- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, January 26, 2008
McCain Lies
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 10:03PM
Now, as K-Lo points out at The Corner, Bill Bennett has joined a huge host of people who have concluded that John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.
On the other hand, there have been two major candidates in this race who have been straightforward even to the point of their own detriment. One of them, Fred Thompson, already has pulled out. The other has been Rudy Giuliani -- who, despite some weaknesses on a few issues (from conservative orthodoxy), has not pandered and not been telling lies. This is a man who was the best mayor, of any city, anywhere, in living memory (or certainly my living memory). I am rooting for him to do surprisingly well in Florida and to thus keep his campaign alive. This nomination battle benefits from having more candidates still relevant long enough for the vast majority of states to have the chance to weigh in.
But the nomination battle does not benefit from having candidates flat-out lie while attacking each other. That's what McCain has done today. Shame on him.
Hillary's Grand Ol' Opry
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 9:55PM
"...cross section across this state..." Yes, Chelsea's there, but does Hillary know where Bill is? A Freudian slip: ...''contribute my meager talents..." Again, she's on a unity kick. A little late, no?
South Carolina Bottom Line
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 9:36PM
If every Democrat in America were more like Barack Obama, the United States would be a better place. If every Democrat in America were more like Hillary Clinton, the United States would be a worse place. That's a hard judgment but a fair one, and necessary, for people of either (or neither) party.
O-blowout
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 9:31PM
With 96% in, Obama's got 55%, with 26% for Hillary and 18% Edwards. I know this is supposed to be the year of no-mentum, but it's hard to believe that this landslide won't give Obama a bit of a bounce going into Super Tuesday.
The acceptance speech was quite a barnburner, by the way, of the sort that Hillary will never deliver quite so effectively.
Re: Obama Speaking
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 9:28PM
This is Obama at his finest as a stump speaker and most appealing to independent voters. Hillary still has to be considered the favorite for the nomination, but Obama would be a formidable Democratic opponent.
Audacious Hope
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 9:16PM
Obama is speaking to a very happy crowd of supporters right now. An anchor just pointed out that Obama's 270,000 votes is almost as large as all 290,000 people who turned out in the Democratic 2004 primary.
UPDATE: With 99 percent of the vote in, Obama is closing in on
290,000 votes himself.
UPDATE II: Obama has won 295,000 votes, exceeding total 2004 Democratic turnout nearing 294,000 votes.
Obama Speaking
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 9:15PM
"...that we're tired of business as usual in Washington..." -- or is that we're tired of business as usual from Billary?
Re: Among the Republicans
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 8:54PM
Jim, it's official, apparently. An email from the McCain campaign that arrived in my AOL box at 8:47 tonight announced Charlie Crist has endorsed McCain.
Hillary in Spamalot
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 8:51PM
She's now winning in only two counties -- one by 9%, one by about 0.3%.
There's Hillary
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 8:43PM
Hillary Clinton is going to finish second in the South Carolina primary, native son John Edwards third. But Obama is looking at a 20-plus-point lead.
Obama in Camelot
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 8:43PM
Caroline Kennedy is going to endorse Obama in tomorrow's New York Times.
Blowout
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 7:50PM
So far by my count Hillary's not leading in any county, and losing to Obama in all but one.
UPDATE: Wayyy upland, in the border countires, Edwards is leading and Obama trailing, but Clinton's on top in Lexington County only, far as I can tell.
Among the Republicans
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 7:41PM
There are also reports circulating that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will endorse John McCain. If true, that should give McCain -- who has already won the backing of Sen. Mel Martinez -- a boost from the party establishment in his tight race with Mitt Romney. (With Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee hanging on.)
UPDATE: Crist has in fact endorsed McCain.
Re: White Nope
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 7:34PM
That's right, Jim. Another exhibit for the brief marked "Obama Doesn't Just Get the Black Vote Because of the One-Drop Rule."
The Great White Nope
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 7:30PM
John Edwards apparently got 91 percent of his votes from whites and just 7 percent from blacks. In 2004, when he won the South Carolina primary, Edwards took 37 percent of the black vote -- about 20 points better than third-place finisher Al Sharpton.
Where's Hillary?
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 7:25PM
Apparently locked in a fight for second place with John Edwards, despite a 61 percent female primary electorate. Black men voted 80 percent for Obama, 17 percent for Hillary Clinton. Black women went 82-17 for Obama. Edwards carried 44 percent of white men.
The Big O
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 7:22PM
Obviously these numbers can't hold, but this could be a blowout.
It Looks Like Obama
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 7:06PM
CNN is already projecting Barack Obama the winner of the South Carolina primary -- a "strong winner," according to Wolf Blitzer. More to follow.
Huckabee Declares War on Traffic
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 11:40AM
MIAMI, FL -- Mike Huckabee spoke to the Latin Builders Association along with the other presidential hopefuls here on Friday.
As he did during Thursday's debate, Huckabee made the case for Keynesian economics
"Many of you know that for every billion dollars we invest in highways there are 40,000 direct jobs that get created," he said.
Then he continued, "Now take $150 billion that are in the stimulus package and you can widen I-95 from Bangor, Maine to Miami, Florida from four to six lanes, and if you would do that, you would not only create American jobs, using American steel and American concrete, but you would do something that is in desperate need to be done, and that's alliviate the traffic bottle necks that believe me, being here the last several days, you need to do."
At another point of the speech, he cited the Minnesota bridge
collapse as evidence that our infastructure was being neglected,
even though it has been determined that a design flaw led to the disaster.
Rudy In Little Havana
Posted by on 1.26.08 @ 11:19AM
MIAMI, FL -- Rudy Giuliani stopped by a health and fitness facility here in Little Havana on Friday, and spoke to a lively and adoring crowd in a room packed with a few hundred Cuban Americans.
It was quite a colorful scene for a political speech. As I entered, a band was playing Cuban music and women who wore white peasant dresses with red streaks danced and shook maracas.
The former mayor of a city that is home to hundreds of immigrant groups, Giuliani seemed quite at home in this environment, and offered a stirring tribute this hard-working community that overcame the oppression of their Communist nation once they got a taste of freedom.
"Most of you came here with very little money in your pockets, many of you didn't speak English," he said. "New country, very different, very big, very confusing. But you brought with you what's inside your soul. And no tyrant, no dictator, no bully, can take that away from you, and you proved that."
Giuliani described Castro as a "vicious dictator," and reminded the crowd that just as with Yasser Arafat, he did not invite the tyrant to the 50th anniversary celebration for the United Nations.
Everything he said had to be repeated in Spanish by an interpreter, who ran into trouble on a few occasions when Giuliani spoke too long without interruption.
Giuliani also recalled how in 1996, when the Cuban government
shot down a raft-spotting plane from a group that helps rescue
Cuban exiles, he placed signs in front of the Cuban Mission to the
U.N. renaming the street, "Brothers to the Rescue Corner."
When that line got translated, the crowd began to chant "RU-DY,"
and a middle-aged woman in the front row, quite a firecracker,
shouted to him, "You no just talk now, you talk before, before,
when you mayor of New York!"
The crowd cheered.
"I love you, I admire you," Giuliani shouted back. "I see something within you that is a quintessential story of America. I see in real life terms how freedom plays out when you get the opportunity for it."
He said when people are given freedom, "look, just look, at what they can achieve so quickly against all of the odds. That is the great story of the Cuban American people, here in Miami, here in America."
At one point in the speech, he broke out in a chant of "U-S-A," and Rudy grabbed a pair of maracas, and joined along, shaking them for rhythm.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Richard Darman, RIP
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 7:10PM
The notorious non-lip-reading Bush 41 budget director has died.
Back to 2008
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 6:24PM
Mel Martinez has endorsed John McCain. Flordia Gov. Charlie Crist still has yet to endorse anyone.
Buchanan and Taxes
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 5:58PM
Ramesh Ponnuru says he was right -- from the beginning?* -- about Pat Buchanan's 1996 positions on taxes and entitlements. He links to a New York Times op-ed attacking the Forbes flat tax. But when you get past Buchanan's rhetoric about the rich, the only differences are over the details of the estate tax and keeping middle-class tax deductions while cutting tax rates for high earners. Buchanan doesn't call for raising tax rates on upper-income earners, though he does endorse a bunch of tariffs and trade restrictions. In 1994, Buchanan wrote a column (not online anywhere, so far as I can tell) praising Dick Armey's Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act, on which the Forbes flat tax was based.
On entitlements, I was referring less to Buchanan's innermost thoughts than to comments he made publicly expressing openness to Chile-style partial privatization of Social Security. But here the record is more mixed, especially since Buchanan opposed the congressional Republicans on Medicare.
I do like Ponnuru's article, however, and would link to the other how many words I agree with if it were online.
*Alright, no more Right from the Beginning references for a while.
South Carolina
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 5:53PM
Watch Hillary come within about three points of Obama in South Carolina tomorrow. You heard it here first.
Kill The Stimulus Package!
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 4:06PM
Not only is Washinton's tentatively agreed-upon "stimulus package" not likely to do much to help, but it also is almost certainly absolutely counterproductive (on a macro scale, that is; for all who receive the "rebates," the immediate, short-term benefit, when it finally comes in late May or probably June, will obviously be somewhat helpful).
The package is like pushing on a string. For a problem caused by lack of investment and production, it takes money away from investment and production and puts it toward consumption. It is demand-side stimulus for a supply-side problem. It redistributes money to individuals in the short run from their own future and their children's future in the long run. In doing so it adds to the national debt, which has a tendency to push interest rates higher, and which thus in some sense, to at least a small extent, crowds out other investment. Plus, by the time, four or five months away, when anybody actually starts seeing this money, the circumstances will be different.
The stimulus will do nothing to change productive behavior, but instead merely encourage waste.
And the package is a fiscal cure for problems that are not fiscal in nature but monetary. The problem is not a lack of dollars, but a weak dollar. It's not a lack of jobs, but the worth of the earnings. First-time jobless claims actually have fallen for four weeks in a row.
Conservatives in Congress ought to vote against this idiocy.
