- 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 12, 2008
A Marxist in the White House?
Posted by on 4.12.08 @ 6:17PM
I used to think working class voters had conservative values because they were bitter about their economic circumstances--welfare and immigrants were "scapegoats," part of the false consciousness that would disappear when everyone was guaranteed a good job at good wages. Then I left college.Small wonder that campus activists love Barry. In many ways, he's still one of them.
UPDATE: Keep digging, Barry!
Not to be Confused With the Atlantic
Posted by on 4.12.08 @ 4:59PM
The new New Atlantis is out, and it looks like they've got a new website to match it. The issue includes an editorial calling on John McCain to change his position on embryo-destructive stem cell research and a review by yours truly of a book about bomb shelters and bottled water and, well, just read it.
A Small Victory for the Leave Us Alone Coalition
Posted by on 4.12.08 @ 4:32PM
I'll have to buy David Boaz a double tall one of these days. His efforts have shamed the Starbucks socialists into allowing personalized gift cards with the term "laissez faire" printed on them.
The journalist and the cable news anchor
Posted by on 4.12.08 @ 2:21PM
The Chris Matthews profile in the New York Times Magazine is a fast-paced, entertaining, devastatingly accurate disgrace that is beneath its talented author, Mark Leibovich, who should be ashamed of himself. Readers cannot help but feel sorry for Mr. Matthews, cringing each time he brags about how many honorary degrees he's earned, or upon reading lines like, "If Matthews has an overriding professional insecurity, it is being confined to the pigeonhole of cable blowhard. The insecurity is well founded, since this is how many people view him."
Reading all the scenes where the subject talks to his profiler on the phone or invites him into his house, I couldn't help but think of Janet Malcolm:
My colleague Matthew Yglesias and Paul Waldman make overlapping points.
Here's Matt:
And Waldman:
So why do I abide that level of excoriation but feel repelled by the Chris Matthews profile? I think it's because the Tim Russert pieces are important to public discourse -- they present plausible, substantive and useful arguments for why the style of a man who presides over our presidential debates is harmful to our politics. Chris Matthews is a similarly powerful figure who holds sway over American political debate, you might say, and that's true enough. I wouldn't object to every critical piece about him.
But the NY Times Magazine piece goes to great pains to show that Matthews is arrogant, insecure, boorish -- actually, it revels in each supporting detail -- not to make some useful point about how cable news might be better, or some other arguably useful point, but merely for the sake of an entertaining profile (or less charitably because the writer dislikes Matthews). I suppose one could argue that as an influential public figure it's somehow useful that we all know Mr. Matthews better, which brings me to the most damning detail of all -- at profile's end, for all the excruciating detail Mr. Matthews has suffered, I don't actually feel as though I've learned very much useful new information about him.
After all, who can watch even a few minutes of Chris Matthews without understanding his persona -- the rough around the edges smarts, the occasional boorishness, the ego, the insecurity, etc? Why embarrass and shame someone for the sake of revealing what's obvious to everyone already?
Barr: Obama Doesn't Understand Freedom
Posted by on 4.12.08 @ 1:10PM
BURLINGTON, N.C. -- The Founding Fathers "might have been bitter about being under the thumb of the British," former Rep. Bob Barr said Saturday, after reading a transcript of Sen. Barack Obama's statement suggesting that economic bitterness causes small-town voters to "cling to guns or religion."
Obama's analysis is "way off base, it's awfully simplistic and very arrogant," said Barr, a board member of the National Rifle Association. "I don't think he understands people.... People get bitter, so that's why they support the Second Amendment? Or that's why they support the First Amendment? That's what he seems to be saying."
A former Republican who recently formed an exploratory committee to seek the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination, Barr is attending the North Carolina Libertarian Convention here, as is ex-Democrat Mike Gravel, another LP presidential candidate.
Calling Obama's remarks "absolute nonsense," Barr said: "People in American don't support the Second Amendment because they're bitter. It's because they love freedom and they understand freedom -- apparently a lot better than Senator Obama does."
Friday, April 11, 2008
Re: Obama's Middle America
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 9:06PM
Jim, I think what Obama meant to say is that those are typical white people.
Obama's Middle America
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 8:16PM
James, I think you're right that Obama is describing real people, or as I like to describe the subjects of Bruce Springsteen's songs, Real People With Real Problems. But there is something vaguely pejorative about his description of these voters and his framing of their issues -- they're bitter, they "cling" to guns and religion, they have an "antipathy" toward immigrants and foreigners. This isn't helped by the context: Obama was giving this little sociology lecture to a bunch of Marin County fat cats.
Hillary on Obama's Bitter Pill
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 6:19PM
Clinton reacts to Obama's comments:
"I saw in the media it's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that's not my experience.
"As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.
"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.
A Quixotic Effort to Defend Obama's Phrasing
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 5:55PM
This at least will be easier than defending Obama on the use of his phrasing, because my astral projection skills tell me he wasn't quite aiming for the following interpretation. But consider:
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Imagine Joe Pennsyltucky. He's forty-five. He's white. His job's been packed off to China. Over what feels like the past two weeks, the lake where he's spent summer days with his family has experienced a tremendous influx of Mexican and other immigrants, people with whom he has little in common, and who seem to be doing well enough to set up lives of their own, with children, in a part of the world that seems increasingly inhospitable to him -- his own home. Thanks to both parties, it seems; Democrats want to keep the poor from ever getting rich and Republicans want to keep the rich from ever getting poor. Where's that leave him? Feeling the gloom that all those older movement conservatives are feeling, or perhaps something with a little more bite.
What's Joe Pennsyltucky got to lean on? Family, if he's got it -- if he can afford it, in the event he's got eldery parents or other relatives he's caring for. Probably he's got his faith, and there's a pretty healthy chance he does have a gun because he, like the other men in his lineage, have hunted regularly for years. He can still track a deer and pray to God, even though he has to figure out how to learn a new trade and figure out how to deal with close communities of recent foreigners that aren't exactly lining up to shake his hand.
