- 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 26, 2008
Draft Day 21
Posted by on 4.26.08 @ 4:20PM
The late Sean Taylor is always going to be a part of Redskins lore. The Washington Redskins are picking 21st in the first round -- 21, of course, the number of the late Sean Taylor. Last year in the playoffs the Redskins beat the Dallas Cowboys 27-6 -- 21 points -- to make the playoffs before losing 35-14 -- also 21 points -- in the Wild Card round of the playoffs to the Seattle Seahawks.
It's not uncommon to see men -- of all ages and races -- in the D.C. area wearing "21" hats, and even jerseys as the weather warms up. One has to wonder, of course, whether the 'Skins will go with a defensive back to fill that glaring hole in their secondary. With 7 draft picks this year the Redskins look like they might try to build teams from within and get away from relying so heavily upon free agency. Three of the seven picks, though, are compensatory picks, and all come in the 7th round.
No Cell Phones for Africans
Posted by on 4.26.08 @ 1:49PM
The United Methodist Church is holding its General Conference, which is where the second-largest Protestant denomination sets its official policies every four years. Liberal Methodists are up in arms that organizations from the theologically conservative renewal movement gave cell phones to African and Filipino delegates. They are charging vote-buying and comparing it to colonialism. In reality, the non-U.S. elements of the church tend to be more theologically orthodox anyway and the cell phones will be useful in coordinating. But the Methodists' progressive caucus must think the African and Filipino delegates are poor, uneducated, and easy to command. Why else would their votes on abortion, homosexuality, and the authority of Scripture be so easily swayed?
Keyes Defeated
Posted by on 4.26.08 @ 11:48AM
That's a more familiar headline. Alan Keyes was handily defeated in his quest for the Constitution Party presidential nomination, losing to lesser known Chuck Baldwin by about 74 percent to 24 percent with three other candidates getting the rest. I don't have the official numbers in front of me, but it looks like the only state delegations Keyes carried were Alaska, California, and Maryland. Keyes and Baldwin split Illinois. Keyes had seemed to be gaining ground, but yesterday party leaders like Howard Phillips pushed back hard against Keyes's foreign-policy views and other disagreements with the party platform.
UPDATE: It looks like Keyes also narrowly carried the Oklahoma state delegation. Here are the official numbers:
Riekse 4.5
Baldwin 383.8
Ducey 1
Imperato 1
Keyes 125.7
Friday, April 25, 2008
Re: McCain vs. North Carolina GOP
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 7:51PM
Since North Carolinians are open to voting for Democrats at the state level, but typically go Republican in national elections, I think the point of the ad was to link Democratic candidates for statewide office with the likely Democratic presidential standard bearer, who North Carolinians probably won't vote for in November. While it is debatable whether this is a crude or ineffective way of going about it, the controversy has centered more on whether it was okay to run an ad tying Barack Obama to Jeremiah Wright. That's what has the left in a tizzy, and that's what McCain was reacting to (or, in my view, overreacting to).
Re: McCain vs. North Carolina GOP
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 6:54PM
Phil: I've finally caught up with the controversial ad, and having watched it just twice can easily see why it upsets McCain. Essentially it's going after two Democratic candidates for North Carolina governor, both of whom are said to have endorsed Obama's candidacy, by tarring with a broad brush, apparently an old practice in the Tar Heel State. Isn't that rather ridiculous, to have no reason of more local interest to criticize the gubernatorial candidates? It certainly doesn't suggest that there are positive reasons to support Republicans, in any case.
Keyes: The CP's Orator or Infilatrator?
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 6:44PM
I hate to interrupt this conversation about a man who might actually become president, but I thought I'd check back in with the latest from the Constitution Party convention. Party founder and three-time presidential candidate Howard Phillips came out swinging against Alan Keyes in his speech, something it wasn't clear he would do. The party's current chairman, Jim Clymer, was more conciliatory. Keyes delivered a stemwinder of a speech as expected, and seems to have been fairly well received. Someone called Daniel Imperato gave a speech that was bizarre even by third-party standards. It looks like the CP has a fight on its hands.
Re: Bush and Katrina
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 5:54PM
I agree with everything that Quin wrote, but I would point out that one reason conservatives came to Bush's defense on Katrina was how over the top, ridiculous, and unfounded the attacks were coming from the left at the time. While people were still in peril in New Orleans, the tragedy had already been co-opted by the left to further their own agenda. Suddenly, Katrina was a racist hurricane, caused by Bush's opting out of the Kyoto Treaty, compounded by the fact that helicopters were in Iraq. Amid all of this craziness, many conservatives reflexively came to the president's defense, even though there were plenty of legitimate ways to criticize his incompetent response.
I'd also add that another thing that often isn't recognized by conservatives is that because Bush was totally out to lunch in the immediate aftermath of the storm, he had to overcompensate later by throwing all sorts of money at the problem, without paying much attention to how it was being spent.
Re: McCain is Not Bush Project
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 4:45PM
Philip is right when he writes that "On Katrina, for instance, while many conservatives agree that it was mishandled by Bush (me included), a lot of others feel that Bush was unfairly blamed for the incompetence of local leadership. McCain is not going to win the election by just picking issue after issue on which he can flog President Bush. What McCain needs to do, Sarkozy style, is offer a broad reform agenda, that is both conservative but also representative of change and different from Bush."
That said, it bespeaks a major problem among conservatives, a major and willful blindness, obstinacy, refusal to consider empirical evidence, and bias, that so many conservative absolutely refuse to acknowledge that Bush and his whole team screwed up massively both right after Katrina and in the months and months afterwards as well. In other words, they react tot he fact that "Bush was unfairly blamed for the incompetence of local leadership" by refusing to acknowledge that there was plenty of blame to go around, and that just because local leadership failed did not mean that ONLY local leadership failed, but that the federal response was also not just incompetent but actually in many ways counterproductive, even deadly. I will go farther and say that refusal to acknowledge that is a case of willful ignorance, of sheer butt-headedness, utterly unsupported by facts or logic or information.
