The American Spectator

Immigration Bill Lives?

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 6.9.07 @ 5:15PM

It appears that some supporters of the Senate immigration deal haven't given up. In The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes points out the Democrats' role in blocking the bill.

Add a Comment

topics: Immigration

To Your Health

Posted by John Tabin on 6.9.07 @ 12:01PM

A study involving Spanish nuns shows that beer -- more specifically, hops -- can lower your cholesterol.

Add a Comment

Hell On A Sunday

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 6.9.07 @ 11:46AM

John Edwards' mother has sent out yet another email flogging her son's birthday on Sunday--as reported here on Friday--bragging/admitting to us that 7500 suckers have so far fallen for the ploy of giving a monetary offering in his honor in exchange for a secret pecan pie recipe. "Enjoying pie is best with friends," she writes. "So once you get your recipe, invite over a tableful of friends and family to bake, eat and celebrate John's birthday with you."

Sounds magical. Could I maybe donate a little more and get out of it?

Add a Comment

I Do Love Me A Strawman

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 6.9.07 @ 11:33AM

My "Fox Qaeda" AmSpec blog post has raised the ire of some readers over at Resurrection Song. I do my best to defend myself here.

Add a Comment

Romney in the Granite State

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.8.07 @ 5:12PM

Mitt's up 9 points over Rudy in a new Franklin Pierce College New Hampshire poll and 11 points over McCain in a Mason Dixon poll. Just like in Iowa, evidence that Romney's early state strategy is bearing fruit.

Add a Comment

Re: Ames Not Up In Flames

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.8.07 @ 4:51PM

There's an argument to be made that it would be a no-lose situation for Thompson were he to compete in Ames. If he doesn't do well, his campaign can always attribute it to a late start, and at least he'll win some good will for showing up. If he has a strong showing, he can gain some momentum and potentially throw a wrench into Romney's plans.

In other news, Sam Brownback will be there.

Add a Comment

Romney's Null Set

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.8.07 @ 4:39PM

In a series of posts, Ezra Klein has been taking aim at Mitt Romney for making the argument during Tuesday's debate that, "if Saddam Hussein had opened his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd gone in and found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn't be in this conflict. But he didn't do those things." This statement has caused quite a stir on the liberal blogs, with Ezra and others pointing out that Saddam did let in the IAEA, but they didn't find any weapons.

To be fair to Ezra, he is correct that factually speaking, Romney was wrong in saying Saddam did not open up Iraq to inspectors. But to be fair to Romney, while Saddam did allow inspectors to visit Iraq, he did not allow Iraqi scientists to be interviewed outside of Iraq, free from intimidation, and his declarations to the U.N. left many weapons unaccounted for.

In Cobra II, Michael Gordon offered what I think is the most plausible account of Saddam's mindset at the time. Citing interviews and a classified U.S. military report, he found that while Saddam wanted to get the United Nations off his back, he deliberately took steps to make sure he didn't totally cooperate, because he wanted to preserve a cloud of doubt regarding his WMD as a deterrent against Iran and internal enemies.

 In a NY Times account summarizing his findings, Gordon wrote:

 To ensure that Iraq would pass scrutiny by United Nations arms inspectors, Hussein ordered that they be given the access that they wanted. And he ordered a crash effort to scrub the country so the inspectors would not discover any vestiges of old unconventional weapons, no small concern in a nation that had once amassed an arsenal of chemical weapons, biological agents and Scud missiles, the Iraq survey group report said.

 Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps. And Hussein would not allow his weapons scientists to leave the country, where United Nations officials could interview them outside the government's control.

Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator's goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons - a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview "deterrence by doubt."

That strategy led to mutual misperception. When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed the Security Council in February 2003, he offered evidence from photographs and intercepted communications that the Iraqis were rushing to sanitize suspected weapons sites. Hussein's efforts to remove any residue from old unconventional weapons programs were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons. The very steps the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it, increasing the odds of a military confrontation.

So, while Ezra is right about the specific wording Romney chose, it is true that Saddam was not totally cooperative with inspectors, and if you buy Gordon's account, this was by design. Obviously, a preponderance of evidence now shows that the Bush administration was wrong about Saddam's WMD programs. But given Saddam's history of deceiving weapon's inspectors, it wasn't unreasonable at the time to view with suspicion the gaps in Iraq's declarations to the U.N. and his unwillingness to allow scientists to be interviewed outside of the country.

Add a Comment

topics: Television, Military, Iraq, Iran, United Nations, Africa

Ames Not Up in Flames

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 6.8.07 @ 4:38PM

Chris Cillizza has an item suggesting that Fred Thompson may actually participate in the Ames straw poll. If true, it may breathe new life into the event after the pullout by Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. And it could transform it into a contest for the mantle of conservative alternative between Thompson and Mitt Romney.

A comparison might be the 1996 Louisiana caucuses. That year, Louisiana leapfrogged ahead of Iowa in the schedule. Most of the big candidates, including frontrunner Bob Dole, decided to forgo the caucuses in deference to Iowa. But not all of them -- the caucus became an early fight on the right between Phil Gramm and Pat Buchanan (Alan Keyes also participated). Gramm, the $20 million man, was expected to do well. Instead Buchanan beat him in Louisiana, beginning the process that knocked Gramm out of the race.

Fred Thompson is very different from Pat Buchanan and Mitt Romney might not turn out to be Phil Gramm. But it's a cautionary tale for Romney and a potentially interesting spectacle for the rest of us.

Add a Comment

Expel This Man

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 6.8.07 @ 3:26PM

In the Alabama Senate yesterday, Republican state Sen. Charles Bishop actually punched Democratic colleague (and former longtime Senate President Pro Tem, now merely the "power behind the throne") Lowell Barron squarely across the face. Not only that, but if you watch this version of things, you will see that Bishop was rather unrepentatnt. Two things need to be said. The first, and least important, is that Lowell Barron is a despicable, double-talking throwback to the bad old days of institutionally corrupt backwater legislatures. I've sat around a conference table with him and listened to him obfsucate and prevaricate, and I watched for years as he killed every effort at nn-ideological, "good government" reform while pushing a liberal agenda. He does deserve a commupeance, and probably merits a sound thrashing in a fair fight after "stepping outside" in response to a public challenge to settle things like a man.

But (and this is the second thing that needs to be said) what Bishop did wasn't a fair fight, and it wasn't outside. It was a sucker punch, in the Senate chamber, a punch thrown because Bishops poor supposedly virgin ears couldn't bear to hear himself called an SOB. It was outrageous behavior, the behavior of a lout and a coward. In a modern republican (small 'r') government, it is not just unacceptable behavior, but destructive of the entire civic order. The Alabama Senate, acting within its authority to discipline its own members, ought to expel Mr. Bishop from the Senate.

Add a Comment

From The Association of Public Television Stations

Posted by David Hogberg on 6.8.07 @ 1:50PM

Congress Increases Much Needed Funds to Public Broadcasters!

As a friend of mine said, "'Cause how would we get our Deepak Chopra specials and Moody Blues reunion concerts without massive federal subsidies?"

Add a Comment

Newt Says He May Be Able To Do More on Sidelines

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.8.07 @ 1:27PM

Newt Gingrich, though still coy about his presidential ambitions, suggested this morning that he may be able to accomplish more by staying out of the race and focusing on developing and spreading ideas for confronting our nation's challenges.

"What I've outlined here today is vastly more important than anything I could accomplish, at least in the short run, if I were a candidate for president," Gingrich said in the question and answer period following an address he gave at the American Enterprise Institute. He said he would work with all of the campaigns to try to get them to adopt his ideas for transforming government.

Gingrich cautioned that his overall thinking hasn't changed, and he still plans to wait until the end of September to assess whether there is a vacuum in the field for somebody with a bold vision for the nation's future. Earlier this week, he said the odds were 4-1 against his running.

In handicapping the current Republican race, he had good things to say about Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, but he said between campaign finance reform and immigration, John McCain faces the "greatest challenge" of capturing the nomination.

Gingrich said that while he disagrees with Giuliani on social issues and believes those issues "really matter," in a world where a nuclear weapon could destroy an American city, Giuliani can make a case for himself. He said that Giuliani has done a much better job as a candidate than most people expected.

During his formal remarks, Gingrich also singled out Giuliani for praise, using his reforms as mayor as a prime example of how government can be made to function properly by measuring results.

"I commend to you Rudy Giuliani's extraordinary achievements as mayor," Gingrich said. "Today, because he used computer statistics, there is 75 percent less crime in New York City than in 1990. It's the safest large city in the United States."

Later in the speech, Gingrich said, "To be fair, what Gov. Romney did before he was governor, as chairman of the winter Olympics, was a great example of a way to turn things around by being different " He also said that Romney has shown a willingness to work very hard to build a successful campaign.

Gingrich predicted that Fred Thompson also could be a "formidable candidate."

He was not so kind to McCain. During his speech, Gingrich referred to McCain-Feingold as the first legislation to try to silence dissent since the Alien & Sedition Acts, and he blasted the McCain-Kennedy immigration legislation. Both, he later said, would make it a challenge for McCain to win the nomination, though it was still early.

Gingrich urged all of the Republican candidates to study the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy to learn how a politician from the incumbent party can present himself as an agent of change with a public that is unhappy with the status quo.

Add a Comment

topics: John McCain, Immigration

The Immigration Impasse

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 6.8.07 @ 12:26PM

The Senate immigration bill failed a second key cloture vote 45-50, failing to get a simple majority much less the 60 votes needed to end debate. This means that the legislation is all but dead, though it could always rise again. Not very long ago, the conventional wisdom was that it could pass the Senate with 70-75 votes. What happened?

Even though there was a very favorable political climate for the so-called comprehensive approach to immigration reform -- a Democratic Congress, a sympathetic Republican president, important Republican senators who decided it was better to cut a deal now than face the kind of bill that could pass after the 2008 elections -- the legislation has faltered for the same reason last year's Hagel-Martinez compromise failed.

First, to dodge charges of amnesty, these bills make illegal immigrants jump through all kinds of hoops to gain legal status. But on careful examination, it usually turns out that these hoops are either window dressing or administratively unworkable. This particular bill contained a Z visa feature and other disincentives for the path to citizenship that made it not too difficult to predict how illegal immigration might persist after its enactment. All these bills pretend that an overtaxed immigration bureaucracy can seamlessly work through 12 to 20 million applications in a short period of time to weed out the kinds of immigrants we wouldn't want to legalize.

So the debate ends up getting mired in technical details. These details take on a special importance because of differences within the coalition behind comprehensive legislation -- its Republican supporters emphasize labor, its Democratic supporters see new voters. Consequently, Democrats emphasize pathways to citizenship while Republicans emphasize guest workers. The specific requirements to qualify for some kind of legal employment status therefore can and often do split the coalition.

These bills also always attract a strong public outcry which makes soft supporters in Congress back away from them. Proponents like to point to polls showing large majorities endorsing concepts like earned citizenship and opposing mass deportations. But these concepts aren't the same as the actual legislation and understate the opposition of those who care most.

Finally, with regards to this bill, it was clear the Democrats were getting what they wanted first and the Republicans getting their provisions later. This problem was compounded by the fact that many Democrats seemed willing to revisit the bill to make it more unfavorable to the GOP in the next Congress.

Add a Comment

topics: NATO, Immigration

Thompson's Advantage

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.8.07 @ 9:29AM

In a series of recent posts (here and here) I laid out what I thought to be Fred Thompson's greatest weakness--the fact that even though he does a good job communicating the challenges America is facing, he doesn't explain what he has actually accomplished in the past that should make voters feel confident that he's candidate most qualified to lead us through those challenges. With that said, I thought it was only fair to explain what I thought to be his biggest advantage as a candidate.

In my view the best case you can make for Thomson is that he's the only Republican candidate capable of unifying the party. We know the Democrats will be unified. Whatever happens during the primary, they will rally around their nominee, because they are desperate to take back the White House. Republicans, however, are still sniping at one another, and each of the current top three candidates has something about him that bothers a portion of the party. A contingent of social conservatives won't accept Rudy, even if Romney wins the nomination a lot of Republicans will still be fed up with his inauthenticity, and McCain, well, he's McCain. But Thompson could be the one candidate that the entire party can get behind. He may not be everybody's first choice, but he isn't going to anger one group of Republicans so much that they'll want "Anybody But Fred." At least Thompson has that potential. That should be one of his main selling points.

Add a Comment

RE: Dr. Rudy's RX

Posted by David Hogberg on 6.7.07 @ 7:12PM

Phil, I particularly like this part of the article:

In Mr. Giuliani's view, the U.S. health-care system's major problem is a lack of consumer choice. "It's your health; you should own your own insurance," he said in Tuesday's debate. "The reality is that we need a free market."

A Republican who understands that we do not have a free market in health care! Finally!

Add a Comment

topics: Health Care

Edwards Takes the Bait, Rudy Responds

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.7.07 @ 6:43PM

Today, Edwards took aim at Rudy :

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards chose Republican hopeful Rudy Giuliani's home turf of New York on Thursday to say it was not enough to talk tough on terrorism without addressing its causes....

"If Mayor Giuliani believes that what President Bush has done is good and wants to embrace it and run a campaign for the presidency saying 'I will give you four more years of what this president has given you,' he's allowed to do that.

"He'll never be elected president of the United States, but he's allowed to do that," he said.

"America is looking for something different. They want us to be tough ... but they expect us to be smart," he said.

The Rudy campaign fired back with this statement:

"We are glad to see Rudy's criticism of the Democrats not understanding the terrorists' war on us is starting to register with them."

"John Edwards' track record of predicting election outcomes speaks for itself."

Add a Comment

Commuting Libby's Sentence

Posted by John Tabin on 6.7.07 @ 4:08PM

I suggested the other day that a pardon might be too blunt an instrument to do justice in the Libby case. I'd forgotten that the president's Article II "power to grant reprieves and pardons" includes the power to commute sentences. William Otis makes the case for a commutation that keeps Libby out of jail but leaves the $250,000 fine in place.

Add a Comment

Dr. Rudy's Rx

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.7.07 @ 3:56PM

The Wall Street Journal reports that Rudy Giuliani is preparing to unveil a market-based health care plan:

He envisions a system where neither state regulations nor federal tax law push people into expensive plans rich in benefits. Rather, health insurance should be more like car insurance, he said, where people pay out of pocket for minor repairs and maintenance....

Many health policy experts say the individual market will only work well if Americans are forced to buy insurance, thus injecting into the system younger, healthier people who are now uninsured and balancing out sicker, more expensive patients. That was the approach taken by Massachusetts under former Gov. Mitt Romney, one of Mr. Giuliani's rivals for the party nomination. Democratic candidate John Edwards has called for a similar mandate for individuals buying insurance, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also in the running, is expected to as well.

But Mr. Giuliani rejects a government mandate that all individuals purchase coverage. To do that, he said, the government would have to subsidize the bill for those who can't afford coverage, which would drive up the overall cost. In Massachusetts, the state is subsidizing coverage for poor and low-income families. For example, a family of three earning as much as $51,510 a year could receive a subsidy.

More important, Mr. Giuliani says, is to give consumers more choice. He would supplant state regulations, which require that insurance companies offer benefits ranging from chiropractic care to fertility treatments. Instead, people across the country could buy insurance from any company in any state, meaning they could find cheaper, more basic plans than those now available in their particular state....

"What I would do is change the whole model that we have for health insurance in this country," Mr. Giuliani said. "The problem with our health insurance is it's government- and employer dominated. People don't make individual choices."

I'll be interested in seeing the plan once it gets fleshed out, but broadly speaking, I like the approach, and that's based on my personal experience. When I was a freelancer living in New York I just wanted to purchase a high-deductible catastrophic plan, figuring that what I really was worried about was being covered in case I incurred massive medical expenses in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of some unforseen illness or injury. But when I tried calling all of the insurers in my area, I quickly found out that as an individual living in New York state, I could not purchase such a plan--even if one were offered in another state. In our rapidly changing economy, with more and more people working for themselves out of home offices, the traditional employer-based healthcare model is becoming less and less relevant, and updating it with a government-based model is not the way to go.

Politically speaking, healthcare is an area where Giuliani has a huge oppourtunity to outflank Romney from the right as the campaign goes on. Dave Hogberg has done an excellent job laying out the flaws with Romney's universal healthcare plan in Massachusetts. I don't care how much Romney talks about it being a market-based solution, and I don't care that the Heritage Foundation was bullish on the plan, there's no way that you're going to convince me that having the government force private citizens to purchase healthcare is consistent with conservative principles.  

(Via Liz Mair, who has more.) 

