- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- 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, March 8, 2008
Obama Wins Wyoming
Posted by on 3.8.08 @ 8:27PM
No surprise. At Slate's Trailhead blog, Chadwick Matlin explains why it doesn't matter.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Clinton-Obama '08
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 8:46PM
It's being described by Democrats who want the bloodletting to end as a "dream ticket." Clinton (or Obama) should take the other on as veep, and the two should roll over the Republicans in the November elections. Over in the Guardian, I make the case for why they're wrong about that. The piece also plugs my new book The Warm Bucket Brigade, a lighthearted history of the vice presidency. It's available right now through Amazon and in bookstores Tuesday.
Speaking Truth to Samantha Power
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 7:15PM
I'm no Samantha Power fan, but is her negative opinion about Hillary really that beyond the pale, even in the New Politics? I think I've heard similar things said many times, sometimes even in my own head, but that's just me. I also don't think I would have reported an unguarded comment that was immediately taken off the record, much less made it the main focus of my story, but that's just me too.
About That 3 a.m. Phone Call
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 6:57PM
The Chicago Tribune scrutinizes Hillary Clinton's claims to have serious foreign-policy experience.
The Leading Free-Market Healthcare Reformer
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 5:48PM
Is George McGovern. At least, it sure seems that way according to this Wall Street Journal op-ed. Hat tip Jennifer Rubin.
Cracking Up the Place
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 5:45PM
Matthew Continetti and I concluded our week-long Los Angeles Times discussion of conservatism's future. Here's the whole series of us explaining everything and solving all the world's problems.
Paul at His Most Shameful
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 5:10PM
Before we lose sight of him entirely, it's worth noting, particularly after yesterday's savage murder of eight rabbinical students in Jerusalem, that Ron Paul took his head in the desert sand approach to Mideast realities to an unfortunate extreme last Wednesday. In a roll call vote on House Resolution 951, "Condemning the Ongoing Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israeli Civilians," 401 members voted "aye," 4 (include Rep. Jim Moran) voted "present," and only 1 voted "nay." Guess who that would be? Here he tries to explain himself.
Dropping Out Is Hard To Do
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 4:25PM
When a presidential campaign cannot even clearly communicate to the media that it is ending, it should not be surprising when said presidential campaign failed to meet expectations at the ballot box.
Ron Paul to End Presidential Campaign
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 3:11PM
Hopefully this won't be seen as more evidence of my neocon bias, but Ron Paul is wrapping up his presidential campaign, according to his spokesman. Paul will instead focus on his new Liberty PAC to help like-minded Republicans. I think that is Paul's best move at this point, though I am somewhat surprised he isn't taking his turn as the anti-McCain candidate in the remaining primaries. Alan Keyes scored some of his best 2000 showings after George W. Bush clinched the nomination.
Union Trouble?
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 3:04PM
As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, there is controversy and dissension brewing at the Service Employees International Union. This is important stuff. It indicates that union chief Andy Stern is under fire for ignoring basic services for union members while spending more time trying to expand the union's political power by adding to its numbers through mergers and other tactics. But the big deal is that Stern is accused by other union activists of an autocratic style that includes a refusal to seek or receive rank-and-file approval for many of his initiatives. Sal Roselli, president of United Healthcare Workers West, resigned from the SEIU's executive committee, wrote a scathing letter accusing Stern of "undemocratic practices," citing numerous examples. For one example, he wrote that the result of Stern's actions would be that "rank and file members will have no say, and no ability to affect their workplace destiny."
In one case, Roselli accused Stern of interfering in the affairs of the SEIU California State Council by "using the imposition of a revised constitution and bylaws to prompt a presidential election when none had been anticipated, then maniupulating the per capita voting formula and procedures in order to produce the outcome you desired."
In another instance, he writes that Stern's officers "tried to cast 'per capita' votes on behalf of unorganized workers who had no knowledge of the negotiations, paid no dues to SEIU, and were not even in the process of forming a union."
Now, consider those complaints in light of the misnamed, anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act, which still is being pushed in Congress. The bill would effectively end secret ballots in the course of workers' decisions about whether or not to unionize in the first place. Instead, it would let unions be formed (or be the official bargaining representative) when a majority of workers sign a card asking to unionize. Of course, if all that is involved is a public card signing, it is an open invitation to intimidation: "Sign this card, or else. We know where you live!"
In light of Stern's practices at SEIU, the right of workers to choose NOT to unionize -- to choose, in private, "their workplace destiny" -- is all the more important.
Not only is the controversy at SEIU worth watching, but it is worth using in the course of making the very valid public, political arguments against the Employee Free Choice Act.
McCain, Churchill, and Teddy Roosevelt
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 11:52AM
The McCain campaign has launched a new web video making the connection:
Clinton Campaign Cries Foul on
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 11:37AM
In a just completed conference call, Clinton's congressional supporters called for Samantha Power to be removed from Barack Obama's campaign as foreign policy adviser because she referred to Hillary Clinton as a "monster" in an interview.
"Personal attacks are not a way to convince voters that you are capable of being the President of the United States, we need to have a civil discussion of the issues," Rep. Nita Lowey said. "We don't need attacks on a person's character...So we're calling on Senator Obama to make it very clear that Samantha Power should not be part of his campaign."
Lowey said it was "a test of character" for Obama and said, "we can't have a below the belt campaign."
(Yes, this is coming from a Clinton supporter.)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Obama has "talked about the politics of hope" but has "degenerated into negative personal attacks and name calling, which was clearly the result of frustration and anger over his losses on Tuesday."
Rep. Gregory Meeks said, "We understand that politics is a contact sport, but the contact should be on the issues between one another and what their differences are politically, not personally."
Later in the call, Howard Wolfson argued that it was a "question of leadership" as to whether Obama dismisses Power, as Bill Shaheen was forced to resign from the Clinton campaign following his comments on Obama's drug use.
This is all a textbook example of Clinton politics--run a dirty campaign intended to destroy your opponent's character and then try to assume the moral high ground when some of it comes back.
For Obama, it is another episode of him not being able to control what some of his advisers say.
If this controversy does anything, I hope it draws more attention to Power's history the horrific anti-Israel comments.
Future Earthlings Got Themselves A Website
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 11:26AM
Not everybody appreciates the candor of our new friend Vaclav Klaus, as made clear by the new Vaclav Klaus Climate Joke Awards site, which seeks to expose people who "espouse very stupid notions about the very real reality of global warming and the possible impact it may have on future generations of Earthlings (include the human species)."
The Archeology Of Journalism
Posted by on 3.7.08 @ 10:46AM
So I was randomly
invited to a screening of the new Morgan Spurlock movie
Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden this
week and even thought about going until I realized I'd be breaking
stringent admittance rules, i.e. "No one in the entertainment
industry or media will be permitted to attend." The other
requirements? Well, no cameras, of course, no children and:
No one will be admitted who appears to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. No one who is dirty or improperly dressed will be allowed to attend the screening. Anyone creating a disturbance or interfering with the screening enjoyment of others in the audience will be removed from the theater.
It's good for we journalists to
know our place in the social strata, which, it seems, is somewhere
between intoxicated and dirty, over near killjoy.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Internet Free Cuba
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 7:41PM
I was told the same thing last summer when I was in China. An English speaking Chinese citizen told me that despite the best efforts of the Chinese regime to block access to sites on the internet, he and many others were able to find ways around the censorship. He then demonstrated his knowledge of the weekly primetime television line-up in America. He knew far more than I did.
The hope is that the internet will be one of the mechanisms by which politically oppressed people will be able to access information about the outside world and ultimately demand change from their respective government. As people living in repressive countries become more aware of the political freedoms that exist in other countries, they too will eventually reach a point where they will demand such rights for themselves. Of course, there are many obstacles to winning these much coveted political freedoms, namely the heavily armed tyrannical governments who don't want to grant them to their citizens.
Viva la web Revolucion!
Terrorist Attack In Jerusalem
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 6:33PM
At least eight were killed when a terrorist opened fire in a Jerusalem relgious school. Some details from the Jerusalem Post here. Meanwhile, Haaretz reports:
An organization calling itself "Galilee Freedom Battalions - the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh" took responsiblity for the attack, according to Hezbollah's Al-Manar television station. The veracity of the claim was not clear.
Hezbollah had vowed to avenge last month's assassination of its terror chief, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus. The organization blamed Israel for his death, but Israel denied any role in the killing.
Needless to say, if Hezbollah turns out to have a hand in this, it will be radioactive in the region.
