- Jan 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Feb 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–28
- Mar 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Apr 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- May 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Jun 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Jul 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Aug 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Sep 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Oct 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Nov 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Dec 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Olbermannia
Posted by on 2.24.07 @ 4:02PM
David, the key thing you said was "unhinged rants." How can it be that a guy who is so balanced and careful in the way he talks about sports (except maybe for his treatment of Bob Knight who may bring up bad memories of some authority figure) can deliver political commentary in such an "unhinged" way? I would have thought that deliberation and perception would be habits of mind that carry over.
Tom and Jerry, Jewish Conspiracy
Posted by on 2.24.07 @ 3:20PM
Note that Walt Disney was not Jewish, and Hanna-Barbera's "Tom and Jerry" was not a Disney production.
Move the Election Up!
Posted by on 2.24.07 @ 10:21AM
Michael Barone gives a potential Rudy-Hillary race his usual thorough and insightful analysis, and his findings are very encouraging for Rudy supporters. Barone’s summary (as of now): “Rudy's electoral vote position against Hillary is much stronger than Bush's against Kerry. Rudy puts almost the whole East into play and is significantly stronger in several target states in the
Friday, February 23, 2007
RE: Olbermann v. Olbermann
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 3:50PM
Come on Hunter, isn't it obvious? MSNBC loves to trumpet the fact that its rating are up. Think that is attributable to anything other than Olbermann's unhinged rants appealing to the Daily KOS crowd?
Olbermann v. Olbermann
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 2:48PM
I was just listening to Keith Olbermann do his daily hour with Dan Patrick on the radio. Today, they discussed the contributions of former Seattle Supersonic and Boston Celtic Dennis Johnson. As a teen obsessed with sports in the 80's, I listened with great interest.
The thought struck me with force as it has in the past:
Keith Olbermann is not a windbag when he talks about sports. He displays real insight and amazing depth of perception.
Why, oh why, can't those same faculties of reason intrude upon his work as a broadcaster in the political realm? I'd love to get opinions on this one.
And no, I don't mean why doesn't he agree with me. That would be too simple. I would merely like for him, when discussing politics, to simply show some balance and critical depth. Instead, he seems trapped in a Howard Deanian rant with lots of sanctimonious sentences ending in "sir." Tim Russert, whatever you may think of him, can do it. Why can't Keith?
A Letter to Mr. Carter
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 2:08PM
Dear Jimmy,
After reading that you're suggesting critics of your recent book visit the Palestinian territories to asses whether your account is accurate, I would like to take you up on your suggestion. As a critic of your book, I would be happy to visit the territories, but only if you loan me your security detail.
I have already traveled to
Jimmy, I would like to travel to the Palestinian territories to get the other side of the story, but I wouldn't feel safe there, because I am an American and Jewish journalist with pro-Israel sympathies. I've seen videos where Palestinian religious leaders preach hatred for Jews, I've read stories about journalists being kidnapped while reporting in the territories, I know that the popularly-elected government is dominated by a group that has called for the destruction of
I know you are a great humanitarian Jimmy, so if you feel that I would benefit by visiting the Palestinian territories, I'm sure you would let me borrow your Secret Service protection so I could have that opportunity.
I look forward to hearing back.
Sincerely,
Phil
The Gravel Curse?
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 1:39PM
Mike Gravel, the Vietnam-era fossil who's quixotically decided to seek the presidency (and to endorse the "Fair Tax", interestingly enough), was asked by George Stephanopoulos at the candidates' forum the other day who people should support if not him. He made the standard governors-over-senators argument, with Vilsack as his first choice. And it took two days for Vilsack's campaign to fold...
Obama=Quayle?
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 1:23PM
John Hawkins may be right that we'd be hearing a lot more about Barack Obama's inexperience if he were a Republican, but he underestimates Obama's political talent. (He also overestimates the prowess of the Illinois GOP; it's not at all clear that Jack Ryan would have beaten Obama.) At any rate, since he's responding to an email from my Dad, I have a filial duty to link.
Hybrids Disappoint
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 11:32AM
They don't get as much gas mileage as previously thought.
I wonder if that will effect their market share.
Vilsack Out
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 11:18AM
Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is dropping his Democratic presidential bid. The winnowing process is already underway.
Romney's Checklist Conservatism
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 10:55AM
National Review has an editorial up about Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. The editorial argues that "Conservatives should hope Romney's campaign does not fizzle" because being open to converts in the past has "given ideologically malleable Republicans an incentive to adopt conservative positions." It argues that "his conservatism will likely continue to sound tinny until he gives it an overarching theme of his own" and he should "figure out a distinctive way to apply his conservatism to the challenges of our time."
After all that NR has done to tout the
candidacy of Romney, now we get to the point where the editors
argue that he needs an "overarching theme" to his conservatism. The
problem is, any "overarching theme" at this point is likely to be
the result of long deliberation among his talented lineup of
political consultants--the same process that was responsible for
producing his "tinny" checklist conservatism in the first place.
Yes, he has ten months until the first primary, but he has been
essentially running for president for over a year and has already
hired talent, toured the country, locked up endorsements, and
launched TV ads. So, it actually does seem a bit late in the day to
be deciding why he's a conservative or what the rationale is for
his candidacy. Also, it's difficult to understand how his
experience will prove relevant to our times. If the major crisis
facing America were economic, then perhaps there would be a
rational for choosing an accomplished businessman and successful
turnaround artist. But this time around, no matter what the outcome
in Iraq, America will be choosing a wartime leader. Is helping to
launch Staples relevant to this? Is rescuing the Olympics relevant?
Is turning a deficit into a surplus in Massachusetts relevant? I
don't see how it is.
