Friday, May 4, 2007
Posted by John Tabin on 5.4.07 @ 6:14PM
Apparently, Iranian diplomacy is conducted by five year old boys
who flee
in horror when faced with an icky girl.
topics: Iraq, Iran
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.4.07 @ 1:11PM
It's so early and there will be so many more of these debates it
doesn't make sense to count anyone out based on last night's
performance -- especially someone who went into the encounter ahead
in the polls and with less to prove than the lower-tier
candidates.
That said, Giuliani really does need to decide how is going to
handle the abortion issue and then stick to whatever strategy he
settles on. If he is being fed lines to win over pro-lifers that he
keeps botching because he is pro-choice by conviction, he should
cut it out. If he is truly conflicted about the abortion issue like
millions of other Americans, he would do better just to say so. If
he wants to run as an unrepentant pro-choicer or as someone who is
personally pro-choice but operationally pro-life, he should just do
so.
Right now Rudy's abortion muddle is only making pro-choice
voters doubt him without helping him among pro-lifers. That won't
derail his candidacy but it doesn't help.
topics: Abortion
Posted by John Tabin on 5.4.07 @ 12:08PM
I've got more on the
debate at Brainwash. Plus, items on the French
election and John Paul Stevens's odd ideas about road safety.
Posted by John Tabin on 5.4.07 @ 11:47AM
John Judis compare a SurveyUSA poll of California Republicans
from last month to SUSA's poll on the debate and concludes
that Romney was the clear winner. That isn't an apples-to-apples
comparison, since not all CA Republicans watched the debate;
presumably a future poll of CA Republicans well offer some insight
into how much these debates actually matter. If Romney doesn't gain
ground, the answer is "not much."
Posted by Quin Hillyer on 5.4.07 @ 11:15AM
Sometimes the key thing in a debate is not the overall
impression, but a candidate's ability to hit a specific point that
important groups of voters care deeply about. A candidate could
stumble a bit overall throughout the debate, but if he is the only
one to use a certain phrase or take a certain position that is
essential for a sizable plurality of the target audience, that
candidate wins an important below-the-radar victory in terms of
actually securing votes.
That said, Giuliani did well in being the only candidate to
specifically identify the challenge as "Islamic fundamentalist
terrorism."
Hunter did well (politically, not necessarily on substance) to
be the only one to consistently hit the trade issue and
specifically link it to China and national security and jobs all at
once -- which could serve him in very good stead in the important
primary state of South Carolina. (The WSJ might cringe at his
answer, and I tend to be a free trader myself, but it is important
to recognize how big a political issue this is and how in tune with
main-street public opinion Hunter is on this.)
Huckabee (who was eloquent throughout the night) did well not to
try to separate faith from policy, but instead to say "My faith
explains me." He did it in a way attractive to Evangelicals
WITHOUT, somehow, being threatening to people who fear the mix of
church and state, because Huck made it clear he was talking about
his own approach, his overall worldview, rather than to any
particular doctrinal position.
Gilmore did the best job of presenting himself as a trustworthy
tax cutter.
Romney did perhaps the best job of appealing to the
still-substantial number of die-hard Bush fans within the GOP
electorate by giving an eloquent defense of Bush's MOTIVES in going
into Iraq, to protect the country. Say what you will about the
competence in carrying out the project in Iraq, it is just
despicable for the Dems and the press to attribute nefarious
motives to Bush on this front. Give the guy (Bush) credit for
acting on deep beliefs, whether or not you agree with his
decisions. Huge numbers of Republican voters sense Bush's sincerity
and REALLY resent the smears, the calumny, hurled his way, as if he
is sending our soldiers to die out of some weird greed or other
sick motives.
As I noted in an earlier post, only Tancredo said he would
pardon Scooter Libby. This might not be a big deal to rank and file
voters, but to activists who actually volunteer, this is a huge
deal. Fred Thompson already (if I remember correcrly) has called
for a pardon, and his stature rises even more for having had the
guts to do so, now that nine of the ten announced candidate have
run for the hills, tails between legs, on the issue.
I also think I noted earlier that Duncan Hunter said the right
thing on Terry Schiavo, while the others hemmed and hawed. Congress
did NOT try to tell a court what to do; Congress merely provided
federal courts the jurisdiction for another review of the case,
because so many facts were in dispute. There was NOTHING wrong with
what Congress did, and Hunter was right to stick to his guns.
topics: Trade, Islam, Iraq
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.4.07 @ 11:14AM
Much of the post-debate talk has been about how Rudy Giuliani
blew it, and I think it's fair to say he had a bad night. As John
Tabin pointed out, it demonstrated once again how
difficult the abortion issue is for him--it's an issue that
everybody knew would be his toughest to overcome, and he's proving
why. The bottom line is that when you have a long record of taking
a stance that is out of step with a constituency of voters who you
are trying to court, you're going to cause problems for yourself no
matter what--either flip-flopping, alienating the base, or speaking
in a muddle. Giuliani has thus far taken the latter course. Given
his past statements, there are certain questions that are going to
be impossible for him to answer satisfactorily. Such was the case
with the question as to whether it would be a good day for America
if Roe v. Wade were overturned--with his
past support for the decision, even a political wizard couldn't
have conjured up an acceptable answer. I've been thinking about it
since the question was initially asked, and I have no idea how he
could have answered it. John Podhoretz wrote, "All Rudy had to say was that he would
believe a constitutional travesty had been overturned and therefore
that it would be good day for America. This was a no-brainer."
Yeah, that would have been a great answer--if it were consistent
with his record, but because it isn't, he would have been blasted
for such a response.Â
Beyond his problems with abortion, Rudy just didn't seem like
himself--he wasn't comfortable up there. I can tell this because he
was stumbling on questions that I've seen him answer very well
before. For instance, when discussing the absurd temporary
expiration of the death tax in 2010 last month with Sean Hannity,
Giuliani said, "I do not suggest being on a respirator in
2010." That was a great line. But last night, he said: "We have to get rid of the death tax,
which is going to go to zero in 2010, which is going to create an
incentive. I can’t imagine what kind of an
incentive it’s going to create." This was much
more muddled, and he paused in the middle as if were thinking of
something better to say, but second-guessed himself.
