- 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, February 3, 2007
The Excesses of Anti-Anti-Anti-Semitism
Posted by on 2.3.07 @ 4:35PM
As I've noted before, friends of Israel sometimes use overwrought charges of anti-Semitism to try to silence critics of Israel. That's undeniable, and regrettable.Bernstein goes on to call out Matt Yglesias for this behavior.Equally undeniable, and regrettable, is when a friend of Israel criticizes critics of Israel, and then gets accused of calling everyone who criticizes Israel anti-Semitic, even when the author never mentioned anti-Semitism, and even, oddly enough, when the author has explicitly disclaimed any intention of suggesting that the individual he criticized is anti-Semitic.
Superbowl Pick
Posted by on 2.3.07 @ 4:20PM
I've gone with Peyton and the Colts throughout the playoffs. That Colt defense is far superior to the one that showed up for the regular season. Peyton's supporting cast has been utterly clutch. What the Bears do won't matter. It's Indy Day in Miami tomorrow.
Super Baloney
Posted by on 2.3.07 @ 3:22PM
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- The NFL has nixed a church's plans to use a wall projector to show the Colts-Bears Super Bowl game, saying it would violate copyright laws.Well, I suppose that's kind of reasonable.NFL officials spotted a promotion of Fall Creek Baptist Church's "Super Bowl Bash" on the church Web site last week and overnighted a letter to the pastor demanding the party be canceled, the church said.
Initially, the league objected to the church's plan to charge a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words "Super Bowl" in its promotions.
Pastor John D. Newland said he told the NFL his church would not charge anyone and that it would drop the use of the forbidden words.Huh? Why?But the NFL objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game, saying the law limits it to one TV no bigger than 55 inches.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league's long-standing policy is to ban "mass out-of-home viewing" of the Super Bowl. An exception is made for sports bars and other businesses that show televised sports as a part of their everyday operations.That exception seems kind of arbitrary, doesn't it?
"We have contracts with our (TV) networks to provide free over-the-air television for people at home," Aiello said. "The network economics are based on television ratings and at-home viewing. Out-of-home viewing is not measured by Nielsen."This makes no sense. Advertisers care about the number of eyeballs they reach, not the number of screens they're displayed on. Why punish a church for a flaw in the Nielsen system?
Super Bowl Predictions
Posted by on 2.3.07 @ 9:52AM
Okay, a little late this week, but it's time for Super Bowl predictions. To make it a little more intersting, let's pick it with the point spread and over/under this time. According to the current Vegas line, Colts give 7 points and the over/under is 48 points.
The Chicago Bears have gone further than a I ever thought they would, and the way their defense stepped up against New Orleans and forced those turnovers showed why. Their offense also did what it need to do. At the same time, though, the Indianapolis defense has been playing their best football of the year in the playoffs, and I think Peyton Manning got the monkey off of his back last week. Try as I might, I just cannot accept Rex Grossman as a Super Bowl quarterback. Prediction: Colts, and the under.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Prepare for the Obamessiah!
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 10:26PM
Oh, I know Jim Geraghty has renamed his NRO blog "The Hillary Spot," but I'm still sure Obama will be the main man for the USA in 2008. I feel sustained in my opinion by the newly minted concept of The Obamessiah.
I saw the Obamessiah speaking at the DNC meeting today via one of the cable nets. He was perfectly playing Reagan to the lefties. "We musn't spend our time attacking each other. Instead we must concentrate of saving this precious country of ours."
He won't get dirty. He'll keep his hands clean with no legislative program other than to be kinder, more caring, and more above the fray than any before him. Then Queen Oprah will embrace her true child and the stars will align and then New Hampshire shall fall before him and . . . and . . .
Re: Carolina Pride
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 7:36PM
No, they are from Canada. But hey, it's our generically reproduced bowl of a sports arena that they won in!
So This Is What They Mean by "Working Together"
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 5:59PM
From Chris Dodd's speech at the DNC winter meeting:
A Point of Carolina Pride
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 4:47PM
Last year's Stanley Cup Champion Hurricanes were honored at the White House today, with President Bush dishing the quips:
Coach Peter Laviolette and Bret Hedican passed by our building in Raleigh last year in the victory parade. One of the more exciting lunch hours I've had in my life.
Comeback?
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 3:48PM
At some point, if I can gather enough evidence to fully back up my feeling on the following point, I will probably devote a whole column to this. But for now, just let me say this: I fully expect the Bush administration to make a comeback of sorts in terms of public approval. I expect that the "surge" of troops will be seen to be working, in ways the media can't avoid reporting because so much attention will be focused on it. Not that in the short term the surge will produce anything that can absolutely be called "victory," but that all of a sudden somebody will run the numbers and find that the average number of attacks and deaths per day in, say, April, is substantially lower than it was in January. Plus there will be some sort of detente in the Iraqi legislature, some sort of agreement that makes moderate Sunnis at least moderately more happy with the arrangements.
And all the defeatists (and those who deliberately root for American defeat, which seems to be a substantial portion of the Senate Democratic caucus) will have some 'splainin' to do.
Romney
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 2:02PM
I'm now waiting for Gov. Romney to stop by and talk to the press. I'll have more on his appearance Monday, but suffice it to say I found his speech pretty impressive, particularly his fairly detailed comments on Iran. He took the opportunity to attack Hillary Clinton for what she said about Iran last night.
Rudy vs. McCain
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 1:43PM
Gallup has done a detailed poll on how Republicans view Giuliani compared with McCain. The results show that Republicans find Giuliani more likable, a better crisis manager, the stronger leader, and the better speaker, while they think McCain has higher ethical standards and better qualifications to be president.
Blogmaster Flash
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 12:59PM
My colleague Jon Ham (papa of Mary Katherine) notes today the hiring by John Edwards of leftist Amanda Marcotte as his blogmaster. She's even going to move to Chapel Hill, where he's got plenty of room for her.
