- 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 16, 2007
Vote
Posted by on 2.16.07 @ 6:04PM
With House Dems almost unanimous that Iraq already is lost, then when the surge works, the Dems will be toast, and will deserve to be so.
Re:Ramesh on Rudy
Posted by on 2.16.07 @ 4:13PM
Ponnuru responds. DaveG also weighs in, making some good points on the pro-Rudy side.
Maybe Next Time They'll Really Mean It
Posted by on 2.16.07 @ 3:46PM
Headlines and reporting from Drudge and the AP on the House resolution for troop withdrawal are worth a chuckle: "War Powers Clash," "Rebuke of the President." David Espo of the AP breathlessly calls it an "epic confrontation." Any news is huge news if you are a journalist.
But what will the journos call Congressional action to starve the war effort when it is a binding resolution?
Get Off Your Ath, Let's Do Some Math
Posted by on 2.16.07 @ 3:20PM
Some number-crunching might help clarify the Klein-Ponnuru debate on Giuliani's electability. I'm going to use the data from the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll. The methodology here is quite imperfect -- when you're analyzing one slice of a poll, the margin of error increases -- but it may still be useful to think about these figures when considering Rudy's electoral strength.
The Fox poll show's Rudy leading Hillary 49-40. Among Democrats, Hillary leads 73-20; among Republicans, Rudy leads 87-6, and among independents, Rudy leads 46-39. The sample is 37% Democratic, 36% Republican, 19% independent, 4% other, and 3% don't know/refused to answer.
To put those numbers another way, the total sample breaks down to:
27.01% Democrats for Hillary,
2.16% Republicans for Hillary,
7.41% independents for Hillary,
7.4% Democrats for Rudy,
31.32% Republicans for Rudy,
and 8.74% independents for Rudy.
Based on the remainders, we can surmise 3.42% for Hillary and 1.54% for Rudy in the other and don't know/refused to answer categories.
With regards to the redrawing-the-map question, notice that almost 18% of the sample are non-Republicans for Rudy. If he holds those voters, Rudy can win even if a quarter(!) of his Republican supporters stay home.
Of course, Ramesh thinks he won't hold those voters, because some of them are pro-life swing voters who will swing back to Hillary. The same poll asks about abortion; the result is that 40% consider themselves pro-life, 51% pro-choice, 5% both or mixed, and 4% aren't sure. Broken down by party, Democrats are pro-choice by 64-29 pro-life vs. pro-choice, independents are 61-28, and Republicans are pro-life by 61-32.
If 20% of Rudy's Democratic supporters and 20% of his independent supporters defect to Hillary, he's still ahead, even if 8% of his Republican supporters stay home. If a larger number of non-Republicans defect to Rudy, he loses, but the race is still very close; Give Hillary 30% of Rudy's independent supporters and 30% of his Democratic supporters, and she's ahead by less than a point.
No More Wilder Effect
Posted by on 2.16.07 @ 2:52PM
Dave Weigel says the theory that polls always exaggerate white support for black candidates is bunk. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of white versus nonwhite voters in these polls and exit polls, but the black candidates running in 2006 sure didn't seem to underperform the late poll results on Election Day.
Government Health Care Is Very Compassionate
Posted by on 2.16.07 @ 1:50PM
Over in Britain, this is how officials are thinking about further rationing health care:
Patients could be denied treatment because they smoke or are overweight, Patricia Hewitt said yesterday.The Health Secretary insisted it was right for those whose lifestyle choices could make treatment ineffective to be refused care in some circumstances....
Health trusts in Suffolk were among the first to announce that obese people would be denied hip and knee replacements on the NHS.
I guess the smokers and the obese should just tolerate their pain with a "stiff upper lip."
BTW, this is the same Patricia Hewitt who earlier claimed that the falling number of hospital beds was a sign of success.
So not only does socialized medicine hurt patients, it makes Orwell spin in his grave.
Why So Early?
Posted by on 2.16.07 @ 10:19AM
Peggy Noonan has a column out today asking why the 2008 presidential elections are starting so early. I think one of the main explainations is that given President Bush's low approval ratings, a lot of people of people want a new president. This hit me when I saw a FoxNews poll yesterday showing that the preference for the presidential election to start earlier was divided among party lines. Among Democrats, only 37 percent thought it was too early for presidential candidates to be campaigning, compared with 59 percent who thought it wasn't. Among Republicans, the numbers are almost the total reverse --58 percent say too early, 38 percent say not too early. So, it seems like there's some correlation between how a group feels about Bush and how they feel about the early start to the presidential election.