Corrupt Practices Acts
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 3:57PM
A story in today's Los Angeles Times illuminates the stealth tax hike campaign public employee and other Big Labor players our pushing through on behalf of corrupt local government -- and with next to no opposition, as Super Tuesday looms -- as described yesterday by our Washington Prowler.
Do We Get to Win This Election?
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 3:57PM
I'm guessing John McCain was Sylvester Stallone's second choice, after the candidate who best resembled Rambo dropped out of the race.
The Most Wonderful Time of the Year
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 3:04PM
ESPN.com has posted an annual personal favorite of mine, "The Story of the Rings," highlighting a story from each of the 41 Super Bowl champions to date.
My personal favorite: "The Real Lord of the Rings," about New England Patriots strength & conditioning coach Mike Woicik, who has 6 -- count 'em, 6 -- Super Bowl rings, 3 apiece from the two football dynasties of the last two decades, the 1990s Dallas Cowboys, and the New England Patriots of this debate.
Woicik, though, is less enamored with his accomplishments than anyone, and only opens his ring collection when he's adding to it. Woicik doesn't wear his rings, but says that, if he were to wear just one, it would be that improbable first ring from his Patriots years, one that almost no one expected the Pats to win.
Cowboys WR Michael Irvin called his team's back-to-back championships from 1993 "the hardest thing to do in sports." But the Cowboys' feat (and the Patriots', from the 2003-2004 seasons) may get bumped down a notch if New England can make it through a 19 game season Undefeated.
As you may have heard, the Patriots play the New York Giants in the Super Bowl on Sunday, February 3rd.
Huckabee and Buchanan
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 2:54PM
In the new issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru has an article (not online) about the counterproductive way in which many conservatives went about opposing Mike Huckabee's presidential bid. I think he's right. But I'm not sure what to make of this passage about Pat Buchanan's 1996 campaign: "Buchanan ran as a strong social conservative who disagreed with most Republicans on trade, taxes, and entitlements."
Trade I'll give you. On entitlements, Ponnuru is probably referring to Buchanan's opposition to the Gingrich Congress's 1995 attempt to slow the growth of Medicare spending. That opposition was misguided, in my view, but I'm not sure it represented the totality of Buchanan's thinking on entitlements circa 1996.
Yet there wasn't much heterodox about Buchanan's position on taxes. He had opposed the tax increases of 1990 and 1993. He favored a modified flat tax, retaining deductions for mortage interest and charitable donations. He supported a capital gains tax cut. He even hoped to balance his tariffs with lower taxes on businesses domestically. Buchanan might have criticized the Republican economic agenda for not being sufficiently concerned with middle- and working-class interests -- which now seems to be becoming the consensus conservative position -- but I don't see where he took positions on taxes that were at odds with a majority of Republicans.
Struggling Toward Self-Definition
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 1:27PM
Either a woman in my building is practicing her operatic singing or I've become one of those New Yorkers of legend who hear the cries of the innocent and can't be bothered to do anything about it. I guess tomorrow's New York Times will tell me who I am.
Whatever she's doing, it's distracting me from the polish I'm attempting to apply to my Jimmy Carter mockery.
Paleo-rock the Vote
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 1:10PM
"To restore the republic, we should have to undertake a massive program of disenfranchisement, beginning with people who work for or receive benefits from government, moving on to unmarried women, and finishing off with anyone who has seen three films starring Heath Ledger or Brad Pitt." -- Thomas Fleming, Chronicles magazine.
Explosive Aesthetic
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 1:04PM
File these pics under: bold artistic statements with guns (here and here). Sean "nose-to-nose with Bill Richardson" Higgins says it best, "The only way this grill could be cooler is if it fired the burgers at you."
Walshing on the GOP
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 12:58PM
The retirement of Congressman Jim Walsh (R-N.Y.) may prefigure a trend for the Republican Party. Just as the Southern House districts swung to the GOP as longtime conservative Democratic congressmen retired or were defeated, the Democrats stand to gain for a generation the seats of retiring or defeated Northeastern moderate Republicans. On the one hand, it will make the party even more homogenously conservative as the loss of the Southern Democrats made the party of Hillary and Obama more liberal. On the other hand, the loss of these seats will make it all the more difficult for the Republicans to regain control of Congress.
Hitting Each Other With Three-Legged Stools
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 11:36AM
This David Frum op-ed in the New York Times does a good job explaining the divisions between the different conservative factions (though there are still full-spectrum conservatives out there). At the root is what Tim Carney has dubbed the Dougherty Doctrine, after Michael Brendan Dougherty: "At the end of the day, the arguments all seem to boil down to something similar: If it were more like me, the Republican Party would be better off. It's failing because it's like you."
MORE: Peggy Noonan's column on the conservative civil wars, along with her take on the audacity of Bill Clinton, is worth a read as well.
Headline of the Decade
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 10:59AM
"Suicide Bomber Trips and Falls Down Stairs; Dies of Embarrassment and Bomb Detonation, But Mostly Bomb Detonation"--Ace of Spades, 1/24/2008
Thanks to Karol for pointing it out.
Love Lives Going Down With The Obama Ship
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 10:35AM
Times are getting tough in Obama-land when the 26 year-old who wrote the Iowa victory speech can't use his proximity to the Mayor of Purple America to get a date. Maybe a South Carolina win will turn it around.
The Great Jordanian Easter Egg Hunt
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 10:30AM
By comparing WMD to Easter eggs and confusing Syria with Jordan, Mike Huckabee continues to have his folksiness degenerate into utter unseriousness. If he hadn't botched the Syria reference, the line might have been remembered as an attempt to win over WMD-in-Iraq dead-enders who see Huckabee as a foreign-policy softie. And yet if Huckabee had been able to raise money, he might have had an outside chance of winning this thing.
Following A Winning Strategy
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 10:24AM
Daniel Larison will drink to that. That's how you come out ahead in these debates.
Don't Just Wait For Bug-Lizard Meets Frankenstein
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 10:21AM
Jonah Goldberg has a fine piece up today detailing the 9/11 colorings of the new Godzilla-by-way-of-The Blair Witch Project flick Cloverfield, connecting the new film's spirit to the "deeply significant" original Japanese version of Godzilla, which premiered "less than a decade after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a mere two years after the formal end to American occupation, and amidst an enormous controversy over a Japanese fishing boat damaged during American nuclear testing in the Bikini Atoll." Goldberg adds: "Obviously, later Godzilla movies were silly affairs, and if there's a Cloverfield 7: Bug-Lizard Meets Frankenstein, that will be silly too. But this movie is not." More:
Self-consciously evocative of 9/11 - it's set near ground zero - Cloverfield portrays self-absorbed young people who are suddenly yanked out of their comfortable lives. In the first scene where the monster is revealed, the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty comes screaming out of the sky. That's hardly subtle symbolism for the end of America, or at least the end of America as we know it. The military is portrayed as caring, competent, and brave as it battles a monster who is, in the words of one harried soldier, "winning."
I haven't seen Cloverfield, but in my write up of the U.S. release of the "Director's Cut" Japanese version of Godzilla a few years back I did note how much more political and poignant the film was once you took Raymond Burr back out of it:
In the Japanese version, the atomic bomb is front and center. The characters refer to it constantly, and make it clear that Godzilla is just a continuation of suffering for them. "First the black rain, then contaminated tuna, and now Godzilla," one woman laments. Others complain that the orders to evacuate are too reminiscent of the recent past. On a subway train, moments before being eaten, another woman looks hopefully toward the future and shrugs off the threat of Godzilla. "Not after I survived Nagasaki," she says. "I treasure life."
American critics ate this version up for the obvious reasons--specifically, it did all the up-front thinking for them and lent itself to a "relevant" review, even if, as I noted, it was more fascinating to me at least that "nine years after the end of World War Two, we've got a Japanese film glorifying a kamikaze mission against Godzilla, which today's critics all seem to agree is a stand in for bad ole Uncle Sam." I don't blame Japanese filmmakers, to be clear, but it is always interesting to parse what Andrew Ferguson might call the "wised-up" American debunking of any positive attributes of American history or culture. Often as not the debunking exists for no other reason than today's "wised-up" are programmed with no other way to approach anything, cultural or political than to scoff knowingly. My closing argument went like so:
If America is Godzilla, then later films in the series follow our relationship more accurately: Godzilla becomes a hero to the Japanese, protecting them against the foreign monsters that would otherwise destroy them. The American Godzilla doesn't look so bad when you've got a North Korean Mothra shooting missiles over your country and threatening to turn your homeland into a "sea of fire."
See also my defense of "torture porn."
Pickets Make Great Neighbors
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 12:52AM
Correspondents in today's Reader Mail are not at all compassionate about President G.W. Bush's conservatism. One even goes so far as to nominate Quin Hillyer for the "Optimist of the Year" award, though I'm fairly certain that Quin, like our all-inclusive Judah Friedman, will refuse to cross a picket line to accept it.
This Update Brought to You by the Letter Reagan
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 12:36AM
Over on the Spectator main page, Peter Wallison says that the similarities of John McCain to Ronald Reagan fairly leap off the page. For instance, both have O's, A's, and N's in their names. In other news Rudy the raging Reaganite has a new proposal that George Mason prof Ronald Rotunda calls an alternative maximum tax. Unfortunately, the word "minimum" was already taken.
Rambo: First Mud
Posted by on 1.25.08 @ 12:26AM
"I don't think you understand, McCain. I didn't come to campaign for you. I came here to rescue you." Want to read the Best Take Ever on Sly's endorsement of John McCain? Click here, then hit the deck.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Who Won?
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:59PM
Who knows. But I'd say none of the big three hurt himself. Romney was particularly pleasant -- on MSNBC the first comment was how good he does when not under attack, and this was one of those nights. But I must say that McCain was in top form; to my mind, his best performance so far (though I haven't seen them all); fully alert and in easy command of much detail, and of course quite funny. Which leaves poor Rudy, doing well, but the NY wit that served him so well up to Iowa and New Hampshire time now seems so...2007.
Wrap-Up
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:53PM
What a snoozer. With so little friction, I can't see how one would declare a winner. Usually if a debate changes nothing the frontrunner wins by default, but McCain's lead isn't all that commanding.
Quick Debate Reaction
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:46PM
Nothing eventful happened, quite civil, and I would be surprised if this changes any minds.