And already she's trying to hide who she is.
Fun Fact
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 12:50PM
From a list of things you didn't know about Mitt Romney:
Willard Mitt Romney was born in March 1947. (He stopped using Willard, the name of his father's friend J. Willard Marriott, founder of the hotel chain, in kindergarten...I'm currently sitting in a press room, waiting to watch Romney speak, in Baltimore... at the Marriott.
CO2 and Warming
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 12:44PM
J.R. Dunn had a nice essay in The American Thinker on January 31, titled, "Resisting Global Warming Panic." Key graf:
"One curious element involves certain facts that, on first consideration, would appear to be crucial but never seem to come up in debate. I have spent several years trying to track down the actual values of two numbers - the annual amount of carbon dioxide emitted by all human activities, and the amount of carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere. There are as many answers as there are sources, the first ranging from 3 billion to 28 billion tons, the second from 750 billion tons to 2.97 x 1012 tons, a number so large that there's no common English word for it. Variations of this size - up to three orders of magnitude - suggest a serious lack of basic knowledge. The fact that it never comes up suggests that scientists are well aware of this. (It's doubtful we'll see the question addressed in this week's IPCC report either.)"
I note, however, that the weight of the atmosphere is calculable, though very, very large, of course. A millibar is a measure of atmospheric weight. And if he know how much the atmosphere weighs, and what the usual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is, we ought to know how much carbon dioxide is "already present in the atmosphere."
RE: Conservative Third Party
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 12:37PM
Giuliani as Republican presidential nominee is the ultimate test for the appeal of a conservative third party. Giuliani differs from the Republican base on at least four issues that are among the reasons many conservatives got involved in politics in the first place. If a conservative third party can't make a strong showing against him, when can it? Maybe in a race between Arlen Specter and Evan Bayh, with a liberal Republican and nonscary Democrat?
The recent performance of conservative third parties isn't good. George Wallace took 13.5 percent of the vote in 1968, but that number is padded by blue-collar statists, economic populists, and generic racists who don't fit any reasonable definition of Goldwater conservatism. John Schmitz ran a more identifiably conservative campaign in 1972 and won a million votes -- even that was just 1.4 percent of total ballots cast and probably padded by nonconservative former Wallace voters.
Since then, it has been nowhere but down. Ron Paul as a Libertarian and Pat Buchanan as the Reform Party nominee both languished in the 400,000-vote range (Buchanan won 3 million votes in the Republican primaries just four years earlier). And they are the biggest names on the right to have given the third-party route a try. Most other disgruntled conservatives have spurned entreaties to run as third-party candidates like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan did before them.
The Constitution Party has never cracked 200,000 votes or attracted a big-name conservative to its ticket (not for lack of trying). Most other conservative third parties are even smaller; some are even nuttier.
It is easy to see how a pro-life, pro-gun, immigration-restrictionist voter who opposes government recognition of homosexual relationships would want an alternative to Giuliani. But it is less easy to see either the Republican presidential field or a conservative third party offering her a viable one.
The Surge Won't Work Before It Happens
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 12:31PM
The Sunnis remain "unwilling to accept minority status" and believe the Shiite majority is a stalking horse for Iran. The Shiites remain "deeply insecure" about their hold on power, meaning that the Shiite leadership views U.S.-desired compromises -- on oil, federalism and power-sharing -- as a threat to its position. Perhaps most ominously, the upcoming referendum on the oil-rich, multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk threatens to be explosive, as the Kurds are determined to finally regain full control over the city.Huh? The whole point of the surge is to tame the Sunni insurgency, which if it works will help both to convince the Sunnis to accept their minority status and to convince the Shiites that their hold on power is secure. That's quite a bit more significant than "breathing room." (Via Weigel.)Interestingly, the listed prospects for reversing Iraq's deterioration contradict the NIE's assessment of where things actually stand. For instance, "broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism" and "significant concessions by Shia and Kurds" could lead to stability -- but the NIE's earlier section viewed both these events as unlikely. To put this in the realm of the current debate, President Bush's "surge" is designed to give political breathing room to events that the intelligence community formally judges as unrealistic.
The Politics of a Successful Surge
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 12:15PM
Are Senators who vote for the Warner anti-surge resolution taking any political risk, or are they just protecting themselves against anti-war sentiment? ...(Scroll down to "Cynic's Score Card: 7 Outs and Counting")After reading Senator Warner's resolution, I'm reinforced in my suspicion that the bet-hedging scenario is a plausible description of what's really going on... I can think of at least seven "outs" a Senator who votes for Warner's resolution could try to use if the surge is ultimately judged beneficial
Re: Conservative Third Party
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 12:10PM
I'm skeptical of any third party threat to Giuliani. The Viguerie poll is not only unscientific, it shows vulnerability against a fictional character. A third party candidate would need to be independently wealthy, a la Ross Perot, both to get exposure and to mount the massive effort that it takes to earn ballot access in many states. Any conservative willing to buck the GOP would almost certainly -- indeed, almost by definition -- be slightly nutty, thus scaring off both donors and voters.
Conservative Third Party
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 11:36AM
Conservative activist Richard Viguerie has a new online poll out in which he asks conservatives who they would vote for in a race between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani if "a solid conservative was available as a third party candidate."
He writes:
It’s late in 2008, and you’re in the voting booth. Rudy Giuliani—yes, pro-abortion choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani, that Rudy Giuliani—has won the nomination of a Republican Party desperate for a “hero” candidate who can lead it out of the political wilderness. He never even had the decency to make it easier for you to vote for him by pretending to have a pro-life “conversion” experience, like Mitt Romney, or pretending that he’s been conservative all along, like Senator McCain. (Granted, that would have been quite a stretch for Rudy.)
