- 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, August 4, 2007
'Me? I'm A Guy Who Built A Website'
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 10:13PM
Kos' speech is emotional, positive and triumphalist, which is a nice change of pace, actually, after three days of listening to Kossacks bitch and moan in their workshops. Not all of his speech is accurate--"The reporters in the back of the room were laughing at me. They were laughing at us," for example, is a ridiculous statement--but it's the right speech for this crowd and this moment. The tears he keeps choking back imbue it with a depth it might otherwise not have and his self-effacing bits on how he only created a forum not a movement--while clearly, in light of his more bragging interviews, is a bit of a put on--are appealing.
It's a good exclamation point to an uneven convention, I think.
No More Yearly Kos
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 9:51PM
From here on out it's going to be called Netroots Nation.
'If You're From Alabama, Do Something About It'
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 9:19PM
Funny, no?
The last YearlyKos Keynote Dinner is kicking off with the requisite political comedians whose premises actually aren't that funny--i.e. America has, like, run out of people who care, Bush is bad with grammar (granted, this is true and could be funny in not-so-smug hands), and Walter Cronkite was a great newsman. But what was really interesting to me is when Hillary's picture was projected on the big screens, big boos. Even after a solid debate performance and breakout session where she clearly won over a few critics...nothing. Hillary Hate in motion apparently stays in motion here in Chicago. It'll be fun to watch them turn that ship around if she winds up the nominee.
A female comedian just said after watching An Inconvenient Truth and discovered "Al Gore makes me feel warm in my underpants."
Hmm. Might be a long night.
UPDATE: Yep. Another female comedian is now joking about her crush on Joe Wilson--a "silver-haired fox"--who she says, "had me at 'What I didn't find in Africa.'"
How to Grovel, And How to Not
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 9:08PM
I’ll have an entire column on the Teamsters BBQ here in
Huge applause. Then Gravel took the mic and got absolutely nothing from them when he said he wanted to make the tax code “fair” across the board with a national sales tax. And it was definitely the message they were under-whelmed by, not the messenger. Say what you will, he brings the passion:
“I want to change our tax code,” Gravel said. “Our tax code sucks. Our tax code is corrupt. It’s corrupt! And the people who carry the load are the ordinary citizens and they don’t really know how bad they’re getting screwed.”
Oh, and here’s my second favorite Gravel bit: “I had a trucking business in
I love this guy, but—Republican, Democrat, independent, Green—it is never good for a candidate when I identify him. Unlike the Kossacks, I actually recognize how far outside the mainstream my views are. (An sometimes…well, it’s a badge of honor.)
Didn't Mean to Leave out Newt
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 4:52PM
In his debate with John Kerry earlier in the year Newt said: "My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere." As to proposed solutions, he advocates ""a new science- and technology-based entrepreneurial, market-oriented and locally led environmentalism."
Whether because he has concluded that the science is persuasive or whether he sees the political upside, Newt has clearly thrown his lot in with those who do not want to cede this issue to the Democrats. As with healthcare, he and others are betting that the better tactic is to use the issue as another opportunity to demonstrate Republicans' commitment to free markets and innovation and their opposition to the heavy hand of government.
Re: On Sounding Smart
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 4:40PM
Shawn, you have to hand it to Hillary. She ingratiates her self with the Lefties, shows a sense of humor and says nothing that will come back to bite her in the general election. Even if she is not the netroots' favorite, her goal is to soothe the beast so she can maintain her chances in the general election. So long as she is not the object of their venom she can just keep saying entirely reasonable things like we should never rule out use of nuclear weapons. The netroots, can't I think, determine the Democratic nominee, but they can make her life miserable and her job in the general election more difficult. John Edwards can win their hearts but after today Hillary is the one breathing easier.
Waiting On A Source
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 4:21PM
An audience member proposes a post-Bush series of trials and dialogues in the
“You don’t have to believe in God to be moral,” the man says.
“That’s great,” Edward beams.
I have a call into God, but at press time it had not been returned.
He gets some boos for reaffirming his support for the death penalty.
The Hero
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 4:07PM
Edwards staffers introducing him think John Edwards should be president.
UPDATE: Staffer actually lists Edwards' op-ed starting with the words, "I was wrong" as one of four reason why he should be president, after he's "not infantalizing" us as citizens. Hmmm. Okay?
Among the People
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 4:01PM
Okay, in the Edwards breakout session. It is packed. I felt a little bad for the Chris Dodd guys a few doors over, watching the netroots pass them by in droves for the one-term pretty boy. There is a large banner and a screen flashing pictures of Edwards in front of various working class backgrounds. Some polysci grad student should really write a thesis on how this guy became the populist candidate. A guy is handing out "Impeach!" stickers to eager Edwards fans, which is awesome, because many people's T-shirts, by virtue of proximity, now say "Impeach! John Edwards."
Sure, sure. You guys get him elected, and then we can talk about impeachment. (Joke.) I also see some folks in Obama shirts. Converts? Plants for hostile questioning? We'll see, I suppose.
Maybe CSPAN Has Better Mics
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 3:25PM
A red-faced Chris Dodd just shouted at Hillary and Edwards about something, but I can't report it because I couldn't understand a word coming out of his mouth.
Boxers or Briefs?
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 3:13PM
Edwards' "official White House blogger" would be Elizabeth Edwards. Gravel would do it himself. No other candidate answered. How will I know how to vote!?
PSA
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 2:50PM
I'm clogging up the blog right now, so be sure not to miss Tabin's important post from a little while ago.
Gravel Over Easy
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 2:48PM
The number of standing ovations John Edwards is receiving is incredibly disturbing on so many levels. Meanwhile, Mike Gravel is being hissed at for his support for the Fair Tax. (Which, incidentally, I support in theory.) The moderator just accidentally called Hillary "President Clinton." "A Freudian slip," Hillary coos.
Go Tell it to the Altain
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 2:40PM
The Draft Gore thing seems like a joke, but is Hillary taking it seriously? When someone asked her whether she would pledge to repeal the 1996 telecom bill she said, "You'll have to ask Al Gore," adding how instrumental he was in passing the apparently unpopular bill.
Seals Are Harder to Train
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 2:37PM
Richardson booed for proposing a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Edwards cheered for his warmed-over line about choosing "someone who beat them over and over and over again" line. Chris Dodd, the least charismatic man on stage, tries to fire up the crowd by promising to try to thwart Rupert Murdoch and bashing Bill O'Reilly. It is so easy to push these people's clap buttons.
Now You Know
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 2:32PM
Someone took the time and spent the money to put shiny, full-color Draft Gore cards on every seat. "You already know who the perfect candidate is--now do something about it!" it tells us.
"I Screwed Up On That One..."
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 2:28PM
That was Richardson's response to a challenge to his suggestion in a recent debate that his "model Supreme Court justice" would be Byron White--who was on the wrong side of Roe v. Wade, apparently. Richardson said he "figured" if JFK nominated him, he must be alright. What a thorough process!
Richardson also endorses a abortion litmus test for Supreme Court nominees to "ensure the court reflects the values of the American people."
Best Hillary Fan Sign (Well, So Far Anyway)
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 2:20PM
Thank You Hillary! It Takes A Village of Kids to Raise an Adult!
On Sounding Smart
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 2:18PM
While Tabin, Antle or Klein could probably (definitely) all provide more cogent analysis, I think Hillary's short break-out session speech struck the right note. She acknowledged several times the the netroots disagreements with her in a funny, self-effacing way (i.e. "I appreciate what you are doing. Well, not everything you're doing"), but always using it as a launching point to praise her audience. She also had a pretty good summation line of the need for the left to talk to people who disagree with them: "If we just talk to ourselves we sound very smart," and said it was necessary to reach out to "people who have never read a blog." Hmmm, you think?
Well, who doesn't like sounding smart?
Now the leadeship forum. All the candidates besides Biden are here, I believe. Obama got the biggest introduction applause by far. Now they're singing a rousing version of happy birthday to Obama...
More on TNR's Investigation vs. The Army's
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 2:01PM
Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee has the official word from Col. Steven Boylan, the Public Affairs Officer for Gen. David Petraeus:
To your question: Were there any truth to what was being said by Thomas?Answer: An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims.
As to what will happen to him?
Answer: As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under the various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not releasable to the public by the military on what does or does not happen.
"It's the Best Way to Stand-Up to...You-Know-Who."
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 1:27PM
I'm the you-know-who of YearlyKos 2007. Thank you and goodnight.
Mic Cuts Out....
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 1:23PM
...Hillary without missing a beat: "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy."
Thanks netroots for "left-ing the balance" and says she wishes the blogosphere--"the frontline of the progressive movement"--had existed 15 years ago. "Don't tell anyone, but I read blogs." Congratualtes Kossacks on the "substance" they bring to the debate, and then says--yikes!--she actually uses some of the online ideas in crafting legislation and policy. We'd have universal healthcare already if we had the internet in 1993.
She is really a much more impressive, conversational speaker than the last time I saw her.
"Cubs not Sox," gets her some boos. Onto some Bill O'Reilly bashing, the stand-by of DailyKos 2007. Now audience questions...
The Hill Cometh
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 12:59PM
Big line for the Hillary breakout session this morning. I got in, but only after security made it very clear to me that press was secondary to Kossacks. On Thursday night huge boos met an announcement that a Hillary aide would run the breakout and, then--voila!--the next day we were told she'd be here after all, just an hour before the forum with the other candidates rather than an hour after like everyone else.
I can say after everything I've heard about Hillary from Kossacks the last three days, I'm just about convinced to vote for her. Who knew she was such a unilateral, jingoistic, extremist capitalist?
For Your Consideration...
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 11:15AM
A lot of Kossacks in Q&A sessions feel the the need to preface their questions with qualifiers like, "Not to sound like a tinfoil hat person, but..."
Sitting here in the panel with ACLU head Anthony Romero. Short version: Americans should have felt bad for John Walker Lindh to prevent Abu Ghraib, Bush is Nero, Justice Kennedy "ain't no Sandra Day O'Connor," the Supreme Court confirmation process is a joke, Republicans should just admit they're "not for racial equality."
Call Me When YOU Get Over it. We'll Chat.
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 11:06AM
While the schedule of YearlyKos is not nearly as crammed as most other political conferences, attendees are sometimes left to make difficult choices between panels or workshops of interest. Happily, sometimes the YearlyKos convention program itself narrows things down. For example, at 1:00 p.m. yesterday I could attend "Is the Religious Right Really Dead?", a roundtable led by Chip Berlet, Frederick Clarkson, Susan Thistlethwaite discussing "the current status of the religious right."
An hour-and-a-half later, a few doors down, the same exact panelists promised to offer advice on "What to Do About the Religious Right." The program synopsis intones, "Let's get over it. The Religious Right will be around for a long, long time."
Let's get over it? The panelists themselves weren't over it two hours ago! This is how forward thinking the netroots are: They can divine the ultimate answers to their questions before they even ask them, and then are magnanimous to go ahead and ask them anyway, no doubt to rebuild public faith, take back our country, save our democracy and feed poor, starving kids.
