- 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 27, 2007
Nativists vs. Farmers?
Posted by on 1.27.07 @ 3:02PM
The ethanol in gasoline mandate artificially drives up the price of ethanol. Which drives up the price of corn. Which drives up the price of tortillas. Does that higher price drive up the cost of living so much that emigration to the U.S. increases more rapidly?
And lastly, does that make Lou Dobbs go after ethanol?
Dang it -- CRC beat me to the punch.
Jeb Rocks
Posted by on 1.27.07 @ 1:40PM
The lunchtime speaker at the NRI summit was Jeb Bush. Politicians as charismatic, smart, and articulate as him are few and far between, and he's got an impressive record as governor of a major swing state: eight successful years of reform and tax cuts that he ended with an approval rating north of 60%. It may not be an original observation, but it's clear that he'd be the runaway favorite for the Republican nomination and the presidency if only his name weren't Bush.
Social Conservatives and Libertarians at NRI
Posted by on 1.27.07 @ 10:47AM
Ralph Reed and Ryan Sager are now debating. Though they disagree quite sharply on gay marriage (which is sucking up quite a bit of oxygen from the debate), there's a lot more common ground than you might think. Sager started by saying he'd have to be "deranged" to actually argue that social conservatives aren't critical to rebuilding the Republican majority, as suggested by the title of the debate ("Resolved: Religious Conservatives are Critical to Building a Republican Majority"). Instead, Sager argues that the religious right needs to get back to protecting their values by fighting government encroachment on the same. Reed more or less agrees, emphasizing the need for religious conservatives to embrace a big tent, quoting Reagan's dictum that "an 80% friend is not a 20% enemy." It seems that fusionism lives.
Newt: I Won't Decide Until Labor Day
Posted by on 1.27.07 @ 8:25AM
I'm blogging from the National Review Institute's Conservative Summit, where Newt Gingrich just said "it would be historically wrong to spend all of 2007 raising money." But the campaign cycle isn't getting earlier in a vacuum; campaign finance laws make fundraising harder than it used to be. Does Gingrich really not understand this? My suspicion is that he's already decided against running.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Romney Rebuffed
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 5:20PM
Paul Cellucci, former Republican governor of Massachusetts, supports Giuliani. "This is not anti-Mitt. This is pro-Rudy," says Cellucci. I'm not sure that does much to soften the blow.
Whoa
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 5:02PM
Did you see that? My last post is timestamped earlier than the post below it! Looks like the perennially fast AmSpecBlog clock was just set to the correct time. Cool.
Media Bias In Health Care Reporting
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 4:58PM
Noticed this article on a study showing that the U.S. is better at treating blood pressure than some other nations (Hat tip: Matthew Holt.) You'll notice that a good deal of the article is devoted to criticisms of the study. Indeed, it's treatment of the criticisms seems pretty comprehensive.
Now, I'm not suggesting the criticisms are not valid. Rather, compare that article to ones that report on a study suggesting that the U.S. health care system is lousy. See if you can find any criticism of the Commonwealth Fund study in them.
The more I read the press, the more I'm convinced that reporters are skeptical about anything that says our health care system is better than other nations while they are credulous about anything that says it stinks.
The Perils of Being Stuck in the Nineties
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 4:56PM
Someone didn't get the memo that the baggy pants fad is over: A robbery suspect is literally tripped up by his outdated fashion sense.
Liberaltarians vs. Fusionists
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 3:42PM
John, you have hit on a major problem with the "liberaltarians" discussion. I'd love for there to be a reliably libertarian West, for instance. Hell, I would settle for a libertarian Rhode Island. But at some point, you have to analyze these trends in a way that doesn't succumb consistently to the pundit's fallacy.
Leaving aside the intra-fusionist debates where I'm more traditionalist than libertarian, I personally favor Social Security privatization, drug legalization, school vouchers, greater civil liberties protections, and the abolition of most vice laws. But I am not optimistic that this would add up to a winning political platform no matter how many tax cuts I added to the mix.
Brownback Splits The Difference
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 3:13PM
He opposes the troop surge, but favors a smaller surge that would only cover Anbar. Focusing on Anbar while leaving Baghdad to bleed strikes me as the equivalent removing the patient's swollen appendix while his liver is failing. But it's worth noting, at least, that the theory that Brownback intends to ride an antiwar evangelical wave, which Andrew Sullivan has been endlessly pushing, turns out to be even less convincing than it first appeared.
Boaz vs. Ponnuru vs. Lindsey vs. Chait
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 3:06PM
Jeremy is promising a blow-by-blow on last night's debate for Monday, so I'll just note that apparently, in Brink Lindsey's world, the major parties only lose electoral ground when they become too unlibertarian. If such a world existed, I'd really like to live there.
Great Moments in Statistical Analysis
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 3:00PM
It has suddenly occurred to Chinese statisticians that there are twice as many divorcees as divorces.
Lott's Column
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 11:36AM
Jeremy's column this morning is well done.
Two thoughts:
1. Remember this D.C. Police classic?
2. The District's ban on hand guns looks to be pretty effective, eh?
The Headless Gnomes
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 11:27AM
Is someone getting revenge for having his underpants stolen?
Upon Further Review...
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 9:42AM
Religious experts consulted by The Associated Press say it was okay for Colts quarterback Peyton Manning to pray for help in the AFC Championship game while the Patriots attempted one last victory drive on offense. There's a "but," though:
"Now, what would not be appropriate is if you prayed
that Tom Brady broke his leg," Boersig
said.