BUT…opposite him at the top of the ballot as the Democratic Party’s nominee is the name that sends shivers down a conservative’s spine…CLINTON! Yes, a double-spectre guaranteed to produce nightmares: Hillary in the Oval Office, Bill messin’ around somewhere else in the White House.
What do you do?
Oh, there’s a great conservative running on a third-party ticket, telling you all the things you want to hear, promising to do all the things you want done, but the most likely result of a sizeable vote for him is to tip the election over to Hillary.
So, what do you do?
Of the 293 votes cast so far, just 31 percent said they would vote for Rudy, and 55 percent said they would vote for Hillary. Granted the results are unscientific, they represent a small sample size, and the group participating in the poll is a self-selecting group of conservatives who feel particularly betrayed by the Republican Party. Also, filling out an online survey 21 months ahead of the election is one thing, but sitting in a voting booth and facing the real prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency is different. With all that said, I believe that the biggest problem facing Giuliani in a general election would be the threat of a third party conservative candidate emerging (same with McCain). For our February issue, I explored the possibility that the immigration issue alone could fuel a third party challenge in 2008, and with Giuliani as the nominee you add abortion, gun-control, and gay rights to the list.
If he's the nominee, there are two ways he can attempt to overcome a conservative backlash. Firstly, Giuliani has the ability to appeal to independents and moderate Democrats in a way that no Republican candidate has since Ronald Reagan, and thus put a lot more states in play. A recent poll showed he beats Hillary in
Rudy, Tough Hillary, and Sinking McCain
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 10:29AM
FoxNews/Opinion Dynamics has an interesting new poll (story here, PDF of full results here). The poll gives Rudy Giuliani the largest lead over John McCain that I've seen in any poll (34 percent to 22 percent), and Giuliani has the highest approval rating of any politician in either party, but then there's this:
When voters are asked to name which candidate would be toughest on terrorism,
(16 percent) edges Giuliani (15 percent) and McCain (15 percent) for the top spot by just 1 percentage point. Among Democrats, the highest percentage goes to Clinton (31 percent); Republicans split between Giuliani (28 percent) and McCain (24 percent). Clinton
You would think that Giuliani's popularity derives from the perception that he's the toughest on terrorism, so it's notable that in the same poll where he comes out as the most popular politician, Hillary Clinton, of all people, edges him out on the terrorism issue. The most plausible explanation is that Democrats perceive her as being the toughest on terrorism, while Republicans are divided between Giuliani and McCain. I wonder if the perception among Democrats that she'd aggressively fight terrorism is actually a negative in the primary.
In another recent poll, Rasmussen gives Rudy a 49 percent to 43 percent lead over Hillary in the general election, while McCain is statistically tied, but numerically ahead 45 percent to 44 percent. According to the poll, McCain has lost ground in matchups against all leading Democrats. The conventional wisdom attributes his sagging poll numbers to his prominent advocacy of President Bush's "surge" plan that has made him more associated with the Iraq War. If this is the case, I don't see how it helps Giuliani in the long term, given that Giuliani has also been an outspoken proponent of the plan, even though at this point his views on Iraq haven't gotten the attention that McCain's have. They will once the presidential election is in full swing.
One other thing worth noting. The fact that Hillary does so poorly in matchups against Giuliani and McCain at a time when the public mood is so anti-Republican, demonstrates how much trepidation there is over her becoming president.
Bad Sign for Obama
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 10:03AM
One way to lose a Democratic presidential nomination is to alienate the press. Barack Obama seems well on his way toward that goal, Mike Allen suggests.
Big picture: what has he to hide? Is he so raw that he cannot parry with the press in a casual atmosphere? The honeymoon will not last much longer -- Obama will need more than platitudes and a good smile to win this one.
I Hope This Adjective Goes Away Too
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 9:44AM
Hey, Eugene Robinson, I think Bill Cosby can explain to you what "articulate" means.
Thanks for Taking Our Nichol
Posted by on 2.2.07 @ 8:02AM
Today's Spectator column by Thomas Lipscomb is a nice introduction to the current scheming of William & Mary president Gene Nichol, but to those of us in North Carolina, he is better known as the former UNC Law School dean who launched John Edwards's 2008 presidential campaign by creating the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity. He also was known for his regular leftist op-ed contributions to The News & Observer of Raleigh, as well as other published musings, often on economic inequality.
We'd like to thank the Commonwealth of Virginia for taking him off our hands.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Putting People First Will Be Next
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 6:36PM
A reader e-mails to point out that this Financial Times story recycles one of the media's favorite headlines: "Clinton Outlines Plan to Help Middle Class."
The plan to raise taxes on the middle class won't be unveiled until after the election.
Might As Well Bring Back Janet Jackson
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 5:29PM
The NFL says a bunch of drunks who will have to get designated drivers or endanger the rest of us on the roads can get together at their watering holes and watch the Super Bowl. These are also the people who think the smutty TV ads and television programs promoted during sporting events (not to mention some halftime shows) are perfectly fine, by the way.
Meanwhile, those of us who want to enjoy the game with our church pals are out of luck.
Great image you're promoting there, NFL!
American Scene First
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 2:38PM
An elite consensus on foreign policy may not have ended, but a Douthat-Salam blogging hiatus has.
Bore Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 2:28PM
Oops, sorry. That's Gore nominated for Nobel Peace Prize.
Coincidence?
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 12:09PM
I notice that this both FoxNews and MSNBC have a story about the Boston kerfluffle near the top of the main pages of their websites, while you have to scroll down a bit to find it on CNN.
I wonder why.
The NY Times Isn't The Only Joke In Town
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 12:01PM
The AP is a laughingstock too:
The House passed a $463.5 billion spending bill Wednesday that covers about one-sixth of the federal budget as Democrats cleared away the financial mess they inherited from Republicans.
Hat tip: Don Luskin.
Fighting the Urge to Surge?
