- 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
Friday, February 9, 2007
Postmodernity Now!
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 10:11PM
Reports from the front, o Comrades:
1. The transcript is finally in, and Dick Morris did indeed debut on Hannity's show this week the phrase "postmodern conservatives," attributing their vast but mysterious worldview to the staying power of Comrade Rudy Giuliani. Hat tip Comrade Philip Klein.
2. No less a personage than Russell Kirk is set to receive the PoMoCo treatment, or perhaps something mysteriously resembling it, as, this summer, Gerald Russello reveals The Postmodern Imagination of Russell Kirk. I don't know if the University of Missouri Press takes preorders, but here's the site. Hail!
Ca-Gop-Con
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 9:58PM
No, not the name of Marlon Brando's next posthumous novel, but the California Republican Convention -- where a well-placed source confirms that YES, there IS "Duncan Hunter for President" campaign paraphernalia, and YES, real live human beings ARE distributing it. What a strange exhilaration it must be when your horse is so dark he only appears under ultraviolet light.
The Catholic Left's Falling Out With Edwards
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 4:37PM
Some unusual suspects are upset with John Edwards for failing to fire his bigot bloggers -- the Catholic left (yep, the seamless garment type). The Politico has an excellent report.
Credit Where It's Due, Sort Of
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 2:45PM
In my column today on The Last Sin Eater I note how most of the secular reviewers will more than likely miss the intent of the filmmakers and who the target audience is, and instead comment based on their own worldviews and yes, prejudices. Well, I am glad to report that, for the most part, the New York Times is an exception. It's not a glowing review, but it does give the film a fair shake which is all anyone can ask for. Critic Matt Seitz does make one error, however, saying that Henry Thomas plays the Sin Eater. Peter Wingfield plays the Sin Eater while Thomas portrays the Man of God.
Some other reviews I've seen are critical because they say the film will have no "crossover appeal." As I imply in my column, who says the filmmakers had any intention of trying to "cross over?" If they knew what FoxFaith films was about, they'd understand that. And if that's a valid criticism, then I'd like to see them condemn slasher flicks and sex raunchfests for their failure to have any "crossover appeal" to the Christian market.
Re: This Could Be Your Government
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 12:27PM
Jim Geraghty notes that Iowahawk's parody shows up in the comment section of the official Edwards blog.
Dialing For Dollars
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 12:22PM
Kimberly Strassel has the latest on how Congress is getting around new earmark requirements.
Well, Someone Had To Say It
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 12:07PM
It's insensitive, but I think Jack Cafferty has the proper perspective.
Re: This Could Be Your Government
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 11:52AM
You know, Amanda Marcotte is actually kind of hot. I might even ask her out if I wasn't worried about castration.
It's both remarkable and sad that someone who appears so pleasant can be filled with such hate.
Drafting Walter Williams
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 11:44AM
The movement is underway, the Washington Times reports.
Meanwhile, the America's Newspaper also runs an article about conservatives' disappointment with the top three Republican candidates in 2008.
This quote pretty much captures the tenor of the piece:
Christian Josi, senior vice president of Dezenhall Resources, a Washington-based public relations firm, said, "I am a conservative. I have had all I can stomach of Republicans."
"To put it very simply, it is very clear that McCain and Giuliani both have demonstrated that they have significant problems with key elements of the Bill of Rights," Mr. Josi said. "And that is frightening. Don't get me started on Romney. Suffice to say, I find his ideological commitment to the core conservative principles to be highly suspect."
Re: This Could Be Your Government
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 8:42AM
For the satiric take Angela Marcotte deserves, see the incomparable Iowahawk here. Warning: strong f***ing language.
A Word From Team Mitt
Posted by on 2.9.07 @ 1:13AM
An email (it refers to this post):
Mr. Tabin,Duly noted.I just read your post from early this afternoon linking to the Boston Herald story on Governor Romney and the Bush tax cuts. And I thought you might appreciate the full context on the Governor's position. Here's a Myth vs. Fact on the topic that we put together today:
[Link]
Thanks,
Stephen B. Smith
Director of Online Communications
Romney for President Exploratory Committee, Inc.
www.MittRomney.com
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Feeling A Draft?
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 6:05PM
A group of Democrats is working to persuade Al Gore to enter the 2008 presidential race.
Re: Never Trust Andrew
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 6:05PM
David, to the question of whether he's tried to answer the "unanswerable smear," my recollection is "sort of." He's taken the time to pound the desk occassionally about how gay marriage is only one of many problems he has with Bush et al. But he clearly did turn on Bush, in a way that he never had before, when the President came out for the FMA. I'm not going to dig through his archive -- others have done so; feel free to Google -- but that's how I remember it. Keep in mind that Andrew's half-cocked style of blogging makes these things hard to pin down.
RE: Never Trust Andrew
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 5:09PM
John: I rarely go to Sully's website anymore, but decided to do so since you posted about it. As a result, I found this post where he complains,
I knew nothing about this till this morning, but a blogger got into a spat with the Ace of Spades website about my position on the "surge." Ace had accused me of changing my position constantly to oppose anything Bush argued for, because I was still upset about the Federal Marriage Amendment of four years ago. This meme is so widespread on the homophobic right that I've long since stopped trying to counter it. [Italics mine]
Note his argument-by-insinuation, that anyone who accuses him of turning on Bush because of gay marriage is "homophobic." What intellectual seriousness!
Also notice he claims that he has "long since stopped trying to counter" that charge. Like I said, I rarely go to his site, so I have no way of knowing if he has ever tried to counter it. But I have to doubt it. Recall this post from 2004 where he referred to the charge as an "unanswerable smear." If it is "unanswerable", why would he bother trying to counter it?
Since I assume you do frequent his blog regularly, John, perhaps you can tell me if he has tried to counter it at all since late 2004.
If not, I guess that's another reason not to trust him.
Withdrawal as Caddishness
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 3:52PM
Brian Doherty and Angela Keaton pen a not-especially-funny Dear John letter to Iraq. But what do you call a guy who breaks up with a girl when she's in such a vulnerable state that she'll almost certainly commit suicide as soon as he leaves? Nothing very nice, I would think.
Never Trust Andrew
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 2:49PM
This is waterboarding. This is not the same thing. More evidence that, as Mickey Kaus noted recently, you can't rely on Andrew Sullivan to accurately describe the YouTube videos that he embeds on his blog.
Catching Up
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 2:13PM
Re: Romney's flip flops on taxes and things economic: Sen. John McCain is doing similar flips and flops on the Bush tax cuts, based on discussions and interviews he's given in the past few weeks. Romney's economics speech has been on the calendar for a while, and clearly McCain wanted to lay down his "new" pro-tax cut position before Romney.
Re: The Rudy video, everyone should be clear on this: in every campaign office right now there is a thick "research" file on the life and times of one Rudy Giuliani. His marriages, divorces, annulments, relations - business and otherwise - and positions. That video has been downloaded and burned onto multiple DVDs in every campaign, GOP or Democratc.
Clearly, the Romney folks are targeting Rudy as are McCain's. Evangelicals for Mitt may be technically "independent", but they interact and coordinate their activities through folks like Jay Sekulow and others who are advising Romney. If it's up on their website, it's with the knowledge and tacit support of the Romney campaign.
"If you're Playing a Game of Chicken, Don't Blink"
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 2:06PM
Michael Young writes that "displaying too much apprehension... is precisely the wrong stratagem to adopt with the Iranians at this moment." Someone should tell the Democratic presidential candidates.
Re: Rethinking Tancredo
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 1:58PM
Jim: I don't think you're missing anything. And now that my question about who Terry Jeffrey supports has been answered, I'd say we can take Jeffrey's anti-Giuliani critique a bit less seriously; clearly, it's made in a vacuum, without regard for the real-world alternatives.
Rethinking Tancredo?
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 1:22PM
Many readers objected to my column arguing that Tom Tancredo can't win, has no serious fundraising network or campaign organization, and will consequently set back his immigration allies if he runs for president in 2008. Some even confused this analysis for my personal political preferences, which, um, isn't quite right.
I still think Tancredo is unlikely to emerge as a serious presidential contender, but I was struck by the number of people who said that given the current field he should run anyway. It sounds like Human Events editor at large Terence Jeffrey is in this camp. Am I missing something about the man Steve Sailer calls America's most valuable politician or is this just a sign of what things have come down to for anti-Giuliani, anti-McCain conservatives?
