- 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 30, 2007
Re: RoverGate
Posted by on 6.30.07 @ 12:31PM
Shawn: I assume your pug Bear does what our mini-dachshund does in our car -- share driving duties. She's always on my lap behind the wheel; hence her auto club name: Mini Driver.
Re: RoverGate
Posted by on 6.30.07 @ 9:33AM
Wlady: So if Romney had done this to a pug this would have been okay? Myself and my companion animal Bear eagerly await your reply/apology. No Pugs Need Apply for a Seat in the Car? Is that what we've come to?
Seriously, though, the mini-outrage over this story about forcing the dog to ride on the roof cannot be dismissed as some marginal PETA thing. According to the American Pet Association almost 45 million Americans own nearly 63 million dogs today. Now, while I'm sure not all of those Americans are good dog owners--as sure as I am, in fact, that all but the smallest fraction of those dogs are good dogs--I nonetheless prefer to believe very, very few of them would look kindly upon strapping a dog carrier to a car roof for half a day.
Re: Bush Is A Moron--Where's My Bong?
Posted by on 6.30.07 @ 7:41AM
Tommy Chong on Neil Cavuto: Here it is.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Re: Romney Responds to Dog-Gate
Posted by on 6.29.07 @ 6:02PM
Phil: I was ready to give Mitt a break over his mistreatment of his Mutt -- but then I found out this was no mere mutt, but a member of the finest breed in existence: an Irish setter. In my book, he's just redefined hate crime.
The Death of Terror Mouse
Posted by on 6.29.07 @ 4:11PM
The AP reports:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - A Mickey Mouse lookalike who preached Islamic domination on a Hamas-affiliated children's television program was beaten to death in the show's final episode Friday.
In the final skit, "Farfour" was killed by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, the mouse called the Israeli a "terrorist."
"Farfour was martyred while defending his land," said Sara, the teen presenter. He was killed "by the killers of children," she added.
It's funny--until you realize that it's actually training Palestinian children to believe that the best contribution they can make to society is to die in the process of killing Israelis.
Re: McCain Survival Watch
Posted by on 6.29.07 @ 3:45PM
Sen. Tom Coburn, who opposed the immigration bill, praises McCain for his courageous stand:
Most politicians possess, in abundance, the skill of making promises that will appeal to a majority of voters. Very few politicians, however, ever demonstrate the kind of political courage Senator McCain demonstrated in this debate. Many qualities, of course, matter when selecting our elected leaders - political philosophy, judgment, specific plans, etc. - but the most important quality upon which all others depend is courage. On that count, Senator McCain has given all of us in the Senate an example to be followed.
Romney Responds To Dog-Gate
Posted by on 6.29.07 @ 1:43PM
As most everybody knows by now, during a 1983 family roadtrip, Mitt Romney put his dog in a cage and strapped it to the roof of his station wagon for a 12-hour car ride from Boston to Ontario. This caused somewhat of a stir, especially among animal rights activists. Today, he responded to the controversy:
"PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air."
Terrorism as a Mere Nuisance
Posted by on 6.29.07 @ 12:40PM
Matthew Yglesias writes:
It's easy and, indeed, appropriate to mock Bush for the public diplomacy fiasco involved in saying that his plan is to make Iraq more like Israel but this shouldn't completely obscure the fact that Bush is making a sound analytic point. What he's saying about
Iraq is, in essence, what John Kerry was saying about thewhen he said he thought we should aim to reduce terrorism to a kind of nuisance. Naturally, Kerry got savagely attacked for saying this, but at some point somebody's going to need to have the courage to make the argument that setting ourselves maximalist goals vis-a-vis terrorism doesn't make sense. US Plenty of countries have long suffered some degree of terrorism --
Spain ,Britain ,-- while being more-or-less pleasant, economically successful democracies whose citizens enjoy a high standard of living. These countries would, of course, like to completely eliminate their terrorism problems and rightly do make efforts in these regards. But during their better moments, at least, all of these countries recognize that the goal is to reduce the harm caused by terrorism to manageable levels, not to turn everything upside down in pursuit of a possibly chimerical "victory." What we really, really, really need to focus on is making sure no terrorists get nuclear bombs while, beyond that, we keep the risks involved in conventional terrorism (even in Israel you're more likely to die in a car wreck than a suicide bombing) in perspective. Israel
Yglesias is dismissing an important distinction. Bush is saying that a realistic goal would be to make
Yglesias is right to a certain extent that we can never expect to eliminate the threat of terrorism entirely. Something like the Oklahoma City bombing, in which domestic terrorists acted alone, is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent. However, I do believe that with a combination prudent domestic security, financial pressure, sustained military offensive, and stricter enforcement of our immigration laws, we can reach the point in which we eliminate the possibility of state sponsored terrorism and large-scale attacks such as 9/11 that are planned and executed by global terrorist networks. Anything less, in my view, is unacceptable.