The fact is that in instance after instance, when both private relief efforts (Wal-mart, for instance) and public officials (state and federal Fish & Wildlife Service, for example) were underway, FEMA officials again and again turned them away, denied them access, etc. The fact is that when Bobby Jindal was moving heaven and earth to secure private relief from all over the country, he had to ignore, contradict, or cut through massive federal red tape that literally tried to stop him. The fact is that Bush himself was so oblivious to the depth of the problems that even three days after the event, he still had to be shown video while flying on Air Force One before he started to "get it," -- and that, four days after the event, he had the utter cluelessness to tell FEMA Director that he was doing a "heckuva job."
That's why the following paragraph in McCain's speech was so utterly on target: One of the worst aspects of Katrina, as a measure of emergency-response by government, is that Americans are renowned for their ingenuity and resourcefulness in a tough spot. Ask the military historians, and they'll tell you that the ability of American men and women in war to react quickly to crisis, to think fast and solve any problem of logistics, has been one of our greatest assets. And yet with the exception of our Coast Guard, our National Guard, reservists, and others, these qualities were hard to find in the response of federal and state agencies to an enormous danger that, as a congressional report put it, was "not only predictable, it was predicted." There were all those school busses lined up in a parking lot, and no one in authority with the sense to use them. Wal-Mart had the ice, water, and generators ready ... Federal Express the planes ... and other companies and groups stood ready to help. But they were leaderless. And some of the most inspiring work was done by churches and charities and volunteers, working around FEMA instead of with it.
Indeed, read as a whole, McCain's speech was eloquent, measured, on target, constructive, thoughtful, and wise. He was similarly on target in his visits in the Black Belt in Alabama (an area I wrote about a number of times while at the Mobile Register), and in his high praise for Alabama Gov. Bob Riley.
I bow to no man in my criticism of some of McCain's bullheadedness and hotheadedness. But his tour of "forgotten places" (or whatever his campaign called it) has been a triumph, and I only wish it had come when more attention could be focused on it rather than having so much national attention focused on the Demo Pennsylvania primary and aftermath.
Ratcheting Up the Judge Fights
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 3:57PM
Today in the Washington Examiner I urge the GOP senators to fight harder for judges. After I wrote it, but before it was published, Chairman Leahy wrote a supercilious, F-you letter to the GOP, noted here. In short, he says he will do exactly what my column said was likely: Ignore all protocol and shaft the GOP even on judges that do have their "blue slips" from both home-state senators, while confirming nominees the GOP never really wanted in the first place. My column explains why the GOP should fight, and why it would win.
Great Anti-"Card Check" Ad
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 3:33PM
Last year, I wrote about how the Orwellian named "Employee Free Choice Act" would make it easier for organized labor to coerce workers into unionizing by denying employees the right to a secret ballot election. Thus far, Republicans have been able to block the measure, but this is at the top of the agenda for big labor should Democrats retake Congress and capture the White House. Go to any Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton event where the issue of unions comes up (or where there is a significant union presence in the room), and they will vow to make it law. The "card check" bill is a rather obscure issue that is really important to progressives, but that the rest of the country isn't very aware of. The more public the debate is on this issue, the better, because it is a patently undemocratic measure that shows how in bed Democrats are with union bosses. They should not be allowed to slip this one through the goalie.
Via RedState, I find this ad from Coalition for a Democratic Workplace that does a great job of exposing the dangers of this law:
The McCain Standard
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 3:03PM
I have to say I don't always get John McCain. Criticism of Barack Obama's long-standing personal and spiritual relationship with anti-American pastor Jeremiah Wright is unnaceptable, and yet he calls on Obama to apologize for having anything to do with Bill Ayers, whose connections to Obama are much more tenuous. I suppose he could just be harder on the Ayers link because Ayers is an even more contemptible figure than Wright for having actually acted on his hatred for America. But I think there's something more to it. I think McCain just has certain pressure points that prompt reactions if certain conditions are met. In the case of Ayers, what really seems to have set McCain off is when Obama compared Ayers to Tom Coburn, who McCain is close with and has profound respect for. In the case of Wright, the North Carolina ad drew McCain's criticism because he's out to demonstrate (as in the case of Bill Cunningham) that he is going to run a "respectful" campaign. It appears that he'll be especially sensitive to any charges that he's running a racial campaign against Obama. The war between McCain and the NC GOP is just a harbinger.
Memo to Cass Sunstein
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 2:41PM
Arguing that Obama just comes from a neighborhood where everyone hangs around with unrepentant terrorists doesn't exactly help his case.
Will Keyes Win?
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 11:41AM
Usually, that's not a serious question but over the next two days it's a real possibility. I wrote earlier this week on the main site about Alan Keyes seeking the Constitution Party's presidential nomination. The CP convention has been going on in Kansas City, Missouri and today is when the big speeches are scheduled to be delivered, probably Keyes's best chance to win over a majority of delegates. Tomorrow the party decides on a nominee.
I'm hearing two things, each pointing in different directions. The first is that Keyes has more support among the delegates than some of his opponents expected. The second is that the Keyes campaign's proposed revisions of the CP platform -- bringing them more into line with his positions on Iraq, the UN, and foreign aid -- have been voted down, so these issues remain a major stumbling block for Keyes.
McCain:"I Will Be Hamas's Worst Nightmare"
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 11:08AM
Some more from the McCain call.
On the North Carolina Jeremiah Wright/Obama ad:
"I don't believe it is an appropriate message for the Republican Party."
"I just think this ad is offensive to some, and I want it taken down."
"It's not the tenor of the campaign we want to run."
On the Hamas endorsement of Obama:
Notes that Obama also was endorsed by Daniel Ortega, somebody whose support McCain is happy to have. He also noted Obama's willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
McCain, meanwhile, he vowed:
"I will be Hamas's worst nightmare."
It doesn't surprise him that he didn't get their endorsement.
On Maliki's offensive in Basra:
"There's been a pleasant turn of events," McCain said, in that Maliki showed initiative in taking on militants in the city. "In the last several days, Iraqi military, with limited American support, took control of Basra."
He said the Iraqi government was united by the action, and he was "generally pleased with the outcome."