This strikes me as a plausible, not
very outlandish account of a plausible, not very outlandish sort of
American. Any American liberal or conservative or libertarian (or
socialist or...) worth his or her salt should be able, I think, to
readily recognize this character as close or very close to
representing a real constituent and riff accordingly on his plight
and who's to blame. So it seems to me Obama's done. Reading a
pejorative posture into his remarks is totally fair game, but it
seems right and important to me to point out how the content, taken
at face value, cuts in several directions, not a few of which are
accomodating to conservative postures, too.
McCain Campaign Seizes on Obama Small Town Remarks
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 5:43PM
Asked about Obama's bizarre remarks, McCain Adviser Steve Schmidt tells the Politico:
"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," Schmidt said. "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."
Prof. Obama on Small Town Americans
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 4:57PM
Barack Obama, in full academic mode, offers this rumination of small town America:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
On the one hand, this quote represents an elitist attitude by Obama in that people's desire to own a gun or to practice religion is given a negative connotation, being diminished as "a way to explain their frustrations" and put in the same category as "anti-immigration sentiment." But moving beyond that, it is utterly incoherent. What on earth does the decline of manufacturing jobs and the shift to a service economy have to do with gun ownership? Who loses their job at a steel mill, and decides, "Man, I'm really pissed off that I lost my job. I better go purchase a rifle." Did Obama watch the Deer Hunter to prep for the
Expect for the Clinton campaign to seize on Obama's comments any minute, with a sense of outrage that he linked the Clinton and Bush era job records.
UPDATE: I see Shawn linked to this earlier, and like him I am also baffled as to what problem Obama would have with anti-trade sentiment given his campaign.
Obama Gone Got Hisself A Theory
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 4:14PM
He may not want to criticize private citizen Carter for hangin' with Hamas, but Barack Obama sure knows how pathetic it is for those gun-toting, xenophobic Midwesterners to "cling" to religion.
One question, judging by his campaign, I'm failing to see what the problem would be with "anti-trade sentiment."
Re: Obama, Moral Coward
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 3:20PM
"He's a private citizen. It's not my place to discuss who he shouldn't meet with."
Of course, Obama doesn't have similar principles when it comes to, say, telling actual private citizens what percentage of their incomes he deems necessary to seize or what private sector corporations pay their CEOs or what rules parents should set around the house.
No, Obama only happens to grow a privaacy conscience when he's refusing to take a stand on an absurdly self-righteous ex-president--who many of us, incidentally, wish actually would behave as a private citizen--off to meet with a man who says things like, "Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded...Allah willing, we will make them lose their eyesight, we will make them lose their brains."
Geez. Sounds like Kahled Mash'al has gone a bit overboard with his own audacious hopes, not that it matters to Jimmy Carter, private citizen, or Barack Obama, respector of private citizens' meetings with terrorists. And so long as Carter doesn't take money from evil lobbyists, Barack Obama isn't going to judge a little pow-wow with Hamas. He's too busy deconstructing truly evil individuals, like Hillary Clinton--she once of Wal-Mart board!--and George W. Bush.
Re: Obama a Moral Coward...
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 3:11PM
Phil: Can you (or anyone) point to an issue on which Obama has not been a moral coward?
Obama a Moral Coward on Carter and Hamas
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 2:27PM
I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that Barack Obama is refusing to criticize Jimmy Carter for meeting with the leader of Hamas:
"I'm not going to comment on former President Carter. He's a private citizen. It's not my place to discuss who he shouldn't meet with," Obama told reporters while campaigning in Indianapolis. "I know that I've said consistently that I would not meet with Hamas."
Obama's failure to take a stand on this issue is based on one of three motives: he isn't sufficiently outraged by the idea of an ex-U.S. president meeting with a terrorist group, he's afraid to anger liberals, or he's a political opportunist who doesn't want to alienate an important superdelegate. None of these possible motivations reflect well on Obama.
Furthermore, if he were being consistent, Obama would logically applaud Carter for meeting with Hamas. After all, Obama has made the point repeatedly that we need to engage even our enemies. "I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate," he is fond of saying. If Obama thinks we should meet with Iran, even though its leadership denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map within the context of expanding its nuclear program, and openly funds Hamas, why would it be any different to negotiate with Hamas itself? Liberals, I see, have noticed this contradiction, though they come at it from the anti-Israel perspective.
UPDATE: Noah Pollak and Jennifer Rubin have some more thoughts.
Re: A Thousand Flowers Blooming in McCainland
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 12:24PM
I think we're already seeing the early signs of the schizophrenic McCain economic polcy that Jim alluded to.
A few weeks ago, John McCain gave a speech on the housing crisis in which he rejected a bailout for homeowners. At the time I wrote that, "while McCain deserves some credit for rejecting the most draconian proposals of the Democrats, he still left the door wide open for some form of government intervention down the road." And I asked, "the question for free marketers is, will McCain remain as reticent about government intervention if the crisis persists into the fall?"
Well, us free marketers didn't have to wait until the fall to get disappointed.
Sunk Cost Fallacy and the Surge
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 12:09PM
Economic theory on sunk costs -- that you shouldn't consider irretrievable costs when making decisions -- has been applied to Iraq in the past by war critics to counter the argument that we have to stay in Iraq so the thousands of men and women we lost will not have died in vain. President Bush has made this argument repeatedly, and I agree that it's bogus. However, it strikes me that lately war critics have been making the same sunk cost fallacy in trying to argue that, essentially, because we bungled the war for so many years we have to begin to withdraw even though we finally have a strategy that is showing real, measurable, progress.
President Bush deserves blame for stubbornly sticking with the Donald Rumsfeld war strategy for years while it was clear it wasn't working. And supporters of the war, even non-prominient ones such as myself, understandably have lost a lot of credibility because we were wrong about so much for so long. But it pains me that after all the mistakes, what Gen. Petraeus has achieved in Iraq in the past year has been absolutely remarkable, and yet unfortunately everything is seen through the prism of several years of failure in Iraq.
Clearly, there are plenty of arguments that could be made in favor of withdrawal. I think the strongest is the one Jim made the other day, that "at some point, we have to quantify how much of our finite military resources we are willing to spend in pursuit of a goal ... that may not be achievable in full." But while Americans are understandably frustrated and angry by the five years, hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of lives that cannot be recovered, policy makers should only be basing their decisions on the merits of the current strategy as outlined by Gen. Petraeus.