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 11:02AM
Momentum appears to be building toward a bipartisan anti-surge resolution in the Senate. Yet given Joe Lieberman's support for the surge, a resolution backed by fewer than ten Republicans probably can't overcome a fillibuster.
Meanwhile, Daniel Larison explains why paleoconservatives shouldn't get too excited about Chuck Hagel.
RE: Politico Photo Contest
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 10:56AM
I'm not sure the pages of the Politico are big enough for spreads of both Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy.
DISCLAIMER: This is not a botched fat joke.
Politico Photo Contest
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 10:28AM
Today's winner is Hillary Clinton with three photos (yesterday was Mitt Romney with four). Is there a pattern here?
Am I Missing Something?
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 9:43AM
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that what happened in Boston occurred because officials over-reacted? It appears that the two gents who put up the ads meant no harm--creating a hoax to cause a pancic was not their intent. But they were supposed to realize that what they were doing was going to cause problems, according to officials:
Peter Berdovsky, 27, of Arlington, and Sean Stevens, 28, of Charlestown, were each charged Wednesday night with one count of placing a hoax device and one count of disorderly conduct. State Attorney General Martha Coakley said they were hired to place the devices. Both men were to be arraigned Thursday morning.Perhaps Coakley could do us all a big favor and put up "Sensitive Area! Don't Put Up Electronic Ads Here" signs in those sensitive areas.Those conducting the campaign should have known the devices could cause panic because they were placed in sensitive areas, Coakley said. Authorities are investigating whether Turner and any other companies should be criminally charged, she said.
"We're not going to let this go without looking at the further roots of how this happened to cause the panic in this city," Coakley said.
Poor Little Iran
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 9:32AM
The New York Times accuses President Bush of "bullying" Iran.
All together now: AAAAAAAWWWW!!!!
I'd remark that the Times is imbecilic, but who doesn't already know that?
Rudy and McCain: Snubbing Conservatives
Posted by on 2.1.07 @ 9:23AM
Jonathan Martin has a fair piece in the Politico pointing out that while Mitt Romney never misses a chance to address a conservative audience, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have been giving conservatives the cold shoulder. Romney spoke at our annual dinner, at last weekend's Conservative Summit hosted by the National Review, and has jumped at the chance to talk at tomorrow's retreat for conservative House members as well as this year's CPAC, just to name a few events. As long as conservatives are in the room, Romney seems willing to go to the opening of an envelope. It's really baffling why McCain, and especially Giuliani, have snubbed conservative groups. Both of them have a lot of work to do to gain the trust of conservatives, who will be crucial to their winning the Republican nomination. Their absentee status reinforces the view that they aren't comfortable in a room full of conservatives, and conveys a certain arrogance that conservatives aren't worth their time. True, Giuliani was in New Hampshire last weekend and in South Carolina this weekend, so that explains his absence from the National Review event and the House conservative retreat, but this isn't an isolated incident for Rudy-he's been dissing conservatives for years. Any regular reader of this blog knows that I believe Rudy has a lot to offer conservatives, but he has to make that case for himself. The bottom line is that conservatives will have to feel some love from Giuliani and McCain before they're ready to give some of that love back.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Molly Ivins, RIP
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 7:56PM
The tart-tongued Texas liberal Molly Ivins has died. I didn't have much use for Ivins's politics, but she stood out among liberal syndicated columnists.
Al Franken Running For Senate
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 6:57PM
I could be wrong, but this doesn't strike me as bad news for Norm Coleman.
GOP RIP?
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 3:54PM
Maggie Gallagher pronounces the "Reagan coalition" dead. Of course, political coalitions can change without dying completely. The governing majority FDR built for the Democrats no longer exists and many of the people who comprised that majority are dead. But I think it is fair to say that the Democrats still retain support from significant remnants of the New Deal coalition.
There's No Democratic West Either
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 3:49PM
At least not according to political analyst Stuart Rothenberg, who argues that the Democratic shift in the Interior West is overhyped. He points out that despite a general Republican tilt, Democratic candidates have enjoyed a number of electoral victories there over the last three decades. Focusing on the past two election cycles gives you misleading picture.
Generally true. Yet it does seem that the Democrats have tested a systematic political model, combining aspects of centrism and economic populism, that can frequently yield electoral victories in this region. This model has become more politically relevant in a country with a 50-50 divide. There's a case to be made that Democratic victories are less candidate-driven out West than in 1984. But it will take another couple of election cycles to determine how durable this shift really is.
Iran Backing Off?
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 2:45PM
Amir Taheri thinks they might be. I hope he's right.
Re: Biden
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 2:34PM
The funny thing is, Biden's criticism of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards is pretty much right on target. But the only thing anyone will remember is the poorly-worded bit about Obama that's splashed on Drudge. Whoops.
A Nice Problem, I Guess
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 2:30PM
First it was Drudge, linking to our story on John Edwards's new mansion, that shut down our Web site on Friday because of excessive traffic.
Now, today, Rush Limbaugh has it linked on his home page. We're dead in the water again! Sheesh!!
An amusing aside: When Drudge linked to us the visitor overload also caused the sites of other customers of our Web developer/host to shut down, including a liberal counterpart here in North Carolina. That's fair and balanced, right?!
Re: Biden
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 2:23PM
On Obama, from the NY Observer story Prowler linked to:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Giuliani NH Update
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 2:17PM
I just spoke with Wayne Semprini, who is the newly-appointed chairman of the Giuliani Exploratory Committee in NH (and was, until Saturday, the chairman of the NH Republican Party). When I asked him what he thought of the Beltway buzz that Giuliani will drop out of the Presidential race like he did the 2000 Senate race, Semprini laughed. "What can I say to that? I hope that he doesn't have a potential life-threatening illness this time," Semprini said, in reference to Giuliani's bout with prostate cancer. "That's what took him out of it the last time."
