- 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, June 23, 2007
Not Everyone Appreciates Commie Chic
Posted by on 6.23.07 @ 3:52PM
Cameron Diaz gets herself into trouble with a Mao purse. Having only recently returned from the Baltics, I can say some of the twentysomething hipster fashion choices I see daily in my neighborhood would not fly in parts of the world with a more up-close and personal experience with Communism.
There was an interesting discussion over at Julian Sanchez' blog about Soviet Chic earlier this month. Just a hair ahead of the curve, per usual.
Martyr of Mosul
Posted by on 6.23.07 @ 11:01AM
Pat Buchanan details the trials and tribulations of minority Christians in Iraq.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Gingrich, Bossie vs. Amnesty
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 6:00PM
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and our old friend David Bossie of Citizens United have put out a commercial urging the defeat of the immigration bill pending in the Senate. To quote from the press release:
The ad, which features former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and which was produced by Citizens United president David Bossie, will be seen on cable television nationwide beginning Wednesday as part of a significant national ad buy aimed at demonstrating citizen opposition to a bill that would do nothing to secure America’s porous borders and give citizenship to more than 12 million illegal immigrants.
As I am finally getting around to this so late on a Friday afternoon, I will probably re-post this on Monday. But my comment is this: I have been around politics for three decades, and I cannot think of a single other occasion in that time in which so many people were so upset, so deeply and emotionally upset, about a bill pending before Congress. Gingrich's and Bossie's ad provides more arguments why people should be upset. Worth thinking about.
Why Does the White House Insult Us?
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 4:29PM
The White House continues to insult opponents of the immigration bill, either with bad names or attribution of bad motives to opponents, or by deliberately mischaracterizing their arguments. Just this afternoon, yet ANOTHER fact sheet came out from the White House that used, as its NUMBER ONE point, this bit of irrelevant idiocy:
· FACT: Mass deportation is not a workable solution. Deporting the millions of illegal immigrants who are already in the country would be impractical, harmful to our economy, and potentially devastating to families with deep roots in their communities.
Again and again this White House shoots down the idea of mass deportation -- but nobody of ANY stature anywhere in the country (to the best of my knowledge) has advocated mass deportations. This is an absolute straw man, having nothing whatsoever to do with anything actually being debated or argued in any responsible forums.
The next "fact" from the White House reads thusly:
· FACT: Keeping our Nation secure requires bringing the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already here out of the shadows and into a regulated system.
Well, I happen to agree with that -- but it is not a fact, it is an opinion. The same goes with the very next "fact": It, too, is a statement I happen to agree with, but it is an opinion, not a fact:
· FACT: To help meet the needs of our growing economy, there must be a lawful and orderly channel for foreign workers to fill jobs that Americans are not doing.
And this White House wonders why fewer and fewer people even bother to take it seriously.....
Save Lurita Doan of the GSA
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 3:43PM
General Services Administrator Lurita Doan has endured not one witch hunt, but a series of them, conducted by Rep. Henry Waxman, in an attempt both to slime Ms. Doan and, almost certainly, to use her to get at the man the left considers the Ultimate Bogeyman, Karl Rove. I've been blogging about this case for months now. Earlier this month, both Bob Novak and Stephen Moore (no link available), to their credit, came rushing to her defense. About nine days ago, Waxman's committee again raked her over the coals. Never mind that two earlier allegations against her turned out to be utterly unfounded. Never mind that the current allegation wouldn't amount to a hill of beans even if true. The idea is to punish Ms. Doan for daring (she's an African-American) to actually be a Republican despite her supposed place in life as a vassal of the Democratic Party--and, while they are at it, use her as a stepping stone to Rove, because, well, the newest allegation against her involves a meeting conducted by an aide to Rove, and, well, all roads lead to Rove and of course the Dems all think Rove is evil, so, golly gee, there just MUST be something Roven in the state of Doanmark!
For the unitiated: a group of political appointees at GSA attended a brown bag lunch in January at which a Rove aide gave a report on the recent elections and what they meant for the long-term political outlook. (Political appointees talking politics: The horrors!!) At some point, Doan supposedly asked what "they" could do to "help our candidates."
That's it. There is no allegation that anybody used those words as a prompt to actually do anything political. No allegation that anybody was pressured to do anything. No nothing -- just a question that, frankly, on its face, seems rather innocent.
But the Office of Special Counsel, led by a guy himself embroiled in controversy who is now making a name for himself sucking up to the Washington Post (could he hope that the Post will help him get off the hook for the allegations against him?), concluded that Ms. Doan violated the Hatch Act that forbids politicization of the bureaucracy.
Hence the Waxman hearing.
Well, when all the smoke cleared, Waxman had nothing more of consequence. It was a whole lot of hoo-rah over a whole lot of nothing. The committee's ranking Republican, Tom Davis, put it all in perspective. Mind you, Davis is no partisan hatchet man. He's about as moderate a member of Congress as you'll ever find. But here's what he said at the hearing:
"I cannot for the life of me figure out what we're doing here this morning." And: "No such retaliation [against ANY government employees] occurred." And: "Today's hearing is a gross misuse of Committee resources, built on an unprofessional and seemingly preordained report from the Office of Special Counsel. It is a farce premised on a sham." And the OSC report "cites no evidence. There are not footnotes, no exhibits...The report fails to identify a single election or candidate Administrator Doan sought to assist." And "There are so many flaws and injustices and fabrications here [in the OSC report and in the committee investigation], I hardly know where to begin."
Hear, hear, for Tom Davis! It's time for Republicans and conservatives of all stripes -- indeed, time for all fair-minded people -- to rally to Doan's defense and keep her from being sacrificed. The truth is that she has done a great job streamlining GSA, saving money, improving agency services, etc. She is a boon to this administration and to the country. The administration ought to ignore any suggestions from Waxman or from the OSC, and give Doan some strong support and keep her on the job.
Check This Out
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 2:02PM
Marc Fisher, one of the best Metro columnists and reporters anywhere, sets off an eminently readable discussion with this item today, "Do We Need Libraries Anymore?"
Re: Defending Lamb
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 1:06PM
Wlady, perhaps my post wasn't clear enough, but you are mistaken. Government does not mandate the 5-cent contribution. It's totally voluntary. That is, it's up to the individual cable companies to decide whether they want to carry C-Span. It's only mandated in the sense that if your cable company chooses to offer C-Span, you have to pay the five cents. Just as you may have to help subsidize other stations you may not care to watch. It's a bundled service, not offered a la carte--that's why I made the analogy to the buffet.
Re: Defending Lamb From Savage Attacks
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 12:38PM
Phil: This is not intended in any way to appear as an effort on my part to get invited back on the wacky Savage show, but I don't understand your point about C-Span's not being taxpayer-funded. You write: "Lamb explained that the channel is not publicly funded, but financed via a five cent contribution from everybody's cable bill." Our various utility bills are filled with such de-facto taxes. Remember the outrage when Al Gore sought ways to fund his Internet in every classroom scheme through I believe it additional charges on phone bills? If the five-cent "contribution" is not voluntary, it's a tax, legislatively mandated. It's all for a great cause, agreed, but it's nonetheless something that could have been concocted by a Ralph Nader -- or were you spared compulsory contributions to Naderite "pergs" while paying student fees during your college days?
Smike Brownbuckabee
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 12:05PM
I like this. Though social conservatives shouldn't like the fact that Rudy McRomney is beating Smike Brownbuckabee.
Bloomberg's Lie
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 11:11AM
I haven't mentioned it in this space in few weeks, but I'm now writing every Friday for Brainwash. In today's column I note the widespread and persistent assumption that Michael Bloomberg has to be lying when he says he won't run for president.
I notice that Jonah Goldberg, writing on Bloomberg's troubling utopianism, mentions this phenomenon but says it isn't a big deal: "Such lies serve as useful political fictions allowing politicians to test the waters." I dunno; it seems to me that with his pledge to finish his term as mayor, Bloomberg's gone beyond the usual "I'm focused on the present" deflections.
A Profound Statement On...
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 10:37AM
...the futility of love in the modern age?
I just saw a frazzled woman in Central Park trying to corral four feisty children while wearing a brown T-shirt that read Love Em and Leave Em.
Never have I been so happy to have but a pug as my ward.
Partial Win on Partial Birth
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 10:15AM
For what it's worth, I have a column in today's Washington Examiner about how the right and the left see the recent Gonzales v. Carhart ruling on partial birth abortion with completely different levels of intensity. Comments welcome.
Defending Lamb From Savage Attacks
Posted by on 6.22.07 @ 10:07AM
Huckster Michael Savage has created a pseudo-controversy by accusing, of all outlets, C-Span of liberal bias. For those who are unfamiliar with the background, Savage received an award from Talkers magazine recently, but instead of showing up at the ceremony, he sent in a speech by DVD. C-Span cameras were at the ceremony, but the channel did not air his speech because it was not delivered live. Anybody who watches C-Span knows they give unfiltered coverage to all sides. I mean, they even broadcast the Constitution Party convention. So, the channel's explanation seems perfectly reasonable. But Savage knows an opportunity to make a quick buck when he sees one, and has cried censorship! His website features the scrolling text, "C-Span Blacklists Savage's Speech! Click here to order!" If this was really about him wanting to get his message out, of course, he'd post the video of the speech on his website, making it free for anybody to watch. Instead it's $22, and you have to "allow 4 weeks for production and delivery." Savage has posted a list of C-Span's phone numbers and email addresses, allowing his legions of fans to inundate them. Brian Lamb responded brilliantly, by reading some of the vitriolic letters he received on air, such as, "You are a Nazi and a Stalinist and probably a homosexual, and I don't appreciate your agenda."
The Politico wrote on the controversy, quoting one letter Lamb read in which the writer assumes C-Span is taxpayer funded. Lamb explained that the channel is not publicly funded, but financed via a five cent contribution from everybody's cable bill. Apparently, this was beyond the grasp of "cornhusker," who posted the following comment to the Politico story:
Mr Lamb seems to think that because CSPAN is 'paid by a nickel when you pay your bills' instead of federal funding, so, it's a private station. I wasn't familiar with this debate until reading the story, but Mr. Lambs comments show his slant towards socialism. Take from people that don't want to pay it and make them accept what ever you decide they want to hear. To me, this isn't about a speech, this is about his agenda and the resistance it's meeting. To bad we can't choose whether to fund his paycheck. Oh, that's right, a mandatory collection of our funds doesn't make him "A taxpayer organization". How can I be so ignorant....
Yeah, and when I go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and proceed directly to the guy in the paper chef hat slicing juicy prime rib, and then skip to the dessert station, I'm paying a "vegetable tax" for the string beans that I choose not to eat.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
A Fiery Ron Paul
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 7:43PM
Via Hit and Run, I see this priceless clip of Ron Paul as a young pitbull libertarian presidential candidate in 1988, making the case for drug legalization by shouting down an audience member at the Morton Downey Jr. show. YouTube actually has some more clips from the show in three parts (1, 2, and 3), which feature Gaurdian Angel Lisa Sliwa, a mysterious man named "Otto" (who dons a sport jacket with red lapels, sunglasses, a string tie, and a checkerboard shirt), and Charlie Rangel (via phone).
And if that isn't enough for you, you can view this clip of another episode in which Downey battles a dominatrix stripper for God. Don't you miss the 80s?
Yet Another Reason To Love Mike Pence
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 1:33PM
Amid magical thinking by the Bush and Olmert administrations regarding developments in the Palestinian territories, a voice of reason emerges:
Pence, R-Ind., said he is drafting legislation that would restrict money from being given to the Palestinians so long as Hamas has control of
. Pence wants to offer the measure as an amendment to a $34.2 billion bill that funds the State Department and foreign assistance programs. Gaza Pence said his concern is that Bush's decision to resume aid will "open the flood gates of support for authorities within the Fatah government that could ultimately be used against
," he said in an interview Wednesday. Israel "Right now we're at a time when Hamas is sitting behind the desk of government buildings in
wearing ski masks and holding AK-47s," he added. "It's hard for me to see where we can provide any funds directly or indirectly to supplement or support what is an emerging terrorist Palestinian state." Gaza City
Bad Bloomberg Theories
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 12:51PM
Just wanted to quickly shoot down a few other Bloomberg theories that have been floated around the blogs:
Matt Yglesias argues that Bloomberg could be the best bet for libertarians, if only they could get over their disproportionate reaction to his nanny-state policies such as the smoking and trans fat bans. Er, yeah, that, and the fact that he's a tax hiker.
Over at Tapped, Paul Starr touts Bloomberg as a possible Democratic VP candidate. While the Democratic Party would certainly be a more comfortable ideological fit for him, I don't see why a man with a massive ego who has spent decades as the top dog would be willing to be the second dog. Not to mention the fact that he'd be pushing 75 on Inauguration Day 2017.
At RomneyCentral, Hugh Hewitt describes why a Bloomberg candidacy "has to help" his man Mitt. Do you really need me to comment on this? Didn't think so.
How Bloomberg Could Hurt Rudy
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 12:27PM
I'm a little late to this party, because I've been otherwise occupied, but I figure there's still time for me to play the Bloomberg speculation game. To me, it's mind boggling that Bloomberg would consider wasting money on a presidential bid that has no shot of succeeding. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what constituency of voters he thinks he's going to appeal to other than David Broder. He's far too liberal for any Republican and Democrats are going to be united around their nominee. Would he really have much appeal to independents? People are always fed up with the two-party system, but it's hard to see why swing voters would think Bloomberg is the right man for this time. When Ross Perot ran in 1992, following the end of the Cold War and the U.S. triumph in the Persian Gulf, Americans were not concerned with outside threats, but with deficits and a mild recession. Perot was able to do well in that environment, but he still didn't get one electoral vote. Now, with the primary concerns of the electorate overseas, and the economy doing well, it's hard to see what demand there would be for a billionaire businessman. Perhaps Bloomberg's ego is just so big, and he has friends and advisors telling him he actually has a shot, that he's become delusional. Or perhaps he's just leaving the door open, and will decide based on who the nominees are in the major parties.
As for which party he would hurt? It's too early to tell, and there are arguments to be made on both sides. You could argue that he would hurt Democrats by dividing the vote of anti-Bush, anti-incumbent independents. Or he could peel off moderate Republicans. But a lot depends on who the nominees are. If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, it may discourage Bloomberg from running, but if he ran anyway, I think it would definitely hurt Rudy. In the campaign, Bloomberg would have to tout his own record as a mayor, which would necessitate him arguing that it was an improvement over his predecessor. That would mean that Giuliani would be facing not one, but two candidates, spending millions of dollars on negative campaign ads blasting his record as mayor. Also, it would be hard for Giuliani to criticize Bloomberg's level of experience when they both served as mayors of the same city. Bloomberg fans argue that he has been a better mayor than Giuliani was, because he was able to manage the city well without the polarization of the Giuliani era. But that's a disingenuous argument. Rudy inherited a city in shambles, and his bulldog mentality was necessary to turn it around. Giuliani handed Bloomberg a city that, though recovering from 9/11, was still in good shape. That allowed Bloomberg to be a competent manager without having to re-fight all of the battles of the Giuliani era. Nonetheless, Bloomberg's entrance into the race would force Rudy to defend his record on two fronts.
Scott Adams Takes On The Greenies
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 11:44AM
Dilbert has been zinging "environmentalism" this week. Here is Thursday's cartoon, and Wednesday's, Tuesday's and Monday's.
No, This Is Not Me
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 11:36AM
I do like chicken, but I don't work for them:
NEW YORK -- Tyson Foods no longer will use antibiotics to raise chicken that is sold fresh in stores and will launch a $70 million advertising campaign to tout the shift, the nation's largest meat producer said Tuesday.The company said that fresh chicken raised without antibiotics was shipped to stores Monday and will be sold beginning later this week in packaging that emphasizes that there are no artificial ingredients.
"We're providing mainstream consumers with products they want," Tyson Chief Executive Richard Bond said at a news conference.
Consumers will have to pay slightly more, though. Tyson Senior Vice President Dave Hogberg declined to specify how much of an increase shoppers will see at stores, but he said it would be "below the cost consumers say they're willing to pay."
Great Coverage, But...
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 11:30AM
Phil: I've enjoyed your coverage of the Take Back America conference. My only complaint is that you've got the name wrong: It is Take America Backward.
"All the Charges Were in Texas..."
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 10:58AM
My friend Karen, frustrated by her second round of identity theft this year, decides to imagine her latest nemesis as Donna Hogan, the estranged sister of the late Anna Nicole Smith.
AmSpecClog
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 10:54AM
Continental Airlines has surely won the sobriquet, "Incontinent Airlines."
Being Disabled Rocks!
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 10:01AM
I've been looking around to see if this is an Onion-like spoof, but so far as I can tell it seems legit. From Sweden's The Local:
Roger Tullgren first developed an interest in heavy metal when his older brother came home with a Black Sabbath album in 1971. Since then little else has mattered for the 42-year-old, who has long black hair, a collection of tattoos and wears skull and crossbones jewelry. The ageing rocker claims to have attended almost three hundred shows last year, often skipping work in the process.
Eventually his last employer tired of his absences and Tullgren was left jobless and reliant on welfare handouts. But his sessions with the occupational psychologists led to a solution of sorts: Tullgren signed a piece of paper on which his heavy metal lifestyle was classified as a disability, an assessment that entitles him to a wage supplement from the job centre.
"I signed a form saying: 'Roger feels compelled to show his heavy metal style. This puts him in a difficult situation on the labour market. Therefore he needs extra financial help'. So now I can turn up at a job interview dressed in my normal clothes and just hand the interviewers this piece of paper," he said.
When, I wonder, will the U.S. catch up with the rest of the industrialized world and recognize our personal interests and extracurricular activities for the disabilities they are? And how soon after that can I get my check?
Hamas Nobel Peace Prize Watch
Posted by on 6.21.07 @ 1:43AM
As part of its journey toward winning a Nobel Peace Prize, Hamas will have to start being treated with legitimacy by Western elites. Leave it to the New York Times to provide that legitimacy. On Wednesday, the so-called paper of record gave space on its op-ed page to Hamas flak Ahmed Yousef, allowing him to spread the terrorist group's propaganda as if it were within the range of acceptable discourse. Among the lies being perpetrated under the name of the Gray Lady:
Calling for the destruction of Israel at home, speaking peace to gullible Western elites abroad. That's the same act that Arafat played for decades, and he got a Nobel Peace Prize out of it. No doubt, by publishing this, the NYT's editors believed they were showing themselves to be "even handed" about the Middle East. There's nothing wrong with presenting both sides of an argument, but when one side is pure, unadulterated evil, it should not be presented as having an equally valid perspective. Barbaric terrorists who glorify death should not be granted such a forum in a civilized society.
Also of interest is that if you read Yousef's op-ed, he's essentially making the same arguments that Jimmy Carter did.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Obama Wins Straw Poll
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 4:23PM
As far as the horse race aspects of the straw poll were concerned, Barack Obama won with 29 percent of the vote, edging out John Edwards who was at 26, Hillary Clinton at 17, Bill Richardson at 9, and Al Gore with a strong 8 percent showing as a write in. If you combine the first and second choices, Obama is at 60, Edwards at 53, and Hillary at 33. The poll had 727 respondents, with 83 percent identifying themselves as progressive/liberal. All the normal caveats apply in a straw poll such as this, but you can either say that it's incremental evidence that the progressive base of the party is gathering behind Obama/Edwards, or consider it a decent showing for Hillary with this wing of the party, and the things she would need to do to make a stronger showing in a crowd like this could hurt her general election strategy. Another interesting thing to note is that in the absence of Edwards, most Edwards supporters defect to Obama, and vice versa. It's clearly in Hillary's best interest to have both of them stay in as long as possible to split those voters. If one of them drops out early (more likely Edwards), that would give the other oppourtunity to consolidate the anti-Hillary vote. As I've written before, Hillary has universal name recognition among Democrats, and yet she typically polls nationally in the mid-30s, meaning that nearly two-thirds of the party knows who she is and would prefer somebody else. This indicates to me that there is still an opening for another candidate, and despite the conventional wisdom, this primary race is far from over.
Poll: Fighting Terrorism Low Priority for Liberals
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 4:04PM
Not that this should come as surprise, but the results of the Take Back America straw poll were just announced, and a paltry 3 percent of the attendees to this annual gathering of progressive activists chose terrorism and national security as their most important issue. This ranked it in 7th place in the list of their priorities, behind the war in Iraq, health care, energy and global warming, the economy, education, and corruption in Washington. Some may counter that the 34 percent who identified Iraq as their leading issue could have cared about national security, but even if you combine participants' first and second choices, only 7 percent chose terrorism/national security. Liberals have accused conservatives of using the War on Terror as an excuse to invade Iraq, but now liberals are using withdrawal from Iraq as an excuse to retreat from the War on Terror.
Jesse the Jew Hater
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 2:16PM
Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson just spoke to a standing ovation here at the the Take Back America conference, declaring, "Bush spied, Cheney lied, too many have died, and it's time they be tried. It's impeachment time."
Much of the speech was a call to action for the "Rainbow" agenda, and he nostalgically recounted the glory days when he won the Democratic nomination in 1988...er, almost... "We moved into the New York primary as the leading candidate. In a three way reace with Dukakis, Gore, and I--we would have won and perhaps gone on to win the nomination. But Gore was encouraged to drop out. In reaction to the Rainbow, people were in fits."
Reading Between The Lines
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 12:52PM
John McCain is kvetching about the frontloaded primary schedule. I take it that the schedule's structural bias toward better-funded candidates is starting to worry him.
King George and Cheney: Cancerous SOBs
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 12:43PM
Still at the Take Back America conference. Joe Wilson just spoke as part of a panel on "Curbing the Imperial Presidency," and received a rousing standing ovation. He bragged about being the victim of warrantless wiretapping and said citizens and the media had a responsibility to hold the government accountable. His remarks included this dandy:
Surprisingly, King George's storm troopers weren't there to whisk him away.
Marcy Wheeler, author of The Anatomy of Deceit: How the Bush Administration Used the Media to Sell the Iraq War and Out a Spy, later compared Dick Cheney's influence on the administration to metastasizing cancer.
In the question and answer period, the audience wanted to know why Bush and Cheney weren't being impeached. Joe Conanson, author of It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush, drew heat when he argued that impeachment hearings would be a "dreadful political mistake" for Democrats to make. A member of the audience later scolded him for "completely misreading the polls," which prove that a majority of Americans are pro-impeachment.
Free Market Cure
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 10:58AM
Stuart Browning and David Gratzer have launched a new website called Free Market Cure.
It's purpose is to dispel the myths and propaganda on health care eminating from the left--something important in the context of the upcoming Michael Moore film, Sicko. I've been lucky enough to have been invited to blog at Free Market Cure. However, it is far more than a blog. It has most of Stuart's wonderful short movies on health care, plus articles on health care not found elsewhere.
Check it out.
Tired Excuse Used Again
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 10:56AM
President Bush's budget director Rob Portman is resigning, citing the overused excuse that he needs to "spend more time with his family" in Ohio. From The Washington Times:
Someone ought to tell Portman that is not how to convince people that you want to spend more time with your family.
Hillary and the Anti-War Left
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 10:24AM
Byron York was here for Hillary Clinton's speech, and reported:
As for Hillary, I think it can only be good for her, especially given her general election strategy, to get booed by Code Pink types, especially for saying things such as "The American military has done its job."
Pelosi Heckled
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 9:43AM
Nancy Pelosi is trying to work through her boilerplate speech about the Democratic majority's achievements: increasing the minimum wage, passage of the hate crimes legislation, etc., but keeps getting interrupted by anti-war protesters who want to "bring home the troops NOW!" She commends the crowd's enthusiasm, is sympathetic to their impatience, and pivots by attacking Bush.
Taking Back America
Posted by on 6.20.07 @ 9:38AM
Blogging from the Take Back America conference in DC, sponsored by the liberal group Campaign for America's Future. Right now, John Murtha is introducing Nancy Pelosi.
I came right after Hillary Clinton left, and just watched Dennis Kucinich give a fiery address. It really is an alternate universe from CPAC here. At CPAC the big applause lines involve cutting taxes, killing terrorists, and withdrawing from the U.N.
Here, Kucinich garnered multiple standing ovations for expressing such ideas as:
"The occupation must end."
"We must challenge war as an instrument of policy."
Negotiating peace with Iran and Syria.
"I believe the path the peace runs through Jerusalem," which means an "even handed" policy that recognizes the "suffering of the Palestinians."
Pledging, as president, to start a cabinet level Department of Peace and Nonviolence.
Confronting "the twin threats of global warring and global warming"
We need to "go beyond Kyoto."
Vowing to start a Works Green Administration in spirit of FDR's WPA, to create millions of jobs and improve the environment.
"Make the vice president fully accountable"
"Join the international criminal court."
"Abolish all nuclear weapons."
I tried to take notes on all the rights workers are supposed to have, but I can't type that fast. But I think you get the point.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Rudy's SC Chair Indicted
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 6:56PM
On the same day that it lost top Iowa advisor Jim Nussle (who was tapped by President Bush to head the OMB), the Giuliani campaign's state chairman in South Carolina, Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, was indicted today and charged with distributing cocaine.
The Giuliani campaign just released the following statement, from political director Mark Campbell:
"Our campaign has no information about the accusations pending against Mr. Ravenel. Mr. Ravenel has stepped down from his volunteer responsibilities with the campaign."
There's very little we know at this point,
so not much more to say. But either way, a rough day for Rudy in
some key early states.
RE: A Republican No More
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 6:41PM
When was Bloomberg ever a Republican? He only registered with the party because the Democratic Primary in '01 was over-crowded.
A Republican No More
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 6:39PM
In his second party switch since 2001, Michael Bloomberg has announced that he is now an independent. This is sure to keep the Bloomberg for president buzz going and help the New York mayor solidify his lead in the David Broder primary.
A Myth Celebrates Its First Birthday
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 5:23PM
From ABC News:
A year ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was roundly booed at the Take Back America conference when she stated her opposition to setting a deadline for troop withdrawal.
Well, that's not exactly what happened.
The End May Be Near
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 4:59PM
Based on a meticulous reading of the Book of Daniel, Sir Issac Newton predicted the apocalypse will arrive in 2060, or 1,260 years after the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. Of course Einstein proved that Newton could be wrong--about space and time for instance--so you may not want to don the sackcloth and ashes just yet.
Rudy and the Iraq Study Group
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 4:52PM
A Newsday story about Giuliani quitting the Iraq Study Group last year beacause of his speaking and fundraising commitments is generating criticism of Rudy. But while participation in the panel would have given him an extra line on his resume and enabled him to earn some foreign policy chops, I don't see this hurting him. In my view, it would have been far worse had he actually stayed on the panel and signed its ludicrous recomendations. Beyond advocating retreat, as I wrote when it was released, much of the report became a vehicle for James Baker's narcissism, an effort to relieve his fantasies about being a Middle East peacemaker in the early 1990s.
Furthermore, had Giuliani signed on to the recommendations, it would have created all sorts of political problems for him. Just to give one example, Giuliani has come out in support of President Bush's surge strategy, which the ISG said would be a mistake. Had Giuliani signed the recommendations, he would have either had to oppose President Bush, and be to the left of his rivals on Iraq, undermining his national security appeal (at least in the context of the Republican primary), or support the surge, and be dogged by accusations of being a flip-flopper.
Since he didn't have the time, in hindsight, it probably would have been better had Giuliani not agreed to participate in the first place. Or, better yet, had he resigned in protest over Baker's insistence on demanding Israel make concessions to Syria and the Palestinians. But with that said, I'm sure the Giuliani campaign would much rather spend one day fielding questions about why he snubbed the panel, than spend the rest of the campaign having to answer for every one of the group's recommendations.
The Clintons
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 1:40PM
Hillary Clinton's Sopranos parody was a smart way to generate press on the non news of her choosing a campaign song. As Mary Katherine Ham writes:
This is not a good sign for us. Culturally aware, hip, clever, funny, with a subtle reminder that the Clintons are as much a part of American cultural lore as the Sopranos.
As for Celine Dion song itself, ugh. I think a better choice would have been Frank Stallone's "Take You Back."
Bipartisan Taxing
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 11:37AM
The Club for Growth has come out against the Baucus-Grassley attempt to boost taxes on publicly traded partnerships.
Obama and Religion
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 10:15AM
Andrew Sullivan cites excerpts from an article about Obama speaking about faith in public, and argues:
Rasmussen: Thompson Edges Rudy
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 9:52AM
Yes, it's a robo-poll and it's early, so all caveats apply, but today's Rasmussen has Thompson ever so slightly ahead of Giuliani 28-27, which is a statistical tie. Interesting thing is that Rudy's support actually got a 3 point bump since last week, and looking at this chart reveals an interesting trend.
When Thompson was first mentioned as a candidate back in March, most people thought he posed the biggest threat to Romney, but when he debuted in polls, it was actually Rudy he hurt most. Now, at least according to this poll, it seems like he's done his initial damage to Rudy, and is beginning to hurt Romney and McCain.
A quick recap. When Thompson first appeared in the poll at 14 percent in early April, Rudy's support dropped immediately by 9 points (from 35 to 26) while McCain and Romney support held firm. Since the end of May, when his intentions were becoming more apparent, Thompson's poll support vaulted from 12 to 28. During that time period, Rudy's numbers actually crept back up, but Romney and McCain have dropped (Romney from his peak of 16 to 10, and McCain from 15 to 10).
While this is only a single poll, it will be interesting to see if this carries over into other polls.
Divided Government At Work
Posted by on 6.19.07 @ 9:16AM
Yesterday, Robert Novak reported:
Monday, June 18, 2007
Re: Taking the Cannoli
Posted by on 6.18.07 @ 1:09PM
Here's the thing to remember about the detached-and-plastic line on Romney: It seems to be a function of the size of the room. In front of a huge audience, he can seem robotic. In front of a smaller audience (a few hundred or so), he's more impressive, because he connects much better. In a small group at a party or press conference, he's really charming. What this means is that if he can keep up a fast enough pace practicing retail politics in small rooms in Iowa and New Hampshire, he's going to win over a lot of voters. But that means the early contests are more important for Romney than for anyone else. If he doesn't build momentum by winning early, it's hard to see him doing much on Mega-Tuesday. Giuliani and maybe Thompson can get away with coming in second in Iowa or New Hampshire and still win the nomination; I doubt that Romney can.
Thompson's Heterodox History
Posted by on 6.18.07 @ 12:57PM
Newsweek has a useful round-up of deviations from conservatism in Fred Thompson's past.
Re: Pakistan Problems
Posted by on 6.18.07 @ 12:42PM
The critics are right that we should be doing more to promote (or, more correctly, restore) Pakistani democracy. The familiar line that Pakistani voters might elect an Islamist government misses the point that if there isn't a transition to democracy, Islamists are quite likely to take over the Pakistani government by force. Musharraf isn't immortal, after all. Elections at least gives the moderates a fighting chance.
Pakistan Problems
Posted by on 6.18.07 @ 11:53AM
As anti-Musharraf protesters take to the streets, the media have been featuring articles critical of our support for the Pakastani leader.
In Sunday's Washington Post Ahmed Rashid wrote:
The NY Times, also examined the issue of democracy in Pakistan. The article cites Pakistani moderates who believe that they can do a better job than Musharraf of fighting extremists:
The experiences of Iraq and Pakistan are the perfect illustration of a concept that I've long considered. If we take a step back from our partisan or ideological leanings, we have to recognize that the world is a complicated, messed up, dangerous place. We can all argue over what type of actions America should (or shouldn't) take to improve things, but in the end, it's likely to remain complicated, messed up, and dangerous. For decades we had a policy of propping up dictators, or at least leaving them in place, to maintain stability in the Middle East. This policy of enabling regimes that were oppressing their people, asside from being ethically dubious, fostered extremism and fomented hatred of the U.S. With Iraq, the Bush administration sought to reverse this policy by knocking out a dictator and trying to build a democracy in its place. We all know how well that experiment has gone. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, we are pursuing a traditional policy of supporting a military dictator who is relatively friendly to the U.S. to maintain stability and avoid a worst case scenario. And as the articles I linked to illustrate, that strategy is not without its problems.
While, like everybody else, I'll continue to advocate foreign policy positions that I believe are best, every once in awhile it's worth taking a step back to realize that there are likely to be problems with whatever options we choose. Some would see this as an argument for Ron Paul-type isolationism. But minding our own business is still a policy, and one that is not without its significant pitfalls.
A Walking Contradiction
Posted by on 6.18.07 @ 10:59AM
The cover of the NYT's book review section on Sunday featured Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher's Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas.
An underlying theme of the review, if not the book itself, is that there is an inherent contradiction between being black and conservative:
Then we get this bit about the confirmation hearings:
Re: Hamas's Nobel Heist
Posted by on 6.18.07 @ 10:36AM
John, for over a year, I have been predicting that Hamas would get a Nobel Peace Prize. I just had something else in mind. But come to think of it, this seems much more fitting.
Taking the Cannoli
Posted by on 6.18.07 @ 10:31AM
On Saturday, the NY Times ran a piece essentially arguing that Mitt Romney's polished nature has made it difficult for him to connect with voters:
It should be interesting to watch whether Romney's style helps or hurts him as the race progresses. In one sense he runs the risk of coming off as inauthentic (especially given his flip flop problem). On the other hand, over the long haul of a campaign, there is an advantage to essentially being like a machine who does whatever it's programmed to do, because you can limit controversy. Personality candidates are going have emotional high moments (McCain's answer to the woman who lost her brother in Iraq, Rudy's response to Ron Paul), but being unscripted can also cause problems (Rudy's early abortion asnwers, McCain's blasting the Club for Growth, or his "agents of intolerence" comment from 2000). The Mittster may be too plastic for some people, and he may not have the high highs of his rivals, but he also may avoid a major gaffe that can destroy a campaign (as it did to his father).
Thinking of this contrast reminded me of an anecdote that I came
across from the 2002 Massachusetts governor's race, back when
Giuliani, ironically, was campaigning for Romney. The Boston Globe's Brian McGrory wrote:
I found myself standing at the counter of Mike's Pastry on Hanover Street, where Mitt and his celebrity endorser of the day, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, stopped while taking a stroll through the North End.
A rumpled local with a 10 o'clock shadow called out to the pair, "Let me buy you guys a cannoli." This is a softball, a no-brainer; my cynical reporter's mind, flashing to images on the news of Mitt biting into a load of sweetened ricotta cheese, assumed this man was a plant.
And here's what Mitt said: "No thanks, got to run." He said it with that nervous smile on his face, the same one he wears in the debates. Giuliani, while Romney waited by the door, came over, wrapped his arm around the man, and said, "Let me buy you the cannoli." Everyone in the joint was tickled pink.
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- The Continuing Crisis
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
