- 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 19, 2008
Sarah Palin Gives Birth
Posted by on 4.19.08 @ 3:12PM
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had a baby boy, her fifth child. Maybe she'll be tanned, rested, and ready by the time John McCain is in the market for a running mate.
Flogging the Servant and Other Ordinary Pastimes
Posted by on 4.19.08 @ 1:29PM
I disagree with much of what he says in it, but stylistically this is a good Jonathan Chait column.
Re: Reducio
Posted by on 4.19.08 @ 11:28AM
Conor: I appreciate your idealism, but I assure you after spending the last six years covering campaign events--many, if not most, townhall-type interactions--your faith (and Fallows') in politically active "ordinary citizens"--an important distinction from, you know, actual ordinary citizens, my trailer park brethren, etc.--is severely misplaced. In their absolute very best moments, most of what "real people" ask at political events is at least as stupid as what a television journalist would ask, and usually more so, since they end up trying to ape whatever the simplistic forumlation of the issue of the day has been. Virtually everyone plays to type and asks precisely the question you would suspect they would, to the point where the rare deviation from the invisible script is shocking. The idea that anything comparable to Charlie Gibson pressing Obama on the fact that revenues increase when capital gains taxes are reduced--an actual public service--or the average episode of Hardball happens in the vast majority of these forums is pure wishful thinking.
As far as The People being turned off by such a mean, nasty debate--that's not happening either. Complaints about the debate having nothing to do with a burning desire for substance--to believe Obama is a post-partisan politician of substance is merely to naively take his word for it--but, rather, concerns over how one's candidate was wronged or disadvantaged by the debate. These kind of holier-than-thou complaints are part of the horse race, in other words. I've seen no evidence out in the "real world" that the sort of "real people" who follow politics this far out from the general election are any more interested in thoughtful discussions on the issues that effect them any more than they really care about the relative merits of whatever regional football collective they cheer on. Oh, sure, ask anyone and they'll tell you they can't stand the fluffy debates and abhor negative campaigning, but it's always only in the context of wanting people who think differently than they do to simply yield.
(How many Democrats do you think you'll find taking umbrage at Obama's insistent, conscious misquoting of McCain? And don't make me laugh about Drug War questions. The Democratic candidates were asked about marijuana decriminilzation back along and even on that mildest of reforms the major candidates refused to budge--including Obama, whose position has apparently changed. )
Hence, the focus entirely on the presidential race rather than local and state level races--these complainers are looking for a potent ubermensch (or menschette) to vanquish and impose, not debate intricacies or details.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Nunn, Boren Endorse Obama
Posted by on 4.18.08 @ 5:50PM
Former Sens. Sam Nunn and David Boren have endorsed Barack Obama. Nunn and Boren were both fairly conservative Democrats, though Nunn tacked to the left somewhat when he began to have national ambitions in the early 1990s. Boren's son is a Democratic congressman and an uncommitted superdelegate. What this means is unclear, other than it might end the speculation that Nunn will run for president himself as a third-party candidate.
Re: Reducio ad abc-surdum
Posted by on 4.18.08 @ 4:19PM
John, thanks for your engaging response, but permit me to push back.
Let's say for the sake of argument that the debate, as executed by its moderators, did help super delegates decide which of their candidates is more electable, as you suggested. Should journalists moderating a debate really focus on asking questions that best serve the institutional needs of the Democratic Party? I don't think so, particularly given that super delegates are privy to all sorts of polling data, the knowledge they've accumulated closely following politics and actual voting results in past primaries, whereas the average voter's decision is far more influenced by these finite debate appearances.
As James Fallows put it in the piece I linked earlier:
Perhaps you're right that fewer people would watch that sort of debate, though I'm not so sure: questions about issues that affect people's lives need not be wonky policy questions. And I'm less sure than you are about the answer to a well-crafted War on Drugs question -- it just doesn't seem obvious to me, particularly given Obama's haragues about the criminal justice system.
My hunch is that ABC didn't garner 11 million debate viewers because Americans anticipated how the moderators would behave -- they couldn't know beforehand that it would be a debate unlike any that preceded it, and the negative audience reaction to the moderators suggests that their performance will turn voters off to watching in the future.
I'd finally say that the questions I posed won't come up in a campaign, as you pointed out, but that's largely because journalists don't ask about them in debates, conference calls, etc. The campaigns don't control coverage -- the press is pretty good at bringing up controversies they don't want to talk about, sometimes for good reason -- but insofar as there are important policy issues that the Obama, Clinton and McCain campaigns aren't talking about, it's the media's job to bring them up too. You may be right that during a general election the McCain campaign won't hit Obama or Clinton on the topics I raised (like the Democratic Party's reflexive, extra-constitutional anti-federalism). On the other hand, I can imagine McCain asking Obama about federal powers vis-a-vis state power sooner than he asks, "Does Reverend Wright love America as much as you do?"
Chafee Again
Posted by on 4.18.08 @ 3:25PM
In response to my earlier post, Dan McCarthy says, "Yglesias is exactly right: if the Republicans want to start winning again, the party as a whole -- and not just the occasional Chafee -- is going to have to repudiate the war." I don't disagree that a different GOP take on Iraq would be desirable. But for the duration of the Bush and perhaps a future McCain administration that seems unlikely. So the specific point I was addressing was: Would individual Republican senators really have helped themselves by being more independent? I still think the answer is no, because the GOP is thoroughly associated with the Bush-McCain brand.
Dan himself explains why: "[O]utlying dissenters risk getting shot by both sides: antiwar voters blame them for their party affiliation, while the party base may reject them for deviating from the Republican line." MoveOn.org protested outside of Hostettler's office even though he voted against the war and his Democratic opponent was no dove. In Chafee's case, it was a bit more rational: His reelection bid was one of the races that was going to determine which party controlled the Senate, and antiwar voters may have decided it was better to have the Senate controlled by an ostensibily antiwar party.
John Sununu probably wouldn't help himself by flipping on the war. Norm Coleman and Gordon Smith don't seem to have helped themselves by triangulating ever so slightly. If the Republican dissenters shifted the center of gravity within the party, that might make a difference. But in individual cases it won't make much difference, and as much as I like the dissenters I also understand the political incentives that keep their numbers to a minimum.
Hoax or No Hoax?
Posted by on 4.18.08 @ 2:37PM
The Yale student in the abortion as performance art incident is apparently sticking to her story despite the university's denials. She sounds like she is a young woman with some problems. Dan Flynn is skeptical of the university administrators.
Re: Reducio ad abc-surdum
Posted by on 4.18.08 @ 2:31PM
Careful, Conor. That horse you're up on is awfully high; I'd hate to see you fall and hurt yourself.
None of those questions is likely to come up in the campaign. All of the questions that Obama and his supporters (and you) are whining about most certainly will.
Neither Obama nor Clinton will win without the superdelegates. Since the candidates have few real policy differences, the superdelegates' decision all comes down to electability. Not only would the eat-your-vegetables policy questions you seem to crave be boring (do you really think 11 million people would have watched a debate about constitutional philosophy? Really?), the moderators would actually be doing a huge disservice to Democrats if they focused on them at the expense of questions that will actually be relevant to the election.
P.S. Here are the answers to your questions: On enumerated powers, both candidates would answer that Bush is bad. On the War on Drugs, both candidates would endorse it with few meaningful qualifications. On balance of power, both candidates would answer that Bush is bad. Sounds like a fun "debate."
Hillary Tells Obama To Get Out Of The Kitchen
Posted by on 4.18.08 @ 1:15PM
RADNOR, PA -- Speaking to students at the Radnor High School in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton just accused Barack Obama of being a big softie for complaining about the questions in Wednesday's debate.
She said that having spent 8 years in the White House, she knows the type of pressure placed on presidents. "That was nothing," she told the crowd.
"I'm with Harry Truman on this one: 'If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.'"
She then added the somewhat ambiguous line, "I'm very comfortable in the kitchen."
Like many of Clinton's recent attacks, there's validity to criticizing Obama for whining about the debate, but she has absolutely zero credibility to do so.
During the last debate in Cleveland, Clinton had a paranoid outburst and carped about always getting the first question. When she was exposed in the debate last October over driver's licences for illegal immigrants, her campaign branded it "the politics of pile on" and played the gender card.
Whatever Happened to Lincoln Chafee?
Posted by on 4.18.08 @ 10:53AM
Matt Yglesias says of the Republicans' dismal Senate prospects: "Back in January 2007, the congressional Republicans reached the conclusion that lockstep support for the wildly unpopular president and his wildly unpopular war was the right way to respond to the Democrats' big win in 2006. I think some folks are going to be standing around in January 2009 wondering why they thought that was a good idea."
Maybe. Except that independence from President Bush or even outright opposition to the Iraq war didn't seem to help many Republicans in 2006. Lincoln Chafee was defeated, after all. So were antiwar House Republicans John Hostettler and Jim Leach, the former by a pro-war Democrat. The major reasons for the GOP's Senate troubles this year is the number of seats up for reelection either in swing states or states trending Democratic, the number of Republicans up for reelection relative to Democrats, poor GOP candidate recruitment, and solid Democratic candidate recruitment. That's not to say that the war and Bush's unpopularity aren't the main causes of the GOP's unpopularity. They are. But it is less clear that Norm Coleman or John Sununu could have saved themselves from tough races by being more independent.
Destruction of Life Imitates Art
Posted by on 4.18.08 @ 10:26AM
According to this report, a Yale student artificially inseminated herself "as many times as possible," self-induced more than one abortion, and then used the dead fetuses' blood for her senior art project. After the initial revulsion, I had two reactions. First, some of the pro-life responses to this barbaric behavior strike me as fairly weak: "Yale should be ashamed that it is allowing an 'art' project that will offend millions of Americans." People being offended, as opposed to being killed, is the least of the problem. Second, surely an NEA grant awaits, if not now then definitely in the next Democratic administration.
UPDATE: It turns out that our would-be fetus fingerpainter was just playin' with us gullible pro-lifers. It's a hoax. But my two reactions still stand. And I still think this is one sick young lady.
The Dark Future That Awaits Us Sans Hillary
Posted by on 4.18.08 @ 1:09AM
PHILADELPHIA -- Political campaigning lends itself to hyperbole, but a series of speakers warming up the crowd before Hillary Clinton took the stage in Northeast Philadelphia last night were absurd even by those standards.
Speaking to a crowd gathered for a block party outside the Mayfair Diner, one Clinton supporter called President Bush a "moron" while another suggested that America would not be worth living in if Clinton weren't elected.
"I want to speak seriously for a moment," thundered Pennsylvania state representative and Clinton supporter, Michael P. McGeehan. "If this country stays on the route we're going, there will be no jobs for our kids. They'll be no future for our kids. It won't be worth the country living in unless we make the choice."
A high octane Jonathan Saidel, a former Philadelphia contoller, kept yelling, "Who do we want for President of the United States?" Then he would scream directly into the microphone like an crazed heavy metal vocalist, "HILLARY CLINTON!!!"
"When it comes to Tuesday, I don't want you to walk to the polls," he told the crowd. "I want you to run like your life depends on it. Because it does... Ain't gonna be no McCain in the life of my four children."
He said that Clinton shouldn't just win, but "crush" in the primary.
Then, in introducing Rep. Allyson Schwartz, he beamed, "it is my pleasure and honor to present someone who fights for us in Washington to vote her conscience of what's going on in this world and not listening to some moron in the White House. Yeah, I said 'moron.' What, are you going to take my pension away?"
Eventually Clinton did make it to the stage, along with Chelsea, Gov. Ed Rendell, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter -- but none were nearly as entertaining.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Reductio ad abc-surdum
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 11:07PM
Since Jim Fallows sums up my feelings on the Democratic debate I thought I'd make a couple narrow rebuttals. On this blog Phillip Klein defends ABC, writing, "If this were the first debate between the two candidates, I can understand the frustration, but given that this is the 21st debate, it's a different story. What kind of policy discussion is left to have among two candidates who agree on virtually everything?"
It is quite right that health care and Iraq have been fleshed out. But the president does all sorts of things that Senators Obama and Clinton are seldom if ever asked about. Tough questions I'd like to see include whether the candidates believe that the constitution in fact assigns only enumerated powers to the federal government, and if so what specific powers belong only to the states or the people; whether the candidates believe that the War on Drugs is winnable and how they would wage it or end it; and the candidates' views on the balance of power between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branches during war time.
Another citizen might prefer that questions be asked on animal rights, maintaining the interstate highway system, the prudence of a regulated market for kidneys and the reasoning for our reliance on corn based rather than sugar based ethanol. There is no shortage of topics; moderators just confine themselves unnecessarily.
Enter David Brooks, defending the ABC debate moderators on different grounds. He says, echoing others, that "the journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable," and that it's legitimate to see how they'll respond to symbolic issues. If that is so, however, the moderators seemed to have failed for a different reason -- I can imagine the candidates being far less comfortable and being asked far more symbolic questions than what ABC mustered.
Perhaps a future debate should feature Brooks as moderator posing the following questions:
-- A terrorist makes a credible threat that he will detonate a nuclear device in Manhattan unless you engage in intercourse with the spouse of your opponent. Would you do so if your CIA chief estimated it would afford a 10 percent chance of averting the attack?
-- Were you widowed, terminally ill and raising a young child would you rather arrange for its adoption by a loving gay couple or a heterosexual spinster? Would you rather the child grow up to be gay or mildly homophobic but happily married with kids?
-- As president will you be more concerned with protecting American lives than the lives of foreigners? If so how many Israeli lives is an American life worth? What about Kenyan lives? Palestinian lives? Iraqi lives? And how does that last affect your Iraq policy?
-- If God spoke to you, as he spoke to some in biblical accounts, and told you to convert to Catholicism, would you? What about Islam? Mormonism? Scientology? What if he asked you to get a sex change operation?
-- Were a cure for AIDS developed that required the slaughter of 15,000 live puppies per year for a key ingredient would you approve their murder?
Re: Mommy In Chief
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 3:24PM
Phil, maybe she had a few shots to loosen her up before hitting the campaign trail.
Mommy In Chief
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 2:53PM
HAVERFORD -- Hillary Clinton is in the midst of explaining a raft of "family friendly" proposals, which is representative of a broader strategy by Democrats to win over voters who traditonally vote Republican on social issues.
Clinton said she wants to work toward a society in which, "we don't just talk about family values, but we really value familes."
She proposes a $3,000 caregiving tax credit, extending family leave by 13 million additional workers, a Paycheck Fairness Act to get toward equal pay for women, seven guaranteed sick days for every worker, and increased funding for child care.
Missing was any mention of a price tag.
Clinton, I must say, seems much more relaxed and at peace with herself these days than she has in most of her appearances that I've seen. Over the course of the campaign, I've seen her weary, angry, and in full robot mode. But never so laid back.
Obama Raising Money On "Gotcha" Debate
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 2:34PM
The campaign is sending out this appeal:
If you did, you saw more gotcha politics and distractions than questions about the pressing issues affecting our country.
In fact, it took more than 45 minutes before Barack was asked about the economy, health care, or foreign policy.
Regrettably, Senator Clinton seemed all too comfortable with that type of debate. She's running a 100% negative campaign in Pennsylvania, taking every opportunity to make personal and discredited attacks against Senator Obama.
You can send a message that politics doesn't have to be played this way.
Make your first donation today, and someone who's already given will match whatever amount you decide to give. You can double your impact, and you'll even get to see the name and town of the fellow supporter matching your first online gift.
Will you make a $25 donation now?
Generation Gap
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 2:34PM
Those libertarians who danced at the Jefferson Memorial got kicked out, one assumes, because what they were doing seemed weird and unfamiliar to the security guards.
Jim Pinkerton, in trying to explain what they were doing,
amusingly and instructively conveys the generation gap:
Nearly 11 Million Watched Democratic Debate
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 2:08PM
This isn't going to improve the mood of liberal bloggers.
From an ABC press release:
The first hour of Wednesday's debate ranked first in its time period among Total Viewers, Adults 18-49 and Adults 25-54. Up against Fox's "American Idol" and an original episode of CBS' "Criminal Minds" at 9 p.m., the debate retained 96% of it Total Viewing audience, retained 100% of its Adults 25-54 audience, and grew 4% among Adults 18-49 from the first hour to the second hour.
Additionally, the debate beat "American Idol" program-to-program in four markets: Philadelphia, Orlando, San Antonio, Albuquerque, according to Household ratings.
Democrats Block Resolution Honoring Pope
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 1:54PM
Tim Carney reports that the Democrats don't like the pro-life language, although the passage in question -- "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life" -- doesn't seem particularly heavyhanded. Word has it that the offending language might be deleted so the resolution can move forward. Although I guess if being pro-life is like being a Weatherman, I can see why Barbara Boxer is worried.
Hillary the Family Woman
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 1:11PM
HAVERFORD -- I'm at Founders Hall here at Haverford College just outside of Philadelphia, waiting for Hillary Clinton to take the stage with Chelsea for an event billed as a "conversation with families." I've been to this sort of thing before, and it typically translates into a stage show in which "average" Americans share their concerns with Clinton, and their concerns happen to neatly dovetail with whatever Clinton is proposing at the time.
It's a perfect spring day here, and the campus is quite nice.
Why can't we hold class outside?
The Pope said what?
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 10:37AM
THE paragraph from his address to American bishops that the press didn't want to hear:
What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today? We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society, so that a sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike. All have a part to play in this task - not only parents, religious leaders, teachers and catechists, but the media and entertainment industries as well. Indeed, every member of society can contribute to this moral renewal and benefit from it. Truly caring about young people and the future of our civilization means recognizing our responsibility to promote and live by the authentic moral values which alone enable the human person to flourish. It falls to you, as pastors modelled upon Christ, the Good Shepherd, to proclaim this message loud and clear, and thus to address the sin of abuse within the wider context of sexual mores. Moreover, by acknowledging and confronting the problem when it occurs in an ecclesial setting, you can give a lead to others, since this scourge is found not only within your Dioceses, but in every sector of society. It calls for a determined, collective response.
Good Night for Hillary?
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 10:24AM
I'd say Hillary will benefit marginally from last night and to a greater degree from Obama's recent slip-ups. If she does not win Pennsylvania next week, probably even by a comfortable margin, it will be shocking. Unless Obama gets a bump coming out of North Carolina, Hillary may well win Indiana. She has stayed in the race for events like this that might shake the superdelegates' faith in Obama's electability.
That said, Phil is right that her performance also angered the people she needs most to win. Closing the deficit in the popular vote and pledged delegates still seems out of reach. Frankly, for Hillary this may be a nomination not worth having at this point. She can only get it under conditions that are likely to embitter some of the youngest and most idealistic new Democratic voters, demoralize and anger black voters, and divide the party going into a general election race against a reasonably strong Republican candidate. I don't know if there is anything to the liberal line that Hillary is trying to ensure Obama's defeat in November, but it would make some sense.
Disgruntled Republicans Returning to McCain
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 10:11AM
An Associated Press/Yahoo poll provides further confirmation that the main benficiary of the Democratic campaign has been John McCain.
Re: Not a Good Night...
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 10:08AM
Phil: Compared to Obama, Hillary was frighteningly good. He was dead on his feet; down the stretch I half-expected he'd be checking his watch. He had nothing new to state, and increasingly he gave off the vibe that he wanted to be anywhere else but there. Even he seems tired of his old bromides, but in his empty suit he had nothing new to offer. He appeared exasperated. Hillary, meanwhile, was having the time of her life, showing off at every opportunity, the smartest girl in the class, scoring points with teacher, with great satisfaction, giving off not a hint that most everyone assumes her days are numbered. The interesting thing is that all the post-debate intensity has involved Barackudas rallying to defend their little darling; Hillary seems to have no devoted followers.
Rewriting History In Tehran
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 9:53AM
By now, you might have assumed that conspiracy theories about the September 11th attacks had become a thing of the past, tall tales relegated to the margins of the blogosphere at best. You would be wrong, though. The latest such screed comes from Tehran, where Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is actively putting his own particular spin on the events of 9/11. "Four or five years ago a suspect event took place in New York," the Agence France Presse reports Ahmadinejad telling a rally of his supporters yesterday. "A building collapsed and they said that 3,000 people had been killed, whose names were never published. Under this pretext they (the United States) attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and since then a million people have been killed."
What's useful to note here -- aside from Ahmadinejad's astounding lack of chronological awareness (we are now approaching the seventh anniversary of 9/11, after all) -- is how neatly this argument fits into the larger regional strategy the Islamic Republic is advancing. If the 9/11 attacks never happened, then the U.S. has no reason to be in the region. It is, in effect, an interloper that should be ousted from places such as Iraq. The not-so-subtle message is that, with the backing of countries in the region, the Iranian regime can do just that.
Who says our politicians are the only ones campaigning?
Not A Good Night For Hillary, Either
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 9:42AM
Barack Obama undoubtedly had a bad performance in last night's debate, but I've been surprised to read how many people thought Hillary Clinton did well. John Podhoretz even went as far as to declare she was "frighteningly good." But I don't see how. As I noted in my column today, she utterly embarrassed herself on the Bosnia question and on Iraq. If some conservative commentators think she did well, it's only because several of the criticisms Clinton lobbed at Obama -- on Wright, on guns, on "cling gate," etc. came from a conservative perspective. It's kind of like in the wake of the YouTube debate last year in which pundits on the right praised Clinton for attacking Obama as being naïve for wanting to meet with foreign dictators. (Clinton was being the grown up, Obama wasn't ready for primetime.) But to liberals, Obama's stand reinforced the fact that he was the candidate who represented a true break with the Bush foreign policy. Obama may have been pummeled last night, but there's a lot of liberal rage against ABC, and Clinton will be seen as a collaborator who spent the night doing John McCain's dirty work. That may earn her kudos among conservative bloggers, but she needs the support of Democrats to win the nomination.
In Defense of ABC
Posted by on 4.17.08 @ 2:33AM
Liberal bloggers are in a tizzy over the line of questioning pursued by moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous in last night's Democratic debate. Critics of the debate contend that there was too much talk on peripheral issues, not enough policy, and that the questions represent an all out assault by Obama, and Hillary Clinton joined in to imitate a Republican attack dog. If this were the first debate between the two candidates, I can understand the frustration, but given that this is the 21st debate, it's a different story.
What kind of policy discussion is left to have among two candidates who agree on virtually everything? Do liberals want to sit through another round on health care in which Clinton argues that Obama's plan leaves 15 million uninsured because it doesn't mandate coverage, and Obama responds that the problem isn't that coverage isn't required, but that it isn't affordable? Another exchange on Iraq in which Obama says that he was against the war from the start, Clinton shoots back that once Obama got to the Senate their voting records have been virtually the same, and they both then articulate plans to leave Iraq that are some form of "responsible" withdrawal? Another debate over whether Clinton can better bring about change because of her 35 years of experience, or Obama can because he represents a clean break from the typical Washington midnset? I mean, seriously, would we gain anything from such a debate?
Democrats, especially superdelegates, are right now trying to determine who is the best candidate to face John McCain. It makes perfect sense to give Democrats the opportunity to see how each candidate responds to the type of attacks they can expect in a general election. You could even argue that ABC was doing the Democrats a favor, by allowing them to better prepare for the type of questions they'll be asked.
You can read my longer take on the debate on the main site.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Axelrod Reacts to Hamas Endorsement of Obama
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 11:06PM
In the spin room following the debate, I asked Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, to respond to a report that a top Hamas official had endorsed Obama.
"I have no idea about that, I have not heard that," Axelrod replied.
I told him that the words were spoken by Ahmed Yousef, and offered to read him the quote, which I I proceeded to do from my Blackberry: "we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle…"
Axelrod focused on the Kennedy portion of the quote, and was "flattered" by the comparison.
"I like John Kennedy too," Axelrod said. "That's about the only thing we have in common with this gentleman from Hamas. We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it's flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps."
He continued, "(Obama's) position on Hamas is very clear. Until they renounce violence, until they recognize Israel's right to exist and recognize previous agreements, we shouldn't have any contact with him."
I followed up by asking Axelerod why Obama didn't urge Jimmy Carter to not meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.
"He said today that he fundamentally disagrees with Jimmy Carter," Axelrod said.
But I reemphasized that Obama never said that Carter shouldn't do the meeting, and then Axelrod launched into a straw man argument about personal freedom.
"He said that it was ill advised, that he shouldn't do it, but that he can't. We actually don't have any ability. This is the United States of America. We don't have any ability to go seize someone and neither does the President of the United States, who also asked Mr. Carter not to do it."
But nobody is urging Obama to seize Carter. The debate is over why he can't take a moral stand against an ex-president who is meeting with a terrorist group.
I began asking another follow up question on why Obama said Don Imus should be fired, which was a private matter, but would not take a moral stand in the case of Carter.
But a frustrated Axelrod turned away and took another question.
I asked Hillary Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson about the matter, but he declined comment.
Re: Nothing Happened
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 10:11PM
You may be right that there won't be much impact, Phil, but if there's even a marginal impact I have to think it's bad for Obama. He got tough questions for a change, muddled through his answers, and generally got his clock cleaned.
And in More Important News
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 10:01PM
Kristy Lee Cook got voted off American Idol!
Nothing Happened
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 9:59PM
I would be pretty surprised if this debate changed anything for any voter. There was no major moment. Democrats' views of their candidates are largely defined by now, and each of their performances are likely to be evaluated along those lines. One thing that I would say, though, is that the debate revealed a lot of vulnerability in both candidates. On foreign policy, taxes, guns, social security, and on intangibles such as Clinton's trustworthiness, Obama's contortions on Jeremiah Wright and his "cling" remarks. Both candidates came off as very beatable in the general election in this debate.
HRC Numerology
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 9:59PM
Hillary says she's endorsed by "35 generals and admirals." My wife, recalling the "35 years of experience" line, comments that "she likes the number 35." What does it mean? A nod to the Constitutional mandate that the President must be at least 35 years old, perhaps?
New Kind Of Politics Is Getting Kinda Old
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 9:57PM
In his closing remarks, Obama gives a talk that is largely the same from the stump speech I'd see him give in Iowa four months ago.
A "Fighter" In The White House?
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 9:53PM
In her closing remarks, Hillary Clinton channels John Edwards.
Guns Blazing
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 9:39PM
If I heard correctly, both Clinton and Obama claimed they didn't know enough about the DC gun ban case to opine. How convenient.
Supply Side ABC
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 9:19PM
Charlie Gibson says, twice, that each time the capital gains tax has been cut, it's led to an increase in revenue. A pleasant surprise.
On Iran Attacking Israel
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 9:10PM
Hillary says it would trigger "massive retaliation," and promises to extend the security umbrella beyond Israel. A studdering Obama says such an attack would be "unacceptable."
Debate-Obama
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 9:09PM
This guy is a whole lot less impressive than Speech-Obama, isn't he? He was literally stammering throughout his answer on Iran and Israel.
Obama Says That His Job As Commander In Chief
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 8:53PM
is to get our troops out of Iraq, not, evidently, to protect our country. Not to fight terrorism. Yes, you could argue that withrawal will make America safer, but he didn't say that. He just said his job was to get us out of Iraq. I think that's a pretty good indication of what Obama's instincts are.
Distractions, Distractions
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 8:51PM
Every question that's inconvenient to Obama is a distraction.
Preposterously, he just equated his friendliness with Bill Ayers to his friendliness with Tom Coburn. Hillary jumps on the Ayers stuff, but Obama counters that Bill Clinton pardoned two Weather Underground members.
"You Get To Choose Your Pastor"
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 8:41PM
Hillary Clinton makes the key point on Jeremiah Wright. This isn't about having a relative who makes racist remarks. Obama chose Wright.
Obama is entirely unconvincing in saying he wasn't aware of Wright's controversial comments, and his declaration that Wright loves America even though he shouts "goddamn America" could come back to haunt him. How absurd. And then his parsing on disowning the comments, but not his pastor. Unbelievable.
Getting To Yes
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 8:31PM
It wasn't easy for Hillary Clinton to say that she thinks Barack Obama can win in November. She only conceded it after a second prodding.
Barack Obama was savvy to invoke the uproar over Clinton's comments about staying home and baking cookies comment in the context of the controversy over his "cling" comments, saying she "learned the wrong lessons." This is really aimed at the liberals who see Clinton as employing Rovian tactics.
"Mangled Up"
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 8:25PM
That's Obama's updating of "misspoke" or Kerry's "botched joke" to explain "cling -gate."
The problem is that as unconvincing as Obama's answer was, Hillary Clinton comes across as craven when invoking her factory worker grandfather.
Re: Not 250 Years Old
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 8:20PM
It was bizarrely phrased, but I think she meant that women and black people got short shrift in the original Constitution. She had to get in a slam at the dead white guys, I guess.
UPDATE: Of course if she's suggesting that free black men didn't have the vote anywhere in the early United States, she's wrong.
Newsflash: Hillary and Obama NOT 250 Years Old
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 8:14PM
In her opening statement Hillary Clinton revealed that neither her nor Barack Obama were in the nation's founding documents.
Meanwhile, Obama tried to take the air out of "cling-gate" by talking about people's frustrations with economic conditions that should be turned into hope.
Hamas Adviser Endorses Obama
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 7:10PM
FoxNews reports:
"We don't mind -- actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance," Yousef said in response to a question about the group's willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.
UPDATE: Some context. Last June, Yousef wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post urging America to engage Hamas. I blogged about it at the time. It's pretty clear what's going on here. Hamas wants an American president who they can manipulate, Arafat-style, into believing they seek peace, while they continue a campaign of terrorism and hang on to their ultimate goal of destroying Israel. They know they have an easy mark in Obama.
Hillary Supporters Out In Full Force
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 6:34PM
PHILADELPHIA -- I wouldn't read too much into this, but was surprised to notice that Hillary Clinton's supporters far outnumbered Barack Obama supporters outside the debate site here at the National Constitution Center. Mostly "Hillary" signs took up the sidewalk of a little more than a city block and chants of "Hill-a-ry! Hill-a-ry!" and "Solutions not speeches!" were louder than chants of "Yes we can!" Normally, it's Obama that draws the bigger crowds at these things, and Philadelphia should be a stronghold for him. Anyway, like I said, no need to read too much into it. But thought I'd mention, for what it's worth.
Twitter Wisdom
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 4:20PM
Slate reporter John Dickerson tweets:
Elites who pick candidates who raise their taxes are well positioned to call blue collars dumb for voting against economic self interest.Heh.
Get Better, Not Bitter
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 4:02PM
Both the new Reuters/Zogby poll and the new ABC News/Washington Post poll show Barack Obama faring better in head-to-head match-ups against John McCain than Hillary Clinton (though not by a lot). In the latter, Obama leads McCain 49 percent to 44 percent while McCain beats Hillary 48 percent to 45 percent. Throw in the margin for error and all of this may be meaningless, but it's interesting nonetheless. The shot drinker is not necessarily a general election slam dunk when compared to Bittergate Barack.
Is There Really A 'Radical' In 'Radical Islam'?
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 3:01PM
I have previously praised the Intelligence Squared debates
here in
Intelligence Squared allows the audience to vote on the
proposition both before and after the debate. My initial vote was against the
proposition, despite having seen for myself some of the disturbing
radicalization around newly-minted Saudi-funded mosques in Africa, in large
part because of trends Amir Taheri pointed out in a Wall Street Journal piece a
couple months back, entitled "Islam at the Ballot Box": "So far, no Islamist
party has managed to win a majority of the popular vote in any of the Muslim
countries where reasonably clean elections are held. If anything, the Islamist
share of the vote has been declining across the board." (And, yes, he addesses the Hamas victory in Gaza.)
By the end of the evening, however, I had been reluctantly sold on a "Yes" vote, mainly as a reaction to the statistics presented by the "for" team regarding the spread of apostasy and blaspheme laws in nations with Islam as the state religion--the death penalty for converting away from Islam, women counting as half a witness in disagreements with a man, legalized honor killings, etc--as well as the fact that the strain of faith now primarily being propagated around the world by the Saudis and Iran is undeniably totalitarian and anti-human. Nomani's tales of how fundamentalism seeping into the West had affected her ability to practice her own faith as an equal was riveting as well.
In the final analysis, I really was more sympathetic to the "against" panelists, who argued, correctly in my estimation, that many of the
negative things attributed to Islam are cultural and political issues
(mis)expressed through the prism of religion. (Of course, I'm one of those
people who believe the world would be much better off if adherents of all the
major religions treated faith as more as a book-of-the-month club with the same
book every month than as supernatural carte blanche to lecture and meddle in
others' lives.) My personal hope, somewhat backed by Taheri's piece, is that the
problems Islamic extremism promises to address are problems it can't possibly
solve, and it's appeal for actual people will eventually wane. They kill Bhutto and the people vote for
relative secularists, not Islamists. And that's in Pakistan.
The debate, however, wound up turning on how one defines "domination." To call Islam dominated by radicals is not the same as calling anything approaching a majority of Muslims radical. The Islamic power structure--those with the cash and the initiative--as it stands on balance now, however, is dominated by radicals. At the end of the lively, at times contentious, debate, the crowd apparently agreed. Our initial voted was 46 percent "for," 32 percent "against," and 22 percent "undecided." Post debate those numbers swung to 73 percent "for," 23 "against," and 4 "undecided."
Still No Park Service Apology
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 2:26PM
The jackbooted thugs of the Park Service had their little bit of fascism from Thomas Jefferson's birthday highlighted today on page one of the metro section of the Washington Post. Unless I missed it, though, the Park Police has yet to offer an apology. I therefore submit notice that unless such an apology comes soon, I will look into organizing, next week, another peaceful and quiet dance-in at the Memorial, at a time to be determined later, with plenty of cameras around to record it all. Oh -- and also with lawyers around who have done their homework and are ready, willing and able to file suit.
This Year's Zell Miller
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 12:43PM
Joe Lieberman might give a keynote speech at the Republican National Convention on behalf of John McCain.
Philadelphia Bound
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 12:29PM
I am heading up to cover tonight's Democratic debate, and will have more later. But my sense is the debate will follow the script of the last several -- heated attacks in the days leading up to the event, giving way to "I have a lot of respect for xx" cordiality when they are on the same stage together. My guess is that John McCain will take the most hits tonight, as this is the first Democratic debate since McCain sewed up the Republican nomination.
Lawyerville
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 11:40AM
Matt Lewis sees more elitism in this video of Michelle Obama saying, "Barack's a lawyer, I'm a lawyer, everybody we know are lawyers. I'm sure half the people in this audience are lawyers."
But it strikes me as pretty benign.
Obama's Pennsylvania Woes
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 10:36AM
Pittsburgh native and occasional TAS contributor Heather Robinson talked to some locals in her home state and believes Obama's remarks will damage him next Tuesday.
The Armchair Sociologist
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 10:27AM
If you want to figure out what Obama was thinking at that San Francisco fundraiser, Reihan Salam does a nice job explaining over at the Atlantic. Obama's armchair sociology and attempts to explain views he disagrees with are part of his appeal to voters who might otherwise reject him as a left-liberal. But they also cause him to riff and can get him into some real trouble.
Re: Reinventing Hamas
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 10:22AM
Following up on my post from yesterday, James Kirchick says Ezra Klein was Hoodwinked by a Hudna.
Barack's Beliefs
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 10:16AM
"We now know that there are at least two forms of religion that Barack Obama does not believe in," writes Terry Jeffrey. "the religion preached by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who baptized his children, and the religion clung to by the bitter people of Pennsylvania, whose votes he hopes will help make him president of the United States."
Because James Poulos resisted the urge to quote Hall and Oates, I resisted the urge to quote a certain Michael McDonald-sung Doobie Brothers hit about what Obama might believe.
Elitists on Elitists
Posted by on 4.16.08 @ 8:39AM
The New York Times story linked by Drudge (clearly the Grey Lady likes to get early attention drawn to its daily editions by supplying key stories to the hit-meister) this morning, which examines the fallout from Obama's elitist comments in San Francisco, tries to prop him up with the always-key quote in the third paragraph of a story:
Who Ezar Lowe is, I don't know, as Google searches produce nothing. Apparently the identity of the church was not vital to the story. But it doesn't speak well of him or the people he's ministering to if he thinks the only reason for their religious beliefs is because they've lost their jobs.
Meanwhile, later in the story the Times
injects its own elitism, as well as some on behalf of Democrats as
a whole:
Indeed, advisers to Mr. Obama concede, his job has been made that much more complicated by his remarks about bitterness among small-town voters. Though it remains unclear what effect the episode will have in the long run, it has suddenly prompted a series of questions - and worry - from Democrats about whether Mr. Obama could weather a Republican onslaught in the fall, should he win the presidential nomination.
In Pennsylvania, as well as coming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, did Mr. Obama provide another excuse for white voters to voice qualms about his candidacy without acknowledging that it is his race that troubles them? If he defeats Mrs. Clinton, will accusations of elitism dog him as they have previous Democratic nominees? Does Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, suddenly have an issue that will resonate for the next six months?
There you go: white voters are just looking for a more acceptable excuse not to vote for Obama, when it is secretly his race they object to. Shows you don't have to attend closed San Francisco fundraisers to find liberal elitist comments.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Damned If You Due
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 7:40PM
A Tax Day valentine that could only appear on the New York Times op-ed page.
Is the White House Caving on Global Warming?
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 7:23PM
This Washington Times story suggests yes; Ramesh Ponnuru says no. At least it sounds like the Bush administration isn't going to concede on cap-and-trade.
The Silent Majority Speaks!
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 7:19PM
Stacy McCain says if you want to see how a real populist would react to Barack Obama's "Bittergate," look at Pat Buchanan.
Prayers for Specter
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 7:11PM
Sen. Specter has a
recurrence of his cancer. Our prayers go out to him. He seems
in good shape, and the prognosis looks good. I saw him just this
morning, at a press conference for Tax Day, standing beside Grover
Norquist and sounding very much like a supply-sider. The truth is,
the man has been pretty good on some tax issues for quite a while,
particularly in getting rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Anyway,
Specter looked hale and hearty this morning.
Another note: I have remarked several times in the past several
months how much better I like Specter now than I used to. He seems
calmer, less brusque, more statesmanlike. He also seems to be
making far more of an effort to please conservatives. At a
Spectator dinner two years ago, he was very impressive. And he has
been really working hard to get judicial nominees through the
process. All of which is even more reason to wish him a speedy
recovery -- although we would wish him a speedy recovery regardless
of his increasingly conservative performance, but just out of
simple human kindness.
One thing that seems certain: Specter won't slow down one bit
during his treatment regime. He didn't slow down last time, and
he's a tough guy. Very, very impressive attitude. Again, we wish
him success in his recovery, and offer him our respect as
well.
Reid Promises Judge Movement
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 6:49PM
Sens. Specter, Hatch and McConnell have been working hard to force the judicial nominee issue to a head, and today they had a bit of success. Majority Leader Harry Reid just said on the floor, repeatedly, that he intends to do everything he can to get floor votes for three (and, he said, perhaps more) circuit court nominees before the Memorial Day break.
Sen. McConnell seemed mildly happy, but repeatedly tried to press Reid about WHICH particular nominees would be moved. He seemed insistent that Matthews and Conrad, from South and North Carolina, respectively, be moved. FOr what it's worth, I would concur that Conrad should be absolutely a key to any agreement, because the seat has been open so long and because his qualifications are so superb. Similarly, Peter Keisler, for hte DC Circuit, ought to be part of any deal, even though McConnell did not mention him. Both the LA Times and the Wash Post have editorialized strongly and repeatedly for Keisler, because he is one of the few people that objective conservatives and liberals can agree is manifestly, perfectly suited for the bench.
Re: Out of Touch?
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 6:38PM
Jim's right. Resisting a semiviolent urge to quote Hall and Oates, I'll add that the big question as far as I'm concerned was thrown into fairly stark relief by Jeb Hensarling at the latest AmSpec Newsmaker Breakfast, who more or less conceded the point when asked whether Congressional Republicans consider the war -- whichever, whenever -- so important that an indefinite increase in social entitlement spending is a concession worth surrendering to Democrats. In a cruel irony, it strikes me that a large chunk of Americans actually agree in practice with this position -- meaning they don't want to make precipitous changes to either our foreign or domestic policy. Yet Republicans, on this count, are in serious danger of being painted into their own corner. Given the prevailing wisdom, put paid by a skittish and irresponsible American electorate, it's so easy to talk 'sacrifice' instead of 'tough choices' that Republicans seem ready to accept an eternal fiscal yeasaying competition with Democrats as long as they think they hold the high ground on patriotism -- a recipe for disaster if I've ever heard one.
Reinventing Hamas
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 6:13PM
Ezra Klein's ignorance regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so profound, that I really had to seriously contemplete whether it was even worthwhile to respond to his latest idiotic dispatch, but I couldn't resist, because it's a perfect example of the reinvention of Hamas that is underway on the left.
E. Klein writes:
Late last week, Gershom Gorenberg, an Israeli-based writer, reported that Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas, had stated his willingness to accept "a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 boundaries -- that is, alongside Israel, not in place of it." This statement, a bombshell if there ever was one, received coverage in the Israeli press, some mentions in the Italian press, and virtually no visibility in the English-language press.
He goes on to lament that the American media was overly focused on Barack Obama's position on Hamas: "And so we have the odd spectacle in which Hamas's apparent willingness to resign itself to a Jewish state is ignored, but Obama's promise to ignore cracks in their militancy is greeted."
But there is absolutely nothing shocking about Meshaal's statement to anybody who has followed developments in the region closely.
Hamas has played games with the 1967 border issue for a long time. For instance, in January of 2006, in the wake of the terrorist group's election victory, its co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar promised a long-term truce to Israel if it withdrew to the pre-1967 borders and met other demands. He stated, "we can accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied (in) '67." I don't see how that's any different than what Meshaal is saying currently.
Of course, Hamas has long been perfectly willing to say that it'll accept a return to the 1967 borders now, but the catch is that it preserves the goal of conquering all of Israel later. As Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh put it more candidly around the same time as al-Zahar, "Hamas supports the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital in the territories occupied [by Israel] in 1967 - as an interim solution. However, Hamas will continue to maintain its views regarding the boundaries of historical Palestine, and [in terms of] refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation."
And, to be clear, to Hamas, "historical Palestine" encompasses all of Israel, so the entire area is considered "occupied" land.
Even the very article that E. Klein cites from his own magazine, includes this important caveat:
(Meshaal's) interview reflects a political and psychological balancing act, says Israeli analyst Menachem Klein of Bar-Ilan University. Meshaal hasn't abjured Hamas' fundamental beliefs, as expressed in the organization's 1988 charter: All of Palestine, including pre-1967 Israel, is an Islamic waqf, sacred trust, to be liberated solely by jihad. But in the course of entering Palestinian electoral politics, Hamas has taken pragmatic positions that contradict the charter -- including acceptance of a de facto two-state outcome. "It's very hard to totally abandon fundamental beliefs. [Meshaal's] solution is to ... keep the beliefs, but in the private domain, and to act publicly in a different way," Klein says.
So, if Hamas's leadership has undergone any change at all, it's that it may be pursuing the Yasser Arafat strategy of making public statements offering vague concessions, allowing useful idiots in the West to interpret them as "bombshells," milking the "peace process," all the while supporting terrorism and privately maintaining the ultimate desire to destroy all of Israel.
To put it in terms that E. Klein may actually comprehend, it's kind of like when progressives who support a single payer health care system advocate an incremental approach out of political pragmatism.
P.S.: Before anybody asks, I am not related to the two other Kleins mentioned in this post.
Obama Falsely Conscious
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 6:00PM
Ross Douthat raises an important point about "bittergate" that I haven't seen anyone else emphasize: Obama's argument that economic anxieties cause people to "cling" to social issues is actually empirically false. While social issues have attracted some working-class voters to the Republicans and pushed some affluent social liberals out of the GOP, voters generally have to pass a certain threshold of financial comfort before focusing on values issues rather than bread-and-butter issues. It's a big reason black and Hispanic social conservatism hasn't paid major dividends for the GOP.
Re: Are Conservatives Out of Touch?
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 5:35PM
I think the answer to Phil's question is, in many cases, yes. Conservatives aren't the only people who are out of touch, of course. As voters are increasingly sorted into heavily red or blue counties and political movements left, right, center, and libertarian retreat into their echo chambers, there is a whole lot of out-of-touch-ness going on. But there's a lot of evidence that just running on the standard Republican playbook without any connection to the electorate's pressing concerns doesn't work. In late 2005, I made the case that Jerry Kilgore's loss in the Virginia gubernatorial race was one such example. We're going to see more Kilgores in the Republican future if the conservatives and the GOP don't come up with compelling responses to the public's concerns and don't shift the issue mix to our favor. Among my many problems with John McCain, I don't see much evidence that he is a candidate prepared to do that.
New Anti-Israel Lobby Opens For Business
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 4:50PM
The left is buzzing about a new lobbying group called "J Street" that professes to be a "true" pro-Israel lobbying group that reflects the opinions of liberal Jews. It hopes to provide a counterbalance to AIPAC.
Noah Pollak has details from the group's conference call, including this tidbit:
J Street places near the top of its list of supporters someone named Avram Burg, who may not ring a bell to many Americans, but who is notorious in Israel. Burg advocates, among other things, the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state; recommends that Israeli parents secure foreign passports for their children; and compares Israel today to late 1930's Germany. When asked during the call why someone like Burg is affiliated with J Street, the group's proprietors downplayed and misrepresented the man's radicalism. It is difficult to imagine how the J Streeters believe their organization will be taken seriously as a pro-Israel lobby at the same time they advertise the endorsement of a figure like Avram Burg.
Thought for Tax Day
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 3:53PM
"Difficult as it may be to believe in an era of resurgent liberalism and compassionate conservatism, for many Americans, being free from the government is more attractive than getting something free from the government. To them, the promise of liberty isn't just worth $6 million; it's priceless" -- W. James Antle III and some other guy
Are the McCainiacs So... So Bushlike?
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 3:09PM
This report from the reliable David Freddoso is the second time I have seen this same information (I take it more seriously now that Freddoso is reporting it), and it chafes me no end. Basically, it says that McCain won't consider Mark Sanford for Veep because of hard feelings about Sanford not endorsing McCain in the primaries this time after having done so in 2000. If this is true, it shows incredibly pettiness, arrogance, and stupidity on the part of the McCainiacs, very much in line with the overblown code of loyalty that led both Bushes to value loyalty and even sycophancy above merit.
Just because Sanford endorsed McCain in 2000, as a congressman, doesn't mean he is obligated to do so again as a governor in 2008 -- at least not in any sane world. People don't OWE loyalty for so long; if anything, McCain owes Sanford for going out on a limb for him in 2000, rather than having a right to expect the same limb-walking again eight years later.
Furthermore, it is not as if Sanford HARMED McCain: the governor did not endorse anybody else this time around, either; and McCain won the South Carolina primary, perhaps his most important and nerve-wracking victory of the whole primary season, anyway.
Look: If Sanford would make a good vice president and a good vice presidential candidate, it shouldn't matter one bleeping bit who he endorsed. He could have endorsed Duncan Hunter and he still should be strongly considered by McCain. On the other hand, if Sanford would not make a good Veep and a good Veep candidate (two separate questions, by the way), then McCain should not consider him even if Sanford had literally carried McCain's bags on every political trip McCain had taken in the past eight years.
Again, all of this is based on the assumption that Freddoso's report is accurate. But if it is, it gives me yet another reason, just as I am searching for reasons to support McCain, to think, again, that he has some serious deficiencies of character and judgment.
McCain's Economic Plan
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 2:40PM
John McCain has unveiled a series of economic proposals today, and it's the usual mixed bag for free market conservatives. There's a lot to like here. For me, the best parts are a one year freeze in non-defense discretionary spending, a phase out of the AMT, and a curbing of the Medicare perscription drug benefit to wealthier individuals. In his speech, he also reiterated his pledge to veto any spending bill with earmarks and his overall commitment to return the Republican party to its roots as the party of fiscal discipline.
Other proposals I'd give an incomplete grade to until I learn more. For instance, following Fred Thompson, McCain proposes a voluntary simpler tax code, which could be promising, but on a conference call with reporters, the campaign said that he hadn't chosen a specific plan yet.
McCain proposes to double the personal exemption for dependents to $7,000 to keep up with inflation, which he bills as a middle class tax cut, but that doesn't do anything for the middle class families who have grown children or no children at all. I don't believe that the tax code should be an instrument of social policy.
He also proposes to suspend the federal gas tax for the summer. However, I'm hesitant about this sort of thing because my general belief is a tax is either justified or it isn't. When you do something shortterm like this to pander to the public, it plays the same sort of role that a Democratic targeted spending proposal does.
One thing that's disappointing is entitlements, which of course is the elephant in the room. While McCain does acknowledge the problem, he doesn't offer any specific solutions. Instead, he pledges, "as president I will work with every member of Congress -- Republican, Democrat, and Independent -- who shares my commitment to reforming and protecting Medicare and Social Security." But that's what every politician says. The devil is in the details. For instance, will bipartisan compromise mean raising the cap on payroll taxes? It's early in the campaign, and certainly getting specific on entitlements carries political risk. But this an area where we could really use some of McCain's straight talk and bold, courageous, leadership. Stay tuned.
His speech also contains some unfortunate populist rant against CEO salaries.
Overall, what I continue to notice is the absence of any clear overriding philosophy in McCain's economic thinking. It's just sort of a bunch of stuff that McCain likes.
Meanwhile, on the conference calls, reporters kept asking about the "cost" of the tax cuts, unable to grasp the fact that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Nonetheless, expect this to dominate coverage of McCain's proposals in the newspapers tomorrow--that somehow it's unclear how he'll "pay" for the tax cuts, even though he's proposed several hundred billion dollars in spending cuts.
The big debate is whether the budget analysis should consider maintaining the current tax rates by extending the Bush tax cuts as a "cost" since they are scheduled to expire, or whether we should see the current rates as homeostasis. Republicans will emphasize that if the Bush tax cuts are allowed expire it would represent the largest tax increase in history because rates would go up, while Democrats will say that maintaining the lower rates will "cost" us trillions of dollars. From this call, let's just say I got a clear sense of which side the media are on.
Bleep the Park Police
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 12:52PM
After reading
today's great story about the arrest at the Jefferson Memorial,
I am outraged beyond belief. I think the officer involved should be
suspended. I think he is a jackbooted thug. I think Congress ought
to investigate.
I am aware of a similar incident outside of the White House last
week, I think on Thursday night. Apparently a well-behaved college
group, maybe a fraternity, was attempting to sing its alma mater on
the street in front of the White House. I am told there was no
drunkenness, no disorderliness, merely a sober and respectful
attempt to sing what sounded like an alma mater. But the cops came
and broke up the group, again not just with a gentle request, but
rudely, overbearingly, threateningly.
What is wrong with these officers? I am as big a supporter of law enforcement officials as you will ever find, but when they act like thugs against perfectly harmless citizens, they themselves are guilty of diminishing respect for the law. I would berate them to their face and wish them sent to the deepest realms of Hades -- but only if they are not in uniform, because if these thugs were in uniform, they would probably shackle me at the first mention of Hades.
This is serious. It is bad enough that cars can no longer drive in front of the White House, or that the parking lot by the Jefferson Memorial is closed. For these officious windbags to deny basic liberties to people at these civilly sacred sites is an abomination.
Crime reduction strategy
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 12:04PM
I've got an item up at The Atlantic about racial politics in Los Angeles, pegged to the recent murder of a black high school student by a Hispanic illegal immigrant. While I argue in the piece that Southern California jails should make better efforts to check the immigration status of all inmates, and deport rather than release those here illegally when their sentence is completed, the argument really applies to the whole country -- many thousands of illegal immigrant ex-cons are released back into the population because local jailers and the federal government don't bother to identify and deport them.
UPDATE: LA County Sherrif Lee Baca said today that Hispanic gang members are sometimes deliberately murdering any young black man they can find. Explosive stuff.
The coming campaign
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 11:42AM
This is interesting:
"This campaign is not going to be between the Democrats and the Republicans," said Philadelphia's Duncan Black, who writes under the name Atrios and whose highly popular progressive political blog, named Eschaton, inspired the gathering of bloggers and political activists called Eschacon '08.
"It's between the Democrats and the media."
Jay Rosen has lots more here.And if you're interested in the relationship between McCain and the media I highly recommend this Rolling Stone dispatch by David Foster Wallace, published during the 2000 primaries.
On a related note, if your candidate is Barack Obama and you're worried that the media loves the other guy too much... well, you're probably unlikely to ever feel as though your candidate is being treated fairly, to put it charitably.
More Lefty-Evangelical Lingo Likely
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 11:37AM
You heard it here first (probably): another one of these
statements purporting to speak for the evangelical community as a
whole is on it's way. My former boss, Charlotte
World editor Warren Smith, bends but does not bust the
embargo, but warns:
This unfortunate and unseemly power struggle should not be ignored in evaluating this "Manifesto." The list of people who have not been asked to sign it, or who have chosen not to, is as revealing as the list of those who have, or will. Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins both told me they had not seen the "Manifesto." Tom Minnery, executive vice president of Focus on the Family and the organization's "point person" on public policy issues said neither he nor James Dobson has signed the document.
Other conservative evangelical leaders who often speak out on political issues have been kept out of the process. That list includes Rick Scarborough of Vision America, former White House speechwriter and Beverly LaHaye Institute Senior Fellow Janice Crouse.
Also shunned, at least so far: the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land, Ohio-based Phil Burress of Citizens For Community Values, Faith2Action's Janet Folger, homeschool guru Michael Farris, and Concerned Women For America President Wendy Wright.
There is also a growing list of evangelical heavyweights who have been asked to sign but have (so far) refused - due either to flaws in the document or, as one prominent evangelical leader told me, to the "exclusivity" of the list of signatories.
Group-speak always caters to the lowest common denominator, doesn't it? And now it's likely leading to the need for another re-definition of terms.
Liberal Sexism
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 11:35AM
I'm no fan of Ann Coulter, but Amanda Carpenter is right, this filth would be deemed unacceptable if it portrayed a prominent liberal pundit, as it should.
Red Massachusetts
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 11:07AM
As I point out in my column on the main site today, one of the reasons Jim Ogonowski believes he has a chance to beat John Kerry in this fall's Senate race is a Survey USA poll showing John McCain tied with Barack Obama. He's not alone. Over the weekend, RealClearPolitics ran a piece arguing that McCain could carry Massachusetts.
Its author, Anil Adyanthaya, points to the commonwealth's large independent vote as an area where McCain could garner support and suggests that Deval Patrick's dismal record as governor will hurt the Democratic nominee. Adyanthaya further contends that Massachusetts favors centrist Democrats and native sons, concluding that Barack Obama might be too liberal to win over Bay State swing voters. Thus, a McCain-Obama contest could be the first competitive presidential race in Massachusetts in 24 years (which ought to please Ogonowski, since there was also a competitive Senate race against Kerry that year).
Adyanthaya's argument has its weak and strong points. It's true that Massachusetts is now plurality independent and that these voters are willing to support a Republican (many of them probably self-identify as Republicans). It's also true that Gov. Patrick isn't wildly popular. And on presidential elections, Adyanthaya is possibly understating things: In 1988, George H.W. Bush was competitive against home-state Gov. Michael Dukakis, and even beat Dukakis in the Greater Boston suburbs.
That said, early polls showed George W. Bush leading Al Gore in Massachusetts in 1999. In November 2000, Bush got slaughtered. Liberal Democrats can win statewide in Massachusetts: Leaving Kerry and Ted Kennedy aside, look at Patrick. George McGovern carried Massachusetts in 1972 when its political climate was arguably more conservative than it is right now. It's hard to say that Obama's primary loss to Hillary Clinton means that much more than McCain's primary loss to Mitt Romney (McCain did beat Bush in the 2000 primary on the strength of independent voters). Republican presidential candidates have failed to break 40 percent in Massachusetts for twenty years. With economic uncertainty, an unpopular war, a GOP governor who left after a single term, and independents trending Democratic, this would be an odd political climate to see major Republican gains.
Could McCain pull it off? It's conceivable. It's just not the way to bet.
What About New Jersey?
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 10:44AM
A commenter asks about New Jersey's Senate race, which I didn't include in my list of races in play. I'll actually have quite a bit more to say about this wild and wacky race later, but Rasmussen does have a poll showing Frank Lautenberg up by double digits over both Assemblyman Joe Pennacchio and Ron Paul Republican Murray Sabrin. Former Congressman Dick Zimmer isn't included in the polls, since he became a candidate after they were conducted, so they give no indication of whether he'll be more competitive. But Zimmer lost to Robert Torricelli in the 1996 contest for this seat and narrowly lost a House race to Rush Holt in 2000.
Are Conservatives Out of Touch?
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 9:50AM
I raise this question not because I'm convinced the answer is yes, but because I think it is worth considering whether the electorate has shifted in a way in which what worked for Republicans in past election cycles will no longer work this year. For several elections, Republicans have been able to beat Democrats, in part, by portraying them as liberal, anti-American elitists who hate the military and who are out of touch with average Americans. This strategy was effective as late as 2004 against John Kerry. But the beginning of a possible shift was noticeable in 2006, when many conservative pundits (including myself) expected that Kerry's comments about those who join the military being uneducated would hurt the Democrats on Election Day. We will never know for sure, and obviously he wasn't on the ballot himself, but there's certainly nothing to suggest that it had any impact on the race.
During this election cycle, conservatives have consistently underestimated Barack Obama. There have been numerous occasions in which Obama said things that conservatives were convinced would be damaging, even fatal, to his campaign, and so far they have been proven wrong every time. When Obama said in the YouTube debate he would meet with a rogues gallery of foreign leaders, many conservatives thought he shot himself in the foot, but he turned the uproar to his advantage; when the Jeremiah Wright controversy broke out, many conservatives predicted it could finish him, but there's not much evidence it did anything other than cause a short-lived dip in the polls; and most recently, many conservatives, including myself, believed that his elitist remarks in San Francisco would damage him, but so far there isn't conclusive evidence to suggest it has. While the ARG poll in Pennsylvania did show Hillary Clinton opening up a 20-point lead in the wake of the comments, a Quinnipiac poll released today shows virtually no movement in the state from the prior poll, even if you look at different demographic groups that one would think would be the most turned off by such statements. For instance, Obama's numbers actually slightly improved among Reagan Democrats.
Now, one could argue (and I actually have argued), that all of these controversies that Obama has been able to skate past in the primary will come back to haunt him in the general. But maybe not. The Gallup daily tracking poll released yesterday showed no impact to Obama's national numbers, not only against Clinton, but against John McCain in the general. Furthermore, if you go back to the 2004 race, remember that one of the things that caused Howard Dean's dramatic collapse was when he said that Saddam Hussein's capture didn't make America any safer. Even though Democratic primary voters were decidedly against the war, the comments made him look like a radical fringe character who was unelectable, so the party went with Kerry, the war hero. The point is that in the electoral environment of four years ago, even in the Democratic primary, many of Obama's controversies would likely have doomed his candidacy.
I have no idea what this fall will bring, and perhaps the GOP's plans to portray Obama as just another liberal in new packaging will pay off like it has in the past. Or perhaps as the result of the war, the economy, and overall frustration with President Bush, it's a whole new ballgame that conservatives haven't yet adjusted to.
Who Should Pick the Republican Running Mate
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 9:06AM
Over in the Politico today, I argue that John McCain is likley to bungle his VP pick, so he should instead let the delegates at the Republican convention decide. As I point out in my new book, The Warm Bucket Brigade: The Story of the American Vice Presidency, letting delegates decide this sort of thing in the past helped boost the careers of both Calvin Coolidge and John F. Kennedy.
Conservatives and Mainstream Media, Unite!
Posted by on 4.15.08 @ 8:56AM
That's what has happened here in North Carolina, where my former employer, the John Locke Foundation (and its publication, Carolina Journal), have joined forces with several state media outlets to sue Gov. Mike Easley over the destruction of public records. The unusual development came after The News & Observer of Raleigh, owned by McClatchy (as is the state's largest newspaper, The Charlotte Observer), published a series of stories about the state's mental health reform that reflected very poorly on Easley. As the stories rolled out, someone in the governor's office (there is an internal dispute over just who made the call) fired the spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Human Services, Debbie Crane, over some advice she gave to the former secretary of her agency about speaking to The N&O.
Crane's firing led her to divulge to the newspaper that the Easley administration had ordered all emails from the governor's office to various agencies to be deleted. Easley's flacks denied this was the case, but records obtained later proved Crane's claims to be true. She also told The N&O that public information officers were told not to return calls (scroll down at link) from the Locke Foundation.
Hence the lawsuit in which advocates of transparent government team to force the governor to stop hiding what he's doing.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Republican Senate Numbers Again
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 5:45PM
Rassmussen has a helpful list of polls for this year's Senate races. In most of the competitive races, the numbers don't look good for the Republicans. Alaska has to be added to the list of competitive races, since Ted Stevens is below 50 percent and essentially even with Democratic Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich at 46 percent to 45 percent. Norm Coleman is below 50 percent and basically tied with Democrat Al Franken. Democrat Tom Udall has opened up a double-digit lead in New Mexico.
In Virginia, Mark Warner is predictably slaughtering Jim Gilmore. In New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen still leads incumbent Republican John Sununu but by a smaller margin. Democrat Tim Johnson is way ahead in South Dakota, one of the few Republican pickup opportunities. Mitch McConnell is below 50 percent in Kentucky, one of the Democrats' reach states, but still holds a 7-to-10 point lead over his potential Democratic opponents.
The only bright spots for the GOP are in Maine, where Susan Collins leads her Democratic opponent by double digits, Oregon, where Gordon Smith is ahead, and Colorado, where Bob Schaefer is competitive for an open Republican-held seat. But only Collins is above 50 percent, and Schaefer is trailing (though within the margin of error). On the one hand, Democrats will fall short of a filibuster-proof majority even if they run the table in all the states where they are now leading or even. On the other, if Republicans lose conservatives in Colorado and New Hampshire and fail to pick up Steve Pearce in New Mexico, keeping Collins or even Smith won't do very much to help maintain filibusters.
Going up
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 3:41PM
Everything you ever wanted to know about elevators is now
collected in
one magazine article, which includes one of the best arguments
against high rise public housing projects I've ever read:
Berlusconi's Back
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 2:53PM
It appears that Silvio Berlusconi's conservatives have won in Italy. (Hat tip: The Corner.)
Re: Red State John, Blue State Barack
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 2:51PM
Oh, that just means it's an opposites day election, where everything is upside down. I mean, after all, isn't this an Election Different From Anything We've Ever Seen Before?
Red State John, Blue State Barack
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 2:40PM
We're starting to see Barack Obama come down from the stratosphere and be defined as a standard liberal Democrat. Jeremiah Wright and the bitter Keystone Staters are the two incidents that have played the biggest role so far. While this is good for Republicans, there are two reasons for them to be cautious in their growing 2008 optimism: 1.) A pretty standard-issue liberal Democrat came within three points, and thousands of votes in Ohio, of beating an incumbent wartime president three years after 9/11 and during a period of economic growth; 2.) When the Democrats finally settle on a nominee, they will work at bringing John McCain down from the stratosphere and defining him as a standard George W. Bush Republican.
Judges This Week?
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 2:29PM
Just got off a conference call with Senate Republican staffers.Of most interest: Tomorrow's "policy lunch" of the Senate GOP Conference will include a discussion about when and how and how loudly the GOP senators should ratchet up their plans to push the judicial nominations issue front and center again. For weeks, now, Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell have been promising a major push on the issue (so far this Congress, only 7 federal appeals court nominees have been confirmed, well off the pace Republicans did for Clinton nominees in the last two years of Clinton's term), including a potential move to "shut down the Senate" over it. A key staffer said that Judiciary Committee Republicans "are really, really fired up about this," and "so far the Conference has been receptive." He also said that "Republicans are in a position to make a real headache" for Demo Leader Harry Reid if the Dems keep stalling. But the senators need to hear about the issue more often, he said. "Any amount of advocacy to raise the profile of this issue is helpful," he said.
So there you have your invitation, readers: Call or write your senator and let him know this is important. Here's a fuller explanation of it.
Re: What Is Barr Doing?
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 2:23PM
That all sounds reasonable enough. Barr has three bars -- er, I mean hurdles -- to clear in an effort to become a third-party candidate of even a Nader 2000-like level of seriousness. First, he has to actually get the nomination of the Libertarian Party, which is filled with eccentrics and people who are going to have legitimate gripes with Barr's congressional voting record. Second, he has to keep Ron Paul supporters mobilized despite being more moderate, more conventional, and less philosophically oriented than Paul. Third, he has to win over the conservatives who are most disgusted with John McCain without turning off the first two groups of voters.
That last part is not necessarily easy to do, since the most anti-McCain conservatives include hardline immigration restrictionists, people who think McCain is wimpy on issues like torture and Guantanamo Bay, and think McCain is too dovish on foreign policy. Some, though not all, of their grievances are exactly the opposite of what Libertarians and Ron Paul Republicans dislike about McCain. Of course, Barr might be able to appeal to the third group based on biography and reputation more than issues. Dave Weigel has more.
McCain Calls Out Obama on Carter/Hamas
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 2:13PM
Good for McCain:
"The very idea that a former President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief would meet with a terrorist organization demands a clear stance from all presidential candidates. Refusing to take a stand, as Senator Obama has done, is not the strong leadership we need today. If Senator Obama is not decisive enough to condemn former President Carter, how can he be strong enough to deal with the threat they pose to America and to our allies?"
Re: President Chelsea
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 1:49PM
Phil: I'd say Chelsea came into her own as a misspeaking Clinton when asked about the sniper at Tuzla. Breitbart TV captured the moment, in which she said: "Well sir, I think that my mother's on record as having talked about this and I support what she said. I mean, I was there as well and I'm so honored that I was there." I feel honored every time I read or hear that reply.
My Little Eichmann Moment
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 1:48PM
On Saturday night/Sunday morning, I joined a group of libertarians who were ringing in Thomas Jefferson's birthday by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial 'round about midnight -- everybody brought their iPods so as to not disturb other visitors. Nonetheless, after a few minutes, we were asked to disburse by security, and I along with much of the rest of the group did so, given that the plan was just to dance for a few minutes and go somewhere else afterward anyway. (Plus I had forgotten my iPod.) This being a group that isn't particularly fond of being pushed around by authority, some participants lingered, and questioned why everybody was being ejected. It didn't take long before one dancer was pinned face first against one of the pillars, cuffed, and arrested. The incident has caused an uproar among libertarian bloggers.
Video of the arrest is now up here in three parts, and I make my debut as a Nazi collaborator in the third video, about 4:30 in. My voice can be heard off camera. As the dancer is being detained, libertarians are yelling about the oppressive state, and the legacy of Japanese internment to a puzzled officer who (to my knowledge) wasn't responsible for the arrest. Though I agreed that the arrest itself was absolutely ridiculous, I made an ill-fated attempt to argue to a crowd of perturbed libertarians that lobbing anti-statist rhetoric at an officer who didn't seem to know what was going on, wasn't the most productive course of action. Needless to say, it didn't go over too well with my companions, and I was soon reminded that, "Adolf Eichmann said he was just doing his job!"
Am I the type of guy who would have sold out my fellow Jews if I were living in Nazi-controlled Europe in the 1940s? You can watch the video yourself and decide whether in my attempt to be reasonable and Obama-like, I unwittingly became an accomplice to an act of government oppression.
Meanwhile, I am happy to report that the so-called "Jefferson 1" was released, though unfortunately only after hours of detention.
Senator Kerry: Call Your Office
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 1:02PM
Today marks the 9th anniversary of the last time John Kerry successfully co-sponsored legislation. Since then, it's just been windsurfing, horseriding, and running for president. The man puts "late" in legislate.
To celebrate the occasion, the NRSC has put together a cute YouTube video, as well as a nice eCard to congratulate the Senator on his holiday in history.
Re: What Is Barr Doing?
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 12:05PM
I can't say whether or not he is doing this intentionally, but I think you could actually make the counterintuitive argument that Barr can steal more votes from McCain by attacking Obama. The way I see it, Barr is a threat because there are still conservatives out there who have a hard time stomaching McCain, but would vote for him as the lesser of two evils. Barr could peel away these voters by convincing them that they have another anti-Obama option. By attacking Obama (especially as he did the other day on the Second Ammendment) Barr reinforces that he is a conservative more than he does if he's always quoted going after McCain. Furthermore, one of the concerns conservatives have in this election is that McCain's committment to running a "respectful" campaign will translate into him going soft on Obama, and provide further evidence that he's much nicer to Democrats than his fellow Republicans. If Barr is willing to take his gloves off in going after Obama, it could make McCain look like Democrat lite.
Rhymes With Icicle
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 11:30AM
Matt Yglesias posts in defense of letting a 9 year-old ride the New York City subway on his own. As somebody who spent my childhood in a small town before moving to NYC for high school, I have a few reactions.
Yglesias says that the city is now "safe" but it "was a substantially more dangerous place back in 1990 when I was nine, so I think I was older by the time I was allowed to roam the streets."
Gee, I wonder what happened in those intervening years to make the city safer.
He also writes:
What Is Barr Doing?
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 11:12AM
I was somewhat surprised when Stacy McCain reported that Bob Barr decided to go on the attack against Barack Obama's recent Marin County gaffe. Not surprised that Barr would find Obama's view of frightened Americans "clinging" to their gun rights silly and even offensive. But in terms of hunting where the ducks are, it would make more sense to be going after John McCain from the right. Yet judging from his comments to the American Conservative, Barr doesn't seem focused on taking votes from (John) McCain.
This seems odd strategically. In several radio interviews last week, I noted that when you combine Ron Paul's votes in the Republican primaries with the Libertarians' usual pull of 300,000-400,000 popular votes nationwide (even taking into account some overlap and the occasional Ron Paul Republican who votes for the GOP ticket), Barr could break Ed Clark's record as the top LP vote-getter without taking many votes from McCain. But that doesn't necessarily seem like something his campaign would set out to do. I still think it's implausible that Barr will take more votes from Obama than the Republicans, but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Of course, as (Stacy) McCain reports on the main site today, there is no guarantee that Bob Barr will even get the Libertarian Party nomination. He's got some people to win over there as well.
Maybe Webb Won't Help
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 10:57AM
An e-mailer reminds Rich Lowry that Jim Webb has made similar comments about social issues being a distraction from voters' economic anxieties. (Bill Clinton has made them too.) I'd recommended Webb as a vice presidential candidate who could reach out to Middle America. Of course, this is a very common view among Democrats today, so it is unsurprising that Webb and Clinton would share it in some form. What would be surprising is to hear Webb speak as condescendingly toward the white working class as Barack Obama.
UPDATE: Ross Douthat has a discussion of Webb and the polarized two parties, in the context of my recent piece arguing that Webb is to paleocons what Daniel Patrick Moynihan was to neocons.
President Chelsea?
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 10:53AM
Dave Weigel notes that the former first daughter appears to have inherited her parents' most famous character trait. In other words: she misspoke.
Obama and Abortion
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 10:39AM
The Washinton Post has a story about how the support of pro-lifers Sen. Robert Casey and former congressman Tim Roemer may help Obama in Pennsylvania. The article ruminates on the larger question of whether Obama could help find common ground on the abortion issue, but I don't think he will.
In the Compassion Forum last night, which I caught part of, Obama suggested that though the debate will at some point be irreconcilable, the "edge" could be taken off if Democrats were to do a better job acknowledging the moral issues involved and working to reduce unwanted pregnancies, even while holding firm to the idea that ultimately it should be up to the woman to decide.
But if you read the transcript from last night and compare Obama's response to what John Kerry said in one of the debates with President Bush in 2004, you cannot see much of a difference.
Obama has had a consistently pro-choice voting record, opposes parental notification laws, supports legalized partial birth abortion, and would appoint liberal Supreme Court justices who would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, so I really don't see what's new here other than the packaging. And Obama's "punished with a baby" remark indicates that he isn't even all that rhetorically adroit at discussing the issue.
Masters Lesson
Posted by on 4.14.08 @ 12:04AM
So when's the last time someone shot a 75 on Sunday and still won the Masters by three stokes? It is amazing to see the final scoreboard and Tiger Woods in second place by those three strokes. If he doesn't miss at least 3 short putts it's likely Trevor Immelman doesn't hold on to win. As it is, it's safe to say this was Woods's lousiest second place finish ever. Even at that, look at what happened to the other four players who started the day ahead of him. Brandt Snedeker shoots a 77, Steve Flesch a 78, and Paul Casey a 79. On a windy difficult day, it's no surprise that the field came back to him. He just wasn't able to return the favor. Lesson: don't go into day four trailing by 6 strokes.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Obama, Hillary and the small town gaffe
Posted by on 4.13.08 @ 11:08PM
I've been impressed by Barack Obama in this campaign -- though his domestic agenda is far too liberal for me I've not felt put off by any of his rhetoric nearly so much as his comments about small town voters in Pennsylvania. They're a reminder that he buys into the Marxist strain of thought shared by most Democrats -- as many noted in response to What's the Matter with Kansas, it's dubious to imagine that were everyone economically secure, gun culture, religious faith and values voters would disappear from American politics.
One thing I like about Obama is his seeming ability to understand plausible arguments offered by people who disagree with him. Hillary Clinton says she's a fighter -- she'll go to Washington and fight off those nasty Republicans. Obama casts himself as someone who understands that Republicans aren't nasty people -- someone who'll aim to persuade and compromise to pass an agenda that the GOP would nevertheless ultimately disagree with.
That's why these remarks may be particularly damaging to Obama -- they call into question whether he really grasps the mindset of those whose beliefs differ from his own. Should he be elected I hope these remarks prove themselves an anomoly, or that he is at least chastened by the controversy they've generated, for there is value in someone whose views are moderated by an appreciation for the strongest objections to them.
In any case, I can't say that his blunder makes me prefer Senator Clinton as a potential POTUS, for I've no doubt that she too has elitist contempt for small town voters who like their guns and their religion. Quoth Mrs. Clinton:
"You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It's part of culture. It's part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter."
Dispatch From the Webbie Bubble
Posted by on 4.13.08 @ 2:49PM
Obama "could pull out a victory next week in Pennsylvania," because he's much more popular on the Internet.
No holes in that analysis, right? Just ask President Howard Dean.
Get Over It
Posted by on 4.13.08 @ 2:02PM
If you think obnoxious, boilerplate columns that barely advance a single positive argument for the Republican nominee will rally conservatives behind John McCain, then Ross Mackenzie has really hit one out of the park.
FORE....!!!
Posted by on 4.13.08 @ 12:55PM
There's a young fellow who led by a couple of strokes into the final round of the Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta named Trevor Immelman.
Anything happen there? Immelman. Immelman. Well, let's see. Had the name been Audie Murphy, Colin Kelly, Alvin (Sergeant) York, would that have rung a bell? To older (mature) folk, and to pilots of almost any age, Immelman rings an instant bell.
Max Immelman was a WWI German flying ace who perfected the maneuver that bears his name; a method of changing direction and altitude in a war fighting circumstance. Pull back on the stick and, just at the top of the loop or beyond, roll out of it and gun 'er in the opposite diection. The Immelman remains one of the basic acrobatic maneuvers of powered flight.
Golfer Immelman is only 28, a South African, and as far as I know, no sports maven has inquired to see if his heritage involves Max. Even on the windy days you can't Immelman a golf ball -- quite.
Re: Distinguishing Obama from Frank
Posted by on 4.13.08 @ 12:41PM
Obama frames the issue somewhat differently than Frank, but I'd say that the comment was at least compatible with the thesis of What's the Matter With Kansas? One of the reasons Frank argues that social issues work as a distraction from economic issues is that they appeal to the working class' sense of disenfranchisement and cultural embattlement. Where populist liberals would rail against an economic elite, the populist social conservatives target a cultural elite.
On an only somewhat related note, if Obama wins the nomination -- this comment could cause him very serious problems in the Pennsylvania primary -- and picks anyone other than Jim Webb as his running mate, he is a damn fool.
Re: The journalist and the cable news anchor
Posted by on 4.13.08 @ 11:36AM
Conor, it may not be a nice, but folks in the media run character pieces all the time -- and Matthews appeared to heap it onto himself. No one but the most seriously self-concerned gets caught on the record saying, "Did you see me today on the Today Show?" or counting off his honorary degrees. If the point of the article is giving us a taste of Mr. Matthews, I think Liebovich does a remarkable job -- especially getting as much material as he does.
In fact, this is the sort of thing typically reserved for conservatives, except in those cases, there's far less to go on. Obviously Matthews will be upset about this piece, but it seems like the reporter did a great job using his sources.
Distinguishing Obama from Frank
Posted by on 4.13.08 @ 11:20AM
In a few places I've seen Obama's bitter-Pennsylvanians remark interpreted as the "Thomas Frankian idea that getting-by small town voters are being snookered into voting Republican over Gods, Guns and Gays." But Obama wasn't saying that cultural issues are a distraction from economic issues -- he was saying that downscale voters "cling to guns or religion" etc. because they're bitter about economic circumstances. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I haven't read What's the Matter With Kansas? -- but isn't that a little different from, and more radical than, Frank's thesis?