A Thousand Flowers Blooming in McCainland
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 11:40AM
There's a tendency in the media to play up divisions within a campaign, so such stories should always been taken with a grain of salt. But there have been a spate of articles about differences of opinion among McCainiacs on foreign policy, economic policy, and even campaign strategy. I happen to think the New York Times grossly exaggerates the foreign policy differences but an economic team including tax-cut-and-spend Jack Kemp and tax-and-don't-spend Pete Peterson does seem incoherent. But it will be interesting to see how the McCain camp's internal contradictions play out.
Bill Revives Bosnia Controversy
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 10:29AM
More evidence that this campaign has helped shatter the myth of Bill Clinton as some master politician:
Bill Clinton said the news media treated her like she'd "robbed a bank" and claimed she was experiencing end-of-day fatigue, even though she had made the claim in morning speeches.
Yes To Buxom Lady Lifeguards In Bikinis...
Posted by on 4.11.08 @ 12:13AM
...and no to famous yellow cartoon families.
Life in Hugo Chavez' Venezuela gets even weirder. Having spent some time there recently myself, I wonder how average Venezuelans are feeling about living in a country where The Simpons is banned, but the same episode of Men in Trees and Everwood are repeated four or five times some days?
UPDATE: Bruce Webster has some interesting/informed thoughts about why Hugo might not like Homer.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
A Project for Young Conservatives
Posted by on 4.10.08 @ 6:46PM
Peter Suderman is calling
for better conservative journalism:
…too much of it has become devoted to little more than ideological bullying. And while I don't think that's always unreasonable (it is, after all, opinion journalism), I'd also love to see, along with greater collegiality, more curiosity, more creativity, more observation, and less fist-pounding. Writers of the conservative persuasion, or anything somewhat resembling it, ought to spend more time wondering about how the world is and less demanding that it change to suit their whims.
My fear is that the right puts too little emphasis on that task, which is why I agree with Ross that the younger generation of heterodox conservative writers is cause for cautious optimism-but only if the work we do writing for movement magazines is merely a part of our oeuvre.
An American reading unaffiliated newspapers or magazines is likely to encounter talented liberal writers and thinkers, and significantly less likely to encounter journalists from the conservative or libertarian right. So far the right's response to this bias has understandably been to create our own outlets for opinion and analysis, a project that has been quite successful.
But it isn't fated that unaffiliated publications must be de facto liberal, and the right ought to endeavor to prove it.
Honor Thy Call Girl
Posted by on 4.10.08 @ 4:43PM
It's been a tough year for Randi Rhodes. First, she wasn't the victim of a fascist right-wing attack which probably would have gotten her a book deal, and now, insult to injury, she winds up getting fired by Air America for calling former hero-of-the-left-turned-reactionary-demon Hillary an "f--ing whore" during the least funny stand up routine ever.
On the bright side, maybe she'll get that book deal now. Dissent is, after all, patriotic and should be rewarded.
The best part of this, however, is Rhodes former writer Barry Crimmins who in the midst of much bashing of Air America ("an allegedly progressive talk show network") and Hillary ("the perfect tool of the patriarchal war machine"), explains, "something no one is talking about is that she said this in San Francisco where many sex workers are unionized and she used 'whore' as a pejorative."
Which I suppose means the left-wing's latest position is, Don't call Hillary a whore...it might insult prostitutes.
Byrd on a Wire
Posted by on 4.10.08 @ 4:06PM
Robert Byrd is pushing back against reported Democratic plans to oust him from the Senate Appropriations Commitee chairmanship. A Politico story today found few Democratic leaders willing to admit they were in on any such plans.
Obama And The Palestinians
Posted by on 4.10.08 @ 3:59PM
In the past, I've noted Obama's troubling statements on Israel and his ties to a number of Israel haters, so it should come as no surprise that the LA Times reports today that the Palestinian activist community sees an ally in Obama.
Much of the article focuses on Obama's cozy relationship with anti-Israel Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi, who is so radical that he once served as a flak for the PLO.
In 2003, when a going away party was thrown for Khalidi before he left Chicago for New York, Obama not only attended, but paid tribute:
Well, what exactly is that conversation that Obama thinks is so necessary to have around the world? Does the rest of the world need to have a discussion about Khalidi's contention that Israel is an "apartheid system in creation" and a "racist state"?
The Times also cites Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian activist in Chicago who has insisted that during the 1990s Obama campaigned in the Arab community and openly called for America to take a more "even handed" approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Abunimah also recalls Obama giving him private assurances that he would be more outspoken about the Palestinian cause once a tough primary he was in was over. Abunimah also posted a photo of Obama breaking bread with leading anti-Israel intellectual Edward Said at an Arab community dinner in 1998.
Obama strategist David Axelrod, in the article is quoted as saying, "In no way did he take a position privately that he hasn't taken publicly and consistently...He always had expressed solicitude for the Palestinian people, who have been ill-served and have suffered greatly from the refusal of their leaders to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist."
But are we really to believe that when Obama was dining with the likes of Said and Khalidi, that he was lamenting the failures of the Palestinian leadership? I mean, did he privately say things like: "Rashid, thank you for opening me up to my blind spots about where to get a good plate of buffalo wings and for alerting me to my own biases against the Cubs, but if only Palestinian leaders renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist, we'd have a chance for peace in the Middle East."
If this were an isolated example, it would be one thing. But we now have a clear pattern from Jeremiah Wright's comments on down, of Obama associating with individuals who are virulently anti-American and anti-Israel. When pressed, he denies that he shares any of the same views either by himself or through surrogates. I don't see how much longer people can find him remotely credible. I know I'm getting really sick of it. And I am not a knee-jerk Obama hater.
Vegas Guggenheim to Close
Posted by on 4.10.08 @ 1:33PM
Now where will all the folks who dig the Chippendales, Barry Manilow, Carrot Top, and the one-armed bandit get their shot of midcult?