I also taked to him about the strength of the McCain and Romney organizations in the state, and he said the Giuliani team was starting to get aggressive. He said he's been bombarded with phone calls from people who want to join the campaign following Rudy's trip to NH over the weekend, which he said was "incredibly well-received." In just his first two days on the job, Semprini has already "penciled in" 19 Giuliani events with Granite State civic and business groups and political committees. They're also in the process of negotiating a lease for office space.
Does this sound like someone who isn't running?
RE: Romney and the Jewish Vote
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 12:17PM
Phil: A side note -- in the same issue of the Politico, there are 4 photos of Romney (1 in the story you refer to and 3 others). Everyone else mentioned in the issue is only pictured once save for Nancy Pants who got 2!
Romney and the Jewish Vote
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 11:57AM
The Politico has an odd story out about how a bill Romney vetoed in 2003 could hurt him with the Jewish vote:
Now that he's in full presidential campaign mode, Romney may be wishing he hadn't vetoed a budget provision in 2003 that would have reimbursed nursing homes in
that provided kosher meals to Jewish residents on Medicaid. The measure promised to pay an extra $5 a day per kosher diner. The state legislature overrode Romney's veto. Massachusetts
I don't see how this is a problem for Romney. This is a rather obscure piece of legislation to begin with, and Jewish voters represent a small segment of Republican primary voters. In a general election, the Jewish vote is overwhelmingly Democratic anyway. Orthodox voters tend to be more Republican, but they vote Republican on the basis of support for Israel and values issues, both of which Romney would be stronger on than the Democratic nominee on. And the tiny bit of support Romney could conceivably lose as a result of this obscure veto would be offset, becuase if the issue ever gets publicized, he'll look better among fiscal conservatives. As a Jewish conservative myself, I'd side with Romney on this veto. Either way, I know Politico is trying to appeal to political junkies, but doing a whole story on this one veto seems a bit much to me.
Champion Snow
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 11:09AM
Larry, very well put about the need for a "champion." And I'm glad you seem to agree that Tony is indeed a good champion for conservatism. I thought I ought to report that I am getting a large volume of messages from readers who are excited about the prospect of seeing Tony in office, especially in the Senate. Perhaps one of them will start a "Snow Draft" movement (sorry for the pun). So far, the ONLY negative response is from one reader who wrote that Tony is TOO GOOD a man to run for president!
Dick Morris Speaks
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 10:30AM
I just got back from the Spectator's Newsmaker Breakfast, in which Dick Morris was the guest.
Some of the main points:
Morris said that Barack Obama is a gift to Hillary Clinton, because he clears the field of potential competitors, and specifically keeps Al Gore from entering the race, who is the Democrat with the best chance of beating her. He described Obama as a "political stem cell" who can be made into anything you want "because he's just been born." Morris said that Obama is the certain VP candidate, because any Democrat who beats him will have to make amends with the black community by choosing him as the VP.
He said that the surge resolution as well as a vote to defund the Iraq War will replace the 2002 resolution to go to war as the new litmus test for Democratic candidates. Hillary will probably vote against defunding the war, thinking about the general election, but such a vote could conceivable doom her in the Democratic primary.
On the Republican side he said Giuliani's social views, Romney's reputation as a flip-flopper, and general conservative dissatisfaction with McCain lead him to believe that all of the top tier candidates will be disabled by the time the primaries roll around, leaving an opening for one of the "pigmies" such as Brownback, Hunter, and Gilmore-and he was especially high on Huckabee. When a lot of conservative journalists in the audience said that they thought Giuliani had a chance to win the nomination, he said he would reconsider his writing off of Giuliani.
Morris talked about his 90-minute anti-Hillary Clinton documentary set to come out in September, in which he uses video to expose her many faces to demonstrate her "essential, fundamental, phoniness."
He said Hillary has been acting like a pragmatist to get elected, but unlike Bill Clinton who remained a pragmatist once in office, she would govern as a far leftist and be the worst president in history. "She's the closest thing we have to a European socialist," he said. She would also use the FBI, NSA, and all tools at her disposal to go after her enemies in a Nixonian way. According to Morris, Republicans will get "massacred" in 2008 Congressional races and Hillary will become president, but Republicans will win back Congress in 2010 and recapture the White House in 2012. But whoever is elected in 2012 will be the last Republican president in history because of a growing Hispanic population that Republicans permanently alienated with last year's anti-immigration rhetoric.
Asked if he would leave the country if Hillary were elected, he said, "Either voluntarily or involuntarily."
Re: A Champion
Posted by on 1.31.07 @ 8:58AM
Quin, that's an interesting column on Tony Snow, and an interesting choice of word: Champion. I wrote a column titled "Champion Wanted -- No Experience Necessary" in 2002 for Enter Stage Right here . And I just finished re-reading Tom Wolfe's fabulous book, The Right Stuff, where he talks about the original astronauts as single combat warriors. It makes me think: How many real champions have we had in the Presidency? Reagan, certainly, but, before him, you'd have to go back to FDR. And before that, to Lincoln. Before that, to Washington. Four champions out of 43? We sure do need one.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Casting Call
Posted by on 1.30.07 @ 8:06PM
Okay, so some of you may have heard that I am now moonlighting as a casting director in an office high above Sunset Blvd. Having secured Saturday Night Live's Rachel Dratch for the coveted role of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, I'm pleased to report that the very Oscar-worthy supporting role of Pervez "with us, not against us" Musharraf has also been cast.
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part XV
Posted by on 1.30.07 @ 4:08PM
According to the Boston Globe:
More than 200,000 people with health insurance would have to buy additional coverage to meet proposed minimum standards under the state's new health insurance law, according to a count completed by insurers yesterday.This is a really good article. It has so many of the elements of broad social policy, such as:Most of the individuals do not have coverage for prescription drugs or have drug coverage that is more restrictive than the minimum proposed by the state board implementing the law. The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector board is scheduled to vote on the standards in March. Individuals would face a fine of about $200 next year and more in future years, if they do not have insurance that meets the standards.