Re: Why Pork Ain't Kosher
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 10:59AM
The column was obviously tongue-in-cheek (or maybe it's not so obvious -- Alanis Morrisette has killed irony, damn her). I don't seriously expect members of Congress to give up on 98 percent of federal spending in exchange for more Bridges to Nowhere. But I am serious that the disproportionate focus on earmark reform is a waste of time and something that won't lead to smaller government.
The strongest argument against earmarks is the one John makes: they contribute to the "culture of spending" by greasing the skids for the passage of legislation that really bloats the federal budget. (Though, pace John, there actually are some examples of it being used by the limited-government side -- in today's political climate, pork is essential to passing free-trade agreements. CAFTA almost certainly wouldn't have passed without it.) But the very fact that this kind of logrolling is central to the way our legislative process works is why it is naive to pretend members of Congress won't find a way to enage in it, even if earmarks are banned.
Earmarks determine who disburses the spending -- Congress -- not the level of spending. So getting rid of earmarks in and of themselves won't directly cut any spending. It is possible to spend wastefully without earmarks (most of the extraneous spending in last year's peanuts for the troops bill wasn't earmarked). And, frankly, big government programs like the prescription drug benefit and SCHIP have their own constituencies and appeal. Without a serious conservative attack on the premises behind these bills, even an earmark moratorium won't hold them at bay for long. Though some pork busters, like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, take on entitlements and earmarks at the same time.
I won't speak for Richard, but I would have no problem with the anti-pork crusade if pork was being used as a metaphor for how expensive and out of control the federal government has gotten in general. But for the non-Coburns, earmarks can be a cheap and easy cop-out to avoid tackling the real issues. Republican efforts to rein in federal spending by focusing on "waste, fraud, and abuse" have failed for almost thirty years, because the incentives for waste are always there and the real money isn't in pork. I don't see much evidence that the current campaign is going to end any differently.
McCain Calls on Obama To Apologize For Ayers
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 10:56AM
John McCain, in a just completed call with bloggers, demanded that Barack Obama apologize for his relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
"I think not only a repudiation, but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people," McCain said.
McCain also said he was offended by Obama's comments in last week's Democratic debate for comparing Weather Underground member Ayers to Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, because Obama disagrees with Coburn's staunch anti-abortion views.
"I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more discussion about the comparison Sen. Obama made about an unrepentant terrorist, and that's what Mr. Ayers is, and a great American citizen who goes back to Oklahoma on the weekends to deliver babies," McCain said. "I'm offended by a comparison to a man like Tom Coburn."
While "Tom Coburn may be many things to people who are on the liberal side of the ledger," McCain said, he isn't the same as somebody who an unrepentant member of an organization that was responsible for bombings and killings.
He said the issue deserves more discussion in the media.
McCain vs. North Carolina GOP
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 9:40AM
This is John McCain on the North Carolina ad, reminding a lot of conservatives why they can't stand him:
This controversial YouTube video, in which Obama and Jeremiah Wright are juxtaposed with clips of Malcom X while Public Enemy blasts in the background, is an example of how you could use the Wright relationship in a race-baiting way that is quite unacceptable.
But just because you mention Wright and Obama in the same sentence, and they're both black, it doesn't make it racist. No more than if McCain were a longtime member of a church with an extremist white Christian pastor and Democrats hit him for it.
The McCain Is Not Bush Project
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 9:18AM
Jennifer Rubin notes that John McCain's attempt to distance himself from the Bush presidency is already underway. Speaking of Katrina from the lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans yesterday, McCain complained about a lack of leadership at the top. "There was unqualified people in charge, there was a total misreading of the dimensions of the disaster, there was a failure of communications." McCain definitely needs to distance himself from President Bush, but one of the risks he runs is to start echoing liberal talking points on disputes that have gone on over the course of the last seven years, and in the process alienate conservatives who are already squeamish about McCain. On Katrina, for instance, while many conservatives agree that it was mishandled by Bush (me included), a lot of others feel that Bush was unfairly blamed for the incompetence of local leadership.
McCain is not going to win the election by just picking issue after issue on which he can flog President Bush. What McCain needs to do, Sarkozy style, is offer a broad reform agenda, that is both conservative but also representative of change and different from Bush. One of the things McCain has done right on this front is criticize runaway spending -- an issue that he has credibility on, that can allow him to win over independents while making conservatives happy. A good line of argument, essentially, is that --yeah, Democrats are right that we have been fiscally irresponsible over the past seven years, but the solution is not hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending, as the Democrats are proposing, but to actually cut wasteful spending while allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn. That is, however, just a start.
Civilization, vengeance, honor, war...
Posted by on 4.25.08 @ 12:59AM
This article is superb -- if you have time read it all.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Why Pork Ain't Kosher
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 11:01PM
The Antle/Spencer "Give them their earmarks in exchange for slashing everything else" argument seems premised on a surprisingly naive understanding of the workings of Congress. Consider the defense of pork that Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to make. The idea is that the earmarked goodies are okay because they buy political support for more important legislation.
Pointing out that pork is only a small part of the budget misses the point. The best conservative/libertarian case against pork is embedded right in Moynihan's moderate/liberal case for it: It's the pork that greases the skids to pass those big, expensive bills. Theoretically, pork could also also be used to build a majority for budget-cutting legislation, but that's usually not the way it works.
Earmark reform throws up a roadblock to passing major legislation, and as Phil reminds us below, legislative roadblocks that make it harder to cut entitlement spending also make it harder to massively increase it. Given the tendencies of our political class, that's a trade-off that Leviathan-wranglers should be pretty happy with.
Watch Me Denounce You!
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 7:19PM
Jim Geraghty speculates that John McCain is denouncing the North Carolina GOP's Reverend Wright ad to make sure it gets more attention. He gets to take the high road while also benefiting from the ad's content. Maybe. But I imagine the ad would have gotten some national attention when the usual suspects piled on, with or without any cleverness on the part of McCain.