Infiltrating the Mainstream
Posted by on 4.10.08 @ 12:34PM
Our man Phil Klein is live on the Washington Post website this very moment debating Nir Rosen on the Iraq war, and comporting himself quite well, I might add. Go show your support!Â
Condi The Conquerer
Posted by on 4.10.08 @ 11:56AM
Maybe not in the Middle East, granted, but certainly at 4:30 a.m. in the State Department gym for her daily "No Excuses" workout. Sheesh!
Golden State McCain
Posted by on 4.10.08 @ 11:34AM
Roger Simon wonders if John McCain might carry California. Robert Stacy McCain (no relation) wonders if Simon is nuts. Stacy does come up with a more charitable interpretation, however: "My inner cynic tells me that this whole Politico column is just about Roger Simon helping his old buddy Dan Schnur get himself some RNC/McCain '08 consulting contracts. And my inner cynic is usually right."
Jeb Hensarling Newsmaker Breakfast
Posted by on 4.10.08 @ 11:20AM
This morning, The American Spectator hosted Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) as part of our Newsmaker Breakfast series. Hensarling is chairman of the Republican Study Committee and we discussed the efforts of House conservatives -- always a minority -- to influence the agenda in a Democratic Congress.
Hensarling rebutted the notion that conservatives take a "do nothing" approach to the mortgage crisis and economic anxieties, pointing to a bill called the Economic Growth Act of 2008. The legislation would index capital gains to inflation, allow companies to fully deduct the purchase of new assets, and reduce the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent. Hensarling argued such moves would "unlock billions of dollars of capital," promote job creation, and enhance global competitiveness.
Other RSC initiatives include efforts to ensure that President Bush's vetoes of bloated spending bills are sustained and earmark reform. Hensarling conceded that earmarks a very small percentage of federal expenditures but argued they are a big part of "the culture of spending." He predicted that with John McCain as the presidential nominee, more Republican congressional candidates would oppose earmarks and excessive spending. Hensarling defended current Iraq spending, argued for ANWR drilling, and said he would promote free trade with his last breath.
Hensarling was optimistic about McCain's chances in November, pointing to Hillary Clinton's high negatives and Barack Obama's Senate voting record, which the congressman characterized as "more liberal than avowed socialist Bernie Sanders from Vermont." Hensarling called McCain "a conservative who can win," pointing to his appeal among moderates and independents. But Hensarling was less optimistic that the Democratic majority would promote many RSC legislative items. "I doubt a bill with my name on it could pass this Congress," he said.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
American Babies, Chinese Upbringing
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 6:57PM
Patrick Keefe boards a flight to the Chinese province of Fujian, takes his seat in first class, and is astonished to discover that half his fellow passengers are... babies. So begins a Slate travel dispatch that doubles as the most astonishing immigration story I've read this year.
An excerpt:
The Fujianese are known for their work ethic and entrepreneurial zeal, and the new arrivals fanned across the United States and started businesses. That generic Chinese restaurant in the strip mall near your house? Almost certainly run by Fujianese. Those no-frills "Chinatown buses" that initially linked Eastern seaboard cities and now rival Greyhound, crisscrossing the continent? A Fujianese innovation.The Fujianese in America work so hard, in fact, that when they have babies -- babies who, by virtue of being born on American soil, are U.S. citizens -- they don't have time to raise them. So, they send the babies home, back to the very villages the parents left, to be raised by their grandparents. The babies sitting around me -- who begin screaming in unison as the plane nears Fuzhou and begins its descent -- are packing something that many of their chaperones lack: U.S. passports.
As an immigration columnist who opposed illegal immigration, I always cringed most when I read about someone brought to the United States illegally as a baby, raised here, and deported at age 12 or 16 or 21 to a country they'd never known. They considered themselves American, as did everyone they knew -- their technical legal status seemed neither just, given their innocence, nor a reflection of their loyalty to our country.
The story above portends an almost opposite problem: a decade or two hence there will be adults who are Chinese in every way except the most legalistic one, but who are entitled to live, work and vote in America without going through any of the safeguards or assimilative features our immigration process (or growing up here) affords.
Americans sometimes fret about whether so-called anchor babies and illegal immigrant kids will grow up loyal to the country of their ancestry or the country of their upbringing. I find these "anchorless babies" more cause for concern.
Phil Klein on WashingtonPost.com
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 5:18PM
Beginning at noon tomorrow, our Philip Klein will appear on the Washington Post's website, "debating the Petraeus-Crocker hearings" with Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New America Foundation and author of In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq. Both gentlemen will be responding to reader questions and comments, Mr. Klein from Washington, Mr. Rosen from Lebanon. For more information, click here.
McCain Can Win
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 4:06PM
So argues Chuck Todd. I think he's right about the paths McCain would have to travel in a race against Hillary Clinton or Obama, but I'm not as sure of the odds. Todd is also surprisingly bullish about a Mitt Romney veep pick.
A Preview of the Obama Administration?
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 3:50PM
Einstein's Bagel Spread
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 2:48PM
Darren Garnick gets to the heart and soul of Brandeis University's re-branding efforts and finds that heart and soul is...buttery.
The new Brandeis Web site brags about its historical ties to Einstein, composer Leonard Bernstein and FDR's better half, Eleanor Roosevelt - and then proceeds to boast about its historic role in bringing a new margarine to the marketplace. For the sake of research, I tried Smart Balance and found it to be quite tasty. But not drastically different than the Olivio that usually dominates the butter tray in my fridge. No need to switch now.
My palate aside, why would Brandeis - which doesn't let any stupid kids get within a 10 mile radius - even have to bother branding itself as "Smart From The Start?" Does Harvard or Yale keep reminding us how smart they are?
Garnick, a great, funny writer and documentarian with PBS credits to boot, searches for the answer to that last query here.Tap, Tap, Tap. Bore, Bore, Bore.
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 2:00PM
Dave Weigel has a good write up of the The Week magazine's Opinion Awards over at Reason. This was my favorite bit of celeb dish, though:
When emcee Margaret Carlson made a joke about wiretapping abuses, Rove stage-whispered a joke: "Your calls aren't that interesting, incidentally."