RE: Leavin' Lieberman
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 10:41AM
It's true, given the absence of anything like the Lott-Daschle deal when this Senate was organized, that there wouldn't be an automatic shift in control as there was following Jim Jeffords's party switch. It's also possible that the Democrats would, through the filibuster and other tactics, succeed in blocking any change in control entirely.
But if Lieberman switched, the Republicans almost certainly would advance a new slate of committee chairs to try to take back control. At least in theory they could prevail. A major reason the Senate didn't change control during the 83rd Congress was that there was an independent voting with the Republicans to organize the Senate plus Richard Nixon's tie-breaking vote. Deaths continued to shift the partisan balance, but by that time LBJ had gained effective control of the legislative agenda as minority leader. Senate "Majority" Leader William Knowland's biggest accomplishment during that period was the confirmation of Earl Warren.
I am very skeptical that Lieberman will actually switch, so I don't expect that my theory is going to be tested anytime soon.
Allies
Posted by on 2.23.07 @ 10:01AM
Mark Steyn, in The Australian:
[John] Howard, as the most rhetorically surefooted of the Anglosphere's three musketeers, had a good comeback to the suggestion that the Bush surge and the Blair drawdown are mutually incompatible: "Anybody who studies Iraq for five minutes," he said, "knows that controlling Baghdad is infinitely more challenging than controlling Basra in the south. That is the reason why the Americans are increasing their numbers and the reason why, because of the relative improvement in Basra, the British are reducing their numbers."The whole thing is an especially worthwhile read, even by Steyn's high standards.That would appear to make sense. ... If the object is to transfer control to a competent Iraqi military, it would seem likely that a largely Shia army would be more likely to be able to assume control in the largely Shia south before it's ready to police Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. But to the media and much of the political class throughout the Western world, almost by definition there can be no good news from Iraq: the Bush surge in Baghdad is bound to fail, the Blair handover in the south is bound to fail, and therefore Howard's support for both or either or vice-versa is deluded. In strict numbers, London has been reducing - or "redeploying" or "withdrawing" - forces since 2003, when 46,000 British troops were holding down the southern third of Iraq single-handed.
Within a year, it was a fifth of that, and this latest drawdown is significant only because of the opportunity it affords Bush-bashers (and Howard-bashers) for some political sport. The southern provinces are as stabilised as they're likely to get under any regime short of multi-decade colonialisation.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Re: Leavin' Lieberman
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 10:42PM
Actually, it's not clear that a Lieberman defection would flip the Senate. The Jeffords defection only caused a switch because of a deal that Trent Lott and Tom Daschle had made in advance; no such deal is in place now. Thus leadership positions may be retained by the "majority" party even if they lose their numerical majority, as happened during the 83rd Congress.
That might go a long way toward explaining why Lieberman hasn't jumped ship yet.
Re: Leavin' Lieberman?
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 7:34PM
Jim, the only question is what's taking Joe so long. The writing's been on the wall for months that his own party at least has no use for Lieberman. Final confirmation came in Jeffrey Golberg's cruel slap at at Lieberman in the New Yorker's February 12 issue. You could just see Goldberg and everyone else rolling their eyes over every defense Lieberman attempted of his Iraq views. For good measure, the piece closed with a self-satisfied reminder of how badly Lieberman did trying for the presidency in 2004, as if already then he was beyond the pale. As one Strafford County operative says in the article's final sentence, making Joe's excommunication official and irreversible: "People don't think of Lieberman as a Democrat." Again, what are he and the Republicans waiting for? Proof that he's a bigger spender than they are?
Leavin' Lieberman?
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 4:38PM
The headline overpromises a bit, but the Politico is reporting that Joe Lieberman could switch parties over Iraq war funding. "I have no desire to change parties," they quote Lieberman as saying in an interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."
Such a switch would cause control of the Senate to revert to the Republicans. Time also reports on Lieberman's new leverage.
Mother Jones Proves The Flypaper Theory
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 4:10PM
The left half of the blogosphere has been kicking around this Mother Jones article that purports to debunk the "flypaper" theory, that US troops fight the terrorists over there so we're less likely to face them over there. The thing is, the data is ambiguous at worst; if anything, it shows the opposite of what the lefties think it shows.
Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, the scene of almost half the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks. But even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan-the other current jihadist hot spot-there has been a 35 percent rise in the number of attacks, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities.A 35% rise from an average of 28.3 attacks per year is a rise of less than 10 attacks annually; hardly a statistical slam-dunk. And notice that they mention that Iraq is the scene of half of all attacks but conveniently elide the fact that Afghanistan accounts for almost another third; Their data show that more than 80% of all attacks are in the "hot spots."
To believe, as the MoJo writers do, that this shows that "jihadists have not let the Iraq War distract them from targeting the United States and its allies," you must believe that the rate of attacks would have otherwise been flat -- that the jihadists that US troops are engaging overseas wouldn't otherwise be making any trouble. That's just not plausible.
I Insult Mubarak
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 4:07PM
Wow, there's a lot to blog on today. Consider this blog entry an insult to Hosni Mubarak, in protest of the treatment afforded an Egyptian blogger.
Doan Miss This Story!!!!
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 3:50PM
PUNISHED FOR SAVING MONEY!
Here's a story that I urge more bloggers and columnists to pay attention to, one which I will be blogging or columnizing about more in the coming weeks -- but I claim no pride of ownership, so I hope others dig into it themselves and beat me to the punch. Anyway, it involves the chief of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Lurita Doan, who has been doing yeoman's (would lefty feminists call it "yeowoman's"?) work at eliminating waste in an agency that was $120 million in the red and eliminated the shortfall, plus recommended a whopping $1.3 billion in further cuts. For her efforts, she has been subjected to blowback from the permanent bureaucracy, as witness this original WashPost story about what really is a tempest in a thimble. It was followed up this WashPost story that described GSA's (i.e. Doan's) perfectly reasonable reply to the allegations.
