- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Feb 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–28
- Mar 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Apr 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- May 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Jun 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Jul 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Aug 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Sep 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Oct 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Nov 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Dec 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Saints Win!
Posted by on 1.13.07 @ 11:51PM
I'm 2-0 on the weekend.
I wouldn't want to be standing in the way of the Saints next weekend. Neither Chicago nor Seattle should be excited about playing this team.
Oh, it's a shame the Super Bowl isn't scheduled for New Orleans this year. The celebration would make Mardi Gras look like a five year old's birthday party!
Restoring Faith and More
Posted by on 1.13.07 @ 9:37PM
So 2006 was a lousy year. The war went badly, the Dems won the election and life is lousy, right? Wrong.
Back in New York after a long absence, here for great aunt Belle's 100th birthday party tomorrow, Sharon and I went into a restaurant for dinner. Big deal. Actually, it was.
In the New York of my youth, restaurants were excellent or they died. Period. It's a reaffirmation of America for me to discover that the old rules still apply, despite Bloomberg, despite Hillary,despite the presence of the UN. After a nice Barolo, the best veal chop in the world, and the hospitality of a maitre d' named Benny, I feel restored. New York - and Nino's on West 58th -- are ready to take on the world. And so am I.
You want a piece of this, fella? C'mon.
Baker v. Wlady, Colts v. Ravens
Posted by on 1.13.07 @ 7:56PM
Wlady and I sparred here and in email over what would happen in the Colts game. Almost all of our commentary revolved around Peyton Manning.
Turns out the unexpected heroes are the Colts defense and Dominic Rhodes for amazing clutch running on the final drive. And, oh, it looks like the Colts were pretty shrewd in picking up Adam Vinatieri, who contributed five field goals.
Another thing: Steve McNair played as well as could be expected against a Colts D that has become suddenly dominant the past two weeks, but it is clear he is no longer the player who was once capable of taking over games and willing his team to victory. That's what Vince Young is becoming. The Titans were wrong to screw McNair, but oh so right to pick up Young.
Final Brownback
Posted by on 1.13.07 @ 3:15PM
One more, and then we're moving on.
To Quin's point in which he insists on comparing Brownback to Sen. John Kerry by using terms like "flip flop": Brownback was explicit about what "short term" means (three to six months), whereas the President for close to three years has used phrases like, "not open-ended." Who is to be believed?
The White House has not been honest about their timeline, let alone specific. The closest hard and fast date that seems to exist is the notion that the "surge" will go a maximum of 24 months. We don't know about Quin's datebook, but 24 months -- even in war time -- doesn't strike as "short term" and certainly not in the way that Brownback and others on Capitol Hill and the Pentagon define short term.
Brownback has fully supported the war effort as well as this commander in chief. He has explicitly discussed that beyond the military, there has to be a political and societal component. The White House has failed to successfully implement either, despite advice privately provided by those Republican Senators and a few then-friendly Democrats to the White House.
Finally, to the point of when Brownback shoulda woulda made more substantive comments. Fine, perhaps he should not have released a brief statement from Baghdad on the night of the President's speech. But would some folks have been happy with the release of an opposing, full scale plan? We doubt it. They'd be tearing him a new one, most likely singing from the song sheet provided by the BayState Tabernacle Chorus.
What all of this really means is this: the White House has lost conservatives and many Republicans on this latest turn in war stratergizing. It has been less than forthcoming, has ignored its many friends with sound advice, and moved forward with yet another flawed plan for resolution to the military challenges there. We have moved on to other issues in the hope of finding other leaders.
Re: Brownback
Posted by on 1.13.07 @ 11:31AM
Mr. Controversial may be light on pronounced specifics when he belabors the "political solutions" point, but undoubtedly, it seems to me, that point stands. The arrests of these infiltrating Iranians is a perfect illustration. There are a zillion ways to handle such a situation. And as any good cop knows, the coercive-force component of law enforcement is quite necessary but totally insufficient to effective policy if not paired with the "political" aspect of tough talk, mind games, high-tension "negotiations," and all the stuff that makes cop dramas worth watching. Policing would not be more successful if we put a bullet in everyone caught on the street messing around.
Of course the analogy's approximate. Warfighting is not the kind of police action lampooned as the Kerryist soft-shoe approach to the War on Terror. But foreign policy, in a time of war, is not simply war. Politics may be the extension of war by other means. Again -- and it stuns me that no other conservative seems to be pounding on this point -- if we learned one thing from the success of Reagan's Cold War strategy, you can talk and be tough at the same time. Seeking "political solutions" while also conducting a long-term, full-throttle adversarial effort with an openly declared "evil" opponent is not just possible but attractive. The two approaches, if you're smart, can reinforce each other -- a one-nation good cop/bad cop act. Why cripple your own toolkit, especially under such grave circumstances? It's simply foolhardy, and the Reagan administration knew this well enough to do right by the alternative. To the extent that the Bush administration continues to ignore or repudiate this wisdom, it will fail. And there is nothing -- however spectacular their work as warriors -- that 21,500 surgers can do to change this.
Now if only Brownback could find a camera to stand before and say that.
Re: NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.13.07 @ 8:16AM
According to Rush Limbaugh, home teams win 77.2% of the time in playoffs. For what that's worth. And whoever said this is the best weekend in pro football, hear, hear!
Friday, January 12, 2007
Re: NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 8:07PM
This is easy, like taking candy from a Jets fan:
Indianapolis-Baltimore: No contest. Last week, Peyton Manning threw three interceptions -- playing in the snug rug comforts of home! Here's a guy who never beat Florida's Gators, and they weren't even coached yet by Urban Meyer. The Ravens have their carving knives out. Plus, who can root against super-cool Steve McNair?
New England-San Diego: A bit tougher. Tom Brady is the greatest living American in sports since Sandy Koufax. He plays like God wishes He could. One problem: Brady's lost in San Diego before. The season after the Patriots' first Super Bowl win, the Chargers dominated the Pats in San Diego. Recall too how poorly the Pats play in Miami. Could be they're not meant to compete in the lower corners of the United States.
Philadelphia-New Orleans: Which communion of Saints will show up? The softees who got clobbered by the lowly Redskins? Or the powerhouse that lassoed the Cowboys -- in Big D? Sean Peyton is almost as good as Urban Meyer, and his team has had an extra week to prepare. The Eagles, meanwhile, are battered. But that that's the way they like it. It all depends, ultimately, on the fellow they once called The President when he played at USC. If Reggie Bush plays like Barry Sanders, Eagles lose.
Seattle-Chicago: Any time you play against Rex Grossman there's a good chance he'll pull a Tony Romo end of game play on every snap from center. So far the Seahawks have failed upward. Why not for another week?
Re: NFL
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 8:05PM
I don't follow football closely enough to have an informed opinion, but I just want to confidently assert that the Ravens will win. I live in Baltimore County, and can't risk being lynched for insufficient enthusiasm...
How Serious Is The Left About Health Care Reform?
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 5:46PM
Jacob Hacker claims that his reform proposal, called "Health Care For America," "promises better care, lower costs, more choice, healthier citizens, and immensely stronger guarantees for workers and their families." (Italics mine).
In the next paragraph, he states,
What Health Care for America would do is simple: every legal resident of the United States who lacks access to Medicare or good workplace coverage would be able to buy into the "Health Care for America Plan," a new public insurance pool modeled after Medicare. This new program would team up with Medicare to bargain for lower prices and upgrade the quality of care so that every enrollee would have access to either an affordable Medicare-like plan with free choice of providers or to a selection of comprehensive private plans.
First, Medicare does not "bargain." It sets prices through a formula; if a doctor or other health care provider doesn't like the Medicare price, then Medicare will not reimburse him. Generally, the price that Medicare pays is lower than what private insurance companies pay.
Despite that, premiums for Medicare for Part B have, in recent years, grown much faster than the rate of inflation. Here are the years and the rate increases: 2001-9.9%; 2002-8%; 2003-8.7%; 2004-12.4%; 2005-18.5%; 2006-13.3%. In 2007 the rate increase is going to be lower, 5.6%. Yet that is due in part to the fact for the first time, Part B will require wealthier seniors to pay higher premiums, thereby subsidizing the premium costs for non-wealthy seniors. It won't be possible to do that under Hacker's plan because under his plan the wealthy will be able to stay with private insurance.