Wave That Bloody Sock!
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 9:01AM
There's a movement afoot to nudge Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling to challenge Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in 2008. I say they ought to set their sights higher, given the current crop of presidential candidates.
John Edwards's New Digs
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 8:02AM
As my colleague Don Carrington reports, the presidential candidate's 102-acre spread is likely the largest home in Orange County, N.C., and tax officials say it's likely to be the most valuable. The 28,200 square-foot estate, expected to be valued at more than $6 million, includes:
Plenty of room to entertain the other "America," sounds like.
Don took the photo too. The larger resolution version might
impress you more.
re: Names
Posted by on 1.26.07 @ 7:02AM
Jay, that's a funny column. Ever see the quirky movie, The Perez Family, with Marisa Tomei at her best? Ambitious immigrants, all named Perez, invent a family connection and actually form a family of sorts to get ahead in America. And what to make of the homogenization in the Islamic world, where some 40% (as I recall) of boys get the name Muhammed.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Parsing Statements is Fun and Easy
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 11:55PM
Thursday, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) took
to the floor of the Senate to accuse Vice President Dick Cheney of
being "out of touch with reality" for telling CNN that the
administration has had "enormous successes in
Iraq."
Obviously Cheney's empirical claim is correct. But this is like
Lincoln saying the Union achieved "enormous successes" in the Civil
War. Accurate, true, congratulations. But. To be "out of touch with
reality" is not to emphasize the successes in Iraq -- of which are
many and significant -- but to deny the errors, shortcomings, and
bunglings. Of which, any sensible person should readily
acknowledge, have been many and significant in and of
themselves.
Durbin Goes 'Delusional'
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 11:17PM
So Senator Durbin thinks that Vice President Cheney is delusional on
"Generally speaking, the rhetorical resort to the popularized language of psychotherapy should be treated as prima facie evidence of a lack of intellectual seriousness, and that applies in spades to any allegation of psychosis against one’s political enemies."
Self-Parody Watch
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 2:52PM
Among the things attendees at this morning's National Journal /NBC post-SOTU breakfast learned was that it is no longer politically correct in the House Dem caucus to refer to the newly elected members from '06 as "Freshmen."
Hewitt and the Pledge
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 2:38PM
Hugh Hewitt's "pledge" to hobble any conservative senators who vote for an anti-"surge" resolution gains strength. Right now it has 8,625 signatories (and growing), including about 700 (by my count) independent bloggers. This is quite an impressive accomplishment in less than 24 hours.
"The Era of Big Government is Creeping Back"
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 2:23PM
Two Bloomberg reporters paint a grim picture that rings depressingly true.
Mr. Bush, Tear Down This Library
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 2:07PM
The campaign to keep the George W. Bush presidential library off Southern Methodist University is heating up. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are United Methodists; Laura Bush graduated from SMU. Matt May wrote about this controversy for us back in December.
A Sunny Take
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 1:50PM
Writing in the New York Sun, Nibras Kazimi says things are looking up:
The wider Sunni insurgency - the groups beyond Al Qaeda - is being slowly, and surely, defeated. The average insurgent today feels demoralized, disillusioned, and hunted. Those who have not been captured yet are opting for a quieter life outside of Iraq. Al Qaeda continues to grow for the time being as it cannibalizes the other insurgent groups and absorbs their most radical and hardcore fringes into its fold. The Baathists, who had been critical in spurring the initial insurgency, are becoming less and less relevant, and are drifting without a clear purpose following the hanging of their idol, Saddam Hussein. Rounding out this changing landscape is that Al Qaeda itself is getting a serious beating as the Americans improve in intelligence gathering and partner with more reliable Iraqi forces.The bad news is that "major bombings will continue for many years, for Al Qaeda will remain oblivious to all evidence of the insurgency's eventual defeat."In other words, battling the insurgency now essentially means battling Al Qaeda. This is a major accomplishment.
Obama and the Black Vote
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 11:47AM
The Washington Post article that Dave mentioned below follows a similar piece in the Politico yesterday in demonstrating that black support for Obama's presidential run, far from being a given, may be tepid at best. The Post cites a poll showing that black Democrats prefer Hillary Clinton over Obama by a 3:1 margin, which compares to her 2:1 margin among white Democrats. Al Sharpton, who is still mulling another presidential run, has lamented that none of the Democratic candidates are representing an "urban agenda," and, in what was interpreted as a swipe at Obama, he said, "Right now we're hearing a lot of media razzle-dazzle. I'm not hearing a lot of meat, or a lot of content. I think when the meat hits the fire, we'll find out if it's just fat or if there's some real meat there."
This could actually be a good thing for Obama, especially in the general election. The only way race will really hinder Obama's ambitions is if he's perceived as the "black" candidate rather than a mainstream candidate for all Americans. So, the more distance there is between Obama and Al Sharpton, the better it will be for Obama's long-term goals.
Go West, Libertarians
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 11:35AM
Ryan Sager and I debate the Libertarian West idea in the Politico. He argues the region's libertarian bent is genuine and of national significance; I disagree.