This Could Be Your Government
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 1:09PM
Ross Douthat puts the Edwards blogger spat into perspective: Angela Marcotte may not be a very big deal, but she is representative of many of the people who will end up filling low-level positions in the next Democratic administration.
Rudy, the Donald, and Mitt
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 1:00PM
Pro-Romney site Evangelicals for Mitt, posts a YouTube video of Donald Trump kissing Rudy Giuliani dressed in drag as part of a skit they did for theÂ
Charles, I think you should lay off Rudy's romantic kiss on the front page of the NY Post. Certainly we can all agree that it is a step in the right direction. After all, you have seen this abomination, haven't you?
If this is how Romney boosters intend to go after Rudy, it's pretty pathetic. It's important to note, however, that this did not come from the Romney campaign itself--just an active enthusiast.  Â
Walter Mondale Democrats
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 12:59PM
Edwards is representative of the Democratic Party as a whole, at least as far as tax increases are concerned, Donald Lambro reports.
Romney's Fiscal Flip-Flop
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 12:50PM
I hadn't realized that Mitt Romney declined to publicly support the Bush tax cuts in 2003. He now vociferously supports extending the tax cuts, of course. Those positions aren't entirely incompatible (he could argue, for example, he was worried that the '03 cuts would lead to damaging tax hikes down the road, and he's now determined to make sure that doesn't happen). But Romney's biggest liability is the perception of political opportunism, and this would seem to reinforce that.
Hynes is Right
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 12:43PM
It doesn't make any sense to have controversy over Patrick Hynes saying America is a Christian nation. That same sentiment is a commonplace among academics discussing America's religious past and present. Does that mean there is an established Christianity? No. Does it mean anyone else is unwelcome? No. The only way you can really take offense at Hynes' statement is to read far more into than is really there.
Edwards' Bigots
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 12:40PM
Philip, that is an amazing statement, especially their claims that the apparently bigoted remarks were mere satire. Satire of what? Of idiots who would actually write such language?
There is one thing to conclude from this episode: John Edwards condones their ideas if not their tone.
Romney's Mormonism
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 12:25PM
The NY Times plays catch up today on the front page. Of all the issues that may end up sinking Romney's campaign, I don't think his Mormonism is one of them. If Republican voters end up liking him, and social conservatives come to view his evolution on social issues as sincere, his religious background won't matter.
UPDATE: Edwards Keeps Bloggers
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 12:07PM
Via The Fix.
His Statement:
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the
we believe in." America
So, the angry left showed him who's boss after all!
Who Is Outside the Mainstream?
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 11:49AM
As part of the controversy I described below, liberal bloggers have been trying to argue that the McCain camp should be under fire for hiring Patrick Hynes, because he called America a "Christian nation." Personally, I would prefer to call it a "predominantly Christian nation." But what statement would likely be considered more acceptable to average Americans?
This statement by Hynes, which has been brought up by liberal blogs to defend the Edwards bloggers:
Miner: Is it fair to call America a "Christian nation"?
Hynes: Yes. America is a Christian nation. As I write in my book, "Is America a Christian nation? Of course it is. Don't be ridiculous. What a stupid question.
Or, these writings of Edwards/Pandagon blogger Amanda Marcotte:
"Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."
AND...
"I had to listen to how the poor, dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f***** her against her will--not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."
Edwards and the Nutroots
Posted by on 2.8.07 @ 11:35AM
In a column last month, I wrote about the difficulties facing the new Democratic majority, which wants to come across as reasonable and responsible, but finds itself beholden to the angry left, which helped get it elected.
Now, John Edwards finds himself in the same quandary. By disavowing his vote for the Iraq War and pushing a progressive domestic agenda, Edwards has gained popularity among the so-called "netroots." But this week, he faces a make or break moment as far as the left is concerned. The controversy surrounds his hiring of far left bloggers from Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister to work on his campaign. That lead to a firestorm of criticism on the right, and even from Terry Moran, that Edwards should not be hiring bloggers who have a history of angry, hate-filled, profanity-laced, anti-Christian, writings. Yesterday, Salon reported that Edwards had fired the bloggers, but so far that hasn't been confirmed. But the Salon report triggered fears among liberal bloggers that Edwards was caving into the right wing. Chris Bowers at MyDD even wrote, "While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa are fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired." In a later post, Bowers explained how he could decide his Democratic choice for President based on such a seemingly trivial matter. "I have spent nearly the last four years of my life working on full-time progressive movement building…I would rather find a new line of work than, in a Democratic primary, support a candidate who first courts the progressive movement, and then throws it under the bus at the first sign of pushback from the right-wing." Meanwhile, DailyKos poster Karago X argues that silence among the other presidential contenders is not acceptable, because if Edwards caves, then the "right wing shame porn" machine will eventually go after them as well. "If you want Edwards to stand up, realize that you're going to have to demand that all the campaigns stand up. Literally. They're going to have to say that they stand by Edwards."
This is fun to watch. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Marion Barry, Voice of Reason
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 5:06PM
A few years back he stuck up for taxpayers by opposing the DC stadium boondoggle. Now he's advocating loosening the DC gun ban. Too bad that he's unlikely to succeed, in part because he's a walking punchline.
Re: In Defense of McCain
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 3:13PM
Hunter, thank you for that list. I would add a couple more objections:
-McCain does not like free speech. See the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
-I find him difficult to trust. Not only because of BCRA, but also because of his pro-life positions, global warming positions, and the cynical appearance of his tacking rightward.
Hillary Clinton's Thesis
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 3:10PM
Blogger Dorian Davis has unearthed Hillary Clinton's thesis from Wellesley on radical organizer Saul Alinski, which has been in hibernation for decades. Among the excerpts:
"Some of his critics compare Alinksky's tactics with those of various hate groups such as a lynch mob which also 'rub raw the resentments of the people.' Alinksky answers that the difference between a 'liberal' and a 'radical' is that a liberal refuses to fight for the goals he professes."
Hat tip Alarming News.
In Defense of McCain
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 2:26PM
John McCain faces one serious problem in his run for the Republican nomination. He's perceived as a maverick. He's not a team player and he doesn't mind running against his team's play if he feels the need. In a parliamentary body, this is a major liability. You need your players disciplined and working together. It's a mark against John McCain, the senator.
This maverick quality, however, is not a mark against John McCain the would-be president. Executive qualities are very different from parliamentarian qualities, which may be why proficient senators are sometimes not very good presidential candidates. McCain may simply be a president trapped in a senator's body.
Other than that, what are the knocks against McCain?
He got bad advice in 2000 to run against evangelicals and try to divide them from Catholics. That's easily corrected. He hired Pat Hynes. Hynes is very savvy about the religious voter and in fact is one himself.
Another knock is that he wasn't always in step on Iraq policy. That doesn't look too bad right now. He said we needed more troops and he was right.
The only serious nick I can see on the guy is that he may not be a convinced tax cutter.
McCain is already substantially pro-life with an established pro-life voting record. The fact that he isn't pristine in that area is hardly worth mentioning since Giuliani is more liberal there than he is.
And the war hero stuff? That wouldn't hurt a bit right now.
Inevitable or Not?
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 1:36PM
Jonathan Chait makes a strong case that Hillary Clinton is less "inevitable" than current polling and the conventional wisdom make her appear. But I think his comparison with Joe Lieberman overstates things a bit.
It is true that Lieberman led in the early polling for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, largely based on name recognition. He maintained this lead into the summer of 2003. But Lieberman never enjoyed anything like the lead Hillary now holds. Lieberman's numbers were rarely higher than the low 20s while Hillary holds a 20-point lead over her nearest rival in most polls. Lieberman usually held a single-digit lead and had Gephardt, Kerry, and Dean all polling close behind him. Moreover, his lead was tentative, as Democrats waited for better candidates -- first Al Gore and then Hillary herself -- to get into the race.
Hillary may yet implode, but she remains in a far stronger position against the more antiwar elements of her party than Joe Lieberman held during the 2004 cycle.
NYC vs. iPods
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 1:11PM
From the Nanny State files:
(Reuters) - New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine. NEW YORK New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his
Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail…"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," Kruger said in a telephone interview from
, the state capital. "This electronic gadgetry is reaching the point where it's becoming not only endemic but it's creating an atmosphere where we have a major public safety crisis at hand." Albany
Rudy and the NY Times
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 1:06PM
The NY Times writes:
A few skeptics have wondered whether Mr. Giuliani, who has been crisscrossing the country over the last few months and signaled his interest in the presidency again and again, may ultimately back out - as he did in 2000, when he contemplated a race for the Senate but withdrew.