Hillary and Mitt
Posted by on 8.4.07 @ 9:05AM
Friday, August 3, 2007
Foer Whom the Bell Tolls
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 6:43PM
What's wrong with this headline: "New Republic Investigation Clears Military Columnist"? Well, for one thing, you'll never know from it that it refers to what's known as an internal investigation. Why not just announce: "New Republic Clears Itself"?
The dubious headline is from yesterday's New York Observer piece on the Beauchamp affair, one of several that for all intents lets the New Republic off with nothing more stinging than a feather on the wrist.
The central issue remains the one error TNR has had to acknowledge -- the fact that Beauchamp & Co.'s cruel treatment of the woman with an IED disfigured face and head occurred in Kuwait, before Beauchamp had ever stepped foot into the Iraq war zone. TNR editor Franklin Foer, whose credibility has plummeted to Alberto Gonzales levels, acknowledged to the Observer that "the error in location was 'an important mistake.'" He added that "it would be extremely worrisome" if the rest of the article "hadn't checked out."
Foer, in between lashing out at critics to friendly reporters, is living in delusion. The article in question, "Shock Troops," runs some 1,150 words on my computer. Of those, 481 are taken up by the column's opening set piece that now turns out to have been based in Kuwait. Meaning, by TNR's own findings, 41.9 percent of the column is based on a lie. Foer doesn't find that "extremely worrisome"?
We don't need to cite Gresham's law about bad money driving out the good. Just think back to your school days. To earn an "A" you needed to score roughly between 90 and 100; for a B, between 80 and 89; a C, 70 to 79. Anything between 60 and 69 earned a depressing D. Meaning, anything less than 60 earned you a big fat F. Where does that leave Beauchamp's "Shock Troops" assignment? With a big fat 58.
I'd be worried, extremely worried if I brought home a grade like that. Especially knowing there's no way to make it up.
Bridge Collapse Humor
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 6:29PM
Courtesy of Sidney Blumenthal: "You know, we’re building bridges in
Hey Guys, Where You Going?
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 5:46PM
The Democrats are beginning to pull out of the Other Democratic Convention.
In Our World, Saying Joementum Is A Hate Crime
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 5:26PM
I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised that there were many fewer people at "Progressives & Capitalism" than the "Ned Lamont for Senate: What Really Happened" panel, despite the fact that I could have wrapped up the latter in a few words. (Um, he lost.) But I stopped by both anyway and was at first surprised to see Ned Lamont himself sitting at a table in the audience. Then I realized, Well, if anyone is curious what happened, it's probably Ned Lamont. Then again, perhaps it only confused him more. As with Howard Dean, Kossacks are enthusiastic in their insistent recitation of all the ways Lamont actually won in a larger sense. When Ned goes home to Connecticut Sunday, though, he probably has a better idea of the difference between a victory in the real world and one in the DailyKos diaries.
Everybody Hates Congress
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 4:39PM
Don Surber notes the new Zogby poll showing that 3 percent of Americans approve of Congress's handling of Iraq. That's not a typo. Three percent.
It makes sense, of course. According to the poll, 42% think Congress should fully fund the war to maintain current troop levels, 34% think they should attach conditions demanding a phased withdrawal to funding bills, and 18% think they should cut off funds entirely to force a quick withdrawal. By ostentatiously trying, and then failing, to attach conditions to their funding of the war, the Democrats have managed to anger all three of those groups.
Supporting the Troops Update
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 3:01PM
Ezra Klein, reporting from YearlyKos:
As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they "stand down." He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage,Thought experiment: Would the reaction have been different if a uniformed questioner had been assenting to anti-war orthodoxy rather than dissenting from it?Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you're not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform, or at least that you shouldn't, and that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail, not to mention a violation of the rules, by doing so. Knowing fairly little about the army, I can't speak to any of that. But it was an uncomfortable few moments, and seemed fairly contrary to the spirit of the panel to roar down the member of the military who tried to speak with a contrary voice.
We'll Miss Them When They Are Away
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 2:49PM
"It is very dangerous to play politics with national security at a time when our Intelligence Community has just warned us that Al Qaeda is regrouping and continues to plan attacks against our country. Yet that is precisely what the Democrats are doing by preventing a vote on changing the archaic FISA law to bring it up to date with modern technology. The Democrats have been sitting on this since April, and they have refused to even schedule a vote before they go on their summer vacation. Al Qaeda isn't going on vacation; neither should the Democrats until they agree to fix FISA."
Let's see if Congress gets the message.
Obama, Murdoch, Kossacks
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 2:48PM
I've got a new column today over at Brainwash.
RE: Self-Serving Schizophrenia
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 2:48PM
Shawn, Stern's proposal apparently makes sense.
TNR's Investigation vs. The Army's
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 2:42PM
Contrast that with the statement TNR released yesterday. More to come on this, I'm sure.After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegations made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the "Baghdad Diarist", have been
"refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false"
The official investigation the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office qualified as "thorough and professional" concluded late August 1st. Officials would not speculate on the possibility of further action against Private Beauchamp, nor would they confirm his current whereabouts or status.
Sergeant First Class Robert Timmons, the acting public affairs official of the 4th IBCT, 1st ID, in the absence of Major Luke Luedeke, remarked that despite the high level of attention this case received in the American media, soldiers at the 4th IBCT, 1st Inf. Div, a "surge" Brigade, have not been distracted from their missions.
In the month of July, Operation Dragon Hammer resulted in the capture of over 110 detainees and "no mission has been delayed or adversely effected by the investigation into Private Beauchamp's allegations of misconduct among the soldiers of his unit the 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment", said Timmons.
The 4th IBCT, 1st ID Area of Operations, Rasheed District in Western Baghdad is one of the toughest and most violent districts in the Iraqi capital.
Update: All allegations were demonstrated to be false according to officials at Army Public Affairs.
Self-Serving Schizophrenia
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 1:43PM
Big applause last night when Howard Dean yelled about voter turnout as an American value. Bigger applause just now when Andy Stern suggests banning white men from voting for the next thirty years because "white men are the worst progressive voters around."
Three cheers for disenfranchisement!
Meyerson: "Is manufacturing worth saving?"
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 1:09PM
Andy Stern's answer, paraphrased and abridged: Um, duh.
And: "All we have to do is redistrbute wealth. And that's what unions do."
Oh, and unionized American auto workers being overpaid is basically a myth.
Have Enough T-shirts? Don't Bother Telling the NEA
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 12:59PM
Greetings from the Andy Stern/Harold Meyerson lunch at YearlyKos. A representative from the National Education Association just came up to me offering a T-shirt reading: No Child Left Behind. Had Enough? It's time for a change! I declined but he threw one down anyway with a smile. Every empty seat has one of these shirts draped over it. They're being handed out at the door. Your union dues at work, teachers!
A union rep just got on the mic to the "Halliburtonization" of public education. Unsurprisingly, she sees a NEA/netroots axis as a "natural" alliance.
P.S. It's beginning to sound as if Harold Meyerson was against globalization.
Breaking news from DailyKos.
Ten things You WON'T hear at the GOP Debate
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 12:56PM
My top ten things you won't hear at the Democratic debate got a few laughs, so here's the list for the Republicans for Sunday:
Mitt Care and Beware of Ladies in Diners
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 12:32PM
I took away several things from the encounter (not counting the fact that the lady really wasn't listening). Romney is very good under fire and has command of the facts, but he never engaged her on a personal level even while she was describing her family's medical and financial woes. People in that diner are unlikely to remember the specifics of the Romney plan, but they will react either positively ("hey, he knows his stuff and kept cool") or negatively ("hey, he didn't even go up to the lady or say he was sorry about her kids' medical problems"). On the policy and strategy side, even if Romney decides to depart from his individual mandate approach in his national healthcare plan, he's going to be stuck defending the Massachusetts plan. He sounded, dare I say, McCain-like in defending how Democrats and Republicans "came together" in Massachusetts to solve a big problem. Critics, including perhaps Giuliani, will come at him from the right and tag him as a proponent of government medical care. His response may be Rudy-like: what's good for Massachusetts may not be good for the whole country. It is going to be an interesting debate.
A Cheer for Rudy
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 11:52AM
I haven't looked that closely into the details of Rudy Care yet, but if David Hogberg is skeptical so am I. But I'll say this: After reading the Giuliani quotes in this Deroy Murdock piece, I'm pretty sure he isn't going to sign any Democratic Hillarycare plans.
RE: Resisting Ron Paul
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 10:59AM
Even protest candidates need a certain percentage of their supporters to think that they have a shot. Of course, the beauty of being a protest candidate is that you don't actually have to win to have an impact. If Ron Paul breaks into the double digits in a single primary -- which the current polls don't show him doing -- and wins at least a million votes in all the primaries combined -- which he ought to be able to do, since Alan Keyes did about that well in 2000 -- his candidacy will be successful by those standards.
Now, I think you're right that Seavey underestimates both Paul's differences with most other Republicans on foreign policy and their importance as a voting issue. National security has played a huge role in propelling Rudy Giuliani to the top of the Republican field, even though he is arguably out of step with the base on more issues than John McCain. The Rasmussen poll that tested Paul against Hillary showed him taking just 65 percent of Republicans, which I imagine is not purely a function of low name recognition (though he did pull about 35 percent, within the low range of GOP support in head-to-head match-ups).
But given the likelihood of Paul being nominated, that's a moot point. Personally, I don't buy into the idea that a more muscular application of the Bush Doctrine is going to make us safer and don't see any of the top-tier candidates as standouts on issues like smaller government and life. That being the case, Paul is the most logical person for me to vote for. But I don't pretend that my combination of issue positions represents the silent majority of Republicans.
Resisting Ron Paul
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 10:22AM
It's one thing if you're an anti-war conservative with no other place to go, so you decided to vote for Ron Paul in the primary because you think that's the more principled thing to do, but over at NRO, Todd Seavey actually tries to make the case for Paul as a viable general election candidate:
And how much of a constituency is there for this?
Despite My Best Efforts...
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 10:01AM
I just walked into the ballroom as Wesley Clark implored "You Kossacks" to bring "intelligence to this debate." To his credit, Clark is doing a Q&A now and speaking quite eloquently off the cuff, even if every cogent point he makes is followed by a coddling praise of the netroots.
Is Iowa A Romney Company Town?
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 9:52AM
Marc Ambinder has a troubling report that an Iowa Republican county chair who has been paid $3,000 by Mitt Romney's campaign for "consulting" is moving to punish those who aren't attending the Ames Straw poll by refusing to invite those candidates (or their representatives) to any political meetings in his county. That would be a blow to Romney's three main rivals--Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Predictably, the Romney campaign and Hardin County chair Andy Cable are insisting that there is nothing improper, and that no conflict of interest exists. But even if this type of thing is technically legal, it strikes me as pretty sleazy.
Yes, Spock. But What Do We Do This Eon?
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 9:15AM
I hope my AmSpec brethren and sistren, as well as our dedicated readers can forgive me for missing General Wesley Clark's keynote this morning at YearlyKos. I was up late filing this bit on yesterday's proceedings, and this morning as I pulled my reporting bag together I realized I was more interested in breakfast than Clark. If it makes you feel any better, Clark wasn't all that interesting last year:
I wanted to get inside the heads of people who would eagerly accept retired NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark's inclusion on the Championing Science panel, while Arianna Huffington held down the National Security discussion, redefining the word "banal" and the phrase "about as deep as a spoon" -- did you know they didn't find any WMDs in Iraq? -- along the way.
In place of new material, I offer my favorite bit of Clark talk, which I collected in January 2004:
And what would a Clark event be without some really bonkers proposal, à la the infamous time machine? In response to a question on fuel efficiency, he told a woman that there was "no reason we can't move beyond the gas powered engine." His "dream" is to build a series of "smart highways."
"What if you had electrically powered vehicles that could actually pick up power out of the roadway?" Clark asked. "And they were light weight, not heavy? And with modern technology, what if they were remotely controlled? You could flip a switch and have it automatically drive down the center of the highway, maintain proper speed, not bump into the car ahead of it, know where the other cars were in front of it."
At least we'll have David Brock, no, friends?
Shooting the Messenger
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 8:36AM
The lefty blogosphere is atwitter over the latest addition to Max Blumenthal's repugnant oeuvre:
In an effort to undermine a New Republic article by Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp about alleged inappropriate conduct by U.S. troops in Iraq, an article by Weekly Standard reporter Matthew [sic] Goldfarb relied on Marine Cpl. Matt Sanchez as the only military source identified by name but did not reveal facts that weigh on the credibility of Sanchez's attacks on The New Republic article...The "facts" that Blumenthal brings up do not, in fact, undermine Sanchez's credibility one whit.
Blumenthal's more serious charge is a suggestion that Sanchez is guilty of financial impropriety. He cites a Marine Corps Times article as evidence of an investigation into allegations that Sanchez "bilked private donors out of $12,000 for a deployment to Iraq he never made." Blumenthal writes:
The article stated that "[t]he Corps on Friday [March 29] was slated to wrap up" the Sanchez investigation, but Media Matters has been unable to locate any articles reporting whether the investigation did indeed wrap up, and if so, what the results of the investigation were.This may come as a surprise in the Media Matters office, but you can actually do things with your computer other than search Google and Lexis; there's also this thing called "email." It didn't take long for me to get a reply from Matt Sanchez: "They tabled the investigation."
There was no "deployment to Iraq he never made"; Sanchez explains that what the quote referred to was the stint as an embedded member of the media that he's now on. U-Haul had offered to sponsor Sanchez's trip in exchange for publicity. I'll let Sanchez tell the rest:
The veterans group is a group I had volunteered to run publicity for. The leader, Pat Gaultieri has since been embroiled in a bit of a financial scandal himself.Which brings us to the aforementioned "events at CPAC."The[y] claim I asked for $300.00. After the events at CPAC, the veteran's group wanted to distance themselves so they filed this complaint. U-Haul, according to an insider there, said they were bombarded with complaints due to my association with Ann Coulter and her faggot comment. So, they backed out of funding this current trip.
Long story short, when publicity became intense, I really saw who my friends are.
During CPAC -- thanks in part to Blumenthal -- Sanchez, who was receiving an award, was outed as having once been an escort and a gay porn actor. He responded at Salon with a frank discussion of his past and an explanation of how and why he left it behind him. At the time I posted in this space about how impressed I was with how he handled this. As far as I'm concerned, the episode enhances Sanchez's credibility.
I'll leave it to others to speculate as to why allegedly tolerant lefties keep bringing up Sanchez's past as if it somehow makes him tainted forever. But I think it's fair to say that smearing someone as a criminal without checking out the background on the allegations is pretty despicable.
Charlie Rose and Rudy
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 7:22AM
Without A CAIR
Posted by on 8.3.07 @ 6:35AM
The desks barring the doors indicate that Robert Spencer's lecture was going to be something different. We had been free to go and come as we please for every other portion of the Young America's Foundation's 29th annual National Conservative Student Conference. But, then, none of the other lectures took place under the specter of veiled threats from
Only a figure as controversial as Spencer, "the speaker that CAIR doesn't want you to hear," said YAF spokesman Jason Mattera to a youth conservative group standing to applaud the man and the firestorm he created -- would require such a spectacle to become a reality. Attorney Joseph Sandler, on behalf of his clients from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sent YAF President Ron Robinson a letter demanding the removal of Spencer from the program outline, characterizing Spencer as a "well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims." Sandler's letter did not mention a single, specific instance of factual inaccuracy in Spencer's work, let alone prove the malice which is supposedly their driving force. No, this was a demand and a threat in the baldest of terms.
YAFers, for their part, came prepared ready to fight, filling the
The conservative youth movement was not about to have its keynote speaker bullied by a group that has never denounced even one terrorist organization by name. Michelle Malkin slipped in the back door and did some live blogging during the lecture.
All of this was much ado about nothing. Spencer never deviated from the script, giving the exact same lecture he had planned on giving even before CAIR's lawyers demanded that YAF pull him from the program the day before he was set to appear. Everything went off without a hitch, and Spencer no doubt sold more books than he would have otherwise, with students filling much of the hallway to buy signed copies.
One thinks that CAIR had to know it was fighting a losing battle in a half-hearted way. Having lawyers send cease-and-desist letters the day before an event is the way to make early morning headlines, not the way to gain satisfaction; law doesn't work on one-day timeframes, typically. One wonders, then, why CAIR would take the path of most resistance and feed YAF such a public relations gift during an otherwise unremarkable conference - YAF isn't exactly asking attendees to craft the new Sharon Statement. One wonders why a supposedly "moderate" organization would attempt to tell another organization whom it may or may not allow to speak at a conference.
Of course, there's the idea that, in P.T. Barnum immortal words, "the only bad publicity is no publicity." Even so, if "publicity" was CAIR's goal, it is quite curious why an organization which puts itself on par with the NAACP would seek out this type of publicity. Do "moderate" groups tell other organizations whom they may or may not have speak to its own members?
Thursday, August 2, 2007
But How Can This Be, Professor?
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 10:55PM
The New York Times reports: "Young women in New York and several of the nation's other largest cities who work full time have forged ahead of men in wages, according to an analysis of recent census data." The reason: women are going to college in larger numbers than men and gravitating to big cities in search of high paying jobs. My favorite line is from Kelly Kraft, a 25 year old who works in New York: "In women's-studies courses you always heard that men were making more money, and it was a disadvantage being a woman," Ms. Kraft said. "It's great that it's starting to turn around." Could be those women's studies courses were just nonsense all along, Ms. Kraft. Indeed the same study "also showed that men were in some ways moving backward. Among all men - including those with college degrees - real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1970. And among full-time workers with advanced degrees, wages for men increased only marginally even as they soared for women. Nationally, men's wages in general declined while women's remained the same." Perhaps some men's studies courses are in order. The victim industry must stay current after all.
The Road To Racial Equality Begins...
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 10:46PM
...around some 15 year-old's ankles.
James, if you liked the 1950s quote, you'll love Dean's one-liner on the lack of prejudice in today's generation. There was too much background noise for me to check this against my recorder, but my notepad is surely very close and what it says Dean said is: "There's a bunch of white kids with pants hanging down to their ankles running around malls today." These kids, he promised, would populate the more just world Kossacks were currently designing for them.
Actually, you could tell Dean has been off the stage for a bit and relished the chance to get back up on it. This speech was impressively self-assured, fiery without going into Iowa Caucus territory and had the crowd banging on tables and actually calling out "Encore!" after he left the stage.
Re: In Beauchamp's Camp
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 10:35PM
TNR's statement is maddening. They admit that Beauchamp's story about mocking a disfigured woman didn't happen in Iraq -- and play it off like this is a minor error. It isn't.
Beauchamp's story was intended to suggest that the horrors of war had turned him callous and sadistic. Except now this incident is supposed to have happened in Kuwait, before Beauchamp had been exposed to those horrors. See Michael Goldfarb for more on the significance of this.
Ace is rightly fuming about how less-than-forthcoming Frank Foer has been. Foer said last week that TNR had "confirmed the woman" -- if what they had in fact confirmed is that the incident happened in an entirely different country, Foer really should have said so. It certainly would have saved Matt Sanchez some time; he's asked more than fifty soldiers at FOB Falcon if they remember a disfigured woman.
We interrupt the YearlyKos Festivities
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 9:43PM
I'm transfixed by Shawn's reports. Not since watching Rocky Horror Picture Show have I had the same sense of amazement that grown adults could put on such an act with a straight face. But anyway, here to report that this afternoon Judge Southwick's confirmation was voted out of committee 10-9 with the help of Democrat Dianne Feinstein, who found not a scrap of evidence to support the racism charge being hurled about. Will he get a prompt vote now on the floor? We'll see. Two things: 1) Do not underestimate the decency and nerve it took Sen. Feinstein to buck her colleagues and do the right thing and 2) It is a sad state of affairs when 9 Democrats on that committee after all of this STILL voted no. Back to Shawn...
Dean Is Quoting Rick Warren
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 9:33PM
Evangelicals are going to definitely be Democrats because they hate poverty as much as they love God.
Re: Dean on Fire
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 9:33PM
Ah yes, Shawn...the 1950s....
When Mormons ran for President...
When Vietnam vets ran for President...
When candidates' wives helped run them for President...
And Rudy and Judi? A regular Ozzie and Harriet....
Dean. Dude. Check your talking points. This is the least 'traditional' crop of GOPers since Warren Harding.
Second, Perhaps, Only To Joe Wilson
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 9:30PM
Howard Dean really knows how to push this crowds buttons. They adore him.
I only bring up Wilson because he was extraordinarily popular at last year's YearlyKos, as evidenced by this quote from Hunter in Un::Conventional:
It is Thursday night, and I have just shaken the hand of Ambassador Joe Wilson. I saw him pass in the hall today three or four times, and finally I just caved in, went up to him and asked to shake his hand. I had a few sentences prepared; I knew just what I wanted to say. Unfortunately, what I wanted to say and what I managed to say, putting myself on the spot, were two entirely different things-and I managed only a pathetic, stuttering, 'I just think you're great' and/or other such teenybopper sentiments, a few brilliant hallyway insights of the type I am sure he is roundly accustomed to. Sigh.
Sigh, indeed. Dean's calling out my man Sunnunu now. Blah, blah, blah.
Howard Dean Is On Fire!
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 9:25PM
And it's not even from global warming!
"Look at who [Republicans] have running for president. Doesn't that look like something out of the 1950s?"
"What have you have done these last six years is restore the democracy George Bush and the Republicans have tried to undermine."
Republicans have turned "the Civil Rights Division into the Voter Suppression Division."
The Internet has “re-democratized
Durbin Phones It In
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 8:58PM
He's a no-show, we're told, because he's in D.C. fighting for us. Via video he Calls Chicago home of "broad shoulders and broad minds," describes Bob Novak as Karl Rove's "speed dial number three," and then basically credits all victories to the netroots, who he prefers to dialogue with rather than evil telecom companies. Shocking! He also plugs his own internet diaries, which I don't actually care enough to find to link to.
Air America's Sam Seder Reveals Standards...
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 8:45PM
...for the company he keeps:
"I have to disagree with Bill O'Reilly. You don't look hateful, or crazy, and thank God you're not the Ku Klux Klan."
Also:
"We cannot be defined by Bill O'Reilly or Bill Kristol or the corporate media that resents us having a voice."
Yes, that must be it. Now a comedian is getting big applause with a line about being here to, "mourn the death of mainstream media."
I Feel Like I'm Taking Crazy Pills!
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 8:27PM
Here at the Durbin/Dean Opening Keynote dinner at YearlyKos. Everyone has been provided an Empowered Howard sign, and people are voting in electronic polls from their tables with real time results displayed on two large screens. Do you ActBlue? the machine asks. A follow-up: But, seriously, why not Dodd? And another: What's most important to u?
Indeed, I do feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Who's Going to Beat Hillary?
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 7:41PM
Kos Appetizer
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 7:41PM
Shawn Macomber will be blogging later tonight from the Amerika-loving YearlyKos Konvention in Chikago. The event: The Durbin-Dean dinner. Assuming he doesn't choke on it, Shawn will pass along lots of stolen silverware. Plus tidbits from some of the post-dinner activity. Stay tuned for all that and more (and also a feature on Kos Day One on tomorrow's Main Page).
Rudy Care
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 6:28PM
The federal government could certainly pass a free market consumer bill of rights that guarantees consumers and insurers the right to negotiate terms and conditions which are agreeable. That would preempt state mandates. Will the bill go that far? No. At the risk of ending the theoretical speculation I had an email exchange with someone who asked to be identified only as someone assisting in the Rudy plan's development. As for both these issues the idea is to give states benchmarks to meet to reduce mandates and increase availability of affordable coverage. If they don't succeed, the plan would then open up interstate sales. This person acknowledged that states will want to continue to play a role and that the idea is not to entirely pre-empt their role.
My interpretation now: Applying pressure to remove state mandates and moving toward a national market are steps in the right direction. It was a breakthrough in education when school choice advocates pushed through plans to allow parents to send their kids to other schools if their home school failed. They didn't rail against the idea because parents did not from the get go have the right to select any school. Is it pristine free marketism? No, but I do recall a Friedmanism. He often said "I am in favor of cutting taxes at any time, in any way, in any form." I for one favor any increase in freedom in health care, at any time, in any way, in any form. If others have better ideas I'm all ears.
Ignatius Press
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 5:40PM
So now we know what caused the Wall Street Journal to decline to the point that it needed a Rupert Murdoch to bail it out. Take it from the Washington Post's David Ignatius, who was a top reporter at the Journal in its heyday, which peaked around 1985, he writes, the same year, as it happens, that Ignatius left the paper. But that's not the (only) reason the paper began to decline. By the 1990s the real cause was apparent. The culprit was the Journal's "fiery" editorial page. The change came when, in the '90s, the editorial page "increasingly did its own reporting, with equal portions of journalistic hustle and ideological spin, and it often overshadowed the news side. I suspect that helped undermine the franchise. Advertisers, in the end, perhaps weren't enthralled with a newspaper distinguished by vitriolic right-wing attack editorials."
Bob Bartley is long dead, but still the knives are out for him. An independent two-page section of a thick paper undercut the rest of it? Ignatius may lack journalistic hustle these days ("I suspect," "perhaps"), which means he's left with not much more than ideological spin to define him.
In Beauchamp's Camp
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 4:22PM
TNR has issued a statement on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp matter. Aside from one error, they say their investigation so far has largely confirmed what they published. They claim they would know more if the military's own investigation hadn't short-circuited TNR's.
I leave it to the experts on this scandal to tell me where this is wrong or to declare TNR vindicated.
McCain Responds to Obama
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 3:27PM
On the blogger conference call McCain responded to Barack Obama's comment about pursuing Al Qaeda in Pakistan if "Musharraf won't act." McCain basically said that he would favor covert actions if we had actionable intellegence, but wouldn't announce a large military operation and risk destabalizing the country. Specifically:
"We ought to understand that there are a lot of ways of achieving military/political goals without declaring we're gonna to bomb a sovereign country. There are ways to achieve those goals which can be employed and which have been employed in the past. That's why we have a CIA. That's why we have predators. That's why we have special operations forces, etc….There are plenty of things you can do without the possibility of destabilizing Musharraf, which I think would be catastrophic."
And:
"We will follow Osama bin Laden and people who are bent on our destruction to the ends of the earth. We will do whatever is necessary, but we will employ those methods that are the least damaging in the long run to the
national security interests. United States
He also responded to Obama's statement that he would never use nuclear weapons. McCain said "I'm a bit taken aback from it" and "I don't get it." He said we should "never preclude" the use of nuclear weapons, or else we may as well get rid of ours.
Some other interesting notes on the call:
--McCain said that in several months we may be able to withdraw U.S. troops at least back to bases as Iraqis take over more responsibility. Mitt Romney seemed to be making a similar point on the radio this morning, but was criticized by pro-McCain bloggers.
-- He said "The immigration issue was probably as damaging to me as any issue that I have ever encountered." He said it was "a result of my failure to convince the American people that we were truly serious about securing the borders."
--He called the the Senate ethics bil "a sham and a joke" that is too "watered down."
RE: Rudy Care
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 3:11PM
Jennifer, you write, "There is no reason why you can't prevent mandates on those who don't self-insure." But that's just it: states cannot put mandates on any employers, whether they self-insure or not. The mandates are put on the insurance policies that insurance carriers sell.
The only way I see that the federal government could prevent states from putting mandates on insurance is if Congress makes drastic changes to or repeals the McCarran-Ferguson act which gives states the power to regulate insurance. Yanking power away from 50 state legislatures? Fat chance.
As for defining "affordable", I never said anything about "sleight of hand." The problem isn't deceit. It's that the definition of "affordable" will have to go through the political process, subject to interest group pressures, politicians, and all the rest. I think the last time government defined anything so as to expand liberty instead of expanding government power was in the late 1780s. That's why we should be concerned.
Judge Southwick
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 2:56PM
Rudy Care
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 2:43PM
ERISA does pre-empt regulations on self-insurers who cover tens of millions of people. There is no reason why you can't prevent mandates on those who don't self-insure. I do agree interstate purchases are the way to solve this and other issues, but a single line in a press release saying people will be allowed to buy out of state if they don't find "affordable" in state choices doesn't set off alarm bells for me that there is some slight of hand going on. You may be right but I don't see it . Not yet, anyway.
RE: Rudy Care
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 2:24PM
Jennifer: Could the federal government pre-mept state regulations? Maybe, but I'm not so sure.
You point to ERISA (Employee Retirement and Income Security Act for those who are not policy wonks) but it does not actually pre-empt state mandates. Rather, it prevents state governments from imposing any regulations on employers health care benefit plans. That's why the federal courts threw out Maryland's Wal-Mart Law, for example.
However, ERISA does not prevent states from regulating the policies that health insurance companies sell. Thus, if you are a small employer, the state can't tell you what type of health care benefits, if any, that you decide to offer your employees. However, if you buy your insurance from a carrier like Blue Cross, Assurant, etc., then you will have to buy a policy that covers in-vitro fertilization, alcoholism treatment and whatever else the state legislature, in all its wisdom, has decided it must cover.
The reason people often think ERISA pre-empts state mandates is that employers who self-insure -- i.e., they do not purchase their insurance from a carrier but, instead, run their own health insurance program -- can offer insurance with whatever types of benefits it wants, regardless of state regulations. Of course, only large employers (firms with at least 100 employees) have enough resources to make self-insuring feasible, so if you are a small employer or an individual, you are pretty much at the mercy of the state legislature.
The only surefire way to deal with state mandates is to let people buy insurance out of state. That will encourgate states to reduce their regulations so that in-state insurance carriers do not lose business. Unfortunately, the Giuliani plan only moves in that direction slightly.
Jerriet
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 2:12PM
James, in addition to being very clever in the name coining, you do make a point that the trophy wife stuff is uncalled for and wrong. My main point is that the discussion misses the really big problems with her involvement in the campaign and the defense by Novak and other seems to pretend the trophy wife allegation is the ONLY problem. It is the classic strawoman argument.
Paula Abdul/Diana Ross '08
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 2:09PM
There's nothing like a little adult contemporary music while on hold to get you in the mood for a presidential candidate's blogger conference call.
Rudy Care
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 1:55PM
Just a couple legal points. (I'm a lawyer, you're the health care guru so I feel safer here.) Tort reform cannot be entirely solved through federal action but it is a good start and has a significant impact on the legal system as a whole, as was seen with class action reform. As for state mandates, you certainly could pre-empt them through federal regulation. That is what much of ERISA has already done(some of these regs are likely subject to challenge already on this basis). This is what in other areas of the law, such as environmental protection, prevents a hodgepodge of contradictory and crippling regulations. For example, California emission control regs are under attack on just such grounds. As to your point about limiting interstate insurance purchases by allowing them only if in-state costs are not "affordable," I haven't seen anything yet on precisely what that means or who defines "affordable" so I just don't know if your fears are well founded.
RE: Rudy and Milton
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 1:04PM
Jennifer: Sorry, but calling Giuliani's plan "Milton Friedman Health Care" is almost as bad as calling Bill Richardson's tax plans "Art Laffer Economics."
First, with regard to the state mandates, nothing in the Giuliani plan actually eliminates those mandates (and it is doubtful the federal government could do much about them anyway since they are state laws. It is also doubtful in could do much to reform liability laws eithers, since those are also largerly state matters, but that is another issue.) What Giulian's plan tries to do is get the states to compete by letting people purchase out of state. This would encourage states to reduce mandates and other regulations, since consumers would go for the lower cost plans which would be more likely to be found in the states with fewer mandates and other regulations. But Giuliani's plan will barely achieve any such competition. By allowing only residents in states that do not have "affordable" insurance to purchase across state lines, you will limit how much pressure states feel to deregulate. My guess is that "affordable" will be defined so that only residents in the worst-offender states like New Jersey and New York will be able to buy insurance in another state. That's an expansion of freedom only in the slightest sense.
It is also vital to note that Rudy's plan also goes in the opposite direction, that of more government. Other planks in Giuliani's plan are "Drive Quality and Price Transparency," "Invest In Health IT to Reduce Medical Errors, Improve Efficiency, and Detect Health Threats," and "Infuse Incentives in Insurance Markets That Promote Wellness and Better Outcomes for Chronic Diseases." I doubt Friedman would want government to get involved in many of those things. Government trying to "improve efficiency"?! Given how well it runs the Post Office, you'd think the Giuliani camp would have more sense than to put that in there.
A few planks that offer a bit more freedom coupled with others than expand governments role? I think it is a safe bet that Friedman wouldn't want his name associated with such a plan.
I am also interested to see what the other GOP candidates come up with on health care. And let me offer them this bit of advice: you can do way better than Giuliani.
