- 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, May 12, 2007
A Jihadist Grows in Brooklyn
Posted by on 5.12.07 @ 9:24AM
Karol at Alarming News knew the Fort Dix terrorism suspects when they were
kids, and it seems they were always bad news:
When Elvis and Dritan Duka, two of the three brothers arrested on terrorism charges in Fort Dix, were kids, they were neighborhood bullies. When they got a little older, they became drug dealers.
How do I know? They grew up in my neighborhood, my brother and his friends used to brawl with them on a fairly regular basis. My brother's best friend's mom was friends with their mom. Then they moved to New Jersey and became Jihadis. Of all possible paths for the Duka kids, that one didn't seem the most likely.
They've been here since they were kids, illegally it turns out, lived American lives, went to our public schools, and then decided to try and kill some of our troops. I don't know that I'll ever get used to this world.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Another Thought on Rudy and Roe
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 7:25PM
Instead of speaking in the abstract about strict constructionism and stare decisis, what Giuliani really ought to do name names and single out his favorite judges on the appelate bench. It would clarify things for those who follow this stuff really closely and pass right over the heads of those who don't. It's his only real chance for a credible and non-politically damaging accomodation with pro-lifers at this point.
Re: Krauthammer on Rudy and Abortion
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 7:05PM
Phil, Wlady: The trouble is that for Rudy to forthrightly adopt Krauthammer's (and my) pro-choice/anti-Roe position, as Krauthammer seems to be advising, would create an even worse muddle than he's in. While many of the real-world policy effects of Roe are unpopular, the majority of voters, who don't understand the details, are not eager to overturn Roe. Why do you think that the president has repeatedly assured that he has no abortion litmus test whenever there's a judicial confirmation fight?
Rudy's general election strength is one of his strongest cards, and he has no reason to fold it. Is it really out of bounds in a GOP primary to take exactly the same position on judges as George W. Bush?
Re: Thompson Time?
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 6:49PM
Not likely. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, in which Fred Thompson plays Ulysses S. Grant, premiers May 27 on HBO. I very much doubt that Thompson will risk an FEC-HBO confrontation by announcing before then.
Thompson Time?
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 6:21PM
Rumors are swirling that former Sen. Fred Thompson may be making an announcement this weekend about his possible Presidential ambitions. Those rumors - being spread by a GOP presidential campaign - have it that Thompson plans to announce tomorrow night at the Council for National Policy, where he is to keynote. This is a closed press event. In a Washington suburb. Who is making this stuff up? And why are some people actually believing it? But while the location may be off, perhaps the timing is so far off target. Sources with knowledge of Thompson's plans indicate that if any announcement were to take place, it would be in Tennessee. Rumor has it that's where Thompson will be early next week.
Obama Passes the Buck
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 5:17PM
Via Hotline, I see this CNN dispatch:
Obama publicly scolds staff for scheduling decisionWASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told New Hampshire firefighters Friday that he was frustrated his staff did not build into his travel schedule a personal appearance before their union meeting taking place in the coastal city of Portsmouth. Instead, the presidential hopeful had to address the IAFF and Federation of State and Provincial Firefighters Association this morning by telephone.
"I have to tell you, I wish I was there," Obama said over a speakerphone. "My staff had already scheduled some things and they couldn't wiggle out if it. They heard from me a little bit because I wasn't happy I couldn't be there personally."
This is lame. It comes across as phony, but even if accurate, it makes him seem like a weak leader. He wants to do something, but is held back by some subordinate staffers? Meanwhile, according to his official schedule, he was in Iowa and St. Louis today. I look forward to the story of him telling those crowds, "I have to tell you, I wish I weren't here, but my staff had scheduled me for this. I would rather be speaking to firefighters in New Hampshire."
Giuliani and the Pete Wilson Precedent
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 3:07PM
Rich Lowry describes the "Pete Wilsonification" of Rudy, but it's worth pointing out many major differences between
As he contemplates whether to launch a campaign for the White House, Gov. Pete Wilson has rejected recent warnings from religious conservatives and insisted this week that he plans a fight at the 1996 national convention to remove anti-abortion language in the Republican Party platform.
He later backed off from that vow, but the damage was done. Compare that to the tone of Giuliani's speech today to the
"I have profound respect for your views," he said. "I have profound respect for your education, and I have profound respect for your religion." But, he said, it is uniquely American to disagree on some political issues while agreeing on many others.
"We understand how to respect each other's differences," he said.
According to the AP account, his speech was warmly received, although several religious conservatives in attendance were cited as saying they wouldn't vote for him. The point is, unlike
Also, beyond abortion, there are a lot of other reasons why
Read it and Weep
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 2:57PM
Nearly completed when she was gunned down in a contract killing, Anna Politkovskaya's Russian Diary is "an unflinching record of the plight of millions of Russians and a pitiless report on the cynicism and corruption of Vladimir Putin's Presidency." Due out May 22.
Re: Krauthammer on Rudy and Abortion
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 12:00PM
Phil: Charles K's defense of Rudy struck me as forced and contradictory, particularly as a political defense. He ends his column calling for legislative resolution of the Roe travesty. Yet nothing Rudy said at the debate suggested he had any problem with justices legislating from the bench. That's apparently why when the other debaters welcomed the idea of Roe being overturned, Rudy merely shrugged his shoulders and said he guesed it would be okay -- whichever way the matter were resolved. Never was it more clear that on this particular matter, he just doesn't get it. You just never got that sense that he regards Roe as bad law.
Red State vs. GOP
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 11:09AM
The estimable Erick Erickson of the highly influential Red State blog has declared war against the House GOP "Leadership." (I put "leadership in quotation marks because I have doubts if they deserve to be thought of as leaders.) The problem is that they just placed an ethically challenged member of the GOP caucus, Ken Calvert, in a plum spot on the Appropriations Committee. Erick explains it well. Take a look. I will just add that there were other, far more upstanding and admirable, GOP House members who wanted the seat. I might return to this issue again soon, with lots more to say. For now, though, give Erick's post a read. His frustration is understandable.
Re: '08 Prospects
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 10:56AM
Another thing worth noting about the Democrats' problems in 2008 is that while they have double-digit leads in every generic White House poll I've seen asking voters whether they want a Deomcrat or Republican to be the next president, when you start matching up specific candidates, Giuliani usually leads or is close to Clinton, Obama and Edwards, and McCain is typically at least close. Romney still gets trounced by Democrats, though his supporters say that will change with name recognition. Another factor is that the top of the Democratic field does not have one candidate with any executive experience, which could be a problem considering that's what Americans usually look for in a president.
'There Is Nothing Sacred...
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 10:54AM
...about the falsification of history."
Another interesting piece on the Estonian situation from a well-read, well-argued Latvian perspective.
Krauthammer on Rudy and Abortion
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 10:36AM
Charles Krauthammer comes to Giuliani's defense, arguing that it isn't Rudy's viewpoints on abortion that are muddled per se, but the issue itself that is muddled as a result of the Roe v. Wade decision. I tend to agree to a certain extent, though many of Giuliani's answers have been particularly confusing. However, it is true that the abortion issue is a highly complicated one both morally and legally, and while some people fall clearly in one camp (pro-choice, pro-Roe) or the other camp (pro-life, anti-Roe), a lot of people fall somewhere in between. Yet, the way our political system works, with the need to appeal to the base during the primaries, we want our candidates to neatly fit into one box or another. Also, the National Review has argued that Giuliani should have said that Roe was wrongly decided, and Lowry decribes him as "a pro-choicer who doesn't want to go the Coverdell/Hutchison route of reaching an accommodation with pro-lifers." Easier said than done. The problem for Giuliani is that given his past statements on abortion, if he had tried to make an accommodation with pro-lifers or come out firmly against Roe, he would have been blasted as a flip-flopper and political oppourtunist.
As for Giuliani's oft-criticized statement that a "strict
constructionist" could vote to uphold Roe
because it's been the law of the land for over 30 years,
Krauthammer cites William Rehnquist's decision to uphold
Miranda despite his opposition as an
example of a "strict constructionist" allowing precedent to trump
narrow interpretation of the constitution. Interestingly, John
Roberts cited that example in an interview
when talking about the responsibility a chief justice feels to do
things for the good of the court. During his confirmation hearings,
Roberts said of Roe, "it's settled as a
precedent of the Court, entitled to respect under principles of
stare decisis." With that said, it is worth noting that in
his Planned Parenthood v. Casey dissent, Rehnquist wrote, "We believe that
Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be
overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare
decisis in constitutional cases."
So, to echo Krauthammer, the issue is quite complicated.
Blair Out Next Month
Posted by on 5.11.07 @ 2:25AM
The British Prime Minister announces that he'll resign on June 27. He actually hung on longer than many expected after the ground that Labour lost in the 2005 election; at the time, I quoted from John O'Sullivan's summary of the CW, which held that "if [the majority] hovers between 60 and 120, then [Blair] might survive a year." That's what happened, and he survived two years.
I assume this means Gordon Brown will soon be PM. Odd that Britain's leadership should be becoming less pro-American just as France's leadership is doing the opposite, but there you go.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
'08 Prospects
Posted by on 5.10.07 @ 11:57PM
Ezra Klein is pessimistic about the Democrats:
I think we're in an odd, if temporarily satisfying moment, wherein the Democratic candidates are much more appealing to the Left than the Republican candidates are to the Right. That said, I actually think McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are all quite strong general election candidates, a fact being obscured by their uncertain navigation of the primaries.See also this column by Kathleen Parker, who argues that Fred Thompson makes more sense as a vice presidential candidate than as an alternative to what is actually a pretty strong GOP field.
Re: Rudy's Proclamations
Posted by on 5.10.07 @ 2:53PM
Dave, what bothered me was not that Lewis chose to provide a counterweight to Brody, but what he cited as examples of Rudy's divergence from conservatism. Objectively, the gay and lesbian community is an important part of New York City. The city has days that salute Israel, the Irish, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, evangelicals, etc. I honestly don't see why acknowledging the contributions of gays and lesbians should be seen as a bad thing, worthy of derision.
UPDATE: More from Lewis.
Re: Rudy's Proclamations
Posted by on 5.10.07 @ 2:11PM
Philip, I wouldn't go so far as to call that "gotcha" journalism. If the Giuliani campaign's (oops -- David Brody's) point was to note his tolerance for diverse groups, they would tout those other proclamations just as loudly. But it is pretty clear that this is damage control for the Planned Parenthood donations: flood the field with conflicting signals and hope to drown out the problem. In that case, pointing out the other proclamations provides helpful context. To me, this additional information shows a politician going beyond tolerance and into active promotion.
Rudy's Proclamations
Posted by on 5.10.07 @ 2:03PM
In response to David Brody pointing out that Rudy Giuliani donated to pro-family groups and proclaimed an Evangelical Christian Children's Parade Day, Matt Lewis writes:
Of course, not all of Rudy's "proclamations" have been so conservative ...
Lesbian And Gay Pride And History Month. (Giuliani Press Release, 6/24/97)
Giuliani's Deputy Mayor, On Behalf Of The Mayor, Proclaimed June 18, 2001 "Out In Government Day." (Giuliani Press Release, 6/18/01)
Giuliani Proclaimed June 20, 2000 "Out In Government Day." (Giuliani Press Release, 6/20/00)
Giuliani Proclaimed June 23, 1999 "Out In Government Day." (Giuliani Press Release, 6/23/99)
Giuliani Proclaimed June 22, 1998 "Out In Government Day." (Giuliani Press Release, 6/22/98)
If this is Lewis's attempt at gotcha journalism, it falls far short. Giuliani was mayor of perhaps the most diverse city in the world, and so he showed tolerance for evangelical Christians as well as homosexuals. That shouldn't be considered an assault on conservatism.
Buy 'Em If You Can
Posted by on 5.10.07 @ 11:48AM
For months there has been talk about how former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been essentially "buying" support from think tank, activist groups in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, etc.
There hasn't been much to it, in part because in truth, he hasn't been doling out tons of cash, and even if he were, it's his personal money - which he has lots of.
But now that he's receiving an award from a
"Her contributions are for her and not for me. Her positions are not terribly relevant to my campaign."
And here is where things get interesting. Romney told the audience that his wife Ann is now one of the heads of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The same group he donated funds to. This has set off a firestorm in
Choosing A President
Posted by on 5.10.07 @ 10:58AM
David Broder laments the rush of early primaries in the 2008 election, saying we'll be deprived of "a steady progression of contests, challenging and whittling the field of contenders..." I have mixed feelings about the new calendar that moves us much closer to a national primary day. On the one hand, having a steady progression of primaries provides the oppourtunity for voters in early states to personally interact with candidates, whereas now we're looking at a system in which voters in most states will only meet the candidates through TV ads. On the other hand, under the system of staggered primaries, a few states have an outsized influence in choosing the nominee. So, even though a lot of people will miss out on seeing the candidates up close under the uber-Tuesday system, most Americans are already deprived of such an oppourtunity, only now at least they'll have a vote that actually matters. I do agree with Broder, however, that with the nominees likely decided by the end of February, and the conventions not until late August/early September, we'll be looking at 6 very boring months in between. Perhaps another option is to move toward a national primary sometime in June. That would give candidates half the year to campaign from coast to coast, and it would contract the time between the nominees being chosen and the conventions. Also, perhaps it would mean the campaign wouldn't be starting two years in advance, as it has this cycle.
Rudy's Pro-Family Donations
Posted by on 5.10.07 @ 10:34AM
David Brody has the details on more that $15,000 in donations Giuliani has given over the years to pro-family groups, including churches and adoption centers, for what it's worth.
Putin's Soul Watch
Posted by on 5.10.07 @ 9:48AM
The IHT reports:
Rudy's Abortion Gambit
Posted by on 5.10.07 @ 1:56AM
The NY Times reports:
The article goes on to describe how the campaign is hoping that early primaries in big states such as New Jersey, Florida, New York and California will provide an opening for a moderate Republican of Giuliani's stature, even if he has trouble in the more socially conservative states such as Iowa and South Carolina. The story continues:
Asked if Republicans would accept that, he said, "I guess we are
going to find out."
Yes, we will. Although running as an unequivocally pro-choice candidate is obviously a huge risk in a Republican primary, and some would say political suicide, this is probably the best of the bad options Giuliani has open to him at this point. Those who vote primarily on abortion will not be satisfied unless he is pro-life, and it is impossible for him to take that position without committing the flip flop of the century. His past statements and his record on the issue are a given. It's pretty clear that his attempts to mollify social conservatives (i.e. talking about how much he hates abortion) haven't won him fans in the pro-life community either. Instead, his nuanced statements have caused more confusion, prompted more questions, and made him look like a bumbling mess. At this point, it's hard to see how being unapologetically pro-choice will cost him that much more support than he has already lost by muddling the issue. So, I don't see much downside risk in this new strategy. On the upside, by having one clear answer to the abortion question, it will cut down on the confusion, which in turn may reduce the amount of time he has to spend explaining himself on an issue that he would obviously prefer not to talk about. (The Planned Parenthood story became a much bigger deal because he keeps talking about how much he hates abortion.) At the same time, at least by taking a clear stand, he'll come across as the self-confident straight-shooting Rudy that is many people find appealing. This is not to suggest that the issue will cease to be a problem for him, but it's the best play he can make.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Rudy on Evangelicals In 1997
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 5:14PM
Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody has the goods. (It's not what you may be thinking.)
Is Rudy Done?
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 4:49PM
Philip Klein noticed my short piece at Redstate declaring the end of Rudy's chances based on the revelation that he gave money to Planned Parenthood. Phil is skeptical of my prognosis.
That's understandable. I, too, once thought Rudy (like the lady) was a champ. I knew he was pro-choice, but bought the campaign's assertion that he would appoint justices I'd appreciate. It was possible to hang with that for a while.
But then I saw the text of his speech to the National Abortion Rights Action League. That was a killer. Still, I was like a lovestruck girl and wanted to overlook it. I held out hope he might be the one for me. Then, there was Rudy's noticeable churning on the abortion issue during the first debate. Finally, we find out he gave money to Planned Parenthood personally.
An astute commenter at Redstate pointed out that it could have been the former Ms. Giuliani who made the contributions. If that is true, America's Mayor has so far declined the use of that defense. I suspect the fact is that he is pro-choice, he's a tough SOB, and he's just not willing to play ball with the pro-lifers enough to get the nomination.
Former Rudy supporters are going through the Rudy stages of grief. Rudy regurgitations are on the way.
At this point, nothing less than a conversion of sorts will save him. I'm sticking the neck out (not too far, I think) and am declaring Rudy's chances are only getting worse. It takes time for this kind of information to be fully realized in personal networks. The more Rudy gets painted as the pro-choicer in the field, the further his numbers will drop.
In my Redstate post, I said conservatives look only slightly less askance at money given to Planned Parenthood than they do the KKK. We'll see if the blowback is enough to take Rudy out of serious contention. Unless he pulls a rabbit out of a hat or Al Qaeda strikes again successfully in the homeland, he's done.
America's Future Foundation
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 2:42PM
A nice profile of AFF in today's Washington Times.
Also, AFF is holding an event this evening on "organ markets." Details here.
'No-Gas-Discount' Heads
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 2:10PM
From the movie Dogma:
Bethany: Were they sent to Hell?Metatron: Worse. Wisconsin. For the entire span of human history.
From today's AP:
A service station that offered discounted gas to senior citizens and people supporting youth sports has been ordered by the state to raise its prices.Center City BP owner Raj Bhandari has been offering senior citizens a 2 cent per gallon price break and discount cards that let sports boosters pay 3 cents less per gallon.
But the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection says those deals violate Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act, which requires stations to sell gas for about 9.2 percent more than the wholesale price.
Bhandari said he received a letter from the state auditor last month saying the state would sue him if he did not raise his prices. The state could penalize him for each discounted gallon he sold, with the fine determined by a judge.
Bhandari, who bought the station a year ago, said he worries customers will think he stopped the discounts because he wants to make more money. About 10 percent of his customers had used the discount cards.
Dale Van Camp said he bought a $50 card to support the local youth hockey program. It would have saved him about $100 per year on gas, he said.
Bleating No More?
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 12:33PM
Apparently the Minneapolis Star Tribune has killed James Lileks's column and turned him into a straight news reporter. Rod Dreher calls it the "world's stupidest newspaper decision." It's sure up there.
Hillary Loses More Conservative Votes
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 11:37AM
Over at NRO, Pat Toomey also pours cold water on the conservatives for Hillary idea.
Rudy's Far From Done (Not Even Medium Rare)
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 11:34AM
I'm just catching up because I was in transit yesterday, but I see that over at RedState, Spectator contributor Hunter Baker has pronounced Rudy done because of the Planned Parenthood story. While it goes without saying that the story harms him, I don't think it changes the big picture. All along, there have been two reasons why I have felt that Giuliani would win the nomination: 1) National Security will prove the dominant issue of the campaign and 2) There isn't a viable conservative alternative. Fred Thompson's flirtation with running has challenged my second assertion (and clearly he steals the most from Giuliani in the polls), but thus far it remains a big question mark whether he will live up to the hype once he actually announces. If he does, I'll have to reassess my analysis. As for national security, after watching Obama ignore terrorism in his stump speech last night, it reinforced for me the fact that this election will very much be decided in the way Giuliani has framed it: Do we want to stay on offense against terrorism, or go back on defense? When Republican primary voters are looking at the prospect of America electing a Democrat who wants to retreat in the face of the terrorist threat, the focus will ultimately be on national security, which will play to Rudy's strong suit. Furthermore, as a general rule, I have a hard time counting out Giuliani because throughout his life he has proved himself to be a fighter who has overcome long odds, and who has recovered from setbacks to achieve things that people once considered impossible. To be sure, the recent pummeling he has taken both for his past record on abortion and his confusing statements during the campaign, gives credence to the position of Rudy skeptics who argue that once conservatives learn more about his social views, he'll be toast. But it's far too early in the campaign, and he has far too many other things going for him, to write off his chances just yet.
George 'n' Gene Ticket That Might Have Been
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 11:16AM
David Weigel thinks Howard Fineman is a bit too eager to find a maverick to shake up the 2008 presidential race.
It's The Economy Stupid
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 10:49AM
Amir Taheri reports on how the economic crisis in Iran is causing problems for the president:
Special Report: Obama In Richmond
Posted by on 5.9.07 @ 3:04AM
I spent Tuesday night at a pep rally for Barack Obama in Richmond, and it reinforced two of my perceptions about him: 1) He is a formidable candidate and 2) He doesn't think fighting terrorism is a big deal.
Before and after the speech, I spoke to some of the roughly 500 attendees who jammed a sweltering art gallery in an industrial part of Richmond to see Obama at this low-dollar fundraiser hosted by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. While some came merely out of curiosity, the committed supporters were almost universal in their reasons for why they found Obama appealing. They described him as "authentic," "comfortable in his own skin," and saw him as a "breath of fresh air" who could bring people together. When I asked his supporters about Hillary Clinton, they described her either as too calculating, too polarizing, smart but unelectable, or too representative of the past. Obama did not disappoint the crowd, entering and exiting to a rock star reception, exhibiting his charisma and sense of humor, and coming across as intelligent and down to earth.
In his speech, Obama touched on his days as a community organizer and repeated his call for a new kind of politics to address the nation's biggest challenges. What I found most telling was not the problems that he cited, but the big one he omitted. He mentioned healthcare, education, income inequality, energy, global warming, and of course, the biggest of all, the Iraq War. But the 'T' word was conspicuously absent. In a speech to a general audience, he may have thrown a bone to hawks by saying something along the lines of "the terrorist threat is grave, but Bush is going about fighting it the wrong way," or talked about the need to secure our ports, fight the real terrorists in Afghanistan, etc. It was pretty clear, however, that in speaking to a group of Democratic supporters, he didn't feel the need to mention the threat of terrorism, which reinforces my impression that he simply doesn't think it's that big of a deal. The refrain of his speech was "it's time to turn the page"--which he applied to domestic issues as well as withdrawing from Iraq and transforming our foreign policy through better diplomacy. He also called for the closing of Guantanamo. To paraphrase Rudy, Obama sounded very much like a candidate who wants to take us back to playing defense against terrorism.
I also found it interesting that, for all his talk about wanting to bring people together, when speaking to a partisan audience, Obama was not shy about taking swipes at the president and Republicans. "I started teaching at the University of Chicago law school, because unlike the current occupant of the White House, I thought it would be interesting to find out what the Constitution says," Obama told the crowd. He also said: "When things don't work, when the death toll in Iraq mounts or Katrina happens, then they try to distract people from what's really taking place. And they blame somebody. They blame the other party. Or they blame Congress. Or they blame gay people. Or they blame immigrants."
I see the AP played up the fact that Obama drastically overstated the death toll from the Kansas tornadoes as 10,000, when he meant at least 10. I don't think it's worth making an issue out of what was obviously an honest mistake.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Preemptive Surrender?
Posted by on 5.8.07 @ 10:33PM
Bruce Bartlett is at it again, saying the GOP has no chance in 2008 and that conservatives ought to look for the least worst alternative among the Democrats.
I understand his point, but is it such a wise idea to concede defeat before you have even gotten into the starting gate.
(And I know, I'm one to be criticizing someone else for making a prediction this far ahead.)
Climatology as Intelligence?
Posted by on 5.8.07 @ 3:50PM
The Republican Study Committee highlights Democrats' plan to request an assessment of the geopolitical effects of climate change from the Director of National Intelligence. Gregg Easterbrook had an interesting article in the April Atlantic Monthly on the consequences of climate change (the mixed-bag picture he paints strikes me as cutting against his conclusion that preserving the status quo is worth the regulatory burden, by the way). As Easterbrook acknowledges, though, this is all quite speculative; the science is just too inexact to make firm predictions. Producing intel analysis based on such guesswork seems like a huge waste of resources.
DC Second Amendment Rights Update
Posted by on 5.8.07 @ 3:13PM
The DC Circuit Court has denied the District government's petition for an en banc rehearing in Parker v. District of Columbia, the 2-1 decision that found DC's handgun ban unconstitutional. I assume the DC government will appeal; if the Supreme Court grants cert -- as Eugene Volokh has predicted they will -- the decision should come down by Summer of 2008. (If SCOTUS doesn't grant cert, of course, Matt Yglesias will be able to buy that gun he wants.)
More from Volokh here.
RE: Terror not going away
Posted by on 5.8.07 @ 1:45PM
Update: Checks with Immigration and Customs Enforcement show that Dritan Duka, Eljvir Duka and Shain Duka are illegally living in the United States.
How convenient.
Terror Not Going Away
Posted by on 5.8.07 @ 1:22PM
Of course, events like this at Fort Dix, where six Islamic radicals have been arrested in an apparent plot against soldiers, remind us that the war on terror is by no means over.
GOP Diversity
Posted by on 5.8.07 @ 12:30PM
Fred Barnes argues that disagreements on issues like abortion are what make the Republican presidential field more ideologically diverse than the Democrats.
RE: Rudy and Planned Parenthood
Posted by on 5.8.07 @ 12:23PM
As someone who has reported on Rudy Giuliani's Planned Parenthood donations before, here's why I think they are newsworthy: The story speaks to Giuliani's efforts to reach common ground with pro-lifers. Giuliani hasn't flipped to the pro-life position, but he hasn't exactly decided to run as a damn-the-torpedoes extreme pro-choice candidate either. He is emphasizing common ground with pro-lifers by supporting certain politically possible legal restrictions and saying he "hates" abortion.
But Giuliani, while hating abortion and saying he would counsel women against it, has given money to the country's largest abortion provider. It's fair enough for Giuliani's supporters to argue that his executive experience, fiscal policy, and national security views should trump his abortion position. But these Planned Parenthood stories are directly relevant to his bid to sell himself as someone pro-lifers can do business with on the abortion issue as well.
Rival Campaigns
Posted by on 5.8.07 @ 11:54AM
Just a quick post on journalistic ethics that's worth thinking about during the ongoing campaign. Typically, when journalists write a negative story on one candidate based on information provided to them by another under the condition that the information is "not for attribution," they use a shorthand that the research was provided by a "rival campaign." (See the Politico story on Rudy and Planned Parenthood for an example.) But this makes me a bit uncomfortable, because basically the journalist is doing the dirty work for a candidate. A political campaign has an interest in publicizing negative facts about an opponent, but the downside of going on the attack publicly is that it makes the campaign look like it's dirty. Leaking opposition research to a journalist "not for attribution" allows the campaign to draw attention to negative facts about an opponent without having to get criticized for mud-slinging--so the journalist, because of an interest in breaking a story, essentially becomes part of the campaign. What makes the term "rival campaign" even worse is that all of the competing campaigns become suspects, even though only one actually leaked the information. So, in other words, if Candidate A attacks Candidate B "not for attribution," is it fair that Candidate C will also be tainted as the possible source of the attack? This is just the way things work in this business, and I suppose everybody who plays the game has to deal with it. But journalists should always be asking themselves these questions.
Rudy and Planned Parenthood
Posted by on 5.8.07 @ 11:20AM
The latest Giuliani abortion controversy involves $900 in contributions that he and his then wife Donna Hanover gave to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s. It's unclear whether each additional bit of news showing he is and has been pro-choice will have an impact on his standing, or if conservatives have a general impression that he is pro-choice, and new revelations will have diminishing levels of impact as the campaign goes on. The bottom line is that certain part of the Republican electorate will find him unacceptable, but the question is how big is that contingent, and can he win over the rest on fiscal and national security issues. One thing that is clear, however, is that each story like this has the ability to take him off message. Last night, he gave a great speech to the Heritage Foundation, but all anybody wants to talk about today is the Planned Parenthood story.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Re: East of Greenburg
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 5:18PM
Great imagery, Reid, and telling that you remember it. We should all write so well. In my high school journalism class, our teacher brought in a story about a milk tanker truck that had tipped over on a state highway.
The driver was quoted as saying, "The milk was just glubbing out, about 20 gallons to the glub."
That was 44 years ago.
East of Greensburg
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 4:52PM
The Greensburg tornado brings to mind the treatment of another just east of there in Kansas.
Some 83 were killed and 250 injured when another large tornado swept the town of Udall at 10:35 p.m. May 25, 1955. It was the news service, INS, that provided the memorable lead:
"The little prairie town of Udall, Kansas, died in its sleep last night."
The follow-up sentence mentioned that what took a hundred years to build was "cut back to the sod...."
The imagery of the INS treatment remains long after the service was consumed by the United Press.
RE: Newspaper Troubles -- for Laughs
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 3:56PM
Speaking of which, apparently the Minneapolis Star-Tribune is going to drop James Lileks' column. From The Bleat:
As it happens, they've killed my column, and assigned me to write straight local news stories.Lileks doing straight news instead of his humor column? How stupid can you get?Really.
There's been some talk that I might leverage my mad web skillz into a tech beat, reporting on the Internet. But a local beat about the Internet? How many stories can do you about six guys in a loft coding a hot new start-up? And heaven forbid we have to illustrate them, because then you get the inevitable geek-by-the-screen shot. Look! He's customizing the drop-down location menu so it defaults to the United States instead of Afghanistan!
Terror Mouse
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 3:36PM
FoxNews reports on this video of a Palestinian children's show featuring a Mickey Mouse lookalike indoctrinating kids with anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-terrorist rhetoric. You can watch the video and have a laugh, but truly this is no laughing matter and speaks to the real tragedy going on in the Palestinian territories--the incitement to violence of young children, which perpetuates conflict and will continue to deny the Palestinian people peace, security and a homeland. For all those calling on Israel to reach out to "moderate Arabs" and return to the negotiating table, this is a troubling reminder of what Israelis are dealing with.
Re: Elephant Troubles
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 3:32PM
Phil: Just to underscore our commenters' points, there's no way that Giuliani, who has tied or beaten Clinton in every other head-to-head, was suddenly losing before Thursday's debate (when most if not all of the Newsweek poll was taken). Newsweek consistently publishes some of the least-predictive polls in the business; they neither filter for likely voters nor weight for party identification. You're right about the candidate-satisfaction numbers (which are automatically more meaningful by virtue of the partisanship filters), but as for the rest, wait for a second opinion before panicking.
Newspaper Troubles -- for Laughs
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 1:52PM
There has been a standing head on Free Republic lately, "Dinosaur Media Deathwatch," placed over stories chronicling the decline of daily newspaper circulation, ad revenues, and influence. No one has nailed it better than Internet humor champ Iowahawk here .
Monsieur Giuliani
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 1:49PM
Giuliani biographer Fred Siegel calls Sarkozy a "French Rudy."
Via Hit and Run.
Romney Surge
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 1:21PM
In a poll of New Hampshire Republicans, Mitt Romney has opened up a solid lead. This bolsters the view of Romney supporters who argue that once people get to know him more, and his money and organization work their magic, he'll win.
UPDATE: Matt Lewis is skeptical of this poll.
I should add, as a general caveat, that all such polls are a single datapoint amid thousands we'll have between now and when the first votes are cast. I've been a Romney skeptic all along, and continue to be one, but I still think it's worth posting polls that suggest something different. Of course, one poll does not a trend make.
Thompson Troubles
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 11:46AM
Robert Novak gives a Fred Thompson speech low marks. While this doesn't have much impact on Thompson's chances, it does show that no candidate is going to get a free ride no matter how difficult the terrain for Republicans in 2008.
Elephant Troubles
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 10:47AM
The latest Newsweek poll is an absolute train wreck for the Republican Party. To start with, President Bush's approval rating is down to 28 percent. To put it in perspective, that equals the lowest rating ever recorded for Jimmy Carter. As for the top tier presidential candidates, Giuliani does the best against Democrats, but even he trails all three of them (Clinton by 3 points, Obama by 7 points, Edwards by 6 points). McCain does worse and Romney gets absolutely crushed by the Democrats--Edwards beats Romney by a staggering 64-27 margin. Most troubling of all for the GOP is that when people are asked whether they are satisfied with the choice of candidates running for their party's presidential nomination, only 52 percent of Republicans said yes, compared with 77 percent of Democrats who are satisfied with their choices. What this tells me is that once the dust clears from the primaries, Democrats could have a much easier time uniting the party than Republicans. Democrats are hungry, and so angry about the Bush years, that they aren't going to use this election to make a statement by casting protest votes for a Nader-type or staying home. But for Republicans, the 2006 bloodletting was evidently not enough, and conservatives are still angry and fed up with the direction of the Republican Party, and some are threatening to either vote for a third party or not vote at all. This, clearly, is what's fueling the Fred Thompson boomlet. However, he has to become an actual candidate before we know whether his appeal is deep and sustainable, or mainly a function of desperate conservatives projecting their desires on to a likeable figure. As the Washington Post pointed out, Thompson's record closely resembles McCain's.
UPDATE: Commenters have questioned the validity of this poll, citing the 7/8 point margin of error and the fact that it was heavily weighted Democratic. So, perhaps you can argue that things aren't quite as bad quantitatively as this poll makes them seem. However, I don't think this changes the qualitative conclusions. The general fact that Bush has low approval ratings and that Republicans are less happy with their presidential choices than Democrats has been substantiated by other polls as well.
Sarkozy and Israel
Posted by on 5.7.07 @ 9:47AM
The outcome of the French elections is being welcomed in Jerusalem, where observers believe that Sarkozy will good for Israel. Even Israel's hard-liners were thrilled:
Netanyahu asserted that "Sarkozy is a friend of Israel and a personal friend of mine. He wants to help Israel achieve true peace, and he understands our security needs well."
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Hail Sarkozy, and Fie on the Bush Bashers
Posted by on 5.6.07 @ 11:17PM
Question: If President George W. Bush has made Europe such a hotbed of anti-Americanism, why did the pro-U.S. Sarkozy just win election to lead France's government, after the generally-pro-American Merkel won a similar victory a year or two back in Germany? Huh??? Could it be that the American left was wrong? Bush has his faults, many of them, and they have been outlined at length in many of my columns. But his steadfastness can, over time, earn respect -- and certainly, his free-marker principles, which were heartily embraced by Sarkozy, continue to have appeal when championed by a persuasive leader.
Meanwhile, if France has seen the error of its ways enough to elect Sarkozy in an election with a huge turnout, well, then, for the first time in years, we should all shout with joy: Vive La France!!!
Smoking Bans Are Hazardous To Your Health...
Posted by on 5.6.07 @ 4:58PM
...if you're an Irish pub:
That trademark Irish venue, the country pub - renowned as a place to chat, have a pint, hear some music and soak up the atmosphere - is facing challenging times.Recent figures suggest that many rural pubs are shutting their doors, their owners selling up and moving out. One report put the figure at a pub closing every day...
One [factor] is the smoking ban which was introduced three years ago. While many, such as health campaigners, view it as a success, many pub owners say it has damaged their trade.
- Useless Wonks
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- The Continuing Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