A "few skeptics"? That's lazy reporting, because the actual article only includes one, and even that is a tenuous example:
Bradley A. Smith, an election lawyer and a former Republican member of the commission, said that filing a candidate statement was not a definitive step. "People in the past have filed that form and then decided not to run," he said. "Filing the form may just mean that he's planning to raise some serious money that would put him outside of what the F.E.C. considers testing the waters."
At this point, nobody half-conscious believes that Giuliani isn't running, and yet that doesn't stop the Times from running this thinly sourced trash. Neither McCain nor Obama have formally announced they're running, and yet everybody assumes they are. Why is Rudy getting such different treatment?
The Times has a long-standing vendetta against Giuliani. After all, as he transformed NYC, they opposed him every step of the way and their 1960s liberalism was proven dead wrong by his successes. Now, they will do everything in their power to ensure that he isn't elected. Furthermore, if a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican were nominated it would completely demolish their caricature of the Republican Party as being controlled by a bunch of intolerant religious fanatics.
Here's what I predict. Should Giuliani become the Republican nominee, the NY Times front pages will give voice to every disaffected social conservative. Should he choose a socially conservative running-mate and accept a pro-life platform, the story will be about the contradictions and "deep fissures" within the Republican Party. Should Giuliani lose the nomination, he'll suddenly become a martyr. I can imagine it now: "The hero of 9/11, who delivered a rousing speech to cheering delegates in the 2004 Republican National Convention, was unceremoniously booted from his party as the Christian Ayatollahs who play kingmakers couldn't accept a leader who has tolerance for gays."
Stay Classy, Chris Matthews
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 12:40PM
The grand yeller wants "a guy to run for president who doesn't have a f***ing -- I'm sorry -- a ranch," he told Don Imus this morning.
Re: Jet Setting Nancy
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 12:27PM
It is a hoot to read about Murtha's role in this thing, since I recall from my research last year that he was involved in a jet-for-the-speaker controversy once before.
From Time Magazine in
November 1989:
Even as the House was promising last week to cut down on perks in exchange for a pay raise, old habits were asserting themselves. Speaker Thomas Foley was embarrassed to learn about an amendment slipped into the defense-spending bill that required an Air Force C-20 jet be made available to him at all times. A military version of the Gulfstream III, the C-20 carries just eight passengers and is serviced by a crew of five.
But Foley had not asked for an Air Force Three (the President and Vice President have much larger jets). Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha had inserted the provision. He enjoys luxurious travel and undoubtedly figured he could borrow Foley's jet. The Speaker quickly shot down his own plane.
Different speaker, same old Murtha.
Jet Setting Nancy
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 11:41AM
Nancy Pelosi will now have "regular access to an Air Force passenger jet," the Washington Times reports. And guess who pulled the strings?
A congressional source said that Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, which controls the Pentagon's spending, has telephoned administration officials to urge them to give the speaker what she wants.
Meanwhile, the story adds:
Such VIP planes are in high demand.
"She's effectively taking a bird out of the fleet," said a defense source. "It will most directly impact the House, because they're the heavy users of the large aircraft. Congress looks at that Andrews fleet as their Hertz rent-a-car."
Scary
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 11:03AM
By the way, here is a shot of the scary thing Bostonians thought was some how connected to a terrorist attack...
.
Scary, isn't it?
Kemp Needs to Reconnect With Kemp
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 10:29AM
Quin, you ask some excellent questions today. At your mention of Jack Kemp, I could not help but think of Jack Kemp's lobbying on behalf of Hugo Chavez. It is a sad sign of conservatism when our former leaders need to reconnect with themselves before we can reconnect with them.
Re: Rudy
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 7:53AM
Giuliani signing socially conservative bills -- yes. Would he get many across his desk?
What Bush did and didn't do -- aside from taxes and judges, social conservatives have a lot of things he did do to complain about, in addition to the things he didn't do.
Finally, Guiliani vetoing Demo legislation -- sounds like a no-brainer, until they start piling up and election season rolls around again.
RE: Do Nothing President
Posted by on 2.7.07 @ 12:39AM
Umm, James, to cut through all of this: should he sign socially conservative bills or not? Or will he veto socially liberal bills, such as expansions of taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research, that may pass a Democratic Congress? Giuliani doesn't need to solve the problem of the limits of politics in shaping a moral order -- he merely needs to answer these questions.
As for your reference to what Bush hasn't done, I am not sure what you are talking about. Do you mean his lack of proactive social conservatism? I don't think anyone expects Giuliani to be more socially conservative than Bush. But they do want some idea as to how he will deal with social issues. Not philosophically but in his constitutional capacity as one who signs or vetoes bills.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Re: Mass Health...Part XVII
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 9:51PM
Dave: At this rate, pretty soon we'll be talking Super Bowl numbers.
Re: Do Nothing President?
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 9:36PM
James, it strikes me that a politician can't crusade on social-moral -- come on, let's be frank with ourselves: sexual -- issues because the nature of the authority from which such a witness must draw is essentially apolitical. A politician cannot legitimately enforce them, because the distributions of power which sketch out a justice do not speak to the ultimate limits within which that power is distributed. "Social conservatives" might like to see Their Man in Washington changing water (political law) into wine (social law), but someone who's both a social and a political conservative must understand that the culture war has been lost if it must be won at political bayonetpoint.
That said, the bargain Rudy can offer is that he won't do all the things that Bush has done which have rankled social conservatives -- which, I suspect, are more rankling than the things that Bush hasn't done. In return, should something socially conservative cross his desk, as a Republican president he lets it be law, probably by signature. The luxury of bracketing one's principles in the name of higher office allows the rhetorical point of party loyalty to break all ties: what's he going to do, shoot down his own team's bill? Some chief. Somehow I sense that this -- as well as truly socioconservative legislation busting its way out of Congress over the next four years -- is a scenario none of us is likely to see.
Molly Folly
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 8:13PM
Molly Ivins's death ends any chance I had at solving the mystery of whether Ivins and Madalyn Murray O'Hair were actually the same person.
Those two bluebonnets convinced me that there is nothing quite so disagreeable as a liberal Texas female (O'Hair wasn't native, but she lived there long enough). It's against the natural law. I'm sure of it.
The Do Nothing Presidency
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 8:10PM
James, while we could certainly use a President whose solution to many problems is to do nothing, I'm afraid the "do nothing" compromise doesn't settle as much as it first seems. We've never had a conservative president who really crusaded on social issues, with the exception of the imaginary version of George W. Bush dreamed up by some of the wackier liberals.
But ultimately, a president is either going to sign socially conservative legislation or he isn't. He is either going to veto socially liberal legislation or he isn't. (Ladies, I am using "he" in the old-fashioned gender-nonspecific sense.) Whether Giuliani will sign a hypothetical Republican Congress's pro-life bills into law or veto Democratic immigration legislation is exactly what people are questioning and debating. Unless you are proposing that Giuliani simply allow all bills concerning social issues to become law without his signature, which, come to think of it, might not be a bad idea -- it is just not a very likely one.
Giuly, Giuly, Giuly
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 7:27PM
As a social conservative, as a Dobson apologist, as a Colson fan, as a man who has been in love with Alan Keyes in the past, I join Mr. Poulos in his affection for the idea of Rudy in the White House.
Yes, he's socially liberal. Yes, he won't be anybody's moral crusader. That's alright with me. If the man understands the real nature of the office AND follows his career-long law and order instincts, then there is arguably no one better for the White House than Rudy G. He is articulate, effective, and widely admired. He saved New York. I dare say he can pull Iraq out of the crapper, too.
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part XVII
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 7:11PM
This almost makes me feel sorry for new Bay State Governor Deval Patrick. Almost:
It wasn't his plan, but he's stuck with it -- and like it or not the first few years of Gov. Deval Patrick's term may be judged in large part by the success or failure of the state's landmark health care law.Turning the law into a reality is proving tough, so it's hardly surprising if Patrick has sounded a bit ambivalent to the initiative, signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney nine months before leaving office and dumping the new law on Patrick's lap.
Indeed, Governor Patrick isn't sounding too confident about the Romney Plan:
"We aren't far enough along yet to know whether to try a totally different course than the one we're on," he said this week. "There are going to be bumps, there are going to be disappointments as we go along ... but we've got to stick with this."
