- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- 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 25, 2007
Re: Fred Rollout
Posted by on 8.25.07 @ 1:34PM
Jennifer: What evidence is there that Fred could attract a huge live adoring crowd before which he'd announce his candidacy? He might have had his opportunity at CPAC last winter. But now?
Read Rudy's Lips
Posted by on 8.25.07 @ 11:56AM
In New Hampshire (still home to no state income tax) Rudy unveiled his tax cut commitment. Keep the Bush tax cut, cut corporate taxes, index Alternative Minimum Tax, tax credit for health care (already introduced as part of his helath care commitment but in the battle of proposals with Romney they included it here as well), and expand tax free savings accounts. Rudy will argue that his record of 23 tax cuts in New York is a better record than his opponents. We'll see if Club for Growth or other fiscal conservatives agree. However, on this issue, any of the Republicans will be better than any of the Democrats running. If there is one issue in the general election which will cut Republicans way, this is it. If Hillary is elected taxes will be going up -- a lot -- in 2010.
Fred Rollout--On Video?
Posted by on 8.25.07 @ 2:49AM
Robert Novak reports Fred Thompson will announce his candidacy by video -- an idea suggested by Newt Gingrich. Does this sound like a good idea for a guy whose recent live speeches(like at the VFW) didn't get great reviews and who has to demonstrate he's more than just a TV personality? Seems like a huge live crowd (showing he's got a functioning advance team), a speech without notes and a jog through an adoring crowd would be best designed to show he's in fighting form. Maybe Newt knows best, but aren't his opponents going to be snickering that he is "still acting like a TV star" if he opens this way?
RomneyCare
Posted by on 8.25.07 @ 2:04AM
Romney did reveal his healthcare proposal yesterday. In his PowerPoint presentation he set out to explain his Massachusetts plan experience and then offer a national plan based on improving state innovation and lessening state regulatory mandates on insurance, offering tax breaks for individuals to buy insurance, and malpractice reform. The Romney team offered up his PowerPoint presentation and pointed to coverage (here and here for example) explaining his plan. There was minimal coverage at the conservative blogs, not I think, because of any disagreement with the plan, but frankly because it was rolled out on a Friday afternoon in August. The Rudy camp spotted the similarities to Rudy's own plan and an aide declared: " If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, let's just say we're blushing now." I leave it to David and other gurus to dissect the plan and explain how it differs from Rudy's plan (Is there anything in there about promoting an interstate insurance market? Didn't see it but those Powerpoint slides go by fast.) It is clear he removed a target for his opponents by declining to take Commonwealth Care national. His opponents are now left only to complain that the new plan represents another policy about face by Romney. As in immigration, I think most voters want to know what you're offering now and Romney clearly wants to offer a conservative alternative to the Democratic plans.
Friday, August 24, 2007
TNR's Military Expertise Strikes Again
Posted by on 8.24.07 @ 11:55PM
In Jon Chait's hit on Bill Kristol, he wrote:
The theme of traitorous liberals is becoming a Standard trope. Last week's cover depicted an American soldier seen from behind and inside a circular lens--as if caught in the sights of a hostile sniper--beneath the headline, "DOES WASHINGTON HAVE HIS BACK?" The Weimar-era German right adopted the metaphor of liberals stabbing soldiers in the back. Kristol is embracing the metaphor of liberals shooting soldiers in the back. I suppose this is progress, of sorts.Jonathan Cohn, defending his colleague, doubled down on this claim today:
And then, just a few weeks ago, there was the cover Jon mentioned in his column--the one featuring an American soldier, viewed through what looks like a gun-sight, and the headline "DOES WASHINGTON HAVE HIS BACK?"I just glanced at my copy of the 8/13 and suddenly noticed: The cover, which is shot through some kind of night-vision lens (hence the green), obviously does not depict a sniper scope. There aren't any crosshairs! No wonder these guys got snowed by Beauchamp.
Hour of the Yawn
Posted by on 8.24.07 @ 4:55PM
"You know a documentary is a yawn when the biggest laugh from the audience comes when James Woolsey quotes Winston Churchill." --Kelly Jane Torrance on Leonardo DiCaprio's new enviro-documentary.
Southern Strategies
Posted by on 8.24.07 @ 3:42PM
Matthew Yglesias disagrees with Paul Krugman about the role of race in turning the South Republican, arguing that economic and social conservatism did shift Southerners toward the GOP, not just racism. Noting the role white supremacy played in the South's pre-civil-rights political alignment Yglesias writes, "Racism is a key part of the story, but it plays a much bigger role in explaining why Adlai Stevenson and John Kennedy won South Carolina than in explaining why Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush won there."
Yglesias is mostly right, although there has always been a constituency for a liberal-ish economic populism in the South. On economics, George Wallace, for example, was no conservative. But I think he raises a point that is often lost in the chest-beating over the Republicans' Southern Strategy. The Democrats followed a similar strategy into the early 1960s.
Liberal Democrats like FDR and Adlai Stevenson included segregationists on their tickets to keep the Jim Crow South in the Democratic electoral coalition. Lyndon Johnson did not support civil rights legislation until he decided to run for president. The fact that Johnson's pre-presidential civil rights record was worse than Barry Goldwater's didn't disqualify him from John F. Kennedy's ticket in 1960 -- it probably helped him get on the ticket. Woodrow Wilson was both a progressive and a segregationist.
Neither Richard Nixon nor Ronald Reagan ever supported segregation. Nixon played a key role in integrating Southern schools and expanding affirmative action. For all the talk of Willie Horton and "white hands," the South's realignment toward the GOP had far less to do with race than the Democrats' century-long hold on the region. But nobody ever says that the Democratic victories of the 1930s and '40s were tainted.
In Defense of Earmarks
Posted by on 8.24.07 @ 12:35PM
Rahm Emanuel comes out against the porkbusters in the New York Times.
RE: Geez, Pick Your Battles
Posted by on 8.24.07 @ 12:29PM
Unbelievable. Joe McCarthy was actually right!
Sorry, I couldn't resist...
Re: Geez, Pick Your Battles
Posted by on 8.24.07 @ 12:10PM
Now the hysterics at the New Republic are comparing Bill Kristol to...Joe McCarthy. Have they no shame?
RomneyCare
Posted by on 8.24.07 @ 11:26AM
I"m not the only one to notice that Romney's health care plan doesn't sound a bit like Commonweath Care. Nor am I the only to spot that it does sound somewhat like another candidate's proposal. Probably a smart move since it bypasses criticism like this, doesn't get Romney into the business of suggesting a nationalwide mandate for individuals to buy insurance and sets up a greater contrast with Democrats' plans. More later after Romney rolls out his Power Point slides.
UPDATE: John Hood gives some good analysis here as does Yuval Levin here.
Pat Toomey On Two GOP Candidates
Posted by on 8.24.07 @ 10:32AM
Pat Toomey, President of Club for Growth, was good enough to answer a couple of email question about CFG's recent white papers.
Would it be correct to characterize your evaluation of Romney as cautiously optimistic and Huckabee as decidedly pessimistic?
Yes, that is a correct observation. Economic conservatives should be very concerned about Mike Huckabee's economic policies, especially in light of the left-wing populism he is brandishing of late. Indeed, some of his statements bristle with hostility towards limited government and the free market. While Governor Romney's economic record is not perfect, his record as governor is better than Huckabee's and his rhetoric on the campaign trail has been, for the most part, strongly pro-growth.
How key is political speech to your analysis and how does this tie to fiscal conservatism?
Political speech is very important to the Club for Growth's analysis. Unfortunately, none of the first-tier candidates have outstanding records on the issue, though several are at least moving in the right general direction. Senator McCain's continued support for restrictions on political free speech and cavalier disrespect for the First Amendment were weighed heavily on his economic record in our white paper analysis. Political free speech is one of the most basic building blocks of a free, open, and prosperous society. When government strays from pro-growth policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.
The full white papers are here and my piece on the records of the two former GOP governors running for president is here.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Romney and Abortion
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 9:09PM
On this I think Marc Ambinder is right and ABC news not in that Romney didn't again change his position on an eventual constiutional amendment banning abortion. However, this is one of those instances which both supporters and opponents use for their own purposes. Supporters point to this as evidence the MSM is "out to get" Romney and opponents point to it as an indication he is still fishing around for a position. Bottom link: I don't think these additional stories are changing anyone's mind.
Polls and Stuff
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 6:55PM
Four separate polls tell a similar story: Rudy remains the frontrunner nationally but will face stiff competition in early states, Mitt Romney is showing progress but has limited appeal so far outside the earliest primary states, Fred Thompson has slipped somewhat, John McCain is sliding from the first tier and Huckabee shows movement. Nationally, the Fox poll shows Rudy expanding to a 15% lead, up two pts, with Fred down and Romney up two, McCain down nine, and Huckabee still at 3%. In
No, Really, We Scold Because We Love
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 4:03PM
From a Wal-Mart Watch email:
Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart on the basic principles providing the American public with affordable, quality, American made products and fairness and dignity for all its workers. But in recent years, Wal-Mart's profit hungry management has abandoned Sam Walton's ideals in favor of beefing up their bottom line.
See, this SEIU front only wants Wal-Mart to be as super as possible. And maybe to force it to support socialized healthcare.
Yon Yonson on the Iraq War
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 3:29PM
Not to take anything away from Ross Douthat's thoughts on the Iraq debate, but the best part of this post is Steve Sailer's Yon Yonson comment.
The Counterinsurgency Business
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 2:44PM
The excellent Michael Yon has another must-read from Iraq, or at least the first part of what promises to be four must-read parts of a series. Yon shows a real understanding of what makes the Iraqs tick. Key lines:
The sheiks of Anbar turned against al Qaeda because the sheiks are businessmen, and al Qaeda is bad for business. But they didn't suddenly trust Americans just because they no longer trusted al Qaeda. They are not suddenly blood allies. This is business, and that's fine, because if there is one thing America is good at, it's business.
Read the whole thing... and look forward to the next three parts.
Re: Management Skills
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 2:32PM
So, Wlady, what I want to know is, who kicked the field goal for the Orioles?
Management Skills
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 12:54PM
Yesterday on the car radio I heard Baltimore Orioles President for Baseball Operations Andy McPhail introduce his team's new permanent manager, Dave Trembley. McPhail said he couldn't of anyone "more deserving to lead the Baltimore Orioles in their future" and described Trembley as "someone who can be most effective for what this franchise needs at this time." Whereupon, Trembley's boys took the field a few hours later and and got creamed by the lowly Texas Rangers, 30-3. (Yes, that's a football score, the biggest competitive wipeout since the Dream Team's defeat of Angola in the '92 Olympics.) And it wasn't even a road game. If, as McPhail suggested, the future is now, what will tomorrow bring? In such conditions, even life as a hard time emulating sports.
Club For Growth
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 12:34PM
If you haven't had a chance to go through the Club's white papers on leading GOP contenders I urge you to do so. If you need the Cliff Notes, NRO has a helpful interview. According to Club President Pat Toomey, Romney is a "mixed bag" but Rudy "was more successful in implementing pro-growth reforms in New York City." Huckabee? Trying to "hoodwink" voters on his economic record. Ouch. (Huckabee of course is in a battle of words with Club for Growth, labeling them "Club for Greed.") A white paper on Thompson will be forthcoming. The Democrats? Toomey says they are "desperately trying to outflank one another on the Left."
Evening The Score
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 12:10PM
The Right Blogosphere unlike its counterpart on the Left, has been said to be more insterested in policy ideas and political observations than activism. Some folks want to even the score a bit. ABCPac which raised $300,000 in the 2006 cycle is now back at http://www.rightroots.com. They aim to be a conduit for donations to conservative candidates. With blogging guru Patrick Ruffini on board you know the website is sleek.
A Blue Christmas After November 2008?
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 11:47AM
Liberal blogger Chris Bowers paints the electoral map blue after comparing state-by-state polling of match-ups between Hillary Clinton and both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Giuliani does better than Romney, but in either case the results don't look very good for the Republicans.
I'm not sure about Bowers' methodology -- I've heard other comparisions showing Giuliani ahead; Romney's name recognition is still much lower than Hillary's -- and don't buy his analysis about the great progressive march of the electorate. But I do think he's on to something about the liabilities of the GOP going into 2008.
Compete for the Tankers!!!
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 9:20AM
Over at the Weekly Standard, Bill Roggio and Michael Goldfarb do an excellent job covering the same tanker issue I covered in these parts a few weeks back, and they reach the same conclusions, includng the most important one that in a totally sensible one, the contract would be split between Boeing and Northrop/EADS. Here's the kicker, though: As both Roggio and Goldfarb agree (and, for that matter, as is pretty generally accepted), the Northrop plane is a "more capable aircraft." If the Air Force does not award at least part of the contract to Northrop, it will represent another example of politics taking precedence over performance. As I argued before, and as the Standard guys agree, and as all good conservative/free market types ought to agree, the best idea is almost always to promote competition -- and if the contract is split up for now, it will ensure that BOTH companies have incentive to do a good job, because this is just the first of a series of air-refueling tanker contracts that will be awarded.
re: Scandalous
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 8:20AM
You're too nice, Quin. I'd call the coastal elites bigoted from the outset -- and for years. Do you know how common japes like these are? "My parents belonged to the CIA -- Catholic Irish Alcoholics." Or, "I'm a recovering Catholic."
We Don't Care If We Get Any Revenue
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 4:34AM
Tax increases for private equity firms have become the favorite populist pander tax proposal for Democrats. A new study showing that efforts to treat carried interest as ordinary income wouldn't generate much new revenue. Will this dissuade Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates from pushing this? Likely not, according to Charlie Rangel's spokesman. CBO already told them this and now Professor Michael Knoll's study corroborate what many conservatives have argued: firms will restructure and work around new legislation. But these issues have long since ceased to be about revenue but rather are tools in the class envy wars. Expect Rangel, not to mention the Democratic hopefuls, to keep banging the drum on this one.
Romney Questions
Posted by on 8.23.07 @ 4:23AM
After bundling up in August to watch baseball at AT&T Park in SF some Romney news is worth noting. Romney will be rolling out his health care plan on Friday. His Massachusetts plan drew fire from CATO( here and here) and other conservatives by imposing individual mandates and injecting government into the healthcare market, although they gave him credit for restraining the worst impulses of the liberal legislature. However, indications are that -- like Club for Growth -- he will conclude it is not the basis for a national plan and offer a decentralized, market oriented plan. For those like me who like policies and concrete proposals by which to compare the candidates I look forward to hearing what Romney has to say. Meanwhile, some eye Romney's negatives and electability in light of the new Rasmussen poll and ponder why Romney's negatives now surpass Hillary. We commneted on this when Gallup showed the same and suggested his negatives are going up over time. Is this the result of the flip flop issue? The McCain jibes which didn't help him but soured voters on Romney? He is perhaps the most formal and even stiff of the GOP contenders, lacking Fred and Rudy's regular guy accessibility and Huckabee's humor, but it sometimes remains a mystery why a very qualified, smart and capable politician doesn't connect, and indeed, is off putting. I still think it is early and Romney has time to make his sale. Unfortunately, it is harder to change minds once an impression is formed.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Re: Geez, Pick Your Battles
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 6:29PM
Quin: TNR's history of excellence is exactly why I'm so fascinated by the Beauchamp scandal. The late Bill Bradford used to say that he'd be thrilled if Liberty was as well-written as TNR. It breaks my heart to see a great magazine self-immolating.
As for Jon Chait's TRB, Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry make quick work of it. Ramesh cuts to a key point: "Perhaps Jonathan Chait has made overheated and unfair statements from time to time? I don't think it would be reasonable to take one of those statements and use it to create a theory of his essential thuggishness."
Re: Geez, Pick Your Battles
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 5:31PM
Good points, John. Let me just say that if Kristol is a "thug," I am proud to stand in the ranks of the thugs.
Frankly, I want to like The New Republic. I have written for its online version in the past, and have been an avid reader of it for nearly two decades. But in the past two years or so it has moved back from center-left to its earlier position on the plain old Left -- and in doing so, it has also gotten nastier and more shrill. It saw fit last year to let Ryan Lizza get away with a bigoted slur against poor white southerners (I responded with a strong e-mail to Lizza, which he ignored), and it increasingly falls prey to name-calling of the sort Chait uses in his diatribe against Kristol.
The editors at TNR ought to grow up. I'll take Kristol's consistency, erudition, and class any day over their name-calling.
Keep It Simple, Stupid
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 5:29PM
Apple picking is one area where the impact of actually enforcing the immigration laws can't be reduced by applying them only to "new" hires. The apple pickers are hired anew each season, apparently, and would be caught up in any effective new-hire screening. One possible solution is the existing agricultural guest-worker program, which the administration has pledged to streamline. The other obvious possible solution, should crops start rotting, is ... lax enforcement (or, if you prefer, prosecutorial discretion).Mickey endorses the latter approach. (Well, sort of -- his point is a bit more subtle than that.) But how about just, you know, letting more immigrants in? Or absorbing the economic consequences of enforcement because it's worth it (which I take to be the position of principled restrictionists)? Must immigration policy always involve silly worst-of-both-worlds half-measures?
Geez, Pick Your Battles
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 5:11PM
You know, I thought Bill Kristol's first column on the Beauchamp matter (then the "Scott Thomas" matter) was a bit over-the-top. But devoting a TRB to attacking Kristol? While TNR continues with its embarrassingly obscurantist approach to the Beauchamp matter? Come on. The more energy they (and their writers) expend attacking their critics -- while continuing to ignore much of the substance of the critiques -- the harder it is to believe TNR's claims that they take the questions about Beauchamp's articles seriously.
One Last "Catholic" Note
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 4:18PM
It is worth noting that some of my Democratic friends from Louisiana, to their credit, are equally appalled by the anti-Jindal ad. As well they should be. Sen. Mary Landrieu, somewhat of a moderate/split-the-difference pol on "pro-life" issues, faced fellow Catholic Suzie Terrell in 2002. Terrell, a Republican, had once been at least as far to the "choice" side as Landrieu is, but made a big show of being firmly pro-life in 2002 (and denied that she ever had been anything but -- which was false, by the way: Suzie has long been at least somewhat of a friendly acquaintance of mine, and I remember her as being clearly "pro-choice," at least by LA GOP standards). Anyway, Suzie kept going after Mary on the issue, and one time (I think it was on Meet the Press) she went so far as to say to Landrieu that "I'm a better Catholic than you are." It was the sort of comment that has no place in a political campaign. It was despicable. And Mary Landrieu quite rightly took offense at it.
The difference was that Suzie blurted that out in the heat of a debate where both women were really going at it in harsh tones, and it wasn't a deliberate appeal to bigotry AGAINST a religion. The state Demo ad against Jindal was a cold, calculated, paid advertisement that clearly tried to foment anti-Catholic feeling. If despicableness can have degrees, then the Demo ad is more despicable than the idiotic statement by Suzie Terrell. But having seen their own Sen. Landrieu be victimized by a religiously based attack, the poohbahs at the state party should be even less inclined to sink to that same sort of game.
The party of Mary Landrieu and John Breaux should not sink to those depths. The problem is that so many New Lefties are running around these days, even the LA Democratic Party may not any longer be the party of relative centrists (and basically decent people) like Landrieu and Breaux.
Russian Dissident Released
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 3:48PM
To follow up on my story from a week ago, journalist/dissident Larisa Arap has been released from a Russian bughouse. From Bloomberg:
A Russian journalist won release after 46 days of forcible confinement in a psychiatric hospital, a case human rights groups likened to the Soviet-era practice of locking up dissidents in clinics.
Larisa Arap, 48, who had written an article on maltreatment of children at a mental clinic in the northern city of Apatity, was hospitalized against her will on July 5.
More here.
Yes, Scandalous
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 3:17PM
Yes, James, to some on the Left, it really is scandalous if you believe in the core teachings of the Catholic Church. Note how quick the Left was to assert that the only reason the Supreme Court refused to outlaw a law against partial birth abortion is that five members of the Court are Catholic. Note how quickly Chuck Schumer repeatedly says he worries about the "deeply held beliefs" of Catholic court nominees while almost never using that language about non-Catholics. Note how, in the battle over Bill Pryor's nomination to the court, a very confused Dianne Feinstein was all aflutter about a Pryor speech to his Catholic high school alma mater because she thought Pryor was suggesting that American government ought to be Christianized, when in fact Pryor was quoting Thomas Aquinas to argue that the graduating students, as Catholics, have a duty to participate in civic and political life--in other words, to be good citizens. Hence the headline to my first piece on the Jindal controversy, namely "No Catholics Need Apply." It was a reference to a commercial run against the Democrats for their opposition to Pryor --an ad led by the visual of a big wooden door with that saying scrawled on a banner across the door. The Dems had an absolute fit over it, and the MSM backed up the Dems, saying that the ad was accusing the Dems of anti-Catholic bigotry. No, that's not what the ad did: It said that the EFFECT of the Dems' questions and their bizarre standards for what disqualifies a nominee from confirmation would be that it would keep all strict, traditional Catholics from the court. Not the INTENT, but the EFFECT. And the ad was largely accurate. Now the state Demo Party of Louisiana has gone further. Not only the effect, but the intent, of their ad against Jindal is to inspire or at least benefit from anti-Catholic bigotry. It is the single most vicious and despicable American political ad since LBJ ran the "Daisy" ad attacking Goldwater. Indeed, it is probably worse than the Daisy ad. But the ad, and Kos' response to it, amplify an underlying truth: To many of the elites of the New Left, traditional Catholicism is indeed scandalous, not to mention frightening. The national Democratic Party ought to be forced to publicly state whether it stands with the New Left, and with the Louisiana Demo Party, or whether it rejects such bigotry outright.
RE: Kos Is Just Plain Stupid
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 2:52PM
So Jindal is a Catholic who actually believes in the core teachings of Catholicism. Scandalous!
Kos is Just Plain Stupid
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 2:39PM
Okay, I have now read the Kos piece attacking Jindal and defending the scurrilous ad run by the LA Demo Party. I therefore update my earlier blog to make room for the possibility that Kos isn't so much hateful as he is just plain stupid or utterly ignorant of what he tries to write about. His analysis of Jindal's column shows absolutely no understanding of the subject matter.
I myself am a Protestant, and I disagree with a number of Jindal's points. I similarly disagree with the same number of the Catholic Church's points on those topics, because Jindal ACCURATELY portrayed those points and the church's position on them. I know this, because I was a theology major at a Jesuit University and have studied this stuff. Indeed, it is on just some of these points that my disagreement with the Catholic Church and Jindal keeps me from becoming a Catholic. BUT NONE OF THAT IS TO SAY THAT ANYTHING THAT JINDAL WROTE, OR THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PREACHES ON THOSE POINTS, AMOUNTS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO A SERIOUS INSULT TO PROTESTANTS. What Jindal wrote is a fairly unremarkable exposition of Catholic doctrine, and I as a Protestant am not offended by it even though I disagree with much of it. All that Jindal is doing is explaining why he believes his is the one true Church; but he does not insult Protestants in so doing, but quite explicitly, in the very passages quoted by Kos himself, invites Protestants to consider his points seriously rather than dismiss them.
To repeat: Jindal offers not an insult, but an invitation. It's as if a Mason invited a non-Mason to become a Mason, or even as if a Yankees fan invited a non-Yankees fan to become a Yankees fan: The invitation may or may not be one that the recipient wants to accept, but only a truly twisted recipient would consider the invitation an insult rather than a generous gesture.
The point here, by the way, is not to analyze or discuss the theology itself at issue, but only to explain the basic thrust of what Jindal was attempting in that long-ago essay. To actually use that thoughtful and generous essay as grounds for a political attack ad, somehow asserting that the essay expressed a vicious bigotry against Protestants, is to utterly mispresent the essay and is itself a clear attempt to play into any anti-Catholic bigotry that may or may not still exist in heavily Protestant North Louisiana.
It is contemptible, and even if Kos is merely stupid or ignorant in what he writes (rather than downright hateful), it is contemptible for Kos or ANYBODY to defend the ad and repeat the slander against Jindal.
No Catholics Need Apply
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 11:43AM
In light of today's web publication of my print-edition piece on Rep. Bobby Jindal, it is worth asking why the so called mainstream media have not made front-page coverage of the Louisiana Democratic Party's disgusting, bigoted, slanderous, tawdry ad accusing the LA GOP gubernatorial candidate of somehow being viciously anti-Protestant because of WAY out-of-context quotes taken from a highly thoughtful piece Jindal wrote years ago for the New Oxford Review (full story available only with payment). Redstate is one of the sites that have done excellent takedowns of the Demo ad, but Kos himself has shown his true, hateful colors by defending the ad. (I will try to find the Kos link later.) Louisiana newspapers are ripping the state Dem Party for the ad, and early word is that it will cause a backlash in Jindal's favor. As well it should. Any leading LA Democrat who doesn't publicly disavow the ad is guilty by association with the rankest sort of bigotry. In a follow-up post, I will explain why this is par for the course for at least some large swaths of the Democratic elites.
Coincidence?
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 11:24AM
Rudy is rolling out his tax commitment this weekend in New Hampshire. Coincidence it comes days after Club for Growth concluded its mixed review of Romney's tax record? Club for Growth said this about Romney:
"Overall, Romney's record on tax policy is mixed. His record is marred by questionable statements and positions, and his fee hikes and "loophole" closures are troubling. However, his support for broad-based tax cuts in liberal Massachusetts together with his enthusiastic embrace of the Bush tax cuts on the campaign trail offers hope that Governor Romney's previous ambivalence on tax policy is more a function of Massachusetts politics than his core beliefs."
I think we're entering the season of comparison campaigning.
Guns and New York
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 11:13AM
I wondered why a bit of Fred Thompson's attack on guns was aimed at Bloomberg who isn't a Republican and now isn't running. NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notes that both Romney and Thompson are attacking "New York" as a way of avoiding naming Rudy directly and also raising the specter of "liberal New York City" which they hope will inflame conservatives. Ironically in the post-Giuliani world I wonder how effective it is to label NYC as the liberal bogey man. If an accurate assessment, it does point up the degree to which some of these candidates have abandoned eastern and urban voters (who actually like New York, especially since they can walk around at night after a Broadway show). One more reason why, if he can pick up a victory or two in the early states, Rudy will clean up with New Jersey, Illinois, New York, etc. on Super Duper Tuesday.
Or It Might Be All About John Edwards
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 11:08AM
This landed in my e-box this morning:
To: Interested Parties
From: Joe Trippi
Re: Karl Rove's Worst Nightmare
You may have seen Karl Rove's recent attacks on Hillary Clinton in the news. This is a page straight out of his tired old playbook-Rove is attacking Hillary Clinton because he doesn't want John Edwards to win the Democratic nomination.
Rove knows that Democrats will rally around whomever he attacks-so he attacks the candidate he thinks Republicans can most easily defeat. It may seem backwards, but Rove and his cronies did the same thing last time around. In 2004, they were scared of John Edwards, so they attacked John Kerry.
Lord, that's devious. So what can we do to save our democracy from this newly-minted Retired Menace? Don't worry. Trippi's gotcher marching orders:
Can you make a contribution today-and send Karl Rove the message that his efforts to influence the Democratic primary won't work this time?
Oh, and if you have no cash-on-hand, apparently running Rove over with a bus works as well.
It's All Terror Management
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 10:55AM
Here's some non-Beauchamp TNR for you. While John Judis is a good enough writer and reporter to give this piece a veneer of polemical seriousness, arguments from political psychology tend to have a strained and contrived quality to them. This article is no different. Judis basically endorses the idea that Bush was reelected because voters were grappling with their own sense of mortality and fear of death -- a "terror management" theory. Why else would West Virginians be so spooked by terrorist attacks and same-sex marriage when few attacks and gay weddings were likely to happen there?
Nowhere does Judis seriously grapple with the possibility that culturally conservative voters might really just believe preserving traditional marriage is important and that Bush's approach to handling terrorism was preferable to John Kerry's. After all, the 2004 election did happen after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's same-sex marriage decision, the 9/11 attacks, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Secondly, Bush carried West Virginia in 2000, before any of these events had occurred and thus before the war on terror or same-sex marriage were considered as pressing as they were four years later. Bush saw even greater improvements in certain counties of New York and New Jersey, presumably because of 9/11 rather than a rewakening of these voters' traditional religious views after they came to grips with their own mortality. Bush carried the Staten Island borough. His national vote percentage improved by three points over his 2000 showing.
I'm not sure all this requires a doctorate in psychology to understand, though it might make one sound more dispassionate when being condescending toward Bush voters.
Conservatives Don't Read, Schroeder Says
Posted by on 8.22.07 @ 10:21AM
Pat Schroeder, former simpleton Congresswoman from Colorado, now heads the American Association of Publishers. In a recent interview here she says conservatives don't read as many books as liberals do, because "The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple of slogans." Schroeder was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found that self-professed liberals read more than self-described conservatives.
The statistical difference, in fact, is very small: 9 books a year for liberals, 8 for conservatives. (That's an average two weeks for most readers I know.) And could it be that conservatives have found New York-based traditional book publishing such a bastion of liberalism that they find little or nothing to read in current offerings?
Some years ago, when my oldest son was little, I wrote down a series of stories I had made up to tell him, The Big Brown Bear Stories (you can find them on the Wayback Machine, mayhap). Among other things, the characters went to church. They were not preachy stories, church was just a part of their lives.
I looked over the current list of children's books to see if there was a likely publisher, and found lots of books about ethnicity and broken families and such, but nary a trace of church. Christian publishing, indeed, long ago set up an entirely separate industry outside New York -- mainly in Tennessee.
If Schroeder's comments signify anything, it is that elite prejudice against conservatives as stupid has become fully institutionalized.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Fred
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 7:08PM
He spoke before the VFW. Coverage is remarkably sparse but the text is solid if not exceptional. He calls for "frank and continuous" conversations with the public about Iraq but I'm unclear as to whether he is as committed as McCain to the present strategy. Meanwhile, he goes negative before entering the race --taking on Rudy for suing gun manufacturers (and also taking to task now un-candidate Bloomberg for sting operations in states like my home state of Virginia). Not surprisingly, team Rudy chides him for going negative and zaps him with this: " Those who live in the real world -not on TV - know that Rudy Giuliani's record of making the city safe for families speaks for itself. No amount of political theater will change that." Usually a candidate declares, sets out a set of policies, frames his own image, explains why his background qualifies him for office and then goes after his opponents. We'll see if Fred's way works instead.
UPDATE: A rival emails less than enthusiastic Fox coverage noting Fred "stuggled at times" delivering his speech.
Battles Continue
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 6:56PM
After a day of travel to the SF Bay Area (note to file: marketplace is already saturated with "Impeach Bush" stickers), it seems the GOP candidates have been busy. Jonathan Martin has an excellent recap over the rivalry between Rudy and Romney over Club for Growth reviews -- Romney's mixed (although team Romney's emails edit out the bad parts) and Rudy's from earlier in the year more glowing. Will Club for Growth endorse Rudy? I'm betting yes, unless Fred makes it too close to call. Next, immigration battles continue. Team Rudy responded to the new Romney ad with a "fact check" including some familar arguments ( e.g. four sanctuary cities in MA, New York City never "officially declared itself a sanctuary city," and Romney's didn't "deputize" his troops until he headed out the door and the plan was never implemented.) They did include one new tidbit: Romney claimed in a Fox interview that governors didn't act against sanctuary cities ("But governors don't do that. There's no governor in America that's done [that], ever.") No quite right. Bill Owens in Colorado passed legislation to require local and state officials to report illegals and threatened to pull funding from sanctuary cities and Pete Wilson in California banned sanctuary ordinances. Kate O'Beirne and I don't get why Romney picked this particular issue. Since there's plenty of ammunition going the other way it seems a wash at best. The better test: who has the most credible plan and what do the candidates plan to do with existing illegals. Rudy's teams says Romney in a 2005 interview advocated that they only "register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits and pay a fine before applying for citizenship" although he now talks only about the natural attrition of illegals after the borders are closed and employer sanctions go into effect. Rudy's guru is noncommittal, only saying we need to plug the leak in the boat. Fodder for the debate on September 5 in New Hampshire.
Poor Amy Winehouse
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 5:31PM
Even Britney Spears didn't sing about rehab before it became her destination.
Re: "Marketplace" Interview
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 4:09PM
The link to the "Marketplace" interview with Raymond James economist Jeffrey Saut may be found here.
Beautiful Hair, With a Moron Hanging Off of It
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 2:50PM
"I'm going to be honest with you-I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?" -John Edwards, making every verbal gaffe of George W. Bush's look trifling.
re: Blog Collegiality
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 2:15PM
Wlady, I, too, admire Jennifer's energy -- wish I had some of it. And I acknowledge her expertise. I just think too much is too much.
I have done a web search to try to find the source of this observation (in vain), which I heard yesterday on NPR's "Marketplace." They were interviewing the chief economist from a large brokerage firm. He said that Fed intervention might or might not work, in the long term, but that the market itself would solve our ills quicker if there were no intervention.
He used the striking metaphor that we were "waiting for a body to float to the surface" -- like Long Term Capital Management in 1998. And he said he thought the Fed dropped this discount rate last Thursday evening because "somebody very high up" was concerned that "somebody very important" might go belly-up.
I told my wife that observation -- she's in finance -- and she said that that somebody very high up might well be European banks, which invested heavily in U.S. mortgage debt obligations.
Congress
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 1:36PM
Is now at an all time low in approval--18%. As much as President Bush is struggling, Congress is worse-- by a lot. Does this affect the debate and vote in September on the Surge? Perhaps not. Liberals will play to their base, conservatives to theirs and the small segment of those whose views are not cast in stone will nervoulsy eye Gen. Petraeus and the opinion polls for guidance.
O-R-I-O-L-E-S!
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 1:10PM
It wouldn't be my cheer, but may Baltimore's most colorful fan, "Wild Bill" Hagy, rest in peace.
I tried to find some video footage of him, but none appeared on a Google search. Must have fallen victim to a Major League Baseball re-broadcast rights ban.
Update: There is a short video clip at the obituary linked above.
Re: Blog Collegiality
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 11:32AM
Larry, you've yanked me out of my slumbers. I happen to like Jennifer's postings. I like her intensity and deep expertise and sharpness and perspicacity. Whenever I see such qualities I only wish she had many emulators and on many other fronts. Phil Klein is away this week, leaving Jennifer a freer political hand. But there are countless other topics of merit and the opportunity is there for any one of our contributors to weigh in and mix it up. My mind goes back to the intense discussion of Fed rates the other week, which for all I know set in motion last week's ups and downs on Wall Street. I keep wondering when Howard Kurtz will address the press aspect of the Eliot Spitzer case. And how long will the New Republic enjoy a protected free ride from its confreres in the MSM? Finally, did anyone read the absolutely embarrassing apologia for Barry Bonds in last week's New Yorker from none other than self-appointed baseball authority Roger Angell?
Club for Growth
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 10:48AM
Club for Growth is out with its assessment of Mitt Romney. It is not the glowing, near endorsement of Giuliani , nor is it the indictment it doled out to Huckabee, but there is a little something for everyone. It labels his record " generally good" and says they are "reasonably optimistic" he would enact a p[ro-growth agenda. They praise his support for free trade, low regulation, tort reform and school choice. However they also have some harsh words saying his history is "marked with statements at odds" with his record as Governor. The report continues: "His strident opposition to the flat tax; his refusal to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003; his support for various minor tax hikes; and his once-radically bad views on campaign finance reform all cast some doubts on the extent and durability of his commitment to limited-government, pro-growth policies." As for healthcare, Club for Growth says it displayed "a mixture of desirable pro-free market efforts combined with a regrettable willingness to accept, if not embrace, a massive new regulatory regime." Worth a full read.
Romney Messages
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 10:20AM
Romney advisor Jim Talent, former Senator from Missouri, has an op-ed praising Romney's Massachusetts health care plan. Some accused Romney of "hiding" from this accomplishment or being nervous about touting a health plan that had an individual mandate to buy insurance (and might therefore sound too "Democratic") in the primary. However, neither appears to be the case. What cutting crime and taxes is to Giuliani (accomplishments that distinguish him from his rivals) healthcare is to Romney. We'll see if his opponents begin to attack his record, pointing to cost increases and the less than universal coverage which resulted.
Romney also has an ad going up in early states which attacks sanctuary cities and pledges that as President he'll cut off funding for them. Pretty gutsy for a someone who had four of his own sanctuary cities and did nothing about them.
UPDATE: An NRO commentator suggests "If I were on team Rudy, my next ad would ask about the sanctuary policy of Mitt's front lawn."
Blog Collegiality and the Presidential Election
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 10:15AM
This morning, for what seems like the third, fourth, or fifth week in a row, I opened the AmSpec blog to find six out of the first ten posts from Jennifer Rubin, all of them on the Presidential race, and most of them longer than anybody else's postings. I feel about this race much the same way Wes Pruden does: I wish somebody would take it out and shoot it. So I'm impatient with the subject matter, for starters.
A group blog is a conversation, not a monologue. Jennifer, if you've got that much to say, start your own blog, sell your own advertising, and reference it here -- see the examples of James Poulos, John Tabin, and Shawn Macomber.
For now, the way it is, I find the AmSpec blog nearly unreadable, and that's a pity.
Hillary Moves Ahead in Iowa?
Posted by on 8.21.07 @ 1:09AM
It is Zogby, but at least it is a telephone rather than robo or online poll. It shows Hillary in first at 30%, Edwards at 23% and Obama at 19%. If Hillary wins Iowa it's hard to see anyone stopping her march to the nomination. Iowa is where Edwards has camped out for months and months and plans his breakthrough. (It would be like Rudy winning Iowa or New Hampshire-- a potentiallly devastating defeat for opponents who have put their chits on an early state win to generate momentum for Super Duper Tuesday.) Is this a blip or does this mirror the move Hillary has made nationally-- steadily pulling away from the field? With all caveats about early polls, if other polls echo this one Hillary will be breathing easier.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Testing, Testing, One Two Three
Posted by on 8.20.07 @ 8:37PM
A liberal blogger filed a complaint against Thompson saying he abused the "testing the waters" rules. Having researched and written about this a bit I'd say there's more than a little merit to the claim. However, as a practical matter, the FEC takes eons to investigate these issues (and the penalties are rather minor) so any action or settlement would likely occur sometime into the next president's first term. As a political matter, the downside of the extended testing phase I think has outweighed any benefit Thompson derived and that, if anything, will be the only political penalty paid. A liberal media complainant filing just weeks before Thompson declares anyway isn't going to do any damage to him. Pundits and his opponents may grouse that he played all the angles like a Washington pro but this is not going to mean anything to the average voter. That said, I'd bet in the future very few candidates will try this gambit of an extended testing phase.
UPDATE: It seems Thompson may not get a pass on this
from his opponents. From a rival campaign: "All the ah-shucks in
the world cannot explain the utter hypocrisy of Fred Thompson's
interest in transparency and disclosure as a champion of
McCain-Feingold-Thompson in the Senate and his apparent interest in
skirting the law as he stumbles towards a presidential
bid."
Noam Scheiber Accidentally Describes TNR
Posted by on 8.20.07 @ 4:02PM
"The level of defensiveness and intellectual isolation here is pretty remarkable," he writes. You mean like the way The New Republic has reacted to evidence that they've printed fabrications by acting like it's the people who've collected that evidence who are somehow out of line?
Clinton Family Values
Posted by on 8.20.07 @ 2:47PM
Mike Huckabee has some kind words for the Clintons. Of particular interest, the socially conservative candidate says this:
Just let's not let it get lost on us that they kept their marriage together. They raised a magnificent daughter. Chelsea is truly a delightful human being. ... She's polite, thoughtful, intelligent and everything you would hope a daughter to be. But they kept their marriage together.And a lot of the Republicans who have condemned them and talk about their platform of family values, interestingly, didn't keep their own families together. Give Bill and Hillary Clinton credit for doing something we say they should have done and that is hold their marriage together in spite of enormous trials.
Maybe that could be interpreted as a dig against Rudy Giuliani, but I'm thinking it was aimed at least in part at Newt Gingrich.
Again?
Posted by on 8.20.07 @ 2:12PM
Burson Snyder, press gal for Thompson, departs with this: "I support Senator Thompson fully and plan to assist in any way I can in the future, but I plan to pursue a better professional fit." According to Politico, she didn't like the "uncertain lines of authority and chain of command within both the communications team and the broader campaign staff." In my brief contact with her she was professional and helpful. More importantly, she actually had experience working on a campaign and for a candidate. The Thompson press shop badly needs an experienced national campaign communications hand.
McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 8.20.07 @ 11:57AM
McCain received only one campaign related question (about an audit of his campaign spending--yes an internal audit is almost complete), with virtually all the discussion about Iraq and related problems with Syria and Iran. On the Dem debate, he acknowledged they seem to be racing for the exits and expressed the view that the Dems have lost track of the idea that parties and presidents don't lose wars, "nations lose wars." He continues to make the case that the Surge is working. His view of the political situation is sober and realistic. On one hand he notes that he "can't say I'm even guardedly optimistic" ; on the other hand he sees signs of local political progress and hopes to see support from the central government for Sunni chiefs who have now taken up the fight against Al Q'aeda. He is candid that there is simply no alternative now to Mailiki. A little news: he intends to organize a "No Surrender Tour" around the country, enlist veterans and try to drum up popular support for the continued war effort. Meanwhile he sees it critical that the Senate vote count for a withdrawal date be kept below 60. Although President Bush would veto a bill with an end date, it would represent a "huge setback" for the war effort and Democrats would take to including an end date in all legislation. General Petraeus will deliver his report on September 11, according to McCain, and debate will start on September 18. On Iran and Syria he clearly sees the need for a tougher policy and recognizes the destructive role both are playing. He's not sure it's time to bomb the Damascus airport but pursuing the UN investigation of their role in the Lebanon assassinations is high on his list. Coralling a "league of democracies" and pushing economic sanctions to deal with Iran, he also suggests moving troops from Anbar, where progress has been made, to try to close off the border, although he is under no illusions the border can be sealed.