McCain Survival Watch
Posted by on 6.29.07 @ 11:49AM
As I wrote yesterday, I think that the defeat of the Senate immigration bill will buy McCain some more time in the presidential race. But clearly, it isn't good news for him that he has to answer questions about whether he intends to drop out. A good indicator of whether those questions will persist is what his second quarter fundraising numbers look like (Q2 ends tomorrow). If his numbers are in the single digits, as some reports have suggested, the "McCain Death Watch" talk will gain steam. However, if in spite of the immigration fiasco, he exceeds the $12.5 million raised last quarter as his chief strategist John Weaver has vowed, I think the narrative will become, despite a horrendous news cycle, McCain remains in the mix. Again, this doesn't change the fact that in the long run, he's almost certainly doomed. Or, to put it another way, as a political writer I should say "never" because a lot of crazy things can happen in politics, but at this point I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances under which he gets the nomination.
Fly Me To The Moon
Posted by on 6.29.07 @ 11:28AM
Only $100 million. I guess it's time for me to pony up.
How To Raise Money While Screwing the Opposition
Posted by on 6.29.07 @ 12:18AM
Rossen Valchev has the details.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Inverted Imperialism
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 10:36PM
The last question of the Democratic debate was on the situation in Sudan and the candidates were all talking tough, tough, tough, exhibiting the inverted imperialism I chided Edwards for a few months back:
Call Edwards' imperialism Inverted Imperialism: Wherever America is, she should not be. Wherever she is not, send her soon. He will boldly go where no Bush has gone before. We cannot get out of Iraq and into Sudan quickly enough, as if the problem in each country isn't the mass slaughter of innocents. We must confront Hezbollah but leave Iraqis to the sectarian wolves. North Korea and Iran are to be called out on the carpet, while Iraq, in shambles, should be left on its own to discover a "political solution," even as the most necessary ingredient of political compromise--security--remains elusive.
Principled military isolationism is fine, admirable, even. Attempting to build both national security and anti-war credentials simultaneously by abandoning one partisan intervention for another is grossly inhumane.
Al Dominates Dems Debate, Four Years Too Late
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 10:26PM
I think Al Sharpton has gotten more face time during this debate than any of the candidates. The camera cuts to the Reverend for a reaction shot after nearly every answer. Cornel West is doing okay, too. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is lagging, but still in the running. Chris Dodd? Not so much...
Obama, All the Way
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 10:19PM
Obama just offered to finish one of John Edwards' thoughts. Hey, as long as you're there, why don't you just go ahead and start it as well.
Never Forget
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 10:17PM
I, for one, will never forget that John Edwards announced his candidacy in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans. And if I do, it won't be for long since Mr. Pecan Pie is completely incapable of not mentioning it anytime he comes within two hundred yards of an African American. Or a Caucasion. Or Citizens of Either America, Poodles and Forest Nymphs. Or...
I Wish I'd Seen That!
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 9:59PM
I wasn't taking notes so no exact quote, but Biden just claimed he spent a lot of time passionately encouraging black men to wear condoms. I'm sure the context for those conversations was fascinating. Oh, Lord. This will be everywhere tomorrow. Hello YouTube!
Factious Fatah
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 6:04PM
The Hamas-Fatah conflict doesn't represent the only split among Palestinians. The Jerusalem Post reports on a growing divisions within Fatah itself.
Sessions, Vitter, and DeMint
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 5:59PM
As a longtime critic of David Vitter, let me offer this olive branch: He was magnificent yesterday in highlighting the "railroad" tactics of Harry Reid. In that light, he deserves credit along with the great Jeff Sessions and the impressive Jim DeMint (the two MOST important leaders on this) for derailing the awful immigration bill. Their hardy little band won a huge victory against all odds. My hat is off to them.
Now, I only wish the rest of the lawmakers would learn a lesson from this: Rather than trying to pass huge catch-all bills, break it down into its constituent parts and pass the ones that attract majorities, while leaving behind those parts that aren't popular. We really do need immigration reform -- and it might be wise to include some sort of guest worker program after the various enforcement measures are actually not just "implemented" but actually WORKING. But that won't happen any time soon, now.... Oh, well....
Anyway, again, congrats to Sessions and DeMint and Vitter.
Bush Is A Moron--Where's My Bong?
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 4:26PM
Tommy Chong was just on Your World with Neil Cavuto. Oh PLEASE someone put it on YouTube!
Chong called Bush a moron, and then said that Ted Kennedy wasn't the brightest guy, and he knew this because he didn't get elected president.
At one point Cavuto asked Chong, "You're not taking the stuff, are you Tommy." Chong replied, "No! I'm taking it everyday. And you should too, Neil. Know why? It would open your eyes to what's going on."
The $27 Million Woman
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 4:23PM
From a Clinton campaign memo sent out by Howard Wolfson:
We expect to bring in about what we did in the First Quarter, or slightly more, which should put us in the range of $27 million. To put that figure in some perspective, it is more than any Democrat has ever raised in the second quarter of the "off" year. While that figure is record setting, we do expect Senator Obama to significantly outraise us this quarter.
Will Obama really take the fundraising prize? Or is this just careful spin by Team Hillary. We can only wait and see.
A Victory For McCain
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 1:28PM
Finally, the McCain campaign gets some good news, with the immigration bill going down in defeat. Over the next few months, the level of anger people have toward this immigration legislation will lose intensity as long as it remains dead. By the fall most of the attention will be focused on Iraq, an issue on which McCain will again take a courageous stand--only this time he'll be on the same side as the conservative base. While I still think that McCain has alienated too many conservatives since 1999 to capture the nomination, now that the immigration bill was defeated, I think his longevity has increased dramatically.
Is Divided Government Working?
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 12:35PM
The interesting thing to note about Barnes's piece that Jim pointed to below is that it seems to confirm the arguments made by those who argued that if Republicans lost Congress, it would do more to restrain spending than if they remained in power. When Republicans controlled both branches of government, Republicans wouldn't fight budget bills and President Bush wouldn't veto them, because the spending was being done by Republicans. The Democrats, who are always the party of big government, were perfectly happy to oblige. Now that Democrats are in control, Republicans are much more fiesty about fighting excessive spending, and President Bush is ready and willing to actually use his veto pen. Ironically, if spending grows at a slower rate during this Congressional term, Democrats will argue in 2008 that they helped restore fiscal discipline to Washington. Another reason why Republicans should have gotten things right when they had the chance.
Adios, Immigration Bill
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 12:29PM
The resurrected Senate immigration deal failed a second key cloture vote. The bill's opponents included people on the right, like Sen. Jim DeMint, and senators as far to the left as Bernie Sanders.
As I've noted before, the coalition behind "comprehensive" efforts to Do Something about immigration is rife with internal contradictions.
Conservatism Without the Modifier
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 11:40AM
Is compassionate conservatism over? Fred Barnes thinks it might be.
Water Is Wet
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 11:36AM
And jail is scary. So says the recently liberated Paris, the philosopher for our times. Gripping. An Esquire cover story is probably in the works.
Rudy, Ravenel, Rehab
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 11:12AM
Thomas Ravenel, the suspended State Treasurer from South Carolina who has been indicted for cocaine distribution, and was Rudy Giuliani's state campaign chairman, has entered drug rehabilitation.
Love Those Neighbors
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 10:54AM
Those who advocate land preservation and smart growth principles can help their own cause by promoting the beliefs of a group who share their principles as a natural outgrowth of their lifestyle, without the need for government intervention.
Just invite the Christian evangelical Twelve Tribes to be your neighbors, and thereafter live in McMansion-less bliss.
The Tahoe Fire
Posted by on 6.28.07 @ 4:16AM
In Chapter XXIII of Roughing It, Mark Twain describes accidentally setting fire to a large section of woods on the shore of Lake Tahoe:
“I heard a shout from Johnny, and looking up I saw that my fire was galloping all over the premises! Johnny was on the other side of it. He had to run through the flames to get to the lake shore, and then we stood helpless and watched the devastation.” This description of setting a forest fire on the shores of
Small comfort to the homeowners who lost houses in the current blaze.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
On Flip-Flopping
Posted by on 6.27.07 @ 4:40PM
Patrick Ruffini writes a defense of flip-flopping, arguing, essentially, that it shouldn't matter because candidates are locked into the positions they take during a campaign, and cites Bush I & II as well as Clinton as examples of presidents governing more or less the way they ran. I disagree with Ruffini's historical analysis, as well as his general defense of flip-floppery.