Pie in the face
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 6:11PM
Students at Brown threw a pie at
Thomas Friedman, the
over-rated NY Times columnist, during a
speaking engagement, an act that Matthew Yglesias
dubs "funny" and that Yale student Dara Lind
defends thusly:
I find the consensus in this country that the only acceptable public action is speech to be incredibly disturbing. Pieing someone in the face doesn't meaningfully "prevent" him from speaking, and registers your disapproval (and more specifically, in this case, eagerness to show up a self-styled Man of the World for the buffoon he is) much more effectively than an op-ed in your student paper can.... to exclude bodily action from acceptable public expression is to resort to a dualism that I hope we've moved past by now.
But there is no consensus that "the only acceptable public action is speech" -- there is clapping, booing, turning one's back to a speaker, holding aloft a Zippo (or, sadly, a cell phone) to signal approval, shaking your fist, giving a standing ovation... all of which, by the way, are more acceptable than certain kinds of speech (e.g. racist harangues, shouting at the top of one's lungs, etc.).
Throwing pies rankles, among other reasons, because it is destructive of public discourse. It contains less content than spoken dissent and imposes a far greater cost: prominent speakers aren't going to address college audiences if there is a likelihood that they'll get a pie in the face.
"Action - and especially performance - is a legitimate contribution to public discourse," Ms. Lind writes, as if any sort of action or performance is justified merely due to its physical medium! Should I ever find myself debating her in person I suppose she won't mind if I perform an experimental ballet I've developed called "Steal her microphone so the audience can only hear me," which ought to succeed even if I'm hit by a pie during the raid on her podium.
Take It From Rev. Wright
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 5:12PM
He and Obama don't talk about politics; Obama simply "goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician."
Wright sounds like he's saying that Obama largely agrees with his worldview but hides his true feelings for political reasons, which might be true. But let's interpret this more charitably: Obama disagrees with Wright but never discusses it with him. If someone who was "like an uncle" to you preached that the US government invented AIDS to kill black people, would you take him aside and tell him he's off-base? You might, if you were remotely qualified as a political leader.
Do Nothing Congress To The Rescue
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 4:34PM
The Hill has an encouraging article today, quoting several prominent members of Congress--and Clinton/Obama surrogates--acknowledging that Democrats likely won't be able to find the money or support to enact sweeping health care legislation if one of the two Democratic candidates is elected. Both plans were descriped by members as being too ambitious and costly to have a realistic chance of passage.
Among the comments:
"We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates' healthcare plans. "What they are doing is ... laying out their ambitions."
...
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is "not sure we have the big plan on healthcare."
"Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan," Schumer said.
...
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), a Clinton supporter who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said "the money is not necessarily there right now" to enact the plans and said calls to end the war in Iraq might consume Washington's attention. The healthcare proposals are a "really good start," he said, but any promises that the next Congress would enact the healthcare plans "at even the beginning of next year to mid-next year would really be political talk at this point.
"I hear on the campaign trail, 'This is what I'm going to do,' as if there is not a Congress here with feelings and experience on this issue," Meek said. "I think it's important that everyone takes that into consideration and that this is not a kingdom, this is a democracy."
Democrats will likely take a more incremental approach, such as a renewed push to enact S-CHIP. But this speaks to one of the positive aspects of a bicameral republican government that our founders created -- that it's really difficult to make any big, transformational changes in one fell swoop. This aspect of our system hinders conservatives' attempts to reign in the excesses of the welfare state, or to reform entitlements as we saw with the Social Security personal accounts debacle, but it also makes it easier to stop really bad things from happening when a liberal Democratic president comes to town with a Democratic Congressional majority.
Via Matt Yglesias, who is "disappointed."
Re: Maybe People Don't Like Him
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 4:00PM
The tax issue has undoubtedly hurt Franken, but his sparkling personality sure hasn't helped.
Clinton, Iran, and Hypotheticals
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 3:35PM
The LA Times notes that Hillary Clinton's promise to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel is ruffling feathers around the world. What was striking to me about Clinton's comments were how she has abandoned the cautious tone that she employed last year when she was considered inevitable. In the AFL-CIO debate held in Chicago last August, then-frontrunner Clinton was asked to respond to Barack Obama's comments about acting on actionable itellegence of Al Qaeda operatives being in Pakistan.
"Well, I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals," she remaked, and later added, "So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences across the world. And we don't need that right now."
There's been a lot of Clinton love among conservatives over the past several weeks, because she has been weakening Obama and attacking him from the right. But we should never lose sight of how adaptable Clinton is, and how she will literally say whatever suits her purposes at a given moment.
Wither The Obamacans?
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 1:40PM
Via Power Line, I hear Barack Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod make a startling admission in an NPR interview: "Let's understand that the white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections going back to even to the Clinton years."
This is truly amazing. Just a few months ago, Obama was presenting himself as a transformational liberal leader who could not only win the election, but create a coalition for change by appealing to voters who haven't traditionally voted Democratic. There was talk of winning over not only independents, but even Republicans, who were boastfully dubbed "Obamacans."
If there's one enduring effect that this protracted Democratic primary has had, it has turned Obama into a conventional liberal. Even if elected, the idea that he could be a progressive Ronald Reagan capable of changing the trajectory of history now seems remote.
Bring Him On
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 12:57PM
Sean Higgins reports on why McCain might have an easier time beating Obama.
Maybe People Don't Like Him
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 12:34PM
A new Rasmussen poll has Norm Coleman opening up a 7-point lead over Al Franken. TPM notes that Franken appears to have been damaged over his failure to pay business taxes in all of his states, and even the liberal site acknowledges, "National Democrats have viewed this seat as a top pickup opportunity, but unless Franken can figure out a way to deal with his travails, the bad publicity hitting him may cause Dems to squander the chance to oust one of the GOP's most vulnerable incumbents."
Conceiving boys
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 12:14PM
I'm quite skeptical of
this story:
CHICAGO (AP) Snips and snails and puppydog tails ... and cereal and bananas? That could be what little boys are made of, according to surprising new research suggesting that what a woman eats before pregnancy influences the gender of her baby.
Having a hearty appetite, eating potassium-rich foods including bananas, and not skipping breakfast all seemed to raise the odds of having a boy.
A question for these researchers -- since diet varies dramatically across cultures, while the gender balance among newborn babies is quite constant save where girls are aborted, isn't it utterly implausible that diet significantly influences gender?