Rudy, the Conservative
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 11:25AM
Steve Malanga makes the case:
Far from being a liberal, he ran New York with a conservative’s priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way. He denied that cities and their citizens were victims of vast forces outside their control, and he urged New Yorkers to take personal responsibility for their lives. “Over the last century, millions of people from all over the world have come to
,” Giuliani once observed. “They didn’t come here to be taken care of and to be dependent on city government. They came here for the freedom to take care of themselves.” It was that spirit of opportunity and can-do-ism that Giuliani tried to re-instill in New York City and that he himself exemplified not only in the hours and weeks after 9/11 but in his heroic and successful effort to bring a dying city back to life. New York
As they say, read the whole thing.
God Told Them It Was Okay
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 10:11AM
The latest on the film "Hounddog," in which the character played by 12-year-old Dakota Fanning is raped (which has sparked an uproar over the judgment of her parents and everyone involved with the movie), is that no one wants to show it. Meanwhile both Fanning and her agent have come to her parents' defense. Roger Friedman of Fox News reports:
Pervis told me she's
basically in favor of the film and trusts the Fannings' judgment.
"They're a good Christian family," she said.
Doesn't that make you feel better now?
Strange Web Headline
Posted by on 1.25.07 @ 9:09AM
Over at the Washington Post main page right now, the subhead for Michael Fletcher's "Will Obama Appeal to Blacks?" is:
Huh? Both sides? There are only two races in this country, and they are diametrically opposed? And all blacks think alike? The assumptions on which the editors at Washingtonpost.com rely border on racist.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Re: Hard Ball
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 6:59PM
a. The war in Iraq received the support of many patriotic
Americans.
b. The war in Iraq has been suboptimally executed for several
years.
c. The extent of suboptimality has contributed to a need for extra
effort in order to continue the war.
d. Many patriotic Americans hate not to win wars, in significant
part on the theory that wars are not to be started unless they are
to be won.
Ergo a failure of the surge, which cannot possibly result from poor military performance in the field, will cause a level of emotion among many patriotic Americans that will make the ire of Hewitt & Co. look like a mild case of chicken pox.
Against whom will this ire be directed?
Hard Ball Against Senate Defectors
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 5:26PM
Our friend the radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt, along with blogger N.Z. Bear of Truth Laid Bear, has begun a very interesting petition. It puts some pressure on GOP senators to NOT stick a needle in President Bush's eye by voting for any resolution condemning the troop "surge" in Iraq. Decide for yourselves.
Fair and Balanced
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 4:59PM
This is the headline on CNN.com's main page for a story about the Democrats' minimum-wage increase: "Raise for poor people gets nowhere in Senate."
By What Standard?
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 4:53PM
In his recent column, Sebastian Mallaby said this about Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth":
His movie has grossed an astonishing $24 million, not counting foreign sales...
Funny, but "March of the Penguins" grossed over $77 million, not counting foreign sales, and it didn't star the former Vice-President and wasn't hyped up the wazoo.
I think the word "astonishing" should be replaced by "disappointing".
Game Over!
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 3:25PM
No way to refute the evidence: Tax cuts on capital gains do not create deficits!
Iowa GOPers: Bush Is No Reagan
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 3:22PM
From a new Strategic Vision poll of Iowa Republicans:
Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only)
Yes 11%
No 77%
Undecided 12%
The poll also found Giuliani leading the Republican field in Iowa and Edwards tops among Democrats.
Small Victories
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 2:57PM
It's worth noting that two key words did not appear in last night's SOTU: minimum wage.
Speaking of the minimum wage....
Re: Just Beltway Common Wisdom?
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 2:51PM
Phil: If I may pile on, I have to say Giuliani wasn't very impressive last night in his reactions to the State of the Union speech -- and that was on friendly Fox! I expected something scripted, eloquent -- but he seemed totally unprepared. Hmmm.
Giuliani Skeptics
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 2:43PM
The new Politico has a story out today quoting several skeptics who doubt that Rudy Giuliani will actually run for president, arguing that he's displaying the same attitude that he did in 2000, when he seemed to be dragging his feet in running for Senate against Hillary Clinton before ultimately dropping out. But I think those doubters are overlooking one aspect of his personality that will likely make his decision different this time around: his big ego. Giuliani, for better or worse, needs to be running the show. A lot of people in
Also, as far as the 2000 race, it's worth remembering that when he dropped out, Giuliani had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Anybody who has a friend or family member who has undergone treatment for this understands how mentally, emotionally, and physically draining the process can be. So, it's not surprising that he would decide he couldn't undergo treatment, remain mayor, and run a high-profile Senate campaign against a sitting first lady.
(Ben Smith co-authored the Politico story, and he was the same reporter who disclosed the leaked Rudy campaign memo that caused a stir earlier this month. Politco has now posted the entire memo online, and Smith offers a guide to the document here.)
Just Beltway Common Wisdom?
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 1:54PM
Philip, even folks in N.Y. have their doubts that Giuliani is running.
Thank Goodness for Botched Jokes
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 1:26PM
The Boston Globe reports that John Kerry isn't running for president.
Ryszard Kapuscinski, RIP
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 11:57AM
The original existential journalist and the greatest reporter of our time died last night at a Warsaw hospital. Ryszard Kapuscinski was 74. As Poland's only foreign African correspondent in the 60s and 70s he covered the continent's transition from European colonies to often brutal dictatorships via coup, civil war and bloody revolution (he personally witnessed 27 revolutions). He wrote masterworks of literary journalism on the Iranian Revolution, the coup that deposed Haile Selassie, the Angolan Civil War, the soccer war between Honduras and El Salvador and many works that sadly have not been translated into English. Kapuscinski, a brilliant student of history, was probably the luckiest reporter in the business, narrowly avoiding death and execution with harrowing escapes on countless occasions. His books were filled with beautiful prose tinged with the sort of magical realism associated with his good friend Gabriel Garcia Marquez. He often complained that his contemporaries--who grew rich and fat in their tenured university posts writing dull angst-ridden novels--were missing the real stories of our time. He was right. His latest book, Travels with Herodotus, will come out this June.