Alaska Governor Expecting
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 5:41PM
I wonder if having a newborn just few a months before the Republican National Convention will hurt Sarah Palin's standing in the veepstakes.
Re: Did the Clinton Camp Call Canada on NAFTA?
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 5:23PM
Hilarious. And contrary to what Kos says at that link, this doesn't exonerate Obama. It's possible now that the Canadians got reassurance from both Democratic campaigns that all the anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just smoke.
Re: How A-Pauling
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 5:16PM
I knew it, Jim: Your advocacy of an immigration moratorium, your opposition to the Iraq War -- it was all just clever misdirection. Man, you neocons are devious!
How A-Pauling
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 4:10PM
My neocon bias against Ron Paul has finally been exposed.
Now for Some Real Bipartisanship
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 3:29PM
This is a funny idea that Jim Geraghty's readers have floated: John McCain could re-run Hillary's 3 a.m red phone commercial and say, "I'm John McCain and you know what? I approve this message too." I don't know if there is some legal restriction against it, but it would be amusing, which ought to be an absolute defense in a court of law.
'They're Both Not Ready'
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 3:16PM
Yesterday I noted how the types of attacks the Democratic candidates are leveling at each other benefit McCain. It is gets even better.
Obama's senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, responding to the Clinton phone call ad, essentially declared both Democrats unprepared to be commander in chief.
"Clinton hasn't had to answer the phone at three o'clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready," Rice said. "They're both not ready to have that 3 a.m. phone call."
This is amateur hour.
Obama's $54 Million Month
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 2:51PM
In February. That number is for funds available for the primary. Including general election contributions, Obama raised $55 million.
Meanwhile, this afternoon the Clinton campaign reported raising $4 million online since the polls closed Tuesday night.
Murdock: Cox, Sanford, Giuliani
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 2:19PM
More Veep Punditry, from our friend Deroy Murdock. Cox and Sanford continue to make just about every list.
Rape Logic
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 2:01PM
When you read this post by James Gibney, substitute "black men" for "US military personnel," "white women" for "Okinawans," and "integration" for "long-term military presence." The logic, such as it is, remains perfectly intact. But of course The Atlantic would never run that, because it's nothing but puerile psycho-sexual bigotry -- which is only okay if directed at the military. (Via Goldfarb.)
Dean Wants Re-Vote In FL, MI
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 1:53PM
The AP reports:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.This would be a pretty remarkable development. The absurdity is that the DNC was supposed to be punishing Florida and Michigan for holding their primaries early, but now the states could end up being rewarded with crucial primaries that could decide the Democratic nomination. Unbelievable. Had the DNC just done it the way Republicans did, by only penalizing half of their delegates, this whole mess would have been avoided."All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.
The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.
Will The Real GOP Attack Machine Please Stand Up?
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 12:11PM
Senior officials from the Hillary Clinton campaign, speaking on a recently concluded conference call, charged Barack Obama's campaign with "recycl[ing] some of the same old Republican attacks on Hillary" and "imitating Ken Starr."
In recent days, the Democratic nomination fight has turned hostile, with the Clinton camp raising questions about Barack Obama's relationship with indicted real estate developer Tony Rezko. In response, the Obama campaign has begun to strongly hint at Clinton's hand in the scandals of the 1990s, hammer her for her failure to release tax returns, and even call her "the most secretive politician in America."
The Clinton campaign fired back today by taking a page out of a familiar play book.
"I did not realize that [the Obama campaign's] version of a new kind of politics is to recycle some of the same old Republican attacks on Hillary that have failed for years," senior Clinton adviser Ann Lewis said.
Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, later added: "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."
The call took another amusing turn when prominent liberal blogger Jane Hamsher lamented that both campaigns were employing right wing tactics.
"I agree with you that using the Republican talking points is a problem, and I was really happy to hear you say that, but I'm curious, why did you choose to run the phone ad, which reinforces the Republican 'be afraid all the time' theme that the GOP has been using to keep us in basically interminable war and justify uncontrollable defense spending?" a frustrated Hamsher queried. "And isn't John McCain ultimately the winner in that argument?"
Lewis concurred in part and dissented in part.
"I agree with you that the Republicans have in shameful ways used fear to divide us...but I do not see our phone ad in that way, I thought it was a more positive ad," Lewis said.
One thing is pretty clear. The Clintons have managed to drag Obama into a dirty campaign re-fighting the battles of the 1990s. And that's just the way they like it.
Okay, Now I AM Questioning Their Patriotism!
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 11:15AM
If this be a low blow, make the most of it: I now have had
enough, and I am indeed questioning the patriotism of the House
Democratic leadership. This is something I never have done before.
But in light of
this story from Politico, I think the only conclusion is that
these people actually think national security is a matter for
political gamesmanship. The House has had three full weeks BEYOND
THE EXPIRATION of the FISA bill to get its act together -- the 21
days they themselves demanded, which was an unreasonable delay in
the first place -- after already having six months and 15 days to
get its act together, yet it still refuses to extend this measure
that many Democrats like Jay Rockefeller and Bob Kerrey say is
absolutely necessary for this nation's security. Even worse, if
this is indeed the attitude of the House leadership, is this:
One House member "speaking on the condition of
anonymity" suggested it could be a long time, if ever, before the
bill was brought for a vote.
"A lot of people think the politics of doing
nothing on this issue are very good for both sides of the political
spectrum," they said.
Do these people understand that, according to every key official in the country, including the utterly nonpartisan director of national intelligence, this measure could mean life or death for many many thousands of people? Amazingly, a House majority ALREADY exists to pass the Senate version of the bill, but the House leadership will not let it come up for a vote. I wish the Blue Dog Dems who support it, thus creating the majority, would have enough courage of their convictions to sign a discharge petition and force it to a vote. But the House leadership seems to think "the politics of doing nothing" are good -- so politics trumps national security. Amazing.
I feel a whole column coming on, but, basically, this could be
the straw that breaks this camel's back in terms of refraining from
questioning the motives of the Demo leaders. On issue after issue
after issue related to defense, they have offered NOT A SINGLE
proposal to actually help the United States succeed in our efforts
at fighting terrorists or at securing the peace in Iraq. Other than
Joe Biden, the leading Dems have all acted as if we are indeed the
"bad guys" in Iraq, as if they are ashamed not just of American
conduct of the war but of American aims and motives. These people
are so besotted with their hatred for President Bush, and with
their guilt about this nation's prominence and wealth, that they
actually seem to hope we lose and that we are embarrassed on the
world stage. And now they refuse even to make it a priority to pass
this key electronic surveillance bill. To reasonable eyes, this
does indeed look unpatriotic.
Times Sq. Bicycle Bomber
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 10:21AM
No injuries after a bomb detonates outside the Times Sq. military recruiting station. I worked across the street from there for more than three years, and in the wake of 9/11, I always thought it was a ripe target for some sort of terrorist attack. At this time, there's no reason to assume it was terror-related, and it was probably pulled off by some sort of nut. There is no shortage of supply in New York.
Obama's (Not-Really) Dedication To Afghanistan
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 8:09AM
Daniel Larison, per usual, ably breaks it down.
What To Do About The Earth Liberation Front
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 12:20AM
My pal David Jones has an idea or two:
I propose this retaliatory action: for every house they burn down, I say we cut down one of their beloved giant redwoods and whittle it into special toothpicks to be delivered to the White House and to all the members of the next IMF meeting. We can call it a counter-protest and put out phantom news releases proclaiming it an act of conscience. We can justify it by publishing tracts extolling all the nifty things you can do with wood (like chopping trees down, stripping off any vermin that came along for the ride, and carving out some really good gun racks and rifle stocks--or maybe just making contoured toilet seats for the butts of the ruling members of the Vast Right Wing Supper Club).
Cloudy With A Chance Of McCain
Posted by on 3.6.08 @ 12:18AM
Occassional AmSpec contributor and Reason politics go-to guy Dave Weigel is interviewed here about the state of the race. Definitely worth checking out.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Self-Destructive Dems
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 7:44PM
It seems to me that Ross Douthat is on to something here: The Democrats are missing an opportunity to build a lead early by exploiting their substantial fundraising advantage over John McCain. Instead they are too busy fighting each other, with a nomination contest that may well go on until the convention. If the campaign continues to get negative and nasty, the Democrats may lose one other advantage: The eventual nominee may become as unpopular with the segments of the party's base that backed the loser as McCain is with some segments of the Republican base.