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part XVI
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 7:04PM
Well, at least the members of Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector will be able to afford the high-priced insurance policies that they are forcing all other Massachusetts residents to buy:
Employees of the new state agency established to provide health insurance to the state's low-income residents have been hired at an average salary of $111,000 a year, with 12 of the 22 staff members making more than $100,000 and six earning more than Governor Deval Patrick and his Cabinet secretaries.
Re: Party Builder
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 6:21PM
How is he going to assure conservatives who have differed with his past policies on life issues, family, and immigration that their views will have weight in a Giuliani-led party? So far, Giuliani has not done anything to soothe or meet the anxieties of social conservatives and immigration reformers, creating an opportunity for Sen. McCain (who does have a prolife voting record, whatever doubts one may feel about his true convictions) to blast Giuliani from the right. -- Frum
The argument for Rudy on this count is a piece of cake. All it requires is that Guiliani
1. Not do anything.
Yes, that's right. Don't veto anything. Appoint "judges like Samuel Alito." Nothing else can seriously affect "life issues." Sit back with regard to these social-con issues and let Congress, and motivated private groups, do the rest. No GOP Congress, you say? Well, don't sign Democratic immigration legislation. And don't attend certain parties, don't make certain pronouncements, don't keep up the fine late-modern American tradition of making the Presidency into an all-purpose public relations stunt. Do not lead on issues the President need not lead on because they are not the province of executive power. Do lead, Mr. Guiliani, on those that are. Like Iraq. Like Entitlements Gone Wild.
There are enough conservatives in this country that we do not need a moral crusader in the White House. We hardly need any type of crusader. We need a lean and mean commander, a post-bureaucratic man. A damage-controller, in the old, true meaning of that word. Cleaning up Manhattan after the Era of Needles and Sex Shoppes was a profound enough moral two-punch to last us at least another twenty-five years. To gain the trust of social conservatives Rudy need only not be an obstacle. The idea that a person's support level -- yes, even a President's -- is unacceptable and inadequate unless it's proactive and celebratory is a psychological habit ingrained by the other side.
Rudy's strong suit has always been the protection of large-scale norms by the enforcement of small-bore rules. As for a social future with Giuliani at the helm, instead of, say, a Democrat, I am not alarmed.
Better Left Than Green
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 5:30PM
I haven't done the math, but it seems pretty obvious that trying to end biomass burning-for example, by boosting aid to Africa-would be a much more effective first step in combating climate change than the Kyoto Protocol, which, as even its backers acknowledge, will accomplish more or less nothing. It would probably be much cheaper, too. So why don't we hear more about the biomass burning problem?See also: "watermelons."My hunch is that it's for the same reason we don't hear climate watchdogs aggressively promoting low-carbon energy sources like nuclear power: they are less interested in the problem than in solutions that involve more government, less industry, and a redistribution of wealth. If this is true, conservatives are right to remain highly skeptical. One doesn't have to be scientifically literate to recognize the political attractiveness of the climate-change issue to the Al Gores of the world.
Revisionist History?
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 5:21PM
A friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, noticed this remembrance of Molly Ivins in Slate:
But above all, Ivins was funny. Stuff-out-your-nose, choke-on-your-muffin funny. And that fact alone should warrant a parade.
My friend has an all together different memory of Ivins:
I met Ivins once at a Politics n' Prose book signing event in about 2003. The bookstore faced an overflow turnout and so a local Lutheran Church was used. Ivins, I kid you not, gave her talk from the pulpit. She literally preached to the converted.You'd have expected such an overflow crowd to put her in a good mood. (Hey! I have a lot friends and I'm gonna make some money selling my latest book!) Not really. She was not happy, though she was more morose than angry. She was upset that Bush had won. She was upset that DeLay was in charge in the House. She was upset that after all these years of writing about what bad people those two were most voters weren't listening. And finally she was especially upset that Texas was getting more and more conservative and that she had to come to D.C. to find fans. It just wasn't fair. Why weren't the right people listening to her? Why weren't her columns having an effect?
Man, that is one unhappy woman I thought as I drove home.
I actually liked Ivins as a commentator. She did what a good columnist should do: present an argument, make the best case for it and leave the reader with something to think about after they've finished the column.
What she wasn't, though, was funny. She was simply mean. She didn't just dislike people who disagreed with her, she held them in utter contempt and (unlike some prominent columnists) had no problem with saying so. There's nothing necessarily wrong with being mean. Sometimes it is called for. But what was so often called her "humor" was little more than ad hominem attacks. It was amusing only if you shared her viewpoint. Playing to a partisan crowd is not humor and not wit. True wits do not have a socialist "humor code" that only aims to help the proletariat …
One other thing that annoyed me about her: her faux Texas-isms. My father worked in the oil industry. Through his job and our hunting trips I met enough Texans to last me a lifetime. Not one - not one - talked the way Ivins wrote. Yeah, there are all sorts of Texas accents but Ivin's "Ah'm jus' part of dah commun kinfolk" routine was a clear example of overcompensation. To make up for her lefty ways, she must have felt she needed to play up the beer n' boots n' square-dance schtick.
I'm sorry the woman died of cancer. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. But death doesn't mean we should rewrite the past or the truth. And the truth is that Ivins was an extremely bitter, angry woman who couldn't handle the fact that people disagreed with her.
Re: Edwards and the Middle
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 5:02PM
Perhaps you're right John, but there was no place for him in the middle. Once he decided to run, the only place to go was to the left. He may ultimately fail, but this is the best play he has.
Is Edwards Alienating the Middle?
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 4:35PM
My wife is a centrist Democrat. (Please, no Matalin-Carville jokes.) She was really enthusiastic about John Edwards in 2004, and is completely appalled by his current self-reinvention. It's not just that he's moving leftward; it's that the shift reeks of political opportunism. Obviously a woman who regularly talks about politics with her right-libertarian husband isn't the typical Democratic primary voter, but her reaction does make me wonder how many Edwards '04 supporters are going to abandon him now that he's shedding the Southern moderate image.
Party Builder or Party Buster?
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 4:35PM
David Frum worries that a Giuliani nomination will cause the Republican Party to explode.
Re: Rudy and Andrew Sullivan
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 4:33PM
Funny you should say that, Phil (er, write that); I was chatting with Andrew at a bar once, and he was ranting about how the Republicans would never nominate Giuliani. I told him then I wasn't sure he was right about that. In any case, his head is just on the verge of exploding about 50% of the time, so there's no telling what's going to ultimately set him off...
Rudy and Andrew Sullivan
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 4:20PM
I have one larger question. If the "Christianist" Party nominated the pro-gay rights, pro-choice, Giuliani, would Andrew Sullivan's head explode?
Odd Couple
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 3:41PM
Isn't John McCain supposed to be an anti-pork crusader? I just got this email from ExploreMcCain.com:
Dear Friend,Remember him?Today, on Ronald Reagan's birthday, I hope you will pause with John McCain and me to remember the legacy of this inspirational American leader...
[...]
Sincerely,
Senator Trent Lott
RE: The Conservative Case Against Rudy
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 3:16PM
There is a case to be made that nominating Mitt Romney, even if insincere, would be better for social conservatives than nominating openly pro-choice, pro-domestic partnership Rudy Giuliani. Nominating Romney, who was forced to abandon his pro-choice position and other socially moderate/liberal views, could be seen as a sign of social conservative power within the party. Nominating Giuliani, who would be the first pro-choice Republican presidential nominee since the religious right became a well organized GOP faction, could be interpreted as a sign of social conservative weakness.
I'm not sure I'm persuaded by this case, but there it is.
Center for Blame America First
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 3:08PM
I'm not sure whether this "Progress Report" from the Center for American Progress is funny or pathetic. Called "Provoking Iran," the authors do their best to make the leader of Iran into a harmless little fuzzball:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who came to power with an agenda to eradicate poverty and tackle unemployment, "is now facing increasingly fierce criticism for his failure to meet those promises."
Naturally, it is President Bush who is "provoking" Iran. His provocations inlcude:
Bush confirmed he had authorized a Pentagon program to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq. Moreover, Pentagon officials said the Air Force is preparing for an expanded role in Iraq that could include aggressive new tactics designed to deter Iranian assistance to Iraqi militants.
GASP!!!!
They always blame America first. They never change either.