Tangled Webb
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 11:13AM
I had high hopes that Jim Webb would keep up his tradition of being a maverick once he got to the Senate. While his response last night to the State of the Union was quirky and interesting -- especially in its implied criticism of Harry Truman -- it does in some respects seem to represent his taming by the Democratic leadership.
To put it another way, it's starting to look like Jim Webb didn't leave the Republican Party. Jim Webb left Jim Webb.
Revising and Extending My Remarks
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 9:24AM
Actually, I think I've changed my mind about the speaker's standing ovations. They actually serve a useful function. If Nancy Pelosi clapped at something the President said, I know that chances are I'm probably against it.
A Man Named Brady
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 7:29AM
Sure, he lost his first AFC Championship, but the legend of Tom Brady grows in this story about how he supported former Patriots offensive coordinator Charlie Weis (now head coach at Notre Dame), and his wife, in a time of severe duress.
Re: The Sergeant and the Mats
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 7:11AM
John, my fellow employee's note back in the Vietnam era was pretty dumb, too. Luckily, back then, such a note couldn't destroy the entire business through public outrage. No Internet. But I suppose you could argue that putting such a note out over the Net makes it especially stupid.
By The Way
Posted by on 1.24.07 @ 1:08AM
I thought Nancy Pelosi stood entirely too much. A good Republican State of the Union should not have a Democratic speaker standing at all.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Re: Webb's Leg Up
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 11:41PM
I actually thought his delivery was pretty smooth. My problem with the response is that he focused on what has gone wrong in Iraq, but did not respond to President Bush's challenge--namely, explain how we deal with the aftermath of a withdrawal. Okay if Webb ultimately believes in withdrawing the troops, but at this point in the debate he needs to at least entertain the biggest counterargument to such a policy: what about the disasterous consequences of leaving in defeat?
State of the Union
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 11:25PM
President Bush did about as well as could be expected under the circumstances, and obviously there were no big surprises. To me, one of the key parts of the speech, which probably won't get much attention, was:
Cynics may doubt how serious these plots were, or see it as part of a Bush strategy to play off of people's fears. But I think it's worth noting this because any future president will also face the same political problem with fighting terrorism. The heavy costs of fighting this enemy are clear, but the successes cannot be measured as easily as in past conflicts. We are not fighting a war based on gaining territory and forcing our enemy to formally surrender, but to protect innocent Americans from being killed in terrorist attacks. Bush has succeeded in the sense that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. While one conclusion could conceivably be that Bush's policies have been effective, as time goes by and the cost of fighting goes up, people start to conclude that either the terrorist threat isn't that big of a deal in the first place, or acknowledge terrorism is a threat, but believe that we can alter Bush's policies and still be able to thwart future attacks. And what ends up happening is that Bush gets all the blame for the bad things that have happened and none of the credit for the tragedies that have been averted.
With that said, at this point, there's not much Bush can say to alter the sentiment of the American people. The only thing that will allow him to regain their confidence is success in Iraq. It's as simple as that.
Re: Immigration Pelosi
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 11:20PM
LG: Speaking of Ms. Speaker, I was most struck by how Madame Pelosi suddenly launched from her chair at the mention of comprehensive immigration reform. As she applauded I think she was counting new Democratic voters.
Webb's Leg Up
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 11:14PM
Webb continues to exude coldness. For a former military officer there seems to be little gentleman in him. Consider the opening shot of him which had him seated rather coarsely with his right leg crossed over his left knee -- was that a clumsy effort to show off the combat boot he was wearing? It was black and shiny, but I couldn't tell if it was an actual boot. If it was, he had a political purpose to being seated that way. Otherwise, he just came across as oafish.
His opening showed the risk one takes on taping a response before the actual State of the Union speech was delivered. He suggested that the President had stressed "addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans." But Bush never mentioned New Orleans or Katrina or the Gulf Coast.
Finally, I wish Webb had described how the U.S. will fight the war on terror once it's out of Iraq. How do we know that it would come down to what might be called the same difference?
RE: Kerry Escapes
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 11:13PM
Wlady -- my favorite part was watching Nancy Pants try to suck her dinner out of her teeth through clenched lips. I think her handlers will be giving her a little lesson in "poker face" politics bright and early tomorrow.
Kerry Escapes
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 10:57PM
Did you notice how, the moment the President completed his remarks, John Kerry made a beeline to get out of the House chamber? Quite a contrast to the President's very slow departure through a gauntlet of Dennis Kuciniches and Sheila Jackson Lees wanting some face time with him.
His Novels Must Be Heavily Edited
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 10:50PM
They're saying Jim Webb wrote the Democratic response himself. Maybe he should get a speechwriter. Where a normal person would say the parties have "disagreed" or "differed," he says they've "stood in contradiction."