What happened was that she dared to cut the Inspector General's budget as well. She seemed to have good reason for it. Regardless, he launched an investigation of her that blamed her for even CONSIDERING the issuing of a contract that NEVER actually was effectuated. Gee: Big whoop. Yet the Post, doing the bidding of Henry Waxman, tried to make a big deal of it. The Post also questioned Doan's actions in the case of five firms that were being considered for suspension from contracts because of fraud allegations. The Post wrote that Doan "intervened in the suspension process." Again, that was wrong. What she did was merely ask for a report on the case and suggest that a slowdown be considered IF appropriate. Lurita specifically wrote: "If these letters can be stopped until cooler heads can prevail and discuss what the appropriate mechanism is to obtain the information that CAO requires, that would be best."
For this bit of intelligent oversight, she is being treated as if she is somehow doing something wrong.
The kicker to all this? Try the fact that Ms. Doan is an incredibly successful businesswoman, born and raised in the now-infamous 9th Ward of my hometown New Orleans (I've never met her, by the way), a victim of both Hurricane Betsy and Hurricane Katrina. She earned her admirably tough hide by being among the first (maybe THE first) black girl (as a third-grader) to integrate the Crescent City's private school system.
Conservatives should be rallying to her defense. More later.
RE: Some Suggestions For His Contact List
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 2:37PM
Ezra Klein responds to my post on liberals being anti-family:
The American Spectator gives it a shot, but ends up proving my point. They name a radical feminist and one of the co-chairs of the Democratic Socialists of America. Now, I have great respect for both the writers named -- Ehrenreich especially -- but they're not liberals, at least as the term is commonly understood.
Ah, but that begs the question of what is commonly understood as a liberal? Klein does not provide a definition of "liberal" in his post, which leaves him in the position of being able to dismiss any person I quote as not being one. Pretty slippery.
Pelosi Whines On
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 1:08PM
The Left can dish it out (with frequent use of "f" words and direct questioning of conservatives' motives, not just our reasoning), but they just can't take it. Again and again, they can and have called GOP stances "un-American" and the like, but on the other hand, again and again they take a conservative statement that only addresses the likely RESULTS of lefty actions, not their motives, and accuse the conservatives of questioning their patriotism. It's a total, absolute crock. Latest case in point: Nancy Pelosi whining about Dick Cheney's perfectly acceptable (meaning well within the proper bounds of political discourse) attempt to argue against the Pelosi-Murtha troop restriction moves.
Note that Cheney NEVER impugns her patriotism or her motives of any sort, but only explains, with care and with a look at his logic, that he thinks the EFFECT of what Pelosi-Murtha would do would be to help al-Qaida: "I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."
Cheney may or may not be correct in his judgment, but there is NOTHING OUT-OF-BOUNDS about that statement. Cause: effect. Cause: effect. He does not say they INTEND to validate al-Qaida; he says it will have the effect of doing so. And his subsequent explanation, about breaking the will of the American people, is not debatable; it is, instead, an absolute fact, as stated in the letter from bin Laden's top deputy to Mr. Zarqawi (before the latter was blessedly released from his earthly body).
Yet here is the blathering diddlesquat that Pelosi offers in response to Cheney, as reported on the Fox News site:
Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.
"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.
No. Ms. Speaker, you are wrong. It is an absolutely legitimate thing to say that you or your colleagues are acting against our national security. That is what the whole debate is about: whose view of national security is the correct one. Of course Cheney would be out of line if he said you INTEND to act against the national security. But to say that your actions will have that effect is perfectly okay. After all, that is EXACTLY what you, dear hypocrite, are doing in criticizing the president's own military strategy: You are saying that the president is acting against our national security.
So it is, by the Speaker's logic (now back to a third person narrative, rather than using the rhetorical device of addressing Madame Whiner directly), alright for the Speaker to publicly and repeatedly and extravagantly express "disagreement" with the president, but it it not alright for the president's team to express its disagreement with her.
The president absolutely CAN welcome disagreement at the same time his vice president says that acting on the disagreement will have the effect of serving al-Qaida's purposes. That's what debate is all about: BOTH sides get to make their case. In Pelosi's world, of course, only her side gets not only to criticize the other, but qactually to hurl really nasty insults.
There was nothing nasty, though, about what Cheney said.
Some Suggestions For His Contact List
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 12:59PM
Ezra Klein has this to say at his blog:
I want to meet some anti-family liberals. I really do. Because you read NRO, and it's clear that a sizable and powerful percentage of liberals believe that children shouldn't have fathers, and familial stability is utterly unimportant, and single parent households are the optimal family structure, and out-of-wedlock births are totally sweet. And yet, and yet, and yet...I've never met any of those liberals.
I read NRO a lot, and it seems to me that the authors there more often refer to liberal policies as anti-family than liberals themselves. Obviously, one can be pro-family but support misguided policies that harm families. I'm sure that few, if any, members of Congress who supported the now defunct Aid To Families With Dependent Children intended for it to result in a rise in illegitimacy.
Nevertheless, there definitely are some liberals who are anti-family. There's author Vivian Gornick who once said that, "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession….The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that."
There is law professor Catharine MacKinnon who once wrote that "Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment."
And finally there's pundit Barbara Ehrenreich who has written, "There is a long and honorable tradition of 'anti-family' thought." She goes on to cite approvingly French philosopher Charles Fourier who "taught that the family was a barrier to human progress, and British anthropologist Edmund Leach who said, "Far from being the basis of a good society, the family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets is the source of all discontents."
I would offer to introduce Klein to any one of them, but unfortunately I do not have the pleasure of personally knowing these fine ladies.
