- Jan 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Feb 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–28
- Mar 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Apr 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- May 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Jun 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Jul 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Aug 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Sep 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Oct 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Nov 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Dec 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
Friday, March 23, 2007
NYT Bestsellers
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 10:49PM
Phil,
I'm informed by a reliable source that there are authors who have yet to break 20,000 sales on a book and still have made the NYT bestseller list. Sell enough in a week or two and fall off super sharply and you can still have been there.
Romney's Hair
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 4:59PM
In a sterling example of the type of substantive, hard-hitting news we've come to demand from our esteemed press corps, the AP reports on the color of Mitt Romney's hair: Romney's black hair natural, not dyed. "I don't color it and you can take a real close camera shot and see there's a lot of gray mixed in with all that black," says Romney, and he's telling the truth; having convered him up close, I can attest that the grey streaks are quite obvious at press-conference distance -- how the AP reporter didn't notice that is anyone's guess. So the headline should actually be "Romney's hair natural, not black."
Edwards, Cancer and Single-Payer
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 4:01PM
My sympathies go out to Elizabeth Edwards and her family. May she live for many more years.
Now that the nation is focused on the cancer travails of Ms. Edwards, it might be a good time to examine how cancer patients are treated in nations with single-payer health care systems. For any leftists who want to accuse me of exploiting a tragedy to make a point about health care policy, I say police your own ranks first.
In Canada, the wait for radiology, luckily, is less than month. The median for other procedures isn't so short. For a breast biopsy it is three months, as it is for a mastectomy. The wait for a radical prostatectomy is over 7 months. And for diagnostic procedures like an MRI and CT Scan, the waits are ten and five-and-a-half months, respectively.
Over in England, while the numbers aren't too bad for oncology, about 20% of patients waiting for radiology wait over 3 months. Data on MRIs and CT scans (imaging) are worse, with about 30% of patients waiting more than 13 weeks.
Whatever problems we have here in the U.S. (and there are plenty), single-payer isn't the answer.
Re: A Matter of Priorities
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 3:30PM
Jim, I agree with you about the urgency of national defense. But let me point out a real sticking point in the notion of a high-tech military requiring less equipment and fewer troops.
Example: You've got a modern fighter-bomber that can practically fly itself, has stealth capability, super-fast, carries and uses a tremendous variety of computer-aided weapons systems, can punch at the weight of entire squadron of F-15 Tomcats. Wonderful. But when you lose one, and it does happen, you've lost the punching weight of that entire squadrom of Tomcats. On a per-plane-loss basis, you'd be better off with the squadron of Tomcats.
Extremely effective small weapons systems with lots of well-trained troops to use them -- now that makes sense in the current war-fighting environment.
And here's an aside on a strategic issue, only half-facetious: If Pakistan falls to the Islamic radicals, as is now being discussed very seriously, at least we'd have a country (and a military establishment) to bomb, and could do so forthwith.
Run, Fred, Run
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 2:58PM
The Manchester Union Leader now has a story up on the latest polling in the presidential derby that includes former Sen. Fred Thompson in the race.
Suffice it to say that a number of folks in Massachusetts and Manhattan and Arizona are getting nervous. Without having spent a dime, Thompson is a more credible candidate than some folks who have spent upwards of $10 million.
Method Blogging
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 2:16PM
To make a point about the effects of sleep deprivation, a blogger went 126 hours without sleep, and continued posting.
Via Sullivan.
"An Act of Political Theater"
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 2:06PM
That's what Bush just called the House passage of an Iraq supplemental funding bill tied to withdrawal from Iraq. He reiterated his veto threat.
He's speaking at the White House now, surrounded by war veterans and their families.
Re: Birth Pangs
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 1:19PM
No one really argues that Smith was right to go with the story as he did -- bold headline, a single, unverified source. Not even Smtih argues that. And as Tabin notes, Smith was transparent and forthcoming as he had new information. Smith and Politico blew it by any journalistic standard, which they acknowledge.
But these things happen. Why is it emblematic of the "blogosphere"? First, these mistakes are common enough across the media. Second, Politico is hardly a bunch of rank amateurs. The editors include veterans of the Washington Post and Time, and the quality of their work so far reflects that. If anything, they are merging the best of old-school reporting and a new medium -- producing an open style of reporting and journalism. In this case, blogging worked to the advantage of accuracy, enabling Smith to change the story and the headlines as the story developed.
Fred Thompson on Abortion
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 1:11PM
Ramesh Ponnuru links to this item he wrote about Thompson in 2000:
The latest issue of NR includes a rundown of possible Bush running mates. In passing, it mentions that Senator Fred Thompson, the Tennessee Republican, has the drawback of being pro-choice. His office called today to say that Thompson is actually pro-life.
Thompson has certainly voted with pro-lifers almost all the time. The National Right to Life Committee counts votes for John McCain-style campaign-finance reform, which Thompson supports, as anti-pro-life votes, but otherwise he's been solid. The senator voted against the Harkin amendment, which put the Senate on record favoring Roe v. Wade. But when Thompson ran for Senate in 1994, he did so as a supporter of legal abortion, as several press clips from the time pointed out. NR has also obtained a copy of a letter Thompson sent to a constituent in 1997, which notes that Thompson supports various restrictions on abortion but also includes the line, "I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."
The upshot: Thompson is an ally of pro-lifers in all the actual fights that come up, but he's not one of them on the core issue. Unless, that is, he has changed his mind, as suggested by his current self-description as a pro-lifer. In that case, NR would be more than happy to print a correction - and welcome him aboard.
Pence on the Dems
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 1:01PM
"Here are some examples of what the Democrats consider 'urgent' needs that require 'prompt action:'
-- $25 million for payments to
spinach
producers
-- $120 million to the shrimp
industry
-- $74 million for peanut storage
-- $5 million
for shellfish, oyster and clam producers
"Spinach, shrimp, peanuts and shellfish? That's not a war funding bill, that's the salad bar at Denny's."
More here.
RE: Birth Pangs of a New Media
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 1:00PM
Here's one element of the new media that I'd like to see stay away from the old: Bloggingheads-TV type stuff. Do we really need to see our favorite pundits' bedrooms or look at close-ups of them where we can practically see the spinach stuck in their teeth?
I respectfully submit that we do not.
Re: Birth Pangs of a New Media
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 12:55PM
Even if the source were a Don Evans type, Smith still should have gotten a second source, and/or sought official comment, and emphasized any comment/no comment toward the top of his post. The fact that the story turned out to be wrong proves this.
Re: Hewitt's Romney Book
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 12:32PM
Hunter, it actually made the NY Times Bestseller List at #25, according to Hewitt.
Re: Birth Pangs of a New Media
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 12:18PM
Phil: All fine and well, but again I hesitate to make a mountain out of this molehill in what was a fast moving story that turns out to be about a lot more than whether Edwards will suspend his campaign or not. For all of Smith's sins, the one potentially mitigating unknown here is just who this "Edwards friend" was. If it was someone as close to Edwards as, say, Don Evans was to George W. Bush, I would think the reporter would not have needed a second source. Think we can ask Patrick Fitzgerald to look into the identity of this Edwards friend?
Does the Romney Candidacy Track the Romney Book?
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 12:18PM
Last week, Hugh Hewitt was giving us updates on how A Mormon in the White House was doing at Amazon. He's stopped giving updates. I figure I'll do my part.
The book is sitting at #257, far below R. Emmett Tyrrell's The Clinton Crack-Up about an ex-president, which is sitting at #31.
I'll Get Rid Of Paper That Doesn't Make Me Money
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 12:14PM
Okay, so this guy won't use toilet paper because it's environmentally unsound, but he'll write and publish a book about not using toilet paper; a book presumably to be printed on paper. Or is he going to hand inscribe each copy on the bark of already dead trees?
Now that would be something worth creating a blog over.
A Vote for Fred Thompson
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 12:12PM
Without my own comment pro or con, and with his permission, I share this interesting analysis concerning the shape of the GOP presidential race from the distinguished "Feddie," Steve Dillard, the founder of the wonderful, sadly now-defunct "Southern Appeal" blawg that did such yeoman work in getting Bill Pryor confirmed to a federal judgeship. I'm not sold on any candidate yet, but Feddie is always worth listening to. Here are his comments:
There are two reasons that so many people are clamoring for Fred Thompson to seek the GOP nomination: (1) he has a strong record on socially conservative issues; and (2) he has the "it" factor. Both of these qualities are needed to energize a demoralized GOP base and (thus) win the presidency, and none of the so-called front runners possess them. While John "Just call me Bob Dole because it's my turn" McCain was once a strong voice for a "Culture of Life" in this country, he has been notably silent on such issues in recent years. He also supports embryonic-stem-cell research, which will cost him many votes among social conservatives (especially conservative Catholics). McCain is also dull as dishwater, and the perception among many conservatives is that he's not all there. As for Rudy, I don't care how many polls have him listed as the frontrunner, he's going to lose in the South, and lose big. All Romney or Brownback have to do to sink Rudy's quest for the Whitehouse is to run commercials highlighting his statements: (1) supporting public funding of abortion; (2) noting that he would pay to have his grandchild snuffed out if his daughter became pregnant and wanted an abortion; or (3) in support of gay rights (you can also expect the pictures of him in drag to feature prominently in such ads). Don't get me wrong, many conservatives (including yours truly) greatly respect Rudy for the Churchillian leadership he displayed in the aftermath of 9/11, and for the tremendous job he did in cleaning up New York City; but the bottom line is that his values are simply not the same as the vast majority of those residing in must-win red states. Indeed, if Rudy somehow ends up winning the GOP nomination, you can rest assured that he will ultimately lose. People are kidding themselves if they think Rudy's liberal social views will generate enough cross over or moderate votes to make up for the loss of social conservatives like me, who are as troubled by Rudy's candidacy as much as they were with John Kerry's (once again, this is especially true among conservative Catholics). So, this leaves Romney; and his problem is that he is a flip-flopper and a Mormon. Now, I personally could care less about the latter, but many religious conservatives do and will vote accordingly. And while Romney certainly has charisma, it pales in comparison to the presidential vibe that Thompson exudes when he walks into the room. Like I said, Thompson has that special something that Reagan had, and that is why so many conservatives are excited about the prospect of him running. And if Thompson does run, he will win. Can you imagine that shrill woman on the same stage with Thompson (in a debate)? He'll make her look like the devil woman she is inside of five minutes. In this respect, my view is that Obama is the dem who benefits the most from a Thompson run. Right now, there is no need for the dems to nominate anyone with a personality to take on McCain/Giuliani/Romney, but Thompson, Thompson changes everything. In my view, Fred Thompson is the only chance conservatives have of maintaining the presidency. The sooner we realize this, the better.
