- 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, September 1, 2007
Senate Headaches
Posted by on 9.1.07 @ 8:51PM
Re: Michigan and Iowa
Posted by on 9.1.07 @ 6:13PM
Thanks John. Yes, makes a whole lot more sense. And corrected.
On Iowa, Executive Director of Iowa GOP Chuck Laudner tells me today for now Iowa is not contemplating any date change because of Wyoming's move to January 5, but stay tuned.
Jamie Kirchick in the Lion's Den
Posted by on 9.1.07 @ 4:06PM
Lured into a guest-blogging gig at Andrew Sullivan's place, the poor guy is forced to spend all his energy arguing with his smug, not-nearly-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are co-bloggers. Fortunately, he's doing a good job of it.
Craig Out
Posted by on 9.1.07 @ 2:26PM
He's resigning, effective September 30. Idaho Gov. Butch Otter will most likely appoint Lt. Gov. Jim Risch to fill Craig's seat.
Re: Michigan
Posted by on 9.1.07 @ 2:12PM
Jennifer's post below makes a lot more sense when you click through and realize she meant to type January 15, not March 15. Got the Ides of March on the brain, Jennifer? Maybe you were thinking of this story.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Michigan
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 10:32PM
Michigan is moving its primary to March [CORRECTION: January] 15. What key fact may determine the outcome? On the day of the primary a voter can walk in and request a ballot of either party. Therefore, just like in New Hampshire, independents may play a key role. This may especially true in the GOP race. DNC Chairman Howard Dean is pressuring Democratic contenders to take a "don't campaign in states other than NH, SC, Iowa and Nevada which jumped the line before February 5, 2008" pledge which, if followed, could greatly depress interest and turnout by Democrats in Michigan. Who does this help? Undoubtedly Rudy and McCain who are appealing to moderates and independents. (You recall in 2000 McCain squeaked out a narrow win in NH among GOP voters but took a huge chunk of independents to get a substantial win.) Good luck to the campaigns and their pollsters in figuring out who will vote and in what numbers (the same problem which bedevils them in New Hampshire). Will this offset Romney's advantage from his family name and from his large and well organized operation in the state? The next big event there is September 21-23 at the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference at which all the GOP contenders will speak. Although the candidates will be talking at different times and on different days in some cases, this may be the first opportunity for primary voters and press to see how Thompson stacks up against the competition. This may be THE state primary to watch.
Re: Gay Marriage in Iowa
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 6:24PM
Dale Carpenter, who knows as much about gay marriage jurisprudence as anyone, seems unimpressed with the decision: The due process argument "is contrary to all of the state high court decisions on the issue, including the ones ruling for gay marriage or civil unions," and the equal protection argument is likewise "contrary to the vast majority of decisions (even pro-gay-marriage decisions)."
Re: Gay Marriage in Iowa
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 4:33PM
Virginia Senate Race
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 3:56PM
The Club for Growth is wasting no time. It has already issued a press release denouncing Tom Davis:
Before Tom Davis even entered Congress, he was already to the left of his Republican colleagues, telling the Wall Street Journal that spending cuts “may get out of control” (12/19/94). Unfortunately, little changed over his thirteen years in Congress. His record is riddled with anti-growth votes, from his support for out-of-control government spending, his fondness for increased government regulation, and his bristling hostility for political free speech and property rights....
"Tom Davis has one of the most economically liberal records among Republicans in the House,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Since Republican voters in
Virginia are decidedly economic conservatives, it’s hard to see howcould win a statewide primary.” Davis
Do I sense a Draft George Allen movement brewing?
Huck Media Call
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 3:36PM
Gay Marriage in Iowa
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 3:10PM
A judge in Iowa has ruled that same-sex marriage is a (state) constitutional right. I've given the decision a quick read; a distressing amount of it is given over to policy arguments for allowing gay marriage, most of which I agree with but none of which are relevant (except under the dubious "balancing test" that the judge is applying). As for the constitutional arguments, my impression is that the due process argument is extremely weak -- and, given the wording of Iowa's constitution, where the due process clause is almost the same as it is in the US Constitution, would imply that the Supreme Court of the US should impose gay marriage on the nation. The equal protection argument seems somewhat stronger, based on the wording of Iowa's equal protection clause (which is more specific than its federal cousin), but it assumes that gay people constitute a "class of citizens" for constitutional purposes -- in other words, that the relatively new concept of sexual orientation should be legally treated the way that race or gender is. I somehow doubt that the framers of Iowa's constitution had homosexuals in mind when they drafted their constitution in 1857, and imposing sexual orientation onto the racial framework that they did have in mind (they were writing an anti-slavery constitution) has some odd implications. If the government can't deny you a marriage license because you were born without the capacity to have a healthy heterosexual relationship, why can they deny you a driver's license because you were born without arms? (I know, one might object to that analogy on various grounds, but it's only one of several reasons to be extremely cautious about undemocratically imposing changes in marriage laws.)
I don't know enough about the Iowa Supreme Court to predict whether this ruling has any chance of surviving on appeal. As for the political implications, I think Stanley Kurtz's analysis gets it about right.
John Warner To Retire
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 2:44PM
Via Roll Call. This sets the stage for a potential primary battle for what will be one of the tougher seats for Republicans to hold on to in 2008, especially if popular former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner decides to run.
Re: Craig's Right To An Attorney
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 2:21PM
Rational, nonaddictive people find it difficult to imagine how otherwise functioning adults can behave so irrationally and contrary to their own best interests. But they do. That is not to excuse behavior but the "What was he thinking?" incredulity that we all experience when we hear of these incidents really is only answered by: "He wasn't thinking, at least not rationally." As for the lawyer, I'm sure Craig couldn't even bring himself to tell his wife let alone a stranger what he had been accused of doing. The whole sorrid mess will hopefully end, at least for the public and pundits, when he resigns.
re: Craig's Right to an Attorney
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 1:44PM
Phil, you're entirely right about Craig's conduct, in re the law. Geez, man, if you're busted, shut up and call a lawyer. As for cruising men's rooms when he knew he was under suspicion, that plays for something I've long said: If certain kinds of sexual conduct weren't transgressive, there would be little attraction to them.
Snowfall
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 1:18PM
Tony Snow is resigning.
Dave Weigel notes how much Snow has visibly aged in the last two years. Here's hoping his health improves with his departure.
Craig's Right to an Attorney
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 12:27PM
In addition to everything that has already been said about the Larry Craig incident, one thing that is perhaps most shocking to me is how stupidly he has behaved throughout this whole process. Craig knew that the Idaho Statesman was already doing extensive reporting about his sexuality (whether this was good journalism or not is another matter), but I'm baffled as to why, given the scrutiny he was under, he'd go out solicit sex in a public restroom. Even if you were to go to extraordinary lengths to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't seeking sex in the bathroom, as a U.S. Senator who believed he was wrongly accused of a crime, it is absolutely stunning that he would waive his right to an attorney.
Iowa Questions
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 11:33AM
An ARG Iowa poll earlier in the week showed only a ten point gap between Romney and Rudy. ONE Polls shows Romney cruising at 35%, Rudy at 12% and Fred and Huckabee at 11% and McCain at 7% behind even Tom Tancredo. This seems closer to the norm( Romney leads in RealClearPolitics by an average of 17.5%). This raises some interesting questions. Does Fred really try to win in this caucus state with zero organization or does he blow it off altogether for fear Huckabee and other second tiers will finish ahead of him? (As noted yesterday, he's spending 2 1/2 days there on his kick off so perhaps he thinks he can't ignore both NH-- where the pesky New Englanders may be peeved about trading Leno for their debate-- and Iowa.) Do McCain and Rudy continue to make a push or focus instead on NH, Michigan, SC and Florida? These decisions may turn once again on the primary calendar. If Wyoming is going to perch on January 5, Iowa may be pushed into holiday time and a dim memory by the time the January primaries roll around.
Wake 'n' Bacon
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 11:25AM
A friend emailed this item, with the subject line, "Where has this been all my life?" Enough to make cardiologists and Jewish mothers everywhere scream in horror.
Guess the Candidate
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 10:24AM
Craig Out?
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 9:12AM
Of the Senate, that is. Reports are coming in saying that could happen as early as today. The police interview doesn't really help Larry Craig's case very much. Craig doesn't seem to find anything self-evidently wrong with being detained and interrogated for foot-bumping and hand-waving, and tries to deny the hand-waving. The most charitable explanation is that he was at least familiar with these strange men's room codes.
I don't disagree with Quin that this is a human tragedy -- the "I'm not gay, I don't do these things" protests sound like the words of a conflicted man in denial. It is also, it would seem, conduct unbecoming of a senator.
Fred Gives Money Back
Posted by on 8.31.07 @ 8:44AM
At the time of his July financial filing I questioned how Fred could accept amounts over the primary fundraising limit and maintain the position he was merely testing the waters and not stashing money away for his race. (You are not allowed while testing the waters to raise amounts beyond what is reasonably needed to determine your viability for a run.) His lawyers seem to agree: he is now giving these funds back.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
NH State GOP Chairman Blasts Fred
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 9:39PM
Re: September 6
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 7:49PM
Fred's official announcement strongly hints they are going to use the run out the clock game to set a time table that would delay financial disclosures until late January, as I've been suggesting they would for a while now. The key portion reads:
"The committee will file our formal paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission within 15 days, the time allowed by law after Fred decided to run. Additionally, we will begin to consider candidate based events following Fred's broadcast on September 6, 2007."
His announced schedule shows 2 1/2 days in Iowa, one and a bit in NH and one in South Carolina. Having annoyed New Hampshire, are they focusing now on Iowa and South Carolina? The latter is a must win for him (if he loses to Rudy there he's all but out of it), but is he seriously going to compete in the caucus state of Iowa against Romney and others? Perhaps he has no choice, but a South Carolina, Michigan and Florida trifecta seems his best bet.
UPDATE: GOP NH Chairman Cullen Fergus is "disappointed" and says Thompson's timing was aimed to avoid the debate.
Re: Michigan and Threats
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 7:36PM
And from McCain spokesman Brian Rogers: "John Mccain has a broad base of support in Michigan and looks forward to continuing to compete aggressively in the state." You may recall he won there in 2000.
Re: September 6
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 6:07PM
A quick take from Larry J. Sabato:
"At this late date, as Thompson finally gets in, he’d best start to demonstrate some real energy. That means working overtime and missing few important campaign events. A single missed debate, even a highly visible one in
Kind Word for Sen. Craig
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 5:40PM
I have hesitated to write this, but common decency finally compels me to speak up here: Sen. Craig deserves some sympathy, and some perspective.
First, some disclaimers: Obviously, it appears as if the rumors of his history (of doing the sort of thing that he is suspected of doing) are probably true. And if he has been doing any sexual acts in a public restroom, that's bad, very bad. As it is to have cheated on his wife. And if he was actually trying to solicit such activity, as accused, it's pretty gross, too. He probably ought to resign, and at the very least he should announce that he is not going to run for re-election. (On the other hand, it is hard to see how what he actually did in the incident in question is a crime. Touching feet? Putting a hand on the bottom of a partition -- but without spoken or written solicitation? In the grand scheme of things, not terribly criminal, although it seems as if he were indeed trying to start something that would lead to the illegality of severe public indecency.) None of what I am about to write is meant to excuse his apparent intent, and what is likely his history of the same.
But really, what this means is that this man needs help. Even knowing that he was under serious scrutiny for such alleged behavior, for him to do it (again) anyway shows a terrible, and bizarre, compulsion. It shows a bad psychological problem, and possibly a psychiatric one. Somebody who would risk his career for such activities is crying out for help.
All that said, let's not forget this: This was a man who, in public life, did a superb job serving his constituents for more than a quarter century. He was a good legislator, a serious one and a hard-working one, and a generally philosophically consistent one at that. He was a gentleman, too: He was a solid conservative who nevertheless tried hard, and successfully, to have good relationships across the aisle with those Democrats who were decent enough to reciprocate. He was a constructive force in the Senate -- and a patriot. Aside from what appears to have been a serious private problem (okay, a public problem, in that the alleged crime here is one of public indency -- but the apparent compulsion for risky public behavior seems a personal sickness). He was apparently a man who tried mightily to do the right thing and serve his country well.
Compare the reaction to his alleged crime and the one that it appears David Vitter (allegedly) participated in. Why does prostitution (especially involving a married man) earn more of a pass than gross-but consensual sex? And the hypocrisy is far greater in Vitter's case: He based a large part of his career on moral preening. Contra the Left, though, I fail to see how it is hypocritical for Craig, though, to have voted against "gay marriage" and special "gay rights." One can participate in homosexual acts and yet still think, quite consistently, that it is bad public policy to create special rights and protections for homosexuals or to put the positive imprimatur of the state on the "union" of two homosexuals.
To be clear, I think Craig should leave the Senate. He is a moral reprobate, on several levels. But somebody needs to have compassion on him, and not make him feel abandoned as a human being. Yes, of course he should have been able to control his own behavior, no matter what the "compulsion" was. But fergoshsakes, don't overlook the man's genuine decency and service to nation in the rush to condemn him. And please find him some counseling, so he can somehow try to put his life back together and find some redemption.
RE: Sept. 6
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 5:36PM
As I wrote yesterday, I think that it's crucial that when Fred makes the official announcement next Thursday, his campaign also declares his intention to participate in the Sept. 27 debate. This will not only help deflect criticism for skipping the Sept. 5 debate in New Hampshire, it will also make him look more decisive, and create the impression that now that he's finally in the race, he's in it for real. He needs to be proactive. He cannot afford to have his roll out hampered by weeks of will-he-or-won't-he stories regarding his participation in debates.
CORRECTION: I just corrected this post because it appears that the Dartmouth debate that was originally scheduled for Sept. 27 has been postponed for an indefinite time period (if one takes place at all). While I was on vacation last week, Dartmouth announced that, "At present, there are no firm plans for a Republican candidates debate. The College had hoped to host such a debate on Sept. 27, but that currently appears unlikely. However, efforts to establish such a debate at Dartmouth are ongoing." There is, in fact, a Travis Smiley candidate forum scheduled for Sept. 27 on PBS to take place at Morgan State in Baltimore. I was working off on outdated press release that referenced the Sept. 27 debate. I apologize for the confusion.
Re: September 6
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 4:50PM
Thompson tells supporters the date is September 6. He'll go on Leno and not do the debate next week. The "time to get off TV and run in the real world" cracks are starting. As for the decision not to face the press today a rival aide had this to add: " Fred Thompson has spent the summer with one foot in the water and now in one more anti-climatic move his campaign is announcing by paper statement? One has to wonder it it's not just the candidate who isn't ready for tough questions - it seems to be his staff too." That would be the "welcome to the race, pal" comment. I'm sure the opposition communication teams are practicing their favorite barbs for the September 5 debate to explain Fred's absence. ("Still doing NBC TV?" or "Hasn't had time to learn his lines yet?")
UPDATE: And yes the "real" announcement will actually be a webcast. The first GOP contender to announce on a direct to video production? Sometime thereafter, we'll see him in front of real people and answering real questions I suppose.
UPDATE II: NH is officially annoyed.
Re: Huckabee's Jabs
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 3:57PM
The one I loved, Jennifer, was when Huck actually sued the state ethics commission! (Actually, I can't remember whether he actually went through with the suit or ended up just threatening to do so, or else filing but withdrawing.) I was amazed it didn't spur headlines like this: GOVERNOR VS. ETHICS!!! I mean, I went to Little Rock in 1997 to write editorials, convinced I would be very impressed by the guy, and instead I left 14 months later convinced he was a lot too oily for my tastes. There were just too many incidents of the semi-sleazy, semi-questionable sort for me to trust the guy's ethical judgment.
Re: Huckabee Jabs
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 3:40PM
Quin, you are quite right on the ethical front. Multiple ethics investigations and violations plus the freeing of a felon who later murdered a woman doesn't sound like the sort of fellow who's going to help the GOP now. My personal favorite was "registering" for gifts at local stores when he was leaving office. Makes the Clintons' White House departure seem downright graceful.
Belatedly Re: Huckabee Jabs
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 3:26PM
Jennifer did a nice PARTIAL summation of Huckabee's weaknessnesses, but to those weaknesses and the also-discussed nastiness of his going negative so early and so frequently against the other GOP candidates (that NASTY man!), she, and everybody who comments on Huck, ought to NOT leave out his ethical lapses, or at least his serious blindness to ethical lapses around him --of which there have been many. I keep waiting for the so-called MSM to give Huck and his ethical baggage at least as much scrutiny as it has given Giuliani's feud with some firefighters, for instance, or -- and this is the best comparison -- as it has given to the dating history of the wife of undeclared presidential candidate Fred Thompson. The MSM in this country is no longer even a serious institution. A pack mentality rules. Right now the pack thinks Huck is fun because he is folksy and somewhat witty, and because his rhetoric plays into the pack's class-obsessed, liberal worldview. So he gets no serious scrutiny, even as he DOES get feted with puff piece after puff piece about "momentum" stemming from a distant second place finish in a vote-for-hire "straw poll" that elects no delegates and at which three of the four top candidates did not participate. Gee, how hard is it to finish second to the only "top tier" candidate even bothering to contest the worthless beauty contest, anyway?
New York Times: Utterly Ignorant
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 3:05PM
Hat tip to the Weekly Standard blog for catching this howler of an error by the New York Times editorialists/left-wing-interest-group-lackeys. It seems they never took Civics 101 and learned the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- and, moreover, it seems they wouldn't know how to apply the clause from the Declaration even if it WERE part pf the Constitution. On the other hand, it IS encouraging that they suddenly have found a right to life in the Constitution. Apparently, though, it only applies to the right to potentially save people from their own suicidal handgun tendencies--because, of course, the Times has made clear that it does not think the right applies to babies or to inconveniently hospitalized people who others want to euthanize.
What I don't know is how the NYT editorialists can even live with themselves, considering their incredibly low standards of journalism.
Re: The Bush Boom
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 2:36PM
Phil: But there's hope. Economic growth this quarter and next are supposed to be much worse. We may yet see what the president's approval ratings look like in the midst of a downturn. As the story you linked to was quick to add:
But the growth spurt could be short-lived. There are concerns that the recent turmoil in financial markets, a result of a spreading credit crisis, could seriously dampen economic activity in the second half of this year.
September 6
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 2:35PM
That's the likely Fred date. Allows him to skip first debate --for which he'll get lambasted in NH -- and possibly delay until January making financial disclosures. Here's how that works: If he becomes a candidate September 6 and files his FEC form declaring his candidacy 15 days later on September 21, he can file his "Statement of Organization" 10 days after that on October 1 which would take him into the 4th Quarter. He may then argue that since his Statement of Organization wasn't filed until the 4th Quarter, no report would be due until January 31, 2008. This will take him past New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada, Florida, Wyoming and Michigan. Inside the Beltway types may make hay out of all the skipping and dodging but the real test is how he sounds, what he says and what kind of organization he puts together.
UPDATE: Rather than a media conference call there may just be a
statement later today. Not a sign of great confidence in the
campaign's ability to field tough questions, like about his
non-appearance next week at the NH debate, but given new
communications director Todd Harris has been there less than a day,
understandable.
Fred to Pre-Announce Today?
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 12:57PM
Jonathan Martin reports that Thompson will be holding a conference call with supporters today "to brief them on plans for the former
The Bush Boom
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 12:53PM
Continues, with second quarter economic growth at a higher than expected annual rate of 4 percent. One could only imagine where his approval ratings would be if we were in the midst of a recession.
State Polls
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 12:43PM
In latest ARG polls Romney enjoys a post Ames bounce to lead by 10pts over Rudy in Iowa(still closer than many other polls). Huckabee is in third barely over Thompson and McCain trails in single digits, behind even undeclared Newt. In NH Rudy is within 4 pts of Romney. McCain is in third and again Huckabee edges Thompson for 4th. And in SC Rudy leads Fred by 5 pts. with McCain in third and Huckabee and Romney tied for 4th. So Huckabee is getting his bounce and not just in Iowa, Romney so far is not showing signs of breaking out of Iowa and NH and Fred's got some work to do.
Michigan and Threats
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 12:08PM
Michigan's state legislature votes today on whether to have an open primary on January 15. Rudy leads in most polls there but Romney has a family connection and strong organization and McCain won there in 2000. My lay of the land is here. If the Democrats stick to their threat and strip all the delegates from Michigan and other early primary interlopers like Florida do independents hop into the GOP race, giving an advantage to Rudy and McCain? Or does everyone figure the DNC is bluffing? The RNC is threatening to take away only half the delegates from these states. Clever Florida has struck back with the likely shift to a winner take all system to boost the prize of winning there. Do any savvy contenders leading in the potentially penalized states come flat out and say "you'll get your votes back if I win" ?
Amanpour Goes Fishing for Jewish Terrorists
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 11:00AM
In the NY Sun, Heather Robinson has a takedown of CNN's "God's Warriors"--a three part series hosted by Christiane Amanpour. Three parts, of course, because out of some self-imposed fairness doctrine, CNN wouldn't dare do something on Muslim extremists without needing to find Christian and Jewish extremists to add "balance" to the program. Of course, creating that "balance" often means going to extraordinary lengths:
Since a significant portion of the segment is devoted to Jewish
terrorism, one could get the impression that it is somewhat common,
instead of a freakishly rare phenomenon that, when it occurs, is
almost universally condemned by Jews worldwide.
The next time a Jewish terrorist kills thousands of American civilians by flying an airplane into an office building screaming "Moses is Great!" let me know. Until then, I'm glad I was on vacation and missed Amanpour's report.
Musharraf's Deal
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 10:16AM
Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal to give up his
military post in order to be able to run for another term as
president. It will also mean that the exiled former prime minister,
Benazir Bhutto, can return to the country to run for prime
minister. There are also upcoming parliamentary elections that are
expected to produce a legislative body less supportive of
Musharraf. From a U.S. policy perspective, this could avoid the
worst case scenario of Musharraf losing power, but it reinforces
how vulnerable he actually is. What worries me is that it seems
that U.S. policy toward Pakistan has been entirely built around
Musharraf, but it's increasingly important to begin to think of
strategies for dealing with the country in a post-Musharaff era. He
may hang on for now, but he won't be there forever.
UPDATE: A Musharraf spokesman now saying that no deal has been struck.
A Dime's Worth of Difference?
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 10:07AM
Dan Flynn contrasts the way Republicans and Democrats treat their scandal-tainted members. Hint: Larry Craig might be in less trouble if he were a Democrat.
Gangs in the Army?
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 10:07AM
Seems to me I've read or heard reports like this before. This one comes from the Army Times, reporter Michelle Tan here.
Here are some key paragraphs. They could stand as object lessons in the tendentious use of statistics.
The FBI report said that since 2004, authorities have identified more than 40 military-affiliated Folk Nation gang members at Fort Bliss, Texas, who have been involved in drug distribution, robberies, assaults, weapons offenses and a homicide. Since 2003, nearly 40 gang members have been identified at Fort Hood, Texas, and members of the Gangster Disciples based on post have been responsible for robberies, assaults, thefts and burglaries, according to the report. In addition, nearly 130 gang and extremist group members have been identified at Fort Lewis, Wash., since 2005, and in 2006, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service reported that gang members are increasing their presence on or near U.S. military installations.
The commanders of CID, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigation Service sent a memo to the director of the FBI to dispute some of the statistics and facts in its Jan. 12 report.
A CID official said that just 16 of 10,000 felony investigations last year were gang-related. But that's up from 10 in 2005, five in 2004 and four in 2003. In all, CID special agents reported 61 gang-related incidents on 18 Army installations in 2006. That number includes the 16 that warranted the investigations reported that same year. There were 23 incidents in 2005, nine in 2004 and 12 in 2003.
The Army Times story links to both the FBI and CID reports. But I know from some personal experience that the Army Times is more like a newspaper than like the Army -- its biases are firmly in place. So it rouses my suspicions that actual reported gang related crime is so low, while "gang members" have been "identified" in such high numbers. The Army is known, after all, for turning men's lives around.
Romney Ad
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 8:52AM
Coleman Calls On Craig To Resign
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 8:12AM
Senator Norm Coleman joins John McCain in the Gang of (So Far) Two.
Is Coleman doing the right thing or just doesn't want to have to deal with the Craig albatross in what is sure to be a tough reelection fight in Minnesota? You know, it really doesn't matter, as long as the pressure on Craig to resign intensifies.
A Whole Bundle
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 7:45AM
Hillary is giving back the direct contributions from Hsu. The rub is Hsu's bundling which in an amusing paragraph the NY Times explains as follows:
"Some donations connected to Mr. Hsu raise questions about his bundling activities, although there is no evidence he did anything improper. The Wall Street Journal reported that contributors he solicited included members of an extended family in Daly City, Calif., who had given $213,000 to candidates since 2004, even though some of them did not appear to have much money."
Really "no evidence"? Let's call it a real big hint that something odd was going on.
UPDATE: Actually the print Wall Street Journal reminds me this morning there is more evidence than just that. Donations from the modestly incomed Paw family were made on the same days, to the same candidates and in similar amounts as those made by Hsu. Hsu also once listed the Paw home as his residence.
Re: Huckabee jabs
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 7:33AM
Jim, I partially agree. I think the comments about Thompson's record or lack thereof and the remarks about Romney's position changes are totally within the proper bounds of political discussion and have written about both. (Whether going negative this early works for Huckabee is another question but we're writing about him so maybe it does.) The Romney comments I see as a not so veiled dig at Mormonism and I just don't think any candidate should have to defend his faith as Huckabee seems to be challenging Romney to do here:
"Should it be the sole criteria? No, it shouldn't. Is it a criterion? It always has been for me in that people have looked at me and said 'do I want to support a guy who's a Pastor?' I mean I've had to deal with that my entire political life. So having been on the receiving end of it, I don't see a big deal for it myself. I expect it to be an issue as people evaluate whether they want me to be President. And I'm perfectly prepared to defend my faith in front of anyone, anytime, anyplace and under any circumstance."
RE: Huckabee Jabs
Posted by on 8.30.07 @ 2:07AM
Much as I disagree with his tax-hiking and nanny statism, I thought Huckabee's answers were fair enough. My read was that he was trying to steer the Romney question away from anti-Mormonism without disagreeing too vocally with his questioner.If I could fuse Giualini's economics with Huckabee's social views, I'd be pretty pleased. Unfortunately, they are both 50 percent leftists. In my opinion.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Re: Huckabee Jabs
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 11:20PM
And if Huckabee's first blast at Romney didn't convince you the smiling bass player was going negative faster than any other candidate you need look no further than additional CBN interview clips where he suggests Romney's religion is fair game and Fred Thompson is an over hyped TV actor who's weak on defense of marriage. Clearly Huckabee thinks the only way he gets into the race with a tax and spend record, a pro-nanny state philosophy and no foreign policy experience is to tear down his opponents. May not help him but it's going to be quite an annoyance to them.
Another New Guy--But A Good One
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 10:52PM
Fox reports that Fred Thompson has a new communications director Todd Harris. He has actual presidential campaign experience on McCain 2000, a fine reputation among GOP insiders(at least the ones I chatted with today) and familiarity with Florida, a key state for Thompson, as Jeb Bush's 2002 campaign communications chief. This is good news for Thompson and as early as next week--perhaps-- Harris will be in the firing line about a debate Fred likely won't attend and a campaign one Romney supporter is already writing off. The latter is vastly premature and Thompson will have his shot to show he can straighten out his campaign, flesh out the issues, come up with a polished stump speech, answer hard press questions, develop a ground game and raise money. Waiting this long, I think most have concluded, did more harm than good, but Harris is a step in the direction of getting his act together.
Sex, Lies, and Republicans
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 8:15PM
Ross Douthat detects a double standard in the GOP's treatment of Larry Craig as compared to David Vitter. He writes, "I still think it's unfortunate that Larry Craig might be forced to resign by his fellow Republicans, while David Vitter has apparently survived being outed as a client of a major D.C. prostitution ring." Douthat's reasoning? "[F]rom any social-conservative calculus (or at least my social-conservative calculus) prostitution has to be considered a greater social evil than cruising for gay sex in bathrooms."
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Morally, I disapprove of both prostitution and "cruising for gay sex," as well as all forms of adultery. But from a public policy perspective, I think the state should generally butt out of private sex between consenting adults -- even if money is involved -- while retaining the power to regulate public sex acts in order to maintain quality of life in the community. While governments are justified in protecting women from coercion and cracking down on street walking, I actually do think there is a stronger rationale for criminalizing Craig's conduct than Vitter's -- not because of a distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, but because of a distinction between public and private behavior.
In other words, one can be tolerant of a wide range of private sexual behaviors without wanting public restrooms to turn into brothels. This is a distinction some social conservatives -- and some libertarians -- seem to miss.
That said, I do agree with Douthat on his larger point. Republicans and social conservatives have frequently tried to score points by picking on gays rather than offering a morally consistent but politically risky defense of the traditional family. This is wrong. And the only reason Craig is slowly being pushed out while Vitter has been allowed to stay is that Vitter's resignation would cost the GOP a Senate seat while Craig's might save one.
Ersters
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 5:18PM
The eagle-eyed Larry Henry caught me in a horrible cut-and-paste error. The final two sentences of the paragraph in question should read: Mustering his courage, he points to President Franklin Roosevelt's plate and says, "So, how d'ya like dem ersters?" And so it is that the already-popular dish known as "Oysters Rockefeller" is made world-famous....
Re: Does the GOP Have A Sword
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 4:34PM
Apparently John McCain called for Craig to resign. Why Romney didn't yesterday and tried the Clinton/Foley comparison gambit instead I don't know. He pointedly said he wasn't being "holier than thou" by simply concluding that those who plead guilty to a crime shouldn't be in the Senate. Now McCain looks like the sane adult. He may not be at the top of the presidential polls these days but at times like this you are glad he's in the Senate.
Re: "Dem ersters"
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 4:02PM
Quin, can't quite follow your drift on this one. Mayor Maestri, fine, but there never has been a President Rockefeller.
Re: Does the GOP Have a Sword?
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 1:35PM
David, should we rethink our views if we agree? :)
I was critical of both conservative and liberal snickering yesterday on Craig's self-made ordeal but I would agree Slate's take was interesting. On the conservative side today Rich Lowry and his reader seem to get it right.
Party Boy Norman Hsu
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 1:30PM
From a December 16, 2006 NY Post story:
Norman Hsu, who has raised millions for the Democratic Party, threw a party at Buddakan to celebrate the Democrats' new control of Congress, the Senate and 28 state governors' offices. Attendees at the recent bash included New York Attorney General-elect Andrew Cuomo, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who recently lost his bid for the Senate. At one point, Hsu grabbed the microphone from deejay David Chang to declare to the crowd of Democratic movers and shakers that, "If you are supporters of Hillary Clinton for President 2008, you can stay. Otherwise, get out!" The booze flowed freely and one very young Congressman-elect wound up throwing up outside the restaurant.
Hillary Camp Praised Norman Hsu's "Integrity"
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 1:18PM
Just went back and noticed that yesterday's WSJ included this lovely tidbit :
A
campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said in an email: "Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic party and its candidates, including Senator Clinton. During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question." Clinton
Yeah, no reason, except perhaps the fact that he is a fugitive. It is surprising that the Clinton campaign would go out a their way to defend Hsu yesterday when it was clear there was more to the story. A rare misstep for team Hillary, which has thus far run a nearly flawless campaign. Wolfson did not issue a subsequent comment to the LA Times for today's story, so it should be interesting to see how they backpedal.
Obama Received Contribution From Fugitive Bundler
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 1:05PM
According to the FEC's disclosure database, Barack Obama recieved a $2,000 contribution from a Norman Hsu when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Based on the address and company name (Components Ltd.) listed in the database, the man who made the contribution to Obama appears to be the same Hsu who has been in the news in the past two days for questionable contributions to Democrats, and now, apparently, being a fugitive who plead no contest to grand theft in California. Although Hsu did not donate to Obama's presidential campaign and has made significantly more contributions to Hillary Clinton, given that Obama accepted a donation from Hsu when he ran from U.S. Senate, he doesn't come out of this clean either, and it will be difficult for him to capitalize politically off of Hillary's connections to Hsu. John Edwards appears to be the only major Democratic candidate untarnished by this emerging fundraising scandal.
Bon Voyage
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 1:03PM
So, the appalling Katie Couric is traveling to Iraq after all. "I'm curious about very basic questions regarding living conditions, about how much fear there is in the street, about how the soldiers really are doing," she told the AP. But such "Today" show presumptuousness aside, there's a larger purpose at work. As her handler, Rick Kaplan, explained, in Howard Kurtz's paraphrase, "...the goal was to provide greater context before mid-September, when President Bush makes public the recommendations of the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus." Providing "greater context" can only mean seeding CBS's coverage with an anti-Petraeus report slant. The risky lengths to which some networks will go for the sake of media bias!
Helmsley's Will
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 1:02PM
Two grandkids get nothing, the chauffeur gets $100,000 and the dog get $12M. A golden retriever I would understand, but a Maltese (named Trouble)? Not a good story when you're arguing to abolish the death tax.
Re: NH Paper Throws Down the Gauntlet on Fred
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 12:50PM
Phil, maybe the NH Union Leader was reading AmSpec Blog ? Seriously, Fred's chances of competing successfully in New Hamsphire or Iowa at this point seem limited given the huge head starts his rivals have in organization and time on the ground. Still with the expectations game and concerns whether he has appeal outside the South, can he skip them or make a perfunctory effort while pinning his hopes on Michigan (likely January 15) or South Carolina ( January 19)? All that said, as you suggest, it is far worse both in NH and nationally for him to show up at the debate and do poorly than to miss it and have to deal with fallout in one state with miffed voters. After all, George W. Bush got bashed for skipping Dartmouth's 1999 debate and lost NH but went on to win the nomination.
Woops
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 12:33PM
Hillary and a whole lot of other Democrats got a whole lot of cash from a fugitive and top Democratic bundler, Norman Hsu, according to the LA Times. This the same fellow who the Wall St. Journal suggested was the real source of substantial donations from Paw family, whose life style and other available financial records indicate there would be insufficient funds to make thousands of dollars in donations on their own. For Hillary's Democratic opponents this is what as known as a gift from the political gods. If Obama didn't seem to be making much headway with his "time to turn the page" theme this may give him a boost. For those for whom Chinese fundraising scandals and raffling off the Lincoln Bedroom are foggy memories, this should bring it all back. Yes, the entire MSM and blogosphere are preoccupied with a delightful Republican sex scandal but most Democrats would like to keep the scandal target far from the party. This may make them just a tad nervous. I imagine more than a few choice words on all this from Obama and John Edwards --provided they aren't the recipients of Hsu's bundling efforts also.
NH Paper Throws Down the Gauntlet on Fred
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 12:22PM
Today's NH Union Leader editorial page argues that Thompson should attend the Sept. 5 debate in New Hampshire, and articulates his dilemma this way:
If Thompson announces before the debate,
New Hampshire voters will expect him to be at the University of New Hampshire with the other announced candidates. A no-show will be counted here as a snub. If Thompson waits until after the debate to make his announcement, it will appear to some as if he timed the announcement just to avoid the
New Hampshire debate. That would give his foes the chance to say he is either not serious about running for the nomination or is too unprepared to be considered a credible candidate.
Of course, on the flip side, if Thompson does jump into the race by taking part in the NH debate, and he's completely unprepared and looks foolish, it could strangle his candidacy in its infancy. If he waits until after the debate to announce, though he may generate some criticism for having ducked, he'll still be able to participate in the Dartmouth debate in New Hampshire on Sept. 27, at which point he'd have more time to prepare. In fact, if immediately after announcing his candidacy, he agrees to participate in the Dartmouth debate, that will become the news story--not the fact that he skipped a debate that is already old news.
CORRECTION: There is no Dartmouth debate on Sept. 27. See here.
Huckabee: Enemy of the States
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 10:21AM
It is bad enough that any politician at any level of government would support a smoking ban, which restricts personal freedom and infringes on property rights. But Mike Huckabee evidently thinks he's running to be nanny in chief. Not only did he sign a ban on smoking in public places as governor, he has also pledged to sign one as president, rather than let state and local governments set their own policies with regard to smoking in public places. Even Hillary Clinton (despite the misleading headline in this story) was savvy enough to say that though she supports smoking bans, she doesn't believe in a nationwide ban imposed by the federal government. As if his tax hikes and atrocious spending record as governor weren't already enough, here we have another issue that demonstrates Huckabee is a big government conservative of the worst sort.
UPDATE: Jeremy Lott points me toward his review of Huckabee's campaign book, in which Lott made this observation:
Mr. Huckabee's approach to health care is to declare war on ill health, which he takes to be caused by fat, sugar, salt and sloth. As with seatbelts, drunk driving and cigarettes, he advocates that the government and civic society should first work to change attitudes toward these things and then "having shifted public opinion, we can solidify the attitude and atmospheric changes with government actions to statutorily define the will of the majority."
Re: Huckabee the Bass Player
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 9:56AM
For more on Huckabee the Musician, here's an e-mail from Byron York:
As a matter of fact, I spent about 45 minutes in a very hot parking lot in Ames listening to Huckabee and his band, Capitol Offense. And they were adequate. They stuck to the old, easy-fit jeans standards -- "Born to Be Wild," "Free Bird," Brooks & Dunn, etc. I thought the guitar player was little showy and not quite up to trying to channel Stevie Ray Vaughan. The vocals -- Huckabee didn't sing -- were spotty. Huckabee's bass playing was actually pretty solid and was one of the better parts of the band.
Re: Does the GOP Have a Sword
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 9:46AM
Jennifer: You mean we sort of agree on something? Amazing! ;)
I'll hold out a bit of hope for Mitch McConnell. He's done an admirable job so far as minority leader, and he seems like the sort who would be willing to cut Craig loose. He's not a "nice guy" like, um, lemee see, um....who was the last guy before McConnell in charge of the Senate GOP?
Anyway, this is a big test for McConnell's leadership. Hope he is up to it.
Huckabee Jabs
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 9:18AM
"I'm going to accept that his position (on the life issue) now is a position he currently and indeed does hold but nobody can deny that it's not the position that he had held. He's the first to admit that and when you add to that positions that he's held on other topics like the second amendment and even the Bush tax cuts, on same sex relationships and marriage and other things, that's what I think causes people to say how many different changes of position can one have during an adult's lifespan as a politician and then be confidant that that person is going to have another epiphany at some point in the future. Let's assume that everyone of those positions that he's currently staking out for the nomination are correct and I'm going to assume they are, I have no reason to doubt him. I think he's a man of integrity and a man of honor. It doesn't mean the Democrats will lay off of him when it comes to doing the same thing to him in a general election that republicans did to John Kerry by rolling those pieces of videotape with conflicting statements."
Re: Does the GOP Have a Sword
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 8:26AM
David, you raise an interesting point. Romney in all his grandstanding yesterday pointedly refused to offer an opinion as to whether Craig should resign. A Senate Ethics Committee "inquiry" has started. What there is left to inquire about I don't know. Unfortunately, the days when elders in the party quietly took someone aside and said "you're done" are apparently gone. Process and legalisms have replaced common sense. At this rate Hillary will have a fillibuster proof Senate majority for her first term.
Does The GOP Have A Sword?
Posted by on 8.29.07 @ 7:58AM
Specifically, does it have a sword for the purpose of "falling on"? The Democrats certainly do. Remember Bob Torricelli? He was a sure loser in November of 2002, and he was only implicated (at that point) in wrongdoing. The Democrats' response: "Bye-bye Bob! Frank is now our man. Fall on that sword or we'll stick it in you."
Contrast that to Conrad Burns, who had his troubles with Jack Abramoff. Barely a peep from the GOP. Just let him run and get beaten.
Now we've got a senator who has pled guilty, and any explanation he gives is going to come off as completely unconvicining. If the GOP can't figure out that this is time to push aside one of their own so that someone with a clean slate can run in his place, then this party has some huge problems.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Great Slate Debate
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 8:10PM
This conversation is, by leaps and bounds, the most interesting and thought-provoking thing I've read about the Craig incident.
Enough Already
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 7:33PM
Ghosts, Part II
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 4:44PM
Part II of Michael Yon's Ghosts of Anbar is now available online. Again, you can sign up to receive his dispatches here.
Re: Is it Fall Yet?
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 3:32PM
In the last days of summer, Phil, we should indeed enjoy a few items: campaigning by baseball stadium (Rudy taking in the Tigers last night), Senator Tim Johnson --thank goodness -- is on the road back to health and the Senate and Alberto Gonzales is gone. As to the latter, I offer a few lessons to be learned. But for those keeping an eye on the GOP race (because the current administration is so dismal and looking ahead is better than what is immediately before us), the California Field poll shows Rudy up by 21 pts. over Romney (who's climbed from 7 to 14%), Thompson up to 13% (from 8%) and McCain falling like a stone (going from 24% to 9%).
"Al Franken is a Short Dumb Schlemiel"
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 2:12PM
Mark Hemingway has posted a great bit on the perils of reporting on Al Franken over at his personal blog, as well as his absolutely wonderful Franken profile he wrote for AmSpec back in 2001. Well worth a click. It was my first time to Hemingway's site, which is chock full of great writing, so do tool around if you stop by.
End Gush.
Re: Is It Fall Yet?
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 1:49PM
Given that it's still summer and he hasn't announced yet, Fred Thompson does deserve some leeway in terms of offering policy specifics. However, once he does enter the race, it will be a problem if he continues to dodge specifics by saying "I just announced" or "I got a late start." His whole non-candidacy has been built on generating buzz at a time when conservatives were dissatisfied with the Republican field, and he benefited from the fact that he dipped his toes in the waters late, avoiding scrutiny faced by the other candidates. But he cannot expect to claim all of the advantages of a late start and avoid all of the disadvantages--especially the fact that the other campaigns have had at least eight months to organize and craft policy proposals. Thompson decided to wait for the time of his choosing rather than be dragged into the race earlier. He should have to bear the consequences of that decision, both good and bad. But for now, I think we should all enjoy the remaining days of summer and lay off the big fella.
Is it Fall Yet?
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 1:05PM
Speculation on his announcement date has latched onto September 4 as the big day. Some like this date since it's a good kick off to the fall political season. But there is a hitch. There is a debate in New Hampshire on September 5. If Thompson shows up his moment alone in the sun comes to a quick end and the comparisons with more polished debaters start. If he doesn't show, the other candidates are sure to use the "D" word -- "duck" -- to criticize his absence. They will remind the voters and pundits that George W. Bush "ducked" the Dartmouth debate in 1999, setting off buzz that he was hiding from those pesky New Hampshire voters who expect lots of time in the state and lots of answers to their questions. (This was the opening McCain needed to forge ahead and win the New Hampshire primary in 2000.)
Meanwhile, Powerline's John Hinderaker met up with Thompson at the Minnesota state fair and perceives him as a nice, stable conservative but one lacking intensity and proposals to fix what's wrong with the country. Others say he deserves a little time to get his policy act together.
Re: Huckabee the Bass Player
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 11:11AM
Larry: Can't speak for Byron York, but don't think for a moment he can't cover contemporary rock. On August 3, 2000, from the GOP convention in Philadelphia, he filed this on rockin' Joe Scarborough for TAS online:
Regular JoeOoooohhh. Last night at the Republican National Convention was so...partisan. If one reads the day-after commentaries, this is what happened: After two days of carefully hiding their mean, intolerant character behind a smiling, racially diverse face, the Republicans gathered in Philadelphia Wednesday night revealed their true, nasty selves in the person of...Dick Cheney.
Fine, fine, fine. The pundits have been pushing the "nastiness in disguise" story for days now. But what they really should be talking about is this: After three days of drowning their gathering in '50s and early '60s golden oldies -- J.C. Watts and the Temptations, Trent Lott and Dick Clark and the Shirelles and the Four Tops and Bobby Vee and God knows who else -- the GOP delegates on Wednesday night actually moved a bit forward on the rock evolutionary scale. At least a decade or so.
The evening's entertainment -- not counting oozy Latin crooner Jon Secada -- was Regular Joe, the on-and-off band fronted by Florida representative Joe Scarborough. Asked by convention organizer Ed Gillespie to play for the convention, Scarborough, a sometime songwriter, penned a new tune, "Together in America," for his moment in the spotlight.
And guess what? Even the song took a shot at Bill Clinton. After RNC-friendly lyrics like "Makes no difference if you're black or white," Scarborough broke into a Clinton impersonation to sing, "I still believe in a place called...AMERICA!"
No Hope here. The line got a decent ovation, even though Scarborough can't actually sing in the traditional sense of the word. And then at the end, the congressman jumped in the air like those old videos of Pete Townshend and the Who -- a classic Classic Rock touch. "I made sure to put an ending on it," Scarborough told TAS, reviewing his performance, "so I did the whole 'Won't Get Fooled Again' thing. You know, bamph... bamph... bamph... bamph... bamph."
So what if it was kind of old. Most of the music in Philadelphia seems old. Even Johnny Rotten and Jello Biafra, who have come to town for unspecified purposes, are twenty years past their primes. And at least the Republicans aren't playing that awful Fleetwood Mac stuff from the '70s.
As for Scarborough, he says he's getting good reviews from his many fans and groupies, just like in rock's Golden Days. "I don't know if you saw those pictures of the Beatles back in '64, when they couldn't get out of hotel rooms," Scarborough says. "It's the same thing now."
Iran to the Rescue
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 10:57AM
Drudge has his siren blaring for this report:
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that a power vacuum is imminent in Iraq and said that Iran was ready to help fill the gap.
"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. "Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation."
I'm sure other conservatives will point out that this statement reinforces the danger of a premature U.S. pullout from Iraq and demonstrates that Ahmadinejad is being buoyed by all the defeatism talk in Washington. But to me, what's more significant is that it seems Ahmadinejad is reaching out to Maliki in the wake of the Iraqi Prime Minister's tounge lashing direceted at Sens. Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. According to the NY Times account, Maliki said: "
One other thing I found noteworthy in the Ahmadinejad statement is that he singles out Saudi Arabia as a "regional friend." It would seem that the Sunni kingdom would be among the nations most opposed to Shiite Iran filling the power vacuum in Iraq. Perhaps his suggestion that he is willing to work with the Saudis is an attempt to assuage any fears they may have.
Clinton Cash Raises Questions
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 10:21AM
Via Matt Lewis, I see this WSJ article on possible Hillary Clinton fundraising shenanigans. The WSJ reports that six members of a family that has donated a combined $45,000 to Hillary since 2005 (and a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates) all report as their address a tiny, one-story house in a working class suburb of San Francisco.
According to the article:
It isn't obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess. Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple's grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to "attendance liaison" at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund.
The underlying implication of the article is that the Paw family is being used by the wealthy New York businessman Norman Hsu, a major Hillary contributor, to get around the limits on individual political donations. Though the article is careful to avoid making that charge explicitly, it offers strong circumstantial evidence, such as the close correlation between their donations, and the fact that Hsu strangely once listed the Paw house as his residence.
Though the Clintons have a tendency to get embroiled with scandals, Hillary's presidential bid has thus far been devoid of major scandal. If there is more to this Hsu story, it may begin to remind Democratic voters that they don't really want to go back to the Clinton years, and could provide an opening for Obama as the change agent who will break the Clinton-Bush stranglehold on the White House and clean up Washington.
The 'W' word
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 8:56AM
The Washington Post's lead story on the Gonzales resignation refers to him as "one of the nation's most controversial attorneys general since the Watergate era." "Controversial" is always a bit of a subjective term to begin with, and adding the qualifier "one of" makes the statement even less meaningful. Given that there is a sample size of just 10 post-Nixon AGs, being one of the most controversial is hardly an achievement. It's pretty clear, then, that the only purpose of using such an irrelevant historical barometer is to introduce the specter of Watergate to a story that is more about managerial incompetence.
Huckabee the Bass Player
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 4:51AM
National Review devotes their cover this issue to Mike Huckabee, depicting him onstage, playing a very expensive and very nice Alembic bass, and our former Byron York tells us nothing -- nothing! -- about Huckabee the musician? This inquiring mind wants to know!
Quin, can the guy play, or is he just posing?
Larry Craig Is Guilty
Posted by on 8.28.07 @ 12:47AM
So says a headline on AOL News: "Senator Accepts Guilt in Restroom Flap." Yet when you read the story, it is no different than what had been reported earlier -- Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct while denying charges of lewd conduct. Seems like misleading reporting to me.
That said, I hope the GOP doesn't wait very long to find another candidate if Craig can't address these charges effectively. Such missteps can't be afforded in 2008. It may not be fair, but the presumption of innocence works better in the criminal justice system than in politics.
Monday, August 27, 2007
This Week
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 11:10PM
Aside from the Larry Craig news (Romney, for whom Craig was campaign Senate co-chair, is quickly making clear he'll have nothing further to do with him) there are some tidbits of news on other fronts: 1) By Thursday of this week, according to Michigan state Chair Saul Anuzis, we should know if Michigan will indeed have an open primary on January 15. If so the scramble starts again to revise campaign strategies. 2) Jonathan Martin has solid interview with and look at Fred Thompson who lets on that he may have weak fundraising numbers to reveal by September and concedes Bill Lacy "hasn't yet" bought order to the campaign. 3) If you think that whole democracy mission may not have been such a good idea for the Middle East, one of Rudy's advisors agrees.
As for a Gonzales replacement, I think it unlikely that a top flight candidate from outside the administration -- at least one with a decent job or the prospect of one -- would join the Bush team at this point so I'll go out on a mini-limb and predict Paul Clement will stay for the remainder of the term. He is a highly respected lawyer and the Bush administration at this juncture would be lucky to have him.
Craig Lists?
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 8:06PM
Here we go again. I will be interested to see the senator's statement on this incident.
UPDATE: Here it is.
Re: Fair Tax Follies
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 7:01PM
It's worth mentioning something that Bartlett wrote when he was guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan a few weeks ago:
I do think it would be worthwhile to shift to a pure consumption-based tax system. I would do it by exempting all saving from taxation. This could be done by consolidating all existing tax deferred savings accounts--IRA's, Keoghs, 401k's, etc.--into one savings vehicle. All contributions would be tax-deductible, all withdrawals would be fully taxed at ordinary income tax rates. Money inside the account compounds tax-free until withdrawn. There would be no limit on contributions, no limit on withdrawals; no age restrictions and so on. Since there are only two things that can be done with income--either save or spend it--all taxation would necessarily fall on consumption if such accounts existed.Expanding tax-free savings accounts (though not necessarily to the maximal end that Bartlett suggests) happens to be a key tenet of Rudy Giuliani's tax plan. It seems to me that Giuliani might be able to get some mileage by arguing that while the FairTax people have their heart in the right place, he has a much more practical and politically attainable way of shifting the tax burden toward consumption. It would be, simultaneously, a sales pitch to people intrigued by the FairTax idea and a subtle jab at candidates who endorse the FairTax -- which includes Fred Thompson (or at least it did at one point).
Fair Tax Follies
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 5:19PM
On a somewhat related note, there has been some blog chatter about Bruce Bartlett's Wall Street Journal op-ed on the Fair Tax. Aside from the inherent difficulty of trying to get something like the Fair Tax enacted without Congress turning it into a giant add-on to the current tax system, many of the flaws critcs like Bartlett point to stem from one major defect -- the Fair Tax attempts to be revenue-neutral because it takes the current size of the federal government for granted.
The bottom line is that a big government needs big revenues. Getting that revenue requires a tax system that is more intrusive and has higher rates than we would ideally like. The Fair Tax mitigates the intrusiveness and the progressivity of the current tax code, but because it is designed to bring in the same amount of revenue, it can't completely abandon it. To quote some jerk with a first initial and Roman numeral in his name, "As long as Washington spends the vast sums the IRS sucks out of the private economy, reformers can either make the code simpler while hitting some Americans with higher taxes or incentivize investment with consumption-tax schemes that mirror the complexity of the income tax."
There are some things you can do to move away from taxing investment and toward taxing consumption, as the Fair Taxers are trying to do, but big government is a big brake on fundamental tax reform.
Club for Growth Doesn't Heart Huckabee
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 4:24PM
The Club for Growth is hitting back at Mike Huckabee for claiming that they've distorted his record on taxes and spending. I also imagine they are not fond of the former Arkansas governor calling them the "Club for Greed."
My sense is that while Huckabee obviously has to defend his record from criticism, it will probably prove a tactical mistake to get in such a personalized fight with tax-cutters. But we'll see.
RomneyCare
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 2:58PM
Mitt Romney got limited coverage on Friday for his healthcare roll out. Today the Wall Street Journal gives a reaction (subscription required), beginning by reviewing Romney remarks at the August 5 debate praising his Massachusetts plan and then remarking that his new plan "is a step forward for Mr. Romney on health policy, largely because is doesn't take Massachusetts as its model." It goes on to critique the Massachusetts plan for failing to deregulate the insurance industry but then praises his new plan. The Journal does chide him for failing to promote interstate insurance sales as Giuliani did (David H. and I tossed this back and forth at length with David arguing that more should be done in this regard.)The Journal then concludes that Romney's own "universal" plan in Massachusetts did " a great deal to set back the kind of tax reform he now espouses. The issue for GOP primary voters to consider is why he went in such a different direction in Boston. Granted, a mere Governor counldn't restructure the federal tax code, and he was dealing with a far-left legislature. Yet his willingness to compromise in Massachusetts on core matters of principle, and then trumpet those statist policies as a 'free-market' solution, raises questions about how far and easily he'd bend to a Democratic Congress." I have a few reactions: 1) Barring perfect consistency I'd rather have a politician reach a correction conclusion so I'm pleased Romney came out with a plan along the lines he did 2) But continuing to tout his prior plan does, as the Journal suggests, raise a consistency issue. and 2) At some point there is just so much policy evolution voters can take. An isolated instance of "growth" usually passes muster but many of these do raise an issue and Romney's opponents will no doubt be making that a theme as they gear up this fall.
Alberto, We Hardly Knew Ye
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 2:00PM
Last month, I pinpointed Arlen Specter as the most important man in deciding Alberto Gonzales' future. Without the support of the ranking Judiciary Committee Republican, I argued, Democratic carps against Gonzales would read as Democrats "playing politics."
Now, it seems the most important man in the decision was White House chief-of-staff Joshua Bolten. As Karl Rove contemplated resigning from the Bush administration, Bolten told him to do so before Labor Day, and that anyone remaining with the administration through Labor Day would be expected to stick around until Inauguration Day 2009.
Rather than face another year's worth of hearings on the Hill, Democratic push-back on the more secretive and esoteric parts of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, and a Congress that seems to have grown tired of his act, Gonzales obviously felt his time had come.
I'm not sure whether Gonzales is a gambler, but he should be applauded for knowing when to walk away.
Chertoff
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 1:21PM
It seems to me that transferring Michael Chertoff from the Department of Homeland Security would just repeat some of the problems surrounding Alberto Gonzales. Conservatives would likely be unenthusiastic. Democrats would use the confirmation hearings as an excuse to beat up the Bush administration.
Ramesh Ponnuru has floated Orrin Hatch. In all seriousness, that may not such a bad idea. Hatch probably wouldn't be that difficult to confirm, is reasonably conservative on legal issues, and is fairly fluent when making the case for conservative judges. And, as Ponnuru points out, "It would be one less vote for S-CHIP."
Fred News
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 10:06AM
Linda Rozett, communications director for Thompson, is out -- a move by campaign director Bill Lacy to assert control over the organization apparently. The same report and others inidcate Lacy wants to have someone with campaign experience in that role. This seems an excellent notion and improved press communication and messaging will be key in making Thomposn competitive with other opponents who frankly have very strong teams.Does that mean Jim Mills, former Fox producer, won't get the top job? Robert Traynham, formerly longtime spokesman for Rick Santorum, is still aboard. Burson Sndyer, another communications hand, also departed recently.
Chuckles
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 9:51AM
Words the Chuck Schumer will never have to eat, as provided by the WSJ in its Gonzales story this morning, from back when Gonzales was named to replace John Ashcroft:
"It's encouraging that the president has chosen someone less polarizing. We will have to review his record very carefully, but I can tell you already he's a better candidate than John Ashcroft."
Re: Alberto
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 9:39AM
Here is it, 9:35 a.m., and Drudge still hasn't mentioned Gonzales.
Gonzales Out, Chertoff to Replace Him?
Posted by on 8.27.07 @ 2:02AM
UPDATE: The "Gonzales out" part is true -- he has resigned. Good riddance.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Fred Indy Speech
Posted by on 8.26.07 @ 5:27PM
Campaign Spot got some pre-speech hype but took it with a grain of salt. There was no announcement and no annoucement of an annoucement date. As for the actual speech, Jonathan Martin describes it as "sober-verging-on-somber" talk about the challenges -- national security, economic, and government competency-- facing the country, but lacking "specific solutions." Once a candidate he will be directly facing others who have both diagnosed and offered solutions to what ills the country. The latter is generally what wins over voters -- a vision of how to make things better. That is what turns a "downer"(one audience member quoted by Martin) speech into a message of optimism and determination.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey comments: "Thematically, Fred will have no problem running a campaign on these principles. Once he declares, he will have to put these into specific policies, and as quickly as possible. He may also need to find ways to cast these policies in a more optimistic light, even while hitting Republicans with some cold truths about our standing at the moment, as he did in Indianapolis. People appreciate honesty, but Reagan didn't get elected by mourning in America. " (Ed seems to think there is some testing the waters prohibition on Thompson speaking about specific policy solutions; I disagree (he's blogged on federalism and could easily blog on tax policy, for example) but find his analysis otherwise on the mark.)
- Republic, Regained
- Down in the Desert
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
