- 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 10, 2007
Not a Day For Blogging
Posted by on 3.10.07 @ 3:34PM
Q: Hey, why isn't anyone posting here today?
A: It is currently sunny and in the 60s in the DC area. Note that it snowed earlier this week.
Bill Tucker for Monday from Iraq
Posted by on 3.10.07 @ 2:41AM
You'll notice we've already posted Bill Tucker's latest report from embedment in Iraq. What does it say that on arrival at Baghdad International he has to wait long hours before it's safe under cover of dark to be transported to the Green Zone?
Friday, March 9, 2007
Romney's Immigration Dance
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 5:08PM
I was going to try and go one day without a post on the 2008 presidential election, but in the wake of Romney's recent attacks on the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that would put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, I thought I'd double-check on some of Romney's past statements regarding immigration. Not surprisingly, Romney struck a very different tone as recently as a year ago. At CPAC last week, Romney got a big round of applause when he expressed opposition to McCain-Kennedy and declared his opposition to amnesty.
Campaigning in
"I don't agree with it; I think it's the wrong course," Romney said at the outset of four appearances in the first presidential primary state. "I do not believe amnesty is the right course for the 11 or 12 million illegal immigrant [sic] who are living here. It didn't work in the 1980s; it's not going to work in the 2000s either."
However, last March 30, 2006, on the heels of the approval of the McCain-Kennedy bill by the Judiciary Committee, the
"I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country," Romney said. "With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."
So, he was clearly for a path to citizenship last March, as the McCain-Kennedy bill was moving through the Senate, but now he's come out as a fierce opponent of McCain-Kennedy.
Meanwhile, the Miami Herald reports today:
And when Romney addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference in
Washington last week, he said: ``You strengthen the American people by securing our borders and by insisting that the children who come here legally to this country are taught in English.'' Four days later, Romney launched a Spanish radio ad in
South Florida paid for by ``Romney para presidente.'' The ad, along with an English-language TV commercial, made Romney the first and only presidential candidate already on the air in Florida.
Later in the story, we get this:
Romney's new radio ad features another prominent Cuban-American, Al Cárdenas, former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. In an interview, he called Romney's immigration policy a ``work in progress.''
Stay tuned.
Representative Obey Has A Potty Mouth!
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 3:55PM
Check out this confrontation between an anti-war group and David Obey. The 5:23 mark is particularly amusing.
Re: Is Patch Adams a Jerk?
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 2:48PM
No matter how unpleasant Patch Adams is, being around him can't possibly be all that much worse than watching Patch Adams.
Is Patch Adams A Jerk?
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 1:59PM
Sounds like Dr. Patch Adams isn't quite the lovable character as portrayed by Robin Williams. (You mean Hollywood distorted reality?!?! You don't say?!?!) From Nurse Ratched:
When we told [Adams] that we worked in a psychiatric unit, he glared at us. I saw rage in his eyes. He snarled, "Psych nurses! So, have you drugged up anyone today?" Then he turned and walked away. We were shocked, and my friend burst into tears. This guy wasn't like the character that Robin Williams played in the movie, and his comment was a slap in the face. I walked up to Dr. Adams, tapped him on the shoulder, and demanded to know what his problem was, but before he could answer, I asked him if he had been treated badly on a psychiatric unit in the past. He gave me his speech about how love can cure mental illnesses, and then he called me a pill Nazi because I give people Haldol. I stopped and stared at him, and then I started laughing. I told him that he wasn't the first doctor to call me a name, but he was the first one who had the balls to say something so ridiculous while wearing a clown suit.
RE: Bang!
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 1:50PM
CRC's Matthew Vadum has more. Money quote:
Brace yourself for a stomach-turning onslaught of hypocritical whining by D.C. politicians about the democratic rights of District residents. These politicians are the same people who are only too happy to trample on the most basic right of all, the right to self-defense, so when you hear their apoplectic outbursts don't feel so bad about your schadenfreude.
Re: Does this abaya...
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 1:42PM
Just imagine the Proustian reminiscence that that picture will trigger when the subjects come across it years from now and see four women who, judging by height, could perhaps have been them...
Bang!
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 11:50AM
Did you hear that? It's the DC Circuit Court opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia that just rang out like a shot -- and it may rip its way clear through the presidential election. A divided three-judge panel just held that Washington, D.C.'s draconian gun ban is unconstitutional; Howard Bashman has details and lots of links. Eugene Volokh says that, even if the Circuit Court agrees to rehear the case en banc, the decision will probably survive, and if it does the case will go to the Supreme Court -- the lower courts' disagreement over whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right is due to be settled. Volokh looks at the timetable:
Say that the D.C. Circuit decides not to rehear the case en banc; that probably means the en banc petition will be denied within several months. Assume that it's denied by late June - the petition for certiorari will be due in late September, the Supreme Court will consider it in the next month or two (unless it decides to call for the views of the Solicitor General, but I doubt this will be necessary). That means the case will likely be heard in early 2008, and decide by June 2008.Every presidential candidate is going to have to answer questions about what they think of this case. This could put Democrats who dream of conquering the West in a tough spot.What will the extra prominence of the issue do to the primaries?
[...]
Naturally, if one of the Justices retires this year or next, the effect on the Presidential race would be still greater, I suspect. And if the case is delayed (say, by en banc activity, by a call for the views of the Solicitor General, or the like) so that it's heard in Fall 2008 and expected to be decided in Spring 2009, I take it the effect on the election would be bigger still.
For Giuliani, this could be either a hazard or an opportunity; it depends how he plays it.
Native Son?
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 10:51AM
The Boston Herald reports that some Massachusetts Republicans, including a former state party chair, are trying to derail Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy. House Minority Leader Brad Jones, however, tells the Boston Globe that 20 out of 24 GOP state legislators are sticking with Mitt.
Gingrich's Lust in My Heart Interview?
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 10:40AM
This is the strongest signal I've seen that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is actually considering a presidential run in 2008. In an interview with James Dobson, Gingrich acknowledged having an affair even as he was leading the charge to impeach Bill Clinton.
"There are times in my life that I have fallen short of my own standards," he said. "There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards." The former speaker talked about "periods weakness" in which "I was praying and I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them."
Here Gingrich seems to be trying to avoid Giuliani-style problems with his equally checked marital history, talking to an evangelical audience about struggles with sin and redemption. Certainly, religious conservatives would play a bigger role in the coalition Gingrich must assemble than in Rudy Giuliani's. Whether this gambit works is another matter entirely.
RE: The Outrage Only Grows
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 10:09AM
Quin, that Krauthammer article you mentioned is probably the best case I've yet read for a presidential pardon. Like no other columnist, he has the ability to make such clear and simple arguments that should be obvious, but often get lost in the noise:
(Libby) was famously multitasking a large number of national
security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of
information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special
prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements
about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information -- Mrs.
Wilson's identity -- the great white whale of his
multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.
By all accounts I've read, Libby's conviction came down to his contention that he heard something from Tim Russert on Thursday, and other testimony that he had known it on Monday and Tuesday.