I just wish once that when someone on the left decided to model health care reform on Medicare, he would look at how Medicare has fared at keeping costs down in recent years before saying his reform will "cost less."
Back on Brownback
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 5:46PM
Gotta love a big debate on this site -- and a very friendly one, I might add. For the record, as per the Prowler's last sentence below, I care not what the Romney camp thinks. I had an immediate and visceral reaction when I saw on the news what Brownback had done. It was only later, much later, after Romney's folk saw my post, that they e-mailed me the video.
As for the Prowler's insistence that Brownback hasn't changed his position because in December he supported only a "short-term" troop surge, that won't wash. He clearly indicated support for a surge then; what Bush offered in his speech should have allayed his concerns: "I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended." Meanwhile, the president also did in his speech address political and social challenges (as per Prowler's explanation of Brownback's position) that supposedly are of concern to the Kansas senator; indeed, he addressed them more specifically than Brownback did in his remarks either in December OR on Wednesday. Brownback's vacuous, platitudinous call for a "political solution" had no specifics in it.
Finally, if Brownback really opposed a troop surge as far back as eight months ago, that raises two more points: First, he thus has not just flip flopped, but flip-flop-flipped. First position A, then position B, then back to A. Second, to have opposed a military boost eight months ago was to really be on the wrong side, which is why (as the Prowler reports), probably, there was so much consternation around the table when Brownback said that. If the president had gotten off the ball eight months ago and done a serious troop surge and seriously new tactics then, we would be far closer to victory now than we are. The report about this gathering 8 months ago makes me doubt Brownback's judgment as much as I doubt his sincerity.
Brownback
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 4:07PM
I won't delve into gossip, I'll just deal with the facts.
There was little love lost between the Brownback and Santorum camps, but it was largely unrelated to the two men themselves. Increasingly, Brownback was able to organize and mobilize the social conservative base through his Value Action Team, while Santorum chose to go the leadership route. And let's face it, Santorum was almost just as big a camera hog as Sen. Chuck Schumer.
The fact, also, that Brownback's staff had some turnover over a couple of years that did not go down well in some conservatives circles didn't help matters either.
As for Brownback's supposed flip-flop "created" and enabled by others here: at an off the record meeting with American Spectator editors about eight months ago, Brownback was clear on his position related to Iraq: troop build-ups weren't the solution to the problem, and neither was straight up military approach to Iran. This was met with much consternation around the table from almost everyone who was there. Brownback could clearly sense the dissatisfaction in the room. If he was truly a panderer, given who was in the room (and it was the elite of conservative journalism), then would have been the time to waffle and perhaps believe he needed to rethink or repackage his position. He clearly has not.
He made the same point he made the other night -- that there are political and social challenges there that are not being addressed and must be addressed if the military challenges are to be fully resolved.
And Brownback has not flip-flopped. The troop re-enforcement that the President has proposed is not "short term" or temporary. According to both the White House and the State Department, this "surge" could be for as long as two years. That is not "temporary."
The Romney camp is clearly irked because the Brownback campaign has been eating its breakfast, lunch and dinner when it comes to garnering support from social conservatives.
NFL Playoffs
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 4:05PM
Colts v. Ravens -- Peyton Manning will not be denied.The Colts defense isn't particularly good, but the Ravens simply can't outscore the Colts.Victory Colts.
Bears-Seahawks -- If Sexy Rexy shows up firing interceptions, then the Bears will lose even with homefield advantage and cold weather chilling the Seahawk offense.If Rex the former Heisman candidate re-appears, then the Seahawks have no chance.I'm betting on a decent game from Rex Grossman.Victory Bears.
Saints v. Eagles -- The Post Katrina Karma surge in favor of the Saints is not going to lap up gently on the shore this week.Besides, that offense is fabulous.Victory Saints.
Chargers v. Patriots -- Schottenheimer breaks his playoff curse this weekend.Tomlinson is the best back of a generation and Rivers is as cool as Tom Brady used to be.The Pats have gone as far as they should have.Victory Chargers.
52 Hours, 24 Minutes
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 3:58PM
..until the season premiere of 24. Homepage here. Extended trailer here. Plus: a Jack Bauer action figure is in the works.
Meanwhile, McCain made an interesting comparrison:
"I had a brief, 3 second, wonderful, magnificent award winning performance on the show. Most importantly, Jack Bauer and I are very similar. He gets captured all the time. I got captured. He always escapes. I never escaped. I believe in the Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners. He just blows their knee caps off."
Via Fishbowl DC.
RE: NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 3:50PM
I will also take a piece of this bet....
Indianapolis: Manning is one of the best, and he will pull it off in the end against Baltimore.
San Diego: Gotta go for the underdog (on this blog anyway), especially in the playoffs.
Philadelphia: Never doubt a team that is always ready to get down and dirty.
Chicago: Seattle's sports teams have been lacking any luster the past couple of years (despite the slight blip last year :) ), so gotta go with the favorite.
Re: NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 3:28PM
I know it's nothing original for me to say, but this is absolutely my favorite weekend of the year for NFL watching. (Usually) four great matchups and none of them overlapping.
Indianapolis-Baltimore: Well, I strongly disagree that Baltimore is the best team in the league, but that doesn't mean I don't think they could beat Indy. However, I don't believe they will. I was surprised how the Colts shut down Larry Johnson, and of course their pass rush is their defensive strength. McNair will struggle to put up the points they would need to outscore Manning and Co. Prediction: Indianapolis.
New England-San Diego: You could say where I live (Raleigh) is San Diego East, with all the Philip Rivers jerseys still being worn around town. And some are Chargers jerseys, not Wolfpack. Regardless, Belichick will simultaneously design a plan to key on shutting down Tomlinson while also getting into Rivers's head. It will be fun watching the game for me this weekend too, as I will be in Rhode Island with my extended family (who are passionate for the Pats, like me). Prediction: New England.
Philadelphia-New Orleans: Drew Brees still has that sour taste in his mouth from two years ago when his Chargers lost to the Jets in the playoffs. With the help of his two outstanding running backs, he takes it out on Philly. Prediction: New Orleans.
Seattle-Chicago: As one ESPN talking head said last weekend, if Seattle and Dallas were in the AFC, neither would have made the playoffs. Prediction: Chicago.
Signs of a Slow News Cycle
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 3:14PM
A headline on AOL: "When Role Playing Games Go Too Far."
Go Back and Read the Original
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 3:06PM
My friend Jerry Agar, a talk radio host on WLS in Chicago, said he had several callers following the president's speech Wednesday night who "parroted the spin that 'First it was about WMD, then it was about democracy, this president doesn't know what he is doing and he is lying.'" In response Jerry referred them to the 2002 Joint Resolution for using our armed forces in Iraq, adding:
Brownback stuff
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 3:05PM
Okay, I'm going to degenerate into pure gossip. Let's pretend we're on Wonkette today.Â
Without revealing my source, I understand that there was no love lost between the Brownback and Santorum camps when both were in the Senate. Given the apparent ideological and religious similarity between the two men, the personal dislike would appear rather mysterious.
This recent public statement about troop levels, timed for maximum publicity by Brownback, may help clear up the mystery.
Yes, James...on Brownback
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 2:34PM
James -- Good points all in response to my posts on Brownback. Just for the record, I thought I had made perfectly clear that dissent and debate is perfectly welcome. You are correct in that my main complaints had to do with the timing and place of Brownback's statement... and, of course, the patent insincerity of it, based on political advantage rather than actual conviction. In my first post, too, I criticized the unctuous senator for resorting to platitudes about what he would do instead, rather than offering anything substantive. That criticism stands.
Finally, I really do not believe there are ANY constructive ways right now to oppose the "surge." But if Brownback had offered one, AFTER listening to the president's speech, I would have welcomed it even if i disagreed with it...if, that is, he had adequately explained why he was changing his tune (other than sheer opportunism) from his stance of less than a month to go. The fact is, Brownback was for the surge before he was against it -- and his Kerryesque pivot therefore deserves to be ripped to shreds.
NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 2:32PM
On a less serious note, anybody have predictions for the playoff games this weekend?
Here are mine:
Indianapolis-Baltimore: The Colts offense looked weak in their win against
New England-San Diego: If anybody can figure out a way to contain Chargers RB LaDanian Tomlinson, it's Bill Belichik. Though Philip Rivers has had an impressive season for a young quarterback, he's no Tom Brady, and that'll show now that it's the playoffs. Prediction:
Philadelphia-New
Seattle-Chicago: Is there really any debate on this one?
Religious Freedom Is Good
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 2:07PM
It appears that New Jersey clergy will not be forced to perform same-sex unions.
RE: More on Brownback's Fonda Moment
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 1:56PM
Quin, with all due respect, this strikes me as a bit much. It certainly looks like Brownback is grandstanding; the e-mail you post from the Romney campaign tells against his sincerity. As you noted, I've blogged about poll numbers that would explain his shift.
All that being said, Brownback's shift may be opportunistic, but it hardly borders on being unpatriotic. Anyone who sincerely believes this policy will not work has a patriotic duty to make his case. We can then debate competing ideas and let the chips fall where they may.
Cards on the table: I was never an advocate of this intervention and I am similarly skeptical of the surge. But my more hawkish conservative brethren should be skeptical as well. The Kagan-Keane plan called for 30,000 troops lasting 18 months, concluding that anything less was likely to fail -- and there was disagreement over whether even Kagan-Keane was actually consistent with classic counterinsurgency doctrine. On what basis do we assume that this smaller infusion is a plausible strategy?
It will not do to say "the die has been cast." The president is commander-in-chief, but in a republic Congress and the people have a role to play in matters of such import as well. In announcing this new policy, President Bush admitted he was not infallible. He conceded that we have failed to secure
Well, why is that? And what would have been wrong with experts dissenting publicly from the old approach? If nothing, then why should this new tactic be immune from debate? Sure, the president wants to win the war. But liberals judge policies by their intentions, not conservatives.
I understand that you object mainly to the time and place Brownback announced his suspicious change in position on the surge. But this distinction may be lost of the majority of Americans who appear to agree with the new Brownback rather than the old one. It certainly is something worth keeping in mind as you make the public case for the surge.
Let's agree that it is wrong for candidates to put their personal political advantage above the national interest, especially when our troops are in harm's way. I hope we can also agree that sometimes people will have legitimate disagreements about how best to serve those interests and we can debate them respectfully.
Why I don't Like Jonah Goldberg
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 1:21PM
More Problems For Carter
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 12:14PM
Guess how many people resigned this time from the Carter Center?
The New Feminism
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 11:50AM
The New York Post ably takes California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer to task for this dig at Secretary Rice yesterday:
Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered [California Senator Barbara] Boxer.
"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young." Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
So a single, professional woman's opinions are to be somehow discounted? I think we need to bring Murphy Brown back for a guest spot on a popular sitcome or at least for a Super Bowl commercial.
It's official: If this whole Pelosi "I am grandmother, hear me roar" bit wasn't old when she shared the gavel with a bunch of children--Oh, but what an appropriate metaphor the act embodied!--it is now.
Talking Tehran (and Damascas)
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 10:31AM
One interesting reaction to Bush's surge speech that I didn't get to last night: The differing takes on the warning to Iran and Syria. Andrew McCarthy viewed it as almost a throwaway line while many doves -- Harold Meyerson is an example -- saw it as a threat to escalate the war across Iraq's borders Cambodia-style.
More on Brownback's Fonda Moment
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 10:26AM
In my post two days ago, I opined that Sen. Brownback's announcement of opposition to a troop "surge" before Bush even spoke -- opposition announced from Iraq itself, no less -- was merely "pandering to popular opinion in an attempt to bolster his presidential campaign." James Antle later explained the numbers behind such a supposition. My contention that Brownback has no sincere position was bolstered when somebody from the Romney campaign (which I find intriguing, by the way, but am NOT supporting [I haven't made up my mind yet at all]) e-mailed me this: Sam Brownback, 12/15/06: "If we need to put in short-term more troops, into the area, to get Baghdad to stabilize - and that's up to the military leaders and the President's discretion - I support that." Here's the video to back it up.
Gee, Brownno., I mean Brownback, what changed?
I repeat that the problem is not disagreeing with the president. I join Philip Klein, in his superbly written and reasoned column, in believing that this surge still isn't large enough and that the president in his speech did somewhat less than inspire strong confidence. But to go the the very country where our troops are under the gun, and to know that the terrorists themselves have written to each other that their most important front in this war is the battle to win the American media, and to know that the president has not even had a chance to make his case to the public (private briefings matter not, for these purposes, because the key thing is the final plan laid out IN PUBLIC by the president), and to undercut the president (of his own party, no less) even before the man could speak, is the absolute height (or depth) of irresponsibility, bordering (yes, I will say it) on being unpatriotic. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It's not quite Jane Fonda in Hanoi--indeed, not really close--but it is somewhere in the same galaxy of perfidiousness.
And seeing as how the president's decision now represents, for good or ill, the only chance to still achieve an actual victory rather than ignominious defeat, it behooves Brownback not to undermine whatever chance (however small) it has for success.
The decision has been made; the die has been cast. The president's goals are moral and just, and his means are at least plausible. I for one will rally around President Bush. Other conservatives should, too. The alternative is a defeat the likes of which this nation has never had to endure. Brownback seems not to get that point. Methinks all he understands is his own blind ambition.
Explosion at the US Embassy in Athens
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 8:24AM
An anti-tank shell, most likely launched by Greek far-leftists. No injuries reported.
Ron Paul '08?
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 8:07AM
The Texas congressman and 1988 Libertarian nominee is considering another presidential run, this time as a Republican, and has formed an exploratory committee.
JPost: Sharon Warned Bush on Iraq
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 1:20AM
The Jerusalem Post has a fascinating story revealing new details of Ariel Sharon's talks with President Bush in the lead up to the Iraq War. Some highlights:
Former prime minister Ariel Sharon told President George W. Bush ahead of the US-led invasion of Iraq of the dangers Saddam Hussein posed for the region, but also warned him that the Arab world would not be receptive to democracy, former ambassador to the US Danny Ayalon told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
Ayalon, who sat in on numerous Bush-Sharon meetings, said the US and Israel held close consultations during the run-up to the war, but that Sharon was very careful not to advocate any particular American action....
"Based on his intimate knowledge of the Arab world, Sharon was skeptical of the idea that Arab societies were ready to receive democratic culture," Ayalon said.
Former Sharon spokesman Ra'anan Gissin, meanwhile, said Sharon "used his expertise on guerrilla warfare" during his discussions with Bush, and advised that before trying to impose democracy on Iraq it was necessary to bring about stability.
Make what you will of whether Danny Ayalon has ulterior motives
for discussing this now or if he can be trusted as a reliable
source, but the article is worth a read nonetheless.
Giuliani-Gingrich in '08?
Posted by on 1.12.07 @ 1:10AM
The two co-author a WSJ op-ed on creating jobs for Iraqis.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Brownback and the Surge
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 6:31PM
Over at TNR's The Plank, Noam Scheiber cites some numbers that may explain Sen. Sam Brownback's opposition to the Bush troops proposal: "...the move turns out to be pretty welcome among Brownback's desired base of social conservatives. While 52 percent of Republicans support the surge according to a just-released AP/Ipsos poll, some 60 percent of white evangelicals oppose it, as do 56 percent of self-described conservatives."
I'd want to look closely at the internals of a poll that showed a majority of self-described conservatives breaking one way while self-described Republicans broke the opposite way, but it's an interesting theory. It makes more sense than one commenter's contention that this was an example of Midwestern conservative Christian isolationism. Brownback has been second only to Rick Santorum as an example of Joseph Bottum-style "New Fusionism" linking social conservatism and a moralistic foreign policy. Of course, at this point, what does any longshot Republican presidential candidate have to gain by being another GOP politician who supports whatever Bush says on Iraq?
I'm not, by the way, dismissing the possiblity that Brownback actually sincerely believes his surge position. But it never hurts look for a presidential contender's political motivations. (Hat tip: Ross Douthat.)