Romney "Evolves"
Posted by on 2.16.07 @ 10:04AM
Look at Mitt Romney's record and you see more flip-floppinng than the griddle at an International House of Pancakes. Deroy Murdock has the goods.
Ramesh on Rudy
Posted by on 2.16.07 @ 9:47AM
Ramesh Ponnuru has written a series of posts (here, here and here) responding to my post about his column in which he argued that Rudy Giuliani's nomination would pose risks to Republicans in the general election because the party would lose its advantages on social issues. Ponnuru says that betting that Rudy could put more states in play in a general election is a gamble. Fair enough. But you can't judge Rudy in a vacuum, or assume the existence of a mythical alternate candidate. You have to compare him to his two main rivals for the nomination--Romney and McCain. There's never a sure bet in politics, but there's a strong case to be made that Giuliani is the best bet for Republicans, given the alternatives ( a case that I have made before, but don't want this post to be even longer).
Another factor that Ponnuru does not take into account is that were Giuliani to be nominated, he could choose a solid social conservative as his running mate. Even though it may not satisfy all social issue voters, at least that would be one way (in addition to judges) to differentiate the Republican ticket from the Democratic ticket on social issues. And if the media tries to portray Giuliani as disingenuous, he can just argue what he always has--that the Republican Party is a big tent, that nobody agrees 100 percent on every issue, but Republicans are united in their dedication to winning the war on terror.
More specifically, Ponnuru dismisses a poll that shows Giuliani beating Clinton in New Jersey by saying that Republicans always talk about putting the Garden State in play, but in has never "panned out." As somebody who spent most of my life in the NY-NJ metropolitan area, I think there's a good argument to be made that the Giuliani candidacy would be different. The densely populated suburbs of northern New Jersey are made up of people who witnessed first hand the transformation of New York City when Giuliani was mayor. These are people who commuted into the city in the days when "squeegee men" intimidated motorists, prostitutes and sex shops dominated Times Square, and crime was rampant. They watched Giuliani turn the city into a place where it was safe to do business and they could take their family to a Broadway show without being harassed. So, I think there's more substance to the NJ polls than Ponnuru seems willing to acknowledge.
It's also worth noting that voters decide who they want to be their president based on a lot of intangibles. When picking a senator or congressman, the candidate's stances on individual issues are all that matter, but when it comes to choosing the president, a lot of other factors come into play. Giuliani has a winning personality, he's tough, he's an effective communicator, he's highly competent, he's authentic, he has a stellar record of accomplishments as an executive, and he proved himself as a strong leader during crisis. There will be a huge premium placed on all of these qualities in 2008, given the state of the world.
Ponnuru writes: "Let's keep in mind that we had some major events in this country between 2000 and 2004-attacks, wars, scandals-and the electoral map looked pretty much the same." It looked pretty much the same because there was one constant: George W. Bush. As I said, in presidential elections, intangibles often overwhelm individual issues. Bush has been a very polarizing figure. In both elections about half of the electorate found him charming, authentic, decisive, ethical and cool under pressure, while the other half thought he was dumb, inarticulate, deceptive, and incompetent. In both campaigns, he ran against Democratic candidates who came across as boring, stiff, elitists who seemed like they had been running for president since childhood. That's not to say that issues were unimportant, but all of these things fed into the way voters perceived the candidates on the issues.
Even if I were to grant Ponnuru the argument that on balance, being socially conservative is a net plus for Republicans, I think that Giuliani brings a lot to the table that more than makes up for whatever votes he would theoretically lose because of social issues. Like Bush, he's a person who sticks to his guns no matter how unpopular his beliefs. But Giuliani is a far more gifted communicator, he's a hands on manager who immerses himself in details, he holds people accountable for mistakes, and he's a results oriented leader who is willing to make adjustments when his policies aren't working. As a former (and quite successful) prosecutor he's persuasive, a skilled debater, and great in press conferences. All of this will become apparent in a campaign.