Ivy League Still Gives Overwhelmingly to Democrats
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 7:18PM
I crunched the numbers at OpenSecrets.org to see who Ivy League faculties were giving to in the Presidential primaries.
Democratic candidates received $808,404 in contributions while Republican candidates received just $145,376 in contributions. That means Democrats received about 85 percent of all money given while Republicans received just 15 percent. In other words, for every dollar given to a Republican candidate, about $5.50 cents was given to a Democratuic candidate. Barack Obama alone has taken in more than three times the donations from Ivy Leauge employees than all the Republican candidates combined.
Here is the raw data:
Democrats
Barack Obama - $453,393
Hillary Clinton - $245,954
John Edwards - $48,406
Chris Dodd - $26,850
Bill Richardson - $22,400
Joe Biden - $9,700
Tom Vilsack - $1,250
Dennis Kucinich - $451
Mike Gravel - $0
Republicans
John McCain -$46,750
Mitt Romney - $42,750
Rudy Giuliani - $34,225
Ron Paul - $10,901
Mike Huckabee - $5,550
Sam Brownback - $2,600
Fred Thompson - $2,100
Alan Keyes - $500
James Gilmore - $0
Duncan Hunter - $0
Tommy Thompson - $0
Tom Tancredo - $0
The theme is, of course, academia remains overwhelmingly supportive of Democrats.
Re: Advantage McCain
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 4:33PM
When I brought up these very points on a radio show this afternoon, the host signed off by saying, "We'll see if that's just James Antle's wishful thinking." A wishful thinker? Moi?
If the Democrats blow this election, as they now seem hellbent on doing, they really ought to consider disbanding the party. Some liberal blogger or reporter from the Nation should investigate whether the Democratic leaders are all on the payroll of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Advantage McCain
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 4:19PM
It's not just the fact that Democrats will spend the next few months going at it that is likely to help John McCain, but the nature of the attacks Clinton and Obama are making against one another that can be used against either of them in the general. Clinton has been hitting Obama on his lack of preparedness (while she acknowledges McCain's "lifetime of experience"), on Tony Rezko, and generally being all words and no substance. Meanwhile Obama strategist David Axelrod declared today, "The vetting of Hillary Clinton is just going to start." The Obama campaign is going after Clinton for refusing to release her tax returns, and we may very well expect to see a reexploration of 1990s scandals that have been kept out of the Democratic contest so far. Recently responding to Clinton regarding Obama's real estate dealings with Rezko, Axelrod said Clinton should be the last one "wanting to characterize any real estate transaction as unusual." Given that Clinton and Obama surrogates all over the country will be echoing such charges as the protracted race goes on, by the time the fall rolls around, McCain's ad producers will have a treasure trove of comments from top Democrats attacking whoever the nominee is.
What is important is that all of these attacks involve matters of experience and character--qualities that can actually have an effect on swing voters. By contrast, during the Republican primaries, the other candidates didn't go after McCain for being dishonest or unprepared to be president, but for not being conservative enough. Those attacks, however, are not going to hurt him among swing voters in the general. For instance, in a race against Obama, having an ad of Cliton and other prominent Democrats questioning his readiness, would be damaging. But it's hard to see Democrats running an ad featuring a clip of Mitt Romney charging McCain with supporting amnesty.
Faith in the Halls of Power
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 3:19PM
Michael Lindsay of Rice University recently published Faith in the Halls of Power with Oxford University Press. I'm reviewing the book for the Journal of Law and Religion. Having read many volumes analyzing the role and culture of evangelicals in the United States, it would take a lot to impress me, but Lindsay delivers.
He interviewed nearly 400 influential evangelicals and portrays the reality of elite evangelical culture far better than anyone else I've seen. Any reporter on religion in America should be required to read this book. I cannot recommend it highly enough. If you want to get inside the heads of evangelicals making headway in politics, the arts, universities, entertainment, and business, Faith in the Halls of Power is the new standard text.
F-A-A-A-R-R-V-V
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 2:25PM
Now that Brett Favre has foresworn the literal world of NFL, perhaps he can learn the pronunciation of his name. Vive Le Packers!
More V-P Speculations
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 1:16PM
The Financial Times weighs in on McCain's Veep choice. The same names, of course, keep popping up: Cox, Pawlenty, Sanford....
Writer and Gatekeeper for Obama
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 1:15PM
"Once again UCCtruths turns up as a front for conservative groups trying to undermine the ministries of the United Church of Christ. And Jeffery Lord, author of this post? The man who attacks the motives of Rev. Lynn? He was Ronald Reagan's political director at the White House. These are the people pushing an investigation of the UCC. They seek to silence the prophetic voice of churches that disagree with conservative voices on issues of war and peace, poverty and economic justice, and calls for human action to save the world from the effects of human-made global warming. Don't let them win."
This jewel turned up on the blog of the United Church of Christ amidst all the flurry concerning the IRS investigation of the UCC's case of Obamamania. The poster is the Rev. Chuck Currie, surely a good soul. The Rev's obsession, like those of the higher ups of the UCC, is transforming the United Church of Christ into the United Church of American Liberalism. He is also an Obama guy, officially ensconced in Obama-land with the title of writer for People of Faith for Barack. As mentioned in yesterday's article, his Obama position effectively taunts the IRS with his role as gatekeeper to the UCC's blog, where he has, apparently with the approval of the church, blocked the blog UCC Truths from a listing. UCC Truths, of course, has been critical of letting Obama use the UCC pulpit and inviting the IRS investigation. Hey, no problem there.
For the record, UCC Truths to my knowledge has no connection whatsoever to any conservative organization. To say the site, run by a UCC'er who simply has the courage to disagree and speak some truth to power, is a "front" is amusingly typical of the left-wing mindset. But we know what this is really all about, don't we? In the Gospel according to the Rev. Currie and his fellow liberals, "conservative groups" (ya gotta watch those guys) are out there pushing war, poverty, death, destruction, and as much economic injustice as they can get away with. Concerned about all the headway Rev. Currie and his "progressive" buds were making with peace and saving the planet, they craftily summoned the IRS so they could all get back to the real conservative agenda -- death and destruction of planet earth. Makes sense, no? Well, no. But ya gotta love people who think this way. Just don't vote for them.
Crowing; Plus a Welcome Back
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 12:20PM
By the way, I did call the election right -- BEFORE the last polls came out showing some momentum her way -- with Hillary winning both Ohio and Texas, along with Rhode Island. And on the GOP side, I was barely off, saying the Huck would get 40%; he got 38%.
Second topic: I join Hunter in welcoming Southern Appeal back to the blogosphere! It is a great site, and it played a big role in furthering the debate on legal issues and pushing conservative judges, and particularly in the ultimately successful effort to get then-Alabama AG Bill Pryor confirmed for the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals. Feddie rocks!
The Return of Southern Appeal
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 11:47AM
I announced the death of the Southern Appeal blog here at TAS, so, it seems fitting to announce the return of the site.
TAS mainstay Quin Hillyer was a major contributor to the old site and I participated, too.
She's No Tom Brady, But
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 11:29AM
As a fan of the New England Patriots and, uh, a non-fan of Hillary Clinton, I hate to make this analogy but here goes: The Clintons are like the Patriots. As long as it is mathematically possible for them to win, you are foolish to write them off. But if the Patriots can lose the Super Bowl, the Clintons can be upset in the big game too.
From Dogfight to Landslide in Three Easy Steps
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 11:10AM
While I was working on my column last night, all the media outlets were reporting that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were in a "fight" to hang onto their congressional seats. This Wall Street Journal headline captures what happened better: "Paul and Kucinich easily defeat their primary challengers."
Paul won about 70 percent of the vote, down just eight points from 2006, when he faced a candidate with far less party support than Chris Peden. Kucinich won 52 percent in his primary, a low percentage for him that suggests he might have benefited from having four challengers, but put away his main rival Joe Cimperman by almost 20 points. Cimperman was well funded and had an impressive number of endorsements.
By Next Week, Obama Could Have His Mo Back
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 10:47AM
Right now, the media is caught up in the drama of Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas, but just as with Super Tuesday when Clinton was at first seen as the big winner until the delegate counts started getting tabulated, Obama could be back in prime position by this time next week. The results of the Texas caucuses are still trickling in, but Obama seems likely to win them, meaning that when the delegates are added up over the next few days, we'll see that Clinton's net gain was negligible. Obama is likely to capture big wins in Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on Tuesday, meaning by this time next week, the excitement of last night's victories will have worn off, Clinton will once again be starring at a huge delegate deficit, and Obama can retake the momentum.