Byrd Says Congress Should Be Inefficient
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 4:21PM
The AP reports:
New Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's determination to run the chamber more efficiently earned him a rebuke today (Wednesday) from former Majority Leader Robert Byrd.
The 89-year-old Byrd was upset that a vote on an amendment was cut off before he reached the Senate floor. The West Virginia Democrat who often walks with the aid of two canes says it would have been the 17-thousand-780th vote of his career. He says he had not missed a vote since last March, shortly after his wife of 68 years died.
Reid had reminded senators on Monday that he no longer was going to tolerate having votes run far past the usual 15-minutes with a five-minute extension. He says he's noticed over the years how much time is wasted waiting for senators to show up for votes.
Byrd says his staff had informed the cloakroom that he was in the building but he says the Senate leadership "arbitrarily closed the vote" before he could get to the floor. Byrd says the Senate never was intended to be an efficient body. He says that is not the way legislation is done in a place like the U.S. Congress.
Dems and the War: Counting to 60
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 4:15PM
Mitch McConnel has threatened to filibuster any Senate resolution opposing President Bush's surge plan, but Harry Reid says Democrats expect to have the 60 votes needed to thwart such an action and ensure the resolution's passage. With Joe Lieberman likely to oppose such a measure, Democrats would need to find 10 Republican defectors.
Best Final Blog-Post Ever
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 2:54PM
Robert Anton Wilson, who died early this morning, posted this on Saturday:
Various medical authorities swarm in and out of here predicting I have between two days and two months to live. I think they are guessing. I remain cheerful and unimpressed. I look forward without dogmatic optimism but without dread. I love you all and I deeply implore you to keep the lasagna flying.I hope I go out with that kind of grace. RIP.Please pardon my levity, I don't see how to take death seriously. It seems absurd.
RAW
Bipartisanship Reins
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 2:51PM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in the mood to cooperate with the Bush administration -- on his terms. From an interview with CongressDaily:
"I would hope the man realizes that more than 75 percent of his administration has been a total flop," said Reid. "There's 25 percent left. I hope he would [ask], 'What can we do together?' I repeat: It's as if he wants to fail."
RE: Dems Choose Denver
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 2:39PM
This must be part of the Democrats' strategy to lock up the Libertarian West.
Dems Choose Denver
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 12:48PM
For the site of their 2008 National Convention. Hotline reports. This makes sense, as Colorado is likely to be a swing state next time around.
Democratic Response
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 11:10AM
John McCain put it well last night when he said, "I believe those who are calling for withdrawal have the obligation to tell us what we do in the region when it descends into chaos..."
Dick Durbin, in the Democrats' formal response, did not answer McCain's call. Instead, Durbin said that it should be the Iraqis problem now and called on beginning withdrawal soon:
As Congress considers our future course in Iraq, we remain committed on a bipartisan basis to providing our soldiers every resource they need to fight effectively and come home safely.
But it's time to begin the orderly redeployment of our troops so that they can begin coming home soon.
When the Iraqis understand that America is not giving an open- ended commitment of support, when they understand that our troops, indeed, are coming home, then they will understand the day has come to face their own responsibility to protect and defend their nation.
But what if Iraqis don't take responsibility? What if Al Qaeda takes over Western Iraq? What if an all out Shiite-Sunni civil war ensues and becomes a proxy regional war involving Saudis, Egyptians, Iranians and Sryians?
Critics of the war may say, duh, that's what we warned about all along. But that doesn't change the fact that right now we are where we are in Iraq. Okay if Democrats think the surge will just be an escalation of a failed policy, but if they want to withdraw, they have to explain how they would respond if the worst case scenario occurs once we leave.
Edwards On Responsibility
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 10:36AM
Speaking about Iraq on Larry King Live after the president's speech, John Edwards said:
If you think about everyday life, people are more likely to take responsibility when no one else is helping them or propping them up.
Hmm...does that mean that he thinks the best route out of poverty is through individuals taking responsibility for their own lives rather than depending on government largesse?
Binge and Surge
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 9:20AM
The president last night walked into a very crowded room. There, slumped against walls, moping at tables, some miffed and defiantly crossarmed at the center of the floor, a lot of pundits, intellectuals, wonks, statesmen, critics, former enthusiasts, and fellow Americans mirrored the president's New Grimness. Not any longer fashionably late, the question for Bush is whether he is too late....
McCain Dissed
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 9:08AM
Did anyone else find it interesting that Joe Lieberman was singled out in President Bush's speech last night, but John McCain was not mentioned? Conservatives like to beat up on on McCain, but anyone who supports the surge has to give credit to McCain for the political courage he showed by speaking so forcefully over the years, and particularly over the pass few months, for adding more troops.
Re: Trucking South
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 7:16AM
Paul Chesser's observation:
"But there is definite Democrat seepage into former Republican strongholds. New Hampshire, with many transplants from Massachusetts, is now a blue state."
...needs a minor correction. If you look at the county-by-county red-blue maps of the 2000 and 2004 elections, you see the blue creep into New Hampshire not from the south, but from the west. I think the liberalizing influence comes from Vermonters looking for more land. Refugee Massachusetts types are fleeing our state because of liberal policies here; they're mostly conservative.
Paul does not mention, however, the real New England transformation: The utter liberalization of formerly conservative Maine. That is definitely a liberal migration from Massachusetts, spearheaded by gays, who have largely colonized the south coast.
Rudy on the Surge
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 1:06AM
Video of his appearance on Hannity and Colmes here.
He said he's for the surge, expanding on President Bush's plan
to say, "The thing I would add to it is a lot of accountability. I
think you need measures. You need statistics. You need to be able
to determine whether you've brought the violence down. If it
doesn't work, then you've got to put more people in."
The Speech
Posted by on 1.11.07 @ 12:21AM
Some quick thoughts on President Bush's speech (transcript here).
It was important that the President demonstrated that he isn't completely living in a bubble, that he acknowledged the obvious--that the situation in Iraq is "unacceptable" and that prior efforts to secure Baghdad have "failed." It was also good how he outlined how the new approach will be a departure from the past:
However, the sad part is that the idea of having more troops on the ground to hold neighborhoods and of giving U.S. troops the green light is something that pro-war critics of the Bush administration have been pushing for years, but the President and Sec. Rumsfeld stubbornly refused to institute such a policy. Now, I fear, this shift in tactics and the addition of 20,000-plus troops is too little, too late.
I'm also quite skeptical of basing our strategy on the hopes that Prime Minister Maliki will suddenly become more willing or able to crack down on militias now than he has been over the past several months, especially given how infiltrated the government and the Iraqi security forces have been with the militias, most prominently Moqtada al-Sadr's. President Bush seems to be adopting a bit of a Democratic approach by saying that he made it clear to Maliki that "America's commitment is not open-ended" and thinking this will somehow motivate the Iraqi leader to get tough on the militias (again, assuming he's able). I've long been of the opinion that if Maliki knows that America will be leaving Iraq, it will only make him more likely to cut a deal with Sadr, not less. After all, Sadr is the one he'll have to be dealing with once we're gone.
Furthermore, I think Bush was being too Pollyannaish when he said victory would bring "a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them…"
While I'm skeptical that such a modest increase in troop levels
and subtle shift in strategy will succeed, I hope I'm proven wrong,
because as President Bush made abundantly clear, the consequences
of defeat in Iraq would be tragic.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Rosie Scenarios
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 11:54PM
Dave, give me Rosie and The Donald Duck any day over the quacks I heard earlier this evening such as John Edwards and Dick Durbin. The former, whose hair is a lot worse than The D's, harrumphed about how Bush had it totally backwards -- peace and prosperity would come to Iraq only if we withdrew now. Durbin was interested mainly in scoring points against Bush for whatever it was the president said last October. I guess defeating Bush last November has brought no satisfaction. Democrats have a blood addiction. It is pretty appalling when Barack Obama comes across as the only statesman in his party.
SHUT UP!
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 11:28PM
Begin rant:
I just tuned into the end of Hannity and Colmes and waited for the beginning of Great Van Sustren. What was the top story? Well, the feud between that ARROGANT JERK WITH THE BAD HAIR and THE FAT BROAD ON THE VIEW.
Could there be ANYTHING I could care less about!?!?!?!
Here's my advice Rosie and the Donald: SHUT UP!!!! SHUT UP!!! SHUT UP!!! SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!! SHUUUUUUUUUUUUT UUUUUUUUUP!!!!!!!!!!!!
And while you are at it, get your HEADS SURGICALLY REMOVED FROM YOUR ...!!!
Okay, end rant.
Quote Tonight to Remember
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 6:44PM
From the President's prepared remarks, as released:
Brownback's Perfidy
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 6:26PM
Sam Brownback did a VERY obnoxious thing today, one which raises serious doubts about his fitness for the presidency. It shows that he does not appreciate the role of commander in chief, and does not appreciate the special responsibility that senators have -- especially senators of the president's own party -- not to undercut the commander in chief in time of war.
Let me explain.
Today, before President Bush even has had a chance to outline his "troop surge" plan to the American people in a nationally televised address, Brownback issued a statement that began: ""I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer,"... He then continued with several paragraphs along the same lines.
Now the problem is not that he disagrees with Bush. That's fine. And it would be fine if he listened to the president tonight and then said that, on reflection, he is sorry to disagree. Honest people can disagree. What is obnoxious is to release statements undercutting the president before the president even has a chance to make his case. It completely pulls the rug out from under Bush and discredits Bush before the American people.
The commander in chief is due more respect than that. And he is due the chance to make his case. War is a serious business. Our soldiers' lives are at risk. Our way of life may be at risk. The soldiers answer to the president. They must follow his orders. They must not be put under the impression that what their commander says is not even worth listening to.
There was a time when not even members of the opposition party would do such a thing as Brownback did today. He should be ashamed of himself.
What Brownback really is doing is pandering to popular opinion in an attempt to bolster his presidential campaign. And even if his opposition to the surge is heartfelt and well thought-out, the level of his explanation is pathetically vapid. Here's how he concludes his little attempt at grabbing some cheap attention: "We cannot achieve a political solution while a military solution is imposed. The best way to reach a democratic Iraq is to empower the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own nation building."
Gee. Wow. That's original. And SO easy to say. The question a serious presidential contender would then answer is, "How?"
Yes, Senator Brownback, just how do you propose to empower the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own nation-building? What would you do that we aren't already doing? It might be a perfectly legitimate position to take if there were at least some meat on those bones. Hell, even Joe Biden has been far more detailed about how HE would go about it. But Brownback just issues his platitudinous sound bites, and leaves it at that. Somehow, I don't remember the good senator having established much of a reputation yet for foreign diplomacy in matters of war and peace. If "empowering the Iraqis" were so easy, why hasn't he, in his infinite wisdom, told us long before now how to do it?
The more I think about this, the more sickened I get. This man is not a serious conservative. He's just another overly ambitious pol.
Re: Is Steny Hoyer A Gracious Winner?
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 5:26PM
Great find, David. You remember, of course, that Pelosi backed Jack Murtha for Hoyer's job, and her caucus defied her. Think she's enjoying the death-grip that Hoyer has on her? And check out Murtha in the background (at right):
Gee, Jack, try to contain your enthusiasm.
Is Steny Hoyer A Gracious Winner?
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 3:50PM
To see why I ask that question, look at the photo under the heading, "Becomes Highest Ranking Member of Congress in Maryland History".
Rough Road for Romney
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 3:07PM
Maybe this stuff isn't as damaging given who the frontrunners are, but it's definitely going to come up.
Incidentally, attaching the definite article to a court case, as Ted Kennedy does in that clip ("the Roe v. Wade"), is... eccentric.
Maybe Anti-Patriotism, Maybe Not
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 2:22PM
A Yale a cappella group was severely beaten after singing the national anthem in San Francisco on New Year's Eve, though it's not totally clear that the two things were connected. Remember Otter's explanation for the beating he gets from the Omegas: "I don't know. They're just animals, I guess." For some reason I find that theory more comforting than the idea that young San Franciscans just viciously hate America.
JGP at AFF on Russia
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 1:58PM
James Poulos is moderating a discussion this evening for the America's Future Foundation titled "Russia: The New Enemy?" I won't be able to make it, but it looks interesting. Details here.
Everyone's Entitled
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 1:01PM
In today's Washington Post, Robert J. Samuelson takes aim at his generation's indifference to the looming entitlements crisis:
Shame on us. We are trying to rob our children and grandchildren, putting the country's future at risk in the process. On one of the great issues of our time, the social and economic costs of our retirement, we have adopted a policy of selfish silence.As Congress reconvenes, pledges of "fiscal responsibility" abound. Let me boldly predict: On retirement spending, this Congress will do nothing, just as previous Congresses have done nothing. Nancy Pelosi promises to "build a better future for all of America's children." If she were serious, she would back cuts in Social Security and Medicare. President Bush calls "entitlement spending" the central budget problem. If he were serious, he, too, would propose cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
They are not serious, because few Americans -- particularly prospective baby-boom retirees -- want them to be. There is a consensus against candor, because there is no constituency for candor. It's no secret that the 65-and-over population will double by 2030 (to almost 72 million, or 20 percent of the total population), but hardly anyone wants to face the implications:
It's another reason why I'm not optimistic that ill-conceived Democratic programs targeted at the middle class will be net vote losers anytime soon.
Craigslist Conservatives
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 12:18PM
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have advice for conservatives looking for an ideal 2008 Republican presidential candidate: take out a want ad because Mr. Right hasn't applied yet.
Old School Ed-Policy Wonkage
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 11:17AM
For an antidote to Spellingsism, check out Peter Berkowitz's "Liberal Education, Then and Now," over at Hoover's Policy Review. The text reflects a crisp and engaging talk Berkowitz delivered not too long ago at Georgetown's be-there-event-heavy Tocqueville Forum.
A Valentine to the Memory of James Baen
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 10:27AM
I was happy to see this piece by Hal Colebatch on his association with James Baen, founder of Baen Books, who died in 2006.
My friend Lars Walker is a Baen author with three books published by that house.
His memories seem to be in accord with Mr. Colebatch's, who writes about a man who performed a cultural service as an ex-hippie combatting the suicide of the West through the publication of sci-fi that elevated honor, duty, chivalry, patriotism, and military valor.
Colebatch also includes anecdotes about the personal affection Baen had for authors and illustrators. He was the kind of man who would guarantee future work (wow) to help talent get a mortgage and would give advances larger than those requested!
I once worked for a pharmacist who owned a little neighborhood apothecary. After my half year driving his truck around town and manning the cash register, he gave me a $500 check as a going away bonus. He knew I needed the money for getting set-up at graduate school. When he gave it to me, he said, "This isn't a loan or a gift, it's an obligation. When you see an opportunity to help someone who works for you or with you, then it will be your turn." Jim Baen sounds a lot like my old pharmacist friend and I imagine he's left a lot of obligations out there in the world that his friends will gladly fulfill.
Football Yes, Baseball No
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 10:04AM
The Boston Herald's Gerry Callahan wonders why the San Diego Chargers' Shawne Merriman gets a pass on his steroids violation while Mark McGwire is vilified for his alleged transgressions:
Don't Worry! It Doesn't Really Matter Anyway!
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 9:35AM
AmSpec contributor Andrew Cline points out one New Hampshire Democrat's recent admission that mimimum wage raising rhetoric is mostly hollow.
No Ed-Policy Wonk Left Behind
Posted by on 1.10.07 @ 1:02AM
John: While at The American Conservative, I wrote a piece on the fourth anniversary of No Child Left Behind (not this piece on the grassroots revolt). I was struck at how overwhelmingly education policy analysts from the left to the right, except for dissenters at Heritage and Cato, were for NCLB despite the opposition from so many parents, teachers, and bureaucrats. It became clear to me the issue wasn't the details of NCLB but the fact that so many elements of the legislation reflected an ed-policy wonks' wish list. Petrelli was a source for the story.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Anti-Fence Numbers Game
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 7:50PM
Kerry Howley thinks $49 billion is too expensive for a border fence. But look closer:
The Dec. 12, 2006, nonpartisan congressional report said the corps predicted that the combined cost of building and maintaining the fence over a 25-year life cycle would range from $16.4 million to $70 million per mile, depending on how heavily and how often the fence is damaged by would-be border jumpers. At $70 million per mile, a 700-mile fence would cost $49 billion.So $49 billion is the maximum estimate of the cost of the fence over 25 years -- which comes out to less than $2 billion a year. We're talking chump change in federal budget terms.
Olmert's Final Days?
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 7:28PM
His popularity already waning over his mishandling of the War in Lebanon and inability to stop rocket attacks coming from Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert now faces investigation.
The Jerusalem Post reports:
The State Attorney's Office has decided to open a full-fledged criminal investigation against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert regarding his alleged intervention in the government tender for the sale of the controlling interest in Bank Leumi, Channel 10 reported Tuesday evening....
Another case involves allegations that Olmert made political appointments in the Small Businesses Authority when he served as Minister of Industry and Commerce under prime minister Ariel Sharon. According to Channel 10, Shendar has already decided to investigate Olmert in the Bank Leumi affair. He will reportedly announce the decision after the prime minister returns from his state visit to
. China
The full extent of the investigation has not yet been determined, however. While police will likely concentrate on the alleged Bank Leumi improprieties, it is possible that the other scandals to which Olmert's name has been linked will also be investigated.
Meanwhile, Ynet adds:
A senior justice official said Wednesday that "if a criminal investigation is launched against (Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert, on suspicion of wrongdoing, he should to suspend himself from his post."
This deserves close attention. Among other issues, should the government of Olmert fall and be replaced by a more hawkish one, it will have huge implications on Israel's response to Iran's nuclear program.
DeMint and Romney
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 6:51PM
South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint came out earlier today and endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's candidacy for the Republican nomination. This is important on a couple of fronts: first, it balances the efforts of Sen. John McCain's adopted son, Sen. Lindsey Graham in the state. Second, it builds up Romney's credibility amond social conservatives. Make no mistake, this is a good get for the man from Massachusetts, but it comes at an interesting time. According to sources we've talked to in South Carolina, DeMint invested a couple of days earlier this month traveling with Sen. Sam Brownback across the state, introducing him to a number of his longtime in-state financial backers, as well as meeting with leaders of the state's social conservative and right to life movement. It seems to us that DeMint did a couple of smart things here: he's publicly backed a candidate who is a definite alternative to the McCain steamroller, while also helping another candidate who is best positioned ideologically to keep the McCains and Romneys in the race honest on the issues important to conservatives.
Christian Democrat Party Convo
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 6:01PM
James P., it's an interesting point you make about the United States already having had a Christian Democrat party. The guys at the cdusa.org website claim William Jennings Bryan as an example of what an American Christian Democrat might look like.
No Ed-Policy Wonk Left Behind
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 5:55PM
Mike Petrelli, a former No Child Left Behind supporter who worked at the Bush Department of Education for a while, now sees the error of his ways. (Via Kaus.)
RE: Don't Fear the Deficit
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 4:53PM
James: Surely those programs have their constituencies. However, those folks who are harmed by such programs vote as well. As more parents and students are faced with rising tuition costs each year, and more employers have to drop health insurance coverage, Democrats' claims of making education and health care more affordable will eventually ring hollow.
RE: Don't Fear the Deficit
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 4:32PM
David: While I don't disagree with you on policy grounds, a government program doesn't have to work very well to develop a political constituency. It is easier for beneficiaries to see the check they are receiving in the mail, for example, than the net effect of the subsidy on the cost of what is being subsidized.
Medicare and Medicaid are certainly responsible for a good deal of the cost-shifting and inflation in our healthcare system; both programs still command significant constituencies that would oppose any cuts. Student loans may bid up education costs, but whenever cuts or higher interest rates are proposed, many students cry foul. The Democrats' basic approach to education and healthcare has been the same since the New Deal. Despite the obvious flaws in their programs, polls still usually show them with advantages on both issues.
Our political culture contains something of a pro-subsidy bias, as long as the electorate believes the recipient is deserving. That doesn't mean a program can never fail so badly or cost the taxpayers so much that the electorate will revolt -- consider the Republicans and welfare reform in the 1990s. But passing an economically counterproductive policy isn't, I'm afraid, necessarily credibility-destroying.
RE: Don't Fear the Deficit
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 3:19PM
James: I'm not convinced by Risen's analysis. His main flaw is here:
If anything, the Republicans didn't lose last year because they grew the size of the government; they lost because they didn't grow it very effectively. Voters chose Democrats not to cut the deficit but to create new programs to address the needs of the middle and working classes.This is what I call the "Management Theory of Government"--if you just put better people in charge of running government, the government will run better. Now that Democrats are in charge, supposedly they will come up with better programs that meet the needs of the middle and working class.
But where has history shown this to true? Democrats are going to try to make education more affordable by putting more money into college loans--specifically, by lowering the interest rates. But as any student of Econ 101 will tell you, when the government subsidizes something, that something becomes more expensive. How about health care? Just about everything the Democrats have ever done on health care has made it more expensive too.
The problem isn't one of managment, but one of government. Government, by its nature, makes things less affordable.
Therein lies the flaw in Risen's thinking. The Democrats will spend more on education and health care, thereby doing nothing to reduce the deficit, if not make it worse. Thus, they won't be able to go to the public and say they worked to reduce the deficit. But what they do on education and health care will make those even more expensive, thereby causing them to lose credibility on those issues too.
So, by going down the path Risen is suggesting--grow government, don't worry about the deficit--the Democrats will wind up in even worse shape than if they tried to do something about the deficit.
Re: Christian Democracy
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 2:59PM
And here I was thinking that the Christian Democratic Party had already existed in America, thriving until destroyed, ironically, by a sea change in social order brought about during the administration of the first Catholic President.
Alas the New Deal coalition -- now the Old Deal -- cannot rise again, certainly not without some equally comprehensive and multi-generational national calamity. If anything has been proven a fraud when coming from the GOP post-Roosevelt, it's "big-government conservatism," which, in a social sense, has been the only thing to keep Democrats nationally electable in districts with a lot of elderly people.
One could argue that big government itself tends to erode the classical conservative fiber of a free people, but the more compelling observation, I think, is that big government conservatism drives a nauseous reaction among large portions of free people such that "Establishment" culture and "Establishment" bureaucracy are understood to be conjoined twins. Which turns out to be fatal to the authoritative culture, because throwing a social revolution is so easy and painless nowadays relative to throwing a genuinely political revolution that it's virtually been institutionalized -- largely owing to the success of neocapitalism, I might add. But what is "neocapitalism" other than the idea that things once held sacred or private are to be made into new public commodities?
The faith in authority, secular and otherwise, that has passed out of the mass public consciousness, with regard to politics and culture, is a necessary precondition of Christian Democracy, and probably even moreso Christian Socialism. I'd say: don't hold your breath. Who wants to go back to the days of Adlai Stevenson anyhow? That faith crumbled for deeper reasons than the incredible persuasiveness of the Beat movement.
Don't Fear the Deficit
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 2:24PM
Writing in The New Republic, Clay Risen continues the trend away from deficit hawk Democrats, arguing that the budget-balancers in the liberal party risk falling into a Republican trap. The electorate really likes big government, he maintains, not Democratic spending cuts. Worse, the voters won't get the connection between deficits and interest rates but will fear higher taxes.
Leaving aside the some of the suspect economic assertions -- mainly warmed-over Rubinomics -- there is some truth to the political analysis. And some value in realizing that the deficit is useful to Democrats primarily as a way of blocking tax cuts. Only a minority in the party prefers balanced budgets on their own merits.
More on Christian Democrats
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 1:03PM
John, I'm familiar with the non-winner take all nature of the European democracies and why third parties in American politics have either knocked out a contender or have mostly vanished. I agree that the emergence of a Christian Democrat party is a longshot, but I still think it could arise under certain circumstances. Bioethics is a possible driver.
James, I agree with you that there are some very distinctive characteristics of the American Christian population and their political preferences. A CDU party here would surely look somewhat different from the European versions.
Re: Car Smoking Prohibition
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 12:46PM
"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said.
Shows how many kids she's spent time with.
(As the giant cartoon rooster Foghorn Leghorn used to say, "That's a joke, son." But, seriously, two hours spent recently at McDonald's for one of my toddler niece's chaotic birthday party explained more to me about my youngest sister's smoking habit than a thousand political lectures could erase.)
The DailyKos Dance
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 12:43PM
If you support Ted Kennedy's plan to block the troop surge, sign up for his email list so you can be solicited for donations!
Car Smoking Prohibition
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 12:09PM
The AP reports:
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- The
Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present. When the law goes into effect next week,
Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states. People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.
"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said.
The ordinance, which was approved by a 6-3 vote, applies to any motor vehicles on any public roads within the city. Violators face fines of up to $50.
When regulators ban smoking in bars and restaurants, which are private businesses, they make the argument that these establishments are still "public" spaces in the sense that anybody can go into them. Now, as has also been the case with eminent domain, we see a further blurring between public and private--doing something in your private car that does nothing to endanger other drivers is illegal as long as you're on a public road. Yeah, it's preferable for people to refrain from smoking in a car in the presence of children, but how that's the government's business is beyond me. And for the record, I'm a lifelong non-smoker (not that that should make any difference).
Re: Christian Democracy
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 11:50AM
Hunter: Christian Democratic parites in Europe are in part a product of proportional representation, which tends to sharpen the divides within political coalitions. Christian Democrats generally ally with smaller laissez-faire parties (Liberals, Free Democrats, etc.), just as the union-based Socialist parties ally with the technocratic-lefty Green parties. The American electoral system makes that sort of thing less likely.
RE: Christian Democracy
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 11:47AM
Interesting post, Hunter. But I'd also posit there is a strain of political thought in the United States that links Christianity to rugged individualism, decentralism, and skepticism of large-scale government. The Constitution Party, for example, is explicitly Christian (along Reformed, bordering on Reconstructionist lines) but on economic issues other than trade is similar to the Libertarian Party. Yet it is also restrictionist on immigration.
Christian Democrat politics doesn't represent some particularly American trends in conservative Christianity.
Hunting Baddies in Somalia
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 11:43AM
American forces have been covertly involved in the Ethiopian invasion from the beginning, reports Pajamas Media. PM seems to be the best spot for Horn of Africa news at the moment.
Ayatollah Khamenei Not Dead Watch
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 11:39AM
More evidence that Iran's Supreme Leader is alive and kicking, despite what Michael Leeden has reported.
Christian Democracy
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 11:35AM
There never has been a need in the United States for a Christian political party because avowedly anti-Christian forces have been historically rare. Instead, we've had a continual alliance between moderate Enlightenment thinkers and Christians who have had similar agendas.
I sometimes wonder whether it is this coalition that is under more strain than the one between conservatives and libertarians that everyone talks about.
I also sometimes wonder whether the United States will ever see the emergence of a Christian Democrat party of the kind we see so frequently in Europe, though the U.S. version would surely be a tad more laissez-faire simply because of the American heritage. Such a party in the U.S. would be pro-life, pro-traditional family (through promotion rather than making alternatives illegal, probably), pro-modest welfare state tied to moral requirements, and soft on immigration. It would come down more or less in the center of American politics economically with a rightward tilt socially. I suspect it would also be typically pro-Israel given the sympathies of the great majority of American Christians.
There are a few fellows working on the Christian Democrat United States version on the web. For an interesting thought experiment as much as anything else, check 'em out at www.cdusa.org.
Understanding Yglesias
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 11:27AM
If strafing retreating Islamists in Somalia is a good idea (and I agree that it is), is tacit support for the Ethiopian attack that smoked them out in the first place still "incredibly ill-advised?" Just asking.
Romneymania
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 11:16AM
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has endorsed Mitt Romney, in part because of his social conservatism. Former Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld has endorsed him too, presumably in spite of it.
The second endorsement intrigues me, since Weld was not quite as helpful as he could have been during Romney's 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy. I particularly remember one late North End rally, when the Weld-Cellucci ticket was about to cruise to a 71 percent reelection victory, that Romney was pointedly not invited to.
Jon Tester Had Other Deadlines
Posted by on 1.9.07 @ 11:02AM
Blueprint Magazine (via RealClearPolitics) turns to the only Democrat to lose a competitive Senate race last November for advice on the political landscape.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Bow Before the Worldwide Leader's Power
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 7:58PM
ESPN is, as it likes to tell you over and over, the Worldwide Leader in Sports (TM). And they don't mind leaning on you a little to establish it.
I was listening to Colin Cowherd, who I can't stand but is the only thing going at 10-12 noon in Athens, GA, talk to Kirk Herbstreit about tonight's national title game.
They bemoaned the fact the game was spaced out so far beyond the other bowls. I agree. They said the game had lost momentum. Again, I agree.
But here's the kicker. Herbstreit suggested that people weren't as interested as they might be in the title game between Florida and Ohio State because it was a Fox property rather than an ABC/ESPN production. He and Cowherd then went on to discuss how maybe in successive years BCS bowls would consider that ESPN/ABC might not give as much coverage to events that aren't owned by the Worldwide Leader and that therefore the games not under that rubric might suffer a disability in publicity.
I'm not sure they realized how much they sounded like the kind of Evil Monopolists that made Teddy Roosevelt wanna bust trusts like a soft-spoken bad boy with a big stick.
Not Only That
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 7:04PM
There are even some liberals who believe that Mitt Romney should be allowed to run.
(Disclaimer: I'm kidding when I imply that Jacob Weisberg's position on the Mormon question is taken by more liberals than John Judis's position.)
Romney's Fundraising
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 5:11PM
Hotline reports that the tally for Romney's kickoff fundraising call-a-thon will likely exceed $3 million.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt says the sum is even more impressive--$6.5 million.
UPDATE II: AP
confirms the $6.5 million figure, with details:
"They've come together and blown us away today, and humbled us at the same time," the beaming former Massachusetts governor said as he clutched the hand of his wife, Ann.
The figure dwarfed the $2 million estimated to have been raised by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and the $1 million raised by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also have created 2008 exploratory committees.
Re: I'm Still Waiting
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 4:46PM
Why not? Consider the possibility of putting the device to your ear, saying, "Hello," and pushing the wrong button.
Whatever the mighty mite's capabilities, the controls have to be better than most cell phones, in my experience. I used to get voice mail messages from my wife's cell phone which contained nothing but the noise of her car, and her and my son's distant voices. On and on and on the messages went, result of a call sent accidentally from her cell phone flopping around in her bag.
Seriously, if Taser comes out with something like this, it's worth another look at its stock, TASR, one of the spectacular winners of the past two years.
Romney and the Electability Factor
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 4:44PM
A recent Investor's Business Daily poll is pretty consistent with most 2008 general election polls, showing McCain and Giuliani ahead of potential Democratic rivals, and Romney losing handily to Clinton, Obama and Edwards. For Romney to win the Republican nomination, he not only has to convince primary voters that he's adequately conservative, but that he can win in November. Supporters of Romney would argue that the fact that he won in the solidly blue state of Massachusetts is proof positive that he would be competitive in a general election. However, it's worth noting that the Romney who won the Massachusetts governor's mansion in 2002 was the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, moderate Romney, not the "evolved" conservative he's portraying himself as now. In fact, a SurveyUSA poll taken last month showed that his approval rating in Massachusetts was 39 percent vs. a disapproval rating of 59 percent-among "independents" his approval rating was a slightly higher but still lackluster 42 percent. The obvious caveat applies that we're 22 months from Election Day 2008 and such horse race polls are meaningless, especially because Romney remains unknown to most Americans. However, at some point the electability issue will be a factor in the Republican primaries, and those hypothetical matchups will have to look better for Romney for him to win the nomination.
What's Sad Is That She Thinks She's Very Clever
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 4:43PM
From the comments section at the Washington Post, by "sonjapoet12":
Insurance companies need PROFITS. Doctors need PROFITS. They work hand in hand, and both of their hands are filled with our money. Supposedly, if we eat right, drink plenty of water, and exercise we will be healthy. Sadly, our food is unsafe, our water polluted, and the air we breathe while exercising is toxic. Seems like an unhealthy set up to me. A set up to sell more pills, potients, [sic] and procedures. Profit is the name of Americas [sic] public enemy number one. Even if families are grossing $60,000 a year, how can that be enough when red peppers costs $1.50 each.[sic] Is MacDonalds [sic] subsidized?
A couple of thoughts:
-What the hell is a "potient"?
-Let's see here, 60,000 divided by 1.50 is 40,000. You'd think that's more than enough red peppers for any family.
-Based on Ms. poet12's logic (and I use that term very loosely), I guess the air I breathe is healthy as long as I don't exercise. I know I'm going to discontinue my morning jog, aren't you?
Gore and 2008
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 3:43PM
Chris Cillizza explores the chances that the former VP and current anti-global warming rock star will make another White House bid, here and here. There's certainly an argument to be made for him to win the nomination--he's more popular among the far left of the Democratic Party than Hillary and has the experience that Obama doesn't. Cillizza reports that so far, privately as well as publicly, he isn't indicating any desire to run--but he hasn't clearly ruled out a run either, leading to speculation that either a) He may decide to run eventually or b) He's just using the speculation to publicize his anti-global warming crusade. Given his name recognition, he has the luxury of waiting awhile to see how the Democratic race is going, and jumping in late. The possibility of Gore running is the biggest wild card in the 2008 race.
RE: I'm Still Waiting
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 3:08PM
Jeb, why not go all the way and wish for one that also fixes espresso?
RE: Deficits Matter...
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 3:03PM
I think Alan Reynolds put it best: "In Washington higher taxes are always the solution; only the problems change."
Brownback Running
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 2:32PM
He's announcing his presidential campaign on January 20, according to ABC News. (This broke Friday evening, but I bet I'm not the only one who missed it.)
RE: Deficits Matter...
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 2:04PM
It reminds me of the shift between the 1996 and 2000 presidential campaigns. Bill Clinton opposed Republican tax cuts because they would "blow a hole in the deficit." Al Gore opposed them because they would "blow a hole in the surplus." Now, this isn't necessarily inconsistent -- you could, of course, just want to maximize federal revenues all the time. But it certainly suggests broad-based tax cuts are to be ruled out regardless of Washington's overall fiscal situation.
Those Are Some Pigs
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 2:00PM
I think I just stumbled upon a treatment for Babe 3.
Deficits Matter…
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 1:51PM
…only when there are tax cuts to defeat. That seems to be an accurate description of the political left's attitude toward government over-spending. After years of bashing Bush's tax cuts because they create deficits, Paul Krugman suddenly changes tune and claims they don't matter at all. (See Don Luskin for a great run-down or Krugman's sudden change of heart). Of course, now we have a Democratic Congress who will try to spend loads of money on ineffective government programs that Krugman loves, so what's a trifling little thing like a deficit? That's so yesterday.
Of course, when tax cuts are involved, you find loads of liberal switching on many issues. Take Social Security. When liberals needed ammo to use against Bush's tax cuts, Social Security faced a crisis. But when Bush actually tried to do something about the crisis, the left's collective response was "Crisis?!? What crisis?" For examples see Krugman or the New York Times op-ed page.
Flying Car Coming Soon?
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 1:31PM
It's the 21st century, and it's about time we got something that we were promised.
I'm Still Waiting
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 1:15PM
According to the Beeb, the makers of the Taser electronic stun gun announced that they're about to market a new, streamlined and stylish gun for the consumer. Not a bad idea. But why can't I get one that's also a cell phone and a PDA?
Saddam--One Pre-Dawn Morning Only
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 12:49PM
Just got around to reading AmSpec contributor James Poulos' typically witty/erudite take on the Saddam execution, all of which is well worth reading. This line, however, especially jumped out at me:
Saddam getting executed is like the Dixie Chicks cancelling a string of concert appearances for lack of interest: right and proper, but unable to alter anything that really matters.
You know you can't resist the rest...
Wouldn't Be Prudent
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 12:36PM
Robert Novak suggests that Hank Paulson is auditioning for the role of Dick Darman in the second Bush administration.
Bush and Iraq
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 12:06PM
As President Bush prepares to unveil his new plan for Iraq this week, just as important as the technical details of strategy, he needs to explain why we're there, who we're fighting, and what he would consider victory. It won't be enough to make the case from a negative perspective (i.e. the consequences of withdrawal), but a positive argument for what we hope to achieve there. When the conflict was mainly against the Sunni insurgency and foreign terrorist groups, it was easier to explain to the American people that we needed to defeat those groups to foster a stable government and deny an Iraqi base to terrorist organizations. Now that the conflict is about sectarian violence (or a civil war if you prefer), it's a lot more difficult to define victory or even identify the enemy. What especially complicates things is that Maqtada al-Sadr seems to have all the influence with Prime Minister Maliki, who has proved either unwilling or unable to crack down on Shiite militias. Public support for the war has eroded not because the American people are naturally a bunch of surrender monkeys, but because Americans have an increasingly hard time understanding what we intend to accomplish in Iraq at this point. If President Bush has any hope of gaining support from Americans for increasing the number of troops or any other aspects of his plan, he's going to have to clearly define the enemy and explain what victory would look like.
What My Beloved Granite State Has Done
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 11:59AM
Mangog-Like
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 11:09AM
Reason's Brian Doherty has a great bit on the self-congratulatory orgy currently occuring under the Capitol Dome. Here's the opening:
The First Hundred Hours have begun. (Lest anyone wonder why they aren't already over, new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi meant congressional working hours, not real hours.) We've seen Pelosi show exactly how much her own wonderfulness needs to be celebrated-and her grandiose tendency to think of herself as Mangog-like living embodiment of all the glories and splendors of her entire gender.
But what of the Democrat's 100 Hours agenda, past celebrating Pelosi-hood? It's not worth the cannoli with which it was launched.
And here's the rest.
RE: Israel and Iran
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 11:04AM
I'd be skeptical about the report, not so much about whether such a plan exists (it might), but about how serious the plan is. The Israelis likely have dozens of different scenarios drawn up for a possible military strike on Iran, and this was likely just a plan rather than the plan. Israel also may have leaked this as their way of responding to Iran's "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric by putting them on notice that Israel is prepared to use tactical nukes preemtively. Also, another factor is that Israel may have leaked it to pressure the U.S. and international community into taking a harder line against Iran. One of the things that motivated Nixon to airlift aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 was the fear that a desperate Israel, caught by surprise and fighting for survival on its heels, would use a nuclear bomb on Damascus. Perhaps the U.S. and Israel can play good cop/bad cop, with the U.S. arguing that if the international community doesn't take harsher measures against Iran, Israel may use tactical nukes, which would inflame the entire Arab and Muslim world.
With all that said, even though, as has been pointed out by John and in comments, the U.S. is better equiped for a quick strike against Iran, Israel may end up doing it because it has the most to lose from a nuclear Iran. While an Iran with nuclear weapons would be a threat to the U.S. and other countries, it would be a clear existential threat to Israel. After our adventure in Iraq, public opinion in the U.S. would be divided if not overwhelming againtst a preemtive strike on Iran, whereas Israelis would support one. These realities will likely cause the U.S. to hesitate and debate a military strike longer, which makes it more likely that Israel will strike first.
re: The A-Team
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 7:46AM
Jed, shouldn't we also kill Moqtada al Sadr and scatter his militias? He is our explicit enemy, and stands in the way of any possible government of national unity down the road.
Israel and Iran
Posted by on 1.8.07 @ 1:12AM
There's some reason to doubt the Sunday Times scoop about Israeli plans to hit the Iranian nuclear program with mini-nukes; apparently, reporter Uzi Mahnaimi has a "reporter who cried wolf" reputation. But there are a few things that ring true in the report. The targets mentioned, at Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak, are indeed the first things to hit if you want to cripple the program quickly. And the Natanz facilities are dug in enough that you need some sort of bunker-busting capability; my understanding is that the US has conventional bombs that can do the job, but it's possible that the Israelis would indeed need a low-yield nuke. Obviously, breaking the nuclear taboo would have some worrisome implications; the point of the Israeli leak (if it's authentic) may be to put pressure on the US. As Harvard wonk Jeffrey Lewis notes here, many argue that since we'll get blamed for an Israeli strike anyway, and the USAF can do the job better than the Israelis, we might as well take the lead if the Israelis are determined to go ahead with a strike. On the other hand, perhaps there are some advantages to an Israel-only strike with an Osirik-style American response of public condemnation (and private relief).