All's Fair In Love & Close Primary Campaigns
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 1:45PM
Barrack Obama is buying himself some superdelegates, while John McCain might soon be struggling to buy a cup of coffee. Well, perhaps the latter is an exaggeration, but it may not be for the rest of us if the Fed doesn't take a little time off from its chaotic meddling in the economy.
The Difference Between a SEAL and a Terrorist
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 1:28PM
The liberal equivocators of our day may think our troops are just as bad as the terrorists, then you read this:
After a long day of back-and-forth engagement and evidence that the enemy was closing them off, Monsoor and the two other SEALS moved to a confined outcropping of the roof for a better lookout position. An unseen insurgent lobbed a grenade, which hit Monsoor in the chest and landed on the floor in front of him. He yelled a warning, but quickly saw that his fellow SEALS, not positioned near the exit like he was, wouldn't be able to get clear in time. Monsoor fell onto the grenade just as it exploded, absorbing the blast with his body and dying from the injuries about 30 minutes later. Others suffered shrapnel wounds, but no one else was killed.A terrorist murders by killing himself and others with bombs. A SEAL would rather jump on a bomb than see others suffer harm. Did you notice how the papers were hyping this? Oh, you didn't? Oh right. It's a war with no heroes.
Best News All Day
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 1:00PM
Gene Healy is blogging again. Let me repeat that: Gene Healy is blogging again. Run, do not walk, to click on this link.
Re: Two Flawed Iraq Arguments
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 11:59AM
I understand the logic of trying to consolidate the security gains in Iraq, but we still have no answer to Gen. Petraeus's famous query: "Tell me how this ends." In fact, the general said yesterday, "We haven't turned any corners. We haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel." Phil is right that Iraq's political problems can't be solved easily and things won't necessarily improve -- or align with our national security interests -- if we leave. But what if they can't be solved by outside actors and things don't improve if we stay?
Although we are engaged in battles against deadly foes like al Qaeda in Iraq, most of what we are doing there is far removed from the original reasons we went into Iraq. We are trying to deal with many of the consequences -- ethnic rivalries, an increased Islamist presence, enlarged Iranian influence -- that gave some of us pause about the intervention in the first place. Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy has succeded militarily but the surge is ending with more of the onus placed on the Iraqis themselves.
What next? At some point, we have to quantify how much of our finite military resources we are willing to spend in pursuit of a goal -- the creation of an Iraqi government that is capable of actually governing, not hostile to the United States, and not unduly influenced by terrorist groups or state sponsors of terrorism -- that may not be achievable in full. John McCain's "100 years" comment may frequently be taken out of context. But the question of how many years -- and how many troops -- he is willing to give this project is a valid one for the electorate to ask.
'W' The Movie
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 11:04AM
Drudge links to a story on The Hollywood Reporter website which has obtained a few pages of Oliver Stone's forthcoming film on President Bush. Admittedly, we are told that the pages come from a draft of the script and it may have changed by now. If the current script reads anything like what has been released, we are in for one of the goofiest films in years.
Check out this exchange from a scene where the President and his advisors are discussing his "Axis of Evil" speech:
Cheney: Anyone can go to
Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran.
Bush smirks, clinks beer bottle with Cheney's
coffee mug.
Who writes this stuff? Stone's movie looks like it will be the cinematic version of the Comedy Central cartoon Lil' Bush with the exception that Stone apparently sees his project as a serious study of President Bush's psychological make-up.
Finally, a Bright Spot for Republicans
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 11:00AM
Pete Olson's landslide victory over Shelly Sekula-Gibbs last night makes it much more likely that the GOP will reclaim Tom DeLay's old House seat from incumbent Democrat Nick Lampson.
Two Flawed Iraq Arguments
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 10:44AM
Of all the arguments offered by critics of the Iraq War, there are two that strike me as particularly problematic. The first one is the idea that the only way to get Iraqis to make progress on their own is to force their hand by setting a timetable for withdrawal. While war critics will point to the chaos in the Iraqi government, the corruption, the ethnic rivalries, and the inadequacy of their military on the one hand, on the other hand, we're supposed to believe that all of this will improve once we withdraw. This assumes, however, that the difficulty Iraqis have in stabilizing their own country is merely a matter of will. But Iraq's political problems that are arising from a mix of ethnic/sectarian divisions, the natural difficulty of emerging from having spent decades under a brutal dictator, and the real challenges posed by rebuilding a military from scratch within a warzone are much more complex than that. What's more, the sooner the Iraqis know that we're going to leave, the more likely it is that al-Maliki will move closer to Iran.
The other argument that's been bothering me has become popular
on the blogs and was expressed by Ted Kennedy this way: "A year
ago, the president said we couldn't withdraw because there was too
much violence. Now he says we can't afford to withdraw because
violence is down." The idea, of course, is that those who support
the war effort want to be in Iraq forever, and will argue for
continuing a large troop presence no matter what the situation on
the ground. But it is a gross distortion of the actual arguments
made by supporters of the war. The idea is not that the U.S. has to
stay there because violence is down, but that we have to stay to
consolidate our progress because violence could very easily spike
up were we to leave prematurely. As Gen. Petraeus has been arguing
repeatedly, we have made significant security gains in Iraq, but
they are "fragile and reversible." So, nobody is arguing that we
have to stay in because violence is down. In fact, it's evidence
that the administration actually learned something from its
"Mission Accomplished"/"last throes" mistakes of the past by
acknowledging that even after steady progress, violence can easily
flare up again. The hope is that we can keep reducing violence to
manageable levels while we train the Iraq military until they reach
the point where they can handle a reduced level of violence on
their own. Whatever you may thing of how achievable that goal is,
it certainly isn't an argument that we can't leave Iraq because
there is too little violence.
Re: Oedipus Could Have Had a Happy Ending
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 10:40AM
I generally take the libertarian line that all adult consensual sex should be legal, believing it to be compatible with the view that not all adult consensual sex is equally prudent or moral. But everytime I read a Will Wilkinson "giving a handjob is like typing a blog post" argument, I begin to reconsider my position.