With all of that said, I think that some of the criticisms of
Rudy's performance have gone overboard in declaring his candidacy dead or on life
support. It's far too early for anything like that. While he had a
bad performance, other than abortion--which was going to be a major
problem for him anyway--he didn't commit any major gaffes that will
come back to haunt him in the primaries and beyond. For instance,
while he answered the Sunni/Shiite question slowly, he ultimately
answered correctly. Had he blown that one, it could have been used
to undermine his credibility on national security. So, he still has
plenty of time to recover, but he definitely needs to step up his
game. If he doesn't get his act together and continues to turn in
more performances like this, he's toast. I just know better than to
count him out.
As for the other top candidates, I thought Romney and McCain
both did what they needed to do--Romney came off as articulate and
intelligent, and McCain came across as experienced and energetic,
although at times I thought he was a little over-the-top.
topics: Trade, Abortion, Constitution
Posted by Quin Hillyer on 5.4.07 @ 10:45AM
1. I agree with other observers, that Fred Thompson won by not
being there. While the others were jumbled together and made to vie
for time in a Hardball-like format, Thompson's stature only grew by
not being reduced to that level.
2. Duncan Hunter had terrific, concise, understandable answers
on the following topics: a) "standing up" the Iraq military; b) the
border fence; c) eliminating manufacturing taxes. He also was the
only one who did not equivocate on the Terry Schiavo case, saying
the congressional action was "the right thing to do." That was a
big signal to the pro-life community that he has guts to stand
against the tide of "elite" opinion.
3. John McCain did a good job when asked about which Democrat
other than Lieberman he would invite into his Cabinet. Rather than
go with a politician, McCain talked about going to innovators and
business leaders such as ones in Silicon Valley and saying "Now,
come serve your country." He effectively took a political question
and raised it above politics, into the realm of patriotism. He has
a unique ability to pull that off -- because it really is genuine
from him, straight from his heart.
4. Romney did a great job on turning around a loaded question on
religion by saying: "I don't say ANYthing to Roman Catholic
bishops." They have the absolute right, he said, to take stances
within their faith. (This short summation does not do justice to
the effectiveness, and appropriateness, of his answer.)
5. Rudy Giuliani had the worst answer of the night. It was part
of his answer on abortion. Conservative blogs are blasting him for
his overall answer, but I haven't seen anybody blast him for the
most egregious specific aspect of his answer, which has less to do
with his exact position on abortion than it does on his position on
the overall role of the judiciary. Here's the transcript:
MR. MATTHEWS: [On Roe v Wade] Okay to repeal? MR. GIULIANI:
It would be okay to repeal. Or it would be okay also if a strict
constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge
has to make that decision.
MR. MATTHEWS: Would it be okay if they didn't repeal
it?
MR. GIULIANI: I think that -- I think the court has to make
that decision, and then the country can deal with it. We're a
federalist system of government, and states could make their own
decisions.
Here's what is wrong with that answer: It makes the judge, or
the court, into the arbiter, rather than the Constitution itself as
the arbiter. It also is a mess of logic. If "the court has to make
that decision, and then the country can deal with it," then it is
an absolute non sequitur to say that "states could make their own
decisions." He is saying that it is "okay" for the courts to repeal
or NOT to repeal Roe, meaning the judges are all-knowing, rather
than that the judges are bound by the Constitution, but in the next
breath he says the states should decide, which could happen ONLY if
the courts DO repeal Roe.
In short, the mayor's answer shows either that he doesn't know
what he is talking about, or else that he believes the
fundamentally unconservative notion that judges are supposed to act
as Solomonic or perhaps Platonic tribunes of ultimate wisdom rather
than as constitutional officers. Either way, the answer was
horrendous.
MORE COMMENTARY ON THE DEBATE LATER...
topics: Taxes, John McCain, Business, Religion, Abortion, Constitution, Military, Iraq
Posted by Quin Hillyer on 5.4.07 @ 10:17AM
(cross posted from Confirm Them) It
occurs to me that the other candidates are missing a real
opportunity by not challenging John McCain's repeated attempts to
claim the mantle of being the hero of the conservative judicial
wars. He keeps claiming pride in having helped secure confirmation
of Roberts and Alito. Another candidate should say his claim is
nonsense, and challenge the whole Gang of Fourteen deal. I know a
few people here disagree, but the vast majority of conservatives to
whom I talk think the Gang of Fourteen was a disaster. It is a
simple fact that if the Constitutional Option had been implemented,
Roberts and Alito would have been confirmed anyway...and so would a
whole host of other judges. Regardless of one's view of the
tactical situation, it would be an easy thing for a GOP
presidential opponent to ask McCain why, if the Gang of 14 was such
a good deal, the numbers of confirmed appellate judges in 2005 and
2006 -- in a GOP Senate for a GOP president -- were so
substantially below the numbers of nominees the GOP Senate
confirmed in the 5th and 6th years of Bill Clinton's Democratic
presidency.
Meanwhile, McCain is just full of bull when he tries to claim
that his main motivation for joining (actually, LEADING) the Gang
of 14 was to get conservatives confirmed. When he first began
working on the Gang deal, his stated motivation -- this is PUBLIC,
mind you -- was less to help get nominees confirmed than it was to
preserve the right to filibuster nominees. It was to protect a
supposed institutional prerogative within the Senate, not to help
get beyond the utterly untraditional, clearly anti-spirit-of-the
Constitution, use of the filibuster to permanently kill judicial
nominations. Moreover, before McCain went public with the idea of a
Gang deal, the Constitutional Option appeared to have a real chance
of passing -- which would have meant the confirmation of almost all
nominees.
And the fact remains that the confirmation of appellate nominees
came to a virtual standstill after the Gang's deal. Yes, we got the
three controversial nominees confirmed (while several others were
killed for good), and then we got Kavanaugh and two or three
others. But that was it. A good candidate would turn the issue
around and hang those numbers around McCain's neck.
topics: John McCain, Bill Clinton, Constitution
Posted by James Poulos on 5.4.07 @ 8:18AM
Even if you stipulate that everything Paul said about Libby was
right or even accurate, the conclusion doesn't follow simply as a
matter of logic. That's why the line fell flat. If you want to stir
the hearts of paleos, Kossacks, pacifists, and a lot of other
people, you're much better off cutting to the quick and telling
Congress to pass a law criminalizing conspiracy to commit war.
topics: Law
Posted by Hunter Baker on 5.4.07 @ 8:06AM
As a former intern to a person who had regular access to Chuck
Colson, I read Doug Bandow's piece on Colson and his condemnation
of Circuit City's lay-off of 3,400 persons with interest. For what
it's worth, I tend to think Bandow is right in this case and Colson
may well be wrong.
However, after making a rather specific case against Colson's
broadside, Bandow ends with this whopper of an assertion:
There's no Christian politics, whether right
or left. Nor is there any Christian economics, whether capitalist
or socialist. People should be moral because they are human beings,
not because they are businessmen.
You can't just drop a statement like that
out of the sky. I invite Mr. Bandow to develop his point further
so that I may respond more fully. I may be reached at
hunterbaker-at-gmail-dot-com.
topics: Economics, Business
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.4.07 @ 7:34AM
Oh, I don't agree with Paul's answer. I'm just saying it
probably won't matter that much to the average voter, who only
vaguely followed the Plame/Libby matter. My guess is it wasn't even
a seriously considered response -- it was just a symbolic answer to
show solidarity with a certain kind of antiwar voter and an
opportunity for Paul to inject his Iraq views into the debate. Now,
there are probably even fewer of those kinds of voters in the
Republican primaries than there are people who care deeply about
whether Libby gets pardoned, but that's why Paul's is largely a
symbolic candidacy.
topics: Iraq
Posted by John Tabin on 5.4.07 @ 2:02AM
Jim: I know you're grumpy
about the fact that foreign policy defines our political
battlelines. But do you really not have any problem with Ron Paul
more or less endorsing the criminalization of policy disagreements?
Really?
topics: Foreign Policy
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.4.07 @ 1:37AM
I forgot that Scooter Libby was our new litmus test issue on the
right. Thank you for reminding me. Perhaps we can compromise and
have a Ron Paul/Scooter Libby ticket. At least half of that ticket
would be in favor of smaller government, tax cuts, the Second
Amendment, and the right to life.
Fellows like Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee, the first a good
conservative soldier and the latter an eloquent sound-bite artist,
tend to do quite well in these debates. Unfortunately for them, so
did Alan Keyes in 2000. My guess is they won't eat into the lead
enjoyed by Rudy Giuliani and John McCain much more than Keyes did
to Dubya and McCain.
My pick for winner: Fred Thompson.
topics: John McCain
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 5.3.07 @ 10:32PM
John, Quin: I tend to agree Duncan Hunter was first rate -- if
not presidential then certainly a Defense Secretary in any
competent administration.
Rudy's getting lousy reviews. I wonder if that has anything to
do with his asking-for-trouble response to the question about what
if Roe were overturned. It wouldn't make his day, in other
words. In fact, he suggested he'd be fine if the Supreme Court
decided to keep it on precedent grounds. Fred Thompson: your
numbers just jumped another five to ten points.
Biggest loser: the supposedly principled libertarian champion
Ron Paul. He replied regarding any pardon of Scooter Libby by
saying the guy deserves to rot given his role in leading us into
the Iraq war. Unbelievable. Unless Paul is now a paleo or a
Kossite.
Incidentally, the questions were insulting, most of them
premised on liberal, gotcha notions -- some of the followups were
press conference like, completely inappropriate in such a setting.
And what's with the "yes or no" questions from viewers? Tancredo
did well avoiding such a trap.
topics: Supreme Court, Iraq
Posted by John Tabin on 5.3.07 @ 10:15PM
Gotta disagree on Hunter, Quin. If I hadn't been taking notes, I
doubt I'd remember a word that he said.
Posted by Quin Hillyer on 5.3.07 @ 9:59PM
Trying to be totally objective here. Of the frontrunners, McCain
edged Romney, with Rudy trailing. On points I counted six
particularly strong positive impressions each for McCain and
Romney, but McCain seemed more likable. (Giuliani had four positive
impressions.)
Two of the lesser-knowns distinguished themselves. The best
debate performance of all -- note, this is judging by who advanced
his earlier position the most -- was Duncan Hunter, with nine
very strong positive impressions and a presidential
bearing. Huckabee, who I have made clear I don't like, was quite
good overall and had six specific positive impressions. (Gilmore
had five positive impressions, but they did not stick in one's mind
after he finished talking.) Tancredo, Paul, Brownback, and Tommy
Thompson faded to the background -- although only Tancredo had the
guts, correctly, to say he would pardon Scooter Libby. The absent
Fred Thompson would have made a strong stand there, I believe.
In sum, I would say the top four finishers were, in order, 1.
Duncan Hunter, 2. John McCain, 3. Mike Huckabee, and 4. Mitt
Romney. Again, I stress this is not my order of preference, but my
assessment of their performance tonight.
topics: John McCain
Posted by John Tabin on 5.3.07 @ 9:52PM
If you were trying to elicit answers that were as unenlightening
as possible, you could do worse than to ask whether Republicans
like the idea of Bill Clinton returning to the White House.
topics: Bill Clinton
Posted by Hunter Baker on 5.3.07 @ 4:57PM
YouTube just keeps biting Mitt Romney.
Check out this compilation
where Mitt embraces the pro-choice position (including by throwing
out the old "I knew someone who died from an illegal abortion"
bit), distances himself from the Reagan economic record ("I was an
independent during those years. I'm not trying to go back to
Reagan."), and blathers on about the glass ceiling.
The Reagan bit hits at about 2:30 on the video.
EGAD.
topics: Abortion
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.3.07 @ 3:38PM
That's how many anti-Olmert protestors
gathered in Tel Aviv to demand that the Israeli Prime Minister
step down, according to organizers. There's no way of saying
whether that number is exaggerated, but it's clear from the picture
that the turnout was massive. And organizers say this is just the
first in a series of protests. After the Lebanon fiasco, I
predicted that Olmert would be gone by the end of 2006, and have
written his political obiuary on several occasions since, so I
hesitate to say this is the end for him. But if this isn't the end,
it's hard to comprehend what would be.
topics: Israel
Posted by Reid Collins on 5.3.07 @ 1:34PM
Wally
Schirra was among the nicest...self-effacing enough to have on
his cup his kidding name, "Captain Sky Ray."
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.3.07 @ 12:45PM
Michael Graham has a tough piece on George Tenet in the Boston
Herald.
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.3.07 @ 11:46AM
After reviewing his past debates, the NY
Times asks:
Which
Rudolph W. Giuliani will show up tonight in California for the
debate among 10 Republican presidential candidates? The
hard-hitting prosecutor? Or Mr. Nice Guy?
I would say that in this stage of the campaign, still leading in
polls, Giuliani will play nice with his rivals. One thing that will
be interesting to watch is whether the lower-tier candidates will
spend more time attacking Giuliani or Romney. While Giuliani is the
current front-runner, Romney is occupying space as a conservative
alternative, so Gilmore, Huckabee, Brownback, etc. all have to get
past him before challenging Giuliani. Most likely, what we'll see
is the lower tier candidates attacking the top three as a group,
arguing that none of them are real conservatives who deserve to
lead the party of Reagan.
Given that the debate is this early, it's unlikely to have much
of an impact. For the top tier, the main goal should be to avoid
major mistakes that could be used against them down the road.
Meanwhile, if one of the bottom tier candidates has a strong
showing, it would give him a boost. But if none of the candidates
impresses, Fred Thompson will come away as the big winner. He has
achieved mythical status to those conservatives unsatisfied with
the current crop of candidates, and a lackluster debate will just
add to that.
Posted by Quin Hillyer on 5.3.07 @ 11:18AM
From an eyewitness (not me) last night: New York's Mayor
Bloomberg walked into Ristorante i Ricchi last night with an
entourage. There he met (or maybe just happened to run into) TIME's
Margaret Carlson, and they chatted for a while. Then Bloomberg
left, while an aide (press secretary?) continued talking with
Carlson. Then the aide and Carlson individually left.... and
Bloomberg returned, in the company of GOP defeatist Sen. Chuck
Hagel of Nebraska. They stayed in discussions for a long time.
The eyewitness wonders: Could the two renegade Republicans be
talking about a third-party run for the White House? Lord forbid. I
can just see the platform: Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but only
if the Iraqis make smoking a capital offense while raising their
own taxes.
topics: Taxes, Iraq
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.3.07 @ 9:56AM
A clip of his appearance is up on YouTube. From this bit, looks like he did a
good job.
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.3.07 @ 9:40AM
The Jerusalem Post, has an
analysis on how Ehud Olmert has been able to hang on to power
despite low popularity, a devestating report on his handling of the
war in Lebanon, and calls for resignation from within his own
party. Hanging on to his job is about the only thing Olmert has
proven adept at--especially remarkable in a parliamentary system.
His next hurdle will come tonight, (i.e. in the next few hours
Israel time) as massive protests are
planned to demand Olmert resign.
topics: Israel
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Posted by David Hogberg on 5.2.07 @ 5:44PM
Ezra Klein posted a comment on my "Uninsured Denier" post. To read the whole thing, go here and scroll down. Among the charges that he
levels at me is that I'm intellectually dishonest and
misrepresenting him. He writes,
In any case, I'm disappointed. I'd been sending you my
sources under the impression your were an intellectually honest
interlocutor who wasn't out to misrepresent my points. Not only was
i wrong on that, but to see you suggesting I've somehow compared
folks denying the uninsured numbers to those denying the holocaust
is, well, breathtakingly insane.
With regard to those charges, take a look at Klein's last paragraph in his post on
the uninsured again:
The insurance industry isn't prone to overhyping the
millions of Americans without insurance, and if they thought
themselves capable of calling it 15 million rather than 45 million,
they would. They don't. And so, if you're a denier, ask yourself:
Are you really comfortable with a world in which the insurance
industry is more intellectually honest than you are?
To understand my thinking, consider the parallels between the
term "holocaust denier" and Klein's use of the term "denier."
First, Klein treats the 45 million statistic as an unassailable
fact. The term holocaust denier implies that the denier is trying
to deny an unassailable fact, namely the holocaust. Second, Klein
is suggesting that those who deny the 45 million statistic are
intellectually dishonest (unless he believes that insurance
companies are paragons of intellectual honesty, but I think it's
safe to assume he doesn't). Intellectual dishonesty is also
implicit in the term holocaust denier; such deniers usually claim
either the holocaust is Jewish propaganda or that "bad things"
happened under Hitler but it wasn't his fault.
Finally, in recent months a number of leftists have been bashing
global warming skeptics with the term "global warming deniers,"
explicitly linking
the term to "holocaust deniers." Thus, I saw Klein's use of the
term in the context that he used it, and I concluded that the trope
had moved from global warming to health care.
Intellectually dishonest? Hardly. Misrepresenting him? Not
intentionally.
Misinterpreting him? Well, that's fair. I'll plead guilty to
that.
topics: Health Care, Global Warming
Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 5.2.07 @ 1:25PM
As if in response to Shawn Macomber's report from
Tallinn, Russian goons disrupted the
Estonian ambassador's press conference in Moscow today amid shouts
of "Fascist Estonia" -- this in further crude reaction to the
Estonian government's removal of a WWII memorial to the Red
Army.
topics: Russia
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.2.07 @ 12:16PM
Vanity Fair has published excerpts from Ronald Reagan's diaries, which
were edited together by historian Douglas Brinkley and due out
later this month. Others have pointed out some of his comments about Michael Jackson ("I was surprised at
how shy he is") and Al Haig ( "It's amazing how sound he can be on
complex international matters but how utterly paranoid with regard
to the people he must work with.") I've yet to read all of the
excerpts, but a few parts especially interested me.
Reagan's reaction to Israel's boming of Osarak:
Sun. June 7 • Got word of Israeli bombing of
Iraq-nuclear reactor. I swear I believe Armageddon is near.
Returned to W.H. at 3 p.m. More word on bombing. P.M. Begin
informed us after the fact.
Tues. June 9 • Ended day with an N.S.C. meeting re
the bombing of Iraq. P.M. Begin insists the plant was preparing to
produce nuclear weapons for use on Israel. If he waited 'til the
French shipment of "hot" uranium arrived he couldn't order the
bombing because of the radiation that would be loosed over
Baghdad.
I can understand his fear but feel he took wrong option. He
should have told us & the French, we could have done something
to remove the threat.
However we are not turning on Israel-that would be an invitation
for the Arabs to attack. It's time to raise H-l world wide for a
settlement of the "middle-east" problem. What has happened is the
result of fear & suspicion on both sides. We need a real push
for a solid peace.
Given my
recent research, I was also intrigued by some of Reagan's
thoughts after the 1983 Marine baracks bombing in Beirut:
Sat. Oct. 22 & Sun. Oct. 23 • About 2:30 in
the morning awakened again: This time with the tragic news that
more than 100 Marines in Beirut had been killed by a car bomb
driven by a suicide driver who drove the truck right into the H.Q.
building & blew up with it. All our plans changed-we arranged
to depart the cottage [in Augusta, Georgia] at 6:30 a.m. & go
back to Wash. Of course by this time it was Sun. Oct. 23.
I've spent the day in meetings on this & Grenada. We're going
to go on with the invasion. Tonite our men are staging a landing to
gather intelligence. If everything is O.K., tomorrow night is D.
day-well actually it will be early morning Tues. Meanwhile Gen.
Kelley (Marines) is leaving for Lebanon. We all believe Iranians
did this bombing just as they did with our embassy last April.
Mon. Oct. 24 • Opened with NSC brf. on Lebanon
& Grenada. Lebanon gets worse as the death toll climbs. More
bodies are found & more critically wounded die...
Phoned Tip [O'Neill, Speaker of the House] & Howard [Baker,
Senate majority leader] to express hope they'd stay firm on keeping
the Marines in Lebanon-both said yes.
topics: Iraq, Iran, Israel, Nuclear Weapons
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.2.07 @ 10:56AM
Watching eight Democratic presidential candidates debate last
week and anticipating Thursday's ten candidate GOP debate, I find
myself disappointed by the low number of contenders on stage at a
given time. I think an enterprising TV producer should combine the
two fields, add Al Gore, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel,
and Mike Bloomberg for good measure, and do an all-out bipartisan
battle royal. The last man (or woman) standing takes the big prize.
We can wrap up this election by June!
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.2.07 @ 10:04AM
The turnout for immigration protests this year were far lower than last year. Over at the Corner, Mark
Kirkorian thinks he knows why:
I think part of the explanation is that the
national open-borders groups (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National
Council of La Raza, Service Employees Int'l Union, American
Immigration Lawyers Assn., etc.) concluded that last year's
marches, representing as they did the illegal-alien
Will to Power, were an example of what the Marxists used to
call
"premature revolution", where the social context was not yet
ready for the application of the new ideology. The result was a
backlash, and the failure of the amnesty bill passed by the
Senate.
I actually think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Congress
has been so consumed with Iraq, that immigration isn't on the radar
like it was last year. A year ago, it seemed like there was a
decent chance that some sort of immigration reform would pass,
while it doesn't seem like that's in the cards at this point. Also,
with Democrats now in control of Congress, there's a better chance
that whatever reform gets passed will be favorable to immigrant
groups , so there's less to protest.
topics: Law, Iraq, Immigration
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.2.07 @ 9:45AM
The NY Times
reports:
An academic study of the National Basketball
Association, whose playoffs continue tonight, suggests that a
racial bias found in other parts of American society has existed on
the basketball court as well.
A coming paper by a University of Pennsylvania professor and a Cornell
University graduate student says that, during the 13 seasons
from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater
rate against black players than against white players.
Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business
and public policy at the Wharton School, and Joseph Price, a
Cornell graduate student in economics, found a corresponding bias
in which black officials called fouls more frequently against white
players, though that tendency was not as strong. They went on to
claim that the different rates at which fouls are called "is large
enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably
affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew assigned
to the game."
topics: Economics, Business, Sports
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.2.07 @ 9:40AM
I just watched the video of Fred Thompson's interview with Sean
Hannity, and he sounded very much like a man who has already
decided he was going to run. Now it just seems like it's a matter
of finding the right time to make it official. Asked what his
mindset was, Thompson cited "practical things" such as family
considerations and contractual obligations. "You don't change on a
dime, you think you're going in this direction with your family,
and your life, and you go in another direction," he said. "You take
some time. I'm taking this time. I'm talking to some of the
smartest people, I think, in this country about some things that
are very important to me." At this point, I'd be shocked if
Thompson didn't run for president.
topics: NATO
Posted by Hunter Baker on 5.2.07 @ 8:28AM
Hugh Hewitt has worked his larynx and fingertips to the point of
tender redness arguing that we should all pay no attention to
whatever exactly is the content of Mitt Romney's LDS beliefs.
And that's fine. I don't agree that we should be uninterested in
anyone's primary philosophical, religious, or metaphysical beliefs,
but to each his own.
But then out of nowhere, Romney is asked for his favorite novel.
His reply? Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield
Earth.
Okay, so the money is coming from Utah AND L.A.!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Posted by David Hogberg on 5.1.07 @ 7:02PM
For sheer ability to manipulate statistics, you can't do better
than the Marc Weisbrot at the Center for Economic and Policy
Research. Here's a part of his argument on why economically France isn't any worse the
U.S.:
Now for some arithmetic regarding France's notoriously
high unemployment rate among young people, which shaped politics
there and influenced world opinion during the youth riots in 2005.
The standard measure of unemployment puts the unemployed in the
numerator, and unemployed plus employed in the denominator (u/u+e).
By this measure, French males age 15-24 have an unemployment rate
of 20.8 percent, as compared to 11.8 percent for the US. But this
difference is mainly because in France, there are proportionately
many more young males who are not in the labor force - because more
are in school, and because young people in France do not work part
time while they are in school, as much as they do in the United
States. Those who are not in the labor force are not counted in
either the numerator or the denominator of the unemployment rate.
A better comparison then is to look at the number of unemployed
divided by the population of those in the age group 15-24. By this
measure, the U.S. comes in at 8.3 percent and France at 8.6
percent. Both countries have a serious unemployment problem among
youth, and in both countries it is highly concentrated among
racial/ethnic minorities. But the problem is not much worse in
France than it is in the United States.
What Weisbrot doesn't reveal is the number of people not
participating in the labor force in France and the U.S. for males
age 15-24. But do a little math, and you figure out that in France
there must be about 141 males age 15-24 who don't participate in
the labor force for every 100 who do (20.8/(100+141) = 8.6 -- and
if that confuses you, email me at dwhogberg@gmail.com and I will
explain it to you). For the U.S., we have about 42 males not
participating in the labor force for every 100 that do
(11.8/(100+42) = 8.3).
Wow! That's quite a difference. One has to wonder why France has
over three times as many males age 15-24 not participating in the
labor force as the U.S. does. Weisbrot tries to explain it away by
claiming "young people in France do not work part time while they
are in school, as much as they do in the United States." But that
just begs the question, why don't as many young people in France
work part time while they are in school as they do in the U.S.?
Raising that question, however, might lead to an answer that
Weisbrot doesn't want his reader to come to: France's rigid labor
market doesn't provide many part-time opportunities for youth.
As a final point, I don't fully buy the argument that the
difference between France and the U.S. in non-participants in the
labor force on the fact that French students don't work part time.
That may be a partial explanation, but a much bigger factor is all
of the youth in the Muslim ghettos in France who can't find work.
(Indeed, Weisbrot subtly gives this away when he writes, "Both
countries have a serious unemployment problem among youth, and in
both countries it is highly concentrated among racial/ethnic
minorities.")
That leads to another question that Weisbrot won't like: Why is
the U.S. so much better a creating jobs for its immigrants than
France is? Maybe it's that the U.S. is better than France
economically.
topics: NATO
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.1.07 @ 6:06PM
As expected, President Bush vetoed the war spending bill.
topics: Iraq
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.1.07 @ 4:33PM
Rudy Giuliani framed immigration as a national security issue this morning at a conference sponsored by the Latino Coalition and held at the Four Seasons in Georgetown.
During his speech, Giuliani spent much of his time making the points that have now become a part of his standard stump speech: staying on offense against terrorism, cutting taxes, reducing government spending, reforming healthcare through the free market, supporting free trade, and achieving energy independence. Â But not surprisingly given the audience, much of his speech was devoted to laying out his philosophy on immigration.
Giuliani has come under fire from conservatives who see his support for sanctuary laws in New York City as evidence that will be lax on illegal immigration as president. What's become apparent is that he will attempt to leverage his credentials on security to build a  consensus on the contentious issue.
After speaking about the threat of terrorism, Giuliani said that we needed to view illegal immigration within the national security context. He said if we have 12 million people here illegally, it's challenging to separate those who just came here to work from those who came here to sell drugs or plot terrorist attacks--like looking for "a needle in a haystack." That's why he supports increased border security, and he came out in favor of a physical fence in addition to a technological fence, and an improved border patrol force. He said he supports allowing those who are just here to work to come forward, pay taxes, and be put on a path to citizenship after learning English, paying fines, etc. And he said we need to document them and give them tamper proof IDs and enter them into a database so we know who is in the country. This is not the same as amnesty, he insisted, although I'm sure many conservatives would argue that this is precisely amnesty. But his point was that if we reduce the number of undocumented immigrants to a more manageable number, it will be easier to identify the bad guys and kick them out.
Giuliani said his view was formed when he was mayor of New York City, which at the time had an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants, and the federal government could only deport about 2,000 a year. He was frustrated that instead of deporting known criminals, the feds were focused on a restaurant worker, a professor who overstayed his visa, etc. In a very Rudy-like moment that drew laughter from the audience, he described telling the federal government officials, "I've got drug dealers here, pal!" Â Â
The fact that Giuliani took time out of his campaign schedule to address this particular audience indicates that he intends to build support within the Latino community, which is a large and growing voting block. The chairman of the Latino Coalition said that the group had extended invitations to all of the candidates in both parties, but that Giuliani was the only candidate who accepted. During his speech, Giuliani noted that his support among Latino voters grew each time he ran for mayor, peaking at about 50 percent in his 1997 landslide.
During the speech, he also condemned Hugo Chavez. When speaking with reporters afterwards he was asked how he reconciles that with the fact that Houston law firm Bracewell and Giuliani, where he is a partner, has lobbied for a U.S.-subsidiary of Citgo, which is essentially controlled by Chavez. Giuliani responded that the oil company the law firm represents employs 4,000 people in Texas and indirectly 135,000 people throughout the U.S., and those jobs would be in jeopardy if the company didn't receive adequate legal representation. He said the firm represents the company in a "legal, lawful, ethical way" and that there was no conflict of interest. "I am perfectly free to say what I want, how I want to say it, and I do, about Chavez. And I don't think there's anybody who is more outspoken about how dangerous I think he is."
topics: Taxes, Trade, Law, Immigration, Energy, Oil
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.1.07 @ 3:18PM
I'm a big fan of contrarian conservative commentary and have written a good deal of it myself, but even I can't quite go along with Bruce Bartlett's conservatives for Hillary column. Bartlett's argument is that the Democrats are certain to win in 2008, so conservatives might as well get with the program and try to ensure that we get the least horrible Democrat possible. Based on her refusal to apologize for her war vote and Bill's relative fiscal centrism, Hillary's his choice.
Where to begin? Let's start with Bartlett's electoral prediction. Even though this will be the toughest presidential election for Republicans since at least 1992, Democratic victory isn't guaranteed. Hillary has very high negatives; Barack Obama is an inexperienced campaigner. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson all outperform generic Republican numbers in many polls. Giuliani and McCain sometimes beat Hillary in head-to-head match-ups. It seems awfully premature to count them out.
Second, what does it even mean for conservatives to be "participating in the Democratic nominating process"? We should register as Democrats and vote for the least liberal candidate in their primaries? Conservative pundits should hedge their bets by writing pro-Hillary columns too? The former is certainly defensible but won't happen in large enough numbers to influence the outcome, much less serve as the only option for "politically sophisticated conservatives." And conservative commentators tend not to be very helpful to their preferred candidates in Democratic primaries (see Lieberman, Joseph).
Third, Bill Clinton's record in the 1990s is no guarantee of how Hillary would govern now. On trade, economics, and defense, the Democrats are to the left of where they were back then. The capital-gains tax cut was passed by a Republican Congress. DLC-style moderation was a response to liberal political weakness; it won't guide the party during a period of perceived liberal strength. Finally, "Rubinomics" wouldn't seem as fiscally responsible if Hillary's health plan had passed.
I'm as down on today's GOP -- especially the candidates with a shot at winning the party's presidential nomination -- as anyone, but I hope conservatives can do better than this.
topics: Trade, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Economics
Posted by David Hogberg on 5.1.07 @ 1:35PM
Here's another reason--as if you needed one--to not take the MSM
seriously.
Posted by David Hogberg on 5.1.07 @ 12:55PM
From Thomas Sowell's column:
A reader sent the following message, quoting his
nephew: "Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented worker' is like
calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.'"
Posted by John Tabin on 5.1.07 @ 10:10AM
David Bernstein noted yesterday that
Olmert has a 3% (!) approval rating.
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.1.07 @ 10:05AM
Rassmussen is out with the first poll showing Obama ahead of Hillary
Clinton, though just slightly 32-30, with Edwards at 17. With Obama
having shattered the assumptions about her fundraising dominance,
he is now starting to saw off another leg from the stool of her
presumed frontrunner status--her poll numbers.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Rudy enjoys a 16
point lead, with 30 percent support; Fred Thompson and John McCain
are tied for second at 14 and Romney is at 11. One thing worth
noting is that Giuliani skeptics have argued that once voters learn
more about his liberal stances on social views and his personal
problems, his popularity will quickly sink. But Giuliani has
already endured two months of negative news coverage (starting with
the March 3 NY Times story about his son Andrew not
campaigning with him) and then with his series of gaffes (on public
funding for abortion, on letting his wife attend cabinet meetings)
but his support has thus far shown itself to be pretty resilient.
In fact, Thompson's inclusion in the polling numbers seems to have
eaten into his lead more than anything. In the last poll without
Thompson, Giuliani had a 20-point lead, and one week later, with
Thompson, it had dropped to 10 points. In the past month, it's
crept back up.
UPDATE: A new Cook/RT Strategies
poll has Giuliani's lead cut to 7 points.
topics: John McCain, Abortion
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 5.1.07 @ 9:47AM
Immigration protests are planned throughout the
country today. Let's see if turnout compares to last year, when
there was actually a "path to citizenship" being seriously
debated.
topics: Immigration
Posted by Philip Klein on 5.1.07 @ 9:36AM
Golda Meir was forced to resign in the wake of her mishandling
of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and with a new Israeli report extremely critical of Ehud Olmert's
leadership during last summer's Lebanon War, he is in danger of
suffering the same fate. Now, even a member of his own party is
calling for his resignation. I had written
about this possibility last August, and at the time I didn't think
it would be possible for Olmert to hang onto power much longer. But
the one thing that's become clear to me since then (particularly
when I heard a few Knesset members speak at the AIPAC conference),
is that there's no single leader (either from an opposition party
or within Olmert's own Kadima party) who is very inspiring. That's
what has enabled him to maintain power thus far, and it's the one
thing that may save him in the wake of this report.
topics: Israel
Monday, April 30, 2007
Posted by David Holman on 4.30.07 @ 7:58PM
Deaver backs off. His colleagues say the Daily Telegraph story about him endorsing Thompson is
false.
Posted by James Poulos on 4.30.07 @ 7:39PM
Two words: Barney Rubble.
Posted by John Tabin on 4.30.07 @ 7:31PM
Orin Kerr marvels at how
out-of-the-loop Alberto Gonzales appears to have been. Does anyone
else get the feeling that the Justice Department is being run by
the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert?
Posted by Philip Klein on 4.30.07 @ 5:32PM
My friend PJ Doland may be on to something.
Posted by David Hogberg on 4.30.07 @ 3:32PM
Apparently it isn't just the global warming alarmists who have
decided to use a scurrilous variant on "holocaust denier" to bash
their opponents. From Ezra Klein:
The insurance industry isn't prone to overhyping the
millions of Americans without insurance, and if they thought
themselves capable of calling it 15 million rather than 45 million,
they would. They don't. And so, if you're a denier, ask
yourself: Are you really comfortable with a world in which the
insurance industry is more intellectually honest than you are?
[Italics added]
So, I guess those of us who question how big the problem of the
uninsured is are now "uninsured deniers." In other words, we are
moral scum. Of course, that means that CBO, Urban Institute and Blue Cross Blue Shield are scum too.
topics: Global Warming
Posted by John Tabin on 4.30.07 @ 2:15PM
The WaPo "Is the Iraq War Lost?"
round-up makes interesting reading. But I'm not sure we have a
general consensus on what victory would look like, which leaves the
discussion somewhat impoverished. Consider Nathaniel Fick's "Yes,
but" answer:
We can't achieve our original objectives. But we still
have compelling interests in denying a haven to al-Qaeda, averting
genocide in Iraq and not breaking the Army and Marine ground
forces. We have to draw down, but we cannot withdraw.
Our main "original objective" -- taking out Saddam Hussein's regime
-- has already been achieved. Perhaps Fick is saying we can't leave
behind a self-sustaining democracy. But I think the Kurds, at
least, already have just that. If we keep a relatively small number
of troops in Iraq indefinitely to enforce a partition and prevent a
bloodbath, is that a loss? That is, more or less, how the Korean
War ended (I know, it never "ended" in the technical sense, but you
get my point). Did we lose Korea?
topics: Iraq
Posted by David Holman on 4.30.07 @ 12:14PM
Even my eight-year-old brother is YouTube proficient. So why not
the Supreme Court?
Okay, so the Court didn't exactly post its smoking evidence on
YouTube. But the opinion in Scott v. Harris
turns on video evidence, which the Court has posted on its site.
Scalia and Breyer both seem to invite wide viewing of the video.
SCOTUSBlog is quite impressed.
topics: Supreme Court
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 4.30.07 @ 12:03PM
Kevin Hassett makes the case that Bill Richardson won the
Democratic debate and could go on to win the Democratic nomination.
I'm not persuaded, but for what it's worth.
Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 4.30.07 @ 11:57AM
Remember how virulently
Boris Yeltsin opposed U.S.-NATO intervention in Kosovo? Well,
apparently neither does former President Clinton. In his op-ed
in yesterday's New York Times, Clinton pays tribute to "my
friend Boris" and lets the world know that he, Bill Clinton,
attended Yeltsin's funeral in Moscow last week. But what about
Kosovo? It's mentioned this way, in a paragraph that lists the
courageous steps he took in foreign policy: "He made Russia part of
the diplomatic solution to the crises in Bosnia and Kosovo."
The line that comes to mind is Phil Hartman's, from the
hilarious Roseanne Barr- Hartman SNL spoof
ad for "MetroCard," in which bank rep Barr gleefully recalls
how she berated hapless customer Hartman, who was trying to have
his lost credit card replaced. Whereupon the humiliated Hartman
tells the camera: "She gave me several options. And, well,
everything turned out okay."
topics: Foreign Policy, Bill Clinton, Russia, NATO
Posted by Quin Hillyer on 4.30.07 @ 11:00AM
If the Prowler is correct (he usually is) in his report today
that the White House considered replacing AG Gonzales with Chris
Cox, but then balked because Cox has worked too well with the Dems
at the SEC...that just shows again how politically obtuse the White
House is. The fact is that Cox has worked with the Dems there, yes,
as he worked with Dems on Capitol Hill--and in doing so, has
brought the Dems more in his direction, as is reported well in the
latest issue of The American, the AEI publication. He has steadied
a leaky boat at the SEC, moved it to the right, and done so in a
way that most from all sides of the spectrum have applauded (even
though the NYTimes still criticizes him, which obviously means he's
doing something right!). Moreover, if anybody thinks that Chris Cox
won't be a solid and responsible conservative at Justice, that
person is just not in his right mind. What does the White House
want, its own fears about lacking a sycophantic team player, or 25
years of a solidly conservative record? Cox offers the latter. The
fact that he has a bit of independence, and unimpeachable
integrity, should be seen as a good thing, not a bad one. But this
White House is crazy, I mean nuts, about loyalty, to the detriment
of competence (and even more to the detriment of brilliance, which
is what Cox offers). I swear, I keep wanting to rally around this
president for reasons I outlined in a column a couple of months
ago, but he continues to act in an insular, arrogant,
self-absorbed,m short-term-thinking manner. The question for DoJ
should be simple: Who will best serve the American people? Anybody
who doesn't think Chris Cox will do that better than Alberto
Gonzales is living in a fantasy world, at best.
Posted by Philip Klein on 4.30.07 @ 10:27AM
Yesterday, the NY Times had a
story about the signs of progress in Anbar:
AMADI,
Iraq - Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the
tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising
transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools
are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears
to be in retreat.
"Many people are challenging the insurgents," said
the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added,
"We know we haven't eliminated the threat 100 percent."
Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the
American presence, have formed a united front with American and
Iraqi government forces against
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders'
encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police
force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from
several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police
force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer
than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.
The article cautions that the alliances that have led to the
progress are a "fragile marriage of convienience," with groups who
may not be loyal to America or the Iraqi government, but
nonetheless the piece paints a generally positive portrait of
progress in Anbar.
But I found this bit troubling:
American commanders see the progress in Anbar as a
bellwether for the rest of country. "One of the things I worry
about in Baghdad is we won't have the time to do the same kind of
thing," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of day-to-day war
operations in Iraq, said in an interview here.
I explored the consequences of withdrawal in a recent
column,
and it's gut-wrenching that we now finally have a strategy and a
great team in place that seems to be producing at least limited
progress, and yet our commanders have to be worried about a ticking
clock in Washington.
So, the question is, how long is that timeline? I think that
Democrats will eventually flinch and pass an emergency Iraq funding
bill of some sort, because they would be afraid of literally
cutting off money from troops on the ground. I would say that in
September, after Congress comes back from summer recess, the
commanders will have to show decent progress with the surge to buy
more time. If Iraq is still a mess come this fall, it's hard to see
how Bush will be able to hold out much beyond that. With Republican
members of Congress nervous about another thumpin' in the 2008
elections, Bush's support within his own party would erode. Yet
another reason why Bush should have made these strategic
adjustments at least in early 2005, from a position of strength
coming off of his reelection, rather than when his approval ratings
are stuck in the 30s and an overwhelming majority the public wants
out.
topics: Law, Military, Iraq
Posted by John Tabin on 4.30.07 @ 10:06AM
Dr. William Hurwitz has been convicted. During
the Schiavo controversy, I mentioned Hurwitz in a
column on the undertreatment of pain, a problem that this
verdict is likely to exacerbate.
Posted by James Poulos on 4.30.07 @ 9:21AM
I don't think so. Daniel Larison does. But that's all he thinks
Fred is good for. I think Fred could be a big star, but Romney
should worry least. We duke it out, you decide.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Posted by John Tabin on 4.29.07 @ 6:27PM
Some people in Prince William County, Virginia think it would do better
than the current guy. (Via Radley
Balko.)