Re: The Sergeant and the Mats
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 7:29PM
Lawrence: I agree on giving the business a break, but it's worth noting just how dumb the employee's message was:
We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.What does that even mean? That soldiers are dishonorable unless they desert? (Maybe a version of this sentiment?) This jerk is lucky the company didn't make his name public.
The Sergeant and the Mats
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 6:34PM
Big brouhaha in the press over the Wisconsin company that sent a nasty anti-war note via e-mail to an Army sergeant who had inquired about ordering some sleeping mats to protect himself and his squaddies from the buggy ground of Iraq. Most stories blame the mat company.
The company -- which turns out to be owned by a Pakistan immigrant -- fired the employee responsible for writing the note and temporarily shut down its website. I'd give the business a break here. I actually saw the same thing happen in the Vietnam era. A fellow employee of mine in a mail-order book company put a nasty antiwar note in a book of hawkish sentiment ordered by one of our customers.
The boss called in all four of us clerk-typists -- we were the only ones who could have done it -- and told us that such conduct was not allowed, and anything like it further would result in the perp's being fired. One of my confreres stayed behind, confessed, and apologized.
He didn't do it again, either.
SOTU Excerpts
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 5:49PM
As prepared for delivery:
On our growing economy:
“A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy – and that is what we have…Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move – and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise.”
On the importance of strengthening and re-authorizing No Child Left Behind this year:
“Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act…And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.”
“Now the task is to build on this success, without watering down standards ... without taking control from local communities ... and without backsliding and calling it reform…And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future, and our country is more competitive, by strengthening math and science skills.”
On the President’s new health care initiatives:
“[I]n all we do, we must remember that the best healthcare decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.”
On comprehensive immigration reform:
“Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of
America – with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country… Yet…we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border – and that requires a temporary worker program.” On strengthening
America’s energy security: “Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps
America’s economy running and America’s environment clean. For too long our Nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists – who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments ... raise the price of oil ... and do great harm to our economy. It is in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply – and the way forward is through technology.” On the war on terror:
“For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger…[T]o win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. From the start,
America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since Nine-Eleven has never been the same.” “[O]
ur military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq – because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.” “The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through.”
“Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. And this is why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position
America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.” On American foreign policy:
“American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger, poverty, and disease – and that is precisely what
America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa.”
How To Undermine Your Own Argument
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 3:46PM
While it's nice that the Washington Post editorial board has backed President Bush's tax changes for health insurance, unfortunately they can't do so without first taking a swipe at health savings accounts (HSAs):
THIS TIME last year, President Bush's main health policy proposal was to expand tax-sheltered health savings accounts. In the days leading up to tonight's State of the Union address, he has signaled a welcome shift in policy. Expanded tax shelters for health savings accounts would have drained billions of dollars from the budget, and the shelters would have mainly benefited the affluent. Their legitimate goals -- to correct the tax bias against people who don't work for big companies and to discipline health costs -- would be far better advanced by Mr. Bush's new initiative, which is budget-neutral and progressive. [Italics mine.]
But if you read carefully, you'll notice that in the very next paragraph they undermine their case against HSAs:
At present, people who get health insurance from employers pay no tax on the value of the benefit. Someone with a marginal tax rate of 35 percent and a generous insurance policy worth $20,000 a year gets a $7,000 tax break. But people who buy insurance on the individual market must usually do so with post-tax dollars, so their tax break is normally zero. The administration proposes to eliminate that unfairness by giving salaried workers and freelancers the same tax deduction. [Italics mine]
There is one exception, however, to the lack of a health insurance tax break for individuals: HSAs. Far from making things better only for the wealthy, HSAs help level the playing in that those with individual health insurance policies. Those who buy individual policies with an HSA can get a tax break on the money they contribute to the HSA. Obviously this doesn't completely level the playing field as they still pay taxes on the premium. But before HSAs, there was no tax break for individuals at all. Expanding HSAs would have given individuals an even larger tax break, thereby leveling the playing field even more.
Since the rest of the Post's editorial goes on to praise Bush's proposal to limit the amount of health insurance that can qualify for the tax credit, it's worth noting that HSAs were ahead of the curve in that area too. The amount that can be put into an HSA is limited to about $5,000 per year. This is another way in which HSAs leveled the tax the playing field in that with traditional insurance in that the tax deduction the wealthy could take was unlimited.
It would be nice if the opponents of HSAs would acknowledge some of their virtues. I won't hold my breath, however.
SOTU
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 2:50PM
The White House Website has a detailed breakdown of the policy initiatives the president will announce tonight (subjects include AIDS, spending reform, education, energy, health care, immigration, strengthening the military, and malaria).
"Is the Surge Already Producing Results?"
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 2:18PM
Since the surge itself hasn't really happened yet, I'm going to have to say "no." But the announcement of the surge does seem to be changing things.
Re: Candidate Paul
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 2:13PM
Ron Paul's totally ahistorical understanding of foreign policy is a great example of something that drives me nuts about many antiwar libertarians. Says Paul:
If we had followed the rules he wouldn't have been able to do a thing, with no declaration of war. How can the commander in chief fight a war that hasn't been declared?I said the other day that I think Congress should retain the power to declare war, but the idea that the Iraq War isn't "declared" in the constitutional sense is absurd. Just look at the first two American wars after the Revolution: In the Quasi-War, Congress authorized an expansion of the Navy and rescinded treaties with France, but never actually declared war on France. Congress didn't formally declare war in the First Barbary War, either, but it did authorize the President to order attacks on Tripolitan ships. An authorization of force, of course, is exactly what Congress gave the President in Iraq.