Re: Birth Pangs of a New Media
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 11:59AM
John and Wlady, I have to wholehardedly disagree with you about the Politico getting it wrong. I think this is a major deal. It would be one thing if the post had a headline that was softer, or if the story had a lot of qualifications, but it didn't. Furthermore, it ended up on the front of the Politico webpage, which is supposed to be a more formal news site, and not just a blog, so it carries more authority. The headline emphatically stated "Edwards To Suspend Campaign" and the post began:
John Edwards is suspending his campaign for President, and may drop out completely, because his wife has suffered a recurrence of the cancer that sickened her in 2004, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, an Edwards friend told The Politico.
"At a minimum he's going to suspend" the campaign, the source said. "Nobody knows precisely how serious her recurrence is. It'll be another couple of days before there's complete clarity."
If Smith wanted to get this information out there, the headline should have read, "Friend Says Edwards To Suspend Campaign." The blog post should have cautioned that the truth won't be known until the noon press conference, but, for what it's worth, a friend said that he's suspending the campaign. The very next sentence should have been that the Edwards campaign was not confirming this. But according to Smith's narrative, he didn't even seek comment from the Edwards campaign before going with the story. That's absolutely unacceptable. If he did seek comment and they never responded, he should have made that clear. A reporter should not rely on updating the story to report official comment (or no comment). This is basic journalism. Also, Smith says, "A little after 10 a.m., I put out feelers to people in Edwards' circle who weren't holed up in Chapel Hill, people I thought might be willing to speak freely." They may be able to speak more freely, but presumably, if they weren't "holed up in Chapel Hill," they would be in less of a position to know the truth.
It's one thing when bloggers were just pajama-clad hobbyists, but now that we've moved into an era when they are speaking with the authority of regular journalists, they need to be held to the same standards. Smith is a solid reporter who has done a lot of excellent work, but he blew it this time, as even he acknowledged. It happens to the best of them. What's important now is to recognize the error and use this as a moment to impose the same journalistic standards on blogger/reporters. This Edwards debacle should be the exception, not the rule.
Post Goes Breathless
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 11:13AM
Today's Washington Post played as a major story an entirely unremarkable set of circumstances regarding the replacement of Arkansas US Attorney Bud Cummins with former Karl Rove aide Tim Griffin. It is therefore worth repeating that Cummins already had expressed an intention to move on, anyway, and that Griffin is eminently qualified. DoJ handled all of these replacements in a bumbling and classless manner, but Griffin and Rove both deserve strong defense in this case. The full report was in my column here at the Spectator last week. Excuse the length, but these are the relevant excerpts:
ALL OF THAT SAID, none of this bumbling and none of DoJ's ill treatment of the fired USAs would have lent itself to quite such a level of bloodlust from the left if the firings couldn't be somehow laid at the feet of the left's favorite uber-villain, Karl Rove. In reality, though, Rove's fingerprints are on only one of the replacements, that of his onetime deputy Tim Griffin. And there was no good reason for Rove to stay out of that appointment. Here was a loyal, qualified, and extremely talented underling whose job at the White House was filled becausewent off to serve his country in the military. And word was that the Griffin USA inGriffin 's home state of, Bud Cummins, was already open to leaving his post for more lucrative private employment after a grinding four-year term. Arkansas Even here, though, DoJ couldn't handle the replacement with grace.
On Wednesday night, Cummins told me how he experienced the developments. First, though, understand that Cummins is a consummate gentleman and a Bush and Republican loyalist who served as official
elector for Bush in 2000. He might have expressed resentment of Arkansas , on whose behalf Cummins was nudged aside. Instead, here's what he said of his onetime aide: "Tim did a good job when he worked in the office. He worked hard. He took a real leadership role. He did a good job as a prosecutor. I certainly don't take issue with any of Tim's credentials for this job.... I feel very comfortable saying that." (For more on Griffin 's superior qualifications, see the excellent accompanying piece on the Spectator website today by Kane Webb.) Griffin While Cummins ended up not leaving the
USA job of his own volition, he said he had spoken a number of times toabout his intentions to do so, and probably mentioned it casually to others at the Justice Department along the way. "There is no question that my wife and I had talked it over....Right about a third to a half of the U.S. Attorneys I had started with in 2001 had moved on....I had a willingness and intention to leave in the time frame of early 2006, but my First Assistant became ill, and subsequently died, and it just seemed a bad time to leave." Griffin Still, he was surprised when Justice officials called him and told him he should step aside. He expected to leave under his own terms. Nevertheless, "I worked hard to make it a smooth transition. I went to pretty great pains to make it a situation that represented what should have happened instead of what actually happened. I mean, as far as I can tell, all of us [the fired USAs] were going away like good soldiers. But this wasan unprecedented move. I'm not aware of any president before who removed his own appointees without malfeasance."
But he and
worked out a transition plan, and things seemed basically okay -- until Gonzales told Congress that all the replacements were made because of issues of poor management or the like. Suddenly, the good soldier found himself chafing as his own performance was publicly questioned. When McNulty then repeated the explanation in more explicit terms, while specifically exempting Cummins from the criticism, Cummins was quoted in the press as defending the reputation of the other fired USAs. He received a phone call from McNulty's chief of staff Michael Elston which, according to Cummins, seemed like a thinly veiled threat to escalate the public criticism of him and the other seven if they didn't stay quiet. Griffin That was the last straw. Cummins testified before Congress to that effect, and on Wednesday he told me he blamed "certainly the attorney general [Gonzales] and the deputy attorney general [McNulty] too. Paul McNulty, especially, as a former U.S. Attorney himself, should have seen that the public explanation of the firings were inadequate on their face, specious on their face....It's just wrong. These people are being disparaged wrongfully."
ALL OF WHICH SHOWS a severe lack of political tact by the Gonzales team. There is nothing wrong with wanting new blood after four years or six years. The president never spends a lot of time explaining Cabinet replacements whenever he makes them. If handled one by one instead of as an attention-getting group of eight replacements in very short order, the changes would have attracted little attention. As well they should have, because there is no inherent scandal in such replacements.
Instead, the administration created its own quicksand and stepped right into it.
It did so even in the case of the loyal Cummins, who showed every intention of going quietly into the night. The press and the cut-throat left, predictably, homed in on the utterly innocent appointment of Griffin and used it to wrongly infer that Rove's supposedly evil hand was responsible for all eight firings, and to further infer (or in some cases say outright) that by very virtue of his association with Rove, Griffin was no more than a political hack. The truth, of course, is the opposite (again, see Kane Webb's article): that
Griffin was a Rove favorite becausewas so talented. Griffin All of which means that what should have been a simple set of administrative changes -- some perhaps wise, some almost certainly not, but none of them nefarious -- instead is dominating headlines and treated as a scandal. That is not the legacy of a tremendously competent attorney general.
Meanwhile,
is keeping his head low. Reached by phone yesterday morning, he would say next to nothing. Finally he offered this, almost wistfully: "I was honored to be offered the post and I was honored to accept. Despite all the criticism, I just want to stay focused and try to do the best job I can." Griffin That's what Cummins was doing, too, and what Kevin Ryan in
was trying to do, and what Kyle Sampson was in his own way trying to do. Now they all are victims of a "scandal" that should not have snared them. San Francisco
Re: The Birth Pangs of a New Media
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 10:38AM
I agree with you entirely, John, but didn't you notice yesterday how the earth stood still when the Politico got the story somewhat wrong? Besides, the Howard Kurtzes of the world, so gleefully trying to put the Politico upstarts in their place, typically missed the forest for the trees. The Edwards campaign isn't about the candidate anymore. Whether to suspend or not suspend is beside the point.