Maggie Gallagher Mulling Rudy
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 11:55AM
I'm just seeing this now, and have trouble believing my eyes. Maggie Gallagher, the staunch social conservative and leading opponent of same-sex marriage, says she's "thinking hard" about supporting Giuliani--even though she never voted for him when she lived in New York City because of the abortion issue. "When I ask myself, who of all the candidates in both parties do I most trust to keep me and my children safe? The answer is instantaneous, deeper than the level any particular policy debate can go: Rudy Giuliani."
RE: Mitt Floats Like a Butterfly
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 11:49AM
If Romney's advertising blitz is able to boost his poll numbers, maybe Barnett will be proven correct. Right now though, this sounds more like wishful thinking than real analysis.
Shales' Tall Tales
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 11:38AM
In this atrocity of a story in today's Washington Post, Tom Shales puts an absolute falsehood right near the front. To wit: "...what happened at Abu Ghraib is, to understate in the extreme, unpleasant. The documentary says it's also because this breakdown was not so much nervous as inevitable -- and not so spontaneous, having been sanctioned by the top brass, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
Granted, Shales is clear to attribute this allegation to film-maker Rory Kennedy (daughter of Bobby), and later on to give a brief summation of the bases for Kennedy's argument to that effect -- so he himself is not stating as fact that Rumsfeld "sanctioned" (in the positive sense) Abu Ghraib. But Shales implicitly supports this contention, first by not reporting the absolute fact that no Rumsfeld policy approved of any such treatment and the absolute fact that the Pentagon justice system was well on the way to prosecuting the perpetrators before the infamous photos actually were leaked. Indeed, the top brass at the Pentagon wanted to impose sanctions (the negative sense, as in "penalties" AGAINST the idiots who behaved so stupidly at Abu Ghraib.
Shales also writes, again parroting Kennedy, this: "Then the term 'torture' was redefined so narrowly in government memos that it would be almost impossible to commit it."
This, too, is a falsehood, on two levels. First, the only government memos that concern interrogation techniques were applicable not to Abu Ghraib but to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, the Geneva Conventions were in force at Abu Ghraib. Second, even the so-called "torture memos" in question (the ones that applied at Gitmo) were NOT adopted as policy by Rumsfeld's Pentagon (the error thus lies in attributing, via a sentence splice, the torture memo to Rumsfeld) but instead significantly altered to take extra precautions AGAINST torture as any ordinary person defines it. Indeed, the Shales version actually contains what most people would consider a third error, although he can technically claim that the third one is not a matter of fact but of opinion -- namely, the bit about torture as so defined being "almost impossible to commit." Again, see the story linked earlier in this same paragraph for refutation of that spurious claim.
Finally, I think there is another HUGE error of fact in the Kennedy film (as reported by Shales, as if it is the truth) -- but that will have to wait for a later blog entry, because I am double-checking my own facts on that one. It's a shame Shales didn't double-check the facts for his own column.
Not So A-Paul-ing
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 11:35AM
A few libertarian and paleoconservative writers who are Ron Paul supporters are up in arms about George Will's Newsweek column about their man. I can understand this up to a point -- a few lines are a bit condescending. But that's typical in coverage of lower-tier presidential candidates. And overall, it didn't seem like such bad treatment for the libertarian gadfly from Mr. Statecraft as Soulcraft.
Mitt Floats Like A Butterfly...
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 11:27AM
and will sting like a bee, according to Romney defender Dean Barnett, who says Mitt's critics will run out of steam by the time of the primaries, leaving him to deliver the knockout blow when it counts, just like Muhammed Ali beat George Forman by employing the rope-a-dope strategy. Nuff said.
Overlooked?
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 9:50AM
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Edward Jay Epstein reports on a possible connection between 9/11 and a Spanish al Qaeda cell that the 9/11 commission never considered.
Originalism at Slate!
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 9:06AM
Somehow, Doug Kmiec has snuck into the Lithwick/Bazelon zone. He's criticizing conservative jurists, of course (it's a case where Alito and Roberts split with Scalia and Thomas; the latter two got it right). A breakthrough nonetheless.
Politically Correct Triumph At Illinois
Posted by on 2.22.07 @ 8:24AM
Bob Novak details the sad decision by the University of Illinois to dump its Chief Illiniwek symbol in the face of pressure from the NCAA and advocacy groups.
I guess I'm lucky in that the team for my undergraduate alma mater is the "Hornets," while my graduate ones are the "Tigers" and "Hawkeyes." (Extra credit if you can tell me to which schools those mascots belong. Put your guess in the comments section.) Since it's unlikely that any of the creatures on which those mascots are based will become college bureaucrats or social do-gooders in the near future, I have no cause for concern.
Anyway, my one quibble with Novak's column concerns the last paragraph:
While I can understand dumping the Chief, I don't like it. I could react by withdrawing from my long-range commitments to support the University of Illinois, but I won't. That would put me in the same class as the petty bureaucrats and politicians who killed Chief Illiniwek.
How does withholding funding from a university constitute "petty"? It seems to me it depends on the reason for withholding funding. If you are withholding funding because the university used its speech code to violate the rights of its students, would that be petty? I have a hard time seeing how it is petty if you withhold funding because the university administators didn't have enough spine to stand up to the dumb bureaucrats and grievance mongers. Although, in fairness, it is perhaps unreasonable to expect university administrators to have much in the way of spine.
As the saying goes, conscience is that little voice telling you that your funding might be jeopardized. Maybe university administrators would here that voice a bit more often if the likes of Novak were to close their wallets.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
More on "Rapture-Nuts"
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 5:31PM
Occassional AmSpec contributor Sean Higgins emails:
John,I've heard the basic argument that Christian evangelicals who support Israel do so because of some sort of apocalyptic "End Times" belief too many times to count - and always from liberals like Wonkette's Layne who dislike Israel or evangelicals or both. Never have I actually heard this We-Must-Support-Israel-Because-The-Rapture-Is-Coming stuff from evangelicals themselves ... and I come from a family of them.
I'm not saying there aren't some evangelicals out there talking this way, but I think this is a case of the fringe types getting the most media exposure. I'm not aware of any poll suggesting that most evangelicals accept this "The End Times Will Happen in Jerusalem Next Tuesday" stuff.
In my experience, the evangelicals who support Israel do so for more secular-leaning reasons. They think Middle Eastern Muslims are mostly crazy jihadists who want to destroy Israel (Imagine that) and therefore sympathize with Israel. I think that when some Imam calls for blasting Israel off the map and putting the world under Sharia law, evangelicals take it more seriously that some other folks because they understand very well how faith can move people to action. 9/11 only reinforced this thinking.
I guess for a lot of Liberals the idea of right-wingers, especially the Christian Right, defending Israel is just a bit too baffling to fully grasp. After all the Christian Right are supposed to be intolerant bigots and closet anti-semites. The rapture stuff squares this circle. Evangelicals are still bigots, it's just that their insanity exceeds their bigotry.
Re: More Mitt-Bopp?
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 4:21PM
Wow. If that is the best Mitt's own "advisor on life issues" can do, the pro-life movement is without a date to this dance.
Romney must be thinking, "With friends like that..."
More Mitt-Bopp
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 4:14PM
James Bopp Jr., Romney's advisor on life issues who wrote the pro-Romney piece I criticized below, has now told the Politico:
"I don't know yet about Romney," Bopp admits. "I'm not really sure where [abortion] will ultimately fit in his agenda. He's still on a journey."
Huh?
And If You Believe That...
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 3:33PM
Whenever you hear the terms "reasonable," "fair," and "decency" regarding government regulation, you can be pretty sure that said regulation will be anything but. It's all right there in the Washington Post's endorsement of the silly "Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights":
Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced a passengers' bill of rights on Saturday and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) plans to do the same next week. Both bills require airlines to allow travelers to get off planes after three hours of delay. That's more reasonable than what JetBlue is offering. And Mr. Thompson's bill goes a step further to mandate frequent updates on the cause and timing of delays.I particularly like this line: " The congressional bills wisely avoid saddling the very competitive and not-very-profitable airline industry with potentially crippling penalties." SURE THEY DO! HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!! And even if this legislation is relatively mild, you can be sure that the social engineers like Boxer will be back to engage in more micromanaging later on.Kate Hanni, who founded the Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights after being trapped in Austin on an American Airlines jet with no food, water or access to a bathroom for eight hours in December, wants a mandated 150 percent refund for passengers who are bumped or whose flights are canceled or postponed. The congressional bills wisely avoid saddling the very competitive and not-very-profitable airline industry with potentially crippling penalties. Neither should the government be micromanaging airline customer service. But setting minimal standards of decency seems like a fair approach.
I also wonder what's going to happen to safety if the government mandates a 150 percent refund for folks on flights that are cancelled or bumped. Won't that put more pressure on airlines to get their planes off the ground in far from ideal circumstances? You can't take advantage of a 150 percent refund if your plane has crashed and you are 100 percent dead.
About That Romney Endorsement...
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 3:24PM
Defending Mitt Romney's stance on abortion on NRO, pro-life activist and Romney advisor James Bopp Jr. writes:
Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice…
It's great that a Romney surrogate is now touting the fact that he "kept" the endorsement, but back in the 2002 gubernatorial debate against Shannon O'Brien that Wlady alluded to earlier, Romney himself emphatically denied knowledge of the endorsement. The video is here, but this is the relevant exchange:
ROMNEY: I don't know about the endorsement of the Mass. Citizens for Life. I didn't seek it. I didn't ask for it…
O'BRIEN: But you accepted it
ROMNEY: When you say I accepted it, I didn't write a letter and say, 'Here, thank you very much for your endorsement.'
O'BRIEN: Your spokesperson stated that you accepted their endorsement.
ROMNEY:
Shannon, I can tell you again. I did not in any way acknowledge their endorsement, nor do I… O'BRIEN: But you accepted it.
ROMNEY: When you say I accepted it, in what way did I accept it,
Shannon? O'BRIEN: Ask your campaign spokesperson.
ROMNEY: I don't have a campaign spokesperson here tonight. I'm here right now and I can tell you that I did not take a position of a pro-life candidate. I am in favor of preserving and protecting a woman's right to choose.
Yet another example of Romney and his backers attempting to re-write history based on whatever is most politically convenient at the time. This goes beyond mere flip-floppery. This is an insult to the intelligence of conservatives everywhere.
Re: He Said, He Said
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 3:00PM
Well, Phil, I was just going to ignore that latest outburst of Ken Layne insanity. (I'm certain it was Layne; the other Wonkette writer, Alex Pareene, is way too easy-going to have written that.) But since you brought it up, it's worth noting that Edwards denies saying what Layne is defending, and it isn't because it's impolitic. It's because it's indefensible.
In the comments, after being accused of not being "big fans of The Tribe," Layne writes,
We love the Tribe! The Jesus Freaks have to have the temple rebuilt so Jesus will come back and kill all the Jews! I am serious about this.By opposing Israel's right to defend itself in the face of apocalyptic Iranian nuclear saber-rattling, Layne seems to be saying the Jewish State should do nothing to prevent a new Holocaust. So I have to ask, is Layne a closet "rapture-nut?"Do you realize these same rapture-nuts supported the Holocaust because they thought it meant Jesus had come back?
RE: He Said, She Said
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 2:35PM
Well, I'm glad they cleared that up. An Ash Wednesday greeting from Wonkette, perhaps?
Mean Rudy
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 2:26PM
In response to David Freddoso's piece from last week criticizing Giuliani's rudeness, Deroy Murdock argues that Republicans could use a leader with a bit of a mean streak. He thinks that the problem with the GOP is that they've been playing nice with Democrats.
RE: He Said, She Said
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 2:21PM
Wonkette said:
stating anything so obvious requires taking your lips off Israel's ass for a few seconds, and that's fatal for any American politician with presidential ambitions. This isn't because Jews get upset or Israel's feelings will get hurt or anything. It's because of batshit insane evangelical American Jesus Freaks who have to love and protect Israel so Jesus will come back and destroy it.
He Said, He Said
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 1:50PM
The Edwards campaign disputes a report by Peter Bart that I alluded to yesterday, but Bart isn't backing down:
John Edwards' presidential campaign wants to make it clear that he doesn't consider Israel a threat to world peace.Make of it what you will.Columnist Peter Bart reports that Edwards told a Hollywood fundraiser last month that the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace.
Edwards' spokesman Jonathan Prince says the article is erroneous. He says Edwards says one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Bart says Variety stands by its report. The host of the fundraiser, Adam Venit of the Endeavor talent agency, didn't respond to a message seeking comment.
Fiasco
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 1:34PM
This must be Mitt Romney week at the Washington Post. Today's it's Ruth Marcus's turn to tutt-tutt about Mitt's flips and flops. To spare us the details, she should have just linked to the latest on Romney and abortion in 2002, in which Romney gets mighty irked that anyone would suggest he's pro-life. When gubernatorial candidate Shannon O'Brien asks him why he accepted an endorsement of the Mass Citizens for Life, he nearly goes ballistic: "I did not in any way acknowledge their endorsement, nor did I--when you say I accept it, in what ways did I accept it, Sharon?" Lest you believe this bullying is not sincere, note that in this same debate Romney invokes his mother as the inspiration for his support of a woman's right to choose. Once you play the sainted parent card, no conversion in the other direction will ever come across as sincere.
Wild Goose Chasers
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 12:53PM
Wonderful moment just before noon on cable TV. Fox and MSNBC are both carrying the outrageous legal proceeding in Florida ostensibly over the disposition of Anna Nicole Smith's body. Her mother is testifying, anchors on both nets interrupting at vital moments. Suddenly, Fox goes split-screen, showing car speeding down roadway in Hollywood, Fla. A police car chase! No police in evidence, but at least a speeding car. Full screen for Fox about the time MSNBC goes split, again with car chase which rapidly trumps the trial. Soon both have forgotten that Smith thing. Fleeing car collides with another and three suspects flee. One suspect surrenders, another is caught. Fox assures us all three are in custody and goes on to news about Iraq, ignoring the abandoned trial and that Roy Bean judge.
MSNBC, which can count, carried the search for the third suspect for a time, then abandons the high crime car chase for other things.
Expect to see grandstanding Judge Seidlin driving into court if and when the nets decide to return to the story.
Economizing in the Hoosier State
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 12:42PM
Why stop with eliminating physics and philosophy? Why not get rid of history too? And while we're economizing, how about dumping economics? Thank God womens' studies gets a pass.
Is McCain the GOP's Hillary?
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 11:18AM
By the GOP's Hillary, I mean the candidate who will say anything to anyone to get elected (David Geffen apparently has strong thoughts on the matter).
From the Politico:
Karl: "I know we're just about out of time, but I wanted to clarify: Senator McCain had said that the problem with President Bush is he listened to you too much. So this is what he was apologizing to you for?"
Cheney: "Yes, yes."
Karl: "What did he say?"
Cheney: "Well, he came up to me on the floor a couple of days later, the next time I was on the floor of the Senate, said he'd been quoted out of context, and then basically offered an apology which I was happy to accept."
In January, McCain had told Roger Simon, chief political columnist of The Politico, during an interview at his Senate office: "The president listened too much to the vice president . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of defense."
Yeah, that sounds like a vicious interpretation. You can judge
for yourself by reading the original (though partial) transcript. McCain appears to serve himself well when
he is talking to the media, but still wants to remain in the White
House's good graces. What a guy.
No, Really, Just Move
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 11:11AM
Yet another state-sponsored, ill-advised incentive for those inclined to live in hurricane prone areas.
Fitzgerald Remains a Menace
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 10:27AM
Byron York has another useful take today on the Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame trial, and it shows again that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is a menace to society. This guy has so badly lost his perspective that he needs to take a long vacation on a deserted island, or something. He really seems to think that there is something nefarious about a vice president who wanted to correct the record -- in other words, to tell the truth -- to the effect that he, the veep, had nothing to do with a lying leftist scumbag former ambassador being sent on a mission to Niger to sit in a hotel room drinking alcoholic libations while various officials visited him, the scummy ambassador, to deny any involvement with uranium sales. His closing argument, according to York, amounted to an effort to convince the jury that Libby lied because Cheney was conspiratorially trying to debunk the untrue Wilson story. His target all along, it now seems, was Cheney -- and, like a bloodthirsty hunter denied his prey, Fitzgerald was willing to waste oodles of money, put reporters in jail, ruin Libby's life, and waste everybody's time, in order to "prove" a nonsensical charge of perjury in order to try to flip Libby to get at Cheney.
If this post seems a little convoluted, that's because the whole trial was convoluted, because Fitzgerald's logic was convoluted, because his ethical compass went haywire, as in lost its magnetism and no longer points due North.
Once Libby is acquitted, somebody should threaten Fitz with a charge of prosecutorial misconduct, just to make the SOB squirm.