Another one of Paul's answers is just crazy. What does he say to libertarians who disagree with his restrictionist views on immigration? "If they don't agree, they'd have to be anarchists." Really?
Re: Humanizing Hillary
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 12:54PM
Phil: It will require many humanitarian acts to humanize Hillary. But how revealing that she lists Out of Africa as one her favorite three movies, along with Casablanca and, from her childhood, The Wizard of Oz. Now assuming she's being honest (in your heart you know she not), consider what she's revealing here. The heroine of Out of Africa lives in a cold marriage with a philandering husband. But comes a dashing visitor and she's in love again -- only to have him die tragically. It doesn't take much to connect the dots to her own life. As for Casablanca, I assume Victor Laszlo is the kind of dull, square, dutiful guy she intended to turn Bill into. If he were alive today, Laszlo would be leading the underground resistance on behalf of universal health care.
Romney on Iran
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 12:23PM
Speaking at a conference in Israel, Mitt Romney layed out his five step plan to stopping Iran from going nuclear. The strategy is heavy on economic isolation and sanctions, and he also warned that "the military option remains on the table."
He concluded his speech with the thunderous:
It is time for the world to plainly speak three truths:
One, Iran must be stopped.
Two, Iran can be stopped.
And three, Iran will be stopped.
Video of the end of his speech here.
An interesting footnote to the video. Ronald Lauder, who appears at the end of the video praising Romney's speech as "one of the most comprehensive, direct, clear strategies on Iran" was the same Lauder who lost to Giuliani in the bitter 1989 Republican NY mayoral primary.
Academy Warms to Etheridge, Too
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 12:07PM
No surprise, "An Inconvenient Truth" captured an Oscar nomination for best documentary. But that's not the only one it got, as Melissa Etheridge's earnest ("I am my intentions") "I Need to Wake Up" was nominated for best song:
Rudy Selling Finance Biz
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 11:44AM
One of the popular arguments among those doubting Rudy Giuliani was serious about running for president was that he was more focused on his business, Giuliani Partners. Today, the New York Post reports that Rudy is seeking to sell Giuliani Capital Advisors, the largest arm of his four-unit business. It's also worth noting that he's been getting more active in hiring talent. Yesterday, he announced the hiring of 2004 Bush-Cheney blog guru Patrick Ruffini to help with his online strategy, and Bush-Cheney "microtargeting" strategist Brent Seaborn.
It's time for Beltway pundits to wake up and smell the cannoli: Rudy is running.
Humanizing Hillary
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 11:15AM
If she is to win the presidency, Hillary Clinton is going to have to overcome the perception among the electorate that she is nothing more than a calculating opportunist whose every move is telegraphed to maximize political gain. In other words, she has to convince voters that she's human.
From the
With a call to "let the conversation begin," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) fielded a handful of pre-selected questions from voters on her presidential campaign's Web site last night, speaking into a video camera as she held forth on movies ("Out of Africa" makes her top three), her football-fanatic brothers and her "nice middle-class upbringing in a suburb of Chicago."
The effort to "humanize"
Clinton, as her advisers have put it, was in full swing just two days into her presidential campaign.
But doesn't it defeat its own purpose when you need an entire team of advisors to teach you how to look, act, and talk like an actual human being? To most of us, it comes naturally.
Candidate Paul
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 11:08AM
Reason's Brian Doherty has an interesting Q&A with Ron Paul. It doesn't seem like the 2008 presidential candidate always gives his interviewer the answers he expects.
Romney and Abortion
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 1:34AM
The issue keeps nagging him. Liz Mair has details on the thousands of flyers handed out during the "March for Life" protest, attacking Romney's abortion views in general, and additionally his decision in 2005 to scrap plans to exempt religious and other private hospitals from being forced to offer emergency contraceptives to rape victims. Romney's rapid response team fired back with a myth/fact press release regarding his abortion views.
On the emergency contraception issue, let me just add that while I've been critical of Romney on a number of things, in this instance I think the criticism of him is unfair. Romney vetoed the controversial emergency contraceptive bill, but it was overridden by the overwhelmingly liberal Massachusetts legislature. He looked into alternative ways of carving out an exception for religious/private hospitals, but ultimately he had to abide by the new law. Liz (who is pro-choice) takes specific issue with his quote at the time that "I think, in my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape." She argues that a hospital that morally objects to the use of contraceptives shouldn't be forced to offer them, and I would tend to agree with her. But all Romney said in the quote is that hospitals should offer contraceptives to rape victims, not that they should be forced to--remember he vetoed a bill that did just that. To offer an analogy, I could say that I personally believe that the Boy Scouts should allow gays to become scout masters, but still adamantly oppose efforts to force them to.
Fair or not, the criticism of Romney is coming in fast and furiously. And it's criticism that he set himself up for by basing his candidacy on being the choice for social conservatives.
RE: Brownback's Coming Out Party
Posted by on 1.23.07 @ 1:02AM
If elected, will Brownback follow in the tradition of addressing the March for Life by phone?
CNN reports: "Bush calls the rally each year, usually from distant locations. This year, he extended his weekend stay at the Camp David presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains to phone the participants from there."
In fairness, the late great President Reagan did the same thing. And President Bush's remarks to the pro-life marchers were quite accurate, including, "We've all got to remember that a true culture of life cannot be built by changing laws alone. We've all got to work hard to change hearts. The sanctity of life is written in the life of all men and women."