In closing, I should say that Giuliani has been the most underestimated candidate in this race. For years, the conventional wisdom was that he'd never run and that even if he did, he wouldn't have a prayer to win the Republican nomination. Now, we know he's running, and most pundits acknowledge that he's a true contender--some say the frontrunner--for the nomination. Pundits said that by the time the election approached, his post-9/11 glow will have faded. But it's been more than five and a half years since 9/11, and yet he still remains the most popular political figure in America, and he's greeted like a rock star from the deep South to the Pacific coast. I think there's something more going on with Rudy than Ponnuru is willing to give him credit for. And yes, there are risks to his candidacy. There always are. But given his record of overcoming long odds and accomplishing things that were once viewed as impossible, I wouldn't bet against him.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Wish I'd Said That
Posted by on 2.15.07 @ 4:22PM
From the Institute For Policy Innovation's "Tech Bytes":
Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said that his new House Government Reform subcommittee would focus on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and hold "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington." What is driving Kucinich? "We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda," he said, following with "we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible."This is what we have come to expect from wingnut Kucinich, though it is borderline delusional to suggest that having hundreds of channels at your fingertips comprises a "narrow corporate agenda." And we question whether it is appropriate for Kucinich to use his oversight position to "move a progressive agenda."
Re:The Politics of Giuliani
Posted by on 2.15.07 @ 1:10PM
Ramesh's points are worthy of consideration, but I'd say a few things in response. For one, I think it's problematic when pundits look at the electoral calculus that sent President Bush into office and act as if that's the only way a Republican can win. Yes, "moral values" voters played a large part in Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004, but don't forget that he won both elections by a whisker, and even lost the popular vote the first time around. The Republican Party is in a perilous situation long term if its presidential election strategy is contingent upon holding the same territory and writing off huge swaths of the country. Rudy Giuliani puts states in play that otherwise would not be (California, New Jersey, etc.), and therefore redraws the electoral map so Republicans can actually go on offense in the election rather then defending the same states that won them the last two elections. And this doesn't only have implications on the presidential race. If Republicans nominate someone at the top of the ticket who puts more states in play, who is better able to attract swing voters, it helps Republican congressional and senatorial candidates. Ramesh attempts to address this pro-Giuliani argument:
Of course, it is possible that Giuliani would more than make up for these losses by bringing in other voters. Maybe the map of the 2008 election would look different from that of the Bush elections, with such states as
and California in play for the Republicans for the first time in 20 years. So many of Giuliani’s supporters dream. Polls taken right now find him to be the Republicans’ strongest candidate. A New Jersey Today/Gallup poll has him beating Sen. Clinton by two points, while she beats McCain by three. (The Quinnipiac poll recently found similar results in USA .) Florida But these polls are not terribly good at predicting election results. In Sept. 1999, a
Post/ABC poll found Gov. George W. Bush with a 19-point lead over Vice President Al Gore. Fourteen months later, Gore won more votes than Bush. One thing polls can’t capture is how the dynamics of a campaign change public opinion. Washington
So, his counterargument boils down to: polls can change. Of course they can. But I don't think that the Sept. 1999 Bush poll is an apt comparison to the current situation. Right now, the Republican brand name is severely damaged, coming off its worst election defeat in at least 15, arguably 30, years. The fact that Giuliani has even a slight edge over all the leading Democrats, and even leads in the now solidly blue state of
And for those who haven't seen it yet, I strongly encourage Rudy skeptics to watch his appearance on Larry King Live last night, particularly his composure as he responds to questions on the Iraq War--the most difficult issue for Republican candidates in 2008. He's candid, clear, and remains on the offense.
Sunni vs. Shiite
Posted by on 2.15.07 @ 12:21PM
I got a perfect score on this quiz; as someone who sometimes gets paid to write about foreign policy, I'd be pretty embarrassed if I hadn't.
Now I'm trying not to read too much into the fact that Andrew Sullivan links to the quiz without mentioning his own score...
The Politics of Giuliani
Posted by on 2.15.07 @ 11:11AM
Ramesh Ponnuru has a thoughtful piece up at NRO looking at one risk of Rudy becoming the Republican presidential nominee -- what happens to the swing voters who cast GOP ballots mainly on the basis of conservative social issues?
Ponnuru doesn't say how large this group is and whether Giuliani might be able to connect with those voters is another way, but he raises some questions conservative Giuliani supporters might want to consider.
Re: Anti-smoking Nazis
Posted by on 2.15.07 @ 7:39AM
My colleague and friend (and cigar aficionado) at the John Locke Foundation, Jon Sanders, called Tom Tancredo's office to find out what brand he was smoking when office neighbor Rep. Ellison called the police on him. The unexciting answer: whatever was on sale in the catalogue. Maybe Ellison did have a legitimate complaint.