A Matter of Priorities
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 10:19AM
In his essay on conservatism and constitutionalism, Charles Kesler touches on a point we've recently discussed here:
National defense is the national government's most urgent and fundamental priority. But as Robert Samuelson noted recently, defense spending is only a fifth of the federal budget; in 1956, during a peaceful part of the Cold War, it was 60% of the budget. Social welfare spending (counting Social Security and Medicare) has moved in the opposite direction. It was a fifth of the budget in 1956; today, it is three times that percentage, and climbing. While waging a multi-front war, the Bush Administration has done all it can to hold down defense spending and the size of the armed forces. Partly, this is the result of its faith that with high technology and transformed forces, more could be done with less. Partly, however, the administration fears being backed into a tax increase, or unpopular reductions in spending, or both.But conservatives ought to do better than that. National defense is central to constitutionalism in a way that entitlement spending is not. Defense spending needs to grow dramatically, and if that forces a hard look at entitlements and domestic discretionary spending, all the better.
I'm actually less sure that defense spending "needs to grow dramatically" -- some of the money for much needed investments in this area could be freed up by curbing excesses in the procurement process, excising pork, and reevaluating Cold War-era weapons systems and commitments -- but definitely agree it should consume a much larger portion of the federal budget.
Re: The Birth Pangs of a New Media
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 10:00AM
Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is about Smith's error. The usual suspects are trotting this example out to bash bloggers. But Smith updated his original post with the Edwards campaign's pushback, and then posted an explanation just as prominent as the original post. This is what bloggers do when they screw up; it's a transparent and instantaneous process. Remember the New York Post cover announcing the Gephardt was Kerry's running mate? The Post didn't have the luxury of amending the cover of every paper in circulation; bloggers do. I suppose the outlets that transmitted the scoop might take some blame, but CNN was already reporting on the pushback from the Edwards camp by the time I heard about it on TV.
RET Update
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 9:50AM
#2 on the Amazon Politics list and #29 on the overall books list. Behind him? Thomas Friedman and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Something tells me Tyrrell is more entertaining.
Iran's Provocation
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 9:50AM
In yet another act of defiance, the Iranian government has captured 15 British sailors at gunpoint.
The Birth Pangs of a New Media
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 9:11AM
Yesterday, the new Politico made news when reporter Ben Smith, citing a single source, falsely reported that John Edwards was suspending his campaign due to a recurrence of Elizabeth's cancer. The false story spread like wildfire over the Internet and then was picked up by the major news channels. Smith, who has been an excellent reporter, graciously explained why he blew the story. The interesting part of this whole debacle is that it demonstrates the rocky road we're on as the new media and old media converge. Smith broke the story as a blog post, and blogs are an informal medium where people often speculate and pass on rumors, but typically qualify them as such. However, as blogs more and more become a source of breaking news, and the line between news reporting and blogging blurs, entries tend to be written in a more formal style, with a certainty and authority that would normally be reserved for news stories, even if it's unjustified by the sourcing. It's doubtful that any major news organization would have run such a big news story based on a single source, but as a blogger, Smith felt his information was good enough for a short little, harmless, blog post. But when Drudge headlined it with a siren, all hell broke loose. This may end up as a watershed moment for a medium that is struggling to grow beyond its infancy.
Gonzales Must Go
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 9:07AM
Charles Krauthammer makes the case.
And if that doesn't convince you, consider Gonzales's Janet Reno-esque promise to "stay focused on protecting our kids."
'Retreat and Butter'
Posted by on 3.23.07 @ 7:29AM
A spot-on editorial at the Washington Post about the awful bill that Congress is voting on today.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Of Feinstein, Hypocrite, and LA Times, Slanted Rag
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 7:52PM
(With apologies in advance for the convoluted nature of all this, but hey, that is what you get with breaking news reports on blogs as opposed to with well crafted regular news stories)...
The real problem is that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a hypocrite and that the LA Times turned itself into an irresponsible attack machine for the Left.
AN E-MAIL MESSAGE HERETOFORE (APPARENTLY) UNNOTICED PROVIDES FURTHER SUPPORT FOR THOSE CONCLUSIONS ABOVE. Let me explain:
I refer to the most explosive of all the allegations in this whole brouhaha over the fired US Attorneys, namely the notion that a memo from DoJ Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson on May 11, 2006, referring to the "real problem" with San Diego USA Carol Lam, was a reference to Lam's prosecution of corrupt Republican U.S. Rep. Duke Cunningham -- and, in a prominent March 15 LA Times story, somehow to a supposedly related investigation of Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis.
Amazingly enough, the New York Times was just about the only major news outlet to get the story correct, noting in a big March 20 story that "interviews with law enforcement officials in California and an examination of e-mail released by the Justice Department... suggest that the 'real problem' mentioned in the message was related instead to complaints about her handling of immigration." (NOTE: There are a number of paragraphs represented by that ellipse, but it is absolutely faithful to the context.)
But the LA Times story, and a slew of national stories that followed, made much of the fact that a big development in the Cunningham case occurred just the day before Sampson's memo, and gave hugely prominent play to charges by Feinstein, Democratic Congressional campaign chief Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and others, that the memo amounted to a desire for payback because Lam continued to pursue leads related to Cunningham. Even worse, the LA Times and numerous others followed its lead to suggest that the real goal was to protect Lewis. As even the LA Times noted in that story, but buried and put in a context that discredited this basic fact, was that Lam had absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, to do with the investigation of Lewis. That investigation was entirely run under the auspices of an entirely different US Attorney, the one in
Yet Adam Cohen of the New York Times, among others, followed the LA Times by claiming (March 20) that Lam "was investigating a second" congressman. No, she wasn't.
All along, the Justice Department had explained that its "real problem" with Lam was her repeated failure to focus on prosecuting immigration-related cases. But as the NYT rightly noted, the e-mails show a lengthy, extensive trail of concerns about Lam's enforcement of immigration expressed and pushed hard by Feinstein herself, along with GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, among others. In other words, when Feinstein was accusing Sampson of having been trying to improperly intervene in an ongoing criminal matter, she knew, absolutely knew, that DoJ had been at that very time responding to her OWN concerns about Lam's lax immigration enforcement. And she knew that it was the Los Angeles USA, not Lam, who was investigating Lewis.
Now, FINALLY, I get to the new part of this report: It now turns out that on the very day Sampson sent the e-mail, May 11, 2006, the "SD California Congression Delegation [was] scheduled" for a meeting with DoJ officials "re immigration enforcement." So says a May 3, 2006 e-mail written by Ronald Tenpas, an official in the office of the Deputy Attorney General.
In short, not only were Feinstein and Issa bombarding DoJ with complaints about Lam's lax immigration enforcement for weeks before and after Sampson wrote the "real problem" memo, but the delegation actually was scheduled to meet with DoJ officials on the very day, May 11, that the memo was sent. In short, there is a ton of evidence that DoJ's explanation (re immigration) was accurate, and not a single shred of evidence to indicate that Sampson had any concerns whatsoever, not even a smidgen, with the Cunningham/Lewis investigations.
(By the way, Lewis still maintains his innocence, and no charges have been filed, and charges probably won't be filed -- there seems to be almost no "there" there.)
How, then, could Feinstein, with a straight face, refuse to accept the DoJ explanation that Lam's problem was with immigration enforcement, when she, Feinstein, knew that the explanation was accurate -- and when, of course, as we have seen, Lam was not investigating Lewis?
Questions: Did Feinstein attend the May 11 meeting?
Maybe somebody should subpoena Feinstein to find out about the internal deliberations in her own Senate office about whether or not to issue her scurrilous smear of Kyle Sampson.
Radicals For Capitalism
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 5:59PM
My review of Brian Doherty's new book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement is up on the Politco's website.
National Right to Life Committee on Thompson
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 5:37PM
This morning, I cited reports being promoted by the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals for Mitt suggesting that Fred Thompson ran his two campaigns for Senate in
St. Martin said that she went down to
"I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,"
"He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life," she said.
On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue. The only reason he didn't have a 100% rating is that, as Jim pointed out, the ratings also include votes on campaign finance reform, which he supported.
I specifically pressed her on the 1994 National Review story that read: "On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it." I also asked her about the 1996 AP story mentioning Thompson's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
St. Martin said she was skeptical of such media reports, because they can be wrong as was her experience with stories in 2000 that George W. Bush had been pro-choice. She reiterated the fact that she knows Thompson opposed abortion because of her conversation with him, and that was reinforced by his subsequent voting record.
No doubt, there will be new articles and video clips to come out should Thompson decide to run, publicizing any past pro-choice statements, and clearly Romney supporters have a vested interest in pointing to Thompson as another recent convert to the pro-life cause. However, it seems that Thompson's voting record is consistent enough, and dates back far enough, to satisfy the pro-life community.
Re: Cute But Annoying
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 4:40PM
Even more ridiculous, in a blog post announcing his interview with Romney yesterday, Hewitt included a link to an online contribution form to the Romney campaign. So now he's a campaign fundraiser too. I wonder if that's a violation of McCain-Feingold?
It's Cute. Annoying, but Cute
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 3:47PM
I'm turning into a full-time Hewitt critic, but as someone who has often enjoyed reading his blog in the past, I simply can't take the continuing infomercial quality of his endorsement of Mitt Romney and the way every conversation comes back to Romney somehow.
Today, he began a post talking about Rudy Giuliani's profile in Time Magazine and the theme of maturity. At the end of the post after a nice snippet from the Time story, we get this:
"Romney and Giuliani have telegraphed that they are very aware of this dynamic, have the fund-raising machines built and operating that can sustain their efforts, and the attitudes necessary to a long season."
What? Huh? Who was talking about Mitt Romney?
It's become like a verbal tic. Hewitt mentions Romney when
ordering dinner these days.
Time On Rudy
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 2:59PM
David von Drehle has written a mostly positive profile of Rudy for Time. What emerges is a Rudy who is prepared for an onslought of negative attacks, but is trying to maintain his post-9/11 glow as long as possible:
"I've been through it many, many times before," Giuliani tells Time. "I accept it ... People have every right to explore the positives and the negatives about me. It's true for all these candidates: we all have things we've done right, things we've done wrong." He continues, "That's what this process is about, and you've got to come to peace with it, that it does involve scrutiny, attack, opportunity to explain what you're talking about-and the chance, ultimately, to change things."
RE: Elizabeth Edwards
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 12:45PM
I thought she was actually better at the press conference than her husband.
Re: Edwards
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 12:43PM
They said that it looked in the past few days like it might be worse than it is, which may account for the rumors about the campaign being suspended.
Edwards: The Campaign Goes On
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 12:30PM
John Edwards: "We've been confronted by these kind of struggles and traumas already in our lives, and we know from our previous experience that when this happens you have a choice. You can cower in the corner and hide, or you can be tough, and go out there and stand up for what you believe in. Both of us are committed to the cause. We're committed to changing this country that we love so much. And we have no intention of cowering in the corner."
He said they were leaving together for New York and Boston, and then on to California tomorrow.
Elizabeth Edwards: "I'm absolutely ready for this. I have all the energy...I don't look sickly, I don't feel sickly."
Elizabeth Edwards
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 12:28PM
Sadly her cancer is back and has spread to her bone. On the bright side, the doctors are optimistic that it will be treatable, and it is largely confined. She's speaking now. Let's hope for the best.
UPDATE: Mrs. Edwards went to the doctor on Monday after feeling a pain in her rib, and the doctors thought something looked suspicious. They did a biopsy of a section of the bone, and it came out malignant. She said she's totally asymptomatic other than the pain in her rib.
Val's Status
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 11:46AM
As I noted in a Reader Mail exchange the other day, we still don't know whether Valerie Plame Wilson was legally covert. Bob Novak explores the issue today.
Edwards Press Conference at Noon
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 11:26AM
It's apparently about his wife's health; if her cancer is back, he may be dropping out of the race.
McCain-Kennedy Splitsville?
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 11:15AM
The Boston Globe is reporting that the McCain-Kennedy immigration partnership is on the rocks. If accurate, this makes a "comprehensive" bill that can attain bipartisan support before the 2008 elections much more unlikely .
RE: Flip Flopping Fred
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 10:55AM
It is fair to say that Fred Thompson tried to straddle the abortion issue, just like Mitt Romney. He described himself as pro-choice while consistently voting for abortion restrictions. When the pro-life movement largely abandoned its push for a constitutional amendment and shifted to a more incremental strategy, it became possible for politicians to vote the pro-life line in Congress while still maintaining support for legal first-trimester abortions and, in some cases, Roe. This was George Allen's position, for instance.
There are two differences between Thompson and Romney, however. Thompson never took a position as close to the NARAL line as Romney did in 1994 or 2002. Second, the former Tennessee senator has compiled a longer record of being operationally pro-life even if nominally pro-choice. Thompson's National Right to Life Committee scorecards, which I can't find online, show disagreements over campaign finance reform but not abortion or cloning.
Newt Speaks
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 10:00AM
Newt Gingrich spoke with reporters after his Wednesday talk, and here are some tidbits that I couldn't fit into my piece this morning.
ON FRED THOMPSON:
Gingrich said Thomspon's entry into the race would not affect his
decision to run. "He's very talented, a good friend…and I
think he'd add to the race."
ON THE EARLY ELECTION COVERAGE:
"Most Americans have good enough sense that in March a year before
the campaign, they don't pay any attention. So it's very hard to
communicate to normal, healthy, rational people in March of 2007
about an office you take in 2009. They just have better things to
do with their lives than to be absorbed in this stuff."
ON WAITING UNTIL SEPT. 30 TO DECIDE WHETHER TO RUN:
"Barack Obama rose in three weeks, right? Howard Dean collapsed in
three weeks. That teaches me the cycles in America are three weeks.
So there's plenty of time to come to that decision. Either somebody
will have sealed it off, in which case it's moot, or, the game will
have started."
ON PAKISTAN:
"I think we have to have a permanent planning process that worries
about Pakistan. If Musharraf were to be replaced by a radical, you
would have an extraordinarily dangerous situation that day. And my
hope is that we have contingency planning that recognizes how
dangerous that can be."
Dungy Was Asked; He Told
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 9:34AM
In contrast to the U.S. military and the personal comments made by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace about the (im)morality of homosexuality, the NFL is saying its employees are free to speak about their individual views. Indianapolis Colts Coach (and Super Bowl champion) Tony Dungy said Tuesday night he supports a ban in Indiana of same-sex marriages, according to an Indianapolis Star report:
"We're not trying to
downgrade anyone else," said Dungy, coach of the Super Bowl
champion Indianapolis Colts. "But we're trying to promote the
family - family values the Lord's way," Dungy said. "IFI is saying
what the Lord says. You can take that and make your decision on
which way you want to be."
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league believes in free
speech:
"Coach Dungy is speaking for himself and expressing his views, which he is fully entitled to do. No doubt there are people in our league that have a different view. We respect the right of employees to have and express their views and don't regulate the political or religious views of team or league employees."
Flip Flopping Fred?
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 9:30AM
Is the great conservative hope a recent convert to the pro-life cause?
Pro-Romney site Evangelicals For Mitt says that, like their man from Massachusetts, Fred Thompson ran as a pro-choice candidate in two elections. The site posts excerpts from articles in the mid-1990s describing Thompson as "pro-choice" and against a constitutional ammendment banning late-term abortions, though, there aren't any direct quotes of him identifying himself as pro-choice, and at this moment, no startling YouTubes. Also, he favored parental notification and opposed partial birth abortion as well as federal funding for abortion, according to the excerpts. He also had a pretty solid pro-life voting record, apparently.
Here are the excerpts:
U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week's convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. "We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us," Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday. Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. "But I don't think you should bolt on one issue. I'm still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don't think we need to write it all down in a document," Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)
On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it. (National Review, 6/27/94)
Though Thompson says he's pro-choice, his voting record on abortion issues (which includes opposing fellow Tennessean Henry Foster's nomination for surgeon general) has earned him high marks from both the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee. He has also won the backing of the tobacco industry and the NRA. (Washington Monthly, 12/1/96)
Nothing in here is as damaging to Thompson as the statements Romney made in Massachusetts much more recently, but as Evangelicals for Mitt points out, it is a lot easier to be pro-life in Tennessee than Massachusetts. I'd be curious to learn more about what Thompson actually said back then, because for all the ribbing Romney has taken on his abortion evolution, it's only fair to give other potential candidates the same scrutiny, especially because the Thompson boomlet is based on him being the whole package.Re: Tyrrell Over DeLay
Posted by on 3.22.07 @ 1:22AM
Dave: I've just checked and Bob's at #4 on the Amazon Politics list, while DeLay has fallen back to #9 and Hugh Hewitt to #13. Jimmy Carter is holding strong at #12.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Cathy Seipp, RIP
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 9:58PM
Here's her obituary in the LA Times -- the paper she savaged so often -- and a remembrance from her friendly ideological adversary Susan Estrich.
Re: Adler Distorts
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 9:01PM
It is interesting that Adler can't get other facts straight -- he says Romney introduced Coulter. Romney was riling up the crowd in his own speech, hoping that his mention of Coulter's upcoming speech would engender them to him. Watch the clip for yourself here.
I wasn't at CPAC, but those facts are easy enough to understand through video and blogger reports.
Adler Distorts
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 8:00PM
Over at The New Republic, Ben Adler had this to say about Ann Coutler's C-PAC performance:
The intra-liberal squabbles over Ann Coulter are back. Coulter, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on March 2, 2007 (after being given a warm introduction by GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney) said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" Her comment was greeted with laughter from the crowd. [Italics added].
He then argues that liberals should use Coulter to advance the liberal cause by claiming that most conservatives embrace her nastiness. Adler's contention that most conservatives agree with Coulter's nutty statements hinges on the C-PAC reaction, as evidenced from this later passage:
Is this fair? Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan obviously don't speak for all liberals, so why should we ascribe collective blame over Coulter? But it's not as if Coulter (or Moore) is some fringe wingnut twisting in the wind. Her homophobic line about Edwards took place at CPAC, a major movement conference--and it got laughs and applause. So, obviously, her views have a significant constituency on the right. In that way, it's also fair to infer from Moore's hatred for President Bush that many liberals hate Bush, too. [Italics added].
However, listen to actual C-PAC reaction, as shown here. Sounds like there are a lot more gasps and other uneasy reactions than there are laughs. For comparison, listen to other parts of Coutler's speech that do get big laughs.
If Adler wants to justify using Coulter brush to tar all conservatives, he needs to come up with a better argument.
Re: Tancredo on Gonzales
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 6:40PM
One of the reasons that Alberto Gonzales has no street cred as a whatever-ethnographic-epithet-you-want-to-call-him-American is because of the widespread impression/understanding that the President installed him on the basis of precisely that status. A worse -- meaning more potent -- reason is the impression/understanding that the President picked Gonzales because of the unique confluence of that status and Gonzales' status as Pal of the President.
Both these factors -- whether 100% true or only 50% true -- reverberate across the entire irritating panorama of one of this Administration's most irritating traits -- sticking friends in high places. What's so irritating about it has nothing to do with any particular friend or any particular place, but rather the total package, which has time and again taken the form of an apparently total obliviousness to the toll that loyalism as a habit takes on perceptions of legitimacy. When things are good, no one cares, but when things turn, which they always do during presidencies, the weak point that it is cries out for a good hammering.
This is dumbell politics, pure and simple, if nothing else. It zonked out Harriet Miers in the incredibly narrow window of zonkability that opens between nomination and hearings. It zonked out Kerik (sigh). And it's what'll zonk out Gonzales. Nobody, not nobody, has any reason to go to the mat for Al. And building that dynamic into your party, against what will always be their wishes (for partisans like nothing better, and deserve nothing sweeter, than to be justifiably partisan), is a wretched, needless misfortune -- one which seems likely to jaundice Bush's afterimage among Republicans for a long time to come. What's worse, beyond intra-party politics it plays into the hands of partisan Democrats, muddling the difference between legitimate Congressional inquiry and fish hunts-and-witching expeditions. I think for thoughtful rank-and-filers it's that which is probably the unforgivable part.
Two 'Ladies', One Health-Care System
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 6:14PM
Stuart Browning over at On The Fence Films has another good short film on the Canadian health care system. Go see it now.
Shaken or Stirred is the Question
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 5:11PM
A few months back, Jed Babbin and I debated the choice of Daniel Craig to play the new 007. I had seen the movie, Jed had not. Well, with the release of Casino Royale on DVD this past week, here is Jed's flip-flop:
Tyrrell Over DeLay
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 4:27PM
RET's new book is #7 on the Amazon politics chart, just ahead of Tom DeLay's new ghost-written book. Jimmy Carter and Hugh Hewitt trail (no disrespect intended to Hewitt).
It also appears Amazon has run out of the book after one day -- did the preorders exhaust supply?
Re: Copy Cat
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 4:24PM
That copycat ad is strange, especially in its choice of the "Big Brother" video -- Obama's Monday Night Football spoof, and the "The Bears Lost, So Will Obama." It seems like a pro-Obama spoof of how the Hillary camp would respond.
Copy Cat YouTubing
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 3:02PM
A pro-Hillary 1984-style ad attacks Obama. How lame.
Quin on CNN
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 1:54PM
Last week Jim Antle did a turn on Glenn Beck. Tonight Quin Hillyer will be on Beck's show. Channel over to CNN's Headline News at 7, 9, or midnight EST to hear Quin on the U.S. Attorneys firing brouhaha.
Rush and Arnold
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 1:36PM
As I type, they're burying the hatchet, live, on Rush's show, on Rush's terms in other words!
The Soprano Card
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 1:04PM
The NY Post has a story exploring whether Giuliani will receive a boost from his Italian heritage, especially in states such as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, where Italians make up more than 15 percent of the population:
"Once Italians voted Democratic," says John Salamone, executive director of the [National Italian American Foundation], a non-partisan umbrella group based in D.C. "In recent elections, they have tended to split along the lines of the national divide - about one third Democratic, one third Republican and one third independent. We're a very assimilated community."
Still, this is the first time Italian-Americans have had a national candidate to support. As Giuliani's candidacy has begun to take off, Salamone has been surprised by a growing grass-roots enthusiasm. "Every day I get calls and emails from across the country, from Republicans and Democrats. This isn't an endorsement, but I do believe it will translate into votes."
The big question, left unmentioned in the article, is whether the Italian-Americans who shifted toward Republicans in recent elections were observant Catholics who were wooed on the basis of social issues, in which case Rudy's stances on abortion and gay rights could be a problem, even if he is a paisan.
But according to the article, political opponents better not make too much hay of reports that Rudy's father went to jail for burglary and worked as a loan shark:
"They try this every time," says Salamone. "They even tried to paint Justice Samuel Alito as a guy who might be soft on organized crime, just because he's an Italian from New Jersey. You want to fire up and embolden the community, try using the Soprano card that way."
Dona De Sanctis, deputy executive director of the Order Sons of Italy in America, agrees. "Our people are like other Americans, concerned about the direction of the country," she says. "But one thing we carry with us here, even after 100 years in America, is the need to feel we are respected. If Rudy Giuliani is disrespected, it will galvanize Italian-Americans across the country. I can tell you that the Sons of Italy would be deeply upset."
Yet another wrinkle in the 2008 presidential race that makes it the most fascinating, and unpredictable, contest in decades.
Fred the Romney Slayer
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 12:46PM
Ryan Sager argues that were Fred Thompson to enter the race, Romney's candidacy would "end almost instantaneously." While I wouldn't go quite that far regarding the time frame, I think Sager is largely correct in his general assertion that Romney would be ultimately doomed with Thompson in the race. The primary rationale for Romney's candidacy has been that with Giuliani and McCain unacceptable to many conservatives and other more conservative candidates unelectable, Romney is the only viable conservative in the race. So far, however, he has remained only potentially viable (he still polls in the single digits) and potentially conservative (his flip-flops have left many doubters on the right). Fred Thompson, on the other hand, possesses a solidly conservativative record as well as the star power derived from his acting career and recent "Law and Order" fame. It's really hard to see how Romney could overcome that. Personally, I'm skeptical that Thompson will want to leave his comfortable life to subject himself to a grueling presidential race, and, were he to win, spend another four to eight years holding the toughest job on the planet. The fact that his flirtation with running has generated so much buzz is largely a testament to the fact that a lot of conservatives are not happy with the current crop of candidates. For more on Thompson, check out Lisa Fabrizio's column on our main site.
Re: Primary Politics
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 12:30PM
Phil: To take your apology talk a step further, wouldn't it be nice if, just as there's no way out of Iraq, there were no way out of Bush's tax cuts?
Re: Tancredo on Gonzales
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 12:30PM
I'm amazed no one is playing the only trump card Alberto Gonzales has in the current inquisition. Why no effort whatsoever to rally Hispanic support on his behalf? Or to drive home he was the first Hispanic to become Attorney General? It's not that the Bush administration was shy about its motives in nominating him in the first place? What gives?
One thing we do know is that Democrats will show no mercy for any privileged-minority member who thinks he can survive outside their ranks. Only at such times do our politics become color blind.
Primary Politics
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 12:04PM
Over on the Democratic side, liberals have been pressuring Hillary Clinton to apologize for her vote for the war in Iraq, and now on the Republican side, the Club for Growth, in its ongoing feud with John McCain, is asking the Arizona senator to apologize for his vote against the Bush tax cuts.
Tancredo on Gonzales
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 11:52AM
Via Hotline:
Tom Tancredo was on "Tucker":
On AG Gonzales: "I think he has been derelict in his duty. I think he has not done what we should expect of a chief law enforcement officer of the land. He is not going after the people. He has refused to enforce the law especially with regard to immigration issues" (MSNBC, 3/20).
Another Republican who would be perfectly happy with Gonzales getting the pink slip, because of the AG being inadequate in other areas. He's toast. It doesn't matter what President Bush says publicly about Gonzalez still having his support. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.
The Planet Has A Fever...And Babies Are On Fire
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 11:20AM
Gore on Global Warming: "If the crib is on fire you don't ask if the baby is fire retardant."
The scientific debate on whether babies are flame retardant is, of course, over. What we need now is legislative action to require parents to either flame retard their babies or, following the example of John Edwards and Al Gore, take the rich man's way out and simply buy offset credits to reduce their charred baby footprint.
This concludes today's public service announcement.
If D.C. Residents Notice Climate Change
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 10:53AM
It is because Al Gore is emitting greenhouse gases on Capitol Hill right now.
RE: Club for Growth
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 10:39AM
Pro-McCain supply-siders have been touting Stephen Moore's praise for the Arizona senator. We'll see whether voters make their determination based on past record or current promises, as Jennifer Rubin recently discussed.
Subpoenas, Attorneys, and Democrats
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 8:49AM
Now that the White House is going to be wasting time defending something that the President had every right to do, I wonder if those folks who last year thought that the GOP losing Congress would be a good thing are reconsidering?
The Anti-CAIR
Posted by on 3.21.07 @ 8:34AM
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of The American Islamic Forum for Democracy, is someone who ought to be getting more attention from the media -- mainstream and otherwise. I'd never heard of him before an article today in The Washington Times that explains how his organization and a few lawyers are willing to defend airline passengers caught up in the "flying imams" lawsuit against U.S. Airways.
One thing I noticed about AIFD's Web site: Dr. Jasser is the only one listed as a member. Makes me wonder if there are others in the organization, and if so, if they are afraid to make their identities known publicly. The professional-looking Web site implies to me that it's more than a one-man show.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Are Those Sunni Christians, Or Shiite Christians?
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 6:30PM
An art installation by a highly intelligent and well-informed antiwar protestor:
(Hat-tip: Confederate Yankee via Jim Treacher.)
Bush Statement Recap
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 6:18PM
For those who missed it, Bush's statement/short press conference probably won't do much to improve the things for the administration.
President Bush said that he was offering Congress a path to find out what happened by releasing 3,000 pages of emails today and providing more access to information, but said he would "not go along with a public fishing expedition." He said repeatedly that Democrats were using the issue to score partisan political points, and regrets that the matter became such a "public spectacle." His explaination for why he won't let White House staffers (most prominently, Karl Rove) testify was rather weak, in my view: if it became precedent that staffers were forced to testify under oath in public, it would impair their ability to be candid and thus make it more difficult for a president to get good advice. When asked whether the firings were the result of White House pressure, he answered with the stock phrase that there was "no indication that anybody did anything improper." Meanwhile, he stood by Gonzales when asked about the AG losing support among Democrats and some Republicans: "He's got support with me," Bush said.
I want to learn more before I decide whether or not the controversy over the firings is justified or overblown, and President Bush's statement doesn't change that, but it didn't engender much confidence either.
Wow, Bush Looks Ticked Off
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 6:03PM
Denouncing "partisan fishing expeditions" and "show trials," he says he'll release documents and send Gonzales to the Hill to testify on the US Attorney's matter, and he'll send White House officials to talk privately with committees, but will resist subpoenas.
RE: Sadness
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 6:00PM
John Tabin points me to the comments section of this blog post from whence I concluded that Cathy Seipp had passed away. Looks like the gent may have jumped the gun. And, thus, so did I. My sincerest apologies.
What is clear is that Seipp is in the final stage of a terminal illness. Prayers are needed.
Bush Webcast
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 5:37PM
For those not near a TV, Bush's 5:45 statement on the U.S. Attorneys matter is being webcast on the White House website.
No Hired Help to Change the Light Bulbs?
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 5:06PM
John Edwards is defending the energy efficiency of his new pad in Chapel Hill, reports The Associated Press:
Edwards said he hired a design expert during construction of the home to suggest energy efficiency options.
"We actually had an expert come in and design how to make it energy efficient," said Edwards. "He came in and said this is the way to set up the systems. He came in and figured out how to make it efficient."
Edwards also said his family was taking efficiency to the smallest detail.
"Elizabeth, I saw her climb up, I literally saw her with piles of fluorescent light bulbs changing them out," said Edwards. "We are also committed to making the house carbon neutral."
That is, as efficient and neutral as one can heat and air condition 28,200 square feet of living space.
And they didn't move in that long ago. Why didn't they start out with the fluorescent bulbs?
Re: Order Now
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 5:01PM
John: I think David Brock, assuming he still remembers me, will know that I was joking. But he'll also know the extent to which I was not. Whether an official Democratic Party mouthpiece or not, his Media Matters exists entirely to attack critics of Democratic politicians and issues and any media coverage that does not toe the standard liberal Clintonite line. It is funded entirely by Democratic donors and the real power behind it is Democratic macher and Hillaryista John Podesta. Nice work if you can get it.
The Wit of Cathy Seipp
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 4:56PM
A couple of gems from just the past year (during which, remember, she was sick):
Despite being an evil Republican, I suppose I voted mostly like a Democrat on the California state propositions and Los Angeles city measures today. (As far as people go - Arnold Schwarzenegger for governer, Calif. state sen. Tom McClintock for Lt. Governor, etc. - I voted basically the straight Republican ticket.)On the Michael Richards flap:But I'm a Republican mostly because I'm a neocon (there, I said it!) foreign policy hawk, not a traditional values conservative. And unlike the left, the right doesn't peevishly evict you if you fail to toe even one section of the party line.
[L]ike most Jews of that generation [my grandmother] always said "schwartzer" - always insisting it was not impolite at all, because it's just the Yiddish term for black, so what's the problem? That was disingenious, of course; any insider's term for outsiders is always at least a little rude...Also: Mark Steyn mentions "one of my all-time favorite NRO jests ... its particular combination of body parts and bodily fluids requires her finesse to carry off." You can find what he's talking about here, under February.I've never used "schwartzer" myself, but I still prefer it to "African-American," a flakey genteel affectation that's always struck me as filled with more than its fair share of smarm. Somehow, deep down, I think most people know this - even when they're always careful to use African-American instead of black themselves.
If not, then why all the snickering when Richards misspoke his regrets about insulting those "Afro-American" hecklers on Letterman? And why all the jibes about it in the media analysis after?
I suppose because Richards was using a passe term, one that's now as outdated as "Negro." But I think part of it, at least, is because once Richards turned himself into a racist pinata for the non-racist rest of us to smash, we were free to laugh at the genteel affectedness of African-American - which is really just a new twist on the genteel affectedness of Afro-American.
Re: Sadness
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 4:25PM
The average quality of writing in the universe will be lower without her.
Sadness
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 4:10PM
Cathy Seipp, who wrote the "From the Left Coast" column for National Review Online, has passed away.
R.I.P.
Re: Order Now
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 3:37PM
I hope Bob will report on whether the email that Media Matters drives to his inbox is, per their instructions, "polite and professional."
By the way, Media Matters isn't actually the official Democratic Party website. I know you were joking, Wlady, but I just wanted to clarify that before the humor-impaired scolds at MM, who apparently think that Bob's joke about the "Clinton Curse" killing Buddy the dog is some sort of scandalous accusation, starts accusing AmSpec of factual errors.
Hewitt's Shoddy Guesswork
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 3:31PM
Hugh Hewitt explains why with Gingrich out, the Republican nomination will come down to a two-way race between McCain and Romney:
Speculation: My guess is that most of the Gingricj [sic] voters go to Romney, as they must represent the most conservative voters and the ones which want the idea factory open. Some will go to the other two of course, but with the Gingrich decoy out of the race, it is almost certainly a tie between Romney and McCain, with Giuliani backing up. The debates are going to mean a great deal, and a great deal earlier than ever before.
While Romney-booster Hewitt bases his analysis on guessing and speculation, I'd prefer to look at hard data, which, unsurprisingly, directly contradicts Hewitt's assertion. Today,
By isolating the numbers among self-identified conservative Republicans, both with and without Gingrich, I compiled this table:
W/ Gingrich W/out Gingrich Change
Rudy Giuliani 38% 43% +5%
John McCain 20 21 +1
Newt Gingrich 14 -- --
Mitt Romney 8 11 +3
As you can see, with Gingrich out of the race, Giuliani actually extends his lead over Romney and McCain among conservatives.
Why might this be the case? One explanation could be that Gingrich's appeal is comprised of conservative voters who have fond memories of him from the 1994 Republican Revolution and conservative voters who like his stance on the War on Terrorism. So, it makes sense that the constituents who place more emphasis on terrorism would tend to gravitate toward Giuliani. Furthermore, Hewitt argues that Gingrich supporters "want the idea factory open" and takes it for granted that those voters will support Romney. However, one thing that a lot of pundits don't realize about Giuliani is that he's quite the wonk himself, and after all, Gingrich did choose to co-author a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed with Giuliani.
With Romney stuck in the single-digits, and Gingrich pretty consistency polling in the low to mid teens, Romney's supporters are fantasizing about the prospect of Newtniks defecting to the former
Some may counter that it's still early, polls at this stage are meaningless, will change once conservatives learn more about the candidates and warm up to Romney's "evolution" while cooling on Rudy because of his liberal social views. But at the moment, that's all guesswork.
An Inconvenient Economic Truth
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 1:41PM
Irwin Steltzer has an excellent piece on the costs of fighting global warming, that includes this wonderful line:
Show the Left a crisis, and they will show you how to surrender more control of your life to the government.
Read it all.
The New Mitt
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 1:03PM
Who says liberal columnists can't be cleverly funny? The Boston Globe's Brian McGory, whose late cousin Mary McGrory often displayed a mordant wit of her own in her Washington Post columns, does a hilarious sendup of Mitt Romney today. Just don't read the final entry, where McGrory turns into E.J. Dionne.
Whiny Harry
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 11:30AM
Sen. Reid does not do the cause of Gonzales's ouster any favors:
Order Now
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 11:25AM
Last I checked Amazon's political list, Bob Tyrrell's The Clinton Crack-Up was one step ahead of Jimmy Carter's treatise on Israel's Boer wars. Word is that Jimmy is mighty upset that Bob never publicized any of his birthday galas. Speaking of which, Robert Stacy McCain in today's Washington Times gets the scoop on Bob's attendance at Bill Clinton's birthday bash last August, though it's still not clear whether he was there as a protected covert agent or an unprotected one. This follows on a wonderful literary treatment two-time Clinton voter Seth Lipsky gave Bob's book in yesterday's New York Sun.
Also on the recommended list of Tyrrell-Clinton readings: Patrick Hynes's astute column on TCCU and, at the Democratic Party's official website, David Brock's love letter to "Boy Tyrrell."
RE: McCain Immigration Shift?
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 10:47AM
McCain's comments could end up having a bigger impact on the prospects of a "comprehensive" bill over the next two years than on the 2008 presidential race. There are internal contradictions in the coalition behind McCain-Kennedy that make the enactment of legislation like it very difficult, despite the support of the White House, the Democratic leadership, and many key Republicans.
One of the divisions is partisan. Republicans who dissent from the Tancredo line still want palpable concessions to pro-enforcement legislators. Democratic amnesty supporters don't want too much enforcement. Similarly, the GOP likes guest worker programs because it views the issue primarily as a labor supply problem. Democrats, by contrast, prefer a path to citizenship because they want the willing workers to be eager voters as well.
If McCain's shift is not just a one-off on the stump, this could mean that passing an immigration bill that brings these disparate elements together just got a whole lot more complicated.
What If Joe and Val Lie in Civil Court?
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 10:43AM
A commenter at my blog suggests a way that the Wilsons could get in legal trouble, even if the House Oversight Committee lets Val's testimony go unchallenged: If they stick to their story on the stand during their civil suit -- and an investigation backs up the Senate Intel Committee's conclusions -- they could be opening themselves up to perjury charges.
Reading in DC
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 9:43AM
When a three-judge DC Circuit Court panel recently ruled that DC's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment, it seemed peculiar that the ruling was 2-1. Did the dissenting judge have difficulty reading the Constitution? Quite possibly!
(Sorry, Jim; I couldn't resist.)
McCain Immigration Shift?
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 9:29AM
Under fire from conservatives for his co-sponsorship with Ted Kennedy of legislation that would offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who learn English and pay penalties, McCain is in the process of adjusting his stance, the NY Times reports:
Mr. McCain, for example, appeared to distance himself from Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat with whom he formed an alliance last year on an immigration bill that stalled in Congress.
"What I've tried to point out is we couldn't pass the legislation," Mr. McCain said. "So we have to change the legislation so it can pass. And I've been working with Senator Kennedy, but we've also been working with additional senators, additional House members."
The Pence plan was savaged by most immigration hawks, so I'm not
sure that a shift to that position would improve his standing among
that crowd. With that said, those who vote primarily on immigration
will probably cast their votes for Tancredo, Hunter, or Paul,
meaning that McCain's shifting position is more likely aimed at
making conservatives who care about immigration, but not primarily,
more comfortable with his candidacy.
Why Val Might Have Lied
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 9:25AM
[S]ince the left and the press seems to be having a failure of imagination, I would offer these suggestions as to why Ms. Plame might be inclined to, hmm, shade her story a bit:Regarding number 4: You might think even a Democratic chairman might have some reservations about a witness lying before his committee. But perhaps not. Given that, a question: I know it would be unusual for a prosecutor to investigate perjury in congressional testimony without a recommendation from the committee, but is it even remotely conceivable that any prosecutor would do so? If you have any insight, email me, john /at/ johntabin.com.1. Protect her movie deal and book deal;
2. Protect her (long-shot) civil suit;
3. Protect her husband's reputation, given his many past denials of her role;
4. It's a free throw (mandatory March Madness metaphor) - Ms. Plame is a media and democratic darling, so Chairman Waxman would never burden her with a perjury charge, or even such an allegation...
5. Where's the paperwork? There really are nepotism issues here, and the CIA file with the relevant paperwork noting the spousal connection might be a bit light - better for all to deny her role.
6. Placate the Senate - the unanimous portion of the SSCI criticized the CIA for sending an employee's spouse (see ERRATA below); they had an obvious problem that Joe Wilson seemed to know more classified info than he should have, yet no one would 'fess up to having, ahh, over-briefed him. That criticism is even more trenchant if Ms. Plame led the charge to get him the job...
Do any or all of these possible motives fit, and is Ms. Plame lying? How could I possibly know - what, now I'm a human lie detector? But let's say that Ms. Plame is not inside the circle of trust.
NPR Misses the Story
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 8:48AM
Okay, maybe the fact that NPR selectively "edits" its stories isn't "Breaking News." Where is Ken Tomlinson when you need him?
Brian Unger was surely doing the Lord's Work (in NPR parlance that means "doing the work for the DNC") when he highlighted the credentials of "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani and former Sen. Fred Thompson. You can hear the story here.
Unger attempted to belittle Thompson's record by simply ignoring much of Thompson's record as a prosecutor and attorney, to wit, his takedown of a Tennessee Governor after he revealed a cash for pardons scandal inside the statehouse. That scandal was eventually made into a movie, which led to Thompson's first role - playing himself.
We don't know that Fred Thompson is running. But we have an opportunity to force NPR to get its story straight -- and keep it straight in the future. Email NPR and force it to correct the record. Hold them accountable.
The links for Unger's email is here.
The link to send email to the NPR ombudsman is here (make sure you hit the drop down menu to direct it to the ombudsman).
Clinton-Obama Surrogates Spar
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 8:46AM
An Iraq War dust up between advisors to Obama and Clinton breaks out at a Harvard Kennedy School forum. I think Obama comes out ahead in any scuffle between the two campaigns. When camp Hillary goes after Barack, it stops looking like she's the inevitable nominee, and begins to look like a two-person race.
Not a Bad Start
Posted by on 3.20.07 @ 1:14AM
One hour on the streets and RET's new book is up to #10 on the Amazon Politics list.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Re: Gonzales
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 9:19PM
Alberto Gonzales has always been the Barney Rubble of the second-term Cabinet. Hailed from day one as a major-league lightweight, he now proves himself a first-class drag.
I suppose that right about now -- when it's too late, that is -- the time has come to reach outside the inner circle. Who does the blogosphere get to -- or is that have to? -- nominate this time? I think I'll take a pass on the privilege. Though I heard Harriet Miers is out of a job.
Not Done Snarlin'
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 5:15PM
Sen. Arlen Specter is gearing up to run for a sixth term in 2010.
Scalps
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 4:54PM
Fellas, I don't necessarily disagree that Gonzales is no big loss or that he deserves to go. "Poor reason" was the wrong way to put this scandal. I am just looking for a solid case that Gonzales deserves to go -- independent of his other shortcomings. The media and nutroots have uncritically presumed that he should go without really explaining why. If the justification is either lying to Congress or total incompetence in not knowing the facts, then I am satisfied.
More on Justice
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 4:51PM
Just a couple of other notes on the unfolding "scandal" about the US Attorneys. First, more than one source has now told me info that helps deflate the entire ORIGINAL conspiracy theory from the Left, namely that the replacement decisions on the USAs were driven by a desire to intervene improperly in specific, politically charged cases. The info (I hinted at this in my column last week) is that one person far more involved in the review process than has been commonly reported is David Margolis, who is NOT a political guy but rather a career civil servant for four decades. The idea that Margolis would be part of a right-wing plot or improper, right-leaning shenanigans is ludicrous. (In fact, some conservatives would wish that he weren't involved at all, specifically because he is NOT particularly a man of the right.) On the other hand, Margolis' apparent willingness to let former DoJ chief of staff Kyle Sampson take the fall without his trying to set the record straight about Sampson does not speak particularly well of Margolis' decency.
Speaking of Sampson (whom I believe I have never met or spoken to) I am told by a source close to the Justice Department that he was NOT in charge of the preparation for the now-somewhat-discredited testimony given by Deputy AG Paul McNulty (or for statements made by principal associate deputy attorney general William Moschella). What this means is not that the McNulty mistakes were less an attempt to mislead Congress than they were a result of bureaucratic bumbling. Of course, one of the worst parts of McNulty's testimony was the way he publicly harmed the reputations of the fired USAs.
What does all this mean? First, that the underlying actions, namely the firings, were handled indelicately but not in violation of any laws, rules, or formal ethics. The problems arose not, as the Left would have it, from underhanded or unethical politics, but from political tin ears. Second, that the subsequent explanations of the replacements were handled with a lack of human decency and with political ineptness. Last I checked, those errors are not criminal.
Gonzales, McNulty, Moschella, Margolis, and McNulty's chief of staff Michael Elston all stumbled and bumbled -- which is all Sampson himself did, at worst -- and all should take their shares of the blame for letting this whole situation blow up in their faces. As I wrote in my column, the shame of this is that several USAs had their reputations trashed undeservingly, replacement USA Tim Griffin in Arkansas has been unfairly disparaged, and Kyle Sampson was unfairly made to bear the blame alone. The president has been badly served, and a "scandal" has been created out of thin air.
Sometimes, there's just no Justice.
Re: Gonzales
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 4:18PM
I'm with Quin. Once in a while, the Democrats are going to get a scalp; it might as well be someone who's no big loss.
Re: Run, Fred, Run, Cont.
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 4:14PM
I think a Fred Thompson candidacy is now officially more likely than a Newt Gingrich candidacy. (I've expressed skepticism about Newt's intentions in this space before.)
But Thompson backed McCain in 2000; I wouldn't be shocked in the McCain people convinced him to do the same this year. (Apropos of that: I think Thompson's appealing personality has led people dissatisfied with the current crop to overstate his conservative bona fides somewhat.)
Run, Fred, Run, Cont.
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 3:08PM
Just announced that Rep. Zach Wamp and other Tennessees politicos have officially opened a "Draft Fred Thompson" campaign.
It doesn't appear that Thompson is close to a decision, but it certainly appears that folks in Tennessee are moving forward with their own plans. They must have some indication that Thompson is cool with their plans.
Pay Cheap, Get Cheap
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 2:59PM
From Ezra Klein's blog:
But look: This NHS bashing misses the point. In 2003, the British spent $2,231 per person. America spent $5,635. In other words, they spent 39% what we did. So whether they're "better" or "worse" is a bit hard to argue. Better or worse for what? They're certainly cheaper. And I've never, ever heard anyone argue that their health outcomes are 60% worse than ours. I would certainly prefer to get in a car accident in America, particularly if I had awesome insurance. But I'd certainly prefer to pay my health bills in Britain. And I'd really prefer if people stopped pretending you could make an apples-to-apples comparison between the two.
Well, let me be the first to argue that the Brits' outcomes are at least 60% worse than we are. Here is a study in the British Journal of Surgery comparing the mortality rate (risk-adjusted) post non-cardiac surgery in the U.S. and U.K. Turns out the mortality rate in the U.K is four times higher than in the U.S., or about 400% worse.
Surely, some of the extra money we spend is wasted, but the above study suggests some of it does produce better outcomes. And while it would be nice if we could get our treatment here but pay in Britain, I doubt one can so easily separate payment from quality of treatment. Spend what they do in Britain, and you are probably going to get treatment similar to that in Britain.
You and I Disagree
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 2:54PM
Dave -- You and I obviously just disagree on this. I think this is a good reason, especially in combination with all the others. Gonzales claims he had no clue about any specifics concerning one of the most important personnel matters within his purview. If true, that's pathetic. If not, then he is a liar. Meanwhile, he went before Congress and impugned the reputations of all the fired attorneys. That was both politically dumb and also classless. Then he let his chief of staff take the fall for him and McNulty. That's just plain wrong.
This administration needs to lance the boil on this story. The quicker, the better.
Gonzo
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 1:57PM
Quin, there are many reasons why Gonzales deserves to go, but why force him out for a poor reason?
Because Gonzo Will Go
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 1:22PM
Dave -- Me, throwing in the towel? No. I am saying that not only is Gonzales probably on the way out, but that he doesn't deserve defense. That's not a surrender. Gonzales has not been a good manager at Justice. Silberman or Chertoff or Larry Thompson would probably be stronger. It's time to clean house.
Monday Miscellany
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 12:58PM
Quin, why are we naming Gonzales successors so soon? Eager to surrender?
Philip, thanks for that link reminding us that Tom DeLay thought the federal budget was lean. That was all I could think of during Limbaugh's interview with him last Friday. And it reminded me of George Allen saying that the budget was "very tight and taut." The merits of DeLay's alleged martyrdom and Allen's loss aside, they are bland conservatives -- those who espouse conservatism but fail to see it through. Such comments create the impression that these guys care more about their power than their principles. So when the attacks come, very few of the rank-and-file are left to defend them.
I Love Barney Frank!
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 12:49PM
I never thought I'd say that. But things change.
If I Had a Hammer
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 12:35PM
Tom (no fat left to cut in the federal budget) DeLay vents about the criminalization of politics in his new book, an excerpt of which is up at Townhall:
What I did not expect was a concerted effort to destroy me legally, financially, and personally. I have now spent millions of dollars in lawyers' fees to answer the lies of the left. I have taken hours away from doing the nation's business to work through the laborious process of responding to legal charges that my liberal opponents knew were untrue and frivolous when they first filed them. I have watched my family suffer under the burden of not just my political misfortunes-an expected reality in a politician's family-but of the threat of material destruction, imprisonment, and ruin. This should not be what happens to someone who has defended his political ideals, aggressively, yes, but honorably. A congressman serves his nation by serving his values with passion, and the nation only suffers when partisanship is punished with personal destruction.
No McNulty
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 11:56AM
By the way, my post below listing possible replacements for Gonzales does NOT include Deputy AG Paul McNulty. The Prowler explains why that is a good thing. Meanwhile, designated "fall guy" Kyle Sampson looks like he is no longer ready to be a spearcatcher for McNulty:
"The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing the subject for several years was well-known to a number of other senior officials at the department, including others who were involved in preparing the department's testimony to Congress," according to the statement by Sampson's lawyer, Bradford A. Berenson.
Good. When all this is over, Sampson should end up with his reputation mostly restored, while others at Justice who seem to be skating should end up having their Teflon substantially pierced.
Indoctrinate U
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 11:46AM
The political right is finally making inroads into territory once occupied solely by the left. The latest incursion is Evan Coyne Maloney's look at political correctness on campus, Indoctrinate U. Trailer is here, website here.
Spread the word.
Re: McCain and the Right
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 11:24AM
His standing is probably not going to improve much after this video in which he rips the Club for Growth for going after fellow Republicans, arguing that there would be a Republican Senate today if it weren't for the group's attacks on Lincoln Chafee. "I'm not sure what the Club For Growth and I have really in common," he concludes. The feeling is clearly mutual.
UPDATE: Some more McCain videos here and here, these from campaign stops in which he lashes out at pork barrel spending. This is another example of the multi-headed monster that is the McCain campaign. He makes a series of appearances vowing a war on spending, then all of it gets overshadowed by some offhand comments he makes attacking a group that has done as more than any other to put true limited government warriors such as Jeff Flake in power. Dave Weigel also has more.
Thompsons.... and Chertoff
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 11:20AM
Republicans in the know are saying that if Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ends up falling on his sword due to the imbroglio about the fired US Attorneys, six names are being mentioned as possible replacements. For both reasons of politics and of competence/experience, perhaps the best choice is former Deputy AG Larry Thompson. But he's doing fine in the private sector and one wonders whether he will see any advantage in giving up a lucrative spot for the headaches at Justice. (Also mentioned is former Sen. Fred Thompson, but he is getting closer and closer to running for president; he won't take AG.) The bet here is that Michael Chertoff will move over from Homeland Security. Chertoff is a lawyer's lawyer and has the clout, the toughness, the reputation for integrity, and the experience to do the job superbly.
Moving up fast on the outside is DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Laurence Silberman. He already has taken senior status on the bench, so he could move over without costing conservatives a spot on the key circuit. And he's tough as nails.
Others mentioned are conservative super-lawyer Ted Olson, and GOP insider George Terwilliger, a former Deputy AG and former acting AG. He's not necessarily a movement conservative, though.
On reflection, rank them in this order of likelihood: Chertoff and Silberman as entries 1 and 1a. Terwilliger as 2, Larry Thompson as 3, and then Olson and Thompson.
Personally, I would like to throw several other names in the mix, but I don't hear anybody else talking about them and so I won't give them the hassle of being asked about it because of being mentioned here.
The Experience Thing
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 11:05AM
In an article appearing in yesterday's NY Times, Ryan Lizza wrote:
Running a credible campaign for president has always required an elusive mixture of star power and experience. But Barack Obama’s strong challenge to Hillary Clinton and Rudolph W. Giuliani’s recent surge past Senator John McCain in the polls raise an interesting question: How much does experience matter now in presidential politics?
After 9/11 it seemed that high-level government experience would be more important than ever. And yet, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Giuliani have the kind of governing experience traditionally seen as a prerequisite for White House service. Mr. Obama spent nine years in the Illinois State Senate and two years in the United States Senate, while Mr. Giuliani has served two terms as mayor of
New York.
Say what you want about the relevance of Giuliani's experience as mayor, but to compare being a state senator and serving in the U.S. Senate for two years to governing a city for eight years that has a population larger than 39 states, and a budget and workforce larger than all but five or six states, is flatly absurd. Also, the opening paragraph implies that
McCain and the Right
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 10:38AM
Matthew Continetti explains John McCain's troubles with conservatives to New York Times readers.
More Pork Than Peanuts
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 10:17AM
In the same vein as my column on the main site, Robert Novak makes the case that the Democrats' anti-pork commitment is a sham.
Petraeus: So Far, So Good; Ask Me Again in June
Posted by on 3.19.07 @ 4:50AM
The US military commander in Iraq says there are grounds for optimism over the latest security drive.Gen David Petraeus told the BBC that with two out of the five extra brigades now on the ground in Iraq, there had been fewer sectarian attacks.
He said he would have an idea of the chance of success once all extra troops were deployed in the coming months...
Gen Petraeus said: "By early June, we should then have everyone roughly in place - and that will allow us to establish the density in partnership with Iraqi security forces that you need to really get a good grip on the security situation."
He said there were "encouraging signs", although he added that he did not want to get "overly optimistic at all on the basis of several weeks of a reduced sectarian murder rate".
He said the new operation had led hundreds of families to return to "neighbourhoods that had really emptied out".
But Gen Petraeus also pledged to speak candidly if he thought the operation was not working.
He said: "I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform out here, that if I think it's not going to happen, to tell them that it's not going to happen, and there needs to be a change.
"In other words, if you can't accomplish your mission, you owe that to your boss - and you owe that, more importantly, to those who are out there serving in the coalition."
Sunday, March 18, 2007
When Joe Outed Valerie
Posted by on 3.18.07 @ 3:58PM
Steve Gilbert makes the case that it was Joe Wilson himself who was going around telling everyone that his wife worked for the CIA.
In case you missed it: Valerie Plame herself, according to her Congressional testimony, still isn't sure whether she was legally "covert." And Plame's claim before Congress that she didn't recommend her husband for his trip to Niger conflicts with the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings -- findings that the Committee's vice chairman stands by.
The Hewitt Posting Strategy
Posted by on 3.18.07 @ 2:28PM
I have a theory that Hugh Hewitt now determines what he will write about by the criterion of whether it will give him an opportunity to prop up Mitt Romney's campaign.
He starts a recent post talking about speechwriting and transitions to how candidates have to be able to carry a speech. Unsurprisingly, he judges Romney to be the best speaker among Republican candidates. Giuliani is "a close second."
More Excuses
Posted by on 3.18.07 @ 6:02AM
Ray Nagin is at it again, claiming a plot to keep black citizens from coming back to
- Mission Implausible
- Useless Wonks
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