Why Some Conservatives Prefer Giualiani to McCain
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 9:32AM
Given that both men deviate from the Republican base on salient issues, why is that many conservatives seem to want to give Rudolph Giuliani the benefit of the doubt but not John McCain? At The Corner, Jonah Goldberg posts a reader e-mail offering an answer: McCain frequently emphasizes and takes the lead on issues where he goes off the reservation while Giuliani's core issues tend to be areas where he is conservative.
Eleven years ago, things might have been different. In 1996, McCain was endorsing Phil Gramm and Giuliani -- not long after his endorsement of Mario Cuomo -- was wondering if he would be able to back the eventual GOP nominee (he ultimately did). But since the late 1990s, Giuliani has played the loyal Republican more often than McCain.
Liberals against Meaningless Standards of Worth?
Posted by on 2.21.07 @ 9:09AM
Yes -- at The Nation and New York Magazine! Dump your culture vanguard, my left-leaning friends.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
If You Don't, Like, Stop Global Warming...
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 9:55PM
...it's like being raped!
Ah yes, Cameron Diaz is teaming up with Al Gore to fight climate change. This ought to be amusing if nothing else.
And if you feel like "teaming up," you can do it with Cameron and Gwynnie!
Re: Amazing Grace
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 7:05PM
A few years ago I happened to meet York, Maine historian Kevin Belmonte at a town fair, where we had a long conversation that convinced me to pick up a copy of his stellar biography of William Wilberforce, A Hero for Humanity. For those whose interest in Wilberforce has been piqued by the biopic, I would strongly suggest picking up a copy of the paperback edition of Belmonte's book, out this week.
Cry "Silent Cal" From the Rooftops
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 7:00PM
I'm glad to see Calvin Coolidge is finally getting his due, at least among conservative journalists. Jeremy Lott defends Coolidge's economic record from David Greenberg in today's Washington Times.
The World According to John Edwards
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 6:26PM
See if you can guess what Edwards thinks is the greatest threat to world peace.
Amazing Grace and Sam
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 6:10PM
This Friday a movie on the career of British Parliamentarian William Wilberforce, a driving force in ending the practice of slavery and the slave trade around world. Entitled Amazing Grace, you can see a trailer and read about the ambitious goals of the film here.
We expect that the movie, produced by many of the same people who have helped bring the Narnia Chronicles and the Ray Charles bio-pic to screen, will get quite a bit of exposure from conservatives around the country.
But one point that the mainstream media will certainly miss, and which some conservative bloggers will choose to overlook, is Wilberforce and his ideals are playing out in the Republican presidential races, where one candidate is very much associating himself with the broad ideals Wilberforce enunciated: Sen. Sam Brownback. In speeches and on the road, he has time and again identified himself as a "Wilberforce Republican", which, in part, explains his positioning on immigration reform and his focus over the past few years on Darfur and Sudan.
Regardless of the candidate you may support, we'd encourage you to see the film and promote it. The seeds laid down entrepreneur Philip Anschutz and his people at Walden Media are beginning to blossom and mature, family-friendly, enriching films are finally being made by Hollywood because folks there believe they can make money from them. Fine: profits for them, but the spread of ideas and values for us.
Who Needs a Vibrant Congress?
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 6:07PM
Isn't Norm Ornstein's case for a five day work week on Captiol Hill wildly unconvincing? Congress doesn't need to be "a vibrant, functioning, civil, deliberative body." That just greases the wheels for lawmakers do more damage to the commonweal. Here's to a moribund, nonfunctional, and uncivil Congress.
Watch Yourself Steve
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 1:59PM
Steve Jobs is blasting teachers unions:
"What kind of person could you get to run a small business if you told them that when they came in they couldn't get rid of people that they thought weren't any good?" he asked to loud applause during an education reform conference.
I'd love to tell Jobs to keep at it, but I worry that he might make the kind of enemies that will harm all the wealth creation he is responsible for. Soon, he may have the politicians coming after him for unfair monopolistic practices in the creation and marketing of iPods.
So, Mr. Jobs, focus on things like iPod that create jobs and stock value. Otherwise, you may suffer a fate like that of Mr. Gates.
Rudy's Foreign Policy
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 10:59AM
Over at the New Republic, Jonathan Chait questions Giuliani's foreign policy experience:
I have always felt that if Giuliani were to lose, it wouldn't be the social issues that would be his downfall, but it would be if his opponents could poke holes in his national security credentials. Just as Mitt Romney will be toast if he can't convince social conservatives that his transformation was genuine because he's basing his candidacy on being a real conservative, Giuliani will go down in flames if people start to think of him as just a mayor who doesn't have any national security bona fides.
There are a few things I'd say in response to Chait. As mayor of New York City, where the United Nations is based, Giuliani often played host to foreign dignitaries--or, in Arafat's case, gave him the boot. He went on overseas diplomatic trips (I can recall one to Israel in 1996 off the top of my head). Also, he commanded a police force of over 40,000 and used that police force to slash crime by about 60 percent in a city that was written off as doomed. On Sept. 11, he demonstrated that when an unexpected crisis hits, he can remain calm, make decisions under pressure, and demonstrate strength in leading a rattled city--and nation.
Chait writes that, "If having a macho swagger and talking tough about bad guys were enough to make a good commander in chief, we wouldn't have the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history on our hands right now in Iraq." I don't think tough talk is enough, but I think Giuliani brings more to the table than tough talk, specifically, a track record of actually being able to follow through and implement his vision. His record as mayor involved macho swagger, but he also got results. To be sure, being president is in a totally different league than any job somebody would hold before assuming the office, but I think Giuliani's record matches up well against anybody in the field.
If I were working for McCain, though, instead of focusing on Giuliani's social views--which will come out anyway--I'd try to raise doubts about Giuliani's national security experience and emphasize McCain's military background and decades in the Senate. In response, Giuliani will have to emphasize his executive experience--something McCain doesn't have. Also, right now, it's okay for Giuliani to speak about the big picture when it comes to foreign policy. But as the campaign goes on, he'll have to flesh out his views and demonstrate a more subtle understanding of world affairs than his current refrain of the need to "stay on offense against terrorism."
Rehabilitating McCain
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 10:44AM
Phil Gramm, a true champion of limited government and spending restraint, does his best to make the case for John McCain in 2008. It's worth noting that the formerly more conservative McCain backed Gramm for president in 1996.
This is op-ed is likely part of a larger push to get to the right of Rudy Giuliani, which includes McCain's call for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. It's going to be a tough sell. Gramm correctly notes that rapid rises in federal spending endanger the Bush tax cuts. But he doesn't tell us that McCain voted against those tax cuts, which Gramm sponsored in the Senate in 2001. And while McCain has generally been sound on pork and wasteful spending, he has been much less so on size of government issues generally.
Nevertheless, with Giuliani beginning to open up a significant lead over McCain, emphasizing the Arizona senator's conservative credentials from the past and present is probably at least worth a try.
"A Woman and a Negro"
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 3:27AM
The Democratic primary race, as viewed by an Egyptian cartoonist. Charming.
No Change Available
Posted by on 2.20.07 @ 12:26AM
You know that Mitt Romney must be on the rise if now Richard Cohen weighs in against him for no longer sounding the way he did back in 1994. In the process, Cohen does show just how clever he can still be with words, as in this reaction to Romney's admitting on ABC's "This Week" that he had recently joined the NRA:
In fact, to watch Romney on the show was to see a thoroughly counterfeit man. If he were a coin, a vending machine would spit him out.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Shrewd Hugh
Posted by on 2.19.07 @ 7:48PM
Patrick Ruffini is the newest guest blogger at Hugh Hewitt's Townhall site.
The Romney Problem
Posted by on 2.19.07 @ 2:40PM
Prowler, Erick Erickson over at RedState.com has decided he's had it with the evolving Romney and referred to him as "Multiple Choice Mitt." Mitt's got a long way to go to earn trust.
Meanwhile, Romney barely registers on the voters' radars. His best bet is to encourage all the "can a Mormon be president?" stuff until he builds more name recognition.
Romney's Abortion Positions
Posted by on 2.19.07 @ 1:41PM
The Corner once again weighs in on their "chosen one's" abortion position. Romney certainly presents an interesting case regarding "evolved" positions on important moral issues.
In the WaPo item in question, the point seems to be made that the woman believed that Romney had been pro-life all along, but simply took the pro-death position because in order to have a shot at winning he needed to do so.
Some, including a few of Romney's cheerleaders on other sites, have pointed to this kind of story as proof that Romney has been pro-life all along.
We think this story confirms the far more troubling aspect of the Romney campaign: that he appears willing to sell out his core convictions to win.
As we've reported, one of the key points recruiters for the Romney campaign have been using to woo supporters is that Romney will be far more reliable than Sen. John McCain in being true to conservative values: good on taxes, good on judicial nominations.
Yet, how can Romney's people with a straight face use this line of argument, when their own candidate has appeared willing to surrender what social conservatives believe to be the most critical issue for an elected official -- life -- in order to win? With this sad track record, one has to wonder what Romney will do to, say, ensure his Supreme Court nominee is not filibustered (Harriet Miers, anyone?). Or what deal he would cut to ensure he gains a victory on a major healthcare reform bill (as he did in Massachusetts, where he could have fought to block taxpayer-funded abortions, but apparently chose not to, in order to preserve the potential for passage of the overall plan).
We'd be much bigger supporters of Romney's if he'd just come out and say that his pro-death position was a purely mercenary one and that he was lying to the Massachusetts voters all along. That's the kind of frank, honest talk that might actually help a candidate in a primary race where there is all too much pandering going on.
Our sense is that the conservartive base has probably had enough with compromisers and candidates willing to sell out their core values for a cheap, short-term victory.
Senator Bill Clinton?
Posted by on 2.19.07 @ 1:08PM
I'm not surprised to see Democrats musing about Bill taking over Hillary's seat if she wins the presidency. Bill Clinton's age and his obvious joy at being involved in politics has always made me think he might pull a John Quincy Adams and return to Washington.
The 11-Point Plan
Posted by on 2.19.07 @ 12:59PM
Pat Dollard reports on the outline for victory in Iraq.
If David Petraeus succeeds where other generals have so visably, um, not succeeded, he'll be an American hero. I can't help wondering if Petraeus has any ambition to get into politics.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Lowry on Diggins on Reagan
Posted by on 2.18.07 @ 4:00PM
In the New York Times, Rich Lowry reviews Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History by John Patrick Diggins. This is the same book that inspired George Will to annoy me so much last week. Apparently, Diggins argues that Reagan was really a liberal, not a conservative. Unlike Will, Lowry isn't having it.
Non-Lethal Weapon Fires a Beam of Pain
Posted by on 2.18.07 @ 12:57PM
If you don't think this is totally awesome, I'm not really sure how you can possibly be male.
Happy Tet
Posted by on 2.18.07 @ 8:03AM
Today is the Chinese New Year, which means it's also the Vietnamese New Year, aka Tet, and thus the lunar anniversary of the beginning of the Tet Offensive. The Tet Offensive, you'll recall, was the "turning point" of the Vietnam War, when everyone, starting with Walter Cronkite, decided we were losing -- even though, historians unanimously agree, it was the Communists who actually suffered a military defeat, as they met none of their tactical goals and the Viet Cong were decimated.
Keep that in mind as Chuck Schumer vows to pursue a political strategy "just like in the days of Vietnam."
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