Monday, January 22, 2007
Re: Brownback's Coming Out Party
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 6:59PM
Wlady, I suspect it is impossible to discern Brownback's motivation in attending, if he attended. He likely attended in previous years, long before he considered running for the presidency. Not to show up now would smack of that same manipulation.
Attending the March for Life should be a minimum for any candidate serious about the right to life.
President Bush's Healthcare Proposal
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 6:45PM
In my post below previewing President Bush's State of the Union speech, I mentioned his healthcare proposal. Here are more details on the two part plan:
1) Under the plan, individuals purchasing insurance on their own or through their employer would be exempt from paying income or payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of their income. This would translate into $4,500 for a family of four with income of $60,000. In addition, small businesses such as S-corporations would get the same tax incentives for providing healthcare as larger companies.
2) The second part of the plan would recognize that even with such tax incentives, some people would still be too sick or poor to find affordable healthcare. So, the plan would call for federal dollars currently being sent to institutions to be diverted to individual states doing "innovative things" to help individuals afford private insurance.
I feel better about number 1 than number 2, but wonder whether it would drive up healthcare costs further. Also, I tend to view tax credits as another form of subsidies that complicate the tax code (I would trade less deductions and credits for lower rates and simplicity). But in a more fundamental sense, I worry about the fact that Republicans are moving closer and closer to embracing the idea of universalizing healthcare (see also Mitt Romney, who has done so explicitly). Once Republicans, at the philosophical level, endorse the idea that the government has a role in making sure all Americans have healthcare coverage, the only debate left to have with Democrats is over what type of universalized healthcare to have. And that's a debate that small government conservatives lose. Sure, perhaps in the beginning we end up with some sort of Frankenstein market/socialized model, but over time those market elements disappear and get replaced by bigger government. With that said, I'll reserve judgment on the specific details of the Bush plan until I learn more.
Who Needs Amnesty?
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 6:37PM
According to the Associated Press, senators are complaining to the Department of Homeland Security about the largest immigration raid on record. Now, I don't doubt that there are kinks in the screening system that make it difficult for well intentioned companies to obey the law. But this is a pattern that has emerged in the past -- when an adminstration gets serious (or even semi-serious) about enforcing the law in this area, the lawmakers are among the first to object when their constituents are ensnared.
Shake?
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 6:08PM
Let me see if I got this straight...a Muslim lady bobbie can tackle a man, frisk him and cuff him, but she cannot shake his hand.
In The Leftist Mind, Conservative=Inhuman
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 5:36PM
The next time you hear some lefty complain that conservatives are always questioning the left's patriotism, reply that they are always questioning our humanity.
For a prime example of this, see "Read This And See Why You Should Hate Conservatives," over at Daily KOS.
Hat tip: Arnold Kling
President Bush's SOTU: A Preview
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 5:35PM
Just got off of a conference call with Karl Rove previewing tomorrow's State of the Union Speech. Rove said President Bush's speech will be roughly 40 minutes, with about half devoted to domestic affairs and half devoted to foreign policy. Bush will lay out his plan for balancing the budget within five years and discuss earmarks and the need for entitlement reform. He'll talk about immigration, judges and education (pushing renewal of No Child Left Behind). He'll emphasize the strength of the
On healthcare, President Bush will offer a "two step proposal":
--Create a "level playing field" so that individuals and small businesses can enjoy the same tax incentives for purchasing their own health insurance as large corporations.
--Create an "affordable choices" program to help individual states that have programs to help the poor purchase healthcare.
On energy, President Bush will:
--Call for a significant reduction in gasoline usage within 10 years, by relying on new technologies and alternative fuels.
--Call for a boost in domestic production of oil as we transition to increased use of alternative fuels.
On foreign policy, President Bush will review the events of the last five plus years, and reiterate his "surge" proposal, challenging Democrats who disagree to present a viable alternative, given the dire consequences of defeat in
Re: Brownback's Coming Out Party
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 5:02PM
The Prowler might be interested to know that, according to a source close to me, Israel can itself be pretty cold this time of year. But more importantly, did Sen. Brownback attend today's March for Life to score political points against his contenders? Or was it a selfless act on behalf of life. If the former, how can anyone possibly respect a politician who would play politics with a serious solemn event like this? Bad enough that a Maryland congressman bragged that he's the only pro-lifer in the Maryland delegation. Judge others...
Fusionisms New and Old
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 4:20PM
There's an all-star America's Future Foundation panel at the Heritage Foundation this Thursday on the future of ideological fusion, starring "liberaltarianism" maven Brink Lindsey, David Boaz of Cato, Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review, and Jon Chait of The New Republic. Details here.
Da Bears
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 4:12PM
An important reminder: We're not here to start no trouble, we're just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle.
Re: Brownback's Coming Out Party
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 3:48PM
Well, I suppose Romney's presence in Israel to compete in the "Israel Primary" explains why he couldn't be at the "March for Life," though his Website has released this statement.
Brownback's Coming Out Party
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 2:49PM
Down at the March for Life here in DC, we've been seeing lots of support for Sen. Sam Brownback. Brownback's campaign has been aggresive in pushing materials to marchers, and why not? Former Gov. Mitt Romney is being attacked in a series of handouts we've seen. Some are clearly coming from Brownback supporters, others seem to be nonaligned, but definitely anti-Romney. Romney could have blown all of this out of the water by simply showing up and marching with his fellow citizens. A single march does not a convert make, but it would have communicated to conservative voters that he was willing to make a commitment of time and energy and publicity to show where he stood. We haven't seen him, nor is there talk that he is here freezing his feet off with the rest of us. Too bad. A good, missed opportunity.