Romney, McCain, and Giuliani all had solid performances. Romney is clearly benefitting from the focus on the economy, where he is much more credible. McCain was also strong. Giuliani gave excellent answers--his one on the NY Times was classic Rudy--but I think he needed to have a major moment to dig himself out of the hole he's in, and I don't think he had one.
UPDATE: Oh, I forgot Huckabee. He was pretty invisible tonight, other than a few one-liners and his wet kiss to Keynesian economics.
McCain's Love Letter To Rudy
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:38PM
Praises his leadership on 9/11. These two men don't really want to run against each other, and perhaps McCain is thinking he no longer has to.
Rudy vs. The New York Times
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:37PM
Seriously, how can any Republican come off poorly when responding to the attacks of a NY Times editorial?
Giuliani vs. The NYT
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:36PM
Rudy's asked about the Times slamming him in their McCain endorsement. Fighting with the New York Times editorial page obviously brings a smile to Giuliani's face.
Age Before Huckabee
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:34PM
A most entertaining and gracious response from Huckabee on the matter of Chuck Norris's remark that McCain is too old -- and sure enough McCain has the last word, noting that he's sending his latest endorser Sylvester Stallone to do a job on Norris. (And who's Norris to talk anyway? My son informs me that Norris turns 68 on March 10.)
How Many Points Will This Cost McCain?
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:32PM
He gets the NY Times endorsement.
Rich Man, Poor Man
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:25PM
Terrific Romney answer to Russert's nosiness about how much he's spent in Florida. Russert's mistake: his insinuation that he was asking the question on behalf of the people's right to know. Romney instead let it be known he'll report his spending on Jan. 31, as required by law; and there's no reason to give his opponents a competitive advantage.
Mormon Question
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:21PM
Talk about softballs. Romney gets asked about his religion, and knocks it out of the park.
Good Question, Tim
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:16PM
Look for new tantrums from Bill if he ever gets close to Tim Russert again, for having the nerve to ask Romney about having to run against a Clinton "team,"
Sports to the Rescue
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:12PM
Rudy's bona fides as a NY Yankee fan serves him well as he invokes the NY Giants' drive to the Super Bowl as evidence he can come back...
Act Two: Another Yawn
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:10PM
Given the peculiar comity, it would seem that all the candidates have calculated that the best thing to do is to pull their punches.
Rudy vs. Romney on the Catastrophic Fund
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:07PM
As I've written, this is a lame issue, and a clear pander for Rudy. If there are Floridians who are going to vote on the basis of a catastrophe fund, I guess he's their guy. But Romney's filibuster was probably enough for everybody else. And Rudy's contempt for Romney really showed when he asked about the Massachusetts insurance mandates.
Guns Out, Briefly
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:02PM
Huckabee asks Romney about the support for an "assault weapon" ban. Good one; Romney's been on the wrong side of this. Romney wiggles out by assuring that he supports no new gun control legislation.
Now Rudy's asking about catastrophic insurance. So far Huckabee's question to Romney has been the only non-softball.
Let It Hurricane
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:02PM
Rudy, true to the script Larry Thornberry introduced to our readers on the main page this morning, uses his question to pin Romney on catastrophic insurance. A pretty blatant and unfortunate pander, Mr. Mayor.
Huckabee Hits Romney On Gun Rights
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:00PM
Romney says that he doesn't support any new federal legislation on assault weapons, but he would sign a federal assualt weapons ban if it made it to his desk. Huh?
McCain's Face...
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:56PM
when Ron Paul asked him about economic advisers, screamed, "What the hell are you talking about?" It was the best moment of the debate so far.
Asking Each Other
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:56PM
Romney asks Giuliani about economic relations with China. Giuliani gives his usual (and effective) spiel about trade as an opportunity.
McCain asks Huckabee about the FairTax. He asks about regressiveness; Huckabee invokes prebates. A softball by McCain; the real problem with the FairTax is that the math doesn't add up.
McCain Places A Ball On The Tee For Huckabee
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:53PM
By asking him about the Fair Tax. Is there a campaign going on? Why the lovefest?
You Too, Bill
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:51PM
Now Rudy has joined in the Clinton bashing, going after Bill, a nice juicy target these days, for squandering the peace dividend.
Romney Lobs A Softball At Rudy
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:50PM
Given the chance to ask Rudy a question, Romney asks him about our economic relationship with China. Is this an indication that he no longer views Giuliani as a threat, or that he feels he was harmed in the early states for going negative?
On the Radio
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:49PM
I listened to the first 35 minutes of the Baco Raton debate on my car radio -- I must say the tone of the responses made for a very pleasant drive home. Romney especially seemed determined to remain friendly and uncritical of his opponents. Seems he thinks he has the lead and doesn't want to turn anyone off. Except of course Hillary Clinton's admirers, as he smartly seconded John McCain in chiding her for wanting to wave the white flag in Iraq.
Act One: Yawn
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:45PM
We're at the first commercial break, and this debate has been pretty subdued so far. Apparently the candidates will be asking each other questions next, so maybe things will heat up.
Rudy Won't Be Pushed Around By Polls
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:43PM
A strong answer by Rudy, challenging the question, and noting that Clinton's positition on Iraq changed with the winds, but that his did not.
McCain On The Bush Tax Cuts
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:22PM
In all fariness, McCain is right that we would have been better off had Congress restrained spending in addition to passing the Bush tax cuts, and he deserves credit for saying so at the time. But that's only half of the story. He also opposed the tax cuts because he thought they were too weighted toward the rich.
Florida Debate
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:21PM
We've started off with economic issues. Russert is doing everything he can to get the candidates to attack each other -- asking Huckabee about Romney's record, asking Romney about Giuliani and McCain's records, and asking McCain about Romney's record. So far no one's really biting.
I had the same thought as Phil's below, re: Huckabee's Keynesian make-work highway plan.
Huckabee The Keynesian
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:19PM
I'm watching the debate from here at Florida Atlantic University, where Mike Huckabee just said that he thinks the way to stimulate the economy is to build infastructure using American materials and labor. That is classic Keynesian economics. This man may be a good Christian, but his economic views are much closer to FDR than Ronald Reagan.
Rudy and McCain in Florida
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:04PM
WEST PALM BEACH/BOCA RATON, FL -- John McCain's campaign staff must have been quite optimistic about his level of support in southern Florida. This morning, they held a town hall meeting at a huge ballroom at a convention center in West Palm Beach, setting up chairs for over 600 people. But before the event started, it was pretty clear that the turnout would be lower, so they began to pull chairs and still had over 100 empty ones by the time McCain took the stage.
In his speech, McCain focused mainly on the Iraq War and national security, but seemed less comfortable talking about the economy, and when he did, he tended to tie it to pork barrel spending. Also, whenever he says he wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, it's a reminder that he opposed them originally. This may hurt McCain as the campaign begins to focus more and more on the economy, and work to the advantage of Romney because of his business background.
The McCain supporters I spoke to were exactly what you'd expect--impressed with his character, his ability to reach across party lines, and his willingness to say what he believes rather than what he thinks people want to hear.
Compared to the enthusiasm of his crowds in New Hampshire in the days before the primary there, I thought this gathering was rather muted. Only about a dozen signs waving, no chants of "Go John Go!" or "Mac is Back."
I arrived a little late for a Rudy event in Boca Raton held after, and the room was much smaller than the massive room McCain took out, but I'd say the crowd size was comparable--about 400--and everybody was standing. Despite his sagging numbers in most polls, the audience was quite lively, breaking into chants of "RU-DY" at one point.
Giuliani focused much of his speech on taxes, tort reform, and fighting terrorism. Consistent with my hunch, when he started talking about the National Catastrophic Fund, his last minute gambit to win the state, it dropped like a lead balloon. Other than one man who shouted "Yeah!" nothing but crickets.
In the press avail that followed, Rudy faced a combative press
corps that has all but written him off, and he was forced once
again to defend his strategy and express his intention to remain in
the race. Fair or not, the media had decided that Rudy is dead, and
this will dominate press coverage between now and the times when
Floridians go to polls. Even those who would be inclined to support
Rudy under normal conditions may be turned off because of a growing
sense that he is no longer viable.
Hey Obama, Just Tell the Crowd, "You're So Money!"
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 8:38PM
I'm a Ron Paul fan, but I nevertheless have to admit I found this Christoper Buckley quote from a New York Times profile of Barack Obama's 26 year-old speechwriting wunderkind Jon Favreau--no, not that Jon Favreau--pretty funny:
"The trick of speechwriting, if you will, is making the client say your brilliant words while somehow managing to make it sound as though they issued straight from their own soul," said the writer Christopher Buckley, who was a speechwriter for the first President Bush. "Imagine putting the words 'Ask not what your country can do for you' into the mouth of Ron Paul, and you can see the problem."
I also loved this personal ad-ish ending to the story:
The campaign staff has started teasing Mr. Favreau about his newfound celebrity. Not that it's any great pickup line. Mr. Favreau, who said he doesn't have a girlfriend, observed somewhat dryly that "the rigors of this campaign have prevented any sort of serious relationship."
"There's been a few times when people have said, 'I don't believe you, that you're Barack Obama's speechwriter,' " he went on. "To which I reply, 'If I really wanted to hit on you, don't you think I'd make up something more outlandish?' "
Actually, it's difficult to imagine a better, more effective line to pick up some fetching young liberal lady these days than "Hey girl, I wrote Barack Obama's Iowa victory speech! Would you like to help me unite the country?" This kid's learned to channel Obama's rhetoric, but I think it's fairly clear he hasn't fully grasped the audacity of hope. Get out there and strike while the iron is (and ladies are) hot, buddy!
Trust Your Instincts
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 7:20PM
Patrick Ruffini's postmortem on Fred Thompson is probably the best I've seen.
Another Constitutionalist Doctor in the House
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 7:02PM
Dave Weigel has a nice profile of Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) up at Reason.
Re: The Limits of the Huckabacklash
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 6:41PM
Three quick points. First, some high-profile conservative Republicans have encouraged evangelical identity politics and victimology (e.g., the War on Christians) when it has been politically beneficial. As Dougherty put it in his piece, "Ironically, the anti-elite posture that Beltway conservatives taught heartlanders to assume when confronting the media or academia has been turned against establishment conservatives themselves."
