- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Feb 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–28
- Mar 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Apr 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- May 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Jun 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Jul 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Aug 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Sep 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Oct 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Nov 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Dec 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
Saturday, March 31, 2007
RE: Giuliani on Abortion
Posted by on 3.31.07 @ 5:45PM
Even Gerald Ford, facing a pro-life primary challenge from Ronald Reagan, ended up endorsing a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1976 (though he opposed the Reagan-backed human life amendment). And that was, as Dave notes, before the pro-life movement had come into its own as as force within the GOP.
Re: Giuliani on Abortion?
Posted by on 3.31.07 @ 3:36PM
I have been thinking about Giuliani and abortion during this discussion of Romney's faith this week. If Hugh Hewitt and the various blogs for Romney think folks are raking Romney over the coals for his faith, they ain't seen nothin' yet.
Here's the thing: when was the last time Republicans nominated a pro-abortion candidate for president? 1976. That was during the brief period between Roe and the Moral Majority when many evangelical Christians (even the Southern Baptist Convention) embraced the right to abortion. The abortion issue had not yet captivated the Republican Party.
These days, a pro-abortion Democrat Catholic (Kerry) receives a hard time from conservative Christians and orthodox Catholics. When one of their own -- their "own" being the Republican Party because it is hospitable to the pro-life cause -- calls himself Catholic and embraces abortion, the sense of betrayal will deepen.
What should Giuliani do? If he runs away from faith altogether, he alienates many primary voters and risks James Dobson deeming him "not a Christian." If he embraces faith, he risks charges of hypocrisy and scandal. Either strategy should pose a substantial challenge to a Giuliani campaign.
Giuliani on Abortion
Posted by on 3.31.07 @ 3:20PM
Ramesh Ponnuru reports that Rudy Giuliani was a hit at the Club for Growth meeting. Somewhat off topic, Congressman Trent Franks confronted Giuliani on abortion. Giuliani's refusal to flip flop was apparently well received by the crowd.
It seems that Giuliani also told Franks that he did not think the government should put someone in jail for (I'm quoting Ponnuru's summary, not Giuliani's actual words) "making a decision of conscience with which he disagreed." Giuliani has frequently framed in the issue in this manner when confronted about abortion in the past.
Now, I can understand Giuliani's thinking about matters of conscience even if I disagree. But I think pro-lifers would do well to clarify one practical point: the major legislation advanced by the mainstream pro-life movement since Roe v. Wade has not imposed jail sentences on women seeking abortions. Pro-lifers have frequently backed legislation (including the partial-birth abortion ban Giuliani now supports) that would impose jail terms on abortionists, however.
That doesn't settle the argument, of course. (Abortionists are also "making a decision of conscience"; one could also argue that the logic of the pro-life position -- and the actual views of some hardline pro-lifers -- suggest women should be jailed.) But it does, I think, frame it somewhat more accurately.
Hitting Tehran Where it Hurts
Posted by on 3.31.07 @ 3:08PM
David Frum suggests that there are some options short of war in dealing with Iran -- the Iranian economy is very vulnerable to a careful sanctions regime.
No Cabinet Meetings After All?
Posted by on 3.31.07 @ 10:00AM
Giuliani is playing a little damage control after receiving
criticism
over comments that his wife might play a role in his
administration.
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani said Friday his wife will not be a member of his Cabinet or attend most high-level meetings as he sought to clarify his previous statements suggesting she would play a significant role in his administration.
Giuliani, in interview comments released Thursday, had said he'd be open to his wife attending Cabinet meetings on issues in which she's interested. "If she wanted to. If they were relevant to something that she was interested in. I mean that would be something that I'd be very, very comfortable with," Giuliani told Barbara Walters on ABC News' "20/20."
Late Friday, the Giuliani campaign issued a statement in which the former New York City mayor suggested that would not be the case.
"Obviously, she will not be a Cabinet member or attend most Cabinet meetings - if any. But she will pursue a campaign to educate Americans on preventing illness and promoting overall health."
Judith Nathan Giuliani was a nurse.
In the statement, the former mayor sought to play down his own remarks and suggested any discussion of a policy role for his wife was merely prompted by Walters' questioning.
So which is it? Will Giuliani tell Walters one thing, and then concerned Republicans another?Friday, March 30, 2007
West What?
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 6:51PM
No one ever said athletes could spell. Neither can those who run athletics.
Unpatriotic
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 6:17PM
Well, I won't actually use the word in the headline to describe Nancy Pelosi's actions here, but those actions are so obnoxious and counterproductive as to show a severe contempt for the norms and traditions of American foreign policy.
Pelosi is traveling to Syria even though the White House has asked in no uncertain terms that she not do so. It is incredibly arrogant for a speaker of the House to travel to a foreign country against the express wishes of the White House. Indeed, it is a flagrant abuse of the spirit of the Constitution. No, it is NOT unpatriotic, but it at least borders on the realm of having a severely detrimental impact on American interests.
(Now, watch the Lefties go nuts in yelling that a conservative journalist has called the speaker "unpatriotic." Just watch.)
Re: Rudy and Bernie
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 4:47PM
I don't doubt that Kerik is a liability for Giuliani, but the Times scoop strikes me as an overhyped non-story. Giuliani doesn't remember being briefed about aspects of Kerik's background. Someone else's memory differs from Giuliani's. Giuliani concedes that he might have forgotten something. So?
Advice for the Romney Camp -- Hewitt Wing
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 3:01PM
Hugh Hewitt continues to be wrong in his characterization of the Romney religion question. Here's a clip from his latest:
Bottom line: If you want to study up on the Mormons, fine. There is nothing biogted about genuine curioisty, and certainly there is nothing bigoted about a spirited debate between two faiths about which one is right and which one wrong. But Romney isn't the guy to ask for input on that debate, and asking him isn't really curiosity about Mormonism, it is a sneak attack on his candidacy by attacking his faith as different from most Americans and thus of "concern." Attempting also to disqualify Romney because he won't debate theology or answer personal questions about his religious practices is like saying you wouldn't vote for Rudy because he won't tell you when he last went to Confession: Goofy, and yes, bigoted, as in the Webster's definition of the word: "extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion."
Hugh Hewitt is a clever debater and a clever interviewer. He tries to confine the discussion to categories where he has an advantage. Hence, his effort to put his entire discussion with Erick Erickson into the realm of religious bigotry and therefore to keep Erick on the defensive.
But in the end, it's baloney (keeping it clean,) folks and Hugh Hewitt knows it. Unless religion is purely a matter of one's private thoughts and feelings about God, then it is high octane bovine scatology to insist that it is somehow unreasonable to ask Mitt Romney how his faith (and that of his religious community) relates to his political goals and ambitions.
Hewitt tries to warn evangelicals off their natural instincts to be curious by telling them they don't want to be under similar scrutiny. Why, exactly? As an evangelical, I would never answer a question about my religious beliefs with "that's private" or "that's irrelevant." And I certainly wouldn't tell someone to "go study up at a church website." We all stand ready to give an account "for the hope that is within us" and that's not just for Sunday at church.
Bottom line, Hugh: You want to create suspicion and ill will, do what you're doing and insist that Romney shouldn't be the ambassador for his faith that he is. Send all questioners off to the library. The real answer is engagement.
By the way, I find it interesting that religion is private all of a sudden for you. Heaven knows you were interested in whether John Kerry and Terry MacAuliffe have been faithful to the Catholic teachings on abortion.
I guess they should have gotten you on their team to argue they shouldn't have to answer that question, huh, Hugh?
Rudy and Bernie
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 1:14PM
The first of no doubt a long line of stories to probe Giuliani's relationship with Bernard Kerik.
The NY Times reports:
Rudolph W. Giuliani told a grand jury that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Bernard B. Kerik's relationship with a company suspected of ties to organized crime before Mr. Kerik's appointment as New York City police commissioner, according to court records.
The whole thing here.
Unsolicited Advice for the Romney Camp
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 10:53AM
This criticism of David Hogberg appears to be part of the standard defense for Mitt Romney when anyone argues that the former Massachusetts governor has changed his position on an issue.
1. Declare the flip-flop issue dead. I don't doubt that most Romney supporters have already resolved this controversy in their own minds and decided it is not as a big a deal as their candidate's detractors make it out to be. Fair enough. But campaigns -- especially those trailing in the early polls -- are about winning new supporters. There's no evidence that the flip-flop issue is dead to those who aren't already converted, and pretending that it is doesn't do Romney any favors.
2. Point out that other candidates change their minds too. This is an easy to defense to make, but it misreads the real nature of the Romney as flip-flopper flap. People aren't saying Romney should have never changed his mind on anything. (I clearly wanted him to change his mind on abortion.) They are, as Phil noted yesterday, usually concerned about "the number of flip flops, the dramatic lengths he goes to alter his position, the timing of his conversions, and the [perceived] arrogance with which he has wielded his new found positions as a stick to beat up on his opponents."
The fact that other candidates change their minds doesn't help Romney address this issue. And if you are going to compare Hillary Clinton being a Republican when she was in high school to Romney being pro-choice at the beginning of 2005, you are just going to look silly.
3. Point to his record and argue that deeds count for
more than words. This is the strongest and most promising
line of argument of the three. But it does mean that you don't get
to cry foul when people make criticisms of Romney's actual record.
Editing Rudy on YouTube
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 10:34AM
There's a new video up on YouTube showing clips of Rudy Giuliani endorsing Mario Cuomo, which everybody expected would be used against him. But if you'll notice, the video is carefully clipped in the middle, and that's to make Rudy's statement seem worse.
Here's the spliced together quote from the YouTube video, as reported by Hotline:
Mayor GUILIANI: He has plans to reduce taxes that are so ambitious and so inconsistent with the performance of the economy of this state that he would, in essence, in order to accomplish that, raise property taxes in the suburbs, around New York, and in New York City. Because-
SHAW: And in your mind that's a no-no?
Mayor GUILIANI: It would be a disaster. It would be an absolute disaster. It would be the kind of tax shift that substitutes for sound management. I've reduced the budget of New York City dramatically. I've actually reduced taxes already in New York City. But I didn't do one of those pledges and promises and one of those fancy campaign things that locks you into unwise economic policy.
Cruising
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 8:41AM
I'm a fan of Ezra Klein, but this blog post isn't his greatest. He criticizes me for this post, in which I suggested that Congress wasn't making good use of its time investigating crime aboard cruise ships. He writes that I went "for the easy partisan jab in such a misleading way." Well, I didn't mention Democrats or Republicans in that post, so I don't see how my jab is "partisan."
On the more serious matter of whether Congress should be concerning itself with this issue, Klein states, "If Hogberg had read the summary document on the House page he links to, he'd have learned that cruise industry executives have voluntarily disclosed 178 sexual assaults and 24 vanished passengers aboard cruise ships between 2003 and 2005."
Let's examine those numbers. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 10 million people travel on cruise ships annually. Thus, about 30 million traveled between 2003 and 2005. For sexual assaults, that would be a crime rate of about 0.6 per 100,000 passengers. Assuming that all 24 vanished passengers were murdered, that would be a murder rate of 0.08 per 100,000 passengers.
To put that into perspective, look at the crime statistics for another area over which Congress has jusrisdiction. But as of late, crime hasn't been Congress's biggest concern.
Of course, cruise ships could be under-reporting their crime stats, but they would have to do so by a factor of 50 on sexual assaults and by a factor of 442 on murders for cruise ships to be as dangerous as that other area.
Thus, I think my point that Congress has better things to occupy its time is a pretty strong one.
Do You Support Mitt or Hillary?
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 7:45AM
The folks over at Blogs for Mitt seem to be getting mighty sensitive. On my article from yesterday, "Jon" writes:
Two points:
1. Womb? I thought Romney had a fair amount of political experience, having recently been governor and having run for Senate in 1994. I would expect someone like Romney who has reached the age of 60 to have some pretty solid positions. On the other hand, if Romney has just emerged from the womb, then shouldn't he really be running for class president?
2. I'm not really sure what to make of the crack about Hillary, other than I wonder if Mitt supporters are now going to insinuate that every conservative who criticizes their man is really a closet Clinton supporter.
Re: Giuliani Responds
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 7:22AM
Phil, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Giuliani would feel one way about a flat tax as mayor of New York and another as candidate for President. It's analogous to what John Ashcroft did as AG of Missouri in the Kansas City school desegregation state: He stalled, artfully and skillfully, for eight years, to try to avoid having a federal judge impose a tax regime on the state. Remember how bitterly the Dems grilled him about that in his confirmation hearings? But as National AG, he pursued some courses -- like the tobacco lawsuits -- that would have put him squarely opposite his old, state-level self.
Yo, That's Whack
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 6:47AM
I don't see a recording contract in MC Rove's future.
Guards Seized Them
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 5:33AM
David Ignatius teases out the role -- and possible motives -- of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in the British hostage crisis.
Inked Marines -- and Inked Soldiers
Posted by on 3.30.07 @ 12:46AM
I see via Stephen Green that, according to StrategyPage, the Army is easier on tattoos and thus may get recruits that the Marines turn away.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Re: Shades of...
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 6:08PM
Definitely a misstep Paul. Giuliani needs to keep the focus as much as possible away from his personal life. By saying that Judy can sit in on cabinet meetings, it basically opens the door for the media to probe into her past. Her recently unearthed third marriage, everything else, is now fair game.
UPDATE: ABC has posted excerpts of the interview.
Prediction
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 4:52PM
Someone from the National Journal is going to read about this Giuliani flip-flop controversy and say I'm fighting with Ramesh Ponnuru.
Team Rudy Responds
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 4:20PM
I don't have a link, but the Rudy campaign has issued a response to the flat tax flip flop charge. Basically, the campaign argues that his views have been consistent, because Giuliani's position on Kudlow the other day was that a flat tax would have been the way to go if we were starting from scratch, but that it's hard to do so now because the system has already been built around deductions. In 1996, he was arguing against a flat tax because of the immediate impact that the elimination of the state and local tax deduction would have on New York City.
Here's what he said on Kudlow Monday:
GIULIANI: "I think it needs a massive simplification. If we were doing income tax for the first time, in other words, we were starting off new back at the beginning of the last century, then probably we should go with a--we probably should've gone with a flat tax, or maybe two levels of tax, but really simple. Our economy has kind of grown up now on depreciation and deductions and industries have grown up around that, and so I don't know exactly how much you can simplify it, but you sure have to make a stab at it.
Here's what he said on his 3/9/96 "Capital Gang" appearance:
GIULIANI: "No, I think it [flat tax] would be a terrible mistake for urban areas, for big states. We depend on the deductibility of state and local taxation and in a time in which the federal government is turning over more responsibility to state and local governments, which they're doing, whether it's the Clinton approach or the Republican approach in the House, really it's just a question of how fast it's done, you can't be pulling away some of our economic basis, which rests with state and local taxation and that would be true of any of the big cities, any of the big states. It would really be a disaster and it's totally inconsistent with the movement of the Republican Congress toward giving more responsibility to state and local government."
More on Flip Floppery
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 4:04PM
Ponnuru responds to my earlier post comparing the nature of Giuliani's and Romney's flip flops. He agrees that Romney has flip-flopped on more issues, but says I underestimate "how brazen Giuliani's flip-flop on partial-birth abortion was." Just to clear that up, I'll concede that his reversal on partial birth abortion was brazen, since when he opposed the ban in 2000 the whole life of a life of a mother exception wasn't even an issue. However, like I said, he still remains openly pro-choice and has been up front with other disagreements with conservatives.
To this, Ponnuru writes:
But Klein's aversion to flip-floppery has reached the perverse point where he essentially extols Giuliani's non-conservative positions as reasons for conservatives to support him, because at least he's sticking with them.
If your primary concern is electing somebody who has conservative views on social issues, I can see the argument for going with somebody who is at least saying the right things now over somebody who you know disagrees with you. Certainly when voting for a Senator or member of Congress it makes sense to vote on the basis of who agrees with you on more issues (at the end of the day, the vote is all that matters). In my view, however, when you're selecting a President, you're voting for a leader. How will this person respond to unexpected events? How will they deal with criticism? How will they confront a crisis? Will they buckle under pressure?
For me, at least, every other issue pales in comparison to fighting and winning the war on terrorism, and in my view Giuliani's leadership skills make him the best available candidate. One of my biggest fears is that the more distance we get from 9/11, the American public will have less stomach to fight terrorism, and we will go back to viewing it more as a manageable threat, leaving us vulnerable to future attacks. I really think it's important that we have a leader who not only says the right things about the war on terrorism now, but somebody who I can be confident will continue to feel the same way no matter what the latest poll says, no matter what the media is writing, no matter what the opposition party is howling about. Whether it was taking on the mob as prosecutor or fighting in a hostile environment to transform
Romney talks a good game now, but given that he has gone to such great lengths to tailor his views so they're perfectly suited for the Republican primaries, it makes me worried what he would do once in office when he is no longer beholden to conservative primary voters. Romney has no record on national security issues other than what he's now saying, so all we have to go on is his word. Given his history of political expediency, I worry if he were elected, what he'd be like in, say, 2011. Perhaps he'd suddenly be more interested in universal healthcare than hunting down jihadists. Perhaps not. But it’s a concern of mine. With Giuliani, I don't have that fear, and part of the reason is that, even though he's not above flip-flops, he's been up front and honest about many of his differences with conservatives.
So, I think my disagreement with Ponnuru is rooted in the fact that he's viewing the conversion vs. consistency question within the narrow lens social conservatism, whereas for me it raises the broader issue of what type of leader a candidate is likely to be.
Corrupt Media
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 3:18PM
Patterico absolutely nails the LA Times in this lengthy post. There is no wiggle room here: The LA Times has the story FLAGRANTLY WRONG, but refuses to retract it. Earlier, the LA Times ran a horrifically off-base story suggesting that the firing of Carol Lam had something to do with an investigation that Carol Lam had NOTHING to do with. I swear, sometimes I wonder what would happen if a reporter could be dis-credentialed the same way a bad lawyer can be disbarred. Or if an entire newspaper would be brought up on ethics charges. Of course it's not feasible, but it would be nice to see some of these paid verbal assassins squirm. The term "journalistic ethics" is becoming an oxymoron. Thank goodness for the Media Research Center, which blows the whistle on media bias, double standards, hypocrisy, idiocy, sloppiness, incompetence, ignorance, and egregious violations of everyday ethics. Tonight the MRC has a big gala celebrating its 20th anniversary. Congratulations to it, and many happy returns.
Shades of ...
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 2:52PM
From a Giuliani campaign that has been pretty shrewd on the whole so far, Rudi and Judi's interview with Barbara Walters, airing tomorrow night, sounds like a potential misstep:
Asked whether his wife would sit in on Cabinet meetings, Giuliani said, "If she wanted to. If they were relevant to something that she was interested in. I mean that would be something that I'd be very, very comfortable with."
Giuliani described his wife as a close adviser who has as much involvement in his campaign as she wants.
Asked if she would sit in on policy meetings, Mrs. Giuliani said: "If he asks me to, yes. And certainly in the areas of health care."
Minor Correction
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 11:52AM
I am reliably informed that the Prowler also has noted the Margolis connection that I noted again below. He probably did it either a day or a couple of hours before the first time I did. (I don't have time to do the research; it's immaterial.) So I was wrong to say I am the ONLY ONE to have highlighted the Margolis involvement. But I certainly have returned to it repeatedly and noted its significance... and this correction note gives me the chance to do so again. So: In the matter of the replaced US Attorneys, career employee David Margolis was fully involved. The Justice Department itself should therefore push him forward to explain it all in public, and in doing so, give the lie to the idea that the whole deal was a political hit job.
Rudy's Flat Tax Flip Flop
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 11:46AM
Ramesh Ponnuru writes:
Back in 1996: "The flat tax is not for me." The New York Times reported: "While he has criticized the flat-tax idea before, yesterday was the first time Mr. Giuliani publicly came out against Mr. Forbes's plan. Calling it 'a mistake,' the Mayor joined other critics who contend that the plan's elimination of deductions for state and local income taxes would unfairly punish states with high local taxes, like New York, and increase pressure for those states to lower their tax rates."
A few days later, on Capital Gang, he said that a flat tax "would be a terrible mistake for urban areas, for big states. . . . [Y]ou can't be pulling away some of our economic basis, which rests with state and local taxation and that would be true of any of the big cities, any of the big states. It would really be a disaster. . ."
Does Giuliani still believe that it would be "a disaster" for
states and localities to feel pressure to cut their taxes? The tone
of his remarks suggests that he has come around on these issues,
which is great. But there are plenty of /reporters who scourge
flip-floppers/, and I can't wait to see what they have to say about
this.
Ramesh Ponnuru links to a Deroy Murdock article criticizing Mitt Romney, but as someone who is also a strong supporter of Giuliani and a fierce critic of Romney for his "conversions," I feel it's only fair that I respond.
Now, I could sit here and point to nuances in Giuliani's statements that demonstrate that they aren't necessarily contradictory, but I'm not going to embarrass myself. Clearly, most normal human beings who read those statements would rightly come to the conclusion that Giuliani changed his position on the flat tax.
However, never have I asserted in my criticisms of Romney that any politician who ever changes his mind on any issue should be run out of contention as a rank political opportunist, unworthy of support. My criticisms of Romney have been based on the nature of his metamorphosis. It is not a single flip flop alone, but the number of flip flops, the dramatic lengths he goes to alter his position, the timing of his conversions, and the arrogance with which he has wielded his new found positions as a stick to beat up on his opponents.
I wouldn't hold Giuliani up on a pedestal to be beyond any form of political posturing, but at the same time, at least he hasn't completely remade himself on every issue, and is still willing to stand up and say he disagrees with the conservative point of view sometimes. He may have switched on partial birth abortion, but still says he's pro-choice, which is quite a stunning acknowledgement for anybody with serious designs on the Republican nomination. He's still opposed to a federal marriage amendment, he still supports civil unions, he still believes immigrants should have a path to citizenship, etc. He's not simply making a list of the right conservative issues and checking off that list one by one, which is what Romney seems to be doing. Furthermore, Giuliani did cut taxes as mayor, which was no easy task in New York City, so the fact that he would now be open to the idea of a flat tax, or at least flatter tax, while a reversal, is not as totally out of left field as if he had a record of supporting and imposing higher taxes.
The bottom line is that in my view, not all flip flops are
created equal.
MyManMitt Apologizes
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 11:41AM
Good for him. And I would not dispute his statement that I have not been a fan of Romney. I think that's pretty clear to anybody who reads my writing, but I've been transparent about it, and anybody is welcome to challenge anything they read on the merits of the argument. But it's going to be a long campaign, and I think everybody should take a deep breath so we can actually have serious debates about ideas. I'm not going to spend the next year and a half running around calling people names or making baseless insinuations.
Par for the Course, Mr. Klein
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 11:09AM
The loose coalition of Mitt pals on the net has not exactly been winning friends.
Sampson is a Stand-Up Guy
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 11:09AM
Listening live to Kyle Sampson testify to Senate Judiciary Committee.... What a stand-up guy! He apologized to the fired US Attorneys for the way it was handled. He offered his resignation, he said, because he felt he should have been able to better manage the matter, and because he felt like he had ill-served the department. (Never mind that if Gonzales had been more of a stand-up guy, he would not have been so quick to let Sampson resign and thus to look like Sampson deserved all the blame.) He correctly defended the overall goals of the process. There were no improper motives, he said, in the replacements. They were based on a combination of factors that were perfectly legitimate to consider, including management abilities and, indeed, willingness to carry out the president's and AG's broad policy preferences. As long as those insistences that the broad policies be followed do not devolve into interference in specific individual cases (especially for political advantage), there is NOTHING WRONG with making replacements, just as there is nothing wrong with a president asking for resignations from Cabinet members. If the president wants limited resources devoted to white collar crime, the USA should devote his attention to white collar crime. If drug crimes, then drug crimes. Etc. If a prosecutor refuses those directives, that prosecutor SHOULD be fired.
My summation: In short, the handling of this was inept from beginning to end. But I repeat, there is NO public scandal here (with the possible exception of the calls from certain congressmen to New Mexico USA David Iglesias, but even that is not clear; it looks like bad judgment but not something that rises -- or falls -- the the level of a direct violation of ethics or laws).
(Speaking of Iglesias, he needs to shut up. Yes, shut up. He was just on CNN again, milking this for all he is worth, and asserting in effect that USAs, once appointed, should be free agents divorced from any broader law-enforcement agenda set from above. He's dead wrong. And his prima donna act is getting old.)
One more, VERY important note so far: Sampson made a point to mention, as I have been the ONLY ONE to highlight so far, that non-political, career-Justice-employee David Margolis was intimately involved with the whole process. That fact alone should explode the idea that nefarious political goals were at play. In fact, the fact that USA Kevin Ryan of San Francisco, the hero of the anti-steroid investigation, was added to the list of replaced prosecutors at the last minute also shows that this wasn't Bush/Rove politics at work: Ryan was a Bush loyalist through and through and did indeed follow the broader policy objectives, but he ran afoul of Margolis' and others because of other issues that were as much cultural as professional.
To repeat: Margolis is NOT a Bush political guy. Margolis DID participate heavily in the process. And the process did NOT snare people for improper political reasons, but instead snared people for considerations (some of them petty, including internal personality issues important to non-political people like Margolis) that had nothing to do with specific ongoing investigations.
Sampson took the fall. But why aren't the thuggish Leahy/Schumer Dems hauling Margolis in front of their star-chamber committee? Could it be because Margolis' involvement explodes their theory entirely? !!???
MyManMitt Besmirches My Name
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 3:12AM
This just came to my attention now, and I don't want to dwell too much on the matter, but blogger Justin Hart (aka MyManMitt) is spreading rumors about me that are simply untrue, and I think I should clear the air.
The pro-Romney blogger describes a recent series of exchanges between this site and Evangelicals for Mitt over Fred Thompson's views on abortion, and makes two assertions that are false.
The first one:
It is flatly untrue that I accused them of being liars. Read the post in question. All I did was report that a co-director of the National Right To Life Committee disagreed with the categorization of Thompson as pro-choice in 1994. I gave the post a neutral headline: "National Right to Life Committee on Thompson," and in the opening sentence I made it crystal clear that I was quoting the views of one specific individual:
If some other websites looked at this and wrote more sensational headlines accusing Evangelicals for Mitt of being liars, that's not something I can control.
The second inaccuracy by MyManMitt:
This is absolutely not true. Everything I write for the Spectator, or for any other publication, I write under my own name. I find it galling that in a post accusing the Spectator of "a pathetic attack with little evidence," Justin would accuse me of something with absolutely zero evidence.
The genesis of the current spat involves my reporting on the surprisingly elusive question of what Thompson's abortion position was in the mid-1990s. Throughout the whole process, I've been driven by a journalistic itch to find the truth.
In my initial post on the matter last Thursday (titled "Flip Flopping Fred?"), I included a block quote of all the news excerpts from the mid-1990s describing Thompson as pro-choice that were pointed out by Evangelicals for Mitt. I concluded the post by writing, "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."
What piqued my curiosity was the fact that none of the news articles cited had a direct quote from Thompson saying he was pro-choice, or that he believed in a woman's right to choose--they just described him as pro-choice, or in one case "basically pro-choice." This wasn't satisfying to me.
I scoured Nexis, and couldn't find a quote of Thompson clearly espousing that he was pro-choice. So, like any good reporter, I decided to make some calls and see what I could find out. I put a call into the National Right to Life Committee to see if they had any insight into his record. The executive co-director Darla St. Martin promptly got back to me and adamantly rejected reports that Thompson was pro-choice in 1994, saying that she interviewed him in person and determined that he opposed abortion and that he had a consistent pro-life voting record. I posted what she told me.
But the story kept evolving, and I later followed up by posting Ramesh Ponnuru's 2000 item describing Thompson's pro-choice background. And Tuesday, I uncovered an excerpt from a 1995 Judiciary Committee hearing that I thought shed some light on the controversy.
This is an evolving story that has been hard to pin down. But I've been reporting on everything I find in a totally transparent manner. I've been perfectly respectful of other views. I've never accused anybody of being a liar, and I certainly never wrote anything anonymously. So, like Michael Corleone before me, I say to Justin: I hope you will have the decency to clear my name with the same publicity with which you have now besmirched it.
Inked Marines
Posted by on 3.29.07 @ 1:55AM
What's up with this?
The Marines are banning any new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow or the knee, saying such body art is harmful to the Corps' spit-and-polish image...I'm sure the brass know more than I do about the disciplinary environment necessary to make the US military work, so maybe I'm way off base. But I think one of the things that "America has come to expect" from the Marine Corps is that they scare the crap out of our enemies; it seems like big, prominent tats would help with that.Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway announced the policy change last week.
"Some Marines have taken the liberty of tattooing themselves to a point that is contrary to our professional demeanor and the high standards America has come to expect from us," he said. "I believe tattoos of an excessive nature do not represent our traditional values."
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Yo, Jesus
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 10:19PM
The
London Daily Mail (and Drudge) note that
60-year-old Sylvester Stallone has hired a 30-year-old body double
for the new Rambo movie, but the real news may be that Sly is
continuing the
Christianity theme in his films:
In the new movie Rambo finds himself recruited by a group of Christian human rights missionaries to protect them against pirates, during a humanitarian aid delivery to the persecuted Karen people of Burma.
After some of the missionaries are
taken prisoner by sadistic Burmese soldiers, Rambo gets a second
impossible job: to assemble a team of mercenaries to rescue the
surviving relief workers.
That ought to interest
Doug Bandow, among others.
Bush Misses the Boat on Pork
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 6:47PM
The fact that the Iraq funding/withdrawal bill is filled with billions in pork-barrel spending would seem to be a gift to President Bush, because it provides him with added political cover to veto it, as even opponents of the war can become outraged by the prospect of larding up a defense bill with peanut and spinach subsidies. It would seem to be a big fat fastball right over the plate, just waiting for him to knock out of the ballpark. However, when Bush spoke about his decision to veto the bill, he mentioned the pork-barrel spending, but qualified his statements by saying that he's not opposed to such expenditures--just that they shouldn't be in this particular bill.
Read it and weep (or watch the video here):
The House bill would add billions of dollars in domestic spending that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the bill includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers. These may be emergencies. They may be problems. But they can be addressed in the normal course of business. They don't need to be added on to a bill that's supporting our troops….
And just like their colleagues in the House, Senate Democrats have loaded their bill with special interest spending. The bill includes $40 million for tree assistance. You know, all of these matters may be important matters. They don't need to be loaded onto a bill that is emergency spending bill for our troops.
Is he that dedicated to big government conservatism that he cannot seize on an oppourtunity when he has it? I am behind President Bush 100% on his impending veto of the disgraceful legislation. But this type of political ineptitude is just baffling.
Re: Hewitt Gut Check
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 5:43PM
Dobson's arrogance in this situation is shocking. I don't mean his
apparent hypocrisy in defending Romney against religious
examination while turning it on Thompson. I mean his presumption to
judge Thompson's Christianity in the absence of evidence to the
contrary.
In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian-someone who talks openly about his faith."
"We use that word-Christian-to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn't expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to 'read the tea leaves' about such a possibility."
What damns Thompson in Dobson's eyes is that he doesn't wear his
Christianity on his sleeve. Perhaps Thompson feels called to live
it as a good example, or witnessing to his close friends. Or
perhaps he is not a committed Christian. Either way, Thompson's
failure to broadcast his Christianity, in a garish, public way, is
not dispositive of his faith.
Paging Margaret Thatcher
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 5:01PM
At what point does an outgoing prime minister's patience run out for the national humiliation that is being perpetrated on the British? If Tony Blair thought his chance to go out in a blaze of glory had vanished, he was wrong. The chance has presented itself, provided he has the gumption to take it. And I hope if and when he does, he has a populace behind him that is equally galvanized.
Hewitt Gut Check
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 4:33PM
In a recent interview, Hugh Hewitt was quick to take my Redstate colleague Erick Erickson to task for insisting religion is relevant to a political campaign.
Now that James Dobson has handicapped Thompson's chances by deeming him insufficiently Christian, I look forward to Hugh Hewitt jumping up to take a whack at Dobson.
I suspect we'll all be waiting a while. Hewitt backed off rather quickly when Erick brought up the name of Al Mohler during the interview. Dobson is a much bigger target than Mohler. I suspect he'll proceed unmolested by Hewitt.
Mitt Opportunity
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 4:24PM
Day by day it's becoming increasingly clear that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign has the feel of the Sen. Phil Gramm presidential campaign of a decade ago. The folks at RedState hit it well here.
To be clear, Senator Gramm was a man of principle, whose positions were clear and consistent. No, parallel comes from a campaign flush with money that just can't get off the ground.
Worse, Romney is losing support from just about every quarter of his campaign. The most embarrassing exodus is taking place in Michigan (a state Romney once considered home), where politicals who endorsed him have now withdrawn their support to go with other candidates. Rumors are swirling in some fundraising circles that some high profile money men will soon be exiting stage right, too.
Hewitt on Federalism
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 4:15PM
In an interview with K-Lo, Hugh Hewitt describes why he prefers Romney to Giuliani:
But Rudy doesn't care about the Marriage Amendment, and Mitt Romney does. Rudy doesn't think there's a problem with funding embryonic stem cell research, and Romney does. Romney's a federalist, and I'm not sold that Rudy is.
Let me get this straight. Romney, who wants the federal government to ban same sex marriage, is a federalist, but Rudy, who believes the decision should be left to individual states, is not.
How Charming
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 2:56PM
Some tall glass of raw sewage who bought cathyseipp.com a few years back used it to bash Seipp while she was on her death bed.
Dobson: Thompson's No Christian
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 2:50PM
Fred doesn't pass muster with the head of Focus on the Family:
"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
Re: Steve Forbes Endorses Rudy
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 1:57PM
Dave Weigel notes that Giuliani is also impressing Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore.
Meanwhile, as we saw a few weeks ago, John McCain has successfully courted Ramesh Ponnuru, the consumate thinking-man's pro-lifer. We may be seeing the start of the division that Jim Antle posited a few months ago, wherein economic conservatives are drawn to Giuliani while social conservatives are drawn to McCain.
Steve Forbes Endorses Rudy
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 12:01PM
I've always argued when making the case for Giuliani's path to the nomination is that in order to overcome some of his rifts with conservatives on social issues, in addition to emphasizing national security, he'll need set himself apart as a true economic conservative. Clearly, this is a strategy Giuliani is embarking on. Deroy Murdock reports that two weeks ago, Giuliani opened up a talk to Manhattan supporters by saying that he just re-read "Free to Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedman, and said that the GOP needed to emphasize those ideas. Earlier this week, he was on Kudlow, declaring, "I don't like taxes. I don't know how to make that any clearer" and railing against socialized medicine and government regulation. Today, his campaign announces this endorsement by Forbes, who will serve as a national campaign co-chair and senior policy advisor. While all Republican candidates are going to talk about cutting taxes and restraining spending, what Giuliani will have to be able to convince voters of is that he's different because he actually accomplished those things in the most hostile of all environments for such ideas--New York City. He's going to have to find a way to transpose his tough guy image to fiscal issues, so Republican voters think, this is a guy who confroted the mob, who fought crime in NYC, who was tough as nails on 9/11, if anybody can actually restrain spending, it's this guy.
McCain Talks to Bloggers
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 11:28AM
Just got off a 30-minute bloggers conference call with John McCain. He said he intends to hold such calls regularly, and in the future make himself available for an hour at a time. The conservative blogosphere has been especially harsh terrain for McCain over the years, so it's a good idea for him to be reaching out.
Most of the discussion focused on Iraq, which is one issue that (from a hawk's perspective), he's been rock solid on. McCain said that the surge is showing signs of "significant progress," even with only two of the expected five brigades in Baghdad. He spoke of normal life returning to some of the capital's neighborhoods, reports that religious leaders in Anbar province are aligning themselves with us, and Iraqi soldiers being imbedded with our own. He blasted the Democratic plan, saying, "The consequences of failure are catastrophic, we will be back, the sponsors of this legislation don't tell us what's gonna happen when we 'withdraw.'"
He said of the Democrats that, "They're being driven by Move.org. They've overreached." McCain also said he hopes that when President Bush announces his expected veto of the legislation, he describes the $20 billion of pork projects that were tacked on.
I asked McCain whether he was worried that if the surge shows early signs of progress, people in Washington would see that as an opportunity to declare victory and come home, even before the surge is able to be fully effective. He responded that it was his second biggest fear, after the surge not being given a chance in the first place. "I continually hear people in the administration, and even in the military, say 'three months, six months, well, maybe six months…It took us four years to get into this state we're in, and here we are after two months expecting miracles."
On other matters, he was asked about the tough criticism he has received from conservatives, especially relative to Rudy Giuliani, and McCain joked, "life isn't fair." He said there have been a lot of stories out that he's "too old, too tired" and that he panders, and said that's why he's getting back on the bus, attending town hall meetings, and taking his case directly to voters. He was complimentary toward Giuliani: "Rudy Giuliani with great justification is very highly regarded by American people because of his obvious great carrying out of his duties on 9/11."
He also took the opportunity to once again lower expectations
about his campaign's fundraising efforts: "I'm unhappy with my
performance in fundraising, which is my fault, because I don't like
asking people for money. I'm trying to get over that."
UPDATE: More from James Joyner, Matt Lewis, Ryan Sager, K-Lo, Soren Dayton, Fausta, and David All.
Viva la livre
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 10:36AM
The Sony Reader gurus say one of the great things about their new gizmo is you can get rid of the clutter of books in your home. Since when are books and home libraries clutter? In order to sell this thing they will have to convince a lot of people that it is liberating to be free of bound volumes. Well I discovered a love for the written word by rooting around my older sister's little bookshelf.
Hilarious Pelosi Spoof
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 10:19AM
If you need a little humor pick-me up, check this out. Well worth your time. (HT: Leverkuhn)
Examiner vs. Gonzo
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 9:52AM
As is usually the case, the Washington Examiner has an excellent, commonsense editorial this morning. The gist of it is equivalent to the gist of much of the reporting and commentary here on The Spectator and Spectator blog: The Democrats are way out of line (and hypocritical) in trying to criminalize the replacement of the eight US Attorneys, but that Attorney General Gonzales' credibility and/or competence has been compromised so much that he might serve the president well by resigning. Read the editorial. The Examiner (full disclosure: for which I write a column once a month) has become a welcome voice here in DC.
Is Hugh Hewitt a Secularist?
Posted by on 3.28.07 @ 9:48AM
Hugh Hewitt has taken the position that it is somehow a violation of American values and the spirit of Article VI of the Constitution to take a healthy interest in Governor Romney's Mormon beliefs. In essence, he wants to treat it as an irrelevancy for purposes of getting to know Romney the candidate and then treat it as a political boon in terms of activism from LDS members.
He interviewed Redstate's Erick Erickson on the topic and tried to roast him (not in the fun way) for saying religion is relevant. I was so irritated by Hewitt's attitude, I decided to respond with care.
The result is a bit long for a TAS post, so I put it on the front page at Redstate.com. Here's the link.
And here's a money quote:
The point Erick made repeatedly in the interview that Hewitt treated as though it were no point at all is that there is very little public knowledge about the Church of Latter Day Saints. As a Ph.D. candidate in religion and politics, I know a great deal about some of the ways Mormons have been terribly mistreated in American history, but I know very little about their actual theology. I'm an evangelical Christian with great sympathies toward the Catholic Church. My theology certainly affects my view of politics and I think I would be a cad to take the position that if I were running for office no one would have a right to ask me about it and wait to hear what I would say. I would assume that equal respect for a Mormon would be to assume that his religious beliefs are not purely private but actually have some impact on what he thinks, believes, and does.
To hold otherwise is to become a secularist who says that religion is only private and doesn't matter in the public square. I don't think Hugh Hewitt has come out in favor of secularism before, but maybe that's his new position. Religion is private and doesn't matter a whit to politics. Is that what you think, Mr. Hewitt?
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Rudynomics
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 6:38PM
Giuliani's positions on social issues and terrorism get a lot of attention, but his economic views haven't received as much coverage. He hashed them out yesterday in an interview with Larry Kudlow, transcript here.
And for the political junkies out there, also in the interview,
Rudy now admits that in hindsight, he should have jumped into the
race three months earlier.
UPDATE: Stephen Moore says "I'm going to have to start calling
him 'Milton Friedman Giuliani.'"
Thompson, Abortion, and Federalism
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 6:20PM
Over the course of looking into Fred Thompson's position on abortion, I came across the following statement Thompson made during a 1995 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on banning partial birth abortion. I think it may go part of the way toward explaining some of the conflicting reports of what his position was in the mid-1990s. In this statement, Thompson expresses concern that if a partial birth abortion ban is passed and held up in the courts under the commerce clause, then it may lead to further expansion of government in other areas. To be clear, he ultimately voted to ban partial birth abortion, but what his statement reveals is a concern about limiting the power of the federal government:
 SEN. THOMPSON: Each side on these arguments takes the position of the commerce clause it helps them at the moment. Many of us have been arguing for years, and one of the reasons why we came up here was because we felt like that the federal government should not be encroaching on ever aspect of everybody's lives, and the Lopez decision comes along and we say, hallelujah, finally the Supreme Court is getting some reasonableness into their interpretation of commerce clause. And they said that the position of a gun in a school does not affect interstate commerce. Not all guns are made in
Arkansas. Presumably, they were sent in from out of state. In many cases, there were commercial transactions where those guns were purchased. But, still, the Supreme Court said that does not substantially affect interstate commerce. And, now -- and I'm not arguing against the ban, I'm not taking a position on that, and for my own good reasons, and I'll stick there, but I think we should realize that if, in fact, this turns out to be upheld under the commerce clause, I don't see a whole lot that the federal government can't reach. If you go into a small community and the federal government is able to legislate it, but we in Congress go into the smallest community in
America and regulate this kind of procedure, sure, somebody may travel across the intrastate lines but, you know, these guns travel across interstate lines too. I just -- it's a real dilemma for me and a problem, and I don't think we ought to sweep it under the rug, those of us who are concerned about the centralization of our government and of our regulating everything from up here; that if this is consistent with Lopez, then I don't see that many of us who were cheered by Lopez have much to cheer about anymore, from the standpoint of the interpretation of the commerce clause.
Thompson's position on abortion in the mid-1990s continues to generate debate. On the one hand, we have numerous news reports from the time describing him as pro-choice, and it's unlikely they all could have gotten the story wrong without prompting phone calls from the Thompson camp. On the other hand, we don't yet have direct quotes of Thompson saying he's pro-choice, the co-director of a prominent pro-life group told me that Thompson opposed abortion in 1994, and he has an eight-year record in the Senate to back her up.
How can we explain this contradiction? One possibility is that it could be a matter of semantics. According to news reports, Thompson opposed a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion. The statement on the partial birth ban I cited above suggests that Thompson was concerned about the use of federal government power. It's quite possible that Thompson could have opposed a federal ban on abortion, but favored the overturning of Roe v. Wade so that states could be free to restrict it. Now, I'm still looking into the matter, and I cannot say for sure at this point whether this was the stance he took. But if he did hold such a view, would that have made him pro-life or pro-choice? Could this explain the different recollections concerning Thompson's 1994 candidacy? I don't know, but I'm curious to find out, and would be happy to post evidence on either side.
Prohibitionism Returns
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 3:25PM
Radley Balko notes that some idiot state representative wants every car sold in Pennsylvania to include an ignition interlock device that prevents the car from starting if the driver's breath shows a blood alcohol level of .025. The legal limit is .08.
Re: Paul's Nice Story on Tony Snow
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 2:41PM
Paul, thanks for sharing that with us about Tony Snow. Stories like that about Tony are legion. Mine is similar. I was working on Capitol Hill for Bob Livingston, but I missed journalism. Tony was a neighbor of one of Bob's longtime legislative aides, so through him I asked Tony (whom I had never met) if I could buy him a cup of coffee and get some advice. Forget coffee, he said; come on by for lunch. And he didn't just do lunch; he stayed for two solid hours listening and giving advice. This was when he was a columnist for USA Today and also nationally syndicated, I think by Creators.
Anyway, I followed his advice exactly. And it was good advice.
God Bless him. May he recover quickly.
Re: God Bless Tony Snow
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 2:18PM
Quin, I've got to say a hearty "Amen" to your "finest human being" characterization of Tony Snow. I don't really know him, but a couple of personal experiences I've had will back up your viewpoint.
Back in the mid-1990s when I was trying to make my career transition from accounting-type work to journalism, I was writing to a lot of established writers -- some you've heard of and some you haven't -- to ask their advice about breaking into the field, how to write well, becoming successful, etc. I didn't really expect to hear back from the famous ones, but I did from a couple, including Tony. He offered some good advice but more importantly, encouragement to keep at it.
A few years later I got my first full-time job as sole editor for a newly-established Christian newspaper in Greensboro, N.C. Being an ignoramus and thinking someone talented and established like Tony would give a hoot, I mailed him copies of our first two issues. This was when he was near the peak of his popularity with Fox, hosting "Fox News Sunday." A little time afterward I received a kind, handwritten note of congratulations from him with praise for the paper's quality. Talk about floating on air.
Several months later, still in ignorance-land, I was headed to Washington for interviews with a few of our North Carolina congressmen for our Q&A interview feature in the paper. Tony has some roots in N.C. so I thought I'd ask him if he had 30 minutes or so to talk to me for the feature. At most I thought I might get a brief e-mail, politely declining.
What did I get? My phone rang at the office one day, and it wasn't a secretary. It wasn't an assistant. It wasn't a producer. It was Tony. He was super-apologetic (for no reason) but said his heavy schedule would not allow him time to meet with me when I'd be in Washington, but he said to "please keep trying" for an interview with him when I came to D.C. again. Obviously it was something he did not have to do, but he cared enough about somebody he didn't even know, whom he knew had aspirations.
So, I echo you Quin when you wish him Godspeed. He will be continually in my prayers.
Giuliani's Gun Gaffe
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 12:33PM
Says he supports "the First Amendment right to carry, bear arms." Audio here.
God Bless Tony Snow
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 11:43AM
Of course by now the word is out everywhere that Tony Snow again has cancer. Here's wishing a full and fast recovery to one of the finest human beings in public life. Godspeed to him.
In Defense of Monica Goodling
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 9:01AM
We've been knee deep in the ugliness over at the Department of Justice for the past several weeks and a few things have emerged:
1. Some of the greatest mistakes this Administration made were the nominations of former U.S. Attorneys James Comey and Paul McNulty to serve as Deputy Attorneys General. Comey begat us Pat "The Inquisitor" Fitzgerald. McNulty was pivotal to the firings of eight Bush Administration-appointed U.S. Attorneys, but is trying to avoid the blame by, apparently, blaming others.
2. One person emerges from this sordid little story of back-biting and betrayal as clean: Monica Goodling, a senior counsel to the Attorney General and the White House liason at DOJ.
From what we hear, Goodling can be intense and focused, but she is more than highly competent, scrupulous in her approach to her jobs, intensely loyal to the Bush Administration, and the last person who would involve herself in something this messy. Yet she has become central to this Democrat show trial, and has been forced to take the 5th, not because of anything wrong, but to avoid having her honest testimony tainted by others.
"She was probably the most ethical person I dealt with at the department," says a former Justice media staffer. "She was actually a pain in the [rear] when it came to what she expected of all of us. We're talking about a person who wouldn't let junior people ride in a government car if it wasn't entirely appropriate and done by the books. Meticulous doesn't describe her properly."
From the email that's been released by Congress and DOJ, Goodling appears to be guilty of nothing more than doing her job. Initially, her role appears to be that of trying to find a temporary slot for the prospective Arkansas U.S. Attorney designate, because he was in-between a job at the White House upon returning from this military service. That's what a White House liason does. Finds work for people the White House has decided to hire for the Administration.
She did participate in the meetings related to the firings of the U.S. Attorneys, but her role appear to be limited to her job as White House liason. Again, doing her job. At other points, in the email traffic, she appears to be working as a traffic cop, trying to make sure everyone who should be involved in what is a serious process, is involved. This includes McNulty, his chief of staff, various folks in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and elsewhere. Again, it appears she was doing what she was supposed to be doing.
So why is she being treated like a second-rate burglar from another era? Because the Democrats can do it, now that they control Congress. And because when you get right down to it, they aren't nice people, and apparently Goodling is.
At some point, the persons who put Goodling in this mess has to pay. But who is going to make that happen? Attorney General Gonzales would earn some points by making sure those beneath him responsible for this mess - and the pain being inflicted unnecessarily on Goodling - were hung out to dry as they have done with others.
Hoya Suxa!
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 8:55AM
What sucks? The latest ad campaign to accomplish nothing but the discrediting embarrassment of all self-trivialization: that of the Wall Street Journal.
Effective Watchdog
Posted by on 3.27.07 @ 8:19AM
It might be a challenge to get Congress to cooperate with the idea of identifying the sources of earmarks, but as John Stossel proves in a "20/20" profile of MinistryWatch's Rusty Leonard, it is possible to embarrass some charlatans into disclosing what they do, and even changing their ways:
Monday, March 26, 2007
Thompson-a-saurus Rex
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 11:00PM
Fred Thompson may have only floated the idea of the running for president, but that was enough to shake up the Republican nomination race. In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, Thompson is already third, with 12 percent of the vote. With Thompson in the race, first place Giuliani drops to 31 percent from 44 percent in the last poll from early March, McCain actually ticks up to 22 percent from 20 percent, Gingrich drops 1 point to 8 percent, and Romney falls into a fifth place tie with Brownback, with just 3 percent of the vote (Romney was at 8 percent in the last poll).
One thing worth noting is that other news events have occurred in the past few weeks that could have affected the poll, so it's impossible to attribute the fluctuations exclusively to Thompson. But clearly his presence in the poll did have an impact.
I think Thompson eats into Giuliani's support because clearly a portion of Rudy's backers are people who want someone electable, but hate McCain. Thompson offers a viable alternative to McCain who is also hawkish on national security, but is conservative on social issues.
As for Romney, I blogged about how Thompson threatens his candidacy last week, and this poll provides some emprical data to back that up. The Romney camp has been banking on the fact that when all is said and done, conservatives fed up with Rudy and McCain would flock to Mitt, but with Thompson in the race, they have a more viable alternative. This poll result is quite bad for Romney, given that Brownback has a fraction of the money organization he does, and probably even less name recognition. Romney folks want us to discount polls this early, but his poll numbers should at least not be getting worse. At 3 percent, Romney is now officially tied with the margin of error.
Val's Recovered Memory
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 9:00PM
Tom Maguire notes that Valerie Plame Wilson claimed in her testimony earlier this month to remember things she told the Senate Intel Committee that she'd forgotten in 2004.
Up in Arms?
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 4:37PM
Apparently an aide to Senator Webb was arrested bringing a gun into the Russell Building.
Not A Hit With Evangelicals for Mitt
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 3:47PM
When I linked to Ponnuru's post about Thompson, Frist, and abortion, I'd missed these nice bits on the blog Evangelicals for Mitt. Look guys, the Spectator has run plenty of stuff about Romney pro and con. I wrote a favorable profile of Evangelicals for Mitt for this website; I interviewed David French for the piece.
People obviously have differing recollections of where Thompson (and Frist) stood on abortion back in 1994. Accounts from people who recalled Thompson being pro-life when he first ran for Senate were honestly reported; Phil also duly noted the countervailing evidence made available by Ponnuru. I agreed with Ponnuru's assesment.
Both Fred Thompson and Bill Frist have much longer pro-life records than Mitt Romney, who did not declare himself to be pro-life until 2005. I can't speak for The Prowler, but I personally have been writing about Romney and abortion here for over two years. I've become more skeptical over time but I've never argued simply that "Mitt Romney is not a 'true conservative' because he used to be pro-choice" and neither to my knowledge has anyone else here.
ACU Split
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 3:38PM
Right on the heels of CPAC's conclusion, the American
Conservative Union has seen division among its director ranks over David
Keene's decision to add former Texas Rep. Tom DeLay to the board.
The Houston Chronicle reports:
DeLay, the former U.S. House majority leader from Sugar Land, joined the ACU board in February, after lengthy negotiations with the influential group concerning his role, said chairman David Keene.
Keene said he understood there would be some trepidation in conservative ranks about forging a relationship with DeLay. But he said the positives DeLay offered in terms of contacts and experience outweighed misgivings.
"When I introduced him (to ACU
members) I said that, like a number of Republicans, Tom had done
some work on the dark side," Keene recalled. "Now, he wants to
harness his abilities for our agenda."
Sounds like symbolism winning over substance again. Among those
resigning were two men close to the leadership of my employer, the
John Locke Foundation. Robert Luddy is one of our directors also
and Marc Rotterman helped get us started 18 years ago.
RE: Did Somebody Cheat At Shuffleboard?
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 2:50PM
Given their likely solutions to our problems with health care, illegal immigration or terrorism, I am content to let the Democrats worry about shuffleboard.
Pro-Choice -- Who, Me?
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 1:49PM
Ramesh Ponnuru is right that there is substantial evidence that Fred Thompson and Bill Frist began their political careers as at least nominal pro-choicers before embracing the pro-life label. That they stressed the pro-life policies they supported when talking to professional pro-life activists doesn't alter this fact. Both Tennessee senators compiled pro-life voting records, something nobody is trying to take away from them.
Did Somebody Cheat At Shuffleboard?
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 1:02PM
Guess what weighty problem Congress is investigating now? Terrorism? Health Care? Illegal Immigration?
Oh please. Those are trifles. What really matters are crimes aboard cruise ships.
Thanks, Wlady, and Hoya, Saxa!
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 12:43PM
A very much appreciated post from Wlady, below, about my Georgetown Hoyas. A bunch of good, hard-working kids who show what teamwork is all about, coached by a very impressive guy. If a camera had been on in my den during the last ten minutes of regulation plus overtime, I would probably have to leave the country out of embarrassment. You've never seen such histrionics in your life, I guarantee you. But it was all worth it: All the vibes from my den made their way to East Rutherford, N.J. and pulled us through!
:)
Seriously, I sat in the front row in Seattle when we won the national championship, the front row in Lexington the next year against some forgotten school whose name starts with a 'V', and also attended the Final Four in 1987 and 1989 with advance tickets bought in mere hopes that my Hoyas would make it, only to see us lose both years in the Elite Eight. So when it comes to the Hoyas, I'm the type who ads to the word "fan" the "atic" (as in crazy uncle in the attic) to form "fanatic." The cool thing is, this year Georgetown celebrated the 100th anniversary of its basketball program. With that celebration in conjunction with a Thompson on the sideline and a Ewing on the court, and with one tourney game won on a last-second bank shot in traffic and the other won in overtime, this is truly storybook stuff!
Again, I thank Wlady for his congratulations. Hoya, Saxa!
Rudy Awakening
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 11:01AM
While he's long been ahead in polls for the Republican nomination, up until now, inside the Beltway types have remained doubtful that Rudy could win. But even they are catching up. National Journal's 2008 White House rankings are out, and for the first time, Giuliani is on top. NJ's Hotline blog introduces the new rankings by noting, "the issue stuff just doesn't seem to be hurting Rudy Giuliani yet, and we can't help but think that the early predictions of his doom were overstated." Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post, Chris Cilliza, a longtime Rudy skeptic, has also placed the former mayor on top of his rankings. Just to put this in context, back in December, he ranked Rudy fourth, noting that his social views "would seem to disqualify him" and that "we're still not convinced that he will ultimately jump into the race for real." There are still a lot of Giuliani naysayers out there who argue that his support is shallow, and once primary voters learn more about his views on social issues, they'll abandon him. Perhaps this theory will ultimately be proven correct, but one thing is for sure, up to this point in the race, his critics have been dead wrong. Those who continue to write off his chances may be eating their words this time next year.
Quin's Team Wins!
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 10:17AM
Congratulations are overdue to Quin Hillyer, whose loyalty to Georgetown University basketball has now been rewarded in a huge way. Even those who aren't Georgetown fans had to be mightily impressed how it advanced to the Final Four -- coming back in the final minutes against a North Carolina team favored to win it all to force overtime, in which it blew the Carolina out in stunning fashion. I wonder how Maryland diehard Bob Novak reacted. He's no Georgetown backer, but I'm sure in his heart of hearts he'll forever be grateful to the Hoyas for what they did to the Tarheels.
Will Roy Williams and Tyler Hansbrough ever stop crying?
Spinning the Money Race
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 3:02AM
McCain says: We won't meet our fundraising goals, and Romney might come in first for the quarter. Romney's people say: No way! McCain's definitely going to come in first!
He Never Ceases to Amaze
Posted by on 3.26.07 @ 2:43AM
The fact that Jon Chait -- a person who can read and write, dress himself, use the toilet, etc. -- can attempt to explain the problem that the Right has with global warming hype without even mentioning concerns about the economic effects of regulation is just astonishing. Surely we're not that bad at expressing ourselves, are we?
Nope; it's been clear for some time that Chait really is as dense as concrete.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Amateur Hour At TIME Magazine
Posted by on 3.25.07 @ 9:28PM
Noemie Emery is her usual outstanding self in this panning of TIME's use of the Gipper's legacy. Money quote:
And how did an era of greed, led by an out-of-touch airhead, change two decades later into a golden age, led by a prince among men? The reasons are these: First, the only times conservatives are praised in the press is when they can be used to run down other conservatives; and second, it is a general rule of the press and of the establishment that the best conservatives are those dead or retired; and the more dead or retired, the better they are.
As I noted a while back, conservatives love to bemoan the decline of their ideology. However, they are also quite good at it. As Emery's piece demonstrates, TIME should leave the decline-of-conservatism lamentations to the professionals.
Sometimes It Is Very Clear...
Posted by on 3.25.07 @ 9:14PM
...which part of the elephant is the ass. Senator Chuck Hagel:
GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war."Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed - if a president really believes that, then there are - what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.
That flushing sound you here is Hagel's presidential aspirations circling the bowl.
Bursting Gilmore's Bubble
Posted by on 3.25.07 @ 2:42PM
The former governor had difficulty drawing more than about 30 attendees at a meeting in Richmond yesterday, NLS reports, while at the same location Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling hosted over 150 at an advisory council meeting.
It looks like very few actual voters are as excited about a Jim Gilmore presidency as Jim Gilmore -- even in his home state.
Yes, NLS is a Democrat site, but I find him generally reliable.
Rooting for the Hometeam
Posted by on 3.25.07 @ 2:26PM
"There will be lots of debate about whether (Jeff) Green switched pivot feet as he spun into the lane on his game-winning shot. The answer to that question is: It doesn't matter.
..."If college basketball officials called every switched pivot foot, every carry, every extra step, no one would ever score." -- Sportswriter John Feinstein on Georgetown's last-minute win over Vanderbilt, writing in Saturday's Washington Post.