Oedipus Could Have Had a Happy Ending
Posted by on 4.9.08 @ 9:27AM
If only he had got over that hang-up about marrying his mum. Fun with 60 Minutes and incest over at Will Wilkinson's website.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
A child may be a penalty, but poets...
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 7:38PM
A literary-minded reader finally goes as far to make fun of Obama's name:
To the "liberal" nation,
human creation
Is an Obamination.
HOW DARE HE! If there's one sacred cow this election season, it's Barry Obama's full name.
...And not the unborn.
Olympic Outrage
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 7:24PM
We find ourselves in the nearly unique position of agreeing with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Like stopped clocks, we think they can be right twice in a day and their minute has come. President Bush should not go to Peking for the OlympicsQuite so (and using the old-school name for Beijing is a nice conservative touch).
Related: You may have heard about the "horrible thugs" guarding the Olympic torch (and attacking local police). Appropriately enough, they're from the same skull-cracking squad that the Chicoms have deployed to Tibet:
Its members were picked from the ranks of the People's Armed Police, the security force spun off from the army that is responsible for riot control and domestic stability. Tens of thousands of "wujing", as they are called in Chinese, have been deployed to Tibet and neighbouring areas to quash recent unrest.The Onion has a darkly hilarious take.
Soft Money Barack*
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 6:15PM
Over at the Atlantic, Riehan Salam has a post up about John McCain's fundraising that ties in with a conversation I had over lunch yesterday. Will Barack Obama abide by his pledge to take public financing as long as his Republican opponent did the same? Certainly, Obama and the Democrats will look hypocritical for reneging on this deal and will emerge as a McCain talking point. But would any sane candidate give up so huge an advantage in order to avoid a controversy that may well make voters' eyes glaze?
As Salam points out, McCain raised $15 million in March. Not bad, and only $5 million behind Hillary Clinton. Obama raised $40 million last month. He has 1.3 million donors. Many of them are small donors hard to portray as special interests. Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists. If George W. Bush had taken public financing in 2000 or 2004, it would have been unilateral disarmnament. That will be equally true for Obama. And while a lot of my friends find his approach to foreign policy too peacenik for their liking, I don't think this is an area where Obama favors disarming unilaterally.
* Yes, I know we're not really talking about soft money. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act banned the parties' national committees from taking or spending such contributions. Thanks John McCain!
Soft Barack
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 6:04PM
Actually, I'm not sure that's a bad approach from a strictly political perspective: Blame the invasion for creating the mess, praise Petraeus for cleaning up the mess, and then imply we've made so much progress we can leave. I had a similar thought about McCain's comment about normalcy in Iraq. It invites the George Aiken-style response, "Great! So let's get out."
Obviously, McCain and Petraeus would then argue that the progress being conceded was a result of the our military presence and a preciptious withdrawal -- is there any other kind? -- would jeopardize that progress. But it might be better than vacilating between the Democrats' overly combative posture the first time Petraeus testified and their muted performance today.
Obama Goes Soft
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 5:49PM
Barack Obama just struck a low key tone in his questioning of Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker. Obama praised both of them for their "dedication and sacrifice" and then asked benign questions about how we can define success with regard to denying Al Qaeda a safe haven in Iraq and limiting Iranian influence. Only later did he make a boilerplate statement about the "massive strategic blunder" in Iraq that created AQI and enhanced Iranian influence, and left a mess that Petraeus and Crocker are forced to try and clean up. The surge has reduced violence and created breathing room, Obama argued, but the Iraqis have not taken advantage of that breathing room. The best option, he said, would be to put pressure on the government by setting a timeline for withdrawal.
High Praise By Kerry
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 4:31PM
John Kerry just explained how much he and everybody respects
Gen. Petraeus because he achieved, "some measure of a kind of
progress" in Iraq.
Â
"The Klein and the Fury"
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 3:53PM
I thought this Contentions post was going to be about Phil's search for the perfect slice of pizza in the Heartland, but alas I was wrong.
Bad Microsoft Word Spell Checker
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 2:12PM
Do not tell me to replace "monkeying" with "monk eying."
Defending Warren G. Harding
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 2:10PM
Good for Ilya Somin. Teapot Dome aside, Warren Harding actually promoted equal rights for black Americans, reversed many of Woodrow Wilson's destructive policies, and, though it goes unmentioned here, slashed taxes to promote economic prosperity. I don't know whether he was truly our first black president, but he is definitely an underrated one.
The Old Gray Byrd Ain't What He Used to Be
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 1:55PM
According to Roll Call, Senate Democrats are quietly discussing whether Robert Byrd is still up to the job of chairing the Appropriations Committee. The now 90-year-old Prince of Pork gave up his slot as Senate majority leader to chair the panel back in 1989. Republicans similarly eased out Strom Thurmond as chairman of the Armed Services Committee a decade ago.
Petraeus's Greatest Achievement
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 1:35PM
What's incredible to me about these hearings is how much Gen.
Petraeus's successes in Iraq have tamed Democrats. Last September,
MoveOn.org set the tone, and Democrats were very confrontational in
their questioning of Petraeus. They treated him as a puppet of the
Bush administration, and
scoffed at his statistics demonstrating declines in violence. This
time around, while eager to press him for details on when Iraqis
will be able to fend for themselves, the Senators are much more
deferential, and they isn't much dispute about the fact that
violence has declined.
Redemption Complete
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 1:16PM
Bill Buckner will throw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Red Sox home opener today.
Headline of the Day
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 11:14AM
"Iraq Commander Faces Presidential Candidates." Yes, I could see where an encounter with these people would test even the most battle-hardened soldier.
McCain's Demeanor
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 11:07AM
It struck me that in questioning Gen. Petraeus Sen. McCain was giving off the sober, down to business, vibe--asking pointed questions about the disappointment in Basra and violence in the Green Zone--rather than fawning over him. It gave off the impression that though he may be a strong supporter of the war, McCain is still serious about getting things right and won't be engaging in cheerleading.
CNN Getting Ahead of Themselves
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 11:01AM
Sen. Levin just asked Petraeus whether the Iraqi's Basra operation was well-planned and executed. The General said, with some equivocation, basically that it was not. How does the omniscient CNN ticker interpret that?