Unintended consequences:
"It's very troubling," said Richard Lord, president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts and a member of the Connector board. "The new law was about expanding access for people without any health insurance. I don't think we should be forcing people who do have some coverage to spend more."
Costs being more that what the politicians promised:
The minimum standards are still very much in flux. The board postponed a final decision last week because of concern about the cost of the basic plans. Many of the initial bids from insurers who hope to offer the plans carried premiums that the board considered unaffordable. Based on bids from insurers, the board estimated that a rough average premium would total $380 a month, far above the $200 cited by Governor Mitt Romney, before the health law was passed. The board added more requirements and then asked insurers to submit new bids with lower price tags.
And the academic who thinks he knows what's best for everyone esle:
Another board member, Jonathan Gruber, said: "It's a hard issue. There's a trade-off between making sure we have real coverage and minimizing disruption to the market."Gruber, an MIT economics professor, said he was pleased with the board's proposal on drug coverage. But "we're very far away from finalizing this," he added. "My mind is still open."
Of course that begs the question of what constitutes "real coverage." But what are such trifling details when you have a society to transform?
Where in the World Is 007?
Posted by on 1.30.07 @ 2:02PM
Just in case you were wondering,
The film's producers get the bigger picture, why can't we?
The Hagel Hype
Posted by on 1.30.07 @ 1:44PM
Mickey Kaus wonders what the heck MSM types who praise Chuck Hagel's courage are talking about:
Saying "the war was wrong but the surge is worth a try"--that would be courageous. There's no ready-made constituency eager to cheer a pol who says that.Kaus also notes a parallel between Hagel and Barbara Boxer.Bucking your party to actively fight against the war when it would have made a difference--that would have been courageous.**
Hagel hasn't done either of those things. Instead, he let loose at the precise moment when letting loose was least brave and least timely.
Hillarytarians
Posted by on 1.30.07 @ 10:30AM
Those still entertaining the idea of a liberal/libertarian alliance ought to watch Hillary Clinton's talk in Iowa from over the weekend.
A sample:
"I got a call from this gentleman up in what we call the
North Country and he told me about his son who was in desperate need of a certain operation and the insurance company said 'no.' So we went to bat for him, and we got him the permission to have the operation. But, you know, as happy as I was to be able to take care of him, I thought, 'What a sad commentary that you have to go to a Senator of theto get the treatment that you need for your child.' We're gonna change that. We're gonna have universal healthcare. We're gonna deal with obesity—and with diabetes." United States
Nuff said.
Roberts and Roe
Posted by on 1.30.07 @ 10:12AM
Jeffrey Rosen has an excellent interview with Chief Justice Roberts in the current issue of the Atlantic. The article describes Roberts' efforts to build consensus on the Supreme Court and have less closely split 5-4 decisions, so that its judgements will have more clarity and force.
There was one passage that I found particularly illuminating:
Chief justices, Roberts acknowledged, are more likely to sublimate their personal views for the good of the Court than associate justices are; he cited the example of his former boss, William Rehnquist, for whom he clerked. "I think there's no doubt that he changed, as associate justice and chief; he became naturally more concerned about the function of the institution," Roberts said, pointing out that though Rehnquist had previously opposed the Miranda v. Arizona decision of 1966, which required the police to read suspects their rights, he wrote the opinion upholding Miranda in 2000. "He appreciated that it had become part of the law-that it would do more harm to uproot it-and he wrote that opinion as chief for the good of the institution."
Of course, when I read that, it immediately made me think of Roe v. Wade, and I found myself wondering whether Roberts would ultimately vote to overturn it given what a closely divided decision on abortion would do to the Court and to the nation.Would he make a decision purely on the basis of his view of the constitution, or would he vote to uphold it "for the good of the institution"?
A Call Out to Knights of Malta
Posted by on 1.30.07 @ 9:36AM
Hugh Hewitt is one of the best interviewers - radio or otherwise - in the business, a hallmark of which is the ability to elicit from interview subjects tidbits that perhaps they shouldn't be talking about.
Yet McAuliffe - who claimed on the show to be a practicing Roman Catholic - is not in good standing with the Catholic Church due to the fact that he supports the slaughter of the pre-born. Any Knights of Malta out there want to take a shot at blocking this heathen from membership? Any buffoon who would brag about receiving blessings from the Holy Father while in the state of grave sin due to his support of the murder deserves to be taken down a notch or two.
Touchy Dems
Posted by on 1.30.07 @ 9:28AM
Rush jokes about the fit Democrats have when folks call their party the "Democrat Party," but it is such a sore subject that the press corps took it up with Tony Snow yesterday and NPR with President Bush. Sheesh.
Monday, January 29, 2007
RE: The Good Theocrat?
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 8:42PM
Larry, John Kerry was originally a candidate for the House seat won by Fr. Drinan in 1970. Kerry entered the Democratic caucuses against incumbent Congressman Philip Philbin, who was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a supporter of the Vietnam War, but dropped out before the primary.
When Kerry withdrew, he endorsed Drinan and even became chairman of his campaign. Drinan beat the incumbent in the primary and then beat him again in the general, where Philbin was running a write-in campaign. I don't know if Drinan helped Kerry get into Boston College Law School in 1973, but it's certainly possible, as he had been dean before he became a member of Congress. I do know that Drinan advised Kerry about how to handle the "communion issue" during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Friedman Tie
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 7:55PM
Look for the Friedman tie shortly right here at The American Spectator. In Socialism Red and Free Market Green.
Re: The Good Theocrat
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 7:40PM
Jim, wasn't Fr. Drinan responsible for kick-starting John Kerry's career in some way? Favored pull for admission to BC law school, something like that?
Friedman Day
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 5:36PM
Great post, Philip. Just for the record, specifically in honor of Milton Friedman day, I am wearing an Adam Smith tie today, which I figured is as close as I can come to a public display of Friedmanism... (because, unless I missed it, nobody has yet created a Milton Friedman tie. Anybody know a good clothier?)
Milton Friedman Day
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 5:18PM
Was just watching a memorial service for Milton Friedman held at the
To me, more than any specific idea, Milton Friedman's lasting contribution was to emphasize that people can't be totally free unless they have economic as well as political freedom. In practice, communism inevitably leads to totalitarianism, but advocates of statism like to kid themselves into believing that the government can exert control over the economy while maintaining political freedom. Friedman convincingly argued that individuals cannot be considered free if they are restricted from engaging in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange with one another.
For more on Friedman, you can also watch PBS tonight, which is airing a documentary, "The Power of Choice: The Life and Ideas of Milton Friedman."
The Good Theocrat?
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 4:32PM
Robert Drinan, the left-wing priest turned Massachusetts congressman, died yesterday at 86. Father Drinan was pro-choice but "personally opposed" to abortion before Mario Cuomo, for impeaching Richard Nixon before it became fashionable, and a man for whom the Social Gospel was infallible. The news story I linked to calls him "a pioneering priest."
Liberals don't mind the mixing of religion and politics. They just want religion to be mixed with politics they agree with.
Anti-Romney Bias?
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 11:47AM
In response to the Prowler item below, a reader writes:
I find it a bit curious that magazines of conservative opinion are so critical of Governor Romney's blatant switch on the life issue, but simultaneously tout Rudy Giuliani as a viable candidate who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and an advocate of gun control. Why is it that the former Mayor gets a pass from The Spectator and National Review, while Governor Romney gets savaged? Besides the crime issue, how is Rudy Giuliani even a Republican? He might very well be considered a conservative to moderate Democrat.
Me: I don't think it's true to say that Giuliani has been given better treatment than Romney in the conservative media. Very early on, Romney was treated to favorable profiles in cover stories for the Weekly Standard, National Review, and for the Spectator (under the headline "Romney Rocks!")
As for Rudy, I've actually found myself in the minority over the past few years for thinking that a) Giuliani will run and b) he can win. The conventional wisdom in conservative circles has been that Giuliani can't win because of his liberal social views and most people inside the Beltway have been skeptical that he will run given how much more aggressive Romney and McCain have been at hiring talent and building national organizations. Last fall, the National Review savaged Rudy in a cover story featuring him in drag with the headline "But will it Play in
Romney has come under fire for his past statements on abortion because he has aggressively pitched himself as the best choice for social issues voters, so conservatives are asking questions about whether he is actually one of them or if he's just saying the right things to win the nomination. Giuliani clearly won't be the choice of voters who decide primarily on the basis of social issues, but he isn't selling himself that way. His emphasis is on economic issues and the War on Terror. If he were to come out now and say he changed his mind, and he's pro-life and a supports of a Federal Marriage Amendment, he'd be a laughingstock, and rightly so. And those who believe he's only a Republican on crime should read this piece by Steven Malanga, which outlines Giuliani's record as mayor, during which time he cut taxes, slashed welfare rolls and fought racial preferences among other conservative policies.
We have a long way to go, and the backgrounds of all candidates will be put under the microscope.
The New Hampshire Primary
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 10:47AM
I made my first trip to NH during political season over the weekend, and my reaction was bittersweet. I found myself encouraged by how seriously the state's residents take their voting responsibility, and how they take the time to research and carefully consider each candidate before making a decision. But I was also saddened by the fact that such a process couldn't be replicated at the national level. New Hampshire's relatively small size and status as the first primary in the nation gives its voters the unique oppourtunity to get face time with the candidates and interact with them on a personal level. Also, New Hampshire voters get to choose from a wide range of candidates. Those of us in the rest of the country don't get to see much of the candidates and we don't have as many choices because the field begins to dwindle after NH. If primaries were nationalized so that all states held them on the same day, candidates would not be able to interact with as many people and those who couldn't raise enough money would perhaps have even less of a chance of being heard than under the current system. So, I think there's a clear value to NH's status as the first primary in the nation, but I'm jealous of people who live there.
Steele at Conservative Summit
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 10:35AM
I also spent some time this weekend at the NRI summit and Jeb Bush wasn't the only out-of-work politician keeping his future options open. The ever-affable Michael Steele participated in a panel discussion with Ward Connerly and Abigail Thernstrom. Steele was polished in his presentation and hinted that his days in politics aren't over yet.
There was a very understated disagreement between the former Maryland lieutenant governor and the rest of the panelists. While Thernstrom and Connerly both spoke forcefully against racial preferences, as you'd expect. Steele applauded their remarks but took a different tack. In his opening statement, he specifically praised the Republican Party's role in creating affirmative action and compared it to the post-emancipation promise of 40 acres and a mule. At the end of the discussion, he said that talk about preferences was "noise" compared to the need for minority educational advancement, which he argued would undermine the constituency for preferential policies.
Romney
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 10:28AM
This is the Weekly Standard article the Prowler mentions, written by Jennifer Rubin. It's a helpful reminder that when it comes to abortion, people are not just bringing up his comments from 1994. During the time that Romney was officially pro-choice, he also made a number of pro-life feints, which I detail here.
New Enemies List Nominee
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 10:08AM
The Associated Press is increasingly becoming a politically motivated outlet for news the Left can use. This article on the testimony of Vice President Dick Cheney's former press aide at the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial is yet another confirming piece of evidence.
Despite the writer's attempts to paint the testimony as earth-shaking and extremely damaging, if not detailing criminal activity: note reference to Nixon era, nothing Cathie Martin outlined or detailed in her testimony is any different from what any other Administration, Washington politician, or large corporation does in working with the media every day. Nothing Martin revealed in her testimony was news, groundbreaking, or even innovative. It was, pure and simple, press secretary operations. Operations, we should add, that were perfected by the Clinton White House.