Later in the article there's this:87 percent?! Were this true breakfast cereal would seem to pose the most significant threat to mainatining the gender balance in the history of humanity.
Booray for Censorship
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 12:12PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" -- the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
"It's time for all decent Americans to proudly demand censorship of the public television airwaves. Yes, I said 'censorship.' Demand it. Insist that Congress pass laws providing for it. Fight to sustain those laws in every court in the land. Censor the television networks, and censor them hard. And yes, this means going so far as to test Supreme Court precedent on 'prior restraint'" -- Quin Hillyer in today's column
Look, I understand the argument that political and other forms of expression are different and were treated differently by the Constitution. (It's overdone. Plays, for instance, were considered far more than mere entertainments because they often contained political expression.) But in a time where conservatives are fighting even to maintain that right of political expression, it does not help to issue fresh calls for censorship for those other forms of expression.
Re: Censorship
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 11:26AM
Lawrence: That's one reason I always liked Davis Love III. And for the all-time king of saying "Golly!" I give you Gentle Ben Crenshaw -- who, as a younger guy, was actually not very gentle in manner, with a serious and public temper at his own bad shots. But even with body language and tone of voice wide open, the worst word that would ever come out of his mouth in public was "Goll-EEE, Ben!!!!!" (Then he would mutter furiously, well under his breath, and I'm sure the language under his breath was much more Tiger-like -- but NEVER aloud!)Â Ahh, the good old days.....
If At First You Don't Succeed
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 10:57AM
Heritage's Ronald Utt surveys the whole
subprime shebang and, as expected, comes out shaking his head. The whole thing is worth
reading, but here's the bottom line:
In response to the threat of a financial market
panic that could contribute to a severe recession, as well as to the growing
number of borrowers who might soon lose their homes, both Congress and the
Administration began to take a number of steps to address the problems.
Regrettably, they all involved expansion of existing federal programs and the
creation of many new ones, often at very substantial cost to the taxpayer.
Notwithstanding the constituent and lobbyist pressure to do something costly
and do it quickly, the history of government intervention in housing markets
and the economy has not been one of notable success. Many of the proposals now
on the table hold the promise of carrying on that tradition and doing so, as
noted, at great cost to the taxpayer. [Emphasis added--P.S.]
Naturally, many of our nation's Congress-critters valiantly refuse to let the long and
storied history of regulatory failure get in the way of what's important: More
failure!
Axis of Evil Watch
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 10:56AM
When Israel conducted an air raid on Syria last fall, all the familiar voices rose up to condemn it. Well, now we are going to get video evidence showing that Israel had good reason to believe that charter Axis of Evil member North Korea was helping Syria with its nuclear program. According to the NY Times article, the video "shows Korean faces among the workers at the Syrian plant." Because there's such a burgeoning Korean labor force in the middle of the Syria desert.
The story also notes:
UPDATE:
In January, John Bolton wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
Censorship
Posted by on 4.24.08 @ 10:21AM
Quin, you mentioned Tiger Woods in passing. Tiger does swear rather offensively at bad shots. Early in his career, in interviews, he would described himself as being "pi**ed off" about something. Somebody got to him -- 21-year-old that he was -- and told him that was swearing and he shouldn't do it. He has replaced it with "ticked off" -- in interviews. On course, he's still quite blue-mouthed at times.
An older generation of players was rather sternly instructed by Dads not to swear on course. "Davis! Gol-lee!" I once heard Davis Love III berate himself.
Beside the point. The DVR has made any enforcement of a "family hour" just about useless. People look ahead and develop their own TV schedule. Kids prove to be especially adept at this technology.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Three generations compete for the presidency
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 6:51PM
I'm fascinated by the generation gap in this election cycle -- particularly by the aging boomers who prefer Senator Clinton by wide margins.
Here is Glenn Loury articulating what many Democratic voters of
a certain age apparently feel:
Why bricks and mortar are better
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 4:16PM
On immigration it's sometimes hard to decide whether the Bush Administration is guilty of gross incompetence or outright mendacity.
An
argument for the former:
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - The government is scrapping a $20 million prototype of its highly touted "virtual fence" on the Arizona-Mexico border because the system is failing to adequately alert border patrol agents to illegal crossings, officials said.
The move comes just two months after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced his approval of the fence built by The Boeing Co.
And evidence of the latter from the same article:
Agents began using the virtual fence last December, and the towers have resulted in more than 3,000 apprehensions since, said Greg Giddens, executive director of the SBI program office in Washington....
Project 28 was not intended to be the final, state of the art system for catching illegal immigrants, Giddens said. "I think some people understood that and some didn't. We didn't communicate that well."
More evidence that opponents of "comprehensive" immigration reform were right to doubt that securing the borders would actually happen.
Clinton On Track To Raise $10 Mln in 24 Hrs
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 3:37PM
The Hillary Clinton campaign just announced that it is on track for its best fundraising day ever--on pace to raise a whopping $10 million online in the 24 hours since she won the Pennsylvania primary. The only chance of her dropping out early was that she could run out of money, but clearly there are a lot of donors out there who don't want her to quit, either. This is a huge boost for her candidacy.
X-Files. Need I say more?
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 2:48PM
For those of you looking for more distraction from work, I direct you to The Onion's A.V. Club, which scored an interview with Chris Carter, the creator of The X-Files. Carter gives a good, down-to-earth interview, and that's why this tidbit about letting the show keep going till no one wanted to see it anymore is so interesting:
CC: No, the reason… We went to season five and we did the movie. Actually, at the end of season four, I could have left, and I might have opted to. My contract was up, and I could have left, and it would have been a successful show. But it was clear that Fox was going to—because it was a powerhouse for their schedule and for their network—the show was going to go on, and it would have gone on without me. And I had made a pledge to the actors that I would stay with the show as long as they did. And that kept me going, so there was not an end point imagined, which was a result of the fact that Fox was not going to end that show anytime without a reason to end it. And I think that it's a luxury for the creators of Lost to be able to have an end point, and to have a network that supports it. I'm sure the network is not happy about it, because it is a business first, and entertainment second. And they get to put one before the other, which is a luxury that I didn't actually have or imagine.
McCain Should Reject Pension
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 2:03PM
Conservatives defending John McCain against this LA Times article about his disability pension are missing the boat. OF COURSE McCain merits a disability payment for the injuries he suffered in captivity. But that doesn't mean he should accept it. The man is wealthy beyond the imaginings of most of us mere mortals. And he clearly is in good enough shape to work, and work very hard, at his profession. There is no reason whatsoever that he NEEDS the pension -- just as, he rightly points out, there is no reason for wealthy Americans to receive full premium support for the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, and just as, he rightly points out, all sorts of entities receive federal largesse (grants, earmarks) that they don't really need. McCain should voluntarily do as he says others ought to be forced to do: Relinquish his claim on money that he might technically be more than qualified for, but that he just doesn't need and that, in times of obscene federal deficits, the federal government can't afford.
Not only that, but McCain should set an example make a public issue of relinquishing his claim on the pension, and challenge all other people and entities that receive unnecessary federal largesse to do the same. Multi-millionaires who get farm subsidies? Relinquish their claim. Liberal politicians who want to raise everybody's taxes? Voluntarily pay their own taxes at their proposed higher rates. Wealthy folks who still accept monthly Social Security checks? Forfeit their checks to Uncle Sam. And so on.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's wise or right.
A Style section sin
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 1:28PM
The Associated Press today published a fashion piece about the Texas polygamist compound where underage girls have been seized by federal authorities.
Readers are told that the women keep their hair long because "they believe they will use it to wash Christ's feet during the Second Coming," at which point the news agency sees fit to offer the following:
Why Exit Polls Are Useful
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 1:21PM
If the exit polls are this unreliable for press' result-predicting purposes, why aren't they also unreliable for all the scholarly purposes they are supposedly put to? Garbage is garbage, no?Not really. My guess is the problem with the exit polls was over-sampling in cities and large suburbs, where the population density makes the data easier to collect. Pollsters clean up the exit poll data by weighting it to the actual vote once it comes in. Unless there's a sampling problem within a demographic group, the numbers should be pretty reliable.
UPDATE: I see in his BloggingHeads diavlog that Kaus does suspect intra-demographic error -- that pro-Hillary blacks, or anti-Obama whites, are reluctant to talk to exit pollsters. Could be, but I'm not sure there's evidence of that.
Trade Talk
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 12:23PM
Brendan Steinhauser points us to this USA Today report on McCain's plans for hard-hitting free-trade advocacy in Youngstown, Ohio. From a policy perspective, it certainly seems his advisers are saying all the right things.
McCain, however, is prepared to
argue the overall benefits of unfettered trade, aides said. "Protectionism
devastates the economy," said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to McCain.
In an economic speech last week, McCain said: "When new trading partners can sell in our market, and American companies can sell in theirs, the gains are great and they are lasting."
All true! But McCain often pitches trade issues with a tough, grin-and-bear it attitude, and I often wonder if this really works as political strategy. On one hand, it might be described as "telling hard truths" -- and we all know that's an image McCain wants to promote. But it might also be called "telling voters what they don't want to hear." Call me a cynic, but "I know it hurts, but it's good for you!"doesn't seem like a terribly compelling campaign message.
Of course, that doesn't mean he should drop the issue
entirely. Instead, he might moderate his eat-your-vegetables approach to campaigning
with a less dour message, positioning trade as an opportunity for workers
who've lost their jobs, and pointing to the substantial
economic gains and job growth the middle class has seen as free trade
has expanded.
Demography Is Destiny
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 12:18PM
As I noted in my piece this morning, for all the talk about the volatility of the Democratic race, the outcomes of the nominating contests are incredibly predictable along demographic lines. I can disregard the all of the polls over the next six weeks and predict with a high degree of certainty that Barack Obama will win North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota; and that Clinton will win West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico.
That leaves Indiana as the only swing state. It's Obama's next door neighbor, but it has many of the demographic characteristics that tend to favor Clinton, and she has the support of Sen. Evan Bayh. If, on May 6, Obama can run up the score and crush in North Carolina, while achieving even a small victory in Indiana, he should really solidify his grip on the nomination. Clinton may still continue after that point, so she can do her victory laps in WV, KY, and PR, but winning a competitive race in Indiana will at least give Obama one state with a significant working class white population. For Clinton, Indiana will be her last chance to shake up the race. A win there will cement doubts about Obama's ability to win a key demographic group, and bolster her case to superdelegates.
So, all eyes are now on the Hoosier State.
Let's Not Get Carried Away
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 11:00AM
Pace Victor Davis Hanson -- who I'm told is winning a Bradley Award, so congratulations are in order -- I don't think it's really all that clear that Barack Obama can't win any of the big states this fall just because he lost their Democratic primaries. I think the only states where that applies are Ohio and Pennsylvania, where he may not be able to win the white working-class votes he needs to put himself over the top. That's bad enough since that may be all it takes for John McCain to beat him, but let's not pretend the guy is going to lose California or New York -- he's not.
Since the New Hampshire primary, Obama has consistently kept hope alive -- for Hillary Clinton. Every time he has had her on the ropes, he has failed to deliver the knockout punch. But like most of the hope Obama so audaciously peddles, it is a false hope. Even after last night, Clinton cannot win the nomination under any scenario in which she does not herself invite general election defeat. If they go all the way to the convention, the Democrats will be throwing away some of their biggest advantages over McCain. If they take the nomination away from the winner of the popular vote and pledged delegates, they will be throwing away some of their most enthusiastic and loyal voters.
Obama is a very risky candidate. If it were earlier in the process, that would be a powerful argument for Clinton. But at this point, the biggest risk for the Democrats is not defining McCain while their cash and organizational advantages are at their greatest, and spending the next few weeks defining each other instead.
Serious Question
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 9:38AM
Has there ever been a better pseudonym than Constance Hately?
You Spin Me Right 'Round
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 4:04AM
From a fundraising email that Team Obama just sent out:
Friend --There you have it: A 10-point loss is actually a moral victory.Votes are still being counted in Pennsylvania, but one thing is already clear.
In a state where we trailed by more than 25 points just a couple weeks ago, you helped close the gap to a slimmer margin than most thought possible.
UPDATE: The gap has narrowed to 8.6%, as of now (10 AM). If the margin in the wee hours of the morning was slimmer than most thought possible, then wow, this really is tight as a tick!
Rush to the Rescue?
Posted by on 4.23.08 @ 2:00AM
Ever since Super Tuesday, more and more Democrats have been demanding that Hillary Clinton quit the race. However, as I observed last month, "Hillary may yet lose, but she seems determined not to quit."
Hillary's biggest problem right now is money. The Clinton campaign came into April with about $9 million cash on hand and more than $10 million in debts. Call me crazy, but I have the sneaking suspicion that Team Hillary is about to get a financial boost -- from Dittoheads.
It can scarcely be denied that Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" helped build Hillary's 10-point margin in Pennsylvania. More than 160,000 Republican voters switched their registration to Democrat in advance of Tuesday's primary, and undoubtedly many of those were hard-core Dittoheads who did just what Limbaugh has been suggesting for weeks: Vote for Hillary, in order to produce a deadlock in the Democratic presidential nomination fight. (I actually heard Rush give marching orders to his "Operation Chaos" troops while I was driving to Harrisburg, Pa., to cover Hillary's Election Eve rally Monday.)
During her victory speech last night, Hillary mentioned her website and asked for contributions. Considering the Clinton campaign's dire financial plight, if Rush is really serious about "Operation Chaos," we can expect that he will now begin suggesting that his listeners log onto HillaryClinton.com and give her a small donation, just to help prolong the misery for Democrats.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
If I Was A Superdelegate
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 11:22PM
I'd be pondering the following questions: If Barack Obama's problems with white working class voters in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania carry over into the general election, where is he going to make up that lost ground? If Hillary Clinton, Wellsley graduate, can beat Obama among culturally conservative blue-collar Democrats -- including pro-life Catholics -- why can't John McCain? Finally, if Clinton is behind in both the popular vote and pledged delegates, as seems all but certain, what would the consequences be of nominating her anyway? Would turning off large numbers of young voters, blacks, and enthusiastic small donors be even worse than rolling the dice with Obama?
For A New Kind of Politics...
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 11:10PM
Obama's schtick is getting kind of old.
Obama Still Looking Toward the General
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 11:00PM
He's also walking back his comments about John McCain being an improvement over George W. Bush, going after the presumptive GOP nominee and linking him to the current president.
Clinton's Impossible Energy Policy
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 10:40PM
In her Pennsylvania victory speech, Hillary Clinton just
said that she's the candidate who is fighting for everyone struggling to pay
for the high price of gas. Yet she's also the candidate who not long ago
declared that she would take
the profits of oil companies -- surely a move destined to hike prices at the
pump. The same is true of the cap and trade scheme she's proposed to address climate change. In fact, much of Clinton's energy policy slate would serve to make gasoline
more expensive, not less. Virginia Postrel made this same point
recently:
It's infuriating how all three presidential candidates
prattle on about the need to fight global warming while also complaining about
the high price of gasoline. The candidates treat CO2 emissions as a social
issue like gay marriage, with no economic ramifications. In the real world,
barring a massive buildup of nuclear plants, reducing carbon dioxide emissions
means consuming less energy and that means raising prices a lot,
either directly with a tax or indirectly with a cap-and-trade permitting
system. (Alternatively, the government could just ration energy, but
fortunately we aren't going in that direction.)
As I write this, Clinton is saying she wants the U.S. to be the country which "defies the odds and does the impossible" -- the bit about "impossible" being, I think, pretty key to understanding her energy policy.
Clinton Begging for Bucks
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 10:39PM
First, it's clear Hillary isn't going anywhere. With supporters sporting boxing gloves behind her, she declared, "The American people don't quit, and they deserve a president who doesn't quit either." But clearly, she is hurting for money. During the speech, she explicitly mentioned being outspent and made a direct plea for people to go to hillaryclinton.com and "show your support." All in all, I actually thought it was one of the better speeches she's given. And I think she's generally an awful speaker.
"The Tide Is Turning"
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 10:32PM
In her victory speech, Hillary Clinton is spinning this as a game-changer. She says she was outspent "three to one" by a "formidable opponent," that Barack Obama "broke every spending record in the state" trying to knock her out of the race but "voters in Pennsylvania had other plans today." A 54-46, 55-45 victory is a nice win. But I don't think it's really the margin she needed for a game changer. That said, she's right that Obama failed to knock her out of the race. And the beat goes on.
A Ron Paul Surprise?
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 10:31PM
He's at 15.8 percent statewide. Mike Huckabee is at 11.4 percent. Is it a bad sign that the anti-McCain vote is over 27 percent?
Dave Weigel noted earlier today that, "In 2000, Pennsylvania Republicans voted a full month after McCain was knocked out of the GOP race. The result: A fairly weak 73.5 percent victory for George W. Bush. More than a quarter of Republicans refused to back their candidate."
"Cling"-gate Fallout?
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 10:22PM
Hillary Clinton won weekly churchgoers by 16 points in Pennsylvania, according to exits; in Ohio, her margin was just 4 points.
Clinton also won a staggering 74 percent of Catholic weekly churchgoers in Pennsylvania, compared with 62 percent in Ohio.
Obama and The Jewish Vote
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 9:26PM
If Obama has a problem with Jewish voters, it isn't showing up in the exit polls. Clinton beat Obama by 55 to 45 percent among Jews, according to CNN exits, and that roughly tracks with how she's likely to do in the state. This is the first relatively competitive state in the Democratic primaries where we've had a large enough Jewish population to get somewhat reliable data, and it seems that Obama is in decent shape with this demographic.
UPDATE: CNN update its numbers, and her advantage among Jewish voters is a more substantial 57-43. That could have made a difference in Montgomery County, an crucial suburban area with a large Jewish population in which Clinton edged out Obama 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent.