UPDATE: When you combine Mississippi, Wyoming and North Carolina--all states that favor Obama--you get 160 delegates. Pennsylvania, the supposed Clinton stronghold, has 158. This reinforces how difficult it will be for Clinton to even make a dent in Obama's delegate lead, let alone overtake him. And if you consider the fact that Obama has tended to win his states by larger margins than she has won hers, he may very well expand his delegate lead by June.
CLARIFICATION: You may also be seeing reports that Pennsylvania has 188 delegates. I just put in a call to the state party, and that number includes 30 superdelegates.
Gizzi Rates the Veep Contenders
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 10:18AM
Over at Human Events, our dear friend John Gizzi does a good job rating the potential McCain Veep choices. Most interesting comments: On Chris Cox: "gilt-edged conservative credentials... articulate and hard working, Cox would close the gap between McCain and conservatives and balance the ticket in terms of age." On Mark Sanford: "Republicans in the state grumble that Sanford picks too many fights, even with fellow conservative GOPers." On Sarah Palin: "Palin has among the slimmest of resumes of vice presidential possibles. " Read the whole thing. Good stuff.
Clinton's Case
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 9:47AM
Harold Ickes and Mark Penn have just released a Clinton memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." The document doesn't bother to address the issue of how Clinton can overtake Obama in the delegate race, but instead provides us with an idea of the types of arguments Clinton will make to superdelegates. It also suggests that the Clinton campaign is more than willing to play the Florida and Michigan cards, arguing that they are two crucial swing states, and if the voters there cannot have their say, it will significantly impair the Democrats ability to win the states in November.
The memo is long, but among some of the arguements it makes:
--Ohio is a baromoter state.
--The cumulative popular vote is close (the campaign's numbers include Florida and Michigan, even though Obama wasn't even on the ballot in the latter).
--Clinton has won the battleground states, Obama has won solid red states that Democrats cannot win in November.
--Clinton is stronger among core Democratic constituencies "women, Hispanic, labor, elderly, and under $75,000" (roughly translated into, racists won't vote for the black guy).
--Clinton is better prepared to compete with John McCain on the commander in chief question and economic issues.
--Clinton has "the resources she needs to compete between now and the Convention."
This
thing is not ending anytime soon.
Cox at the Helm
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 9:43AM
My latest column on legal issues at the Examiner. The best sort of tort reform is the kind that makes lawsuits unnecessary in the first place.
Never Ending Huckabee Campaign Comes To An End
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 2:02AM
I think that Mike Huckabee damaged himself by staying in the race for the last few weeks. Had he bailed out for the good of the party after giving John McCain a scare in Virginia on February 12, he would have made some friends, got at least a day of press out of it, and exited on a high note. Instead, by dragging it out, he became the punchline of jokes and left with a whimper. With that said, Huckabee ran a strong campaign on a shoestring budget, shook up the party, and emerged as an important --perhaps now the most prominent-- evangelical political leader. Overall, his campaign has to be seen as a smashing success.
The Early Clinton Spin
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 1:51AM
The Clinton campaign just sent out a press release declaring that "decisive victories lead to momentum shift."
The Clinton team emphasizes:
2) The Rezko trial is just getting underway.
3) Sen. Obama got caught criticizing NAFTA in Ohio while his campaign - despite their denials - told Canada that his rhetoric was just political positioning.
Both campaigns agree that automatic delegates will determine the nominee. There is no difference between pledged delegates and automatic delegates. We plan on gaining pledged delegates and closing the Obama camp's lead by the end of the nominating process. When it comes to pledged delegates, we'll be competitive.
Lone Star Gal
Posted by on 3.5.08 @ 12:52AM
FoxNews projects Hillary Clinton wins the primary in Texas.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Hillary: "We're Going All The Way"
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 11:25PM
As if it weren't already obvious, Clinton is not backing down.
"Let us go to Michigan and Florida"
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 11:18PM
That was Clinton backer Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland just now, speaking to Clinton supporters, to huge applause. This is not ending any time soon.
Re: Go Figure
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 10:41PM
A clarification: There are a lot of votes in from the cities not because their precincts are reporting first, but because they have a heavy concentration of early votes counted. The percentage of precincts may not account for early voters, who apparently made up a fairly larger percentage of the Democratic electorate. That's probably the main reason for the discrepancy Wlady noticed earlier.
McCain and Economy
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 10:20PM
Good stuff from the speech McCain just gave:
I will leave it to my opponent to argue that we should abrogate trade treaties, and pretend the global economy will go away and Americans can secure our future by trading and investing only among ourselves. We will campaign in favor of seizing the opportunities presented by the growth of free markets throughout the world, helping displaced workers acquire new and lasting employment and educating our children to prepare them for the new economic realities by giving parents choices about their children's education they do not have now.Matt Welch has noted that this is the first time in memory that McCain has campaigned on free-market themes. Tom Coburn's influence, maybe?I will leave it to my opponent to claim that they can keep companies and jobs from going overseas by making it harder for them to do business here at home. We will campaign to strengthen job growth in America by helping businesses become more competitive with lower taxes and less regulation.
McCain Declares Himself The Nominee
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 9:55PM
Who would have thought, back in December, that the Republican race would be wrapped up while the Democrats remained mired in chaos?
Re: Go Figure
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 9:52PM
Phil's right. Results from Austin, Dallas, and Houston are coming in relatively early (you can see the county-by-county results here).
Re: Go Figure
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 9:45PM
Well, 2 percent of precincts isn't the same thing as 2 percent of the electorate, so maybe the precincts that have come in are located in large population centers.
Go Figure
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 9:37PM
Am I nuts? The Washington Post and Drudge have Obama at 524,816 votes vs. 439,978 for Hillary in Texas -- with 2 percent of precincts reporting. Those numbers together represent one-twenty-fifth of the entire population of Texas. Surely the Democrats haven't created so many new voters...
Clinton Camp Claims Voter Intimidation
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 9:14PM
I'm on a Clinton campaign conference call in which Howard Wolfson and company are claiming that that Clinton supporters are being "locked out" of the caucuses in Texas by Obama supporters, and the call became heated when it was crashed by Obama's top lawyer. According the claims, Obama supporters gained control of some caucus rooms and let other Obama supporters in and shut the doors before Clinton supporters could get in. They described the occurrences as "extraordinary" and said "all options are on the table" as far as legal action.
The call became contentious when a furious Bob Bauer, the general counsel for Obama, claimed that these accusations were the same as claims made in Iowa by the Clinton campaign, and with a preemtive lawsuit in Nevada.
It's getting ugly in Texas.
UPDATE: Just wanted to recap some of the fierce back and forth between Bauer and Wolfson on the call, in which mock cordiality barely masked the bitterness between the two camps.
Bauer attacked the Clinton campaign for having lodged complaints in both Iowa and Nevada about the caucus process, but Wolfson responded that this was the first time they had held an emergency conference call on caucus night to point out irregularities.
Wolfson prompted Bauer to "join with us this evening in helping to make sure that these problems are corrected so that everybody has an opportunity to participate."
Bauer shot back that, "I'm more than happy to enter into any commitment that you might have to actually for the first time in some period of time stop attacking the caucus process that didn't start bothering the Clinton campaign until it ran a series of fairly extraordinary losses."
Then Wolfson snapped, "I just want to make sure that all the reporters know that it was the Obama campaign that made a very long list of allegations about the caucus process in Nevada, when you lost that caucus."
Bauer noted that the Obama campaign did not file a lawsuit in Nevada, thanked Wolfson for letting him ask a question, and said he would yield so that reporters could participate.
"We look forward to asking our own questions in subsequent phone calls of yours," Wolfson quipped.
"Pleasure," Bauer responded. "I can't wait to hold one and have you as my first questioner."
UPDATE II: Audio up here.
McCain Mathematically Clinches Nomination
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 9:06PM
Fox News reports.
UPDATE: And word is that Huckabee is about to announce that he's dropping out of the race.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Well, You Know . . .
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 8:41PM
Quin,
As a former Terry Bradshaw brand peanut butter eating child of the seventies, I went to look up Bradshaw's stats with the idea of rebutting you. It can't be done. You're right. But anybody who saw the man play in many big games can confidently say they saw a tough competitor and a leader who seemed to effortlessly connect with his big-play receivers when he needed to do it.
I suspect he could have had much more spectacular numbers working in a different offense and/or playing in a different era. I checked out some of the other stars from the seventies and found that their numbers look pitiful compared to the ones we see today. It's a different game. Of course, realizing that makes O.J.'s feat of breaking the 2,000 yard barrier in 14 games downright spooky. Ditto Namath's 4,000 yard passing season.
