- 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 28, 2007
Thompson on Federalism
Posted by on 7.28.07 @ 10:31PM
Hillary vs. Obama, Biden & Guns, Thompson Shakeups
Posted by on 7.28.07 @ 7:17PM
I forgot to mention my latest Brainwash column yesterday.
Speaking of Biden, I took commenter R. Trotter's advice and sent a question to the Biden campaign about the make and model of his guns. (I also asked how often he uses them, and for what, and what types of ammunition he prefers.) If they get back to me, I'll let you know.
The Princess
Posted by on 7.28.07 @ 11:48AM
Usually I don't go there, but this is irresistible: Lohan reads Machiavelli.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Does wealth make us rude?
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 11:46PM
Tom Davis Defends Doan (and Rove)
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 6:03PM
I REALLY meant to write much more extensively on this, and much earlier in the week, and I do intend to return to the subject next week, but for what it's worth for now, Virginia Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Davis may not be a conservative stalwart, but he is doing great work at defending the embattled GSA Administrator, Lurita Doan, from ridiculous charges that she violated the Hatch Act against electioneering among federal employees. Scott Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel, concluded that Doan violated the Hatch Act because, at a briefing for POLITICAL appointees organized by people in the White House political office, she reportedly had the effrontery to ask "How can we help our candidates?" Even if she did (which is in at least some dispute)...Big Whoop. How in the Lord's name is that question alone a violation of the Act? There was not a single campaign underway at the time. There was NO alleged follow-up by Doan, no pressure of ANY kind, on any employees for them to do any political work or take any political position.
The real goal of the Democrats in going after Doan is to try to get at Karl Rove, who is seen by them as not only an Evil Genius, but a Ubiquitous Evil Genius, guilty of all sorts of violations in every realm of American government. The Democrats have been after White House e-mails, and the Doan inquiry is one of their strategems to get those e-mails.
But Bloch himself has been under fire for various alleged transgressions, and many on the right seem to think his sudden interest in attacking people like Doan is an attempt to suck up to the Dems. Rep. Davis seems to think so. This week, Davis fought back. Now HE wants BLOCH'S e-mails. Davis said that some Bloch e-mails already show (quoting the Washington Times) that he "improperly discussed official business, made inappropriate comments about...Doan and spoke disparagingly about 'at least two members' of Congress."
There's a lot more to this, which I intend to get to next week. But as I have written a number of times during the past few months, conservatives ought to rally around both Doan and the White House on this matter. Neither one has done anything wrong, and Davis merits praise for coming to their defense.
Novak Notes
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 5:46PM
I also am late at reporting on Thursday's AmSpec newsmaker breakgast, this one with Robert Novak. Herewith, then, some interesting quotes from Novak that I haven't seen reported elsewhere:
Politicians are more often TOO responsive, not too unresponsive: "Too many of them take the temperature all the time. What they are supposed to do is lead and inspire."
On presidents he has covered, he was mostly scathing, except for Reagan. Nixon "was a bad man and a poor president." Carter "was a liar." Ford "never understood the Cold War." Clinton "posed as a centrist...but he was a reflexibe liberal. A big-government liberal." Ike was "stodgy and fuddy-duddy." Three recessions in his eight years occurred largely because Ike refused to cut taxes.
"The founding fathers tried to devise a government that didn't work very well, and they damn well succeeded. [Which is a good thing because] governmental power is still the thing I worry about most."
"I think the American people are better than their leaders."
Other Unreported Newtisms
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 5:30PM
Other things Newt said on Monday:
Republicans do indeed have a chance to win in 2008, because the Left faces a "massive problem," namely that "bureaucratic, centralized systems don't deliver." If we explain things correctly, the American people will rally to the side of free enterprise, which provides "more choices of higher quality at lower cost with greater convenience" than any other system.
He predicts a Clinton-Obama Democratic team, which he describes as the "Oprah Winfrey ticket."
The Dems' proposals are "job-killing provisions." The number one campaign issue in 2008 will be "creating jobs for America."
Concerning the Dems' agenda, "We have an obligation to meet them in the middle of the street and say 'Right topic, wrong solution.'"
Gingrich Made a Good Point
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 5:18PM
Staying on the same track as my last two posts (both involving support for the military), I belatedly post some stuff from my notes on Newt Gingrich's appearance at an American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast on Monday. The event has been well covered, of course, but some of the things Gingrich said did not appear to have been noted anywhere I saw. To wit: In answer to my question about WHAT message he would suggest be emphasized by those of us who continue to support the effort in Iraq, and oppose a pullout, Gingrich had these suggestions: "Do you really think it is good for America to be defeated?" ANd "This is Cambodia and Vietnam all over again [and those led to horrific massacres]." And "When young Americans risk their lives, we owe them victory." EXACTLY. We owe them victory. We are a nation of 300 million people, with greater wealth than any nation in the history of the world. There is no good reason we can't win the fight to secure the peace in Iraq. Not only that, but the surge really does seem to be working. Come on, conservatives. WHATEVER you think about whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, the fact is that we are there now. Failing to win would be a catastrophe. Support the surge. Tell your senators and Reps that you support the surge and oppose a precipitous pull-out. WE OWE OUR TROOPS THE VICTORY THAT THEY RIGHT NOW ARE EARNING.
Swift Deterrence
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 5:11PM
The American Humane Society is applauding Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer for their "swift action" (kudos to whoever slipped that adjective in) in introducing a bill to outlaw dogfighting. All fine and good, but I was struck by one of its provisions, the one "making it a federal offense to be a spectator at a dogfight." I haven't sampled such a draconian measure since the fourth grade, when Sister Ann Joaquim suspended not only two classmates who got into a fight, but all the rest of us who had gathered around to watch them. And we weren't even placing bets.
Fly Like an American Eagle
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 5:00PM
Last night I went to a Steve Miller concert at the wonderful Wolftrap amphitheatre outside of DC. (I might be dating myself: Some youngsters out there might not know that Steve Miller was a HUGE rock start for a while in the 1970s, with hits such as Fly Like an Eagle and The Joker.) Anyway, Miller did a really cool thing to start the night. Right after the band's opening number (the aforementioned Fly Like an Eagle), he did a short monologue dedicating the next song, in very heartfelt fashion, to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. The song was "Living in the USA," which appears to be intended to criticize people who enjoy freedom and take it for granted without doing anything to earn it. It was very refreshing to hear a rocker of that generation so unambiguously express admiration for our military folks. I loved it.
Oh, and the rest of the concert was great, too. Miller earned every bit of whatever he was paid: His band played for a solid 2 1/2 hours, with 26 different numbers, to an enthusiastic crowd. The last six songs were all once really big hits: Keep on a Rockin' Me, Baby; Take the Money and Run; The Joker; Come on and Dance; Jungle Love; and Big Ol' Jet Airliner. If anybody out there has Miller and his band playing near your town, I recommend the show highly.
Re: Tawdry Details
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 4:39PM
To be fair, Wlady, Foer has talked to the New York Times and ABC as well to Kurtz. He does seem to be confining his comments to reporters who are unlikely to advance the story beyond "bloggers-say-this, TNR-says-that," though. I'm going to keep trying anyway.
Victory Caucus Web Site
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 4:33PM
All week long, I have been meaning to post this, and if somebody else here already did and I missed it...well, it is important enough to get all the attention it can muster. What it is, is the Victory Caucus, a truly wonderful resource for real, verifiable facts about the war in Iraq and, more broadly, against terrorists generally. It has wonderful charts, news updates, maps, and all sorts of other good stuff. And it is unabashedly dedicated to American victory. It is the work of the great N.Z. Bear of the Truth Laid Bear site, and it merits attention and praise. Support the troops: Win the war, and secure the peace!
Re: Tawdry Details
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 12:39PM
John: Howard Kurtz reported this morning that Beauchamp-Reeve are indeed married. He heard it straight from the horse's mouth, the same beleaguered fellow who won't call you back and is apparently talking only to Kurtz:
The magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer."
Clearly Foer knows who'll give him the fairest shake. Kurtz, for instance, includes an extensive quote from Beauchamp's self-serving statement as posted on TNR yesterday and doesn't challenge a single word.
Fred
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 12:30PM
The Real Question
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 12:04PM
What does Fred Thompson think of Scott Thomas? Inquiring minds want to know.
Erickson Nails the Post
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 11:48AM
My gosh, this is a smackdown of near-epic proportions. See how Erick-Woods Erickson of Red State eviscerates the Washington Post's newest Iraq correspondent. Wow. Seriously, wow.
Ouch
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 11:18AM
A RedState diarist imagines Thompson in September 2008 at the Republican Convention, having won the primaries:
While I realize that many of you who voted for me in the primaries were hoping that by tonight I would be able to give you a definite answer concerning my plans for the General Election in November, it is my firm conviction that decisions of this nature require great care and deliberation. I also understand that many of you may be … perhaps a little uncomfortable with my decision to delay a formal announcement until later this month … [Audible Groaning]Memo to Fred: Get in the race. The delay is starting to define you, and not in good way.… or perhaps early next month. [Angry Muttering]
"Too Much Quin" Warning
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 11:17AM
I hope people see this as an advertisement, but some might consider it a warning: After about 3:30 today, I plan to write about seven blogs, back to back, on a bunch of different topics that have been building up in my notes that I just never got around to blogging about. I promise there will be some provocative stuff included, so I urge readers to join in for the fun. On the other hand, knowing that I might seemto be monopolizing the space, those readers who think that "too much Quin" is something devoutly to be avoided would be well advised to, well, avoid me. Among the liskely topics: Gingrich, Novak, Lurita Doan, global warming re the military, good Scotch, Young Republicans, Steve Miller Flying Like an Eagle..... and who knows what else?!
Re: Tawdry Details
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 10:41AM
Wlady: Those posts do suggest that either Reeve and Beauchamp were friends for a while before they became romantically involved or that they've had an on-again/off-again type relationship, but I don't find that all that interesting. (For the record, I do have some admiration for Reeve as a writer; while I remain a harsh critic of Ann Coulter, I found Reeve's feminism-informed defense of Coulter extremely thought-provoking.) What is interesting is how that relationship has affected TNR's handling of the controversy. (Frank Foer never did respond to the questions in the last few paragraphs of my Monday column, by the way, even though I emailed them to him.)
Anyway, Ace notices some evidence that Reeve and Beauchamp are indeed already married; the reason for the sparsely-populated gift registry might be that the wedding was moved up. The evidence isn't all that solid -- it comes from MySpace comments -- but it does explain why Ace's conversations with his source contain references to Beauchamp as Reeve's "husband." I'm busy with other stuff this morning, but when I get a chance I'll try to nail this fact down.
Finally, I've noticed lots of bloggers, Ace among them, accusing Foer of "lying" when he says the piece was fact-checked before it was published. I think that's a bit unfair. Obviously they could and should have been more thorough, but fact-checking systems are designed to catch honest mistakes, not lies, and it's not easy to double-check things that are being reported from a war zone. I'm not saying that to excuse TNR for running the "Scott Thomas" pieces, but to assume bad faith is going too far.
Fred Thoughts
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 10:20AM
Jennifer, I think you're getting way too much in the trees with your analysis of Thompson, trying to interpret every interview, every staff change, every throwaway statement, as having major implications on the viability of his campaign. To some extent, all of the campaigns went through this stuff months ago: Giuliani, if you remember, was being criticized for having no organization, for not making an official announcement, for not holding town hall meetings or submitting himself to difficult interviews. The difference here is that Thompson is getting a late start, so while all of the other candidates have their organizations largely in place, have been campaigning for months, are rolling out advisors and policy specifics (though McCain has had some recent staff changes), etc., Thompson is just getting started, so the contrast between him and the other campaigns is greater, and everything he does is getting much more scrutiny.
Personally, I don't think Thompson has said or done anything to generate the level of enthusiasm he has been generating and some of the arguments I've heard made from Thompson supporters are downright silly. It's especially disappointing for me to hear conservatives cite Thompson's Michael Moore video as a reason for supporting him. I thought the video was clever myself, but we're talking about choosing the leader of the free world at a challenging time in history, and so I think making a choice based on somebody's ability to confront an insignificant documentary filmmaker seems to me a very shallow way to choose a president.
But while I don't think Thompson has done anything to justify his level of support, on the flip side, I think it's too early to suggest that his campaign is in trouble based on some staff changes and softball interviews. If this stuff is still going on a few months from now, I'll agree that it's a problem. But even though I support Giuliani's presidential bid (and think he'll be the nominee) because I believe he would be the best leader to fight terrorism and because he has the most impressive record of accomplishments, I recognize that a lot of people are not too keen on his positions on social issues, and since Romney and McCain haven't made the sale, there's still an opening for a viable conservative candidate. To echo Quin, if Thompson can fill that void when people actually start voting in January, he'll be in position to capture the nomination no matter what is happening in the middle of the summer.
Not Too Tough on Crime
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 10:01AM
In this column today, I argue that a stalwart conservative appellate judge, Jeff Sutton, shows that even good judges can err. It's about a sentencing dispute for a repeat felon. See what you think.
Global Warming, Sans the Snowman
Posted by on 7.27.07 @ 8:23AM
I learned something in today's Washington Post: Fred Thompson thinks those who believe in global warming are like those who believed the earth was flat in Galileo's time. (I have contacted Thompson's spokesman to confirm this is accurate but have not heard back yet. If the Post got this wrong I will be happy to update.)
This got me thinking about what conservatives in general and the other candidates in particular are saying on the subject. (A glance at recent polling by Fox, Gallup and ABC shows a majority of Americans by varying degrees believe in global warming and believe it is a result of human activity, but I could not find a breakdown by party affiliation.)
In its June 25 edition National Review took a different approach with a cover story on global warming that began: "It is no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures; what remains in dispute is the precise magnitude of the human impact. Conservatives should accept this reality - and move on to the question of what we should do about it."
When asked about global warming in the June New Hampshire debate earlier this year, Rudy Giuliani said: "I think we have to accept the view that scientists have that there is global warming and that humans contribute to that. It's frustrating and really dangerous for us to see money going to our enemies because we have to buy oil from certain countries. We should be supporting all the alternatives. We need a project similar to putting a man on the moon." Romney was a bit more circumspect, but nevertheless said this: "Rudy Giuliani is right in terms of an Apollo project to get us energy independent, and the effects of that on global warming are positive. It's a no-regrets policy. It's a great idea. [We need,] as a strategic imperative, energy independence for America. And it takes that Apollo project. It also takes biodiesel, biofuel, cellulosic ethanol, nuclear power, more drilling in ANWR. We have to be serious also about efficiency and that's going to allow us to become energy independent."
In the February 13, 2007 Boston Globe, John McCain together with Joe Lieberman penned an editorial stating: "The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming." McCain, like Giuliani and Romney, then suggested that we "harness the power of the free market and the engine of American innovation to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions."
This should make for an interesting debate (preferably one with no snowman) in which not only the candidates' substantive ideas can be batted about but voters can assess in a general election setting who will be the best spokesman for conservative views.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Re: Tawdry Details
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 11:09PM
Scott Beauchamp engaged or married to a New Republic writer whom he's known since at least 2004? Well, according to his blog from his pre-Iraq Army days in Germany -- and I've just sampled its first archived entries, from January 2006 -- Pvt. Beauchamp had lots of girls on his mind, all of them apparently German. Perhaps some of it was an exercise in creative writing. But clearly not the rest. Scroll through his entries for yourself. They include such details as "I'm planning on asking Kristen out on a date again. A German girlfriend so soon? Mayhaps," and a photo of an apparently local girl and the caption, "... Having a local girl that embodies racial perfection: priceless." She's clearly not the young woman he is now said to be connected to. How do we know? Because we met her when she covered Bob Tyrrell's book party earlier this year. The plot thickens.
Fred on Hannity and Colmes
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 10:48PM
Thompson did appear on Hannity and Colmes tonight but alas was not pressed on the current problems in his campaign. Sean did joke with him about being a "trophy husband" but unfortunately couldn't work in a question as to what is going on with his campaign staff and whether more changes are in store. For that matter Thompson wasn't asked any policy question (taxes? budget reform? Iraq?). He did chime in that he agrees with Hillary (as Romney and McCain already said) in her tussle with Obama. He seemed unfazed by criticism that he is delaying his entry too long and exploiting the cocoon of his "testing the waters" status. To the contrary, he seemed to gloat: "But I'm doing it at my own pace, and they want to make sure that I don't get all the benefit from it because I seem to be doing ok without announcing yet and some of the detriment, so they're making sure I get some detriment, so I'm getting attention from the Democratic National Committee and even Senator Clinton the other day, and Michael Moore and a few other folks. We can live with that."(From a rough transcript) Frankly, this is not what is going to calm conservatives nerves. Can he answer tough questions? Can he define himself and his campaign so as to provide a story line other than "who got fired today"? Can he get into the arena and duke it out with tough minded opponents on a daily basis? This really does not move the ball down the field.
Poker Gets Political
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 8:23PM
I get messages all the time flogging the importance of various legislation, but this is the first time I've gotten one from the email list for PokerStars, the online poker room where I play occassionally. It comes from World Series of Poker champ Greg "Fossilman" Raymer:
Dear John Tabin,It's unusual to see a hitherto apolitical group like online poker players suddenly being organized.I am writing to you on behalf of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) because we need your help. Congress is currently considering a bill which would clarify the legality of online poker in the United States by creating a regulatory and licensing framework. Please join me in supporting the "Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act".
The early support of many Congressional Representatives is crucial to the success of this bill. Please call your Representative C A Ruppersberger today in his Washington, D.C. office, 202-225-3061. Ask him to cosponsor H.R. 2046 before the August Congressional recess.
Your support is vital. Please take a moment and call today.
If you wish to read more about this bill, or to get more information about the Poker Players Alliance, please visit http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org. Thank you for your time, and your support of poker in the United States.
Sincerely,
Greg Raymer PPA Board of Directors WSOP 2004 World Champion and Member of Team PokerStars
We discussed misguided efforts to crack down on online poker in this space last fall (start with this post by David Hogberg and scroll up.)
Bits and Pieces
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 8:23PM
Fred: If "going off the rails" is the lead in -- on Fox no less -- it has not been a good day. Listen, this is correctable but only if the Fred folks perceive the problem and quickly make a decision to act like a first class presidential campaign. Campaigns basically do reflect the person at the top-- his organizational and communication skills in particular-- so it is a good test as to whether Fred is everything some conservative hope he will be. Better this happens now than in the fall.
Romney: Thought the plane story was mildly amusing, but clearly of more consequence I think is his challenge to Rudy that "I think we can't win the presidency without a pro-life, pro-family Republican.'' Rudy responded by listing his achievements in cleaning up porn and making NYC livable. This is going to be one interesting argument.
Dissing the snowman: Looks like Romney and Rudy may be no shows at the GOP YouTube/CNN debate in September. A shame I think since judging by the Obama-Hillary ongoing row after their YouTube contest these events sure can shake things up.
UPDATE: Romney spokesman Kevin Madden clarifies: "We did receive an invitation today. We currently have seven debate inviations over an eleven day span in September that are under consideration. No final decision has been delivered at this point."
Re: Tawdry Details
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 8:06PM
Oh, Phil, I agree that caution is warranted, which is why I've been a lot more careful than some people (including Bill Kristol) about flatly declaring that the Thomas stories were fake. But I do think that the Beauchamp/Reeve connection is better documented than you imply (I linked to Ace because he seemed to have it first, but there's corroborating evidence at other sites, including a connection between Beauchamp and Reeve that goes back to 2004), and I do think it's relevant; it gives some insight into the office politics behind TNR's raise-the-drawbridge handling of the controversy.
Rudy's Energy Guru
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 7:21PM
Yesterday, I spoke with John Herrington, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Energy during his second term, to discuss his role as Rudy Giuliani's advisor on energy.
Giuliani has been rolling out his ideas for achieving energy independence, a subject on which he has written an op-ed today.
Herrington said while developing a specific energy plan is still an "ongoing process," there are some basic principles that Giuliani has decided on. "His strategy on this is the more choices we have, and the more sources of energy, the less we can be held hostage to one single source of energy."
Prior efforts to achieve energy independence have failed, Herrington said, because politicians attempted to focus on one type of energy that would remove our dependency on foreign oil, which is unrealistic. Instead, Giuliani would hope to get
Some of the alternate energies he mentioned were electric cars, natural gas, ethanol, nuclear power, and clean coal. The idea would be to also make use of renewals and conservation.
I asked Herrington to respond to those conservatives who are cynical about any alternative energy plans, because they associate them with the Carter administration, but he said there is a difference. "Jimmy Crater's solution was the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a $66 billion boondoggle where the federal government decided to do things," he said.
I also questioned him on how Giuliani plans to reconcile his commitment to achieving energy independence with his vow to restore fiscal discipline, given that funding for alternative energy often translates into pork projects and corporate welfare.
Herrington replied that there were ways to ensure money isn't wasted, and cites clean coal legislation that passed through Congress in the 1980s as an example. A process was set up to ensure that companies seeking government grants were asked how much they would contribute of their own money, and those companies that were willing to contribute a higher percentage moved to the front of the line. "You can test a private sector program by how much they are willing to commit of their corporate assets."
There is also a lot that can be done on the regulatory front, including making the permit process easier for nuclear power plants and oil refineries. He notes that despite the hysteria in the media about the dangers of nuclear power, not a single person has ever died in the
RE: New Tawdry Details on Scott Thomas Beauchamp
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 7:08PM
John, I would urge extreme caution on this story. All we have to go on are a lot of vague anonymous sources, as well as a wedding registry that only has six items on it (a bunch of Turkish bath mats, a clock, and a fan) and therefore could easily be fabricated. To be clear, I am not saying I think the site is bogus. I have absolutely no idea. But it certainly should not be viewed as hard evidence. Furthermore, a lot of the speculation that has been made by conservative bloggers, including, for instance, the insinuation that Scott Thomas wasn't actually a soldier in Iraq, has turned out to be false. While conservative bloggers may smell blood, I think some humbleness and caution would be advisable. Also, I'm with John Podhoretz on this one. Even if it is true that Beauchamp was recommended because he was married or engaged to a TNR staffer, it has absolutely no bearing on the central and only important issue--that is, whether his reports from Iraq were accurate. Bloggers who are eager to attack TNR for shoddy fact checking should apply the same journalistic standards in pursuing this story that they demand of others.
New Tawdry Details on Scott Thomas Beauchamp
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 6:04PM
Turns out he got the TNR gig because he's engaged (possibly married, but there seems to be a registry indicating the wedding hasn't happened yet) to TNR staffer Elspeth Reeve. Ace has the scoop; his source at TNR has now been fired.
Hey, fired TNR person: I'd love it if you'd drop me an email. john at johntabin dot com.
Fred Announcement
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 5:02PM
A Fred Thompson e-mail annoucement: "On Tuesday, August 7th, we're inaugurating a new weekly 'I'm With Fred' email, complete with news, updates, and photos from the road. We're also working on the ImWithFred website 2.0, in order to keep in touch on a daily basis and to give you more opportunities to join us at events, help us organize, and spread the word about our efforts." Oh, not perhaps what many were expecting. A sign, however, that the long striptease may be wearing thin. ( Too many metaphor, yes I agree.) Tonight he is doing Hannity and Colmes. Again, love these guys and delight in reading campaign e-mails but rather than sending out more e-mails in August and doing these non-stressful shows why not do the Ames debate on August 5? Or go on Chris Wallace on Sunday? These would be worth watching.
Beyond The Deathly Hallows
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 4:58PM
I mostly liked the final Harry Potter book, but I thought the epilogue left something to be desired. In a Today interview, J.K. Rowling answers some of the unanswered questions (spoiler warning, obviously).
Fred update
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 4:39PM
So is this all a tempest in a teapot? Was I misled or did the campaign spokesman just not have all the facts? I would like to believe it is the latter. It does however sound eerily like the pro-choice lobby snafu. (Was Thompson denying the lobbying or did he just have no recollection? Was Thompson denying any White House lobbying or just lobbying Sununu?) We pesky reporters expect that especially in Presidential campaigns we will get honest "yes" and honest "no" and candid "don't know" answers and hopefully not have to play 20 questions with campaign spokesmen to get an answer we can take to the bank. This, by the way, has been my experience with each of the other three Republican campaigns I cover. It is imperative for campaigns to maintain both the appearance and reality of candor and competence. Otherwise, on really big stuff there will be no reservoir of trust or credibility. Something to think about.
Hilarious
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 3:08PM
FDR biographer Jean Edward Smith takes to the op-ed page of the New York Times to call for a court-packing scheme to undermine the Roberts Court. Seriously:
Still, there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices on the Supreme Court. Roosevelt's 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike.No word on what "popular values" the court is supposed to be subverting, but I have a feeling that Smith's concept of what's "popular" is informed less by actual public opinion than by the consensus in the faculty lounge.If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective.
Novak on the 2008 Field
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 2:34PM
We hosted Robert Novak at a Newsmaker Breakfast this morning, and I asked him about a column he wrote last December in which he argued that John McCain had established himself as the anointed candidate, in the tradition of Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. Novak said his column was right that
Re: Newt and the 'Pygmies'
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 2:24PM
Um, is Gingrich saying he thinks that we need an entirely new Constitution? If not, that seems like a rather overwrought analogy...
Newt and the 'Pygmies'
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 2:04PM
On Monday, the American Spectator hosted Newt Gingrich at a Newsmaker Breakfast. Over the course of the conversation, Gingrich criticized the modern political process, and made a historical reference that asking him whether he wanted to join the race would be like asking Charles de Gaulle "Don't you want to rush in and join the pygmies?" The Examiner's Bill Sammon wrote a story portraying his comment as an attack on the other Republican candidates, but in a letter, Gingrich representative Rick Tyler explains the context of the comment. As somebody who was in the room at the time, I vouch for
Here's
Dear Editor,
Bill Sammon’s piece along with its headline, “Newt Gingrich goes nuclear” (The Examiner - July 23, 2007) presents yet another example of how our political process is broken.
In a recent hour-long newsmaker interview with reporters, Newt Gingrich when asked by Bill about joining the presidential race made a simple historical analogy. He likened his interest in joining the race in its current form to former French President Charles de Gualle’s interest in returning to political life under the
, a political and governing system which he disdained. French Fourth Republic Sammon either did not understand the reference or he chose to quote Gingrich out of context. I am inclined to believe the latter because Bill is a smart person.
Gingrich as a young man lived in
under de Gaulle and earned a Ph.D. in modern European history. His comparison, which Sammon ignored, was significant and relevant to today’s dysfunctional political process and government bureaucracies. France For twelve years de Galle unwaveringly opposed the
. He despised the ruling elites of the permanent governing class. They had no new ideas, no creativity, and no solutions. Their failed political leadership, lack of seriousness, political games, and constantly shifting coalitions led to an unmitigated political mess, compounded by a governmental structure that didn’t work. Fourth French Republic The
Fourth Republic ended after military disaster in Indochina in 1954 and the subsequent loss of the war in. Herein is the significance of the Gingrich analogy unreported by Sammon. Algeria Last week, a snowman was allowed to ask a question about global warming to serious candidates by way of a YouTube video. We have reduced a presidential debate to a TV game show similar to ‘Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader’. This is no way to choose the leader of the free world.
The de Gaulle illustration is fitting. De Galle understood that to solve France’s innumerable problems and return it to prominence on the world stage, would required dramatic reforms that could not be realized from within the then failing political system. He boldly called for real change and in 1958, de Gaulle lead the creation of
France ’swhich survives today. Fifth Republic Similarly, in order to solve
’s seemingly intractable problems, what is needed at the core of the presidential race are bold solutions and bold leadership that transcend the constraints of partisan political posturing. America It was clear to anyone in the room that when Gingrich said, “This is like going to De Gaulle when he was at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises during the Fourth Republic and saying, 'Don't you want to rush in and join the pygmies?” that he was referring to the French analogy of a broken political system and not any of the candidates running for President.
Sammon shortchanged his readers by choosing to ignore the important comparison, and choosing instead to quote Gingrich out of context all for the sake of horserace politics.
Rick Tyler
Press Secretary for Newt Gingrich
Washington ,DC
Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Continued
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 12:57PM
That he's come out publicly is less impressive when you consider how close he was to being exposed by process of elimination (see JD Johannes last Saturday).
Beauchamp's got a blog, which lists his rank as of last September as PFC. His current rank, according to someone with access to the relevant database who emails Michelle Malkin, is PV2. "That indicates that without a doubt he was busted at least one rank as part of Article 15 proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he likely has a strong ax to grind with his chain of command," Michelle's correspondent writes.
RE: Fighter Pilot Mitt
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 12:46PM
Perhaps this is the 21st-century version of "speak softly and carry a big stick."
Fighter Pilot Mitt
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 12:21PM
Campaigning in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney had the following to say, the AP reports:
"I've held the stick on an F-16 fighter jet," he said. "That doesn't mean I think the public ought to be flying F-16 fighter jets..."
Romney also apparently said he's shot Uzis and AK-47s.
H/T: The McCain-friendly GreenMountainPolitics1 blog.
UPDATE: Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom called to explain that Romney's F-16 stint occurred when he was running the Olympics in
Fehrnstrom also clarified that Romney fired Uzis and AK-47s when he visited
RE: Fred's Legal Perspective
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 12:21PM
If Republicans can contemplate nominating someone who supports taxpayer-funded abortion, somehow I think they can learn to live with someone who is soft on tort reform. It's the new federalist revolution, or something.
Fred's Legal Perspective
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 12:05PM
RE: Fred's Legal Perspective
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 11:54AM
Jennifer, perhaps it's the lawyer in you that finds tort reform a crucial issue, but I don't see it having much of an impact on conservative voters. Perhaps it will upset Wall Street, and perhaps he can count on fewer contributions from insurance executives than he otherwise would have, but it won't make a difference for Thompson at the grassroots level. And affirmative action is simply not the issue now that it was ten years ago. To the extent that the conservative base cares about legal issues, it will be more important to them that Thompson has an excellent record on judges, that he escorted John Roberts around during his confirmation hearings, that he has said Roe v. Wade is bad law, etc. When most normal people hear the words "tort reform," they're ready to take a nap.
Fred's Legal Perspective
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 11:36AM
Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 11:31AM
"Scott Thomas" gets TNR out of their bind by standing by his article under his real name.
Newt Speculation
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 8:08AM
Anti-Gun Self-Righteous Ignorance: Biden Edition
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 6:36AM
Dan Reilly at The Politico gets a response from Joe Biden to Dave Weigel's interview with YouTube questioner Jared Townsend that I noted yesterday:
Biden even told The Crypt he would be happy to go hunting with Townsend, though the senator said he couldn't equal Townsend's firepower.Townsend's Bushmaster AR-15 is not an automatic weapon. It's a semiautomatic rifle. (Reilly gets that wrong, too.) And it does a lot less damage per trigger-pull than a 10-gauge shotgun."All I have is a 20 gauge and a 10 gauge shot gun. It won't match his automatic weapon," Biden said.
Is it too much to ask for Biden to even attempt to understand what he proudly leads the charge in trying to regulate? Of course it is.
Kurtz Cover Up
Posted by on 7.26.07 @ 12:31AM
Not for the first time, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz falls down on the job. Late in his daily web Media Notes yesterday he found room for a brief item or two on the "mini-Watergate" brewing in Albany, New York, now that Eliot Spitzer's modus operandi against opponents has blown up in his face. But strange that in a column that calls itself "Media Notes" Kurtz's mentions only the political aspect and ignores entirely the indispensable role that "pliant reporters," as a Wall Street Journal editorial dubs them, played in abetting Spitzer's dirty work.
So what is it, Howie? Are you reporting on the press, or covering up for it?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Don't Mess With Yankee Stadium
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 10:42PM
Fred
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 7:05PM
The Rap on Fred
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 6:48PM
on display here is right in both directions. His zinger on immigration was pitch perfect. He's capable of effectively criticizing the administration, appealing to evangelical Christians, and proving that the primary season in its frontloaded incarnation is stupid and counterproductive. On the other hand it's been a hard eight days' week. Fumbles like this do not behoove a guy who has had all the advantages of an easygoing launch and none of the disadvantages of formal candidacy. In many ways Fred's phantom campaign has appeared to be too successful, and I don't know about you but a September announcement strikes me as late late late for a very important date. Bottom line is at some point holding off on that announcement does more harm than good. Surely the people on the inside have a better accounting of that than people on the outside. But part of that calculation is the reaction you get in the press...favorable and otherwise.
He Has Said Plenty
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 5:34PM
Jennifer -- Not to sound like a total Fred-head, but you must've missed a lot of what he has said. He took a principled stance on Scooter Libby when all the other GOP candidates were waffling. In the Hannity interview in Atlanta I heard him make a very strong statement about the need to get tougher vs. Iran. His answer to Michael Moore was, of course, very funny, but it also was substantive in that it cut RIGHT to the heart of the matter. And so on. Indeed, his blog writings and radio commentaries have been full of good substance. Check them out.
None of this is to say, by the way, that Thompson is the Second Coming. It's just to say that he has offered just as much substance as most of the other candidates, and that from a conservative standpoint, most of the substance has been solid.
Catching Up
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 5:19PM
My, get away for a few hours and look at all the action. I agree with much that has been said but must disagree with Quin on one point. I think aside from the conversation you describe with NRO, Thompson has been contentless. His Kudlow interview was a prime example-- other than defending his opposition to tort reform he said he couldn't answer any specific questions. Unlike Romney who gave a detailed policy address in Florida to the YR kids(remember when we hated being called that?), Thompson gave 10 minutes of utter fluff. His Orange County speech likewise got poor reviews. I love Sean Hannity, but a tough interview he is not. Thompson needs to say something and something in depth which gives conservatives a sense he is up to this. He is in part a victim of starting late when other have loads to say and are practiced saying it. Spencer Abraham is a smart guy, many say, and can perhaps help Fred move ahead in this regard.
John, I Disagree
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 5:08PM
John, It's absurd to say that Thompson hasn't said or done anything. Since late February, he has said and done a whole lot of things, in radio and TV interviews, in radio commentaries, and in blog writings, including very erudite debates on federalism with NRO's very thoughtful Ramesh Ponnuru. It is in large part because Thompson has said so much, and said it so well, that he has become a phenomenon of sorts.
Should TNR Burn Scott Thomas?
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 5:05PM
Greyhawk thinks they should:
For the record - and for what it's worth - I hereby call on The New Republic to stop covering for this little dirt bag and turn him in to proper authorities. The New Republic's new "war hero" is not exposing bad behavior of others that's condoned by his seniors - he's confessing to that behavior himself. Since the New Republic won't release his identity, we can only conclude that either they support this sort of behavior by US troops or know that he isn't one. Neither option speaks well for anyone involved.It's really not that simple. Protecting a source's anonymity does not equate to approving of his actions; if people can't trust a publication to protect their identities, that publication will suffer immensely.
The problem, of course, is the "Scott Thomas" isn't just a source; he's a writer engaged in journalism on TNR's behalf. That puts them in a rather sticky bind, albeit one of their own making.
Watch Out
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 5:01PM
While all you Giuliani and Thompson supporters fight each other, those of us in the Ron Paul camp are going to sneak past you!
Wasn't Aimed at Jennifer
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 5:00PM
Larry, thanks for the support. But just to set the record straight, I wasn't aiming my remarks at Jennifer. The entire blogosphere has been hyperventilating about the Thompson staff changes, just as it hyperventilates about so many "developments" in this all-too-early presidential race. Most of Jennifer's comments have struck me as eminently sensible; I just don't think there is a lot of "there" there in this story in the first place, just as I discounted similar stories about Giuliani's undeclared campaign in January.
Re: Ready Freddy
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 4:56PM
I appreciate the underlying sentiment, Quin, but "paying attention to what the candidates actually say and do" is kind of hard when they don't say or do anything. Jennifer's right: As long as Thompson sits on the sidelines, there's nothing to talk about except for the shakeups in his organization. We can't reasonably be expected to ignore them.
Re: Ready Freddy
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 4:07PM
Amen, Quin, amen. Jeez, Jennifer, unwind a little, would you?
Ready Freddy
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 3:36PM
Holy Toledo, all of the "instant analysis" about long-term effects of campaign blips is really getting out of hand. The things being written about Fred Thompson's soon-to-be campaign right now are eerily similar to the criticisms and doomsaying from critics concerning Rudy Giuliani in the months before the former mayor announced. Somehow, all of those breathless pronunciations didn't keep Giuliani from standing firmly at the top of the polls. I have a suggestion: Instead of all the horse-race, who's in/who's out punditry, how about paying attention to what the candidates actually say and do, and to their actual voting records -- in short, to real substance? Look, the campaigns are aimed at primaries and caucuses that are still six months away. What we know is that Giuliani has a large base, Thompson has sat in solid position for four straight months even without an announcement, Romney has shown organizational abilities and strength in the traditional first two states, and McCain is McCain, for better or worse. And other candidates, such as Duncan Hunter, deserve far more respect and support than they are getting. None of that will change. Thompson isn't imploding. He has surrounded himself with smart people, and he is a very good communicator who is a proven mainstream conservative. He's gonna be very, very much in the mix, and he is well positioned to win the whole thing.
"No Skin Off My Back"
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 3:15PM
Dave Weigel interviews Jared Townsend, the YouTube questioner who Joe Biden accused of mental illness for calling his gun his "baby" (in the same sense that you'd call a beloved car your baby). "I'm still mostly undecided but the odds of supporting Joe Biden have expired and disappeared completely," says Townsend.
When It Rains It Pours
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 1:07PM
First Read has the inside skinny on trouble brewing in Thompson land including confirmation that Thompson's wife plays a pivotal role in the recent shake ups and the organization. Thompson forces have also got into the game of lowering expectations for June fundraising, not a good sign. I could never compete with John Podhoretz in the movie reference game (he pulls out Can't Hardly Wait), but it does remind me of Marty Feldman digging in the graveyard in Young Frankenstein, saying "Could be worse. Could be raining." (Cue the thunderclap and downpour.) In the absence of any policy theme or activity by Thompson this now becomes THE story about his campaign. Others offer helpful advice, similar to mine: get a message, do some real interviews and make some news. Unfortunately now all the interviewers will want to talk about is all of this.
Could be a change...
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 11:35AM
David, I agree entirely with your point. Unless your spouse is Ken Mehlman or Bill Clinton it never turns out well when she (it is almost always "she", so please hold the "don't say it's always the wife" complaints) starts directing traffic. Some have noted that Thompson's wife is actually a GOP consultant so the danger is not as great but I think the concern remains the same. Spouses by definition are in a poor position to offer objective advice. Presidential races are like no others and the direction of the campaign and the clear lines of authority are almost always best left to those who have that unique experience.
RE: Could be a change for the better?
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 11:31AM
Dave, just to be fair, Jim Geraghty spoke to an associate of Thompson about the report that the change occurred because of a clash with Thompson's wife, and the associate "discouraged that line of thought." So, we can't say for sure that that was the cause.
RE: Could be a change for the better?
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 11:11AM
Jennifer: The biggest concern I have from that story is that the change is at the behest of Thompson's wife. Spouses need to know their place in a campaign. A husband or wife of the candidate should make suggestions and let his or her concerns be known. But unless he or she has considerable campaign experience, he or she needs to let the professionals run the campaign. Over-interference from the spouse usually ends in a loss.
At this point, we don't know if this is just a one-time intervention by Jeri Thompson, or if it is part of a pattern. But one thing is for sure: it is not a good sign.
Immigration Reform: Keep Waiting
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 11:09AM
The Washington Times reports that, according to Rahm Emanuel, the Democrats won't take another stab at an immigration bill until a Democratic president's second term. Guess they don't see the "comprehensive" approach as a political winner? (Hat tip: Nick Gillespie at Hit and Run.)
More Thompson Changes
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 11:02AM
Seems Thompson changes aren't done yet. His director of research has quit, citing frustration over a lack of structure in the campaign. Not exactly a vote of confidence in the new team but more evidence that seasoned hands are needed. We'll see if the new duo fits the bill.
Newt: Is He Running?
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 10:51AM
The actions of Newt's long-time advisor, Rich Galen, suggests the answer is no. Galen has signed on as a senior advisor to Fred Thompson. According to Newsweek:
"Assuming he gets into the race, I think Fred Thompson may well be the best combination of insider-outsider experience and possess the new kind of ideas that don't exist in either party," Galen told CNN, where he has appeared as an on-air political analyst. It's unlikely that Galen would jump to another candidate without Gingrich's blessing. Galen was Gingrich's top communications aide in the House and has been an unpaid adviser and friend since then.
Thompson Changes
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 10:45AM
Politico has an interesting take on the new players on Fred Thompson's team. The article makes a point that both the new players --Randy Enwright and Spencer Abraham-- are lobbyists/ “consultants.” There is a certain “shocked, shocked to see there’s gambling going on in there” (Casablanca reference for those saying “huh?”) quality since no one should be surprised that a GOP candidate would have just such connected people working for him. Indeed, Abraham is highly regarded inside the Beltway and could be a significant asset to Thompson if given real authority. However, Thompson opponents contend these changes have some additional meaning ---further complicating Thompson's "outsider" approach which was already in doubt after revelations about his lobbying for a pro-choice group. An advisor to an opponent comments “The façade was falling brick by brick at first, but now the entire structural foundation of his potential candidacy is crumbling fast. The fact that Spence Abraham is also a
I think the whole "outsider" tag is rather silly anyway and is best left in the consultant's trash can. Thompson is no Ross Perot (this is a good thing, by the way) and pretending that he is simply distracts from the task of carving out a real political niche in the race and developing policy positions. He wants to be the Movement Conservative or the more stable 3-Legged Stool (one-upping Romney); the difficulty will be in establishing a spot in the field where he can be a more solid choice than his opponents for conservatives. He will need to overcome concerns about electability (how will he do against Hillary?) and lack of executive experience. If we start getting substantive speeches and interviews with national press which lay out a clear rationale for his campaign (and maybe even an accelerated announcement date) we’ll know Abraham is having an effect.
Doubting Rudy
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 10:25AM
Though I understand that reasonable people may disagree with my prediction that Rudy Giuliani will become the Republican nominee, it continues to amaze me that so many so-called "experts" remain so dismissive of his chances when everything they have said about Giuliani has been proven so wrong up until this point. Back in November, Congressional Quarterly "expert" Craig Crawford declared, "While former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was once thought to be a threat to McCain, his star has faded since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." As late as late January, other skeptics were even questioning whether Giuliani was even going to run in the first place.
Over at the Corner, where there's also a debate on this topic, John Hood responds to John Podhoretz by pointing out:
Yes, that would be the same Robert Novak who declared last December, "It is beginning to look like 'McCain Inc.'"
Ironically, all of these low expectations may help Rudy. McCain and Romney, both buying into the hype that Rudy shouldn't be taken seriously, have spent more time going after each other than challenging Giuliani. And there's already evidence that a Romney-Thompson battle may be brewing, with Romney supporters trying to equate both candidates' evolutions on abortion. In the meantime, Giuliani has remained on top of most polls (see below), has emerged as the money leader, and has quietly been catching up on the staff and organizational front. I think Deroy Murdock had it right when he named Rudy "the front-running underdog."
On Polls
Posted by on 7.25.07 @ 9:24AM
Yesterday, Jennifer pointed to a Washington Post/ABC poll showing Rudy Giuliani with an 18-point lead (that becomes a 20-plus point lead if either Gingrich or McCain are not in the race). It is important to note, however, that we are seeing quite a deviation in some of these polls. Whether due to modeling differences or variations in methodology, some polls seem to be more favorable to certain candidates than others. For instance, in the Post/ABC polls dating back to last December, Giuliani has never dipped below 32 percent (once reaching a high of 44 percent in February) and Thompson's highest was 14 percent (in the current poll). In the Rasmussen poll, however, Thompson actually has a 26-21 lead over Giuliani, with Rudy having been stuck in the 20s since early May. And Rasmussen's tendency to have polls more favorable to Thompson and less favorable to Giuliani extends beyond national polling. In Florida, a Rasmussen poll shows Thompson within 1 point of Giuliani while a Quinnipiac poll taken around the same time shows Rudy 12 points ahead of Thompson.
What to make of all of this? In my view, based on looking at a broad number of polls, Giuliani seems to have a statistically significant lead at this time, with Fred Thompson trailing, and John McCain hanging on to a certain base of loyal supporters. Mitt Romney, who still hasn't broken through nationally, has enjoyed statistically significant leads in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, though he still underperforms in South Carolina. Though I still believe as I have all along that Giuliani will emerge as the nominee, there are still a lot of wildcards in the race. Will Thompson sink or swim once he finally jumps in the water? Will Romney's strength in early states hold once other candidates begin paid advertising (as Giuliani did this week)? And if so, will he be able to gain enough momentum with early victories to win nationally? Will Gingrich get in and shake up the race? Will John McCain defy the naysayers and make an epic comeback? Will Ron Paul ride a wave of enthusiastic Internet commenters all the way to the White House? In the meantime, I view polls at this point as I do baseball standings early in the season, with certain candidates better positioned than others to make the playoffs, where anything can happen.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A Poll to Think About
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 8:55PM
Not surprisingly the Giuliani team is trumpeting the new Washington Post-ABC news poll which shows him with an enormous 20 pt. lead over John McCain and Fred Thompson (with Gingrich not in the race). We can all do the obligating tut-tutting over early national polls and find contrary polls but it is worth a look at three of the "internals." First, GOP voters it appears overwhelmingly think he is the most electable candidate. Perhaps the more likely a Hillary nominee, the more important "electability" and the perception that Rudy could be the one to expand the geographic playing field for the GOP. If you can't bear the thought of Hillary, let alone Bill back in the Oval Office, you may be willing to overlook a few differences on issues. Second, Giuliani also has a "reverse gender gap"-- 41% of GOP women and 32% of men support him. Those darned "security moms" sure have a way of popping up each election. Are women more taken with the 9-11 image of someone who will keep the country safe? Does the “he cleaned up
Giuliani of course still may not win. It is way too early to declare a winner or even a safe bet. Thompson could live up to expectations or McCain could revive or social conservatives could finally rally around Mitt Romney. That said, some pundits are going to have to drop the assumption that the GOP is incapable of selecting someone who is not pro-life.
Dead on Arrival
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 6:37PM
In today's UPS delivery I received a nice, very hard hardcover review copy of Hard Call: Great Decisions and the Extraordinary People Who Made Them, by John McCain with Mark Salter. It was evidently going to serve as this campaign's Profiles in Courage (which with typical JFK restraint and class didn't need a subtitle to tell the reader that its author was extraordinary and great). So what's the purpose of the book now, after the hard calls McCain made the other week to pretty much close up shop?
Could be a change for the better?
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 4:57PM
Hillary Wins Twice
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 4:45PM
After winning the debate Hillary is now winning the debate about the debate. She is going to town on Obama's statement that he would visit a list of the world's top bad guys in his first year in office. Aided by Madeleine Albright and campaign memos she is making the case that she is the only savvy, clear eyed adult in the field who is capable of leading the country. When I made this argument last night, some in the MSM pooh-poohed it and said I was "thinking like a Republican." Well, apparently Hillary thinks a whole lot of Democrats agree too. This is her moment to make Obama into Jerry Ford who declared in his debate against Carter that Poland was not dominated by the Soviets. The remark sealed his image as a sweet but hapless figure. If Hillary can likewise cement the image of Obama as a naive fellow who would fall prey to the world's wolves, not to mention those mean Republicans, she will have gone a long way toward winning the nomination.
Third Party Paul
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 4:06PM
Andrew Sullivan and Ross Douthat wonder why Ron Paul doesn't run again as the Libertarian Party nominee in 2008. Against Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, Paul could be, as Douthat puts it, "as formidable as any fringe-ish third party candidate could hope to be."
I think there are good reasons why he seems disinclined to go the third-party route again. Paul's social conservatism divided the Libertarian Party in 1988 and he only narrowly beat out American Indian activist Russell Means for the nomination. Paul's showing was decent by Libertarian standards -- about 432,000 votes; he was also the last LP nominee to finish in third place behind the major-party candidates -- but it didn't exactly set the world on fire. Paul has gotten much more attention as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
Being a Republican has made it possible for Paul to win ten terms in Congress, a feat no Libertarian could replicate. He is planning on running for reelection, something that an LP bid would complicate. Finally, any improvement in Paul's vote totals as a third-party candidate would owe in large part to his early Republican bid. But the longer he stays in the GOP race, the more sore-loser laws could hobble a third-party run. Paul is better off as a Republican.
UPATE: Though according to Rasmussen, he might not fare that well if he won the Republican nomination.
2007, Meet 1978 . . .
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 2:57PM
Sometimes, it's good to write. At other times, it is good to merely repeat. I'll repeat Solzhenitsyn speaking at Harvard in 1978 (he was booed if I recall correctly):
However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear? The American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this. Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold Vietnam now looms over you. That small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation's courage. But if a full-fledged America suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the West hope to stand firm in the future?
Novak's Mild Response to Gingrich
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 2:41PM
Columnist Robert Novak spoke today here in Raleigh at a luncheon for the John Locke Foundation, and at the beginning of his remarks he mentioned Newt Gingrich's comments about him yesterday at an American Spectator breakfast. To recount, Gingrich said:
Novak, to his credit, showed some restraint which you can see here:
Novak today also reminisced about his newsmaking incident in December 2005, when during his last visit to the Locke Foundation he unwittingly told the crowd (not expecting that any media folks were there) that President Bush should know who leaked Valerie Plame's name to him. An amusing recount of those events.
Smelly!
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 12:34PM
This piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education stinks. Quite literally.
Monsters and Idealogues
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 11:21AM
Theodore Dalrymple ("The George Orwell of the Right") on how abstraction and ideology can turn doctors into monsters:
"...such an ideology is likely to appeal not so much to the uneducated masses, at least to the extent of acting on it, as to the educated classes.
"It needs a high degree of abstraction to believe that bombing an airport terminal in Glasgow will conduce to anything but the death of people at random. In their day-to-day dealings, no doubt the plotters were perfectly decent and kindly, possibly even feeling sympathy for the sufferings of the people whom they met in their training and practice as doctors. But just as the dissecting room can overcome natural repugnance, so can an ideology overcome all the social inhibitions against killing people.
"As Solzhenitsyn pointed out in a different context, it is ideology that allows people to commit the most terrible acts in the belief that they are bringing about a better world. It blinds them to the most obvious moral considerations; it renders the most absolute evil good."
Read the whole essay here.
Dreadful Democratic Debate
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 10:52AM
I caught a CNN rebroadcast of the debate late last night. Wow. The candidates looked like parodies of liberals -- er, excuse me, progressives -- and the YouTube questioners were mostly cringe-inducing. I tremble for my country...
Hillary's Great Night
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 10:31AM
Only she and Joe Biden sounded comfortable speaking authoritatively without sounding like kookazoids. Although Gravel had the best moment lecturing the American people in fifteen words or less on the costs of consumerism. Worst moments too numerous to count, with Anderson Cooper repeating with mindboggling sangfroid the phrase "a YouTube-type video" when introducing what I can only imagine (having maliciously listened to the thing on radio) as having been deliberately amateurish candidate commercials lashed together by flunkies from each campaign.
But God, did those Tube-in questions sound awful. Was that a muppet, dear reader, singing its way through a question Head Muppet Anderson had to caption as "funny, but a serious subject?" Is there any mode of address these candidates will not subject themselves to to try to appear relevant? Just yesterday morning I listened along with several Esteemed Colleagues here to Newt Gingrich laughing openly and on the record at the prospect of joining the debates. Pygmies, he said! (Not a paraphrase.) They get just over seven minutes. I get six hours and thousands of people paying attention to things too complicated, because this is real life, to relay in twenty-second kibbles. (A paraphrase.) In the long awkward wake of last night's debate Newt seemed even more cleverly accurate in his criticism than usual.
What planet people are on who think Obama is smooth, polished, and presidential in these debates is now clearly outside the known solar system. Obama -- especially on radio, with all those damned red white and blue sight effects out of the picture -- is halting, qualified, monotone, unable to say no to anything but Iraq, which he said no to so long ago he risks nothing. "Coffee with Castro? Hell yes," and so forth. He simply must get over this problem or Hillary will whip him into the pliant vice-presidential position that it will be her personal joy to provide. For America. And Working Families. And the Children.
McCain Responds to Newt
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 10:24AM
On a blogger call this morning, I asked John McCain to respond to Newt Gingrich's comment yesterday that McCain was "on the verge of dropping out of the race once he collects his FEC money."
McCain said:
I asked him a follow-up question specifically on whether he was still considering taking federal matching funds.
A few quick thoughts. McCain's statement that "I'm going to win it the same way I that I almost won it in 2000" seems to me the central problem of his campaign right now. His 2000 bid for the nomination has become a model for his current run, even though he lost that race. Also, whether he accepts matching funds may not determine whether he decides to drop out of the race, but it probably should. Given the rate of Democratic fundraising, there is simply no way Republicans are going to nominate somebody who has to accept matching funds.
W. James Antle III Vs. Victor Gold
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 10:10AM
Whoever Doesn't Drown Will Be Incinerated
Posted by on 7.24.07 @ 2:40AM
Monday, July 23, 2007
Why Hillary Had a Great Night
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 10:33PM
Given that we're in the middle of July and it's still early, I don't think it's that helpful to really look at these debates in terms of who "won" in the traditional sense. Barring either a big moment, or a major flub, these debates will be long forgotten by the time the first votes are cast. However, what I do find these debates useful for is to pick up on answers and exchanges that provide clues into how the rest of the campaign might shape up-i.e. what this tell us about how they may perform down the road. By this standard, I think Hillary Clinton had a great night, and not just because she didn't commit any obvious gaffes that could endanger her frontrunner status, but because she handled one of the most difficult challenges facing her campaign (running as a dynasty candidate in a change election year) rather deftly. Barack Obama, meanwhile, who is in the best position to exploit this potential weakness by presenting himself as the candidate who most represents change, responded feebly by leaning on the "cynicism" crutch. If he cannot find a way to say to the Democratic electorate, in some fashion, "Look, Bill Clinton was a great President for the 1990s, but we need a different kind of leadership to face a new set of challenges in the coming decade," then Obama is toast. Furthermore, the exchange demonstrated one of the biggest obstacles for Obama-how does he go after Clinton without contradicting his pledge to usher in "a new kind of politics"? After four debate performances, it's pretty clear that Clinton is a machine. Completely fake, completely soulless, but somebody who will always say precisely what she is programmed to say. For Obama, that means that he cannot count on her committing a major flub. He's going to have to find a way to go after Hillary, and quick (as it seemed he was doing on healthcare), or else risk letting her get a free ride while cementing the impression that he's nothing but a puffed up featherweight trying to move up a few too many divisions.
Dave Weigel endured liveblogging. See also Ryan Sager, and Jim Geraghty (who calls Joe Biden the surprising winner and Hillary the surprising loser).
Edwards Economics
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 9:36PM
I asked Andy Roth from Club for Growth about Edwards' proposal to increase minimum wage and its effect on unemployment. Here was his response:
"If you ask 100 economists, you'll get 100 different answers, but consider this: Labor costs would go up 75% for employers who pay only minimum wage ($5.15 to $9.00). That's not chicken feed to a lot of small business owners.
But why would Edwards increase it to $9.00?
If he really cared about low income workers, he'd increase it to
$10. Or even $15. Or maybe $400 an hour. I bet there are a lot
of people who work harder than hair stylists, and thus deserve
more."
Practice Slowly "Madam President"
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 9:22PM
First, I plead guilty to not watching the whole thing given the demands of kids and my own mental health. I did catch enough to reach a conclusion about the state of the race. Although it pains me to say it, there is simply no peer to Hillary. Obama's promised tour of the world's tin pot dicatators highlighted the gap in experience, judgment and preparation between the two. All but the most rabid of the Democratic base I think will come to see that. So I would suggest that the GOP primary voters think long and hard about electability. Otherwise, we'll be debating whether First Gentleman or First Guy sounds better for Bill.
Newt, Don't Run
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 9:19PM
Thanks to all the folks at the American Spectator for setting up the breakfast this morning with Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich's analysis of the problems with the GOP is one of the best I've heard. His urging that conservatives start comparing the withdrawal from Iraq with the withdrawal from Vietnam and Cambodia is great strategy, a surefire way to put the left on the defensive. How many politicians would get into an extended debate with Ed Hudgins over the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers (indeed, how many people would engage in such a debate)? And FedEx versus Government Bureaucracy is great.
No two ways about it. Newt is brilliant.
Unfortunately, Newt knows he is brilliant. As a result, he has little control over his ego. During his talk, I couldn't help but feel that, according to Newt, the GOP wouldn't have all of the problems it does if everyone in charge would just listen to Newt.
Of course, let's not forget that when Newt was in charge, things didn't go too smoothly. As Speaker he was a P.R. debacle - his personality was volatile, and the Democrats took advantage of it by constantly baiting him. It didn't take long for him to achieve a very negative image among the public. He led the GOP into the disastrous government shutdown. During his last two years as Speaker, the dissatisfaction with him among the GOP in the House grew to the point that an abortive coup was plotted against him - a coup which led to the end of Bill Paxon's political career. And his support among the GOP in the House had so eroded by November of 1998 that he had to resign as Speaker after the GOP did so poorly during the election that month.
What bothered me most about his remarks this morning was how he tried to blame those failures on others. I recall him complaining that in early 1998 the Senate GOP leadership told him that they didn't want any new ideas, that Monica and impeachment would take care of the election that year. Even if that is true, so what? Did Newt take marching orders from the Senate? If new ideas were such a great campaign strategy, why didn't Newt work to make the House GOP run on them regardless of what the Senate GOP wanted?
If Newt were to run for President, all of his deficiencies as a leader would surely come to the fore again, and the media would have a field day chewing him up. Given how bleak things look right now, the GOP hardly needs the drag that would be the Newt for President campaign.
Newt is a great idea man. He provides the GOP and the conservative movement a wonderful service in that role.
Why mess that up with a run for the Oval Office that would prove disastrous?
It's a Draw
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 9:13PM
Obama won the first half. Hillary won the second half. I don't see this debate moving the polls.
Still Gun-Grabbing
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 9:07PM
The mentally ill shouldn't have guns -- and, to hear Joe Biden tell it, people who like their guns are, by definition, mentally ill.
Hillary on The Dynasty Issue
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 9:06PM
Handles it well. To big applause, said she thinks it's a shame that Bush won in 2000, and (to laughs) said that she thought somebody else won the election. Adds that though she's running on her own merits, she's proud of her husband's accomplishments. It may be gag-inducing to me as well as most readers of this blog, but the Democratic audience ate it up.
Obama misses an opportunity to exploit the dynasty issue to his advantage, and falls back on his the-problem-is-cynicism crutch. His response largely fell flat.
Obama Fires Shot at Hillary
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 8:56PM
Faults a "Democratic President" and "Demoratic Congress" in 1990s for not fighting big health care companies. Said we need a president who will stand up to them.
Hillary follows up with her "I've got the scars to prove it" line with regard to the healthcare fight of 1993.
Re: That Public vs. Private School Question
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 8:46PM
Chris Dodd, who went to a prep school in Maryland, and whose nephew was a year behind me at boarding school in Connecticut, sends his 5-year-old to a public school for kindergarten. Isn't that special?
It's hilarious how Democrats are so terrified of the teachers unions that they have to dance around the plainly obvious fact that public schools aren't as good as private schools -- even as they denounce the influence of special interests.
Hillary on Sending Chelsea to Private School
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 8:31PM
After emphasizing that she sent Chelsea to public school in Arkansas, said he "agonized" over sending her to private school in Washington, and only did so because she feared the press attention in a public school.
Castro and Chavez
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 8:16PM
Will be thrilled to know Obama would meet with them. Assad too. If the GOP candidates don't pounce on this one they must not have been watching. Well, ..let's say they would have missed a chance to explain how naive at least one potential nominee is.
"When I Was First Lady"
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 8:06PM
Dipping into this well as often as she is will be a problem for Hillary Clinton, because it draws attention to how thin her actual public record is. It also reinforces the dynasty fear, and stresses how much of her campaign is based on running on her husband's last name, rather than her own accomplishments.
The Gravel Network
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 7:59PM
Gravel had another one of his Howard Beale moments, shouting about how troops died in vain in Vietnam, and are dying in vain now in Iraq. The Gravel Show would be a lot more entertaining if he collapsed after every one of his answers.
Fashion Note
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 7:53PM
My wife walked in the room, glanced at Hillary Clinton, and said that "she shouldn't be wearing that color. It doesn't look good on her."
Biden the Author
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 7:52PM
In every answer Biden seems to be bragging about a piece of legislation he wrote. I guess when you plagiarize, it's easy to be prolific.
Dems on Darfur
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 7:49PM
Bill Richardson says we need diplomacy to get U.N. troops in Darfur, and China needs to put more pressure on Sudan. That would be nice, of course, but what in China's actions over the past several years with regard to Sudan would lead Richardson to believe that is possible.
Biden supports sending U.S. ground troops because "those kids will be dead by the time diplomacy is over."
Hillary is tired of "talking instead of acting," and supports more efforts at divestment and sanctions. Doesn't support sending U.S. troops.
YouTube Questions
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 7:41PM
I'm as willing to criticize journalists as the next guy, but after a half hour of watching these asinine questions by YouTubers, I'm yearning for Wolf Blitzer's hand raising antics.
The Dems' YouTube Debate
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 7:41PM
First quarter reactions:
What is Chris Dodd doing on the stage? Even Gravel and Kucinich have their role as gadflies. Dodd is just highlighting his own overwhelming mediocrity.
Obama seems to have the audience in the palm of his hand. He's winning so far.
Obama on Race
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 7:35PM
In response to a question of whether he was black enough, Obama said he knows what it is to be black because of his experiences trying to hail a cab in New York City. While he says we still face problems related to race, he added "I believe in the core decency of the American people." I thought his response struct the right tone, and reinforced why I think he would be an extremely formidable general election candidate.
On gender, Hillary Clinton said she's proud to be running as a woman, but isn't running because she's a woman.
DEBATE TOP TEN
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 5:22PM
Revolution, Revolution! (Yawn)
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 5:21PM
All day CNN has been hyping it's self-declared groundbreaking debate tonight. Anderson Cooper presents Democratic candidates questions from the proletariat via YouTube videos!
"You're actually kind of getting a window into people's lives," Cooper said. "These are people who are living the topics, who are not just asking a theoretical question."
Cooper should know: He helped screen the submissions, divining which topics were of true importance to the electronic masses. It's one of those special skills one learns while being raised by Gloria Vanderbilt in a New York City penthouse apartment.
Wolf Blitzer, likewise, has been insisting candidates cannot fully prepare for questions born of the wisdom of common people. Common people...with webcams and too much free time on their hands, that is. And earlier this morning Heidi Collins asked a near-giddy John King what kind of hard-hitting questions viewers could expect from real people. His answer was similar to what every other CNN anchor has been saying today: Iraq, global warming, gay rights, Darfur--you know, the kinds of issues Anderson Cooper would never think to ask about unless otherwise prompted.
Or are these the issues that have been covered in every other debate just with a new gimmick twist? It's so tough to keep these things straight. Oh, Anderson? If I email you a video of me asking this question will you send me an answer?
UPDATE: Shocking, I know, but someone actually found a much smarter way to put this.
Thoughts on Newt
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 4:27PM
Human Ingenuity and Global Cooling
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 3:35PM
A review of the new Danny Boyle flick Sunshine.
The Latest on "Scott Thomas"
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 3:00PM
Michael Goldfarb has more. This seems to explain those child-bones:
There was a children's cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back. There are many such unmarked cemeteries in and around Baghdad. The remains unearthed that day were transported to another location and reburied.The quoted soldier goes on to doubt that wearing a piece of skull under a helmet, as a private depicted in "Shock Troops" is supposed to have done, is even possible.
Newt's No 'Trained Seal'
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 12:41PM
Speaking to journalists at a breakfast hosted by the American Spectator this morning, Newt Gingrich predicted a Clinton-Obama ticket, said Republicans need to move beyond President Bush to have a chance to win in 2008, and remained coy about his own presidential ambitions.
“My personal guess is that the ticket will be
Asked about his own presidential ambitions, he said he wouldn’t run just to “enrich” the race or to make it more interesting. He said there would be no reason for him to “shrink to the level of 30-second answers standing like a trained seal waiting for someone to throw me a fish” when he can make things “interesting” from the outside. However, if there is a genuine demand for him to get into the race, “then it’s not ‘interesting,’ then it’s real.”
He outlined a “simple formula” for getting into the race: “If in mid-October it’s quite clear that one or more of the current candidates is strong enough to be a serious alternative to a Clinton-Obama ticket, you don’t need me to run…If at some point people decide, we are going to get Hillary, unless there’s a radical change, then there’s space for a candidate.”
As for the 2008 election in general, Gingrich said, “If we’re still in the Bush era next year, we lose. It’s just over. They’re no sense in worrying about it.”
On Thompson:
“I’m excited to see whether Fred Thompson turns out to be as decisive a frontrunner as John McCain, or better…”
“The guy who wasn’t even in the race is now the exciting new name, having decided that he would leave television for the purpose of entering television.”
On McCain:
He’s “on the verge of dropping out of the race once he collects his FEC money.”
He also said, “Romney and Giuliani are chugging around.”
Overall, he slammed the current nominating process as “insane” and said that “Imagine the country that watched Paris Hilton screaming on her way to jail and just understand that the politics is occurring in this pop culture. So for example, all the presidential auditions are happening within a culture that is used to watching ‘the Batchelor,’ and ‘American Idol’ and ‘Are You as Smart as a Fifth Grader?’ and it actually reduces the concept of national leadership to a kind of game show.”
Dave Weigel has more, including Newt comparing himself to Charles De Gaulle. Jim Geraghty has additional thoughts here and here.
Paging Dr. No
Posted by on 7.23.07 @ 12:29PM
In New York Times Magazine, Christopher Caldwell has written the best Ron Paul profile I've seen so far (registration required).
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Too Much Information
Posted by on 7.22.07 @ 2:54PM
Failing Blogging 101
Posted by on 7.22.07 @ 12:15PM
Apparently, Thomas Lipscomb can't read:
The inanity of the reporting continued in Kurtz's noting of an American Spectator staffer, Jeff Tabin, who wrote Kurtz "I've googled in vain for evidence of [a] 9mm cartridge that features 'a square back.'""Jeff" Tabin? (I do have a cousin named Geoff, but as far as I know he has no connection to AmSpec.) Someone from AmSpec "wrote to Kurtz?" No. Kurtz was quoting a blog post. Had Lipscomb bothered to read that post, he'd note that the next line was a plea to readers to help me out. To suggest that I think "fact-checking in [sic] looking something up on Google" is a borderline-slanderous charge from someone who doesn't seem to understand why blogging is a useful tool for reports.Great!... The New Republic can't fact-check, The Weekly Standard can flounce indignantly, but it doesn't do any fact-checking either, and now The American Spectator employs a staffer who likes to get his name in the papers who thinks fact-checking in looking something up on Google.
As anyone who's read this blog knows, for the past few days I've been exchanging emails with experts and attempting to get people from TNR on the phone. My blogging (and Michael Goldfarb's at the Standard) is part of the real-time reporting process; posting a public plea for help is more efficient than trying to track down the right people to ask on my own. Apparently, Lipscomb is disturbed that reporting can be done out in the open in the age of the 24/7 internet. That's his problem, not mine. And since Lipscomb manages to get three facts wrong in the space of a few sentences, he can spare me the J-school lecture.
- Barney Shuffles Off
- Bowling Alone
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
