Phil: Your antipathy to Mitt Romney has clouded your judgment. You declare that Romney
"won't deliver Massachusetts and Republicans don't need him to
deliver Utah," but you've apparently completely forgotten about
Michigan. Beyond that, you seem to think that Romney's weakness as
a presidential candidate makes him weak as a vice presidential
candidate. That's nonsense. George H.W. Bush was a pretty weak
presidential candidate in 1980, but he made perfect sense as a
running mate -- he shored up support among moderate Republicans who
might have otherwise been slightly leery of Reagan. Similarly,
giving Romney a spot on the ticket would go a long way toward
calming the nerves of the anti-McCain faction that Romney courted
with quite a bit of success.
Rick Santorum's Senate successor Bob Casey, Jr. endorsed Barack Obama today, a nice
pickup for Obama before the Pennsylvania primary. Though a pro-life
Catholic, Casey is also a partisan Democrat, so his endorsement is
less surprising than Kmiec's. Last fall, David Freddoso wrote a
tough piece looking critically at
Casey's pro-life credentials. Seems they don't make Bob Caseys like
they used to.
Should Barack Obama become the Democratic nominee, one of the interesting stories will be his relationship with DNC Chairman Howard Dean. Obama talks about uniting the country and wanting to run a respectful campaign, but Dean, who represents the angry left at its most vile, will make that utterly impossible. Today is a perfect example. This morning, John McCain released a positive ad highlighting his lifetime of service to the American people, which nobody would deny.
The DNC soon sent out the following release in which Dean accused McCain of being a "blatant opportunist:"
After casting aside his image as a so-called "maverick" and morphing into the ultimate Bush Republican in the primaries, John McCain today released a new ad aimed at reintroducing himself to the country. After giving two "major policy speeches" that didn't include any new policies or proposals, McCain's new ad gives the American people no idea of what he would do to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end, address the mortgage crisis confronting American homeowners, or get our economy back on track.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement on McCain's ad:
"The American people have been waiting for a president who understands the challenges they face, not another out of touch Bush Republican who promises four more years of the same failed leadership. John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years. While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years."
If Dean is willing to go this ballistic over a positive biographical ad, I can only imagine what else he has in store for us over the course of a heated general election. It won't be pretty.
The RNC is demanding an apology in a statement from Deputy Chairman Frank Donatelli:
"It is beyond comprehension that Howard Dean would smear John McCain's character by stating he is a 'blatant opportunist.' John McCain served our nation heroically and valiantly and it is absolutely unacceptable that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee would attack Senator McCain for discussing his record with the American people. Dean’s comments are the latest in what has become a troubling pattern where the chairman of the national party has questioned Senator McCain's character and integrity. Howard Dean owes John McCain an immediate apology and both Senators Clinton and Obama should unequivocally denounce this disgraceful attack."
Ross Douthat has a thoughtful post concerning Andrew
Bacevich's endorsement of Barack Obama,
challenging Bacevich to make a "more detailed case for why issues
of war and peace ought to outweigh the abortion issue for pro-life
voters in '08." Douthat points out for all the Republicans' lip
service on the abortion issue, twelve years of Republican
presidents actually did put the Supreme Court just one vote shy of
overturning Roe v. Wade in 1992 (had Robert Bork been
confirmed or Anthony Kennedy stuck to his guns, the decision may
have fallen). After seven-odd years of another Republican
president, we may be just one vote away from overturning
Roe once again. Electing Obama, Douthat points out, "is to
give up on overturning Roe for at least a decade, probably
for two, and possibly for all time."
This is an argument that must be seriously grappled with by
pro-lifers, not simply dismissed as the concerns of a "naif."
Writing in Taki's Magazine earlier this week, Dan McCarthy
did make a detailed case as to why the war
should trump abortion. Ideally, McCarthy argues, the right should
take a true pro-life position by being against both the war and
abortion (or, if you prefer, a true anti-choice position: against
both abortion choice and wars of choice).
Having said that, while pro-lifers and other social
conservatives are often treated like Republican stepchildren, even they
have more to show for their involvement in the GOP than antiwar
voters so far have for their votes for Democrats. Rulings by
Republican-appointed federal judges, including the disappointing
Casey decision reaffirming Roe, increased the
number of state-level abortion restrictions passed by mostly
Republican legislators. This in turn has contributed to falling abortion rates. The
Democrats can't point to much they've done to mitigate the war.
Half the Democrats in the Senate voted to invade Iraq; since the
Democrats have controlled Congress we've gotten the surge, not any
drawdown of troops. That Democrat who will end the war is as
elusive as that fifth Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice
who will overturn Roe.
Antiwar conservatives are a very small group, mostly
intellectuals rather than a voting bloc. Conservatives as a whole
are more likely to fall into Joseph Bottum's pro-life, pro-war
New Fusionism framework. But there
are plenty of Catholic voters, a real swing voting bloc, who oppose
both the Iraq war and abortion. How many of them will side with
Bacevich and Doug Kmiec rather than the Ross
Douthats who vote on the abortion issue?
Personally, I'm skeptical that Obama is going to improve foreign
policy or that McCain is going to do very much about Roe
(whether that means appointing an anti-Roe Supreme Court
majority or doing something really serious, like jurisdiction
stripping). So I'll probably end up voting for one of these bozos. More from Daniel Larison
here.
The NY Postreports that Rudy Giuliani is
mulling a run for governor in New York, should David Paterson be
forced to resign, leading to a special election in November. At
first, I thought the idea was pretty absurd. After all, Giuliani
badly damaged his brand by running a disastrous presidential
campaign, lost the good will he earned for his leadership on 9/11,
and may have alienated New Yorkers by his moves to the right. But
then again, the Republican Party in New York is in desperate shape,
so the nomination is likely his if he wants it. And Andrew Cuomo,
who would likely be the Democratic nominee, would be far from a
shoo-in, especially after two Democratic resignations. It still
seems to me a remote possibility because a lot of things would have
to come together. But never say never.
The purpose of the conference call I noted before was to preview McCain's "Service to America" tour, which the campaign is referring to internally as the "bio tour" that will introduce Americans to McCain's life story. It will start at McCain Field in Mississippi, where he will discuss how his ancestors have served in every major conflict in American history, with one of his distant relatives serving under George Washington. Other stops will include an Episcopal school in Alexandria, Virginia, where he will talk about his education and Annapolis, where he will discuss his time at the Naval Academy.
Some other notes:
-- Spokesman Steve Schmitt said the McCain campaign would not be playing up statements by Merrill "Tony" McPeak and Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the general election. Though he found the comments "disturbing," Schmitt said that, "We will be running the race, should he be the nominee, against Barack Obama, not against Barack Obama's advisers." He said the American people would "make a determination" about Obama.
-- Schmitt emphasized on several occasions that it would be a mistake to write off Hillary Clinton from the presidential race. Clearly, the McCain campaign wants to keep the Democratic race going for as long as possible. If the McCain team were smart, it would continue to attack Clinton along with Obama, to keep her as relevant as possible.
-- "When you look at what Barack Obama said yesterday, it should send a chill down the spine of every working American," Schmitt said. "Barack Obama obviously believes the rich in this country are those who make over $75,000 a year."
I could barely do justice to this court case
I wrote about at the Examiner today, but people ought to pay
attention, because the issues therein go right to the heart of the
principles of federalism AND separation of powers. Take a look.
There's been some speculation in conservative circles about Mitt
Romney becoming John McCain's running mate in an effort to unite
the party, and McCain spokesman Steve Schmidt helped fuel it some
more in a conference call today.
"(McCain) was thrilled yesterday to be
campaigning with Gov. Romney, who is a very important leader in the
Republican Party," Schmidt said of the two candidates stumping in
Utah. "They had a great time together out on the campaign
trail."
It's one thing for the two of them to be
happy campaigning together, but count me among those who believe
that Romney would be a huge bust as a vice-presidential nominee. He
won't deliver Massachusetts and Republicans don't need him to
deliver Utah. His level of support among conservatives is highly
exaggerated by his admirers in the pundit class. If he were
actually popular with grassroots conservatives, he would have won
the nomination given his money and organizational advantages and
the reservations voters had about McCain. Yes, the conservative
vote was split, but it was split because Romney wasn't broadly
popular. And that's among Republicans. Among the general
electorate, he had consistently high negative ratings.
The other arguments given about Romney --
that he has a strong management background and economic expertise
-- are also weak. Executive experience is less relevant for
somebody who is in a subordinate position, and what conservatives
see as economic knowledge can easily be used to make the case that
the GOP is the party of the rich.
At the leftist "Take Back America"
conference, Dave Weigel caught liberal pundit Cliff Schechter
declaring, "If it were Mitt Romney we were running
against we could all sit back and eat barbecue for six months and
still kick his butt."
That sounds about right to me. McCain would
be pretty silly to tap Romney and make a mistake that the GOP
averted in the primaries.
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 3.28.08 @ 10:48AM
On the question of whether government-recognized same-sex
marriage actually expands individual freedom, this post by Austin Bramwell strikes me as
about right. Aside from some incidents of marriage like hospital
visitation rights that might be extended more widely -- and
granting that some efforts to prevent same-sex marriage are overly
broad, potentially impacting legitimate freedoms of contract -- the
campaign for same-sex marriage is really more about recognition
than freedom. I don't want to make it illegal for people to live
together, share property, or even go to their local Unitarian
church and claim to be married. Proponents of same-sex marriage
want the government to make me pretend I agree with such claims.
And a definition of marriage that doesn't exclude some
relationships is totally meaningless.
Puerto Rico Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila has been indicted
by the U.S. government for "tax fraud and using campaign money to
pay for family vacations;" expensive clothing; and credit card
bills. Why should we care? Acevedo is a superdelegate for Barack
Obama, and the Puerto Rico primary, with its 55 delegates, is one
of the last places to vote on June 1.
John McCain is taking out his first ad of the general election,
which will air in New Mexico, seen as a swing state. The ad will be
launched conjunction with his "Service to America" tour that starts
Monday, in which he will travel to places throughout the nation
that highlight his biography. It's also, no doubt, a way to force
the media to cover him.
I guess if you could introduce to me to all these moderate
Democratic congressmen and senators who will vote to end the
corporate income tax cold but won't back personal retirement
accounts without some kind of populist fig leaf, I might find your
strategy more persuasive. In any event, I'll just note the
following irony before bowing out of this exchange: You are already
spending the money corporations are going to save from the
abolition of the corporate income tax and you are a hardnosed
political realist. Yet when I question this, I am an ivory tower
ideologue. Hmm.
James,
It all depends on how you frame the issue. If we frame the issue as
what we do with the money the CORPORATIONS are saving through the
tax cut, then we say we will use some of the money to finance
transition costs for any Social Security fix. Which part of the
money? Only what the CORPORATIONS would be paying if they had to
pay SS taxes on earnings about 500 Grand. It would be taking the
corporations' money from their windfall to help finance Social
Security. If you frame it not as punishing the corporate exec, but
making use of the corporations' windfall, and you act as if the 6.9
percent comes entirely from the corporation (which is in one sense
true), then you can do it.
Now, if moderate Dems know that personal accounts make sense but
need a populist fig leaf, they can clamor about the evil execs all
they want. Fine. I'll let them clamor if it helps me get their
votes.
Quin, I will do cartwheels if we can abolish the corporate
income tax. Well, not really, since I am too old and fat to do
cartwheels, but I will do them mentally. But if you look over my
posts, all my stated objections to your payroll tax plan are
political, not philosophical. I don't see how we win the political
argument against raising the payroll tax cap for the employers and
not the high-income employees. Nothing you've said so far has
convinced me. And I don't see why we'd even have to cut such a deal
in a political climate where we could abolish the corporate income
tax.
James, as onetime Louisiana governor John McKeithen once said,
"Won't you he'p me?" If you help me get the corporate income tax
eliminated, we'll get it done. I maintain that my proposal for
half-FICA taxes on incomes over half a million, out of which you
are making a philosophical mountain out of a tiny molehill (in what
was an otherwise philosophically pure as virgin snow column!!),
will help get the corporate income tax eliminated.
Now, if you DO like the idea of eliminating the corporate income
tax, I will gladly tell you how I plan to do it and how you can
help. It is eminently doable. I just don't want to plot my strategy
and tactics in public. But give me a call, and I'll explain
how.
What I always have trouble understanding is how so many people
focus on tiny (supposed) philosophical transgressions instead of on
the huge philosophical benefits that the "transgressions" are
designed to accomplish. Certain House leaders never did figure that
out during the Gingrich Revolution, and torpedoed all sorts of
carefully laid plans to maneuver Clinton into a corner. And today
they run around beating their breasts about their own philosophical
purity, still without a clue about how they managed to turn a great
victory into a loss.
MoveOn.org is pushing back against the Democratic donors who are
threatening
to withhold their moola from Nancy Pelosi if she doesn't stop
encouraging superdelegates to vote for the presidential candidate
with the most earned delegates. (Hat tip: David Freddoso.)
James, you are jumping to conclusions. I never use the words
"excessive compensation," for a reason. And I said the "main goal,"
not the only goal. I DO want to give an incentive. But it's a
small one. I repeat, the "key rationale" for my idea -- quite
obvious in the context of the whole column, AND in the order of the
proposals -- is to use the windfall from one conservative proposal
to bolster another conservative proposal. Meanwhile, if along the
way, we can provide a small incentive for corporate boards to
consider giving slightly lower executive compensation and instead
put the money where it might do more good, well, so much the
better.
I think the difference between our outlooks, as always, is that I
am always thinking about practical political ramifications, not
just as an outside observer. I worked in the political trenches for
years. I followed Ronald Reagan when he made political deals in
pursuit of (not in abdication of) his political ideals. If you
think politically rather than as a philosphical purist, you see
that using the windfall from one conservative proposal to bolster
another conservative proposal while making some populist noises is
a win-win-win. And, I remind you, it is NOT like I am proposing new
taxes; I am proposing using a tiny smidgen of a humongous tax CUT
for other purposes. If you don't eliminate the corporate income
tax, you don't do any of these other things.
Now Third Party Watch is passing along the news -- rumor? -- that Alan Keyes is planning
to bolt the GOP for the Constitution Party on Tax Day. Keyes's 2008
presidential "campaign" has been such an unmitigated disaster that
his Illinois Senate race against Barack Obama looks like a serious
effort by comparison. But he would still be the biggest name
candidate the Constitution Party has ever attracted. He won't
attract the same level of support as Bob Barr or Ron Paul would
running on the Libertarian Party line, but he ought to get more
votes than Howard Phillips or Michael Peroutka.
Quin, now you are arguing with your own column. You write, "It really is a
problem, both morally and politically, when corporate execs get $70
million parachutes when they flee failed companies." You aren't
saying that is too much money? You further state, "the solution is
to give companies an incentive not to lavish so much wealth on so
few individuals." Excessive wealth, maybe? Now you are saying that
you don't want to give companies an incentive to "keep executive
compensation lower" and that you are only trying to provide
"populist cover" for free-market Social Security reform. Aside from
blowing your own cover, you have backed away from a key rationale
for your own idea.
Anyway, since we're nowhere close to abolishing the corporate
income tax, it's all a moot point. But do get back to me and let me
know which Quin wins the argument.
James,
But the point is that this is NOT "taken in isolation," but ONLY as
part and parcel of eliminating the corporate income tax entirely.
And who said anything about us saying that the earnings are
"excessive." Did I say that? I don't think so. Here's how I
described it, more concisely, in a letter to a reader: The main goal isn't to keep executive compensation
lower; the main goal is to use just a tiny bit of the windfall from
eliminating corporate income taxes for the purposes of answering
the lefty complaints that we don't cover the "transition costs" in
our proposals for personal accounts in Social
Security. In short, I am using a tiny bit of the proceeds
from one conservative proposal to bolster the case for another
conservative proposal, while providing a bit of populist "cover"
for political purposes. You will also note that I did not
write a word about "income inequality." I don't give a flying ****
about income inequality. I don't think that is the government's
business. But I do think it makes sense to tap a windfall for
other, better purposes.
Quin, let me see if I have this straight. We are going to hit
corporations with a 6.9 percent payroll tax on all of the executive
earnings above $500,000 on the grounds that such earnings are
"excessive." But then when the liberals argue we should also apply
to those taxes to the executives themselves, we are going to turn
around and say that this compensation is not really excessive but
actually quite reasonable. I'm not sure that's going to work, if
we've already conceded such incomes are excessive.
It is even less likely to work if we are bragging about the
additional revenues such a corporate payroll tax increase would
achieve. Why? Because the liberals will be able to point to models
showing even greater revenues after we tax the executives too.
Whether a majority of voters will sympathize with executives making
over $200,000 a year, much less over $500,000 a year, is a
conversation worth having after we see how the public reacts to
Democratic calls for ending the Bush tax cuts on the "rich."
Quin is right that conservatives should be concerned when income
inequality, real and imagined, grows to a point that it undermines
confidence in the free market system. And maybe these risks would
be worth taking if we had already suceeded at, say, abolishing the
corporate income tax. Taken in isolation, however, it seems a
gamble that is unlikely to succeed.
James and J.P.,
I am surprised I haven't gotten MORE blowback on the executive
compensation part of my otherwise pure free-market package. I wrote
it with the full intention of causing a few vapors. Time and space
do not permit a full debate on this right now (I actually think
this is a subject the right SHOULD debate, in public -- and it was
the one issue on which I was careful NOT to over-criticize Mike
Huckabee), but I do think a few points must be emphasized. First of
all, I do NOT think that corporate boards are adequate
representatives of shareholders or of workers; and I think that,
both morally and politically, huge executive compensation packages
are despicable. I wish that social ostracism were a more effective
tool to punish outrageous and socially harmful pursuits of
Mammon.
But I do hesitate to have government try to decide what does and
doesn't amount to "excessive" compensation or wealth. And I do not
think it is government's job to punish ANYbody for accepting
compensation that he can convince the market to bear for his
services.
But I DO think the government has a right to nudge corporations
-- which, after all, are NOT individuals, but purely legal
constructs -- to consider, just consider, the implications of its
compensation schemes, ESPECIALLY when the government is NOT
otherwise taxing the corporation's net income by a single penny.
You will note that I ask for only the COMPANY'S share of the FICA
tax to go into the fictional "transition cost" part of the
fictional Social Security pot. And you will note that it only is
being asked for that exceedingly small extra donation to Social
Security in return for a complete elimination of corporate income
taxes. It's not an added tax; in effect, it is an incredibly small
diminution of what would remain a massive tax cut.
The political calculations are multiple here. First, the
executive compensation proviso would add a bit of a populist tinge
to the plan to eliminate corporate income taxes. It's a small price
to pay for adding a populist political incentive to support the
corporate income tax elimination. Second, it goes a long way toward
helping get rid of the crazy "transition cost" argument against
personal accounts in Social Security. Okay,
Lefty, you want to cover the transition costs? I'll COVER the damn
transition costs! NOW can we let people save and invest some of
their own bleeping retirement money?!? Third, it appeals to
most people's notions of fairness. One big argument against
eliminating corporate income taxes is that corporate boards will
merely dump all the newly kept profits into the hands of the
already-filthy-rich execs. This proviso tells voters that we are
doing something "good" with at least some of that money -- that
taxpayers, too, will get a windfall.
We do, after all, live in a political world, which sometimes means
playing to the crowd (as long as we are not compromising
fundamental principle, which I am not).
James' "slippery slope" argument is not at all unreasonable,
however. Still, it would be a debate I would welcome. Every time
the Left tries to argue that professional households ought to pay
more into Social Security without any concomitant benefit
increases, and then starts citing numbers, we win. So many families
in the high-cost-of-living coastal zones make up to $200,000 or so
without living extravagantly that we conservatives win every time
government talks about confiscating more of their money. I would be
perfectly happy to let the Democrats try to argue the "details" of
their tax hikes on families that do not think of themselves as
"rich." Bring it on!
There is a lot more to say on the overall topic, but just let me
reiterate for now that I am, as always, trying to think like a
practical pol -- which, in one sense, is what I did for a living
for a long time. As long as what I am proposing is clearly a tax
cut overall, not a hike, then I see no problem with tweaking the
cut a little bit to achieve other political ends. All y'all's
arguments to the contrary are perfectly legitimate, but I think
they amount to niggling over 2% contradictions of philosophical
purity rather than embracing the vast benefits, both
philosophically and practical, that the 2% is designed to help
achieve.
In related news, Greg Mankiw looks at Obama's tax returns and
wonders if the audacious hopester is arranging his personal
finances in anticipation of "vastly higher tax rates in the
future."
I'm working on a longer piece about the three candidate's
economic proposals so will hold back on offering futher comment for
now, but this Hillary Clinton remark today was too absurd too leave
unmentioned:
"It's time for a president who is ready on Day One to be the
Commander-in-Chief of our economy. Sometimes the phone rings at 3
a.m. in the White House and it's an economic crisis. And we need a
president who is ready and willing and able to answer that call. I
read the speech that Senator McCain gave the other day which set
forth his plan which does virtually nothing to ease the credit
crisis or the housing crisis. It seems like if the phone were
ringing, he would just let it ring and ring and ring."
I'm sure Quin would argue that he is incentivizing rather than
penalizing. Either way, my bigger problem with his proposal is that
it is quite a concession to those who want to raise the payroll tax
cap or remove it entirely. I understand that what Quin is proposing
is far more limited than that, but once you concede that we should
have a higher payroll tax cap to ensure progressivity and increase
the revenue flow to Social Security, then arguments against more
sweeping Democratic proposals come down to a matter of details.
I'll leave it to Stephen Hayes to determine whether this constitutes an operational relationship
between David Bonoir, Jim McDermott, Mike Thompson, and Saddam
Hussein, or whether it is just a connection.
I think she's a culinary poseur even to have pudding. A few
half-eaten pieces of pizza, some Doritos, and beer add up to the
breakfast of champions. What next? Caviar?
I got only a few grafs into the piece, and I hit this part:
She leads me into the kitchen. On a perch above the
cabinets, wooden block letters are arranged to spell indulge.
Meghan then invites me to inspect her refrigerator, like the
celebrities do on MTV Cribs. Inside are some Bud Light cans, a
six-pack of Stella Artois, and twelve cups of Jell-O
pudding.
The daughter of the National Greatness, Traditionalist
"Conservative" John McCain either eats out, or dines nightly on Bud
and pudding. That's neat. It's also emblematic of just how inept a
lot of 20 year-olds are. A guy from GQ
comes by your place, and you're actually
proud that you don't have milk, eggs, and some basic signs of a
culinary lifestyle in your fridge? C'mon!
Then there's this bleak sign of the times:
Alas, the tour stops here. Meghan won't show me her
bedroom's too messy, she says.
GQ writer Greg Veis, fearless reporter, is
willing to go where none of us dare to go. But he also forgets
something. GQ stands for GENTLEMAN'S
QUARTERLY. Keyword: GENTLEMAN. Editors likely cut Veis's attempt to
get into her bathroom cabinet, as well as whether Meghan's body
wash was sufficiently pretty-smelling.
Quin, reading your piece,
I wondered about this item: "Show concern about executive
compensation."
Corporate boards have every right to decide the wages of CEOs as
they see fit. Sometimes they do so at their own peril. We're
entering a period where it's becoming unseemly to heap so much cash
onto an executive. It doesn't look good, especially in these
times.
Incentivizing is one thing, penalties are another. Maybe I'm
misunderstanding, though.
This new NBC/WSJ poll finding that Hillary Clinton's
positive rating has dropped to 37 (her lowest in seven years) and
that Barack Obama suffered negligible damage from the Rev. Wright
controversy seemed quite intriguing at first, until I read that it
"oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable
cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding
Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last
week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup." Now it seems quite
useless.
UPDATE: In comments, a reader explains why it may not be
useless.
UPDATE II: The pollster
explains that backs were NOT over-represented in the overall
numbers.
Michael Bloomberg introduced Barack Obama at his economic speech
in New York on Thursday, and Obama returned the favor by opening
his talk with these kind words for the mayor (from prepared
remarks):
I want to thank Mayor Bloomberg for his
extraordinary leadership. At a time when Washington is divided in
old ideological battles, he shows us what can be achieved when we
bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions. Not only has he
been a remarkable leader for New York -he has established himself
as a major voice in our national debate on issues like renewing our
economy, educating our children, and seeking energy independence.
Mr. Mayor, I share your determination to bring this country
together to finally make progress for the American
people.
This will no doubt lead to speculation about an Obama-Bloomberg
ticket. At first glance, you could see some logic behind it. It
would be consistent with both politicians' talk of breaking the two
party logjam and bringing people together. Also, Bloomberg would
bring some business expertise and management experience to the
table, qualities that would also make him a useful attack dog
against McCain on economic issues. However, it would be surprising
to me if Bloomberg, who has spent decades as the top dog, both in
his financial information company or as mayor, would be willing to
serve in a subordinate capacity.
Wow. Thanks for that link, Jim. Best graph without cuss words,
hands down:
Meghan recalls the day when actor Wilford Brimley,
he of the Quaker Oats ads, called to offer his support. An
operative got off the phone and grandly announced to the room,
"We've got Brimley!" The phrase, she says, became a rallying cry
for the campaign.
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 3.27.08 @ 10:42AM
A GQprofile that veers between
endearing and OMG, TMI. Let's just say she would probably handle
hostile questions on a college campus more forthrightly than
Chelsea Clinton. Warning: Contains language offensive to investment
bankers.
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 3.27.08 @ 10:27AM
The interesting thing about that New York Times story
is the subtle comparison to Barack Obama. Pro-Hillary Democrats I
talk to often argue that Obama will be eaten alive by the old bulls
in a Democratic Congress, much like Jimmy Carter. It is clear that
Patrick has Carter-like problems in Massachusetts.
For all their flaws, the four Republican governors of
Massachusetts since 1991 were able to capitalize on their
adversarial relationship with Beacon Hill Democrats in a way that
Patrick can't. It's true that the Democrats are invested in
Patrick's success to a degree they never were Mitt Romney's, which
is why GOP governors saw most of their plans frustrated as well.
But the Republicans could afford to take it to the mattresses on a
few big issues, like tax cuts, where the majority of the state's
voters disagreed with the legislature. The legislature probably
wouldn't be giving Patrick such a hard time if the Republicans had
a serious gubernatorial challenger on the horizon in 2010, but that
doesn't appear likely
I'm
no fan of Deval Patrick, either, but I was definitely
sympathetic to his plan to bring casinos into Massachusetts,
especially if the choice is between opening those establishments
and seizing more cash from already overtaxed working people. (I can
only assume this is what the Massachusetts legislature is planning
with an on-the-ropes Democratic governor like Patrick "leading" the
state.) Indeed, I still hold out hope that New Hampshire will
eventually allow casnios in the northern part of the state rather
than institute a sales or income tax, which seems more likely all
the time. (It's going to be for the
children, of course.) Not much hope, but a boy can dream,
can't he?
In
a perfect world, of course, we wouldn't have a bunch of
scared-of-their-own-shadow busybodies deciding what adults can and
can't do with their own money, or passing judgment on those
activities in the form of "sin taxes." I also know this is no
silver bullet. Certainly, gambling hasn't turned Connecticut into a
low-tax state. Nevada has done alright. Phil has a better idea of
the effect in New Jersey I'm guessing, but judged by Corzine's
recent squaking bluster about hard choices for revenue, I'll take
it they aren't moving to abolish the state income tax or anything.
But as bad precedents and options go, at least there is some
measure of choice for individuals, if not for casino owners, in
these plans.
As a somewhat unrelated addendum, the revenue junkies running
the New York City have the bizarre ability--a superpower,
really--to make one nostalgic for the days of filing those April
forms in Taxachusetts.
UPDATE: A reader just emailed to ask if I
believe adults should be able to do absolutely anything with their
money and I see their point. Obviously, there are limits that I
should probably enumerate. For instance, I may be pro-gambling, but
against allowing adults to use their cash to, say, buy vials of
bubonic plague to create mass casualty terror attacks or child
pornography. I'll try to be more clear in the future.
Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts is having trouble getting anything
done, and we're supposed to feel bad about that? The Times seems to think so:
Others say it is far too soon to
judge the governor, and that in fact, he is changing the paradigm
on Beacon Hill, where a string of Republican governors cut taxes
and the Legislature, eager to shake the "Taxachusetts"
cliché, often went along.
"He put on the table the presumption that we are
going to need new revenue," said Stephen Crosby, dean of the
McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies at the University of
Massachusetts, who served on Mr. Patrick's transition team. "In
that sense he changed the conversation totally from where it's been
for 16 years."
Yes! It's been too long that greedy citizens have been allowed to
keep their cash! Time to subsidize The State and new curtains for
Deval's office!
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 3.27.08 @ 12:27AM
According to TPMCentral, several top Hillary donors have sent
Nancy Pelosi a letter protesting the speaker's recent
statements to the effect that superdelegates should defer to the
will of Democratic voters. They implicitly threaten to take their
money and go home if Pelosi doesn't take a position more to the
Clintons' liking.
First the bad news: WKRN in Nashville has ended A.C.
Kleinheider's excellent Volunteers Voter blog. Now, on to the good
news: The Nashville Post has scooped him up.
I'm pleased to announce the publication of a new journal of
Christian thought by Houston Baptist University. We call it The
City. The journal is aimed at the educated layperson in the
church. Advisory editors include Francis Beckwith (an occasional
TAS contributor), Adam Bellow, Joseph Bottum, Hugh Hewitt, and
Ramesh Ponnuru. Subscriptions are free. The
link to subscribe (please do) is:
The first issue is available in limited numbers to those who
sign up now. Our editor, Ben Domenech, has done a wonderful job. It
is really quite beautiful and contains essays by Louis Markos,
Robert Sloan, Joseph Knippenberg, Francis Beckwith, Ryan T.
Anderson, and many others. The second issue will become available
this summer.
"Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama agrees with every
position their advisors take, and in this case Senator Obama
disagrees with General McPeak's comments," read an Obama campaign
statement to the JTA.
First Anbar tribal councils turned on al Qaeda in Iraq. And now
at least one gay porn mogul has joined the fight against
jihadists. How much longer can the radical Islamists withstand the
pressure!?
Daniel Larison finds it amazing that anybody would have a problem with Obama advisor Merrill "Tony" McPeak's comments suggesting that Jews in Miami and New York City are to blame for messing up U.S. foreign policy. This may be news to Larison, but the reason why McPeak's comments are so offensive is that they play into the oldest and most pernicious stereotypes about Jewish influence. Larison one-ups McPeak by noting "donors" in the two cities.
McPeak's viewpoint also assumes that Jews vote and donate money largely on the basis of support for Israel, and that Jews are monolithically pro-Israel. In fact, some of the fiercest critics of Israel are Jews, and if Jews voted primarily on the basis of support for Israel, than President Bush would have done as well among Jews as he did among evangelicals. Alas, he did not.
The pro-Israel foreign policy of the U.S. is not the product of a concentration of rich Jews in a few cities, but a result of the fact that by a large margin, the American public has concluded – rightly -- that Israelis have by far the morally superior position, and they are our staunch allies. A Gallup poll taken last month shows that by a 59 percent to 17 percent margin, Americans sympathize with Israelis over the Palestinians. Most Americans recognize that Israel is a democratic nation that has made countless efforts at peace, only to be thwarted by a Palestinian society that embraces violence and teaches its children to blow themselves up so that they can kill Jews. It was not, I may remind Larison, Israelis who were celebrating when 3,000 Americans were massacred on Sept. 11, it was the Palestinians. The point is that there are endless reasons why U.S. public opinion is overwhelmingly pro-Israel, and yet Larison offers the same tired explanations about American opinion being biased just because critics of Israel are ostracized.
As to where that leaves us with regard to Obama, Larison argues that the fact that Obama has made pro-Israel statements on the campaign trail in spite of his past views means that he would also be publicly pressured into governing as a pro-Israel president. Surely, public opinion would influence his actions as president and make it difficult for him to adopt an anti-Israel posture, but Obama has given supporters of Israel have every reason to fear he would be the most hostile president toward Israel since Jimmy Carter.
The great and wonderful Extreme Mortman contacted me today to
launch a new feature at his most excellent blog. Naturally,
I was delighted to do so. While you are at it, scroll down to
his other entries. The Extreme One is known for the best, punniest
headlines in the blogosphere. Gotta love it!
James Fallows, above the fray many time zones
away, is frankly disgusted that the Clinton campaign would use
anything that has appeared in The American Spectator.
Meanwhile, Bob Goldberg's piece
on Merrill McPeak is being taken very seriously not just at home
but abroad. (Click here, here, here, and here.)
In light of the recent
controversy, it is worth noting this
article written last year by Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah, who
was disappointed by Barack Obama's more recent pro-Israel
statements, and remembers a different Obama who was cozy with
leading anti-Israel intellectual Edward Said, pictured below:
Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met
him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and
Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998
community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker.
In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him
speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago
professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his
criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a
gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst
of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the
United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls
showed him trailing.
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to
greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I
haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough
primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up
front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was
contributing to the The Chicago Tribune
critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 3.26.08 @ 11:08AM
It's just one Financial Timespiece (registration required) but the Fed's
bailout of Bear Stearns was a shot in the arm to those who want to
reverse the market liberalization of the 1980s and '90s. The "dream
of global capitalism has died", they say, and in its place will be
a new era of re-regulation, government gaming of markets, and crony
faux-capitalism. Bah.
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 3.26.08 @ 10:56AM
While there are undeniably some libertarian elements to Mike Gravel's
platform, he would probably be the first Libertarian Party
nominee to favor a carbon tax, capping carbon emmissions, increased
funding for No Child Left Behind, and essentially a single-payer
healthcare system. Of course, if Bob Barr actually runs for the Libertarian nod, all bets
are off.
The NY Times
headline today on the series of lies Hillary Clinton has told
about her trip to Bosnia reads, "Hillary Seeks To Soften Impact of
Misstatement." By not even putting "misstatement" in quotes, and by
making it singular when Clinton told multiple lies, the Times is
buying into the Clinton spin that it was just an innocent mistake.
As these
priceless videos show, that's just not very credible.
Meanwhile, the NY Post
doesn't hold back in its headline, and reports that militrary
officials are not very pleased with the former first lady.
The McCain camp notes a new Gallup poll showing that in the general
election, 28 percent of Clinton supporters would support McCain if
Obama were the nominee, and 19 percent of Obama supporters would
defect if Clinton were the nominee. A recent Pennsylvania poll had similar findings. The
Gallup is noteworthy on two levels. Clearly, it shows that the
Democratic nomination battle is taking a toll on party unity. But
what may be even more interesting is that contrary to the popular
belief that a Clinton nomination would split the party more, in
this poll, it is an Obama nomination that triggers more defections.
I suppose, alternatively, that this can be viewed as Obama
supporters being more willing to put what's best for the party
above their personal bitterness. These numbers would likely drop
once the heated primary campaign is over and the Democrats start
attacking McCain as running for President Bush's third term. But
still, it's a bad sign for Dems.
Marc Ambinder notes that the Clinton campaign has been distributing this Robert Goldberg article that ran on the Spectator's main page yesterday. The article argued that Barack Obama would have to answer for his military advisor Merrill McPeak's statements on Israel and thinly-veiled anti-Semitic statements. I wouldn't go as far as Goldberg did in his piece, but I do think the normally fair Ambinder really isn't all that fair in his criticism of the article.
Ambinder implies that Goldberg accuses McPeak of being an anti-Semite because of McPeak's support for having Israel return to its pre-1967 border and because he is sympathetic to the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis. But Goldberg actually has a far more damning reason for drawing his conclusions about McPeak's prejudices. Goldberg pointed to a 2003 interview in the Oregonian in which, in the context of a discussion on Israel, McPeak was asked, "So where's the problem? State? White House?" and McPeak responded, "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it." Given that those two cities are known to have among the highest concentrations of Jewish voters in the United States, I have no idea how Ambinder would read that statement other than that McPeak is blaming Jews for problems he has with U.S. foreign policy.
Furthermore, Ambinder outrageously writes that, "As one keen observer pointed out to me, if advocating the pre '67 border map makes one an anti-Semite, just about every iteration of the U.S. government since 1967 would qualify." Putting aside the fact that Goldberg never wrote that anybody who takes that position is an anti-Semite, the so-called "keen observer" is either ignorant of Middle Eastern history or being intentionally misleading.
I'm not sure how far McPeak goes on this issue, but it has never been the position of the U.S. government that Israel should return to the pre-1967 border map. A return to the pre-1967 map would mean that Israel would have to give up full control of the holy sites (Jordan controlled those from 1948-1967, denied Jews access, and desecrated them). It would also mean an indefensible border for Israel as narrow as eight miles. While the United States has supported Israel returning some (at times even a lot) of the land it acquired in 1967, only extremists who have fully adopted the Palestinian position support Israel returning all of the land, which would put the nation in a perilous security position. (See the debate over the meaning of U.N. Resolution 242). In fact, after the war, President Johnson declared, "There are some who have urged, as a single, simple solution, an immediate return to the situation as it was on June 4...this is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities."
As for the larger point, I do not think that everybody who is critical of Israel is an anti-Semite, nor do I think that Obama should be considered an anti-Semite because of McPeak's derisive remarks toward Jews in New York City and Miami. However, I do think there are plenty of reasons for anybody who is a supporter of Israel -- Jewish or not -- to be concerned about Obama based on hispublic statements and the companyhekeeps.
Separately but related, I just noticed today that Daniel Larison believes that my concerns about Obama's approach to Israel are unwarranted because of pro-Israel statements he has made. Perhaps Larison is correct. But that's precisely the problem with evaluating Obama. He has such a thin public record that I'm forced to sort through conflicting signals he has sent on Israel to evaluate him. While I'm generally not a fan of guilt by association, because he doesn't have much of voting record to reassure me, I am forced to take a more serious look at the comments of his advisors and close associates than may typically be warranted. As it stands now, at best, Obama looks like a crap shoot on Israel, with those of us who support our staunch ally most likely to roll craps.
I wish I found the recent Politicsmagazine story (pdf) by Reason's Nick
Gillespie and Matt Welch more persuasive, especially since I agree
with six out of the seven policy proposals they outline in the
accompanying sidebar (I'll let you guess which). Unfortunately, I'm
not convinced that vague notions of social tolerance, the growth of
niche markets, and technological innovation will by themselves lead
to a less statist electorate. Nobody who is actually in the
business of trying to win votes actually campaigns as if that is
the case, not even Ron Paul. That may be because relatively few
Americans see the government as a threat to any of their personal
preferences.
The Gillespie-Welch article is nevertheless worth a read.
Today's Washington Post carries an interesting editorial urging an increase in the
number of H-1B visas, arguing that too low a cap is an act of
"economic self-sabotage." We should certainly want to encourage the
best and the brightest to come to the United States, even if the
Post vastly oversimplifies the domestic IT labor market
and overstates the skill levels of some H-1B visa recipients. This
is an aspect of the immigration debate that is often neglected due
to a disproportionate focus on unskilled labor.
But the Post is overpromising when it suggests that
H-1B visa expansion will reduce the offshore outsourcing of
American jobs. In fact, the main public policy goal of many
anti-outsourcing activists is the reduction or elimination of H-1B
and L-1 visas. Why? Because these non-immigrant visa programs are
seen as facilitating the knowledge transfers necessary to make
outsourcing feasible in the first place. Companies can have their
visas and engage in outsourcing too.
Should we really be sending our athletes to Beijing while the
ChiComs are cracking heads in Tibet? No, I don't think we should
be. Anne Applebaum easily shreds some lame
arguments against an Olympic boycott. Is there a stronger argument
that she's overlooked? I can't think of one.
Hillary Clinton's intricate lie about her perilous trip to a fortified U.S. air base in Bosnia underscores her weaknesses in a general election. While this latest incident may be forgotten by the fall, it does show that any attempt she might make to demonstrate military expertise will only make her look silly. It's one thing to look silly on military matters when she's running against Barack Obama, but it would be simply devastating for her to get caught in a similar lie in a general election against John McCain, who actually has been shot at and who really has escaped death.
The Democratic race has boiled down to an change vs. experience contrast. The reason Obama is winning is that he has made a convincing case for himself as the change agent, while Clinton's Clinton's claims of vast experience have always been patently absurd.
GREENSBURG, Pa. 4:30 p.m. -- Barely an hour ago, Hillary Clinton
was less than 10 feet from me -- me, two dozen other reporters, and
no fewer than seven TV cameras on hand for a post-rally press
conference. She defended her earlier remark to a Pittsburgh
newspaper's editorial board, referring to Barack Obama's
race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that "he wouldn't be my pastor."
And despite forecasts that Obama has already locked up the
Democratic nomination, the former First Lady said she is determined
to fight it out. "Let's wait and see," she said.
At the rally itself, Hillary was repeatedly cheered by a
standing-room-only crowd of more than 1,200 people as she delivered
class-warfare populism that seems to go over like gangbusters in
this Rust Belt region.
Some students here at the University of Pittsburgh-Greensburg
were less impressed that Hillary had chosen a college campus as the
site for a speech that focused largely on her plans for Social
Security. "She didn't talk about the [expletive] students," said a
UPG junior who wished to remain anonymous.
More on Hillary's visit to Greensburg at The American
Spectator online tomorrow.
In today's "Best of the Web" column, the Wall Street
Journal's James Taranto highlights an interesting new study from Harvard University,
which finds a direct correlation between critical media coverage of
the war in Iraq and actual activity by insurgents there. It is an
interesting indicator of the fact that the media - despite all of
its protestations to the contrary - is not simply a detached
bystander in the war effort.
It wasn't exactly a Sister Souljah moment, but Hillary Clinton
told the Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review that Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my
pastor." "You don't choose your family," Clinton said, "but you
choose what church you want to attend."
Hillary also trotted out the "sleep-deprived" excuse for why she
"misspoke" on Bosnia and called for a commission to look at
reforming Social Security. Yawn. But the comments about Wright were
the starkest I've heard her make concerning this controversy. The
Clintons were criticized for their choice of pastor during the
1990s -- Philip Wogaman of the very liberal Foundry United
Methodist Church -- but Wright makes Wogaman look like an
evangelical megachurch pastor by comparison. Or at least Tony
Campolo.
A week ago it was Robert Novak effectively touting my favorite
choice, Chris Cox, as McCain's best running mate option. Today it
is the Wall Street Journal's online Political Diary. Because it is
subscription only, I reproduce it in full (having secured
permission), but note that the subscription
is quite worthwhile if you don't have one already. Anyway, here
it is:
While
the Democratic slugfest sucks up all the media attention, John
McCain will have at least one big chance to move back to
center-stage -- when he picks his veep nominee.
Mr. McCain needs to bolster his economic street cred, especially
after admitting minimal expertise on the subject. He needs to rally
pro-growth Republicans and calm the fears of ordinary voters amid
the mortgage meltdown. Who to call? California Republican Chris Cox
was on George W. Bush's shortlist eight years ago and didn't get
the nod. Now his moment may have arrived, judging by a growing
murmur among his GOP fans.
At 55, he's youthful and confidence-inspiring, with ample
experience to serve as understudy to a well-traveled 72-year-old.
He has a reputation as a serious and sober minded politician. He
earned both a law and business degree from Harvard. He's fluent in
Russian -- before entering politics he started a company that
translated Soviet publications into English. He served a stint in
the Reagan White House, then ran successfully for Congress from
Orange County, serving nine terms and amassing a strong record as a
fiscal conservative and tax cutter. He also led a bipartisan
Congressional commission that wrote the book on Chinese
technological espionage.
In 2005, he became chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, where he has walked a careful, and successful, line in
eschewing over-regulation while expanding investor information on
CEO pay and other governance hot buttons.
Not widely known is a chapter in his personal history. At age
25, Mr. Cox faced the possibility that he might never walk again
when a Jeep he was riding in flipped over and pinned him to the
ground. His spine was crushed. It took him six months and a steel
brace that he wore around his chest before he regained the ability
to walk. Today, he still suffers severe pain, especially if he sits
for long periods of time, so he often uses a desk that allows him
to work while standing up.
Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 3.25.08 @ 12:26PM
GREENSBURG, Pa., 11:15 a.m. Hillary Clinton's fans are now lined
up -- I'd estimated their numbers at more than 400 now -- to get
into Chambers Hall, where the doors open at 11:30 a.m., and the
event starts at 1:30 p.m. Vendors on the campus of the University
of Pittsburgh at Greensburg are hawking Hillary buttons at $3 each,
or two for $5. Ah, capitalism ...
In a recent phone conversation, Wlady suggested I ask members of
the waiting throng what they thing about how Hillary "misspoke"
about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. Sorry, but I'm afraid to
ask. There's a heavy Secret Service presence here, and if there's
one word you never say around those guys, it's "sniper."
UPDATE: It's now clear that the hall, which seats some 1140,
will be filled to the rafters for Hillary.
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 3.25.08 @ 11:08AM
E.J. Dionne
writes up two books by heterodox conservatives -- David Frum's
Comeback and Grand New Party by Ross Douthat and
Reihan Salam -- in his latest column. (I reviewed Frum's book on the main site; I
included the Douthat-Salam book in a recent discussion of similar
books in the print edition of TAS.) I'm sympathetic to the
project of making conservative domestic policy more relevant to the
problems that actually concern that electorate today. I even agree
with some of the policy prescriptions laid out by these three
authors. But Dionne's column illustrates the peril of getting too
close to big government conservatism, as I fear Frum, Douthat, and
Salam often do.
"On policy," Dionne writes, "the books are less persuasive,
partly because conservatism, almost by definition, has trouble
achieving the level of intervention in the economy that the current
inequities may require." Once you accept certain liberal premises
about government and economics, and once you cease to view limiting
government as a central conservative task in itself, and once you
deemphasize the various ways government causes economic anxieties,
you enter into a bidding war with liberals you cannot possibly win.
Liberals can always promise a more expensive and more activist
government than anything a conservative can offer. And liberals are
only going to give you so much credit for trying to meet them
halfway.
That isn't to say that we should oppose government intervention
regardless of the merits. But neither should conservatives labor
under the illusion that we can simply throw a few big government
bones to the electorate and solve our political problems.
The Clinton campaign has launched another attack on Barack Obama
for standing in the way of revotes in Florida and Michigan.
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer argued that the issue represented
another example of the Obama campaign letting words speak louder
than actions. Obama's ads, he noted, portray a civil rights
attorney who fought for votes to be counted and an activist and who
led a voter registration drive in 1992. But now he wants to
disenfranchise voters in two states.
"When it comes to voting, Sen. Obama has turned the Audacity of
Hope to the Audacity of Nope," Singer quiped, in the prepackaged
line of the day.
Singer also pulled the Forida 2000 card, saying that the nation
would have been spared a Bush presidency if every vote would have
been counted.
Clinton advisor Harold Ickes later chimed in to reiterate the
campaign's contention that a failure to seat delegates from Florida
and Michigan at the Democratic convention would imperil the party's
chances of winning those states in November.
"Slapping these people in the face is not the way to engender
their support," Ickes said.
Paul Berman--an idiosyncratic liberal whose Power and the Idealists is probably the
best single volume on the psychology of European Left's grasping,
not always consistent with their own self-declared "1968"
principles response to radical Islam--had a
fine op-ed in the New York Times this
weekend. Here 'tis in part:
In today's Middle East, the various radical
Islamists, basking in their success, paint their liberal rivals and
opponents as traitors to Muslim civilization, stooges of crusader
or Zionist aggression. And, weirdly enough, all too many
intellectuals in the Western countries have lately assented to
those preposterous accusations, in a sanitized version suitable for
Western consumption.
Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim
liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of
assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely
an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the
unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim
liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow
magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities,
alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried
as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy - quite as if any
writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a
few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist
doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.
Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 3.25.08 @ 10:26AM
GREENSBURG, Pa., 10 a.m. -- Security is heavy today on the
campus of the University of Pittsburgh-Greensburg, where Hillary
Clinton will appear at a 1:30 p.m. "Solutions for America" event. By 9:30 a.m., about two dozen of the most
enthusiastic Hillary supporters -- most of them older women -- were
already gathering in front of Chambers Hall, and six television
satellite trucks were parked out back.
However, Hillary fever does not appear widespread in this
community 18 miles east of Pittsburgh. In 2004, George Bush got 56
percent of the vote here in Westmoreland County. On the drive into
Greensburg, the only presidential campaign signs spotted were for
Ron Paul.
Believe it or not, the area's Republican leanings extend even to
some of the university staff here in Greensburg. One staffer,
informed that I was covering the event for The American
Spectator, broke into a big smile. "Oh, I love The
American Spectator," he said, his smile turning to a sly grin
as he added: "They've done some very interesting articles about the
Clintons over the years." The staffer will remain anonymous, so as
to preserve his viability in academia.
I was on northern California's public radio station KQED this
morning participating in an hour long discussion about the Federal
Reserve Board's bailout of Bear Stearns. As regular readers may
know, I was
not a fan. Audio is available
here.
Earlier this afternoon, I attended an AEI panel on Frederick Kagan's new report on Iraq. He was joined by Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack.
Kagan opened up by declaring that "the civil war in Iraq is over," because the surge succeeded in quelling sectarian violence and now the Iraqi public is increasingly focused on preventing an uptick in violence. Attacks that would have triggered a wave of tit for tat in 2006, are now being met with restraint on both sides.
While Al Qaeda in Iraq is not fully defeated, Kagan argued, there is "no measurable likelihood" that it will achieve its goals of transforming Iraq into an Islamist state, because the Iraqi people have rejected them. This means that Iraq has been a major setback for global Al Qaeda, which has viewed Iraq as the central front in the War on Terror.
Kagan argued that though the prevailing narrative is that the Iraqi government has failed to meet the benchmarks set by Congress, by his count, the Iraqis have actually met 12 of 18 benchmarks, while making progress on 5 others.
Looking to troop withdrawals, Kagan said that a drawdown of troops to 15 brigades from the current 20 would still allow us to complete our mission successfully, but anything below 15 would put our mission in jeopardy.
O'Hanlon said that supporters of the surge had been "vindicated" by the success of the strategy, but that we are by no means out of the woods in Iraq. In terms of troop numbers, he noted that the surge would be over by the summer, and said that we would only be able to pull out troops at a gradual pace. He supported maintaining pre-surge levels for at least another year, and said the next president would not be able to responsibly withdraw more than 3 or 4 brigades a year, which means by the end of 2012, we’d be looking at a troop presence in Iraq of about 30,000. While "not as sanguine" as Kagan on the political situation in Iraq, O'Hanlon acknowledged that there has been a lot of political progress.
He also blasted the idea of a counterterrorism strategy that would have U.S. troops withdraw to Kuwait and re-enter if Al Qaeda strikes. What our experiences in Iraq have proved thus far, O'Hanlon argued, is that if we aren't on the ground providing security in the urban areas, Al Qaeda will infiltrate them, and it will make it much more difficult to locate and disrupt them.
Pollack chimed in to say that it was "remarkable" to him as a military analyst that the surge has worked exactly as it was intended to. A year ago, he would have given very low odds to a best case scenario in Iraq, but now that scenario is not just possible, but perhaps even probable. He cautioned, however, that the progress we have made is fragile, and the big question was, "How much can we do in the south without sacrificing the gains we've made in the north?" Southern Iraq, all panelists acknowledged, was doing much worse than the other regions. If we pull out from Iraq precipitously, Pollack said, we may return to the levels of violence we saw in 2006 and run the risk of an all out civil war that would have ramifications for the rest of the region.
Posted by W. James Antle, III on 3.24.08 @ 11:57AM
Phil, at least Andrew Bacevich's Obama endorsement makes a
certain kind of sense: If you believe the war is the overriding
issue, you vote your position on the war. If, in some alternate
universe, the Republicans had nominated Ron Paul or even Chuck
Hagel, you would see a lot of Weekly Standard types
considering an endorsement of Hillary. Other conservative hawks
would join them.
Where I part company with Bacevich -- other than the fact that I
think the war, though important, is not the only salient issue --
is over the utility of trying to predict the long-term political
consequences of a given candidate's election. Bacevich hopes that
if Barack Obama defeats John McCain, neoconservatives will be
routed electorally and the right will turn to other approaches to
foreign policy. He might be right. But it could also have other
unforseen, unintended consequences that result in exactly the
opposite outcome, or something different entirely. And Obama is
certainly a foreign-policy interventionist in his own right. In the
end, it just makes more sense to vote for candidates who actually
agree with you on policy issues.
Kmiec makes a few antiwar statements in his endorsement, but
won't just come out and say that he is endorsing Obama based on the
Iraq war. Instead he meanders around arguing that Obama will move
the country leftward in a manner that is respectful to
conservatives. Bacevich does some of this too in enumerating
conservative principles that Obama violates as much as or more than
the Republicans, but Kmiec's endorsement lacks any kind of logical
consistency or coherence.
Kmiec's endorsement is another example of what I discussed
last week in relation to Andrew Bacevich's attempt to make
the conservative case for Obama (or at least the paleo one).
Obama's lofty rhetoric and ability to respectfully summarize the
arguments of his ideological opponents, combined with his thin
public record, allow people from all ideological stripes to see
what they want to in Obama, even if their perception is at odds
with reality.
After explaining his views on the judiciary and his support for
a Supreme Court that keeps "within its limited judicial role,"
Kmiec writes that he supports Obama because he is "convinced based
upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing that on
each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing
points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will
respect and accommodate them." But the problem is, there is nothing
in Obama's actions to support Kmiec's
claim.
A perfect example is how Obama handled John Roberts's nomination
to the Court. In a
high-minded speech, Obama began by stating, "there is
absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on
the highest court in the land." He went on to praise Roberts
effusively, only to explain--in a roundabout way--that he was
voting against Roberts purely on ideological grounds. Or as Obama
put it, he rejected Roberts because he theorized that 5 percent of
cases, the really difficult ones, would be decided "on the basis of
one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader
perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of
one's empathy." And at the end of the day, Roberts didn't share his
liberal values. Either that, or Obama didn't have the guts to stand
up to liberals and justify a vote to confirm Roberts.
Kmiec argues that when it comes to radical Islam, "Senator Obama
needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and
honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America."
Of course, Obama's failure to do so after more than a year of
campaigning, has no bearing on Kmiec's decision to endorse him.
Hmmmm. The site UCC Truths, which has been driving the powers-that-be
in Barack Obama's church crazy with its spot-on reporting of the
United Church of Christ's internal problems, now reports that it
has also had a copy of a complaint to the IRS concerning Obama's
Trinity UCC. This one is completely different from the earlier
complaint against the parent denomination that has now launched an
IRS investigation. The complaint was sent to UCC Truths...drumroll
please...anonymously and bearing the same e-mail address from which
Truths received the initial complaint about the parent UCC
denomination last August.
In all the publicity over this issue, still unknown is who is
filing these complaints. The mystery continues.
The Washington Post has a long-overdue
article out today noting how Hillary Clinton
and Barack Obama have greatly exaggerated their involvement in key
legislation.
It opens with this anecdote:
After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6,
2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the "President's
Room," just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration
policy.
As the half-dozen senators -- including John McCain
(R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- headed to announce
their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request
common when news conferences are in the offing: "Hey, guys, can I
come along?" And when Obama went before the microphones, he was
generous with his list of senators to congratulate -- a list that
included himself.
"I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel
Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . .
who've actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff
out," he said.
To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7
a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those
morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side,
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the
issue. Obama was not one of them. But in a presidential contest
involving three sitting senators, embellishment of legislative
records may be an inevitability, Specter said with a shrug.
The article also notes Clinton's embellishment of her role in the
Northern Ireland peace process as well as the passage of S-CHIP
when she was first lady.
Say what you want about John McCain, but he has long been a
leader in the Senate. Oftentimes, it's been in areas that have
enraged conservatives--immigration, "Gang of 14," campaign finance
reform--and other times, such as fighting pork barrel spending or
pushing the surge strategy, he has fought on the same side as
conservatives. But the overarching point is that McCain has long
been in the thick of things in the Senate, taking a leading role in
important legislation. None of the remaining presidential
candidates have any executive experience, and there for their
legislative records will become central to the general election
race. On this basis, McCain comes across as far more prepared to be
president than either of the two Democrats.
It's 1972 all over again, TAS publisher Al Regnery
writes in the New York Sun today, with Barack Obama in
the role of wacko liberal and super-appeaser George McGovern and
John McCain playing Richard Nixon. The question is: will McCain
study the '72 campaign to his advantage?
The New York
Timesreports
todayon why the media has dramatically
reduced its focus on Iraq war coverage, as illustrated by a Pew
Research Center project:
Media attention on
Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as
recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered
topic. Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has
plummeted, to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according
to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The Timesexplains away why that may be the case, including such excuses
as "decline in public interest," the "danger and expense in
covering Iraq," and "shrinking newsroom budgets." My answer is
"we're winning," which is described better and in more detail in
Jeff Jacoby's
recent columnabout playwright David Mamet
converting to libertarianism:
Misery abounds in The World According To Liberals.
It's a world in which climate change devastates the environment and
families struggle to make ends meet, while hate crimes terrorize
minorities and tobacco companies poison children. Everywhere the
progressive looks, the news is bad: teachers are underpaid,
innocent defendants go to prison, families lack health insurance,
good jobs are outsourced, a glass ceiling keeps women down, tax
cuts favor the rich, gays yearn for equality, and the Patriot Act
shreds our civil liberties.
For Easter, I give you the famous three minute sermon,
"It's Friday, but
Sunday's a Comin." It was popularized by Tony Campolo, but he
attributes it to a black former pastor of his, and it may go back
earlier still. One commenter attributes it to S.M.
Lockridge, the late pastor of San Diego's Calvary
Baptist Church, but I couldn't confirm that.
While
the Democratic slugfest sucks up all the media attention, John
McCain will have at least one big chance to move back to
center-stage -- when he picks his veep nominee.