The one issue I'd take with Krauthammer's column is that he recommends an immediate pardon of Libby, but he doesn't address the political ramifications of such a move. Sure, it's easy enough for us to say, Bush should pardon Libby this instant, and to hell with what the liberals think. But the reality is that President Bush has very little political capital left, and what little he does have, he needs to spend fighting Democratic efforts to force him to surrender in Iraq. However justified a pardon may be, the bottom line is that most Americans would see it as President Bush using his power to let Dick Cheney's convicted crony off the hook. The media will make sure that's the case, guaranteed. If you take a step back from the emotions of the moment, there's a strong case to be made for President Bush to let the appeals process run its course before deciding whether or not to pardon Libby.
The Outrage Only Grows
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 9:34AM
I thought that after three days I would stop being quite as bothered by the Libby verdict. Wrong. The outrage only grows. Not at the juror, although I think they got lost in the weeds, but at the outrageous behavior of Specially-obnoxious Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. A number of columns this morning do a brilliant job making the case that Fitzgerald was not just misguided but dishonest. Yes, he who prosecuted somebody for lies that were not lies is, himself, a liar. Probably the two best of those columns are by Charles Krauthammer and by Rich Lowry.
I read somewhere that Fitzgerald went to a late lunch at the Old Ebbitt Grill on Tuesday to celebrate his victory over decency, common sense, and proper prosecutorial discretion. What a shame. I was the the Old Ebbitt three days earlier. If I had been there when Fitzgerald walked in, I would have been sorely tempted to walk up to him and say, "Excuse me, sir, but you are a lout. You have abused your position of authority. You should rot. Thank you, and don't have a good day. Good bye."
Re: Don't Give Up & P.J.
Posted by on 3.9.07 @ 7:56AM
No, no, a thousand times no! I leave town for a week and look what happens. Remember, confreres, beneath this wrinkled exterior and flamboyant gray moustache beats the heart of an eighteen-year-old.
For a more serious elaboration of P.J. O'Rourke's "adolescent Arab" idea, see "Why Arabs Lose Wars" here from Foreign Policy Review.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Re: This Isn't Wlady's SI
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 11:41PM
Dave:
SI has definitely been trending in this direction for at least 15 years, probably more. This is certainly not the first instance of a cover story that has a nominal sports hook but is really devoted to political advocacy for standard-issue liberal positions.
I'm not sure what led to the magazine's demise, but one irrefutable fact is that it just doesn't have the same quality writers as it had in its glory days. Writers like Tex Maule and Mark Kram made great dramas out of the stories they covered, with the athletes as characters. I remember Kram describing a punishing combination from Muhammad Ali as "dark, magnetic Goya." Frank Deford could be (and still can be) too flowery for my tastes, but at his best he had a lyricism and wit that is sorely lacking in the magazine now.
I wonder who their audience is at this point, with so much competition coming from web and cable outlets like ESPN. If it is an older audience that remembers the magazine's heyday, how much longer can they be expected to hang around while the magazine's decline becomes an inconvenient truth?
Good Poll for McCain
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 9:31PM
A recent poll of 600 likely GOP primary voters by the American Research Group on March 2-5, 2007 turned up the following results:
Giuliani 34%
McCain 30%
Gingrich 12%
Romney 7%
Undecided 9%
Brownback and other notables -- all with about 1% each
The margin of error is + or - 4%. If we take it at face value, then Rudy may face an uphill climb, particularly once McCain and others start slamming him on pro-life. His speech to NARAL in 2001 is a campaign ad waiting to happen.
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part XIX
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 7:17PM
The plans available from the Commonwealth Connector can be downloaded here. The average monthly premium is about $247, which is higher than the $200 average that Romney initially promised.
In fairness, some of the plans for young people have premiums in $109-$175 range. Those plans come with high deductibles. Nothing wrong with that (in fact, it's a good thing), but here is the catch: The Connector "insisted that routine doctors visits -- like annual physicals or well-baby check-ups -- be included before any deductible kicks in." That's what's know as "first-dollar" coverage, and under federal law it is largely proscribed (except for preventative care) if one has a plan with a health savings account. Thus, what the Connector has done is prevent people who get their health insurance through the Connector from buying a policy with a health savings account.
Nice going, Governor Mitt!
RE: Don't Give Up
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 6:52PM
Excellent idea, Shawn. It will be Morning in Massachusetts again!
Re: Don't Give Up
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 6:48PM
Jim,
So...are you saying the moment has finally arrived to begin a Draft Larry Henry 2008 campaign?
Don't Give Up, You Still Have Friends
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 6:06PM
Deval Patrick isn't looking like such a political superstar these days. Too bad there aren't any Republicans left in Massachusetts to take advantage of this turn of events.
Not Feeling Tired?
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 5:41PM
Too bad! You may have to take a nap anyway, if you live in France.
Great Moments In Subcommittee History
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 5:36PM
I attended the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means today.* The subject was Medicare fraud and abuse. One of the U.S. Attorneys present claimed that every dollar invested in fraud investigation returned 13 dollars in recovered Medicare fraud. Representative Xavier Becerra (D-CA) marveled at this, exclaiming that the folks on Wall Street wished they could get a 13-to-1 return.
Apparently it didn't occur to Becerra that perhaps the reason the return is so high is that there is so much Medicare fraud. After all, it's not hard to pick fruit if tons of it is low-hanging.
*This makes me a much in demand dinner guest.
'No running away, just moving forward'
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 5:13PM
Even if you haven't been paying attention to the Matt Sanchez mini-scandal (I haven't been), read what Sanchez has to say. His grace under fire is awe-inspiring, though perhaps not surprising; he is a Marine, after all.
Pun Salad
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 4:24PM
I forgot to acknowledge and celebrate the second blogoversary of one of my favorites, Paul Sands. Hopefully this link corrects the oversight. Explore a bit if you have a chance.
Romney in the Spotlight
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 2:48PM
Poor Mitt can't buy a break, which is saying something. Nor apparently should be allowed to change his mind, evolve, or display nuance. So now we hear he's flipped and flopped on what his favorite movie is. And despite his opposition to our becoming a bilingual nation, he's been caught buying Spanish language radio ads.
Experience Matters
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 2:14PM
Giuliani beats them all as far as terror expertise is concerned -- married three times.
Touchy-Feely Richardson
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 2:11PM
Apparently, Bill Richardson kind of creeps some people out:
The lieutenant governor of New Mexico, Diane Denish was quoted in the Albuquerque Journal saying she avoids standing or sitting near Richardson because of his physical manner, which she said was not improper but was "annoying." The governor, she said, "pinches my neck. He touches my hip, my thigh, sort of the side of my leg."Wonkette does a clever mash-up of Denish's complaint with an advice-column letter.
Gitmo in Virginia?
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 12:55PM
Somehow this doesn't strike me as a winning political issue for the Democrats.
P.J. of Arabia
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 12:31PM
Radar has a fun, concise interview with P.J. O'Rourke about his new book. Here's a bit:
Before the first Gulf War, before America got mired in the Middle East, you famously snuck into the Dome of the Rock Mosque in Jerusalem dressed as P.J. of Arabia. That's probably not anything that any American journalist who valued his life would do today.
No, things were different back then. The first Intifada was kind of the fun Intifada, it was mostly rock throwing.
***
Didn't Lawrence of Arabia in one of his filings say
Arabs would be totally ineffectual as an organized fighting force,
but they are better at blowing up railway tracks than anybody he'd
ever met?
I don't know that for sure, but it sounds right. The world is full of reasonable analyses of the situation in the Middle East, and none of these ever seem to tell us what the heck to do. I have a private theory that's probably pretty unfashionable if not actually politically incorrect. I honestly swear some societies have different levels of maturity than other societies do. I mean, I've spent a fair amount of time in the Middle East. I've spent a fair amount of time in Muslim societies and I find them to be adolescent. Lots of fun, lots of energy, full of passion, very poetic, very romantic, very short attention span, very quick to anger and take things far more seriously than they ought to. All the charms of adolescence and all the awfulness of adolescence also. The problem is, what do you do? And I haven't got the slightest damn idea.
Re: CPAC Mood
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 11:49AM
Paul, I'd say it's safe to say that when he was introducing Rudy Giuliani at CPAC, there wasn't a more "decidedly upbeat" person in the ballroom than George Will himself. Go figure.
Is North Korea For Real?
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 11:18AM
From South Korea's Chosunilbo:
I, for one, am not ready to break out the champagne.
Bibi's Problem
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 11:14AM
The Jerusalem Post reports:
I've been writing the obituary for the Olmert government for months, but it has proven itself to be remarkably resilient.
The Loch Ness Monster Can't Be Far Behind
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 11:07AM
Writing in the New York Sun, Liz Mair continues the search for the Libertarian Democrat.
CPAC Mood
Posted by on 3.8.07 @ 8:48AM
Cybercast News Service (and others) called it "decidedly upbeat"; George Will today says it "was unreasonably morose."
Depends on who you talked to I guess!
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Romney on Guns
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 11:56PM
In my Thursday column, I reference an exchange I had with Mitt Romney at CPAC last Friday on his position on guns. In the interest of transparency, I have transcribed our full exchange.
PK: On gun control, I know you signed an
assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004, now I know you joined
the NRA within the last year. Can you tell me if an assault weapons
ban came up at the federal level, would you sign or veto that?
ROMNEY: Well, it depends on what it looked like, but...
PK: If it was something like the '94 bill...
ROMNEY: I have indicated that my position is the same as it has been which is I support the Second Amendment, but I also support (an) assault weapon ban, that's why I signed a bill of that nature. That's what I said back in '94. I'm in the same position that President Bush is. President Bush also says he supports the Second Amendment, but he would support an assault weapon ban. But 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 particular types of weapons that might be involved. So my position is the same there as it has been before --
PK: But if the '94 one came up for vote again...
ROMNEY: Well obviously, we've learned some things since then. I haven't seen the specific proposal at this stage and so I couldn't comment on it until we had. We had an effort in Massachusetts on the part of some to ban 50 caliber rifles. I opposed that, indicated I would oppose that ban. You know, I think we have to be very careful in any way restricting Second Amendment rights. I support the Second Amendment. We've got a gun at our house, it's owned by my son. I've hunted since I was a young man. I believe that people have the right to bear arms. But I also recognize that there's some types of weapons that don't need to be in the public's hands, machine guns certainly, and I'd be open to consider appropriate kind of measures, but I'm not looking for blanket kind of prohibitions on people being able to have arms for their defense.
This Isn't Wlady's SI
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 9:17PM
Sports Illustrated goes Al Gore/John McCain proclaiming global warming to be a fact. I can't say that SI is my first stop for premier scientific research.
Wlady, what happened to your SI of 20,
30 years ago?
Sometimes You Want Them To Be Governor
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 7:06PM
Back when Eliot Spitzer was attorney general, he could bask in sky-high popularity by portraying himself as a champion of the working man as he sued corporations for offenses big and small (mostly small).
But now that he is governor, he is finding it a lot more difficult. Looks like the health care workers union, the hospital lobby and even Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver are opposing him.
Karma is a you-know-what, eh Governor?
RE: Andrew Responds
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 5:16PM
This sentence from Andrew Sullivan's original post caught my eye:
"Apart from backing a party that wants to strip gay couples of all legal rights by amending the federal constitution, kick them out of the military where they are putting their lives on the line, put them into 'reparative therapy' to 'cure' them, keep it legal to fire them in many states, and refusing to include them in hate crime laws, Coulter is very pro-gay."
Strong stuff. But Sullivan himself opposes hate crimes laws and covering sexual orientation under anti-discrimination laws. So he wouldn't include gays (or anybody else) in hate crimes statutes and would keep it legal to fire them in many states. Moreover, until at least 2003, he frequently backed the Republican Party even though its positions concerning the law and homosexuality -- minus Sullivan's tendentious and pejorative framing -- were pretty much the same as they are now.
So why the presumption of bigotry and bad faith on Sullivan's part toward people who disagree with him on these issues? Maybe it is justified in Coulter's case, but for all conservatives? This must be the new self-righteousness of doubt.
Re: Andrew Responds
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 4:50PM
Sullivan's description of the reaction to Coulter's comment -- "cheers and laughter" -- is not entirely accurate. Accounts of the crowd have described the reaction as less than enthusiastic. The video confirms this to some extent, as you initially hear silence, deep voices rumbling, and then scattered laughter and clapping. I wouldn't exactly call the reaction a ringing endorsement.
Andrew Responds
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 4:42PM
Money quote (as he'd say):
Again this is not the use of the word "faggot" by a straight person in a public speech to demean and emasculate a straight guy. I simply say it's not prima facie bigotry, but it might be if one inquired further. It's specifically about using the word "gay" to mean "dumb" or "lame" in a context where homosexuality is completely absent. That's not at all what Coulter was doing, as I elaborated yesterday. She's not gay; and she used the term "faggot" in its classically homophobic form, as she explained subsequently, to mean "sissy". I'm also not particularly exercized even about this when used by schoolkids. I'm a longtime opponent of hate crime laws, and support maximal free speech. The issue with Coulter is not whether she has a right to say what she said (I'd go to war to defend that) but what she meant (she meant it in its "sissy" form) and where she said it (at CPAC to cheers and laughter).I'd agree about the importance of the "where she said it" part -- that's the key to what was so offensive about what Coulter said. But I read Andrew's post yesterday as a blanket condemnation of the use of that word, in that sense, no matter what the context. That seemed a bit much to me, but if that's not what he meant, fine.
Where's the Center?
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 3:51PM
Isn't it a bit odd that this AP story on the influence of the Blue Dog Democrats refers to the Blue Dogs as "right-of-center?" They may be to the right of the Democratic Party's center, but right-of-center on the political spectrum? Maybe in AP-land.
Unworkable Reasoning
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 2:40PM
Harold Meyerson claims that the decline of the working class family is the fault of conservatives, and traces its true origins not to the '60s but the Reagan '80s:
Such was not the case for working-class Americans. Over the past 35 years, the massive changes in the U.S. economy have largely condemned American workers to lives of economic insecurity. No longer can the worker count on a steady job for a single employer who provides a paycheck and health and retirement benefits, too. Over the past three decades, workers' individual annual income fluctuations have consistently increased, while their aggregate income has stagnated. In the brave new economy of outsourced jobs and short-term gigs and on-again, off-again health coverage, American workers cannot rationally plan their economic futures. And with each passing year, as their level of economic security declines, so does their entry into marriage.
There are numerous problems with that argument, not the least of which is that Meyerson buys into the myth about stagnating incomes. First, if the decline in economic security is responsible for the decline of marriage, shouldn't we also see a decline in rearing children? After all, children are an economic burden far more than marriage is. Yet look at this chart. The number of people who are probably least financially able to have children--single women--has increased over that time. The biggest jump came among those whose financial prospects are the bleakest, women who never finished high school.
And if you look carefully, percentage-wise the increase was largest during the 1960s and 1970s. And the lowest increase came in the 1990s. That does not correspond to Meyerson's narrative of economic insecurity brought on by the 1980s. So, what do those dates correspond to? Could it be the adoption of AFDC (welfare) in the 1960s and its replacement with TANF (workfare) in the 1990s?
Finally, Meyerson perhaps has the cart before the horse. Maybe the economic insecurity of the working class is caused by the decline in the nuclear family, and not the other way around.
RE: Independents' Day
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 1:59PM
A reader points out a Flash Report article in which a senior official in the McCain campaign denies that his candidate is involved in trying to change the rules. For what it's worth.
Independents' Day
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 11:22AM
The Washington Times reports that John McCain is trying to get independents to vote in the California primary. Such a move would obviously be helpful to McCain and potentially Giuliani, while possibly detrimental to Mitt Romney.
But there are limits to McCain's outreach to independents. First, his high-profile support for the war and the surge could hurt him among these voters, who are especially opposed to both. Second, even when his numbers were particularly strong among independents in 2000, it wasn't enough. McCain cleaned up in the open primaries but lost to George W. Bush in the closed primaries.
Iraq is Worth the Fight
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 11:16AM
A fairly new Internet publication called PublicSquare.net is providing one heck of a public service by setting up fairly lengthy written debates on important issues, giving writers space to really elucidate the subject matter at hand. I was honored to be asked to participate in one of their early efforts, here. The question is, Is Iraq Worth Fighting For? Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation says no, of course; I argue in the affirmative. In the process, I defend the notion of the United States as a moral actor on the world stage.
Where's the Outrage?
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 11:15AM
Following the Libby verdict, David Frum has a contest going to see if readers can find examples of liberal Democrats denouncing Richard Armitage for leaking Valerie Plame's identity to the press.
Sullivan's Newfound Priggishness
Posted by on 3.7.07 @ 12:36AM
I've been pretty tough on Ann Coulter; I've signed onto an open letter arguing against having her back at CPAC, and I've written a piece saying the same thing more harshly. But somehow Andrew Sullivan has put me in the position of half-defending her: Her use of that word, as appallingly inappropriate as it was, was not quite the thoughtcrime that Andrew elevates it to -- and there was a time when Andrew might well have been the first person who'd say so. Compare what he says now to this post of his from 2001. He was a lot more easy-going back then, wasn't he?
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Apocalypse Road
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 10:52PM
I'm not really sure exactly how it ended up on the site, but if anyone is interested in reading my review of Cormac McCarthy's The Road, which ran in the Weekly Standard last month, it's online here.
Ernest Gallo, RIP
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 8:29PM
The winemaker has died just shy of his 98th birthday.
Media Matters Is Upset
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 8:04PM
... that the Politico isn't a news organization running cover for Democrat politicians. Kudos to the Politico writers and editors for their response.
Cross in a Box
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 7:45PM
William & Mary's ad hoc committee on the cross announced its compromise solution: put the Wren Chapel cross in a place of honor -- in a glass case with a plaque noting the chapel's Anglican roots. The decision seems appropriate for a secular institution, especially because the prime argument for the cross was historical. Of course, such a move makes one think that the Christian aspects of the chapel are only in the past. The church as museum. Reminds me of St. Paul's. Maybe William & Mary can open the Wren Chapel to corporate events.
RE: The VA and Health Care Policy
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 7:13PM
John Goodman comments on a new article by McClatchy Newspapers examining the Veterans Administration. The article notes that the problem had its roots in the 1990s:
Because specialized mental health spending inched up after 1996, the VA could report to Congress every year that it was maintaining the capacity of its mental health services.[The VA's] committee of experts, however, said that specialized mental health services were declining and that the VA's use of unadjusted dollars in an era of high inflation in medical costs rendered its annual reports "meaningless."
At the same time, the VA began treating many more people for mental health ailments, so the amount spent has plummeted from $3,560 per veteran in 1995 to $2,581 per veteran in 2004 - even before correcting for inflation. (Overall, mental health spending during that period went from $2.01 billion to $2.19 billion.)
And:
VA experts said the system already was straining to provide veterans with what they needed before the United States attacked Afghanistan in October 2001. "Even before the war in Afghanistan," Matthew Friedman, a top VA mental health official, told Congress in 2004, "VA PTSD treatment capacity had been overtaxed."
So, the VA makes it look like it is spending more on mental health by using numbers that aren't adjusted for inflation and, apparently, neglecting to point out that it was treating more people for psychological problems. That's government-run health care for you.
The Line on Libby
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 3:16PM
Intrade has a Libby-pardon contract; traders are currently giving about a 1-in-5 chance of a pardon before the end of 2007. I could be wrong, but I expect he'll be pardoned after the '08 election.
Re: Libby Verdict
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 2:24PM
I'm not surprised, except for the part about him being convicted on one of the Cooper charges (lying to the grand jury) while being acquitted on the other (lying to the FBI). (NOTE: The parentheticals in that sentence were erroneously reversed before. They're correct now.) Either his account of the conversation with Cooper was a lie or it wasn't, one would think. But as I said when the indictment came down, the obstruction charge was pretty strong. The Russert charge by itself wasn't that strong (Libby said they discussed Wilson, Russert said they didn't), but I suppose it's not surprising that the Russert-charge convictions were part of the package since the most damning piece of the obstruction charge was something Libby said about the Russert conversation (he said was surprised to hear about Wilson's wife working at the CIA -- when the evidence showed he'd discussed that in nine conversations prior to talking with Russert).
UPDATE: Andy McCarthy clears up why Libby would be acquitted on the lying-to-the-FBI-about-Cooper count while being convicted on the lying-to-the-grand-jury-about-Cooper count:
The FBI's procedure is to take notes of interviews, not record them. In the grand jury, there is always at least a stenographer, and sometimes a videotape. Juries will often give the benefit of the doubt to a defendant on false statements, especially if the agents notes or independent recollection are not thorough. It looks like that's what happened here on the acquitted count. By contrast, in the grand jury, there is not uncertainty about what words were said (although there may be lots of uncertainty about meaning and intent).
Feith Strikes Back
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 2:06PM
I just finished listening in on a bloggers' briefing hosted by Rob Bluey of the Heritage Foundation in which the former undersecretary of defense for President Bush fought back against what he called the "false narrative" that has developed both about the use of intelligence in the buildup to the Iraq War as well as the rationale for going to war. He is in the midst of writing a book due out this fall, giving what he believes to be the first thorough and accurate account of the lead-up to war. In the meantime, he has started a website aimed at countering media distortions. He decided to do so in the wake of a Feb. 9 Washington Post story that erroneously attributed damaging quotes to the Pentagon's inspector general that actually came from Democratic Senator Carl Levin. While the Post was forced to issue a correction on the story, by then it had spread throughout the world as truth. Feith has been frustrated by TV appearances that don't allow him to respond to issues in detail, so he decided to go online.
Feith criticized the Bush administration for not doing more to respond to the media as it developed the narrative that the president lied the country into war by manipulating intelligence. "It was a fascinating thing how the administration convinced itself that it didn't need to respond," Feith said. The people who ran communications would talk themselves into believing that newspaper stories or
Feith said that there was a broader rationale for invading
Furthermore, he said his team at the Pentagon did not try to manipulate CIA intelligence; instead, their conflict with the CIA came down to a debate over whether the CIA was suppressing some pieces of intelligence. Feith said one of the ways to prevent intelligence failures is for consumers of the intelligence to interrogate the suppliers of intelligence more thoroughly, and that's what his office was doing.
I asked Feith to respond specifically to an issue I raised in a recent column, essentially, whether the narrative that Bush administration lied America into war using false intelligence would undermine any case for taking military action against Iran, if it came down to that.
"This narrative can serve a lot of useful purposes to people who developed it," he responded. The
J'Accuse!
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 2:03PM
I accuse Patrick Fitzgerald of using the courts for a personal vendetta (related to the old Marc Rich case). I accuse Patrick Fitzgerald of improperly using his closing argument to broaden the case into an indictment of Dick Cheney and of thereby sliming Scooter Libby of guilt by association. I accuse Fitzgerald of improperly intimating to the jury that Libby betrayed deadly national secrets. I accuse Fitzgerald of extreme inconsistency in giving blanket immunity to Ari Fleisher without even knowing what Fleisher would say, while badgering Libby for hours on end in order to trap Libby into saying anything, anything at all, that this modern-day Inspector Javert could claim was perjury. I accuse Fitzgerald of manufacturing a case out of whole cloth even after knowing, almost from day one, that there was no underlying crime. I accuse Fitzgerald of treating Libby (and Rove) entirely differently from Richard Armitage. I accuse Fitzgerald of manifold abuses of his prosecutorial authority and discretion. I accuse Fitzgerald of persecuting an innocent man. I accuse Fitzgerald of megalomania. I accuse Fitzgerald of bloodlust. In short, I accuse Patrick Fitzgerald of being a lousy excuse for a human being. And I hope our Maker, the Great Author of All Justice, will do true justice in the end.
Somebody Doesn't Have A Lot of Friends
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 1:41PM
Daily Kos diarist Trapper John on the Libby verdict: "It's my birthday today--what a present!"
I guess we all cope with not getting that pony at our eighth birthday party in different ways.
Asking For It
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 1:04PM
Here's a press release just sent out by Harry Reid, confirming once and for all that the Libby case was all about politics. It had nothing to do with the pursuit of justice.
For Immediate ReleaseDate: Tuesday, March 6, 2007
CONTACT: Jim Manley / Rodell Mollineau, (202) 224-2939REID STATEMENT ON THE LIBBY VERDICT
Washington, DC-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement on news that a jury has found Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.
"I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics. Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."
Of course, if that's the way Reid wants to play it, let's get on with the show. What's that about all the real estate newly enriched Harry bought for a dime back in Nevada?
RE: Guilty, dammit! This Stinks
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 12:13PM
Worse, this means that Joe Wilson is going to be all over the news for the next month or so.
I'm betting that he will be as insufferable as ever.
Guilty, dammit! This Stinks
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 12:11PM
Guilty of Count One, obstruction of justice. Guilty of Count Two.
NOT guilty of Count Three. Guilty on Counts Four and Five.
Time to get the Appeals Ready. Libby should be allowed to remain free pending appeals, which ought to be dragged out for two more years. And on January 19, 2009, it will be long past time for a presidential pardon...which, I hope, comes before Libby has served a single day in jail.
Libby Verdict Coming
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 12:01PM
Verdict is due in five minutes. I hope very sincerely that I am wrong, but I predict convictions on the two Russert counts and, AT BEST FOR LIBBY, a hung jury on the two Cooper counts. I have no idea on the fifth count, which is sort of a catch-all combination.
The jury appeared to be agonizing over the Cooper counts, which were extremely flimsy. Once they got answers from the court to their questions on those counts -- just over an hour ago -- they announced quickly that they have reached verdicts. That tells me that they already had the Russert counts figured, and if they were figured already, while the flimsy counts were being agonized over, it seems the slightly more substantial Russert counts likely are being adjudged as being instances of Libby's guilt. (I hope you can follow my logic here.)
None of which takes away from my opinion that every single bit of this case is a travesty, and that Libby is guilty of nothing but a bad memory. But we'll see soon enough.
Jack Handey Would Be Envious
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 11:05AM
John Edwards is again talking poverty, chastening American selfishness and this time asserting what Jesus would say about it all. My colleague Jon Ham notes that the Breck Girl is thinking these deep thoughts at home in either his 28,200-square-foot mansion in Chapel Hill, or at his $2.6-million beach house at the exclusive and gated Figure Eight Island near Wilmington, N.C. And yes, my other colleague Don Carrington has been up in an airplane with his camera again.
The Beach:
The Hallway:
Update 12:07 p.m.: Rush Limbaugh has posted the pix and presumably will be discussing Edwards's remarks.
Giuliani in 2000
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 10:48AM
Hotline writes:
Say what you want about Giuliani, maybe he's not your kind of guy, but let's get one thing straight: when he dropped out of the Senate race in 2000, he had cancer! Cancer! For anyone who has ever had a friend or family member undergo treatment for prostate cancer you know how psychologically, physically, and emotionally draining it is. It's not surprising that Giuliani would conclude that he couldn't get treated, still serve as mayor, and run a tough campaign all at the same time. Besides, the bad press about his family didn't stop once he bailed out of the race, because he was still mayor of the city with the largest media market in the world. Okay if you want to say that his family troubles played a role, but to completely overlook the fact that he had cancer is pretty callous. As for whether he'll quit now because of bad press about his family, I'd say it's highly unlikely. Giuliani clearly thought long and hard about running for president, and he knew that the added publicity would draw attention to his family troubles. If he wasn't prepared to deal with it, he would not have run. Giuliani is not one to back down from challenges, whether it was taking on the mob as prosecutor or fighting crime as mayor. He only backed down once. And at the time, he had a potentially life threatening illness.
Jim Webb's Mullah Protection Act
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 10:33AM
An attempt to tie the president's hands:
If enacted, Webb's bill would ensure that "no funds ... may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress."Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds. With some simple maneuvering in Congress it could in fact, free the president's hands, putting him on stronger Constitutional ground if it does come time to bomb Iran.
The bill has a number of exceptions, however. The proposal would allow military action under the following scenarios without prior congressional authorization:How about an amendment with another exception for preventing Iran from going nuclear? Most Democrats claim to be against Iranian nukes, after all, and surely some of them are serious, so it would have to have some chance of passing.- When the action is aimed at repelling an attack launched or about to be launched from inside Iran;
- When military forces are in "hot pursuit" of enemy forces fleeing into Iran; and
- When the military is supporting intelligence gathering.
The bill would require the president to submit a report to Congress within 24 hours justifying any spending that would support any of the exceptions.
RE: The VA and Health Care Policy
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 10:16AM
John: I wondered the same thing over at the National Center Blog. My guess is that the folks who though the VA was a model of great health care are going to find out that they got hosed.
Finally, A Rehab Story Without Britney Spears
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 10:14AM
The Politico has a report on Mitt Romney's rehab plan to boost his low poll numbers and win the Republican presidential nomination. Some of the ideas -- such as gaming the complicated rules governing primaries like California's -- strike me as worthwhile, others fraught with peril for the candidate.
For example, it makes sense for Romney to emphasize his policy differences with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. But every time he does so, he risks returning the discussion to the fact that most of these differences are of recent vintage. So anytime he tries to focus the debate on his superior conservative credentials, his opponents have an opportunity to refocus it on charges of flip-flopping and unreliability. Maybe he has a plan to address that problem too.
Livingston Defends Budget Cutter
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 10:08AM
Former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, who knows a thing or two about cutting spending ($50 billion in actual dollars saved during his first two years as chairman), raises a banner well worth raising in this Washington Times column defending General Services Administration administrator Lurita Doan, whose efforts to save taxpayer money have run afoul of the usual bureaucrats who then ginned up utterly bogus "investigations" into her practices. If conservatives are serious about keeping government spending down, they will provide cover for honest, dedicated appointees such as Ms. Doan. The money at issue mere might seem small potatoes compared to the whole federal budget, but the principles are important. Applied all across government, pretty soon these principles will lead to savings of "real money" (as the old adage goes). Support Lurita Doan!
Now That's A Great Idea!
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 10:05AM
Writing over at On The Fence Films, Dave Racer notes that the primary cause of the increase in uninsured is immigration, both legal and illegal. The illegal ones present a serious problem:
Insuring illegal immigrants is, well, quite impossible. They know that once they sign up for insurance, in a matter of time, the INS will come calling and deport them. The bad news for the rest of us is that illness and injury even strikes at illegal immigrants. When it does, taxpayers and those with private insurance pay the bills. Is there any way out of this dilemma?
So, how do you fix it? Here's Racer's solution:
There is another way, but it might be the "third rail" of politics. Someone somewhere employs illegal immigrants. If this were not true, they would not have immigrated here (except, perhaps, to get "free" health care). Suppose the law required that when an illegal immigrant falls ill and cannot pay for their own care, the government collects the bill from their employers? All of it, and with a good-sized fine to boot. If they refuse to pay, then shut them down.
That is an excellent solution. And you can be sure that Washington won't do it.
The VA and Health Care Policy
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 9:37AM
Recently liberal commentators have been insisting that the VA system is terrific, and a model for socialized medicine for all. Here, for example, is Ezra Klein asserting that "studies have repeatedly found that non-profit hospitals deliver better care than their for-profit brethren, the VA delivers the best care in the country, and Americans believe medicine shouldn't be dominated by the quest for profit."
There are some wonkish counterarguments, but isn't the latest scandal in veteran's health care a vivid demolition of the VA-is-great conceit? Perhaps VA hospitals only got high marks in studies done before they had an influx of patients needing actual care.
Rudy's Attentive Audience
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 9:19AM
Michael Barone on Giuliani's CPAC speech:
Giuliani spoke for 40 minutes, and there were some rather long intervals with no applause--but also with no whispering or buzzes: It was eerily quiet, and I got the impression people were genuinely interested in hearing what Giuliani had to say.This is very true. I spent some time yesterday editing audio from the Giuliani, Romney, and Brownback speeches (my computer crashed, so the effort was for naught). There was plenty of background noise during the Brownback and Romney speeches; on the Giuliani recording, there was almost none.
The 1/2 Hour News Hour, Continued
Posted by on 3.6.07 @ 8:55AM
Kathryn Lopez notes something I didn't realize: "they taped these episodes we're watching now last year." No wonder it's so bad.
Monday, March 5, 2007
A World Without America
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 9:47PM
There are a few Brits with their heads on straight.
Check out this ad being aired by British conservatives in which newscasts portray A World Without America.
Ponnuru and McCain
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 8:02PM
Ramesh does as good a job as can be expected laying out the case for McCain (subscription required). His claim that McCain's chances of winning the nomination are all-but-certain is weak, and I don't buy that McCain's anti-First Amendment crusade is anywhere near its endpoint. As for Ramesh's McCain interview, Jon Chait is absolutely right:
This is just a hilarious window into the process: A conservation between somebody who is deeply informed and passionate about a subject that he considers to have enormous moral weight and a politician who knows almost nothing about the issue and cares even less. It's obvious that McCain's thinking throughout the interview is entirely confined to the question of what he can say to avoid displeasing his questioner (and, by extension, social conservatives.)Are you willing to ban cloning? Sure. Will you support the Brownback bill? Yeah, I think I'm a co-sponsor. Or maybe not. Whatever. Can I have your vote now?
This kind of box-checking goes on all the time, in both parties. It's just hilarious to see it in real time.
How to Discern Legislative Intent...
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 7:42PM
... when legislators don't know of significant provisions in major legislation?
Strange New Respect
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 5:06PM
More than a quarter century ago, our longtime Washington correspondent (and now senior editor) Tom Bethell began bestowing the Strange New Respect Award on once-reliable conservatives who won liberal praise by adopting liberal policies. Of a sudden, an erstwhile Neanderthal would be treated in the Washington Post as someone who was no longer "simplistic" and "shrill" but rather a figure who had "grown" and showed himself to be "nuanced." In today's Post we see the dynamic is still in play, except the party in question is said to be "maturing." The culprit: Virginia House Speaker William Howell, until recently a staunch opponent of new transportation taxes in Virginia but now hinting he could be flexible on that score. The Post tosses numerous bouquets at him.
"As many political observers see it, Howell is maturing into the leadership role he took on four years ago, which could help the speaker boost his influence."
Once thought "politically aloof and stubborn," he was now using "gentle persuasion" and "diplomacy" to bring "unruly" Republicans around, a great improvement on his "battered image" owing to his earlier "feuding" with pro-tax hiking Democratic governors and "moderate" Republicans.
In short, as the headline over the jump in today's Post reads, "Howell Is Maturing, Some Say."
I'll say.
Nerve-wracking Libby Jury
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 4:59PM
The jury in the Libby trial has sent out two new notes this afternoon that appear to be devlvng ever more deeply into minutiae and into a parsing of words and phrases in the indictment and the judge's instructions, etc. To me, just by analytical logic, it seems that this means the jury is teetering on the edge of a decision -- that this is a very very close call for some of them. I hope I am wrong on this, but I think this should make Libby very very nervous. If I were on the jury and were faced with a question of reasonable doubt, acquittal would be easy for me: Even if I thought Libby more likely than not told a deliberate lie (which I don't, but this is just for argument's sake), I would (I believe) have concluded long ago that the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is too high to convict. With EVERY witness having shown serious memory lapses or other contradictions, and with most of the charges involving a "he said/ no, HE said" clash of memories without other evidence, there is CLEARLY reasonable doubt. If there is doubt, there must be acquittal.
But this jury, asking so many questions, does not appear to see it that way. And that means conviction is still a serious possibility. Yikes.
We Repeat, It Was Not a Terrorist Attack
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 3:43PM
The Muslim who last year attacked students with an SUV at the University of North Carolina flipped out in court today, and was committed to the local mental institution.
It's a Conspiracy!
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 2:03PM
The people have a right to know: Was the Death Star attack an inside job? (Via RedState.)
Who Is 'Deamonte Driver'?
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 12:48PM
If you don't know who that is, then read this WaPo article.
As David Frum puts it, Driver is going to be the "bloody shirt" waved by the socialized medicine crowd. Frum, by the way, does an excellent job arguing that it was parental neglect, not the health care system, that was responsible for Deamonte' tragic demise.
Over at the National Center blog, I examine how good socialized systems are at providing dental care (in short, not good), while over at Cato, Michael Cannon makes the point that government regulations here in the U.S. actually make it harder to get good dental care by imposing restrictions on dental hygienists.
Losing Our Rights
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 12:44PM
My pal David J over at the eclectic, always entertaining Resurrection Song offers his take on the Ann Coulter mess:
...if [Coulter's] point is that we're losing the right to be a--holes, as Jay Tea asserts, then she's wrong. I'm surrounded by a--holes every day. I see them on the roads, I manage to control myself in their presence in the Costcos and Wal Marts of the nation, and I hear their Oscar acceptance speeches on the late night news. People have all the right in the world to be a--holes, but no one has the obligation to provide them with a microphone to broadcast their views.
What Coulter said was stupid, mean, and not funny--and the people who insist that she didn't actually say anything are just playing an immature grade-school game that ignores the very obvious intent of her words. No, she didn't say "John Edwards is a faggot", but the intent was clear enough to anyone who isn't bent on making excuses for her.
Nevertheless, John Tabin still has, by my lights, the best line on the whole controversy in his Brainwash column:
In short, the moral case against Coulter the attention-whore is infinitely stronger than the case against an actual whore.
Re: What's the Matter With Ann
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 12:38PM
Sean Hackbarth's open letter to CPAC organizers strikes me as a worthwhile effort.
Re: What's the Matter With Ann
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 12:18PM
Looking over the fine comments by Phil and John about Ann Coulter's idiocy at CPAC, the only thing I disagree with is this line: "It's really unfortunate that in three days at CPAC during which time conservatives make a concerted effort to have serious discussions on a number of important topics".
It's not unfortunate, because "fortune" has nothing to do with it. CPAC was warned (okay, by me) about this last year:
[Ann Coulter] had a responsibility to her hosts, the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC, to ensure that CPAC was not barraged with bad press. The folks at the American Conservative Union work like dogs to put on a great event, and they deserved better media coverage. There were many great themes that could have come out of the event, from a visionary speech by Newt Gingrich to the emergence of George Allen as a conservative favorite for president. Unfortunately, it's Coulter's idiocy that now dominates the buzz.
CPAC should have been well aware that Coulter could dominate the buzz. That they went ahead and invited her to speak can be described as careless or stupid. But hardly "unfortunate."
Portent of Publishing
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 12:10PM
Sunday's W-P carries front-page story of lobbyist Gerald Cassidy, with a two-page spread in the jump. Inside, the paper says it intends to tell the "Cassidy story in a unique way. On Monday, the series will jump to the newspaper's Web site...to begin a 25-chapter serial narrative that will describe how Cassidy built his business," ....how...how...and how.
A couple of things. Is this the future of news on paper? Will the thing thrown at the front porch become a mere index of website product? And does Abramoff have access to a computer?
China's Nukes
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 12:01PM
Just when you thought the fear of a nuclear Iran, North Korea, or Islamist coup in already nuclear Pakistan was enough to worry about, Mark Helprin elaborates on the threat from a nuclear China.
He writes:
In the next five years, as we reduce our arsenal from 10,000 strategic warheads to 1,700,
China's MIRV'd silo-based missiles and imminent generations of MIRV'd mobile and sea-based ICBMs will easily allow a breakout from warhead numbers now variously estimated to range from 80 to 1,800... They know that every facet of
America's economy, military and society depends on individual and networked electronic devices. Were these to fail all at once and irreparably, the nation would seize up, perhaps for years. Faced with victory, or with loss, they might choose to -- and who would venture to guarantee that they would not? -- detonate half a dozen high-megatonnage nuclear charges in the mesosphere, in an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) strike perhaps not even in American airspace, cooking almost every circuit and semiconductor, rendering the American government blind, deaf and dumber than it is already and the country unable to resist the inroads that would surely follow.
Helprin's strategy for countering the threat is based on creating redundancies in our electronic systems and building up our missile defense. I would have liked to have seen him explore how an increasingly hawkish Japan may figure into any strategy.
Rudy Awakenings
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 11:22AM
Via Hit and Run, I see that the Washington Times says that "Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani pulled off CPAC's biggest coup..."
This part jumped out at me:
"I think Giuliani is doing much better among conservative audiences than anybody could have imagined six months ago," said Michael Toner, a Federal Election Commission member appointed by President Bush.
Well, I can think of somebody who could have imagined it.
My extended post-CPAC thoughts here.
Libertarianism and Its Discontents
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 10:53AM
Ross Douthat has a characteristically thoughtful post about libertarian revisionism, arguing that neoconservative ideas (as they were defined before that term came to be applied mostly to advocates of a particularly interventionist foreign policy) played a larger role in Republican electoral successes than libertarian ones. And, acknowleding that Ronald Reagan couldn't have been elected in 1980 running as Barry Goldwater and George W. Bush probably couldn't have won in 2000 as Reagan, it's a fair point. (I'm not going to get into Tanner's book because I'll be writing about it later.)
But in correcting one false version of the right's political history, we should be careful not to create a new one. Anti-statism was a bigger priority of the right's in the 1980s than it is today; it was a much bigger priority in 1994 than it was at any time since Republicans started winning national elections. The GOP freshman class in the House included some pretty radical government cutters and even a handful of constitutionalists approaching Ron Paul's level of consistency. Libertarians were probably less important that year than religious conservatives or gun owners, but they mattered.
Back in the 1990s, conservatives were united around the specific policies they were fighting for even when they disagreed about the endgame. Libertarians, social conservatives, and neoconservatives all favored welfare reform, even though some wanted simply to reduce illegitmacy or foster a work ethic among the underclass while others hoped to abolish the welfare state. Charles Murray was a big part of the debate as a welfare abolitionist; the wonks surrounding welfare reform pioneer Tommy Thompson, by contrast, were willing to spend more to move people from welfare to work.
The balanced budget debate was similar. Some wanted a balanced budget for the usual Concord Coalition, Ross Perot style reasons. Other conservatives thought it was a good opportunity to cut government with minimal public backlash. Libertarians shouldn't oversell their contribution to the GOP coalition -- or the short-term political dividends of small government -- but they shouldn't be airbrushed out of Republican history either.
A Tale of Two McCains
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 10:35AM
Or at least two takes on John McCain. The cover story in Reason, written by Matt Welch, tells us to be afraid -- very afraid. The cover story (subscription required) in National Review, by Ramesh Ponnuru, argues that he should be the conservative choice.
A menace to libertarians; a boon to conservatives. How's that for fusionism?
But Will He Thank the Academy?
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 9:49AM
AmSpec's very own John Tabin has been recognized by the Boston Phoenix for his refusal to "give in to Gore," or the former Vice-President's little gold climate-change-awareness enforcer, Oscar.
It's a rare for someone in our universe to be honored by such a decidedly left-leaning alt-weekly. Congratulations, John!
Oh, Well, That's Much Less Crazy
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 8:59AM
I'm not doing any sort of guilt-by-commenter-association thing, but it was funny to see this bit in the thread over at The Nation's page for the Max Blumenthal CPAC movie. After the shamefully crude Ann Coulter defender Looney Lefties tacks an aside onto his gay-bashing diatribe to denounce "anti-American a--holes" who posses "the gall to claim Bush planned 9/11," fellow blog-trotter W.M. Bear strikes back:
I wouldn't consider this worth a response except that I like to see even looney righties get their facts straight. Very few of the serious 9/11 conspiracists (and I do confess to being one) believe that Bush had anything much to do with it or even knew in advance that it was going to happen (except possibly in a very vague, general way that SOMETHING was going to happen) let alone "planned" it. This was totally puppeteer Cheney's game and Bush was kept completely "out of the loop" as much as possible. (If nothing else, the man's sheer incompetence precluded him having anything to do with what, from the conspirators' perspective at least, was a highly successful operation.)
Well, right...yeah, of course. Thank you, W.M. Bear, for setting the record straight, even if, like G.W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I still feel like I only understand in a very vague, general way. I'll start drawing horns and fangs on all the pictures in my twelve volume Dick Cheney scrapbook this very morning!
Re: What's the Matter With Ann
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 1:59AM
A lot of people have called her the Michael Moore of the right, but I've come to view Coulter as more comparable to Howard Stern. Stern became famous by saying shocking things that nobody else would, and the more people got accustomed to his schtick, the more outrageous things he'd have to say over time. His success was also built on rallying his fan base against his enemies. By listening to his show, buying his book, or seeing his movie, you were sending a message to the FCC. Similarly, Coulter has based her success on being shocking and will have to keep making controversial statements in order to stay relevant. She's also built her success around the enemies she makes, in her case how much she angers liberals. Conservatives buy her books in part to stick it to the leftist elites, especially those who run the NY Times bestseller list. It's really unfortunate that in three days at CPAC during which time conservatives make a concerted effort to have serious discussions on a number of important topics, Coulter always hogs the headlines by saying something stupid.
Re: Half Hour News Hour
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 1:40AM
For another take on conservative comedy, there's another installment of Julia Gorin's "America's Show" up on YouTube.
What's the Matter With Ann?
Posted by on 3.5.07 @ 12:43AM
For those who just can't get enough CPAC coverage, I have a column at Brainwash about Ann Coulter.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Re: Half Hour News Hour
Posted by on 3.4.07 @ 10:41PM
Okay, the "tug of war never solved anything" line was kind of funny. But overall, that was really, really bad. (Caveat: I missed the first five minutes or so.) The Daily Show may have been rough around the edges at the beginning, Hunter, but it showed lots of promise. HHNH doesn't.
I think the fact that it's on Fox News is a fatal flaw. If you're satirizing the news, even from a right-of-center perspective, you have to be able to mock the ticks of the media. Aren't they going to be hamstrung by the impulse not to bite the hand that feeds them when it comes time to make fun of the way the cable nets cover the next overhyped news circus?
Half Hour News Hour is Back
Posted by on 3.4.07 @ 6:44PM
It's time to watch the Half Hour News Hour again on Fox News tonight. A knowledgeable friend tells me ratings were good for the first installment. If we want to have a conservative news satire available, it makes sense to support this pioneering effort.
For those who complain they don't like the laugh track or have some other criticism, remember that the Daily Show was brutal when it began. The smooth lefty comedy news show you see today (if you bother) didn't happen overnight.
Catch the Half Hour News Hour at 10pm eastern.
Obama and Iran
Posted by on 3.4.07 @ 4:04PM
My dad was at Barack Obama's speech before AIPAC in Chicago on Friday; for what it's worth, it was not his impression that, in context, Obama put any special emphasis on leaving the use of force on the table, despite the headlines.
Iran Not Reaching Out to the Great Satan
Posted by on 3.4.07 @ 3:36PM
AP:
Iran will not necessarily have direct talks with the United States if it attends an upcoming regional conference about Iraq's security crisis, an Iranian official said Sunday.I think this is good news; it provides an opening to weaken the Syria-Iran alliance, which as James noted Wednesday is a worthwhile diplomatic goal.Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said Iran will announce "in the near future" whether it will attend the March 10 conference in Baghdad. Syria, the United States, Britain and France have said they will participate.
Hosseini claimed the U.S. has proposed holding direct discussions with Iran over Iraq. Iranian officials have made those claims in the past, but U.S. officials have not confirmed proposing any talks.
"Recently, the United States has proposed negotiations with Iran through different channels over the Iraq issue," Hosseini said. "Meeting with Americans on the sidelines of the Baghdad conference is not on the agenda of Iran, for the time being."
Mark The Frame 8 & You're Entering A World of Pain
Posted by on 3.4.07 @ 9:36AM
In a reiteration of the praises sang for private philanthropy last week, I offer you Todd Anderson-novelist, blogger, and sometime AmSpec contributor-who soon will spend a day bowling to raise money for the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. Here is the link if you have a few extra dollars and don't hate children.
Blog title reference here.
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Barney Shuffles Off
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
