- 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 21, 2007
Re: Profiles in D'oh
Posted by on 4.21.07 @ 1:10PM
James, Gonzales has reminded me of no one so much as Bush himself post-Katrina: "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie." We now know what George W.'s main fault is. He does not know how to appoint or monitor executives.
His two most capable appointees, Rumsfeld and Powell, ran into trouble not because of incompetence but because 1) Rumsfeld did as much as he could and could have benefited from replacement (n.b. -- He did offer to resign three times, but the President declined.); and 2) Powell had his own agenda, definitely not friendly to the President's.
Rice is an executive disaster waiting to happen at State. Taking bets here: Next big "scandal" comes from State. Anybody?
Profiles in D'Oh!
Posted by on 4.21.07 @ 12:37PM
"I now understand that there was a conversation between myself and the president," Gonzales said. -- AP
Resign, sir.
Re: How to Flip-Flop
Posted by on 4.21.07 @ 11:44AM
Phil, points well taken about Romney's views. That said, each candidate has a simple task: To be seen and heard widely and identifiably in a unified way in the way that he desires to be seen. The Weekly Standard's long, excellent take on Fred Thompson, for example, makes the point that Thompson needs to bring the two parts of his public persona together -- the TV image with the name and the man. He had to do that in Tennessee in his first Senate run, and overcame a huge gap in the polls when he first announced.
Giuliani had the whole recognition picture together because of 9/11, but, as he has been questioned more closely, that recognition has begun, ever so slightly, to fray. People who thought they knew who he was have begun very slightly to doubt their perceptions.
For Romney, the task is simpler, like Thompson's. If you see Romney in person, or in an extended take on television, he is unbelievably impressive, particularly (sigh) taken in comparison to our current president -- or indeed to any other candidate. He talks better than anybody, off the cuff or in prepared speeches. He comes across as demonstrably more intelligent and more in command of his subject than anybody. He is immensely likeable. The more he gets seen and heard, the better he'll do.
His evolved positions on abortion and guns may be nuanced, but, where many another candidate would have a hard time explaining them, Romney won't.
See excerpts from his recent speech at the George Bush Library here .Looking More Candidate-ish
Posted by on 4.21.07 @ 11:38AM
A clarification is added to Stephen Hayes's Weekly Standard profile of Fred Thompson -- at the request of Thompson's advisers.
Friday, April 20, 2007
"Seung-Hui Cho Was a Mind Controlled Assassin"
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 4:06PM
It didn't take long for the Black Helicopter Brigades to pin the Virginia Tech massacre on the CIA.
Murder and Narcissism
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 3:09PM
I'll be very surprised if anyone comes up with a more compelling explanation of the psycological dynamics of the VT massacre than David Von Drehle's.
A Good Week For Stupidity
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 2:59PM
I've got a column at Brainwash today, where you'll find my reactions to Obama's comparison of Don Imus to the Virginia Tech shooter and Harry Reid's disappointment that the Supreme Court upheld a law that he voted for.
Comedy Critique
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 2:40PM
"Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" is, potentially, a pretty funny line, but McCain didn't deliver it all that well. From watching the video, it looks to me like McCain hesitated as he was talking because he was worried that he might be being impolitic, and thus his timing was a bit off.
So, was it impolitic? I'm not so sure. It's not as if the question was "what's your position on Iran?" The questioner basically asked when the heck we were going to bomb Iran, and McCain attempt to riff off of that. My reaction is similar to Jesse Walker's take on Reagan's "bombing in five minutes" joke: "I was a firmly liberal 13-year-old when he said that, but I just couldn't go along with the condemnations raining down from my side of the aisle -- it seemed too much like something I would say if I somehow got to be president."
A Picture of Hubris?
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 2:38PM
Sometimes, the White House's stubbornness is respectable. At the same time, it can be downright unbelievable.
Kilmer Throws a Perfect Pass
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 1:25PM
No, not gritty quarterback Billy Kilmer. Mark Kilmer, over at Red State, makes an excellent point that Fred Thompson's chances are pretty decent, and explains why. In the process, he does me the honor of quoting an earlier column of mine. Not only that, but he interpreted my column exactly as I intended, which was not an endorsement of Jeb Bush but an explanation of why somebody who is solidly conservative could enter the race relatively late. Kilmer says, and I agree, that Thompson fits the scenario I described quite well.
RE: How To Flip Flop
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 1:23PM
Shawn, I appreciate your response, and it's good to see somebody sticking up for Romney for a change! You're right that Romney's explanation of his abortion views is more complicated than I went into in my prior post, but sometimes blog posts are lengthy and nuanced, and other times they just try to make a quick point, and my post fit into the latter category. I figured we'd spent so much time dissecting the abortion views of Romney and Thompson on this blog, that I didn't need to reiterate all the details. The point I was trying to make was a purely political one, that in today's sound bite culture, Thompson's explaining that abortion "means more" to him now because "I have seen the sonograms of my babies," is probably going to be more compelling to the average voter than Romney's explanation that the seeds of his conversion were planted in his meeting with a Harvard researcher. Thompson's is a simple, straightforward answer, and seeing your babies' sonograms is a very personal event that people can relate to on emotional level. Romney's statements, I believe, come off more cerebral in comparison. (Incidentally, when Romney was pro-choice he used to explain his position in personal terms--citing a close family friend who died from an illegal abortion, and his mother running for U.S. Senate as a pro-choicer in 1970.)
As to Shawn's broader question, "aren't flip flops precisely what those of us who advocate certain political, economic or social philosophies are seeking?" Certainly people who advocate particular policies want others to come around to their way of thinking, but, as I have argued recently, when it comes to choosing a president, there should be more to it than simply picking a person who currently agrees with you on the largest number of issues. For me, Sept. 11 not only changed my perception of what issues were most important, but also taught me how crucial it was to have a strong leader in a time of crisis. One of the main attributes of a strong leader, to me, is the ability to stick with one's beliefs through popular and unpopular times. So, if somebody has a tendency to flip flop for the sake of political expediency, it makes me fear that they don't have the stuff to be a strong leader when times are tough, opinion polls are down, and the media is on the attack.
As this all relates to Romney, if it were just abortion he had a change of heart on, it would be one thing. I think the abortion issue is a very complex one that many Americans continuously wrestle with. But for Romney, his reversal on abortion is just one of a series of changes he has undergone to dramatically transform himself in a very short time to fill a conservative vacuum in this particular election cycle.
Reid is a Disgrace
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 1:17PM
Mark Levin issues a challenge here. He is correct, and I join him. But he said it so well that I urge you to read his commentary in its entirety. All I can do is echo it. Harry Reid must go.
Race-Based School Admissions
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 1:01PM
The cases about race-based school admissions keep percolating. Here's my latest column, this on a case from California.
Nugent on 'Unarmed Helplessness'
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 12:45PM
Ted Nugent has a post-Virginia Tech commentary up on CNN's Web site, speaking out against gun control nuts:
He cites several instances in which people with guns have prevented or limited similar massacres. The Motor City Madman makes a lot of sense here.