Conservatives may have known Bush the elder was no Reagan, but he sounded pretty convincing when he said, "Read my lips, no new taxes." And he lied. Bill Clinton also called for a middle class tax cut, but reversed himself shortly after taking office. I'm sure I could think of plenty more examples of presidents going back on promises that were central to their campaigns.
My problem with flip flopping is that the pressure presidents are under is so great that I want to elect a leader who I know has a strong set of bedrock principles that will remain solid no matter what the challenges of office. If a politician has a long track record of doing just what is politically expedient, I don't know whether I can rely on that leader during tough times. Especially during a time of war.
This doesn't mean that a politician can never change his or her mind on any issue ever. Circumstances change, human experience changes, and it's perfectly healthy for people to constantly reevaluate their own views. Also, when a politician is campaigning, he or she is asking for the votes of a particular consitutiency, so there's a certain back and forth, a certain level of accommodation that we can reasonably expect to take place. However, when the level of flip-flopping reaches a certain point, I think it is a problem.
So, in the context of the current Republican nomination battle, I think we have to differentiate between the type of policy shifts being displayed by most of the field, and Mitt Romney, who deserves a category all to himself. Romney's political opportunism, his utter phoniness, the sheer quantity and magnitude and timing of his shifts, is simply without parallel. So, I have no reason to believe that he won't undergo another transformation down the road.
Honestly, after conservatives spent two successive campaigns arguing that the Democratic nominees couldn't be trusted to run the country because they were flip floppers, it's surprising that we would even be having this debate.
Summer Sale: Old Chambers, Great Condition
Posted by on 6.27.07 @ 3:33PM
Samuel Alito is selling his New Jersey home. If you've got a cool million gathering dust in a bank vault somewhere, now might be the pefect time to do a little early Christmas shopping for the Supreme Court fanatic on your list.
And You Think You've Got Problems!
Posted by on 6.27.07 @ 11:30AM
Does a major American tennis star have a phobia of the Easter Bunny?
Nurse Bloomberg
Posted by on 6.27.07 @ 11:02AM
Some people think Michael Bloomberg would be a natural candidate for libertarians. Over at Reason, Dave Weigel says: Not so much.
Administration Disputes WaPost
Posted by on 6.27.07 @ 11:02AM
One one level, a reader must give credit to the Washington Post for its four-part series on the power and practices of VP Dick Cheney: It is an incredibly richly reported series, with lots of detail and thoroughness. BUT, and this is a big "but," it has some important flaws. First is the overall tone, aided and abetted by the Post's notoriously biased headline writers, that pretty much beats the reader over the head with the notion that Cheney is virtually the spawn of Satan. (One day's headline, for example: "the Unseen Path to Cruelty.") Second is the amazing feat of spending dozens and dozens of column inches on the development of interrogation practices for unlawful enemy combatants without a single mention that the Pentagon conducted an extensive review of the same and that the resultant standards for interrogation came nowhere near what any rational being would describe as "cruelty." (For that matter, the leader of the review, Defense Counsel Jim Haynes, is mentioned only once in the series, portrayed as one of only two loan holdouts in favor of cruelty or even torture--even though, again, Haynes [a Cheney ally] was the one most responsible for LIMITING the ultimate harshness of the methods.)
Then there is this paragraph from the first day's report: Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped "Treated As: Top Secret/SCI." Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes to "sensitive compartmented information," the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words "treated as," they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause "exceptionally grave damage to national security."
To read this, one would think this is some sort of regular practice of the VP's office, a policy emanating from Cheney himself that has been formalized, etc. Well, I have no independent way of double-checking this, but I am told that the only person in the VP's orbit who might have used the "Treat as Secret" designation was former aide Scooter Libby, and even if that was so, it was not anything formal. Regardless, an administration official told me, point blank and emphatically, that such a designation "is not a practice" -- and, then for emphasis: "is not an authorized practice in the Office of the Vice President and is not currently being used."
I have no reason to doubt this official. And while it is only a minor point in a much, much longer series of news stories, it is symptomatic of how the Post reporters continually make a big deal over little things (even, according to my source, their own false representation of little things) in a way that always, ALWAYS, portrays the vice president as being almost frighteningly obsessed with secrecy. In this way does otherwise rich reporting struggle so hard to pigeonhole everything into a pre-conceived storyline as to turn its subject into the exact opposite of a fully, richly described figure, instead making him into a caricature of the media's own devising.
One of these days I look forward to the news story that tells about all of this from a point of view sympathetic to Mr. Cheney. But I doubt it will be coming from the Post.
Use the Subjunctive, Mr. Prez
Posted by on 6.27.07 @ 9:59AM
Yesterday, President Bush said this to the Sun of England: "I wish I was a better speaker." I would suggest that one place he should start is by using the subjunctive. As in: "I wish I were a better speaker." It reallly is a shame that the Bush clan is so adept at mangling the language. Then again, at least this Bush didn't refer to the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band as the "Nitty Ditty Nitty Gritty Great Bird."
Of course, there is more to leadership than mere speaking ability, thank goodness......
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Unspoken Anchors
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 6:14PM
We have arrived at the State of Irrelevance. Unpack. Defecate on the front porch, if you wish. In fact, do anything you wish, with anybody you wish, for as long as you wish. No one will say a thing.
Apart from a few brief moments to mourn in private once her daughter Jessie's pregnant body was discovered, Patricia Porter was readily available to the media, which carefully avoided any trenchant inquiry. Had she ever had a mother-daughter talk about sexual relations with a married man? Even after such had produced a child two years ago? Had she any misgivings about yet another illegitimate child entering the family circle, courtesy the same man whose relationship with her daughter seemed casual to say the least?
Such questions must have occurred dozens of times to TV viewers, but not to the interviewing anchors who bowed and scraped and exuded unbound sympathy throughout, from their towers of irrelevance.
Let Them Eat Quesadillas
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 5:50PM
Rick Hindle, executive chef for the Skadden, Arps law firm in Washington, is my hero of the day for adding a (likely unintentional) punchline to this Congressional class war publicity stunt, gleefully enabled by Sally Squires of the Washington Post.
Senate Insiders Say....
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 5:15PM
Okay, as promised, I now have some good scoop from a pretty solid Senate source (or two). According to Insider(s), Burr, Brownback, Gregg, Nelson of Nebraska, and Webb are VERY good targets for switching against cloture (or perhaps not being there, which amounts to the same thing). Pryor, Bond, and Coleman are other serious possibilities. I am told, too, that Barbara Boxer remains decidedly unhappy with the bill, and is still a definite possibility to switch to the anti-cloture, anti-amnesty side. Others to watch are Collins and Snowe of Maine, who I had counted as lost causes but who apparently still might be open to persuasion. My earlier speculations about Bingamon and Levin and Conrad are not as likely, I am now told, but a smidgen of hope still attaches to them. Murkowski and Craig and Nelson of Florida are seen as lost causes, though, and Ensign also is less likely to switch than I had thought.
And there may be other tricks up the anti sleeves if needed.
More later, probably tomorrow.....
Forsaking the Fantasy Economy
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 4:59PM
David Jones has the goods on a quiet revolt in Zimbabwe.
Re: Sexy Movies
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 4:57PM
Shawn, the sexiest love scene I've witnessed in movies recently -- allowing that I don't go to many -- was in March of the Penguins, a closeup implied lovemaking scene between two androgyne birds. I took my son to see it. It went right over his head. For me, it was so graphic and evocative, I kept looking around expecting other people in the theater to react.
I guess I'm weird.
Anti-Amnesty Folks Can Win
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 4:36PM
I hope to have more on this later based on discussions with sources rather than just on pure speculation, but what follows here is just barely semi-educated guesswork backed by years of close political observation. To wit: I think the folks working against the immigration bill have momentum on their side and, if I had to bet, I would bet money that they will defeat cloture on Thursday and thus block the bill. Why? Because they secured three anti-cloture votes today that were not necessarily expected and that, if they hold them on the second cloture vote, could well provide the difference. Democrats (or Independent-caucusing-Democrats) Debbie Stabenow, Bernie Sanders and especially Evan Bayh were pleasant surprises who voted against cloture. Their stance might be indicative of the effect of the recent public opposition to cloture by the Daily Kos and by the AFL-CIO. Unless they are doing a complicated dance whereby they traded votes against cloture this time in return for other Dems (like Webb and Pryor) voting against cloture next time while these three switch in favor -- which is entirely possible -- then the odds actually look quite good for getting 41 votes of no (or absences) on Thursday.
If those three Dems stay where they are, the anti-amnesty forces need just five more votes. I would expect they will indeed get those five, from among the following seven senators: Republicans Bond, Burr, Brownback, Ensign, and Gregg, and Democrats Webb and Nelson. Next most likely to switch against cloture are Democrat Mark Pryor and Republican Norm Coleman, both up for re-election next year. I really, really think the anti-amnesty crowd can secure five of those nine votes.
Meanwhile, I think the only four people who could conceivably switch again from anti-cloture to pro-cloture are the three Dems (Sander/Stabenow/Bayh) and GOPer Grassley. But I think it equally likely that others could still switch from pro- to anti- -- among them Dems Bingmain, Conrad, Nelson of Florida, and Levin, and Republicans Craig, Domenici, Lott, McConnell, and Murkowski.
In short, this fight ain't over yet, not by a long shot.
Ron Paul Climbs Aboard the Crazy Train...
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 4:25PM
...and goes up around the bend.
I’m a fairly unabashed admirer of Ron Paul, yet I can think of no rational explanation on God’s green earth for his decision to publicly endorse
Does Paul really wanted to be associated with someone who is currently stockpiling weapons for a confrontation with law enforcement, threatening another
I dislike taxes and the Federal Reserve as much as the next guy--well, to be fair to the next guy, probably a wee bit more--but I realize not everyone who shares a couple of my views is an epic hero for humanity. Paul and his handlers would be well-advised to figure that out, too, and soon.
Too Close for Comfort
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 3:13PM
Does Mitt Romney have a dirty trickster in his immediate entourage? The case of aide Jay Garrity continues to percolate. Garrity is the fellow who apparently has been passing himself off as a Massachusetts state trooper in an effort to intimidate at least one reporter -- from the New York Times -- who evidently was covering Romney in New Hampshire too closely for the campaign's comfort.
Where would Garrity have come up with the idea of impersonating a state trooper?
A profile of Romney in the latest New Republic includes this tidbit, from Mitt's high school days at the posh Cranbrook academy. According to classmates, Mitt was known "less for his achievements than his pranks -- like the time he and some friends borrowed a state trooper's uniform from his father's security detail and pulled over students from the neighboring girls' school."
As Ben Stein would say, "Hmmmm."
Excuse Me, But...
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 2:59PM
...you don't by any chance carry a "Cry For Help" ringtone, do you?
Card Check Blocked
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 1:20PM
While much of the attention is currently on immigration, Senate Republicans deserve credit for blocking so-called "card check" legislation that would have made it easier for organized labor to intimidate workers into joining unions by denying access to a secret ballot. I wrote about the issue back in February.
He's Famous because he's Angry
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 11:55AM
More sightings of the infamous Islamic Rage Boy courtesy of Snapped Shot. And get your Islamic Rage Boy gear here. I especially like the "My Child Decapitated your Honor Student" bumper sticker.
Re: Why Movies Aren't Sexy Anymore?
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 11:48AM
Shawn: So what else is new! If sex (or some semblance of it) is everywhere, how can anything still be sexy? More importantly, does Lars Trodson amid his swooning ever explain why Love With the Proper Stranger remains unavailable on DVD?
1972 Redux?
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 11:14AM
Richard Cohen believes that the Democratic Party may shoot itself in the foot by choosing a presidential nominee who caters to the anti-war left the way George McGovern did in 1972:
Kurtz Agrees
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 11:13AM
In less snarky language than I used below, Stanley Kurtz at NRO agrees that it is truly bizarre to watch the Senate utterly ignore public opinion on the immigration bill. Are all the civics textbooks now utterly worthless?
Re: Weird Op-Ed
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 10:45AM
The column ends up being more or less a trite analysis of the Republican presidential contest, in which Giuliani, McCain, and Romney are rejected for various reasons in favor of Fred Thompson.
I'm not sure how it would actually help any presidential candidate to become vice president at this point. Not only would whoever is chosen become associated with the President Bush's unpopular administration, but he or she wouldn't have much time to do anything of significance by the time the primary rolls around. It may make sense for a second tier candidate who has nothing to lose to accept the position, but I don't see how it would benefit Thompson. Meanwhile, if Bush were ever to replace Cheney, given what we know about his presidency, he's much more likely to tap his inner circle--by promoting Condi Rice for example--than reaching for an outsider. If nothing else, it would certainly make Dick Morris happy.
Beltway Bubble
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 10:28AM
In all my decades of closely watching politics, I have never, EVER seen Congress so directly contravene the overwhelming, strongly expressed will of its constituents as it is doing by continuing with this immigration charade. Then again, for senators like Trent Lott, their constituents aren't necessarily the voters of Mississippi; instead, their constituents are the big corporations and the wealthy lobbyists and campaign donors with whom they hobnob every day. In effect, these senators are being bought off. Which means the question shouldn't be "Who's your daddy," but rather, "who's your madame?"
Why Movies Aren't Sexy Anymore
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 9:16AM
One of my favorite former editors, New Hampshire filmmaker Lars Trodson, swoons for Love With The Proper Stranger-era Natalie Wood and--surveying a landscape dotted with uninspiring Halle Berrys, Cameron Diazs and Silver Surfers--with prays for the day when Hollywood can once again "access the kind of allure that people have always gone to the movies for."
Weirdest Op-Ed of the Day
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 8:56AM
Without even attempting to offer any corroborating evidence, Sally Quinn simply asserts in today's Washington Post that "The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office."
I wonder what the weather is like on her planet.
Alito's Unworkable Distinction
Posted by on 6.26.07 @ 5:08AM
Eugene Volokh examines -- somewhat more comprehensively than I did in today's column -- the problematic Morse ruling.
Monday, June 25, 2007
A Rudy Reversal
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 6:24PM
He was for campaign finance reform, but now he's against it.
Bong Hits 4 Free Speech
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 5:03PM
An interesting debate at the NRO blogs: David French worries about the consequences of today's decision in Morse v. Frederick, while Matthew Franck disagrees. I think French is basically right, though Franck is smart to endorse the Thomas view that public school students have no free speech rights (I don't entirely agree with that view, but, as I'll explain in my column tomorrow, it's really the only coherent justification for the ruling in this case).
Al Gore Frightens Small Children
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 2:12PM
Emily Yoffe takes note of the real "politics of fear."
Roberts vs. Scalia vs. Alito
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 1:33PM
The Chief Justice's opinion finds the ban on using a candidate's name in an issue ad unconstitutional. The ad in question urged viewers: "Contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster." But the ruling does not reverse the holding in McConnell v. FEC that expressly advocate for a particular election result -- i.e., it might still be constitutional to ban Wisconsin Right to Life from running an ad during the October before an election that says "don't vote for Senators Feingold and Kohl." Scalia, whose judicial philosophy places a lot of emphasis on the need for workable rules, writes in his partial-concurrence that there is no way to meaningfully distinguish between those two types of ads, and that he "would therefore reconsider the decision that sets us the unsavory task of separating issue-speech from election-speech with no clear criterion." Thomas and Kennedy joined Scalia's opinion.
Alito joined Roberts, but wrote in a separate concurrence:
[B]ecause §203 [the relevant section of McCain-Feingold] is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face. If it turns out that the implementation of the as-applied standard set out in the principal opinion impermissibly chills political speech, see [Scalia's opinion]... we will presumably be asked in a future case to reconsider the holding in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n... that §203 is facially constitutional.This illustrates the range of ways that conservatives can approach the question of precedent. Thomas will consider overturning a precedent that is contrary to original understanding as long as the litigants ask that said precendent be reconsidered. Scalia will overturn a precendent only if it fails to create a workable rule for the lower courts. Alito and Roberts will overturn a precedent only if doing so is necessary to reach the correct judgement in the case at hand. But Alito is happy to signal that he might reconsider a precedent in a future case; Roberts seems to prefer to hold his cards closer to his vest.
Romney on WRTL
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 12:51PM
Different from McCain's reaction:
Boston, MA - Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the United States Supreme Court decision overturning a portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law:This is a big problem for McCain. The Court's shift to the right sometimes seems like the only thing in the Bush era that conservatives are actually happy about. Discontent with that rightward shift is a losing position in a Republican primary."Score one for free speech. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment by rejecting a key feature of McCain-Feingold. The law trampled the basic right of the American people to participate in their democracy. It also purported to reduce the influence of money in politics, but we now know that influence is greater than ever. McCain-Feingold was a poorly-crafted bill. Today's decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression."
McCain on WRTL
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 12:31PM
Hot off the presses:
"While I respect their decision in this matter, it is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election.
"It is important to recognize, however, that the Court's decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns.
"I am grateful to the Bush Administration and all those lawmakers, both past and present, who have joined us in our efforts to put an end to the corruption bred by soft money. Fortunately, that central reform still stands as the law."
Again, a problem for McCain that his reaction to the decision is the exact opposite from the reaction of most conservatives.Re: SCOTUS
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 11:56AM
It was a busy morning at the court; here's a summary from SCOTUSblog, and here are links to today's opinions. I'm still working my way through them, but my initial impression is that Roberts and Alito take a rather more minimalist approach in FEC v. WRTL than I think makes sense. More later.
Of All the (Sissy Non-Alcoholic) Gin Joints...
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 11:38AM
Look where some poor sap landed when she did a Google search for profound statement love.
SCOTUS Split on Free Speech
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 11:22AM
The Supreme Court today delivered a mixed bag to free speech advocates, ruling that Wisconsin Right to Life had the right to run election ads that named a Senate candidate, but also that public school officials in Alaska had the right to punish a student for unfurling a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner as the Olympic torch made it through Juneau in 2002.
Re: Gilmore
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 10:55AM
Quin, you're right about Gilmore deserving credit for bringing up property rights. It's also a smart move politically. When we hosted Gilmore at one of our Newsmaker Breakfasts, one of his problems was that he was too general, and lacked any sort of signature issue that traditionally is necessary for a bottom-tier candidate to gain traction. Anger over eminient domain abuse unites Republicans of all stripes, and is a 90-percent issue among the general public, yet the other candidates have been pretty silent about it. If Gilmore adopts this as his issue, and begins to talk about it every chance he gets, let's hope some of the top-tier candidates begin to give it serious attention.
Ask An Illegal Alien
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 10:45AM
The first-ever poll of illegal immigrants could very well be legit, but there is something very Onion-like about this story.
Broder's Man
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 10:29AM
Yesterday's David Broder column was the one everybody was expecting on Michael Bloomberg's potential candidacy. In it, he proves that once you rise to prominence in punditry, you get to make all sorts of silly arguments without backing them up with the smallest drop of empirical evidence, or logic. I think this one paragraph captures better than any other the flawed reasoning that is fueling media euphoria over the prospect of Bloomberg jumping in the ring:
Gilmore, Giuliani: Great Going!
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 10:19AM
One benefit of having a lot of good people run for the presidency is that lots of good ideas get introduced into the public realm. For instance, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore deserves credit for this idea for protecting property rights, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani merits plaudits for his specificity about fiscal discipline (as summarized by the excellent Deroy Murdock). Hear, hear!
Re-Post: Gingrich vs. Amnesty
Posted by on 6.25.07 @ 10:12AM
NOTE: I posted this last Friday evening, and said then that I feared the timing was so bad that it would get lost in the shuffle, and promised to re-post it today. SO here it is:
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.
“The new McCain-Kennedy bill is a grave threat to
The ad features Newt Gingrich. The script reads:
“Mohammad Atta and several other 9/11 hijackers were in the
“Today, more than 5 years since that tragic day, our borders remain open to gangs, drug dealers, and terrorists. But instead of protecting the borders, the new McCain-Kennedy immigration plan will instead put millions of people who are in our country illegally, including potential terrorists and gang members, on a path to
“This is wrong…”
Citizens United is a 500,000 member
My (Quin's) 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.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Public Indecency
Posted by on 6.24.07 @ 6:11PM
The new public editor of the New York Times thinks that it is appropriate to publish the unmediated propaganda of a criminal terrorist organization, but an error to criticise a fashionable diet without giving an opportunity for rebuttal. Obviously, we are at no risk that the Times will drift to the right under Hoyt's watchful eye. We do, however, eagerly await the spirited defense of veganism.Here's what I want to know: To whom at the Times do I complain about the Public Editor?
Feinstein and Duke
Posted by on 6.24.07 @ 5:59AM
Wlady just forwarded me an e-mail from an irate reader who characterized my review of John Feinstein's Tales from Q School as "column filler," because Feinstein had said "despicable" things about the Duke lacrosse players case. A quick Google yields some apparent Feinstein broadcast comments summarized in a sports blog here and a Feinstein column griping about all things Duke here.
These comments are indeed not attractive to me, either. As are some of Feinstein's other habits, of a piece with these columns. He is very self-righteous, and quite impressed with himself. (Christopher Hitchens is not?) In golf, for instance, the only subject where I have read Feinstein, he dubbed Scottish golfer Colin Montgomerie "Mrs. Doubtfire," and labored to do so, and then rued the fact that fans had picked up the nickname and thrown it at Montgomery.
That doesn't mean he can't write. He can write like an angel.
- Down in the Desert
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