Second, I think you are misreading Neumayr, who I believe has specific (if unnamed) Huckabee critics in mind. Some of those who attacked Huckabee have been especially eager to excuse the heterodoxies of other Republican politicians. And in a heterodox Republican presidential field, there was always going to be a competition among conservative factions to see which heterodoxies should be disqualifying. Neumayr is defending social conservatism as a requirement for a GOP nominee, not playing the evangelical-as-victim card (he is editor of a publication that isn't evangelical).
Third, I'm not sure all McCain critics will find him as easy to live with as Quin. Nevertheless, I'll repeat once again that I agree that many of the criticisms of Huckabee were legitimate.
Re: Limits of Huckabacklash
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 6:05PM
I think you are mostly right, Jim. But that says something bad about a number of Huck's backers. I was utterly amazed at how quick they were to assume that the known and respected conservatives who were opposing Huck were doing so not for the many reasons they actually gave -- using facts, logic, etc. -- but because of some sort of bias against Evangelicals or other conservative Christians.
Seriously, their response of victimization when they weren't even being discriminated against came across very much like Sharpton does when he is race hustling -- i.e., claiming victimhood and racism when whatever Sharpton is complaining about has nothing to do with race and there are no victims. (I hasten to add that of course there is racism in the world, and of course there is bigotry against Evangelicals -- but the problem arises when the sometimes victimized class claims victimhood even when there is no bias or bigotry at all.)
So we say: Huckabee is unethical, and here are the supporting
facts. They (including the otherwise esteemed George Neumayr)
answer: You hate Evangelicals. We say: Huck has no clue what he is
talking about on foreign policy, and what he does say on it is
wrongheaded. They answer: You hate Evangelicals. And so on. The
"identity politics" that Huck promoted is exactly what causes this
us-against-them mentality, a mentality that is very dangerous when
there really is no "them" that dislikes the "us." It is divisive,
not unifying, to promote such an identity politics, and Huck did so
in a particularly demagogic way. (Class warfare; Mormons think
Satan and Jesus are brothers; etc.)
I bow to nobody in this world when it comes to defending
Christian conservatives against anti-Christian bigotry. I have
written many columns through the years doing just that, while
excoriating the Establishment Media for belittling the Christian
Right. But, see, when I did so, I cited actual facts, actual
examples, of explicitly anti-religious passages in published
Establishment Media outlets. Now here I find myself accused
repeatedly of just having some bias against Evangelicals, without a
single shred of evidence provided... merely because I criticized
Huckabee on issues having NOTHING to do with his faith.
All of that said, James made another point as if it were a
problem: That opposition to Huck played into McCain's hands in
South Carolina, and that we therefore made a mistake if we also are
against McCain. To which I say: Even if I oppose McCain, I would
take McCain over Huckabee any day of the week. Why? Because I trust
him to understand the nature of the terrorist threat, and to ensure
a strong defense, and, domestically, to fight pork. I trust Huck on
none of those things. So, in that sense, the outcome in South
Carolina was a good one. There is still plenty of time for
anti-McCainiacs to block McCain....
Kucinich Is Out
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 5:28PM
Dennis Kucinich is dropping out of the Democratic presidential race. In 2004, even though he fared only marginally better, Kucinich waited until the eve of the Democratic National Convention to do so. Why is he dropping out now?
Kucinich is likely to emphasize his exclusion from the debates, but the real reason is the race in his home district -- which I reported on late last month -- is heating up. Democratic challenger Joe Cimperman is up on the air with ads telling Kucinich "You're so fired." Cimperman has also picked up the endorsement of Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson.
The Limits of the Huckabacklash
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 5:05PM
I think there were sound reasons for the widespread conservative criticism of Mike Huckabee, but I wonder if the extent of the campaign against him may have backfired. First, it may have played into the hands of the anti-establishment populism and evangelical identity politics Michael Brendan Dougherty documents. Second, it made it very difficult for the anti-Huckabee conservatives to pivot and oppose John McCain in South Carolina.
The scenario I outlined a while back of Huckabee helping Rudy Giuliani may no longer be realistic. But Huckabee -- and his critics -- may have given McCain a boost.
"It's all about Florida"
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 4:28PM
So says Rudy Giuliani, and even a Giuliani-friendly blogger on this site last week titled a post, Florida, Finally, echoing, I'm sure, the sentiments of many a Rudy supporter. I'm not politically savvy enough to have any idea whether the bet-it-all-on-Florida strategy was sound, but my gut-impression is that perhaps it would have been somewhat sounder if it had been kept under the radar a bit more. I recall seeing Rudy on Meet the Press dismissing all the early state poll numbers with variations of Yes, but Florida and wondering how, exactly, that might play for undecided voters in those states. (Especially New Hampshire where my sense is there was a far richer vein of potential Rudy voters than the one that was tapped.) And, further, what kind of impression such selective competition would leave on rank-and-file Republicans nationwide. Giuliani can make an argument, possibly, that he can pick up new voters in blue states, but is that cancelled out by not seeming too concerned with the old voters?
Like most political gambles, this one will either look like a stroke of genius or a cautionary tale in a few short days. Unless it is an epic blowout, though, I fail to see how a Florida win suddenly, miraculously erases the wins and momentum of his competitors.
Re: Lack of Stimulation
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 3:59PM
Who has time to pay attention to little details like success, failure and effectiveness when there are so many television cameras around and votes on the line? When people are hurting government has got to move, Jim. Let's not get bogged down in which way. That'll just get too confusing and in the chaos someone might realize our leaders have no idea what they're doing.
Newt Agrees About the Dollar
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 3:47PM
Newt Gingrich agrees, here, with what I have been writing about how strengthening the dollar is the single most important economic imperative right now. Lord almighty, this is becoming a consensus everywhere EXCEPT among actual policymakers. Where the heck is the President on this? Where are congressional Republicans? Where is the Treasury Secretary? Where is Bernanke? It's so bleeping obvious what is needed....
Not Very Stimulating
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 3:28PM
I'm all for taxpayers getting their money back, supply-side effect or no supply-side effect. But anyone who thinks these tax rebates will stimulate signficant economic growth wasn't paying attention to the failure of the rebate-heavy tax cuts of 2001 compared to the success of the marginal-rate-focused tax cuts of 2003.
I Guess Her Daddy No Longer Thinks She's Fine
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 3:25PM
Singer Amy Winehouse is apparently in rehab.
Re: Hallmark Americans
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 2:09PM
And that of George McGovern and Bob Dole as well. Typical.
Re: Hallmark Americans
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 12:59PM
Jim: If, as Michael Novak writes, Methodists are wonderful because they're the most "typical" Americans, does that explain Methodist Hillary's appeal as well?
Low Temperatures, High Fashion
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 12:29PM
Reporting from Sundance Meghan Keane has a great bit on how low temperatures affect high fashion, which ends like so:
With all of the miniskirts and exposed skin interspersed among the wool- and puffer coat-clad masses, the theme of the festival seems quite simple: Stay warm - or look good trying.
McCain vs. Cut and Run Hillary
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 11:33AM
This morning on Fox and Friends, John McCain went after Hillary Clinton for her "call for surrender in Iraq." Obama may not be up to it, but at least someone is going after her in the strongest terms. McCain's remarks aren't up on his website yet, so here's the full text of what his campaign has been emailing around:
"[I]'ve been paying attention to -- believe it or not -- to the Democrat debate, and I've got to tell you, I am absolutely astonished that Senator Clinton, a leading candidate on the Democrat side says she wants to surrender in Iraq, she wants to wave the white flag. After all the sacrifice we've made in this surge, which everybody knows is succeeding, she wants to surrender and bring the troops home and set a date for withdrawal. That's going to be a big subject, I hope, [at tonight's Republican candidate debate] and throughout this discussion, because if we do what she wants to do, al-Qaeda will defeat us, and al-Qaeda will tell the world that they've defeated the United States of America. I have never, never in American history heard of a leading candidate for President of the United States who wants to surrender to the enemy."
As for that last sentence, it does raise questions about whether McCain has ever heard of George McGovern. Then again, McCain was otherwise occupied in 1972.
"I've Never Killed Anybody!"
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 11:09AM
Kelly Jane Torrance gets Woody Allen on the record on that count at least.
As a fan of Allen's early stand-up comedy and an occasional enthusiast for the very occasional movies of his that actually hit the mark--yes, the predictable, Annie Hall and Crimes and Misdemeanors, but I’ll also rank Match Point and Scoop among the mark-hitters--I found this bit of
Mr. Allen is the most prolific American director, making about a film a year since he started four decades ago. And so many of them have been so good that it's impossible to declare one as his "best."
***
"I don't find it difficult," Mr. Allen says of his consistent output. Writing the script is "the hard part but the fun part." That takes "some months" and then preproduction takes a few weeks. He shoots for 10 weeks and edits in, say, just six days: "It's all electronic."
Many times when I have found myself sitting through another Allen dud, like someone who watches the sky every night because they saw a shooting star once when they were eight, I have thought to myself maybe if Allen took, you know, two years to make each film instead of one he'd be a smidgen less prolific but his output would also be considerably less uneven.
Then again, I guess Allen probably feels some pressure to keep his once-sort-of-step-daughter-now-wife living high on the hog. Whatever track record relationships with a 35 year age difference have probably isn't good.
Still, when he's on, he's on.
Phoning It In
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 11:02AM
Ross Douthat has a good point about the Republicans' lack of physical presence at the March for Life. Why drag the pro-life movement down to GOP levels of unpopularity?
I Was One of Them Until They Started Losing
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:13AM
Riffing off Jeff Emanuel's recent AmSpec piece on Ah-nold's embarrassing public repudiation of his already thin conservative credentials, David J at Resurrection Song argues "California under a Republican who is very nearly a Democrat has to act as a cautionary tale" in the Republican presidential nominating race.
And to echo Jeremy, California should've listened to the incomparable George Neumayr back along.
