- 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, October 13, 2007
Virginia Senate
Posted by on 10.13.07 @ 11:24PM
The Virginia GOP has voted to hold a convention rather than a primary to determine the GOP Senate candidate. A source close to my Congressman Rep. Tom Davis a couple weeks back told me that Davis would likely not make a run if the convention route was chosen. I certainly hope this is the case since Davis' chances of beating Democrat Mark Warner are not great and if he ran for Senate his House seat in Blue-leaning Fairfax County would almost certainly be lost to the Democrats. Former Governor Jim Gilmore is expected to make a run but he is also a long shot to beat Warner. Eric Cantor? Ed Gillespie?
Oh, The Shame of Not Winning Awards From Swedes
Posted by on 10.13.07 @ 6:09PM
Michael Goldfarb notices a hilariously clueless post by Noam Scheiber.
Related: Jesse Walker explains how to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
Re: The Campaign Heats Up
Posted by on 10.13.07 @ 4:46PM
Rudy and the Right
Posted by on 10.13.07 @ 1:27PM
In the new Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes has a useful piece on Giuliani and social conservatives. He advises the Republican frontrunner that his abortion position will be a problem, and suggests some steps short of embracing the pro-life label Giualini could take to address it. But the most important item in Barnes's piece is this: He quotes Giuliani saying he would veto any attempt by the Democratic Congress to gut the Hyde Amendment. This is the first time I'm aware of that he's been willing to make his new support of the Hyde Amendment that concrete. If Giuliani actually says this publicly, it will be a sign that the new social conservative campaign against him -- as inept as I think it has generally been so far -- is having some effect.
Re: Making the Pitch
Posted by on 10.13.07 @ 1:06PM
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Campaign Heats Up
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 7:46PM
Thompson Schedule
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 6:27PM
Others have caught on to the fact that Thompson isn't doing much retail politics. On one hand, the "he's lazy" crowd will seize on this as evidence he is on cruise control, but I think something else is going on. It simply isn't worth the grief he gets from local press and the gaffe a day theme to do small retail events in states at this point. Better to do some easy interviews on Fox (one next week), prepare for the next debate, meet privately with groups he is trying to woo and stay low for a bit. In the home stretch he'll need to be visible, but for now, why bother?
TNR's Freudian Slip
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 6:07PM
Only the New Republic of Pvt. Beauchamp fame could put up a headline on its homepage so devoid of any sense of irony: "There's Something About a Man in Uniform."
The Worst Year Ever For Peace?
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 5:34PM
Given the abstract-at-best relationship between climate change alarmism and peace-promotion, I guess Al Gore's award can only mean that no one did anything this year to directly promote "fraternity between the nations,... the abolition or reduction of standing armies... [or] the holding and promotion of peace congresses," in the words of Nobel's will.
Western Standard RIP
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 5:27PM
After 3.5 years Canada's conservative national news magazine Western Standard has ceased publishing a print edition. Mark Steyn and Colby Cosh were among its many fine contributors. It was also one of the few publications gutsy enough to publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Editor Ezra Levant says WS may will consider a Web presence of some sort.
The Messiah With A (Well-Hidden) Sense of Humor
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 3:59PM
This bit from New York Magazine is absolutely priceless:
With Eliot Spitzer's poll numbers tanking, First Lady Silda Wall Spitzer is suddenly everywhere-last week, she made four public appearances in as many days. "She's a charm machine," says one Spitzer insider. Silda, a southern-born corporate lawyer, has a pol's knack for staying on message. How has Eliot changed since taking office? "You think he needs to change? He is doing what he's doing because he believes that New York is the greatest place in the world." What advice does she give him? "Eliot makes his own decisions." Is there anything we don't know about him? "He has a really good sense of humor." Anything funny he's said recently? "Nothing is coming to mind, but I'll give it lots of thought and figure something out."
Yes, please do give it lots and lots of thought.
Re: Nobel Al
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 2:33PM
McCain broke the silence among GOP contenders to offer congratulations to Gore and urge him to support nuclear power. (The latter will happen, slightly after the last glacier melts.) Other camps seem to be following the "if you don't have anything nice to say..." rule. Even those candidates who concede global warming is a real issue clearly don't want to be seen endorsing the breathless fear mongering associated with Gore nor his big government solutions to reducing dependence on fossil fuels. But this is classic McCain. His indifference to "partisan politics" also conveys to the GOP base that he is "not one of them."
Nussle Briefing
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 1:16PM
This morning I attended a bloggers' briefing with OMB director Jim Nussle, which touched on topics including SCHIP, entitlements, and growth in discretionary spending.
Nussle said he was surprised that Democrats announced they would refuse to negotiate with President Bush over SCHIP. "It's surprising if this is about children," he said. "If they want to preserve a political issue that polls well, I can understand why they want to keep doing this."
Listening to Nussle, however, it was abundantly clear why this is such a losing battle for the White House. Nussle emphasized that Bush called for a 20% increase in SCHIP and that "he wants to ensure that children don't fall between the cracks." Once you abandon any arguments about the proper role of government, it just becomes a debate over who is willing to provide more money to cover more children, and that's an argument Republicans can't win.
I asked Nussle about the looming entitlement crisis, specifically, whether there was any reason to be optimistic that Congress would address the issue before we face a fiscal catastrophe. He wasn't very reassuring.
"Every moment that passes, the hill gets steeper to climb," he said, and the options "become harder to adopt."
President Bush was ready to have a conversation with Congress about Social Security with "no preconditions," and proposed slowing the growth curve for Medicare and Medicaid slightly from 7.7 percent to 7.5 percent, but they wouldn't have it.
"I hope it doesn't take a catastrophe to wake people up, but unfortunately we are in a two year cycle," he said.
People always say nothing can be done during an election year, but "the challenge, of course, is that there's never an off year anymore. It's always an election year, so if somebody's waiting for an off year, there ain't one coming."
Asked about spending growth during the Bush years, he said that Bush had a much smaller degree of control over discretionary spending than his predecessors because of the rise of mandatory spending, and after the
One scary statistic was that if tax levels remain constant, by 2040, entitlement spending will take up 100% of the budget.
UPDATE: Robert Bluey sends along some video.
Re: Romney Ad
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 11:49AM
I'm sorry, but the sentimental music and Romney walking in front of his landscaped house in his blue button down shirt does not make me say, "Hey, that's the guy I want to stare down the jihadists!" It looks more like he's a CEO who would let his lawyers sort things out.
Making the Pitch
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 10:59AM
Re: Nobel Al
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 10:22AM
Gore isn't going to have that Nobel Peace Prize for long. Scrappleface reports.
Romney Ad
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 9:45AM
Here is his new ad focusing on the jihadist threat. After the "apparently" and "ask the lawyers" debate it is a good idea to try to beef up his image as tough on terrorism and national security. He starts with the handicaps of lacking foreign policy experience in a post 9-11 election and running against two pugnacious "tough guys" and one "sober and serious" ex-Senator(whose answers on foreign policy in the debate were among his best). Romney is smart and says the right things, but the question is whether he can convince voters that he is resolute and savvy enough to deal with our foes. It would help perhaps if he got some high profile military and foreign policy gurus on board (McCain and Rudy may have cornered the market though). For now it is a good ad although I wonder if he doesn't look a bit too much like a suburban dad out front on a Saturday morning rather than a future commander in chief.
UPDATE: Romney also writes a letter to the Wall Street Journal in response to their "eghad" op-ed to clarify his debate remarks. Funny, someone suggested that such a comment would have helped immediately after the debate.
Re: Tommy Thompson Endorses Rudy
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 9:35AM
Thompson is pro-life, very vocally so. The timing may have something to do with the upcoming Family Research Council candidate forum.
Re: The Line Item Veto Fight
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 9:31AM
One conservative legal scholar had this to say to me: "Romney's
position is that the line item veto is a good thing so Congress
must be able to enact it by statute. This is liberal result
orientation. The Constitution does not empower Congress to
legislate every good thing under the sun. It is a good but not
perfect document. It is a mistake to think that because something
is good, Congress must be able to do it or there must be a
constitutional right protecting it." Also Kmiec's touting of
originalists sans Thomas is not exactly an advertisement for
selecting judges without litmus tests or results oriented
aims.
Tommy Thompson Endorses Rudy
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 8:56AM
That's the endorsement that the Giuliani campaign had everybody speculating about yesterday, leading some to suggest it would be South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Thompson said:
The Line-Item Veto Fight
Posted by on 10.12.07 @ 8:55AM
It's getting pretty silly. After Steven Calabresi wrote a defense of Giuliani, Douglas Kmiec countered with another piece taking Romney's side. But Kmiec's argument is rather childish, because he selectively cites liberal opponents of the veto and conservative supporters of it to reach the conclusion:
Most conservatives will have no trouble figuring out that one.
So, I guess the voters have to choose up sides: Rudy, Thomas, and Rehnquist; or Mitt, Breyer, and Kennedy.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Re: McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 7:39PM
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden responds: "The Governor gave a direct answer stating that his paramount concern was taking swift action to protect the American people. He also stated that the question of authorization from Congress was a separate issue for legal consideration. That's a very straightforward answer and any sitting senator should recognize that." Madden offered up a similar response to Rudy's comment earlier that Romney maybe just had a "whoops" mistake in the debate. I suspect this is going to go on for a bit.
Rudy Talks To NATO
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 5:55PM
Rudy vs. Romney
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 3:31PM
One view of how this might play out and who benefits by waiting to fully engage is here. My take is that Rudy in the debates bests just about everyone so the more debates the better, which is contrary to the usual rule that frontrunners should avoid debates. His ability to take advantage of the "ask the lawyers" moment is a good example of pouncing on others' errors. Now with multiple candidates like Thompson and McCain the opponent's error gets replayed from multiple campaigns. Romney does better with time to prepare and can use his resources in the paid media. I used to think the race would be won in Florida, then Michigan popped up but maybe after all this ground zero is really New Hampshire. Guess where Rudy is going this weekend?
McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 3:15PM
McCain is his feisty self today. He led off by criticizing Romney's ask the lawyers remark saying " Governor Romney is just inexperienced" and for emphasis, saying his comment " was just a product of inexperience." He last said the line item veto could be rewritten to pass constitutional muster and provide presidents with a valuable tool.
Highlights of questions:
I asked about Thompson proposal to index social security to prices instead of wages. He said that one thing he learned was that if you come up with specific proposals others will shoot it down and he favors the Reagan approach of a commission with everything on the table, although he "is opposed" to tax increases.
On health care: A fundamental difference between him and Hillary. He accused Hillary of proposing a big government, single payer system.
On the Armenian Genocide: "I don't think there is any doubt" it occurred but expressed significant reservations about its affect on our relations with Turkey and acknowledged it is a different government than that in power in 1915. He would like to see some "acknowledgement" by the Turkish government. This is unlike Burma which is an ongoing human rights atrocity.
On Iran: We shouldn't telegraph all our options.
Romney again: He said with his qualifications and background he never would have answered that way. On the follow up he repeated that he never would have said to go ask the lawyers and said it was a sign of inexperience in dealing with international matters.
On line item veto again: It was wrong to bring the lawsuit. It shows a fundamental philosophical difference. He says the line item veto was "written wrong"
He's on the bus in Iowa(and lost cell phone connection at one point and headed to New Hampshire). In New Hamphire this type of talk will make him highly competitive.
Where They Are
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 2:27PM
It has been widely reported that Thompson canceled a NH trip. Instead he is in Tennessee, Texas and DC this week, according to his press shop. This should come as no shock. Since foregoing the NH debate he has had only one brief visit in the Granite state. NH is simply not in his plans as he focuses on Iowa and SC as the momentum builders needed for Florida and the redder states of February 5. Rudy is in South Carolina for two days with a big endorsement that is NOT Mark Sanford. He is running well there and would like nothing better than to knock out Thompson or come so close as to diminish any Thompson victory. Romney is no longer concentrating solely on NH and Iowa and is in Colorado, Oklahoma and Nevada in the days ahead. This seems wise since counting on big wins in the first two states to propel him into the national lead may be overly optimistic.
Re: The Third Party Threat
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 1:41PM
Judging from my mailbag, I didn't make myself clear on some points in my column today. I have no objections to social conservatives opposing Giuliani. My complaint is that they have not done a very good job of doing so. To recap: They have failed to effectively communicate Giuliani's record to fellow social conservatives in the Republican Party; they have failed to exert effective pressure on Giuliani from the right; they have failed to consider viable options to Giuliani; and even their third-party threats are premature and not well thought out enough to constitute a serious effort. These failures, as much as a Giuliani nomination or a Hillary presidency, threaten social conservatism as a serious force in American politics.
More later.
Re: Thompson and Spending Cuts
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 1:10PM
James, I don't speak for Larry Kudlow but I think his objections were both substantive and political. From my perspective I think Thompson's idea has much merit and I give him credit for raising it. That said I am not unaware that it will be viciously attacked by seniors and by the Democrats if he is the candidate or another candidate makes a similar proposal. This is the infamous third rail. There is a good reason why Hillary played her cards so close to her vest in the last debate about her social security plans and why the other GOP contenders tend to simply list options other than tax increases for fixing the solvency problem.
Hillary's New College Plan
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 12:40PM
Hillary Clinton just unvieled another new plan to augment the size of government. This one aims to make college more "affordable" through a $3,500 tuition tax credit, an increase in Pell Grants, and providing more aid to students who join AmeriCorps. She also purposes a "Public Service Academy" that is described as "the West Point of public service."
The price tag? $8 billion per year. How is it paid for? Like her national 401k proposal, by rolling back the estate tax cut and freezing rates at 2009 levels.
Rudy vs. Hillary Swing State Polls
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 11:50AM
Jim Geraghty points to a series of Quinnipiac polls with Clinton ahead of Giuliani in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio (albeit by low relatively margins). While I agree with Geraghty that results like these results hurt the 'he can beat Hillary argument,' I think it is worth pointing out that even though he is behind Clinton in these states, Giuliani still does better than his Republican rivals, so he still has a strong case to make that he's the best one to take on Hillary, followed by McCain, with Thompson and if Romney well behind.
For instance, in Florida, Giuliani trails Clinton by three points (within the margin of error) while Thompson is 9 points behind, and Romney lags by 11 points. In Pennslyvania, Giuliani is behind by six points, while Thompson is down by 11 points and Romney by 12. McCain is just 4 points behind Hillary in Florida and seven points behind in Pennslyvania, but in Ohio, McCain is 10 points behind, whereas Giuliani lags by six. But Hillary beats Thompson there by 14 points and she trounces Romney by 17.
The bottom line is that the deck is stacked against the GOP next year, so it would be an uphill battle for any Republican candidate. But what these polls do show us is that Giuliani, at least right now, is the most competitive of the Republican candidates. McCain could also make an electability argument, but currently is in a much weaker position for the primaries.Â
Build Me A Straw Man!
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 11:45AM
Frequent AmSpec contributor Drew Cline reports from Obama's recent enviromentalism-touting tour of New Hampshire.
Pushback
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 11:21AM
The New Hampshire primary moving to early December? The idea is apparently being batted around.
Thompson and Conservatives Against Spending Cuts
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 11:01AM
While I'm obviously no fan of overheated critiques of supply-side economics, some tax-cutters have an aversion to cutting on the spending side of the ledger that gives their critics ammunition. If Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation rather than wages, no one will see their monthly checks reduced. Instead, the promised benefits will be brought more in line with the government's ability to pay. This is a cut only in the Washington sense of the word.
Secondly, as long as benefits are tied to wages we can't realistically expect to entirely grow out of insolvency. The economic growth will increase wages, which will in turn increase benefits as well as revenues. A combination of price indexing and personal accounts, as advocated by the current administration, remains a promising way forward on Social Security reform.
It is good to see Republican presidential candidates coming up with ideas about entitlement reform. It would be even better if conservatives didn't repeat liberal arguments about benefit cuts.
The Third Party Threat
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 10:57AM
In the wake of Jim's piece today, just a quick note about James Dobson threatening to support a third party candidate in the event of a Giuliani nomination.
Although I do not consider myself a fan of Dobson, I have a problem with some of the harsh reaction from partisan commentators lashing out at social conservatives for suggesting the possibility of a third party, arguing that they'd be to blame for a Clinton victory. What bothers me is the underlying assumption that the Republican candidate is somehow entitled to the votes of social conservatives. I may not vote based on social issues, but there are issues that I am quite passionate about, and if the Republicans' nominated somebody who held opposing views on those issues, I'd have a tough time voting for that candidate and would resent any suggestion that I have to, so I empathize with social conservatives who were attracted to the Republican Party because of its stance on life. If a third party splinters the Republican vote and elects Hillary Clinton, it will not be the fault of social conservatives, but the fault of the Republican Party for not nominating a candidate who is worthy of their support. So, while I do think social conservatives should still support Giuliani were he the nominee, I think the onus will be on Rudy to convince them that he deserves their support.
For me, one of the many things that changed on Sept. 11 was that I shifted from an idealistic view of politics to a much more pragmatic one. The event demonstrated to me that anything could happen over the course of a presidency, and it's important to choose the best candidate with a chance to win, rather than hold out for ideological purity.
That's why I think, ultimately, that social conservatives would be mistaken to vote for a third party. And to those who say they simply cannot vote for somebody who does not recognize the rights of the unborn, I would say that they should still vote based on which one of the two candidates with a chance to win would ultimately do more to advance their cause. While I know some conservatives are unconvinced that Giuliani is serious about appointing strict constructionist judges, there is no doubt about the fact that Clinton would appoint judges in the Ginsburg mold. Also, Giuliani's political appointees are much more likely to be pro-life than Clinton's. The idea that there is no real difference between Giuliani and Clinton is an absurd one that will be much more apparent during the heated general election.
There is plenty of time to have this debate, of course, and in the midst of the Republican primary, conservatives can still rally around another candidate who is pro-life. But the point I'm trying to get to on this post, is that those who are arguing against a third party need to be respectful of those who are considering it, rather than lash out and act as if social conservatives must vote for any candidate with an 'R' next to his name.
More From the Strange Cult of Gore...
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 8:59AM
...can be found here. And be sure to check out the cartoonist's other "incisive" work, beginning with his rendering of Rove and Gonzales in nooses, and following straight through to a crucified Reagan.
Re: Thompson Follow Ups
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 8:45AM
Mike Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare Studies at CATO on Thompson's suggestion that indexing social security to prices rather than wages with fix the solvency probelm: "He is correct, though that would amount to slightly more than a 26 percent reduction from promised benefits over time." He also notes that this suggestion is part of CATO's plan to reform social security. Larry Kudlow worries that a Thompson typoe benefit reduction is the type of thing GOP candidates get creamed for. ("I've never been enamored with that approach. It would be much better to grow ourselves out of the Social Security problem with strong supply-side policies for the whole economy. And yes, I would extend the retirement age gradually over time. But benefit cuts are a real bad idea. Private savings accounts, which were endorsed by several candidates including McCain, have to be part of a Republican package.") However, it's specific, it's responsible and it's different than the other candidates. Give him some credit.
Staten Island Republican Councilman James Oddo...
Posted by on 10.11.07 @ 7:35AM
...hero. Role model. Slayer of Norweigen Daily Show wannabes.
There is some extraordinarily strong language in this bit, but that's sort of why Oddo is a hero...but also why, if he was on the short-list for the Nobel Peace Prize, he ain't anymore. I'm starting to see why Rudy goes out of his way to defend this city.
Via: Alarming News
UPDATE: Alas, I just had a sudden recollection in the shower that Oddo was also the nanny-stater who led the charge to ban aluminum bats. Where have all the heroes gone?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Thug Lovin'
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 7:27PM
What's up with Hillary Clinton associating herself with classified-document-thief Sandy Berger? Matt Yglesias explains:
[W]hat you hear if you talk to people in left-of-center national security circles in Washington is that one of Berger's informal responsibilities is basically to get in touch with former Clinton administration foreign policy hands and warn them in no uncertain terms that if they back Barack Obama, Clinton will win anyway and those who supported her rivals will pay the price.In other words, like many leaders of semi-legitimate enterprises (think of the Corleone Foundation in Godfather III), Hillary calls on her criminal friends to handle the behind-the-scenes enforcement...
Thompson Follow Ups
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 6:32PM
Thompson spokesman Jeff Sadosky responded to a couple of follow
ups to last night's debate:
1. Is his indexing of social security benefits to inflation a
concrete proposal? "Yes, switching to indexing the adjustment to
prices from wages could actually make up more than the entire
anticipated shortfall in Social Security, depending on how it is
implemented." Does he rule out tax increases? "Yes."
2. What about the need to call in the attorneys on Iran? "Senator
Thompson made it known last night that when it comes to our
national security, it won't be his attorneys that he will first sit
down with, it will be his generals."
Overseeing Oversight
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 5:24PM
While we appreciate all of the wonderful calls we've been getting from the wacky Left and MoveOn types who read Rep. Henry Waxman's web page (if he had a Facebook page, we'd be first in line to be his "friend"), it won't sway us from our reporting of earlier this week. And we stand by our story, which was conveyed to us by an Oversight Committee staffer. Further, we have been made aware of some conversations between staff on Oversight and career staff at the Federal Communications Commission about how best to approach oversight hearings on FCC policies.
The fact is Rep. Waxman and his Oversight Committee have been looking for any opportunity to 1. Pursue and attack conservatives and the Bush Administration; and 2. Gain gobs of publicity for Democrats in general and Rep. Waxman specifically. He accomplishes these lofty goals by using taxpayer dollars to investigate any number of individuals, organizations, government entities, corporations and industries. And he has the staff to do it.
Re: Fogma
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 5:04PM
Shawn, I too enjoyed reading Paglia this morning (over coffee: and went a little crazy on it). So it is with great joy that I take a stab at your question about the diff between nature-worshipping Romanticism and emotionalism.
Now Paglia's an avowed atheist, and I'm not, but I know we're both not Romanticists. If Tocqueville is right that unity is an obsession in the democratic age, to the point of detesting the irreconcilable disunity between creator and created, then the resolution that might appeal to new-agers (Paglia, self-described, is one) is one in which everything is God, thereby avoiding the painful realization that God is not everything but created the universe ex nihilo.
But it's not clear to me that Paglia is up for nature-worshipping instead of universe-worshipping on a totally abstract spiritual plane. There's a big difference -- though often obscured by well-meaning if confused 'spiritual' types -- between hugging a tree and opening a chakra. I think Paglia, if anyone, understands how close nature-worshipping Romanticism gets to straight up paganism, a much dirtier and more crazed knot of faiths and supersititions than new-agery in its unadulterated form.
The link between emotionalism and Romanticism of any type is revealed in the way the Romantics wound up worshipping nature (and youth, and art, and so on) less 'for their own sake' than for the sake of experiencing a sense of awe that had otherwise been shut off by the collapse of Christian faith. This kind of instrumental worship -- done therapeutically for purposes of psychological gratification and evading the pain of guilt -- is what Alasdair MacIntyre called 'emotivism' in his classic book After Virtue (now on its third edition, with an illuminating new preface). Interestingly, Freudian therapy was very consciously un-Romantic.
But to your question, it'd appear on closer inspection that, as you supposed, the similarities between emotionalism and nature-worshipping Romanticism are more important and obvious than the differences. I only wonder whether Paglia's new-age atheism dispenses with both those poses -- incidentally making her commentary about a zillion times more interesting and appealing than the histrionics you often get from our modern-day emotional Romantics.
Re: On Line-Item Veto
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 3:39PM
Without defending the constitutionality of the line-item veto statute struck down by the Supreme Court, I'd point out that impoundment wasn't unique to Richard Nixon -- it actually began at least in 1801. Every president from Thomas Jefferson to Nixon was thought to have impoundment power. Nixon went much further in impounding spending than any of his predecessors, however, and had some other, uh, problems going on at the time.
Even then, Congress didn't appeal to the Constitution or run to the courts to stop Nixon's impoundment. Instead, they passed a statute, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, getting rid of the practice. Under the law, the president retains the power to propose recission of certain items, though that falls short either of the line-item veto or the enhanced recission authority pursued by the Bush administration.
Re: On Line Item Veto
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 3:25PM
Quin, it is hard to argue that in a case where the Constitution plainly sets forth the rules for vetoing a bill that Congress can come up with a new arrangement.
To recap: 1) Team Romney, as Quin pointed out, sent around an article by Doug Kmiec arguing that the line item veto is so constitutional and listing the justices Romney would seek as models, carefully omitting Clarence Thomas who of course voted to strike down the line item veto; 2) Team Rudy responds via Ted Olson with "what about the 6-3 Supreme Court case didn't you understand?" (He says it much more eloquently); 3) Team Rudy continues to bang at Romney with an email saying that "if the lawyers say it is okay" should qualify Romney's foreign policy pronouncements; and 4) Team Thompson says we brought up the Romney gaffe first last night (they did I think) with this : "Question: If you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?Answer: You sit down with your attorneys.The First Thing Fred Thompson Would Do? Sit Down With His Generals And Consult With Congressional Leaders. " For now, Team Thompson -- likely thrilled Romney is having a tough day -- prefers to remind whoever is still picking through the remains of the debate that "Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani continued their partisan bickering, this time over things like the constitutionality of the line item veto. While they played politics, Fred Thompson rose above it and took his conservative, small government, tax cutting message straight to the American people."
UPDATE: And really what is the point to continue to quote the dissent (that would be the losing side) on the line item veto? It certainly doesn't make the case that Rudy's was wrong then nor does it suggest that there is any likelihood that the line item veto could be restored in the near future short of a constitutional amendment. And the gratuitous suggestion that you'd support a Scalia in the future (but not a Thomas?) perpetuates the bad idea that you should select judges for the results you hope to obtain.
On Line-Item Veto
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 3:14PM
To give the other side its due, the usually excellent Douglas Kmiec writes today that Mayor Giuliani was wrong about the constitutionality of the line-item veto. What Kmiec leaves out is that in the battle of high court conservatives, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist outpointed Justice Scalia. In most cases wher ethey disagree, I tend to side with Thomas over Scalia.
Now I have been a long-time proponent of the line-item veto, going back to a column I wrote on it when I was in college circa 1983 or so. But it is worth noting that even back then, I (and everybody else) assumed that it would require a constitutional amendment to implement such a veto. I was on the Hill as a member of the Leadership's press operations when the statutory line-item veto was passed, and even then I thought it was unconstitutional as written even though I fervently hoped the court would find it otherwise. Kmiec's arguments just don't wash: The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and the president is NOT entitled to pick and choose mere parts of bills to approve and not approve. Yes, I think he OUGHT to have the means of doing so, but that doesn't mean that he DOES have such means, constitutionally. President Nixon was WRONG when he impounded certain spending, and the principle is roughly the same here.
In short, Romney was wrong and Giuliani was right.
Nannies Continue Roosting
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 2:34PM
Jeremy Lott reviews David Harsanyi's Nanny State today in the Politico. My conversation with Harsanyi from a few weeks back lives here.
The Heavy Fog of Dogma
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 2:27PM
Camille Paglia does another one of her occassional Salon Q&A sessions and takes another righteous whack at the man-made catastrophic global warming consensus:
The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years.
Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.
The again, the right-wing seems eager to abandon the fight as well, if for no other reason than to avoid derision that rivals even that towards opposition toward S-CHIP expansion.
Also: How "nature-worshiping Romanticism" can be separated from "emotionalism" might be an interesting query for her next session.
Does This Help?
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 12:49PM
Romney's folks say Rudy's answer on Iran was too much legalese, but Campaign Spot points out all the major players essentially said the same thing: consulting Congress is best but then do what you need to. It would seem a better tactic for Romney would either be to wait until this passes(how many columns like this could there be?) or find a chance to say "of course I wouldn't let the lawyers decide what is best." (Ideally they would have done the latter last night but that's water under the bridge now.)
Romney Channels Warren Zevon
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 11:54AM
Yesterday's debate just reinforced the degree to which Warren Zevon is an influence on Mitt Romney's campaign: the legal advice, the NRA membership, the cash burn rate. It sounds like his strategy is Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money.
Romney Team Damage Control
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 11:24AM
DEBATE REWIND: STRENGTH AGAINST
THE
"And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual to have he control of launching a nuclear weapon. And so we will take the action necessary to keep that from happening. And I think each person on the stage, certainly in my case, I would make sure that we would take the action necessary to keep
Governor Romney on the Need To Act Against Any Threat Being the President’s Utmost Priority:
MODERATOR: "Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the
ROMNEY: "You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the
Governor Romney On The Iranian Threat:
Governor Romney: "I Think The President Has Whatever Authority Is Necessary To Protect This Country And Protect Our Troops." ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "George Stephanopoulos: Sen. Clinton took to the Senate floor earlier this week and said the president does not have the authority he needs to take military action against
Governor Romney: "
Governor Romney: "The Iranian regime threatens not only
Governor Romney: Instead of Inviting Ahmadinejad To Speak At The United Nations, We Should Be Indicting Him Under The Genocide Convention. "If the principles of the UN's founders and the harsh lessons from past genocide have any meaning, our leaders must act now to confront the Iranian regime's terrorist, genocidal and nuclear ambitions. Failure to act now would diminish the legacy of those who fought and died in World War II and of all victims of genocide and terror." (Gov. Mitt Romney, Letter To National Rally To End The Threat Now, 9/24/07)
Governor Romney Is The Only Candidate To Have Laid Out A Comprehensive Strategy To Prevent A Nuclear
In January 2007, Governor Romney Laid Out His Five-Point Strategy To Prevent A Nuclear
· First, We Should Tighten Economic Sanctions. The Administration deserves recognition for restricting access to banking and credit services. Other nations must act now to follow our lead. In addition, Governor Romney has called for strategic divestment from companies that support the Iranian regime's dangerous actions. As the world's financial center, no state could have a bigger impact than
· Second, We Should Isolate
· Third, Arab States Must Join This Effort To Prevent A Nuclear
· Fourth, We Must Make It Clear To The Iranian People That While Nuclear Capabilities May Appear To Be A Source Of Pride, It Can Also Be A Source Of Peril. If nuclear material from their nation falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the civilized world. The military option remains on the table.
· Fifth, Our Strategy Must Be Integrated Into A Broader Approach To The Muslim World. We must work with moderate Muslim communities and leaders to build a lasting Partnership for Prosperity and Progress.
Governor Romney Has Followed Up His Strategy With Action:
· In February 2007, Governor Romney Wrote New York State Leaders To Urge Pension Fund Strategic Divestment Of Assets Linked To The Iranian Regime: http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Divestment_Iran
· In September 2007, Governor Romney Wrote The UN Secretary General Urging That Any Invitation To President Ahmadinejad Be Rescinded: http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/UN_Letter
Praise For Governor Romney's
The
Bill Bennett: "…[B]ut let me say this about Mitt Romney, he deserves a lot of credit, all credit, for not letting up on
Turning the Knife- Team Rudy's Latest Missive
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 10:57AM
"MITT ROMNEY PROPOSES 'LAWYERS TEST'
FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
'Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make.
Lawyers should not debate while our national security is on the
line. In these momentous decisions, we need leadership, not
litigation.'
- Admiral Robert J. Natter, Ret., former Commander-in-Chief, U.S.
Atlantic Fleet,
and Senior Military Advisor, Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee
ROMNEY'S 'LAWYERS TEST' FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
Romney Said As President, You Would 'Sit Down With Your Attorneys'
To Discuss Whether Congressional Authorization Needed To Attack
Iran. CHRIS MATTHEWS: 'Governor Romney, that raises the question,
if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to
Congress to get authorization to take military action against
Iran's nuclear facilities?' ROMNEY: 'You sit down with your
attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the
president of the United States has to do what's in the best
interest of the United States to protect us against a potential
threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into
Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...' MATTHEWS: 'Did
he need it?' ROMNEY: 'You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort
out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do. But,
certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the
people -- leadership of our government as well as our friends
around the world where those circumstances are available.' (Mitt
Romney, Republican Presidential Candidate's Debate, Dearborn, MI,
10/9/07)
SOUND FAMILIAR? ANOTHER MASSACHUSETTS POLITICIAN ALSO WANTED A
NATIONAL SECURITY TEST …
In 2004, Democratic Massachusetts Senator John Kerry Said America
Must Pass 'Global Test' Before Defending Itself. SEN. JOHN KERRY:
'No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and
nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect
the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you
have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global
test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're
doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did
it for legitimate reasons.' (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential
Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)"
I'm not sure the Kerry analogy exactly fits but neither Rudy
(nor Thompson I suspect) are going to let this drop.
Mitt's Pre-Iran Lawyers
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 10:10AM
Why Mitt's line about calling in the lawyers before moving against Iran? Perhaps he's been reading Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith's The Terror Presidency, which includes this passage: "Many people think the Bush administration has been indifferent to wartime legal constraints. But the opposite is true: the administration has been strangled by law, and since September 11, 2001, this war has been lawyered to death." In his review of the book in our upcoming November issue, Michael Barone expands on what he has called "the overlawyered war" and the controlling role of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (which Goldsmith headed for less than a year) in telling such departments as Defense and CIA what it can and cannot do. Mitt, it seems, was just trying to show he's up to speed on how the game is played.
Quick Debate Take
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 9:11AM
Have been traveling, so I didn't catch the debate until the rebroadcast and it seems it was already well covered. But one thing that surprises me is that anybody would consider Romney's performance "impressive." I thought it was a disaster. In the midst of the fight with Giuliani, Romney said that this isn't about taxes and spending where they both agree, but about the line-item veto. Huh? Why would Romney concede 99% of the argument to Giuliani--the part that voters will actually care about--and focus on the consititutionality of the line-item veto? Furthermore, Romney then shifted the debate to the Bush line-item veto that "passed Constitutional muster" -- but that wasn't the one that Giuliani sued over.
Then, of course, there was the gaffe of the night, in which Romney said if he were considering an attack on Iran, he'd first consult lawyers. That was damaging on several levels. It reinforces the image of him as calculating and artificial, since it seemed like that was his way of avoiding the question. Also, Romney has a lot of ground to make up on the national security issue with McCain and Giuliani, and this just makes him look weaker and less decisive (as well as ignorant of the powers of the office he's seeking).
So, I thought Romney was the big, big, loser. After that, I thought Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson also did well in their own way. Fred got better as the night went on, and came off as likeable. Also, when he passed the Canadian prime minister pop quiz with flying colors it showed the audience that he isn't some big blundering oaf that some in the media have been portraying him as. Also, Fred's "I thought I was going to be the best actor on stage" line was a nice comeback to Romney's awkward and unfunny prepared joke.
Coverage: Romney vs. Thompson
Posted by on 10.10.07 @ 9:10AM
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Two Best from Thompson
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 10:18PM
ON AMT:
MR. THOMPSON: Well, in the first place, I don't buy the concept that any reduction in taxes is lost revenue to the government. The taxpayers haven't lost it. It's in their pocket. They know exactly where to find it.We shouldn't confuse the wealth of government with the wealth of nations. Just because the money is sent to
ON GETTING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR IRAN ATTACK:
MR. THOMPSON: On this question? Yes, I think that -- I think John has it right. I would add that under the War Powers Act there's always a conflict between the Congress and the president as to the exact applicability of that when an engagement lasts for a particular period of time and when they must come before Congress. I don't think anybody running for president should diminish the powers of the office before he gets there and take side in a hypothetical dispute. But I would say that in any close call, you should go to Congress, whether it's legally required or not, because you're going to need the American people, and Congress will help you. If they are voting for it or they support it, or leaders, especially in the opposite party, are convinced in looking at the evidence that this is the right thing to do, that will help you with the American people. And we have learned that over the long term, in any conflict, we've got to have the strong support of the American people over a protracted period of time.
What did she expect?
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 10:08PM
Well, asking if the Yankees stink could have gotten a stronger reaction, I suppose:
MS. BARTIROMO: Mayor Giuliani, is
MR. GIULIANI: Pardon me?
MS. BARTIROMO: Is
MR. GIULIANI: (Laughs.) No how, no way. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. (Applause.)
MS. BARTIROMO: Well, we're seeing an increased number --
MR. GIULIANI: Come on.
MS. BARTIROMO: We're seeing increased amounts of business go to
MR. GIULIANI: Let's stop all this stuff with our head down.
MS. BARTIROMO: Well, the number of IPOs is higher in
MR. GIULIANI: Or is the
What country do millions of people want to come to -- the
MS. BARTIROMO: So how do you explain the loss of business in
MR. GIULIANI: Well, I explain it based on some of the mistakes that we make when we overregulate and we overtax. Our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. The president of
Everybody around the world wants to lower corporate tax rates but the leading Democratic candidates, who want to raise taxes 25 or 30 percent. (Applause.) That would be a disaster for this country.
Line Item Veto
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 9:07PM
It bears remembering that the Supreme Court stuck down the line item veto 6-3 with Thomas and Rehnquist in the majority.
Re: Paul Points
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 9:01PM
As long as we're on the subject of Ron Paul: On Thursday, I expressed skepticism about a theory, advanced by Conn Carroll of Hotline's Blogometer, that Paul would hurt Barack Obama by siphoning off New Hampshire independents; Andrew Sullivan likes both Obama and Paul, and Carroll seemed to be extrapolating from Sullivan's views a bit too easily. I didn't get a chance to mention it (mainly because I was traveling over the weekend), but Carroll emailed in a response:
True Sullivan is rarely representative of others thinking, but we are already trying to shrink a pretty idiosyncratic crowd: Ron Paul supporters...As I said before, Carroll may be on to something, but I'm still not entirely convinced. Obama and Paul do have an anti-Washington streak in common, but there's also a lot of distance between them, both substantively and stylistically. Obama's attack on Washington is rooted in an optimistic liberalism that hinges on the idea that the government can be made to work well if only someone will straighten out the bickering Beltway partisans and get them to work together. Paul's attack on Washington is rooted in a pessimistic libertarianism that hinges on the idea that the government can't ever do anything right, at home or abroad, and at some point the political class forgot this and everything went horribly wrong. How much overlap is there between the groups that are attracted to those two respective messages? I'd say that it's an open question.If we want to figure out who a well funded Ron Paul campaign will affect, we have to look at who potential Paul supporters probably are, and then ask ourselves who else is appealing to voters like that. A Paul voter is: 1) anti-war; 2) anti-Washington; 3) does not regularly participate in partisan primaries; and 4) is susceptible to grandiose calls for 'change'.
That is an Obama voter right there.
Ending the Alternative Minimum Tax
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 8:54PM
According to a Hill watcher, the Republican Study Committee is up to much good:
Tomorrow at 11:30 am the Republican Study Committee will release its "Taxpayer Choice Act" in anticipation of Democrat Charles Rangel's upcoming tax "reform" bill.First, it completely does away with the Alternative Minimum Tax. Second, it gives taxpayers a choice: stay with the current tax code, or switch to a "Simplified Tax."
Under the Simplified Tax, there are two rates, 10% and 25%. The 10% rate applies to: First $50,000 for a single income earner, first $100,000 for joint income earners. The 25% rate applies to each dollar after that.
The personal exemptions under the Simplified Tax include $12,500 for a single earner, $25,000 for joint earners. There is also a child tax exemption of $3,500 for each child.
The death tax finally dies, and cap gains and dividends maintain the current 15% rate.
Parting Shots
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 7:51PM
Now that an eternity has passed and we've had a chance to collect our thoughts after those busy two hours in Dearborn, I've reluctantly concluded that my first impressions remain my final ones. (We're all Blinkers now.) Steve Moore on CNBC tried to single out John McCain's performance, but no one else seemed to be buying. It remains that Giuliani and Romney were impressive. Fred Thompson had some fine moments as well as some weaker ones that played into all the stereotypes that became set in stone after he announced last month. Ron Paul no doubt pleased his many intensely devoted backers. But the short of it is this: until some votes are counted, we won't know who has really caught on and who is going places. Until then, we're all on a merry-go-round. February can't come soon enough.
Rudy: Strict Constructionist or Judicial Activist
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 7:03PM
Ramesh Ponnuru and John Podhoretz disagree, naturally.
Parting Thoughts
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 6:52PM
Nobody shined, though Giuliani was confident and Thompson was competent though not outstanding. Romney's performance was mostly good, but his "ask the lawyers" line was probably the night's (afternoon's?) biggest gaffe. McCain was fine but seemed subdued.
Two Paul Points
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 6:47PM
Paul has said he has no intention of running as a third-party candidate. He told the Wall Street Journal, "I did it [in 1988] and I know what the problems are." Whether he'll feel a draft after the primaries are over may depend on how well he does or who the Republican nominee is. (And how feasible such a run would be given some states' sore loser laws.) But he has re-filed as a Republican to his House seat, which would tend to militate against a third-party bid.
As for Afghanistan, Paul was asked a variant of John's question at an American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast earlier this year. He mentioned letters of marque and reprisal and "doing what we did" by going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The former is out of the ordinary, though Paul advertised it as something to "supplement our military strikes" rather than replace them. On the latter, he emphasized he wanted to "get bin Laden" rather than create a government to replace the Taliban, which might be more dovish than most Americans -- it is more dovish than my own position -- but I'm not sure.
He's going to give a foreign policy speech later this week. I'll keep you posted on the extent of his dovishness.
Debate Wrap
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 6:46PM
Just caught up with the Tivo. (Won't say who I zipped through). A few thoughts and more tomorrow: 1) Thompson wasn't great and wasn't awful. He seemed like a fellow comfortable in his skin but in second or third in the race. 2) Romney's "ask the lawyers" will perpetuate the sense he is not tough enough, confident enough in a post 9-11 world. And someone will have to explain why he thought the line item veto was a winner. 3) McCain was sober and steady but didn't shine like he did last time. 4) Huckabee suffered from the extra body on stage and could not find the limelight as he usually does. 5) Rudy is a prepared and confident debater. He won the dust up with Romney and his HillaryCare jibe reminded us (as if he would let a day go by without a reminder) there is no one better at Hillary bashing. The debate is unlikely to change the course of the race so in that regard the frontrunner comes away the winner.
Where Will Canadians Get Healthcare?
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 6:05PM
Best Giuliani line of the debate, and an important point.
Welcome to the Club
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 6:05PM
Fred's last word -- "I admit it was getting boring without me" -- is a curtain closer.
But just before that Rudy's qup about Canada -- whose PM Fred had earlier been ask to name, a test he passed with flying colors -- won on substance.
A Softball She Didn't Know She Was Throwing
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 6:00PM
Maria Bartiromo seemed to think that her question about London replacing New York as the world's financial capital was going to be a tough one. The difference between a financial reporter and a political reporter, I suppose.
Confident Americans
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:57PM
A Sarbanes-Oxley mention! Right up Rudy's and Mitt's alleys in explaining why London will not replace New York as the financial capital of the world.
Mitt now takes shot at Thompson! First such all afternoon. Lots of gufffawing. Fred has last word.
Yes, 'Cause It's Going to Be Me
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:55PM
On the question of whether they'd support the Republican nominee, I don't understand why Paul, Tancredo or Brownback didn't go for that dodge and refuse to back down from it.
Ron Paul
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:54PM
No other candidate needs to worry Paul's support will taint them. Defiantly he indicates he won't support any of the current crop. A third-party run in store then?
Dismal Answer
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:52PM
Brownback is slow to name anyone who'd be his top economics adviser. I think he meant to say Alan Greenspan, but couldn't remember his name. After some struggle he did summon the name of Phil Gramm.
SCHIPS
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:50PM
Finally, a SCHIPs Bush veto question: Huckster would not have vetoed; too much political cost in doing so. At least he's honest. Too bad only he was asked about this.
You've Got Regulations
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:45PM
In their FCC for the Internet exchange, Rudy actually came across as more of a regulator than John McCain.
Internet
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:44PM
Policing vs. taxing the Internet: Rudy being himself again. Almost falls into a Matthews trip about whether to set up a SEC type monitor to keep the Internet porn-predator free.
Re: Look for the Union Label
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:41PM
Jim, I'm not surprised by the mildly pro-union nature of the responses, given that these presidential hopefuls are in Michigan. If Ron Paul could give a open-minded response, who were the rest to bash the unions as such? In any case, I thought it was enough to defend the right of workers to organize so long as that doesn't mean the freedom of other workers is curtailed.
Re: Union Station
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:41PM
Brownback mentions the importance of OLMS enforcement in his response, something I focused on in my recent Labor Department piece. He even shows an almost sense of humor in his little exchange with Tancredo.
Union Station
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:37PM
Points to Fred for mentioning secret ballots in union elections; but Rudy wins more for mentioning his family ties to the Lady Garment Workers' Union.
Huckster Huckabee
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:35PM
Huckabee's economic illiteracy comes out in full force as he predicts unions will increase their presence in "roaring form" in order to defend wages against growing CEO salaries.
Look for the Union Label
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:35PM
The answers so far are more pro-union than I would have expected.
Re: Social Security
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:32PM
I thought the policy Thompson advocated -- tying benefits to inflation rather than wages -- was fine, but the delivery was terrible.
Social Security
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:30PM
Fred is asked for specific steps on how to save Social Security. His answer sounds less specific than a filibuster. Bad moment. Fred and Rudy would have him for lunch on this one -- were they talking about saving Social Security. So maybe Fred still gets credit for being the only one openly concerned with the problem.
Re: Paul Sighting
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:28PM
Jim: He did vote for the 9/14/2001 AUMF, but it's worth remembering that the Taliban and Afghanistan weren't mentioned by name in that legislation:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.So Paul did agree that some military response to 9/11 was appropriate -- but he has also repeatedly implied that he has a problem with the war in Afghanistan. Perhaps someone should ask him exactly what he thinks would have been a preferable course of action.
Tancredo Moment
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:23PM
Good answer about Republican House members' return to voting on principle now that they're in the minority.
Put A Lid On It
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:21PM
Hillary apparently wants to put a lid on economic growth. Giuliani sounded like he wanted to put a lid on Hillary.
American Dream
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:21PM
Good for Romney to chide others for focussing on gloom and doom. Double good for looking forward to debating Hillary on the economy, given his career spent inside it.
Fred in looking ahead to hard times in future years ahead can't strike the same positive tone.
Rudy is more upbeat -- defends freedom. Blasts Hillary in up-to-date manner.
Tongue Tied Tancredo
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:16PM
Tancredo comes up with applause lines but then has trouble delivering them.
Re: Paul Sighting
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:16PM
Well, Paul did vote for the invasion of Afghanistan that overthrew the Taliban.
Ethanol Fred
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:15PM
Fred's defense of government and ethanol disappointing -- way too insiderish, which I thought was something he was pretending not to be.
Re: Paul Sighting
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:07PM
Giuliani, naturally, jumped on that one. Paul thinks that 9/11 was conducted by "19 thugs" and had nothing to do with any country's government. I wonder how many voters (and donors!) who are attracted to Paul's dovishness would blanch if they realized that it extends to the Taliban.
Folksy and Informed
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:05PM
Thompson sounds good on the Iran and Congress question. A decent performance so far.
Paul Sighting
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:01PM
Ron Paul's been losing it all day. So 9/11 wasn't an attack on the U.S.?
Golden Ron
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 5:00PM
Maybe I spoke too soon about Paul's message-discipline -- he mentioned the g-word. (For what it's worth, I'm sympathetic to the view that the Fed has erred at times by not paying enough attention to gold prices, but talking darkly -- almost conspiratorially -- about the evils of "paper money" is a good way to sound nutty.)
Fred Stands Tall
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:57PM
In his most articulate response yet, Fred defends ouster of bloody Saddam, again in response to a biased question from C. Matthews.
Brownback 'n' Biden
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:55PM
Sam Brownback needs to stop name-dropping Joe Biden at Republican debates.
Fred and Iraq
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:50PM
Deft defense of Iraq policy in its current form in terms of the larger war on terror.
Thompson on the Alternative Minimum Tax
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:49PM
What do you know -- an issue that Thompson is well-versed in. That was his best answer yet, balancing his usual broad-brush approach (Paraphrase: When the Democrats target the rich guy, the middle class guy should run the other way, 'cause they're gonna miss the target), with some real policy specifics (namely indexation of the AMT to inflation).
Alternative Minimum Thompson
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:46PM
A strong answer by Fred Thompson on the alternative minimum tax.
Fred and Taxes
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:45PM
"We shouldn't confused the wealth of government with the wealth of nations." Fred is giving a strong question to a biased question from jerky Chris Matthews.
Unity in Dubai
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:39PM
Though I think they both misheard the question, Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul actually just agreed on something.
CNBC as Prop
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:39PM
My picture is back, just as Rudy is speaking -- the CNBC screen is quite a prop in his favor, as he discusses complicated market issues and trade and doing business with the rest of the world amid stock listings running along the bottom of the screen and Dow information appearing at the top of the screen as well.
Notes On The Debate, One Quarter In
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:36PM
On the first question, Thompson seemed like he was winging it, especially in contrast to Romney's answer immediately afterwards. Romney has obviously done the homework on Michigan-specific issues that Thompson hasn't. This is pretty much exactly what we've come to expect. Thompson doesn't need to do a lot to exceed expectations about his mastery of detail, but so far he hasn't done it.
Ron Paul, interestingly, talks about monetary policy without directly mentioning gold. I suspect this is deliberate, an effort to talk about his pet obsession without sounding like a crank. Plus, he brings the issue around to foreign policy, making an effort to shore up his status as the niche candidate for the anti-war sliver of the Republican electorate. His fundraising success has apparently inspired him to at least attempt to develop the sort of message discipline that fringe candidates don't usually bother with.
Romney and Giuliani are going for each other's throats on their economic records. Team Thompson can't be upset about that.
China
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:36PM
Romney does a much better job defending America's economy vis-a-vis China than Duncan Hunter did
People Left Behind
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:32PM
Fred is asked to feel the pain of those displaced by economic change. He says a dynamic economy creates more jobs than it loses and calls for opening markets and cutting corporate taxes. That probably won't be good enough for the pain-monitors. McCain's answer sounds more caring.
Re: Top of the Order
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:29PM
Leave it to Wlady to ruin my fun by blogging about candidates who may actually become president.
Clubbing for Growth
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:27PM
"I believe in being a supply-sider," Rudy proclaims. Who else on that stage will be so unabashedly supply-side? Romney's response? He's for the line-item veto.
Farmer Sam
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:22PM
Senator Brownback is defending tax cutting and calling for cuts in federal programs. How inspiring. What about those agricultural subsidies to your state, Senator?
Duncan's Donut
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:20PM
Duncan Hunter goes off on a protectionist-anti-Chinese limb. Fred to his credit refuses to turn his back on free trade.
Top of the Order
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:15PM
The picture has gone out on my TV, so all I can do is listen to the debate from Dearhorn. Fred got the first question. Seemed hesitant, perhaps thoughtful in his replies. Romney, speaking second, was much smoother and fluent -- and smart enough to focus on Michigan's problems and blast Gov. Granholm's tax hikes. Then Rudy got to hit a home run, when he defended and lauded his friend Joe Torre. Now that the Yankees are history, this could appeal to Yankee fans and loathers alike.
Keyes to the Constitution (Party)
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 4:11PM
The FrontPage editorial repeats speculation I've heard in other corners: Although Alan Keyes has no chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, he could be the Constitution Party's 2008 candidate. There are several reasons, aside from the sore loser laws that will effect him now that he is running as a Republican, that even the Constitution Party nomination will be a tough sell.
First, Keyes supports the Iraq war (albeit with caveats about democracy promotion and whether Iraq was the right target in 2003). The Constitution Party's leaders mostly oppose it. Second, Keyes has in the past favored increased legal immigration levels. The Constitution Party's platform calls for a moratorium on legal immigration. Third, many of the people who have joined the Constitution Party over the past decade were former Buchanan Republicans. During the 1996 presidential campaign, many Buchanan supporters considered Keyes an anti-Buchanan stalking horse; Keyes probably cost Buchanan the Iowa caucuses. Finally, Keyes has reportedly spurned past entreaties to join the party because of some members' fondness for Civil War revisionism.
None of this makes a Keyes third-party bid impossible. He has the ego; the Constitution Party is desperate for a nominee with higher name recognition than Michael Peroutka. But even in that small third party, Keyes would face some opposition.
Lose the Keyes
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 3:56PM
FrontPage Magazine has published a tough editorial providing more evidence that conservatives have gotten tired of Alan Keyes's shtick. David Horowitz's webzine is responding to one Dr. Levon Yuille, who has apparently complained that Michigan Republicans are sending a negative message to the black community by unfairly excluding Keyes from today's debate. FPM puts such comments in the context of past race-baiting by Keyes and his supporters.
Ooh, Ooh! I know! Pick me! Pick me!
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 2:10PM
American Conservative scribe Michael Brendan Dougherty takes the Sam Brownback/Joe Biden challenge and comes out, at least in my eyes, on top.
Hillary Clinton on Retirement
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 12:04PM
WEBSTER CITY, Iowa -- I'm here at the Fuller Hall Recreational Center where Hillary Clinton is delivering a speech on "retirement security."
She just announced her new "American Retirement Account," essentially giving every American a 401k-type plan, with the government, rather than the employer, as a the matching entity.
For families earning up to $60,000, the government will match with tax credits on a dollar-for-dollar basis, savings of up to $1,000. If their income level is $60,000-$100,000, they will be matched with tax credits on a 50% basis. Her "American Retirment Account" sounds like an IRA-type plan, allowing individuals to contribute up to $5,000 on a tax-deferred basis.
Like her health plan, Clinton co-opted the rhetoric of conservatives, talking about choice and portability, but said: "We have to fight and finally bury the idea of privatizing Social Security."
She then engaged in some demagoguery, falsely claiming that Bush's proposal on personal accounts demanded benefit cuts for the middle class and asked for seniors to sacrifice. The personal accounts, if you recall, were voluntary and didn't apply to anybody above 55.
"Don't you believe all of these people crying wolf over Social Security," she said, claiming that at the end of the Clinton administration a plan was in the works to use the surplus to shore up the program.
At the conclusion of the speech, she moderated a panel
discussion with three Iowa voters who expressed their concerns
about saving for retirement. She's taking questions now.
UPDATE: The cost of the proposal will be $20-25 billion a year, which the campaign claims will be paid for by rolling back the estate tax cut and keeping it at 2009 levels. In a conference call with her policy advisers following the speech, I asked whether her proposal to make up to $5,000 in saving contributions tax-deferable would affect IRAs. I was told that $5,000 would be the maximum allowable in tax-deferable contributions and if somebody had contributed to an existing IRA it would cut into the amount they would be able to invest in an American Retirement Account. The bottom line is that her American Retirement Account is essentially an extension of an IRA with a matching component for the first $1,000.
Where They Stand
Posted by on 10.9.07 @ 8:37AM
The latest Gallup poll shows Rudy's lead over Thompson widening back to 12 points, up 4 from the last poll and exactly the lead just after Thompson announced. Giuliani is at 32% and Thompson is at 20% -- so perhaps neither the widespread media judgment nor the Thompson notion that regular people have embraced him is entirely accurate. He's roughly where he has been since mid-June. As for Romney, something has not clicked -- he is in 4th, only 2 pts. ahead of Huckabee. ( If you do the math on dollars raised per % of the vote that is an astonishing comparison. I believe it works out --others will correct me if my math is off -- to approximately $6.94M per Gallup percentage point for Romney[including his own money] and about $306,000 per point for Huckabee.) The good news for Romney is that 40% of those polled still don't know enough about him to form either a negative or positive opinion. McCain is in third at 16%. But all that may be scrambled by the debates today and on Oct. 21 in Florida.
UPDATE: Campaign Spot points to the unbelievably large number of "don't know 'em" responses for Romney and Thompson. Perhaps the "don't knows" are really the "doesn't vote" group (the poll is of all Americans) or perhaps it's an indication of how hard it is, even in the 24/7 news world, for someone without a previous national profile (Romney) or who entered late (Thompson) to break through. Now if they had asked "the Fred Thompson on 'Law and Order'" there might have been a different result.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Iowa Seniors Getting Irked?
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 9:34PM
According to this the Iowa AARP folks are getting steamed that only McCain and Huckabee have RSVP-ed for their GOP presidential candidate forum on October 25. Seniors make up a key group of caucus goers. Spokesmen for Romney and Thompson replied to my inquiry that no decision has yet been made. Still awaiting word from the Giuliani camp. For now it seems smart for Huckabee, whose future may depend on a strong Iowa finish, to get in front of seniors regardless of who else participates. The next debate after tomorrow's is set for October 21 in Florida. As they did with the Morgan State debate, the GOP hopefuls have to decide how best to use their time, but on this one there is no looming fundraising deadline. Who shows could say a lot about how hotly Iowa will be contested. Can Romney afford not to show if Huckabee does? If Thompson doesn't show will this be an opportunity for Giuliani to score some points and make up some lost ground in the polls? We'll find out soon as the candidates set their schedules for the next few weeks.
The Debate
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 6:01PM
Tomorrow we'll see all the GOP contenders on the stage in
Michigan and enjoy the post debate spin. But for now, the Top Ten
Things You Won't Hear:
1. Hey Chris, I'll have my new advisor Jon Stewart answer that
question.
2. Third party candidates? Great idea and it worked out so well for
Bush 41.
3. That Jennifer Granholm is my idea of a leader.
4. Time to get those CAFE Standards over 50 mpg.
5. Since we've done a bunch of these debates already let's let
Fred answer all the questions.
6. Can you ask Ron Paul that foreign policy question first so I
can just react to him?
7. Could I have one of those Bible verse questions you asked the
Democrats?
8. Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Brownie would be my first three cabinet
appointees.
9. I'm with Hillary--no troop withdrawal before the end of her
first term.
10. I love big states like Michigan where I don't actually have to
talk to all the voters one by one.
Re: Leonard
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 5:21PM
Great work on Justin Leonard, Quin. Yesterday's victory moves his world ranking to, I believe, 43, which begins to put him where he belongs. He suffers only in the recent year or two, when his trying out new techniques and new teachers had the opposite of the intended effect. (Parnevik, who has labored over his putting, put it nicely in an interview Saturday, where he said, "Yes, I worked at the putting for about eight hours, but golf is the only sport where you can practice more and get worse.") For most of his career, Leonard has ranked in the top 30, which correctly reflects his accomplishments in the game.
Easy, Now
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 4:50PM
Only those who've never paid a traffic/parking ticket they didn't think they deserve should holler loudly at Sen. Craig.
Hillary Assails Bush, Loses Voice
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 4:50PM
MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa--Hillary Clinton just concluded an event here as part of her bus tour through the state onboard the "Middle Class Express."
About halfway through the speech, Clinton was attacking President Bush's veto of SCHIP, and suggested one way to solve the problem. "Let's veto George Bush!" she thundered. But it was a bit more than her vocal chords could handle. She began coughing and her voice cracked, turned horse, and faded.
"I've been talking so much I've lost my voice," she said.
Within a few minutes she had regrouped and it was back to regularly scheduled carping.
Rudy Giuliani has staked out a strategy of running against Hillary Clinton rather than his GOP rivals, while Clinton continues to run against Bush rather than her fellow Democrats.
Credit Justin Leonard
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 3:38PM
This may be of interest only to Lawrence Henry and me, but I think it is high time that Justin Leonard began getting more respect in the golf world. His victory in the Texas Open yesterday was the 11th of his career, yet he seems to get treated like only a second-tier star rather than a top-tier one such as Jim Furyk or David Toms. I've liked Leonard ever since his incredibly classy victory speech after winning the 1997 British Open. He always seems to try to do things with class, and he's also a traditionalist who (along with Davis Love III) kept using real wooden "woods" for quite some time after everybody else moved to metal.
Anyway, let's look at the stats, which should fairly merit his career a stature right up there with Furyk and above that of Toms -- and, indeed, aside from Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and Furyk, should rank him above all other Americans under 45. (The only others who can arguably be in the same class are Lee Janzen, with eight victories including two US Opens and one Players Championship, and David Duval, with one major [British Open] and a Players Championship among his 13 wins -- but both of them were comparatively shooting stars who have done very little for six or more years. And both are older than Leonard, meaning they are far less likely to add to their career totals.)
So far, Leonard, Toms, and Furyk have each one just one professional major. But Leonard also has a US Amateur title to his credit; the other two don't. Leonard also has won a Tournament Players Championship; the other two haven't. Leonard also sank what was arguably the most famous, most important putt in Ryder Cup history to nail down the American win in 1999. In the biggest tournaments, then, Leonard bests both of them.
In total tour victories, they are close: Furyk has 13, Toms 12, and Leonard 11. (Leonard and Furyk have played in almost the same number of tournaments: 373 for Leonard to 362 for Furyk; Toms has played in far more, at 421.) In second place finishes, Furyk leads 19 to Leonard's 15 to Toms' 9. In top 10s, Furyk leads 115 to Toms's 83 to Leonard's 76. In top-25 finishes, the order is the same, with Furyk substantially ahead, and Toms barely ahead of Leonard at 173 to 167. Again, Toms has racked up the tiny leads on Leonard only by playing in 48 more tournaments. And Leonard actually leads Toms in cuts made, 286 to 280.
Leonard also easily bests Toms in terms of non-winning performances in major tournaments. He has lost in playoffs in both the British Open (1999) and the PGA (2004), and finished 2nd in another PGA (1997) and led yet another PGA through 60 holes before fading to fourth. He also has a penchant for comebacks: Three times he has come back from five strokes behind after three rounds to win, including his British Open title and his Players Championship, and yesterday's win came after a four-stroke comeback. And a number of his wins have come over top-notch players who finished second: Tom Lehman, Love, Toms, Jesper Parnevik (twice), Darren Clarke, and Chad Campbell.
And Leonard has done all this at a younger age than the other two: He's just 35, compared to 37 for Furyk and 40 for Toms. He is thus at least even money to keep adding to his win totals longer than both of them do.
For further comparison, consider that Leonard is on almost the exact same winning pace as the great Ben Crenshaw, who at the same age had only one more tournament victory (12 to 11), the same single major title, and no players Championships or US Amateur titles. And he is well ahead of the pace of fellow Texan Tom Kite, who had just seven titles by the same age.
So here's a toast to Justin Leonard. And a prediction that when his career finally does wrap up, people will realize that he merits mention among the top 60 or so golfers of all time...
Gore a Shoo-in for Nobel?
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 3:14PM
The pundits are nearly unanimous in their predictions that Al Gore will win the Nobel Peace Prize Oct 12. This means Mr Gore will have won an Academy Award, published a NYT bestseller and won the "Peace" Prize within a year. The same pundits are betting the convergence of these wonders will force Mr Gore to toss his tinfoil hat in the ring. Now may be the time to remember that not all Nobel peace prize winners made great leaders (Carter, Arafat), that bestselling authors may moonlight as genocidal dictators, and that even a schlub like Michael Moore can win a pair of Oscars. Still, it would be great fun to watch Al go up against Hillary.
When Golf Gets Really Good
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 3:06PM
Yesterday's PGA tournament finish, the Valero Texas Open in San Antonio, was just riveting, one of those that proves the case for the best competition being among players of just under the first rank. Jesper Parnevik opened with 61, 65, 66. He hasn't won in six years. He was in 146th place on the money list, so in danger of not having a PGA exempt card for the first time in 14 years. He has a wife and three daughters, he's the son of
E.g., "Yes, it's nice to be leading the tournament, but when you've seen nothing but bad shots come off your club for four or five years, it's those bad shots that stick with you." And, of his putting, "I told my caddy, if you could feel what I feel over these putts, you'd throw up."
Main competition, Justin Leonard, schoolboyish Texan with 9 wins, but none in a very long time, also low on the money list, also recovering his game.
And in the mix, two other Swedes, Daniel Chopra and Matthias Gronberg, who were playing beautifully. Also playing for their livings.
Parnevik completely came to pieces on the back nine. Couldn't hit a fairway, missed them by 50 yards left and right. Made unbelievable recovery shots from the trees, sometimes for birdie. Made 4 birdies coming down the stretch on nothing but pure heart.
The tournament ended in a four-hole playoff, with Leonard finally sinking a winning putt.
It was fabulous golf, and fabulous sport, even better than the tournament at Hartford earlier this year, which featured a battle between Jay Williamson, a forty-something trying to break into the PGA tour (playing on a sponsor's exemption) and young hotshot Spenser Mahan. Which in turn reminded me of another fabulous tournament on that same course a few years back, when Stuart Cink battled Dave Stockton, Jr. for the title.
I admire Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and Vijay Singh as much as any golf fan does, but it's tournaments like this week's Texas Open that really grab me, where the game is the thing. And for a nice outcome, Parnevik earned his tour card back -- and so did Gronberg and Chopra.
Obama's Kingdom Is of This World
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 2:01PM
While Barack Obama's appeal to religious voters is duly noted, it seems to me that comments like, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth," are not helpful. They are also not very biblically literate.
Bill Kristol Is Right
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 1:52PM
About the relative electability of Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, at least (though a case could be made that Giuliani has so far shown himself to be a more dynamic and creative campaigner, which would count for something in the general election contest). Giuliani may be able to put some blue states in play that are unreachable by Thompson and the others, but looking at his poll numbers now and where they might be in the event of a semi-serious conservative third-party challenge, the electability argument isn't quite as decisive for Rudy as his supporters would have you believe.
Babbin: Battle the Media
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 1:06PM
Our good friend Jed Babbin is absolutely right on target in today's column urging that GOP candidates ought to take on the "mainstream media" and treat the MSM like the enemy it is -- in public, without pulling any punches. There IS a way to do it, very matter of factly, that would not sound whiny and that would appeal to conservatives AND to independents whose independence is basically a form of anti-establishmentarianism. Good for Jed!
S-CHIP S-lippery S-lope
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 12:32PM
Matthew Yglesias obviously finds all conservative arguments against S-CHIP expansion without merit, but he closes his post by casting doubt on the slippery slope idea: "I don't really buy it, though; we started slipping down that slope decades ago with Medicare and Medicaid."
To some extent, Yglesias is right. Medicare and Medicaid are two large government programs that provide healthcare to the general satisfaction of most beneficiaries. They are responsible for some of the cost-shifting that produces calls for further government intervention to bring those costs down. Either of them could be expanded into a large national health insurance program later on. Indeed, there are occasionally calls to extend Medicare to the under-65 crowd.
But even many liberal defenders of these programs see the merits of them being confined to the poor and the elderly; Medicare expansion has never gotten very far. Efforts to expand S-CHIP eligibility, on the other hand, have already passed Congress. They would likely become law in a Democratic administration as part of a down payment on "universal coverage." While I think the whole S-CHIP debate shows the limits of the slippery slope argument in modern healthcare politics, some slopes are just more slippery than others.
Hillary in Cedar Rapids
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 11:54AM
I'm here at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum at City Hall where Hillary Clinton is giving a speech on economic prosperity, as part of her four-day swing through the Hawkeye State.
She just said that we have gone through the "weakest of any economic recovery since the Great Depression." Interesting how the Democratic talking points have evolved. It used to be the worst employment record since Hoover. Now at least we've moved to a recovery.
Re: Hillary on Limbaugh
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 10:54AM
The pain? These people live in a fantasy world of their own creation. Limbaugh will be hurting all the way to the bank.
Hillary on Limbaugh
Posted by on 10.8.07 @ 1:35AM
A man at a Hillary Clinton event on Sunday night at a middle school gym in Maquoketa, Iowa said that one of the reasons he was looking forward to Clinton becoming president is the pain that Rush Limbaugh would feel.
"I am kind of a full employment opportunity agency for some of these folks," Clinton responded. "If the ratings ever drop a little, they just crank it up. I don't mind, you know. I think the country has had enough of all of that negativity and we're ready to make a different decision…"
Sunday, October 7, 2007
SNL
Posted by on 10.7.07 @ 4:35PM
Not quite as devastating as the Hillary Clinton faux interview awhile back but Saturday Night Live dishes it out again. Still, Thompson shows some movement in Iowa. ( Note the 4.9 margin of error in the poll-maybe it really is hard to figure out who the caucus goers are.) As this Tennessee news outlet points out, the debate Tuesday may be critical to determine "which Thompson" image predominates.
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Useless Wonks
- Down in the Desert
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