Disengaging and Staying
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 2:51PM
A novel suggestion on Iraq from Edward Luttwak. Luttwak is pessimistic on the surge; he believes it will be doomed by Maliki's weakness. But he's not in favor of a total withdrawal, either:
Fortunately, there is a promising, long-term policy ready and waiting for President Bush whenever he decides to call off the good old college try of his surge: disengagement. By this, I don't mean a phased withdrawal, let alone the leap in the dark of total abandonment. Rather, it would start with a tactical change: American soldiers would no longer patrol towns and villages, conduct cordon-and-search operations, or man outposts and checkpoints. An end to these tasks would allow the greatest part of the troops in Iraq to head home, starting with overburdened reservists and National Guard units.I'm quite skeptical of Luttwak's claim that this "would not be likely to increase the violence afflicting Iraqi civilians." But if the surge disappoints, his idea is certainly a Plan B worth considering.The remaining American forces, including ground units, would hole up within safe and mostly remote bases in Iraq - to support the elected government, deter foreign invasion, dissuade visible foreign intrusions, and strike at any large concentration of jihadis should it emerge. This would mean, contrary to most plans being considered now, that United States military personnel could not remain embedded in large numbers within the Iraqi Army and police forces. At most, the Americans would operate training programs within safe bases.
Re: The Conservative Case Against Rudy
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 2:27PM
I'm not surprised that Terry Jeffrey doesn't like Rudy. It might be edifying to learn who he does like. We know Jeffrey isn't a McCain fan. Does he trust Romney's abortion conversion? Russell Kirk isn't running, you know.
The Presidential Gold Standard
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 2:05PM
I had some quibbles with Jim Pinkerton's Hagel column, but none with this Newsday piece about Ronald Reagan on the occasion of his 96th birthday. Reagan remains the gold standard.
More Fusionism
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 2:04PM
I find it a challenge trying to persuade religious conservatives to loosen the relationship between their religious beliefs and their political agenda. However, I find it even more of a challenge to deal with the Left, where their political agenda is their religion.
The Conservative Case Against Rudy
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 11:24AM
Terence Jeffrey writes, "While advocating law and order, self reliance, and capitalism is laudable, it does not entitle a politician to a free pass for advocating other causes that are deeply destructive of American society."
Rudy on Hannity
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 11:18AM
If you missed Sean Hannity's interview with Rudy Giuliani, in which Rudy addresses his major differences with conservatives, it's up on YouTube in two parts (Part 1 and Part 2).
One of the takeaway lines was: "There are always disagreements. And then some people just won't be able to vote for you. You got to live with that. Reality is you got to be who you are. You got to be honest with people." Reading between the lines, this shows that Giuliani knows that there are a lot of social conservatives that he simply won't be able to win over. So, what he is aiming to do is try to make those conservatives who like him for other reasons more comfortable with him by making them feel that whatever his philosophical differences are, in practice, his presidency won't be about imposing a liberal social agenda on the country.
So here's how he's going to try and make social conservatives feel better.
He said he would support a ban on partial birth abortion as long as there was an exception for the life of the mother. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the partial birth abortion ban he opposed when initially running for the Senate in 2000, did have an exception for the life of the mother. So, this appears to be a reversal on Rudy's part.
He also reiterated his support for judges in the Alito/Scalia/Roberts mold. "I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator….I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict instruction would be probably the way I describe it. "
However, he wouldn't say Roe v. Wade was wrongly and should be overturned, instead he said it was for the courts to decide. Although, no doubt to the chagrin of pro-lifers, he said, "at this point its precedent." On abortion itself he said, "I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that is a personal matter I would advise somebody against. However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that. I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and have to respect the choice that somebody makes."
On guns, he took a federalist approach, and put his support for the 1994 crime bill and assault weapons ban in the context of his trying to cut homicide in
On immigration, he talked about tougher border security and earned citizenship, with an English language requirement and understanding of American history at the end of the road. He also talked about differentiating between those who come here to deal drugs and commit crimes, who should be deported, and those came here as maids or restaurant workers.
On gay marriage, he reiterated his position that he supports domestic partnership rights, but believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Will this be enough to win over social conservatives who otherwise like him for his record as a tax-cutting, crime fighting, mayor and 9/11 hero? We'll know in about a year.
Not Just the Poor Man's McCain
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 10:48AM
Jim Pinkerton isn't the first person to see similiarities between John McCain and Chuck Hagel, but he argues convincingly that now the media is catching on -- replacing the old McCain with the new. (Hat tip: NRO.)
Where he is less convincing is in his contention that Hagel could bolt the GOP and run as an independent candidate. It seems to me that Hagel lacks the money and, well, the constituency -- he hasn't established himself as enough of a conservative leader on other issues to overcome his Iraq stance, isn't antiwar enough to appeal to truly antiwar voters, doesn't have much of a comprehensive agenda, and isn't the most compelling orator on the stump today. Looking at the polls, Hagel's chances at the Republican presidential nomination seem nearly as remote.
Ralph de Toledano, RIP
Posted by on 2.6.07 @ 10:40AM
The Washington Times is reporting that the longtime conservative columnist, former Newsweek editor, and early National Review contributor Ralph de Toledano died Saturday. He was 90, still contributing wonderful essays on jazz to The American Conservative just a few months ago.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Edwards vs. Edwards on Iran
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 7:01PM
Kevin Drum catches John Edwards being slippery:
I'd very much like to go along with the conventional wisdom that he "backed off" his hawkish Iran comments when he talked to the Prospect yesterday.(Via OxBlog.)But, really, does anyone believe that? I don't. Instead, he was engaging in Politics 101: telling different audiences what they each want to hear. When he's talking to an Israeli conference, he emphasizes the supreme danger Iran presents and implies strongly that military action is a real possibility, while barely even mentioning the idea of engagement and economic aid. When he's talking to a liberal American magazine, he emphasizes engagement and economic aid and downplays the possibility of military action as vanishingly unlikely during an Edwards presidency.
Surging Too Slow?
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 6:49PM
BAGHDAD, Feb. 4 - A growing number of Iraqis blamed the United States on Sunday for creating conditions that led to the worst single suicide bombing in the war, which devastated a Shiite market in Baghdad the day before. They argued that slowness in completing the vaunted new American security plan has made Shiite neighborhoods much more vulnerable to such horrific attacks.From what I understand, the slow rollout of the surge is mostly a function of rotation schedules. But anything that can be done to speed up the deployment would be nice.The chorus of critics said the new plan, which the Americans have barely started to execute, has emasculated the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia that is considered responsible for many attacks on Sunnis, but which many Shiites say had been the only effective deterrent against sectarian reprisal attacks in Baghdad's Shiite neighborhoods. Even some Iraqi supporters of the plan, such as Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister who is a Kurd, said delays in implementing it have caused great disappointment.
In advance of the plan, which would flood Baghdad with thousands of new American and Iraqi troops, many Mahdi Army checkpoints were dismantled and its leaders are either in hiding or under arrest. With no immediate influx of new security forces to fill the void, Shiites say, Sunni militants and other anti-Shiite forces have been emboldened...
Hmm...
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 6:26PM
I wonder where Dick Morris got the idea that Giuliani could win conservative support in the 2008 Republican primaries.
Round 'n' Round on Riley
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 6:21PM
Quin, I don't dispute your knowledge of Alabama's budget process and am sure that if you supported the Riley plan, it had merits. But here are my reasons for arguing that Riley's plan was an at least partly faith-based deviation from standard Republican fiscal practice, which is really more my point than whether the plan was justified. After that, I'm going to agree to disagree.
The Riley plan was a net tax increase that funded tax relief for lower-income taxpayers, deficit reduction, and new spending in part through higher taxes on upper-income taxpayers. Even the elimination of tax deductions/loopholes is only permissible under the taxpayer protection pledge when matched dollar-for-dollar by offsetting tax cuts. In a poor state with a small government and bad tax code, conservatives could potentially make an exception to the rule -- but it would certainly be unusual, if heterodox is too strong a word.
Second, not all of Riley's religious arguments for the plan were made in response to the state Christian Coalition's admittedly over-the-top rhetoric against it. He spoke favorably about Hamill's law review article before the conflict with CC's John Giles really heated up; Riley also wrote a letter to Alabama clergy citing the New Testament on behalf of his plan. Finally, while some conservatives supported the plan, most did not -- it lost 2 to 1 statewide.
Conservative Comedy
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 5:30PM
More on the conservative comedy front, occasional AmSpec contributor Julia Gorin has put together a segment of her "America's Show," viewable on YouTube. This episode is on Wal-Mart.