Petraeus: "No Question" War "Could've Been Better Planned"
Perhaps they should get someone writing these things who actually pays attention to the hearing? After all, it's not like Levin wasn't blabbering on about the same point for three minutes to get his precious soundbite.
McCain is playing it smart by asking harder questions than one might suspect ahead of his probable cheerleading.
"Bring Them Home!"
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 10:51AM
A protester just got removed from the Petraeus hearing for shouting while Petraeus was speaking.
Republican Surge
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 10:46AM
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that 17 Iraq combat veterans are running for Congress as Republicans, pledging to support the war if elected and tying their campaigns to John McCain's. In 2006, the "Fighting Dems" were a group of antiwar Iraq veterans running for Congress as Democrats. Some Fighting Dems won; some, like Tammy Duckworth did not.
Oddly, two of these Republican veterans are mounting primary challenges against GOP incumbents whose positions don't differ from theirs on the Iraq war. But Bill Sali of Idaho and Doug Lambor of Colorado have irritated local Republicans, at least potentially making them vulnerable.
Obama vs. Obama
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 10:39AM
A damning YouTube. Incredibly, Barack Obama is now claiming he never said John McCain was calling for 100 years of war in Iraq, but the video completely contradicts him. Maybe the Democratic primary is taking its toll on Obama. He's clearly picking up a few habits from Hillary:
Toomey, Perkins to the Senate?
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 10:15AM
Matt Lewis has a story in the Politico about possible Senate bids by Club for Growth President Pat Toomey and Family Research Council head Tony Perkins in 2010. Neither man would be growing the Republicans' numbers in the Senate, however. Under this scenario, Perkins would primary Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana while Toomey would reprise his 2004 primary battle with Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Both Toomey and Perkins are former House members who have lost Senate races before.
UPDATE: Louisiana state House member in Perkins's case. Only Toomey was a U.S. congressman. Mea culpa.
The Hearings Begin...
Posted by on 4.8.08 @ 9:53AM
It's not even that I disagree with all the points Sen. Carl Levin is making, but how does it make any sense for Petraeus, just out of a warzone, to sit through a lecture on gas prices, the U.S. economy and war policy? He doesn't set any of these things. Let him testify to his theater of command and get back to his soldiers and his mission. Save the political lectures for Chris Matthews, Levin.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Re: Come in and Don't Feel Welcome
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 6:11PM
James, you are very right to say conservatives need not just to be, but to sound, both pro-legal-immigrant and anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. Fortunately, there is a solution: The Pence Plan. Hard-line anti-illegal-immigrant conservatives were wrong to blast Pence when he released it.
A New Liberal Talking Point?
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 4:44PM
For months, liberals have been making the widely debunked claim that John McCain has called for 100 years of war in Iraq, but now they may have a new trick up their sleeves. The current front page headline at Huffington Post reads, "McCain: We Have 'Something Approaching Normal' In Iraq." suggesting that McCain said things alre almost back to normal in Iraq. In reality, his speech this morning was much more qualified and forward looking than suggested by that headline: "The dramatic reduction in violence has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi." It should be interesting to see whether the rest of the media picks up and perpetuates this distortion.
Come In and Don't Feel Welcome
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 4:27PM
Ramesh Ponnuru has a column in Time pondering the Republicans' immigration dilemma, especially as it concerns the Hispanic vote. Though a moderate immigration restrictionist himself, he concludes, "Republicans have to offer Hispanics more than a fence." It seems to me that the GOP itself is fenced in on the issue. The Republicans who are the most welcoming of immigrants also support immigration policies that undermine the cultural and economic assimilation that would make them more likely to vote Republican on a regular basis. The Republicans who support policies that encourage assimilation too frequently sound like they are merely hostile toward immigrants.
It isn't easy sound pro-immigrant while being pro-immigration control in any serious sense, so perhaps it is unsurprising that few Republicans have succeeded at doing so. Instead the GOP immigration stalemate produces the worst of both possible worlds: being perceived as hostile to immigrant groups without achieving effective enforcement or assimilation. The GOP's McCain-Tancredo good cop/bad cop routine essentially says, "Please come in, but we really don't want you here."
Agreeing With Hilllary
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 3:25PM
It happens every so often. Here is her statement on the Olympics:
The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership. These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.
I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic games have come to represent.
Americans will stand strong in support of freedom of religious and political expression and human rights. Americans will also stand strong and root for the success of American athletes who have worked hard and earned the right to compete in the Olympic Games of 2008.
An all out boycott of the Olympics wouldn't be fair to the athletes who worked so hard to get to this point, so let them compete. But were President Bush himself to boycott the games, it would make an important statement on human rights.
The Man Who Would Be A Cartoon Pig
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 1:51PM
The Judge Issue Works!
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 12:51PM
American Spectator senior editor John Fund has a tremendously important column in today's Wall Street Journal online, about the success of a conservative in ousting an incumbent state supreme court justice in Wisconsin. The narrowness of the conservative's victory should not obscure two facts: 1) In Wisconsin, it is extremely rare for any incumbent judge to lose a re-election fight; and 2) Wisconsin almost never votes GOP for president (although some observers suspect that in EACH of the past two elections, both of them extremely tight, the Dems nabbed the state's electoral votes only through vote fraud and other trickery).
Lessons from this conservative victory: Conservative positions on the judiciary are more popular than liberal positions -- even, or perhaps especially, in swing ("purple") states. Conservatives can win elections by stressing judicial issues. Republicans who refuse to fight about judges are giving up a big advantage. Conservatives should turn UP the light (and the heat) on judicial fights, rather than being scared away from them by mainstream media attempts to portray conservative judicial aims as Neanderthalic social-issue retrogressions from the modern world, etc.
I also note that a couple of years ago I highlighted the Wisconsin judiciary in part of this column, focusing on now-federal appeals court judge Diane Sykes, who also is mentioned prominently in Fund's excellent column. I will note here for the record that on the off chance Justice Stevens steps down from the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the current court session, Judge Sykes almost certainly will be on the White House short list for his spot -- and she would be a most excellent choice.