The 'Future Of Our Media' Is...
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 8:10PM
...apparently blogging at DailyKos and subsidized by the University of Washington. And the future-nurturing UW journalism department "led by a Kossack"? Hooray!
Should we be concerned for their mental well-being as well?
Re: Man Police
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 7:59PM
If that's your way of asking me if I'll go out with you for a slice of pizza the answer is...yes!
OH Exits Look Good For Hillary at First Glance
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 7:45PM
According to the CNN exits in Ohio, women made up nearly six in 10 voters, and Clinton won that demographic by 9 points, while Obama won the smaller male vote by just 5 points. Also, Clinton dominated in Northeastern Ohio, with 61 percent of the vote, and that region comprised more than a third of the electorate. This is all very preliminary and speculative, but for what it's worth.
Obama, McCain Win
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 7:17PM
Barack Obama and John McCain are being projected the winners in Vermont.
Buckeyes Bad With Ballots
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 7:16PM
You know your state has an image problem when an Associated Press headline reads: "Few voting problems emerge, even in Ohio." Florida thanks them.
Early Exits
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 6:36PM
The Page has some, but not much we can tell so far. As expected, Obama is dominating among blacks and young voters, while Clinton is dominating among hispanics and older voters. Without knowing how large the turnout among the various groups, it's hard to draw any sort of conclusions.
We're All Kirkians Now?
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 6:22PM
From a Facebook message:
I don't know if I'd go that far, given the alternatives.
Re: Favre
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 6:08PM
Yes Shawn, it is a major indictment of your manhood. Please report to the man police immediately.
Re: Favre
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 6:06PM
Is it an indictment of my manhood that I have no clue what any of you are talking about? For my part, I can only add Favre was decent in his There's Something About Mary role...
Giving Bradshaw His Due, Sort of...
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 6:04PM
Okay, okay, I give Bradshaw his due for winning four Super
Bowls. He was a darn good quarterback, which is why I list him
among the 12 greatest of all time. That's high praise.
BUT (italics from Wikipedia) ... he passed for
more than 300 yards in a game only seven times, and
threw many interceptions (he threw 210
interceptions over the course of his career) and he only
had two more touchdowns (212) than
interceptions (210) for his career. He completed less than
50 percent of his passes for his career. And In
1999, he was ranked number 44 on The Sporting
News' list of the 100 Greatest Football Players not all
that great, and just 10th among quarterbacks (including Graham,
Baugh and Luckman, who did not qualify for my restriction to the
"modern" game. And that was before Favre, Manning and Brady entered
the picture.
Fan debates are one of the things that make sports so much fun. But
I just don't see Bradshaw as being among the top 6, although,
again, being in the top 12 of all QBS who ever played the game is
awfully fine company.
Kucinich's Odds
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 6:02PM
Stephen Spruiell catches up with Republican challenger Jim Trakas and Democratic primary challenger Joe Cimperman to talk about Dennis Kucinich's reelection chances. According to recent polls, things have been looking up for Kucinich in the primary since I wrote about the race late last year. But Cimperman is leading Kucinich among independents, who can vote in the primary.
Re: Favre
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 6:01PM
I would just add that one of the things I loved about Brett Favre, and something that I think separates him from the rest, is the way he was able to gut through games with scrappy performances, even when he didn't have his best stuff. Wlady is right that his gambling often meant throwing the ball up for grabs and into traffic when he was under pressure, and racking up a lot of interceptions. But how many times did we see him get picked off, bang his palms against the side of his helmet in frustration, only to set himself up for a miraculous comeback later in the game? He didn't have the machine-like efficiency of Peyton Manning, or the coolness of Joe Montana. But the level of passion he brought to the game, the fact that he would make costly mistakes and then recover, made him seem more human, and it became much easier for mere mortals such as myself to appreciate him. I don't think we can really pick one quarterback who is the single best of all time, but he sure deserves to be in the pantheon of greats--if for no other reason than that he was so fun to watch. If I could allow myself to get carried away, I would make a comparison to classical music. Composers such as Mozart and Bach attained technical perfection, but Beethoven broke all the rules, and still produced something beautiful. That's kind of how I'll remember Favre. And I'm not even a Packers fan.
Re: Islamists Losing Hearts and Minds
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 5:48PM
I notice that Greenwald doesn't mention when many of these clerics saw their political power increase. But I'm not at all surprised to see Iraqis who may have liked radical Islam in the abstract, when it mainly entailed fulminations against the "great Satan," reject it in practice, once they were being subjected to its repression and violence. People don't like to have their fingers cut off or their families terrorized. And that of course is what the radical clerics and their militant followers have to offer, which believe it or not actually does make them worse than socially conservative Republicans.
Re: Not Much Lower
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 5:11PM
Quin, it's an interesting proposition to say that if such and such a player hadn't been on a great team, he would not be considered the success he turned out to be. We'll never know, will we? We have to judge by how the player dealt with the hands he was dealt. I can't say much about Archie Manning, not ever having seen him play; the only thing I knew about him was what I read in such periodicals as Sports Illustrated, which had been hyping Manning as the greatest college player of his day when he was at Ole Miss. In time I learned not to trust SI on such matters. Remember what it tried to turn the Bill Bradleys into (not just Dollar Bill, but Texas high school phenom Bill Bradley who went on to UTexas as the next great quarterback, only to flop and see himself demoted to defensive safety -- the position at which he ended up an all-pro during his many years playing for the Philadelphia Eagles). But I did get the sense that Archie suffered in the pros in part because he wasn't very big; without a line to protect him, his thin frame wasn't much to fall back on.
Joe Montana wasn't probably even as big as Manning, but he had an uncanny sense of the game -- timing, openings -- and the coolest can-do competitive confidence ever seen. But imagine him coached by somebody other than Bill Walsh or not having a Jerry Rice to throw to. We'll never know. But we do know that he spent his last few years playing for a weaker Kansas City team and was never the same. Yet because of what he pulled off in San Fran he'll forever remain in the top three of all time QBs. Another reason he's ranked that high is that he rose along with a team that had never been there before. Steve Young inherited Montana's team, and no matter what he also achieved there was no way he could supplant Montana as the great one for his franchise.
Maybe Favre was in a related bind to Young's, given what Bart Starr accomplished a few decades earlier in Green Bay; the most coolly efficient, unspectacular QB in memory, a befits a QB whose most memorable play is probably a simple quarterback sneak at the goalline in the final seconds of the coldest game in world history to defeat Dallas in the NFC championship. My point in all of this is to single out the quarterback as manager who never beats himself.
Which brings me to Bradshaw. What counts is what his team accomplished. Did he ever cost Pittsburgh a fifth or sixth Super Bowl? I don't think so. He had terrific passing numbers for a team that was built to run. His many years of steady, strong play remain a model of efficiency, and as the years move on I'm confident his singular achievement will only loom more impressive. In his day, many did think he was replaceable. But that was only because he was ridiculed as a hopeless hick when he was drafted out of little known Louisiana Tech. Then his first year his team went something like 1-13. But then things turned around as better players joined the team and he learned the pro-game. And he was the one to lead a perennially losing franchise to dominant status. What more could one have possibly asked of any player? It turned out he wasn't easily replaceable either. Joe Gilliam, anyone? Ben Roethlisberger is the Steelers' first solid QB since Bradshaw. Great ones just don't come along very often.
Judicial Wars Heat Up Again
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 4:36PM
As Curt Levey
reports at Confirm Them, Sen. Arlen Specter is ratcheting up
the pressure against Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy about
Leahy's unconscionable obstructionism on federal judges. Leahy's
response is full of meaningless statistics, devoid of context. For
instance, he compares his record this term with Specter's record of
getting confirmations in the previous two years, WITHOUT NOTING
that the pace under Specter was so slow specifically because of
Democratic stalling tactics. (Of course, those tactics were
actually aided by John McCain's dastardly Gang of 14, but that's
another story.) The fact of the matter will remain that when all is
said and done, specifically because of Demo obstruction, the Senate
will end 2008 having approved fewer total judicial nominees, and
especially fewer appeals court nominees, in eight years under
President George W. Bush than it did in eight years under Bill
Clinton, even though Clinton faced a GOP Senate majority for six of
the eight years whereas Bush will have faced a Demo majority for
only 3 1/2 years out of 8. The utterly unprecedented Democratic use
of the filibuster, combined with the vicious public airing of
completely unsubstantiated attacks on Bush nominees' character, is
responsible for this record. In short, the GOP was far more fair to
Clinton nominees than Leahy and Company have been to Bush's.
Here's another little note: Many of the Clinton nominees who were
"pocket filibustered" in Leahy's unfair and unfortunately
phraseology were done so with Clinton's tacit consent. Therein lies
another tale for another time.
Anyway, although even I, who have made judicial battles my single
biggest cri de coeur for many years, have
in the past year or so gotten so discouraged with this whole
situation that I lost a fighting spirit, the time is now for
conservatives again to take up arms on this subject. It is a winner
morally and ethically, a winner for the Constitution, and a winner
at the ballot box.
Clinton's New Party
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 4:24PM
When Bruce Bartlett made the conservative case for Hillary Clinton in his syndicated column, I was not persuaded. I am a little more understanding of the Republicans voting for Hillary in Texas and Ohio, but I'm not sure this is the greatest idea either.
Over the course of this race we've watched Rudy Giuliani seem inevitable and then flame out. We've seen John McCain flame out and then seem inevitable. On the Democratic side, we've watched Hillary Clinton seem inevitable and then less so. Then we saw Barack Obama look unstoppable but if the polls hold up, he will look less so after tonight.
Given all that uncertainty, do we really at this point have any strong reason to believe we know who will be the easiest Democrat to beat a few months from now? It seems better to just vote the candidate you most want to be president.
Islamists Losing Hearts and Minds In Iraq
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 3:58PM
Abe Greenwald is right to note that it is "extraordinary" that the NY Times would run an article documenting that young Iraqis are turning away from religious extremism after years of experiencing the violence and strict rules associated with radical Islam firsthand.
One of the arguments made by war critics has been that the U.S. invasion made Americans less safe, because it only embolded extremists and made it easier for them to recruit. That may have been true at one point, but if this article is accurate, that could be an outdated narrative. First in Anbar, Sunnis allied themselves with with infidel Americans against their co-religionists in al Qaeda once they were forced to live under Islamist rule. Critics said such a development was isolated and could not be seen as a model for the rest of Iraq. Now we are getting reports of similar trends throughout Iraq of local populations rejecting radicalism.
Among some of the remarkable developments noted in the article:
In two months of interviews with 40 young people in five Iraqi cities, a pattern of disenchantment emerged, in which young Iraqis, both poor and middle class, blamed clerics for the violence and the restrictions that have narrowed their lives.
"I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us," said Sara, a high school student in
Basra. "Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don’t deserve to be rulers."…. While religious extremists are admired by a number of young people in other parts of the Arab world,
Iraq offers a test case of what could happen when extremist theories are applied. Fingers caught in the act of smoking were broken. Long hair was cut and force-fed to its wearer. In that laboratory, disillusionment with Islamic leaders took hold... In Falluja, a Sunni city west of
Baghdad that had been overrun by Al Qaeda, Sheik Khalid al-Mahamedie, a moderate cleric, said fathers now came with their sons to mosques to meet the instructors of Koran courses. Families used to worry most about their daughters in adolescence, but now, the sheik said, they worry more about their sons. "Before, parents warned their sons not to smoke or drink," said Mohammed Ali al-Jumaili, a Falluja father with a 20-year-old son. "Now all their energy is concentrated on not letting them be involved with terrorism."
I wouldn't necessarily go as far as Greenwald, who seems confident that we are seeing "the realization of the most ambitious goal of the Iraq War: the de-radicalization of Muslim citizens." Too many smart people have been too wrong about Iraq for too long for me to conclude, based on this article, that America is winning the battle for hearts and minds. But it is certainly encouraging that there are average Iraqis who, given the choice between freedom and radical Islam, are choosing freedom. And it is especially encouraging that evidence of such a shift is abundant enough for even the Times to take notice.
Democratic Race Roundup
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 3:53PM
This Marc Ambinder post seems like a good place to start.
My Favre-ite Outcome
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 3:30PM
I'm just happy Brett Favre went out while was still a capable quarterback after a good, 13-3 season. I had hoped that he'd either go out more or less on top or that he'd still be able to perform if he returned.
The Overrated Mr. Bill
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 2:49PM
Jonathan Chait makes the argument, persuasively I think, that the Clintons are overrated as political talents:
The reality is less dramatic. Bill Clinton defeated a recession-weakened president with some help from a third-party spoiler, stopped the GOP from cutting highly popular social programs, won reelection during an economic boom and rallied his own party to thwart a wildly partisan impeachment crusade. None of these triumphs required unusual political skill.Hillary Clinton has tried to piggyback on her husband's ferocious reputation, boasting that she "beat the Republican attack machine." Of course, if anybody beat the Republican attack machine, it was Bill. Hillary Clinton wasn't on any ballot in the 1990s. True, her reputation was at stake, but that's a fight she lost: She ended that decade a highly unpopular figure. She remains one today, with about half of the public persistently telling pollsters they have an unfavorable view of her.
Which will make it all the more remarkable if Hillary beats Barack Obama, a genuinely talented politician, tonight.
The Favre Judgment
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 2:37PM
I think Favre is like John McEnroe. He had about three years where he was as good as anyone who ever played the game and was frightening to the competition. The rest of the time, he was well above average. Definitely one of the greats. Definitely the toughest QB I've ever seen. Surely, a courageous competitor.
A Late Night
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 2:35PM
Polls in Texas close at 7 p.m. local time for the primary, but starting at 7:15 p.m., there will be a caucus, so all voting will not conclude until 9. Because parts of western Texas are in the mountain time zone, that translates into 11 p.m. eastern. Given the closelessness of the race, it will probably take a long time to project a winner. In other words, expect a late night/early morning ordeal.
Overheard at Indian Restaurant
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 2:13PM
Guy #1: Never underestimate the Republicans' secret weapon against the Democrats.
Guy #2: What's that?
Guy #1: The Democrats.
Not Much Lower
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 12:50PM
Wlady,
As for Bradshaw, I do not consider it at all an insult to be ranked
with Starr, Marino, Young, Staubach and Aikman. I just don't see
how anybody can say he can make an argument as THE best ever,
whereas all the other six in my top group can at least make that
argument. Indeed, I don't think you could find a top NFL man
ANYwhere who would argue that Bradshaw is THE best ever. Bradshaw
was a good big-game QB, but one got the sense that even Chuck Noll
thought there were plenty of times when the Steelers were
succeeding as much despite Bradshaw as because of him. Take
Bradshaw off the Steelers, and they would still have been a
championship contender and probably a SUper Bowl champion several
times. Take Favre off the Pack in almost any year in which they won
or challenged for the Super Bowl, and they would have been a
barely-better-than-average team. Or, to put it another way, if
Bradshaw and Archie Manning had traded places, I truly believe
Archie would have won the same four Super Bowls and Bradshaw would
never have had a winning season. But if Archie and Favre traded
places, I truly believe Archie would have had fewer playoff seasons
than Favre, while Favre would have had at least one winning season,
indeed on playoff season for the Saints. (Archie's best two years
were 7-9 and 8-8, with bad defenses dragging him down.) In short,
some truly excellent quarterbacks (like Bradshaw and Archie
Manning) have all the stuff to be great, to be legendary, if
surrounded with reasonable talent -- but perhaps not enough of the
right stuff to single-handedly make a bad team decent, a decent
team excellent, a merely good team a champion.
Just a judgment call, but while I think Bradshaw was a great QB, I just don't see him as being in quite the rarified realm of Montana and Johnny U.
But that's what makes being a fan so much fun: Debates like these! :)
Re: A Favre-ite Retires
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 12:09PM
Quin: I think you answered your own question about where Brett Favre will rank when you described him as a gambler. I don't know where he ranks in career interceptions, but I'm guessing he threw a lot more of them than any of the other top tier quarterbacks you list. He was probably as gritty and competitive as many of them combined, but in the end he was like the fastballer who liked to challenge the best hitters with a heater right down the middle of the plate. Sometimes you win and sometimes the other guy hits it out of the park.
For the life of me, though, I can't understand why you would rank fellow Louisianan Terry Bradshaw in some lower tier. His four Super Bowl wins alone qualify him as top of the heap. He was tough and stout and always at his best in the biggest games. He didn't have to roll up big numbers to prove his point. If we were to go by that criterion, Dan Fouts would be number one.
How Not To Become Senator of Minnesota
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 12:02PM
According to Minnesota Democrats Exposed, Senate candidate and not-so-funny funny-man Al Franken has to pay a fine for not paying for worker's comp. It's ironic, since he's been courting unions with the claim that he wants to increase workplace safety.
Franken had time to resolve this matter before the judgement was filed, as on August 8, 2006, Alan Franken Inc was issued a "Final Notice" from the State of New York Workers' Compensation Board for "Failure to Carry Workers' Comp Ins 6/29/2002-03/28/2005."
Public records indicate that no payment was made.
Granted, the employees of Al Franken Inc. must not wear hardhats, but I think they're entitled to company-provided earplugs.
Clinton Campaign Presses Rezko Issue
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 11:20AM
With the Tony Rezko trial starting today, the Clinton campaign is holding a conference call right now to demand that Barack Obama answer more questions about his relationship and dealings with the defendant.
Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, blasted Obama for his "ongoing refusal to answer basic questions about his longtime relationship with indicted fixer Tony Rezko."
Wolfson later referred to Rezko as Obama's "political mentor and patron" and suggested his efforts to downplay their relationship were "quite comical" and he said they "don't pass the smell test."
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer also noted that in view of the fact that the Obama campaign has said they weren't concerned about the Rezko matter, he thought it was "rather curious that they were concerned enough about it to send a staffer" to the trial to take notes. He said it "should set off alarms in newsrooms across America."
As for tonight, Wolfson said he was "bullish" on Clinton's prospects in Ohio and Texas, and believes that Clinton has closed well with the focus on the economy and who is prepared to be commander in chief, and that Obama is first now coming under scrutiny. He said that one of the reasons Obama has had trouble closing the deal is that "Democrats know he hasn't been vetted."
All of this, in my view, raises the likelyhood that Clinton will continue on after tonight, even were she to lose Texas. With Rezko on trial and the media finally grilling Obama, she'll likely want to hang on a bit longer to see how he weathers the storm.
Re: UCC Announces Lawyer...
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 11:19AM
Washington attorney Seth Waxman, newly signed on to represent the United Church of Christ in its troubles with the IRS over the Obama appearance -- for free -- is, wonder of wonders, something else. According to FEC records, Waxman gave $2,300 to Obama for America on March 31, 2007.
A Favre-ite Retires
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 10:44AM
So the great Brett Favre, a favorite of mine, retires. I was always glad to claim him as being yet another in the long line of great Louisiana/New Orleans-area quarterbacks (Kiln, Miss., is just 50 miles from N.O.). From being a tremendously talented, terrific football player who also was a punk, he grew into an honorable, gritty, community-minded leader and even role model. And, of course, he broke just about every passing record in the history of the NFL. He won one out of two Super Bowls, and played in several other NFC championship games. If he had won two Super Bowls (or more), you could make a case that, with his other numbers, etc., he was THE greatest QB ever. With "just" one Super Bowl win, he doesn't quite earn that decisive a judgment. But what he does earn is more than good enough for most mortals: Among modern-era QBs (this excludes Sammy Baugh; the game was just too different back then), he joins the argument about who the greatest ever was, an argument that now includes Favre, Montana, Unitas, and Elway, with Peyton Manning and Tom Brady sure to join the mix once their careers are in the rearview mirror and thus can be put into full perspective. (Just missing the exalted company of four-to-six demigods, but still among the greatest Titans, are Dan Marino (no Super Bowl wins, though), Terry Bradshaw (four SB wins aided by a phenomenal cast around him, but his numbers weren't truly all that great), Steve Young, Bart Starr, and maybe Roger Staubach and maybe Troy Aikman. But I dare say that Favre was, by far, the most fun to watch. The sheer joy with which he played; plus the improvisational nature of his game (as opposed to the sort of clinical proficiency of Brady and Manning); plus (I ackowledge sheepishly) the fact that he was such a gambler and there is something thrilling about high-stakes play even when it isn't always the smartest way to go): All of which made him the one guy on the field you could never take your eyes off of. He will be missed. And he deserves a very, very happy retirement.
A Win Win
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 10:41AM
If Hillary wins both Ohio and Texas and stays in the race, the Democrats keep bludgeoning each other for another few months. If Obama knocks her out of the race tonight, the Clinton era is over. Sounds like a win win to me.
Hillary Wins!
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 9:34AM
Whatever happens today, I think Hillary Clinton has won the spin war going into Texas and Ohio. The media, which was supposed to have left her for dead, seems to be ready to crown her the new comeback kid if she wins both major states today. The Democratic primary electorate may even accept Hillary remaining in the race if she just wins Ohio and Rhode Island.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is going to be expected to deliver the knockout blow tonight. Even though he will retain his earned delegate lead regardless, he is only going to be portrayed as the winner if he beats her in both Texas and Ohio. Wins in Texas and Vermont will not do. Neither will "close enough" in the Buckeye State.
Not a bad performance for a generally -- embarrassingly -- inept presidential campaign.
UCC Announces Lawyer in IRS Obama Matter
Posted by on 3.4.08 @ 8:59AM
The United Church of Christ has announced that Seth Waxman, Solicitor General in the Clinton Administration, will represent the church in its investigation by the IRS over Barack Obama's speech to the church's General Synod. Waxman is with the Washington firm of WilmerHale. The UCC has also announced that Waxman will not charge for its time, and therefore they would suspend -- for now -- an effort to fund a newly established "UCC Legal Fund." The Reverend John Thomas, the denomination's president, admitted that there will still be "other significant expenses" connected to the case and that he would "wait to determine" if additional funds will be needed. There will apparently not be any effort to refund the monies collected thus far, which now total $59,564, an increase of some $16,000 since Thomas sent an e-mail to church members last week. If "additional money" is needed, Thomas says the church will ensure "that the intent of our donors is honored."
Monday, March 3, 2008
Defermative Action
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 9:49PM
Over the weekend, the Guardian carried a short piece by Cato Institute veep David Boaz damning conservatives for favoring antidiscrimination laws for race and religion but not sexual orientation. It seemed to me monumentally wrongheaded, so I jotted down some objections and made them into this slightly longer article.
The Future's So Bright
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 4:42PM
One has to wear shades. Matthew Continetti and I will be discussing the future of conservatism in the Los Angeles Times this week. I bring my characteristically surly disposition to the question.
Best Recap of the Week, and It's only Monday
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 2:20PM
Dave Weigel goes through all the twists and turns of Dr. No's chances in tomorrow's district primary, and then boils it down for you: "Ron Paul might be re-elected to Congress because Republican voters are voting for Hillary Clinton to increase the chance of John McCain being elected president. Here, have some aspirin."
Predictions for Tomorrow
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 1:34PM
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee will receive at least 40 percent of the vote in Texas. Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton will edge out Obama in both Texas and Ohio (and win Rhode Island too). You heard it here first.
Goolsbee and Canada, Continued
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 1:06PM
Byron York expounds, here and here, on how, as Phil mentions below, the Clinton campaign is aggressively pushing the story I mentioned the other day about Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee reassuring Canadian officials that his candidate's NAFTA-bashing is just posturing. A correction: I characterized Goolsbee as making a "call," when his comments apparently came in a meeting. It's a subtle but possibly important distinction, since it means that the Obama camp's denials are less likely to be outright lies and more likely to be differences in memory. (Of course they may still be lies, but I'd read the stories as suggesting that Goolsbee made a phone call specifically to calm the Canadians, which would be harder to forget than comments in the course of a meeting that may have covered a range of topics.)
Clinton Camp Hopes to Reset The Clock Tomorrow
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 12:55PM
Despite Bill Richardson's suggestion yesterday that whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday's voting should be considered the Democratic nominee, on a recently concluded conference call, Clinton campaign officials said that any victory by Clinton in Ohio and Texas tomorrow would provide justification for staying in the race.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, her chief strategist, made the case for Clinton staying in the race, even while acknowledging that she was unlikely to end the evening close to tied with Obama in the delegate race.
The rationale for staying in the race would be multifaced. The Clinton camp would argue that with wins in Ohio and Texas, Clinton will have won most of the largest states, including New York, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts. In addition, they would point out that Obama has lost momentum and suggest that voters are having "buyers remorse" over whether he is ready to be commander in chief and "steward of the economy." Ultimately, they hope that if they can prolong the race another few months, Obama will fold under media scrutiny, especially with Tony Rezko going to trial and what they referred to as "NAFTA-gate."
"If Senator Obama can't win in Ohio and Texas with all the resource advantages he has, with all of the good press that he has, with the constant reminders from his campaign that the race is essentially over, then I think Democrats are going to take a second look at this," Wolfson said on the call. "I think, you know, we wake up on Wednesday and the newspaper headline says that 'Clinton Wins Ohio and Texas,' we have a whole new ballgame here."