Fred Coulda Won
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 10:11AM
I had contended, with some vigor, in multiple private
conversations that Fred Thompson ought to stay in the race until at
least after the Louisiana caucuses, because my knowledge of my home
state told me that Thompson was likely to win there. For one thing,
all of the old Bob Livingston team was on board with Thompson.
Anyway, if Thompson had won LA, he could have claimed to have come
back from near-death and claimed momentum going into Florida.
Follow that up with a strong debate performance tonight, and he
still may have had a chance. Even then, if he had finished in the
pack in Florida, he could have done his Brer Fox routine and "just
lay low" until other candidates dropped out. (I blogged on that
idea.) All of which begs the question: yes, but would Thompson have
won LA? Well, courtesy of NRO's Jim Geraghty, it turns out
I was right. The slate that won in LA, officially
"uncommitted," were actually mostly Fredheads.
Now comes
a columnist for the Boston Phoenix to argue that my "lay low"
idea also is viable.
All of which begs THIS question: Doesn't ANYBODY here know how to
play this game?!?!?!
Re: Stay Hungry
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 9:20AM
With all respect due, I surprise probably no one in resisting the confident clone-a-thon advocated on the front page by Gregory Conko. It's not a health-and-safety issue, at least not from where my natural-born brain is marinating. It's about power. I freak out in detail and deploy the appropriate Simpsons reference here.
On Second Thought, Stay Hungry
Posted by on 1.24.08 @ 12:31AM
Let's take it from the bottom. Today on the Spectator main page, Judah Friedman has an idea how the good folks at the Sundance Film farrago can help bring us all together. "Should we not be one America?" he asks. "One America that all gets swag?" And if that doesn't end the hunger of the poor and the oppressed, Greg Conko says... let them eat clones. Of course, shelter belongs somewhere in the hierarchy of needs too, and Larry Thornberry shows that Rudy Giuliani is counting on the related issue of tempest tossed homeowners insurance to pull it out for him in Florida. Speaking of Florida, jet-setting Jennifer Rubin gives us a helpful folding map to the primary there next Tuesday. So print it out, and stick it in your glove compartment.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Downticket Blues?
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 11:34PM
Over at Ankle Biting Pundits, Pat Hynes--who does some work for McCain at his company New Media Strategics--crunches the numbers on four Senate races and argues Mitt Romney would be a drag on some tight races.
Louisiana Caucuses, Cont'd
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 8:43PM
Well, there still seems to be some ambiguity but according to the Louisiana Republican Party the preliminary results show that uncommitted pro-life delegates won, followed by delegates committed to John McCain and delegates committed to Ron Paul. Among delegates declared to presidential candidates, Mitt Romney came in third.
Rudy's Loss, Romney's Gain
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 6:05PM
TAMPA, FL -- Claudia LeFevre-Lowry lives here now, but from 1980 to 1994, she resided in Connecticut and remembers how scary it was to visit New York City before Rudy Giuliani was mayor. She thinks what Giuliani did to transform the city was "great," and has a lot of affection for him. "I love Rudy, who doesn't?" she says.
Brian Hughes of nearby Odessa attended New York University during the David Dinkins administration. Hughes recalls being harassed by squeegee men when entering the city in his commute from New Jersey, and being afraid to walk around Washington Square Park, near the NYU campus. He is convinced that Giuliani's strong leadership changed the city. "It was like night and day," he said of the difference once Giuliani took over.
LeFevre-Lowry and Hughes, in short, are the exact type of voters whose support Giuliani was banking on when he made Florida his firewall state--those with connections to the New York City metropolitan area who have fond memories of his time as mayor. But when I spoke to them this afternoon, Lefevre-Lowry said she would be voting for Mitt Romney in next Tuesday's primary, and Hughes was leaning that way.
They both had different reasons.
"I think [Romney] is a man with a lot of integrity and he kind of emulates the Republican values," Lefevre-Lowry said at a parking lot rally for Romney supporters that drew around 100 people.
This is is in sharp contrast to Giuliani. "I guess I'm really troubled by his personal history, and it is a sign of character, no matter what," she said of the way he handled his second divorce.
Hughes, meanwhile, is still undecided, and at first blush, sounds like a Giuliani supporter.
He said that Giuliani is the most conservative on economic issues and that he could actually get his agenda accomplished, and is worried that Romney is too much of a "pragmatist."
"He wouldn't take crap from the terrorists, I'm certain he wouldn't," he says of Giuliani, but he described Romney as a "question mark" on the issue of terrorism.
Though he said Giuliani was a "basket case on social issues," he trusted Giuliani's pledge to appoint conservative judges, and isn't so sure about Romney.
But in spite of everything, he's afraid that Giuliani is no longer a viable candidate, so he's leaning Romney. "Giuliani has done nothing, and I'm afraid that Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney are going to split the non-McCain vote, and McCain is going to walk away with it, which would be the worst thing." He said McCain was far too liberal for him and he wants to prevent his nomination.
It's certainly a small sample size, but with Giuliani sinking in several Florida polls, Hughes and LeFevre-Lowry may not be alone.
Duncan Hunter Endorses Huckabee
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 4:47PM
Byron York and Kathryn Lopez are scratching their heads. I'm not all that surprised, though; it's always been clear the Hunter -- who has opposed free trade agreements, rails against outsourcing, etc. -- has a populist streak that gives him some common ground with the Huckster.
Save the Dollar, Already!
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 4:15PM
For a couple of months now I have been boring readers here with
overly dry essays and blog posts about the importance of
strengthening the dollar. Here's another one. The Wall Street
Journal today contains
yet another excellent essay explaining that restoring the
dollar's strength is the key step needed to reverse our nation's
current economic slide in the most orderly and long-lasting
fashion. And the
official WSJ editorial today makes the same point in passing,
while doling out other good advice. And the excellent Wayne Jett
weighs in as well.
Folks, right now, our struggling economy is, in historical terms, a
minor speed bump. But everything the president and Congress and the
Treasury secretary are talking about doing would make things worse,
not better. And the Fed seems utterly confused. Failure to do the
right things now -- floating the federal funds rate, steady
strengthening of the dollar, and making the Bush 2003 tax cuts
permanent while cutting corporate income taxes -- will surely turn
the speed bump into a devastating pothole, ESPECIALLY if they
exacerbate matters by panicky "stimulus" measures that do more harm
than good.
This is serious, folks. We're facing stagflation again. It's Jimmy
Carter 1979 all over again if we don't watch out. And, I repeat, a
candidate who pledges a strong dollar policy will shoot up markedly
in the polls. At the very least, these imagination-less candidates
ought to test out the idea in some focus groups. I bet they'll find
that with just a little attention to the right language, they will
get an unexpectedly (by them, not by me) large, favorable
response.
Endorsements of Convenience
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 3:00PM
One growing indication of how John McCain has been taking Mitt Romney head on has been their press release wars. It used to be not long ago that my e-mail box was filled with Romney announcements; now it's the other way around, as hour after hour I get a McCain release crowing about endorsements John's receiving from everyone out there, ranging from the president of the University of Florida to the speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.
But the one that took the cake was yesterday's announcement that in time for the New York primary former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato is backing McCain. So what does Senator Pothole like about the Anti-Porker, and vice versa?
D'Amato is artful when he asserts McCain's the guy "[i]f America really wants a leader who will change the landscape in Washington, change the way we do business in government, change the way government spends your money so it defends your interests..."
McCain has less to say in response. In fact, you can almost see him rolling his eyes as he begins: "Al D'Amato has dedicated his life to serving the people of New York...."
Levin vs. Brooks
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 2:34PM
The battle in conservative ranks between McCain's supporters and critics continues, with Mark Levin responding to David Brooks. They mostly square off over the Reagan legacy. But Levin's complaint that Brooks's "position doesn't stray much from the neo-conservative position, in which foreign policy rules supreme, and limited government is of little concern" is surprisingly close to an argument I made a while back.
Romney In The Sunshine State
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 1:01PM
TAMPA, FL -- I'm here at an auditorium in the Moffitt Cancer Center, wating for Mitt Romney to take the stage.
This morning, I got to attend a Romney event in Sarasota, where he spoke to the professional school Keiser University. With his new "Economic Turnaround" banner in the background and his sleeves rolled up, he discussed the problems with employment, the volatile stock market, and the general sense of "economic squeeze." He emphasized his Massachusetts health care plan and promised "we'll get everybody insured." No talk of social issues.
This is a clearly a persona that fits Romney much more comfortably, because it's basically who he is--a moderate Republican businessman who believes that when competently managed, the government can help solve people's problems.
Best of all for Romney, is that there wasn't much in the speech that leaves him open for attack as a flip-flopper.
The crowd, by the way, was a few hundred people, many of them students, and it overflowed into the hallway. He was well received, but I haven't seen other candidates in the state yet, so I have no basis for comparisson.
The auditorium at the current event, by the way, is filling up with lots of medical workers at the center here.
Remember Scott Thomas Beauchamp?
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 1:00PM
Just in case you do, Bob Owens got a bunch of documents on the Beauchamp affair via a FOIA request, and has been posting them this week. Here and here, we see that Beauchamp had gotten in trouble in the past for going AWOL, which gave his fellow soldiers reason to distrust him (one soldier says that Beauchamp has lied to his face twice). Here, we see TNR's FOIA request, in which they hilariously claim that their request should be expedited because "the news media has been questioning the integrity of the Army's investigation" (it was the TNR editors themselves, of course, who did most of the questioning). And here's Beauchamp's deliberately obfuscatory statement; he was telling the truth when he told Frank Foer that he'd tried to avoid contradicting his articles.
I Guess It Must Be Time To Remake Midnight Express
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 11:52AM
How, exactly, do sixteen year-olds wind up with enough unsupervised time on their hands in Ghana to buy "hundred of thousands of dollars worth of cocaine"?
So Hot
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 11:32AM
Karol gets to the heart of the Heath Ledger tragedy today over at Alarming News.
Re: Reagan Nostalgia
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 11:25AM
Per usual, Antle hits the nail square on the head. If ideology and philosophy are not kept at least somewhat separate from Republican partisanship, then ideology and philosophy will be subverted whenever the Republican Party believes it needs to be subverted to win--which, as we've seen these last several years, is essentially every moment of every day. (Few here may want to believe it, but Tucker Carlson's book from a few years back has a great opening bit about the many ways ideologues are preferable to partisans.) Conditional alliances with individual candidates are more appealing to me than simply saying the Party, right or wrong.
Louisiana Caucuses
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 11:20AM
As best as I can tell, nobody has any idea what the actual results are. The Shreveport Times reported that a slate of pro-life/pro-family uncommitted delegates won; I'm also hearing rumors of a John McCain/Ron Paul fight for first. The rules of Louisiana's caucus system are pretty arcane.
UPDATE: I've added a link to the Shreveport Times story. David Freddoso reconciles the conflicting reports.
Reagan Nostalgia, Good and Bad
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 11:09AM
Bill Kristol and our own Lawrence Henry have argued that conservatives are allowing their nostalgia for Ronald Reagan to blind them to the virtues of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates. It is time, they each say in their own way, to Move On.
On their point that there will never be another Reagan, they are indisputably right. It is equally true that we may hobble ourselves by holding all future candidates to the standard of a mythologized version of Reagan. But I still think Reagan has much to teach us about how to use old conservative principles and ideas to form new policies that address current problems. I think this approach is still superior in the long run to trimming and attemptoing to come up with more moderate or less expensive versions of liberalism.
That said, there is a type of Reagan nostalgia that I think is harmful to the right and even Kristol succumbs to it. Why are these the candidates that "we," meaning conservatives, have? Reagan got conservatives accustomed to viewing the titular head of the Republican Party as the de facto leader of the conservative movement. I think in the present climate, with the majority of the current candidates, that is a counterproductive view. Why not hold a presidential nominee or even president who is not One of Us at arm's length? That doesn't mean voting for Hillary, it just means keeping a critical distance.
If conservatives view the Republican candidate as someone who might possibly be better than the Democrat without adopting them as the leader of the movement, we will have more flexibility in developing policies for the next century rather than defending whatever comes out of the White House. Such an approach might also make the litmus tests seem less urgent, because the person who wins the nomination will not determine the composition or priorities of the conservative movement. If we don't have a Reagan, why pretend that we do?
Improvise, Adapt....Overcome?
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 10:53AM
Lord knows I've had some serious issues with how Mitt Romney decided to run his presidential campaign, oftentimes obscuring his impressive intelligence and presidential attributes in a haze of often-as-not unconvincing red meat. And from a purely philosophical perspective, I don't care that the former sometimes makes it difficult for people to feel an emotional connection to Romney, to wonder whether they could be pals, whether he might bite his lower lip and emote when they are sad, whether they might drink a beer together. Honestly, I don't want a president as dumb as me. I prefer someone exceptional, someone able to parse vast amounts of information quickly under pressure and make the best possible decision, someone who has more important things to do than make sure his (or her) neighbors feel comfortable drinking Bud with him (or her). (In a perfect world, of course, the president would be restricted to their constitutional duties and we wouldn't get quite so worked up about who obtains the office.) My apologies to the average voter, but that is not you.
Suffice to say the remarkable man I met writing my March 2006 profile has been AWOL.
Nevertheless, Jeremy Lott's very incisive look at how the Romney campaign has responded to the new primary paradigm after early losses gave context and form to something I've been thinking as I watch the race unfold, which is: I like that there is a candidate in the race who is thinking deeper about the larger strategic picture, a candidate who didn't simply give up when his original plan disintegrated in New Hampshire and Iowa.
No, this doesn't mean I endorse pandering or agree with everything or even most of what Romney says on the campaign trail--although, like John Berlau, I find some of the new bits promising. Still, while some have been scoffing at the former Massachusetts governor's admittedly silly fixation on medal metaphors, the fact is in the face of defeat he has consistently been able to, as Clint Eastwood demanded of his troops in Heartbreak Ridge, improvise, adapt and...maybe, just maybe, overcome.
It's a plan with probably more chance of failing than succeeding at this point, but there is a spark of drive and determination in all of this that I find appealing.
Rubinations in a New Location
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 10:52AM
As readers may have noticed, and Phil pointed out below, Jennifer Rubin will now be blogging at Commentary magazine's Contentions. We wish her well in her new endeavor. AmSpec readers can still look forward to her analysis on the main site -- and in the current issue of the print edition.
Catastrophic Rudy
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 3:18AM
In pursuit of a needed victory in Florida, Rudy Giuliani continues to tout the fact that he is the only candidate to support a national catastrophic fund for natural disasters. His campaign is hammering home the point that John McCain is opposed to it, and Mitt Romney has failed to take a firm position. I am writing from Sarasota, Florida now, but I haven't spoken to enough voters in the state to know how much this will resonate politically. However, from a pure policy perspective, I remain firmly opposed to the idea, and still am having trouble seeing how supporting such a fund can be reconciled with a belief in free market economics.
Here were Giuliani's remarks on the matter on Tuesday, as provided by the campaign (emphasis mine):
Giuliani is right that at the end of the day, the federal government jumps in with a relief package in the event of a disaster. But two wrongs still don't make a right.
What If They Threw a Race Riot and Nobody Came?
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 2:27AM
Phil "Mac Power" Klein throws cold water on the recent talk of racial discord in the Democratic Party. Earlier, Dave Weigel looked at the Audacious One's biggest then-unspoken obstacle to winning his Party's nomination and decided, hey, he's got a shot. But even if he goes down in the next few weeks, Obama's likely to be back in four years, which, would be bad news for insurance salesmen ( and -women!; as Hillary would remind us).
Capital PUNISHMENT
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 2:00AM
Over on the Spectator main page, William Tucker breaks out the capital letters to tell Rudy Giuliani to "STOP TALKING ABOUT 9/11!!!" Instead, he should... promise to sign Kyoto and embrace nuclear power. We're gonna get letters. Speaking of letters, plenty of people have already hit "send" over a line in James Bowman's column about John McCain. Don't want to spoil tomorrow's Reader Mail so, see if you can guess the line. Speaking of Reader Mail, today's correspondents were a whole lot less worked up than yesterday's. One writer even had a Lott of kind words for a certain piece on Mitt Romney's chances.
Immigration Matters
Posted by on 1.23.08 @ 1:36AM
Over at her new perch at Commentary's Contentions blog, recent AmSpecBlog alumna Jennifer Rubin notes that immigration hasn't played as important of a role in the 2008 election as predicted. I'd put things in a slightly different way. I think that immigration is still an important issue to conservative voters, but it is an issue that is easy for candidates to neutralize. In the 2006 election, a lot of Republican immigration hawks went down in defeat, because their Democratic rivals were were able to satisfy voters enough by talking tougher on immigration. The same phenomenon has played out in this cycle. Tom Tancredo didn't gain much traction as a candidate, and was forced to drop out before Iowa and endorse Mitt Romney, because Romney had embraced many of his immigration policies. Romney tried to attack Mike Huckabee on immigration, but Huckabee was able to fend off those attacks by releasing a hardline proposal of his own. And finally, even John McCain was able to win in South Carolina, where immigration was a big issue, by saying the country had spoken and he now realizes that enforcement has to come first. In a general election, whoever the candidates are in both parties, they'll say they want to secure the border and improve the process for legal immigration. And nothing will get done. Probably the reason why a lot of conservatives get so riled up about the issue.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Ten Things I Hate About This Story
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 11:38PM
"[Heath] Ledger, 28, was found dead, reportedly at Mary-Kate Olsen's apartment." From Us magazine. Emphasis in original. Wow.
Wow[UPDATE: Not A Big Wow]
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 11:10PM
McCain, according to this, leads in California 41% to 17% for Romney, Rudy at 13% and Huckabee at 10%. What?! Yeah, I read it a few times to make sure I had it right. (SurveyUSA by the way was very accurate on SC.) Then I thought there is a logic here. California is not exactly absorbed by politics and the candidates, mostly broke as they are, I think have done limited ads there. So they follow the national news coverage and polls. McCain is dubbed the frontrunner and is getting extremely favorable coverage. He also happens to be a familiar and comfortable choice for many Californians. If someone was looking for the SC bump this might be it. Now is this a fluke? Will other Feb. 5 states follow suit? Will it fade if he loses in Florida? Stay tuned. UPDATE: Not so fast: Bay Area only.
Re: Dropped Fred
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 8:18PM
"If Mitt Romney can't prosper with Thompson out of the race, there are no conditions under which he could win the nomination."
In part this already proved to be the case in New Hampshire where Thompson was a complete non-factor and Romney still lost. Nevertheless, the issue remains whether Romney can win without any another conservative vying for value voters and southern support. In Florida Huckabee will apparently be a fading factor but he will haunt Romney in the February 5 Red states. Having lost both to McCain and Huckabee in SC it is hard to see how Romney could win in, say, Georgia. Thompson didn't prevent Romney from winning in SC; he stopped Huckabee. Now once again that elusive "momentum" may help Romney if he does well in Florida or money, although it could not save him in Iowa or NH or SC, could bolster Romney's standing on February 5. But it's hard to see how.
Dropped Fred
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 7:35PM
I too am disappointed by Fred Thompson's departure from the race, as he was my favorite of the top-tier candidates. I don't think there was much wrong with his domestic-policy message or the messenger (conservative hymnal versus change), at least not during the primaries. Thompson surged in the polls during his pre-campaign days precisely because he was offering the full-spectrum conservatism that Republican voters desperately wanted and still for the most part want.
Unfortunately, the campaign overpromised in those summer days and underdelivered when Thompson finally declared his candidacy. Candidate Thompson didn't show signs of what made people support him in the first place until too many Republicans had concluded he was no longer viable. He might have had problems in the general election in any event if he didn't do the hard work of connecting the conservative principles he articulated so well to new policies that adress the problems of 2008. But Thompson's campaign is a missed opportunity for the man, for the Republican Party, and for conservatism.
If Mitt Romney can't prosper with Thompson out of the race, there are no conditions under which he could win the nomination.
Comeback to the 11th Commandment
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 6:59PM
John O'Sullivan mediates the dispute between David Frum and Ramesh Ponnuru, judging my Comeback review "more favorable than mixed." Perhaps the 11th commandment kept me from delving too much into our foreign-policy disagreements.
K-Lo's Nice Touch on Thompson
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 6:11PM
Over at NRO, Kathryn Lopez writes a
wonderful paean to Fred Thompson. She hits all the right notes,
and hits them well. Excerpts: "...he just gets it. He cares about
his country and he cares about common sense. The good conservative
sense Thompson articulated certainly resonated - the blogosphere
got enthused for a possible presidential run."
And: "...once he got in, what he lacked in fire on the trail, he
made up for with solid conservative policy on Social Security,
immigration, and the size of the military. He raised the bar for
detailed policy prescriptions. You get the impression from what he
says and from how he says it that he's got consistent conservative
instincts. He's grounded."
And: "There's no doubt we'll be seeing him again - he's too
invested in this country he loves for us not to. Thank God for Fred
Thompson. May he inspire more to serve. "
And there's much more like that.
We can only hope that Kathryn is right that Thompson won't just fade away.
What's Going On?
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 5:39PM
Re: The Invisible Candiate Keeps Running
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 4:04PM
Shawn, I was certain this was going to be a post about Alan Keyes.
Re: Thompson
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 3:02PM
I think Thompson and his meek withdrawal from the race carry several lessons. First, being president and running for president take more than saying the "right" things. There are personal attributes --drive, determination, leadership and organizational skills -- that matter. The presidency is not the same (though some of us wish differently) as being a thoughtful pundit. It is an executive and leadership position. Second, campaigns tell us something about how people will perform in office. Are they steadfast and brave or lazy or groveling? Pay attention because adults rarely change their basic personality and character. Third, will this matter? Thompson's appeal seemed to overlap most closely with Huckabee. Both attracted southerners and social conservatives. However, disaffected Romney voters who found Thompson more appealing may now gravitate back to Romney. Or they may disperse among many candidates. Finally, many of my colleagues and readers will note that I was quite critical of his non-campaign and his ineffective efforts once he entered but I take no joy in being "right." He is an honorable and decent person with consistent and well thought out positions. He'll be missed.
Thompson Out
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 2:51PM
Fred Thompson has officially pulled out of the race. Too bad his
campaign strategies and tactics did not match the quality of his
position papers, and too bad the candidate himself who shone in
debates and public appearances throughout most of December and
January was nowhere to be found from June through November. "He
coulda been a contendah."
I still think he ought to have NOT pulled out, but instead
should have "lain low," and tried to make a comeback after Super
Tuesday after others dropped out. But as the elder Coach Jim Mora
once said, "woulda, coulda, shoulda" isn't worth squat.
Sen. Thompson has much on his plate now anyway, though, with his
mother gravely ill. She and he and their whole family should
continue to be in our prayers. And may they all know the comfort of
a Loving God.
Democrats Drive The Coverage
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 1:21PM
I'm not the first to notice that MSM coverage of the presidential primaries devotes much more time to the Democratic than the Republican race. Statistically this has been proven true. If you watch any of the Sunday show' roundtable discussions you will find more minutes devoted to the Democrats than the Republicans. They will say Hillary vs. Obama is "more newsworthy" or "more dramatic." There is something to that considering the soap opera like quality of everything the Clintons do and the potential for an African American president. That said it does get out of hand, to the point of virtually ignoring the GOP side. The Florida race is clearly more important to the GOP race( a truly open field, the potential to eliminate or revive Rudy, the possibility McCain will seal the deal) than SC is to the Democrats (Obama is expected to win and Hillary is already roving the February 5 states). However, at least 75% of the coverage is about the Democrats this week. The debate sucked up 90% of the coverage, the ongoing spat between Bill/Hill and Obama seems to take up the rest. Is this good or bad? It has the effect of freezing the race and making challengers' task of upsetting McCain that much harder. See, even when they don't mean to the media is McCain's best friend.
The Invisible Candidate Keeps Running
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 12:46PM
Despite being mocked worse than the chubbiest kid in a junior high gym class last night by Barrack Obama for apparently having an accute, irreedemable lack of pigmentation and estrogen, John Edwards has assured pie-baker Joe Trippi he remains in the race, no matter how irrelevent he becomes.
"I just finished talking with John," Trippi writes in a fundraising appeal, "and he's committed to going all the way to the Democratic Convention, taking the nomination and then on to the White House."
Thanks be to God!
Norma McCorvey Endorses Ron Paul
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 11:55AM
The Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, now a pro-life activist, has thrown her support to Ron Paul on the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
Relatedly, it will be interesting to see which presidential candidates attend the March for Life.
Tear Down This Flag
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 11:46AM
COLUMBIA, SC -- I know I'm jumping on a third rail here, but having spent a few hours yesterday in the shadow of the Confederate flag on the capitol grounds reflecting on the issue, I really do think it's long past time to take it down.
Obviously, as a federalist, I support the state's right to display whatever it wants on the grounds, but my personal belief is that we'd be much better off if it were no longer given such prominent placement.
Sure, to many, it's a symbol of Southern heritage, and I don't think society should be at the mercy of any group that claims to be offended by something. But I do think that blacks in South Carolina have a legitimate gripe when it comes to the Confederate flag. It is a constant reminder of a time when blacks were owned as property, and white supremicist groups have adopted it over the years, so it has taken on a different meaning to many. It's one thing to have a museum commemorating the Confederacy, or for people to display the flag on their own property, but its presence on the capitol, giving it official state sanction, is unnecessarily divisive and makes it more difficult to overcome the legacy of slavery and racism.
Also, as an endnote, I will say that I think some of the supporters of the flag give their cause a bad name. Across the street from the capitol, there were some pro-Confederate flag demonstrators. One of their signs read, "Yankee Go Home!" I mean, come on buddy, are we living in 1860?
Romney or Rudy Opening?
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 11:22AM
I agree that Romney has an opening in Florida. However, I'm not sure the current economic problems don't equally benefit Rudy. Club for Growth send out an email blast calling for permanent economic measures such as indexing capital gains in lieu of short term stimulus plans. They end with this : "The Club for Growth commends Mayor Giuliani for including this proposal in his tax-cutting plan and encourages all candidates to make it part of their economic stimulus plans." Expect to hear a lot more comparisons between Rudy's record and what both McCain and Rudy will contend is Romney's less than impressive record in bringing Massachusetts back from the 2001 recession. UPDATE: McCain is quick to remind voters of his tax cutting plan.
UPDATE 2: Indeed the Romney's rivals have been happy to talk about Romney's record -- as Governor. One rival camp chimes in: “What the heck does Mitt Romney know about turning around a lagging economy? Under his watch the tax burden in
Co-Opting King
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 11:19AM
COLUMBIA, SC -- I attended the Martin Luther King Jr. Day rally here on Monday organized by the NAACP, and it was sad how much the parade of speakers--not just the three Democratic candidates-- evoked King at every chance to advocate liberal policies.
Whether the issue was health care, education, taxes, or how Iraq didn't have WMDs, somehow, it all came back to King's legacy. One speaker said that if MLK were alive today, he'd be worried about the sub-prime lending crisis.
To be sure, King was a liberal on economic and foreign policy, so it's fine for them to emphasize that part of his legacy should they choose to do so. However, they shouldn't get to have it both ways. When conservatives criticize King for his economic views, liberals become disgusted, because King has been set up as a mythical figure who is beyond criticism. "How can you be against a man who stood for non-violence and fought for equal rights?"
Regardless of political views, Americans can celebrate King as a man who led a heroic, peaceful, struggle for civil rights at a time of gross racial injustice, and paid the ultimate price for it. But if the MLK holiday is used as an oppourtunity to fight for liberal policies, it shouldn't surprise anybody if conservatives are turned off.
Racist Democrats
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 10:53AM
For those of you in the mood for a little post-MLK Day reading on race and politics, I review Bruce Bartlett's Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past in today's Washington Times.
"Doing Something They Loved"
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 10:33AM
David Jones unearths an unbelievable quote showing just how differently some among us define happiness.
Re: Florida Landscape
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 8:31AM
You Tell Her..No You
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 6:41AM
Honor
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 6:12AM
Roe Turns 35
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 12:44AM
Over on the Spectator main page, G. Tracy Mehan, III welcomes news of a nationwide drop in abortions, but still can't shake the "overwhelming sadness" that comes with Roe's 35th anniversary. Other recent prolifery in these cyber pages includes Pia de Solenni's essay on Knocked Up, Juno, and single motherhood; Matt Bowman's report on Rudy Giuliani's judicial jujitsu; and my article on the Democrats' Planned Parenthood primary.
Re: Florida Landscape
Posted by on 1.22.08 @ 12:02AM
The Miami Herald notices Huckabee not trying very hard in Florida. If Thompson leaves the race and Huckabee isn't trying all that hard does Romney get a boost?
Monday, January 21, 2008
Who Can Compete Against McCain?
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 9:52PM
Edwards asks. McCain has him on payroll now? Jezzz.. By the way, every Republican watching this must be thinking "Wow, I'm glad Hillary cried in NH." Obama is, for all his inexperience and lack of realism in foreign policy, a far more compelling candidate. When he says he could get a 60% share of the electorate for the Democrats I believe him. You go, girl! UPDATE: I agree McCain is likely very happy about being crowned the nominee-- even if its by the Democrats.
Bill and/or Hill
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 9:49PM
Obama says his record has been "inaccurately" portrayed.
Ever since they sat down the action has quieted quite a bit. Time to bash the Republicans I guess.
Bill Was The First Black President?
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 9:40PM
Barack says he will have to check out his dancing to make sure. It then gets sappy as everyone has a "isn't this swell?" round of self-congratulations.
Obama
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 9:27PM
Shows just a touch of self-awareness in mocking identity politics-- "And John wants to get all the White males.."
Obama Gets It
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 9:02PM
If you have mandates Obama explains: "Everyone will be forced to buy health insurance." He argues the issue is cost. Well, that's progress. If we can get all the GOP contenders on board we'll be making progress. UPDATE: Hillary is a bit shrill but gives a barn burning speech in favor of universal coverage. Says it's a core Democratic value and she's not leaving anyone out. Obama comes back and says it's not working in Massachusetts --people are willing to take the fine and not get coverage. Oh boy, there are some notetakers in the GOP camps tonight.
RE: Hillary Body Language
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 8:56PM
Right, and the cameraman isn't doing her a big favor by shooting her from behind either!
I tuned in figuring on seeing a mere pander-fest, but this is great TV.
Hillary Body Language
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 8:53PM
Slouching against the podium with a nasty expression while Obama is talking is not a good image.
Hillary booed
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 8:50PM
by the 'faithful' at the debate. Says that Obama refuses to take responsibility for his voting record. He seems staggered by her blows; not as quick on his feet as has been suggested by some.
Obama Hammers Hillary
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 8:48PM
That was the most heated exchange between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to date, Obama finally took the gloves off and connected Bill and Hillary as a team. I thought Obama got the better of that exchange, both on style and the merits.
Hillary tried to say that Obama praised Republican ideas, when Obama correctly noted that what he clearly said was that Ronald Reagan was a transformative leader because he was able to appeal to independents and Democrats, and Obama realizes that to a achieve an agenda a leader needs to pursuade ouside the liberal base. Hillary patently lied, and he called her on it.
If Obama came across as ungracious with his "You're likable enough" line in the NH debate, Hillary came off as really ungracious in this one. After she attacked Obama for two minutes, Obama started to respond, and she interrupted his response, and he had to say, "You had your two minutes."
They really got into the mud too--Obama saying he was working with people on the streets in the early 1980s when she was a corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart, and she accused him of representing a slum lord, Tony Rezko.
Hillary vs. Obama
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 8:47PM
She's accusing him of doing the bidding of the insurance industry. He says he'll tell the truth (unlike you know who). I hope all the GOP contenders are taking notes. UPDATE: The crowd boos Hillary when she says he won't take responsibility for his votes.
You Can Always
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 8:43PM
Count on the Democrats to treat adults --borrowers in this case -- like dim witted children. Obama does get in a shot at Hillary for voting for the bill she hoped would not pass. Obama responds to the slumlord allegation in fairly convincing fashion, by the way.
Dems Go At It!
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 8:34PM
Is anyone watching the Democratic Debate on CNN? Obama is taking it to Hillary on the subject of his remarks about Ronald Reagan.
Hillary said something to the effect that, "I didn't say that, my husband did."
Obama: "I'm not sure who I'm running against."
Hillary just about called Obama a "slum landlord!"
RE: Gang of 14
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 8:28PM
Maybe yes, maybe no. As Orrin Hatch wrote at the time:
The Constitution gives the Senate authority to determine its procedural rules. More than a century ago, however, the Supreme Court unanimously recognized the obvious maxim that those rules may not "ignore constitutional restraints." The Constitution explicitly requires a supermajority vote for such things as trying impeachments or overriding a presidential veto; it does not do so for confirming nominations. Article II, Section 2, even mentions ratifying treaties and confirming nominees in the very same sentence, requiring a supermajority for the first but not for the second. Twisting Senate rules to create a confirmation supermajority undermines the Constitution. As Senator Joseph Lieberman once argued, it amounts to "an amendment of the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate."
In fact, organizations like Judicial Watch were in the process of preparing briefs in the DC federal court before the Gang of 14 stepped in. It's true that the courts normally frown on entering into this sort of legislative squabbling, but you never know!
Re: Fred Factor
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 8:12PM
In much of the discussion about his potential departure the notion is tossed around that Thompson should get out of the race because he is a spoiler for someone else. Hogwash. In a multi-party race everyone is a spoiler for someone else. If McCain disappeared tomorrow Rudy would hugely benefit in Florida. If Romney hadn't been on the SC ballot those votes could well have put Huckabee over the top. If Rudy dropped out of Florida McCain would be up by 20 pts. It is all somewhat silly and presupposes that but for that stubborn Thompson others more deserving would cruise to victory. Aside from the presumptuousness it is factually suspect. Neither Romney or Huckabee has been able to string together two wins in a row and it seems to be a weak excuse to retroactively blame Thompson.
Re: Gang of 14
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 7:52PM
I think the internal rules of the Senate would be beyond judicial review given Article I, Section 5's provision that the Senate and House can make their own rules (as well as possibly the political question doctrine).
RE: Gang of 14
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 7:10PM
I agree with the idea that the Gang of 14's MOU did result in getting some great judges seated. However, I believe that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional and would have loved to have seen the issue before the SCOTUS or the Nuclear Option detonated.
Has the Thompson campaign confirmed that he will not participate in this week's debate? On that subject, anyone notice this snide jab from Michael Medved?
"Fred Thompson's departure from the race is reportedly imminent, after he 'consults' with his hospital bound mother."
Re: Good Questions
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 6:47PM
James, at least he did not try to dance. Note to file: if not hip, don't try to be. (And by using the term "hip" I give away which camp I fall into.)
Re: After the Revolution
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 6:44PM
I can't imagine why Ron Paul would endorse someone like Romney who differs so dramatically from him on a number of fundamental issues. War on terror? Not even close. RomneyCare/the goal of universal coverage? No way. Federal role for education? No way. Of the remaining contenders Thompson seems to be closest to Paul on domestic issues and Romney perhaps the farthest away. But I'm sure Romney would be happy to get the lift.
Re: Gang of 14
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 6:38PM
I must admit that I initially took Quin's position. However, the anti-Gang of 14 position was based on the premise that the GOP Senators would in fact have stood tall and exercised the so called "nuclear option" to defend the President's right to appoint and get an up or down vote on whichever qualified nominees he sent up. After watching that Senate in action and reflecting on matters I have come to conclude that they NEVER would have done it and the Gang of 14 was the very best that could have been obtained under the circumstances. It did get a batch of superb Circuit Court nominees through. James points to the added benefit now that the shoe may be on the other foot but because I have come to conclude that the Senate then constituted was incapable of carrying out their bluff I have to conclude the Gang of 14 made lemonade out of lemons.
Good Question
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 6:32PM
Mitt Romney asks, as I myself have wondered since a certain song hit the pop charts in the 1990s, "Who let the dogs out?"
Who? Who?
Gang of 14
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 6:15PM
I'm no fan of the Gang of 14 pact. But if the next president is a Democrat -- or even a not terribly conservative Republican -- conservatives may be grateful to still have judicial filibusters. Ideally, qualified judicial nominees put forward by presidents of both parties should be confirmed without regard to exacting philosophical litmus tests. They should at least get an up-or-down vote. But that arrangement can't work if it is only followed by one side, for the same reasons that unilateral disarmament isn't the soundest basis for national defense.
After the Revolution
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 6:14PM
Backfill later, but let me throw something out there for all you folks in cyberspace. Congressman Ron Paul knows that he's not going to win the nomination of the Republican Party and he has, as he puts it "no plans" to run as a Libertarian or any other third party spoiler. He's looking to endorse someone, and, I'm guessing (from several pretty obvious clues) that that person is... Mitt Romney.
Re: Memo
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 6:08PM
Shawn, I am chastened. I will offer a Straight Talk confession: When I was the treasurer of the Ohio Wesleyan College Republicans, McCain came to give the commencement address at our school. I drove him from the airport to the address and back. I liked him and urged him to run for president.
Granted, that was before McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, Sarbanes-Oxley, Iraq, the tobacco deal, the Bush tax cuts, the gun show loophole, and a few other disagreements (though I do remember having an exchange with him on immigration policy). But Straight Talk is due. So far this year, McCain hasn't won a single state that I have never visited. That can't be a coincidence.
As for my own primary vote, I will give no hints on that. Or as Ruth Bader Ginsburg once put it, "No forecasts, no hints, no previews."
Veto Johnson Says Yes to Dr. No
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 6:01PM
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a drug war skeptic and all-around small government guy, endorsed Ron Paul earlier today. Not too long ago, Reihan Salam suggested Johnson as an alternative candidate for libertarian-leaning Republicans.
McCain and Haynes
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 5:52PM
I have been meaning to write a much longer post on this subject,
and just never found the time, but.... the short version is this:
John McCain's behavior re judges has been not merely a bad judgment
call (i.e., that the Gang of 14 was a well-meaning but flawed
effort by McCain and others to ensure passage of some conservative
judges -- which I do NOT believe, by the way, because I believe the
real motivation was just to get the issue off the table as
painlessly as possible), but has actually been reprehensible.
Mark Levin and Andrew McCarthy do a
pretty solid job explaining why the Gang was a huge betrayal of
conservatives, ESPECIALLY by McCain. But they make one mistake: Jim
Haynes, the superbly qualified chief counsel at the Pentagon, was
NOT mentioned in the Gang deal. He was killed (as Levin and
McCarthy later note) not by Dems, but by the horrible Lindsey
Graham and McCain
acting in concert. There is much more to be said on this, and I
have written
about it twice.
Again, I will blog more about this later, but for now, please read
these linked stories and then try telling yourself that John McCain
cares about treating judicial nominees fairly and that he cares at
all about the whole issue of judges. He does not. And his nominees
would be just as likely to pass muster with Joe Lieberman than with
John Aschcroft.
Florida Landscape
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 5:51PM
The Fred Factor
Posted by on 1.21.08 @ 5:09PM
As has been reported elsewhere today, Fred Thompson's mother is
gravely ill right now. Our prayers ought to be with Sen. Thompson,
his mother, his wife, and their family. This must be a very
difficult time for them. All of this political stuff is of only
secondary importance right now.
That said, here is what I would do, politically, if I were
Thompson: I would just lay low. Just wait. See what happens in
Louisiana's caucuses tomorrow. See what happens in Florida next
week. See who drops out of the race at some point. And then
consider reviving my campaign, full force, once the field is
narrower. The likelihood is that Thompson would win in a one-on-one
contest vs. ANY of the remaining candidates, and he might even win
pluralities in a three-way race. Even after Super Tuesday, there
will still be nearly half of the delegates to be awarded. And,
depending on what happens in Florida, the chances of a brokered
convention look increasingly realistic (not yet LIKELY, but
definitely more and more possible). If he enters the convention on
a roll, having won several of the later contests, he could still
emerge as a consensus choice.
Meanwhile, though, none of this matters in the here and now.
What matters is Sen. Thompson's family. May God be with them and
bless them.