Barack Obama Welcomes...
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 1:04PM
...YearlyKos, if not exactly in style. Perhaps this is just a place-holder until his Saturday appearance.
Re: Jerriet Miers?
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 12:05PM
Jennifer, your analysis is pretty sound except that 'the' trophy wife issue actually is being pumped full of air by the media, despite the fact that Jeri Thompson doesn't, as a matter of fact, fit the profile. (Novak's point.) Surely this has something to do with the general reluctance of the MSM to attack a woman with the looks and the lifestyle to make her peers jealous for challenging the patriarchy by dint of her assertive professionalism. The fact is, calling Jeri too girly is hot and calling her too manly is not. As you suggest, stepping outside that pattern would itself, for many journalists, be an act of assertive professionalism.
Shock and Audacity Part Two
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 11:52AM
Peter Brookes has a New York Post op-ed about the folly of Barack Obama's "invade Pakistan" comments. I'm with him on the merits of the case, but I have to say that I am glad Obama has made this particular gaffe. It is nice to see that Democrats believe that military force is part of the solution against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. It is also nice to see that Republicans understand that sometimes invading a country to effect regime change can actually make things worse.
This is a foreign policy consensus I could live with.
CAIR Tactics
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 11:28AM
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has demanded that Young America's Foundation "cancel the scheduled session, or else take steps to ensure that false and defamatory statements are not issued" during Robert Spencer's scheduled 4 p.m. lecture today on "The Truth about the Council on American-Islamic Relations."
"You should be aware that Mr. Spencer, a well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims, has a history of false and defamatory statements," wrote attorney Joseph E. Sandler to YAFRon Robinson. "Several of those statements have falsely accused CAIR of activity that would constitute a federal criminal offense." CAIR's lawyers, Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C., are a D.C.-based firm specializing in "campaign finance and election law and the formation and operation of non-profit organizations."
When asked about the First Amendment implications of CAIR's demands, YAF spokesman Jason Mattera said that "CAIR's actions demonstrate blatant contempt for academic inquiry and free speech." Concluded Sandler's letter to YAF: "Our clients have instructed us to pursue every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false and defamatory statements that are made at the session," seemingly indicating the threat of legal action.
CAIR, which bills istelf "
The council has taken great pains to cast itself as a moderate organization willing to speak out against Islamic terrorism. But, as Spencer sees it, CAIR "always seems to be on the opposing side of anti-terror efforts." Staking his case largely on the council's reluctance to accept the St. Petersburg Declaration, which called for - among other things - the abolition of honor killings, for national government to "reject Sharia Law and fatwas," and "state-sanctioned religion," Spencer contends CAIR as a false moderate in the Islamic community. Spencer dubbed the declaration "the most comprehensive and forthright statement of Islamic reform anyone has yet managed to come up with." In a March 2007 article on its website, CAIR wrote off the "Great Pretenders" of the
CAIR's tactic of threatening legal action against those who critique it publicly -- or who critique its faith -- is nothing new. Spencer previously detailed CAIR's "War on National Review", in which the organization pressured National Review and the Conservative Book Service to apologize for featuring titles it deemed controversial. And in that case, CAIR won. Not only did the book service pull The Life of Mohammed, but also Serge Trifkovic's Sword of the Prophet, condemning the latter as "virulently Islamophobic."
Will CAIR have the same luck in forcing YAF to pull Spencer from the National Conservative Student Conference? "Absolutely not," claims Mattera. "In fact, we will invite more people to see him."
Rudy and Milton
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 11:22AM
The Upside of Carnage
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 10:55AM
I'm picking up a lot of chatter here about what a boon to the progressive argument the Minneapolis bridge collapse is going to be. "The country under bush is literally falling apart, literally crashing down," someone on the bench next to me just said and at the last panel the collapse was offered up as yet more evidence (along with the Manhattan steam pipe explosion) of how the Bush Administration fails working people--presumably because working people drive over bridges to work.
I'm having trouble focusing on the rhetoric right now, though, because I just paid $6 for a Diet Pepsi and a cranberry muffin. Still against price controls, but it isn't always easy.
Sexism or Campaign Lessons 101?
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 10:50AM
Good Morning From YearlyKos
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 10:41AM
"What did your psychologist tell you?"
Such was the penultimate query of the first panel of the morning, "Holding Congress Accountable for a Progressive Agenda." At last year's KosFest there was a joyous, we're-going-to-kick-ass-in-November! vibe to the proceedings. Today there's angry talk about faux progressives stabbing "the netroots" in the back once in office -- no immediate pullout from Iraq and defections on the hate crimes bill are the two most cited examples -- and grassroots activists so distraught they need to be "talked off the ledge."
Hence, the above quote, taken from an audience question to Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake. Ah, the sorrows of victory! We'll see if they cheer up once the cool kids who don't get up early enough for 8 a.m. sessions break up the current crowds of always crankier, frequently less optimistic middle-aged liberal activists.
Rudy and Fox
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 10:12AM
The New York Times provides us with another case study in sloppy journalism with this absolutely absurd story on Giuliani's relationship with FoxNews head Roger Ailes. First, the story teaser on the front page of the website reads:
Classic NYT. The self-validating truth. Once this story gets published, Rudy is facing "increased scrutiny." Largely because prior to this story, he was facing zero scrutiny.
The story then says:
Then the one bit of circumstantial evidence that they offer for this allegedly too cozy relationship is that he's had more time on FoxNews than any other Republican candidate--a whopping 13 minutes more than Fred Thompson, who hasn't even announced, and who didn't get back in the political spotlight until the spring. Yet it must be noted that Thompson first said he was thinking about running for president in March on Fox, was given 20 minutes with Hannity after the Republican debate to announce his imwithfred site, and has repeatedly found a friend in Hannity everytime questions are being raised.
Besides, the NYT singling out that one statistic is completely arbitrary. On MSNBC, Joe Biden has been on more than any other candidate. He's been on the station even more than Rudy has been on FoxNews. Is that significant?
Then the NYT, of course, quotes the lofty ivy league media watchdog type:
"It gets to be circular," Mr. Patterson said. "The more coverage you get, the easier it is to stay up in the polls. You stay up in the polls, you get more coverage. It's a cycle that the second- and third-tier candidates just tear their hair out about."
That might be a nice theory. Too bad that when you combine all of the broadcast and cable networks, Mike Huckabee has had substantially more air time than Giuliani.The story does discuss the friendship of Giuliani and Ailes, and how Giuliani intervened on his behalf, when FoxNews was blocked by Time Warner from getting a station in New York. And it offers a tidbit that is sure to cause Rudy yet another headache in the Republican primary:
Milton Friedman Care!?!?
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 10:00AM
Jennifer: I am going to have a longer piece on Rudy Care early next week, so for now just a few brief comments.
Dubbing it "Milton Friedman Care" is way off the mark. That description implies that it is a big expansion of freedom in health care. But the only ways it expands liberty is by letting people without employer-based coverage have access to a tax break similar to the one that those with employer-based coverage do, and allowing people to buy health insurance out of state.
However, the second one comes with a big catch. You will be able to buy insurance out of state only if your state does not have health insurance policies that are "affordable." Thus, if you live in a state where the federal government has deemed that you have affordable insurance, you cannot purchase insurance out off state. That leads to the big problem of how to define "affordable." I don't know how they will define it, since the Giuliani campaign hasn't gotten that far into the details yet.
What I do know is that Milton Friedman would gag at the prospect of government defining something that should be a judgment left to individuals.
Barry Bonds-Giuliani
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 9:34AM
Yesterday John Edwards had this to say about Rudy Giuliani:
So, first Edwards calls the War on Terror a bumper sticker. Now he's attacking Rudy for being a greedy capitalist. It's time for the Giuliani campaign to fess up: how much are they paying John Edwards?
I Like Larry Elder
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 9:29AM
From Townhall:
I did it again -- opened my mouth.I drove behind a car carrying two guys. Their bumper sticker read, "War Is Not the Answer." I knew better, but I pulled up next to them at a red light, rolled down my window, and said, "OK. If war is not the answer, what is?"
"Peace!" the driver angrily responded.
"Just curious," I said, "do you think people in Tehran drive around with bumper stickers like that?"
"So you support the war?!" his passenger shouted.
Gee, I thought, what a sudden change of topics. All I wanted to know, if war is not the answer, then what is?
"Which war?" I said. "Iraq? Afghanistan? World War II? The Civil War? Can you be a little more specific?"
The passenger turned purple. "The war in Iraq! And where are the weapons of mass destruction?"
"Look," I said, "I've got some bumper stickers in my trunk that say, 'Beheading Is Not the Answer.' Would you guys like a couple?"
"F--- off!" they said in unison. Their car roared off.
Ah, yet another example of the "return to civility" after the Democrats' recapture of Congress.
Must Viewing
Posted by on 8.2.07 @ 1:09AM
For a stunning interview -- in more ways than one -- don't miss the job BBC tried to do yesterday on America's best friend in Europe, Polish senator and recent Defense Minister Radek Sikorski. (Click to this BBC story, at which right at the top you'll find the link to the interview itself.) Among its striking features: 1. Its length; some 23 plus uninterrupted minutes. Our public affairs programming never allows for such thoroughness. 2. The absolutely hostile nature of BBC's Zeinab Badawi's questioning, a pro-Putin apologist who has every anti-American talking point down cold and knows next to nothing Poland itself. And, above all, 3. Sikorski's sharp-minded, thoroughly informed, and eloquent (what American pol speaks lovelier English?) responses and skill in parrying Badawi's cheap shots without ever once losing his handsome and likable composure. His American counterparts should watch and learn how it's done.
I use "counterparts" for a reason. In one of her few lighter moments, Badawi asked Sikorski if he'll run for president in Poland. He laughed the question off. But let it be known that at National Review 50th anniversary gala a few years ago, he was introduced to former Sen. Fred Thompson as having just been elected to the Polish Senate ("My sympathies," Thompson replied), and, perhaps on a lighter note, as a future president of Poland. Thompson didn't know how to respond to that. Soon enough he should know better.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Judges
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 7:24PM
UPDATE: Rudy Giuliani spokesperson Maria Comella issued this statement: "Judge Leslie Southwick is a distinguished and qualified candidate with a long record of service to his country who deserves an up or down vote. It is disgraceful that Democrats in the Senate have abdicated their Constitutional responsibilities to give judicial nominees an up or down vote on the full Senate floor. Rudy Giuliani will press the Senate for reforms to ensure that the nominations of qualified jurists are not left to linger by partisan Senators who are willing to compromise the courts for the sake of political posturing."
Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 6:37PM
Well, no guns please, we're Democrats. But according to the Associated Press, trial lawyers still love John Edwards. They reside in the better of the two Americas.
RE: Obama vs. Hillary
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 6:30PM
Well, I would imagine he would argue there is a greater al Qaeda presence in Pakistan, possibly including bin Laden and others with specific ties to 9/11. But the statement is more interesting for the reaction that it will get than for any window into Obama's own foreign-policy thought process.
Hillary v. Obama
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 6:25PM
Well with American Spectator and Jerome Armstrong making the argument Hillary won't need to send out Madeleine Albright to make her case again. But someone will have to explain why Obama is agreeble to attacking Pakistan but not Iran. Or is that ok now too?
RE: Obama vs. Hillary
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 6:18PM
Dunno Jennifer, but Jerome Armstrong has already gone there. (Hat tip: TNR's The Plank.)
Obama vs. Hillary
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 6:09PM
Wonder how long Hillary will take to label Obama's approach to attacking Pakistan "Bush-Cheney lite."
Obama's Shock and Audacity
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 5:25PM
Perhaps Obama decided to invade Pakistan after hearing reports that cynicism was hiding in Islamabad.
This and That
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 4:56PM
UPDATE: Spokeswoman Linda Rozett says that the amount represents only two months rent in McClean and first month's rent and security deposit in Nashville.
Ron Paul: Fusionist
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 3:18PM
As a likely Paul voter myself, I basically agree with Todd Seavey's response to John Derbyshire's musings about Ron Paul. But as much as I might not like it, Paul's antiwar views are likely to be a dealbreaker to many more conservatives than Seavey seems to think. And Iraq is not the only place where Paul's foreign-policy views differ from those of most conservatives.
Re: Fred for VP
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 2:49PM
Phil, I was as enticed as anyone by Fred Thompson's prospects -- up to about a month ago. But I'm afraid that, for Thompson, The Moment -- to do you-know-what or get off the pot -- has passed. Hard to see that moment coming, but when it's gone, you really know it's gone.
Amateur Hour
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 2:42PM
Anyone for hamfisted dirty politics? Here's an outfit calling itself Iowa Values Not For Sale, about which you can find nothing on the blogspot website it's put up in recent days, evidently only to attack Mitt Romney for not sharing any of those "Iowa values." You can watch its attack video on YouTube. It makes much of his flip-flop past, and lists all the donors helping Mitt "buy votes" for the upcoming straw poll -- all this to the accompaniment of a rather coarse rock song that, if my ears heard right, includes some vulgar if not obscene lyrics. Are we to regard them as representative of "Iowa values"?
Measuring "Liberaltarianism"
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 1:30PM
Tabin -- I wish I could agree and be done with this horrible apparition "Liberaltarianism" that stalks me without interruption through dreams and waking life. But Mike Gravel's unpopularity correlates less to his libertarian streak, I think, than to the tiny portion of public exposure he enjoys, and the large portion of that exposure that he dedicates to diatribes which can generally be described as unpolished.
The big picture I gleaned from Brink's magnum opus is that the failure of libertarianism as a political movement reveals precisely how staggering its successes have been as a cultural movement. Even gay pride parades are openly discussed among their former enthusiasts as passe, pointless, simply annoying. As I have been saying all along, liberaltarianism is mainly driven by a comprehensive agreement between liberals and libertarians on sexual mores, which are the virtually exclusive content of the code phrases "culture war" and "social issues."
Abortion has demonstrated what a waste of time it is to ram this huge (but still countermajoritarian) public consensus through the democratic process of representative government. The left has always been best at revolutions against politics in this country, and the most profitable lesson they have learned since 1968 is that overthrowing the power structure of the private sector is the best way to change the face of public policy from prohibition to permissiveness.
RE: The Issue That Can't Be Named
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 1:30PM
Forget Robert Samuelson and the entitlements crisis. Mark Thoma says that the real problem is rising healthcare costs. Which, I assume, he would deal with through another entitlement.
Measuring the Prospects of "Liberaltarianism"
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 12:57PM
There's no question that Mike Gravel has a libertarian streak. That Gravel is almost certainly going to do even worse than Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primaries is a telling indicator of how infertile the ground on the left is for Brink Lindsey's big idea, no?
My Funny Isolationist
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 12:49PM
Barack Obama: love you or hate you, the one thing he won't do is leave you the hell alone.
Rudy Care
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 11:31AM
Life After Roe
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 11:27AM
NRO has an interesting symposium on the question of why pro-lifers don't want to put women who have obtained abortions in jail. The person symposium participants are responding to is the banally liberal columnist Anna Quindlen, although this accusation has been repeated numerous times by the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudy Giuliani.
One caveat: It is still premature to speak in terms of "when" Roe is overturned.
Re: Murdoch In, Bancrofts Out
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 10:27AM
The alarmism, previously simmering, has exploded since the News Corp. deal to purchase Dow Jones was finalized yesterday, as The Washington Times' Jennifer Harper :
"The prospect of the Aussie vulgarian lording over the paper has whipped up an end-of-days gloom across the nation's newsrooms," according to a New Republic magazine editorial.
"Murdoch will tarnish a journalistic jewel," said MSNBC columnist David Sweet....
Mr. Murdoch runs a "propaganda
network" and the sale of the paper is a "dance of death," Eric
Alterman said yesterday in the Nation.
"That he devalues the privileges
and responsibilities of the press in America matters little to
Murdoch, who appears to care nothing for traditional notions of
respectability and treats journalists as no more important than the
people who use his newspapers to wrap fish and chips," Mr. Alterman
observed.
The squawking came mostly from the Left, but the deal reminded me of something the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell told me in an interview about six years ago:
BB: I did an interview on this last night. How do you explain this? Because the Rupert Murdoch brand of conservatism is the most irresponsible brand there is. It says that it is all about money. He is politically a conservative, but culturally he could care less. I think he just cares about making money.
The Issue That Can't Be Named
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 10:24AM
Robert Samuelson has a column out about a major issue that none of the presidential candidates are talking about: that is, the aging of the the baby boomer population. The numbers are staggering:
The 2030 projections are daunting. To keep federal spending stable as a share of the economy would mean eliminating all defense spending and most other domestic programs (for research, homeland security, the environment, etc.). To balance the budget with existing programs at their present economic shares would require, depending on assumptions, tax increases of 30 percent to 50 percent -- or budget deficits could quadruple. A final possibility: Cut retirement benefits by increasing eligibility ages, being less generous to wealthier retirees or trimming all payments.
I have long considered the looming entitlement crisis the most
important domestic issue, and have tried to make the case to big
government neoconservatives that if we don't deal with this mess
now, our ability to spend money on defense will suffer. There is
even evidence that this has already
happened.
Samuelson suggests as the beginning of a solution that some
Warren Buffett-like figure sponsor a book in which 6 leading think
tanks (three conservative and three liberal) offer their solutions,
with the goal of prodding the presidential candidates into talking
about it. Unfortunately, those of us who want action to resolve
this crisis are competing against human nature, which is always
focused on the short term. Once you talk about what is going to
happen in 2030, you lose the audience.
Fred for VP
Posted by on 8.1.07 @ 9:25AM
I know this might come across as a slap in the face to Fredheads, but the more I think about it, the case for a Vice President Thompson is pretty compelling. All of the attributes that Thompson supporters tout in their man (his charisma, his persona, his star power, his communication skills) would make him the ideal candidate to return the vice presidency to its historically symbolic role. If Thompson were to run for VP, the criticisms of him being lazy, slow moving, or lacking executive experience would be moot. Having him as a running mate would also make political sense, whether the nominee is Giuliani, Romney, or even McCain. No matter who it is, Thompson would add regional balance and help energize the ticket. As usual, all caveats apply. It's pretty silly to be talking about VP choices this early, especially because Thompson hasn't announced yet and could still win the whole thing. Furthermore, Thompson was tempted out of retirement by the prospects of winning the top job, so he may not have any interest in playing second fiddle. And conservatives may want to groom a younger politician as a VP candidate. On the other hand, it is also worth noting that Thompson built his acting career not by being a leading man, but by taking on supporting roles.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
It's Official: Murdoch In, Bancrofts Out
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 8:57PM
Just received this News Alert from the Wall Street Journal:
News Corp.'s $5 billion purchase of Dow Jones has been approved by the boards of both companies, which met separately over the past few hours. After three months of drama in the Bancroft family and public debate about journalistic values, the two companies are expected to sign a merger agreement and issue statements in the next few hours. The deal ends a century of Bancroft-family ownership at Dow Jones.
This, you won't believe is true
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 8:44PM
Beauchamp Update
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 7:40PM
Matt Sanchez is reporting from FOB Falcon, where Pvt. Beauchamp is stationed. Sanchez adds more in an email to Michael Goldfarb:
No one has seen or heard of the melting lady. No soldier would confuse an officer with a contractor. It just wouldn't happen. It's a small base and most people have seen each other. I just got back today and all these people I haven't seen in a month are welcoming me back. They don't know me, but they've seen me before.It sure sounds like the odds that The New Republic is going to be vindicated are dropping.
Tax Pushbacks
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 7:08PM
Congressional Democrats -- with some significant Republican help -- are trying to raise taxes on carried interest capital gains, viewing hedge fund managers as a promising revenue source. Many conservatives are resisting. Today's Wall Street Journal reports that some centrist Democrats, fearing unintended consequences and industry opposition, are as well.
This suggests Democratic efforts to raise taxes will have difficulty surviving public scrutiny. Let's hope this pushback keeps the Bush tax cuts from expiring as well.
Re: Iraq Encouragement
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 6:20PM
I attended a panel discussion on the surge back in March that featured Kenneth Pollack (see my post here), and while it is true that he supported the strategy, he was very skeptical that it would work. The reason he gave for supporting it at the time was that the surge was the only option on the table that, if successful, could prevent a full-blown civil war. To him, the risks associated with withdrawal were greater than the risks of trying the surge. So, Jim is right to point out that he has been a supporter of the war, and not some lefty who had a road to Damascus moment when he visited Iraq. However, by the same token, he has had a very measured approach to Iraq, and should not be seen as some ra-ra pro-war Bill Kristol type.
I think all of us war supporters should heed Jim's criticism of "the eagerness to cry 'turning point' whenever there is any encouraging data without waiting to see how long it lasts." Indeed, from the fall of Saddam's statue, to the capture of Saddam himself, to the elections, to forming a government, to the killing of Zarqawi, to various months in which violence decreased, those of us who support the war have gotten our hopes up before, only to be disappointed when a wave of new violence breaks out and the situation turns sour. I'm encouraged by some of these positive reports, but I'll only start thinking of it as a "turning point" if the situation continues to improve through at least the end of the year, and real political progress gets made. With that said, I'd love to wait "to see how long it lasts." Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress and opponents of the war have already declared the war a lost cause, and they want to start withdrawing our troops ASAP, without giving the surge a chance. So, to me, the question is not whether we are at a turning point. The question is whether there are enough encouraging signs in Iraq to justify giving Gen. Petraeus more time to implement the new strategy. I think there are.
Findings in Fred's Filing
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 6:03PM
Re: Iraq Encouragement
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 5:57PM
Actually, Jim, I don't really disagree with any of that. You're right that O'Hanlon and Pollack aren't quite the converts that many people (and maybe a few puppies) seem to think they are. And if Iraqi leaders don't make any political progress when parliament reconvenes in September, the military progress won't mean much. (The hope, of course, is that the military progress will facilitate the political progress.) I just wanted to point out how unserious some of O'Hanlon and Pollack's critics (present company very much excluded!) are being. (For more on that, see Jon Chait here and here.)
RE: Iraq Encouragement
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 5:21PM
John, I'm sure you won't be shocked to discover that I don't believe the O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed represents the sea change that some of my more hawkish brethren seem to think it does. O'Hanlon and Pollack are not converts on the war or even the latest strategy. They both supported the invasion and the surge. They both made optimistic predictions about the war dating as far back as 2003.
Sure, they have at times been critical of how the war has been carried out. So has John McCain; so has the Weekly Standard; so have most thoughtful supporters of the war. Both the op-ed and some conservative commentators reacting to it make the pair sound more opposed to the president's policies than they actually have been.
I understand the desire to counter Iraq negativity in the press and from paleo-ish cranks like myself, but the eagerness to cry "turning point" whenever there is any encouraging data without waiting to see how long it lasts is one of the reasons independents have begun to tune out pro-war arguments. It is premature to draw too many conclusions based on improvements from the July 30 Brookings Iraq Index versus the July 26 edition. And O'Hanlon and Pollack don't seem to pay enough attention to Iraqi political conditions, which is where the most drastic improvement is needed.
But I do agree that Josh Marshall's post is insane.
Re: Is Rudy Leading in the Early States?
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 5:20PM
Phil: It's worth comparing the candidates' performance in the ARG polls among Republicans vs. independents. In New Hampshire, where Giuliani and Romney are in a statistical dead heat among both Republicans and independents, it might not matter too much whether the percentage of independents in ARG's sample is representative. But in Iowa and South Carolina, a little bit of statistical noise on this front could make a big difference.
In Iowa, the sample of likely republican voters (those who "definitely plan to participate" in the caucuses) is 82% Republican and 18% independent. Romney is winning among the Republicans with 24% to Giuliani's 21%; Romney registers only 6% among independents, who back Giuliani by 25% and McCain(!) by 37%.
In South Carolina, Giuliani leads F. Thompson 29%-25% among Republicans, but Thompson crushes Giuliani among independents, 43% to 17%. The South Carolina sample is 90% Republican and 10% independent.
In short, if ARG is oversampling independents in Iowa, or undersampling them in South Carolina, Giuliani's leads in those states are illusory.
Secret Agenda Exposed
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 4:22PM
Oh no! The cat is out of the bag on the conspiracy among hawks to lose the Iraq war and then throw Josh Marshall and all of his friends into concentration camps!
Yes, the Data from Iraq Really are Encouraging
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 3:59PM
Yesterday Greg Sargent sniped at the much-discussed Michael O'Hanlon/Kenneth Pollack op-ed in yesterday's New York Times, charging O'Hanlon with ignoring his own data, collected for the Brookings Iraq Index. (Andrew Sullivan, of course, swallowed Sargent's argument whole.)
Sargent's critique, though, is based entirely on the July 26 edition of the index. There's a new (July 30) installment, taking into account data collected during the trip to Iraq that prompted the O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed. The data show encouraging signs, not only compared to recent months, but even correcting for the seasonal ebb-and-flow of violence. This is the first July since the war began that has seen fewer multiple-fatality bombings than the previous July.
Is Rudy Leading in the Early States?
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 1:01PM
The conventional wisdom is that Mitt Romney is the favorite in Iowa and New Hampshire, and that he hopes to build momentum by winning those states, while Rudy Giuliani is looking beyond the early states in hopes of winning Florida and the big states that are up for grabs on February 5.
Today, the Giuliani campaign is touting a new ARG poll actually showing Giuliani with thin leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. A few cautionary notes. When I say "thin leads," I mean it. In the polls, Giuliani is only up one point over Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire, and one point over Fred Thompson in South Carolina. Also, most of the polls I have seen have shown Romney with comfortable leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, and until I see more polls, I'll still consider him the frontrunner in those states.
With that said, if these ARG poll numbers get replicated in other polls, it will represent a major problem for Romney. Given that he consistently has weak showings nationally, the only justification for him being considered in the top tier is his strength in the early states. He has spent millions on television ads introducing himself to voters there, and Romney's supporters have pointed to his movement in the polls as an example of what happens when people get to know Romney. But Giuliani just started placing radio ads in Iowa and New Hampshire this month, and he finds himself in the lead in both states. Compared with last month, Giuliani has gone up four points in Iowa (so has McCain), while Romney, who had made gains every month since February, dropped four points from where he was in June. In New Hampshire, meanwhile, Giuliani surged eight points since the last poll.
I'll be watching closely for more Iowa and New Hampshire polls, and if any Romney supporters believe there's a reason why the ARG poll should be discounted, let me know.
UPDATE: Jonathan Martin has video of Donna Sytek, Romney's New Hampshire co-chair, saying it is "cloudy" whether Romney would win in the general election.
Rudy and Judi
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 12:23PM
If you visit the Vanity Fair website, right under video clips from Gisele Bundchen's cover shoot, you'll find this trashy hit piece on Judi/Judith Giuliani. Jim Geraghty has done a good job with the blow by blow, but I just wanted to cite one part that I found particularly indicative of the shoddy journalism, in which author Judy Bachrach speculates that there may be trouble brewing between Rudy and wife number three:
There's no denying that both Rudy and Judi have had messy personal lives, and I'm sure that will bother a certain portion of the electorate. But I admit that it's difficult for me to assess how a tabloid story such as this may affect the election, because I never find this type of stuff very interesting.
Iraq and 2008
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 11:38AM
Gallup is out with a poll today on how much Americans trust the leading presidential candidates on major issues, and it has what I believe to be a significant finding that offers some hope for Republicans, and should worry Democrats. Despite President Bush's low approval ratings and overwhelming public opposition to the war, the poll found that Americans trusted Rudy Giuliani and John McCain to handle the Iraq War slightly better than any of the leading Democrats. Specifically, 55 percent trusted both Giuliani and McCain, 54 percent trusted Obama, 51 percent trusted Clinton, and 50 percent trusted Edwards (just 39 percent trusted Thompson and 37 percent trusted Romney). What this suggests to me is that Americans are not necessarily looking for somebody in 2008 who opposes the war, but somebody who is competent. Because both Giuliani and McCain are well regarded by the general population, Americans are inclined to trust them on Iraq, even if they may disagree with their actual stances on the war. For Democratic candidates, this means that merely opposing the Iraq War will not be sufficient to earn American's confidence.
To me, this poll also reinforces the electability case for Giuliani. If Republicans have any chance of winning in 2008, they have to choose a candidate whose own brand transcends the Republican brand, which is badly damaged. The public's trust in Giuliani extends beyond his signature issue of terrorism (in which 69 percent trust him, more than any candidate on any issue). Giuliani is also the most trusted Republican on economic and healthcare issues. Based on this poll, you could also make a general election argument for McCain, who still performs competitively among the broad electorate. As for Romney and Thompson, it seems as though both of them perform as generic Republicans might, that is to say, not very well. Thompson still has an excuse. For Romney, the "low name recognition" defense for his weak showing in national polls is wearing thin.
Fair Tax- Candidates Be Ready
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 11:20AM
Start Spelling Trilby With A Capital "T"
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 11:06AM
CNN has a Q&A up with Trilby Lundberg, where the Lundberg Survey publisher calls out nanny-state regulators, over-eager environmentalists and alternative fuel mandates and subsidies for contributing to higher gas prices. It's all very interesting and well-worth a read, but something tells me Lundberg's final answer decrying the "boogeyman, also known as global warming" is going to make the trouble in River City look like a day at the beach:
I don't accept it as established fact, nor do I accept that it would be caused by petroleum consumption, nor do I accept that the human species should not affect its environment. So even if it were someday to be shown to have some small effect on the environment, I see no crime. In fact, taking into account the many, many millions of people around the world that envy our way of life, it would seem more humanitarian to wish them the kind of plentiful petroleum products and vehicles ... that we enjoy ... to lift themselves out of [a] backward, poor way of life
Fred Paradox
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 8:56AM
James, I think you did hit on something. Fred is great on a 30 second YouTube, but if you watch a live interview (he hasn't done many excluding Hannity but a Larry Kudlow one awhile back is very revealing) he doesn't seem like himself. That is because "himself" is a well made up, crisply dressed, sardonic Arthur Branch in many of our minds. I think Arthur would be an excellent candidate but we'll have to see about Fred.
Re: Fred's Paradox
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 8:37AM
Wlady: yep. Thing about movies, you get as many takes as you want, you can shoot the story completely out of order, 'fix it in post.' Could it be that American politics, in spite of the advertising budgets, the blast faxes, the email lists, the YouTubery, still centers around very old-fashioned theater?
Fred Money Coverage
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 7:00AM
The early reaction to the Thompson is mixed. The NY Times is remarkably restrained, quoting a GOP consultant to the efffect that "Putting that figure out - $5 million - and not meeting it was probably not a smart move from a messaging standpoint," but noting that "$3 million is nothing to laugh at." Conservative commentator Allahpundit at HotAir recites Thompson's excuse that $3M is acceptable since they are supposed to be raising only modest "testing the water" sums. He then notes: "That's fine, but in that case why were Fred's 'First Day Founders' initially asked to bring in $4.6 million? Or even $5 million? ????" The "we shouldn't be raising big money" excuse seems very odd indeed, since presumably they are trying to do just that with big fundraising dates in July (including ones in D.C., Atlanta, Baton Rouge, North Chatham, Massachusetts and Alabama), the total for which have not yet been released. But the good news, haven't found anyone talking about last week's staff shakeups.
"Lessons learned in the two months that former senator Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., has been "testing the waters": 1. Having a campaign shake-up does not require having a campaign (though having a meddlesome spouse helps). 2. Folksy observations do not answer questions about lobbying work on behalf of abortion-rights groups (and the flies called "opposition research" buzz really loudly come fall). 3. No one politician can possibly fix all the things that plague the GOP (even if that politician plays a problem-solver on TV). 4. Some actors look better in the middle distance than in tight shots."
RE: Thompson Fundraising
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 12:40AM
David, I don't think the Thompson numbers are earthshattering either from a pro- or anti-Thompson perspective. I just think it is becoming increasingly clear that the advantages Thompson gained by sitting on the sidelines have pretty much faded. Media attention to his "pygmies" comments aside, that was basically Newt Gingrich's experience.
My guess is the Thompson camp will move a little bit more briskly toward a declaration of candidacy. But who knows? The flies are buzzing.
Re: Fred's Paradox
Posted by on 7.31.07 @ 12:17AM
James: Very eloquent and perfect for a theatrical production -- but is there more to Fred than skill at pulling off a taped cameo or two in a movie production dominated by players much more skilled and of much greater artistic depth? No wonder he can't bring himself to announce. He knows his strength, and you yourself testifiy to its illusory power. He does command "sudden alertness and abiding interest" (the latter presumably only so long as he's not being overexposed). But how long can the effect last? Less is more in his brief movie scenes. But now he's being asked to be the leading man, a role he's never been asked to play nor shown any appetite for. Again, no wonder he's experiencing stage fright. He's being asked to walk a tightrope with no net below and everyone else primed to push him off.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Kids
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 11:14PM
Fred's Paradox
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 10:38PM
Fred's paradox is indeed that his campaign is not ready for him to meet his moment and his moment is ready to meet him.
The solution: declare his candidacy official on August 10 -- the day the Declaration of Independence, belatedly, but none the matter, reached London. Declare independence from the Bush administration, announcing as Newt rightly said one must that the Bush era is over, to be replaced by -- nothing.
That's right, nothing. The era of eras ought to be over for a little while too. No dynastic pendulum swinging party to party, Mrs. Clinton. No overheated, underripe audacity, Mr. Obama. No two Americas, no come home, America, no, not even morning in America.
It's high noon in America.
The decisive moment in our generational struggle isn't so much in Iraq as it is right here at home. Politics as usual has failed everyone, politicians not least of all. Never before have both the executive and legislative branches languished in the abysmal station of sub-30% approval. Polls don't tell every story, and not every poll even has a story to tell. But some polls can't lie. It's time for a return to life as usual -- a good dose of the common-sense sanity, plain thinking, and plain speaking (simple and elegant) that's the American equivalent of the British stiff upper lip and carry-on spirit.
No more gimmicks, no more posturing. The era of the red pickup truck is over for Fred, now that the era of the Ten Gallon Hat has tumbled like tumbleweed away from Crawford, Tex. and into the dustbin of a (very lowercase) history. No to the politics of identity, no to the politics of compassion, no to object modifiers, no to hyphenated conservatism, no to the demagoguery of ideologues, no to the infighting, backbiting, double-dealing, hornswoggling, earmarking, loan-sharking, border-busting, budget-busting, subcontracting nightmare of Federal government in this foul year of promises misused and opportunities betrayed.
Republicans flocked to Fred because of who the man is -- no other Fmr. Senator I can think of could command such sudden alertness and abiding interest. And people have sensed, I think, that the man is a fellow who can deliver these lines without false notes.
And that is what matters, for no other reason but that the need for their deliverance is an urgent need -- bearing witness to the truth in a way that inspires, in the moment of decision, those who might otherwise falter and sag and fade and fail.
What To Do
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 8:43PM
David, a great question. On one hand, there seems to be nothing but grief to be had by more waiting. I've been dogged in urging him to get in so logically I would agree that he should declare soon. He can say that he has heard the overwhelming cries to enter and will honor his supporters' wishes and get in now. On the other hand, he was avoiding an entry before September for a reason --what we're not sure, but a reason nevertheless. Is he personally not ready to deal with the media? Does he not have an advance team? (Cynics say he still wants his "Law and Order" residuals but what could a month's worth of residual checks be worth?) If he throws in the towel and gets in now and looks unprepared and disorganized then the "testing the waters" problem becomes a "real candidate" problem. On balance I would say get in, give it a go and show up in Ames to debate his foes. He could surprise everyone and get some momentum back.
RE: Thompson Fundraising
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 8:19PM
Jennifer, James and Phil: Any thoughts on what Fred's fundraising numbers mean for his "official" entrance into the campaign?
I don't see how can he can afford to hold off his announcement for more than another two weeks. The positive buzz he has generated by being a "non-candidate" candidate is over. It has been killed by an inept blunder on abortion that turned what should have been a two-day news story into a two-week one and then the shake up in his staff. Now it is clear they didn't raise enough money in June to be able to say, "Look how good we are doing even though our candidate hasn't entered the race." Indeed, quite the opposite.
For a candidate that's already in the race, this would be the time to start a new advertisement campaign or roll out a new policy proposal so as to stop the negative train in its tracks. Problem is, Thompson can't do either of those since he's not officially in the race.
Thompson needs to make it official, and during his speech announcing his intent to run he needs to outline his agenda for America, much like Rudy's twelve principles. This would get the positive press flowing again and help turn his campaign back in the right direction.
Thompson Defense
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 8:05PM
James, just a couple thoughts. First, they set themselves up for this expectations problem by floating big numbers and even set an initial goal of $4.6M from their big donors. Some loose lips then floated a $5M goal. It seems odd to say those goals were somehow not in the spirit of the "testing the waters" limits. Second, they certainly aren't playing by the letter of the "testing the waters" rules given Thompson's own statement that he has already made up his mind to run but isn't telling us what that decision is (too clever by half, most attorneys I've consulted with agree) and setting up a fully operational campaign structure. A little candor would go a long way here. But even their strongest supporters agree that communications is not their strongest suit.
UPDATE: New York Sun isn't buying it either and the ever amusing The Shot from South Carolina is skeptical as well.
John Roberts's Seizure
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 7:29PM
Not much to say until we learn more, other than to wish him well and hope that it is nothing serious.
Thompson Defends Fundraising Haul
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 6:02PM
Jim Geraghty posts the Thompson campaign's defense of their fundraising totals. They argue that they should be compared to other candidates in their exploratory phases rather than declared candidates' fundraising.
Bring Back the Snowman
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 5:09PM
Here's a YouTube questioner seemingly asking why the right to life doesn't protect the right to kill people.
Ingmar Bergman, RIP
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 2:46PM
I admit that my initial inclination was to title this post "Death Says to Bergman: 'Check Mate,'" but I resisted. More here.
Re: Thompson Fundraising
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 2:37PM
It's worth noting that on a quarterly basis that would be less than John McCain raised in the second quarter. To be fair to Thompson, his candidacy is still in the "testing the waters" phase, and under typical circumstances, it may be impressive for a non-candidate to raise more than $3 million in a given month. On the other hand, Thompson has chosen to do things the way he has, and skyrocketed to the top tier by dipping his toes into the race late, at a time when the waters were inviting for a viable conservative alternative. There are advantages to "testing the waters" (and avoiding a lot of disclosure requirements), but this is another example of the disadvantages. While this may be a fine number under normal circumstances, given all of the buzz Thompson is generating, it will be portrayed as a disappointment.
Meanwhile, Dave Weigel comments on a Thomspon speech on Saturday:
On Saturday Thompson spoke to the American Legislative Exchange Council conference in Philadelphia and ditched his usual conservative sloganeering for a speech on federalism. Depending on who you ask it either was politely, gamely received or it was a snoozer that was easily upstaged by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. "We had to nudge a woman at our table to wake her up," one attendee told me. Larry Eichel's report in the Philadelphia Inquirer found people who liked the speech but in a very meta sense: "it takes courage to do something more thoughtful and philosophical in this sound-bite culture." In other words: "it was boring but it's what he needs to do."
Money
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 2:09PM
Buzz is starting about Fred's June fundraising number which will be released tomorrow. Politico, echoing prior leaks, says it's in the range of $3M. This would be $1.6M less than the First-Day Founders pledged to bring in. The Romney camp is more than happy to point out that they were up to $3M between 1 and 2 pm on their first fundraising telethon day which netted $6.5M. $3M is not the eye popping sign of a Fred groundswell they would like but if the pace has picked up and the July fundraisers are showing strong results nothing prevents the Fred folks from releasing the July figure. I think this is not a money problem but an expectations problem which the new Fred team will need to address. There really are drawbacks to entering late and trying to make a grand entrance.
RE: Rudy Rx
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 1:49PM
I was on the conference call as well, and thought it would have been more useful if it were held after Giuliani's speech tomorrow morning, which would have allowed his advisors to offer more details and enabled reporters to ask more pointed questions. Much of what I heard, I liked--particularly about the opposition to mandates, and making it easier to purchase out of state healthcare. The Giuliani campaign cautions that while Rudy will be putting more meat on the bones tomorrow, he will not be unveiling a detailed, book-sized plan for healthcare at this point. Rather, this is just another step in the ongoing process of putting together a plan.
Politically, healthcare is one area where Giuliani clearly has an opportunity to position himself to the right of Mitt Romney, whose
Giuliani And Health Care
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 1:34PM
Finished up a conference call about an hour ago with the Giuliani people regarding the health care plan Hizzoner will release tomorrow. I'm looking forward to it, for two reasons.
First, Giuliani appears to be surrounding himself with the right people on health care. The health care advisors to Giuliani that participated in the conference call included Mark McClellan, Sally Pipes, David Gratzer, and Stephen Goldsmith--on health care, solid free marketeers all.
Second, Carl Cameron of Fox News asked what cost containment policies would be included in Giuliani's proposal. I don't recall who answered the question, but the gist of the answer was that the best type of cost containment is consumers getting value for their money. To me, that meant letting choice and competition work to drive prices down, like they do in markets that don't feel the heavy hand of government.
If that sort of thinking informs the entire Giuliani health care proposal, then those who favor free markets in health care will finally have something to cheer about in this presidential election.
UPDATE: And if I really like the plan, I will do a write-up for the Spectator. But only if I learn to spell Giuliani first. No promises on that.
Rudy RX
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 12:10PM
Rudy had a conference call with his health care gurus and lead Domestic Policy Advisor Stephen Goldsmith. They did not unveil any specifics but outlined general principles --market based competition, no mandates for indivdual or employer converage, and encourage state innovation. He does have line up of conservative thinkers in this area and seems to be staking out the position that many Democrat plans as well as the Romney Massachusetts approach take us down the wrong road. Rudy will speak tomorrow and we will know what this all means in practice. More details to follow.
UPDATE: To clarify, Rudy was not on the call himself. They put
all the gurus on the phone but offered few
details, clearly not wanting to step on Rudy's lines for
tomorrow.The most meaningful point to be gained is that he does
have an impressive line up of conservative thinkers -- including
Goldsmith(former Bush domestic policy advisor and innovative Mayor
of Indianapolis) and Mark McClellan (former FDA head) so those
concerned about innovative policy and not allowing the Democrats
to monopolize the health care debate will be pleased.
Progress in Iraq
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 10:45AM
Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, who have both been critical of President Bush's handling of the war, have just come back from Iraq and have taken to the NY Times op-ed page to report genuine progress taking place. They note high morale among the troops, better cooperation between U.S. soldiers and their Iraqi counterparts, and more and more responsibilities being taken on by Iraqi security forces. They also note that "General Petraeus's determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave."
While a lot of challenges remain--especially on the political front--the authors conclude, "there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."
How Good Is That 3.4?
Posted by on 7.30.07 @ 10:43AM
A lot of folks on the right are pretty happy that the economy grew at a rate of 3.4 percent last quarter. Look a little closer, though, and the GDP numbers are a bit more mixed.
Private invesment grew by 3.1 percent, ending its three-quarter slide. That's good news because it is investment that drives much job growth. On the bad side, consumer spending slipped to 1.3 percent. Hope that doesn't continue. The last time we had consequetive quarters of consumers spending lower than 2 percent was during the recession of 2001.
The growth rates for private investment and consumption are both lower than the total growth rate of 3.4 percent. So what is making up the difference? Government spending, which grew by 4.2 percent last quarter. Thus, government's share of the economy, at least for the 2nd quarter of 2007, is growing faster than the private share.
Looked at that way, that 3.4 percent just doesn't seem all that exciting.