- 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, July 7, 2007
It's a Conspiracy, Man!
Posted by on 7.7.07 @ 8:53PM
Today is the second anniversary of the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London. Kevin Shay, guest-blogging for Daniel Radosh, notes that Britain has its own "it was an inside job" movement, as does Spain.
The funny thing is that there really is an international conspiracy to execute terrorist attacks. If one merely has the kind of mind that is drawn to rumors of skullduggery and hidden connections between bad guys, the loosely-connected worldwide network of radical Islamist groups provides plenty of grist for the mill. There's something more going on here, and I think I know what it is: fear. Conspiracies to consolidate power and money are a whole lot less scary than conspiracies to kill a lot of infidels for religious reasons. Conspiracy theorizing, after all, is an exercise in putting the world in order. It stands to reason that people who just can't wrap their heads around the crazy motives of our enemies would look for alternate explanations. This is why when 9/11 conspiracy theorists email me, my standard retort is to ask who's really "afraid of the truth."
A Hot Dog-Eating Contest to Fight Obesity
Posted by on 7.7.07 @ 3:48PM
The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations.I had some fun at Al Gore's expense in my Brainwash column yesterday. (There's also analysis of Q2 fundraising in both parties' primary campaign.)Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year.
The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.
(Headline idea swiped from the inimitable Jim Treacher.)
From the Department of Eh, Not Quite
Posted by on 7.7.07 @ 3:34PM
Just got around to reading a short Q&A with Drea de Matteo--Adriana from The Sopranos-- in Radar where the final question was, "How do you think The Sopranos will end?"
I think everybody's going to f--ing go down in a giant blaze. I mean, that David Chase, man...he's crazy.
Well, not quite.
Libbymania
Posted by on 7.7.07 @ 1:28PM
Over at the Politico, Jeremy Mayer and I talk about the Scooter Libby matter. I defend the commutation, taking a Tabin-esque position. Mayer argues for a constitutional amendment to stop the next round of Bush pardons.
The commenters seem somewhat unmoved by my arguments, I would say. The first commenter seems to be in the undecided column.
She's Got the Way to Move Me, Cherie
Posted by on 7.7.07 @ 7:48AM
Got to be a first for second-tier elected officials: North Carolina's Labor Commissioner, Cherie (sha-REE) Berry, is the subject of a ditty that getting increasing radio exposure here in Raleigh. Her mug shot is in every elevator in the state.
Friday, July 6, 2007
L.A. Times Plans Thompson Hit
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 5:08PM
A Washington Prowler item, just posted on our main page, reports:
"The Washington Prowler column has learned that the Los Angeles Times intends to publish a story that would attempt to link former Sen. Fred Thompson to a Washington-based, pro-abortion organization. Thompson, through a spokesman, is said to go on the record in the story as having no recollection of ever doing work for the organization in question during a period in 1991 when the first Bush administration was in power."
To read the report in full, go here.
Whither Roddick?
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 3:21PM
I don't believe what I just saw. Andy Roddick was up two sets to love, and four games to two in the third set, against mildly regarded Richard Gasquet. Gasquet, played really, really well from there on in... but still, it took Roddick to find a way to lose. And he did. He lost a third-set tie-breaker, and a fourth-set tie-breaker, and then lost 8-6 in the fifth set. What blew my mind is that Gasquet was hitting great backhand winners again and again and again and again and again and (you get the picture)...and Roddick kept hitting to Gasquet's backhand. I am willing to bet that he hit at least three shots to Gasquet's backhand for every two he hit to the Frenchman's forehand. In short, the loss was due to poor thinking. I mean, it was mind-boggling, to me at least, that Roddick wouldn't learn. Give all the credit to Gasquet for playing well. Give credit to Roddick for playing pretty well, too. But where were his brains?
Sadly, I fear this is more evidence that my column last year might have been correct, namely that we are becoming a nation of losers. Granted, the Williams sisters are winners, through and through. Venus ought to win Wimbledon tomorrow, and she and her sister Serena have become not just good players but good sports with good attitudes. But without them, American tennis is terrible, on both the men's and women's sides. In golf, only Tiger Woods holds up his end consistently -- and even he is decidedly mediocre when representing his country in the Ryder Cup. And so on... just read my column from last year.
This Roddick loss was hard to watch, because it was so avoidable. And I like Roddick, a lot. But if I could have pulled his coach Jimmy Connors from the stands, I would have. Even at age 55, I think Connors would have figured out a way to win today. In sports and, more important, in world affairs, Americans need to rediscover the winning age we clearly, so clearly, have lost.
Happy Birthday
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 3:02PM
By the way, here's wishing a Happy Birthday to President George W. Bush. May he have a good day, and may he find a way to turn his presidency around.
Ron 'Money Bags' Paul Has More Cash Than McCain
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 2:22PM
Dave Weigel has the details. This adds a punctuation mark to a rather bad week for the Arizona senator.
The Long Way to Outer Space
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 2:15PM
Heinlein by way of AmSpec by way of Cosh by way of Lott.
RE: What If McCain Won
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 1:53PM
Although I agree with Phil that President McCain might not have been any worse than Bush, I'm not entirely sure we would have dodged the Medicare prescription drug benefit bullet. Bush's advocacy of that entitlement expansion didn't come in a political vacuum. It is much easier to be one of ten senators bucking a popular trend than a sitting president, especially given that neither Bush nor McCain are known for their deep-seated opposition to activist government (though McCain is better on issues related to government waste).
Of course, even if we had gotten a more limited, means-tested prescription drug benefit with some of the market-based incentives factored in, we would have been better off than we are now.
50 Ways to Love a Loser
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 12:38PM
Paul Simon campaigns for presidential candidate Christopher Dodd.
Re: Shrimp Gumpo
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 11:03AM
Shawn: If you're going to mention shrimp boats in the context of shrimp folklore, you have to follow up by citing a gorgeous Jo Stafford song of that title. An excerpt:
(SLOWLY):
Happy the days while they're mending the nets
'Til once more they ride high out to sea
(Ils sont vas... There they go)
Then how lonely the long nights will be
'Til that wonderful day when they see...
Shrimp boats is a-comin'
Their sails are in sight
Shrimp boats is a-comin'
There's dancin' tonight
Why don't-cha hurry, hurry, hurry home
...
Paris When It Sizzles
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 10:32AM
The most stunning development in politics is taking place in France, where new President Sarkozy's leading enemy is facing a most unpleasant fate. Are we to believe the judges in the case are acting independently? Or is Sarkozy sending a message or simply settling scores?
Imagine if President Bush had a similar appetite for hardball. What would the Washington Post's raging bully say then?
Domenici's Defection
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 10:11AM
With Sen. Pete Domenici now breaking with President Bush on Iraq, it seems increasing likely that by the fall, there will be some sort of compromise on, as Domenici put it, "a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to continuing home." It may not be a immediate or even clearly phased withdrawal, but at least a movement in that direction. The question will be whether the more liberal members of Congress would accept such a compromise, given the restive anti-war base that wants the "Troops Home Now!"
What If McCain Won In 2000?
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 9:58AM
Taking a page from Marvel Comics, I decided it would be worth exploring where we would be today had their been a different outcome in the Republican primaries seven years ago. Although John McCain has served as a piñata for conservatives over the past several years, it can be argued that conservatives would have been better off had McCain beaten Bush in 2000, assuming he would have went on to win the general election. Before you assail me with a list of McCain's deviations from conservatism, it's worth thinking of him relative to the current occupant of the White House.
Two of the issues that have caused McCain problems among conservatives are campaign finance reform and immigration, but Bush signed the former and also pushed the latter, so those are a wash.
We don't know if McCain would have been as reliable on judicial appointments, but it should be noted that in retrospect the "Gang of 14"? compromise that he drew heat for seemed to have worked, and now that Republicans are in the minority, having the filibuster is useful. And over the years, he has consistently voted to confirm conservative judges, including Robert Bork.
The big area where McCain would have clearly been worse is taxes, given that he opposed the Bush tax cuts. However, on the flip side, there's reason to believe that he would have been a lot better at restraining spending. At a minimum, a President McCain would not have given us a Medicare prescription drug plan, as he was one of only 10 Republicans to vote against it. If you asked me whether I would give up the Bush tax cuts if it meant the prescription drug plan never happened, that's a trade I'd be tempted to make, because it's much easier to cut taxes than it is to contain the growth of government, and I believe Bush's fiscal irresponsibility will lead to tax increases down the road anyway. There's a good chance that the Democratic Congress will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, but we'll still be stuck with that disastrous drug plan, or something even worse.
The big upgrade of a McCain presidency, I believe, would have been national security. For years before the surge was announced, McCain had been clamoring for more troops in Iraq, and while we don't know whether or not he would have ultimately chosen to topple Saddam, there's good reason to believe that if he did go in, he would have used adequate manpower and the results would have likely been a lot better.
None of this is necessarily an argument for McCain in 2008, and this analysis could be seen more as an indictment of President Bush. But for all the criticism McCain has received from conservatives over the years, there is an argument to be made that he would have made a better president for conservatives than what we currently have.
Mama Says Earmarks Are Like A Box of Chocolates
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 9:28AM
Paul: As Benjamin Buford Bubba Blue once said, "Shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That--that's about it."
Poor Bubba lived and died without ever knowing you could get the
government to foot the bill. If only he'd been born in Texas, maybe
he would have been a shrimp boat captain that much sooner.
Shrimpin' Boast
Posted by on 7.6.07 @ 9:01AM
Did you ever think you'd see the day when it would be revealed that Texas Rep. Ron Paul, he of the libertarian outlook on life, requested an earmark for "marketing wild American shrimp?"
Thursday, July 5, 2007
More on Libby's Sentence
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 10:52PM
Yesterday I objected to the suggestion in a Washington Times editorial that federal sentencing guidelines call for Scooter Libby to serve 15 months in jail. The guidelines just aren't that straightforward. Rich Lowry makes a similar error in suggesting that the 30 month sentence that Judge Walton imposed wasn't "technically" excessive, and therefore "[t]he administration's middle ground can't hold." Andy McCarthy, who (as a former federal prosecutor) knows a whole lot more about the sentencing guidelines than I do, responds to Rich by explaining the technicalities, and defending the commutation.
A Turning Point?
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 5:17PM
The debate over whether Political Islamists hate US foreign policy or our way of life will not end soon, but Joan Smith makes a very good case for the latter:
Ten years ago, Tony Blair came to power with a belief that his government would be able to cut a political deal with Republicans and Loyalists in Northern Ireland; protracted negotiations resulted in the Good Friday agreement, and the laying down of guns and bombs. That option does not exist with Islamic extremists, who want not just the withdrawl of British troops from Iraq but a whole raft of things - segregation of the sexes, sharia law, an end to secular culture - which we cannot negotiate away in the name of security. In recent days, watching people go about their business good-naturedly in London despite the threat of terrorist attacks, I have a sense that the public understands this. We have to stand up for our values, and that means that this time we are in for the long haul.
Unlike with the Spaniards, terror attacks in Britain will only strengthen their British resolve.
More World Chaos
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 4:14PM
This time in Kenya. This beheading stuff is an ugly trend that you'd hope would not have as much appeal as it does. My experience in Nairobi and its surrounding areas was wonderful, so hopefully this is just an aberration and not the new norm.
The Lee Strasberg of Politics
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 3:07PM
From a NY Times story on Bill's role in Hillary's campaign:
Trip Down Memory Lane With Barry Bonds
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 1:40PM
I was still living in Northern California when Barry Bonds first came to the Giants in 1993. I was a huge fan -- his hitting turned the Giants into a contender that year.
When I first saw this cover of Sports Illustrated (and after reading the story) I thought it was nothing more than a hit job by a cranky reporter.
Boy, does it look so prescient now!
"I discreetly took two photographs of...
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 1:13PM
...DAG McNulty munching on a Dove ice cream bar."
Celebrity sightings, D.C. style.
I think this buttresses J.P.'s point.
The Jewish Conspiracy Against Mitt Romney
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 12:22PM
What, you haven't heard? A commenter at the Politico, responding to my recent article on Romney, is on to us:
J.P. Wants to See a Dead Body
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 11:22AM
Over at Human Events, J.P. Freire adds his usual fun/smart two cents to the Libby chorus. Here's how it begins:
My last boss, New York Times columnist John Tierney, referred to the entire Plame affair as "nada-gate." If you're in Washington, you care about this mostly unimportant court case because you can't order a sandwich without overhearing more about it. It was the OJ trial of the city, but let's be clear here. The absence of two dead bodies, mounds of evidence, and a high-profile car chase only gives insight as to just how bored people are in this town, and how desperate the media is to entertain us. This was not the trial of the century. It was far less interesting than the Simpson trial, and it makes you wish someone had died.
The story was on its way to being Watergate, as long as everyone respectfully played along and pretended that Secret Agent Joseph Wilson and Secret Agent Valerie Plame were involved in super-double-secret covert operations. If this couple had been singularly responsible for finding evidence to invade Iraq (which, thankfully, they were not), the eventual trial would have ended with a flourish. Instead it just squeaked like some small animal dying.
America's Top Dog
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 11:09AM
On to more important news, the mustard-yellow belt is back in U.S. hands this year as a result of Joey Chestnut consuming a record 66 dogs during the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest, edging out the 63 by six-time champion, Takeru Kobayashi of Japan.
I polished off three hot dogs and three cheeseburgers over the course of the day yesterday, and felt like an animal. Sixty-six dogs in 12 minutes is just ridiculous.
Giuliani Conference Call Highlights
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 10:44AM
I just got off a Giuliani campaign conference call reviewing the second quarter fundraising numbers. Campaign manager Mike DuHaime emphasized that the fundraising is starting to reflect Giuliani's leading position in the polls, and reinforces why he's the only Republican candidate who can not only win the primary, but the general election as well. DuHaime said that Giuliani "redraws the electoral map" by having a chance to win states such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, and at least put in play states such as New York, California, Michigan, and Illinois. In recent elections, Democrats have been able to avoid spending money in the three biggest media markets (NYC, LA, and Chicago), but Giuliani's presence in the race would force Democrats to contest those states.
Asked about the huge fundraising disparity that has opened up between Republicans and Democrats, DuHaime said they were just focused on the primary for now, and once the general election rolls around, he's confident Republicans will rally around the nominee, as Democrats rallyed around John Kerry in 2004 in the general, and fundraising didn't end up being an issue for him.
DuHaime said they had "room to grow" their donor base, which stands at 57,000 (lower than the 72,000 for McCain and 80,000 for Romney), because thus far they have made a tactical decision not to focus on low-dollar donations, but that focus will begin to shift.
Hewitt's Fuzzy Math
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 10:05AM
Hugh Hewitt writes:
Do yourself a favor, and cast a skeptical eye on anything Hugh Hewitt writes. By any measure, Democrats clobbered the Republicans in fundraising, and this is a problem. When George W. Bush was raising record-breaking amounts of money in 1999, it was a reflection of not just his political skills, but Clinton fatigue--and hunger for control of the executive branch--on the right. Now, Democrats are the ones who have been out of power, they're desperate to take control of the White House, and are energized. They'll be perfectly happy rallying around whoever the nominee is. On the Republican side, however, you still have a lot of disgruntled conservatives who are fed up with Republicans and un-excited about the current crop of candidates. It's early. Perhaps Fred Thompson will change things. Perhaps Republicans will take out their checkbooks for the general election when facing the prospect of a President Clinton or President Obama. But it's something to be concerned about.
McCain's Executive Experience Gap
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 9:45AM
Much of the discussion about John McCain's money woes has focused on whether it will force him out of the race, but it is worth questioning whether the poor money management is a reflection of the fact that he has never served in an executive capacity. I've always had a lot of respect for McCain, and even though I disagree with him on some issues, he deserves admiration for his foresight and leadership on national security issues alone. But the biggest concern I have about McCain -- bigger than his support of campaign finance reform -- is his lack of executive experience, and I think it's showing. During Monday's conference call, campaign manager Terry Nelson said that the McCain campaign was preparing to raise more than $100 million this year, but now it has to shed staff, scale back its operations, and consider taking public financing to adjust to a new reality because they're only left with $2 million in the bank. Compare that to his two main rivals, who do have executive experience.
Instead of putting the cart before the horse and spending money based on anticipated revenue, Rudy Giuliani has run his campaign on a shoestring, and finds himself sitting on $15 million. McCain supporters like to point out that Mitt Romney would only be left with $3 million had he not kicked in $9 million of his own money to achieve $12 million cash on hand. That's a good point. However, going into the campaign, one of the advantages we always knew Romney had was the ability to dip into his own bank account. He managed his spending based on this reality.
All three Republicans have argued that restoring fiscal discipline and making the government run more efficiently would be one of their primary goals as president, so I think it's fair to look at how they are managing their campaign bank accounts as part of the overall analysis of how they would run the country. I'm probably more sympathetic to McCain than a lot of my fellow conservatives, but thus far his money management skills leave something to be desired. Let's see if he can turn things around.
Iowahawk at his best
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 4:35AM
For an absolutely world-class take on the Glasgow/London bombings, see Iowahawk here: "Well, That Didn't Work Out So Great." And prepare to bust a gut.
The Liberal Case for Liberating Libby
Posted by on 7.5.07 @ 12:26AM
I don't know how I missed Tim Noah's defense of the Libby commutation:
No fair-minded person can deny that the previous president committed perjury about Monica Lewinsky while serving in the Oval Office. The country knew it, and it let him get away with it. Does that mean no government official should ever again be prosecuted for perjury? Of course not. But it does mean Walton should have wondered whether he was imposing a double standard in treating Libby more harshly because Libby worked in the White House. Is it really fair to treat White House aides more harshly than ordinary citizens when presidents get off scot-free?I must say I wouldn't have guessed that Tim Noah would argue that Scooter Libby doesn't deserve jail while the Washington Times argues that he does.It would have been wrong for Bush to pardon Libby, as many Republicans urged him to do. Libby committed a crime, and it wouldn't have been right for Bush to do anything to minimize the attendant disgrace or to lighten Libby's $250,000 burden. "The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. And so it should be. Bush did not intervene to spare Libby further disgrace, as Ford did with the Nixon pardon, and he didn't pre-empt a prosecution that might reveal embarrassing facts about himself, as Bush's father did. He waited until it was all over, and he acted humanely. Yes, it was inconsistent with his past indifference in such matters, particularly when he was governor of Texas. One can only hope that, having behaved decently once, he'll acquire the habit. In the meantime, bully for him.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Libby's Sentence
Posted by on 7.4.07 @ 8:57PM
The Washington Times editorialists think that Scooter Libby is getting off too easy:
We also agree that the 30-month sentence ordered by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton - a Reagan and Bush appointee - is harsh. It exceeds the 15-21 month guidelines for first-time offenders. A first-time offender who is no danger to the community with an admirable record of public service deserves the lower range, and for that reason the unusually long sentence was unjust.A couple of points: This is a bit of an over-simplification of the federal sentencing guidelines (which, granted, are almost too complicated to explain without oversimplifying). Walton's sentence was excessive, but not merely because it is unambiguously outside the guidelines; they can be adjusted up or down based on various factors, some of which are rather subjective (e.g. "acceptance of responsibility"). And anyway, since U.S. v. Booker in 2005, the guidelines have been non-mandatory. That's a good thing; mechanistic formulae are no substitute for human judgment.But none of this exonerates the commutation. Perjury is a serious crime...
Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision. Alas, he did not.
Ann Redington, who was on the jury that convicted Libby, doesn't think he deserves jail time. And let's not forget that (as I keep noting) Libby might well have been convicted on fewer counts if Walton had allowed Redington and her fellow jurors to hear some of the evidence that he excluded. I've thought since I first read the indictment that the obstruction charge was the only part of Fitzgerald's case that was particularly strong; one count of obstruction would yield less jail time under the guidelines, and while 15 months is within the range of possibilities it isn't at the bottom of it. Reasonable people can disagree on what's fair, but it's just too facile to argue that the sentencing guidelines automatically tell us what the "correct" sentence would be.
Ridin' Dirty
Posted by on 7.4.07 @ 5:20PM
Al Gore III, the ex-veep's son, seems to have a bit of a reckless streak. He's been arrested after driving his Prius under the influence, going 100 mph, with an impressive stash of weed and pharms -- "a small amount of marijuana, along with prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin and Adderall, said sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. There were no prescriptions found, he said."
This isn't a one-time stupid mistake, either; he's been arrested on similar charges before. The spokesman says he "quickly identified himself as the son of the former vice president" -- no word on whether he used the "Do you know who my father is?" line.
Perhaps the real news here, though, is that someone was able to get a Prius up to 100 mph.
Physicians, Heel Thyselves!
Posted by on 7.4.07 @ 3:10PM
Word that the accused terrorists of London and Glasgow were physicians serves to broaden the free world's scope of what it is up against. That jihadist hatred could penetrate the minds and hearts of those otherwise dedicated to healing to the point of inspiring action jars the concept of terrorists as uninstructed, unwashed murderers. Did any take that Hippocratic Oath (in any of its various forms)?
Were any tempted to employ the varied chemicals they were privy to? Or any of the more sophisticated, more deadly means at their exalted disposal? The arrests, if they prove true, give new meaning to Michael Moore's title, "SICKO."
Read It Again
Posted by on 7.4.07 @ 2:53PM
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett posts the Declaration of Independence.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Ben Stein on Bush-Libby
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 8:47PM
In case you haven't noticed, within the last hour Ben Stein has weighed in on our main page on what might be termed Bush's Fine Hour. He sees Fitzgerald playing in Nifong's league. Click here, for "Bush Amazes."
Rudy Raises $15 Mln (Primary), $17 Mln (Total)
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 3:13PM
Will try to get more breakdown, but here's the release:
The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee reported today it has outraised every other Republican campaign and has over $18 million cash on hand. The campaign raised over $17 million in the second quarter, for both the primary and general election, and ended the quarter with zero debt.
The second quarter fundraising totals highlighted the Giuliani campaign's growing momentum and commitment to discipline and efficiency with campaign dollars.
The campaign both outraised first quarter totals by more than $2 million and doubled the number of individual donors. Contributions have been received from all fifty states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.
"We are thrilled by our fundraising this quarter and are running a strong and efficient campaign. We are well positioned to win both the primary and the general elections," said Giuliani Campaign Manager Michael DuHaime, "and we are serious about being good stewards with the money that has been entrusted to us."
Deputy Campaign Manager Anne Dunsmore added, "Since joining Team Rudy, I have been increasingly encouraged by the response to Rudy's message across the country. That strong support translates into an increase in the number of events, donors and dollars which will allow us not only to compete and win the primary, but to win the general election."
UPDATE: It is important to note that Romney's $14 million was for the primary alone, so I'm still trying to find out how much of Giuliani's $17 million raised, and $18 million cash on hand, is for the primary, and how much is for the general. Either way, looks like a solid quarter for Rudy relative to his GOP rivals, but Republicans still have their work cut out for them to catch up to Obama.
UPDATE II: Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella told me about $15 million was for the primary. Also the cash on hand for the primary is $15 million. So, by any monetary measure, Giuliani is now ahead of Romney. However, Comella also told me that Giuliani has 57,000 contributors, which would put him behind the 72,000 of McCain and roughly 80,000 of Romney.
Romney Raises $14 Million
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 3:08PM
Via the AP. Significantly less than the $20.6 million he raised last quarter. His cash on hand remains at $12 million, which is where it was three months ago. We're still waiting for Giuliani, but this reinforces the fact that Democrats have opened up a massive early fundraising advantage over Republicans. It also goes along with the spin that McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson offered yesterday, that this is a rough cycle for the GOP. Suddenly, McCain's $11.2 million doesn't look so bad. (Though it's hard to spin McCain's $2 million cash on hand number).
UPDATE: According to Jonathan Martin, Romney also contributed $6.5 million of his own money to reach over $20 million for the quarter. Coupled with the $2.35 he kicked in during the first quarter, that means Romney has now thrown in about $9 million of his own money. In January, he said self-funding would be "akin to a nightmare."
The Singularly Brilliant Kelly Jane Torrance...
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 2:48PM
...on Sicko and a few other recent hot-button films. Very much well-worth the click.
Re: After McCain
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 2:47PM
John Hood responds to my post about the race after McCain, in comments:
First of all, I don't think it's too early to have this discussion. The nomination is going to be settled in seven months or so. Also, I don't put much stock in polling in states where the candidates haven't spent much money yet, because that just favors the most familiar names, not candidates who will appeal to GOP primary/caucus voters when the time comes. While I agree that McCain's national support has always included lots of moderates and independents, he has also polled consistently more conservative than Giuliani, and the middle won't matter much in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada, and Wyoming. I agree that it matters in New Hampshire, though Romney is going to be strong there regardless, and in Florida, where the race may well be decided.
The reason why I think it's too early to have this conversation is that there's a solid chance McCain will be able to survive to compete at least in the early primaries. Even if I think he'll eventually lose, the timing of when he would theoretically drop out will have an impact on who he could help or hurt. Also, Thompson hasn't announced yet, and we really have no idea how he will look as an actual candidate.
As for polls, they may not be perfect, but I still have a preference for hard data over total speculation. Hood argues that polls in early states right now favor "mostly familiar names." It's worth noting that Fred Thompson is at a solid 21 percent in Florida in the poll I cited, so if he's that well known, he should be more than he is in a race without McCain, if Hood's assumptions are accurate.
While it is true that McCain appeals to both moderates and conservatives, in the wake of the backlash against him on immigration, those Republicans who are sticking with him now are more likely to be sticking with him because they are moderates or national security voters. (On this I am speculating.)
I think the strongest argument you could make that McCain dropping out would hurt Giuliani is that all of the focus on McCain's differences with conservatives have made Giuliani look good by comparison. On immigration, for instance, McCain's insistence on comprehensive reform allowed Rudy to score points by opposing the bill on national security grounds. Even though McCain is more conservative than Rudy on several issues, most prominently, abortion, McCain has done more since 1999 to anger the base. Without McCain in the race to absorb their wrath, disgruntled conservatives may turn up the heat on Giuliani because of his social views.
The Upshot
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 11:33AM
Amid the deluge of press reactions to the President's commuting of Scooter Libby's prison sentence, I've seen only Robert Novak make this point about Bush's decision not to pardon Libby but rather to reinforce prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's case against Libby:
"By endorsing the jury's verdict and not criticizing Fitzgerald, Bush makes it difficult -- if not impossible -- to issue a subsequent full pardon."
Washington's Hysterical Wordsmith
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 11:02AM
Here are some of the verbal spitballs Andrew Sullivan hurls at George W. Bush in the wake of the president's perfectly legal decision to keep Scooter Libby out of jail:
"degeneracy," "arrogance," "monarchical," "bewildering," "blatant abuse of power," "repugnant," "lawlessness," "equally repugnant," "feather-bedded aristocracy," "extra-legal," "shamelessness," "corrupt," oh, and "above the rule of law," "above the law," "above the law," "above the law," "above the law," "above the law," "above the law"...
Romney's Red Herring
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 10:58AM
Over at the Politico, I argue that if Romney's Mormonism becomes an issue, it will only help him, by detracting attention from all of the other drawbacks to his candidacy, and giving him one issue he can easily diffuse by appealing to religious tolerance. I see that in the comments section, Romney supporters have already accused me of being a member of the liberal media. Yeah, because us liberals really like to criticize politicians for increasing fees and mandating universal healthcare.
After McCain
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 10:43AM
Although I think it's too early to be having this discussion, John Hood has kicked things off over at the Corner with what I believe to be a wrong-headed analysis of a post-McCain field:
What Hood neglects is that McCain is currently pulling moderates and independents, as well as national security voters, that may otherwise vote for Giuliani (this would be especially significant in New Hampshire), so I think Rudy actually stands to gain by an early McCain exit. And in the one poll we have with McCain out of the race, a Quinnipiac poll conducted in Florida, Ohio, and Pennslyvania--Giuliani benefits the most. In Florida (which I bring up because Hood singled it out), in the event of a McCain exit, Rudy picks up 6 points, Thompson picks up 1 point, and Romney remains the same.
Rasmussen: Thompson Winning, Romney Up in NH
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 10:27AM
I see that Rasmussen is out with a new poll, showing Fred Thompson maintaining his 3 point lead over Rudy nationally, while Mitt Romney continues to be strong in New Hampshire, up 9 points.
It's interesting that we're beginning to see a divergence in some of the polls, the recent CNN and FoxNews polls, for instance, had Rudy up by double digits, while the Cook/RT Strategies poll had him tied with McCain. I'll leave it to others to fight over which poll has the better methodology. Right now, by general belief is that the race is unsettled, and will be until Thompson formally enters and we find out whether he's the real deal, or just a lot of hype.
When Rudy Had Hair
Posted by on 7.3.07 @ 10:02AM
A friend of mine stumbled across three interviews Rudy Giuliani gave for the old PBS show "The Open Mind," hosted by Richard D. Heffner. Two of the interviews were conducted in 1984 (Part 1, Part II), when he was a U.S. Attorney, and the other took place in 1995, when he was in his second year as mayor. All three of them are illuminating and worth watching if you're interested in Rudy-or if you just want to see what he looks like with hair.
In the 1984 interviews, Giuliani offers his philosophy of criminal justice in the context of the passage of a major crime bill that year. On the hot button issues of the day, he says he supports capital punishment, but also waiting periods and background checks for purchasing guns. Much of the discussion centers around his belief that the justice system had drifted too far in the direction of protecting the accused and convicted, to the detriment of victims of crime. "I think we've moved away from the model of America that most of us grew up with 20, 30, years ago, which is one where we emphasize individual responsibility," he said in the first interview. He later adds: "I consider myself a very firm believer in due process, and a libertarian in that sense, but I think we became almost stupid in our excessiveness in the way in which we were protecting, overprotecting the rights of people, to the disadvantage of other people."
The 1995 interview goes a long way in making the case that while he certainly took several liberal positions as mayor, philosophically, he had a lot in common with conservatives.
Months after the Republican Congress had swept into power, he argued that he would support the federal government cutting spending as long as they gave more freedom to state and local governments over how to spend it. The problem wasn't that government wasn't spending enough, but that they were spending it inefficiently. Invoking the 10th Amendment, he made a case for federalism. And argued that he believed it was possible to achieve more localized control:
Given that Giuliani was defending many cuts in government spending, as well as a shrinking of federal power, Heffner asked him in what areas he though the federal government should increase spending. Giuliani's answer would surprise those who only associate Giuliani's immigration stance as mayor with maintaining a sanctuary city:
Monday, July 2, 2007
Not guilty
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 8:38PM
I hate to disagree with the astute and estimable John Tabin, but I do NOT think that "Libby was almost certainly guilty" of anything other than a possibly inexact memory. Frankly, I think it more likely that Russert gave false testimony (not intentionally) than that Libby did. Regardless, while I would have preferred a full pardon, I applaud the president for commuting the prison sentence. The commutation took guts -- one virtue Mr. Bush has in abundance. I still hope for a full pardon as the president's term as winding down -- if, that is, Libby hasn't overturned the conviction on appeal. Here's a question: Is his legal defense fund allowed also to pay his fine? If not, I wish the president would commute that part of the sentence as well.
Anyway, here's one close observer who two years ago thought Libby as guilty, and now thinks it very unlikely that he committed perjury at all. And I, for one, will keep urging this president to revisit the case yet again until Libby no longer must suffer legal consequences for his testimony. Meanwhile, here are two and 3/4 cheers for President Bush. He showed appropriate empathy this afternoon for a good man and a good public servant.
Re: Libby Not Going to Prison
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 6:58PM
Good for Bush. Libby was almost certainly guilty of at least some of what he was convicted for, but there's a good chance that he would have been convicted on fewer counts if Judge Walton had let the jury hear from a memory expert or see the Tim Russert clips that I mentioned near the end of this column. Under the circumstances, it makes perfect sense to reduce, but not eliminate, Libby's punishment.
It's worth noting, by the way, that the argument William Otis made in a Washington Post op-ed last month seems to have reached the President's ear; Bush has done for Libby exactly what Otis suggested.
Libby Not Going to Prison
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 6:04PM
President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. Libby will pay a fine and serve probation but not end up behind bars.
A Whittaker Chambers for the 21st Century?
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 5:43PM
During the Cold War, the most eloquent and effective anticommunists were often ex-communists. Hassan Butt's must-read Daily Mail op-ed makes me think that former radicals may be just as important in the fight against radical Islamism:
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.Butt faults Muslim leaders for avoiding theological arguments. Seriously, read the whole thing.By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.
More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
More McCain
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 5:18PM
The McCain campaign has released a full transcript of the conference call.
Here are the opening remarks of his campaign manager, which set the tone of the call:
 TERRY NELSON: …As a campaign, we've worked through a number of challenges over the course of the last six months, and in some respects, we are encountering the kinds of challenges that other Republicans are facing. We face a difficult fundraising environment right now, and certainly difficult in comparison to what our Democratic counterparts are able to raise, and I think that will go for the entire field of candidates when our numbers are compared to their numbers. In addition, John McCain has offered change throughout his entire career. He has taken principled stands that have made him a courageous leader and a courageous presidential candidate. And these things will make him a remarkably effective president, but it sometimes makes fundraising more challenging. He stood up for the American taxpayer and fought against corruption, the influence of special-interest money, and its corrupting influence. He's also fought a lonely fight against earmarks and wasteful spending in
Washington, D.C., and that doesn't always make us the favorite candidate of the special interests. The campaign has also witnessed as the American people have his resolve first-hand over the last month-and-a-half as he stuck with his principles, did not pander, and worked to pass comprehensive immigration reform. While this decision was the right decision for our country it also affected the campaign's ability to raise money. Before the campaign began, we also made some incorrect assumptions about how much money we could raise. At one point, we believed that we would raise over $100 million during this calendar year, and we constructed a campaign that was based on that assumption. We believe today that that assumption is not correct. More recently, the campaign has made a number of finance a number of changes to our finance division. Mary Kate Johnson came in as our finance director, and she, working with our volunteer leadership around the country under the direction of Tom Loeffler, our national finance chairman, did a remarkable job. And the result of their efforts was that we raised $11.2 million for this quarter. To date, we've raised over $24 million, we have over 72,000 contributors, and currently have $2 mil lion cash on hand. Our donor community worked very hard, and, as I said earlier, we appreciate their efforts.
A couple of other points to make, and then I'll turn it over to John. First, I'd like to say that the campaign is seriously considering accepting public-matching funds. John McCain has long been a defender of the public trust, as I noted, because this is not a campaign designed to meet artificial benchmarks or the expectations of
Washington, D.C. the Washington, D.C. pundit community. This campaign is about a man who spent his entire life in service to this country, and a man who is ready to lead this country from day one. Second, we've made a decision to restructure the campaign to help ensure that we have the resources necessary to win the Republican nomination. The campaign was restructured today, and we did that in order to make sure that we had the necessary resources to get John McCain's message out through voter contact, television, radio, direct mail. We confronted reality, and we dealt with it in th e best way that we could, so that we can move forward with this campaign, focused on winning our primaries in the early states first Iowa, then New Hampshire, then South Carolina, going on from there. We feel good about the decisions we made today. The decisions we made today were not easy. They were tough decisions. But these decisions will make John McCain the nominee of the Republican Party…
Cash Poor Candidate
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 4:36PM
David Freddoso has a good piece on John McCain's travails. It's hard to remember that McCain was once considered a movement conservative. In the intraconservative Firing Line debate on the Panama Canal Treaty, he was on the same side as Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan. As late as 1996, he was a supporter of Phil Gramm's presidential campaign.
Now McCain is struggling to stay afloat, and his poor relations with conservatives is the main reason. He needs something substantial to break his way fairly soon.
UPDATE: Sean Higgins points out in the comments that it was actually McCain's father who was in the Firing Line debate.
Romney Won't Announce Q2 Fundraising Today
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 3:13PM
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said that the campaign was still tallying the second quarter fundraising, and didn't plan to release anything until later this week. He wouldn't say whether that would be before or after the July 4th holiday.
McCain Raises $11.2 Million
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 2:09PM
Not the worst case scenario, but not good.
Campaign Manager Terry Nelson said the campaign is now considering accepting federal matching funds.
Cites a "difficult fundraising environment" for Republicans as well as McCain taking "principled stands" on such issues as immigration and campaign finance reform.
UPDATE: The conference call that just concluded represented a campaign coming to terms with the dire position they find themselves in. It is quite a turn of events. Held up for years by the media as the inevitable nominee (something that was always bogus), McCain is now forced to run like the insurgent candidate he was in 2000.
Nelson said that they originally projected they'd raise more than $100 million during this calendar year, and "constructed a campaign based on that assumption." Now, they're scaling back their operation, shedding staff, reducing payroll, and even Nelson is working for free for the next few months. It's very hard to start a campaign as the "frontrunner," scale back so drastically, and expect to win the nomination. As Dave Weigel points out, just about a month ago, Nelson was predicting McCain would raise over $12.5 million.
McCain's new strategy will focus on the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. There are several problems with this strategy. With many big states moving up their primaries, the early states may not have the influence they once did. Even if you were to argue that the early states will still prove crucial, McCain's strategy still faces a huge obstacle. Mitt Romney has been pouring money into those states for months, and his early organizing in Iowa has already forced McCain out of Ames Straw Poll. True, Giuliani was forced out too, but the Giuliani campaign has not made winning in Iowa central to its strategy of winning the nomination.
W, Chamberlain, and Winnie
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 2:01PM
Lynn Olson's article in yesterday's Washington Post is no doubt a clever attempt at marketing her new book, but its premise is rather silly. It would seem that one would set an easy task for themselves by arguing that President Bush is no Winston Churchill, but Olson takes it a step further by calling Bush another Neville Chamberlain. My first thought was, I can see how he could be compared to Chamberlain, given his dimplomatic daudling in Iran and capitulation to North Korea. But Olson uses an entirely different set of arguments. Among them is her contention that Bush is like Chamberlain because of his use of unilateralism.
She writes:
In the months leading up to World War II, Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies with which to confront Nazi Germany -- ignoring appeals from Churchill and others to fashion a "Grand Alliance" of nations to thwart the threat that Hitler posed to the continent.
Churchill, of course, was arguing for a "Grand Alliance" to confront Germany militarily, while opponents of the Iraq War were arguing for a grand alliance to confront Saddam diplomatically so America could avert military action. No matter what your position on the war, this distinction is pretty obvious.
Steven Hayward has a good takedown of another one of Olson's absurd claims.
Don't Blame McConnell
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 1:08PM
A unnamed Republican senator has some harsh words for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Bob Novak's column today. As an opponent of the Senate immigration bill, I'm obviously not disappointed that McConnell didn't do much on its behalf and ended up voting against it. But I nevertheless think the criticism of McConnell is unfair.
McConnell doesn't just have obligations to the president, he has obligations to the Republican conference he was elected to lead. Even a party leader in the Senate can't get too far ahead of the caucus, a fact Bob Dole alluded to when he joked that his real job was "Majority Pleader." A majority of the caucus opposed the bill from the beginning and much of its Republican support was soft. And it's worth noting that the bill faced very steep hurdles in the House, where it had even less GOP support, so there wasn't much point in McConnell forcing senators to cast politically imprudent votes for a piece of legislation that was unlikely to become law.
Republicans would have been worse off if McConnell had insisted on sticking by a bill that didn't have the support to go the distance.
GOP Fundraising
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 12:47PM
McCain is holding a conference call at 2 to announce his second quarter numbers. I will be listening in and shall immediately post the details. I have calls into the Rudy and Romney camps, but they still have not announced when they plan to announce.
In the meantime, you can read this AP story on the downsizing of the McCain campaign.
RomneyCare at Work
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 11:16AM
Yesterday, the NY Times wrote about the Massachusetts health care program, as the individual madate takes effect. It is hard to imagine anything representing a greater affront to conservative principles than using government to coerce private citizens into purchasing healthcare. It is shocking that Mitt Romney could institute such a mandate and just months later run for president claiming to be a "conservative" in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, and be taken seriously. It is especially surprising given that one of the main gripes conservatives have had with President Bush has been the Medicare prescription drug plan--RomneyCare is far worse.
Even if you are more sympathetic to Romney than I am, I challenge you to read this and ask yourself whether you believe it is consistent with limited government principles:
A Declaration of Democratic Independence
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 10:40AM
As I did in my column on the main site, Peter Brown emphasizes that the Senate immigration bill was defeated by a bipartisan coalition. I do think he overstates the degree of ideological diversity among the Democrats elected in 2006, however. They have mostly toed the party line but occasionally they have to put their political interests ahead of the leadership's. Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.
A case could be made that the bill was an interesting test of Jim Webb's independence. When he first voted for cloture, it looked like he was going to fail. But his amendment would have limited the scope of the amnesty and he did vote no on cloture the second time once his amendment had been defeated.
Obama's Take
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 10:09AM
Marc Ambinder estimates that Obama's $31 million second-quarter haul for primary funds alone is $11 million higher than what Hillary Clinton will report--a staggering amount. This doesn't surprise me. During the quarter, I attended a number of Obama events for a story I wrote for our July/August issue, and saw up close the type of enthusiasm he generates. For a while now, I have argued that Obama, not Hillary, is the one conservatives should really be afraid of, not only because he can win the election, but because he'd be a more charismatic advocate for liberalism as president. The fact that for two consecutive quarters he has outraised Hillary in primary funds, one of the pillars of her "inevitability," demonstrates how formidable Obama can be in a "change" electoral environment. Obama still trails Hillary in the polls by double digits, but I think he's better off being behind at this point, amassing a war chest, and making his move in the early states starting in November, than peaking early as Howard Dean did. With that said, at some point soon, he's going to have to do somthing to justify the enthusiasm of his supporters. So far, his performances in the debates have been underwhelming.
Live Free Or Nod
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 10:07AM
Yes, the General John Stark bobblehead is back in stock.
Sicko, The Box Office
Posted by on 7.2.07 @ 9:37AM
So, how did Sicko do at the box office in its opening weekend? It premiered in 441 theaters and grossed $4.5 million, for an average theater gross of about $10,200. That was good enough for 9th place.
Of course, it is difficult to judge a Michael Moore film. On the one hand, it's a documentary and documentaries, on average, never do as well at the box office as other movies. When viewed from that perspective, $4.5 million is a strong opening.
On the other hand, it is a Michael Moore film with all of the attendant hype and promotion. His previous film Fahrenheit 9/11 premiered in 868 theaters in its opening weekend and grossed $23.9 million, for an average theater gross of about $27,560. Relative to his last film, Sicko is a bit of a dud.
My rough guess is Sicko will gross about $30 million in the U.S. Impressive for a documentary, but not that great compared to Fahrenheit and given all of the PR Moore has generated for the film.
Looks like America's appetite for a documentary about health care is, well, not all that healthy.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
The Poisonous Mouse
Posted by on 7.1.07 @ 9:48PM
Nazi Germany produced some wonderful anti-Semitic propaganda,
including the Poisonous
Mushroom. 
Hamas has given us Terror Mouse. The video is here, and should not be missed. When we're swept up in events, it is often difficult to see the larger picture, and just as the free world could not have conceived of the Holocaust in the 1930s, it is easy to be dismissive of the threat posed by Hamas, Hezbollah, and their backers in Iran. But doing so could have tragic consequences.
Record Baracker*
Posted by on 7.1.07 @ 3:07PM
Sen. Barack Obama has apparently shattered the existing fundraising records and outraised Hillary Clinton for the primary in the second quarter. That's $32.5 million worth of crushes on Obama.
* Yes, I know this post title will either be incomprehensible or groan-inducing to normal people.
Another Perspective
Posted by on 7.1.07 @ 2:31PM
How can you not be at least somewhat amused by a liberal take on one of the recent Democratic debates that includes hard-hitting analysis like:
Kucinich looks like an elf. It's so sad that no one really cares what he thinks.
I'm concerned about a strange feeling deep inside me. This feeling, strange and itchy, is that maybe, just maybe, I think that Joe Biden or Chris Dodd should be President. Wow. I can't believe I just wrote that. [Please see a doctor--ed.]
Mike Gravel needs a TV show. He made Hillary giggle!
I like Chris Dodd's tie. I'm going to nickname him Hot Doddy.
Drive-By Blogging
Posted by on 7.1.07 @ 2:28AM
I've been out of town for the past several days and haven't had a chance to check in, so here are a few quick thoughts, in no particular order:
I imagine that the UK terror attacks are causing Gordon Brown to wonder what he's gotten himself into. Would you want to be the freshly-minted Prime Minister this weekend?
"Why Don't You Get a Job" is a great song, and now that I know that Matt Yglesias hates it I love it even more.
Isn't Andrew Sullivan's obsessive crusade against circumcision starting to veer alarmingly close to anti-Semitism? This post, if taken seriously, is absolutely toxic.
Shawn is right: What Mitt Romney did to that dog was very, very wrong. (For the record, Gatsby generally spends car rides in a passenger's lap.)
Sometimes I think that marijuana would be legal by now if it weren't for hippies.
Oh yeah: I had a Brainwash column the other day, covering Sam Brownback's immigration reform posturing, the just-ended SCOTUS term, and a welcome setback for advocates of a revived Fairness Doctrine.
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- The Pearls of Pauline
- Barney Shuffles Off
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