Add a Comment

topics: Health Care, Law

Re: Unhappy Gilmore

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 6.7.07 @ 3:16PM

At this morning's event, I kept wishing I had the power to pull Gilmore aside for two full days and give him some media training and some "messaging" advice. Even when given multiple chances by a friendly audience to hit some home runs, to inspire, to put meat on his rhetorical bones, Gilmore clearly failed to do so. And it's a shame. I have made very clear my admiration for the former Virginia governor. He has a great resume and a record as a solid and effective conservative who wins elections. But his message in this race still lacks focus and lacks a defining issue. What baffles me is that he has shown in the past that he has the ability to REALLY focus on message and choose ONE defining issue. in fact, he gave the left fits when he ran for governor because they said he was such a Johnny-One-Note, always harping on the car tax. Well, it worked: Harping on the need to reduce Virginia's car taxes won him the election, and then he delivered on his promises. Why his message is not equally well honed for the presidential race is beyond me. But I wish him luck. He's a good man.

Add a Comment

topics: Taxes

Re: Unhappy Gilmore

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.7.07 @ 12:02PM

The problem with Gilmore was that he spent much of his opening remarks complaining about how he wasn't given enough time to speak in the debates, but here he was, with a room full of journalists all to himself, and he was harping on his lack of speaking time. But I don't think it's just a matter of time, it's a matter of making the best out of the time allotted to you. According to this clock, Mike Huckabee only got to speak for 49 seconds more than Gilmore, and yet most people agree that Huckabee had an impact.

He also seems to think that by saying he is a "consistent conservative" consistently enough, conservatives will rally around him, even though he doesn't offer a clear conservative vision for the future. When asked to elaborate on the specifics of his tax plan, he took a long time to get to the point that his tax program would be to reduce taxes. He also spent a long time laying out the foreign policy challenges we face, which he said we should address through military power, diplomatic power, economic power, and regaining our moral high ground in the world. Just about everybody running for president--Republican or Democrat--would more or less agree on this, but the disagreement is over how we use the tools at our disposal, but Gilmore, again, was short on specifics.

Gilmore also had some harsh words for his rivals. He said of Giuliani, that he "doesn't pretend to be a conservative. The party should not nominate him, and I don't think they will." But if Gilmore has such a beef with Rudy, how come he spent the whole morning talking about national security and taxes--both issues that Giuliani is strong on--rather than discuss social issues, on which Rudy is most vulnerable? He also said McCain is "not a solid conservative" and Romney's healthcare plan was not market based.

When a questioner asked him about his claim to be "the only true conservative" in the race, he blew his stack, slamming his notebook on the table, and shouting, "I never said that!" He said he was a consistent conservative, but then added, "I don't claim to be a better conservative." Huh? Isn't that the whole point of his candidacy? Asked to specifically comment on his second-tier rivals, he said that he thought his experience was "broader" than Sam Brownback's and that Huckabee raised taxes. He said he liked Duncan Hunter a lot, but he's a congressman, so he would make a good Secretary of Defense. But his harshest words were reserved for Tom Tancredo, who he said in Tuesday's debate was, "nativist, anti-Hispanic, and angry."

UPDATE: More here.

Add a Comment

topics: Taxes, Foreign Policy, Military

Unhappy Gilmore

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 6.7.07 @ 11:14AM

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore spoke at this morning's American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast and he wasn't pleased with the media's coverage of the 2008 Republican presidential campaign. He argued that the press seems to have decided that Rudy McRomney -- his amalgamation of frontrunners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney -- will be the nominee and is therefore ignoring darkhorse conservative candidates like himself.

Gilmore contends that this is a mistake, because he is the consistent conservative in the race. When pressed on specifics, he emphasized his record in Virginia. He said his 2008 platform was based on conservative values of individual freedom, limited government, low taxes, and a strong national defense.

Add a Comment

topics: Taxes, John McCain

Romney's Iowa Surge

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.7.07 @ 11:11AM

Marc Ambinder reports:

In an internal poll, ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney holds a whopping 17 point lead over the rest of the Republican field, further evidence to Romney's senior staff that his organizational prowess and early support in Iowa scared challengers John McCain and Rudy Giuliani away.

The poll, conducted by Romney's pollster and distributed to top campaign officials last week, shows Romney with 29 percent, followed by Giuliani and "Undecided" with 12 percent each. Fred Thompson receives 10 percent in Romney's poll. McCain receives 9 percent.

This is more incremental evidence that Romney's strategy of focusing in on the early states is starting to reap dividends, and it reinforces the view among Romney boosters that once people get to know him better, they like what they see. I remain bearish on his long term prospects, especially with Fred Thompson entering in the race, but just thought it would be worthwhile to pass on information that contradicts my view point.

Add a Comment

topics: John McCain

Romney and Ames

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.6.07 @ 11:12PM

His campaign is already doing a victory dance:

Add a Comment

Pointe Du Hoc

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 6.6.07 @ 5:33PM

Kudos to the wonderful site Real Clear Politics, always essential reading, for this link to the Reagan speech on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, about the "boys of Pointe du Hoc." Yes, somebody else (I believe it was Peggy Noonan) wrote it, or at least the main draft of it, but only Ronald Reagan could have inspired it and given it. It sounds like Reagan always sounded. If it was Noonan, it was Noonan channeling Reagan.

But let this not be a tribute to Reagan primarily, for Reagan's goal was to pay tribute to the men who scaled the cliffs, the men who fought on D-Day, and all of their compatriots who fought in that great war. Listen to the words, read the words, and pay homage to those to whom the words were dedicated. They blessed posterity through their valor.

Add a Comment

McCain Skipping Ames Too

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.6.07 @ 5:10PM

The campaign just released this statement:

"John McCain has built a solid grassroots organization in Iowa and intends to win the state's caucuses. He appreciates the unique and critical role the caucuses play in the nomination process and enjoys traveling the state, meeting Iowans, and holding town hall meetings.

"In light of today's news, it is clear that the Ames Straw Poll will not be a meaningful test of the leading candidates' organizational abilities, so we have decided to forego our participation in the event."

Clearly, he's using Rudy's decision as a cover to bail out of Ames. It's also uncertain whether Fred Thompson will compete. If Thompson skips too, then three of the frontrunners will not be participating, removing a lot of the significance of the event. The question now is how much Romney will benefit from his near certain victory in Ames.

Add a Comment

topics: John McCain

Two-man race?

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 6.6.07 @ 4:28PM

After last night's debate plus the Fred Thompson appearance with Hannity, an earlier impression of mine is firming up, namely that this race might have two stages, with a five-man race (bear with me on that) eventually narrowing to a two-man race. The five? In alphabetical order: Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, Romney, Fred Thompson.

What about McCain (you ask)? He'll be out of the race before the first real vote is cast. He's a national hero and a man of real conviction, but the bloom is off his political rose.

Of the others (i.e., the five who will survive the first cut), Hunter and Huckabee don't appear to have much chance of winning, but they continue to impress in debates and fora, and they both have nothing to lose by staying in the race for as long as possible. As Gilmore (a VERY good man and public servant), Tommy Thompson (at one point a fantastic governor), Paul, Tancredo, and Brownback fall by the wayside, those two (Hunter and Huckabee) can continue to live off the land while looking for openings. Huckabee speaks very well, well enough to make people overlook his somewhat troubling record. And Hunter can score on defense, immigration and, in the one departure from classic free-market conservatism, on trade (on which a significant constituency exists, in both New Hampshire and South Carolina, for his form of targeted semi-protectionism).

Romney, meanwhile, was NOT good last night. But he is well financed and well organized, especially organized in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he is a supremely intelligent and accomplished man. That keeps him in the race past the first cut, too. But the reaction to him I keep hearing is "dark-haired Ken doll." He just seems too programmed to be inspirational, and not philosophically distinct enough (or consistent enough) to have a numerous, deeply committed cadre of followers.

Eventually, that leaves a two-man race, Giuliani vs. Thompson. Guiliani, in effect, has the entire social moderate-to-liberal wing of the party to himself. That, plus his great recrod as mayor and his can-do image of competence and toughness, makes him a very, very formidable contender. Fred Thompson, meanwhile is the best short-form communicator in the field (although his longer speeches need to be DELIVERED in a way that comes across as more focused and more thematic), with a great voice and an imposing presence, plus an air of common sense backed by direct, commonsensical words, plus a record and message that is solidly mainstream conservative without coming across as strident. Indeed, the words "common sense" ought to come more often from his mouth, if he can do it without sounding forced. And he gives the distinct impression that he is somebody who thinks for himself and refuses to be programmed by anybody else. Thompson somehow sounds like he is both from "the south" and the mythical "middle America" at the same time. In other words, he is not merely a regional candidate.

Frankly, I think that in terms of the ability to actually do a good job as president, this Republican field is deep and impressive. But, (purely in terms of political analysis as opposed to my own policy preferences, etc.), as candidates able to navigate both the primaries and the general election, Guiliani and Fred Thompson stand out.

And of the two, Thompson is by far the steadier and the least able to be effectively attacked by Hillary's machine.

You read it here first.

Add a Comment

topics: Trade, Conservatism, Immigration

Fox Qaeda

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 6.6.07 @ 4:18PM

The folks at Daily Kos respond to Roger Ailes' assertion that "The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face Al Qaeda. And that's what's coming." Here, for example, Kagro X--the name alone embodies careful consideration and depth of thought--employs those powers of illuminating explication that have made Kosland the number-one e-stop for left-wing true believers:

You said it, Roger, not me. But only because you beat me to it. Of course, I was still thinking over my own formulation. First, I thought it should say, "The candidates that can't stand Fox, can't stand Al Qaeda." Which has the virtue of being true, of course. But your phrasing works, too, to a limited extent. Mine's better, though, because it captures the reason Democratic candidates want nothing to do with FOX -- i.e., we don't negotiate with terrorists.

I understand. Negotiation is tough. Work up to it. I do like, al Qaeda, I can't stand you! as a starting point. Maybe after one or two unconditional surrenders we'll let you do a conditional one. Request nicer burqas for single moms or something. Some wouldn't trust you with this responsibility. They call you weak. But when I scroll down this thread and read the words of a Kos commentor who agrees with a comrade that Roger Ailes is Zawahiri incarnate, but disagrees--dissent is patriotic!--that O'Reilly is bin Laden ("Murdoch is bin Laden"), I say to myself, "Well, at least they understand what's at stake and who the enemy is."

When we elect liberals who hate al Qaeda as much as they hate Fox News, there will be more preemptive wars and shock-and-awe bombings than George W. Bush could ever dream of.

Add a Comment

Rudy Will Not Be Participating in Ames Straw Poll

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.6.07 @ 12:05PM

Rudy Giuliani will not compete in the August straw poll in Ames, Iowa his campaign manager Mike DuHaime just said on a conference call.

More: DuHaime said that the campaign is still, "100 percent playing in Iowa," but that they decided instead of spending time, money, and resources to compete in a straw poll, they'd rather focus on the caucus. He said he believed caucus goers will cast their votes after looking at the candidates' records, not on whether they participated in "some non-binding straw poll in August." Jim Nussle, Rudy's Iowa consultant, called the event a "sideshow."

The difficulty for Giuliani is that though the event is non-binding, Iowa political observers argue that it's difficult for a candidate to seriously compete in the caucus while skipping the straw poll. The Des Moines Register pointed out that no candidate in the straw poll's nearly 30-year history has avoided the event and won the caucus.

In the call, DuHaime dismissed the "conventional wisdom," saying that Giuliani's candidacy has been defying it every step of the way.

In addition to costing the campaign a lot of money, participating in the straw poll would have been a huge gamble, because if he showed up and had a poor showing, it would raise a lot of questions about his candidacy. Now, if Giuliani does poorly, he can attribute it to the fact that he wasn't there.

Giuliani's decision to bail on the straw poll will reinforce the view among skeptics that his organization in the Hawkeye State lags his rivals, particularly, Mitt Romney, who has to be seen as the odds on favorite to win the poll now, if he wasn't already.

Add a Comment

This Is Disturbing...

Posted by David Hogberg on 6.6.07 @ 9:25AM

...on so many levels:

John Ramsey and Beth Holloway Twitty Are Dating

Add a Comment

Fred and Lamar

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.6.07 @ 9:07AM

A commenter to my post below on F. Thompson writes:

The Lamar comparison is something that has ocurred to me recently, and not just because both men are from Tennessee, but because like Alexander before him, Thompson is running as a regular guy who shares everybody's frustration with Washington. Granted, Thompson has a lot more charisma than Alexander, but I think there's a comparison to be made in terms of their populist messages.

UPDATE: Another one chimes in:

Fair enough. But the point is, now that he has moved from the realm of a fantasy candidate to a likely candidate who is "testing the waters" he has to begin to offer more. And those who have been building him up as the savior of the party should begin making a much more substantive case for his candidacy than they have been up until now. It's okay to have a wait and see attitude, but there are people out there declaring him the winner of last night's debate, and I don't know what they were watching. I sat through two hours of candidates wrestling with challenging questions, giving detailed answers, and offering solutions. Then I watched Thompson ruminate on our challenges in a softball interview with Sean Hannity. And don't get me wrong, I actually like Thompson and agreed with much of what he had to say. But when you're running for the most powerful job in the world, you need to bring more to the table. Obviously, it's still early, and I look forward to seeing more from him.

Add a Comment

NYT on Libby: Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass GO

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.6.07 @ 8:42AM

From today's editorial:

Add a Comment

The New Olympic Logo

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.6.07 @ 8:38AM

Looks like the emblem for a skateboarding company, which is to say, it's bad.

Add a Comment

Fred Fizzles

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.5.07 @ 11:33PM

I also tuned in to watch Fred Thompson being interviewed by Sean Hannity. The news portion of the interview was that Thompson announced his new website, I'mWithFred.

After watching two hours of Republicans answer tough questions, I thought Thompson's performance was a dud. If I didn't know going in that he was considered a top tier presidential candidate, I would have thought of him as just another talking head. He was fine at laying out a lot of the problems and challenges we face that he said people aren't really talking about correctly or don't comprehend (Iran, the War on Terror, globalization, entitlements, etc.) but he didn't offer any solutions to those problems or make any sort of case for why he thinks he might be the person best suited to solve them. Say what you want about Romney, McCain, and Giuliani, but they point to specific accomplishments of theirs to make the argument that they are the most qualified to lead the nation at this time. When Rudy Giuliani complains about government not working, he can credibly say, as he did in tonight's debate, "I turned around New York City, I can turn around Washington." For all of the hoopla surrounding Thompson, neither he nor any of his fans have made the case for what he has tangibly done that recommends him for the highest office in the land. Obviously, it's early, and he hasn't even announced he's running yet. But now that it seems apparent that he intends to run, it's showtime--and he has to offer more than just more folksy outsider schtick.

Add a Comment

topics: Entitlements, Iran

The Third Debate

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.5.07 @ 10:54PM

Rudy: Though he didn't have as defining a moment as his smack down of Ron Paul in the last debate, he still turned in the best performance of the evening. He was forceful, had a commanding presence, and a mastery of the issues. His abortion answer, again, won't win him any fans among social conservatives, but he got it out of the way quickly, and the fact that lightning struck during the answer allowed for a moment of levity. His unequivocal defense of the Iraq war by putting it in the context of the broader war on terror will anger liberals, but can only help him in a Republican primary. The direct answer also stood in stark contrast to Romney's use of the "null set" dodge. Rudy continued to attack Democrats, which seems to work well for him, and will be even more effective if the Democrats begin to take the bait. It was also a great moment when he turned the tables on Wolf Blitzer, and asked whether the media would report the good news if the surge were a success. Not only because it gets him brownie points for going after the liberal media, but also because it demonstrated strength. (Same on his Libby answer). Rudy also showed a grasp of the details in his criticism of the immigration bill by conveying the sense that he may have actually read it, and not allowing McCain to imply that the bill addressed all of his criticisms. All in all, Giuliani has seemed much more prepared in the last two debates, and is displaying the qualities that made him such an effective mayor, but that were missing in the early stages of his campaign. As I've been arguing since he gave it, that Houston speech on abortion changed everything about Giuliani's demeanor, and he's simply been a much more confident, effective, candidate ever since.

McCain: He had some wonderful moments in the debate. When he stood up and addressed the woman who lost her brother in Iraq with a heartfelt, passionate, and substantive answer it reinforced why, though I may disagree with McCain on many issues, I'll always have a lot of respect for him. His defense of his immigration policy, though I take a different view, was one of the better defenses I've heard. I think with his answers on immigration and in opposition to English as the official language, he regained some of his Maverick label. The problem is, he's taking a stand on a piece of legislation that is hated by much of the conservative base. Granted, some of McCain's boosters may point to polls showing that public opposition to the bill isn't as great as on the blogs and talk radio, but in my view the difficulty that McCain faces is that the people who oppose the bill oppose it with more passion than the people who support it. Some Republicans may support the bill, but they don't say, "That's a great bill, I want to volunteer for McCain!" But many of those who oppose it are saying, "Anybody but McCain!"

Romney: Pretty lackluster performance, I thought. Granted, I've been quite critical of Romney on this blog and find him far too plastic for my taste, but I thought he was particularly off his game tonight. He seemed especially unprepared for the audience question about how he could support English as the official language and still take out ads in Spanish. With that said, I thought he did answer the Mormon question well, and to the disappointment of journalists everywhere, passed up an opportunity to escalate his war of words with McCain, instead taking the high road by calling McCain a friend with whom he disagreed.

Add a Comment

topics: Abortion, Iraq, Immigration

The Debate

Posted by John Tabin on 6.5.07 @ 10:14PM

I won't say too much (I've got a column on the topic in the works), but I just want to register a disagreement: I don't think Rudy's Libby answer made him look like a primadonna, James. I think it was great -- he was clear, in command of the facts, and when Blitzer tried to cut him off he reminded everyone that he doesn't get pushed around -- he does the pushing. Granted, the line between "assertive" and "rude" can get fuzzy, so I suppose it's a matter of taste.

Add a Comment

Sit-Down 3

Posted by James Poulos on 6.5.07 @ 8:57PM

Romney's reponse to his Spanish ads is the first wretched answer of the night and a bewildering error. Especially when Tancredo follows him up. Surely a coherent position between the Party of the Future and We Need That Thing to Hold Us Together can be drawn? Even McCain starts with Muchas Gracias: "Hispanics is what we're talkin' about." He's right about immigrant soldiers. But isn't the point being lost in the vastness of generality now?

Back to specificity: how, comes the question, can the GOP avoid further failure by not doing things Bush has done? McCain: no spending. Ruxpin recasts question as "Bush's biggest mistake." Rudy fails to bring out a serious, focused, clear answer. Romney actually seems to be blaming Bush for being small bore? Says "the Party of the Future" again. Brownback wants to cure cancer -- a great idea -- but Bush's greatest mistake? Tommy T. gives us an accurate but meandering laundry list. Tancredo hits it square-on -- a THIRD time. Ron Paul finishes it off. Wait -- sorry, Gilmore. "Principle is the difference." Yes, but this is an abstract version of what Tancredo and Paul said, and he now has to resort to a laundry list that rushes to an attack on Hillary.

It would appear that Tancredo and Paul will not die this time, showing new life, more intense focus, and much better delivery; that Huckabee dances along the edge of the abyss; and that all the other lower-tier guys are toast. Romney had an odd debate, vanishing at midpoint and choosing strangely to go for the Rhetoric of the Future. McCain's Grim Determination is as amenable to nitpicking as a slab of granite, and just about as inspiring. Rudy continues to seem to fall somehow short of the goal. He seems to think that the litmus test for being an American is the person who thinks the most or the best of Freedom. Surely this is a caricature, and an incomplete one at that. McCain's one shot at inspiration is here, and no surprise that he gets all lyrical and moving where Rudy sounds clipped and merely adequate.

Add a Comment

Sit-Down 2

Posted by James Poulos on 6.5.07 @ 8:43PM

Rudy finally clear, commanding, and crisp on socialized health care. Standing up from his chair looks professional and respectful, a dare I say Clintonian assertiveness.

Now look -- Mitt Romney, who apparently is still in the debate. He takes the opportunity to talk not "just" to conservatives who oppose MittCare. He knows well enough to stand up from his chair as well. Scattered applause for an articulate presentation of ... whatever MittCare is. And that's the problem, isn't it?

The Moral Question. Up goes Huckabee from his seat. Goes naturally for Life. "Not just during pregnancy." Wait a minute -- what exactly is Huckabee proposing? How precisely would a President Huckabee stop kids living in cars? Rudy suggests the nature of the problem, but only by suggesting we raise it globally. How precisely would a President Giuliani stop enmity and suffering in the world? To what degree? A moral obligation to share our moral rights with the world? Ron Paul takes his feet to announce that we have rejected the just war theory of Christianity. Perhaps the great moral question is once again whether and how it is moral to assertively spread morality. Brownback illustrates by calling us to save Darfur ... somehow.

Add a Comment

The Sit-Down Segment

Posted by James Poulos on 6.5.07 @ 8:28PM

Last impression from the Podium Portion: Rudy looks like a real primadonna halting the chain of Scooter answers to indulge in a recapitulation of his record.

On to the Town Hall. Erin Flanagan cuts a noble figure, asks a noble question. Hunter can't reach the heart of the matter, just the brains of it. Brownback uses the threadbare word "incredible," then launches into Federal Iraq. Using the words "loose" and "weak" to justify Ms. Flanagan's question is not a good way to go about things. McCain gets the heart. No question about that. But McCain has a tolerance for war -- for fighting, for sacrifice, for endurance, for hardness, for toughness -- that may be beyond us now. Still a hearty round of applause. But who we really want an answer from is Rudy. Bad memories of Obama, Hillary, and Edwards last night escaping the tough questions. Damn this new style of letting all the major candidates off all the major hooks.

Ron Paul has clearly upped his game. He rambles less. He softens his moral touch and toughens his rhetorical force. He gets applause regularly now.

Rudy only has to "respond" to Paul, meaning Rudy gets to put the question -- whatever it is now -- "in a slightly different context." Advocates a post-1970s mindset on terror. Wants us to "take on the responsibility of nation-building." Does that Rudy a neocon make? He's right about orderly existence. But is he too late? The issue remains mere pacification, a tougher sell in a strange way than the embrace of democracy.

And a question on conservatism as conservation! Gilmore goes wrong by buyring the question in national security and budget discipline; Tancredo hits nail on head, this is twice in one night now for him; and once again that's all we get. Lame.

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq, Conservatism

Debate 3, Pt. 4

Posted by James Poulos on 6.5.07 @ 8:06PM

Ah, the Gay Urdu Speaking Military Linguist question. Rudy has no patience for it. Paul and Huckabee shoulder to shoulder on behavior, not attitudes. Substantive unity among the candidates as a matter of principle, not politics, far more present here tonight than round one. Romney thinks Don't Ask Don't Tell was silly, but why waste time tinkering now? McCain waves the flag successfully ... until he criticizes the army for being too small. McCain's armed forces are a big tent. All of which boils down to gays not "serving openly" -- whatever exactly we all have supposedly agreed that means.

What to do with GWBush? Thompson wants him to be a motivational speaker. Brownback says Thanks but no thanks, maybe a "tragedy overseas" will come along (dodge that irony) that Bush can help out with. Tancredo would deport Bush. NCLB, prescription drugs, immigration, Rove, all lead Tancredo to tell Bush to pound sand. HE GETS APPLAUSE.

Add a Comment

topics: Military, Immigration, Oil

Debate 3, Pt. 3

Posted by James Poulos on 6.5.07 @ 7:58PM

Huckabee great on God, Ruxpin impenetrably dense and stupid with the followup question. Ruxpin wants Brownback to shut up, even though he's great on Reason and Faith too. No time to get going. Gets applause, like Huckabee, anyway. And McCain now is eloquent too, sounding a seasoned Personal Deism of sorts.

And what a segue -- as if it were, gasp, planned? -- into the Mormon Question. Mitt goes straight to Kennedy, the only natural place to go. Follows up uncompromisingly in manly fashion. And who better to round off this most coherent and broadly sound portion of the debate than Ron Paul, reminding us that every issue people care about doesn't have to be a monolithic centralized federal issue. Imagine.

Continuing with matters of faith, the debate turns to global warming. Rudy converts the question at once into a matter of national security, and then a matter of bipartisan human endeavor. No bolts from the heavens on this one. Mitt concurs, "no regrets." Mitt implies that record profits are squandered on golden parachutes and CEO bonuses -- at the expense of infrastructure and country. A point worth pressing further. McCain could, but instead urges oil companies to 're'-invest in nuclear and 'alternate' energy. Who will tap the populist nerve that runs through everything? Ron Paul makes the point I made last night in conversation, that corporate profits are not illegitimate simply because they are big but federal subsidies -- (including our foreign policy!) -- are. Gilmore grab-bags himself further into obscurity. He's right about Kyoto, but who will remember tomorrow?

Add a Comment

topics: Foreign Policy, Energy, Oil

Debate 3, Pt. 2

Posted by James Poulos on 6.5.07 @ 7:43PM

Mitt calculates quickly that attacking John McCain is far more hopeless a prospect than attacking the Z-Visa, the Pinata at the center of the immigration bill. Gets a round of applause for his trouble. McCain insists that we prevent de facto amnesty with de jure amnesty. Touches off a miniature firestorm for his trouble.

Does anyone believe Rudy's read all 400 pages of the bill?

Mitt calculates quickly that advocating the enforcement of standing law is far more hopeful a prospect than advocating the enforcement of new laws. How can McCain compete onstage?

Hunter piles on "disasterous" McCain, schemingly slow Bush, attacks the bill as the megalo-corporo-bureaucratic monstrosity it seems to be. He seems far less scattershot and irrelevant than last time around. Can't say the same for Brownback, can't say anything for Gilmore. Thompson? The very mention of his name by Ruxpin launches the crowd, and everyone onstage, into varying degrees of fantasy, not necessarily relaxing.

Ruxpin asks the asinine "What about a Canadian Fence?" question. Ron Paul answers No in one word and carries on to reveal illegal immigrants as scapegoats for a falsely free economy. Scattered applause.

Official English? McCain starts talking about Native Americans. But who has the paradigmatically better case than illegal immigrants for having their way on American soil than the Original Inhabitants?

In comes Fred Thompson, in spectral form, on the back of a nightmarishly bad joke. Gilmore declares himself the Forty Year Old Battler and Thompson -- sorry, Fred Thompson -- a question mark. Terrible jokes continue as Ruxpin asks Tommy Thompson, who bears his humiliation with dignity. And then proves how conservative he is by declaring himself Mr. Veto. And is silenced.

That's IT on Fred Thompson? Once again the Big Three get off Scot Free.

Add a Comment

topics: John McCain, Law, Immigration, Oil

Debate 3, Pt. 1

Posted by James Poulos on 6.5.07 @ 7:28PM

Hunter jumps on with Huckabee in recognizing you can talk to your adversaries and there's a point to it, too. But why do the big guys only get the nuke question? Rudy slips in a nod to diplomacy anyway -- then says the Dems aren't just stuck in a pre-2001 mindset but a pre-1991 mindset. Yet in 2004 they were already mired in a post-1968 mindset.

There are signs the operative mode is the post-2003 mindset. Applause lines for Rudy's "this is a real war" AS WELL AS Ron's "get out ASAP." What can this mean other than the divide between the war against jihadery and the war in Iraq exists clearly in the minds of real Republican voters?

Mitt wants to protect "people who love liberty." And suggests there are no peaceable fundamentalists. As for the nuke question: what's the opposite of a null set?

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq

Derb vs. Derb

Posted by John Tabin on 6.5.07 @ 6:32PM

John Derbyshire:

I leave George W. Bush out of that "clever, bright, witty and personable" category. The man's an idiot, and I'm ashamed I ever supported him.

Derbyshire, one day earlier:

While we're all regretting our former support of GWB, let's recall a little context. In 2000, it was GWB vs. Al Gore. In 2004, it was GWB vs. John Kerry.

Gore? Kerry? Say what you like about George, either of those guys would have been 100 percent worse. Right? Right.

Hmm.

Add a Comment

Come On Feel the Noise

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 6.5.07 @ 6:28PM

Barack Obama warns that President Bush has started a quiet riot.

Add a Comment

topics: Barack Obama

Leave It To The Governors, Please

Posted by John Tabin on 6.5.07 @ 5:57PM

Matt Yglesias:

Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, one of the upper house's more obscure Republicans, died last night. I agree with Robert Farley that while it would have been nice to see him replaced by a Democrat, Wyoming's rule for handling this situation seems eminently more sensible than the standard one: "Under Wyoming's election laws, the state Republican Party will nominate three people to be his successor. The final choice will be made by the state's governor, David Freudenthal, a Democrat."

Would it be so hard for other states to follow suit?

I disagree. The prospect that his seat may flip parties when he dies is an incentive for an old senator to retire. We have too many old senators who are deeply entrenched, practically unbeatable, and addicted to power. Removing a check against Senator-for-life syndrome is a bad idea.

Add a Comment

topics: Law, NATO

Re: So Will He Get a Pardon?

Posted by John Tabin on 6.5.07 @ 5:25PM

The next step in the process is for Libby's defense team to petition Judge Walton to allow Libby to stay out of jail pending appeal. A ruling on that issue will come next week. Tom Maguire guesses that "Walton will send Libby to the slammer, which seems to mean he would report in 45-60 days." That would fit with Walton's history of being unfair to the defense.

Libby almost certainly violated the law by being less-than-forthcoming in what he told investigators, but his crime is being absurdly trumped-up. Walton gave Libby almost all the jail-time that Fitzgerald suggested, and Fitzgerald's sentencing brief was based on the dubious premise that the IIPA was violated. If he goes to jail, he deserves, at minimum, a pardon midway through his sentence. (What he really deserves is probation, the sentence that the defense requested, but the power of the pardon is too blunt an instrument to achieve that.) He'll be halfway through his sentence (assuming Walton sends him to jail) in November 2008; don't be surprised if he's pardoned then, just after the general election. (Not that I would have a problem with him being pardoned sooner, especially given the way Sandy Berger has been treated. I'm not sure that this is likely to become all that politically significant in the election, anyway.)

Add a Comment

topics: Law

Paulson on China's Gradualism

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.5.07 @ 2:57PM

Earlier today, I attended a speech and Q&A held at the Heritage Foundation featuring Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who focused on ongoing economic talks between the U.S. and China. Much of his discussion revolved around currency valuation and intellectual property rights, with Paulson making the argument that "we agree on principles" with the Chinese, but they are "proponents of gradualism" while the U.S. wants to see China make changes more rapidly. "A big part of our discussion really centers around timing," he said.

Paulson touted some progress the U.S. has made with China, including a commercial air agreement that will lead to more flights between the two countries, an increase in quotas on American businesses, and a removal of caps on investment.

One of the major causes of the widening trade deficit between the U.S. and China (other than the undervalued Yuan) is the relatively high savings rate of the Chinese people, and relatively low rate of consumption. The problem, Paulson said, is that because China has a limited financial services sector, the Chinese put their money in banks for virtually no interest (actually negative interest if you factor in inflation). If more financial isntruments were available, it would help reduce "precautionary savings" and increase consumption.

Paulson said when U.S. negotiators make the case to their Chinese counterparts to allow the nation's currency to reflect its actual value, they tell the Chinese, "It's very difficult to have a market economy without market price signals." He said the Chinese understand this in principle, but feel they need to maintain more control over their currency.

Asked about intellectual property, Paulson said, "I very much believe that they take it seriously" and that they were putting the legal infrastructure in place to deal with the problem. But again, it's a matter of timing.

Overall, I thought Paulson's presentation was worthwhile, but I remain much more skeptical about Chinese intentions.  What he calls gradualism, I call intransigence.

Add a Comment

topics: Trade, Business

Can't Do a Pull-Up...Or Finance His Own Campaign

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 6.5.07 @ 1:46PM

The "intestinal fortitude" bar in the U.S. Senate is set os extraordinarily low that until today I found it difficult to imagine even the most pathetic candidate failing to pass muster.

Thank you, Al Franken for exceeding my expectations.

(Last June I wrote about another public campaign financing pity party here.)

Add a Comment

So Will He Get A Pardon?

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 6.5.07 @ 12:47PM

Scooter Libby sentenced.

Add a Comment

Fred's Number 2

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.5.07 @ 10:44AM

According to Rasmussen's robo-poll.

Add a Comment

Hugh's Outrage Limitations

Posted by The Prowler on 6.5.07 @ 10:35AM

Romney blogger Hugh Hewitt apparently has moral outrage only for those who criticize his guy or his guy's faith.

But when a second-rate TV talk show host ridicules and debases a candidate's wife like Joe Scarborough did, Hewitt, who helped lead the right's attack against Don Imus, is strangely silent. Hmmm. Why would that be? RedState has some ideas.

Ironically, Scarborough, who's had a messy life and shouldn't be attacking other people's wives, is trying to get Imus's TV gig. At the very least, he should be apologizing profusely. Word inside MSNBC is that Scarborough has been unapologetic when he was encouraged by senior management to take back his remarks.

Craig Crawford, who considers himself a top-tier pundit in Washington, should be forced to apologize publicly for his remarks, as well.

Neither man was clever. Neither man was funny, though they seemed to amuse themselves.

Add a Comment

Gallup Poll: Obama Ties Clinton

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.5.07 @ 10:32AM

The latest USA Today/Gallup Poll (story here, results here) has Barack Obama at 30 percent and Hillary Clinton at 29 percent among Democrats and independents who lean Democrat. Without Al Gore in the race, Clinton is ahead of Obama 37-36, within the margin of error. This would be shocking if accurate, because many people still consider Hillary the prohibitive frontrunner.

There are reasons to be skeptical of this poll, however. It contradicts all of the other polling data we've seen, including last week's Washington Post/ABC News poll that had Hillary up 12 points. Also, in mid-May, Gallup had Hillary up by 14 points (without Gore), so it's hard to see what could have happened in the past few weeks to cause that much of a swing.

On the Republican side, it shows Giuliani gaining a few points and McCain dropping, meaning that Rudy reestablished a double digit lead 32-19. Romney also gained, and is now at 12 percent, his first double-digit showing of the year in the Gallup poll, perhaps ever. Fred Thompson was at 11 percent. Although, again, this is only one poll, at least on the Republican side you can point to events (Giuliani's performance in the second debate, the immigration bill) that would have accounted for the results.

Add a Comment

topics: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Immigration

Thompson Reports

Posted by The Prowler on 6.5.07 @ 12:07AM

Former Senator Fred Thompson has already had several careers, but his blogging and writing over the past few months would indicate that besides the law, politics and acting, he would’ve made a pretty decent opinion writer. 

Today, he manages to turn the successes in preventing terrorist attacks on its head to again slap down the federal government, this time for failing to protect whistleblowers from frivolous lawsuits, thereby putting our country at greater risk:  

 We’ve all heard by now about the plot by Muslim extremists to use jet fuel tanks and pipelines in a terror attack on JFK Airport and Queens, NY. One reason the incident is interesting is that the suspects have mostly Caribbean origins. The roots of the group arrested for plotting an attack on Fort Dix in April were European. This is obviously an international movement.

We’re still learning about the details of the JFK Airport plot, but it appears that an informant was crucial to preventing the scheme. Time and again, we’re seeing how important it is that we’re vigilant.

You remember the young electronics store clerk whose tip led the FBI to the six men plotting to murder American soldiers at Fort Dix. While copying a video tape onto DVD, he saw images of men firing guns and shouting Islamic slogans.

For a while after the story broke, he kept his head down. Now Brian Morgenstern has come forward -- and his story is eye-popping. For a full day after seeing the evidence, he debated with himself about whether he should report what he knew. He was concerned about violating the privacy of his customers and that telling the police might be looked upon as "racist."

I can understand his regard for customer privacy. Worrying that he’d be viewed as a racist, though, is troubling -- because there are people trying to use that charge to keep Americans from reporting potentially deadly behavior. This was the case with the so-called "flying imams." They provoked real concern among airline passengers – and some think purposely. Then they filed suit against the airline and the passengers who reported them -- claiming they were racists.

Most Americans take the charge of racism very seriously -- as they should. It becomes a problem, though, if false accusations are used to keep us from reporting suspicious activities. It looked for a while that legislation to protect sincere whistleblowers from lawsuits would never make it to a vote. The chair of the House Homeland Security Committee held up the legislation, saying it would promote racial and religious profiling. Fortunately, he’s changed his mind. I'm happy about that and congratulate him. I'll be happier, though, when the bill is enacted.

I was also glad to hear that Morgenstern was rewarded by his employer, Circuit City, for his part in preventing the attack on Fort Dix. And I was impressed that he told those who called him a "hero" that the real heroes are our soldiers in the field. A second man, also credited with the tip, has chosen to remain anonymous. Maybe when he's protected from expensive and frivolous lawsuits, we'll hear his story too.

This brings us to another Thompson publication that has received far less coverage than perhaps it should have. The Congressional investigation and report, “Government on the Brink,” was released by Senator Fred Thompson and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs in June 2001.

The report, published before the September 11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, while not predicting such failures in government coordination or basic services, certainly made the case that our government was due for a fall. Thompson has spoken of the report often in his public remarks of late. We're linking to both volumes here and here.

Add a Comment

topics: Islam, Law, NATO

CNN Anti-GOP Bias?

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.4.07 @ 12:29PM

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I found it amusing to look at this page CNN has up on its Website listing the current and potential presidential candidates in both parties. What's interesting is that for the Republican candidates, it highlights their election losses or political setbacks, whereas its descriptions of Democrats are neutral or highlight their victories.

For example, on the GOP side:

Meanwhile on the Democratic side: So McCain lost to President Bush, but Gore merely ran against him? Edwards didn't lose in 2004? Romney's Senate loss in 1994 is more relevant than his 2002 victory, but it's irrelevant that Obama got crushed in a 2000 Congressional race?

Add a Comment

topics: John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Global Warming, Law, NATO

The Trials and Joys of the Developing Nation...

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 6.4.07 @ 12:11PM

Or, a brief respite from the endless doom and gloom, woe-is-us attitude of another American election cycle.

Add a Comment

We'll Always Have Paris

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 6.4.07 @ 11:28AM

I can't believe we are spending so much time talking about the Democratic candidates' debate while ignoring the plight of the younger generation's most celebrated political prisoner.

Add a Comment

Edwards Narrowly Defeats Hillary

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 6.4.07 @ 11:21AM

In the race to be the most shameless opportunist in the Democratic presidential field. And if last night's performance is any indication, he is going to extend his lead in the coming weeks.

Add a Comment

Loose Democratic Debate Thoughts

Posted by Philip Klein on 6.4.07 @ 10:45AM

There were a few other observations I had of the Democratic debate last night that didn't make it into my column:

--John Edwards' insistence on calling the War on Terror a "bumper sticker" reveals a desperation on his part, making it pretty clear that he won't be the nominee. If you give the benefit of the doubt to Edwards, he is making the intellectual argument that while we do need to fight terrorism, categorizing it as a "War on Terror" can be used for propaganda purposes to justify all sorts of things. But in a political context, such nuances don't get conveyed, and Edwards comes across as someone who doesn't think terrorism is a problem. This gave Hillary Clinton the oppourtunity to establish herself as more hawkish by declaring that as a New Yorker (it's been over six years and I still can't get over that) "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists." Edwards' progressive populism will win over a certain portion of the left, but in the end the party will go with a more mainstream candidate, just as Democrats ditched Howard Dean at the end to go with John Kerry.

--It's been pointed out on other blogs, but for the second debate in a row, Bill Richardson bombed. I always thought Richardson would make a strong vice presidential choice given the fact that he is governor of New Mexico, which is a crucial swing region, he is Hispanic, and is the candidate with the strongest resume. I thought he'd be an especially great fit for the VP slot if Ovama were the nominee, because Obama would have to pick somebody more experienced than he is to reassure voters. So, I've been quite surprised to watch Richardson struggle through another debate. His answers were rambling and often off topic, and he was overly eager to tout his experience. He was at his most juvenile when after a question about Darfur, he said "I was there" about 83 times.

--Joe Biden evidently thinks that the candidate who yells the most looks the most presidential. He's wrong.

Add a Comment

topics: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton

"What Conservatives Are Missing"

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 6.4.07 @ 10:39AM

Fred Barnes defends the immigration compromise:

The bill gives conservatives a large chunk of what they've wanted for years, plus some things they don't want. The balance is heavily in their favor, though, and they're crazy to oppose this once-in-a-lifetime chance to stop illegal immigration and enact sensible policies for legal immigration.

The rest lives here.

Add a Comment

topics: Immigration

Forget Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Paul...

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 6.4.07 @ 9:08AM

The Romney campaign just sent out an email full of Hillary Clinton quotes and a video excerpt from last night's debate with the subject line: "American Prosperity: The Romney Vision Vs. The Clinton Vision."

Add a Comment

Life on the Farm Ain't Always a Picnic

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 6.4.07 @ 8:29AM

Ronald Bailey deconstructs Barbara Kingsolver's latest, along with all the other "Let's go back to the Agrarian Age!" tomes currently on bookstore shelves.

Add a Comment

topics: Books

Wrap-Up

Posted by John Tabin on 6.3.07 @ 9:05PM

Edwards probably helped himself by grabbing the mantle of critic-from-the-left. In that sense, I suppose he's the winner of the debate, though I still don't think he has much chance of winning the nomination

Add a Comment

Dems VIII

Posted by James Poulos on 6.3.07 @ 9:03PM

Edwards' examples of "real American values:" equality and diversity. Possibly a "commitment to humanity." Oh, and justice.

Obama seizes a fine opportunity to trump Hillary by parroting her answer (first second in office? End the war in Iraq) and stuffing it with abstract qualifications (assuming nothing has changed).

Kucinich would achieve nuclear disarmament, cancel NAFTA, and withdraw from the WTO.

Dodd would re-pass the Constitution.

And that's all, folks.

Add a Comment

topics: Constitution, Iraq

Dems VII

Posted by James Poulos on 6.3.07 @ 8:57PM

The definition of rich question! Obama sticks with Kerry's -- $200,000 gross income for a taxpayer. But this means that a family where only one parent works has to swing it on $200,000. Wait -- wait -- now it's $250,000, Obama says. Make up your mind. As I was saying: try putting two or three kids through college out of state on $200,000 gross. Then ask again what rich means -- for families.

Edwards doesn't "know what a rich person is." Someone get a mirror. He's right about crushing debt burdens. But college for everyone? Will that be enforced like health care too?

Sure would like to know Hillary's definition of rich.

Richardson says for the tenth time tonight: "This is what I would do." Then pauses as if thinking up on the spot what he would do. He's a "pro-growth Democrat." And Biden and Obama favor recessions?

Kucinich goes all Ron Paul on us in response to Ruxpin's suggestion that Dems are nothing but taxers and spenders: don't fight Iraq with Chinese money, return to bilateral trade, don't spend money you don't have.

I think Ruxpin is deliberately steering hard questions away from Hillary. She has now escaped defining rich and pledging to eliminate earmarks in the space of ninety seconds. Ruxpin gives us another Chris Dodd monologue and lets the putative frontrunner off scot free. Followed by a Gravel monologue centering around the Comptroller-General. Hillary leans forward mid-monologue, cackle at the ready. But wait! She wants to answer the question -- with cliches ("there is no free lunch;" "we're going to have to do that hard work again") and red meat ("we need to deal with the burden on the middle class"). Completely avoids the question of earmarks. Next?

Add a Comment

topics: Trade, Health Care, Earmarks, Iraq

Dove-ocrats

Posted by John Tabin on 6.3.07 @ 8:50PM

Kucinich says he wouldn't kill bin Laden. Everyone else disagrees... but not that hard. When they do a hand-raising poll, Biden asks for a clarification about how much collateral damage it would cause, and Hillary starts babbling about how hypotheticals are unhelpful. Is this really that hard a question?

Add a Comment

Dems VI

Posted by James Poulos on 6.3.07 @ 8:38PM

Obama does not "believe in assassinations;" killing bin Laden is not assassination, however, but 'out-taking.' Obama notes that "If people in Pakistan believe the US is an occupying force," it gets hard for Musharraf to help us out. If.

Hillary pushes her way to the front of every free-for-all. This is fatally intensifying to Edwards' and Obama's assertiveness problems. But Edwards' cold-blooded realism on the possibilities of Pakistan without Musharraf is a breath of fresh air.

Richardson is caught wiggling his trigger-finger again while Biden discusses Darfur: "they have forfeited their sovereignty" by committing genoice. Certainly this is not inaccurate as a matter of international law. Bold endorsement of military force. Ruxpin asks the lineup what gives. Panic strikes.

And yet after twenty seconds of chaos in the chicken coop, it's back to Richardson: "We need China to lean on China." Richardson threatens a boycott of the Chinese Olympics. Richardson invents the phrase "gender-based violence."

Add a Comment

topics: Law, Military, Pakistan

Dems V

Posted by James Poulos on 6.3.07 @ 8:31PM

Hillary wants to be a talky hawk on Iran -- a great position that she wisely emphasizes. This is a no-brainer. If you can fight commies while maintaining diplomacy, you can certainly repeat with Iran. But she won't say what happens when Iran gets their "unacceptable" nuke anyway. Nice laugh line on oxymoronic diplomat Cheney, but that's not an answer.

Edwards suggests Iran is so pro-American and out of step with Mad Mahmoud that ... the Europeans should apply the full force of international banking leverage to bring Tehran to heel. He wants to "drive a wedge" between People and Ruler. This worked so well in Iraq. No options "off the table," of course.

Biden bites: "do away with the policy of regime change," a "bizarre notion." Iran is "weak," a "decade away" from nukes. I hope so, but only hope. And yet: missile on a pad, Biden'd "take it out."

Object lesson: nobody can tolerate a nuclear Iran, but everybody wants to wait until the point of no toleration itself.

News flash: Hillary's foreign policy advice, when she called the White House, was ignored.

Add a Comment

topics: Foreign Policy, Iraq, Iran

Gravel: "I Get My Meds From The VA"

Posted by John Tabin on 6.3.07 @ 8:25PM

I can't be the only one who is wondering A) What meds he's on and B) What meds he should be on, but isn't.

Add a Comment

Dems IV

Posted by James Poulos on 6.3.07 @ 8:24PM

Obama's called to task by Teddy Ruxpin -- sorry, Wolf Blitzer -- for the costs of a big new expansion of the standing army. Obama's answer is roundabout and stammer-tastic. What on earth does treating homecoming troops with dignity (nice idea) have to do with the question? How many questions will we have answered tonight? Ruxpin seems ultimately unconcerned.

Dodd drops some science, smoothly deploying the word 'dais.' Follows it up with a nice archery metaphor.

Richardson tries to answer the question about why vets can't get treated in the hospitals of their choice, lifting a finger. The anchor tells Obama he should answer. He does. Richardson makes a little gun with his finger but doesn't start waving it around. Ruxpin finally gives him the chair and -- guess what -- he has a plan. Richardson wants to issue a "Hero's Health Card." Scattered applause. A return to the ominous theme first touched on during the Universal Health Care portion: treating mental health 'the same' as physical health. Meaning Government therapy and Government pills, of course.

Gravel says the Government has "always waged war" on veterans. Gravel asks Obama if he knew about Walter Reed before it hit the news. Obama cannot attain pithiness. "Sacred obligation" has a nice ring to it, but it's lost, lost in the mix, and Ruxpin has to remind Obama of Gravel's attack. Another middle-management response.

Add a Comment

topics: Health Care

Halftime Notes on The Debate

Posted by John Tabin on 6.3.07 @ 8:12PM

Richardson: You're right, James, he's awful. I don't think he's directly answered a question yet (at least not without a cross-examination by Blitzer).

Gravel: He's nuts, of course, but (unlike Kucinich), he's also interesting. It's refreshing to not know exactly what's going to come out of his mouth.

Edwards: He lurches to the left at every opportunity -- attacking Hillary on the war and Obama on health care. There's a certain pathetic desperation to this. Remember when Edwards was the Southern moderate?

Clinton and Obama are both doing pretty well. I wouldn't say anyone is winning.

Add a Comment

topics: Health Care

Dems III

Posted by James Poulos on 6.3.07 @ 8:02PM

Edwards goes Federalist on gay marriage, quite persuasively: the government can't tell churches who they must marry. He also asserts it is not the job of the President to legislate!

Gravel on future globe-trotting ambassador Bill: "He can take his wife with him." More cackling from HRC.

Richardson on same: SecGen of the UN. A great answer until he spirals first into sycophancy and then segues into the awful answer of sticking Bill Clinton with the task of bringing peace to the Middle East.

Obama says we will solve Darfur nonmilitarily. An intriguing backpedal from his interventionist speech is drowned out in yet further cackling and ironic posturing about "my dear husband" leveraged immediately into broad policy critique.

Add a Comment

topics: Bill Clinton

The World's Oddest Marriage

Posted by John Tabin on 6.3.07 @ 8:01PM

From the debate: When Hillary is president, Bill will be "sent around the world." How romantic.

Add a Comment

Dems II

Posted by James Poulos on 6.3.07 @ 7:53PM

Richardson sounds awful -- slow, ponderous, hesitant, disconnected. This performance should finish off his candidacy.

Obama appears to be far less articulate in these fora than everyone had a right to expect him to be. He should be systematically working through a series of commanding, clear, and concise attacks on Hillary. Instead he's accomplished neither command, concision, nor clear attack -- except against Edwards. But what a concept that universal health care doesn't have to be mandatorily enforced by law to attain universality.

Not too surprising that Shrum's book has come up, but stunning so far that Michael Moore's "Sicko" hasn't. And telling that Gravel got applause for the common sense of official English.

Hillary clearly wants to convey to the audience that she's the one to unite the Dems, against Bush and behind her, because she's talking that way and the others are talking about differences that matter. Hillary is now name-checking Barry Goldwater. Hillary is now chuckling aloud for the second or third time tonight.

Add a Comment

topics: Health Care, Law

The Dems

Posted by James Poulos on 6.3.07 @ 7:26PM

Some early notes:

Three chances for Richardson to answer the question: why worry about the genocide in Sudan if we shouldn't worry about a genocide in Iraq? No answers.

Obama calls Edwards to the floor for being four years late on antiwar leadership, missing, apparently deliberately, a chance to attack Hillary. He even says he'll let her speak for himself. Why so gunshy?

Real debate for one instant between Hillary, who won't account for her vote for George Bush's War, and Edwards, who insists the differences between them aren't minor. And now Kucinich says flat out Iraq is the Dems' war too.

Joe "Kabuki Dance" Biden outshining Gravel.

Add a Comment

topics: Iraq