Penn said that if Obama loses both states, it will mean his momentum is "seriously blunted." He hammered Obama on questions raised by his 17-year relationship with Rezko, as well as NAFTA-gate, and said Obama was "first going through the vetting."
Wolfson also attacked the Obama campaign over whether his top economic advisor privately told Canadians that his anti-NAFTA protectionist rhetoric was just campaign trail talk that did not reflect his true thoughts on the matter.
"At this point what we have is a lot of statements from the Obama campaign that have been proven to have been demonstrably false," Wolfson said. "Flat denials that are clearly no longer operative; people saying that there was no contact whatsoever and clearly contact; no discussions on NAFTA, clearly discussions on NAFTA. So, I think that from our perspective, the benefit of the doubt goes to the Canadians who have been very consistent throughout this process in suggesting that conversations did occur."
Clinton, clearly, will not go quietly. Though even coming close to her in Ohio and Texas would represent a huge surge for Obama given Clinton's 20-point lead in the states a few weeks ago, and though he would still maintain a comfortable delegate lead, if he can't win one of the states, he's leaving a lot to chance.
One More Round
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 12:52PM
It was September 23, 1952 in Municipal Stadium in
Of course it turned out that round was all the Rock needed. Late in that frame the Rock landed a thunderous straight right followed by a textbook left hook. The hook was superfluous because Jersey Joe was MIA as soon as the right landed. He crumpled to the canvas, not sure what planet he was on, there to remain for several minutes while Marciano, the new heavy-weight champion of the world, celebrated in the ring.
If the current Democratic presidential nomination race were a fight, and I the ref, I would tell Mz Hillary and her handlers, “I’m giving you one more round.”
That round will be fought Tuesday, mainly in
Kudlow Agrees on McCain and Dollar
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 11:36AM
Larry Kudlow today takes up the cry for John McCain to start campaigning on the idea of re-strengthening the dollar. I now feel even more vindicated for my several pieces suggesting the same thing, especially last week's column. This is the single most important domestic imperative of the year.
Standing Ignorant of History
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 11:34AM
Jed Babbin notices something fishy about Obama's "inspirational" speaking method:
It's an important point. Obama has noted that he writes most of his own speeches. He certainly wrote his own books. Yet even in these contexts, he's not given to drawing parallels with history, something that you'd expect.
It's not a slam. But for all the kudos Obama gets for being a thinking man, an intellectual, why do so few volumes appear in his mental library?
Re: Praising McCain
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 11:29AM
Hillary Clinton has been launching attacks on Barack Obama that will make it harder for him to win the experience argument if he is the nominee. Why shouldn't she undercut herself too?
Clinton Strategist Inadvertently Praises McCain
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 11:26AM
On an ongoing Clinton campaign conference call, chief strategist Mark Penn just said:
Read His Lips?
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 11:22AM
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal where John McCain mostly defends fairly conservative economic policies, do we see a little backsliding on the no-tax-hike pledge?
"I'm not making a 'read my lips' statement, in that I will not raise taxes," McCain says. "But I'm not saying I can envision a scenario where I would, OK?" Oh, OK. If he starts talking about a "flexible freeze" in federal spending, we know we're in trouble.
Cab Drivers for Clinton
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 11:11AM
However well or poorly Hillary Clinton does tomorrow, she still seems to have one demographic group locked up: Cabbies in D.C. and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. It doesn't matter whether the cab drivers are white, black, Arab or Asian; immigrants or native-born; young or old. (I've only been driven by one female cab driver since I've lived in this area, and she didn't talk politics. So I don't have a large enough sample size by gender.)
Common themes: They all criticize Obama for selling "change" when they have no clear idea what he plans to change. They all say he lacks experience. Interestingly, cab drivers from the Middle East express skepticism about Obama's plans to withdraw from Iraq and talk to Iran. One Iranian-born cab driver, obviously a swing voter, told me, "Too bad Bush lied about the weapons in Iraq, because he is telling the truth about the weapons in Iran." Many of the black cab drivers think the Clintons have a better understanding of poverty and economics than Obama. Some of them have also told me that they don't think he will get enough white votes in the general election to beat John McCain.
In almost every case, the driver initiated the conversation about politics himself without any knowledge of what I do for a living. Obama has occasionally said he has difficulty getting cab drivers to pick him up. If my anecdotal evidence is at all representative, he has an even bigger problem getting them to vote for him.
Change vs. Experience
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 10:53AM
Should Barack Obama go on to win the Democratic nomination, the key reason is that in the overriding debate in the race, Obama was able to convincingly argue that he was an agent of change, but Hillary Clinton's case for why she has so much experience was rather weak, or at least way oversold. When her face comes on at the end of the "red phone" ad about who you want answering the phone at 3am, it could almost be the punchline of a joke. Only in her own mind is she the person you'd want answering that phone. Obama pretty effectively responded:
Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 10:46AM
Yesterday, while we were busy watching the Sunday talk shows, Russians were voting for their next president. To the surprise of practically no one, the victor has already been announced: Dmitri Medvedev, the Kremlin's current First Deputy Prime Minister and hand-picked protege of President Vladimir Putin.
Medvedev has been the heir apparent to the Putin throne for some time now, in part because there is a not-so-quiet official understanding that Putin will remain in the picture (as Prime Minister or in some other capacity). The watchword has been - and remains - continuity, rather than change.
The New York Sun's Eli Lake has a good review of the election and its implications (including some quotes from yours truly) here.
See You in August
Posted by on 3.3.08 @ 8:16AM
Over on the Spectator main page today, Mark Hyman makes the case for "The Coming Brokered Democratic Convention." Daniel Griswold explains the irony of the Democrats' newfound opposition to NAFTA. And the Prowler asks if the Republican National Committee has a prayer when it comes to Catholic outreach.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Liberal Mind at Work
Posted by on 3.2.08 @ 2:54PM
Columbia historian Alan Brinkley today reviews Jacob Weisberg's The Bush Tragedy, which purports to offer a psychological analysis of the liberals' favorite bête noir president.
In his opening paragraph Brinkley lets readers know that Weisberg analysis "is not as original or startling as he sometimes claims," that "his explanations of Bush's behavior are highly speculative," and that Weisberg "relies too much on...overworked clichés."
Nevertheless, Brinkley concludes, Weisberg's book is "intelligent and illuminating" and a "mostly peruasive" look at the "man whom many observers have already called the most disastrous president in our history."
In other words, pop psychology is great if in the service of correct politics.
By Any Other Name
Posted by on 3.2.08 @ 10:42AM
I'm watching the Sunday morning yak yak shows and am amused by the debate on whether it is or isn't underhanded and vile (not to mention racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic, fill in anything I've forgotten here) to reference the leading Democratic contender as Barack Hussein Obama, which is, in fact, his name.
I'm composing a note to the McCain campaign advising JMcC to issue a press release along these lines: "In an attempt not to insult the likely Democratic candidate, I will immediately cease calling him by his real name. Henceforth and hereafter when I speak of him I will refer to him as Joe Jones. Happy now?"
Repentant Duch
Posted by on 3.2.08 @ 7:12AM
For those who haven't been watching, a few of the leaders within Pol Pot's brutal Khmer Rouge regime are finally being brought to justice (probably) now that Cambodia has agreed to UN-backed trials for five men responsible for many of the atrocities.
One of the stories that is not well-enough known is that of Kaing Guek Eav, or "Duch," who ran the awful Tuol Sleng (S-21) prison in Phnom Penh, which was once a high school. Specific numbers are impossible to know, but the most common one is that of 17,000 who were sent there, only seven (some say 12) survived. Duch was largely responsible for the torture and killings that occurred there and in several other makeshift prisons in that part of Cambodia. I visited Tuol Sleng (and the Cheoung Ek killing fields nearby) last year and they remain in desolate, squalid condition. Bone fragments and torn clothing still litter the killing fields, and stark photographs of the prisoners are posted in the prison. Visitors can easily imagine the evil practices that were carried out there.
I had been told on my visit that Duch, who was being held pending trial, became a born-again Christian. Sure, I thought. But now that the trial has begun, there is evidence of his conversion and that comes from what appears to be a deep remorse not shown by the other four leaders awaiting trial. Part of the trial had him returning to Tuol Sleng and Cheoung Ek to "re-enact" what happened. I can't imagine what that meant, but it clearly shook Duch to his core:
- Tex Mess
- Feeding the Beast
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified