- 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 19, 2007
More on Ron Paul
Posted by on 5.19.07 @ 7:06PM
I have a response over at my blog to the Paul fans who've been upset with me this week.
Diversity Gobbledygook
Posted by on 5.19.07 @ 12:53PM
This exchange between Heather Mac Donald and a college affirmative action officer is absolutely hysterical.
(Thanks be to Paul Sands.)
Paul Chesser Abroad
Posted by on 5.19.07 @ 11:24AM
Our intrepid friend and contributor Paul Chesser, who has covered just about every nook and cranny of the USA, has jetted off to Southeast Asia. Here's his illustrated report from his first stop, Bangkok. Coming up: more serious travel to and work in Cambodia.
Jihadist sit-com
Posted by on 5.19.07 @ 5:38AM
Courtesy of the invaluable Jeff Jacoby, on You Tube here.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Stay Classy, Jack Murtha
Posted by on 5.18.07 @ 9:11PM
Congressman Murtha used to do
this sort of stuff in whispers in a corner on the House
floor:
During a series of House votes Thursday, Murtha walked to the chamber's Republican side to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a 43-year-old FBI former agent. Earlier this month, Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a Murtha earmark from an intelligence spending bill. The item would restore $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a facility in Murtha's Pennsylvania district that some Republicans say is unneeded.
Maybe once a man reaches a certain age, he just doesn't care who sees or hears it? Or perhaps now that everyone has seen worse, there is no need to beat around the bush.RE: Christian Libertarianism
Posted by on 5.18.07 @ 6:38PM
Thanks to both John Tabin and Peter Suderman for their kind words about my Reason review. I'd be happy to respond to quibbles and other things I didn't have the space to address in the review.
Suderman thinks I overstate the tensions between Christian conservatives and libertarians because some of my examples (such as that ideologically hard-to-pin-down man without a movement, Andrew Sullivan) are unrepresentative. But Sullivan and Ryan Sager aren't the only authors of books assigning the religious right substantial blame for big-government conservatism. A lot of the popular libertarian commentary on, say, Rick Santorum reveals this tension, as does the Hit & Run comments thread about my Olree review.
I don't disagree that the statism of religious conservatives is often exaggerated. I've been making that argument myself for quite some time. I've criticized specific religious conservatives for embracing big government, but I also rejected most of Sager's criticisms of social conservatives in general in my AmSpec review of Elephant in the Room (not online). But polls of religious conservatives do show some government friendliness; politically active evangelical groups usually do support the morals laws Olree criticizes in his book; and groups like the Christian Coalition have debated moving left on some economic issues.
Finally, I'm not saying Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan aren't responsible for their own anti-Christian comments. I'm merely arguing that politics and evangelism can come into conflict, causing some people to identify Christianity solely with the political objectives of the religious right. I talk about it a little bit in my column about Jerry Falwell this week. (Sorry to bombard with links, but I figured it would take up less space.)
Christian Libertarianism
Posted by on 5.18.07 @ 4:50PM
Jim Antle has a terrific review of a book on the subject in the latest Reason; it's now online.
P.S.: Any response to Peter Suderman's quibbles, Jim?
Libertarianism, Porn, and Fois Gras
Posted by on 5.18.07 @ 4:24PM
I have a new column over at Brainwash.
Graham Says We're Bigots
Posted by on 5.18.07 @ 1:47PM
Here's a new low from Sen. Lindsey Graham, once called "Cindy" by John McCain (Cindy is McCain's wife), whom Graham follows around like a love-struck puppy. But in this video, not only does Graham, in talking about immigration, say he "want[s] to thank Ted Kennedy," but he closes it by showing the true stripes of so many on the "leniency" side of the immigration debate. (Full disclosure: I am somewhere in the middle on immigration, but center-leaning to the get-tough side.) Graham, like the otherwise estimable Jeb Bush, has this despicable conceit that people on the get-tough side aren't motivated by respect for our laws or by national security concerns or by any other acceptable motive. No, not only is their position wrong, but their motivations, according to Cindy Graham, are evil. Here's how this wanna-be statesman closes this little speech segment on immigration: "We're not gonna run people down. We're not gonna scapegoat people. We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up, and we're gonna get this right."
Notice how in one sentence he goes from "not gonna scapegoat people" to "tell the bigots to shut up." What a demagogue. What a creep. So if you don't agree with him, you are a bigot. It's that simple. Or so Cindy says.
Somebody needs to tell Cindy to shut up. He has just insulted hundreds of my friends, and millions of fellow Americans, most of them conservative -- people who welcome immigrants with open arms, as long as they actually abide by our laws and respect our culture, but who truly and honestly and lovingly believe that it is a mistake to send the signal that it is okay to break the laws of our nation.
"Tell the bigots to shut up." We will remember this, Cindy. Oh yes, we will remember.
Third Way or the Highway
Posted by on 5.18.07 @ 11:22AM
I've been meaning to flag Matthew Continetti's Weekly Standard piece about a recent report on the 2006 elections by the centrist group Third Way. Their conclusion is that the Republicans did in fact lose the election because of Iraq and corruption, but that there was no sharp left turn in the electorate -- the voters who swung Democratic fit a Republican demographic profile.
Continetti argues that the GOP doesn't need to embrace economic populism to win these voters back; they just need the surge to work. He writes, "If the voters in 2006 wanted a change in Bush's policy, they got it.... Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld, chose a new commander in Gen. David Petraeus, and rejected the Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey war strategy of force protection, Iraqification, and counterterrorism in favor of Petraeus's counterinsurgency approach."
I haven't read the original report, so it may already address my questions, but I have three quibbles. The first is that Third Way is the kind of organization that doesn't want the Democrats to go hard left on economics, so how much do these results reflect their own biases? Second, is the surge really the Iraq policy change even moderately antiwar voters were looking for? Third, does Bush have enough credibility with these voters that he could conceivably convince them that surge was working?
All that aside, Continetti's piece is definitely worth a read.
Immigration Plan Attacked From the Left
Posted by on 5.18.07 @ 11:01AM
Key Senate Democrats have their own problems with yesterday's immigration accord. This has been a major stumbling block in the effort to craft bipartisan immigration legislation. Republicans need certain enforcement guarantees while Democrats want lenience; Republicans see the immigration problem in terms of labor, Democrats in terms of new voters.
Concessions to one side almost without fail make any plan less appealing to the other. The internal contradictions of the resulting proposals make it very difficult to hold a coalition together and even harder to get a bill that makes practical sense.
Tax Hiking Democrats
Posted by on 5.18.07 @ 9:19AM
Sorry for the redundant headline to this blog post. Some of the awful details about the budget resolution passed by the congressional Dems are here. Jon Henke of the Senate Republican Communications Office shares some other details:
The Republican Policy Committee concludes about S. Con. Res. 21:
FY 2008 spending: $2.96 trillion
Tax Increases: assumes $736 billion more in taxes over five years compared to the extension of current tax law.
Budget Enforcement: includes budget points of order that are designed to reduce the deficit through tax increases rather than spending restraint. 60 votes required to cut taxes, but only a simple majority is needed to raise taxes.
Discretionary Spending: provides $954 billion (after cap adjustments) in discretionary budget authority for FY 2008, which is $21 billion above the President's request.
Mandatory Spending: includes $389.6 billion for Medicare in 2008, an increase of $24 billion (+6.6 percent) over 2007. The average annual increase in Medicare spending during the five-year budget window is 5.3 percent.
QUIN TALKING AGAIN: Now will conservatives finally understand why it is utterly counterproductive to "protest" poor performance by the GOP by staying home and refusing to vote? There is a difference between bad (the congressional GOP for eight years) and worse (the congressional Dems, who are MUCH worse), and the difference is significant enough to matter a great deal for the future of this country. Conservatives who stay home are like the spoiled brat who takes his ball and goes home.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Romney Slams the Senate
Posted by on 5.17.07 @ 7:42PM
He opposes the immigration compromise. It's never been entirely clear (at least to me) how politically potent the immigration issue is, so it'll be interesting to see if he gets much mileage from this.
Pence Against Amnesty
Posted by on 5.17.07 @ 5:19PM
U.S. Rep. Mike Pence has just come out against the new immigration bill, saying that it "amounts to amnesty." This brings up an "I told you so" point. Pence had an excellent bill on this subject last year, which I believe I was the very first person to write about and endorse. Some conservatives called Pence a sell-out. But not only did they misunderstand his bill, they also utterly misread the political tea leaves. The Pence bill was MUCH stricter against the spread of illegal immigration, much more rigorous overall, than this new one is. And the Pence bill, if embraced by some conservatives and not loudly opposed by others, might well have passed last year. It was utterly predictable, though, that if nothing passed last year, we would be presented with a WORSE bill this year because it was clear conservatives were going to lose ground in Congress in the 2006 elections. Pence's proposal would have seriously closed the border, and would have used a combination of the free market and strict enforcement to make sure that no illegals could thrive here without first leaving the country and coming back under legal auspices. Most of the ingenious Pence provisions are lacking from this so-called compromise. By not embracing Pence, conservatives condemned the country to a bill concocted by Ted Kennedy. Nice work. Not.
A Senate Immigration Deal?
Posted by on 5.17.07 @ 3:56PM
So the Bush administration announces. Let's see what the other Republican presidential hopefuls have to say about the latest version of McCain-Kennedy.
Help Hillary Pick a Campaign Song!
Posted by on 5.17.07 @ 2:43PM
Her campaign has a poll. The fun part is that there's a write-in line. I suggested "Before He Cheats" by Carrie Underwood...
Re: Vacation in America
Posted by on 5.17.07 @ 12:52PM
This is one of those times when liberals just seem like alien beings to me. I'm extremely proud to live in a country that doesn't hold a gun to employers' heads and force them to pay people to do nothing. Why wouldn't I be?
Re: Vacation in America
Posted by on 5.17.07 @ 11:42AM
Problem? Lack of vacation time.
Solution? The federal government. This is obviously one of its roles, and it will perform this role as well as it executes its other assigned duties.
Statism is alive and well.
Vacation in America
Posted by on 5.17.07 @ 11:07AM
Ezra Klein points to a chart showing that the United States is the only OECD nation that doesn't legislate any vacation. "That's our country. Aren't you proud?" he asks sarcastically, assuming that we should automatically be outraged by such a finding. But he doesn't offer any argument as to why it should be the role of government to force private employers to offer paid holidays to workers. This is a fundamental disagreement as to the function of government, so I'll move on to a few practical points.
Measuring only the number of legislated paid vacation days provides us with an incomplete picture of how many paid vacation days Americans have in reality. While the government doesn't mandate that employers offer certain paid vacation days, there are 10 federal holidays. I don't have the exact statistics in front of me, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that lot of people tend to get off for most of those days, and a certain portion of them are paid. This doesn't take into account general paid vacation and personal days offered in many employment contracts. In other words, the fact that other countries mandate what we make voluntary may mean that the rest of the world takes more vacation, but it doesn't mean that we get zero paid vacation days.
Obviously, there are workers who do not get any paid vacation days, so the question is what would the economic effects be of mandating that they do? Shifting a percentage of the population from work to leisure would reduce economic activity, which would hinder growth. Employers would be faced with the prospect of paying the same amount of money to employees, and getting less out of them. How would they respond? Perhaps they would find ways to either reduce wages, or limit future wage increases. If they don't change wages at all, then it could put inflationary pressure on the economy because worker productivity would be decreasing relative to wages, and thus the same amount of money would be chasing fewer goods and services. Some people would argue that it would be worth the tradeoff, but it's always worth keeping in mind that there's no such thing as a free vacation.
Rudy Can Win
Posted by on 5.17.07 @ 10:43AM
Jim Pinkerton makes the case. He offers a pretty good summary of the Giuliani-Paul exchange in the process.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Hitchens Obit
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 9:15PM
As I predicted (not that it required any special foresight), Christopher Hitchens is dancing on Jerry Falwell's grave. Hitchens writes that "there is no vileness that cannot be freely uttered by a man whose name is prefaced with the word Reverend." This doesn't really ring true; my recollection is that Falwell was pretty much drummed out of polite society after blaming secularism for 9/11 (as well he should have been). Recounting that episode, Hitchens shows a Coulter-esque carelessness with the word "treason." Say what you will about Jerry Falwell, but I'm pretty sure he never gave aid and comfort to foreign enemies or attempted to overthrow the government.
Rudy Talks to Bloggers
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 4:14PM
I was on a conference call with Rudy Giuliani earlier this afternoon, which was his first with bloggers. Just posting now because I had to go to a meeting.
Rudy was obviously pleased with last night's debate performance, saying the debate was a "much better opportunity" to address a range of issues than the first debate, and he said: "hope this becomes the pattern for future debates."
Jennifer Rubin asked him about the Senate vote on legislation that would cut off funds to
I asked what his policy would be with regard to
Jim Geraghty asked whether Ron Paul should be allowed in future debates. Without saying yes, he said he was surprised to hear Paul's statement in a Republican debate, and it reminded him of the comments made by the Saudi Prince after Sept 11., whose $10 million check he rejected. Rudy said he went back and watched Paul's answer and said there was "tremendous confusion" in what he said, specifically that 9/11 was a result of us bombing
He was also was asked by Matt Lewis his position on torture and pretty much reiterated his answer from the previous evening that in the very hypothetical scenario described, he would support "enhanced interrogation techniques," but not torture. Â He added in response to a later question that the "technique that was being described last night does not fall into the category of torture." (The technique that was mentioned was waterboarding.)
More from Jim Geraghty, Dave Weigel, GraniteGrok, Race42008.
A Little Nice Consumer News
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 2:30PM
I hate to break up the presidential water cooler (well, not really), but the music business has interesting news today: Amazon will sell music free of digital rights management (DRM) software. Apple already announced earlier this year it would do the same. Both companies have only signed with music label EMI so far, but another entrant to the market means one thing: finally, an emerging marketplace in digital music sales. DRM meant iPod users could only buy from Apple, Zune users could only buy from Microsoft's store, etc. Now, the stores will actually compete against each other, which should mean lower prices.
Veepstakes
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 2:21PM
Sheesh, and I thought most of the talk of the presidential horse race was premature. First, the party needs a nominee. Then, I'll begin to think about his running mate.
Giuliani and Huckabee
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 12:14PM
Mike Huckabee's comments about Giuliani's abortion stance were actually tougher than Sam Brownback's in the first debate, but the respectful tone both men struck was notable. If Giuliani is the nominee, it would make sense for him to pick a strong social conservative as his running mate. At the very least, it would make social conservatives more confident that a President Giuliani would not remake the GOP in his socially liberal image.
As Quin notes, Huckabee has his problems, however. Brownback is a bit more conservative across the board, helping Giuliani on every front except for immigration. But Brownback may look too much like a religious right figure, as opposed to a moderate social conservative, for many swing voters otherwise inclined to vote for Giuliani.
Giuliani and Paul
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 12:08PM
Giuliani obviously won the exchange. Ron Paul was a bit awkward in crafting his explanation of blowback, but more importantly he failed to grasp the importance of striking the right emotional chord in these debates. Quoting Robert Taft isn't enough.
That said, arguing that U.S. interventions in the Middle East have motivated people to support or even engage in anti-American terrorism is not the same as arguing that we deserve those attacks or that terrorism is justified. The Republican frontrunners argue that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would cause terrorists to follow us home and attack us on American soil. If that were to actually happen, they would not be saying that we deserved the resulting attacks but merely that they were, in their view, a predictable consequence of U.S. policy.
There is evidence that our involvement in the Middle East has made some people living in the region angry enough to want to kill Americans. That fact doesn't automatically dictate what our foreign policy should be, nor does it follow that if we were to leave the region tomorrow that Islamist terrorism would cease to be a problem. But it shouldn't be beyond the pale to bring up.
Hunter Won (?) Or Did Fred?
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 10:32AM
I was unable to watch the debate last night. But my father, a GOP activist since the early 1960s and a onetime Republican National Committeeman, told me that he came away from it liking Duncan Hunter the best. At the very least, Hunter is making a great case that he ought to be Secretary of Defense. Meanwhile, I am disturbed (but not surprised) to hear that Huckabee again is getting high marks. Conservatives ought not fall for His Glibness. He's a big spender with ethical blind spots and is not the guy we need on the ticket.
All that said, no matter what happened in last night's debate, NOBODY did better yesterday than Fred Thompson, whose response to Michael Moore was so good that it is worth watching again if you missed it the first time. This guy has star power, great instincts, and solid conservative principles.
Ron Paul As Tom Hagen
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 8:53AM
Come to think of it, wasn't Ron Paul's comment like Tom Hagen's in the flashback scene of the Godfather Part II when, on the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, he says, "We should have been expecting it after the oil embargo." Giuliani played the Sonny role: "Oil embargo or not, they got no right dropping bombs."
Giuliani-Huckabee?
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 8:47AM
One interesting moment in the debate came when Mike Huckabee praised Giuliani for being honest about his pro-choice views, despite their profound disagreement on abortion. This made me wonder whether the former Arkansas governor was auditioning to be Rudy's vice president should Giuliani get the nomination. There is an argument to be made that the two candidates would compliment each other well, because each man's strength is the other's weakness. Giuliani brings celebrity status, strength on national security, and a strong record of fiscal conservatism. Huckabee (who is unknown, who has been blasted by economic conservatives for raising taxes and increasing spending, and who doesn't have any credentials on national security) is an evangelical Christian who is rock solid on social issues. So, when you put them together, Giuliani and Huckabee offer conservatives a full spectrum conservative ticket, in the absence of a single conservative candidate who fully represents the right. I'm not saying this would be my choice or making a prediction. But it's something to keep in mind.
(It's worth noting that Huckabee was far less deferential to Giuliani last month when he addressed reporters at the American Spectator's newsmaker breakfast.)
Ron Paul's Rhetorical Ineptness
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 4:06AM
Jesse Walker is awfully confused. Commenting on Giuliani's "I don't think I've ever heard that before" line in last night's debate, Walker sees three possibilities:
1. Giuliani lives in a bubble so thick it makes the president look well-informed. He really has never heard the blowback theory before, even though it is common currency in policy circles.None of these are correct. Number 2 comes closest, but it's inside-out: As the tape plainly shows, it was Paul who put forth a variation on the blowback theory that began and ended with Iraq. If his views were distorted -- and my sense is they were -- he did the distorting himself; Rudy just responded to what Paul said.2. Giuliani is familiar with the blowback theory, but is distorting Paul's views by suggesting America's air raids on Iraq were supposed to be the only intervention precipitating 9/11....
3. Giuliani wasn't being that crafty. He is aware that the bombings were not America's only Middle Eastern intervention of the '90s, and he knows that Paul knows this too. He is familiar with the blowback theory and was just playing dumb for the crowd. Put more succinctly, he's a dishonest demagogue.
The Eye of The Rudy Watch
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 2:09AM
My Rocky III analogy held tonight, quite literally. All you need to do is look at the glare Rudy shoots Ron Paul during their exchange. This was Giuliani's "I paid for this microphone" moment. Critics have questioned whether Giuliani has the fire in the belly for the long campaign, pointing to confused and muddled responses he has given in interviews and in the first debate. Tonight Giuliani demonstrated why he is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. The Rudy who showed up tonight was the tough as nails prosecutor who took down the mob, the crime-fighting mayor, the leader who displayed steely resolve on the darkest day in American history. Cynics will say his interjection after Paul's comments was an example of crass political opportunism, but it was pretty clear it came straight from the heart of "someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11."
Even before the Paul exchange, it was pretty clear we would be watching a different Rudy than the one from the first debate. From the get go, he seemed more confident, and offered crisp clear answers on Iraq and spending. He also flashed his sense of humor with the "Rudy McRomney wouldn't be a bad ticket" line. On abortion, again, there's a certain element of the party that won't support him, but he fielded questions on the topic much more deftly than he has before. I thought framing it as a small government issue was a smart tactic as well. (Of course, taking his stance on the issue as a given.)
The performance reinforces my view that Giuliani's decision to run as an unabashedly pro-choice seems to have lifted a major weight off of his shoulders, making him generally more forceful and self-assured.
As for the other contenders, I thought it was interesting to see the bad blood that has been simmering beneath the surface between the McCain and Romney camps begin to come to a boil. In a FoxNews interview after the debate, Romney stepped up the rhetoric, accusing McCain of flip-flopping on a number of issues, so I'm sure they'll be more words between the two campaigns as the days, weeks and months move forward. I think it could get ugly between these two, and that has to be good news for Rudy.
After a successful initial debate, I think that Romney was a bit weaker this time around. Although he avoided any major gaffes, which is the important thing, he was much more on the defensive than last time as he was challenged with more pointed questions on his policy reversals.
Mike Huckabee turned in another strong performance, and clearly lends himself well to this format.
Tom Tancredo and Jim Gilmore both missed major opportunities. Tancredo gave a weak answer on his signature issue, immigration. And Gilmore had trouble articulating what was wrong with Rudy McRomney and why he is the true conservative. None of the other candidates were particularly memorable.
But let's face it, I don't think I'm being overly Rudy-centric by thinking that six months from now, the only thing people will remember about this debate is the Rudy-Paul slugfest.
More thoughts from John Tabin on the main site.
Re: A Question of Etiquette
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 1:51AM
John: I couldn't agree with you more...about Jim Antle's column. But where I come for we don't refer to a 73 year old who's just died as a "guy." As for all the terrible and awful things Falwell said over the years, just check out Timothy Noah's list to which Dave Holman linked earlier. Next to nothing there to get all worked up about, unless one's a sanctimonious, intolerant liberal who refuses to hear anything that would not pass muster with Frank Rich and others of that ilk. Imagine, it's impermissible to suggest Martin Luther King, Jr. had Communist associates? Or to criticize feminists or Desmond Tutu? I dread to think what else Noah has in his Falwell file. How diligently he's kept it, too. Other conservatives will now surely be terrified that he has the goods on them as well...
Re: A Question of Etiquette
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 1:21AM
Wlady, I'm genuinely shocked that you'd airily dismiss Falwell's rhetorical track record as merely "way un-PC." But again, my sense of when the "too soon" clock runs out is fuzzy, so I'm really not sure how to respond.
UPDATE: Forget this thread! Go read Jim Antle's fantastic Falwell obit, which deftly and tastefully says all that really needs to be said about the guy.
Re: A Question of Etiquette
Posted by on 5.16.07 @ 12:00AM
I don't even know why we're discussing this. If John McCain could appear with Jerry Falwell not that long ago, why even bring the matter up? A significant figure in the politics of the Reagan era has died. He was liked and likable. He had the sort of enemies that Karl Rove seems to attract. So he said certain things out loud that proved way un-PC. Horrors. Leave the ugliness to the drunken louts like Hitchens, who apparently couldn't wait (as John predicted) to trash a man who had just died -- if the glimpse I caught of Hitchens on Anderson Cooper was any indication. What an ugly public culture we now have. It works both way, too. See e.g. all the contempt spewed at New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine after his near-fatal accident. Drunken British soccer hoodlums probably display more class than those who kicked Corzine when he was already almost paralyzed.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Re: A Question of Etiquette
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 11:04PM
Dave: I've been browsing through Daily Kos, and -- credit where it's due -- the majority of posters seem to be taking a let-the-body-cool-off approach and scolding those who aren't, so I'd say it's fair to say that Tim Noah's standards of tact are a bit too low. I don't know when it's the right time to get into that stuff (which is why I asked), but I'm pretty sure that "immediately" is the wrong answer.
The Real Winners
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 10:45PM
The real winners of tonight's debate were the Fox News moderators. Hume, Wallace, and Goler came across as seasoned professionals asking interesting and sometimes hard-hitting questions. Far superior to the Matthews/Olbermann Kosfest.
Tabin and Falwell
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 10:41PM
John, when it comes to a person who has just died, I suspect the old Thumper rule should be firmly in effect. Ambiguity is allowable, but plain old critique doesn't seem too kosher. It's not like the guy was a dictator, you know? He was a gaffe-prone evangelist who helped bring us Ronald Reagan. Not terrible.
Re: A Question of Etiquette
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 9:45PM
John, if Slate or Timothy Noah are sufficient standards of decency for you, it is open season on Falwell. He couldn't wait much longer than eight hours to let the whole world know that he is not a fan.
Are They Really That Crazy?
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 7:32PM
Jonah Goldberg parses a disturbing poll on the "Bush Knew!!!!" question. (Best line: "It's like trying to explain to a 4-year-old why Superman isn't real.")
A Question of Etiquette
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 7:21PM
I was, um, not a fan of Jerry Falwell. How long is it appropriate to wait before expounding on that?
Seven Minute Debating
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 5:34PM
I just spoke with Jim Dyke, a Giuliani communications advisor, about tonight's debate. He said Giuliani will attempt to emphasize his record as mayor, the war on terrorism, and his fiscal conservatism. (This didn't come up in the interview, but the Giuliani campaign has already gotten plenty of mileage out of the Club for Growth's glowing report on his economic record, if press releases are any measure. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rudy tout the report during the debate).
Try as he might, though, Giuliani will be forced to talk about other matters he'd rather avoid. Two issues of particular interest in
As we were wrapping up our talk, Dyke acknowledged that Giuliani's nuanced positions on social issues make them more difficult to explain in neat sound bites, which is required in a 10-candidate debate with 30-60 second answers. Dyke said in the last debate, each candidate spoke for only about 7 minutes.
The Low-Down on Student Loans
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 4:08PM
An advocate for the private loan industry sends me this note, and it rings true to me:
"Last week, by a vote 414-3, the House of Representatives passed the Student Loan Sunshine Act of 2007. Introduced by Rep. George Miller of California, the bill places myriad disclosure requirements on private student lenders with regard to their financial dealings with colleges and universities. Disclosure and transparency requirements should be applauded. But they should also be applied equally.What has not been reported about this bill is that it specifically exempts the Federal Direct Loan Program from the same disclosure requirements. The FDLP is managed by the Department of Education and has lost nearly fifteen billion dollars in fifteen years. Students who attend colleges that only participate in the government's program get loans that are more expensive than students who attend schools that participate in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). A recent story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch illustrated how University of Missouri-Columbia students are shut out of other, perhaps low-cost loans, because the school only participates in the Direct Loan Program and does not allow students to shop for loans with private lenders."
(Quin talking again:) Anybody with pro-free-market sensibilities should, it seems to me, immediately grasp the significance of this. It makes no sense whatsoever NOT to impose the same disclosure requirements on a government program that are placed on private enterprise. The Senate should fix this by eliminating the provision exempting the FDLP from the disclosure requirements. And President Bush ought to insist that the provision be removed.
Re: Remembering Jerry Falwell
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 3:13PM
I'll always remember him fondly for the best of personal reasons. In early 2001, I attended the Media Research Center's annual dinner in Washington, along with my politically engaged older son, who was then in high school. It was the first time he'd attended one of these gala events. I had no idea how he'd react. There were lots and lots of luminaries in attendance. He knew who they were. Yet nothing pleased and thrilled him more than running into Jerry Falwell himself, live and in person, someone we'd never even spoke about. As far as my boy was concerned, Falwell was the real star -- final confirmation, if any was needed, of the man's genuine charisma and place in our political history.
Remembering the Late Jerry Falwell
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 2:36PM
Jerry Falwell is dead. Like Dick Nixon, they can't kick him around anymore.
For that matter I can't kick him around anymore. Neither can the rest of the Christian community. How many of us for the last three decades have prefaced a statement of our religious commitment with a disclaimer that we aren't like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?
These men stepped out front early and they took an incredible amount of fire. Some self-inflicted. A lot of it because members of the fashionable class hated them and hated what they stood for.
I've complained before that too much attention has been paid of late to Jerry Falwell and that more should be focused on Chuck Colson and James Dobson, but in terms of history, Jerry Falwell deserves his day. I'm not sure we'll ever know exactly how much his efforts swayed Christians and encouraged them to enter the political process on the side of conservatives. His example, however, was undeniable. The Moral Majority preceded a vast network of policy shops, mini-think tanks, and advocacy organizations.
There are a couple of things I'll always remember about Jerry
Falwell.
First is that the celebrated Catholic author and National Book
Award winner Walker Percy once wrote about watching a debate
between Falwell and Bob Guccione, publisher of Hustler magazine. He remarked that he heard the Gospel
according to Guccione and the Gospel according to Falwell and had
no difficulty at all choosing the latter.
Second is that although he ended his career calling himself an evangelical Christian, he was truly a fundamentalist in the old time tradition. That word took on so many negative associations during the years that neither he nor anyone else much cared for it. Now, calling someone a fundamentalist is like using the N-Word. Alvin Plantinga said it has become a reference to any S.O.B. to the right of the person using it. But Falwell was a fundamentalist Christian who became convinced of the need to abandon fundamentalist isolationism. He answered evangelical Carl F.H. Henry's call to Christian political engagement about a quarter century late, but when he stepped in he made a big splash.
Blessings to you, Jerry Falwell. I pray you are now with the Lord in whom we Christians have placed our hope.
Jerry Falwell, RIP
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 2:07PM
The Moral Majority founder has died.
Christopher Hitchens is composing one of his patented anti-eulogies at this very moment, I suspect.
Re: Multimedia Mitt
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 1:58PM
Jim Geraghty has a somewhat more detailed account of the Romney conference call.
I was invited to join the call but was too busy doing the extremely important work of reading through the hilarious Ain't It Cool News thread, noted here, in which Bruce Willis dropped in to chat with fans and then went to great lengths to prove that he was indeed Bruce Willis. I feel duty-bound to keep abreast of such important developments.
Thompson Responds To Michael Moore
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 1:39PM
Fred Thompson has responded to Michael Moore's debate challenge over Cuba. The video looks great, but unfortuntately I'm not getting any audio. Perhaps others will have better luck.
UPDATE: The audio seems to be fine now, and it's pretty awesome.
Multimedia Mitt
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 1:16PM
I just got off a Mitt Romney bloggers' conference call. The two main points of discussion were tonight's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina and the campaign's new "Sign Up America" initiative aimed at signing up 24,000 new supporters in 24 hours. Sen. Jim DeMint, perhaps Romney's most important South Carolina supporter, participated in the call.
Romney's aides stressed the "three Ms" -- message, money, and mobilization -- as being the new initiative's goals. They argued that their campaign proves the Democrats don't have a monopoly on the web.
On a less technical note, Senator DeMint emphasized Romney's managerial background and the need for a full-spectrum candidate with good organizational skills. He did not keep the focus on social issues like abortion or even conservative issues more generally. Whether this represents a strategic shift by the Romney camp remains to be seen.
Is Club for Growth Going Easy on Rudy?
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 12:47PM
Ryan Sager, no Giuliani foe, says yes.
Forget Giuliani
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 10:51AM
In the Weekly Standard, Matt Labash has a great profile of the next President of the United States: John Cox.
Note: I'm being facetious about Cox but not Labash. Definitely worth a read.
Clueless Edsall
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 10:39AM
Philip -- Thomas Edsall made some good points in his TNR piece, but he showed an absolute lack of historical knowledge in this sentence: Both Reagan and Bush were masters of polarization. They calculated that it would be better to win by one vote, with a clear policy mandate, than to try to bring along a less committed 60 percent of the electorate with an appeal to consensus and compromise.
Where was Mr. Edsall during the 1984 Reagan campaign? It was just the opposite. Rather than run on specifics and try to get a policy mandate for any particular policies (especially domestic) during the 1984 campaign, Reagan's team ran a happy-talk, morning-in-America campaign aimed at trying to win all 50 states. Some of us criticized the campaign for doing that, and were proved right when his domestic agenda, so skillfully advanced during the first Reagan term, stalled almost completely from then on. There was almost nothing whatsoever polarizing about that 1984 campaign -- unless you were a clueless coastal liberal to whom the very existence of Ronald Reagan was polarizing in and of itself.
All of which is why the entire Edsall piece should be taken with a grain of salt: It might just be nothing more than liberal wish-fulfillment.
Linder Gives Finger to Red State
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 10:30AM
And these moron-solons wonder why they got their butts kicked last November and why people rank them as being less popular than dog vomit! GOP Rep. John Linder not only believes that ethics are not important, but (forgetting the lessons of Rathergate) he thinks conservative bloggers aren't important either.
Edsall on Giuliani
Posted by on 5.15.07 @ 10:05AM
In The New Republic, Thomas Edsall argues that "The GOP's future belongs to Rudy." I have some disagreements with his cynical portrayal of conservativism in parts of the article, but his central thesis is something that I've long been arguing: that because this is the first Republican primary season since 9/11, social issues will play a less dominant role in the nominating process than they have in the past, providing a unique opening for Giuliani.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Doesn't He Care About the Surgeon General?
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 6:13PM
This column is a pretty good example of how not to write a hit piece against Fred Thompson.
Red State Scores Against GOP
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 5:39PM
The Red State blog's battle against the House GOP leadership has earned notice at The Hill newspaper and elsewhere, and John Boehner reportedly is feeling the heat. For those to whom this is a new topic, a recap: To replace ethically questionably John Doolittle on the Appropriations Committee, the House GOP leadership appointed.... ethically questionable (and major porkmeister) Ken Calvert, despite MULTIPLE questions about earmarks that just so happen to benefit his real estate investments and despite an old arrest for consorting with a prostitute. Erick Erickson of Red State, a highly respected conservative blog, is leading the charge, which is being endorsed by a growing number of other conservative bloggers, to insist that the House GOP actually live up to its promises on ethics and earmarks. After all, it's not as if these guys didn't get their butts kicked last fall in large part because of their horrible ethics and out-of-control spending... now is it? Scroll down through the posts in the link above to get a fuller report on all this. It's well worth watching.
In Your Heart You Know He's . . .
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 5:22PM
John, you provide the best defense Mitt could have and demonstrate an admirable open-mindedness in the process. I'm not sure pro-lifers are prepared to be as open and to let their guard down. We've been burned before. We want someone who, when the moment comes, has already decided who they are and what they believe and will not be caught up in a new determination. I think Mitt is extraordinarily susceptible to that new determination.
In any case, there's actually a pragmatic impulse behind constantly questioning a candidate's commitment and forcing them to protest their commitment time and again. You radically increase the price of going back to the other side of the issue in the future.
A Humvee in Every Garage
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 4:47PM
So, say '"so long" to the old High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle -- The Humvee.
The Army is replacing the vulnerable vehicles with the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected thing called MRAP. They cost a million each, and the Army Times quotes a Pentagon source as saying 8,500 will be procured for fiscal 2008 and another 9,000 the next year, when all 17,700 Humvees now in Iraq will have been cashiered. The MRAP, we're told, will not mean the end of development of yet a third vehicle, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.
Question: what's to become of the 17,700 Humvees to be replaced?
Suggestion: make them surplus available to civilian sale. Traffic being what it is and is becoming, a military Humvee with a gun implacement on top will find an anxiously ready market, giving new and vibrant meaning to the phrase, "road rage."
Re: The Key Question on the Romney Conversion
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 4:40PM
Actually, I'm not sure that that would tell us if Romney is "really" a pro-lifer. Politicians have to pick their battles, after all, and given the political climate in Massachusetts, he might well have chosen to keep his pro-life sentiments to himself, given that they'd not only be politically damaging but would make no difference in terms of policy.
Another possibility is that the change of heart preceeded the choice not to seek another term, since running in Massachusetts would have required him to maintain a publicly pro-choice stance, and he couldn't stomach the disingenuous that that would require. If that's the case, than the question is totally inapposite: He only would have chosen to run for a second term if there had been no conversion.
In any case, we should be less concerned with what a politician believes in his heart than in what he'd do in the real world. On that score, my sense is that a President Romney would indeed be allied with pro-lifers most of the time.
RE: The Key Question on the Mitt Conversion
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 3:32PM
Hunter, I have my guesses as to the answer.
The Key Question on the Mitt Conversion
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 2:05PM
Does anyone think that Mitt Romney would be pro-life today if he had chosen to run for a second term in Massachusetts rather than for the presidency?
If you know the answer to that question, then you know if he's really a pro-lifer.
Re: Bloomberg Better Than Giuliani
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 1:52PM
Jim: Not just ingrates but slobs. I was in NYC the other weekend, my first trip there in years, and I've never seen so much free-floating filth and litter, even along Midtown sidewalks and curbs (often right next to Bloomberg's No Outdoor Smoking Signs). I'd say the city has gone to the dogs, except the dogs have better sense and they all congregate in Central Park, where the old rules of Rudy cleanliness apparently still apply. Made me think that maybe Rudy should forget about running for president and run for New York mayor instead. The city needs him now, as much as ever.
Another Pro-Life Convert?
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 1:14PM
This William F. Buckley, Jr. column can't hurt Mitt Romney. Now he can add WFB to his usual list of past abortion converts alongside Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Henry Hyde.
Newt Morning Watch
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 12:21PM
ABC reports:
Via Real Clear Politics.
Bloomberg Better Than Giuliani
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 11:39AM
Now, I'm not as big a fan of Rudy Giuliani as some of my colleagues. But you've got to be kidding. Ingrates.
Re: Secret Speech
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 10:21AM
We were at the CNP dinner on Saturday night and heard the aforementioned Mr. Thompson. He indeed receive a standing ovation from the crowd, and an enthusiastic reception when he took to the podium.
It's interesting that people were confused by the Libby references, when Thompson stated clearly why he was using Libby as an example of overall legal and judicial reach. After explaining how the John Roberts nomination showed how the Left would do anything to destroy a good conservative, and why conservatives must fight for "first principles," Thompson detailed the Libby case. We took notes on his remarks:
"In our system all citizens are guaranteed equal protection. And when we appropriate unlimited resources and give unlimited power and direct it all toward one individual, there had better be extraordinary circumstances."
Later, Thompson added that the Libby prosecution was, "Just a case of public officials without the courage to do the right thing and stop this farce before it began."
Throughout the speech, you could hear people murmuring, "Amen," and in a speech without a lot of clear applause lines, we counted at least six or seven times folks burst into applause.
In speaking with several people after the event, all came away impressed with Thompson, less with his style, but with the fact that he came into CNP and spoke about an issue that everyone in the room cared about. "He didn't pander, which is something I might have expected, frankly, given his future plans," says one senior former Reagan Administration member. "I expected a laundry list, and instead we got a thoughtful, focused speech on the judiciary. Everyone here cares about judges."
We think Thompson's style is throwing people off. They are used to a candidate too nervous about appearances to stray from prepared text. Instead, they have a fellow who writes much of his own material, stands before them and talks about what he thinks is important. If we'd been force-fed pre-packaged, political pablum for six months, we'd be thrown too.
Club For Growth Lauds Giuliani
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 10:16AM
The Club for Growth is out with its report on Rudy Giuliani's fiscal record, and he
is given high marks. On his record, Pat Toomey writes:
Despite powerful local obstacles, Giuliani was able to significantly cut taxes; hold spending increases down below the rates of inflation and population growth; overhaul the welfare system; deregulate and privatize many local government services; and join the fight for school choice. These accomplishments played a crucial role in transforming New York City from an economic basket case into a thriving economy.
Not To Be Missed
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 9:51AM
Front Page Magazine has quite the interview this morning -- and a lovely illustration, which you'll probably want to see at the top of FPM's home page first before proceeding to the proverbial thousand words.
Thompson's Secret Speech
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 9:43AM
Fred Thompson gave a closed speech to the Council for National Policy in Tyson's Corner on Saturday, and the Hotline posts a less than enthusiastic account from a "tipster":
Rudy and the GOP Platform
Posted by on 5.14.07 @ 12:49AM
In my column this morning, I discuss how Rudy Giuliani seemed to find his voice on social issues in Houston on Friday. Although I didn't mention it in my article, I think this exchange with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday was quite important:
GIULIANI: I'm not going to deal with the platform. I mean, I think that any candidate...
WALLACE: You couldn't live with that, could you?
GIULIANI: Well, any candidate of the party has about nine out of
10 things in the platform they agree with and one or two things
that they don't agree with. I know what my positions are. A very,
very big portion of my party agrees with that. A certain portion of
my party disagrees with that. My attempt is to try to broaden the
base of the Republican Party, to try to bring in people that can
agree and that can disagree on that, because I think the issues
that we face about terrorism, about our economy, about the growth
of our economy are so important that we have to have the biggest
outreach possible.
To me, this is a tacit acknowledgement by Giuliani that the Republican Party is still a pro-life party, and he won't try to remake it in his image as a pro-choice party. He is asking, at a time when we are engaged in a war on terrorism, that Republican voters give him a chance. But he sees that the big tent cuts both ways. When he says the party should stay united, he doesn't only mean that the party should be accepting of his views, but that he'll also understand the fact that "a very, very big portion" of the GOP feels differently on abortion, and he won't try to lead a rebellion against that. This also reinforces my point that Giuliani is not another Pete Wilson.
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- The Continuing Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