All but the limo
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 5:05PM
The ever-hilarious Howard Mortman notes just how little many journalists at "elite" papers have to do with the hoi polloi. Maybe this isn't putting the limo in "limousine liberal," but it's sure providing a nice place for a limo to be sheltered!
Re: Rudy Files "Statement of Candidacy"
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 4:58PM
The word has been that donors have been reluctant to back Rudy because of rumors he might not run. I suspect that's behind his decision to get in the race now, and it's a good move.
Gutfeld TV
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 4:35PM
AmSpec columnist Greg Gutfeld's new Fox News TV show debuts late, late tonight (2 am Eastern) - or rather very early Tuesday morning. Dubbed "Redeye", we're told it will be current events, humor all wrapped into one, a "Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" for intelligent people. Watch it.
Gutfeld on the Telly
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 4:35PM
AmSpec's one-man London Bureau, Greg Gutfeld -- whose column has become the first thing I turn to when the print mag comes in the mail -- has a new late show premiering tonight on Fox News at 2 AM Eastern. Tune in on the West Coast, TiVo on the East.
Riley, out of context
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 3:46PM
James, James, James.... Your most recent post on Riley is a case where all the facts are technically right, but out of context. I was there, full time, covering this stuff. I know it backwards and forwards. First, it is not quite fair to make it sound like conservatives were overwhelmingly against the Riley tax plan. I, for one, was personally for it. Then-attorney general Bill Pryor, a real "conservative's conservative," was strongly for it. The Mobile Register editorial board, one of the most conservative editorial boards in the entire country, was enthusiastically for it. The two GOP state senators who arguably were/are (one has retired) the finest members of that whole body, both of them absolutely solid conservatives, Bradley Byrne and Hap Myers, were for it. The national Christian Coalition endorsed it. And so on. There is a good reason for this: There were NUMEROUS extenuating circumstances that made the proposal a good idea, many more than I outlined in my earlier post. For just one more example, the added revenue was DESPERATELY needed for law-and-order purposes that conservatives recognize as the single most essential function of state government. Why? Because the stupid Alabama constitution specifically dedicates something like 80-90 percent of all tax revenues for specific purposes. Over the years, the dedicated revenue streams got out of whack. Without more revenue in one fund, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Legislature or governor to move monies over from another dedicated fund. The fund for which Riley was trying to raise revenue was absolutely, totally strapped, no matter how well he or anybody managed it. That fund financed, among other things, most law enforcement activities. When the Riley plan failed, the number of state troopers was drastically cut. For months on end, there were only soething like six troopers available to patrol something like 750 miles of state highways in southern Alabama. Meanwhile, the state crime lab was brought to a near standstill. Basic forensic research for rape and even murder cases was running two years or more late. And so on and on and on and on.
Meanwhile, liberal Susan Pace Hamill supported the plan. So what? She didn't write it. Hell, my own editorials were more responsible for the shape of parts of the plan than anything she EVER did.
Meanwhile, the Riley quote about Jesus is WAY out of context. The national media made it sound as if Riley went all around the state trying to sell the plan on biblical grounds. Balderdash. What happened was that the state director of the Christian Coalition came out so harshly and shrilly against the plan that finally the media asked Riley what his response was. Most of the time Riley had tried to avoid getting in a spat with the state Coalition, but this time he responded with the quote above. The response was exactly on point. And he repeated it only a few times, in defense of attacks that themselves quoted (quite bizarrely, by the way) the Bible.
Now, the one place where James is utterly wrong is with his bit about "redistributive taxation." He makes it sound as if Riley was trying to create a sharply progressive tax system. Wrong. The fact is that Alabama's tax system was so out of whack that numerous studies agreed that the percentage of total income paid by low-income earners was actually HIGHER than the percentage paid by high-income workers. It is one thing, a good thing, for conservative to advocate a flat tax. But Alabama's old system was an INVERTED tax. It quite literally took more money (percentage) from the poor than from the rich, with the highest earners paying as little as 4% of their income in state and local taxes of all types while the working poor (not welfare folks; actual workers) paid as much as slightly higher than 10%. All Riley tried to do was to make the system MORE flat, less regressive -- but NOT redistributionist.
Meanwhile, as I noted, if this plan had gone through, Riley all along was planning to do tax cuts (from OTHER revenue sources) later on, once state finances for such things as law enforcement had stabilized. And, to repeat, even his first plan cut taxes on more people than it raised them on. Much of the "net increase" came not from raising taxes on individuals, but from closing special-interest loopholes, basically ending the equivalent of various forms of corporate welfare.
So there. Nothing heterodox about it. Complicated, yes, but not at all unconservative. Ask Bill Pryor. He'll tell you the same. And he, just as I am, is a Kemp-Reagan supply-sider to the marrow. And a budget-cutter, too.
Riley, Taxes, and the New Testament
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 3:35PM
I can't let this discussion pass without plugging a piece I wrote for AmSpec during the Riley tax plan controversy. I spent my ammo whacking the church-state separationists for showing zero interest in the tax reform based on the Bible:
One possible answer is that they are tired. The ACLU, PFAW, and the Reverend Barry toiled so tirelessly to force removal of Justice Roy Moore's monument to the Ten Commandments from public space, they may now be pausing for a breather. But how can they be sure the Ten Commandments controversy wasn't merely a brilliant diversion designed to keep them busy while some serious church-state mixing is underway? I advise them to finish their break and get back on the field. Dear Heaven, don't they know religion and taxation are engaged in heavy petting down in Dixie??!!!
Some, of course, have faith the longtime watchdogs of church-state separation have a very good reason for their absence from the current controversy over Jesus and the tax code. A more cynical soul might wonder whether the AWOL groups and persons in question are purposefully avoiding comment on Governor Riley's Christ-inspired plans. Could it be they just can't quite bring themselves to battle the marriage of church and state when a liberal child results from the match? Is that a whiff of hypocrisy rising from the campfire of the secularist left? Say it ain't so, Reverend Barry. Say it ain't so.
One hopes astute observers will be moved
to ask questions about the sudden need of secular marchers to take
a long break from their normally ceaseless battle. But I doubt the
much needed cross-examination will occur. After all, this isn't the
first time the urgent concerns about church and state have
mysteriously vanished. Think of the lack of interest by strict
separationists when Catholic bishops speak out against the death
penalty or when liberal Protestant clergy used to flack for
liberalized abortion laws. Remember again how His Eminence Jesse
Jackson regularly entertains Democratic Presidential nominees in
black churches in urban areas around the
country.
I wasn't troubled by Riley's plan and was mainly just gigging the strict separationists because their stern rectitude is so very annoying. This may be one of the few places left where we can catch the left in rank hypocrisy.
If You Hurry...
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 3:18PM
...you can catch Roberty Byrd on C-SPAN 2 give a seminar (albeit an unintentional one) on why age limits for serving in Congress are a great idea.
RE: The excellent Riley
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 2:54PM
Quin, my point wasn't to criticize Bob Riley's record in its entirely. His 2003 tax plan seems to have been an anomaly -- but it was an act of fiscal heterodoxy and a strong example of the trend I was discussing.
Riley's plan was a $1.2 billion net tax increase. He did not seek to address the regressivity of Alabama's tax code by increasing personal exemptions but rather by engaging in redistributive taxation. And he explicitly justified this redistributive taxation on Biblical grounds: "Jesus says one of our missions is to take care of the least among us."
The plan was heavily influenced by a liberal evangelical named Susan Pace Hamill, who was profiled by the American Prospect. It is worth noting that the plan was praised by liberals, religious and secular alike, and opposed by most conservatives. The debate played a role in the Alabama state chapter of the Christian Coalition, which was against the tax hike, separating from the national organization, which favored it. Jeremy Lott covered the strange-bedfellows aspect of this for The American Spectator.
After Alabama voters solidly rejected the tax plan, Riley reverted to a more traditional fiscal conservatism. But for part of 2003, he certainly seemed influenced by the more expansive view of government embraced by some younger evangelicals today.
House? What House?
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 2:06PM
John Edwards appeared on yesterday's "Meet the Press," and host Tim Russert questioned him to the point of overkill on Iraq (more than half the interview), which was still useful since it revealed many self contradictions in his views on the war. He also talked about his plan to raise taxes in order to create universal health care (or, Breck-care). His primary opponents, check; his poll ratings in Iowa, check...and the nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain?! Yeah, check that one too.
