it soon.
March to Mecca For Gay Rights!
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 6:20PM
With Friends Like This...
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 5:50PM
...the Democrats can ill afford enemies on health care issues.
View this flash presentation on health savings accounts (HSAs).
I'd explain what's wrong with it, but it's such a joke, I don't need to waste my or your time.
Daniel Craig as 007
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 5:18PM
Jed: I realize that the new (old) James Bond movie, Casino Royale, has been out for a few weeks, but I was just able to see it this past weekend (due to this lovely head cold going around DC). You aimed quite a bit of criticism at the lead actor back in April during filming of the movie on this blog (Daniel Craig) and I wanted to respond to you having now seen the movie.
You said then:
"Look, Craig. Bond is a hip-shooting, hard-drinking, fast-car-driving tough guy. Deal with it, or clear out."
"Will 007 trade the Aston Martin for a Toyota Prius?"
First, Daniel Craig's James Bond in Casino Royale is the hardest, hottest, and coldest Bond ever. Period.
As for hip-shooting? I quote M from the movie, "You are racking up quite the body count." Hard-drinking? He is poisoned by his new "Vesper" martini -- and then reaches for another one. And then while fast-car-driving, crashes hard. This Bond is the ultimate Bond.
And not to ruin it for anyone, but Bond drives a Ford in this one -- but only once. Remember, all, Ford now owns Aston Martin.
Isiah
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 4:49PM
In no way was my attack on Carmello Anthony meant as a defense of Isiah Thomas. He's been a disaster for the Knicks ever since he arrived, and his presence in New York makes it impossible for me to root for my favorite team. I'd love to see him go. But that doesn't change the fact that Anthony is a bonehead.
Re: 15 games
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 4:32PM
Phil & Wlady:
I don't follow the NBA enough to know where to come down in your
debate, but I do know enough about Isiah Thomas, the Knick coach
whose impact on the franchise has been utterly ruinous since the
moment he arrived. Whatever his role in instigating the brawl was
or wasn't, it's pretty lame to hear him justifying it with what
amounts to a bruised sense of fair play.
"We had surrendered," he said of his team at the moment in the game when the fight started, and then, referring to the Nuggets regulars, "those guys shouldn't have been in the game at that time. They were sticking it to us pretty good. They were having their way with us pretty good."
Isiah was upset that the Nuggets were showing up his squad. This from one of the worst sportsman the game has ever seen, exemplified in his leading his Detroit Piston regulars off the court in the 1991 conference finals, refusing to shake the hands of their conquerors, the Chicago Bulls of Michael Jordan. That is right up there with the most graceless moments I've ever seen in sports. Another came after one of Larry Bird's greatest games, when an opposition player told the press that if Bird were black, he'd be just another player. Who said that? Isiah Thomas, of course.
Romney and South Carolina
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 3:54PM
Byron York spoke to some conservatives in South Carolina, and concludes that Romney has "serious repair work to do" in light of recent publicity regarding his past pro-choice views and his statement during a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy that, "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush" (which contrasts with Romney's current contention that Reagan was one of his heroes).
The article makes an interesting point on the evolution of Romney's abortion position:
Oran Smith, pro-life, questions Romney's explanation in a more subtle way. In talks with conservative Christians, Smith points out, Romney has often addressed the issue of his Mormon faith by saying something to the effect of, "Our faiths are different, but they bring us to the same positions on the issues." But by all accounts, Romney was a faithful Mormon when he was solidly pro-choice, and he is a faithful Mormon today when he is solidly pro-life. How, precisely, did his faith bring him to different positions, then and now? "Christians generally like for someone to have a conversion experience and a mea culpa moment," says Smith. "But he doesn't have that to turn to. He can't say, 'My faith changed, and therefore my views changed.' That's the normal thing with Republicans who move to the right on some issues - they claim to have had some spiritual transformation."
Re: 15 Games
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 3:03PM
My point was that it doesn't matter whether Anthony is averaging more points this year, because Lebron is much more of a professional and the better team player. With his team in the competitive Western Conference, Anthony is going to miss nearly a fifth of the season, all because he threw an unnecessary punch with 1:15 left in an early season game that his team was winning by 20 points. Incidentally, Lebron's career scoring average is better, and this year he's averaging more rebounds and assists per game. I'd be willing to bet that over the course of their careers, Lebron wins more championships than Carmello.
Re: 15 Games
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 2:39PM
Phil: Are you in Isiah Thomas's employ? Or are you suggesting that the only way LeBron can stop Carmelo is to have Carmelo suspended for 15 games? Last summer, Carmelo, LeBron, and Dwayne emerged as the triumvirate of American basketball -- and they all got along spendidly. In that setup, to no one's surprise, Carmelo was without question the best scorer, with LeBron reduced to playmaker. Carmelo would have been fine had he not had to play the other night in the fabled Garden in the media capital of the universe -- against a rotten and thus badly embittered team, which if it existed in Europe would have been demoted to a third-tier league. The entire city of New York owes Carmelo an apology.
15 Games
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 2:12PM
Another reason why LeBron is better. The NBA's leading scorer Carmelo Anthony suspended for 15 games for throwing a stupid punch (and then running away) during a Knicks-Nuggets brawl in a game Saturday night.
Defending Big Government Conservatism
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 1:35PM
Michael Gerson, former speechwriter and policy advisor to President Bush, offers an all out assault on limited government conservatism in Newsweek, calling those of us who believe in smaller government "fundamentalists" and concluding that "any political movement that elevates abstract antigovernment ideology above human needs is hardly conservative, and unlikely to win."