Perhaps the notion of a White House working with "favored" media outlets is shocking to the AP, because it has taken such a venomous and selective approach to the Bush Administration and is not viewed as an outlet capable of fairly reporting on events. The scandal involving AP's use of a still-possibly-fake source of anti-American information in Iraq is one example. Another is AP's decision to go outside of traditional hiring pools to bring in reporters with set agendas. Recently, according to sources inside the wire service, AP hired at least one reporter from Fred Wertheimer's left-wing organization, Democracy 21, which targets corporations for their involvement in the political arena.
Recent AP wire copy we've monitored shows Democracy 21's influence: in coverage of various companies making news in Washington, AP includes how much money - if any - senior executives of a corporation gave to Republicans, with nary a mention of donations made to Democrats. Industry coverage has provided similar information.
As for the Libby trial, last week was a good one for Libby, and a bad one for U.S. Attorney Pat Fitzgerald. The Justice Department has been spending its time the past three months forcing out good, conservative USA's. Perhaps AG Alberto Gonzales should have done Fitzgerald a favor and pushed him out the door too.
More Rudy in NH
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 10:05AM
My full account of Rudy Giuliani's trip to NH is now up on our main site. My analysis was based on speaking with dozens of Republican activists in attendence, of which only a few had bad things to say about the former mayor. I quoted two of his critics in the piece.
Meanwhile, Kevin Rennie, who covered the event for the Hotline, felt the speech was a misfire. McCainiac Patrick Hynes was a little more generous. Jonathan Martin has a good wrap of Giuliani's trip here.
Star of the Show
Posted by on 1.29.07 @ 8:50AM
At the National Review Institute "conservative summit" the reviews are coming in after a day's hindstate, and the votes seem to come down on former Gov. Jeb YouKnowWho.
The biggest loser? Perhaps former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who followed the man called simply, Jeb.
Romney suffered also from the fact that before his speech, a Weekly Standard article was being circulated in the lobby of the hotel and in conversation that laid out evidence that as late as 2002 Romney was stridently pro-choice. It was embarrassing for Romney surrogates that instead of touting their candidate's bona fides had to once again hand hold nervous conservatives and explain theri candidates' position. Romney addressed his position during his remarks.
Jeb was clearly the star of the conference. It appeared he'd lost about ten to 15 pounds since leaving office, spoke without notes, and focused on what conservatives needed to hear: the need to move past the '06 elections, the need for the Republican Party to be the party of reform always, and the rough outlines of a domestic agenda. And in so doing, while not directly criticizing his brother, he starkly differentiated himself.
According to Jeb insiders who know his thinking, the former governor arrived in Washington with no agenda for his appearances. He isn't interested in running for the presidency at this time, but is willing to sit back and see what develops over the next six months. There is more than the top of the ticket available to him, and he makes his home in a state that is now a must-win if Republicans hope to have any chance of holding the White House in 2008. So for now, he can keep doing what he's doing: speaking frankly and honestly and leading the party as an outsider with nothing to lose and alot to gain.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
"I Am Genuinely an Independent"
Posted by on 1.28.07 @ 2:08PM
Joe Lieberman's estrangement from the Democratic Party continues.
NRI Summit Video
Posted by on 1.28.07 @ 2:04PM
Here's Romney, last night. I haven't gotten a chance to watch it; reviews from those at my lunch table who were there are mixed, ranging from "impressive" to "our Kerry" (ouch!). And here's Newt and Jeb.
Give Clams a Chance
Posted by on 1.28.07 @ 12:31PM
By all means, stop fighting and have a nice clambake for peace.
Bashin' Compassion
Posted by on 1.28.07 @ 12:06PM
Charles Kesler, echoing themes he's touched on in print, just spoke on the problems with "compassionate conservatism." Best line: Bush's approach has sought "not so much to fuse libertarianism and traditionalism... as to bid them goodbye."
Quin in the Crossfire
Posted by on 1.28.07 @ 11:51AM
I skipped out before the Mitt Romney speech last night, but I came back to the NRI summit this morning to catch Mike Huckabee kicking off his presidential campaign, or at least the exploratory phase of it. (More on Huckabee later.) When I came back downstairs from Huckabee's post-speech press conference, James Woolsey and Jerry Taylor were quite literally yelling at each other over whether the government should act to reduce dependence on foreign oil, with Quin Hillyer attempting to referee. Ramesh Ponnuru, now speaking on domestic policy, called it "putting the energy into energy policy."
Rudy in NH
Posted by on 1.28.07 @ 1:24AM
I spent Saturday in Manchester, NH where Rudy Giuliani was the keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the Republican State Committee. I plan to write a longer piece on this for our main website on Monday, so I don't want to go into too much detail here. But the bottom line is that the speech was very well received, and after speaking extensively to NH Republican activists, it became clear to me that the primary is very much in play for Rudy, and social issues, while an obstacle, will not be a deal breaker for him here. The closest thing I found to a consensus view was that it's very early, voters want to get to know each of the candidates a lot better before making a decision, but the door is definitely open for Giuliani. It also became clearer that Rudy is unlikely to flip flop on social issues, emphasizing the things that Republicans agree on --fiscal discipline, cutting taxes, personal responsibility, national defense, staying on offense against terrorism. He acknowledged that conservative voters may not agree with him on every issue, but nobody agrees with any candidate 100 percent of the time. He also sounded very much like a candidate, saying, "when I promise you things, if I do, when I do, as I do, I'll promise them because I've done them before," and then boasting about his accomplishments as mayor.
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Republic, Regained
- Useless Wonks
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
!["But will it Play in Peoria?]("http://truthcaucus.com/images/254.gif"){kind=link}