Gay marriage, the 2004 campaign, his current campaign strategy, and Barack Obama -- all covered. But what did notoriously tough questioner Russert skip over? Yep, the house.
Speaking of da house, CBS News could have had the scoop on Edwards's new pad two months ago, when he allowed a cameraman and correspondent Rita Braver on the property for an interview about his book, "Home." You can watch a video at the link of the interview, and you will notice all the shots of the place are pretty limited in scope: the front porch, inside the hallway, walking on the grounds. No sense of the size; only a mention of his "100-acre property," with the "spanking new home" he's got on it. I guess 28,200-square-feet in the middle of one of the two Americas wasn't newsworthy.
Considering the lack of interest from Russert about the house, the fact that Braver gave only a limited interview, and the fact that the Edwardses would not allow The News & Observer of Raleigh on the property, I e-mailed Braver and asked if there were conditions on the interview that they couldn't film broadly or mention the size of the dwelling. Here's how she responded:
Think I might have hit a sensitive spot? Point is, CBS News could have broken the story two full months before the rest of us, and they blew it.
The excellent Riley
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 11:37AM
James Antle's column on Huckabee was terrific, but I take friendly issue with this one sentence: This can be detected in the fiscal heterodoxies of evangelical-tinged Republicans like Huckabee and Alabama Gov. Bob Riley...
I argue, strongly, that Riley has a superb record as a fiscal conservative. But it's one of those things where the national media, especially conservatives, utterly misunderstood what was going on. The only knock on Riley is that he tried to push a tax reform plan that overall would have raised about a billion dollars more for state government. What is not understood is that the plan would have CUT taxes for well over 50% of Alabamians. And that it would have only marginally raised taxes on the others, in order to make redress for a complicated imbalance that made Alabama's taxes not merely regressive by liberals' cockeyed measurements, but by conservative ones. AND that it would still have left Alabama's taxes among the four lowest in the entire country. AND that it was all part of a two-part plan to chip away at the power of the utterly horrific Alabama Education Association, which owns the state Senate lock, stock and barrel, by creating a pot of money NOT under the AEA's effective control. (Alabama's state constitution is bizarre, and its effect is to tie up the vast bulk of all state tax monies in funds restricted so strongly that special interest groups like the AEA can, if they once get control of the funds, find ways to never let go. Again, it's complicated.)
Besides, the Riley tax reform plan was voted down, and Riley moved on.
Phase two of the plan was to come back, just as Reagan did after raising taxes in his first year as California governor, and cut taxes (in this case, either a cut in the astronomically high Alabama state-and-local sales tax, or perhaps in the form of a Reaganesque tax "rebate") from funds the AEA otherwise would control.
At the exact same time Riley was doing that, he was successfully cutting some half a billion dollars from an already tight budget, and was eliminating special-interest pork, and was streamlining government operations while improving quality and accountability, and was actually improving education through special programs conservatives would love. FINALLY, Riley did turn around in his fourth year anyway and cut a whole host of low-income workers completely off the state income-tax rolls (which also had the effect of providing a small income-tax cut for EVERYbody in the state), plus he instituted a back-to-school sales-tax holiday.
Result of all that plus other reforms and high energy and high integrity: A true Alabama Miracle. Tremendous job growth, including in some of the most impoverished areas not just of the state but of the country. An unemployment rate barely above 3%. A scandal-free administration (on the heels of an administration in which several people, including former Gov. Siegelman, were convicted of various misdeeds). Tremendous improvement in reading scores, and a beginning of similar improvements in math. And a re-election with 59% of the vote in an otherwise bad GOP year. The GOP picked up two seats in the state Senate (albeit from GOP-allied Dems), but the national Democratic tide took down the incumbent state Supreme Court Chief Justice and a strong candidate for Lieutenant Governor. In other words, Riley far outpaced the generic statewide GOP vote.
In short, Riley governed as a conservative across the board, including fiscally, and it's time the national conservative media began recognizing that fact.
Huckabee and Riley
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 11:16AM
James Antle has a very important and very perspicacious column on Mike Huckabee and his spotty fiscal tendencies. Added to the Prowler's earlier posts about Huckabee's ethical imbroglios, added to my earlier posts about the same (and added to my wife's observation that he "looks like Nixon"), the case should be becoming abundantly clear: Huckabee is absolutely, positively NOT a candidate around whom conservatives should rally.
Addendum: My former colleagues Paul Greenberg and Kane Webb of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, conservatives both, had what I am told is an excellent -- balanced, but damaging to Huckabee -- column on Huckabee in Saturday's Wall Street Journal. I can't seem to find a link for it. But if anybody can read it, it should provide grist for the "stop Huckabee" mill.
NOW, my next post will be on Bob Riley, because in James' otherwise excellent column, I think he mischaracterized Riley's record....
Peyton the Great-One
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 11:04AM
Okay, even I must admit that Peyton was only the second most valuable player last night: On the strength of that one game alone, I would have given the MVP to Rhodes. But Manning did play quite well, and did a masterful job of figuring out where the tiny holes in a stiff Bears defense were. Even his interception was a perfect throw where the cornerback was beaten but the safety made a good adjustment and made a great play -- and, as a bomb, the interception was almost as good as a punt.
But now I want to say, as I used to say when he was starring at Tennessee, that I taught Peyton everything he knows.
IT'S a JOKE, of course. But I like to say he learned it all during the time I took him and older brother Cooper to watch their father play at the Superdome. Ahh, the 26-year-old reflected glory: It's just washing over me! :)
In all seriousness, the MVP could not have been awarded to a more admirable guy, or to a member of a more genuinely decent and admirable family. Archie and Olivia Manning and their whole crew are just class acts.
Speaking of class acts, that Tony Dungy is just superb. I loved the way he turned around the question of him being the first black head coach to win the Lombardi Trophy. Yes, he said, he is proud to have helped African Americans break another barrier, but more important, he said, is that he and Lovie Smith are both "Christian coaches who try to do things the right way."
Hail to the victors!
RE: Edwards and Taxes
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 10:59AM
Howard Dean tried a similar gambit in 2003-04 -- he challenged voters to trade the Bush tax cuts in their entirety for universal healthcare. Of course, their vision of universal coverage will ultimately require tax increases beyond the repeal of the Bush tax cuts.
Edwards, however, is repeating Bill Clinton's trick rather than making explicit his desire for across-the-board tax increases. Clinton promised to fund his programs by raising taxes only the rich. Edwards is hoping soak-the-rich politics will trump middle-class families' concerns about the Democrats grabbing their wallets.
Edwards on Taxes
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 9:52AM
You can write off the presidential aspirations of John Edwards:
''Yes, we'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that costs anywhere from $90 [billion] to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source,'' the former North Carolina senator said.
Most Democrats want to raise your taxes, but they're usually smart enough to lie about it.Read more here.
Romney Supported Taxpayer-Funded Abortions in 2006
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 9:15AM
We've been - to say the least -dubious of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's "conversion" to the pro-life position. We've also reported - we think fairly - that his "conversion" has been a constantly evolving thing.
First, he said that he was privately pro-life for some time, then it shifted a bit to early in his time as governor. Then less than ten days ago, a Weekly Standard article reported that Romney had been pro-abortion and anti-life just five years ago in 2002. Romney and his supporters have pointed out that his "conversion" to the pro-life cause was no different than Ronald Reagan (a man Romney once publicly ran away from politically for fear of being tarnished a "Reagan Republican"; he preferred identifiying himself as an "independent"), who signed the nation's then-most liberal abortion bill as governor of California.
Well, Romney really can say that he has similarities to Govenor Ronald Reagan, because this supposed "pro-life" Republican governor, who claimed to convert to the pro-life cause - when was it? 2002? 2003? - signed into law last year - 2006 - a state health-care reform program that includes taxpayer-funded abortions. You can read about what the Massachusett's Commonwealth Care health insurance plan provides here; it includes abortion services.
Romney has been attempting to distance himself from this health care reform plan, not because of the abortions, but because of the long term costs. He joked about it at the National Review Institute conservative conference last weekend.
Romney clearly made a decision that it was important that he run his presidential campaign to the right of Sen. John McCain, with a message that he would be more reliable than McCain when it came to important issues for social conservatives. Why he did this is beyond us, particularly with so much now on the record that he is no better on many issues than another California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Had he run as a moderate, he might have been better off.
Ronald Reagan gave the pro-life cause a boost at a time when it desperately needed one. He surrounded himself with authentic pro-life leaders and made pro-life political appointments. To be fair, looking back, today's pro-life leaders look at the Reagan years and see wasted opportunities, and points in his administration when Reagan and his people could have done better.
The problem Romney has now is that after eight years of Reagan, and what will be twelve years of Bushes, the pro-life movement has grown weary of unkept promises, half-loaves and missed opportunities. This President Bush has been good on the life issues. He could have been better. Romney has essentially told voters to believe what he says and look at his record on life issues. That he will be more reliable than McCain or Giuliani or Brownback. Sorry, if we appear dubious. Sometimes Romney's words are good, sometimes his actions are okay, but most often, where the words and actions meet on life issues, he disappoints. It will be interesting to see how folks for shill for Romney react to this latest pro-life letdown. It can't be explained away.
Rudy in South Carolina
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 1:01AM
SCHotline did an interview with Rudy Giuliani in South Carolina over the weekend and put it up on YouTube. In the video, Rudy sounds like he's on the verge of officially announcing his candidacy, he quashes rumors that he might run as an independent, and he discusses his views on social issues.
Specifically…
On running, he said: "We're real close, we're putting all the pieces together, it looks very good, it's something we intend to do, like to do, want to do. It's just a matter of getting everything put together." Later, he firmly said that he would run as a Republican and tellingly used the future rather than conditional tense: "That's how I'm going to run, and I hope I get the nomination."
After the interviewer joked that Mitt Romney was flip-flopping from being a Red Sox fan to becoming an Atlanta Braves fan to pick up votes in South Carolina, Giuliani said he would remain a Yankees fan. Unlike former mayors who would root for both the Mets and Yankees, Giuliani stayed loyal to the Bronx Bombers throughout his two terms. "I kind of believe you have to be who you are, and you have to state you positions, and then people have to agree or disagree." (BTW, it must be said that the Yankees won four World Series while Giuliani was mayor, and have not won once since he left. What kind of impact would a Rudy presidency have on the pennant race?)
More pertinently, asked how he would handle his differences with social conservatives, Giuliani said, "What I'm going to say to them is evaluate me as a whole person, and as a person who will be honest with you rather than kind of shape my positions or change my positions." Clearly, this is one way he's going to attempt to differentiate himself from Romney. Giuliani also emphasized that he governed as a conservative who cut taxes, cut government spending, reduced crime, moved people from welfare to work. He acknowledged "differences" with social conservatives, but said his opponents "exaggerated" the differences. For instance, he pointed out that he is in favor of domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage and that he would appoint Alito, Roberts type judges (see more below).
Manning and His Running Backs
Posted by on 2.5.07 @ 12:11AM
Hunter: Phil Simms I believe was pulling for the MVP to be awarded to both Indianapolis running backs, both of whom played fine games and gained major yards. I know you praised Rhodes's performance earlier in the playoffs -- who (except you) would have expected him to gain break a hundred yards in a game (not just any game) for the first time since 2001? Maybe the prize couldn't be shared -- there was only one soaked shiny car at the field, at any case. Some sort of Cadillac, if I recall correctly. A chump change, car, in any case. Thomas Jones was driving a Maserati during Super Bowl week.
Two other things of note: Indy had to win four playoff games to become SB champs. Unlike the Bears, it hadn't earned a bye the first week of the postseason. That's a huge accomplishment. I remember when Oakland did it years ago, with Marcus Allen.
Also: For all its rivalry with New England, it will also be beholden to the Patriots for their knocking off the San Diego Chargers in week two. That was arguably the best team in the league this year. It's always easier to win it all if someone else does the hard work for you.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Manning and the MVP
Posted by on 2.4.07 @ 11:54PM
Wlady, I don't question Manning's performance. He was strong, particularly given the conditions, but one has to consider the other contributions. Sure Sexy Rexy was gross (man!), but that Indy defense surely had something to do with it. And again, Dominic Rhodes was absolutely money, as he has been throughout the postseason.
But forget the MVP, the best question to ask about Manning is the one Dan Marino posed before the game. "Peyton, if you win, is it possible you could do MORE commercials?" Manning chuckled. He missed the obvious comeback given the interviewer, which was, "Well, I've got my eye on the Isotoner account."
Re: Rex
Posted by on 2.4.07 @ 11:18PM
Phil: In your late hits on Grossman I think you answered Hunter's questioning of Manning's MVP honors -- given the very wet conditions in which they were playing, Manning deserves credit for orchestrating an almost mistake free offensive performance (once the slip-shod first quarter came to a merciful end); Grossman by contrast was trying to throw the ball much farther than conditions warranted. But I don't blame him, just the mindless offensive coordinator who called the play. Why the Bears had no short passing game maybe you can explain; I can't.
Re: SuperBowl
Posted by on 2.4.07 @ 11:09PM
I wouldn't be too hard on the Bears defense. They kept Chicago in the game much longer than they should have been, but they eventually tired because the Bears offense couldn't move the ball and turned it over 5 times. The bottom line is that Gross Rexman is not a SuperBowl caliber quarterback. With all the Bears mistakes, they still were in it in the 4th quarter until he threw that INT that was returned for a touchdown.
Wlady and the Superbowl
Posted by on 2.4.07 @ 10:49PM
Wlady, it's only a very small comfort that I've had such a large edge on you in the NFL postseason. After all, I was the guy who drank the Alan Keyes's Kool-Aid and licked the sugary dust off the rim of the pitcher. You were tolerant, but wisely skeptical.
I do have a few ending thoughts. Manning was masterful, but I'm not sure he deserved to be the MVP, except maybe if you consider it a lifetime achievement award or a nod toward his on-field play-calling.
I remain spell-bound by the clutch quality of Dominic Rhodes' play. Until part-way through the last quarter I felt the Bears could win the game, but Rhodes just kept driving knives into the heart of that stalwart Urlacher-led defense. Addai is the future, but Rhodes was Mr. Right Now. He killed the clock and he kept the ball moving. Manning seemed a little too ready to risk unnecessary interceptions to hit the big ones.
You also have to consider Bob Sanders for the Indy defense. That unit changed utterly with his presence in the playoffs and he looked very strong again tonight. His tackling was sure and so was his coverage. His interception was also a key determinant of the game's outcome.
Bears Hybernate
Posted by on 2.4.07 @ 10:29PM
Well, we learned one thing -- the Bears play better in snow than in rain. Indy could have won by 40 points. Much as the Bears' offense was woeful, it was more the Colts' ability to play an effective short game and control the clock that made the game lopsided. If the Bears' defense couldn't get the ball back, it was hard to expect their rather primitive version of offense to ever get going. QB Rex didn't help by fumbling and stumbling at key moments -- and he seems to have an attention span that can barely sustain a series, let alone a drive.
The odd thing at the end: Dungy and Manning don't seem to like each other much. The latter obviously wanted to pour it on. The former obviously wasn't going to do that to his buddy Lovie -- and, as we heard, he does things the Lord's way. A nice guy finished first.
The Pomo Bowl
Posted by on 2.4.07 @ 5:12PM
AmSpecBlog is perfect just the way it is. But in honor of the tinsel wealth and pasteboard glory of the Last American Holiday Not Celebrated On Monday (consider that an implicit prediction), like Caligula in that Ye Olde Rome macroseries, I have
May I be the first to welcome you fine foax to Postmodern Conservative version 2.0. Read it instead of watching Super Bowl commercials. You're conservatives, remember? You viscerally loathe Kevin Federline.
Rudy on Judges
Posted by on 2.4.07 @ 4:33PM
Giuliani, in South Carolina, giving a preview of one way he'll try to make social conservatives more comfortable with his candidacy:
Re: Super Bowl Call
Posted by on 2.4.07 @ 3:15PM
Again, what choice do I have. Hunter and Phil are front-running, apparently seduced by the profound David Halberstam (see this week's Sports Illustrated) into believing that one cannot pick against the team with the great quarterback. All I know is that Rex Grossman is returning to the city of his last big college success and the state of his top-notch college career. There's no reason in the world he shouldn't play well again. Bears by 10 plus, I would say, conservatively.
Beware the Blogger You Hire
Posted by on 2.4.07 @ 2:21PM
Daniel Glover of Beltway Blogroll has a round-up on "The First Blog Scandal Of Campaign 2008," which Paul mentioned here the other day. And here's a useful compilation of Edwards blogmistress Amanda Marcotte's insane ramblings.
- Useless Wonks
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Let's Return to the Gold Standard
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