Rudy on Larry King Live
Posted by on 2.15.07 @ 1:31AM
Not that it should come as a surprise to readers of this blog, but on Larry King Live last night Rudy Giuliani uttered the words, "Yes, I'm running." The interview mainly focused on his views on Iraq and social issues. He reiterated that, looking back on it, he still would have removed Saddam, though he said, in hindsight, he would have sent in more troops, would not have disbanded the army, nor pursued debathification. But to his credit, he acknowledged that hindsight is 20/20 and didn't take the bait when King tried to goad him into assigning blame.
From the transcript:
KING: So are you -- are you -- who do you blame?
GIULIANI: So you learn from these things.
KING: Do you blame Rumsfeld?
GIULIANI: No, I don't blame anybody.
KING: You don't blame any -- somebody's got to...
GIULIANI: No, no, no. You don't do it that way.
KING: Nobody's to blame?
GIULIANI: You don't do it that way. That's why you don't make progress. Just like I don't blame people for not figuring out September 11 before it happened. What I do is, I kind of look at what happened, so you learn for the future.
KING: Because?
GIULIANI: Because there's no decision.
KING: But it's a statement.
GIULIANI: Yes, but that's what you do. That's what Tim Russert
does and that's what Rush Limbaugh does. That's what you guys do,
you make comments. We pay them to make decisions, not just to make
comments. We pay them to decide.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Hizzoner In DC?
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 8:51PM
James already posted a link to this NRO piece that makes a pretty convincing case that Rudy is a jerk.
Would I wish such a person on this city? Every day of the week, and three times on Sunday!
Vox Populi
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 6:55PM
Do Americans care about helping Iraqis? Why do working class voters disproportionately gravitate to frontrunners? Do whites wish all black people were Barack Obama? A few thoughts on those questions at my blog (the post got a little long for this space).
Re: Unfunny
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 5:36PM
Well, humor's subjective; I thought the Barry gag was kind of hackneyed. But hey, it's only 2 minutes and change, and shows like this are almost always somewhat uneven; it may be better than it seems from the clip.
RE: Speaking of Unfunny...
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 5:01PM
John: I didn't think it was that bad. The endorsement by Marion Barry was pretty darn funny.
Someone Whack These Senators With A Clue Bat
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 4:56PM
From a letter that ten Senators sent to President Bush regarding health care:
"Further delay is unacceptable as costs continue to skyrocket, our population ages, and chronic illness increases," the letter from the senators said. "In addition, our businesses are at a severe disadvantage when their competitors in the global market get health care for 'free."'
Health care isn't "free". Businesses in other nations pay for it via taxes.
Also, if we our businesses are at such a "severe disadvantage," why is our economic growth so much better than the rest of the world?
Speaking of Unfunny...
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 4:31PM
Despite a somewhat promising premise -- The Daily Show with a right-of-center voice -- it looks from the leaked excerpt on YouTube like The Half-Hour News Hour is in the same comedic league as Saturday Night Live in the late 90s. That's not a compliment.
Re: Franken in '08
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 4:08PM
Suddenly I'm reminded of that old Eddie Murphy bit where Jesse Jackson becomes president because people vote for him as a joke.
I'm not surprised that Franken's announcement is boring. The last time he said something funny was at least five years ago.
Franken in '08
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 3:35PM
Al Franken made it official today--he wants to be Minnesota's next Senator. It sounds like a joke out of a lame 1990s movie, but this is the state that brought us Gov. Ventura, so you never know. The video of his campaign announcement is up, and suprisingly for an entertainer, it's pretty boring--I challenge anybody to get through the nearly 9-minute skit.
But a Kos diarist is impressed:
I can only imagine Al on the Senate floor, championing Democratic values and using his often-devastating wit to carve up his "esteemed Republic colleagues" like a plump Butterball turkey. And going head-to-head against Norm "Which Way Is Up" Coleman...well, that'll be a sight to see.
As I said in this morning's C&J: Good luck, Al---you're good enough, you're smart enough, and, doggone it...kick him in the balls.
Global Warming Hearing Canceled Due To Ice Storm
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 3:17PM
That's funny enough, but Jim Treacher makes me laugh even more:
We can agree that the cold snap that seems to follow Al Gore everywhere he flies (carbon-neutrally) isn't a refutation of global warming, but also that Alec Baldwin is silly to say an unseasonably warm spell in January is proof of global warming. The important thing is that they're both hilarious!Has Baldwin said anything about all this snow? It's probably glacier shavings and polar-bear tears blowing south as the ice cap dissolves because Bush stole the election and lied us into a war. Probably? I mean definitely.