A few quick bones to pick with a deeply flawed article that will no doubt be the source of much more debate within the conservative community.
Gerson argues that in the wake of Katrina, an event that "demanded an active response to government....the response of many Republicans was to use the disaster as an excuse for cutting government spending, particularly the Medicare prescription-drug benefit for seniors." But that was not it at all. Small government Republicans, led by Mike Pence, acknowledged that government would have to play an active role in hurricane relief, but with estimates for the cost of relief running as high as $200 billion, these Republicans argued that, given this large, unexpected expenditure, Congress should find ways to offset the cost by cutting spending elsewhere. Furthermore, it was actually big government Republicans who were the one's exploiting the disaster, and trying to use it as an excuse to fund pork barrel spending projects such as Trent Lott's Railroad to Nowhere.
Gerson also pins the blame for the skyrocketing budget during the Bush years on post-9/11 security needs. But security had nothing to do with the pork-laden transportation or energy bills, with the largest expansion of entitlements since Lyndon Johnson, or with the 15,000-plus earmarks that were tacked onto FY2006 appropriations acts. Gerson writes that the average annual increase in non-defense discretionary spending during the Bush years has been 3.9 percent. Sneakily, he compares this to "President Clinton's double-digit growth in his final year." However, as Stephen Slivinski points out in his book Buck Wild, the average growth rate in this category of spending for the entire
Bob Barr
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 1:23PM
John: Perhaps his cameo in Borat went some way in preparing him. I did some tabling at county fairs for the New Hampshire LP several years ago and it always felt like I was being similarly set-up by my fellow volunteers: Oddball characters pushing you into strange, confrontational, sometimes quirkily hilarious conversations that arrived like a bolt from the blue. Borat chased people with chickens; libertarians chased people with copies of the World's Smallest Political Quiz only to tell half of them to their face once the results were tallied that they were an authoritarian...an authoritarian in overalls and a straw hat to boot. This all 25 feet from where people were playing cow patty bingo.
Actually, those were some of the best times of my life. Seriously.
Personally, I think this was an extraordinarily brave and admirable move for Barr. Agree or disagree, he is taking against all odds action for something he believes knowing full well he will be ridiculed by past allies.
Also, Dave Weigel has a interview with Barr up today here.
Re: Don't Let the Door Hit You...
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 12:50PM
Yikes, David, that's an awfully harsh dismissal of a TAS Contributing Editor!
I wonder if Barr knows what he's getting into. Having worked at Liberty when we were putting together coverage of the 2002 convention, my impression is that the internal squabbling at the LP can get awfully vicious and petty. The triumphant feeling that comes from electing a handful of Libertarians to local governments each election cycle may not prove all that satisfying.
Don't Let The Door Hit You...
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 11:50AM
Bob Barr leaves the GOP for the Libertarian Party.
Novak on Israel
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 11:44AM
In his column today, Robert Novak endorses the Baker-Hamilton commission idea that the road to a stable
The problem with Novak's column is that he doesn't address the main reasons why supporters of
D'oh!
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 8:49AM
On top of everything else, Time's "Person of the Year: You" cover totally ruined their sponsor's ad.
The Battle for Christmas Goes Out of Control
Posted by on 12.18.06 @ 8:04AM
I attended a Christmas pageant at my local church yesterday. At first I was really impressed with the singing and dance steps the group of grade school kids performed. But then the story emerged.
In this Christmas tale, the town mayor canceled the Christmas pageant within the pageant because of traffic concerns, but the play made it clear he was worried about losing votes from parties offended by Christmas. The kids have worked hard and decide to go caroling and a'lobbying their neighbors to call the mayor to get the pageant back on in the town square.
At various houses we meet the people who celebrate Christmas, but don't care about the reason for the season. After being turned down for help by one couple, a child remarks, "I don't understand it. They have lights and decorations and everything. I thought they liked Christmas." Another child responds, "They don't have a problem with Christmas. They just have a problem with Christ." A little more pointed than poignant, I thought.
Finally, the kids visit a house that is not decorated at all. The woman who comes out says she didn't put up lights because she has two small children and her husband is away in the military. She loves Christmas for the right reasons and is thrilled by their visit.
Guess what, the pageant is on again. The last lady visited was the mayor's daughter and he can't turn her down. He is so touched by the Christmas pageant he is going to be in it next year as a wise man!
What troubled me about all this is that instead of straightforwardly celebrating the Christmas story, the local church turned Christmas into an affair of church, state, and political action. Second, instead of winsomely reaching out to those who don't believe, this tale impugns their motives and seeks to overcome them through lobbying. Third, the words of this rather arch play are put into the mouths of young children. I felt as though they were instruments of some strange reverse Soviet propaganda.
There's a lesson here that shouldn't be ignored. Sure, you can lose the message of Christmas by giving in to consumerism and Santa Claus and colored lights, but you can also lose it by worrying too much about whether you're getting your due in the public square.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
'You.'
Posted by on 12.17.06 @ 2:30AM
So the Time Person of the Year is You, as in YouTube (and everywhere else that web content is created by individuals). This is the fourth time in five years that the magazine has failed to select just one influential individual (or even just two). The gimmicks that used to come about twice a decade are replacing the bread and butter of Time's most famous annual feature.
Managing editor Richard Stengel tells the AP that if they'd gone with an individual, it would have been Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but "it just felt to me a little off selecting him." It feels to me a little off that someone who thinks like Stengel works at what's supposed to be a newsmagazine.
- The Continuing Crisis
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Current Wisdom
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
