- 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, April 7, 2007
RE: George Will Just Doesn't Get It
Posted by on 4.7.07 @ 10:44PM
Keep in mind that George Will has been a long time--and possibly the most eloquent--critic of campaign finance law. Any possible candidate for president that has previously supported legislation like McCain-Feingold is going to irk Will.
And while I like Fred Thompson, Will is correct to question whether he has what it takes to inhabit the Oval Office. Indeed, such questioning needs to be directed at any candidate, and so far not enough folks on the right are directing it toward Thompson.
Tsar Yuri
Posted by on 4.7.07 @ 9:52PM
How do we know the Bush White House has been the most secretive in recent memory? Because, as the Washington Post's current White House correspondent write in a Sunday piece, a Putin Kremlin aide told him so back when Baker was the Post's man in Moscow. As he adds in concurrence, "For most of the past six years, journalists covering the White House have indeed been forced to master the art of Kremlinology." And here we thought the convergence theory died with the Cold War...
By the way, maybe now Baker can get to the bottom of all those political enemies Bush has ordered jailed or poisoned or assassinated.
Re: George Will Just Doesn't Get It
Posted by on 4.7.07 @ 6:20PM
Thompson not only supported campaign finance "reform," he was one of just four Senators who supported John McCain in 2000, when McCain made violating First Amendment rights the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Thompson's recent backtracking hardly makes up for the horrible judgement he showed back then, and the grief he gets from Will is richly deserved.
No one is trying to pretend that Giuliani is a down-the-line traditional conservative. The same can't be said about Thompson. Given the effort to recast Thompson as a true-blue conservative hero ready to swoop in and save the GOP, it's worth reminding people that parts of his record reflect his background as a moderate in the mold of his mentor Howard Baker ("The Great Conciliator").
Freditiorial on Iran
Posted by on 4.7.07 @ 4:26PM
Fred Thompson has joined the blogosphere over at RedState.
Who better than a man who is a gifted communicator giving it to the Democrats for their short-sighted verbal hairsplitting?
Just to be clear
Posted by on 4.7.07 @ 4:24PM
There is absolutely a place in the Republican Party for Rudy Giuliani. He should be part of the debate, and he should be a leader. His presence in the Republican nomination process is important for the party and for the nation.
George Will just needs to be clear about where his loyalties lie and needs to use his national forum fairly.
George Will Just Doesn't Get It
Posted by on 4.7.07 @ 2:00PM
Before Rush was a colossus. Before Powerline and Instapundit. There was George Will.
Will played politics, but not necessarily as a team player. Years ago, seeking legitimacy in the mainstream media, he joined ABC News' Sunday show to serve as the "conservative voice."
Most recently, he took time away from his schedule to introduce Rudy Giuliani at CPAC, to great cheers. Today, Will slammed former Sen. Fred Thompson for his support of campaign finanance reform.
Does anyone see a problem here? Will openly supports a pro-abortion, pro-gay, liberal Republican, and then he attacks a pro-life, pro-family, fiscal conservative who isn't even in the race yet?
Thompson has been pretty forthright about the campaign-finance issue. He led the investigations into Clinton and Democrat Chinese fundraising scandals. He saw the seedy underbelly of where the Democrats were trying to take fundraising, and supported what at the time some folks thought was a good idea. Not a perfect idea, but a step toward putting the Democrat idea of donor outreach out of reach.
In public statements he's recently made, Thompson has made it clear that that good idea has gone wrong. Will doesn't bother to deal with that little fact.
Will appears to be another victim of getting into the 2008 race a bit too early. Instead of keeping his powder dry, he has thrown his support behind a candidate who is no doubt a good leader, but who is a liberal leader on just about every count. Now he had to defend him.
That's fine. He should stick with Rudy and see how far that takes him. But he should at least be intellectually honest enough to give readers of his column - the few who read it on a Saturday, no less - the full story.
Giuliani vs. McCain on Judges
Posted by on 4.7.07 @ 7:20AM
David Frum makes an interesting point:
May I suggest to my prolife friends that they are looking up a blind alley when they argue over the real inner views of the candidates with respect to abortion?I'd add that McCain may very well care less about striking down Roe v. Wade than about upholding McConnell v. FEC -- that is, McCain might be disinclined to nominate any judge who is likely to protect First Amendment rights at the expense of campaign finance "reform," and thus McCain's nominees may be more likely to disappoint in other areas.The single most important question pro-life Republicans need to ask themselves is this:
What kind of judges and justices would the various candidates nominate, given the likelihood that they will face a Democratic majority Senate? To my mind, this is less a question about abortion than it is a question about congressional relations.
Let's stipulate that John McCain is a sincere, principled opponent of abortion. Do we think he's likely to nominate a justice like Samuel Alito in the face of quiet warnings from his good friends Ted Kennedy and John Biden? Or do we think that McCain's habits of senatorial comity will trump his pro-life convictions? My guess: the latter.
Now let's stipulate that Rudy Giuliani would personally prefer to see Roe v. Wade remain the law of the land. Still, for his own reasons - national security, executive authority - he prefers judges like Alito, who incidentally disagree with him on Roe. Do you think he's likely to be scared off his choice by growlings from the Senate?
Friday, April 6, 2007
How Teachers 'Think'
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 6:46PM
I received the following email earlier today. Unfortunately it makes this post very lengthy, but I think it is worth it given the insight that the following story provides into the mindset of public educators (or some of them, at least). It is titled "NO DENTIST LEFT BEHIND":
My dentist is great! He sends me reminders so I don't forget checkups. He uses the latest techniques based on research. He never hurts me, and I've got all my teeth.Interesting, isn't it, that at least some of those purportedly with college degrees who have chosen to educate the next generation of young skullfuls of mush think that dentists have it easier because they aren't governed by a "No Dentist Left Behind Act"?When I ran into him the other day, I was eager to see if he'd heard about the new state program. I knew he'd think it was great.
"Did you hear about the new state program to measure effectiveness of dentists with their young patients?" I said.
"No," he said. He didn't seem too thrilled. "How will they do that?"
"It's quite simple," I said. "They will just count the number of cavities each patient has at age 10, 14, and 18 and average that to determine a dentist's rating. Dentists will be rated as excellent, good, average, below average, and unsatisfactory. That way parents will know which are the best dentists. The plan will also encourage the less effective dentists to get better," I said. "Poor dentists who don't improve could lose their licenses to practice."
"That's terrible," he said.
"What? That's not a good attitude," I said. "Don't you think we should try to improve children's dental health in this state?"
"Sure I do," he said, "but that's not a fair way to determine who is practicing good dentistry."
"Why not?" I said. "It makes perfect sense to me."
"Well, it's so obvious," he said. "Don't you see that dentists don't all work with the same clientele, and that much depends on things we can't control? For example, I work in a rural area with a high percentage of patients from deprived homes, while some of my colleagues work in upper middle-class neighborhoods. Many of the parents I work with don't bring their children to see me until there is some kind of problem, and I don't get to do much preventive work. Also, many of the parents I serve let their kids eat way too much candy from an early age, unlike more educated parents who understand the relationship between sugar and decay. To top it all off, so many of my clients have well water which is untreated and has no fluoride in it. Do you have any idea how much difference early use of fluoride can make?"
"It sounds like you're making excuses," I said. "I can't believe that you, my dentist, would be so defensive. After all, you do a great job, and you needn't fear a little accountability."
I am not being defensive!" he said. "My best patients are as good as anyone's, my work is as good as anyone's, but my average cavity count is going to be higher than a lot of other dentists because I chose to work where I am needed most."
"Don't' get touchy," I said.
"Touchy?" he said. His face had turned red, and from the way he was clenching and unclenching his jaws, I was afraid he was going to damage his teeth. "Try furious! In a system like this, I will end up being rated average, below average, or worse. The few educated patients I have who see these ratings may believe this so-called rating is an actual measure of my ability and proficiency as a dentist. They may leave me, and I'll be left with only the most needy patients. And my cavity average score will get even worse. On top of that, how will I attract good dental hygienists and other excellent dentists to my practice if it is labeled below average?"
"I think you are overreacting," I said. "'Complaining, excuse-making and stonewalling won't improve dental health'... I am quoting from a leading member of the DOC," I noted.
"What's the DOC?" he asked.
"It's the Dental Oversight Committee," I said, "a group made up of mostly lay persons to make sure dentistry in this state gets improved."
"Spare me," he said, "I can't believe this. Reasonable people won't buy it," he said hopefully.
The program sounded reasonable to me, so I asked, "How else would you measure good dentistry?"
"Come watch me work," he said. "Observe my processes."
"That's too complicated, expensive and time- consuming," I said. "Cavities are the bottom line, and you can't argue with the bottom line. It's an absolute measure."
"That's what I'm afraid my parents and prospective patients will think. This can't be happening," he said despairingly.
"Now, now," I said, "don't despair. The state will help you some."
"How?" he asked.
If you receive a poor rating, they'll send a dentist who is rated excellent to help straighten you out," I said brightly.
"You mean," he said, "they'll send a dentist with a wealthy clientele to show me how to work on severe juvenile dental problems with which I have probably had much more experience? BIG HELP!"
"There you go again," I said. "You aren't acting professionally at all."
"You don't get it," he said. "Doing this would be like grading schools and teachers on an average score made on a test of children's progress with no regard to influences outside the school, the home, the community served and stuff like that. Why would they do something so unfair to dentists? No one would ever think of doing that to schools."
I just shook my head sadly, but he had brightened. "I'm going to write my representatives and senators," he said. "I'll use the school analogy. Surely they will see the pont."
He walked off with that look of hope mixed with fear and suppressed anger that I, a teacher, see in the mirror so often laely.
If you don't understand why educators resent the recent federal NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT, this may help. If you do understand, you'll enjoy this analogy, which was forwarded by John S. Taylor, Superintendent of Schools for the Lancaster County, PA, School District.
Be a friend to a teacher and pass this on.
Of course, the reason there is no need for such legislation is that if an individual thinks his dentist is providing lousy service he can take his business elsewhere. By contrast, if he thinks that the local public school is providing his child with a lousy education, he can't take his child elsewhere unless he has the resources to afford private school tuition. But I doubt that is the lesson that the public school establishment (aka, the Blob) wants you to glean from this little parable.
I'd be all too happy to rescind the entire No Child Left Behind Act in exchange for a voucher system. You can bet the Blob doesn't want you to draw that lesson either.
Re: Radley Responds
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 3:40PM
The easy conflating of military boot-camp conditions with life under Lenin or Stalin or Hitler or Mao confirms how free we are to think like morons and still think ourselves clever. What surprised me is that football training camps weren't dragged out as another example of the totalitarian impulse. Remember how Bear Bryant used to deprive his players of water in the thick of Texas summer?
Attention Porkbusters
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 2:53PM
Boat slips in Morehead City, N.C. cost the federal government $30,000 each. They bought ten.
Rudy and Bloggers
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 1:41PM
Matt Lewis suggests that Giuliani is blaming bloggers for his bad news week, but in my view Lewis completely misinterprets what Giuliani actually said.
As evidence for his charge, Lewis cites this bit from a Roger Simon article:
Has it crossed your mind that this may be an extremely rough primary in 2008? I asked him.
"It has, and it will be," Giuliani replied. But he also said he did not think the attacks would come directly from other Republican presidential candidates.
"I think more of this comes from the atmosphere in the blogging atmosphere, in the instant news atmosphere, and the minute analysis atmosphere," he said.
(Emphasis Lewis's.)
To me it's pretty clear that Rudy is just acknowledging the simple fact that it will be a rough primary, and that the presence of blogs will make it especially so. I think everybody would pretty much agree on this point. I'm not sure why Lewis interprets this statement as Rudy attacking blogs, and then follows up with an explaination of why, "Debate and argument are healthy for Democracy." Giuliani didn't say anything about stifling debate, in fact, if you read the rest of the article, he's quite candid about the fact that "(Voters) can know everything about me. They will find out everything about me."
And:
Giuliani also said being attacked was nothing new to him.
"This went on every day when I was mayor of New York," he said. "So you get used to it. And you learn where you put it."
Lewis ends his post by saying, "Politics is tough. Get a helmet!"
Criticize Giuliani all you want, but let's be clear on one thing. Giuliani is a man who prosecuted the mob amid constant death threats and who has for over 20 years been under the glare of the New York media spotlight. Whatever his faults, I don't really see Rudy quaking in his boots over what bloggers have to say. Bloggers may be tough, but not quite in the same way as the Gambino family.
Re: Radley Responds
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 1:16PM
John: "Totalitarian" has sinister connotations beyond "excercising control over all facets of life."
And while that probably describes the experience of new recruits, it doesn't describe the entire military.
Looking Back on the Week
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 1:12PM
I've got short takes on the first-quarter fundraising numbers, Nancy Pelosi in Syria, and Sam Zell buying the Tribune Company over at Brainwash today.
Re: Radley Responds
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 12:59PM
David: "Totalitarian" just means excercising control over all facets of life. If you don't think military life is totalitarian in that sense, your definition of the word is different not just from libertarians' but from the dictionary's.
UMass May Strip Mugabe of Honorary Degree
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 11:18AM
Good for the University of Massachusetts if they revoke Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe's honorary degree.
RE: Radley Responds
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 11:09AM
Wow! I didn't know that you could refer to the military (or anything else for that matter) as "totalitarian" and claim that you are actually making a "pro-military" comment.
Guess those libertarians have a different understanding of the term than I do.
Radley Responds
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 11:00AM
In comments:
The quote was taken completely out of context from a longer post.
That post was critical of journalist Robert Wright, who is fond of the liberal values of egalitarianism, economic equality, and free health care he sees in the military, and wrote in a recent NY Times column that it's too bad the rest of America can't be more like the Army.
My point was that we have those things in the Army for a specific reason (to win wars), and at a cost (the rights enlistees forfeit when they sign up), and that it's silly to hold the Army as a model of liberal values for the rest of society without discussing those costs.
The post was actually a rather pro-military criticism of a liberal journalist.
But you wouldn't have gotten that from the excerpt posted here.
And Speaking of The Mob...
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 10:55AM
The final season of the Sopranos begins on Sunday. What better way to celebrate Easter?
Don Giuliani An Infamita
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 10:19AM
Rudy is getting it from all quarters this week. Now, Italian-American leaders want him to cut out his Godfather shtick.
Newsday reports:
"It's unfortunate for him to make light of a stereotype that creates a lot of discomfort for millions of other Italian-Americans," said Dona De Sanctis of the Order Sons of Italy in America. "We would hope that Mr. Giuliani would try to find humor in other aspects of his candidacy rather than his Italian heritage that way.
"We don't think it's funny," she said of such jokes. "We stopped
laughing a long time ago."
Romney the Rodent Hunter
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 9:44AM
Earlier this week, Mitt Romney took some flak when the AP reported that though he claimed to be a lifelong hunter, his "hunting experience came during two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia." At the time, his campaign confirmed that those were the only two times Romney had been hunting.
Campaigning in Indianapolis yesterday, he gave a new account of his hunting experience:
This is Al Gore/John Kerry-type stuff, and completely unnecessary. If Romney wanted to reposition himself on Second Amendment issues, he could have found another way, he could have just said it should be a state issue, and left it at that. But he just can't seem to help himself. Coming off his impressive fundraising performance, McCain's money troubles, Rudy's big abortion gaffe, Romney has a real oppourtunity to gain some ground. And yet, he gets himself caught up in this nonsense. I'm beginning to think that nobody wants to actually win the Republican nomination.
UPDATE: Townhall's Matt Lewis notes this priceless quote:
-- Romney spokesman Kevin Madden on Mitt Romney's claim to have been a "lifelong hunter.
RE: Looney Libertarianism
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 8:42AM
John and James: If the military isn't a model for a free society, then Balko should have expressed it like that.
But "totalitarian"?! Is our military really like a society ruled by Uncle Joe or Kim Jong-Il?
Using that word to describe the military isn't about engaging in a serious discussion of whether the military is an appropriate model for a free society. Rather, it's an epithet revealing a hostility toward the military that's, well, looney.
RE: Looney Libertarianism
Posted by on 4.6.07 @ 1:30AM
There are a couple of poorly worded and perhaps needlessly provocative passages in Radley's post, but I agree with John Tabin's reading. The U.S. Armed Forces play an indispensable role in securing a free society without being a good model for a free society.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Re: Looney Libertarianism
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 9:53PM
David: Maybe it's because I'm a looney libertarian myself (and therefore more accustomed to reading stark descriptions of government coercision), but I have no idea what's wrong with what Radley wrote. He's reacting to Bob Wright's suggestion that a society based on military values would be terrific, in part because of the government health care. Read the rest of the post:
Wright thinks this would be a good model for the rest of society. So long as all that coercion is used to instill good, liberal values in the citizenry...That's all true -- military service does require that troops agree to a set of rules that would be totally unacceptable in the larger society, and it is notable that Wright elides that.I'm not an anti-military libertarian. I think it's necessary, and I think there are times when it's necessary that we use it. When used properly-to kill people and destroy infrastructure-it's marvelously good at what it does... But that is what the military is for. It's for destroying things, including large quantities of life. The values Wright so admires-and the procedures the military uses to instill those values-are emphasized because time and experience has shown that those are the values most conducive to the military's mission. Which-at risk of repeating myself-is killing people and destroying their countries.
Wright values egalitarianism, access to health care, and economic mobility. Fair enough. I understand that he likes the Army because those things seem to be plentiful there. But it's telling that he neglected to acknowledge the wholesale surrender of rights the Army requires of everyone who enlists in order to achieve them.
30 Rock Dabbles in Presidential Politics
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 9:31PM
In tonight's episode, Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) thanks Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) for "those jokes you wrote for my Mitt Romney fundraiser."
"Those weren't jokes," Lemon says, "it was an appeal for a return to common decency."
"Well, they got big laughs," Donaghy replies.
Later in the episode, Lemon is revealing a series of personal secrets. Among them: "In the next election, there is a 90% chance that I'll tell all my friends I'm voting for Barack Obama but will actually vote for John McCain."
Looney Libertarianism
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 6:47PM
From Radley Balko at Reason's Hit & Run blog:
The Army is complete and utter totalitarianism. When you enter, you're stripped of all individuality, then built back up into a proper, orders-taking, unquestioning drone. Dissent is punished. At the onset of your career, all facets of your life are dictated to you. Whatever the state orders of you-even if it orders you to your death-you're trained to comply willingly and with vigor, and to never question the validity or morality of the order.
McCarthyism Anew
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 5:57PM
It has become such a cheap, tawdry, and entirely trite trick for Lefties to accuse conservatives of being "McCarthyite" that it brings a rather guilty pleasure to see lefties hoist on this own particular petard of theirs. Such is the case with the letter written by John Dowd, the attorney for Department of Justice aide Monica Goodling, in his letter to House Judiciary Comittee Chairman John Conyers explaining why Goodling will continue to insist on availing herself of her Fifth Amendment privileges in the matter of the eight replaced U.S. Attorneys. Dowd -- previously famous as the hero who led the investigation into Pete Rose's gambling -- complained that Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy had suggested that Goodling's 5th Amendment claim was a sign that she herself might have participated in criminal activity. Those suggestions, Dowd noted, "are unfortunately reminiscent of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who infamously labeled those who assertd their constitutional right to remain silent before his committee 'Fifth amendment Communists.'"
Dowd went on to explain why Goodling is asserting her right, noting the outrageous comments of those chairmen and others that cast aspersions on Ms. Goodling. Dowd also noted that Deputy AG Paul McNulty (who increasingly, along with lefty career Justice guy David Margolis, appears to be the skunk in this whole affair) had blamed Goodling for his own inaccurate testimony. "These are precisely the kinds of circumstances in which even innocent persons are well advised to assert their right not to respond to questions," Dowd accurately wrote.
As others on the page have noted (I think it was primarily the Prowler who did so), Goodling is very worthy of conservative defense in this whole mess. As was seen with Scooter Libby, the crazy "gotcha" mentality of Washington these days makes it perilous for anybody to testify in good faith in a matter where political actors are out for blood.
Certainly, everything I hear about her is good. It is a crying shame that a combination of DoJ bumbling and Demcoratic bloodlust (and media overkill) makes good people like her feel so threatened.
Rudy McRomney and Abortion
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 3:21PM
Incidentally, I see shades of both John McCain and Mitt Romney in Rudy Giuliani's comments on taxpayer-funded abortion yesterday. Like Romney in 1994 and 2002, Giuliani is in a tough position: He is a pro-choice candidate trying to make overtures to pro-life Republicans. As Romney learned, both critics and the media are quick to detect these overtures and respond by prompting the candidate to reaffirm his pro-choice position. That's what happened to Romney in his YouTube-worthy moments in Massachusetts and it's happening to Giuliani now, resulting in more emphatic and less nuanced pro-choice statements.
But in one respect, Giuliani is more like McCain than Romney. One of McCain's problems with the conservative base is that he finds it difficult to stay "on message" when the message conflicts with his feelings or beliefs, causing him to blurt out what he really thinks, sometimes in less than diplomatic language. It looks like Giuliani is going to have a similar problem on abortion, where he does not want to seem like a flip-flopper and where he does appear to have some genuine pro-choice convictions. This tendency speaks well of both McCain and Giuliani personally, but it does them no favors politically.
Ideas and Elections Both Have Consequences
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 3:03PM
Over at The Corner, John Podhoretz and Ramesh Ponnuru have been debating the utility of conservatives focusing on Rudy Giuliani's abortion heterodoxy. Podhoretz says conservatives are being counterproductive when they spend so much time talking about the Hyde Amendment -- a view some of our regular commenters here at this blog would likely share -- and Ponnuru disagrees.
I think Podhoretz's argument would have more force if we were arguing about, say, the human life amendment instead. The human life amendment isn't going to pass but, in a Democratic Congress, legislation repealing or weakening the Hyde Amendment might. And while only a minority of Americans supports a constitutional ban on abortion, a majority opposes publicly funded abortions. Given that the Republicans could win the general election with a candidate opposed to taxpayer-funded abortion, this hardly seems like an unreasonable litmus test.
But there is also a difference between being in the business of promoting ideas as opposed to the business of winning elections. If I think taxpayer funding of abortion is a bad idea, as a conservative writer I should say so. I leave it to the Republican strategists to determine how to attract swing voters. That doesn't mean commentary should be completely divorced from political reality -- I'm not going to spend too much time railing against candidates for failing to do the politically impossible -- or that the election of one candidate versus another wouldn't have implications for the ideas I care about. But it does mean we shouldn't try to confine our debates to whatever is politically feasible at the moment, even during an election season.
Fred Thompson After 9/11
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 2:31PM
Newly up on YourTube, excerpts from a terrific speech by Fred Thompson on Sept. 16, 2001. Watch -- and perhaps envision this man leading the American people. He does bear watching, that's for sure.
ABC: "Slanderous"
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 11:11AM
A hat tip to NRO's Media Blog for highlighting this example of outrageous media bias. ABC, in a news story, is calling the Swift Boat ads a "smear" and, worse, "slanderous." That last word might be legally actionable. The simple question should arise though: What, pray tell, is slanderous about telling the truth? And how is it a smear? The fact remains that John Kerry claims to have, in effect, lied to his own diary. The Swift Boat vets were doing their patriotic duty in pointing that out. Kerry was not in Cambodia at Christmas that year. And some of his other accounts of his wartime experiences, including some of his claims of heroism, just don't hold up to scrutiny.
Now it is true that critics of the Swifties say the Swiftie ads were smears and slanders. Fine. If ABC wants to cite CRITICS saying so, that might be fair journalism. But for ABC of its own volition to use the words "smear" and "slanderous" is an outrage and an absolute violation of journalistic ethics -- except that these days, "journalistic ethics" has become an oxymoron, at least when applied to ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, and the LA Times.
And if that last sentence of mine is slanderous, I invite those supposed "news" organizations to make the most of it.
Victory for the Working Class in Venezuela?
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 9:26AM
Amongst other scarcities in Hugoland unintentionally sparked by central planning, the state has decided to add an intentional one with an Easter alcohol ban. The proletariat, however, is not taking it lying down:
Hardened bar and restaurant-owners in the coastal capital Caracas were not cowed, however, saying that in parts of the city the police will be unable to enforce the dry-out.
"In the working class areas there is no alcohol ban," said one bar owner in the central district of Chacao. "The police won't go in there because the delinquents are better armed than they are."
Having just spent a couple weeks in Caracas, I can attest to this being no idle threat.
Carter to the Rescue
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 9:26AM
Jimmy Carter defends Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. That's somebody you always want on your side.
Dark Horse Masters Pick
Posted by on 4.5.07 @ 6:20AM
Trevor Immelman, the fabulously accomplished young South African.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The Money Race, Continued
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 7:33PM
ABC reports that, measured in terms of dollars to spend in the primary campaign, Obama raised more cash than Hillary:
ABC News has learned that the $23.5 million Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised for his presidential campaign for use in the primaries is more than that raised by the Democratic frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.Of the $26 million Clinton has raised in the first quarter of 2007 for her presidential campaign, approximately $20 million is to be used in the primaries and caucuses, sources told ABC News.
Clinton campaign officials cautioned that its campaign was still ascertaining how much of its $26 million raised is available for primary use.
Sources told ABC News that while that is accurate, roughly $20 million is designated for the primary - it could be slightly less or slightly more. Either way, Obama raised more primary cash than Clinton.
Re: Oy
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 7:24PM
There's also this:
Giuliani also vowed to appoint conservative judges to the bench, though denied such a promise was a "wink and a nod" to conservatives in support of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion.The "no litmus test" guarantee is a regular ritual, but the balancing act is going to be harder for Rudy than for anyone else."A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] they can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.' Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that."
RE: Oy
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 6:32PM
Next up: Giuliani reaches out to NRA members by promising taxpayer-funded firearms. Gotta protect those Second Amendment rights.
Is A Chug As Audacious As Hope?
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 6:31PM
If this Doyle quote on Obama's big fundraising haul doesn't have a typo in it, I must really be out of the loop on the latest political lingo:
Clinton was at home in New York Wednesday and had no comment on Obama's announcement. But her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, issued a statement congratulating Obama and said the fundraising of all the Democratic contenders "demonstrates the overwhelming desire for chug in our country."
I’ve been affectionately calling my father’s chihuahua/pug mix “chug” for the past several years, but I can’t imagine this is what Doyle’s referring to. Although, if
Re: Oy
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 6:24PM
The problem with supporting--or at least being open to--public funding is that it not only rankles social conservatives, but it hurts him among more libertarian-minded voters who may even favor abortion rights, but abhor government subsidies. The Giuliani campaign, doing damage control, later clarified his comments to note that, "the former mayor would not seek to make any changes to current law, which restricts federal funding to cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother," but I think damage has already been done. The public funding issue was one area where there was an oppourtunity for Giuliani to find common ground on the abortion issue, and he missed the boat on this one.
UPDATE: Giuliani's campaign later released a statement from Rudy in which he said: "As I have indicated before I will not seek to change current law as described in the Hyde Amendment."
Re: Oy
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 6:15PM
Giuliani's position here is even more radical than what the Supreme Court has required.
A video clip of the then-mayoral candidate issuing a similar declaration in 1989 in a speech to the "Women's Coalition" appeared recently on the Internet.
"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women,"
Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing
site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own
decisions about abortion."
Giuliani claims that if abortion is a Constitutional right, protecting that right logically requires public funding of it. The Court has explicitly rejected that argument, in Maher v. Roe, Beal v. Doe, and Poelker v. Doe. Maybe Ted Olson could tell him a thing or two about that.
Oy
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 5:26PM
Giuliani still supports some public funding for abortions. What's worse, he calls abortion a "constitutional right." Careful parsing suggests that he means only that it's a constitutional right according to the courts -- he throws some ifs in there, and Ted Olson's role as a Rudy advisor certainly calms some nerves. Still, not Rudy's finest moment.
Newt en Espanol
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 4:39PM
In this YouTube video, Newt Gingrich addresses the Hispanic community--in Spanish!--to clarify his recent statement that, "We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto."
Via RedState.
Putting the Brakes on That MoMITTum
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 2:16PM
Yesterday, I pointed to a poll showing growing support for Mitt Romney in Iowa, with him in a strong third at 17 percent. Kathryn Jean Lopez declared, "that's MoMITTum. There may be more where that came from." Well, today, a new Strategic Vision poll is out in Iowa showing Romney a distant fourth, at 8 percent. Giuliani leads with 25 percent. You can argue about methodolgies, and obviously, it's early. But this just reinforces my view that thus far, there is no strong empirical evidence that Romney's buzz and strong organization is translating into real support. At a minimum, the data is inconclusive.
Huckabee's First Quarter
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 1:42PM
A Democratic friend who is inexplicably interested in Huckabee's campaign (professionally, not personally, interested) noted his fundraising take for the first quarter: $500,000.
Wow.
CBS notes:
Indeed. Will some conservatives stop taking him seriously now?
Readers of Jeremy Lott's review of Huckabee's book will have little doubt:
...
Steps readers can take to STOP being cynical include "Watch classic films made before 1968," "Practice... 'Random Acts of Kindness' " and "Watch TV Land and Nick at Nite more; network TV less" (Nick at Nite's current schedule includes such classics as "Designing Women," "Murphy Brown" and "Rosanne").
...
His policy proposals on most issues are a mix of conservative rhetoric and liberal hand-wringing. On education, he proposes testing and administrative reforms, promotes charter schools and insists that states should fully fund arts and music programs. School choice is conspicuous by its absence.
...
On the environment he writes, "Al Gore wasn't entirely wrong when he spoke of 'earth in the balance.' Balance is exactly what we need."
Mr. Huckabee's approach to health care is to declare war on ill
health, which he takes to be caused by fat, sugar, salt and sloth.
As with seatbelts, drunk driving and cigarettes, he advocates that
the government and civic society should first work to change
attitudes toward these things and then "having shifted public
opinion, we can solidify the attitude and atmospheric changes with
government actions to statutorily define the will of the
majority."
McCain's Plans
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 1:18PM
Today, the New York Times reports on McCain's efforts to revamp his fundraising apparatus in the wake of his disappointing quarter. The McCain team is now out with this press release on his plans to give a series of policy speeches before officially announcing his candidacy later this month:
ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today announced that John McCain, during the month of April, will deliver three major policy speeches and make his presidential candidacy official with a tour through early primary states, ending in his home state of Arizona. John McCain’s first major policy speech on his commitment to winning the war in
Iraq will be delivered April 11th at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in Lexington. His second speech on economic policy in Memphis, Tennessee on April 16th will focus on taxes, trade, and curtailing government spending. The third policy speech will be delivered on April 23rd and focus on his domestic policy agenda. The campaign also made public that John McCain will officially announce his candidacy for President with a tour beginning April 25th in New Hampshire and concluding April 27th in Arizona, with stops in South Carolina on the 26th and Iowa on the 27th.
Obama's Numbers
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 1:07PM
The $25 million Obama raised (just shy of Hillary's $26 million), is the biggest news to come out of the first quarter numbers. Hillary has the whole Clinton machine behind her, and the backing of prominent Democrats, and was essentially able to be two places at once by dispatching Bill. She's been preparing for this moment for at least six years, and a young upstart comes out of nowhere to nearly tie her in the one area that was expected to be her strongest suit. Obama also raised the money with a staggering 100,000 contributors, double the amount of Hillary, showing the depth of his support at the grassroots level. This reinforces a view that I've had of Hillary Clinton for a long time--that she's the John McCain of the Democrats. That is, the candidate who the media anointed as the frontrunner, but who is disliked by many rank and file members of the party, who not only disapprove of her, but resent the fact that her candidacy is being shoved down their throats. Clearly, with $26 million, she's in a stronger position among Democrats than McCain is among Republicans, but Clinton's status as the inevitable nominee just took a huge hit.
Roosevelt Republicans
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 11:40AM
Jonah Goldberg detects TR-style progressivism in today's Republican Party.
"Pardoned," Continued
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 11:06AM
Iranian president Ahmadinejad did just announce that the Brits will be released today. As some of us predicted, the quid pro quo included concessions by the United States-we know that Iranian officials will now be allowed to visit the five Iranian "diplomats" detained by the United States in Iraq for supporting the insurgency.I think Loyola's hunch is probably right; as I wrote in my column today, I suspect the nuclear issue was at least as important a part of this gambit by the Revolutionary Guards as the detained Iranians in Iraq.What we haven't seen yet-but it probably won't be long-are the details of the promises Iran extracted concerning its territorial integrity. Iran knows that as it races towards nuclear breakout, it is getting very close to a military confrontation with the United States. Getting the British to agree to back down from the nuclear standoff-and getting them to promise not to allow the U.S. to use the airbase at Diego Garcia-would be an enormous victory for the Mullahs. And it shouldn't be long before they start bragging about it.
"Pardoned"
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 10:17AM
Looks like the British captives in Iran are being released.
Re: The Masters
Posted by on 4.4.07 @ 7:37AM
Quin, that was magnificent. You answered just about all the questions a golfer would want to ask about Augusta. One of my resolutions for when I get my kidney transplant is to go to a practice round at Augusta. That's the only thing you left out: How did you get your ticket?
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The Dog Who Helped Bring Down Communism
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 7:35PM
By way of christening his new blog, Todd Seavey threads together three seemingly disparate elements--his life, his parents' dog's life and the qualified triumph of laissez-faire--into a pretty well complete whole. A sample:
I was born in 1969, during Woodstock. From that point until about twenty years later, Reagan's election notwithstanding, I'd say the left was in the ascendant in Western civilization, but on April Fool's Day in 1989, according to the official records at the pound, my parents' dog Uber was born (named by me after Nietzsche's ubermensch, since I was in a sophomore philosophy class at the time and considered the dog "beyond good and evil" - possessed of a great, playful personality, though not very rules-conscious). From Uber's birth onward, coincidentally or not, it was all downhill for communism and not a bad time for globalism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and the spread of libertarian ideas, if not exactly for full-fledged laissez-faire policies (a sort of leveling-off of government growth rather than a radical reversal of it).
RE: Ethanol's Boondoggle, Continued
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 7:15PM
Dave: If the price stays high, do you think Congress will call for a "Windfall Profits Tax" on milk producers?
Need Some Exercise?
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 6:52PM
Go to Google Maps. Type in "New York to London," and select "Search Maps".
Pay close attention to direction number 23.
Correcting the Politico
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 6:22PM
In a post titled, "Yet Another Headache for Rudy," Ben Smith writes:
The AP just moved news that We The People, the document preparation company, is being sued by the Justice Department to stop an alleged tax scam.
Yes, that would be a (circa 2003) Giuliani Partners client.
That might be an interesting story were it true--but the company being sued is different from the one Giuliani advised. The Justice Department is suing the Queensbury, NY-based non-profit We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education and We the People Congress, while Giuliani Partners represented We the People USA, a for-profit company founded in Santa Barbara, California and now based in Berwyn, Pennslyvania. I called We the People USA, which was the Giuliani client, and the woman who answered said the company had nothing to do with the Queensbury firm being accused of a tax fraud scam.
Update: Smith corrects.
Tancredo Is In
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 4:12PM
Tom Tancredo has officially jumped into the Republican presidential race. I've said my piece on this already, but it may bear repeating. A Tancredo candidacy could just as easily marginalize the immigration/border security issue as advance it.
Never Cry Wolf
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 3:31PM
If your husband shoots your lover because you shout "rape" when caught in flagrante delicto, you're the one who'll be indicted for manslaughter.
Rudy in Iowa
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 3:23PM
Meanwhile, with Giuliani touring Iowa today and facing questions as to whether he'll even compete in the caucuses given that social conservatives make up a huge chunk of the electorate, the University of Iowa poll I noted in the post below is another strong showing.
In addition to the fact that he was virtually tied for first with McCain:
When likely Republican caucus goers were asked whether they agree with the statement, "Giuliani is the Republicans' strongest candidate," 57.7 percent agreed. Only 37.0 percent agreed that McCain was the Republicans' strongest candidate, and 30.4 percent agreed that Romney was. When given the statement "Giuliani is electable," 82.5 percent of Republican caucus goers agreed. Sixty-three point one percent of Republican caucus goers believe McCain is electable and 62.8 percent believe Romney is. Giuliani's support among likely Republican caucus goers appears to be linked to evaluations of his strength as a candidate and electability, as he leads on both evaluations.
The Giuliani strategy is shaping up to be staying at least competitive in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and then cleaning up on Uber Tuesday, Feb. 5 when states such as New York, New Jersey, California and Florida hold their primaries. This poll, though early, is a show of strength in Iowa.
Mitt on The Move
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 3:11PM
In Iowa, at least. Via Jonathan Martin, I see this fresh University of Iowa poll showing gains for Romney in the Hawkeye state. Among likely caucus goers, McCain is at 21 percent, Rudy is at 20 percent, and Romney is at 17 percent. For a long time I have been skeptical of the Romney hype because none of it has translated into support in the polls. Here we have a poll in an important state where Romney has a strong organization and has put a lot of effort, and he's clearly in the top three. This doesn't change my overall skepticism of the Romney candidacy, but it is a data point that bolsters the case of those predicting a Romney surge once people get to know him and start paying more attention. At the Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez is giddy: "that's MoMITTum. There may be more where that came from."
Weak Upper Lip
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 1:18PM
Derb wonders what the heck happened to the storied British stiff upper lip:
“'15 British Agressors [sic] must be EXECUTED.' That was the placard being held up by some beetle-browed Iranian outside the British Embassy in
"How on earth can Britons behave like that? A previous generation would not have done so. I knew the women of my mother’s generation pretty well (Mum was born in 1912), and I am certain that any one of them, given that headscarf and told to put it on, would have said: 'You can hang me with it if you like, but I’ll be damned if I’ll wear the filthy thing.' The men likewise. What on earth has happened to the British?"
Conservative Student Group Cross at W&M
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 12:05PM
The College of William and Mary's Wren Cross controversy continues.
Ethanol's Boondoggle, Continued
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 11:53AM
The ethanol requirement continues to impact the economy. Have you noticed the price of milk going through the roof? Blame politicians' irrational love of ethanol. Artificial demand for ethanol inflates the price of corn. Which means more expensive feed for cows. Which means more expensive milk.
Re: Denying the Holocaust
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 10:19AM
Is it really any wonder that the British have become a society that allows another nation to hold 15 of its sailors hostage without lifting a finger to save them? I thought it was worthwhile to excerpt the story James linked to, in case readers didn't click on the link:
It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial....
It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class....
The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship."
But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable."
It's a really sick time we live in when the Holocaust is
considered a "contoversial subject" and denial of the
atrocity is considered a valid alternative view.
Radio Interview
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 10:19AM
Another one on my 60 Minutes piece from yesterday. This time it is the Tom Marr Show, WCBM 680 AM out of Baltimore. I'm scheeduled to go on at about 10:35 am.
For the Times...
Posted by on 4.3.07 @ 9:07AM
when killing six million people just isn't a big enough blot on your civilization, killing the memory of the killing of those six million people really does the trick. We wouldn't want to offend the original Musulmen, would we?
Dumbstruck hat tip: No Left Turns.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Opening the Floodgates?
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 5:26PM
Jonathan Alter argues that today's Supreme Court rulling in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the court ruled that carbon dioxide must be regulated as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, provides precedent for a lot more lawsuits by people who object to the way regulatory agencies do things.
More from Alter on the case here.
Happy Passover
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 4:31PM
I'm heading out to get ready for my family Seder, but just wanted to wish a good pesach to any readers who are also celebrating!
Will Welch Or Won't He?
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 4:04PM
One of the biggest obstacles to a late entry into the race by Fred Thompson is the fact that so many key fundraisers have been locked up by other candidates -- quite a few of them by Mitt Romney. In fact, the most important of Thompson's longtime money men, fundraising superstar Ted Welch, is already committed to Romney and has told reporters he plans to remain so.
But this item from the Tennessean is weird. Welch reiterates his support for Romney and also says: "If he, for some reason, were to drop out, my choice would naturally be Fred Thompson." The reporter interviewing him says "Welch made sure to say that last sentence several times: If Romney's out, Thompson is Welch's guy."
At the very least, this seems off-message.
AmSpecBloggers Blogging at Other Blogs
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 3:56PM
The unconstitutionality of Congress-imposed withdrawal timetable: an Antle-Tabin discussion.
Two Views Of Hamas
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 3:45PM
From the Palestinian Authority foreign minister visiting France:
Ziad Abu Amr, on a three-day visit to France, met Monday with French counterpart Philippe Douste-Blazy and was holding talks Tuesday with Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin....
"I must admit I'm both surprised and impressed with the speed and the magnitude of Hamas's transformation," he is quoted as saying. He cited Hamas's willingness to accept a future Palestinian state contained within territory Israel occupied in the Six Day War as an example of the movement's ideological shift.
Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan said in response to reports that Israel was planning a major operation in the Gaza Strip, "Hamas and the Palestinian people are fully prepared for the next battle with the Israeli enemy. Our response will be painful because our men are prepared for jihad and martyrdom. Hamas remains committed to jihad as a strategic option for liberating all of Palestine. This enemy understands only the language of force and we will teach them an unforgettable lesson."
Believe who you choose to.
'08 Races to Watch
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 3:20PM
Henry Waxman's House committee, as part of their investigation of Karl Rove, has made public a Rove deputy's presentation on '08 strategy. Rob Bluey posts tables of the hot races taken from the presentation.
Schadenfreude
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 3:08PM
I must confess that McCain's disappointing fundraising makes me smile.
Did Ware Really Heckle?
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 2:50PM
Apparently not. Drudge appears to have gotten it wrong.
McCain Raises $12.5 Million
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 2:35PM
That's a huge disappointment.
A McCain release (via Hotline) reads:
Campaign Manager Terry Nelson said, "Although we are pleased with the organization we've built and polls show us strongly positioned in key primary states, we had hoped to do better in first quarter fundraising. We are already in the process of taking the necessary steps to ensure fundraising success moving forward." Nelson added, "Fundraising in the first quarter is no more important than fundraising throughout the entire primary election campaign."
Money Matters
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 1:57PM
Here are two items that might help to keep the Q1 fundraising totals in perspective:
1. In 1995, Phil Gramm smashed records when he raised $13.4 million in the first quarter.
2. The maximum allowable individual contributions were doubled by McCain-Feingold, one of the few good things about the law. So it is not terribly surprising that candidates in both parties are breaking records.
That said, I'd rather be in Mitt Romney's shoes than anyone else's in the GOP field right now.
Radio Interview
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 1:07PM
My column on 60 Minutes today has yielded a radio interview with WBAL out of Baltimore. I should be on around 3:35 pm with Ron Smith.
In Outdoor News...
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 1:04PM
Guy I know in Montana was bitten by a rattlesnake, called it "reptile dysfunction."
Mr. Clinton Regrets
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 12:31PM
Host a book party for The Clinton Crack-Up and all sorts of noteworthy political figures RSVP. Here's one example (second item).
Defining Evangelicals Down
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 12:08PM
AmSpec contributor Paul Chesser has a piece in today's Washington Examiner.
Reading Into The Numbers
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 11:59AM
For Mitt Romney, the impressive fundraising totals demonstrate why, even though he usually polls in the single digits, he's included in the top tier of presidential contenders, rather than back at the rest of the pack with Brownback, Huckabee, etc. It reinforces an image of Romney as a businessman who can run an organization well and will provide him with the money to get his message out and improve his name recognition. For a man who is still unknown to many Americans, appearing as the top headline on Drudge as a Round 1 winner along with Hillary Clinton, is clearly a boost. The question that remains for the Romney campaign is whether all of this money and the added attention that comes along with it will translate into grassroots support and improved poll numbers, or if he'll remain all hype. Also, I'm curious to learn more about the $2.35 million loan he made to the campaign, and to see his cash burn rate. (See more here).
For Rudy Giuliani, who got a late start and has been criticized for an organization that has lagged rivals, his showing was solid and demonstrates the allure of his star appeal and his ability to tap the New York market and other connections he made as mayor and running his business for the past 5 years. His cash on hand should allow him to put some meat on the bones of his organization. He showed momentum in March, and will have to carry that into the second quarter, as the media and opponents try to undo his post-9/11 image. He needs to show that his support is deep and he's not just some flavor of the month.
The McCain campaign still has not released its numbers, so I don't want to say too much until they come out, because there's always the chance that they are managing expectations. However, in recent weeks, the McCain campaign has laid the groundwork for announcing weak numbers, and McCain himself told bloggers last week that he was "unhappy" with his fundraising performance. If it is a weak number, as is largely expected, it will reinforce the perception that McCain is washed up, and that his candidacy isn't receiving any traction. The campaign has said it got a late start, which is kind of hard to believe given that it's no secret he's been running for years, and that we've read a lot about his organizational strength. If he did have a bad quarter, he'll really have to step it up in Q2, because by then his campaign will be out of excuses.
Romney Raises $20.6 Million--Leads GOP Field
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 11:07AM
NOTE: I changed the headline from $23 million to $20.6 million to reflect the fact that Romney loaned his campaign $2.35 million.
Via Hotline.
UPDATE: The National Journal projection had been $19-$21 million, so this number is within that range.
UPDATE II:
More details from Hotline:
The Campaign opted to raise no general election funds and raised $20.63 million in primary contributions.
The total includes a $2.35 million loan from Governor Romney and a $20,000 transfer from his 1994 Senate campaign.
Contributions were received from all 50 States and Washington, D.C.
UPDATE III:
Via email, another campaign points out this AP story from January:
"Although A Multimillionaire, Romney Said That Contributing Any Of His Personal Wealth To The Campaign 'Would Be Akin To A Nightmare' Even Though He Reserved The Right To Do So Should Circumstances Warrant." (Glen Johnson, "Romney Kicks Off Presidential Campaign With Fundraising Blitz," The Associated Press, 1/9/07)
Meanwhile, a Romney staffer tells Politico: "That loan was made at the beginning of the the campaign’s exploratory phase to assist and fund startup operations involving hardware and initial staffing."
So in other words, the loan would have been made in early January, around the same point at which Romney said self-funding "would be akin to a nightmare." No doubt, the Romney team would argue that paying for startup costs was an example of circumstances warranting dipping into his own bank account.
Giuliani Reports $15 Million in Q1
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 10:52AM
Just received this email:
Giuliani Campaign Manager Mike DuHaime said, "We are thrilled by the response to Mayor Giuliani's optimistic vision, experienced leadership and proven record of results. Considering our late start, we are very pleased by the pace raised in March and see it as a positive indication of what's to come."
Siccing Judy
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 10:33AM
Last week, when Rudy Giuliani's comments about allowing his wife into cabinet meetings first surfaced, I made the point that it was a huge blunder, because by making such a statement, he declared open season on her (his subsequent damage control won't change this).
Today the NY Post's front page headline reads: "JUDI'S DOG DAYS," and the story that follows details:
"It was a horribly cruel, outrageous program," Friends of Animals President Priscilla Feral said about the demonstrations of medical staplers on dogs conducted by U.S. Surgical Corp. employees during Giuliani's tenure there in the late 1970s.
It may have been 30 years ago, and it may have nothing to do with what type of president Giuliani would be, or even what kind of first lady his wife would make, but it is only a sign of things to come. It may not be fair, but the media siccing of Judith Giuliani has begun.
Playing With Conservatives
Posted by on 4.2.07 @ 7:46AM
On Washingtonpost.com's front page right now is the headline, "Republican Thompson Enters Race."
Fred?
No, Tommy. Very funny.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
A Liberal TAS Fan
Posted by on 4.1.07 @ 11:53PM
This is pretty nice, and I'm not even 100% certain that it's an April Fool's joke.
Remember What Day It Is
Posted by on 4.1.07 @ 6:53PM
Has Andrew Sullivan really fallen for an obvious prank, or is he in on the joke and playing it straight? I can't tell. (There's a transparently fake quote from Andrew himself, so he can't have missed it if he read all the way through.)
True Colors, Continued
Posted by on 4.1.07 @ 6:47PM
Glenn Reynolds responds. I'm not sure he gets my point, which is that honesty and feigned objectivity are quite often fundamentally incompatible. That's one of the big problems with the worldview of the j-school media critics that Glenn aludes to, and at least partially accounts for their inability to see that reporters can share many flaws with bloggers.
Q1 Fundraising
Posted by on 4.1.07 @ 6:09PM
We'll get the official numbers on April 15, but some of the Democrats are already releasing their totals for the first quarter. Drudge is currently splashing:
Hillary in blowout with $36 million, including $10 million transferred from senate war chest, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT... Obama said close with $22+ million... Edwards pulled in $14 million, Richardson announces $6 million... Developing...Marc Ambinder has some useful analysis.
Let Your True Colors Shine Through
Posted by on 4.1.07 @ 5:38PM
During a live press conference in Bagdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware's conduct "outrageous," saying, "here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I've never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter."Heckling at a press conference is very rude, and wouldn't be acceptable even from an opinion journalist (I wouldn't dream of laughing in Nancy Pelosi's face during a press conference). That said, isn't it better when guys like Ware let their biases hang out, rather than embedding them in reports that are ostensibly objective? I think the custom that prevails at British newspapers, where reporters are unafraid to reveal their opinions, is generally healthier than the inherrently dishonest objective-reporting model. In that sense, I hope Ware starts a trend.Senators McCain and Graham flew into Iraq and drove into Bagdad, making stops at an open market and a joint Iraq/American military security outpost before appearing at the press conference.
This is not the first time Michael Ware has taken issue with Senator McCain's comments about early progress in Iraq. Last week, after Senator McCain told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he needed to catch up on the news coming out of Iraq, Michael Ware responded, saying:
"I don't know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad."
Michael Ware has also publicly expressed his views on the war last year in an interview with Bill Maher, saying, "I've been given a front-row ticket to watch this slow-motion train wreck … I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I'm here … In fact, I'm drinking now."
Developing...
UPDATE: Drudge's report is apparently erroneous.
- Facing Up to Darwin
- Down in the Desert
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