On balance: if you are a believer in the Surge and think we can't leave Iraq yet, you should be gratified to have McCain on your side. However, he is gradually shifting from the role of viable presidential candidate to leader of the war effort. If he is successful in the latter perhaps he regains his standing as a top contender.
Debate- What was Said and Wasn't
Posted by on 8.20.07 @ 10:57AM
Some conservative pundits didn't think much of Hillary and the Dem debate. I think there's plenty to worry conservative. One topic they didn't address: immigration. On this, Republicans pushing a border security first plan seem to have a winning approach for the general election. An interview with Rudy's immigration guru is up and even McCain has come around to the view that the first order of business is to re-establish the public's faith that we can stop the flood of illegals and re-establish border security. How different the GOP race would be had McCain come to this conclusion earlier in the year.
Richard Miniter on Scott Beauchamp
Posted by on 8.20.07 @ 10:46AM
He's got some great stuff. Interestingly enough, Beauchamp really did have a German girlfriend -- he just decided to illustrate this on his blog a picture of an entirely different German girl (blogger Claudia Heym). Miniter interviews the poor girl, who Beauchamp proposed to before breaking it off. He seems to have a habit of proposals; I've wondered about the short timeline on the Beauchamp-Reeve relationship, and this helps explain it. (Impulsively asking girls to marry you is a symptom of the sort of personality disorder that would lead one to fabricate articles, no?)
Miniter also interviews Robert McGee, the fired TNR leaker first known to Ace of Spades readers as "Gracie." I tried and failed to contact McGee a couple times, but Miniter is a much better reporter than I am. Still, a correction is in order -- it's not true that Beauchamp's first TNR contribution has "been completely ignored by bloggers and the press" -- See here. (It has been ignored, however, by TNR.)
This and That
Posted by on 8.20.07 @ 1:08AM
1. This suggests Bloomberg won't be running -- a good thing for the GOP nominee I think.
2. Bob Novak reports that Thompson supporters are putting great weight on his first debate appearance and may not in fact be there in New Hampshire on September 5. He should remember that George W. Bush "ducked" a debate in the Granite State in 1999, contributing to bad press and giving John McCain an opening which he exploited.
3. The RealClearPolitics polling averages and helpful graph show Rudy widening his lead a bit, Romney unmistakably moving up, McCain sliding substantially and Thompson slipping some. Does this all change when Thompson formally enters?
4. The Washington Post editorial page continues its unblemished track record of being entirely reasonable and rational on judicial nominees (unlike the New York Times it opposed Democrats' efforts to block Roberts and Alito) by supporting the confirmation of Judge Southwick.
5. David Broder touts Mike Huckabee's chances, while revealing just how much his candidacy rests on anti-free trade, populist and class envy themes. Isn't one John Edwards enough?
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Talking About Prayer
Posted by on 8.19.07 @ 9:25PM
"I don't pretend to understand the wisdom and power of God. I do believe in prayer. I am very dependent on my faith, and prayer is a big part of that." Mike Huckabee? No, Hillary Clinton.
"I believe in the power of prayer. Part of what I pray for is the strength and wisdom to act on the things I can control." Mitt Romney? No, Barak Obama.
"My sense of social justice comes from being a Roman Catholic. Prayer is personal. It is important that we have faith, that we have values, but if I'm president I am not going to wear my religion on my sleeve." Rudy Giuliani? No, Bill Richardson.
And from John Edwards: "I pray daily. I prayed [when] my 16 year old son died, prayed before Elizabeth was diagnosed with cancer. There are some things beyond our control ... I don't think you can prevent bad things happening through prayer."
In case you thought Democrats didn't learn a lesson from 2004 or didn't think they could successfully make inroads with religious voters, the above quotes from today's debate should give you a sense that Democrats are not conceding the value voters to the GOP.
Rudy Makes His Pitch
Posted by on 8.19.07 @ 9:02PM
"You cannot manage what you do not measure." That is the Rudy mantra from his time as New York City Mayor and the subject of his column for Reason. It is detailed review of the highlights of his time as mayor-- reducing crime, taxes, and the welfare rolls. I think there are several reasons for putting this out. His campaign believes that although Americans know about his role on 9-11 they still do not know about his record as Mayor and they intend to keep telling voters about it. Knowing that conservatives are, like most Americans, not pleased with the level of competency and efficiency in Washington the Rudy camp also will push the argument that going from muddled management to Rudy management would be the biggest change to hit government, well, since Rudy took over New York City. Finally, I believe they are convinced it is an effective strategy for differentiating Rudy from the other GOP candidates. John McCain and Fred Thompson lack executive experience altogether. As for Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney I expect in the weeks and months ahead for the Rudy team to argue that his record shows greater fidelity to conservative principles than his opponents. There is a reason, for example, that he keeps repeating that he cut 23 taxes-- none of his opponents came close.
Thoughts on the Democratic Debate
Posted by on 8.19.07 @ 12:39PM
As we have seen in recent debates Hillary was polished and assertive. Barak Obama had one of his better outings, mixing humor (He prepared for the debates by "taking a ride on the bumper cars") with his appeal to Democrats looking to turn a page on the last 20 years -- read "and that includes the Clintons" -- of politics. Joe Biden continues to sound the warning on Iraq that if we leave the country in chaos our grandchildren will be back to fight and the region will be engulfed in chaos. Rudy Giuliani will be pleased to record there was no mention of the threat of "Islamic terrorists." If you don't like free trade, market based solutions to health care, drug companies or merit pay for teachers (with the exception of Obama) you heard much to make you happy.
Michael Deaver, RIP
Posted by on 8.19.07 @ 1:19AM
The longtime aide to President Reagan has died. Apparently some of the old media conceptions of Reagan have not, however.
- Waging Jihad Through the American Courts
- There He Blows Again
- Constitution Care