Weight Loss Update
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 1:56PM
While I was editing articles, I believe I lost another 15 pounds. What a workout.
Eat your heart out, Daniel Craig. And Jenny Craig, for that matter.
RE: Anti-smoking Nazis Gone Wild!
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 12:47PM
David, whoever decided to put Tom Tancredo and Keith Ellison side by side probably knew that such hilarity would ensue.
Anti-Smoking Nazis Gone Wild!
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 12:35PM
Apparently they don't have Representative Keith Ellison on film, though. Via The Hill:
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) believes it is his right as a Muslim to be sworn into Congress with the Quran. But apparently, the freshman lawmaker doesn't believe it's Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-Colo.) right to smoke a cigar in his congressional office.Ellison's office called the Capitol Hill Police on Tancredo last Wednesday night as Tancredo was in his office smoking a cigar. The lawmakers have neighboring offices on the first floor of the Longworth House Office Building.
Another Late Convert?
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 11:56AM
Charles Mitchell of Evangelicals for Mitt notes a Los Angeles Times story reporting that Ronald Reagan became pro-life only in 1975, a year before his conservative challenge to Gerald Ford in the Republican primaries. It's a fair point if accurate, but I think some context is necessary.
Reagan's shift came a mere two years after Roe. Mitt Romney's came 32 years after the Supreme Court's abortion decision. Romney certainly had more information available to him earlier about fetal development, the number of post-Roe abortions, the percentage of those abortions that are elective, the impact of legalization, etc. than Reagan did. Maybe Romney's conversion is as sincere as Reagan's, but the two shifts do differ contextually in important ways. (Hat tip: Daniel Larison.)
Safety Nazi Alert
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 11:24AM
There is no rest for those of us battling the seat belt nazis. Now the jihad moves to Missouri. Apparently our only ally on this front is the Black Caucus which fears cops will use primary enforcement as another reason to pull over young African American men "Driving While Black."
It's Later Than You Think
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 11:19AM
The '08 presidential primaries could go by in a flash:
The [California] Senate passed a measure that would enable Democrats and Republicans to choose presidential nominees Feb. 5 instead of June 3. The bill is expected to be heard in the Assembly next week and to pass easily. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will sign it.The front-loaded schedule seems likely to give the frontrunners nearly insurmountable momentum. By this time next year, we may pretty much know who the nominees are.Lawmakers hope that an early California primary will force contenders to rethink a campaign strategy that traditionally focuses on face-to-face persuasion in New Hampshire and Iowa, which hold the country's first primaries or caucuses in January.
But at least four other big states are poised to hold early primaries as well, potentially eroding the greater role California hopes to play.
Legislation similar to California's is pending in Illinois, Texas, Florida and New Jersey. And politicians in New York and elsewhere are pondering early primaries.
Pennsylvania and Indiana have bills that would move their primaries to the first week of March.
At least eight states have tentatively scheduled primaries or caucuses for Feb. 5.
If Only You Believe
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 10:15AM
Apparently exercise is more effective when you believe you got a good workout.
I believe blogging is a good workout. Watch those pounds melt away.
Tiki Runs to NBC
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 9:36AM
NBC yesterday introduced their newest addition to "The Today Show" and "Football Night in America," recently retired New York Giants running back Tiki Barber. NBC Universal president Jeff Zucker seemed ecstatic, reports USA Today:
"He's incredibly
handsome, he's incredibly charming, he's incredibly personable and
he's incredibly smart," he said, "and that's a rare
quality."
Note the obvious avoidance of the "articulate" descriptive, which is hereafter and
forever banned from the English language.
"Frontrunner" Trails By 16 Points
Posted by on 2.14.07 @ 12:55AM
That's right, the new USA Today/Gallup poll (story here, poll results
here) shows that Rudy Giuliani has opened up a 16-point lead
over John McCain, 40-24. It's worth noting that in the same poll,
Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 40-21. So in other words,
Hillary and Rudy are both polling at 40 percent within their
respective parties, and yet the media considers Hillary invincible
on the Democratic side, but still maintains McCain is the
frontrunner on the Republican side. That makes a lot of sense.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Charles Norwood, RIP
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 4:17PM
Congressman Charles Norwood (R-Ga.) has died of cancer.
Ted Olson Supporting Giuliani
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 3:05PM
Theodore Olson, the stalwart conservative lawyer and former solicitor general for the Bush administration, told the Spectator he will be supporting Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid.
"I admire his character, his capacity for leadership, his instincts, and his principles," Olson said over the phone this afternoon. He said he will help Giuliani raise money as well as offer advice on legal issues and domestic policy matters that involve constitutional questions.
Olson and Giuliani have been longtime friends since serving in the Reagan Justice Department from 1981-1983, when Olson was assistant attorney general in charge of the office of legal counsel and Giuliani was associate attorney general. Olson said they met with Attorney General William French Smith every morning and worked closely on a number of issues.
The support of Olson should help Giuliani in his quest to win over social conservatives who remain skeptical of his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges.
"I've known him for 26 years and we've talked about this many times," Olson said. "He feels very strongly that people like Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, are the type of people that he would put on the court…I'm quite convinced that this is a genuine viewpoint that he has."
When asked about differences conservatives have with Giuliani on issues such as abortion and gay rights, Olson said: "Rudy's views on many, many issues are going to be very compatible with people in the conservative political community and the political legal community. Nobody's going to be able to find a candidate with whom they agree with 100 percent on every issue. Overall, Rudy's strength of character, his capacity for leadership in a time when a strong executive is important, his energy level, his ability to provide the kind of leadership that Ronald Reagan did -- I think that is going to be very persuasive with conservatives."
Olson gave a $2,100 contribution to Giuliani's presidential exploratory committee in December, according to FEC filings. Records also show that Olson contributed $2,000 to Giuliani's U.S. Senate campaign in 1999, before Giuliani dropped out of the race because of his battle with prostate cancer. As solicitor general, Olson was a tireless legal advocate for the Bush administration's policies in the War on Terror. In 2004, he and Giuliani co-signed a letter to Congress in support of the PATRIOT Act.
Olson will remain a partner at the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, but said he would help Giuliani "in any way he wants."
"The more the American people see Rudy, and relate to him, and listen to him, the more they're going to be supporting him," Olson said.
Root, Root, Root for the Home Team
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 1:30PM
The Boston Herald celebrates Mitt Romney's formal entry into the 2008 presidential race.
Agreed Framework Part Deux
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 12:56PM
Jim Robbins says North Korea has scored a diplomatic victory.
RE: McCain v. Free Speech
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 12:09PM
Dave: If you need an antidote to McCain's nonsense, go read Thomas Sowell's column today:
The political left's favorite argument is that there is no argument. Their current crusade is to turn "global warming" into one of those things that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with "diversity" and "open space."
Also, this piece over at AEI isn't bad either.
It's John Edwards -- Everyone Point and Laugh!
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 11:52AM
Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the Edwards campaign, and Dave Weigel is finding much mirth:
Edwards has made the worst hiring decision of any presidential candidate since Eisenhower signed Charles Starkweather to be his Nebraska media coordinator.*And in an otherwise unrelated post, after pulling one of the nuttier comments out of a Little Green Footballs thread:
[...]
*This did not happen.
No e-mail address, though, so it's not clear where John Edwards should send the application.Meanwhile, the whole humiliating mess has severely shaken Ezra Klein's confidence in Edwards:
From top to bottom this has been a study in online incompetence from that campaign. I love Amanda and consider her a good friend, but she wasn't the right choice to run their blog. Not only was she the wrong choice, but she was a wrong choice who wasn't vetted. And then, when the utterly predictable [poopstorm] started, the Edwards campaign spent two days offering unresponsive waffles. And then, when they finally stood by her, they let her continue pursuing her controversial solo work?I appreciate the campaign's courage and conviction, both of which have been on admirable display throughout this kerfluffle. But it's hard to ignore their incompetence. ... A campaign that can hardly limp through the hiring of a blogger is not prepared for the rigors of the race.
Heh
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 11:19AM
Onion man-on-the-street "Curtis Hoyt" reacts to Al Franken leaving Air America: "I'm sorry-who is leaving what?"
Pondering Rudy
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 10:32AM
Having read consecutively Brendan Miniter's column in the Wall Street Journal on Rudy Giuliani, and then Cal Thomas's sharing of a message from a soldier friend in Mosul, I am left with little doubt that if the Mayor was president now, we would be kicking butt in Iraq.
And to me, as a social conservative, Giuliani comes across as more sincere than Romney when he says he will appoint "strict constructionist" judges. I don't know why; he just does.
Romney's Announcement
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 10:27AM
Meanwhile, yesterday I wrote about how Romney was under fire for making his announcement at the Henry Ford Museum, given Ford's record of anti-semitism. The Romney camp writes in to say that Bush I and Bob Dole both made campaign appearances there, and Rudy Giuliani attended a fundraiser for Dick DeVos there last May.
The campaign also attached a statement from the Republican Jewish Coalition (which I can't find a link to):
McCain v. Free Speech
Posted by on 2.13.07 @ 8:43AM
Reading the good senator's article with Joe Lieberman on the impending doom of global warming in the Boston Globe today, I couldn't help but shudder at this line:
More substantively, and I am sure Dave Hogberg can speak to this, the proposal is not exactly a ringing endorsement for fiscal conservatism. They write,
Monday, February 12, 2007
Re: Oh Dear God in Heaven!
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 7:32PM
David,
Few singers deserve such treatment more than Rod Stewart, given the general scourge of his existence and in particular his massacre of the great American songbook.
Jewish Groups Vs. Romney
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 7:14PM
Tomorrow, Mitt Romney will formally announce his candidacy for the presidency at the Henry Ford Museum, drawing the ire of Jewish groups because of Ford's long record of virulent anti-Semitism, most notable in his book, The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem. When I heard last week where Romney intended to announce, I immediately sensed it would cause controversy, but I avoided bringing up the issue because I personally believe that Romney is speaking there in the context of a talk on innovation, and I don't think he harbors any anti-Semitism himself. I'm surprised that the Romney camp wasn't more prepared to address this criticism though, or somehow pre-empt it. Perhaps it's just the fact that I'm Jewish, but whenever I think of Ford, I instantly think of two things: cars and anti-Semitism. Didn't the Romney camp anticipate this? They sure don't want to be putting out fires the day he announces.
Obama the Face
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 5:36PM
Jim Treacher cleverly draws the parallels between politics and pro wrestling.
Oh Dear God In Heaven!
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 5:10PM
Don't listen to this if you don't want to hear a great Rod Stewart song mangled!
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part XVIII
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 4:44PM
I missed this article from about ten days ago. Turns out Romney himself is admitting his health care plan isn't working out. Of course, he's blaming the Democrats:
"I don't know what's going to happen down the road as the Democrats get their hands [on] it," Romney said. He then made light of the fact that Senator Edward M. Kennedy -- a Massachusetts Democrat and a liberal icon -- supported his plan.So much for "personal responsibility"."I was a little concerned at the signing ceremony when Ted Kennedy showed up," he quipped. "It's true, we were both there."
Your Monday Laugh
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 1:41PM
I don't know who Tony Iltis is, but he's either a tool or deluded:
Unsurprisingly, Western corporate media and politicians portray Cuba as a Stalinist police state where democracy is denied and human rights abused. This is untrue.According to Castro, "We have never used soldiers or policemen against civilians. We have never had a fire-engine using powerful water jets against people, as one can see in those images from Europe itself almost every day, nor [police] wearing masks as if ready for a trip to outer space. No, it is consensus that maintains and gives the revolution its force."
The only thing resembling a gulag in Cuba is in the US's illegally-held enclave at Guantanamo Bay where the Bush administration has built its notorious concentration camp.
Clinton, Part Deux
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 1:25PM
Up on our main site, Andrew Cline has a great report from Hillary Clinton's first house party in New Hampshire, in which she is clearly running on her husband's record in the White House as if it were her own.
This point was further hammered home in an article in today's Washington Post:
It's a message she believes is striking fear in Republicans. "I'm the one person they are most afraid of," she said during a stop in
. "Bill and I have beaten them before, and we will again." Nashua
I think this strategy is risky. One of the cases against a Hillary Clinton presidency is that it extends this Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty another four, possibly 8, years. If she goes out of her way to mention Bill at every campaign event, it just reinforces this reality. I also think it helps Barack Obama make the case that he's the choice of the next generation, that he's the person to choose if you want a "new kind of politics," if you want to move beyond the divisiveness of the last 20 years.
Robert Novak, meanwhile, writes about the Democratic pushback against the coronation of Hillary, especially among Hollywood elites.
Gore! What is He Good For? Absolutely Nothing!
