- 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 20, 2007
Martinez In At RNC
Posted by on 1.20.07 @ 8:13PM
Mel Martinez was elected general chairman of the Republican National Committee over the opposition of members who objected to the Florida senator's postions on immigration.
A Fool and His Money...
Posted by on 1.20.07 @ 7:09PM
Impeachbush.com, a domain name with a maximum shelf life of two years, has sold on eBay for $25,200.
Prying the Lock off the Great Books
Posted by on 1.20.07 @ 5:58PM
Brought to you by the Wall Street Journal, in a bloom of brilliant editorial decisionmaking, your friend and mine Katherine Mangu-Ward eyes up the rise of on-campus, self-financing institutions of truly higher learning -- like the Madison Program at Princeton and the Tocqueville Forum at Georgetown. Check out the cartoon with the crowbar for a picture that speaks 800-1000 words.
Dems, Meet the Constitution
Posted by on 1.20.07 @ 5:57PM
Marshall Manson is justiably perturbed over the Democrats wanting to grant territorial delegates voting rights on the House floor. Sympathies aside, it is just unconstitutional.
What part of "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen … by the people of the several states" don't they understand?
Re: Democrats, Iran
Posted by on 1.20.07 @ 3:41PM
I'm "afraid" this leads toward a principle that some would call venerable and others outdated: don't use military force without a declaration of war. We've become conditioned by events and cliches to believe that if this path is taken again we'll return to the bad old days when wars were "all or nothing." But as any good neocon knows, the "bad old days" were actually replete with limited wars; you can just look back to the Spanish-American or the Crimean Wars for pretty good examples of combat among great powers that didn't turn into shootouts for survival.
The argument could be made that the possibility of limited war perversely increases the likelihood of wars: the extreme, and probably best, illustration of this is the deterrent effect of mutually assured destruction by massive nuclear exchange. But this in itself isn't a reason to jettison declared war, because insisting upon formal declarations of war forces an "all or nothing" statement as to the character of the conflict. "War" triggers (or triggered) a whole sequence of rules, presumptions, postures, and even laws; "war" also keys in a people to the unique seriousness of the conflict without having to resort to switcho-changeable semantic games. Declaring war is inclined to keep a fighting power more honest than a fighting power that hasn't declared war.
Declarations of war accomplish one other thing: making it formally clear who is the aggressor and who is not. This isn't because whoever declares war first is it; it's because a declaration requires an argument -- typically, a written argument -- that lays out the reasons why a state of war has been or is being entered into. Since the establishment of the United Nations, states are not supposed to be able to legitimately announce that they're starting hostilities. But declarations of war under the new model do permit and indeed require states to detail the hostilities they have been exposed to (even and especially without a declaration) such that they must enter into a state of war in order to engage them.
All of which would do a world of good to prevent another absurdity like the way we got into Iraq -- an awful muddle of lacunae in international law and sloppy, semi-meaningless US authorization of some kind of forcible something or other. And all of which suggests, then, that the Democrats demanding prior Congressional authorization on any use of force toward Iran are right!
But wait. Will a Democratically-controlled Congress ever authorize force against Iran -- particularly of the tightly-controlled variety that under virtually any circumstances is far, far preferable to "all out" war? Or has the modern fear that declaring war means authorizing total war paralyzed them?
Upon those horns the legitimacy of US foreign policy squirms. The trade is that we use force by the book, Constitutionally, formally, as declared War, in exchange for the actionable understanding that declared War is not to be taken as a blank check. Trouble is that now we have to fight against at least some adversaries for whom "limited war" means sending only ten guys strapped with catastrophic weapons across the ocean. We could think that one answer to this problem is to double down and damn the torpedoes, but another possibility is to think out plenty beforehand what exactly it's worth to us to risk the use of force in Iran. The answer is open. I wonder how many Hezbollah would volunteer to die to avenge twenty-five pinpoint strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Earlier and Earlier, Less and Less Substance
Posted by on 1.20.07 @ 3:24PM
Dave Weigel spots a trend in presidential candidacy announcements.
I wonder if Howard Dean has something to do with the early factor. If I'm remembering correctly, he was one of the first to announce last cycle, and he became frontrunner -- in the polls and the money race -- out of nowhere (before collapsing when he encountered actual caucus-goers and voters).
Re: Democrats, Iran
Posted by on 1.20.07 @ 2:57PM
James: Yes, the President can order a military strike without Congress, and such a thing has been done in the past. But it's not altogether constitutionally kosher, and I actually agree with Reid on the principle that the responsibility to declare war and the responsibility to prosecute war ought to be split between branches. I don't mean to advocate an open-ended authorization of force against Iran as a purely symbolic gesture for foreign consumption. Yes, I think it would be prudent to give the President a legislative green light in part to send a message that we're serious, but also to reinforce an important constitutional principle if we do end up bombing Iran.
She's In
Posted by on 1.20.07 @ 2:29PM
And she wants to have a conversation.
--About "how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq"
--How to "restore respect for America around the world."
--How to make us energy independent.
--How to end the entitlement deficits.
and...
"Let's definitely talk about how every American can have quality, affordable health care
RE: Are Democrats Functionally Allied with Iran?
Posted by on 1.20.07 @ 1:55PM
Tabin, that said, the problem is the disjunct between passing an act of Congress in order to actually implement the thing and passing an act of Congress in order to -- blecch -- "send a message." The purpose of authorizing the executive to use military force ought to be used for its use, not as a diplomatic bargaining chip that may or may not mean whatever seems expedient. Present acts are not to be passed legislatively with a minimum of content designed for future convenience. Bad wording and deliberate vagueness are the bane of intelligent and coherent law; they undermine the purpose of law itself, which is accountable predictability, substituting for it whim enablement, within which we have no choice but to put a general and blanket trust in the future decisions of those in power to whom account can no longer be brought. There is nothing wrong with consenting to the open-ended use of force under present circumstances that merit it; there is plenty wrong with doing so on the pretense of future conditions.
That said, in turn, the President certainly has the ability to order limited uses of military force without prior Congressional authorization. If Clinton did it so can Bush, and the question of whether or not it would be wise to do so at a certain point in time with regard to Iran is a practical policy question, not one of the basic integrity of the rule of law. But until that becomes the question Republicans must not continue to fall into the woeful postmodern trap so belabored by this Administration of doing things not in order to have done them but in order to have "sent a strong signal," "delivered a clear message," etc., etc. To be taken seriously -- much less felt strongly -- the words by which diplomacy is conducted must be taken seriously by themselves, as a result of prior, not future, conduct. This is the difference between intimidating an opponent and threatening them.
To the extent that our acts are perceived not as real acts but only "messages" about acts that might or might not ever exist, we are fatally diluting the power and credibility of American action abroad, and dessicating besides the legitimacy of our own rule of law at home.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Re: NFL Predictions Roundup
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 7:22PM
New Orleans vs. Chicago: Let's get rid of the unimportant game first. Sometimes I wonder who the Saints' defensive coordinator is -- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers? Then again, a porous defense may be no liability against a Rex Grossman, a stage 3 hurricane at least waiting him to happen. On other hand, I expect the Bears to come loaded for Bears football. Coming off a biweek, they were sluggish against Seattle. But this time it's for all the marbles, or whatever it is a trip to the Super Bowl is worth these days. Prediction: The Bears.
New England vs. Indianapolis: This one is for the ages, at least until next year. Paul Chesser has juggled the numbers correctly. All signs point to Tom Brady having a fine game. But then again, one has to assume that Peyton Manning will have a breakout playoff game at long last. The only trouble is, he'll be throwing against a sounder defense than his own. Everyone is saying it'll come down to the kicker for each team -- and that Vinatieri is unbeatable. I don't agree. No matter how many in a row he's made, it's the one that he misses that will be the killer. Plus, he'll suddenly remember that his Super Bowl achievements weren't accomplished in a Colts uniform. His buddies are on the other side of the scrimmage line. Everyone will say he choked when he misses the big one, but what he'll really be doing is refusing to beat the team with which he'll be forever be identified. Prediction: The Patriots.
RE: NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 7:18PM
New England vs. Indianapolis: Good point, Hunter. But San Diego had beaten New England before too, ending our 21-game winning streak the previous season. While the Pats didn't have it entirely together in the regular season, they are making up for lost time now. Tom Brady balances out Peyton Manning, but Adam Vinatieri does keep give some pause. Nevertheless... Prediction: Patriots.
But then I would have to root for the home team. Blood and soil and all that.
New Orleans vs. Chicago: If Reggie Bush has a good game and Chicago's defense doesn't, it's a no-brainer. Yet even if Bush can't hold onto the ball, I'm still bearish about the Bears. Prediction: Saints.
About Those Pats, Paul
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 6:51PM
Your additional facts are helpful, but you've left out a couple of good ones. Namely, that the Colts have beaten the Pats in their last two meetings.
Colts over the Pats.
Saints over the Bears.� (That one's all Karma.)
Are Democrats Functionally Allied With Iran?
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 5:30PM
I'm not usually in the habit of throwing around Coulteresque allegations of pseudo-treason, but I don't know how else to respond to this:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.If we can't credibly threaten military action, then retarding the Iranians' nuclear progress through diplomacy, which is what the Democrats claim to want, becomes absolutely impossible. If they can't bring themselves to take the prudent course and give Bush an open-ended authorization for an attack on Iran (and no, I'm not saying that it would be a good idea to bomb Iran at this time, just that it would be helpful to advertise that it's a serious option), can Reid and his copartisans at least refrain from loudly proclaiming their intention to block such an attack?"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.
UPDATE: On further reflection, I suppose if you believe that the consequences of attacking Iran would be worse than the consequences of Iran going nuclear, it makes sense to block an attack however possible. (That position is misguided, but not unpatriotic.) But if that's the Democrats' position, they aren't really against a nuclear Iran in any real sense, and are being disingenuous when they suggest otherwise.
Setting the Bar a Bit Low, Aren't We?
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 5:06PM
I really like Commentary, and I have high hopes for its new house blog. But perhaps David Gelertner ought not declare in his very post that "Internet prose encourages shallow rambles."
Eight-State '08 Polling
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 4:37PM
RCP highlights the new American Research Group results from Michigan, Missouri, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Mexico, California, and North Carolina. Notable bits:
Homestate candidates do well: Richardson leads on the Democratic side in New Mexico, Edwards leads in North Carolina, and Obama leads in Illinois.
Obamamania still doesn't threaten Hillary's commanding lead in Missouri, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Obama is tied with Clinton in Michigan and three points behind in California (which is statistically tied).
On the Republican side, McCain leads in Missouri, Giuliani leads everywhere else. McCain is in third, behind Gingrich, in Missouri, Florida, and California, and in second everywhere else.
Romney is in third place in Michigan and Illinois. Some permutation of Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich are the top three everywhere else.
Colbert and O'Reilly
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 4:03PM
It's up on YouTube now.
Watch Colbert on O'Reilly here.
Watch O'Reilly on Colbert here.
Re: NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 3:55PM
New England vs. Indianapolis: Philip, you are correct in saying this is a hard call, but you leave a few facts out of your analysis that further illustrate just how difficult a prediction it is. First, the Colts defense played well against an anemic Baltimore offense and a one-dimensional Kansas City offense. Second, countering home-field advantage, is the fact that New England was 8-1 on the road this year, including last week's victory at San Diego, who had also been undefeated at home. And as Sports Illustrated's Don Banks notes, Tom Brady is 10-0 in domes in his career, 23-1 on artificial turf, and 12-1 in the playoffs. New England lost earlier this year to the Colts when Brady had no go-to receivers and overall the team was still finding its way. And I suspect the game will come down to rookie kicker Stephen Gostkowski's leg, not Vinatieri's. Prediction: Patriots.
New Orleans vs. Chicago: If the Bears had trouble with Seattle's offense, it's not going to get any better with the multi-dimensional Saints' attack. Drew Brees was the MVP runner-up and has too many weapons for Chicago to cope with. Prediction: Saints.
Oh, What Have We Come To
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 3:43PM
I experienced the eerie feeling I got from reading the conclusion of Orwell's 1984 when I read the following finish to the Grey's Anatomy gay slur controversy:
Washington also added that he wanted to seek out help within the
gay and lesbian community. "I can also no longer deny to myself
that there are issues I obviously need to examine within my own
soul, and I've asked for help. I know the power of words,
especially those that demean. I realize that by using one filled
with disrespect I have hurt more than T.R. and my colleagues. With
one word, I've hurt everyone who has struggled for the respect so
many of us take for granted. I welcome the chance to meet with
leaders of the gay and lesbian community to apologize in person and
to talk about what I can do to heal the wounds I've opened," he
said.
We don't get upset over adultery, drug abuse, sometimes even wife abuse, but heaven help the man who screws up by making an intolerant remark about a protected class of human beings. This man is obviously in fear of being blackballed and is thus making an utterly abject apology. It's either the supremely sincere apology or the cage with the rabid rat attached to your face, pal!
I don't endorse the use of gay slurs or any other kind, but we have really, really lost perspective in this country. Calling names is hardly as bad as it gets, folks.
NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 3:29PM
Â
Muslims vs. 24
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 1:49PM
You knew this had to happen. Muslim groups are up in arms because the terrorists on this season's 24 are actually Muslim.
The AP reports:
"The overwhelming impression you get is fear and hatred for Muslims," said Rabiah Ahmed, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. She said Thursday she was distressed by this season's premiere. "After watching that show, I was afraid to go to the grocery store because I wasn't sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality."
What, was somebody gonna throw a cantaloupe at her? Please. Can she be any more dramatic or more insulting to average Americans? That's like me saying I was afraid to go out in public after the Passion of the Christ opened because I was afraid that Christians were gonna pummel me for what happened to Jesus. As a Fox statement pointed out, "Over the past several seasons, the villains have included shadowy Anglo businessmen, Baltic Europeans, Germans, Russians, Islamic fundamentalists, and even the (Anglo-American) president of the United States." One of the things that makes 24 a great show is that it isn't politically correct and it's willing to go where other shows won't. Were it to only feature non-Muslim terrorists in season after season, it would be patently absurd. True, most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most of the terrorists who want to attack America are Muslim. The show wouldn't be the same if season after season America were attacked by Catholic terrorists from the Galapagos Islands.
Krauthammer's Plan B
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 1:07PM
In his column today, Charles Krauthammer hones in on one of the main problems of Bush's plan for
Krauthammer writes:
The Pentagon should be working on a sustainable Plan B whose major element would be not so much a drawdown of troops as a drawdown of risk to our troops. If we had zero American casualties a day, there would be as little need to withdraw from
Iraq as there is to withdraw from the Balkans. We need to find a redeployment strategy that maintains as much latent American strength as possible, but with minimal exposure. We say to Maliki: Let us down, and we dismantle the Green Zone, leave Baghdad and let you fend for yourself; we keep the airport and certain strategic bases in the area; we redeploy most of our forces to Kurdistan; we maintain a significant presence in Anbar province, where we are having success in our one-front war against al-Qaeda and the Baathists. Then we watch. You can have your
Baghdad civil war without us. We will be around to pick up the pieces as best we can.
This strategy is tempting, and one that I've viewed as a reasonable last resort in the past. However, a NY Times article from last week about the Bush administration deliberations contained a quote that made me reconsider whether such a strategy would be a realistic or wise one:
One senior official involved in the discussions said that Mr. Bush's instinct toward the start of the review process -- and that of others -- was to consider a withdrawal from Baghdad, allow Iraqi-vs.-Iraqi fighting to settle itself, and dedicate United States forces to focus on pursuing Qaeda fighters. ''As you peel that back and look at it, it just doesn't war-game out for you,'' said the official. ''You're supposed to go flying through
Baghdad looking for Al Qaeda, and when you see ethnic cleansing going on look the other way?''
In reality, will
Furthermore, can you really de-link the Sunni-Shiite feud from the war on Al Qaeda in Anbar? A November Washington Post article quoted a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that said the main reason for Al Qaeda's growing popularity in Anbar was that the Sunni minority views the terrorist group as its only protection against the Shiite majority and perceived Iranian influence in Baghdad. Presumably, by sitting on the sidelines, these problems will only get worse, thus making the Sunnis in Anbar even more dependent on Al Qaeda.
Finally, the Krauthammer plan seems to rest on the belief that Maliki's problem is a lack of will, but he just may not have the ability to prevent Shiite militia infiltration of the security forces and other arms of the government, even if he wanted to.Â
What's It All About?
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 11:06AM
Humorist Art Buchwald, who died Wednesday, shares his thoughts on life, death, and banana splits in his final column.
RE: Tancredo
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 11:01AM
Larry, I think the point you raise is the reason Tancredo seems ready to jump in. He wants to ensure that immigration hawks, who make up a sizeable percentage of the GOP base, are represented in the 2008 Republican presidential field. As a bit of a hawk myself, I can't fault him for that.
Yet I think it is clear that the movement Tancredo leads has accomplished more by steadily building its congressional ranks, mainly with people who are staunch conservatives on a broad range of issues rather than just monmanically committed to immigration, and organizing effectively at the grassroots level. (Though certainly Tancredo's immigration single-mindedness has made it possible for other Immigration Reform Caucus members to focus on other issues.) Longshot single-issue candidacies seem to have served them less well, except when the occasional Jim Gilchrist loses but does much better than expected.
In politics, making a statement can be important. But winning always is.
Huckabee the Huckster
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 9:57AM
Conservatives desperate for a good candidate for president sometimes still wonder out loud if Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee might be the answer. I covered him for 14 months in Little Rock, and I can say that these two stories below (one actually mostly based on the other) capture his essence perfectly. That essence is not very pleasant. 'Nuff said.
What 'Unity'?
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 9:54AM
I know that I should stop taking the political pap of entertainers seriously. Sadly, the nonsense they spew gets reported far and wide, and who knows how many citizens are influenced by it. This time it's Robert Redford:
Robert Redford has demanded that US leaders apologise to the American people about the war in Iraq.Speaking at the start of his Sundance Film Festival Redford said: "We put all our concerns on hold to let the leaders lead. I think we're owed a big, massive apology."
He added that like many others he had shown a "spirit of unity" with the US government after 9/11.
Redford either has a very short memory, or, more likely, he's engaging in revisionism. That unity lasted until early 2002, when the Bush Administration started talking seriously about invading Iraq.
If Redford wants to criticize the President, fine. But don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that lefties put their "concerns on hold" in a "spirit of unity."
Re: Tancredo
Posted by on 1.19.07 @ 6:06AM
Jim, you pose a characteristically shrewd analysis of Tom Tancredo's Presidential chances, and possible unintended consequences. But it's a Hobson's choice, isn't it? Either the immigration issue is worth attention from the hawkish point of view, or it is not. And other politicians' cowardice in the face of a vast voter sentiment of this sort -- that's one of the major exasperations of our public life.
Tancredo has one other thing going for him: He talks like a real human being. Presidential candidates so seldom do.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Saturday Night Massacre
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 8:26PM
I don't think it's commonly known (or at least mentioned) that young Robert Bork was the guy who ended up having to fire Archibald Cox after Elliott Richardson and his next in command resigned rather than perform the deed. My understanding from graduate work in public administration is that Bork agreed to do it after being encouraged to do so by Richardson (or another superior). I've always thought that actually being the guy who gave Cox his pink slip may have been a big part of why Bork was Borked.
Re: Fitzgerald Is a Menace
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 5:41PM
Quin: There's really only one way out on this one. President Bush via the Justice Department should move to have Patrick Fitzgerald fired. I know, some of the usual hyenas would screech, "Saturday Night Massacre! Saturday Night Massacre." But Bush isn't Nixon, and Fitzgerald isn't Archibald Cox. Besides, it would be a Saturday Night Mercy Killing.
More on Health Care
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 5:04PM
David, I think we might also find that the market operates pretty efficiently in the areas not covered by insurance. Wouldn't we find, for instance, that the price for fixing eyesight via Lasik or whatever is the current method, drops over time due to technical improvements and increased competition? Ditto with the cosmetic surgery that seems to be proliferating so democratically.
Fitzgerald is a Menace
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 4:23PM
Patrick Fitzgerald, meet Mike Nifong of Duke non-rape case fame. Maybe the two out-of-control prosecutors should open a law partnership together. Their ethics seem to be similar.
Read this story. It shows that Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Scooter Libby trial, has utterly lost all sense of equal justice under the law.
Ever since the Bob Woodward revelations, it has been evident to almost any reasonable human being that the perjury charges against Libby were dubious at best. They amount to one man's hazy recollections of the dates of unimportant conversations pitted against several journalists' slightly differing hazy recollections of the same. And ever since Richard Armitage admitted being the primary source for the Valerie Plame/CIA story, it has been clear that Fitzgerald kept trying to bait others (including Libby) into perjury long after he knew that there was no underlying crime. That makes Fitzgerald a man with a huge ego and even larger bloodlust, trying desperately to justify his own existence, rather than a prosecutor seeking justice.
But back to the story. It reports that Fitzgerald is not content to have in the jury pool seven people who admit to a strong prejudice against the Bush administration but who say they can still adjudge the facts dispassionately, No, that's not enough for him. He also argued vociferously to keep in the pool a woman who said her feelings against the administration (of which Libby, obviously, was a major part) are so strong that, Breitbart reports, "She said her feelings about the administration could spill over into the trial."
Read that again. This is a woman who acknowledges that she might not be able to look at the facts objectively. But Fitzgerald's sick desire for Libby's scalp is so outsized that he still wanted to keep this woman in the jury pool. That is outrageous. Fitzgerald has become an embarrassment to his profession.
RE: On Health Care
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 3:42PM
Hunter, this was the second passage of your post that caught my eye:
My answer, based on my time as an analyst at a large insurance company, is that we should abolish health insurance altogether or make it work more like auto insurance. Basically, it would just cover the big stuff. I say that because the pricing mechanisms between providers and patients are utterly screwed up because of contract negotiations between big insurance companies and hospitals, doctors, etc. Hospitals set a price and insurers negotiate to pay a percentage of that price. Then a cycle sets in. The price keeps increasing and the percentage keeps falling as the two big forces fight it out. The result is that you get an unreal price that no one pays EXCEPT for the people without insurance or those with bad insurance.
I agree that we should make health insurance more like car insurance in that it will cover primarily catastrophic costs. A lot of what we call "health insurance" today is more accurately described as "pre-paid health care."
I think that making health insurance cover primarily the catastrophic and letting people pay out-of-pocket for routine care (like you do with a policy with a health savings account) will help bring costs down for insurance companies in a couple of ways.
First, insurance companies will need to employ fewer claims processors since they will only have to monitor payments for the catastrophic instead of the routine. I agree with lefties who claim that administrative costs in the private sector are too high. Whether turning things over to the government will reduce those costs is another matter. (Speaking of which, I'd like some lefty to explain to me why you believe that government will run health insurance more efficiently than the private sector. The government can barely get right something as relatively simple as delivering the mail, and you want it to be heavily involved in something as complex as health care?)
But I digress. A second reason that more people paying out-of-pocket will reduce costs for insurance companies is that they will have more information when it comes time to negotiate with providers. The reason is that as people pay more out-of-pocket, providers will have to advertise their prices. Insurance companies can then use those prices to ensure that the providers aren't ripping them off. Consider the following example: You are involved in a bad car accident requiring surgery. You've quickly hit your deductible, and now the insurance is paying. You later need some follow up visits to your doctor, which the insurance is paying for. The insurance company will be able to see what the doctor charges for an office visit since the doctor advertises his prices. This will keep the doctor from over-charging the insurance company.
Car insurance works something like this. Since we pay for a lot of car repairs out of our own pocket, auto-body shops and repair garages advertise their prices. I recently spoke to one of the bigger car insurance companies, and they have a program in place to monitor such prices in a given area. When one of their customers needs major repairs, they check the price being charged by the garage doing the repairs. If they think the garage is charging too much, they either negotiate a lower price, or send the customer elsewhere.
So, like I said in the other post, more Honda Civics in health insurance!
Stopping Troop Escalation
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 3:15PM
TPM has a guide to the bills currently floating around Congress.
I'm Not the Biggest Coulter Fan
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 2:08PM
But the headline of her current column on the Duke case is a classic: The Stripper Has No Clothes.
RE: Torkildsen and Mass GOP
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 1:55PM
Not to turn this into too Mass-centric a blog, unless Shawn wants to chime in, but: Bill Weld is the real point of comparison for Mitt Romney when you want to evaluate gubernatorial efforts at building the Bay State Republican Party.
Weld was the most popular of the three elected Republican governors the commonwealth had over the last 16 years. (If Jane Swift had tried to run for governor in her own right in 2002, the Democrats would have returned to the corner office four years earlier.) His election in 1990 swept in Republicans in down-ballot races, giving the GOP 16 seats in the state senate (more than enough to sustain a veto) and 40 in the house. Weld was re-elected with 71 percent of the vote and would still have a viable political career if he hadn't left Massachusetts to embark on a disastrous New York gubernatorial bid.
But, aside from a few good appointments to fill vacant county offices, Weld did very little to build the Massachusetts party. So by the end of his time in office, the numbers in the legislature dwindled and the House delegation became unanimously Democratic. Weld was more interested in building his own career and didn't want any of his star power tarnished by competitors -- such as an upstart 1994 Senate candidate named Mitt Romney.
Romney, by contrast, did make a serious effort to recruit candidates for the legislature in 2004. He raised a record amount of money on their behalf. Romney's Reformers produced some near-misses but ultimately the GOP's numbers in the legislature sank even lower. The question is whether Romney adopted a more Weld-like approach to party building after deciding to run for president or whether he decided a more Republican legislature just wasn't in the cards.
GOP Doctors
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 1:33PM
I think Hunter has just convinced me to back a Ron Paul/Tom Coburn ticket. No Bill Frist though, please.
Looking forward to the next piece
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 1:13PM
David, you're off to a great start. Can't wait to see the rest after lunch.
I think we need a GOP candidate who can put a comprehensive market-based health care reform package on the table as part of a presidential run. Surely, such a thing would be a lot less scary than nationalizing the system.
Ron Paul would be a sensible choice for something like that, being a physician and a libertarian, but I think the effort would require someone higher profile, someone with a rep. for making things work, maybe a Rudy, for instance.
RE: On Health Care
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 12:04PM
Hunter: Thanks for the reply! There are two issues in your post I'd like to address, and I will do so in separate blog posts. First, this passage stood out:
When you have poor insurance that you pay a lot for because you don't have employer-provided coverage, you worry a lot about whether they'll reimburse things you really need, like tubes for the ears of a child with frequent, raging ear infections. You wonder whether they will pay for something utterly necessary, like the anesthesiologist. You feel outraged that you pay so much and still feel like you got your insurance card out of a box of cracker jacks.Here's what I think is the key question: How is it that the poor can afford so many other of life's necessities--food, clothing, shelter, a car--and, generally, get pretty good quality when they buy those things? (It's also worth noting that they can afford some of life's luxuries like microwave ovens. TVs, computers, etc.) Is it that the poor have their priorities messed up? Possibly, but that, at best, only explains a small portion of why they don't buy health insurance. I think the biggest problem is that in the U.S. we don't have much of a market for health insurance.
Now, I'm betting that a number of liberals are jumping up and down saying, "Are you kidding? Relative to most other nations, we have a much bigger private market for health insurance!" Yet deeming that we have a market for health insurance because we have more of a market than countries with far greater socialist health insurance systems is like claiming Ben Wallace of the Chicago Bulls is short because, at 6'9'', he is the shortest center in the NBA. The point of comparison is way off.
The proper comparison is with that of other markets; specifically, other insurance markets. In how many other markets does government tax policy not only give a tax break for purchasing the product, but also gives that tax break to the employer, not the employee? None, but we have that in health insurance. The tax law insulates health insurance companies from a lot of competitive pressure because they only have to compete for the business of a few million employers, instead of competing for the business of many more millions of employees.
Next, in how many markets are you unable to buy a product out of state? I can buy loads of other insurance products--car, homeowners, etc.--in another state, but, thanks to federal and state law, not health insurance. This also insulates health insurance companies from competition, and the big insurance companies like it that way. Hence the Big Blues' opposition to the Shadegg Bill.
Thus, in health insurance we have a market where, thanks to tax law, insurance companies compete for the business of a limited number of customers and, thanks to federal and state law, don't have to compete across state lines. That's not much of a market at all.
If we had a true market in health insurance, we'd have far more competition, and that competition would, of course, lead to lower prices. You'd have a lot more policies within the reach of people who are poor, and the quality of those policies would be much better. Granted, you might not be able to afford the same care that, say, Paul Krugman can afford. But, it would be more like the market for cars. You won't be able to buy a Jaguar, but a Honda Civic, which is a pretty good car, is within reach.
Thanks to screwed up government policy (but I repeat myself) we don't have many "Honda Civics" among health insurance policies. The next post will come after lunch.
On Health Care
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 9:34AM
David, I enjoyed your exercise in fisking Paul Krugman. He deserves it every chance someone takes a notion. It's a terrible thing to trade in hard-earned academic expertise in exchange for obviously partisan punditry wielded without subtlety. I remember reading Nicholas Kristof remarking that he was surprised by how little influence his NYT op-ed slot gave him over the national debate. I can only surmise that realization has maddened Krugman into ever greater extremity.
On the other hand . . . I am no lover of the idea of nationalized health care, (I always thought if we should nationalize something it should be the practice of law because lawyers depend entirely on the existence of government to make their living.) but, I know what it's like both to go without insurance because of limited resources (as a young person without children) and then to have very poor quality insurance (as a person with wife and children). The first situation is not so bad and I imagine there are millions who do the same. The second gets a little ugly. When you have poor insurance that you pay a lot for because you don't have employer-provided coverage, you worry a lot about whether they'll reimburse things you really need, like tubes for the ears of a child with frequent, raging ear infections. You wonder whether they will pay for something utterly necessary, like the anesthesiologist. You feel outraged that you pay so much and still feel like you got your insurance card out of a box of cracker jacks. I also know how wonderful it was to get into a situation where we had a really good insurance company that everybody accepted and that reimbursed quickly. Big difference.
Times like that interfere with your intellectual process. When we had bad insurance I thought about how much I might welcome national health care and how much I would love not to pay the big premium coming up. There are people in that position and unfortunately, they don't listen to our arguments about how bad socialized systems are. They feel lowly and they would like their fortunes to rise a little. They're also powerfully attracted to everybody having the SAME level of coverage.
I know you're ultimately right about socialized medicine. My answer, based on my time as an analyst at a large insurance company, is that we should abolish health insurance altogether or make it work more like auto insurance. Basically, it would just cover the big stuff. I say that because the pricing mechanisms between providers and patients are utterly screwed up because of contract negotiations between big insurance companies and hospitals, doctors, etc. Hospitals set a price and insurers negotiate to pay a percentage of that price. Then a cycle sets in. The price keeps increasing and the percentage keeps falling as the two big forces fight it out. The result is that you get an unreal price that no one pays EXCEPT for the people without insurance or those with bad insurance. Without insurance or with a very different notion of health insurance, the price relationship between consumers and providers could become rational again and even those without policies could probably find a way to pay their bills over time.
Love to get a reaction from you on this one, David or others. I know you've been looking at it.
John Kerry, Global Warming Activist
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 8:24AM
I'm not sure whether this is funny or pathetic. Maybe both.
Re: Torkildsen and Mass GOP
Posted by on 1.18.07 @ 7:20AM
The Prowler raps Mitt Romney for his failure at party-building. It'd be fairer to put that rap on every Republican governor, most conspicuously William Weld. Mitt Romney raised some millions of dollars for Republican candidates in 2004, but you can't raise something out of nothing. It's kind of like trying to create a high school band when middle school and elementary music programs have been suspended. The talent and the interest just aren't there. And, sadly, having 60 percent of statewide elections uncontested by Republicans in Massachusetts is pretty much the norm. Weld at least had enough Republicans in the legislature to sustain a veto; Romney didn't.
This situation is not uncommon. There are several states -- Delaware, Maryland, Louisiana, Connecticut, to an extent, Rhode Island -- where the primary is the real election and the general election means nothing. And all those states are totally dominated by Democrats. They tend to go to jail frequently, but it doesn't seem to break their hold on statewide politics.
So don't blame Mitt too much. You can only bash your head against a brick wall so many times.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Re: Conservocrats
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 9:55PM
Query then whether a conservative rebellion against the entire GOP leadership agenda, excepting war strategy, is the only way for Republicans to keep Congress and the vitality necessary for '08. Query when the last time such a thing has happened -- and whether we aren't headed for an extraordinary moment in 2008 when the national realignment Rove had been dreaming of turns out to be less about party and more about philosophy. There are more anti-Bush conservatives now, I think, than ever -- paleocons and paleoliberals who share an unadventurous reticence in foreign, as well as moral, policy. You heard it here first that this is the critical swing vote over the next two years...
That line about "excepting war strategy" is now dated. Neolibbocons, Conservolationcrats -- this is only the beginning.
But How Far Has The Cheese Slipped?
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 6:03PM
While Paul Craig Roberts' cheese has clearly slipped of his cracker, the relevant question is how far has it slipped from said cracker?
From CounterPunch:
There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD, but we believe the government told the truth about 9/11.
And from Looking Glass News:
I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact.We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.
Conservocrats?
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 5:44PM
First, there were the liberaltarians. Now this:
Richard A. Viguerie, the author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause, praised Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for extending the ban on "earmarks," the pork-barrel giveaways that exploded under all-Republican rule.
"Some Republicans, like Trent Lott, apparently still haven't learned anything from the 2006 election returns," Viguerie said. "But Nancy Pelosi understands that voters are disgusted with pork-barrel spending. She has my thanks and support for extending the ban on earmarks for this entire year."
"Let the message from conservatives be loud and clear," Viguerie added. "We are not slaves to either party. We will support Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the right thing, and we will oppose Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the wrong thing. Our loyalty is to the taxpayers and to sound fiscal policies."
Is The Surge Really About 35,000?
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 4:59PM
Writing in the Weekly Standard, Frederick W. Kagan, one of the intellectual of the surge, tries to reconcile his plan, which said "Bringing security to Baghdad...is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail" with the plan President Bush announced last week, which called for 21,500.
The discrepancy, Kagan notes, is due to differing estimates about how many troops make up a combat brigade (Kagan's plan and Bush's both call for five brigades). According to Kagan:
So the surge being briefed by the Bush administration now is much more likely to be around 29,000 troops than 22,000--in other words, close to the number of combat troops the IPG recommended, and, when necessary support troops are added, close to the overall numbers I had estimated before the IPG met.
By "overall numbers" Kagan means 35,000. If this is true, and we end up with a surge of 35,000 troops instead of 21,500, be prepared for a lot of "Bush lied" charges being thrown around by the Democrats.
Kagan also adds some criticism of the Bush plan:
It remains to be seen if the Bush administration will adhere to this plan, of course. The notion of deploying the first two brigades while holding the other three in reserve is antithetical to the plan produced by the IPG, and I do not believe it to be sound. Neither am I entirely satisfied with the reduction of Marine RCTs designated for Anbar from two to one. Other elements of the administration's plan are also significantly at variance with the proposal of the IPG, especially the administration's emphasis on putting Iraqis in the lead at all levels, including the tactical and sub-tactical level. But the new commander, Lieutenant General David Petraeus, has not yet taken up command, and it would be best to await his plan before commenting in detail on proposals that may or may not take concrete form.
John F. Kennedy Today, John F. Kerry Tomorrow?
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 4:56PM
Ross Douthat makes a strong case that Obama should seize the day in 2008.
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part XIV
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 3:18PM
Well, guess who is bearing the cost of Governor Romey's individual mandate to purchase health insurance? Why, those who can least afford it, of course. From the Boston Globe:
The state's landmark healthcare reform, which seeks to provide universal health insurance coverage, is creating an unexpected financial crisis for many clinics, nursing homes, and other healthcare providers.The providers say they are bracing for substantial increases in their healthcare costs, as more of their employees comply with the reform law by signing up for insurance already offered by the small, nonprofit organizations.
Officials at area healthcare nonprofits say that compared to many other small businesses, they have a limited ability to offset the costs of adding workers on an insurance plan because their revenue is largely dependent on fixed federal and state reimbursements.
"We have 250 employees," said William J. Walczak , chief executive of the Codman Square Health Center in Dorchester. "If they all sign up for our insurance plan, that will mean an additional $400,000 or $500,000 in additional costs. Where's the money going to come from? It has to come out of our bottom line."
I'm sure Governor Romney didn't intend to hurt nonprofits that provide services to the elderly...
Sandy Albright , director of Kit Clark Senior Services in Dorchester, said one-third of her 150 employees are now enrolled in a healthcare plan through the center. It pays 50 percent of their premiums. If another 50 employees sign up in response to healthcare reform, Albright said, she expects her annual healthcare costs to more than double to $450,000. The center provides meals, transportation, home visits, and other services to seniors and others in Boston."We don't know what we would do under those circumstances," she said. "The best way to put it is this is an unintended consequence of the healthcare reform law."
...and nursing homes...
Marva Serotkin , chief executive of the Boston Home, a Dorchester nursing home with 96 beds, said it pays 70 percent of individual health insurance and 60 percent of family insurance for employees, or about $4,000 a year for individuals and $7,000 a year for families. About 43 percent of the 212 full- and part-time employees at Boston Home are enrolled in its plan, at a cost to the nursing home of about $360,000 annually. She expects another 30 to 35 to sign up under healthcare reform, adding at least $150,000 in expenses. But most of her residents pay their bills with Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor, which reimburses nursing homes under a set schedule."I can't increase the cost of services," she said. "I don't know what to do."
...but he did.
UPDATE: A friend sent me an email about this article which I reprint below:
In short, nonprofits, which already don't pay taxes, think they are taking a big hit because they operate from a fixed income. Guess they think that private businesses can raise their prices at will to make up for the hit on their costs. The ignorance in the nonprofit sector never ceases to amaze.
A Ford, Not a Reagan
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 2:01PM
Max Schulz has a good piece up on NRO on Gerald Ford's posthumously published potshots at his fellow presidents. I initially didn't think it was such a big deal when Ford's 2004 Iraq comments to Bob Woodward came out -- the conditions of the interview seemed to me to be a good balance between entering Ford's views of the war into the historical record and trying not to undermine the sitting president.
But I've since become disturbed by the emerging pattern that Schulz has also noticed: Ford often said things in these interviews that contradicted what he was saying publicly. Ford was often quite effusive in his public praise for Ronald Reagan, especially during the final decade of both mens' lives. It doesn't surprise me that he also had some negative views -- and some bruised feelings about 1976 and the near-universal Republican admiration for the Gipper -- but the discrepancy between what he was saying publicly and what he was telling interviewers was striking. Ford didn't just sound like he was making nice with Reagan when he praised him; he sounded like actually believed the GOP consensus about our 40th president. It's okay if he didn't, but why pretend? Even Jimmy Carter can play nice at funerals and library openings while criticizing his fellow chief executives the rest of the time.
The Cheese Has Slipped Off His Cracker!
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 1:31PM
Wars do funny things to people, including the likes of Paul Craig Roberts:
When are the American people and their representatives in Congress and the military going to wake up and realize that the United States has an insane war criminal in the White House who is destroying all chances for peace in the world and establishing a police state at home?.... The only reason for the Bush regime's policy of indefinite detention without charges is that it has no charges to bring. The detainees are not terrorists. They are the Bush regime's props in a fake war that serves as cover for the regime's hegemonic policy in the Middle East.
The only action that can stop Bush is for both the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate to call on the White House and tell Bush they know what he is up to and that they will not fall for it a second time. The congressional leadership must tell Bush that if he does not immediately desist, he will be impeached and convicted before the week is out. Can a congressional leadership that lives in fear of the Israel lobby perform this task?
.... Nothing can stop the criminal Bush from instituting a wider war in the Middle East--one that could become a catastrophic world war--except an unequivocal statement from Congress that he will be impeached.
Bush has made the United States into a colony of Israel. The nation is incurring massive debt and loss of both life and reputation in order to silence Muslim opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights. That is what the "war on terror" is about.
I think this is the appropriate response.
Sheer Audacity
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 10:48AM
In the spirit of AmSpecBlog's now-pandemic betting predictions, this morning I'm calling the '08 race:
Re: NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 10:18AM
I've been away from e-mail and blogging since Saturday, so this is my first opportunity for prediction gloating over my success. Not that it was carried out with any degree of confidence.
It was, as I said, a lot of fun watching from the homeland of my favorite team. Nerve-wracking, but fun.
RE: Torkildsen Elected
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 10:09AM
To answer Larry's question, I think the reason Peter Torkildsen was Rommey's choice -- and the choice of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee -- was that he was the only person running with experience winning elections and a significant base of political support.
Torkildsen upset an incumbent Democrat to win a seat in the state legislature in 1984. He beat a scandal-tainted incumbent Democrat to win a congressional seat in 1992 while Bill Clinton was racking up huge margins in Massachusetts. Torkildsen held onto his seat in 1994 and only narrowly lost it 1996; he ran a competitive but unsuccessful race to win it back in 1998. Not the greatest electoral record, but a decent one in a state where the Republican bench just isn't that deep.
That said, the Prowler is undeniably right about Romney's failure to build the Republican Party in Massachusetts. I argued last year that this would be an early test for Romney and his lack of success tells against him. My view is that Romney tried to build up the party in 2002 and 2004 but failed and seems to have lost interest in 2006, but I have not lived in the Bay State since early 2004, so my perceptions could be a little off.
Barack Obama: The Audacity of Vagueness
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 9:50AM
From Obama's statement on forming an exploratory committee:
But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.What I'd like to know is where are all the press questions concerning Obama's "gravitas" (or, more specifically, his lack of it)? Granted, the press didn't begin raising the "gravitas" question until George W. Bush had sewn up he GOP nomination, so maybe it is too early.And that's what we have to change first.
We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.
Still, Obama is clearly a neophyte whose biggest asset is that, well, darn it, the looks so sexy on TV! Should he win the nomination, it will be interesting to see if the press gives Obama the same treatment it gave Bush in 2000.
I'm a betting man, and you can probably guess which way I'll bet.
Torkildsen Elected
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 9:22AM
Last night former Rep. Peter Torkildsen was elected interim Massachusetts Republican Party chair. Torkildsen, who served in the administration of Gov. Mitt Romney as director of federal, state, and local work force relations, is a liberal Republican and was backed by Romney for this job.
In addressing Lawrence Henry's point about building up the party made below, we'd point out this: the Republican Party was not a strong entity when Romney was elected governor. It stands today after four years of his stewardship even weaker than before, which for many conservatives should be taken as an indictment of Romney's leadership.
How is it that a state like Massachusetts could have an sitting governor who so obvisouly did nothing to build up the party's ranks on local levels? How is that a governor could claim to want to lead a national party, and yet leave that party's state entity virtually powerless to compete politically? According to some Bay State Republicans we talked to, the party failed to mount a competitive challenge to 60 percent of state legislature seats. And there are those who feel the statewide candidates were less than desirable. It isn't as if the party hasn't had successes statewide in the past decade. In fact, the GOP has. And no doubt, given the political history of the state, the Republican state party there would probably have to be a bit more moderate on some issues. But to have the party in such tatters in the wake of a governor who was early into his administration a popular figure is more a commentary on the governor than on the party regulars.
That is a stunning indictment of Romney's stewardship of the party. Torkildsen is on the record as saying he wants to build up the local ranks. Too bad the guy who got him his job wasn't able to start that process four years ago.
Re: A Reverse Romney Clone
Posted by on 1.17.07 @ 6:45AM
Why does Romney support Peter Torkildson for Mass. GOP chair? Jim Antle will have a more detailed answer, but I'd bet it's plain old party building -- in a state with almost no Republican party left to build from. Torkildson and Peter Blute were the last two elected Republican representatives from Massachusetts. My favorite local Republican says if you could combine Torkildson's brains and Blute's likeability you'd have an ideal candidate.
Anyway, my take is, the Republicans just can't afford a fight. They need bodies. And it's been a while, it seems to me, since a Republican even vaguely identifiable was willing to be party chair.
Over to you, Jim.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Where Romney Needs a Reversal
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 8:32PM
Mitt Romney's impressive fundraising, recent hires, and growing list of endorsements don't seem to have changed the polls just yet. According to Rassmussen, Romney's ratings are 29 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable. In hypothetical match-ups, the former Massachusetts governor trails Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, and John Edwards by double digits. He is just a few points behind former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.
It's early to be focusing on the polls and the horse race. But it does make it more difficult for Romney to keep disenchanted conservatives from defecting to more idealistic longshots -- Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, even Ron Paul -- or from settling for one of the frontrunners if there isn't some evidence of electability.
Antle's Complaint
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 8:01PM
James, I recall your piece about Romney and his religious beliefs. I also noted the lack of appreciation guys like John Tabin and David Hogberg got for some of their excellent prognosticatory work here at AmSpec. I sometimes wonder whether there isn't a conservative blogging cabal out there that is more likely to pay great attention to what comes from one source than another.
Maybe someone can enlighten me. Is there some great rivalry between AmSpec and NRO or Weekly Standard such that a guy like Hugh would rush to prop his own WS while offering rare mention of some of the fine stuff that has appeared at TAS? Some highly blog savvy TAS contributor might be able to offer a little insight.
A Reverse Romney Clone
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 6:26PM
Conservatives across the country should pay attention to the outcome of a little-noticed election in Massachusetts tonight, where the state Republican Party will be electing an interim party chair.
There are seven candidates, the most prominent being former Rep. Peter Torkildsen. Why reverse Romney? Because as a state representative Torkildsen had a record as a fiscal and social conservative. But upon being elected to Congress, he took a decided left turn, particularly on social issues. Today, he stands as pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage Republican, and according to knowledgeable Republicans on the state party level, former Gov. Romney and members of his former staff are actively working behind the scenes to get Torkildsen elected. Officially, Romney has stated that he is neutral in the race. But sources close to Romney said he was prepared to attend tonight's meeting to speak on Torkildsne's behalf and cast a vote if need be to avoid a second or third round of balloting . "If this goes to a second or third round of voting, Torkildsen has a much tougher time of winning," says Boston-based Republican Party donor, who is not backing Romney for President.
One has to wonder, in a race where there are some defininte conservatives, why Romney is so willingly having his name associated with the "evolved" moderate in the race.
Obama's Inexperience
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 5:46PM
Over at Hit and Run, Dave Weigel counters conservative criticism that Obama is inexperienced by pointing out that George W. Bush had served just 6 years as governor in 2000, yet he beat Al Gore, who had far more experience in government. There are a few reasons why I don't think this is a fair comparison. Firstly, as a governor, Bush had at least served in an executive capacity, while Obama hasn't, and Americans traditionally avoid Senators in presidential elections. Because of his youth and charisma, Obama is often compared to JFK, who was the only Senator to win a modern election. But JFK was a WWII hero and had spent 14 years in Congress (as a Representative and Senator) by 1960, so he wasn't quite the novice that Obama is. Secondly, back in 2000, foreign policy was not a dominant issue. If it was, perhaps Gore would have won the election, and as I theorized yesterday, McCain may have even beaten Bush in the primaries. It will no doubt be an obstacle for Obama to convince Americans that he's fit to be commander-in-chief given the state of the world and just a few years in the Senate under his belt.
That's not to say that I'd write off his chances. After years of divisive war, there may be a market for a president who's more of a healer than warrior, and if that's the case Obama's sunny optimism and fresh face would fit the bill.
Keeping the Faith
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 4:39PM
Hugh Hewitt has a nice piece in Human Events arguing that secularists who don't want a Mormon president, such as Slate's Jacob Weisberg, will soon proclaim that other religious believers are beyond the pale. But I might take issue with this bit:
Hewitt cites a blog entry criticizing Weisberg by evangelical scholar John Mark Reynolds and goes on to complain, "Reynolds' commentary on Weisberg's bigotry was rather lonely. Weisberg's naked exercise in faith-based bile went largely unremarked."
"Weisberg's attack on Romney is exactly the sort of attack on other Christians and believers in the miraculous that the secular left would love to make routine," Hewitt concludes. "To mainstream Protestants and Mass-attending Catholics, the virtual mob against Romney because of his LDS faith may seem like someone else's problem, but it is really another step down the road toward the naked public square."
Allow this "mainstream" United Methodist to say, Amen.
I Wonder What Brink Lindsey Thinks About This?
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 2:31PM
Somehow, I don't think liberaltarianism is going to work out:
Emanuel, Neal Call for Hearings on IRS Failure to Collect Taxes Owed by Large CompaniesWASHINGTON, D.C.-Today, U.S. Representatives Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Richard E. Neal (D-MA) sent the following letter to Commissioner Mark W. Everson to express concerns about recent reports alleging that top IRS officials are pushing auditors to prematurely close audits of large companies, leaving billions of dollars of taxes owed on the table. Emanuel and Neal announced today that they will hold a hearing on this matter in the Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures at the earliest possible date.
24 ROOOOOCKS!!!!!!!
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 2:18PM
Jack kills Curtis and then a nuclear device goes off--and all of that occurs in less than ten minutes!
And, Phil, perhaps Drudge would think twice about doing such things if he feared a visit from Mr. Bauer.
Tancredo and Immigration
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 1:40PM
Of course, the main issue raised by a Tom Tancredo presidential bid is not abortion but immigration. Many immigration hawks are pleased to hear that Tancredo may be running; it gives them a chance to send a message about the borders during the Republican primaries.
These voters should be a bit less pleased. The fact that Tancredo has taken a step toward a run suggests that no Republican who can actually win the nomination has decided to run on anything approximating their preferred platform.
Tancredo and Abortion
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 1:30PM
Since many social conservatives are looking for an alternative to the 2008 Republican frontrunners, the other candidates will be under pressure to prove their pro-life bona fides. Mitt Romney has been under such scrutiny for some time. Now, as the Prowler points out, questions are being raised about Tom Tancredo.
Tancredo is the major politician most closely associated with the immigration-reform/restrictionist movement. Some of the older organizations in that movement were founded in part by environmentalists and zero-population growth types. The latter group includes people who support abortion and expanded access to birth control as well as reduced immigration levels. In recent years, however, this issue has been more prominently championed by such pro-life stalwarts as Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan.
Yet it is worth looking at Tancredo's abortion voting record in the House. His most recent National Right to Life Committee rating is 100 percent; his NARAL and Planned Parenthood scores are 0. His lowest NRLC rating since 1999 was 91 percent. Whatever the views of some of his supporters, Tancredo has consistently voted the pro-life line in Congress.
Giuliani and Nussle
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 12:56PM
The AP reports:
 DES MOINES, Iowa -- Former New York Mayor Rudy  Giuliani has hired prominent Iowa Republican Jim Nussle to advise him on his possible presidential run.
Nussle, a former congressman and 2006 candidate for governor, will play "an important leadership on behalf of the exploratory committee both in
Iowa and nationally," Giuliani said in a statement.
If Giuliani is seeking help in
There are deep philosophical differences between the two Republicans.
Giuliani supports abortion rights and gay rights. Nussle took a strong anti-abortion stance in his campaign and wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Nussle said he's focusing on Giuliani's accomplishments and suggested Giuliani's actions after the 2001 terrorist attacks impressed voters who want a strong leader.
That, of course, is the key for Giuliani. He has to be able to convince Republican voters that in treacherous times like these, strong leadership and steadfastness in the fight against terrorism should trump disagreements over social issues. Will he pull it off? Only time will tell. But it's looking more and more likely that he'll give it his best shot.
Virginia Rules
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 12:10PM
Leaders Reid and Pelosi "today announced that Virginia Senator Jim Webb will deliver the official Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union Address on January 23, 2007." So says a press release from them. Last year it was newby Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine doing the honors.
Israel and Syria
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 11:51AM
There was a report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz over the weekend of secret negotiations between Israel and Syria in Europe conducted from September 2004 to July 2006 that would be the bare bones of a possible peace agreement. It calls for Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, where a park would be established that Israelis could access freely. Israel would also control the waters of Lake Kinneret and the Jordan River, and Syria would end support for Hamas and Hezbollah and distance itself from Iran. But Olmert and other officials in Israel, as well as the Syrian foreign ministry have now denied such talks took place. It's worth noting that July 2006 coincides with last summer's Israel-Hezbollah War. So, perhaps there were talks that got scrapped during the war, and now relations between Israel and Syria are too icy for their officials to admit such talks ever took place.
Olmert Under Investigation
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 11:36AM
Israel's Justice Ministry officially announced that Prime Minister Olmert is under investigation for possible involvement in a banking scandal among other acts of corruption, as I discussed last week. I'm not sure how much longer Olmert's already-weakened government can survive such a probe should it start uncovering dirty dealing.
Obama Goes Exploring
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 11:24AM
Gore may be out, but Obama is in.
His official Website is here.
An Inconvenient Time to Campaign
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 10:53AM
Al Gore once again closes the door to a 2008 run.
This won't be the last time he's asked this question and any slip by Hillary or Obama could produce another Gore for president boomlet. But the later he keeps saying no, the more people will need to accept that he actually means it.
Hissing Snake Hand Puppets
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 10:48AM
Stomp the Yard--boasting the funniest mock heroic preview since Drumline--opened big this weekend, and Meghan Keane delivers the goods in her New York Sun review. The film follows a young dancer named DJ as he arrives at Truth University, "still recovering from the death of his brother, the victim of gun violence at the hands of a sore-losing dance squad back in L.A." (Note to self: Dancers For Life club was not a completely stupid idea after all. You were right: No one should live in fear of dancing well.) Anyway, DJ finds healing and purpose in a strictly regimented, over the top dance fraternity, and eventually even gets the girl. Keane suggests the film, "overestimates the transcendence of step dancing and is ultimately undone by the male equivalent of jazz hands."
And, no, Keane does not expand this theory into a critique of the architects of the Iraq war.
Many box office wrap-ups have noted the wisdom of releasing this film on MLK Day weekend, as if teenagers who propelled the dance drama to Number One were looking more for a cultural experience to foster remembrance than a loud, raucous--I was going to say "hip," but I'm struggling to remain relevent here--bangin' flick for a Friday night. It was also interesting, however, to learn that "after members of Alpha Phi Alpha kicked up a fuss about how black fraternities are depicted in Stomp the Yard, Sony Pictures popped for an undisclosed donation to the King memorial." So love the film or hate it, it's all about love for the civil rights movement, anyway. It's just an undisclosed sum of love.
Keane's take? "Stomp the Yard wants to make an argument for the historical and cultural significance of stepping, but no amount of trick camerawork can make hissing snake hand puppets look tough."
Well, it's good to finally know why the heavies in my own neighborhood don't take me seriously. As for "historical and cultural" content, I'm sure it's well-intentioned, but probably ultimately like the political content of monster movies: Expected, perfunctory and not what the vast majority of the film's audience goes to see the film for. (Excluding, of course, graduate school students desperately seeking a fun angle for a stalled thesis.)
McCain's Big Minnesota Hire
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 10:20AM
Gov. Tim Pawlenty is co-chairing McCain's campaign. Hotline On Call suggests that Pawlenty could be running mate material for McCain.
Giuliani's Big Iowa Hire
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 10:04AM
Jim Nussle, former Republican congressman and '06 gubernatorial nominee from the Hawkeye State, has joined Rudy's exploratory committee.
NFL -- The Next Step
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 9:56AM
Okay, it's time to declare which teams will make it to the big game. I'm ready to weigh in:
The Indianapolis Colts will play the New Orleans Saints for all the cookies. You heard it here first!
Sorry Bears and Pats fans.
Dodd, Doomed
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 9:54AM
The Hartford Courant's David Lightman is on the campaign trail with Chris Dodd: "Conventional wisdom says the 62-year-old senator is a second-tier candidate for the presidency." Second-tier? That seems generous. And check out the only guy Lightman could find who doesn't work for Dodd but thinks he has a chance:
Many political observers have deep doubts about Dodd's candidacy... But others warn he should not be counted out.Which is the better reason to discount Keefe's opinion: The Dodd-strategist sister, or the fact that he thinks what the Democrats need now is more John Kerry?"This race is pretty wide open," said Joseph F. Keefe, a former New Hampshire Democratic chairman. Keefe supports Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, but his sister, Maura, is a key Dodd strategist.
Re: Can't They Do Anything Right?
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 9:22AM
It should come as no surprise that the instructions for a long drop hanging are available on the internet. Remember, kids: Consult the 1913 table of drops before every execution.
In qualified defense of the Iraqis' hanging error, making the rope too long, which is what caused Barzan's falling body to build up so much momentum that the noose caught his neck with enough force to take his head off, is at least preferable, from the point of view of the condemned, to the error in the other direction. Making the rope too short, so that the body doesn't build up enough momentum to break the neck, leads to a slow death by suffocation.
Re: Can't They Do Anything Right?
Posted by on 1.16.07 @ 6:54AM
James, this reminds me of an essay called "Why Arabs Lose Wars," which I used to have bookmarked, but lost when I got a new computer (not hard to find). One of the commonest features of Arab organizations is that the boss does not let the underlings have, say, instruction manuals, because possession of same is a kind of power cookie. Figuring that there is a military set of instructions on hanging, and that perhaps somebody in the Iraqi government has copies, it would appear that such copies have not filtered down to the guys who actually need them.
Monday, January 15, 2007
24/Boycotting Drudge
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 11:03PM
I think it's time to start boycotting Drudge for leaking this major plot development of 24 before the show aired.
As far as the show itself, am I the only one who had a hard time buying the Jack is going soft after two years of Chinese torture plotline? After all, he did escape from Fayed by biting into the neck of one of his captors like the dude's flesh was a juicy filet mignon.
Also, I don't trust Assad. There's no way he remains on our team throughout the season.
Re: NFL Predictions Roundup
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 9:31PM
Phil: Leave it to a sportswriter to miss my nuance. Okay, I was dead wrong about the nevermore Ravens. But, had I just come out and picked the Patriots, no way they would have won. I was essentially setting up a scenario for their possibly losing. I'm surprised you gave me the benefit of the call on the Saints and Eagles, since I think we'd both agree Reggie Bush wasn't exactly a replay of Barry Sanders, and I said Saints will win only if he plays like Sanders. Finally, the Seattles did continue to fail upwards. They got into overtime. For the Bears to celebrate like they did after a victory over such a team -- well, all I can say is they're lucky Mike Ditka isn't still coaching them.
Bonus coverage: Did LaDainian Tomlinson ever implode yesterday? He complains about "disrespect" and then proceeds to denounce the coach who made his own seem rather dumb. Randy Moss and Terrell Owens have more class than that -- they would have denounced their own coach!
Coming next week: Peyton Manning throws 5 interceptions -- and Colts win! Reggie Bush gets Erlachered -- and Saints win. Go figure.
RE: Surge Numbers
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 8:45PM
It's an interesting clarification, though the difference in the duration of the surge may be as important as the difference in the number of troops when comparing the Kagan-Keane proposal and the actual Bush plan.
More Predictions
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 8:13PM
Since so much fun was had in this space over the weekend's NFL playoff games, here are my picks for the Golden Globes.
(P.S. Our clock is fast -- I actually posted this before the show started. Honest.)
Surge Numbers
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 6:09PM
Rich Lowry explains here that the Bush surge and the Kagan-Keane surge aren't as far apart as they look: The troop-strength numbers are stated differently, but in terms of military units the surge is only one Marine regiment short of Kagan and Keane's recommendation. I'm still a bit concerned about the numbers, though, since as I understand it Kagan and Keane suggest taking on the Sunni insurgency and leaving the Shiite militias for later while the current plan is to do both. This might end up working out, though. As Mickey Kaus has pointed out, if, as Juan Cole has suggested, Maliki's "disarm or face the US military" warning to the Sadrists is code for "lay low for a while," that may in practice mean that US forces have the breathing room to clear and hold Sunni neighborhoods -- which could have the political effect of convincing Shiites they don't need to throw in with the Sadrists.
Re: MLK Day
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 5:48PM
Philip: Sailer has proposed a four-day Labor Day weekend, seeing as no one gets much work done that Friday anyway. Another alternative would be to scrap Labor Day, the only federal holiday established in honor of a special interest group. (Veterans Day started as a WWI Armistice celebration, so it doesn't count.)
The Democrats' Race Begins?
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 5:37PM
The Hotline gang thinks that announcements could be imminent from both Obama and Hillary.
RE: MLK Day
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 5:32PM
But were it on August 28 John, it would be too close to Labor Day.
Reading Rudy
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 5:28PM
The AP has some quotes from Rudy Giuliani's 1/12 appearance in DE.Um, no.Giuliani: "I think the biggest question you have to ask is, 'Can you really lead the country?' If I believe that I can do it, then I will, and if I don't, then I'll support somebody else."
So many ways to read between the lines of that one. One could easily interpret the statement as a man ready to run while another smart analyst could see the quote as a sign he's still undecided. Either way, the quote's definitive about something, right?
Knife Rights
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 5:05PM
It's sad that this is now necessary.
Via Dave Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy, where a commenter points out that this is a case of life imitating the Onion.
Brownback's Flat Tax
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 4:48PM
An interesting effort to break out of what might be called the Gary Bauer ghetto, where candidates who offer nothing but social conservatism languish. Of course, Pat Robertson's '88 platform included some economic conservatism (a balanced budget amendment, elimination of the Departments of Education and Energy), and it didn't do him much good, though of course he was running against a sitting vice president.
MLK Day
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 3:56PM
RealClearPolitics reprints the I Have a Dream speech. The speech was given on August 28, which (as Steve Sailer has repeatedly argued) might work better than his January birthday as a date to remember Dr. King. Let's face it, at this point we're all kind of holiday'd out, while in August we haven't had a day off since July 4th.
Re: Who Dat?
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 3:23PM
I believe the answer is "Da Bears." And if Chicago does win the NFC championship, I think we'd all like to see a performance by a reconstituted Shufflin' Crew.
What if McCain Won in 2000?
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 12:18PM
That's an interesting counterfactual you bring up, Hunter. One thing that I've always wondered is how it would have affected the 2000 primaries if the 9/11 attacks happened in, say, 1998 or 1999. There's a good argument to be made that if they had, and if national security were the most important issue then, that McCain would have beaten Bush, given his military background and Bush's limited foreign policy experience. For instance, I'm not so sure it would have been as easy for Bush to overcome that failed world leader pop quiz.
Had McCain actually been elected, it's hard to say how things would have been different. Interestingly, one of the reasons why McCain didn't get the nomination was his support for campaign finance reform--which Bush ended up signing into law anyway. McCain would not have cut taxes, but likely would have been more willing to veto spending bills, so I don't think you would have gotten as drastic an expansion of the size of government as with Bush. On the other hand, McCain probably would have been less likely to appoint reliable conservatives to the bench. On national security matters, I think McCain would have expanded the size of our armed forces rather than engage in Rumsfeld's military "transformation" and had McCain gone into Iraq, I think it's pretty clear he would have done so with more troops. Also, McCain probably would have had a more hawkish policy toward North Korea.
NFL Predictions Roundup
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 11:50AM
It's a wild weekend when the Colts win without a Manning touchdown and the Chargers lose a game in which Tomlinson has 187 total yards (2 TDs) and Brady throws three interceptions.
So here are the results:
Paul Chesser-- A perfect 4-0.
Hunter Baker and yours truly: 3-1.
Lady Godiva: 2-2.
Wlady: 1-3.
"Can't They Do Anything Right?"
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 11:49AM
Get ready for the screams. This is absolutely intolerable. Accidentally decapitated? An already dwindling faith in the Iraqi government is well on its way to becoming a broad-based bitterness and disgusted contempt that can hurry us out of Iraq faster than any battlefield setback. People worry about the prestige of the United States in the wake of a pullout. They should really worry about the prestige of the Arab world.
The Stupid Party
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 11:43AM
According to Bob Novak, Representative Jeff Flake, of
pork-busting fame, has been booted off the House Judiciary Committee.
The official explanation by Minority "Fearless" Leader John Boehner
is that Flake criticized the GOP leaderhisp on TV. The unofficial
and more likely explanation is that his valiant efforts to fight
wasteful spending annoyed the GOP members Barons of the
House Appropriations Committee.
Truth be told, I have to agree with Boehner's decision to remove Flake from the Judiciary Committee. Flake should not have that kind of job. He should have Boehner's.
Daily KOS-Atrios Hero Of The Year
Posted by on 1.15.07 @ 11:42AM
An early but strong nominee for the 2007 Daily KOS-Atrios Hero of the
Year award is Congressmanweenie Steven Kagen. Kagen
taunted members of the Oval Office at a recent White House
function. Recipients of Kagen's vitriol included First Lady Laura
Bush, whom Kagen mocked by calling her "Barbara" to her face.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Blast Those Patriots!
Posted by on 1.14.07 @ 8:56PM
I'll have to settle for 3-1. This game (Patriots v. Chargers) gave two striking evidences of Bill Bellichick's genius:
1. He coached his team to an improbable victory over a much more physically talented team.
2. The NFL doesn't bug him at all about his sweatshirt with cut-off arms while they harass the guys who dare to don suits.
McCain and Religious Conservatives
Posted by on 1.14.07 @ 7:09PM
I'm a regular defender of James Dobson, but I have to part ways with him when it comes to McCain. I had the same problem with World Magazine (a very well-subscribed mag among evangelicals) when it appeared to strongly support Bush at the expense of McCain in 2000.
McCain hasn't been anyone's super loyal Republican, but neither has Dobson, right? Both men try to reshape the party in their own image. That's often what politics is about.
Pro-life is probably our single biggest issue and McCain has been good, not stellar, but quite good in that area. It's a real mistake to isolate him. He certainly doesn't deserve to be treated differently from Rudy Giuliani, who is far more socially liberal.
I'm not at all convinced we wouldn't be better off if he had been the party's nominee in 2000.
Re: Support the Surge -- for Now?
Posted by on 1.14.07 @ 4:01PM
John, true, that is significant. But it does it really alter fundamentals? If the 80% of attacks/within 30 miles of Baghdad is right, the targeted surge is clearly on target. But the question of insufficient size still dogs the design. On the other side of things, too much of a surge may not be a good thing either. This may mean 21,500 is just right. But, in turn, just right may, in this case, mean a lot less than a military strategy with a fundamentally new approach. It may even mean that there isn't a fundamentally better military approach, which both ratifies and somewhat banalizes the surge. In the end I think that's the right attitude: the surge is fine if part of a new, improved, fundamentally reconceived, and comprehensive strategy suite. If not -- look out.
Re: Support the Surge -- for Now?
Posted by on 1.14.07 @ 3:00PM
James: I'm not sure it's quite correct to say that the surge is too small to change the military fundamentals. This will more than double our troop strength within Baghdad. This may be insufficient, but it isn't insignificant.
Dobson vs. McCain
Posted by on 1.14.07 @ 2:49PM
I guess McCain's campaign is doomed, seeing as the Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of James Dobson's Christianist hordes and all.
(Odds that Andrew Sullivan will issue a non-toungue-in-cheek version of this analysis: 1:2.)
Re: Support the Surge -- for Now?
Posted by on 1.14.07 @ 2:43PM
Again I caution that waiting for the surge to "show results" -- waiting 8 months, 8 weeks, or 8 years -- zeroes in on one significant but far from decisive variable. The phased deployment of the 21,500 will already eat into the results clock, since presumably surge supporters will insist judgment not be tolled until (say) 8 months after the last surged soldier deployed.
But more broadly, the absolute gains in military capability afforded by the surge, its particular size notwithstanding, are a useful but not sufficient component of a much broader strategic shift requirement. The surge, whatever its merits, is hardly a new strategy. Too small and too graded to constitute even a change in the military fundamentals, one of its most dubious functions is as a postponement and evasion of a new political strategy.
To the extent that the surge is an excuse, then, we may as well count our eight months up today. Because if nothing else practical changes aside from the number of warfighters in the Greater Baghdad Metropolitan Area, this enterprise shall remain in urgent need of some major triage -- something everybody already understands now. That the surge is all we got out of Bush so far is an ominous indication that a real change in strategy, shaping world events, will not come from the administration -- but that administration strategy will merely be shaped by them. Supporting the surge is easy. Fixating on the surge we do at our peril.
The New Middle East
Posted by on 1.14.07 @ 1:32PM
Edward Luttwak can generally be counted on for original thinking on foreign policy, and this is no exception:
It was the hugely ambitious project of the Bush administration to transform the entire Middle East by remaking Iraq into an irresistible model of prosperous democracy. Having failed in that worthy purpose, another, more prosaic result has inadvertently been achieved: divide and rule, the classic formula for imperial power on the cheap. The ancient antipathy between Sunni and Shiite has become a dynamic conflict, not just within Iraq but across the Middle East, and key protagonists on each side seek the support of American power.The whole thing is worth reading. Of course, even if Luttwak assesses the situation correctly, the question is how well this administration -- or the next -- will take advantage.
Congress, Support The Surge -- For Now
Posted by on 1.14.07 @ 1:09PM
So counsels Brookings fellow Michael O'Hanlon. If the surge doesn't show results in eight months or so, says O'Hanlon, it's time to move toward partition. I'm not entirely sure what I think of this, but it's one way of squaring the hawk's dilemma Philip laid out on Friday.
- Barney Shuffles Off
- Current Wisdom
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
