- 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, April 5, 2008
Barr Is In
Posted by on 4.5.08 @ 6:49PM
Stacy McCain has been focused like a laser beam on Bob Barr's presidential announcement. Barr has set up an exploratory committee.
Re: No Future? No Future?
Posted by on 4.5.08 @ 2:03PM
I understood Hart to be talking about some of the cookie-cutter Republican cheerleaders who are like Ann Coulter without the sense of humor, though I don't think that description really applies to Rush. I agreed with some things in the article, disagreed with others, and mostly found it an engaging remembrance of Buckley written by a man disenchanted about having ended up on the minority side of some intra-conservative debates. It's a position with which I have some familiarity.
As much as I love Reagan, I tend toward the gloomy side of conservatism myself rather than the sunny, optimistic side. So yes, as I see leftward trends in American politics, an overidentification of conservatism with the electoral interests of the Republican Party, and so many conservatives seemingly resigned to government growth, it's hard not to feel a little gloomy. I take a certain amount of comfort in the fact that when Whittaker Chambers became a man of the right, he was convinced he was converting from the winning to the losing side. Where is the Soviet Union now?
I took no offense at Hart's article. The jury is still out on us youngsters. As for Buckley's sense of what the conservative movement is, I think this bit by Michael Brendan Dougherty puts it well.
Blatant Buick Bumper Sticker Bigotry?
Posted by on 4.5.08 @ 12:54PM
Sometimes Spectator contributor Ryan Young defends that Darwin fish on his "trusty Buick." Which reminds me, I meant to link to a comment on Young's blog the other day about his latest article:
Now how much time did I waste reading this ramble of statistics just to get to a subjective conclusion?
Other than that...it's great!
Dad
Re: No Future? No Future?
Posted by on 4.5.08 @ 11:47AM
I did read Jeffrey Hart's piece, and what struck me about it was how he allowed himself to be so meanspirited. Note the subhead reads, "William F. Buckley's last gift to conservatism may have been his opposition to the Iraq War." That seems to read, "William F. Buckley's last gift to conservatism was a position I agree with." Was it, though? A gift to conservatism? A gift?
It's a good time to make the point that a good number of Mr. Buckley's eulogizers have remarked just how nice he was. But the compliment is leveled at a trait held at arms length. I can't guess what Mr. Hart is thinking when he writes:
This omits a more important lesson. Civility IN GENERAL is desirable. Describing somebody who's been as helpful to the movement as this supposedly "fat" "blowhard" (who is currently no heavier than your average man of years). Why conservatives heap onto other conservatives in such a way, I don't understand.
Sure, Rush Limbaugh, who reaches drive-time listeners, appeals to a larger audience than the intellectual establishment was used to. His style is different than that of Buckley's. Namecalling is unnecessary, especially when Rush has given no offense.
Speaking of which, I haven't seen much namecalling among the "younger generation" of conservatives, as you put it. Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Jim Antle, Peter Suderman -- Certainly, no one I mention among this group is currently super-famous, but I doubt that when the time comes, they'll heap it on like this.
As for the momentary pall that's come over conservatism -- you're right, Christopher, it's curious that the older conservatives are gloomy. The ideas are still salient -- so who cares about political power? Us young folk got all the time in the world.
No Future. No Future?
Posted by on 4.5.08 @ 10:56AM
For all you young "conservative intellectuals" out there (Yes, I'm talking to you Poulos, Macomber, Tabin, Antle, etc.) All of this doom and gloom about the end of the conservative movement doesn't seem to give the new generation of conservative writers much credit. I wonder if you are as gloomy about the movement's future as is the old guard? Are you not a bit insulted at being discounted in this way? Or is it only political power--not intellectual power--they see as having run out?
Friday, April 4, 2008
Re: Clintons Earned $109 Million From 2000-7
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 6:57PM
It's nice to do well by doing good.
Clintons Earned $109 Million From 2000-07
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 4:29PM
The Clintons have finally made their tax returns available--not surprisingly on a Friday afternoon. They are downloadable here, but what immediately jumped out at me is the fact that the Clinton's reported over $109 million in taxable income from 2000-2007.
Thant figure includes $51.85 million in Bill Clinton's speaking income, $29.58 million from his book, $10.46 million in Hillary Clinton's book income, plus her Senate salary and his presidential pension. They paid $33.78 million in taxes during the period, and donated $10.26 million to charity.
Abortion Review
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 3:25PM
Didn't know there was such a publication, did you? The esteemed editor is one Jennie Bristow, who I believe was once a contributor to Baby Seal Clubbers Weekly. The publisher is Britain's largest single abortion provider and "cares for" almost 50,000 women with unwanted pregnancies each year. It also cares for--I mean--"takes care of" some 50,000 unborn children a year. Must be a fun place to work.
Re: The Barr Threat
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 1:26PM
Bob Barr certainly could be a threat to John McCain, but it's worth noting that third-party candidates on the right have not done well in previous elections. Pat Buchanan, who is better known than Barr and did much better in the Republican primaries than Ron Paul, got 0.42 percent of the vote as the Reform Party nominee in 2000. Paul did about the same as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988, just four years out of the House. The U.S. Taxpayers/Constitution Party has never cracked 200,000 votes. John Schmitz, a sitting Republican congressman, won 1 million votes against Richard Nixon in 1972, much better than John Ashbrook did in the primaries. That didn't stop Nixon from winning a 49-state landslide with over 60 percent of the popular vote. The Libertarians' best showing in history, with Ed Clark in 1980, similarly failed to put a dent into Ronald Reagan. Even if you go back to George Wallace's 13.5 percent and 46 electoral votes in 1968, Nixon still won the presidency.
Long before liberals worried about the Nader effect, conservatives blamed disgruntled Republicans for handing the White House to Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 by voting for Ross Perot. Perot wasn't a conservative, but his campaign had some center-right appeal. Whether Perot actually tipped those elections is debatable, though there is strong evidence he flipped some states away from George H.W. Bush in '92. I'm not trying to talk down Barr's candidacy -- he is absolutely the right candidate to exploit McCain's weaknesses with the right and could cost him the election -- but the right's appetite for third parties starts strong in early polling and weakens as November approaches.
Another thought: Barr could get close to a million votes just by consolidating antiwar, libertarian, and conservative third-party voters without taking a single vote from McCain's hide. So a replay of Reagan-Clark 1980 may not be likely, but neither is it impossible.
If The Mitt Doesn't Fit
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 12:18PM
Some prominent social conservatives are already working to keep John McCain from picking Mitt Romney as his running mate, running counter to the advice McCain is getting from some corners of the right. Many of the signatories of this open letter (.pdf) are unsurprising. Brian Camenker and John Haskins have been persistent right-wing Romney critics, some of the signers are Mike Huckabee supporters. But one name jumped out at me: Paul Weyrich, who endorsed Romney for president.
The Barr Threat
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 11:52AM
The more I think about it, Bob Barr's apparent decision to enter the presidential race may be the worst news John McCain has gotten all year. McCain basically needed one million things to go right for him to be able to capture the Republican nomination -- and a million things went right. With the Democratic race dragging on, it seemed like that luck was continuing into the general election. But one of the major things McCain needed to go right for him in the general election was for no viable third party conservative challenger to emerge. However, Barr might be that challenger.
If Barr enters the race and captures the Libertarian Party nomination, he will bring a 98 lifetime ACU rating to the table; he has served as a National Rifle Association board member; he sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act; Numbers USA notes that he, "usually supports less immigration, less population growth, less foreign labor" and has been a strong opponent of chain migration; and as far as I can tell, he has a solid pro-life voting record.
A lot of his potential appeal to conservatives in a general election will depend on how many of his conservative positions he'll have to run away from to become the Libertarian nominee. Clearly, his strongest appeal to Libertarians will be his opposition to the PATRIOT ACT, and he'll likely have to take a strong anti-war stance.
Even if he does, however, there are still very active and vocal conservatives out there who will simply never be able to stomach voting for McCain. The number may dwindle as the prospect of an Obama administration starts looking like a realistic possibility, but there will always be a certain percentage of McCain haters. If Barr is able to avoid some of the more inflammatory rhetoric employed by Ron Paul in the primaries, he'll be a tempting protest vote for disgruntled conservatives. He may not win a huge number of votes, but even if he's able to capture a few percent in swing states, especially out West, Barr could be a real headache for McCain.
By way of full
disclosure, Barr has served as a contributing editor to
The
American Spectator.
Great Society, Part Deux
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 10:11AM
More news from the Clinton campaign:
One If By Recession, Two If By Depression...
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 10:04AM
Hillary Clinton tests out a new analogy regarding the economy:
Judicious Faith in Government
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 9:59AM
Here's my post at Southern Appeal just now, discussing my column at the Washington Examiner. Short version: Judge Bill Pryor again shows that he understands faith in politics far better than do his lefty critics.
Hey Man, Is That Freedom Rock? Well, Turn It Up!
Posted by on 4.4.08 @ 8:44AM
John McCain's search for a campaign song may have just narrowed a bit:
Web Poll IV of more than 27,000 respondents cited stronger than expected interest in the November 2008 election among fans of rock, classic rock, and alternative radio stations. It also found that John McCain, the Republican candidate for U.S. president, was the top pick for the Oval Office for men and classic rock partisans--those people who tune in to stations playing music from the "original classic rock era" of 1964 to 1975, comprised of bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, and Pink Floyd.
Meet the new boss, same party as the old boss. The big news here might be that there are three people who say they actually want Ted Nugent to be president.
1.jpg){kind=link}
Addendum: Title explanation. My recent interview with Tony Orlando.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Ferraro Hits Obama Campaign For Playing Race Card
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 9:55PM
I wasn't taking notes because I was writing the post below, but Geraldine Ferraro just appeared on Hannity and Colmes and absolutely blasted the Obama campaign for playing the race card, which she said was a concerted effort led by Obama strategist David Axelrod. She also accused the campaign of "coordinating" a flood of calls to her firm in an effort to get her fired. I'll post a transcript when I get it.
Rudy: I'm Not A Candidate For VP
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 9:49PM
Rudy Giuliani, in an interview tonight on Hannity & Colmes, said he would consider becoming John McCain's running mate if asked, but it wasn't something he was seeking.
Pressed by Sean Hannity several times about whether he would accept the VP slot, Giuliani said he wasn't thinking about it, that it isn't a relevant issue until June or July. Obviously, he said, if the potential president asks you to do something you seriously consider it, but "I am not a candidate for it."
He also brushed aside rumors that he would run for governor in New York, by laughing and joking "I'm not running, I'm walking," a reference to the fact that he's taking things easier now that he's no longer running for president.
Looking forward to the general election, he said it doesn't matter whether the nominee is Hillary Clinton--both want to raise taxes, raise tarriffs, and neglect the fight against terrorism--while McCain has more experience and supports free trade, keeping taxes low, and staying on offense against terrorists.
Overall, Giuliani seemed pretty relaxed not to be running himself.
Just to give my two cents, I think it would be a huge mistake for McCain to choose Giuliani to be his running mate. Having another moderate on the ticket would virtually assure a mass exodus from the party by conservatives. While I thought Giuliani's leadership skills, accomplishments, and executive experience could have made him a strong president, those talents would be much less relevant in the number two slot. Plus, his disastrous presidential campaign eroded much of his crossover appeal.
Who'da thunk it?
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 6:37PM
Matt Vadum at Capital Research Center makes an interesting point about Al Gore's incredible luck, that he is chairman of a green-friendly investment firm that stands to profit from his own advocacy. But Gore's people aren't amused.
In an e-mail message to The Chronicle, he writes that neither Mr. Gore nor any other members of the investment company's board will make money from the expansion of carbon trading.
"To suggest then that they are somehow benefiting from the growth of this industry betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the carbon offset industry," he writes.
This is blasphemy! This is madness! A chairman making outrageous claims for public awareness that helps fuel his business? Somebody get Tim Carney on the phone!As Virulent, If Not As Prevalent, As 40 Years Ago
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 4:51PM
Liberalism, that is. Edward Brooke, my former senator and one of two surviving members of the Kerner Commission, has a Washington Post op-ed urging us to go back to the future with... the 40-year-old recommendations of the Kerner Commission.
Brooke calls for a Fair Economic Deal, apparently annoyed that the New Deal, Fair Deal, and New Frontier were already taken. It mostly sounds like the Great Society, once more with feeling. Forty years and more than $5 trillion later, LBJ's War on Poverty doesn't have that much to show for it, but who knows what we could have bought with a few trillion more? This is the kind of economic thinking likely to prevail in the next Democratic administration, even under the relatively youthful Barack Obama.
Ed Brooke, by the way, is the only Republican senator Massachusetts has had in my lifetime. He is also the most conservative, so that should tell you something.
Re: re: Barr the Door, Sally
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 4:45PM
Maybe I should have said "of a certain awesome bent."
Re: Barr the Door, Sally
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 4:41PM
That's very polite of you, Jeremy. "Of a certain bent, if you know what I mean."
Barr the Door, Sally
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 4:36PM
Re: Barr's possible candidacy, in Taki's Magazine, W. James Antle III explains why conservatives of a certain bent should be happy about that.
Barr Expected To Launch Libertarian Bid Saturday
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 4:25PM
Reason's Dave Weigel reports:
The Barr launch is getting to be an open secret among conference-goers. Advocacy Ink, the firm that handles Barr's public relations, is advertising the speech to local and national reporters. Mike Ferguson, the de jure organizer of the conference, is scrambling to deal with a crush of new media requests.
"It doesn't take much to put two and two together," said Ferguson. "You don't do this unless you're making the announcement."
Republicans and Roe
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 4:24PM
Ross Douthat once again makes a strong argument as to why pro-lifers should want the next president to be a Republican. Any Democratic president will knowingly nominate only pro-Roe jurists to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. An even nominally pro-life Republican president will nominate at least some anti-Roe justices and President McCain may have the opportunity to create an anti-Roe majority on the Supreme Court if just a single pro-Roe justice retires. Douthat stacks the deck a bit by assuming the next Democratic president will necessarily get two terms, that John Roberts and Samuel Alito would definitely vote to overturn Roe, and that a Democratic Senate won't be an obstacle to a nominee who isn't at least Roe-ambiguous, but his basic point is correct: Each pro-choice Democratic president makes Roe's reversal more difficult and therefore less likely.
Tom Piatak makes the strongest argument for why pro-lifers should be discontented with, and even distrustful of, the GOP: "Would economic conservatives have loyally supported the GOP for 28 years, if during that time the Republicans had failed to enact a single tax cut and the official to whom Republicans insisted on deferring on tax policy never wanted to make a decision on tax cuts one way or the other?" One could just as easily ask whether Cold War hawks would have stayed in the GOP for decades waiting for a Republican president to eventually begin an arms buildup against the Soviets. Many libertarian-leaning conservatives are already bolting the party after just eight years of big-domestic-spending compassionate conservatism. What other major GOP faction, much less the party's largest single voting bloc, would be satisfied with such thin gruel?
It is true that some pro-life goals are a.) difficult for the elected branches of government to achieve and b.) controversial or even unpopular, preventing any successful political party from realizing them. But part of this has to do with the way the GOP and organized social conservatives have gone about trying to accomplish those goals. Conservatives should have been promoting jurisdiction stripping years ago on uncontroversial issues, like deleting "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, or issues the Court hadn't decided on yet, like same-sex marriage, rather than constitutional amendents and national abortion bans. Had they done so, an abortion jurisdiction-stripping bill might be no more politically suicidal than appointing an anti-Roe majority to the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, President McCain would veto most pro-abortion bills passed by a Democratic Congress, some of them untrivial. And I agree with Douthat that antiwar conservatives who are hoping that a Democratic president will fundamentally change U.S. foreign policy are engaged in more wishful thinking than the most optimistic pro-lifer.
Re: McCain-Coburn
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 1:26PM
It's really hard to think of any one move that could help McCain out among conservatives than picking Coburn as his running mate. In addition to all of the points Jeremy made, one interesting wrinkle is Coburn's relationship with Barack Obama. The two worked together on earmark transparency, they are friends with one another, as are their wives. Coburn has had a lot of nice things to say about Obama publicly. Were he McCain's running mate, he'd be in a strong position to say. "Look, I've worked with Sen. Obama, I like and respect him, and think he's a good man. But I McCain is more prepared to be president, and has better policies." That's the kind of tone I think Republicans will need to beat Obama.
Of course, this may be a moot discussion, because, based on his past statements, it would surprise me if Coburn wanted to take the job of vice president. Also, he's of more use to conservatives in the Senate.
Welcome Back?
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 1:12PM
According to CBS News, Pope Benedict XVI will visit a synagogue while in New York, marking "just the third visit by any pope to a synagogue in the 2,000 year history of the Roman Catholic Church." The story says that the first was a visit by Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, and Benedict will have twice entered Jewish houses of worship and learning. Only one problem with that: St. Peter, the first pope, was a Jew. And the separation between Jews and Christians was a gradual one. Early Christians considered themselves a sect within Judaism and had to be effectively kicked out of synagogues when the differences proved too great for Judaism to contain.
Lott-a-Palooza
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 12:20PM
In today's Politico, our Jeremy Lott makes the case for Tom Coburn as John McCain's running mate. He's convinced me. Also, NRO's Mark Hemingway has an interview with Jeremy about his new book The Warm Bucket Brigade, where reading about the vice presidency is no vice and rejecting a warm bucket of spit is no virtue.
How the South Was Won
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 11:20AM
Over at the American Conservative's shiny new blog, Dan McCarthy makes a few points about the GOP's Southern strategy and TAS publisher Al Regnery's new book Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism.
re: It's Electability, Stupid
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 11:13AM
Gotta love that logic. In imaginary elections where only Democrats vote, Hillary wins!
Obama Raises More Than $40 Million in March
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 11:01AM
Via the Politico.
On the conference call I mentioned below, Howard Wolfson said the Clinton campaign would not be releasing its numbers until later in the month, but said they expected Obama to outraise them.
Given that Obama raised $55 million in February and $32 million in January, we're looking at somewhere around the $130 million mark for the quarter.
It's Electability, Stupid
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 10:53AM
The Clinton campaign, in a conference call with reporters this morning, pounded the theme that Hillary Clinton was more electable in November than Barack Obama.
The political world is buzzing about an ABC report that Hillary Clinton herself privately told Bill Richardson that Obama couldn't win in the general election, but the Clinton campaign was not willing to go that far publicly.
"She's a better bet to win against John McCain," chief strategst Mark Penn said of Clinton's chances, while declining to say that Obama was unelectable.
Penn cited Clinton's strength with among the working and middle classes, Catholics, women, and Latino voters.
He also noted that, "It's hard to get to the presidency without Ohio and Florida," and that polls show her doing a lot better against McCain in those states.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to the First Read analysis of the electoral map, and argued that not only is she slightly ahead of Obama in electoral votes of states either firmly in her pocket or leaning her way, but she's much stronger in the toss-up states.
Nader: Don't Let Gravel Say What He Wants to Say
Posted by on 4.3.08 @ 10:47AM
Ralph Nader tells Mike Gravel to get out of the presidential race, at least in this satire. A lot of liberals remain angry at the spoiler role played by Nader in the 2000 presidential race, which suggests to me that very few of them are going to be buying what he or any other left-wing third-party candidate sells in 2008 (few did in 2004). It also suggests that a third-party candidate on the right who did well enough to tip the election to the Democrats wouldn't do much for his reputation among conservative Republicans. Perhaps this is why even Ron Paul seems to be thinking twice about endorsing the man who would pose the strongest third-party challenge from John McCain's right.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Reagan vs. Hillary
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 8:06PM
We all know that Ronald Reagan was "The Great Communicator" and that Hillary Clinton is one of the most painful-to-watch speakers in contemporary politics. Now, via HotAir, I find this video intercutting Reagan and Clinton telling the same joke, and it's amazing to see the stark difference. Is it any wonder that one politician changed the trajectory of history, and the other is headed for history's dustbin?
Not So Southern Fried
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 7:42PM
Reasonoid and occasional TAS contributor Dave Weigel has a fine post about the possible transition Ron Paul supporters might make to Bob Barr if the latter jumps into the race for the Libertarian Party nomination. I should just link to it and shut up. But being me, I will instead quibble with this passage: "George Wallace's 1968 campaign spurred the GOP to take the Southern position on civil and states' rights."
Certainly, Richard Nixon carried the Wallace vote in 1972 and incorporated most of the Alabama governor's support into the Republican base. He also took some positions, like opposing forced busing and nominating Southerners to the Supreme Court, that addressed Southern civil and states' rights concerns. But if we define the "Southern position" as being George Wallace's circa 1968, that was certainly not the position Nixon ever took.
In fact, Nixon played a large role in the desegregation of Southern schools, presided over the nationalization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, implemented the Philadelphia Plan, expanded affirmative action, and gave aid to historically black colleges at a time of dire need. It's undeniable that Nixon did all of these things with more sensitivity to the concerns of white Southerners and Northeastern white ethnics than most liberals would have preferred. But this wasn't the Wallace '68 platform.
The International Jew
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 5:55PM
I agree with much of what Jim wrote below. I should emphasize that I don't have problems with an open and honest debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, what makes me uneasy is that whatever their motivations, many of today's critics of Israel invariably turn to arguments that are hauntingly similar to arguments made by yesterday's anti-Semites against Jews in general.
A good example of old style anti-Semitism is Henry Ford's The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem and other writings in his Dearborn Independent from the early 1920s.
Today, the argument is that wealthy Jewish donors from New York City influence politicians in both parties, and no politician is willing to challenge them on Israel. Back then it was, "the Jews have been strong in all parties, so that whichever way the election went, the Jews would win. In New York it is always the Jewish party that wins."
Today, we have complaints about the "Israel Lobby," but back then it was the "Jewish Lobby."
Today, critics of Israel lament that honest debate is being stifled in the media, and people are afraid to speak up out of fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. Those who wanted to discuss the "Jewish Question" in Ford's day had the same beef:
Of course, the only acceptable explanation of any public
discussion at present of the Jewish Question is that some
one-writer, or publisher, or a related interest-is a Jew-hater.
That idea seems to be fixed; it is fixed in the Jew by inheritance;
it is sought to be fixed in the Gentile by propaganda, that any
writing which does not simply cloy and drip in syrupy sweetness
toward things Jewish is born of prejudice and hatred. It is,
therefore, full of lies, insult, insinuation, and constitutes an
instigation to massacre.
I fear that the pushback by Israel's critics is slowly but surely creating an environment in which anti-Semitic views are becoming acceptable as long as they are framed within a discussion of Israel and are said to arise from sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians.
McCain's Zeal for Life
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 4:18PM
Now back to the uncontroversial issue of abortion. Ross Douthat responds to the earlier discussion of where abortion and the Iraq war should come down as voting priorities for people who oppose both. He allows that if you accept Dan McCarthy's premises "the case for voting against McCain... is more or less airtight." But he disagrees with those of us who are skeptical that John McCain is going to succeed in overturning Roe v. Wade. To some extent, all we have to go on here are gut instincts and past history. Even Ronald Reagan appointed two pro-Roe justices. I agree Anthony Kennedy was an accident, but the Gipper willfully disregarded the evidence on how Sandra Day O'Connor would vote. Even Homer nods.
Ramesh Ponnuru has a post on The Corner that deals with pro-life doubts about McCain: "McCain needs 270 electoral votes, not 270 enthusiastic electoral votes; and pro-lifers need him to veto the Freedom of Choice Act, not to veto it enthusiastically." John F. Kennedy didn't seem to care much about the civil-rights movement but was willing to check the box, Ponnuru notes. He might have also pointed out that Lyndon Johnson, who did more to pass the civil-rights bills than any other president, was once actively hostile. Issues like the Freedom of Choice Act, the Mexico City Policy, and perhaps even the Hyde Amendment are areas where pro-lifers will definitely take a serious hit if a Democrat is elected.
At the end of the day, I don't trust McCain's commitment to the issues where he ostensibly agrees with me but I think he is very committed on the issues where we disagree. But I can understand another pro-lifer deciding they need someone to stand between the Hyde Amendment -- which has arguably done more to reduce abortions than any other piece of pro-life legislation -- and a Democratic Congress, and then deciding McCain is their best bet.
Herein I Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 3:52PM
Well, not really, but maybe this will contain some food for thought. I consider myself both roughly paleo and pro-Israel and don't see any contradiction. Israel is a friendly, Western country that had some common interests with the United States during the Cold War and continues to have common interests today. I do not think there are any negotiating partners on the Palestinian side who can deliver anything approaching lasting peace because they either have no real clout among the Palestinian people or they ultimately have bad intentions toward the Israelis (wanting to drive Israel into the sea is not exactly a fringe position among Palestinians today, I'm afraid). Palestinian leaders have fostered a climate of hatred that has frustrated their people's legitimate ambitions at key moments of the peace process. Israel has the right to defend itself and the United States should not encourage Israelis to endanger their own security.
But I don't deny that the Palestinians have some real historical grievances and present suffering, not all of their own making. I also acknowledge that the Palestinians' plight both fuels and helps people try to justify hatred of Jews and pro-Israel Americans throughout the world, especially among Muslims. If the conditions were right and there was responsible Palestinian leadership, I would favor the creation of a Palestinian state. I had high hopes that as leadership transitioned from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas that such conditions might begin to develop and we could move forward to creating such a state. Instead Abbas has proved ineffectual at best and Hamas -- whose victories were secured after the United States pushed for their inclusion in the Palestinian elections -- has gained power.
My point? There are many people whose views are similar to those I sketched above who might disagree on questions like the settlements, the Oslo accords, Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, the level of foreign aid to Israel, and any number of other specific areas concerning the Middle East. Many of the people who supported the peace process in the 1990s, of which I was deeply and in my view rightly skeptical, considered themselves friends of Israel. That doesn't mean that all these viewpoints are equally valid or likely to work out in the real world. But it does mean there is a much wider and varied debate about Israel than a debate between Israel's defenders on side and Hamas and its anti-Semitic amen corner on the other side. Some people favor policies toward Israel that Phil or even I would oppose because they are sincerely convinced such policies are in Israel's interest.
The Israel-Palestine question is emerging as a permanent partisan dividing line in American politics after years of bipartisan pro-Israel consensus. The Republican Party is likely to identify more with Israeli security interests, the Democrats with Palestinian aspirations. We're going to have to find a way to debate these issues that recognizes the real breadth of views and motivations that exist.
Re: Puppet Palestinian Boy Assassinates President
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 3:41PM
I'm reviewing the video, but I have to say that there's another crime lingering Phil didn't mention, which I think may be at the root of terrorism.
Bad writing.
Look, I realize that the grievances Palestinians have may compel them to write quickly, but the characters are hard to sympathize with. Generally, it's tough to sympathize with a camo-wearing boxing puppet and what appears to be a cabbage patch kid in overalls. But I'm at 2 minutes and 30 seconds, and there's been no stabbing.
At least Shakespeare had the good sense to include a bloodied ghost in the first act, knowing that there wouldn't be any killing until the third.
Hillary's 35 Years of Experience...Lying
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 3:35PM
One of the pitches Hillary Clinton has made to super delegates is that she is well vetted, and there aren't any surprises to come. Well, I'm not sure this should come as a surprise, but it's certainly news that Clinton was fired from one of her first jobs out of law school on the House Judiciary Committee investigating Watergate, because her supervisor believed she was a liar.
Dan Calabrese writes:
Why?
"Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last
week. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to
violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the
committee and the rules of confidentiality."
This revelation means that we can draw a straight line of lying encompassing nearly her entire 35 year career, from Watergate to Bosnia.
Puppet Palestinian Boy Assassinates President Bush
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 2:11PM
It's a few days old, but via Power Line, I see this video from Hamas television in which a puppet child stabs President Bush to death, and tells him that the White House has been turned into a mosque.
Whenever analysts point to such videos as examples of the incitement that is typical in the Palestinian territories, Palestinian apologists here in the U.S. attempt to argue that it's just cherry picking by the pro-Israel community. However, while I have seen countless clips of Palestinians indoctrinating their children to kill Jews and hate America, I have yet to see one counter-example of similar incitement on Israeli children's programming.
It is quite easy to understand how Americans who are exposed to this sort of thing would sympathize with Israelis in the Middle East conflict and see Israelis as having the morally superior case. Despite this, anti-Israel voices such as Obama adviser Merrill "Tony" McPeak (as well as his defender Daniel Larison) continue to argue that rich Jews in New York City and Miami are a major impediment to peace.
When polls show Israel has the overwhelming support of Americans, we're led to believe by its critics that public opinion is controlled by the media, which silences any dissenting voices who are critical of Israel. Interestingly, such charges closely echo the charges of previous generations of anti-Semites who groused that Jews control the media. But whenever Jews such as myself are offended by such contemporary conspiracy mongering, we're attacked. The fact that we're offended is cited as yet another example of how all critics of Israel are accused of being anti-Semites and how there cannot be any honest and open public discussion on the issue.
Critics of Israel argue that there is nothing anti-Israel about calling for an "even handed" approach to the Middle East conflict. But only those who start off with a bias against Israel could advocate an approach to the conflict that puts Israel on an equal moral footing with the peddlers of this sick propaganda.
Re: Hapless Howard
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 2:00PM
But John, according to the poll at the bottom of this post, 91 percent of the people who really matter believe Dean is doing a wonderful job.
Hapless Howard
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 1:35PM
The ever-feckless Dr. Dean wants the superdelegates to announce their preferences by July -- but he doesn't want a gathering of superdelegates? If finishing the fight is a priority, then a superdelegate straw poll should be a no-brainer. The only thing I can think is that Dean is being pushed around by those with an incentive to drag this out -- the Clinton campaign, of course, but also superdelegates who want more time to exact political promises.
Since there almost certainly won't be revotes in Florida and Michigan, there could be a credentialing showdown. And there's a real possibility of a popular vote/pledged delegate split. It really is possible that the Democratic nomination could remain unsettled all summer. Great job, People-Powered Howard!
Destiny Is A Lady Doggy
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 1:13PM
I'm typically a few weeks behind on my magazine reading. This makes the political magazines often as not seem more like long-buried time capsules than recent news stories. Take, for instance, these excerpts from a New York magazine piece entitled, "How Eliot Spitzer Finally Got Joe Bruno On the Ropes."
Bruno is the most powerful Republican in New
York. He has been the majority leader of the State Senate for
twelve years, one of the so-called "three men in a room" who
decided what, if anything, got done in Albany. The other two are
State Assembly Leader Shelly Silver, a Democrat, and the governor,
who was get-along Republican George Pataki until Eliot Spitzer came
in, determined to change the way business was done in the
statehouse. For the zealous governor, Bruno represents everything
sclerotic and unprincipled in Albany. Spitzer's been determined to
get rid of him. Now, it may not be long before that
happens.
***
The way Spitzer sees it, his survival rests with
ousting Bruno. His destiny, even. "You've got a governor who came
into office on the wings of angels," says the Spitzer source. "He
was the man. And his first year was defined by a scandal and an
error. What he wants in years two, three, and four are results. He
will not stand for this obstructionist Senate majority leader
getting in the way of his results."
This piece ran in the March 10-17 issue. Spitzer announced his resignation on March 12.
Beadle Bailey
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 1:13PM
I held off on linking to this very odd Ron Bailey column yesterday, thinking that it was, in fact, an April Fools parody of transhumanism. But now it's the second and he's yet to come forward and say, gotcha! As Sean "I condemn the violence on both sides" Higgins says, Bailey is "the only person I know who can use the phrase 'subhuman slaves' in conversation without being ironic or facetious." I'd say this round goes to Joe Carter.
Not Chill Bill
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 12:23PM
The ex-prez flips out in a meeting with superdelegates:
But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.
It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.
"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.
The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.
"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like
the Bill of earlier campaigns."
Via the Page.
They Sure Don't Make Bob Caseys Like They Used To
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 11:09AM
The lion lays down with the lamb. Man bites dog. Britney Spears does something that enhances her reputation. And I agree with a Michael Gerson column. Barack Obama would be the most pro-abortion Democratic nominee in history. Perhaps Bob Casey and other pro-life Democrats endorsing him know what they are doing; Sen. Casey certainly has leverage. But one does have to be struck by the contrast between the younger Casey's embrace of Obama and his father's friction with Bill Clinton.
'Aggressive Capitalists'
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 10:29AM
That's the term that the Washington Post uses awkwardly in an attempt to link together McCain economic advisers Phil Gramm (UBS vice chairman) and Carly Fiorina (former Hewlett-Packard CEO) in an effort to implicate them in the current economic downturn.
As in:
As it happens, I was a financial reporter back when Fiorina was pushing the contentious HP-Compaq merger, and I never thought it was a good idea, and wasn't surprised when she was ousted because it was a failure. But it absolutely sickens me that the Post would engage in this sort of witch hunt for anybody with a business background.
Re: Orwellian Reid
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 10:13AM
Shawn, look on the bright side: Maybe Harry Reid has become an Irwin Schiff-style income tax resister! I look forward to him using his role as Senate majority leader to abolish the bloody contraption.
Ah, when I grow too old to dream...
And They Call Bush Orwellian?!
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 9:35AM
It is honestly embarrassing for me as an American citizen to watch Harry Reid insist for almost four full minutes, against blatantly obvious reality, that the federal income tax is voluntary. This pathological need to purge any word that might have negative connotations from a discussion of taxation, even if the descriptor happens to be, you know, true is equal parts pathetic and Big Brother condescension.
Ebenezer Obama
Posted by on 4.2.08 @ 9:27AM
Arthur C. Brooks has an interesting bit on Obama's charitable giving, but the last line about the Cheneys in this graph is what really caught my eye:
The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama's book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2006, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney's books and the couple's investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)
Related: I interviewed Karina Rollins last year about Americans largely unheralded charitable influences here.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
You Never Got Me Down, Barack
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 5:18PM
Hillary Clinton drew headlines today by comparing herself to Philadephia's favorite son Rocky Balboa, but I think a much more apt comparison is to "Raging Bull" Jake LaMotta.
Before he got his title shot, Rocky was squaring off against the likes of "Spider" Rico and collecting for a loan shark, while Clinton once held a 20 to 30 point lead over Obama for the nomination. The underdog role doesn't suit her well.
LaMotta, on the other hand, got beaten to a bloody pulp by Sugar Ray Robinson, had no chance to win, but refused to fall out of stubbornness, and the fight came to an end only after the ref intervened to stop it. Despite getting pummeled, a bloody LaMotta gloated to Robinson, "You never got me down, Ray." That strikes me as a better metaphor for the current state of the Clinton campaign.   Â
A few additional notes:
-- Barack Obama previously compared himself to Rocky in last fall's
Philadelphia debate that became infamous for the drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants question that was the start of the Clinton collapse. --In more bad news for Hillary, Rocky himself has endorsed McCain, and Robert De Niro, who played LaMotta, supports Obama.
Doga
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 4:47PM
No more stories about our faltering economy until we deal with this forthwith:
The most important part of doga is spending quality time together. Doga helps dogs and people bond, Storm says, because they have to focus on each other. No TV or video games. No homework worries. Just you and your dog stretching and relaxing.
I'm surprised. You'd think this would be the ripe opportunity to say that the reason kids and dogs should stretch for fun is because there's no TV to watch now that the house has been lost in a foreclosure.
No, We're Not All Rockefeller Republicans
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 3:33PM
Powerline's John Hinderaker has a short article (pdf) making the contrarian argument that Nelson Rockefeller's brand of politics carried the day. The piece appears, appropriately enough, in the newsletter of Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy. I'm afraid Hinderaker's thesis depends on a definition of Rockefeller Republicanism that is both dumbed down and divorced from the history of American politics over the last four decades.
Hinderaker's argument is basically this: Rockefeller was an internationalist and so are most members of both political parties. Rockefeller was a pro-business liberal; there are now Democrats who are pro-business liberals. Rockfeller was a Republican who accepted big government; there are now lots of Republicans who accept big government. He writes, "Republicans no longer are trying to undo the New Deal, and Democrats no longer dream of a socialist future."
Most of the above is true, but a lot of context is missing. The 1964 fight between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller was about a lot of things but America being "fully engaged abroad" wasn't one of them. Goldwater wasn't an "isolationist," nor would that label apply to most Republican leaders since Dwight Eisenhower beat Robert Taft for the nomination in 1952 (Taft wasn't an "isolationist" either, exactly). Rockefeller's welfare policies in New York were exactly the kind Republicans and moderate Democrats wanted to reform and reverse in the 1990s.
Rockefeller's "willingness to spend money and, if necessary, raise taxes" was rejected by Ronald Reagan's heirs in the Republican Party to such an extent that Reagan's tax increases as governor of California might have derailed his nomination today. If you don't believe me, ask Mike Huckabee. Rockefeller Republicans held a far more expansive view of government than even such Northeastern moderates of today as Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Christine Todd Whitman ran for governor of New Jersey in 1993 on a platform of slashing tax rates 30 percent across the board, which isn't very Rockefellerite.
There were some conservatives in the 1960s who wanted to see the right align with the Rockfeller Republicans. There are some who would like to see conservatism become some combination of Rockefeller Republicanism and Tory socialism today. But a more careful examination shows that the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s weren't kind to the people who considered themselves Rockefeller Republicans.
April Fooling
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 3:28PM
Really just an excuse to post this clip from "Play It Again Sam," which I watched over the weekend:
McCain Visits His High School
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 3:16PM
ALEXANDRIA, VA -- This morning Sen. John McCain visited Episcopal High School here, his alma mater, as part of his biographical "Service to America" tour highlighting important locations in his life.
It was at the school, McCain said, that a kid who had grown up traveling from one place to another due to his father's naval career got to settle down in one place. He played football, tennis, and wrestled.
Much of his speech, as well as an introductory video, revolved around William B. Ravenal, an English teacher and football coach who was an inspirational figure in his life, and tought him about honor and the importance of service and sacrifice.
He used this as a jumping off point to not only relate some of his life experiences, but to emphasize his values and views on education. He especially focused on the honor code, which read, "I will not lie, I will not cheat, I will not steal."
That was too much to handle for some in the audience, specifically, leftist blogger Jane Hamsher, who wrote, "He's being introduced with a lot of elitist, 'upholding a code of honor' boarding school crap. Makes me want to go light up in the can."
I never knew honesty could be so offensive.
McCain took some questions, most of which were softballs from students, who asked in various ways how his experiences at Episcopal shaped his life.
The event highlighted for me another way in which it might make it difficult for the Democrats to tie McCain to Bush. The narrative on Bush to those who dislike him is that he is a spoiled rich kid who was a failure at everything in life, dodged the draft, and got by because of his last name.
McCain, on the other hand, comes from a long line of Americans who have served this country bravely, and he spent some of the best years in his life suffering during his own service.
Jim Geraghty was also there.
More:
I thought this passage may be of interest to some of McCain's conservative detractors who have been turned off by his temper:
I arrived here a pretty rambunctious boy, with a little bit of a chip on my shoulder. I was always the new kid, and was accustomed to proving myself quickly at each new school as someone not to be challenged lightly. As a young man, I would respond aggressively and sometimes irresponsibly to anyone whom I perceived to have questioned my sense of honor and self-respect. Those responses often got me in a fair amount of trouble earlier in life. In all candor, as an adult I've been known to forget occasionally the discretion expected of a person of my years and station when I believe I've been accorded a lack of respect I did not deserve. Self-improvement should be a work in progress all our lives, and I confess to needing it as much as anyone. But I believe if my detractors had known me at Episcopal they might marvel at the self-restraint and mellowness I developed as an adult. Or perhaps they wouldn't quite see it that way.
Filibuster Proofing
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 11:19AM
A few people have asked me to clarify whether I was predicting a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in this column. Actually, I stopped short of making a prediction in that piece but I do have an opinion on that question: Yes and no.
I expect that Republicans will lose Senate seats in Virginia, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. Colorado and Oregon are toss-ups. New Mexico looks like a toss-up right now but it might not after the Pearce/Wilson primary. Maine is a likely Republican retention, Louisiana a good chance for a pickup. So even if things go a little better for the Republicans or a little worse than I'm guessing right now, they should still have at least 41 seats after November, probably with some to spare.
But I do think it will be difficult to maintain filibusters the further below 49 Senate seats the Republicans fall, even if the Democrats don't technically have a filibuster-proof majority. Susan Collins's reelection in Maine won't do much to help the GOP on this front, the loss of John Sununu in New Hampshire would hurt. A win by Bob Schaeffer in Colorado and/or Steve Pearce in New Mexico would help, as would the pickup in Louisiana.
Having said all that, campaigns matter. On paper, we should already be in a general election race between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. That didn't happen and campaign dynamics are a bit part of why. As the cliche goes, a lot can happen between now and November.
Philip Wrote it Better
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 10:32AM
I was considering writing a column about how the proposal for increased powers for the Fed is giving me the willies -- and then, lo and behold, Philip Klein already wrote such a column in today's issue, and he did it better than I would have done. His Friedman quote about the fool in the shower is very appropriate. And because the Fed is singularly unaccountable, the idea of giving it such an even larger grant of powers should frighten every believer in self-government. Kudos to Philip for explaining it all so well. Readers: Spread his link far and wide, please. Send it to your congressmen. It's important.
Re: Feminist Orthodoxy
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 10:25AM
Shawn, I don't know if this is still true -- in fact, having never crunched or even looked at the numbers myself, I don't know if it was ever true -- but I remember learning in a college poli sci course that children tend to adopt their mother's party affiliation when the parents are split politically. So maybe men should consider politics a dealbreaker too. Mating with the right woman can save your brood from male pattern baldness or becoming a Democrat.
How's That Happen?
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 10:22AM
Somehow Jeremylott.net scored an exclusive interview with AmSpecer Jeremy Lott.
How To Not Buy Into 'Feminist Orthodoxy'...
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 10:02AM
...and still find a nice girl.
Actually, some of this interview with six conservative female bloggers about dating is funny, but I also have to admit I found it somewhat disturbing that political persuasion would be such a make or break issue with these ladies. (Although, when Karol, a pal and one of my favorite bloggers, warns, "Some of the guys I have dated started out liberal, but they didn't stay that way," I have to just say all's fair in love and war.)
Not that I want any of them to have to suffer through an Obama lecture/rally with a crying and/or fainting date and, per usual, I'm probably an outlier, but, lord, if I had been determined to find someone with exactly corresponding political views to mine, not only would my courting opportunities have been basically limited to gun shows, tax day protests and a convention I attended recently where a pick-up truck with the license plate "ANTIGOV" pulled up, but I'd almost certainly be sitting home alone tonight watching Twilight Zone and The Prisoner box sets.
The Fake Depression
Posted by on 4.1.08 @ 9:22AM
Drudge links to this cover story from Britain's Independent with a headline screaming, "USA 2008: The Great Depression," which is atrocious.
It should be noted that recession technically occurs when there
are two consecutive quarters of contraction in the economy, yet
there is no evidence that this has been the case thus far. Last
week, revised numbers pegged growth in the fourth quarter of 2007 at
0.6 percent -- that's slow, but it still is growth. The first
quarter of this year ended yesterday, and perhaps when the initial
GDP is released for the quarter it will show that the economy
contracted, suggesting we are in fact in a recession. But that is a
far cry from a depression. In 1930, the GDP sank 8.6 percent, and in the most severe year of the
depression, 1932, it dropped 13 percent.
If you want to look at another factor-unemployment-the Independent looks even more silly. In 1930, the
unemployment rate was 8.9 percent, and it reached as high as 24.9
percent in 1933. In February, the U.S. unemployment rate is
4.8 percent, which was once low enough to be
considered "full employment" and actually lower than Britain's.
I'm not even particularly bullish on the U.S. economy right now, and have significant concerns about the decline of the dollar. This headline served its purpose by drawing attention to itself. But this type of alarmism is utterly irresponsible. (And incidentally, the article itself, about a record number of Americans on food stamps, doesn't mention anything about a depression).
Monday, March 31, 2008
Oar What???
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 6:40PM
I just rowed all the way across the Atlantic Ocean and boy are my arms tired.
RMS Hearts HRC
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 5:20PM
Richard Mellon Scaife is praising Hillary Clinton now. As Daniel Radosh points out, this isn't a new development, but it's still pretty striking.
While every article about Scaife mentions that he gave TAS a lot of money in the 90s for the purpose of investigating the Clintons, it's usually forgotten why he ultimately withdrew all financial support: He was upset with a negative review of Christopher Ruddy's The Strange Death of Vincent Foster -- a review, that is to say, which rejected the conspiracy theory that the Clintons had Foster murdered. In other words, he thought The American Spectator was too soft on the Clintons. Now he thinks Hillary has "courage and confidence" along with "an impressive command of many of today's most pressing domestic and international issues." Go figure.
Press scrutiny over Obama
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 5:18PM
Jennifer Rubin hits something on the head here but doesn't give it a name:
The sentence reminded me of Rush Limbaugh's Donovan McNabb controversy. Rubin's argument, essentially, is that Obama is being McNabbed.
McNabb - [v. from the Divine language of Maha Rushdie] - to be hyped in the press because of racial transcendence, where pointing it out may have disastrous consequences for one's journalistic career.
Another Argument for Warantless Wiretapping
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 5:02PM
It helps Pullitzer prize-winning historians get research material.
Life Issues, Cont'd
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 4:32PM
Dan McCarthy has posted a response to Ross Douthat's pro-life rejoinder to Andrew Bacevich. McCarthy argues that a McCain presidency is unlikely to result in the end of Roe v. Wade much less abortion, that other opportunities to overturn Roe may in fact present themselves if McCain is defeated this year, and that overturning Roe, while a good thing, won't actually do very much to reduce abortions.
The first two points depend largely on whether you find McCarthy's election-year analysis more persuasive than Douthat's, so I'll take up the third one: What can pro-lifers really expect if Roe falls? To a large extent, that depends on how pro-lifers respond. If they continue their incremental strategy of the 1990s, they can continue to make the law more protective of unborn children. If they respond by trying to enact South Dakota-style abortion bans everywhere, a pro-life victory over Roe will probably lead to lots of pro-life defeats. American attitudes about abortion are simply too muddled to sustain such sweeping bans in very many states, including relatively socially conservative ones like South Dakota.
While government policy toward the practice of abortion is important, and the enactment of laws that recognize the humanity of the unborn is a crucial pro-life goal in itself, changing the culture is even more important than changing the law (though sometimes changing the law can help change the culture and vice versa). The campaign for a human life amendment was always going to fail because the political consensus required for a constitutional amendment banning abortion is impossible in a country where more than 1 million abortions take place per year.
Abortion rates began to fall during the 1990s for both political and cultural reasons. The greater availability of ultrasound images of fetuses and the proliferation of crisis pregnancy centers helped reduce abortions without political action. The enactment of abortion restrictions like waiting periods, parental notification or consent laws, and informed consent laws helps reduce abortion through political action. And the political campaign to ban partial-birth abortion helped encourage antiabortion sentiment in the broader culture, showing how the two can be mutually reinforcing.
While pro-lifers were bitterly disappointed by 1992's Supreme Court decision Casey v. Planned Parenthood because twelve years of Reagan-Bush did not lead to the reversal of Roe, Casey was not a total defeat for the pro-life side. Casey expanded the range of permissible abortion restrictions while leaving a comprehensive ban off the table. That shifted the abortion debate into areas where the pro-life position was popular, helped keep pro-lifers engaged politically by providing them some tangible policy achievements, and forced pro-choicers to defend things like partial-birth abortion and surreptitious abortions for people's teenage daughters.
Slender Reid
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 4:21PM
Here's the best Harry Reid interview of the week -- and it's only Monday. The sagacious senator tells the Free Liberal that taxation is voluntary.
Liberals Behaving Badly
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 2:17PM
Dan Flynn, author of the forthcoming A Conservative History of the American Left, argues that when David Bonoir, Jim McDermott, and Mike Thompson allegedly flew the Saddam skies they were simply engaging a longstanding liberal tradition.
Dith Pran, R.I.P.
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 1:11PM
Under-noticed today among the few conservative blogs I frequent is yesterday's passing of Dith Pran, who was the world's most influential survivor of Pol Pot's murderous Khmer Rouge regime. Simply put, Dith (the family name, reversed by Cambodians) almost singly made his life's focus to never allow this kind evil inflicted upon millions to happen again. I fear, as both and Dith did and his New York Times colleague Sydney Schanberg does, that such a recent atrocity will now be almost completely forgotten, especially one that occurred on the opposite side of the planet. The Times has an excellent video news segment about Dith up today.
Cambodia is still dealing with the ramifications of losing one-quarter of its population of 8 million to torture, starvation, and often "creative" execution. Craters from once-mass graves and vivid testimonies by the local over-40 population keep the memory alive, but our out-of-sight, out-of-mind American culture has lost what little reminder we had over here.
My visit last year heightened my awareness of what happened there, and I learned that there are a seemingly infinite number of stories of resilience like Dith's. A fellow Christian from Malaysia that I met over there left a lasting impression on me when he said he now traveled with the purpose of meeting people, not seeing places. I left understanding exactly what he meant, after meeting countless Cambodians with a tragic story to tell and their personal testimonies of survival.
Unpatriotic Boeing
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 1:08PM
Take THAT, Boeing! (From National Review Online.) The simple fact is that Boeing lost the air tanker contract fair and square, and that its appeal of the decision, no less than the Democrat's failure to extend the wiretap bill, puts this nation at risk. We need those new tankers, desperately, and we should not delay their construction through cheap-shot politicking of the sort Boeing is engaging in.
The Roads We'd Rather Not Travel
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 1:06PM
Former Transportation Secretary Noman Mineta has an op-ed in the Post today, in which he tries to remind us that at one point, he was doing important things:
Yes, Secretary Mineta. Of course you led the delegation. And of course it was a high-level meeting. That's cool, but it was still on aviation safety. Anyway, here's the exposition:
[Dramatic music: Duh duh duh] Mein Gott! The plot thickens!
Norm has never taken a cab in Rome.
Does this not seem a bit out of proportion? Local villagers face chaos in the streets, and rather than turn to local government, or having local government seek out the answers on their own, they turn to Norm Mineta who then takes a solemn oath that no one will ever again get cut off in a complicated intersection?
Don't we still face a problem with countries that think it's okay to force abortions, to develop nuclear weapons, or, uhm, to chop women's heads off for showing their faces?
Don't Mess with Marines
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 11:55AM
Even when they are 84 years old. A teenage would-be robber gets what he deserves. (Hat tip: Tim Blair.)
Re: The Dullocrats
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 11:39AM
Phil, the Dullocrats aren't the only ones. And not everything is played out in the media. Take the Bosnia "controversy" of last week. In the Shields-Brooks discussion last Friday or Meet the Press's roundtable yesterday, polite company said not a word about Hillary's Tuzla whopper, though any hack with half a brain knows it's been a disaster for Hillary. In some precincts, no sniping allowed remains the rule.
Or when we do see an assassin like James Carville at work, trashing Bill Richardson over and over for allegedly betraying Bill Clinton, to whom he allegedly owes his career -- has anyone ever suggested that maybe Clinton owes him? Nowhere have I seen a single reference to the once well-known breakfast meeting Richardson had with Monica Lewinsky, at which he offered her a job at the UN. Think Richardson liked being used this way -- or at least having it on his résumé? But again, in some media circles, etiquette requires that certain questions not be raised.
The Dull-ocrats
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 11:03AM
On the campaign trail, Robert Novak notes the similarity in rhetoric of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The media keep hyping up the Democratic race as the political equivelent of a Jean Claude Van Damn movie--a fierce, bloody, death match. But it's really more like the English Patient -- a movie that goes on and on forever, with no real point, only to get rave reviews from critics.
Whatever minute policy disagreements there are between the two candidates-- such as whether or not to mandate health care coverage-- have been hashed out ad nauseam. The change vs. experience debate has nowhere else to go. As Novak notes, while the Jeremiah Wright and Bosnia controversies drew headlines, that played out in the media rather than on the campaign trail.
At this point, most of the debate concerns procedural issues. Should Hillary drop out? What should the role of superdelegates be? Should Florida and Michigan be seated? Should there be a revote?
Not exactly must see TV.
Dollar Phenomenon Explained
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 10:57AM
In this column in the Wall Street Journal, Stanford's Ronald McKinnon explains what I have for so many months been trying to explain about the need for a stronger dollar. The key line is that if we were in a closed market, interest rate cuts would help, but in a worldwide market in which investors are fleeing the dollar, the rate cuts cause even more flight from the dollar, which sets up a vicious cycle. It's all rather counterintuitive, but McKinnon explains it quite well.
Nader Offers Hillary Some Moral Support
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 10:36AM
Encourages her to stay in the race. It's worth reprinting it its entirety:
Senator Clinton:
Just read where Senator Patrick Leahy is calling on you to drop out of the Presidential race.
Believe me.
I know something about this.
Here's my advice:
Don't listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore.
That's just political bigotry.
Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice.
This is America.
Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run.
Whenever you like.
For as long as you like.
Its up to you, Hillary.
Just tell them --
It's democracy.
Get used to it.
Yours truly,
Ralph Nader
Wehner Questions Obama
Posted by on 3.31.08 @ 10:04AM
In this superb column, Pete Wehner lists 22 sets of questions for Barack Obama concerning the Rev. Wright. I have avoided most comment on this controversy, believing that while the whole situation is instructive at some level, it has been a bit overplayed. But Wehner's questions are trenchant, fair, and important. Obama really ought to be asked them again and again until he answers them.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
"Muslims More Numerous Than Catholics"
Posted by on 3.30.08 @ 4:07PM
Drudge has this story splashed in red. But isn't it an apples to oranges comparison? All followers of Islam, regardless of sect, are "Muslims," but all Christians aren't Catholics. And then there's this:
"For the first time in history we are no longer at the top: the Muslims have overtaken us," [Monsignor Vittorio] Formenti told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano in an interview, saying the data referred to 2006.Last I checked, "history" began before there were Christians.
They're in Good Hands
Posted by on 3.30.08 @ 4:03PM
"Have you hugged your parents today? Don't worry, we will." The words come from an actual banner that I spotted as I was walking by an old folks' home today. That's just sickening on so many levels.
Romney and Rallying the Right
Posted by on 3.30.08 @ 1:26PM
The biggest problem with Mitt Romney as someone who can rally conservatives to John McCain is that there are large, even indispensable, segments of the right that never warmed to him. Evangelicals and Southerners, important and often overlapping categories, are the two most obvious examples. Romney started to see some improvements after Fred Thompson dropped out and perhaps he would have improved further if Mike Huckabee had left the race at the same time, though the exit polls strongly suggest otherwise. But whether it was the Mormon problem or the Massachusetts problem (which led to all the flip-flops), Romney never really emerged as the consensus conservative candidate.
Romney is typical of a lot of VP choices you see bandied about in blogs and articles by conservative writers. These potential running mates tend to be popular with conservative elites, but less popular or even completely unknown at the grassroots level. Nor is this the first time this has happened. In 1996, Phil Gramm was the favorite of Beltway conservatives. When the votes were counted, however, Pat Buchanan ate Gramm's lunch, in no small part because he was a conservative celebrity well known to the grassroots.
I don't really know who to recommend based on this observation, since McCain isn't likely to pick Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. There's also no reason the conservative press couldn't help the rank and file get excited about Bobby Jindal, Chris Cox, or whoever. But if there is a Ronald Reagan figure who is as well known and beloved at the grassroots level as among establishment conservatives, I'm not coming up with his name off the top of my head.
Tough Question
Posted by on 3.30.08 @ 10:45AM
Is this the best Pearls Before Swine strip of all time? Quite possibly.
Re: McCain-Romney
Posted by on 3.30.08 @ 12:51AM
John, A presidential hopeful should pick a running mate to win a state or send a message. Phil is right about Massachusetts and Utah; you win half a point with the Michigan suggestion, but only because Dems have made themselves extra vulnerable there by refusing to seat the state's delegates at the convention. As for message, when Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush in 1980, the message, to moderate Republicans, was: I will work with you. Bush turned around and sent the same message to conservatives by picking that good looking conservative guy Dan Quayle in 1988. What message would John McCain send to conservatives by picking Mitt Romney? Don't get me wrong, I like Romney. He's the candidate that I'd most like to have a beer... er, coffee... er, non-caffeinated Diet Coke with, but I'm not sure you manage to make up with conservatives by picking as your running mate the guy who couldn't quite make the sale.
- Joe Being Joe
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
- Michael Ledeen on Iran and Democracy