Good Vibrations
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 12:33PM
John Shadegg reminds people offended by John McCain's bomb Iran ditty to listen to the Beach Boy's "Barbara Ann."
Wouldn't it be nice?
Breaking News Lookalikes
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 11:56AM
Before reading the caption for a photo of Virginia State Police Col. Steven Flaherty today on the Washington Times' Web site, my first impression of the picture was, "What is former Rep. Billy Tauzin doing in the news?"
Flaherty
Tauzin
A People's Court Adventure
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 11:18AM
This bit by Sean Ingram on what it's like to be on The People's Court is hilarious. It's long, complete with video, so this is just a very small sampling of the behind the scenes color:
Refreshments consisted of condiment packages, and an empty hot water pitcher, and an empty cold water pitcher. I imagined it would be this classy studio with pictures of Wapner up there, and nice folks helping us everywhere. but instead, it really looked like a low rent warehouse with Tv's mounted in the corners of the rooms showing live airings of cases going on in the studio just behind the wall. I would not have been surprised if someone told me that a porn shoot was going on and we had to wait, it was that kind of vibe.
***
We went into make up, and then into a second holding tank. Now this room was a piece of work. It is right behind where they interview you coming out of the court room, where the "hallway guy" asks you stupid questions and you are so pissed off you can't spit out a coherent sentence. Which by the way I swore I would not do, but that's later. This room was basically some 2 x 4's holding up unfinished drywall, and what walls it did have in there were completely covered in graffiti. Your usual assortment of genitalia, and swastikas.
***
I can't express how cool it was to push those doors forward and walk into court like you are some big stuff. We got to our stand, and they actually play that "duh duh dum dum" music and the synopsis of the case over the speaker while you walk in. The one thing I did notice is they really take liberty while describing your case. Man, to hear them talk, I wanted to stab this guy in the eye and leave him for dead on the street, which simply wasn't the case.
***
She told the manager how amazingly close the case was and that she found for the defendant and hit the gavel. That was that. I bet watching it, you could pull a Bart Simpson from the "I love Lisa" episode. "Watch this, you can actually pinpoint the second when his heart rips in half"! But it wasn't over yet, I still had to talk to the Hallway guy and answer whatever questions he had. I know I swore that I wouldn't be like those other people, but damn, I was so pissed that we lost, I followed suit like all other losers on that show in a stupor of rage.
I'm glad "it's not just a books thing"
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 11:13AM
From Publisher's Weekly:
Following a major restructuring of its newsroom, the Atlanta Journal Constitution has eliminated the books editor position formerly held by Teresa Weaver. However, Mary Dugenske, the paper's director of communications, said, "We will continue to publish our arts and book section every Sunday."
The newspaper announced impending staff changes in February, citing its desire to better support its online presence. Dugenske said that since that restructuring, more than half of the jobs in the paper's newsroom have changed. "Its not just a books thing," she said. "It's affecting all of our editors."NBC Is Toast
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 10:55AM
From media guru Howard Kurtz:
"In all the years I've been chronicling the media, I have rarely seen the tidal wave of resentment that has washed over television organizations that showed the now-infamous Cho video. In the minds of many Americans, this was a horribly offensive act, and no amount of explanation about the obligations of journalism is going to change that view."
Re: How to Flip Flop
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 10:35AM
While few would argue that Mitt Romney has fumbled his entrance onto the national conservative stage, Philip is far too harsh in this post and Romney—as I can attest from personally having had a lengthy, in depth conversation with him about the issue—is not nearly as pathetic or pat as one might surmise from reading it. Here, for example, is the heart of Romney’s July 2005 Boston Globe op-ed “Why I Vetoed the Contraception Bill”:
For all the conflicting views on [abortion], it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
You can't be a prolife governor in a prochoice state without understanding that there are heartfelt and thoughtful arguments on both sides of the question. Many women considering abortions face terrible pressures, hurts, and fears; we should come to their aid with all the resourcefulness and empathy we can offer. At the same time, the starting point should be the innocence and vulnerability of the child waiting to be born. In some respects, these convictions have evolved and deepened during my time as governor. In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead -- to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.
I have also observed the bitterness and fierce anger that still linger 32 years after Roe v. Wade. The majority in the US Supreme Court's Casey opinion assured us this would pass away as Americans learned to live with abortion on demand. But this has proved a false hope.
There is much in the abortion controversy that
Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.
A flip-flop has occurred, no doubt about it. And Romney’s stump speech could definitely use a bit of this eloquence these days. Nevertheless, whatever merits each of us chooses to grant Romney’s explanation for it, he has made a philosophical argument that does indeed extends beyond a Harvard researcher’s comment or a sonogram. Whether we choose to accept the argument or not is another issue entirely, of course, but let's not obscure it. After all, aren't flip flops precisely what those of us who advocate certain political, economic or social philosophies are seeking?
Gonzales Must Go
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 10:07AM
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is a well-meaning man who obviously has been Peter-Principled into a position that we Americans cannot afford to have him occupy. He ought to resign. I kept an ear on his testimony most of the day yesterday, and noted that he seemed clueless but honest. Reading further accounts in sources from across the political spectrum this morning leads me to conclude that he is not just clueless, but hopeless. Here's a guy who can't even remember a key meeting where key documents were passed around about a two-year review process that would result in the replacement of seven of the most important legal officers in the country. NO recollection of ANY specifics of the meeting! And here's a man who cannot even remember a conversation with the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES about a specific U.S. Attorney, when the president himself remembers the meeting even though that is only one small realm of the president's duties while oversight of USAs is a key function of the AG's job.
Gonzales was so incurious about all this that he agreed to the replacements even though he did not even, at the time, know what the reasons were for the firings of two of the seven.
He let an asinine deputy attorney general, Paul McNulty, run amuck. The firing of John McKay seems to have been predicated more on McNulty's hurt feelings than anything else. McKay had the temerity to ask other USAs to sign a letter complaining about one of McNulty's pet projects. Apparently, McKay actually performed the project well, but he had the sheer gall, horror of horrors, to object to the project. That's not disloyalty, it's called doing one's job. At the level of a USA, the USA has not just a right but an obligation to tell his superiors that his professional judgment is that the superiors are making a mistake. Failing to carry out their orders would be one thing, definitely punishable. But objecting to it while still carrying it out: That's admirable, laudable, supremely professional. McKay should never have been let go. Neither should poor Margaret Chiara, and neither should Kevin Ryan. One Republican senator yesterday (I forget whom) probably put it best when he said that some of the firings were based more on personal reasons than professional ones.
For allowing this to happen, also, Gonzales should go. As should McNulty. As should David Margolis, the career Justice employee whose hands were all over this.
There is no "scandal" in the replacement of the USAs, but the job of AG requires a competence above the level of avoiding legal impropriety. New leadership is desperately needed at Justice, notwithstanding several departments that do seem to be doing a pretty good job (counterterrorism, for example, presumably, based on the continuing success at interdicting bad guys and the lack of any major successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11). Alberto Gonzales is distracted, inarticulate, unfocused -- in short, incompetent. I feel sorry for him, because he obviously means well. But his testimony yesterday was just the most recent in a long series of embarrassments, and his performance overall has been mediocre at bestt. The president serves himself and the country badly if he does not replace Gonzales, soon, with a strong manager of independent stature, somebody like Mike Chertoff or Christopher Cox or Larry Thompson or Jim Talent.
Gonzales must go.
She Who Laughs Last, Laughs Best
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 9:48AM
Will Justice Ginsburg eventually prevail? Cass Sunstein argues that her dissent in the partial birth abortion case, which, "for the first time in the court's history, [justifies] the right to abortion squarely in terms of women's equality rather than privacy," could eventually become the majority view of the court.
Poll: Americans Don't Blame Guns
Posted by on 4.20.07 @ 9:26AM
A new FoxNews/Opinion Dynamics poll found that only 19 percent of Americans believe tougher gun laws can help stop shootings like Virgina Tech, while 71 percent disagree.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
How To Flip Flop
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 4:29PM
Via Hotline, I see that Fred Thompson, who has had two kids in recent years, explained to Bloomberg why the abortion issue "means more" to him now:
"I have seen the sonograms of my babies."
Say what you want about Thompson and abortion, but to the average voter this will likely be a lot more convincing than Romney's contention that he had a change of heart after hearing a Harvard researcher use the word "destroyed" with regard to embryos.
The Thompson Effect
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 4:13PM
Washington Post/ABC News is out with a new poll (story here, full results here). The headline is that it shows Giuliani's lead shrinking, and Clinton maintaining her lead. Another finding that has been noted is that a surprisingly high 54 percent of voters, and a third of Republicans, said they "wouldn't consider voting for" Mitt Romney. (Seperately, his support jumped from 4 percent to 9 percent since the last poll, so he's back to where he was in January). But I'd like to focus on the effect that Fred Thompson's entrance would potentially have on the race, and this poll is particularly useful for that purpose.
Pollsters asked Thompson supporters who they would vote for if Thompson didn't run. The results show that 37 percent would vote for Rudy, 22 percent would vote for McCain, 10 percent would vote for Romney, 7 percent for Gingrich, with the rest of the field fighting for crumbs. This is consistent with other polls showing Thompson eating into Giuliani's margin.
Partly, the Thompson effect can be attributed to the fact that Giuliani has the highest poll numbers, so there's statistically more votes to steal--it's no coincidence that the preference order of the second choices of Thompson supporters tracks closely with the first choices of the general Republican electorate. But there's more to it. When speculating about this, it's helpful to think of attributes Giuliani has which overlap with Thompson's attributes. As I have written before, I think that a certain amount of Giuliani's support comes from conservatives who view him as the most electable, and who want a strong on defense alternative to McCain. Thompson, because of his charisma, acting background, and general likability, is seen as electable, he has taken strong stands on national security, and social conservatives don't have to hold their noses when voting for him.
This doesn't mean that supporters of rival camps should celebrate the entrance of Thompson into the race. If McCain, Romney, or anybody else hopes to win the nomination, they are going to have to peel away at the the softer support for Giuliani. Thompson's entrance into the race would make that task a lot more difficult.
Clueless
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 3:54PM
I've been watching Attorney General Gonzales testify off and on all day. I am beginning to feel supremely sorry for him. He is getting eviscerated. Conservative Tom Coburn flat-out said he should resign. Jeff Sessions wasn't easy on him. Arlen Specter ripped him. And those are his supposed allies.
The problem is, though, that he seems utterly clueless. I really believe he is no deliberate liar. I think even the Dems are starting to realize that his problem isn't with honesty; it's a major problem with cluelessness. He comes across like Dan Quayle in that first press conference after Bush named him as his running mate. I.e, just not up to the job.
I want to defend the guy. He seems like such an innocent. He's just not on top of things.
But that's a pretty bad situation for an AG in a time of war against Islamoterrorists.
Chris Cox or Michael Chertoff or Larry Thompson for AG, please.....
It Is Society's Fault
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 3:07PM
Long before he snapped, Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui was picked on, pushed around and laughed at over his shyness and the strange way he talked when he was a schoolboy in the Washington suburbs, former classmates say.
I wonder how many of Seung-Hui's victims were also picked on in school?
Abusing His Authority
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 2:43PM
It looks like the awful crash involving Governor Jon Corzine was apparently due, in part, to the fact that the Governor's SUV was using its emergency lights and speeding at 91 mph.
A Poet's Revolutionary Past
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 2:28PM
A friend informs me, apropos Nikki Giovanni, one of stars of this week's EOW roundup, that she has authored poems that suggest she might not have been the most appropriate speaker to conclude last Tuesday's memorial service at Virginia Tech:
Revolutionary DreamsThese presumably were written before the age of video.i used to dream militant/dreams of taking over america to show / these white folks how it should be done / i used to dream radical dreams / of blowing everyone away with my perceptive powers of correct analysis/ i even used to think i'd be the one /to stop the riot and negotiate the peace /then i awoke and dug / that if i dreamed natural / dreams of being a natural /woman doing what a woman /does when she's natural / i would have a revolution
i wanted to write / a poem / that rhymes / but revolution doesn't lend / itself to be-bopping
then my neighbor / who thinks i hate / asked -- do you ever write / tree poems -- i like trees / so i thought / i'll write a beautiful green tree poem / peeked from my window / to check the image / noticed that the school yard was covered/ with asphalt / no green -- no trees grow / in manhattan
then, well, i thought the sky / i'll do a big blue sky poem / but all the clouds have winged / low since no-Dick was elected
so i thought again / and it occurred to me / maybe i shouldn't write / at all / but clean my gun / and check my kerosene supply
perhaps these are not poetic / times / at all
RE: Once More Into the Breach
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 2:23PM
Phil makes a fair point -- Giuliani does posess leadership qualities that make him attractive to conservatives in a way that Arlen Specter and Pete Wilson were not. I'm personally not convinced that those qualities necessarily make Giuliani uniquely qualified to meet our current challenges, but I can understand how someone could look at his undeniably strong record of accomplishment in New York City and conclude he is the most effective leader in the field.
My argument was that the Republican Party's pro-life stance is at risk in a way that its positions on taxes and terrorism are not. The frontrunner disagrees with the party on abortion. You have to go all the way down to the bottom tier to find Republicans who dissent from the standard GOP approach to the war on terror; the candidates who have deviated on taxes are now signing taxpayer protecting pledges or promising to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Nominating Giuliani endangers social conservatives' interests but nominating his nearest rivals would not similarly endanger national-security conservatives.
In fact, John McCain has arguably spelled out his national-security views in greater detail beyond tough talk than Giuliani. Even if Republicans must nominate a hawk, they don't have to pick a pro-choicer to do so. Conservatives who think Giuliani's executive experience would make him a better choice on this front will have to evaluate their own priorities and decide whether the rewards outweigh the risks.
Gruesome Watch
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 12:58PM
In their outraged response to yesterday's anti-partial-birth-abortion ruling, the Washington Post's editorialists trot out a fascinating defense of "the procedure known as partial-birth abortion," as in this response to Justice Kennedy's assertion that this abortion ban can withstand legal challenge when "medical uncertainty persists."
"Tell that to a woman whose doctor believes that performing the partial-birth procedure would provide a better chance of allowing her to bear children in the future," the Post sniffs. Wasn't it the liberal mind that once derided arguments about having to destroy a village in order to save it?
McCain's Announcement
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 11:55AM
From the campaign:
Re: To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast?
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 11:32AM
Philip,
I respectfully disagree. I think you underestimate the power of video, and the power of a 24/7 global media culture to disseminate such broadcasts in a way that ensures that we are never free of them again. In this age of file sharing and homemade filmmaking, clips of Cho are no doubt already being edited into loops for the productions of other malcontents whose names we do not yet know. Yes, Cho would have gotten publicity without the video, but it wouldn't have been on his terms; his elaborate broadcast allows him to dictate those terms to significant degree.
From the parts of the video I saw (yes, I watched it, too), Cho's rants are breathtakingly narcissistic, self pitying, and grandiose - right out of Psych 101 under the God complex, complete with references to Christ. Cho's broadcast may not be the impetus for others to commit mass murder who otherwise would not have, but it does offer them a significant solace in debating whether to go through with it: a promise of a kind of eternal life in the media age, a promise that they will at last be listened to. That seems like too much positive reinforcement to me.
p.s. I don't think you would be hypocritical to watch the video while also criticizing NBC for airing it. You and I do not control their broadcasting decisions, but we do have to live with them.
Feinstein the Hypocrite
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 11:24AM
I am absolutely stunned to find myself reporting that California's distinguished U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has so little character and intellectual consistency that she would try to score cheap political points by pretending to defend somebody that she herself had attacked. In 2006, Dianne Feinstein complained vociferously about US Attorney Carol Lam's lack of prosecutions for border violations. There is extensive, EXTENSIVE documentation that concerns about that aspect of Lam's performance led directly to the decision to include her among the USAs to be replaced. Yet now Feinstein is, as I write this, hectoring Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the decision to replace Lam, while she (Feinstein) offers a strong defense of Lam's performance. Unbelievable, or at least it would be unbelievable if it weren't so predictable coming from the Senate Judiciary Committee Dems. Have they NO shame? Feinstein apparently wanted Lam fired, or at least heavily pressured...but now she complains that Lam was fired. Hypocrisy, thy initials are D and F.
Once More Unto The Breach
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 11:11AM
Jim's column does an excellent job of explaining why pro-lifers have become increasingly skittish about Rudy Giuliani's candidacy, and why they shouldn't want to settle for his current assurances to appoint strict constructionist judges and uphold the Hyde Ammendment. It should be required reading for Giuliani's fans and foes alike. However, there is one part of the piece that I would like to take issue with. Jim writes of pro-lifers that: "Their fellow Republicans will worry about the war and taxes (as if there aren't pro-life candidates running who take mainstream conservative positions on those issues as well)..." Just as Jim thinks social conservatives should want a candidate who does more than make promises on judicial appointments, as someone who considers the War on Terror paramount, I think that national security conservatives should want a wartime leader who does more than "take mainstream conservative positions on those issues." When you're electing a commander in chief, it isn't just important to find someone who says the right things, but somebody who you think can actually lead. For instance, as a commentator, I could lay out the case for why we need to agressively fight terrorism, but lord help us if I were in charge of actually coordinating that effort. (Incidently, I think I would be able to carry out the task of appointing strict constructionist judges.)
I've been pretty clear about why I believe Giuliani would make the best wartime leader, but perhaps other primarily national security voters will prefer John McCain, or somebody else. The point is that, just as social conservatives have a right to demand more than vague assurances, national security conservatives should want more than a candidate who simply talks tough.
To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast?
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 10:17AM
Hugh Hewitt is in a tizzy over NBC's decision to broadcast the video that Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui recorded before he went on a shooting spree and mailed to the network in the two hours between shootings. Hewitt suggests it may be "the single worst editorial decision in the history of broadcast news." His primary beef with the decision is that that it would result in copy-cat crimes. Hewitt predicted the broadcast "will prime many killing pumps in the years ahead" and suggested "their decision could indeed kill others down the road."
While I do believe there are arguments against airing the video (the strongest being out of respect for the victims), given that I watched it, I think it would be hypocritical of me to become sanctimonious over the decision to broadcast it. But even beyond that, I believe the copy-cat argument is overblown. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if future mass murderers decided to video tape themselves, but I don't think the mere act of broadcasting Cho's video will provide an added impetus for people to become mass murderers who otherwise wouldn't have. A person deranged enough to shoot 32 people doesn't need the extra motivation of having his video broadcast on national television. Besides, to whatever extent Cho was motivated by a desire to be famous, that fantasy would have been realized even if NBC didn't air the video. Even Hewitt writes that "I would have published --instantly-- the text of the killer's statement's for the public to read..." I don't really see what the big difference is between text and video, especially because Cho's picture is already being plastered everywhere. If publicity is what he wanted, he would have gotten it even if NBC didn't air the video.
Cretins
Posted by on 4.19.07 @ 9:25AM
On the subject of earmarks, there is a good word for the Republican senators, mentioned in this Novak column, who oppose reformist Sens. Coburn and DeMint: Scuzzballs. May their own ears be marked by the detritus of vermin.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Virginia Tech = Outsourcing of Jobs
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 7:04PM
Guess who is already politicizing the Virginia Tech tragedy?
Not who you might think.
Only a Partial Victory on Partial Birth
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 5:50PM
My take on the partial-birth abortion case is far less triumphant than is that of most conservatives. I see serious warning signs. I think the decision was weak -- which is, of course, not to be unexpected from Anthony Kennedy. Read about it here, at the (London) Guardian's Comment is Free web site.
Global Warming Causes Smog In The Brain
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 5:46PM
From Irwin Stetlzer:
Cap-and-trade, properly done, and carbon taxes, properly levied, should be explored as ways of getting the costs of pollution reflected in the prices consumers pay. That would provide an incentive to entrepreneurs to come up with efficient alternatives to fossil fuel consumption and relieve governments of attempting to pick winners.
Since a carbon tax specifically means that we are taxing only carbon-producing technologies, and not other technologies, doesn't a carbon tax effectively pick winners and losers?
What To 'Feel' About The Homeless
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 5:40PM
Looking over Townhall.com this morning, I was reminded of this performance of Pink's self-righteous, simple-minded song, "Dear Mr. President":
My favorite line in the song is "What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street?" not so subtly implying that Bush doesn't see the homeless. But, given that Pink is very wealthy, how many homeless does she see?
Well, I see them on a daily basis at my Metro stop, Union Station, usually hanging around asking passersby, "Spare a little change?" And this is what I "feel" : Quit the booze and drugs, and get a job!
A Right-Wing Conspiracy So Vast
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 3:03PM
This kind of groundbreaking investigative reporting is why I read the Washington Monthly. I confess: When I went to work for the American Conservative, I was shocked to discover it was a conservative magazine. Then I came to The American Spectator and quickly learned that by some strange coincidence, it too was a conservative magazine!
With all this conservatism being published in conservative magazines, I don't know what critics of the liberal media are talking about. Fortunately, we can read informative articles about this shocking experience. (Hat tip: The Corner, the blog of yet another conservative magazine.)
Thomas Concurs
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 2:38PM
Clarence Thomas might make an excellent blogger. At less than 200 words, including citations, his opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart is all substance:
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, concurring.As Thomas suggests, this decision isn't much of a breakthrough, merely a continuation of the Court's practice of inserting itself into abortion debates. The Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 was specifically designed after the Stenberg ruling to pass muster with the Court; today's ruling merely holds that the effort was a success. The Court has provided a guideline for legislators -- write laws like the federal ban, not like Nebraska's ban (the main difference is that the language of the federal ban is more specific, and is very difficult to violate by mistake). What it hasn't done is extract the judiciary from the role in shaping abortion law; the "undue burden" standard of Casey remains the measure by which judges are expected to evaluate such laws.I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980.983 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring).
And the federal ban is, as Thomas hints, probably unconstitutional on commerce clause grounds. That wasn't at issue in this case, but it may be at issue in a future case. The implication, of course, is that pro-lifers still have good reason to push for state-level bans.
The New Term Limits
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 2:00PM
Jason Whitlock's column on the Imus controversy is fiery to say the least. Here's a couple bits from the opening:
I'm calling for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the president and vice president of Black America, to step down.
***
We've turned Jesse and Al into Supreme Court justices. They get to speak for us for a lifetime. Why?
If judged by the results they've produced the last 20 years, you'd have to regard their administration as a total failure. Seriously, compared to Martin and Malcolm and the freedoms and progress their leadership produced, Jesse and Al are an embarrassment.
Whitlock goes on to decry Rutgers women's basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer's "massive pity party/recruiting rally," adding, "The insistence by these young women that they have been emotionally scarred by an old white man with no currency in their world is laughably dishonest." More:
Imus' words did no real damage. Let me tell you what damaged us this week: the sports cover of Tuesday's USA Today. This country's newspaper of record published a story about the NFL and crime and ran a picture of 41 NFL players who were arrested in 2006. By my count, 39 of those players were black.
Has the strident mock emotionalism of this whole affair been more effectively dissected anywhere else?
Good Point on Ryan
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 12:38PM
The Prowler's post, below, on Kevin Ryan, is very important. Ryan was a hero. The next question is, WHO at DoJ pushed for Ryan to be fired? We know from multiple sources the answer to that question: David Margolis and Paul McNulty. The point I keep making is that if Margolis was so involved in all of this, that proves that the whole enterprise was NOT an improper political hit job for partisan purposes. Margolis is a career DoJ person and is neither a Republican partisan nor a conservative. And if the Prowler's reports are right, McNulty has been playing footsie with Chuck Schumer. He also reportedly is tight with the terrible twosome of Comey and Fitzgerald of "Kill Scooter Libby" fame. These guys are far from being Rove lackeys trying to improperly influence politically tinged investigations. If anything, in Margolis' case, he is antagonistic to those such as Ryan who would not put up with the liberal prevailing ethos at the US Attorney offices in Northern California. Ryan was loyal to the Bush agenda, and he succeeded in prosecutions which brought praise to the Bush administration. Nobody acting from conservative political motives would have wanted him replaced.
All of which gives the lie to the lefty conspiracy theories that the USA firings were nefarious.
Stupid, yes, at least in many cases. Bungled, yes. Showing bad judgment by Gonzo's team, yes. But nefarious? Sinister? Legally questionable? A hatchet job to stop embarrassing investigations? No, no, no, and no. Absolutely definitely positively not.
If the "mainstream" media had a shred of integrity, it would focus on Margolis' role. And it would stop reporting this whole story as if it were a scandal.
Republican Candidates on the Supreme Ct. Decision
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 12:30PM
John McCain:
"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
Mitt Romney:
"Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us."
Rudy Giuliani:
"The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it."
Another Blow to DOJ Judgment
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 12:18PM
One of the cases that the Supreme Court wrapped into its consideration of upholding the partial birth abortion ban took case in California, the Northern District of California, to be specific.
According to Department of Justice insiders, that case was put in place and defended by former U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan. "Ryan wanted to pursue the case, but others in office were horrified," says a DOJ staffer. "He fought to pursue the case and we let him. His case was the most difficult of the three that we pursued." The other two appeals were based in New York and Nebraska. The Nebraska appeal was thought to have the best chance of being overturned at the appeals court level.
Ryan went forward with the case, and the result of his -- and others' -- efforts are what we have today. Ryan was forced out, in part, due to "morale" and "management" issues in his office. Perhaps one reason morale was so low was that Ryan was pursuing cases like the partial-birth abortion ban, something most folks in San Francisco would oppose.
RE: External Fetal Cranial Vacuum Illegal
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 11:42AM
This is great news! Two thoughts:
1. It still shows how far we have to go in the abortion wars. Four justices voted against the ban. Apparently yanking the unborn baby's lower body out of the uterus, making an incision in the back of the baby's skull, and then vacuuming out the baby's brain is, to them, a "woman's right", not infanticide. Some people will, of course, always think that. But they should be a fringe element. The fact that the vote was 5-4 and not 8-1 suggests that they are still mainstream.
2. Future fights for Supreme Court nominations are only going to be that much more difficult. NOW, People for the American Way [sic], Feminist Majority and all the others have been warning that a strict constructionist court would be a threat to abortion. Now they have their "proof." This ruling will only energize them to fight harder and dirtier next time. Our side had better be ready.
It's Official
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 11:42AM
Today's Supreme Court decision on partial-birth abortion clearly establishes Anthony Kennedy as the new Sandra Day O'Connor.
Virginia Tech and the Cultivation of Courage
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 11:22AM
I remember going for an evening walk with my young wife some years ago. As we strolled past a heavily wooded yard with a house barely visible, I suddenly heard the menacing growl of a very obviously big and mean dog. My immediate reaction was to run. The big muscles in my legs flexed and fired. The only thing that stopped me was my wife's anguished cry, "Hunter, don't leave me!" I forced down the fear impulse, backed up and put myself between her and the threatening sound. We walked on and nothing happened.
When Professor Librescu, an old man, a septuagenarian whose body had been through the terrors of the Holocaust, spotted a terrible threat he pushed his weight against a door and tried to keep a killer from murdering his students. All but two of the students and Librescu got away. In an email exchange yesterday, one of my fellow Redstate contributors wondered why able-bodied young men would have chosen to run instead of coming to the assistance of their heroic professor.
Thinking of my own experience and looking at what happened in that besieged classroom in Virginia, I think I know the answer. Liviu Librescu had seen death up close much earlier in life. He very probably saw his friends and neighbors killed and had many opportunities to measure his own reactions in light of right and wrong, valor and heroism. It is no surprise to me that such a man would resist rather than run. I suggest to you that he knew exactly who he was. The young men in that classroom were probably a lot like me in the situation with the dog. They were untested and had probably never been in serious physical danger. More important, they had probably never stopped to consider what they would expect of themselves in a life and death situation.
There are a couple of lessons that come to mind. The one that many conservatives will point to is that we have a culture that does not successfully impute manliness. We already knew the ethic of dedication to wife and children had slipped badly. We knew less well that we weren't raising boys with expectations of self-sacrifice and protectiveness toward others. But this is the smaller of the two lessons.
The greater lesson is that we should all take pains to reflect on who we want to be and what we really believe. It was once common to speak of the examined life. That phrase fell under the massive heap of self-help materials and endless reflection on why we don't have a better sex life, more money, and a better job. But the examined life goes deeper than that. It comes down to knowing who you are. Without it, you will almost inevitably run in the face of danger, quail before the bully, and excel in self-justification after the fact rather than action in the relevant frame.
Jeff Emanuel made the point in his post that none of us know how we will react in these situations. I believe he is right about that, but I am at least equally sure that we can prepare ourselves for the event and drastically increase the chance that we WILL do what we merely hope we would.
RE: External Fetal Cranial Vacuum Illegal
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 11:00AM
This is obviously important news. The Supreme Court has upheld the first piece of federal legislation banning an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade and likely expanded the parameters for similar state abortion restrictions. Politically, it reinforces the Republican argument that conservative judicial appointments are important to pro-lifers. Both of President Bush's nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, voted with the majority.
It is also a reminder of how significant the courts will continue to be for pro-lifers. Not only is the Supreme Court still short of votes to overturn Roe, but the majority today stopped short of reversing 2000's Stenberg v. Carhart decision striking down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban. So legal gray areas remain and there is much more progress to be made.
Re: Timeline
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 10:20AM
I should have noted that Free Republic runs on West Coast time, hence the opening post was made at 10:14 Eastern time.
Abortion and the Moral/Legal Dichotomy
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 9:22AM
Earlier this month, I wrote about Rudy Giuliani's comments on public funding
for abortion, which I described as a blunder. Since making those
comments, Giuliani has continued to rankle pro-lifers, not just
because he is pro-choice, but also because of the way he has been
expressing his views. It's worth discussing criticisms of his
position, because they raise interesting broader points.
This is pretty representative of how Giuliani has been
characterizing his views on abortion during the campaign:
On top of the fact that he is pro-choice, his statement bothers pro-lifers on two levels: 1) It's a caricature of the pro-life position to suggest abortion opponents favor putting pregnant women in jail. 2) If he believes abortion is wrong, how can he favor allowing the practice?
To start, let me say that I agree that Giuliani should stop mischaracterizing the pro-life view by talking about jail. However, I don't think it's necessarily contradictory to be personally opposed to abortion but still think that ultimately it should be left up to the woman. One of the reasons abortion is such a contentious issue is that it isn't totally cut and dry and decent people of good conscience can come to different conclusions. Even pro-lifers acknowledge in their policy prescriptions an underlying gray area-- they recognize that terminating a pregnancy isn't quite the same as, say, shooting somebody. If the moral implications of destroying a fetus were cut and dry, why wouldn't pro-lifers favor putting a woman who had an abortion in jail? Why would they favor exceptions for rape and incest? Given that there are shades of gray in this debate, I don't think it's necessarily contradictory to personally find abortion morally repugnant, but still believe that a person of good conscience could disagree with you, and thus be uncomfortable with the idea of legally denying a woman the option.
This isn't intended as a blanket defense of Giuliani's position on abortion, and I can certainly understand why many pro-lifers have problems with him, but I thought that this specific criticism was worth addressing.
Virginia Tech Shooting Timeline
Posted by on 4.18.07 @ 7:23AM
It appears that Free Republic had the best moment-by-moment reporting of what was discovered on the Virginia Tech campus, with the post "Shots Fired at Virgina Tech" posted at 7:14 a.m. A parenthetical add-on to the headline says ("AP: 33 Dead"). But I believe that must have been put on later.
Amid all the back and forth from Freepers expressing various opinions, a very interesting series of facts emerges from an on-the-scene poster using the handle AppyPappy. Find the thread here.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
RE: Europe Reacts
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 10:01PM
Phil: The psycho was a senior at Virginia Tech. I don't think "social unrest" factors into it.
Media Slant by the Numbers
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 5:03PM
In this case, the numbers are 4 1/2 to 1/2. That's the ratio of liberals to conservatives on the op-ed page of this morning's Washington Post. Not exactly balanced. We have the wildly left Eugene Robinson, blasting Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales and Paul Wolfowitz in one fell swoop. Then we have lefty Richard Cohen, beginning his column by saying that Alberto Gonzales should wear a Mike Nifong mask while testifying before the Senate. For good measure, Cohen writes that voter fraud is "an urban myth." Then there is the increasingly sloppy and smear-mongering E.J. Dionne Jr., in a predictable jeremiad against racism. At the top right of the page is former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, who blasts the Bush White House for claiming privileges against congressional testimony. In the course of his column, Podesta makes an utterly unsubstantiated claim while discussing whether Bush US Attorneys "were fired to obstruct or interfere with a pending prosecution or to influence the course of a prospective prosecution." He writes that "evidence suggests that this may have been the case in several firings, including those of John McKay, David Iglesias and Carol Lam."
I call Podesta a liar.
I challenge Podesta to cite the "evidence" that even "suggests" that the Lam firing had ANYTHING to do with an attempt to improperly influence an investigation.
But back to the Post: The fifth and final column today was by Anne Applebaum, by most lights a centrist or, at best (from our vantage point) just ever-so-slightly center-right. As is usually the case, Applebaum's column was thoughtful -- in this case, a discussion of protests in Russia and Ukraine that comes down hard on the Russians. A good column, but hardly one that ANYbody on the Sunday morning news talk shows would disagree with -- in other words, not identifiably conservative, but utterly mainstream.
So to recap, we have an entire op-ed page without a single identifiably conservative voice.
I must admit that I rather admire the WashPost op-ed section in general, the way I used to admire The New Republic, because even though I usually disagree with it I find it (usually) thoughtful, well-written, well-argued, and undertaken with a serious attempt to be fairminded even though clearly coming from somewhere a bit left of center. Frankly, I often find the Post op-ed section more fair than its news pages, which feature a number of excellent reporters but which have lost almost all distinctions between straight news and analysis and which on big stories are repeatedly and demonstrably biased and flat-out unfair to the right.
But while it does feature a few conservatives as regular columnists (George Will, Robert Novak, Charles Krauthammer), it features an overwhelming preponderance of liberals as regulars. I GUARANTEE that the Post has never run an entire column page without a single identifiable liberal on it. I guarantee it has never featured a 4 1/2 to 1/2 ratio on any one day of conservatives to liberals (or, perhaps more accurately, 4-1-0 liberal-moderate-conservative).
By comparison, my former paper, the Mobile Register, featured a strongly conservative editorial stance. But it rigorously insisted on balance in its opinion columns. I actually counted once, for an entire six-month stretch, and found in our columns an almost perfect numerical balance along the philosophical/ideological spectrum.
Why can't the Post even attempt to be so fair?
Newt 'n' Nancy
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 1:55PM
Martin Frost compares and contrasts Nancy Pelosi with predecessor Newt Gingrich.
Re: You Think Yankee Stadium is Tough?
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 1:40PM
Jim, I'm not sure which guy you were talking about, but neither is likely a Yankees fan. The thrower had a Patriots' jacket on, and the target had a Sox cap on.
Name That Figure
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 12:55PM
While I'm all for constructive pieces like John's, how much money do you think publications will waste on articles that purport to explain the deeper meaning of the Virginia Tech tragedy?
RE: You Think Yankee Stadium Is Tough?
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 12:52PM
Paul, that probably was a Yankees fan who didn't like our pizza.
More on Sex-Ed
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 12:19PM
Some interesting responses to my Saturday post on the topic: Jim Skaggs notes some data on what factors do affect teens' sexual behavior (hint: not a government program), and Julian Sanchez suspects that "children are being used as a proxy for an expressive conflict between adults."
Democrats and Guns
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 11:27AM
One of the reasons why Democrats were able to take back Congress last year was that they ran a lot of candidates who supported gun rights (Jim Webb is one prominent example), and thus neutralized that issue in many districts that Bush carried in 2004. So, it would be very risky for the Democrats to attempt to use the Virgina Tech tragedy to resurrect any type of gun control legislation. They'd be unlikely to find the support in Congress, and if the leadership did convince moderate Democrats to go along with stricter gun control measures, it would cause problems for Democrats in 2008. So, my bet would be that nothing will happen on the gun control front in the wake of this horrible event.
Romney vs. Hillary
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 10:46AM
The AP reports that Mitt Romney said Hillary Clinton is wrong to say "it takes a village to raise a child," but in 1998 he said "Hillary Clinton is very right, it does take a village..."
The Romney camp defense is that in 1998, he was in the private
sector, and was talking about economic development, not raising a
family. I think that's fair enough. But I found this part of the
story worth noting:
A Clinton spokeswoman was not surprised at what some say is the latest flip-flop.
"To be safe, you might want to wait and ask him again tomorrow. He tends to change his positions pretty often," spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said.
One of the reasons that I'm so critical of Romney's candidacy is
that Republicans successfully won the last two elections in part by
convincing Americans that Gore told tall tales and thus couldn't be
trusted, and that Kerry changed his positions with the wind, so he
couldn't be an effective and decisive commander in chief. I was
naive enough to actually believe those arguments were rooted in
principle, but evidently, to some conservatives, they were just a
political tactic. Between his reversals on numerous issues, and his
exaggeration of his hunting record, Romney has managed to combine
the traits of both Kerry and Gore. Regardless of whether Romney is
able to convince conservatives that his evolution on a lot of
issues is genuine, his nomination would present problems because it
would provide Democrats with a treasure trove of video to portray
him as a teller of tall tales and a flip flopper--essentially
they'd be able to take the Republican playbook from 2000 and 2004
and use it against him. While conservatives may tolerate Romney's
flip-flopping as long as he's evolving to positions they agree with
(and indeed a lot of Romney defenders have argued that all that
matters is what he believes now), swing voters, who may or may not
agree with his current stances, will not be so forgiving. One of
the reasons Hillary Clinton has such high negatives is that people
perceive her as a phony, calculating political opportunist who will
say whatever she needs to to get elected. But in a Romney-Clinton
showdown, it would be very easy for team Hillary to neutralize that
issue.
Europe Reacts
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 10:15AM
A compilation of European reaction to the Virginia Tech shooting is here, but just to give a taste.
From France's Le Monde:
From France's Le Figaro:
"Contrary to what one would imagine, this backward stance is not something left over from the Wild West. It goes back to the creation of the United States and the War of Independence against the English. ...
Meanwhile, Spain's El Pais tells us how to interpret the U.S. Contstitution:
UPDATE: According to the latest report, the gunman immigrated to the U.S. in 1992 at the age of 8, so I suppose that would give him enough time to be affected by societal unrest, if that's what you want to attribute this tragedy to.
Good Mourning
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 8:45AM
My extended meditation on Virginia Tech, in memoriam, is here.
You Think Yankee Stadium is Tough?
Posted by on 4.17.07 @ 7:19AM
Don't bust a guy's chops about his pizza at Fenway:
Monday, April 16, 2007
Idiocy -- and Wisdom
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 7:29PM
John Nichols thinks that the proper response to the Virginia Tech massacre is to rent Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore's anti-gun, anti-American, anti-honesty documentary. The first commenter to his post has a saner take:
Secondest Biggest Political Mistake....the "culture warriors" on the Right seizing on this event to try to go after "video games", etc.and the winner...
Democrats/liberals/"progressives" seizing on it to try to push almost ANY agenda. Politically it's got disaster spelled all over it.
The "Three Gs" (God, guns, gays) has been steadily avoided or obfuscated by Democrats for years...and they know why. It kills them in the polls...and not JUST in the "Red States".
And if it looks like "trying to politicize a tragedy"...the politics get worse.
And if we go into "linkages" to "American militarism" or "macho attitudes" or "patriarchy" or the whole gamut of Hard Left coffee-house discussion topics....it'll get worse yet.
Government Gone Wild!
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 7:03PM
The National Center for Public Policy Research has a new book out Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
NCPPR President, Amy Ridenour, will be blogging about the some of the stories daily. Here is her intro blog post on the book, and here is the first story from it.
Re: Jim Gilmore, Candidate
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 4:41PM
Wlady, I hadn't read that article until you called it to my attention. Wow. Besides the presence of Mr. Josi, it looks like the Gilmore campaign is largely an amateur operation. That fact fails to recommend the man as a manager.
RE: Bloody Monday
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 4:30PM
Looks like the death toll is up to 32, including the gunman. And the headline says "at least." I'm saying prayers that it won't go any higher.
Bloody Monday
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 3:01PM
As of this writing, the death toll is up to 30 (plus the gunman himself). Every so often, a tragedy happens of such massive proportions that it allows us to put a lot of our petty differences in perspective. This is one of those events. Let us wish all the strength to the family and friends of the victims, who I'm sure we'll get to know a lot better over the next few weeks.
Re: Jim Gilmore, Candidate
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 2:35PM
Dave: Your item nicely confirms the critique of Gilmore's candidacy laid out the other week on our main page by Melanie Harmon, who really would like to support Gilmore. But without infrastructure, how far will conservative virtue take him?
Re: White House Press Corps Policy Promotion
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 2:34PM
Tougher gun laws? But Virginia Tech is already a gun-free zone. It is therefore a mystery how this tragedy could have possibly happened.
Clubbing McCain
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 2:25PM
Nothing like Tax Day for the Club for Growth to resume its wars on John McCain's tax policies. Most telling is the Club's insisting that McCain's acknowledge the error of his ways. Dream on! Here's the Club's just released press release:
McCain Economic Speech Falls ShortWashington - The Club for Growth expressed disappointment with John McCain's failure to embrace a pro-growth platform for cutting taxes in his economic speech today. "While Senator McCain deserves credit for his support for free trade, limited spending, and extending the Bush tax cuts, his record of opposing tax cuts speaks louder than his words today," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey.
"On paper, Senator McCain's speech reads like a stereotypical Republican stump speech," Mr. Toomey continued. "But when one considers his record of ardently opposing tax cuts, his consistent support for double taxation in the form of the Death Tax, and his historical ambivalence towards free market policies, platitudes and stump speeches are not persuasive. If Senator McCain wants to convince us that he is serious about charting a new, pro-growth course, he will need to take serious and specific steps in the direction of economic freedom." These include:
• First, Senator McCain needs to admit that his vociferous opposition to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was a mistake. He needs to concede that these tax cuts have played a central role in the economic prosperity and diminishing budget deficits our country has experienced over the past couple of years.
• Second, Senator McCain needs to demonstrate his commitment to oppose any tax increase by signing a pledge that rules out tax hikes, especially in light of his willingness to raise Social Security taxes in the past. Renouncing this position and signing the Americans for Tax Reform pledge would be a good start.
• Third, Senator McCain needs to propose a serious and detailed platform for pro-growth tax cuts that includes cutting the high, anti-competitive tax on corporate income, eliminating the Death Tax, and significantly reducing marginal tax rates across the board.
Did Dems Pressure Iglesias, Too?
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 2:05PM
One would have thought, judging from the Democratic smear tactics concerning the US Attorney situation, that Democrats themselves would never, EVER, think about inquiring about election-related investigations in the month before an election. After all, they have had conniption fits about the calls to USA David Iglesias made by Republican Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico.
One would need to think again.
On the morning of Oct. 4, 2004, less than a month before the 2004 national elections, the chief of staff for New Mexico's Democratic U.S. Senator, Jeff Bingaman, called the Justice Department to inquire about Iglesias' New Mexico Election Fraud Task Force (EFTF). Actually, the contact apparently was (at least) the second such call. Iglesias answered that it is DoJ policy to avoid "attempting to influence the outcome of an election through investigation or prosecution. I am not aware of any prosecution which will commence before November 2, 2004 [election day]. I know Donsanto would not authorize such action because he has stated the same."
Justice official Nancy Scottfinan followed up with other inquiries and reported to officials William Moschella and Crystal Roberts, on Oct. 7, a whole list of information that "we can say to Senator Bingaman's Chief of Staff." Among the info passed on was that Iglesias set up the task force "after he was contacted by the office of Bernaillo County Clerk Mary Herrera (D) who asked to meet about 3,000 suspicious registrations."
To repeat: The investigation was begun at the request of a Democratic county clerk. The office of the Democratic U.S. Senator made repeated requests about it, apparently with interest in how it might affect the elections.
This information comes from documents released on Friday, DAG 2330 and 2331, pages 37 and 38 of CD ROM documents group one on the House Judiciary Committee web site.
Is there anything wrong with this? Probably not. But it shows that it can be an entirely innocent and normal thing for senators to inquire, during election season, about the status of investigations with political ramifications. It takes at least some of the sting out of the breathless allegations against Domenici.
Granted, there are two differences in the cases. First, Domenici called Iglesias directly, whereas it was Bingaman's chief of staff who called and it was to the legislative affairs office at Justice, not to Iglesias, that he made his call. Second, there is no evidence that Bingaman did anything further that could be interpreted as putting political pressure on Iglesias or on DoJ, whereas it appeared that Domenici forwarded his complaints to the White House.
But the fact remains that it is just flat-out inaccurate to assert that senators are necessarily out of line to express concern about politically tinged investigations. The Democrats' pretense to the contrary is not just hypocritical, but a rank descent into character assassination of a sort that can, by tying up resources, distract attention from the actual job of law enforcement.
Scruton & Rieff
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 1:47PM
The Tocqueville Forum at Georgetown's Department of Government presents two events that may entice DC locals -- AmSpec's own Roger Scruton on Wednesday the 18th and a noon lunch roundtable on Philip Rieff, featuring Jeremy Beer, Jonathan Imber, and Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, on Friday the 20th. See you there.
White House Press Corps Policy Promotion
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 1:40PM
I caught a bit of the White House press briefing over lunch. Regarding the Virginia Tech shooting, a reporter by the name of April (no last name) was badgering Dana Perino, and strongly advocating that the President support tougher gun laws -- "Shouldn't the President...?" The bodies aren't cold before the gun control drumbeat begins.
April could be April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Network, according to this list.
Jim Gilmore, Candidate
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 11:41AM
If you think cash-on-hand has anything to do with the seriousness of a candidacy, Jim Gilmore supporters have some rethinking to do in light of this number: $90,107.
Allard for Romney
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 10:16AM
Romney picks up another U.S. Senator endorsement, this one from Colorado's Wayne Allard.
Re: Thompson
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 10:13AM
There's also a Weekly Standard cover story on Fred Thompson, in which he addresses some of the news accounts from his 1994 Senate run that described him as pro-choice:
"I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."
But, he adds: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate."
Should he jump into the race--as now seems likely--more and more comments like this will surface from that time indicating he did once hold views that most people would consider pro-choice. However, based on anecdotally on feedback I've gotten when reporting on this issue, it seems that his voting record and overall likeability will be enough to make social conservatives overlook those past statements. Many conservatives are desperate to find an alternative to the current crop of candidates, and they really like Thompson, so they'll be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.Another Kerry Flip Flop
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 9:58AM
John Kerry said he might decide to run for president again after all:
"Could that change?" Kerry said. "It might. It may change over
years. It may change over months. I can't tell you, but I've said
very clearly I don't consider myself out of it forever."
Iowa Happenings
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 9:56AM
The Des Moines Register reports that John McCain continues to emphasize his support for the war while former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore campaigns against Rudy McRomney.
Thompson the Blogger
Posted by on 4.16.07 @ 9:25AM
Last week, traffic on RedState to read Fred Thompson's commentaries crashed the site. Twice.
Apparently ABC Radio got the message. They gave Senator Thompson his own blog, of sorts. You can read Thompson all the time here.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
What is Victory?
Posted by on 4.15.07 @ 5:32PM
Steven Simon attempts to chart a middle ground in the Iraq debate, proposing a longer timetable than Democrats are contemplating. Leaving aside the timetable question, there's something odd about his position:
The Democrats, who recognize that victory in Iraq is unachievable, have reason on their side...So to review: In Simon's view, we can have an orderly withdrawal with the blessing of the Iraqi government, while still fighting al Qaeda, protecting Iraq from its neighbors, managing any post-withdrawal crisis, and encouraging reconstruction. But victory is unachieveable. Huh?What's needed is a timetable that meshes with politics at home and military and diplomatic realities in the Middle East. Washington will need to negotiate its withdrawal with the Iraqi government, assemble a coalition of neighbors to keep foreign fighters out of Iraq, cope with refugees from Iraq, help moderate Sunnis battle Al Qaeda, foster reconstruction, impede meddling outsiders, and plan for a humanitarian rescue if sectarian violence explodes after US forces leave.
And the departure has to be orderly. Residual troops need to be protected from attack. Nothing that isn't intended for Iraqi Army use must be left behind.
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
