- 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 14, 2007
Gary Kasparov Arrested For Protesting Putin
Posted by on 4.14.07 @ 8:35PM
Russia seems to grow less free by the day.
How an Italian Dies
Posted by on 4.14.07 @ 8:28PM
Today is the third anniversary of the death of Fabrizio Quattrocchi, who famously defied his Islamist killers with his last breath. (Hat tip: Derb.)
Washington Fails at Micromanaging Teens' Lives
Posted by on 4.14.07 @ 2:42PM
A new study suggests that abstinence-only sex-ed -- subsidized by the federal government to the tune of $176 million per annum -- has no effect on how likely teens are to have sex. Interestingly, it also has no effect on how likely teens are to use contraception when they do have sex; liberal critics have long posited that abstinence-only sex-ed would lead to more unprotected sex.
It shouldn't be a surprise that teens are influenced more by things like prevailing social norms and the involvement of parents in their lives than by anything that happens in a few hours in the classroom. And as Jonah Goldberg noted just yesterday, the "power of the federal government to change things is much more limited and blunt then a lot of inside-the-Beltway types on the left and right appreciate." Surely, the politics of what type of sex-ed kids get belongs at the local level; the Congress has no business playing national school board.
Re: Prisoner's Dilemma
Posted by on 4.14.07 @ 9:26AM
Nice writing, Shawn. Remember, though, that one of the West Coast's most prominent conservatives started as a weatherman and ended up asking who wanted to buy a vowel: Pat Sajak.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Re: The Liberal Case for Fred Thompson
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 3:45PM
John, whatever the caricature of Thompson sketched by Michelle Cottle is, it remains her kind of Republican rather than a Republican's kind. She's simply following in the steps of Clark Clifford when he described Ronald Reagan as an amiable dunce. And we know who had the last laugh there. I suppose that when Cottle comes acropper in a new BCCI scandal, she can plead insanity, as she recently did on Dick Cheney's behalf.
Progressive TV
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 3:12PM
Michael Tomansky argues that instead of looking to the FCC to institute fairness on TV, liberals should look to the private sector.
He writes:
Something's in the air. This is exactly the right time for some liberal multimillionaire or -aires to try to start a cable channel. Yes, it's a lot of money. But far from being some act of charity, such a channel could prove that progressive ideas can actually survive in the private market and turn a profit. Besides, it's a lot less money than, say, a presidential campaign or a lie-based war.
I say, go for it. I would actually be very curious to see how a liberal cable news channel would go over. Whatever liberals may say about FoxNews, its financial success, from an objective microeconomic standpoint, is a textbook case of a market response to consumer demand. There were a lot of conservatives out there who weren't satisfied with the available news sources. My hunch, and this is reinforced by the bankruptcy filing of Air America, is that liberal positions are adequately represented in the media and therefore there isn't enough pent up demand to make a liberal cable news channel a success. Perhaps Tomansky's right, and a a liberal alternative would succeed, but that's the beauty of the free market--consumers get to decide, not politicians or pundits. Kudos to Tomansky for chosing private enterprise over the government.
RE: What Gamble?
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 2:26PM
Because a large part of McCain's appeal is with independent voters, something the war has already eroded. McCain's best performances in 2000 -- indeed, almost all his wins -- came in open primaries. Other than Arizona, he lost actual Republicans in every state. That even includes liberal states like Massachusetts, where he won over 60 percent because of huge margins among independents.
Now, McCain ended up losing the nomination for the very same reason -- Bush cleaned his clock when the schedule shifted to closed primiaries. So perhaps McCain's war stance will help him attract more Republican base support. But it is definitely a gamble, because it is based on trying to win over McCain skeptics at the expense of possibly alienating his strongest supporters.
What Gamble?
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 1:40PM
Jonathan Martin looks at the polls wonders why so many people are saying that John McCain is taking a risk by asserting the same position on the Iraq war as three quarters of Republican primary voters.
Rudy's Finances
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 1:10PM
Just got off of a Giuliani campaign conference call providing more details on the financing numbers. Campaign manager Mike DuHaime said Rudy has $10.8 million cash on hand available for the primary, and that he raised $15.4 million for the primary (and $16.6 million overall). He had 28,356 donors, 64% of which are less than $100, and he raised almost $1 million on the Internet. The campaign touted the fact that Giuliani raised 2/3 of the money in March, and in response to my question, DuHaime said the campaign expects to keep up a "March-like pace" as far as fundraising events, from now on. Finance chair Roy Bailey said the challenge is "catching up to the popularity of Rudy" in terms of building an organization. Also, DuHaime again declined to say whether Giuliani will participate in the Ames Straw poll in Iowa, said they would compete in the caucus, but would have to "evaluate" Ames.
More on the Federalism Dodge
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 12:26PM
Yesterday, I criticized Marc Ambinder for a post that I interpreted as being anti-states' rights, but today he clarifies that he wasn't arguing against federalism, but Giuliani's use of federalism to avoid taking stands on controversial issues. For instance, he can still believe that a state should have the right to fly the confederate flag, but that doesn't remove him from an obligation to say whether or not he finds the flag offensive. That's fair enough.
National Catholic Prayer Breakfast
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 11:25AM
President Bush was in good form, with a strong, moral message for the 1200 or so guests at this year's National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. As with last year, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts was in attendance, as was his colleague, Justice Samuel Alito.
But the big buzz in the room was over Sen. Fred Thompson, who showed up early and stayed long past most of the other VIPs had left the building. Thompson is believed to be close to announcing a run for the Presidency, but was the only candidate - or potential candidate - to bother to make the visit with his fellow Christians.
And a note about that: according Thompson insiders, he and his wife had accepted an invitation to the breakfast before Dr. James Dobson claimed to a reporter that - to the best of his knowledge - Thompson was not a Christian. Upon learning that Thompson in fact was a baptized Christian, a Dobson spokesman clarified that Thompson was not an evangelical Christian. The Thompsons are said to be friendly with several members of the host committee for the annual breakfast.
The Liberal Case For Fred Thompson
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 11:07AM
Michelle Cottle (subscription only) thinks Thompson's record suggests that he'd be fairly ineffective. Her conclusion:
[T]here is every reason to believe that Thompson would be facing one or both houses of Congress controlled by Democrats. This means that, to get anything substantive accomplished, President Thompson would have to get in there and mix it up with the opposition--a messy, mud-slinging business even on a good day. A naturally combative leader (think Rudy) might seek out these sorts of fights as a way to keep his blood pumping. An ideologically passionate one (think Gingrich) might do it to keep the cause alive. But a kinda lazy guy who doesn't really believe in much of anything? Well, he'd probably be happier just tinkering around the edges and watching reruns of himself on DVD.It oughtn't be most Republicans' kind of Republican, though. Right?Now that is my kind of Republican.
Of Course, It's the Classic Prisoner's Dilemma!
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 10:42AM
I know Tucker Carlson is by no means universally loved, but seeing as I really do think his MSNBC show Tucker is one of the fairest, most intellectually honest political shows on cable these days and because I read and enjoyed his candid, funny memoir Politicians, Partisans and Parasites twice, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on his decision to enter the realm of game show hosting.
CBS has tapped conservative MSNBC pundit and famed bow-tie aficionado Tucker Carlson to host its game show pilot "Who Do You Trust?"
In the project, strangers wager how much they trust each other
as they develop a relationship via gameplay. The concept is loosely
based on the classic game-theory experiment "prisoner's dilemma,"
where players weigh cooperation vs. betrayal for differing levels
of reward and punishment.
Wait, I thought I'd already seen several versions of this show on most major networks this week. No? Does that mean this whole Don Imus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson thing was for real? They weren't contestants? Les Moonves, Dan Abrams and Jeff Zucker weren't guest judges? The Rutgers Womens Basketball team actually let Imus make them cry? David Gregory's smary crybaby moralizing on Hardball was for real?
And people say reality television seems fake. Good luck trying to top that, Tucker.
Noonan: Rudy Not Acting Like Wartime Don
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 10:27AM
Peggy Noonan writes that there's a huge stature gap among the presidential candidates. While in his Iraq speech earlier this week McCain "sounded like a serious man addressing a serious issue in a serious way," she thinks Huckabee and Romney (varmint gate) look small by comparrison.
But she saves her most blistering criticism for Giuliani:
He was imitating Marlon Brando in "The Godfather." (The rendering comes from a Newsday report.) Actually the character of Don Corleone, as drawn by Mario Puzo, was possessed of a certain verbal elegance, but never mind. Mr. Giuliani's imitation was clear enough to inspire in the audience a smattering of applause and, apparently, laughter.
Ah. Can't have enough candidates for president who whimsically employ the language of mobsters.
Now, I'm not one to criticize anyone for making such remarks given that I've used Godfather references to assess a certain former mayor's presidential prospects and even diagnose the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But with that said, I have heard a lot of people tell me they think that Giuliani's various schticks, while amusing and endearing to some, simply do not look presidential. So, will voters, likewise, think of Giuliani as the man they'd like to sit down and have a cannoli with, but not want to have as the commander in chief? I don't think Giuliani should hide his personality, but as the campaign goes on, I think he'll have to find a proper balance.
His Oct. 2001 speech to the United Nations was particularly presidential, and in fact, it was the speech that first made me think about the prospect of him becoming president.
Wishing A Swift Recovery for Gov. Corzine
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 9:22AM
In case you missed it:
The 60-year-old governor underwent about two hours of surgery last night to repair multiple broken bones, including 12 ribs and a femur that protruded through the skin of his thigh, following a car accident on the Garden State Parkway in Galloway Township.
At 7:30 this morning, Lori Shaffer, a spokeswoman for Cooper University Hospital in Camden, said the governor was in critical but stable condition and remained in the trauma ICU unit. Shaffer said there would be a press conference later today, perhaps around noon, to release further details.
Apparently, he was on his way to the Imus-Rutgers meeting when it happened.RE: Sullivan Sanitizes Sharpton
Posted by on 4.13.07 @ 7:26AM
Phil: Nice post!
Frankly, I find it a little sick that we live in a country where anyone still takes Andrew Sullivan seriously.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Case For Brownback
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 5:04PM
A supporter of the Kansas Senator stands athwart Fred Thompson mania, yelling Sam!
Sullivan Sanitizes Sharpton
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 4:33PM
Andrew Sullivan understates the case against Al Sharpton:
As for Sharpton, surely Imus hs a minor, but valid point. Sharpton deploys the vilest form of racist assumptions against whites in general, and gets away with it. He got away with it while accusing specific people of rape - people who turned out to be innocent. Again, since whites still enjoy vastly more cultural power than blacks, Sharpton's bigotry is more defensible than Imus's. But it's still bigotry. (And, to give Sharpton his due, he has spoken out against the rhetorical depravity of much hip-hop.)
Confining criticism of Sharpton to the Duke rape case and general "racist assumptions" is an insult to those who have had their lives ruined--who have even died--as a result of Sharpton's race and Jew-baiting.
In a 2005 column, Larry Elder summarizes�about as well as I could:
Remember how Sharpton burst onto the national scene? He falsely accused then-district attorney Steven Pagones of raping Tawana Brawley. Brawley claimed a white man abducted and raped her, scrawling racial epithets on her body with feces! A grand jury later determined that Brawley made everything up to avoid punishment for staying out too late. Pagones received death threats and threats against his child. A unanimous jury found Sharpton liable for defamation, but it took Pagones over two years to collect Sharpton's judgment. Apparently, Sharpton transferred his assets to his wife's name, paying Pagones only when Sharpton's friends ponied up the money. To this day, Sharpton refuses to apologize�
In 1991, Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, was killed in a
( Crown �Heights Brooklyn ) traffic accident, when a car driven by a Hasidic Jew went out of control. Sharpton turned it into a racial incident, leading 400 protesters -- one holding a sign reading, "The White Man Is the Devil" -- through' Jewish section. Sharpton called Jews "diamond merchants," and later said, "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." During four nights of rock- and bottle-throwing, a young Talmudic scholar was surrounded by a mob shouting, "Kill the Jew!" and stabbed to death. A hundred others were injured� Crown �Heights �In 1995, a Jewish storeowner in
Harlem was accused of driving out a black storeowner and sub-tenant by raising his rent. Sharpton helped to make it racial. At one rally meant to scare the Jewish owner away, Sharpton said, "[W]e will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Following a demonstration three months later, one protestor, an armed black man, stormed Freddy's Fashion Mart, screaming, "It's on now! All blacks out!" The man also set fire to the building, eventually killing himself and seven others. At first, Sharpton denied any moral responsibility, after all, claimed Sharpton, he never spoke at any protest rallies, and therefore could not be held responsible for the climate. But tapes surfaced, showing Sharpton did, indeed, make at least one provocative speech. Sharpton then said, "What's wrong with denouncing white interlopers?" Eventually, he apologized -- for saying "white," not "interloper."
Imus may make racist remarks, but as far as I know, nobody has died as a result of them. It's sick that we live in a country in which Sharpton is still a public figure. Sicker still that he's been legitimized, having been given a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention. But sickest of all that he's the guy to apologize to when you say something racially offensive.
We Don't Love Them Hos
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 3:37PM
Snoop Dogg explains why rappers aren't as bad as Imus: While Imus was insulting college girls, rappers are talking about sleazy ghetto hootchies. Seriously.
Giuliani's Fake Federalism
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 3:20PM
Giuliani's federalism isn't weak for the reasons Ambinder gives. It is fake because it contradicts his support for Roe. By touting federalism, pro-lifers are supposed to take heart that he would promote policies or legal interpretations that would enable some states to restrict abortion. But if he still supports Roe, or at least think it is a legitimate conclusion under any theory of robust federalism, his federalism rings hollow. His continued support for Roe and federal funding of abortion reveals his "federalism" talk as a wink and a nod.
Is Federalism a Dodge?
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 2:43PM
Giuliani is drawing heat from Hotline and the NY Times for using a "states rights" defense to avoid taking a stand on divisive issues such as abortion funding, flying the confederate flag, and state apologies for slavery as he campaigns in the South. The NY Times calls it "pandering" while Marc Ambinder at Hotline calls it a "dodge." A desire to avoid controversy likely plays a role in Giuliani's thinking here, but I also think that Giuliani is absolutely right by saying these issues should be left to the states. For instance, I personally find the confederate flag to be offensive because I associate it with slavery, which will forever be the greatest stain on this nation's history. But I understand that that the flag has different meanings for different people, and in no way do I think that the president should have any role in determining whether or not individual states should fly the flag.
I think Ambinder errs greatly when he writes:
By sanctioning a state's ability to decide something, Giuliani is extending the zone of what's morally permissible. One of Abraham Lincoln's chief arguments against the Kansas-Nebraska Act was that, in allowing states to decide on slavery expansion, the federal government was affirming the morality of the pro-expansion side." If slavery is morally permissible in
Kansas, it's morally permissible in Nebraska, too. If not, someone had to explain why[.]
It's preposterous to even compare issues such as flying the confederate flag or apologizing for slavery 140 years later to the practice of slavery itself. One is a moral scourge, an offense to humanity, and a physical violation of individual rights, while the others are largely symbolic issues. While I can assume Ambinder understands this distinction and was only trying to make a theoretical point, it's irresponsible to take the most extreme example of the "states' rights" argument in American history to indict the concept of federalism--as if those of us who think that the federal government should butt out of the flag issue would be arguing for a "states rights" approach to slavery were we around seven score and seven years ago. Ambinder argues that "By sanctioning a state's ability to decide something, Giuliani is extending the zone of what's morally permissible." I don't think this really holds.
Also, Ambinder argues that Giuliani is using the "let states decide" mantra to avoid taking a position on controversial issues. But controversial issues are precisely the ones that are best resolved on a state by state basis. If there is broad agreement on an issue, it's much easier to impose a federal, one size fits all solution, than if there's a big divergence of opinion on an issue.
I think Milton Friedman offered what may be the best argument for states' rights in Capitalism and Freedom, when he wrote:
"Government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in
Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations."
And in closing, let me just offer an historical addendum. Lincoln may have opposed letting states decide on the expansion of slavery, but until the Emancipation Proclamation, he supported permitting slavery in states where it already existed--and even with the Proclamation, only justified the decision on military rather than moral grounds.
Mass Care Not Working Out--Part XX
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 2:21PM
Well, looks like that inividual mandate is going to have some holes in it. From the Boston Globe:
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance.The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. Forcing them to buy insurance or pay a penalty could jeopardize the rest of the state's initiative, officials said. Instead, the state board appears prepared to settle for near universal coverage, all but 1 percent of the state's population.
I'll bet the folks with incomes slightly higher than the Fortunate 60,000 will be thrilled with that!
Media Matters for Illiterates
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 12:41PM
John Tabin at American Spectator tagged [Michael] Ware as "rude" and "dishonest."Read that post for yourself. Where do I tag Ware as "dishonest?" Nowhere. I tagged the pretense of objective journalism as dishonest. The post is a contrarian half-defense of Ware in the face of Drudge's charges. You'd think a media critic would want to actually read and comprehend what he's criticizing, but apparently that's beneath Boehlert.
More Therapy, Less Destabilizing Favoritism
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 12:02PM
Frequent AmSpec contributor James Poulos has a great little post up over at Postmodern Conservative concerning the intellectual weight some are attempting to bestow upon "therapeutic politics," or, rather, in Poulos' estimation, politics "co-opting all, 'valuing' all, converting convictions into commitments, 'deep' commitments, even." More:
It was against this fashion that Lincoln suggested that a house divided cannot stand. The basic logic of therapeutic politics is that a house divided into a million little pieces can not only stand but should celebrate -- indeed, must, because any other more specific 'valuation' than universal-minimal celebration shows a destabilizing favoritism.
The rest lives here.
A Not So Secret Interview
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 11:48AM
For those who found Steve Salerno's piece today on The Secret intriguing, you might want to take a looksee at this interview I did with him a few months back as well.
Super(Bowl) Tuesday
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 10:36AM
With the rush of primaries next Feb. 5, leading presidential candidates may advertise during the Feb. 3 Super Bowl, the AP reports. But with a 30-second ad costing as much as $2.6 million, would it really be worth it?
Biden Takes On McCain
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 10:29AM
Writing in the Washington Post, the Delaware Senator says that McCain's progress report is bunk. Biden argues against "stick[ing] with a failing strategy," even though we have altered the strategy, and now have a new commander--General Petraeus--who by all accounts is the most competent we've ever had. Also, Biden doesn't acknowledge that the surge isn't in full effect. The last I heard, the full contingent of new troops won't be in place until June, and once in place, it will take at least until the end of the year to intelligently discuss whether or not the new strategy was effective. Biden counters McCain's examples of successes in Iraq by arguing that "for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress" and gives examples. But McCain wasn't arguing that there isn't bad news, just flashes of good news coming much sooner than thought possible, when the surge isn't even in full effect. Therefore, we should at least give the surge a chance to be fully implemented before calling it a failure and surrendering.
Biden writes:
So in other words, in the areas where the surge is occurring, we're seeing improvement, but where it isn't happening, things are getting worse. However, once we have the full force in place, enough to surge in more areas, we may see improvement across the board. Or, to continue Biden's analogy, pop the water balloon when it bulges somewhere else.
Don't get me wrong, I was and am skeptical that the surge will be effective, and I think any supporter of the war who is being intellectually honest at this point has to be skeptical. I question whether the 20,000+ troops will be enough and I fear that any military success will be undermined by the lack of a political solution. With that said, we have an improved strategy, and a great team in place, so we should give it a chance to work before branding it a failure.
UPDATE: Frederick Kagan responds.
Hogberg on PublicSquare.net
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 10:15AM
The thought-provoking new (fairly new) public policy debate site known as Publicsquare.net (disclaimer: I wrote two pieces for them in March) has a wonderful new three-way debate up on site about the Bush health care proposal. The best of the three essays (all are well-written and thoughtful) is by David Hogberg, who of course graces our own pages at the Spectator quite frequently. Hogberg makes the case that the Bush plan would be a wonderful step forward. The debate is well worth a read, and the enitre site, PublicSquare.net. should be added to the "favorites" list on everybody's web access page. It's good stuff.
Philip on Target
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 9:34AM
While I was out the past two days, Philip had excellent posts here and here, and also here, on various aspects of John McCain's candidacy. I have gone from supporting McCain in 2000 (better chance of winning than Bush, better on spending -- especially entitlements -- better on defense, less apt than Bush to value blind loyalty over competence, better at inspiring his countrymen to patriotism and, where necessary, shared sacrifice) to opposing him strenuously now (bad on judges, mediocre on taxes, bad on a government regulation of many sorts, bad in effect on everything economic EXCEPT spending and entitlements, and thoroughly. repeatedly obnoxious to all who disagree with him and utterly dismissive of movement conservatives). But on the war, he has been right at almost every step of the way (a pain in the neck in some ways on treatment of detainees, but he gets a pass there because he himself was tortured), and not just right but brave. His speech yesterday was a masterpiece, and he did a great job landing some roundhouse hooks against the defeatist Democrats. Barack Obama and especially John Edwards stepped into the trap of accusing McCain of playing politics with the war -- the one charge that is so patently absurd as to be offensive, knowing McCain's personal history AND his outspokenness on this particular war both in criticism and in support of Bush, depending on the sub-issue involved. Hillary Clinton, as is her wont, did the smartest thing politically of all the Dems: She refused to comment on McCain's speech. Smart: Don't pick a fight with McCain on war and peace. His credibility on the issue is almost impregnable. And, in this case, so is his wisdom. Bush and Rumsfeld utterly screwed up the post-Saddam effort at securing the peace. But that doesn't mean the original aims were anything but moral, nor does it mean that it would be anything short of crazy to try to hobble the "surge" right now. Hail to McCain -- and may he remain in the Senate, where he can keep fighting that good fight while first Bush and then another Republican president keep the political Left at bay so as to keep this nation safe from the bureaucratic, socialist state.
Stormin' Fred
Posted by on 4.12.07 @ 9:27AM
Fred Thompson has moved into second place in the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll. Giuliani leads with 29 percent, Thompson is at 15, McCain is at 12, Romney is at 8, and Gingrich is at 7. Most polls we're seeing now reflect a fading McCain, perhaps a result of his lackluster fundraising performance. It should be interesting to see if his policy speeches over the next few weeks help to bump those numbers up. Meanwhile, as Thompson looks more and more like he's going to run, his numbers rise. Should he actually run, as is now widely anticipated, I think he'll get another bump, just as Giuliani did when he announced after pundits spent months doubting he would pull the trigger. In head-to-head matchups vs. Democrats, Giuliani beats Hillary and Edwards, but trails Obama, while McCain and Romney trail all three top Democrats.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
RE: Reverse Roles
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 9:47PM
Dave: Frankly, I'm not really sure what to think about the Imus situation. On the one hand, what he said was wrong and he deserved a punishment along the lines of suspension. But losing the TV show altogether?
On the other hand, Imus has spent years sucking up to the likes of Chris Dodd, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and other liberals who enable if not embrace the likes of Al Sharpton and who bolster the politically correct tyranny that dominates our culture. Perhaps the chickens came home to roost.
Reverse Roles
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 9:38PM
As Sharpton hit the cameras tonight, I couldn't help but wonder: will Imus now protest outside Sharpton's radio show until he apologizes for Tawana Brawley, etc.?
Buddies In Heaven
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 9:31PM
Per my column this morning, Robert Yatto emails me this info about another forthcoming book:
This children's book about FDR's Scottie, Falla and Bill Clinton's Buddy has been channeled through Hillary Clinton via Buddy. Falla contrasts his life with an inhaling smoker who was physically limited, married to a cold politically involved woman who was not universally adored, with Buddy's fun filled life with mirror image masters. It is a great book for children that illustrates the differences and common points of living with icons of their times. I liked the part where the dogs were taught not to bark at late night visitors.
That's It For Imus
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 8:55PM
MSNBC will no longer simulcast Don Imus reports the Washington Post.
Funding The War
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 7:11PM
Democratic strategist Doug Schoen makes the case that it's in the Democrats' political interest to give the president the "clean bill" he wants. He's pretty obviously right, but the booing in the HuffPo comments gives a taste of the pressure the Dems feel from the base.
Cap-And-Trade: Spinning It Warmly
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 6:48PM
This is how Bradford Plummer of The New Republic characterizes the Monday article in WaPo about Europe's cap-and-trade system:
The sheer complexity of the regime has, among other things, allowed countries to cheat in order to protect their home industries. The prognosis isn't exactly terminal--Europe's still working to iron out the wrinkles, and U.S. policymakers are trying to learn from their mistakes--but it's clear that most carbon-trading programs will inevitably allow for a certain amount of monkey business.However, the article notes some pretty huge wrinkles, including a 25% jump in electricity prices for German homeowners. Then there are the other effects it is having:
Consider the plight of Kollo Holding's factory in the Netherlands, which makes silicon carbide, a material used as an industrial abrasive and lining for high-temperature furnaces and kilns. Its managers like to think of their plant as an ecological standout: They use waste gases to generate energy and have installed the latest pollution-control equipment. But Europe's program has driven electricity prices so high that the facility routinely shuts down for part of the day to save money on power. Although demand for its products is strong, the plant has laid off 40 of its 130 employees and trimmed production. Two customers have turned to cheaper imports from China, which is not covered by Europe's costly regulations.That might not be "exactly terminal" for cap-and-trade, but it is pretty darn close.
Fred Puts the Shoe on the Other Foot
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 6:43PM
Fred Thompson doesn't have cancer. Apparently cancer has a bad case of Fred Thompson-itis.
Re: Imus Territory
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 6:39PM
Hmm, I wondered if that joke was too tasteless for public consumption, and ran it by a friend first; maybe I should have consulted someone with more delicate sensibilities. (Should I buy civility offsets now?)
You're totally right about the Imus flap, Philip; it's way overblown. (That's what I was getting at here.) It's silly for Obama to get dragged into it, though in fairness it sounds like he was prodded by reporters. I think the award for the most over-the-top reaction goes to this New York Daily News editorial:
[S]uch talk has no place in this world and should not and must not be tolerated without stern rebuke under any circumstance.No place in the world under any circumstances? Those editorial writers must be a blast a parties. (John McWhorter's take on the Daily News op-ed page is a lot closer to the mark.)
UPDATE: Drudge says MSNBC is permanently dropping Imus. I don't have a problem with that; it probably should have been done long before this kerfuffle.
Thompson Sounds Like He's Running
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 6:23PM
Just finished watching the video of Fred Thompson on Neil Cavuto, and came away convinced that he's going to run. When asked why he chose this time to announce he has cancer, Thompson said:
"As you know, I'm thinking about running for president. There are certain things that you have to check off, in my mind, in order to do that," Thompson said.
Story here, with a link to the video.
Imus Uproar
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 5:33PM
I haven't blogged on the Imus affair, because I just didn't think it was that big a deal, but now that it has become front page news in the New York Times and Washington Post, and it has become a political issue, with Obama calling for Imus's scalp and Hillary asking her fans to send a message of support via her website, I feel compelled to comment. And the main question I have is: why is this such a big deal?
I guess part of the reason why I don't find it that noteworthy is that growing up in the NY area, I always thought of Imus as a competitor to Howard Stern, and I was never a big fan of the whole shock jock phenomenon. Also, I never found him funny, and I remember that his show used these sound effects such as quacking ducks and BOING! noises at random points, and that was like nails on the blackboard to me in the morning. The fact that he tries to present himself as more sophisticated than Stern, and attracts major political figures as guests, I suppose, explains why it's more of a general news story than if another shock jock had made an offensive comment. But I still don't quite get why, with everything going on in the world, this is the top story of the week. What Imus said may have been innapropriate, but given the amount of news coverage it has generated, you'd think he advocated raping women, said Martin Luther King Jr. got what was coming to him, or praised Adolf Hitler.
RE: A Slogan That'd Win My Vote (And No One Else's
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 4:41PM
You better watch it John, you're entering Imus territory with that one!
A Slogan That'd Win My Vote (And No One Else's)
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 3:48PM
"Mitt Romney: Because who wants a president who's had cancer?"
Re: A Good Question
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 3:38PM
If Obama ignores you, does it matter?
P.S. That Boston Globe story is just bizarre. Exactly two sources, both of them academics who focus on race, think that ignoring Imus is a problem for Obama. The politcal professionals quoted agree that engaging this issue would be dumb. Why is the headline "Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks," instead of, say, "Obama stays quiet on Imus flap?" You don't suppose that the reporters (and the headline writer) have an opinion on the matter, and that they're the ones who are alarmed, do you?
Re: Re: More 'Whining'
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 3:17PM
Phil: Is it really "pretty silly to rule out [McCain] entirely on the basis of campaign finance reform"? It was a defining issue for him, bringing out a side that has sent people up the wall ever since. Unlike Fred Thompson, who's happy to address McCain-Feingold's unacceptable consequences, McCain so far as I can tell refuses to. Indeed, he tolerates no opposition to his handiwork and indeed has taken steps to extend its prohibitions. Here's where we get to the gravamen and why McCain-Feingold remains a disqualifying issue: Via McCain-Feingold, McCain has imposed an incumbent-protection regime and he would happily gut the First Amendment to keep it in power. The sheer gall it requires to adopt and maintain this position guarantees McCain will continue to lose friends, no matter his steadfastness on Iraq.
A Good Question
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 3:13PM
Steve Sailer's son asks: "What happens if Al Sharpton won't forgive you, but Jesse Jackson will?"
Rumors are Fun
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 3:09PM
Thinly-sourced kf item of the day: May 4. Fred Thompson announces.
McCain Talks To Bloggers
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 2:49PM
Just got off a McCain conference call, and thought a few things were worth reporting. (The text of his speech to VMI is available here, which hits on a lot of his key points, as does my post on the speech below.) What's clear is how he is both distancing himself from Bush's past Iraq policy, while throwing his full support behind the new strategy, with tempered optimism.
Throughout the call he criticized the Bush administration for painting "rosy scenarios" in the past and stressed that there was still a tough road ahead, but he believes that with the surge there's now a strategy in place than can succeed. "For four years we've been screwing this thing up, but the early signs of our new operating presence in these neighborhoods in Baghdad have been encouraging."
Though he complimented Defense Secretary Gates, McCain was critical of the Pentagon for not deploying troops quickly enough (which he said is due to the small size of the military, "one of a number legacies that Secretary Rumsfeld hands to us which is going to have to be corrected") and said that within the Pentagon, "there's not the sense of urgency there should be." He added, "I don't think the State Department is yet fully engaged in this conflict."
When asked who he holds responsible for failures in Iraq, he said: "I have to hold the President of the United States responsible, but I am very happy to add that the President of the Unites States is fully behind this new strategy." He placed blame on Rumsfeld as well as Generals Casey and Sanchez for past failures in Iraq. "History will judge them very harshly," Mcain said. But he had the highest praise for General Petraeus and the rest of the current team.
McCain also took aim at the media. "I think some of the mainstream media is not going to report the good news...Let's go to alternate means such as blogs, such as websites, such as people calling into the talk shows, such as people writing letters to the editor."
McCain and Iraq
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 12:18PM
John McCain just wrapped up his subdued but determined speech to the Virginia Military Institute. Although there are many issues on which conservatives have a beef with McCain, as far as the Iraq War goes, he has been rock solid. Picking a fight with the media on an issue that allows him to capitalize on his greatest strength (his military background) is the best hope McCain has of turning his campaign around amid faltering poll numbers and weak fundraising. He is the one Republican candidate who can put to rest the whole "chicken hawk" charge. He even earned some rare praise from the WSJ editorial page.
In his speech, McCain spoke of "glimmers of progress" he witnessed on his trip to Iraq that were the cause for "very cautious optimism." He emphasized the need to give the surge a chance, lambasted Democrats for voting for surrender, and discussed the consequences of withdrawal.
Among the noteworthy moments, that are telling in terms of how McCain is positioning himself politically.
He took a little dig at the media:
Made clear that he has had his problems with Bush's handling of the war:
Spoke of his support for the surge as a matter of patriotism and honor:
Took aim at Democrats:
This alone may not be enough to win over bitter conservatives, but it's the best play he has.
On Wanting to be President
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 11:47AM
What with all the back and forth about abortion flip-flops during the opening salvos of the Republican primary season, I thought there might be some interest in this excerpt from Robert Novak's upcoming autobiography The Prince of Darkness:
Everywhere George H. W. Bush went while campaigning for president in
This, I believe, was the most important moment of Bush’s little trip to
On a side note, isn't it funny to think of careless internet consumers expecting Robert Novak to show up in their mailbox and instead finding a John Carpenter/Donald Pleasence horror flick, an Ozzy Osbourne live disc or a book on "radical evil" waiting for them?
Re: More 'Whining'
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 11:35AM
Though I wouldn't go as far as Quin, I have to say that if you would otherwise be inclined to support McCain, it seems pretty silly to rule him out entirely on the basis of campaign finance reform. While McCain was obviously the most responsible for the legislation, nobody's hands are perfectly clean on this issue. Bush signed it into law. Giuliani was a strong supporter of it in his shortened 2000 Senate run. Mitt Romney was once a supporter of even far more drastic campaign financing legislation. And Fred Thompson, the conservative messiah, was, as George Will detailed, a staunch defender of it.
Personally, I prefer Giuliani because, unlike McCain, he has executive experience and I personally witnessed him work miracles as mayor of New York. The executive experience issue is one that Jonah Goldberg doesn't address in his column arguing the merits of McCain over Giuliani. Also, Goldberg suggests that McCain was tougher after 9/11 because, "After 9/11, Giuliani earned his reputation for showing his sensitive side. After 9/11, McCain said to our enemies, 'May God have mercy on you, because we won't.'" Rudy was praised for his compassion, but what made him shine was that he mixed it with toughness--showing defiance after being trapped amid rubble himself, urging New Yorkers to be strong to send a message to "barbaric terrorists," and, at least according to his book, three days after 9/11, he asked Bush if he could serve as bin Laden's executioner were he ever caught.
But, with that said, if you would otherwise vote for McCain, it doesn't make sense to me that you wouldn't look past campaign finance reform. Don't get me wrong, I think it's abominable law. But there are more important issues. Speaking of which, he's about to give his big speech on the Iraq War.
Memories of Milton
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 11:29AM
Charles Brunie, Chairman of the Board of The American Spectator, has a lovely piece on City Journal today remembering his longtime friend Milton Friedman. Brunie recounts Friedman's fearless adherence to his philosophical principles, which led him to make uncannily accurate economic forecasts even as he was held in opprobrium by much of the academic world. In addition to a series of fascinating disquisitions on subjects ranging from monetary policy to J.P. Morgan, Jr.'s role in the Great Depression, Brunie provides personal glimpses of Friedman's generosity, graciousness, and wry humor. The last is best encapsulated in some of the Friedman epigrams with which Brunie concludes, like this:
"I've often wondered whether the difference between mankind and animals is not so much the ability to reason as it is the ability to rationalize."
More "Whining"
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 10:31AM
Glenn Reynolds notes that McCain-Feingold is a prime reason to oppose McCain.
Ben Stein on Sharpton
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 10:31AM
In a piece just posted on our main page, Ben Stein has some pointed, news-breaking things to say about loathsome Al Sharpton.
Nancy Pelosi won't be too happy either, nor Tom Lantos.
But not so Ben's friend John Coyne, author of a very important new book.
Read Ben now.
Fred Thompson Has Treatable Cancer
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 10:02AM
Via FoxNews:
Thompson, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008, says the illness is treatable.
"I have had no illness from it, or even any symptoms. My life expectancy should not be affected. I am in remission, and it is very treatable with drugs if treatment is needed in the future-and with no debilitating side effects," Thompson said.
Thompson, a "Law and Order" actor, was diagnosed with indolent lymphoma about two and a half years ago after a routine physical.
Obviously, let's all wish him the best, sounds like he's doing well. And perhaps the fact that he's announcing it now, given that he was diagnosed years ago, suggests he is serious about running.UPDATE: I see that Prowler posted as I was composing mine. Well, the same thing holds. All the best for Fred.
Fred Must Be Ready to Roll
Posted by on 4.11.07 @ 10:00AM
Sen. Fred Thompson must like this blogging thing.
While we're sure that it wasn't an easy thing to divulge, we also think that it shows what kind of a guy Thompson is: a straight shooter, who didn't wait until after he announced to tell people about this. It's refreshing.
And more important to conservatives: it shows that he's clearing the decks and doing the things necessary to enter the race.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
RE: Green Gingrich's Refashioned Conservatism
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 5:47PM
Phil: Thanks for reporting on this. However, Gingrich has never been much of a conservative on the environment, usually preferring the heavy hand of government in that policy area.
As for this notion of an "incentivized market," markets are already incentivized--it's called "profit." What Gingrich really means is that he knows more than all of the vast amount of knowledge already in a market. Thus, if markets don't favor various technologies like say ethanol (which has been "incentivized" with tax credits, subsidies and mandates for the better part of two decades), then markets are wrong and Gingrich will wield the levers of policy to show them the proper way.
As for Kerry's notion that global warming regulation would work just like the regulation on sulfur dioxide emissions, it's bunk. When Congress instituted those regulations in the 1990s, the technology, such as smokestack scrubbers and low-sulfur coal, was already upon us. There is no similar technology out there for carbon dioxide.
And there probably won't be for a while, no matter how much Gingrich incentivizes things.
Mitt the Ãœbermensch
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 4:36PM
Dean Barnett makes the Nietzschean case for Romney:
It's understandable why Romney would want America to know that he has this streak of normalcy running through him. But Mitt's appeal, at least to me, isn't because he's regular or ordinary but because he's exceptional. I like the fact that he's relentlessly driven and intellectually curious. I'm happy he's long been in the habit of spending his weekends in a more constructive fashion than watching NASCAR or the PGA tour. He's different from most of us. Frankly he's better. And that's good.
Green Gingrich's Refashioned Conservatism
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 3:51PM
I attended Newt Gingrich's global warming "dialogue" with John Kerry this morning and what ended up striking me most was not the debate over the climate change issue itself, but the fact that it provided a window into Gingrich's refashioned brand of conservatism. Because Gingrich is one of the most thoughtful Republicans around, often ahead of his time, it's worthwhile to reflect on what some of his statements suggest about the direction of the Republican Party. What became clear to me very early on in the discussion between two prominent figures from both sides of the political spectrum was that I was not watching a debate about small government vs. big government, but a squabble over how to effectively wield the power of government to prod private enterprise into behaving the way politicians and other experts deem appropriate.
Rather than debate Kerry on the science of global warming, Gingrich put that issue to the side, acknowledging that the threat is urgent enough to warrant a serious discussion about solutions to the carbon emissions problem. He suggested that the government offer tax credits for the market to develop new technologies, and prizes for the invention of new technologies such as a hydrogen car. Kerry said that he also supported the market, but argued that because the problem was so urgent, we can't just depend on voluntarism to get the job done--government must set carbon standards, forcing industry to figure out ways to innovate to meet those standards. He compared it to the limitations on sulfur dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act of 1990, which Gingrich supported. Newt responded that the problem with what he dubbed the "regulatory-litigation regime" is that it would create an entirely new bureaucracy, a flood of lobbyists for different industries seeking variances, and it wouldn't solve the problem as rapidly as an incentive-based system that created new technologies. Furthermore, it would be impossible to make
On several occasions, Gingrich made sure to emphasize that he wasn't advocating pure free-enterprise. "I'm not for a laissez-faire market," he said. "I'm for an Alexander Hamilton, Theodore Roosevelt incentivized market." For instance, he said his proposals wouldn't really be as voluntary as Kerry portrayed them. Gingrich suggested that the government go to GE and utility companies and ask them how much they would need in tax credits to make use of new technologies. After the discussion, I asked Gingrich whether basing a system on tax credits would create lobbying and bureaucracy, just as a system based on regulation. "It will. I just think it's better for the economy to have tax credits than regulation. If you're trying to shape behavior, I'm a Hamiltonian in that I think economic shaping works better than bureaucratic shaping. But it’s clear that it's an interventionist model. It's not a neutral model."
With the presidential election heating up, many conservatives are searching for an heir to Ronald Reagan. But, like Gingrich, the current crop of candidates seems more about making government effective than about making a moral and philosophical case for small government. Giuliani and Romney emphasize their executive experience to argue that they can be fiscally responsible and get things done. McCain, meanwhile, is a reformer and opponent of pork barrel spending. But rather than argue as Reagan did that government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem, Republicans seem to be saying that government is part of the problem, but it's also part of the solution.
I Have To Know!
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 3:02PM
Who is the father? WHO IS THE FATHER?!?!?
I can't take it anymore!
Re: Global Warming Skepticism
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 2:33PM
Aye-aye, Jim! Perfectly said.
Global warming can't come soon enough for me. I have a date to play pool with my old college roomie in Manchester, NH, Thursday, and he just e-mailed me to say it looked like we were going to be snowed out.
On April 12!
Global Warming Skepticism
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 11:16AM
So we keep hearing global warming "skeptics" described as anti-science ideologues or compared with Holocaust deniers and Flat Earth Society members. But many of the people described as skeptics actually accept the key tenets of global warming: Surface temperatures are warming, this warming is likely to have a lasting impact of the planet's climate, and even that man played at least some role in this development.
It seems, then, the main thing that qualifies people as skeptics is that they don't immediately endorse radical government "solutions" that are both untested and likely to have deleterious economic consequences. This makes the debate less about the scientific consensus than placing certain proposed environmental policies beyond debate.
RE: Don Imus Is Still Alive?
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 11:09AM
John, judging from the pictures I'm not so sure. He looks like death warmed over to me.
More Ethanol Boondoggle
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 10:44AM
ABC has more on how ethanol is rewarding big ag and hurting poor families and third-world countries.
Re: Whining Tiger
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 9:54AM
Quin, I agree that Jack Nicklaus was probably the most gracious loser golf, or any sport, has ever seen. And I agree that Tiger Woods often gives what seems self-centered answers to interview questions. But I'd cut Tiger some slack for two reasons. One, the press today asks far more personal, stupid, and intrusive questions than they used to -- and far more of them, given our explosion of media outlets. And two, Tiger is taken to be the icon of golf more than Jack was, and is questioned accordingly.
I heard Tiger say, "Zach played beautifully. He made the shots he had to make." And as to the particulars of the tournament, two things usually stamp a winner: birdies at 9 and 16 in the final round. Well, this year, it was 14 and 16, and Tiger and Johnson had near-identical putts at both holes. Tiger missed them both. Johnson made them.
Which is Scarier...
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 8:07AM
Global warming, or global warming hysteria? The climate is always changing, says MIT Meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen -- and "[t]he alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem."
Do Your Homework, Rudy
Posted by on 4.10.07 @ 7:48AM
An open letter to Giuliani from John Podhoretz:
[Y]ou governed New York City by knowing New York City better than anyone else in New York City... Your command of detail was astonishing, and you could out-argue most of the politicians and pundits who came after you because you had every conceivable fact at your fingertips.Good advice.It seemed you could quote from memory every single budget line in a municipal budget that totaled $41 billion in 2001...
As a presidential candidate, you seem to be winging it these days - giving off-the-cuff, ill-considered answers to delicate questions. If you keep winging it this way, you're going to fly off a cliff.
For example, the answer to your pro-choice difficulty with social conservatives on the matter of abortion isn't to blather about how much you "hate it" and then ruminate on whether the government should be responsible for helping pay for one. That's what you did last week, and you must never, ever do anything like it again - if, that is, you actually want to become president.
The answer to dealing with the abortion question is to do what you did as mayor - to master the issue the way you mastered the weird particulars of zoning law in Manhattan.
By which I mean, all the jurisprudence. All the arguments. The history of legislation on the matter. The history of court rulings. Immerse yourself in it and then argue your point from a position of strength, rather than relative ignorance.
The same is true on issue after issue.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Stop Crying....
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 4:29PM
My last comment (I think) on all the issues we've discussed today, including campaign finance reform and the 14-year-old random quotes on abortion from candidates without a single pro-abortion vote in their entire careers: Don't cry over spilt milk.
Or maybe it's true that conservatives spend too much time looking backward and not enough looking forward. I thought Ronald Reagan had cured us of that, but maybe we just didn't learn.....
Boom versus Boom
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 3:27PM
Instapundit has a small but interesting roundup of links contrasting the economic expansions during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (Hat tip: Jonah Goldberg on The Corner). Pace Instapundit, I don't think conservatives who give congressional Republicans significant (but not complete) credit for the late 1990s boom are necessarily slighting Robert Rubin or Gene Sperling.
The Clinton administration's economic policies are substantially better than those favored by many leading Democrats today; some of the effects of the Bubba-Newt divided government were better than the untrammeled Grand Old Spending Party of Bush's first six years.But I would hesitate to say "Clinton's economic policies were quite good." Until the Republicans took Congress, those policies were increased taxes, increased spending, and a failed healthcare plan that would have been the biggest expansion of the federal government since perhaps the New Deal.
If the worst of these policies had become law, the negative economic consequences would likely have far outweighed the positive effects of Clinton's support for free trade and welfare reform. And while the 1993 Clinton tax increase was more compatible with robust economic growth than many conservatives predicted, it did reduce growth. After Republicans took Congress, the policies became more pro-growth -- and, probably not coincidentally, the economy grew faster.
Re: Speech Is Not Money
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 3:23PM
Quin, not even the 1970s Supreme Court agreed with your apparently sweeping dismissal of money's connection with speech. See Buckley v. Valeo:
Those who still believe that BCRA abridges free speech will likely keep objecting. You should raise your favorite issues too -- even those that often seem like lost causes, such as abortion and entitlements. That is the great thing about a (generally) robust freedom of speech.
Fred Thompson in 1994: Let The Woman Decide
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 3:06PM
During his first run for the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson said in an interview to a libertarian Republican newsletter that the ultimate decision to have an abortion "must be made by the woman."
The comments were made in the July/August issue of Republican Liberty, the official newsletter of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
In the interview, Thompson was asked: "Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?"
Thompson answered: "Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own."
I obtained a copy of the interview from Eric Dondero, founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has more thoughts on the matter here.
Though news accounts have circulated around the internet describing Thompson as pro-choice in 1994, this is the first example I've seen of a direct quote in which Thompson espoused a clearly pro-choice position. And there's likely more where that came from.
Thompson now says he is pro-life and calls Roe "bad law." It must also be pointed out that during his 8-year career in the Senate, his voting record was solidly pro-life. But should he decide to jump into the race, they'll no doubt be more scrutiny of his shifting position on abortion.
Tiger, Tiger, a Whining Sight
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 2:26PM
I keep wanting to really like Tiger Woods. I see him bring a PGA event to the nation's capital on the Fourth of July and announce that all military personnel will get in free, and I applaud. But on the course, the guy continues to leave me cold, and continues to fail to measure up to Nicklaus in terms of grace and sportsmanship. I long for the scene where, Nicklaus-like, Woods loses a hard-fought tournament and smiles broadly, shakes the hand of the victor like he is genuinely happy at the victor's accomplishment and like he had a darn good time playing anyway even if it hurt to lose...and then goes on to the media interviews and says, first and foremost, that the other guy just took everything Tiger had and outdid him and was just too tough to beat. But that never happens. When Tiger loses, it's all about him. All about how "cra**y" he played. (A word that STILL shouldn't be said deliberately on TV -- a vulgarity that never would have consciously crossed the lips of Bobby Jones for public consumption.) All about how HE, Tiger, threw the tournament away. And even upon reflection, in the case of the Masters yesterday, the best Tiger could come up with in praise of Zach Johnson was something about how Johnson "did what he needed to do, just sort of grind it out and...." Not: "Wow, Zach just really stepped up to the plate and posted a number in tough conditions that I couldn't catch up with." Instead, in effect: "Well, we didn't do much to challenge him, so he just sort of grinded it out."
I first became a Nicklaus fan in at the U.S. Open in 1971 when he lost a playoff to Lee Trevino and, while Trevino did a jig on the green and basically made like a clown, Jack stood there smiling with a hand extended, patiently waiting for Trevino to calm down and looking for all the world like he was sharing in Trevino's joy even though disappointed for himself. And it was a familiar scene: Jack Bear-hugging Tom Watson's shoulders when Watson beat him, or Jack waiting to congratulate Tom Weiskopf when Weiskopf beat Jack to win the US Senior Open at Congressional after his fellow Ohioan had fallen so many previous times to Nicklaus.
But Tiger? When he loses, it's because he played cra*py. Give me a break. And while we're at it, give Tiger a censor.
Speech Is Not Money
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 2:09PM
Dave: Speech is not money is not speech is not money. That's what the argument is concerning soft money donations. As for disclosure satisfying the requirements for 527s.... that's exactly my argument. If the outside group wants to run the ads, all it need do is disclose its donors like a 527 does.
My main point, though, is that arguing over all this in 2007 is fighting a battle that already has been lost and that was comparatively not all that important in the first place. There are more important things to worry about, such as war, terrorism, the right to life, taxes, spending, health care, entitlements.......
.... and, as a tease for my next blog entry, sportsmanship.
RE: Giuliani Clipped
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 1:59PM
The position Rudy Giuliani took in the unedited YouTube video may be consistent with the Hyde Amendment today, but it was not consistent with the Hyde Amendment in 1989. At that time, federal funding of abortions was permitted only when necessary to save the mother's life. It was expanded to include rape and incest in 1993.
The D.C. funding bill not only went beyond the pre-Clinton version of the Hyde Amendment but allowed unrestricted use of city funds to pay for elective abortions.
Re: Third-Party Ads
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 1:21PM
Quin, please do not mistake my silence on soft money as assent. I have not looked at that aspect as closely as the third-party issue ads. But since you have, how does BCRA's soft money ban not violate the First Amendment's prohibition on Congress making any law abridging the freedom of speech?
You seem to dismiss the free-speech concerns because BCRA did not completely constrain political speech. First, the Swifties were organized as a 527. BCRA did not apply to 527s. In contrast, 501(c)(4)s, such as Wisconsin Right to Life, whose as-applied challenge to BCRA will be heard by the Supreme Court on March 27, are not as successful in distributing their message. Not all speech will find other avenues. Second, how far is too far, in your opinion? How much political speech can Congress constrain before you think it violates the First Amendment?
The "sunshine consideration" is implausible because that idea is hardly new -- 527s are already required to disclose donors. If disclosure would satisfy McCain, why didn't BCRA stop there?
Novak Pulls a Jimmy Carter
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 12:57PM
Robert Novak is out today with one of his sporatic Israel-bashing columns, this one from the West Bank:
Jimmy Carter raised hackles by titling his book about the Palestinian question "Peace Not Apartheid." But Palestinians allege this is worse than the former South African racial separation. Nearing the 40th anniversary of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, the territory has been so fragmented that a genuine Palestinian state and a "two-state solution" seem increasingly difficult.
So, Novak throws out the absurd suggestion that the situation for Palestinians in the West Bank is worse than apartheid without ever challenging it, but because he attributes it to what "Palestinians allege" he creates distance from the assertion.
Novak, no doubt, would fend off criticism of his article, as Carter does, by saying it isn't about Israel, but drawing attention to the "plight of all Palestinians." But nobody is arguing that the Palestinains aren't suffering. The argument is over who is to blame for that suffering, and I would argue that Palestinian suffering is a problem largely of their own making. Palestinians have rejected peace at every oppourtunity because of their fanatical dedication to the destruction of Israel, and given a chance, they'd rather fight each other and kill Israeli civilians than attempt to actually build a decent society. Palestinian sympathizers can argue that actions Israel takes in the interests of its national security make it more difficult for the Palestinians to form a decent society, but again, if Palestinians weren't so intent on killing Israeli civilians, Israel wouldn't need to take such measures.
This underlying pattern--of blaming the U.S. and Israel for the suffering of the Palestinians while giving Palestinians a free pass--flows through Novak's piece:
The U.S.-backed boycott following the election victory of the extremist group Hamas in early 2006 has made the Palestinian Authority destitute, crippling government services. Deprived of help from the authority, with the economy in a shambles, city governments are bankrupt. Bethlehem's mayor, Victor Batarseh, has a special problem because tourists and pilgrims no longer stay overnight in the city of Christ's birth. Out of money and credit, he is ready to lay off the city's 165 staffers.
Here, Novak's focus is on the effect of the U.S.-led boycott on the Palestinians, rather than the fact that Palestians, when given the right to vote, elected a terrorist group that was dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It makes perfect sense that a liberal like Carter would make excuses for the Palestinians, but Novak is a conservative, and conservatives are supposed to be all about personal responsibility.
Giuliani Clipped
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 12:21PM
Hotline points out that the now infamous YouTube clip from 1989 of Rudy supporting public funding for abortion was edited to make him look worse:
The clip shows Giuliani describing his opposition to Pres. George H.W. Bush's public-funding-for-abortion bill veto by saying: "There must be public funding for abortions for poor women. We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources. I have also stated that I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortion."
The clip omitted the following sentence: "That I disagree with President Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortions for rape or incest victims." Giuliani now says he supports the Hyde Amendment as currently constituted and would not seek to change the law.
A single sentence makes a world of difference.
Yes, it does. The Hyde Amendment bars federal financing of abortion, but still allows it in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. So, in 1989, he wasn't arguing against the Hyde Amendment, but a more restrictive version of the Hyde Amendment. Though this won't repair the damage he did last week in his comments to CNN, or remedy his broader problem on the abortion issue, with the added context, it allows him more room to stand by his support of the Hyde Amendment without being branded a flip-flopper.
Viewing the video in full context reinforces something I wrote last week, which is the importance of "relentless preperation" for the Giuliani campaign. The YouTube clip, which is what prompted the question by CNN's Dana Bash that caused problems for Giuliani in last week's interview, had been floating around for weeks. Had Giuliani known of it ahead of time, and had he been aware that it was edited, he could have responded to Bash by saying that the video had been edited to make him look worse, that at the time he opposed denying funding in to rape or incest victims, and he still holds that view, but he supports the Hyde Amendment because it includes an exception.
It may be unrealistic to expect Giuliani to know about every detail of every little item that's making the rounds on the Internet, but when it comes to the abortion issue, which going in he knew would be the most difficult for him to navigate, he should have his position down cold, and be ready to discuss every angle. The next shoe to drop may be partial birth abortion, which he now says he supports banning, but he opposed the ban as a Senate candidate in 2000. At some point, an interviewer will ask him why he made the shift, and he better be able to field the question. So far, he's been saying he supports a ban as long as it has an exception for the life of the mother, but that's a moot point because the legislation he opposed in 2000 did have that exception.
UPDATE: Over at RedState, Erick says emphasizing the additional sentence is just "disengenuous spin."
Third-party Ads
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 12:11PM
Dave -- Now we are getting somewhere. First, I specifically have acknowledged that the ban on third-party ads is a problem. I did not mean to dismiss it by bringing up the sunshine consideration, but instead to show that there may be a middle ground on that issue. I do of course take issue with the idea that the sunshine consideration is "implausible." Instead, it could be central to the whole discussion. Frankly, I don't know every detail of the third-party ban, because by the time the bill finally passed, I was sick of the whole issue. I do know that the sunshine argument was an important part of the debate at one time. I also know that third parties such as the Swift Boat vets were perfectly able in 2004 to get their message out, which helped confirm my impression (perhaps a mistaken one) that the whole argument was a big kerfuffle over not much, because, as I wrote, money will find other avenues almost no matter what parchment barriers are in place.
Second, I think we are getting somewhere because you appear to be acknowledging that the soft money ban is a close call, constitutionally speaking. In other words, that the soft money ban, which ORIGINALLY was the biggest bone of contention (especially for George Will), is one on which honest conservatives can disagree and therefore one that should not be a litmus test, espcially when so many other, far more important, issues are out there.
What I object to is the herd mentality that says that on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, the following: Position A is THE conservative position, and therefore anybody who ever transgressed on that issue (or on any issue) is therefore verboten. Some issues are more important than others. Futile attempts to keep money out of politics are, for me, one of those lesser issues.
Policy Choices
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 11:51AM
Quin, you seem to focus on the soft money ban in evaluating BCRA's constitutionality. The ban on issue ads near the election is still part of its regime, and it seems perfectly legitimate to argue that, as a whole, BCRA is speech-stifling, and incumbent-protecting.
Your sunshine theory is interesting, but implausible. If sunshine were the driving force behind the third-party issue ads ban, then donor disclosure would suffice. Let me know what Sen. McCain thinks about replacing the issue ad ban with donor disclosure.
These folks take seriously the First Amendment's prohibition on Congress making a law that abridges free speech, and object to the idea that third-party issue ads are somehow akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (as a harm meriting the abridgement of free speech). Dismissing these free-speech arguments as frivolous, or even as unworthy of a spirited discussion, will neither allay their concerns about the future of the First Amendment nor help convince them to endorse candidates who supported campaign finance reform.
Sorry, Dave
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 11:07AM
Dave: To what end has my hand been tipped? I could easily write diametrically opposing essays, one of them explaining why banning soft money is a First Amendment issue, and one explaining why it isn't. Reasonable conservatives can and do disagree on that point. The point you raise is far better: The prohibition on outside groups airing issue ads is a problem -- UNLESS they are allowed to run the ads if they merely disclose the sources of their money. If the prohibition is merely a means to force sunshine, then it arguably falls within constitutional bounds. The point is that the constitutional issues aren't as friggin obvious as Will or some other conservatives make it out to be. And it is perfectly possible for somebody to end up agreeing with Will while still acknowledging good arguments on the other side -- and to acknowledge that until very late in the 1990s, the constitutional issue had not yet been raised very forcefully, and it was still quite possible for SOME of the provisions of McCainiac reform to look like good ideas.
Getting Over the First Amendment
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 10:47AM
Quin, thank you for reminding us about pressing issues.
But campaign finance reform was not a mere policy choice, and labeling it as such tips your hand a little. At the very least, President Bush signing a bill despite considering it unconstitutional ought to elevate the issue above "policy choice." Campaign finance reform raises serious free speech issues.
Just ask the groups that are now prohibited from airing issue ads within the BCRA window near elections. BCRA hinders basic political participation.
What all this means about Fred Thompson is a separate question. But if those who believe in strongly protecting the First Amendment want to use campaign finance as another way to evaluate a candidate, I cannot fault them.
Rudy and South Carolina
Posted by on 4.9.07 @ 10:40AM
A new FoxNews/Opinion Dynamics poll is out for South Carolina, and it's good news for Giuliani (story here, full results here). Not just because he is a whisker ahead of McCain 26 percent to 25 percent (with Romney at 14 percent). Skeptics will look at that headline number, and say, it's only a matter of time before South Carolina conservatives find out Giuliani's social views and sour on him (especially in light of his recent stumble). However, if you look at the poll with more detail, you will see that it supports something I've long been arguing: this will be the first contested Republican primary season since 9/11, and national security issues will play more dominant role, creating a unique opening for Giuliani.
When likely South Carolina Republican primary voters were asked to identify the most important issue to them a total of 51 percent* named a national-security related issue, whereas a total of only 6 percent** named a social issue. If you add immigration, another issue where many conservatives have a beef with Giuliani, that makes an additional 6 percent of the Republican electorate that may be hostile to his candidacy. The rest of the responses relate to economic, fiscal and non-social domestic issues on which Giuliani is strong.
In another interesting part of the poll, only 59 percent of likely Republican primary voters identified themselves as pro-life, compared to 32 percent who said they were pro-choice, and 10 percent who either had mixed views on the subject or didn't know. That number surprised me, because I would have thought that South Carolina Republicans would be more pro-life than that.
Clearly this is just a single poll, so all caveats apply. And I don't mean to suggest that social issues will be unimportant in the primaries, just that they won't play as dominant a role as they have in prior cycles. A lot of those pundits who are dismissing Giuliani's chances are basing their judgment on a pre-9/11 model of Republican primaries in which a candidate who fails social issue litmus tests cannot win. This is just another data point suggesting they may be wrong.
*The 51 percent total is comprised of: 37 percent who named war/Iraq; 7 percent named homeland/national security; 5 percent named terrorism--not Iraq; 1 percent named foreign policy--not Iraq; 1 percent named Iran.
**The 6 percent is comprised of: 4 percent named family values/morals; 1 percent said gay marriage; 1 percent said abortion.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Stop Fighting About Campaign Finance Reform
Posted by on 4.8.07 @ 9:30PM
George Will isn't the only one who needs to get over his hurt feelings about campaign finance reform. In the great scheme of things, it's just not that big an issue. I supported McCain in 2000 despite his support for campaign finance reform, knowing full well that Bush would have to sign it if it passed. Gee, I was right. And what happened? Not much. The money just flows through different channels. It's not a friggin' crisis, people.
Meanwhile, two further points. First the absolute fact is that in 1992 and 1993, the official Republican congressional position on campaign finance reform was to ban "soft money." As Casey Stengel said, you could look it up. I know, because I was there. To blame Fred Thompson for apostasy for supporting something in 1996 that had so recently been the official party position is just nuts. Yes, nuts. Second point: On the subject of campaign finance reform, Thompson has said recently, repeatedly, "I was wrong." No wiggling. No attempts to claim a false consistency. Just a manly admission of error, on a subject that at one point it was easy to be confused about.
So, forgive me if it sounds rude to my friends on this site, but get over yourselves. There's a war in Iraq, and an evil SOB running Iran, and a KGB brute running Russia, and there are statist, cheap-shot-artists running our own Congress who want to raise taxes, increase regulation, weaken our defenses, socialize medicine, and do terrible things to the judiciary. Start worrying about those real issues, and stop fighting about a bad but relatively unimportant policy choice that Congress and the president made six years ago.
Jeesh.
Pardon Pelosi!
Posted by on 4.8.07 @ 8:08AM
Robert F. Turner argues that Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria may have violated the Logan Act. Rand Simberg has a brilliant idea:
It seems to me that if the Bush administration was clever, the president would magnanimously issue a preemptive pardon to Madam Speaker... It would make the point without the Justice Department having to do anything at all, and it would be hilarious to watch the donkeys scream about it.(via Insty.)
RE: Giuliani vs. McCain on Judges
Posted by on 4.8.07 @ 12:24AM
I hesitate to weigh in since I'm too busy with Easter to get too deep into the weeds on this, but: Last week Giuliani gave pro-lifers plenty of reason to doubt him on judges -- in the very same interview where he made his remarks about taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm not sure why his stated opinions about judicial philosophy, assuming he was articulating them properly, are less important than McCain's friendships with Democrats and record on campaign finance reform. It may well be true that the judges who share Giuliani's views on national security and executive authority are more likely to agree with pro-lifers on the constitutionality of Roe but, given stare decisis, they certainly don't have to please pro-lifers any more than Anthony Kennedy has.
Take Samuel Alito, for example. He was an excellent choice when President Bush nominated him and is now a reliable member of the Court's conservative bloc. Alito may believe Roe was wrongly decided -- by some accounts, Giuliani once did too -- but we still don't know whether he'd vote to overturn the decision if the opportunity presented itself. If the judges argument is being made to appeal to social conservatives rather than just on the merits of originalism, I'm not sure that Giuliani is so obviously better than McCain.
- Mission Implausible
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Progressive Derangements
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