Gates's Hawkishness
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 11:56AM
The NY Times has an article today on our new Secretary of Defense. According to the article, he's a hawk:
Or, put another way, it takes military power to create the leverage necessary to make negotiations fruitful.
Will we be seeing another application of Reagan's "peace through
strength doctrine"--more muscular use of our military followed by
diplomacy? The article also points to signs that Gates differs with
Rumsfeld on troop levels and has been a supporter of sending more
troops to Iraq. That's one welcome change, in my view.
Obama-Richardson
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 11:44AM
If Obama does capture the nomination, he'll need to pick someone with a lot of experience to demonstrate that he would surround himself with a good team as president. Obama has the charisma but doesn't have the resume and Richardson has the resume but lacks charisma. So they would complement each other well. The fact that Bill Richardson is from New Mexico would also help because interior west states could be a crucial swing region in 2008. Though unlikely to garner votes among Spectator readers, such a ticket could be formidable among the general electorate.
Point of Order
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 11:39AM
There is absolutely no good reason why, beside the slogan "Just The News...", Breitbart.com should run an ad banner for Saw III, the adjacent tagline of which reads "Suffering? You Haven't Seen Anything Yet...". Some microscopically attributed shill's blurb adds, "The Best 'Saw' So Far!"
The rancid trend I poked at with contempt last year rolls along, courtesy of a brand of capitalism that's enjoyed a liberating series of lobotomies: moral, aesthetic, ethical, etc. The point isn't to ban Saw ads. That defeats the whole purpose -- and possibility -- of voluntary restraint. When the law has to reach into private conduct, even including publicized endorsements of the filth-ridden and profane, the authority of the culture that law seeks to protect is already cracked in a way legislation cannot by nature heal.
The Israel Primary
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 11:27AM
Mitt Romney is in Israel right now, and Hotline points out that he and John McCain are the "first two announced WH '08 candidates to visit Israel" as "more evidence that the 'Israel Primary' is no longer something that just the Democrats compete in." It's worth noting, however, that while Rudy Giuliani may not have visited the Holy Land as an announced presidential candidate, he has visited before, and to whatever extent there is an "Israel Primary," Giuliani wins hands down. In fact, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has convened a panel that periodically rates the U.S. presidential contenders on the basis of who would be "best for Israel," and Giuliani is always on top of the list. When Giuliani visited Israel in 1996 to show solidarity in the midst of a wave of terrorist attacks, Giuliani took a position that was actually to the right of the Israeli government led by Shimon Peres, presciently warning to proceed with extreme caution when negotiating with Yasser Arafat. "Don't go romanticizing," Giuliani said at the time. "Remember if you are asking something of him you need more proof that it is going to be carried out than if you asked that of someone else." His words drew harsh criticism from the editorial page of the NY Times, which also lambasted him when he ejected Arafat from a U.N. event at Lincoln Center the year before (a move that outraged the Clinton State Department). Giuliani's animosity toward Arafat and sympathy with the Israeli position can be traced back at least to his days as prosecutor in NY in the 1980s, when he was involved in investigations of the PLO. More fundamentally, he sees Israel's struggle against terrorism as being linked to our own. In his speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention, Giuliani gave a brief history of modern terrorism, drawing a line of progression between the attack on Israeli athletes in the 1972 Munich Olympics and Sept. 11, arguing that beginning with its lax response to the Munich attack, "the world had created a response to [terrorism] that allowed it to succeed." Let me put it this way. To the delight of some and anger of others, President Bush has probably been the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history. But compared to a President Giuliani, Bush would look like Jimmy Carter.
Loving, Being Loved, and ESPN
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 10:54AM
On Roe's 34th anniversary, George Will has a column on his son with Down syndrome that is worth a read.
Re: NFL Predictions
Posted by on 1.22.07 @ 8:52AM
Well, my predictions made perfect sense to me. I can't help it if the teams don't cooperate.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Term-Limiting Judges
Posted by on 1.21.07 @ 2:47PM
I've always found the idea of putting judicial turnover on a predictable schedule intuitively appealing (especially given how many justices serve well past when they ought to retire). Though I do wonder if there may be some unanticipated bad consequences, it's interesting to note that Matt Yglesias is siding with Sam Brownback against life tenure.
Turkish Teen Assassin
Posted by on 1.21.07 @ 2:17PM
The assassin of Hrant Dink has been arrested and has reportedly confessed, turned in by his own father. It now seems likely that 17-year-old Ogun Samast is also behind last year's murder of a Catholic priest in Turkey.
Hispanic! At the Disco
Posted by on 1.21.07 @ 12:56PM
Bill Richardson has announced that he's forming a presidential exploratory committee. I'm guessing he's more or less auditioning for vice president.
Re: About Those Pats
Posted by on 1.21.07 @ 8:27AM
Hunter, I did address somewhat the Pats' earlier game against the Colts (saying Brady's receivers were not as much help then as they are now). But here are a few more stats for consideration, from Boston Globe reporter Mike Reiss:
- Current Wisdom
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Bowling Alone
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