Re: No Future. No Future?
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 11:18AM
I think that's about right. The only thing I would add to what James just said: When conservatives wanted a presidential candidate who broadly agreed with them on a wide range of issues and also had the standing to beat folks like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, they had to look to the cast of Law and Order or accept converts from Massachusetts. The fact that the only full-spectrum conservatives in the 2008 presidential race were quirky House members, all but Duncan Hunter effectively backbenchers, and maybe Sam Brownback if you stretch the definition a little is reason to be somewhat gloomy.
Happy Monday everyone!
Re: No Future. No Future?
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 10:34AM
I wrote a long rumination on this important subject last night which was fortunately deleted by internet gremlins at the instant of publication. Suffice it to say that the roots of internecine glumfighting run very deep in conservative DNA, and as irritated as any public figure may be to find him or herself stuck sharing an affinity-group label (like 'the movement') with rubes or snobs, the bigger picture is unquestionably the health of 'the movement' in question. The kicker is that some are inclined to measure its health by its capacity to endure, in and out of political power, as a well-funded, high-profile machine that rewards its own. And some are not. To the extent that younger commentators fall into the latter camp, they're even gloomy about what might look an awful lot to some establishment figures like the success of 'the conservative movement.' But to the extent that younger commentators agree that America's best days are still ahead, which I think they do, gloomy is the wrong word to describe them.
Saying No To Rice
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 10:29AM
This report that Condoleezza Rice is pursuing the Republican vice presidential nomination is garnering some attention. While it may make Dick Morris happy, it's really hard to see how Rice would be a good choice for John McCain.
She doesn't deliver any state, and very few black voters are likely to vote for McCain over Barack Obama because of her presence on the ticket. At a time when McCain wants to distance himself from President Bush, he'd be linking himself to somebody who is seen as one of Bush's most trusted advisors on national security. This would provide the Democrats with ample fodder to make their case of continuity from Bush to McCain. Also, while at one point Rice was a popular figure among conservatives, I think she's long since fallen out of favor. Her accommodating foreign policy moves have alienated hawks, while she still remains a blank slate on many other issues conservatives care about. On top of everything, having never run for elective office, she has no experience of actually having to campaign -- meaning she could turn out to be another Wesley Clark on the trail.
I expect that this is the last I'll have to say on the matter, because I just don't see this happening.
A Massachusetts Health Care Lesson
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 10:07AM
On Saturday, the New York Times ran a piece on the shortage of primary care doctors, noting that "in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state's new law requiring residents to have health insurance." It may be unintended, but it sure shouldn't be seen as unanticipated that subsidizing health care for more people would lead to long lines and a further strain on supply.
The article centers around the practice of family physician Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, whose calendar is so backed up, that the next available appointment isn't until May 2009. At the end of the article, she laments the fact that government-run health care programs do not reimburse her adequately:
I've been hard on Mitt Romney on this blog, but I'll give him credit for one thing. By making such a mess of things in Massachusetts, those of us who still consider ourselves free market conservatives have a real life example to point to that demonstrates why government mandated universal health care is a recipe for disaster. Or, at the very minimum, the failure of RomneyCare will make it easier to argue against the more squishy conservatives who believe that the only way to stop socialized medicine is to settle with liberals for "the best we can get."
Left-Wing Film Lovers...
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 9:24AM
...level the chickenhawk charge at the wrong reviewer.
Re: Unpatriotic Conservatives
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 9:07AM
If I go ahead and allow myself to be labeled "unpatriotic," do you think I'll be allowed to apply for conscientious objector status from the welfare state? I know it's likely as not I'll just spend every day in the government-mandated wonderful future wailing about my failure to vote for Obama, but I just have such distaste for my country, I can't help myself!
Re: No Future? No Future?
Posted by on 4.7.08 @ 12:34AM
I'm late getting to Jeffrey Hart's TAC essay, which I found embarrassingly self-important and unreliable. The capper was his calling Nicholas Nabokov Vladimir Nabokov's son -- Dmitri is the son's name; Nicholas was Vladimir's cousin and a very well-known and respected musical and cultural figure in his own right. I wonder what Marc Chagall would have said about such a display of gaucheness.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Mark Penn Resigns As Clinton's Chief Strategist
Posted by on 4.6.08 @ 6:51PM
In the wake of Colombia-gate, Clinton's campaign manager Maggie Williams just released the following statement:
Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson will coordinate the campaign's strategic message team going forward.
Re: Unpatriotic Conservatives
Posted by on 4.6.08 @ 5:46PM
Given Klein's totalitarian conflation of state and country, one has to wonder: What exactly is his problem with neo-colonialism? Surely a god-state that can bequeath "a universal health insurance system and an alternative energy plan that we can all be proud of" can handle a military occupation or two without too much trouble. Or is he saying he's "patriotic" on domestic policy but "unpatriotic" on foreign policy?
Unpatriotic Conservatives
Posted by on 4.6.08 @ 4:07PM
Joe Klein has decided to clarify his views on conservatism and patriotism in the face of conservative criticism. After a detour into something about how the "right-wingnutters" started it, Klein explains, "I didn't question the patriotism of conservatives: I simply argued that it is more patriotic to be optimistic about the chance that our collective will--that is, the best work of government--will succeed, rather than that it will fail or impinge on freedom."
Klein continues that supporting civil rights laws, Medicare, Social Security, universal health care, etc. is more patriotic than opposing any of these goodies. (How many of today's conservatives actually oppose most of these things, Klein doesn't say.) In other words, liberals might not be inherently more patriotic than conservatives but taking liberal positions is more patriotic than taking conservative ones. Well, that clears everything up.
Unfortunately, the confusion of love of government with love of country is all too common. Klein does allow, "Conservative skepticism has its place; it can be a valuable corrective when government goes flabby and corrupt or engages in wild neo-colonialist fantasies abroad." Indeed, it can be. I wish it would correct these things more often.
Charlton Heston, RIP
Posted by on 4.6.08 @ 1:16AM
"Let my people go!" And one of the greats has gone home at the age of 83.
- Losing It
- Barney and Friends
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama