- 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, March 3, 2007
Re: The Burqini
Posted by on 3.3.07 @ 11:38PM
I can't read Christopher's post without thinking of "meka leka hi, meka hiney ho."
I wonder: Had there been a CAIR or an ADC in the 80s, would Pee-Wee's Playhouse have drawn flack for having a goofy genie -- a figure from pre-Islamic Arab mythology -- with a magic spell that sounds like it invokes Mecca?
The Burqini
Posted by on 3.3.07 @ 6:04PM
All I got to say about this photo of Mecca Laa Laa is Ooh, la, la.
CPAC Straw Poll
Posted by on 3.3.07 @ 5:16PM
CPAC attendees' first choice for the Republican nomination:
Romney - 21%
Giuliani - 17%
Brownback - 15%
Gingrich - 14%
McCain - 12%
For first choice plus second choice:
Giuliani - 34%
Romney - 30%
Gingrich - 30%
Brownback - 24%
The ideological breakdown of attendees was 50% limited government conservatives, 30% traditional values conservatives, and 18% national security conservatives. Giuliani and Romney tied for the first group, Brownback won the second group, and Giuliani won the third group.
Gilmore Goes on the Attack
Posted by on 3.3.07 @ 3:11PM
Jim Gilmore went after McCain, Giuliani, and Romney by name, tagging all of them as non-conservative. No one else has brought the fratricidal spirit the conference onto the main stage as openly.
Funnily enough, toward the end of Gilmore's speech I noticed a walking tribute to the big tent: A guy in a "FORMER EMBRYO" shirt -- wearing a Giuliani button.
Memo to Tim Pawlenty
Posted by on 3.3.07 @ 3:09PM
Re: Your CPAC speech. "You can't government your way to prosperity" isn't a good line. It just sounds gramatically demented.
Romney On Coulter Endorsement
Posted by on 3.3.07 @ 2:06PM
Over at the Corner, there's a discussion about Romney's comment during his CPAC speech that Ann Coulter was a "moderate." Obviously, it was a joke and shoud be treated as such. In light of the discussion, though, I thought it would be worth pointing out that when Romney came over to speak with bloggers yesterday, he was asked what he thought about the fact that Coulter endorsed him.
In response, Romney said: "Isn't that something? Wow. I didn't know that. I love all endorsements."
Homespun Huckabee
Posted by on 3.3.07 @ 11:57AM
The blog ate my thoughts on Mike Huckabee's CPAC speech yesterday, so I'm going to repost it here. Huckabee gave a detailed, generally well received, conservative speech bookmarked by folksy storytelling that had you entertained when he began but bored by the time this shtick ended.
Huckabee argued that the 2008 Republican nominee should be a "fiscal conservative," a "family conservative," and a "freedom conservative." The former Arkansas governor launched into a fairly lengthy defense of his economic credentials, detailing every tax cut he signed into law and every bit of waste, fraud, and abuse he excised from the state budget. He boasted that a fraud hotline he set up got enough government figures convicted that "the five most feared words became, 'Will the jury please rise.'" Huckabee announced that at the conclusion of his speech he would sign the Americans for Tax Reform taxpayer protection pledge, allaying fears of that he'd be a tax-hiking Republican.
Even when Huckabee repeated his line about the need for conservatives to care about life after birth, he avoided calling for anything much more statist than education spending. While short on foreign-policy credentials, he contrasted the culture of life with a radical Islam that would take a child and "strap a bomb to his belly" so he could kill innocent people. He described the war against this form of Islam as an existential threat to the United States.
It was the social conservatism that got the best crowd response. He took subtle digs at Romney, mocking candidates who have had "a road to Damascus" conversion on almost every issue, and Giuliani, questioning how you could "hate" abortion yet view it is a mere choice. His remarks about the federal marriage amendment got a standing ovation.
All pretty good, until Huckabee tapered off into some long story about a teacher who removed the the desks from her classroom to remind her students that soldiers fought -- for their desks. It was a pretty good example of how Huckabee's homespun charm can quickly descend into hokiness when he's not careful.
Re: Brownback Ending Cancer
Posted by on 3.3.07 @ 9:27AM
The last time I saw Newt Gingrich speak he also spent a long time talking about how cancer could be cured in the near future, going so far as to imagine a day when we all would drink a glass of orange juice every morning fortified with microscopic cancer eaters.
Maybe microscopic cancer eaters will be the compassionate conservative vanguard in 2008? We can only hope.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Romney Interview
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 5:59PM
Mitt Romney just stopped by Bloggers' Corner here at CPAC, and I asked him whether, given that he signed an assault weapon's ban in Massachusetts in 2004 but has since become a lifelong member of the NRA, he would sign or veto a federal ban on assault weapons if it were presented to him. He basically punted on the issue, saying he couldn't comment if he didn't know the specifics of the legislation. To be fair, this is more or less the same way that Giuliani domestic advisor Bill Simon answered when I posed a similar question yesterday.
Romney said, "My position is the same as it has been, which is that I support the Second Ammendment, but I also support assault weapon's ban, that's why I signed a bill of that nature…" I followed up and asked what he would feel about a federal ban, and he said, "the specifics of the particular ban are something that I'd have to look at, and it's been a long time since we've looked at the types of weapons that would be involved."
Ed over at Captain's Quarters has a podcast up, with the full audio of Romney's answer, as well as his answers to other questions. Karol over at Alarming News also has a write up.
Re: Giuliani at CPAC
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 5:30PM
While Romney's speech offered more nuts and bolts, Giuliani's speech was thematic. At CPAC, Rudy Giuliani was facing a conservative audience that should be the most hostile toward the possibility of his winning the Republican nomination, given his oft-discussed positions on social issues, and yet he was generally well received, entering and exiting the stage to a standing ovation as "New York, New York" blasted. He got a great boost with an introduction by George Will, who spoke highly of his record as mayor of New York City. He described how Giuliani reduced crime, cut taxes, restrained spending, and slashed welfare rolls in a city that had suffered through decades of liberalism that had taken the city from the elegance of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" to the decay of the "Bonfire of the Vanities." Will went as far as to call Giuliani's reign as mayor the most successful example of conservative governance in the 20th Century.
Giuliani spent much of his speech discussing fiscal issues and made a powerful case for school choice. As he has done recently, he redefined the War on Terror. Americans, he said, are not warlike people, but desire peace. "This is not our war on terror, this the war of terrorists against us."
Also, there was a dose of trademark Giuliani self-deprecation about some of the issues he faces in a Republican primary. In his introduction, Will described Maragret Thatcher as someone who would swat government agencies away with a handbag. In his opening, Giuliani joked that if he swatted government agencies with a handbag, he would have another problem. "I have enough issues with already, I don't need more." Perhaps it was a subtle reference to this video. Later in the speech, he cited Reagan's 80-20 theory, that if you agree on 80 percent of the issues, you're allies.
Re: Romney at CPAC
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 4:36PM
I thought he brought his A game, and gave the type of energetic speech that he really needed. It was also clear how he tried to subtly and not subtly draw a contrast to Giuliani and McCain. In a nice touch, he brought his wife to the podium to talk about Mitt the family man, which went over well with the crowd at CPAC--and also sets him apart from divorcees Giuliani and McCain. In the speech he promised to fight to repeal McCain-Feingold and opposes the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. In Grover Norquist's introduction, as well as Romney's speech itself, there was an emphasis on needing a nominee who is a fighter for all the pillars of conservatism: fiscal conservatism, national security, and social issues. Romney hit on all those points in his speech, drawing on his experiences in Massachusetts. By busing in hundreds of supporters, he had a core group of enthusiastic audience members who helped pump up the energy level.
Shock and Yawn
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 4:21PM
Apparently, Ann Coulter has decided that whenever she comes to CPAC she has to use some sort of slur. Last year it was raghead. This year (I'm paraphrasing): "I was going to say something about John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" Do I need rehab for saying attention-whore?
Romney at CPAC
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 4:00PM
He did pretty good, I suppose, but I couldn't help feeling that he seemed a bit artificial. I wonder if it's a function of crowd size. This was a bigger room than the one he addressed at the Heritage event I covered a few weeks ago, in front of a crowd of a few hundred, and he seemed more impressive then. I remember Romney struck me as almost robotic at the '04 convention, where he was addressing a stadium.
Why Senator Grassley Doesn't Like Brazil
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 3:45PM
Ackk! My state's federal boondoggle is threatened! Stop it! Stop it!
Re: Brownback at CPAC
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 3:04PM
Anyone remember who gave a rambling, unfocused speech at CPAC last year? George Allen, the politically doomed.
Coincidence? A successful candidate needs a story, a theme connecting his key issues.
Brownback's fascination with corn is unfortunate, and reflects politics over good economics.
Brownback at CPAC
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 2:42PM
While Sam Brownback is a good speaker, his seemed to be trying to touch as many bases as possible, flitting from the war on terror to a flat tax to ending cancer (huh?) to gay marriage to abortion to energy independence. (The energy stuff was the usual replace-oil-with-corn pipedream; I'm not sure why he didn't retool his speech for a non-Iowa audience.) Far better to get a little deeper on a few big themes than to skate over the surface of so many little ones.
Giuliani at CPAC
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 1:55PM
Quick take: Rudy was more subdued today than in the past, especially compared to his electric 2004 convention speech -- then again, the mood in the audience is a lot more subdued now than it was then. Still, he packed the room and held the audience rapt.
By the way, while there are lots of professionally printed signs around for Romney, Brownback, and Tancredo, there are none for Giuliani, though there were quite a few hand-made signs at the speech.
Cart Stops, Bus Doesn't
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 1:40PM
I just watched a couple of CNN Internet video reports about that bus carrying the baseball team that tumbled onto I-75 in Atlanta. Prior to each of the news segments was the "Amazon now sells groceries" commercial in which a shopping cart -- without anyone pushing it -- rolls down sidewalks, weaves through traffic, and even stops at a stop sign, which is something the bus driver apparently did not do.
Obviously unintentional and not necessarily tasteless, but kind of eerie nonetheless.
Hunter vs. China
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 11:00AM
Duncan Hunter stopped by Blogger's Row; he's got a spring in his step over his second-place showing in the (not-terribly-meaningful) Spartanburg County Straw Poll in South Carolina. He mentioned his immigration restrictionist credentials, of course, but also spent a lot of time talking about China, accusing Beijing of cheating on trade deals and building up their military with American dollars.
Hunter seems to favor weakening trade relations with China to avert conflict, which seems a bit counterintuitive.
Re: Huckabee at CPAC
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 10:25AM
Has anyone spotted any Huckabee signs or buttons here? I haven't.
UPDATE: Huckabee is speaking now, emphasizing his pro-life credentials. He compared concern for unborn life with concern for the Mt. Hood hikers, which strikes me as a rather odd analogy. Imagine if an overblown cable-news circus surrounded every pregnancy...
Huckabee at CPAC
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 10:03AM
I just went to a short reception where Mike Huckabee made some pre-remarks before his speech at CPAC in a few minutes. He talked about his victory in the 1993 election for lieutenant governor in Arkansas against Bill Clinton's hand-picked candidate who was backed by the Clinton political machine, and connected that to his uphill battle for the nomination. He said "The pundits have spoken, but the people have not spoken."
Social Conservatives and the GOP
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 7:36AM
Phil discussed Ryan Sager, Ramesh Ponnuru, and the question of whether so-cons were leading the GOP astray electorally.
My own two cents is this: We were beginning to win the cultural battle prior to 9-11. I was working at a state-based family policy group advocating for marriage, against abortion, against gambling, against net porn, etc. and had the very distinct impression we were gaining traction nationally.
You could feel it. Welfare reform had worked and the next step was going to be to re-introduce the underclass to the magic formula of a high school degree, marriage, and then pregnancy in wedlock. One of the worst costs of 9-11 has been that a very positive movement was shunted to the side and all that really remained in the public eye was the show horse part dealing with gay marriage because of its newsworthiness.
Rudy's Ceasefire
Posted by on 3.2.07 @ 1:19AM
Ramesh Ponnuru makes a good point in response to Ryan Sager's article on Giuliani and social conservatives:
I think that there is very, very little evidence either that "extreme elements of the religious right" are responsible for the Republican party's difficulties or that the party, to any great extent, buys this analysis. I also think that to sell Giuliani as a way of weakening the social Right's influence in the party is to do the candidate no favors.
I largely agree. It's difficult to
make the argument that the Republican Party is in bad shape because
of extreme social conservatism. The reality is that problems in
Iraq and Congressional scandals are responsible for the Republican
defeat in 2006. Also, if the Giuliani campaign is pitched as a kind
of effort to purge social conservatives from the party, then he'll
go down in flames. That's why Giuliani has not been pitching
himself this way. At no point has he argued that the Republican
Party needs to become pro-choice and/or abandon social conservatism
to win. He acknowledges that there are areas of disagreement, but
wants the discussion to focus on the issues on which there is broad
agreement. Essentially, he has been calling for a cease fire on
social issues so that Republicans can unite along the common goals
of steadfastness in the War on Terror and fiscal conservatism. He's
saying: I'll appoint judges that you'll approve of and let the
social issues play themselves out in the states--let's join
together to beat the bad guys.
This, in my view, is leadership.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Scooter Update
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 5:01PM
Well, the word is that the jury in the Scooter Libby trial has asked for permission to be let off early tomorrow, at 2 p.m., which indicates that they fully expect NOT to be finished even by then and thus that they expect to be deliberating into next week. This is a travesty. Perjury is a rather cut-and dried charge: Either the person deliberately told a clear falsehood to the court, or he didn't. If it is not clear readily apparent that this is what happened, then the jury should acquit. This isn't just a "preponderance of evidence" question. The defendant must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If it takes this long to decide on something as simple as truth or falsehood, then it is obviously a case of a gray area being dominant.
I repeat what I said yesterday, that a jury going through all of this so painstakingly seems, to me at least, that the defense contention that everybody has a faulty memory is just not being accepted by the jury. If I were Libby, I would be nervous. And if I were his attorneys, I would already be working on the appeal, on the grounds that the judge improperly refused to allow the defense to introduce evidence it considered key to its case....
How Long Before...
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 4:34PM
...these tornadoes are blamed on global warming?
UPDATE: Not that long.
Bill Simon on Giuliani
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 3:48PM
I just spoke will Bill Simon, Rudy Giuliani's domestic advisor and asked him about Giuliani's positions on judges, gun contol, and partial birth abortion.
I asked Simon about a story today in the Politico, which says that the judges Giuliani appointed as mayor leaned to the left, in contrast to his promise to appoint strict constructionist judges. Simon said the story was "comparing apples and oranges." When Giuliani appointed judges in New York, he could only choose from a pool of three judges who were nominated by a 19-person advisory committee. So, he didn't have a free rein to appoint whoever he wanted. Simon reiterated Giuliani's pledge to appoint strict constructionists were he elected president.
On gun control, I asked him specifically whether Giuliani would sign or veto an assualt weapon's ban if it were passed by the Democratic Congress. He said it was "premature" to answer that at this point, and reiterated Giuliani's stance that he supports the Second Amendment and believes that any restrictions should be at the local rather than the federal level.
I asked him about Giuliani's opposition to a ban on partial birth abortion when he ran for Senate in 2000. Simon assured me that Giuliani now supports a ban, as long as there is an exception for the life of the mother.
UPDATE: The Politico's Ben Smith responds to the defense of Rudy's NY judicial appointments.
McConnell on Card Check
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 2:15PM
I just went to a bloggers' briefing with Sen. Mitch McConnell, and he talked a bit about the prospects of "card check" in the Senate. He said the Republicans' "goal" was to block the bill, but wouldn't give specifics when I asked whether he was confident that they had enough votes to filibuster.
Wasted Lives
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 2:09PM
McCain echoes an Obama gaffe. It's a bit of a tempest in a teapot (bad planning has cost some some lives, hasn't it?), but it's not a good sign for McCain that he can get negative publicity out of an appearance on Letterman.
RE: McCain's Snub
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 1:14PM
Romney supporter handing out flyers on McCain's attendence record.
Against Everyone
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 10:43AM
Some friction in the conservative movement this morning: James Joyner, who's sitting next to me, blogs about the guy who came by hawking stickers with the a crossed-out slogan "Rudy McCain." Meanwhile, there's a guy in a dolphin suit with a shirt that tags Mitt Romney as "another flip-flopper from Massachusetts." Who's he working for, I wonder? (A pro-life student organization in Massachusetts, I'm told by someone who talked to him.)
McCain's Snub
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 10:31AM
Not only did John McCain turn down an invitation to speak at CPAC, he tried to rent a room to court attendees away from the cameras:
Sponsors of the Conservative Political Action Conference, which begins today in Washington and brings together thousands of conservative leaders and grass-roots activists, say the Arizona Republican has "dissed" organizers by attempting to schedule a private reception for attendees after rejecting invitations to speak at the event.Classy."It was a classical McCain move, dissing us by going behind our backs," said William J. Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union...
Conservative activists have speculated that Mr. McCain did not want to be seen on television "pandering" to Republican "right-wingers" but wanted to court those same activists at a reception in the same hotel.
"He turned down repeated CPAC offers to speak but then tried to get around us by having his office call the hotel to rent a room for a reception for CPAC attendees -- without first seeking approval of CPAC organizers," said Mr. Lauderback.
Incidentally, if you're at CPAC, be sure to stop by and say hi. TAS has a booth -- Jim Antle was there, last I saw -- and I'm on Blogger's Row.
Addendum to Klein on Giuliani
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 10:11AM
Phil mentioned that John Lindsay, ultimately a party switcher was the last Republican elected (back in the sixties) in NYC prior to Rudy.
It may be worth remembering that Lindsay was so far removed from any suggestion of conservatism, William F. Buckley felt the need to run against him as the Conservative party candidate.
Buckley, of course, got a stunning 13.4% of the vote. Even better, we got the fabulous Buckley book on the event, titled The Unmaking of a Mayor.
Lindsay, I feel compelled to add, won anyway!
Re: Romney, Major Candidate
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 6:58AM
It shocked me to find Romney so far down in public recognition polls and in positive-negative regard. Seeing him from Massachusetts, he appears to bestride the political world -- shows you how provincialism still operates.
Mitt needs something other than running for President that will get him on TV on a regular basis in a positive way. Once seen, people will like him. He has the rare quality of being authoritative without seeming authoritarian. And he's wonderfully attractive. I cite Chris Wallace's oft-played radio soundbite for Howie Carr: "I have a kind of man-crush on him."
Maybe he could rescue somebody from drowning again, the way he did a couple of summers ago. Actually, what would benefit him enormously is either the kind of gig Fred Thompson has, doing Paul Harvey's radio show, or doing what Reagan did, criss-crossing the country, talking about a coherent political and social value system. Reagan did it on behalf of GE. Perhaps Mitt will emerge from this election the way Reagan did from the Ford election, and succeed one cycle later.
The Resume Primary
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 1:42AM
A reader takes issue with my portrait of Romney's record:
I am aware of Romney's record. I specifically mentioned the balanced budget and healthcare in my post, and I don't think the latter is an argument in Romney's favor. I'm not denying that Romney was a successful businessman at Bain Capital, but my post was in response to Hunter's question specifically about Romney's political resume, and as a one-term governor, I stand by my point that it's thin. The only reason I didn't mention other candidates is that I wanted to try to avoid having to do another post about Giuliani, but since you asked for it…
Giuliani served as the third-highest ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department before leaving to become a U.S Attorney in New York, and then he proceeded to take down the mob. When he was elected mayor in 1993, the electoral environment in New York City was much less hospitable to Republicans than it was in Massachusetts when Romney won in 2002. Romney followed a 12-year string of Republican governors. Giuliani was the first NYC mayor elected as a Republican since 1965, and that mayor--John Lindsay--later became a Democrat. So, you have to go back to the re-election of Fiorello La Guardia in 1941 to find another Republican who stayed a Republican. In the last pre-Giuliani election in 1985 (Rudy won and lost a close race in 1989), the Republican candidate finished third, garnering a whopping 9 percent of the vote. And unlike Romney, Giuliani was able to get a Republican successor elected. Michael Bloomberg may not be a rock solid Republican, but he sure beats Mark Green or Freddy Ferrer.
When Giuliani was sworn in as mayor in 1994, New York City was an absolute cesspool of crime, filth, and corruption--averaging about 2,000 murders a year, with one in seven people on welfare. At the very least it was in far worse condition than Massachusetts was when Romney took over in 2002. With a City Council in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans 46-5, Giuliani faced just as difficult of a legislative environment as Romney did. He also was under constant attack by entrenched special interests, as well as the likes of the NY Times, Al Sharpton and the ACLU. While his accomplishments as mayor can fill (and have filled) a volume, Deroy Murdock recently offered a nice summary:
Then there was Sept. 11. Some Romney supporters evidently feel that his rescuing of the 2002 Olympics was more impressive than Giuliani's leadership on 9/11. I agree to disagree. But there's no need to argue this point.
After leaving office, Giuliani has gained private sector experience by building a successful consulting, legal, and financial services firm. Romney's achievements at Bain Capital are undeniable, but I don't think most voters will hold it against Giuliani that he spent much of his adult live decimating the mafia and transforming New York City.
As I've said before, perhaps the Romney CEO candidacy would have more appeal if we were in the midst of a major economic crisis, but since we're electing a wartime leader, I don't think having built a tremendously successful investment firm is as relevant as Romney boosters seem to believe. Warren Buffett is the greatest investor in American history, but he ain't Winston Churchill.
Arthur Schlesinger, RIP
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 12:43AM
The great liberal historian and friend of Democratic presidents has died at 89.
Call the Feds
Posted by on 3.1.07 @ 12:33AM
Tell them to end this. NOW. Read it all, line by damning line.
Kudos to the LA Weekly for getting this done when apparently no one
else will.
Under and behind and inside everything our apologists for illegal immigration take for granted, something horrible has been growing.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Romney the Big
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 9:23PM
Philip, my only point was that Romney's entire resume (I count his non-political experience as an asset) is stronger than Huckabee-Gilmore-Brownback trio's. The merits of what he actually did in Massachusetts are up for a vigorous debate, but between a fairly strong resume and an even stronger marketing machine over the last two years, he deserves to be mentioned among McCain and Giuliani.
Another way of looking at those top three: that the conservative press regularly mentions a guy earning 4 percent in polls in the same group as the other two indicates how weak the other two are in their own ways.
If These Enemies Could Talk
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 8:15PM
Thanks, Tabin, for giving this beleaguered international-law conservative a window of opportunity. I ought to be writing a very triumphant and high-toned vindication of my own podium-pounding on this subject, but I'll have to leave it to the ABDs out there with plenty of time on their hands. The long and short of it is that talking to the bad guys has made sense for a long time, and that, now, time is running short. The USA has nothing to lose but the pay scale of some high-ranking diplomats (who're being paid, I wager, anyhow) and everything to gain, including:
(a) an opportunity to drive procedural and substantive wedges between Syria, which jumped at the chance for talks, and Iran, which is far more recalcitrant and fractured a government;
(b) the sort of international cred that silences opportunist critics like France and Russia -- most importantly, as in the case of Russia, regardless of how accurate their observations are;
(c) various back doors to negotiated settlements in Iraq, like what the Study Group supplied but on a far grander level.
Regardless of whether you think we should, must, or must not stick it out in Iraq, and regardless of which benchmarks you tie those imperatives to, setting the table for real, hard-nosed diplomacy marks a return to what once used to be de rigeur for realists, the original foreign policy hawks. Assuming, particularly, that you think the bad guys really are the bad guys and we ought to fight them in the most effective ways we can, I'd forcefully argue that fighting it out at the bargaining table is where it's at. Attacking Iran is flat out madness and attacking Syria -- now -- is totally useless. Why not take the fight somewhere we can actually engage the adversary and seek accomplishments? We've heard the argument that the Administration saw nothing to gain, no leverage, in Iran negotiations. Well, now, clearly, that's changed. And that's good. Let's get it on.
RE: Romney, Major Candidate?
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 5:43PM
As a Massachusetts native, I basically agree with Phil's assesment of Mitt Romney's record as governor. I thought he did well enough to deserve a second term, which he decided not to seek. I supported Kerry Healey's ill-fated bid to replace him in 2006. And while I think you have to count his poor performance as a party builder against him, Romney did give it the old college try for his first two years in office. I discussed this at greater length in an NRO piece last March.
Lost It--Or Not?
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 5:32PM
Is Jose Padilla really suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder? Smoking Gun has the court documents up laying out Padilla's entire life, basically. Then there's this Reuters article, which includes this bit:
Both sides agree the former Chicago gang member and ex-con understands the charges, which accuse him of aiding Islamist extremists and conspiring with them to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. Padilla sits quietly in court and the judge described him as "almost polite to a fault."
But he has not provided even a scrap of information his defense lawyers can use to prepare for trial, defense attorney Anthony Natale said.
Padilla was so traumatized by years of isolation and interrogation at a military brig, where he was held by presidential order for 3 1/2 years before being charged in the civilian court, that he twitches and freezes up when questioned by his lawyers, Natale said. Nonetheless, Padilla insists he has already told all, Natale said.
"Because of that he is not going to be able to get a fair trial and we are not going to be able to competently represent him," Natale said. Padilla fears being labeled "crazy" and adamantly denies anything is wrong, Natale said, adding: "That is totally and completely irrational."
If this goes to trial in April as scheduled, the pro-Bush camp will likely focus on the charges while the anti-Bush camp beats the drum about the circumstances of Padilla's detention, egged on by Padilla's lawyers who have a client that seemingly won't help them help him. It'll probably suck up quite a bit of the media oxygen and pundit sniping time.
In short, it looks like the circus is coming to town again. But, then, how long could we really talk about David Geffen anyway?
2000 Polling: A Look Back
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 2:49PM
Rudy skeptics may be dismissive of the new Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows Rudy up over McCain 44-21, arguing that a lot can change in the next 11 months. I wouldn't dispute that. However, I thought it would be interesting to compare these numbers to polls at this time in the 2000 election. I visited Polling Report, and found the following poll from February 1999:
Republican Leadership Council Poll conducted by Greg Strimple & Associates (R). February 1-4, 1999. N=408 likely Republican voters nationwide."If the Republican primary election for president were held today and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?"
George W. Bush 40
Elizabeth Dole 27
Dan Quayle 9
Steve Forbes 6
John McCain 3
Gary Bauer 2
Lamar Alexander 1
Undecided 12
Clearly, a lot did change. Dole never ran, and McCain shot up in the polls like a rocket. But it is worth noting that at the time this poll was taken, Bush was considered a shoe-in to win the nomination, and he ultimately triumphed. Yet Giuliani's lead in current polls is much larger than Bush's was 8 years ago, and a lot of political commentators still say that he can't win the nomination.
UPDATE: Sean Higgins in comments:
Actually Dole did run in 2000. She came in third in Iowa, then dropped out when it was apparent she wasn't going anywhere.
I regret the
oversight.
Re: Romney, Major Candidate?
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 2:15PM
Hunter raises a good question when he asks how Romney's political resume compares with others. In my view, his resume is pretty thin. Dave Holman notes Romney's "successful campaign in a tough state for a Republican," but as liberal as
Lost in the Trees?
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 1:56PM
I am starting to get worried about this Libby jury. The notes it sent to the judge yesterday and today indicate that it still is getting into the minutiae of the easiest count, one of the two involving Mr. Cooper of Time mag. This can't be good for Libby. It probably means that the jury is trying hard to figure out whether each statement Libby made was absolutely true or not, rather than whether it was a deliberate lie. I.e., that note, plus its request for sticky notes and other indications of making a great big chart, makes it look like it is treating every discrepancy as possible perjury, rather than as a mere difference in memory among the witnesses. The so-called federal perjury statutes, according to this seemingly knowledgeable web site, must involved the following:
Perjury requires proof that a defendant, while under oath, knowingly made a false statement as to material facts.United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). The "knowingly " requirement is a high burden: the government must prove the defendant had a subjective awareness of the falsity of his statement at the time he provided it. United States v. Dowdy, 479 F.2d 213, 230 (4th Cir. 1973); United States v. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d 786, 811 (2d Cir. 1992). It is beyond debate that false testimony provided as a result of confusion, mistake, faulty memory, carelessness, misunderstanding, mistaken conclusions, unjustified inferences testified to negligently, or even recklessness does not satisfy the "knowingly " element. See, e.g., Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 94; United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640, 659 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see also Department of Justice Manual, 1997 Supplement, at 9-69.214.
Furthermore, the entire Cooper count never should have been brought, because a perjury conviction under 18 U.S.C. ' 1621 cannot rest solely on the testimony of a single witness, and, at the very least as a matter of practice, no reasonable prosecutor would bring any kind of perjury case based on the testimony of one witness without independent corroboration , especially if the witness is immunized, or has any question as to credibility or truthfulness. As the Supreme Court has made clear, a perjury case "ought not to rest entirely upon "an oath against an oath." United States v. Weiler, 323 U.S. 606, 608-09 (1945). The Cooper counts are a classic example of one man's memory against the other, i.e. of "an oath against an oath."
What all of this means (IMHO) is that perjury should be a rather cut-and-dried issue: If there is a serious debate about whether there was an intentional falsehood, then by definition there is reasonable doubt about either the facts or the motive, and thus the proper thing to do is to acquit.
Nevertheless, this jury now has been deliberating for more than
a week, and it is still in the weeds on the very count that should
be easiest to dismiss. If it were in the weeds on the easiest count
to convict, that would be one thing -- something that could
potentially be good for the defendant. But to still be in the weeds
on the Cooper count must mean the jury is less interested in motive
and faulty memory, and more interested in trying to ascertain
whether every single detail is true or not. If I were Libby, I
would not be happy. And it's a shame, because (if I have read all
this correctly) it means that the jury's standard of proof is
erring in favor of the prosecution. I hope I'm wrong, because this
whole case is a crock.
More Gingrich
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 12:47PM
Some grist for the who-gets-Newt's-supporters mill, from the WaPo writeup on their poll:
In the latest poll, the former New York mayor led among Republicans with 44 percent to McCain's 21 percent. Last month, Giuliani led with 34 percent to McCain's 27 percent.Former House speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia ran third in the latest poll with 15 percent, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was fourth with 4 percent. Gingrich has not said he definitely plans to run, and without him, Giuliani's lead would increase even more, to 53 percent compared with McCain's 23 percent.
Re: What Big Three?
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 12:27PM
Jim: It's not just that Gingrich probably isn't running that keeps him out of the top tier. If he does decide to enter the race in the fall, he'll be way behind on fundraising; many donors will already be committed to another candidate, and many others will be reluctant to back Newt because of his obvious liabilities. He's whip-smart -- he'd make a good cabinet secretary -- but he lacks either the broad appeal or the political discipline to win a general election.
As for where the Newt fans are going to go, I don't know, but I suspect that a lot of those who are telling pollsters they support Gingrich are "Anyone But McCain" types.
RE: What Big Three?
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 11:43AM
Wlady, in the poll you mention and many others, it's actually Newt Gingrich who has the stronger claim to be in the Big Three. Yet he's rarely mentioned because the conventional wisdom is he isn't going to run. If that conventional wisdom proves false, Newt could shake up the race and send Romney down the memory hole. If he doesn't end up running, the million dollar question becomes: Where do his supporters go?
What Big Three?
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 11:07AM
A friend asks: Does Mitt Romney deserve a place among the Big Three? It's an excellent question. You'd think it was a no-brainer than someone of such sharp presence and polish and money and organization belongs there. Yet for all that, he's just not registering outside pundit circles. The latest proof, as Phil Klein has already noted today: a Washington Post poll in which he scores a lowly 4 among Republicans, way behind Rudy Giuliani at 44 and John McCain at 27. It must be kind of depressing to be running neck and neck with the margin of error.
Talking to Enemies
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 11:03AM
Looks like we'll be negotiating with Syria and Iran. David Frum is unhappy. I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish. I'd be interested to hear what James Poulos has to say (he's advocated talking to the bad guys in the past), if he isn't too busy.
Re: Major Candidate
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 9:53AM
While none of the GOP presidential candidates are far-and-away winners, what distinguishes McCain/Romney/Giuliani from the other three is the difference between Bs and Cs. McCain, Romney, and Giuliani have substantial resumes with notable successes. McCain and Giuliani have, or have had, some measure of national prominence or popularity. Romney's business record and successful campaign in a tough state for a Republican recommend him to those who write checks.
Gilmore, Huckabee, and Brownback are virtual unknowns who look good in small groups in D.C. But they are all career pols having difficulty distinguishing themselves. Why? Gilmore doesn't stir much more enthusiasm in Virginia than George Allen does. Huckabee's prime virtue, even in light of his gubernatorial record, is that he lost lots of weight. These two have long toyed with campaigns, but were late to the game. I like Brownback, but I don't think social conservatives' national stock is on the rise.
The latter three are not altogether awful candidates, and the former three are not spectacular. But it is clear that Gilmore and Huckabee, at least, are pretenders. Brownback is a longshot issue candidate who will hopefully "change the discussion," as they say. Apologies to their fans, but the guys are trading on personality and not much in the way of records.
The Price of Secularism: $12 Million
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 9:41AM
William & Mary is realizing the true cost of President Gene Nichol's Wren Cross decision this week: a donor revoked a $12 million pledge. Ouch.
Nichol is still blind to his responsibility though: "Ultimately it only hurts our students."
And he justifies it through integrity: "Diversity, including religious diversity, remains a core value of this institution," he wrote. "The core values of the college cannot be for sale."
The lesson: William & Mary will pay $12 million to banish the cross (except for Sundays), and $1800 to solicit revealing performances by sex workers. That is the price of diversity.
Re: Major Candidates
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 9:12AM
Apropos of Hunter's query, Noam Scheiber wonders if Brownback is threatening Romney.
CPAC is this week, and it provides an opportunity for the candidates who are speaking to make a splash, so it's possible that the CW on the race is about to shift somewhat. Stay tuned.
Romney, Major Candidate?
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 8:01AM
Okay, so Romney can raise money. That's not shocking, considering he is one the two most prominent members of a growing and successful mass religious movement in America AND that he is a well-known figure in the business world.
But that doesn't address my point about his political resume' versus his competitors. Does he belong in the major candidate league above the others I mentioned on that basis? (Brownback, Gilmore, Huckabee)
Prince Charles: Ban Mickey D's
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 6:38AM
Can anyone make a good case, beyond a small-c conservative respect for old institutions, for letting this dope be king? He's a walking commercial for British republicanism.
RE: Gilmore v. Romney
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 1:44AM
I have a piece talking about Romney and the elite primary in somewhat greater detail.
RE: 2008 Temperatures
Posted by on 2.28.07 @ 1:03AM
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll is even worse for Romney: 26 percent favorable to 34 percent unfavorable, which is absolutely remarkable given his lack of name recognition. He's also the only one of the big six candidates in both parties to have a net negative rating. Giuliani has the highest rating: 64 favorable to 28 unfavorable. So in other words, more people have an unfavorable view of Romney than Rudy--even though 40 percent of people don't know enough about Romney to have an opinion, while only 8 percent have no opinion on Rudy. Meanwhile, as far as horse race numbers, Rudy has opened up a 44-21 lead over McCain. Romney is at just 4 percent--that's a drop from 9 percent in the same poll in January. At least according to this poll, Romney isn't making a good first impression.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Re: Gilmore v. Romney
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 10:12PM
Jim's right about the money angle. That's reinforced by media dynamics; Matt Yglesias complained recently that "the national media... simply decided unilaterally some years ago to only cover people who were already famous." There's something to that, though I don't think the press corps has become derelict in a vacuum; campaign finance regulations have made it harder to break through, which makes it rational to focus on the candidates who are already prominent.
2008 Temperatures
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 9:12PM
Rich Lowry has posted an entry about the latest Diageo/Hotline poll measuring the favorable/unfavorable numbers for candidates in both parties. At this stage, these figures are far more important than the horserace between the candidates. The numbers for Giuliani, McCain, and Obama are unsurprising; the numbers for Hillary Clinton ought to be a bit unsettling for her supporters.
But the numbers for Mitt Romney are intriguing. He is still relatively unknown yet voters who have heard of him are almost evenly split over whether they like him. I wonder to what extent the controversy over his social-issues positions has played a role by galvanizing people on both sides of some of the most emotional debates in American politics.
RE: Gilmore v. Romney
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 8:44PM
A lot of the difference has to do with money and organization. Mitt Romney has excelled at fundraising and put together at least the third best campaign organization on the Republican side. Secondly, Romney did a far better job than either Gilmore or Mike Huckabee at introducing himself to conservative opinion leaders throughout 2005. In the modern nominating process, these things matter.
Gilmore v. Romney
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 6:49PM
Quin (and others),
The post about Gilmore as a presidential candidate is interesting and it causes me to bring up something here that I've raised in other venues.
What exactly is the calculus that makes Romney a top tier candidate while guys like Gilmore, Huckabee, and Brownback are all considered longshots? Each of those men have won more statewide elections than Romney has.
Gilmore won twice in VA. Once as Attorney General and again as Governor. He was also head of the RNC.
Huckabee won two four year terms as Governor in Bill Clinton's home state, a state that is absolutely purple, electorally speaking. That means he demonstrated crossover appeal.
Brownback has won three times (once in a special election) statewide in Kansas.
Compare Mitt Romney. He won a single term in Massachusetts, running in the standard socially moderate Mass. GOP mold. He finished his term and declared himself done, having accomplished everything he needed to accomplish. The rationale is one I have found surprising, considering Romney had just passed a comprehensive health care scheme that might have benefitted from his managerial expertise. More transparently, it has appeared to me that Romney didn't run in Massachusetts because he knew he couldn't win. (Just how does that distinguish him from Rick Santorum, who went ahead and ran, but lost?)
Given all of the above, why is Mitt the major candidate, nearly on a par with Giuliani and McCain, while Gilmore, Brownback, and Huckabee are virtual sideshows?
Any explanations from you politicos?
Gore Revisited
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 6:45PM
Al Gore maintains that, despite his voracious appetite for energy, he's still an eco-saint because he's purchased a plenary indulgence in the form of carbon offsets. Lots of people are making fun of him for this, but I think it's great: It must mean that all we need to fight global warming are more trees (and in North America, that's the way the trendline is pointing anyway). Anyone who buys into carbon offsets must admit that Kyoto and other draconian regulations are completely unnecessary -- unless the goal of reducing carbon dioxide secondary to the goal of hamstringing American capitalism.
Gilmore is Real Conservative
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 4:35PM
James Gilmore is the real deal.
Earlier today I attended a weekly conservative blogger's briefing, and today's guest was former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, now running for president. It was the second small gathering (the first was off the record) with Gilmore that I have attended in the past two months. I wanted to see if my first impressions (or, rather, second impressions; Gilmore and I lived in the same apartment building for a while last year) would be confirmed during the on-the-record meeting. They were indeed confirmed. And they were largely positive. Gilmore is clearly a true, solid, mainstream, unreconstructed conservative. He accurately claims to have the best resume in the Republican race. "I am what I am," he said. "I'm the real McCoy." Cliches aside, it seems a true and thus a telling claim.
His style may or may not be a handicap. It's sort of a cross between Bob Dole and Dick Cheney. Flat tones, matter-of-fact delivery. Like Dole (which is bad), he has a habit of saying "It's about...." with regard to almost every topic. It's about taxes. It's about security. It's about being a real conservative. It's about freedom. Whatever "it" is, it is "about" something. It's a verbal tic, made a bit more interesting by a strange pronunciation of "about" that is common both in Richmond and in Canada, more like "aboot." Like Cheney, though, Gilmore comes across as firm, believable, reassuring. People forget that Cheney actually comes across quite well in debates and in front of the press. The straightforward, non-nonsense approach doesn't excite people, but it inspires confidence. Gilmore has a bit of that. In short, he has credibility.
Despite what the Washington Post might say, Gilmore was a good governor. He's also a good campaigner. He wins races.
Meanwhile, on the war in Iraq, Gilmore doesn't bother with finger-pointing or intra-party blame-games (although he does offer firm but telling critiques of how the war lost the support of the American people). Instead, he turns the question around and goes right at the Left: "The Democrats are wrong, and this will create a chaotic situation. The Democrats have a recipe for catastrophe on this, in my view."
The man is pro-life, against high taxes, pro-Second Amendment, pro-economic freedom, anti-big government, pro-law-and-order, pro-national interest (on foreign policy). And, in a much-needed assertion that he repeated several times, the United States occupies the "moral high ground" in international affairs but does not do a good job getting that message out.
Thus ends a rather impressionistic blog entry. I know this is telegraphing my punches, but I intend to write a full column on Gilmore's candidacy in the near future. Look for it here at the American Spectator web site. I also intend to write a separate column on presidential candidate Duncan Hunter, a solidly conservative U.S. Representative from California. Neither column, nor this blog entry, is meant as an endorsement. I am a long way from choosing a candidate in the race for the GOP nomination. But good conservatives, and good men, like Gilmore and Hunter deserve a respectful audience from fellow conservatives. Herewith, then, is one attempt to provide it.
Re: A Blast from the Ghetto
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 3:15PM
Interesting, Shawn. In about 1969, the Temptations put out an album titled, "In the Ghetto," which, as I have written, marked the first big step on the downward trend of American R & B -- specifically because the songs did not have chord changes; they were chants. One step more, and you get rap and hip-hip. As I have also written, it's a long, long fall from Duke Ellington to Snoop Doggy Dogg.
I will write a column soon about The American Anthem project, which you hear touted by Bonnie Raitt in radio PSAs. The aim apparently is to get America's children singing, but, as I read the website, it's hard to see how they're going to do that. My own experience with children is that they don't know how to carry a tune. Instead of singing, they simply beller. My younger son thinks the Pledge of Allegiance is a song. Hey, it's kind of rhythmic, and you memorize the words, right?
Those "runs" are called "melisma," by the way, and yes, modern singers use way too many of them. (So did the castrati, who were criticized for pushing the bel canto movement too far, though the comparison is inapt.) I agree with Mr. Salerno for all the reasons he gives. Modern singing is rotten. And that is the fault of too much of the superficial influences of black singing.
Is it racist to say there is such a thing as black singing? Better not be.
RE: Man With A Plan
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 10:51AM
Regarding the leaked Romney campaign plan James mentioned below,
I found this part interesting:
The plan concedes that, with McCain and Giuliani in the race, Romney is unlikely to be the top pick for those voters looking for a "war/strong leader." His goal appears to be establishing himself as a credible second choice for those voters, but the first pick for voters looking for an energetic, optimistic, and innovative chief executive. (A page titled "Own the future" dubs McCain the past, Giuliani the present, and Romney the future. )
Conservative Blame Game
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 10:30AM
Richard Viguerie has conducted another one of his unscientific but interesting online polls. This one asked conservatives, "Who was responsible for the Republicans' disastrous defeats, including loss of control of the House and Senate, in the 2006 elections?"
The top answers, in order, were:
-- Conservative leaders who kept silent when the GOP became
the party of
Big Government
-- Illegal corruption, such as Mark Foley, Robert Ney, and Jack
Abramoff
-- Legal corruption, such as spending on special interest
groups to "buy"
their votes, including earmarks
-- Mainstream media that may have influenced the voters to
throw out the
Republicans
-- President George W. Bush
-- Conservative media that kept silent while the GOP became the
party of
Big Government
-- Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), former President Pro Tempore
of the
Senate and promoter of the $223 million Bridge to
Nowhere
-- Blunders and misstatements by Republican candidates
-- Former Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN)
-- Congressman Dennis Hastert (R-IL), former Speaker of the
House
The Moderate Myth?
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 10:22AM
Speaking of the New Republic, Bradford Plumer has a piece arguing that the past or present social moderation of the Republican frontrunners won't really matter -- they will all toe the socially conservative line due to the structure of today's GOP.
He has half a point. Social conservatives have become such an important part of the GOP coalition that even a socially moderate Republican would probably give them some policy victories. (Perhaps especially a socially moderate Republican.) Certainly, they would face fewer liabilities than under a Democratic administration. It's not likely that the Giuliani administration would try to use the RICO laws against pro-life demonstrators, for example.
But it's also worth noting that social conservatives rarely do much better than this under avowedly conservative Republican presidents. Most of their major policy goals remain unrealized. It is doubtful that a President Giuliani or even a President McCain -- who is less of a moderate, especially on social issues, than Plumer implies -- would give them more than a President Reagan or the current President Bush.
Man With a Plan
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 10:10AM
The Boston Globe has a report on a Romney campaign document that has gotten into the hands of the press. It seems to include a pretty standard analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Romney, McCain, and Giuliani alike. Of some interest is its apparent focus on "bogeymen" -- including Romney's home state of Massachusetts -- and willingness to bring up Giuliani's "ethical issues."
Rick Perlstein wrote a fairly crazy piece in the New Republic on Romney and the right. In one of his saner arguments, he charged that Romney was trying to appeal to conservatives through "right-wing tribal identity." While his specific examples remain off the mark -- it is bizarre to assert without evidence that Romney launched his campaign at the Henry Ford Museum so he could be attacked by the liberal media -- maybe there is something to the idea of winning over conservatives by railing against the right bogeymen.
RE: No Friend of Evangelicals
Posted by on 2.27.07 @ 12:53AM
Daniel Larison reminds me of this First Things account of Alexandra Pelosi's documentary that is a good deal more favorable than Don Feder's. The Ted Haggard stuff -- ugh.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Al Gore: Ecological Himmler?
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 11:08PM
Al Gore's mansion "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES)."
Since Gore has repeatedly equated global warming to the Holocaust, he must, by his own lights, be among history's greatest monsters, right?
A Blast From the Ghetto?
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 4:52PM
Steve Salerno--interviewed a few months back by yours truly here--has stirred a bit of controversy with this blog post, wherein he surveys R&B music in the era of American Idol and Dreamgirls and concludes, “Screaming unintelligible lyrics at a constant decibel level that would probably be too loud even for civil-defense purposes is not singing.” Hence, what he sees as the modern criteria for “good singing”:
* No sense of dynamics or nuance.
* No particular emphasis given to tone quality.
* No seeming consciousness of the way specific sections of the lyrics might call for a different vocal delivery.
* A numbing rhythmic predictability as well.
* All of it topped off by a tendency to mix in those grating "runs" (wherein every note is an excuse to surround it with 14 other notes that aren't in the basic song) that have characterized just about every Idol performance this season.
This, to Salerno, indicates a new era of “ghetto blasting” is upon us, referencing a term once used to refer to portable stereos that sacrificed sound quality for volume; a term that, Salerno notes, “fell out of favor in part for PC reasons and in part because ghetto-blasters began showing up in the dorm rooms of pimply faced suburban kids named Irv.” Despite several disclaimers, including a promise that “this isn’t about race; it’s about music,” calling out the multitude of white offenders and copping to an admiration for rap music,
You can use as many discalimers as you want, this sounds like racism to me. You're attack an aspect of AFrican American culture, and a deeply entrenched one at that, that goes back hundreds of years to slave songs and joyous refrains that looked forward to a day when freedom would come. This is not just a style, man, but a cultural voice. Get with it.
It's an interesting theory: Criticize modern pop R&B artists' technique and suddenly you're an apologist for the slave trade. So the question we all need to ask ourselves is...Do you love Dreamgirls? Or are you just another closet wannabe slave master?
Presidential Hopefuls at CPAC
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 4:49PM
I was just up on the CPAC website and noticed that most of the potential Republican presidential candidates will be on hand, so I figured I'd post the schedule.
8:30 Duncan Hunter
10:00 Mike Huckabee
12:00 Rudy Giuliani
1:00 Tom Tancredo
1:30 Sam Brownback
2:45 Mitt Romney
2:30 Jim Gilmore
4:45 Newt Gingrich
As of now, John McCain is not on the schedule.
Social Issues Shuffle
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 4:47PM
Fred Barnes has a piece in the current Weekly Standard about Republican and Democratic presidential candidates who switch social-issues positions to match their party's platform, especially on abortion. The gist of the article is correct, but it contains three problems:
1. Mitt Romney has switched on gay rights generally -- his emphasis has changed and he no longer supports gay-rights legislation that he once did -- but he opposed same-sex marriage before the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision. He campaigned as an opponent of gay marriage and civil unions in 2002; even in 1994, when he made some federalist noises on gay marriage, he still was officially opposed.
2. John McCain has always officially favored the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Where he has flipped is on whether Roe should be overturned in the forseeable future. A semantic distinction, perhaps, but one worth noting.
3. It seems odd to argue that switching to the pro-life position is "essential" for a Republican presidential candidate when the GOP frontrunner is actually pro-choice. Giuliani's abortion concessions are pretty minor: He's willing to appoint conservative judges who may or may not vote to overturn Roe; he is willing to support the partial-birth abortion ban now that it has already become law.
Moving On From 9/11
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 2:03PM
Those who think that Rudy Giuliani is being treated with kid gloves by the media need to take a look at this cover story from
Giuliani’s pro-war stance and his moderate social-issue positions may yet bury him. So could a lack of money, a green campaign staff, his thin political résumé, his trifecta of marriages, and, not least of all, the fact that the 9/11 card, however powerful it is, could simply prove too flimsy to carry him all the way to the White House.
An ongoing theme of the article is that "Except for those who have a personal connection to the (9/11) tragedy, people have generally moved on."
I have always argued that one of the biggest dangers we face is that as the years go by without a terrorist attack on American soil, and as the costs of fighting terrorism mount, people will want to return to the days when we treated terrorism as a "managable" threat. Of course, it would be a huge mistake to point to the absence of attacks that have been the result of increased vigilance against terrorism as an excuse to return to the lax attitude that brought us 9/11 in the first place.
The 2008 election, I believe, will hinge on this very issue. Do we want to return to the days when terrorism was a part of political life, but not the central part, or do we want to remain committed to aggressively battling jihadists? That's why I think the election will come down to Obama vs. Giuliani--both of them are the purest representatives of each point of view. Liberals will argue that they're every bit as committed to defeating terrorism as conservatives, only smarter about it. But underlying all of their arguments is a mocking attitude toward those of us who believe that the war on terrorism is worth fighting--they believe that conservatives are wildly exaggerating the threat of terrorism and Islamism and that we are overly obsessed with 9/11.
One of the reasons I have been such a staunch proponent of Giuliani's candidacy is that it's obvious that 9/11 is so personal for him and thus I'm fully confident that he'll always remain vigilant against terrorism, even if the public mood begins to shift toward complacency.
Guess Who's Bragging About K Street?
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 1:49PM
Remember back in the good but-not-so old days when the left complained that K Street represented everything wrong with Washington?
Well, I guess it depends on whose street it is. From the Campaign for America's Future:
PROGRESSIVES TAKING OVER K STREET POWER CORRIDORDidn't take long for the left to get comfortable with the trappings of power, eh?Changeover In Congress Helps Alter Political Culture In Washington, Campaign for America's Future Moves To K Street, Doubles Office Size
WASHINGTON - Marking the end of more than 12 years of conservative rule in the nation's capital, the Campaign for America's Future will double its office space and join a network of progressive groups taking over Washington's K Street power corridor this week.
The Campaign for America's Future moves to 1825 K Street today, joining several other progressive organizations that represent "the new K Street." Progressive Majority and the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center moved at the same time as the Campaign for America's future, joining Americans United and US Action, already in the building. The Campaign for America's Future signed a 10-year lease for the space to accommodate the organization's growth since its founding 10-years ago by a network of 100 prominent progressive leaders.
Can Rudy Do It?
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 1:18PM
The New Republic is hosting a debate on a subject we often discuss here: What are Giuliani's chances? The combatants are Michael Tomasky and Fred Siegel.
Jarvis Plays Jerk
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 11:23AM
Folksy wiseguy blogger Jeff Jarvis has posted a video critique of John McCain's video performances and strategies. It's all fair enough, until late in his video he goes over the top, as he we hear him say, before an image of McCain standing, arms and shoulders familiarly stiff: "What is it with that posture? You're looking a little too" -- and then Jarvis stiffly wiggles his shoulders as if he were a marionet -- "George Bush like."
What a fool -- doesn't Jarvis know that McCain's arms stick out like that because of what the North Vietnamese did to him during his imprisonment? Those arms were broken and rebroken by his torturers. Sometimes, Jarvis, cleverness has a way of punching you right in the jaw.
No Friend of Evangelicals
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 10:55AM
Former Boston Herald columnist Don Feder pans Alexandra Pelsoi's Friends of God documentary on the USA Today op-ed page.
I haven't seen much on Friends of God, but I do remember how badly Ms. Pelosi was upstaged by George W. Bush in Journeys with George.
Re: DNC
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 10:48AM
I had been prepared to raise hell over at the DNC for its mischaracterization of my writing, but a reader made an excellent point:
The DNC's tactics, were, I'm afraid, strictly business and nothing personal, so I shouldn't ask (cough) who gave the order.
America Is Far From Perfect...
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 10:21AM
...but on the whole it is a big force for good in the world.
Hat tip: Don Luskin.
Rudy To Address CPAC
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 10:10AM
Earlier this month, I criticized Giuliani for skipping out on conservative events. The Politico is now reporting that Rudy will attend CPAC on Friday. This should be an early test of how he does in front of a very committed, very conservative crowd. And with Romney also there, that leaves McCain, at the moment, as the odd one out among the big three.
The AP vs. Romney
Posted by on 2.26.07 @ 3:54AM
Let me join the chorus in condemning this disgraceful AP hit piece against Romney:
When I saw this outrageous story, my first thought was that it read like an Onion parody of how absurdly overboard the media goes in digging up dirt on presidential candidates. It's hard to know whether to chalk this up to liberal bias or religious bigotry that for some reason is tolerated when Mormons are involved.
Personally, I don't think that Romney's Mormonism should be an issue in this campaign, at all. I'm somewhat tolerant of the viewpoint that because faith is important in his life, the public should know how it affects how he would lead. But to cite a sermon given by his great-great-grandfather almost a century before he was born in a desperate effort to associate him with the stereotypes people have of his religion, is really a new low for the media.
My only hope is that the AP has gone so far overboard with this one, and utterly embarrassed itself to such a degree, that it will force the media to create some boundries as far as how they cover Romney's religous background.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Me vs. The DNC
Posted by on 2.25.07 @ 7:24PM
As John pointed out below, the DNC has quoted me wildly out of context in a press release under the subheadline "Conservative Leaders Oppose Giuliani's Candidacy." Of course, they are wrong on two counts. First, as flattering as it is, I don't think many people would quite consider me a "conservative leader." Second, and more importantly, I have been an outspoken proponent of Giuliani's candidacy, even to the annoyance of some commenters on this blog. The DNC quoted me as writing that "a Giuliani victory would be difficult, not impossible." (Leave it to Democrats to miss a Godfather Part II reference.) Of course, when I wrote that, it was as part of an article subtitled "In a unique time, America's Mayor finds himself in prime position to win the presidency." The article went on to explain how Giuliani could win over social conservatives. With Rudy building his lead against the top Democrats, it's no surprise that the donkey party would want to emphasize division among conservatives. But they can at least be honest about it. Tomorrow, I intend to demand a retraction. To extend the Godfather Part II analogy, "I hope they will have the decency to clear my name with the same publicity with which they have now besmirched it."
Next Up: Marshall Wittman's McCain-Bashing
Posted by on 2.25.07 @ 4:08PM
This DNC press release, highlighted at GayPatriot, displays the same freak-out-the-hicks cynicism that Iowahawk brilliantly parodied a while back. What's especially funny, though, is the reason the release caught GayPatriotWest's attention: It cites one of his posts for a quotation from-- well, check it out:
Klein Said Giuliani Victory Would Be Difficult. The American Spectator's Philip Klein wrote that "a Giuliani victory would be difficult, not impossible." [GayPatriot, 11/19/06]Yes, Phil Klein, one of the most pro-Giuliani commentators in the universe, is quoted in an effort to gin up Rudy-skepticism. The mind boggles.
The Clinton Crack-Up
Posted by on 2.25.07 @ 4:05PM
It's not every day that a conservative writer can count on a Newsweek to announce the publication of his next book. But that's what the newsweekly has done for our Bob Tyrrell, in Evan Thomas's piece in the March 5 issue on the Clintons and David Geffen:
"... R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the editor of The American Spectator, which first printed salacious details from Arkansas state troopers about Clinton's sex life, is publishing a book titled "The Clinton Crack-up: The Boy President's Life After the White House."
The publisher is Thomas Nelson, and publication date is March 20.
As for Thomas's story, the second most noteworthy thing about it is the reaction of Newsweek's readers. I expected at least a few Joe Conasons to weigh in to denounce Thomas or Tyrrell and defend Lady Hillary with all their heart and soul. Instead we get a steady outpouring of comments from liberals and independents uniformly disdainful of Hillary and her husband. Can she be called a polarizer if everyone is against her?
The Superfluity of Antitrust
Posted by on 2.25.07 @ 11:25AM
Attention, Thomas O. Barnett: I went to Staples to buy a replacement cartridge for my HP printer. Usually I buy a "Staples" brand replacement--they're a little cheaper. But they were no longer on display. Only the pricier HP cartridges were for sale. I asked the store manager if this was because HP had sued Staples. No, she said--HP "paid us more" to carry only their brand. ... If true, isn't this a pretty clear antitrust violation? HP would seem to be trying to enforce a (presumably lucrative) semi-monopoly position in HP replacement cartridges. I don't think semi-monopolists can do that. Or am I misremembering antitrust law? ... Backfill: Business Week has covered this, and finds a prof who says there's no antitrust violation because "there are alternatives being sold at other office superstores, and other printer brands are being sold at Staples." Second opinion, please. ...Who needs the Feds? A market in equilibrium will punish price-gouging colluders with lower sales. Of course, imperfect information retards the process of reaching equilibrium. Fortunately, we have the internet to speed things up. Spread the word: Buying HP printer cartridges at Staples is for suckers!
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Facing Up to Darwin
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