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 1:01PM
Pollster Peter Brown pours cold water on the Draft Gore movement that Jim mentioned Thursday, along with the Gingrich '08 fantasy:
Simply put, neither man is very well thought of among the mass of voters who decide the November election. And, not to put too fine a point on it, Americans don't turn over the Oval Office to people they don't like.An important difference: Conservatives who want Newt to run generally don't think he can win; they just want an articulate conservative voice in the race to nudge the frontrunners to the right. Liberals who want Gore to run are absolutely serious about a 2000 do-over.
Re: Will
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 12:46PM
Christopher: You're right that Paine was wrong about the French Revolution (so was Jefferson), but I read Will as going further than anti-utopianism into congenital pessimism. If he'd just said what Jim said, I'd have no problem. By the way, Jeremy Lott and I have been arguing this topic further in the comments over at my blog.
Purpose Driven Tax Hikes
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 10:22AM
Let's hope this headline for a column by Keystone State Democrat Ed Rendell doesn't catch on: "Raising taxes with a purpose."
Giuliani's Bunker
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 10:01AM
Over at Hit and Run, Dave Weigel links to this Steve Chapman piece about how Giuliani would expand Bush's legacy of pushing the limits of executive authority.
Weigel writes:
Okay if you want to criticize Giuliani's decision to place the command center within the World Trade Center, but at least be fair. Back when the existence of the command center was made public in 1998, the overwhelming bulk of the criticism was not over the location of the command center, but the fact that it was built in the first place. Giuliani was mocked and riduculed as a paranoid nut at the time for building what was described as his "bunker." Yes, in hindsight, he should have located it at a less vulnerable location. But he also deserves credit for worrying about such things as the dangers of bioterrorist attacks at a time when most people were focused on Monica Lewinsky and the price of their internet stocks.
The Limits of Getting Into A Discussion Late
Posted by on 2.12.07 @ 12:38AM
I would agree that George Will -- and, knowing Will's book columns, really John Patrick Diggins -- oversimplifies Ronald Reagan greatly. Reaganism could be excessively flattering, but it also contained some important truths. And Reagan exhibited a good deal of Burkean prudence while governing even if he did not always do so while giving speeches.
But the caricature of Reagan is as often drawn by his admirers as his critics (see Kemp, Jack). And while contemporary conservatives continue to profit from Reaganite optimism, we could still use another dose of Madisonian realism. It wouldn't compromise our anti-totalitarian commitment.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Re: Limits of Sunniness
Posted by on 2.11.07 @ 4:03PM
What Will regards as preposterous and hardly conservative is not liberation but the utopian notion of beginning the world anew. As for Paine, he also thought the French Revolution would begin the world over again. Unlike Burke who supported Madison and Co., but not Robespierre. What the French lacked was a Madison.
The Pursuit of Sunnyness
Posted by on 2.11.07 @ 11:47AM
Tabin, I don't want you to get the impression -- or anyone else to get it, for that matter -- that I think political tyranny is really all relative, etc., etc., or that there's no pride in being an American, where at least I know I'm free. But your prompt attention to this super-important thread deserves some longer remarks, much further thought, and then more remarks. This is part of a fundamental conversation about the position, promise, and purpose of what I'm calling for now ethical conservatism. Here are some further thoughts, fun links, and gratuitous punctuations.
Re: The Limits of Sunni-ness
Posted by on 2.11.07 @ 11:02AM
So I read Will's headline. A Freudian slip?
Liberation, sure, but for whom...? At what cost...? Liberation from what...? A world without political tyranny does not solve itself; the human attraction to every kind of tyranny is too great for that.
The Limits of George Will
Posted by on 2.11.07 @ 4:13AM
After drawing a caricature of Ronald Reagan that he attributes to historian John Patrick Diggins, George Will demonstrates his commitment to the concept of human fallibility by whacking that strawman into pieces. Reaganite optimism is too much for Will, who writes that "Reagan frequently quoted [Thomas] Paine's preposterous cry that 'we have it in our power to begin the world over again.'"
When Paine wrote that line, in Common Sense, he was refering to a specific historical moment: "A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now." At that moment, on the eve of the American Revolution, he was absolutely right. And when Reagan quoted Paine on the eve of the fall of Communism, he was absolutely right. It's indeed good to be mindful of the failings of the masses, but if Will's conservatism is one that finds the very notion of liberation "preposterous," it neither has nor deserves any future in American politics.
- Barney Shuffles Off
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