Big Fight on CNN
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 9:04PM
Between their Republican and Democratic panelists over who is worse: John Hagee or Jeremiah Wright. Even with Hillary cruising to what looks like a respectable win tonight, the general election talking points basically ignore her.
Fox Calls It For Hillary
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 8:51PM
Not much shock there. Waiting for the margins.
A Caution on Exit Polls
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 8:09PM
Michael Barone was just saying on Fox News that they're reluctant to pay too much attention to the exit poll numbers before weighting them to actual results because, as Brendan Loy points out, Barack Obama has been consistently over-performing in exit polls. This thing may not be as close as some reports suggest. We'll see.
Re: Early PA Exits
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 7:23PM
Jim Geraghty's exit poll source has Obama leading in exit polls. My guess is Jim's source and Drudge's got their numbers at different times; it may also be that one set of numbers is weighted to demographic estimates and one isn't.
P.S. It seemed weird to me that Drudge got an internal poll from the Clinton campaign that would raise expectations so much; it doesn't surprise me that Team Hillary is pushing back.
Early PA Exits
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 5:48PM
There's not much that we can tell at this point, but for what it's worth...
Drudge reports that Hillary Clinton is clinging to a 52-48 lead over Barack Obama. That would clearly be a very bad outcome for Clinton if it is at all predictive of the final numbers.
According to the AP, "One in five voters said they decided for whom to vote within the final week of the six-week Pennsylvania campaign. About one in 10 said they made up their mind Tuesday."
In past primaries, late deciders have tended to break for Clinton.
UPDATE:
Gun owners -- Clinton 58, Obama 42; College degree -- Obama 54, Clinton 46; Made unfair attacks -- Clinton 67, Obama 49.
CNN:
But in good news for Clinton, among voters who decided in the last week, she bests Obama by 16 points, 58 percent to 42 percent.
Plus CBS with some potentially good news for McCain:
Voters' loyalty to their chosen candidate was high, as more than six in ten (64 percent) Clinton voters said they would not be satisfied if Obama ended up the Democratic nominee, and more than half of Obama voters (54 percent) said they would not be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination. Overall, 70 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats would be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee, while 64 percent would be satisfied with Obama.
Women: Clinton 55% Obama 44
Men: Clinton 47% Obama 53
The final SurveryUSA poll (which had Clinton up 6)
anticipated that women would make up 55 percent of the electorate.
That poll had a more dramatic gender gap, with Clinton leading 23
points among women, and Obama leading by 15 points among
men.
"I've Asked The FBI To Investigate..."
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 4:43PM
My pal Dan over at Granite Slate has posted a funny video of John McCain responding to a New Hampshire loon's query as to whether Karl Rove was part of a conspiracy to dynamite the Old Man of the Mountain.Â
Race and November
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 4:03PM
Roger Simon speculates on whether Brack Obama's race will make the difference in the presidential election, saying the percentage of voters who wouldn't vote for him because he's black could be 15 percent. But I don't think race will ultimately make or break Obama's candidacy. For one, even if you say that 15 percent of the public would not vote for Obama, what proportion of that population would normall consider voting Democrat? Furthermore, any vote against Obama because he is black will be at least partially offset by the fact that his candidacy will boost black turnout, and some percentage of the white population will vote for Obama because he is black and they feel his election would improve race relations. When you consider all of those factors, I imagine that the net disadvantage of Obama being black is far lower than 15 percent, and ultimately gets thrown together with dozens of other variables about a candidate that could swing the election. For John McCain, similarly, I'd bet that a certain degree of the electorate won't vote for him because they think he's too old. Obviously, there's no way of knowing all of this, and there's no doubt that liberals will try to blame any Obama loss in November on racism.
Geography Lesson
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 3:24PM
"I don't see how any president gets to Pennsylvania Avenue without going through Pennsylvania," Clinton said at a rally near Villanova University on Friday.
Should Superdelegates Wait Until Denver?
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 2:44PM
Marc Ambinder makes the case:
The superdelegates want a "winner," a candidate who can beat John McCain winner and not a "who got the most delegates or votes" winner. If HRC wins Pennsylvania by a healthy margin and stays in, by the time June 3 rolls around, she's likely to have closed the popular vote gap a lot and the delegate gap a little.
But the superdelegates won't have any additional information about who is best positioned to take on John McCain.
Rationally, why would they decide in June? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to wait as long as possible to see how each candidate polls against McCain or fares in the press over the summer months?
In other words, if it's a winner they want, they'll arguably have MORE information to make that decision the LONGER they wait.
I'd have to disagree with Ambinder here. If Democratic superdelegates are interested in producing an electable candidate, they would be wise to make theire decision in June, because either candidate would be a weaker general election candidate if the nomination battle dragged on until the end of August. That would further divide the party, and give the nominee just over two months to untite the party before Election Day.
Security Nazis Take Down Holocaust Survivor
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 2:43PM
Irony Alert: It is official. We have now become a nation so cowardly and fearful that grandmothers who survived the Holocaust are harrassed, cuffed, thrown in the clink and forced to post $3000 bond. When it comes to security nazis, nothing is sacred, no one is safe.
Hooray For The Earth! Now Go Buy Something!
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 2:12PM
Earth Day is today. I know this because Google's logo has been decked out in leafy greens, because Whole Foods, not content to celebrate a mere day, is celebrating Earth Month in both its stores and on its website, and because, in the last few hours, I've received emails from both Best Buy and Crate and Barrel advertising Earth Day-related specials. On one hand, kudos to America's mid-level luxury brands for their ability to fold absolutely anything into their advertising message. On the other hand, I continue to be amused by the way environmentalism, in mass practice, tends to express itself primarily through retail consumption.
Too Close for Hillary's Comfort?
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 2:03PM
For whatever it's worth, Gary Andres at the Weekly Standard's campaign blog is hearing that the Obama camp expects to keep it close tonight: "Remember, closeness counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and unexpectedly close Pennsylvania primaries!"
Clinton Spokesman: Drudge Leak Was Bogus
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 1:51PM
Monday, the Drudge Report bannered an "exclusive" report from "Clinton's inner circle" citing "closely guarded internal polling" that showed Hillary ahead by 11 points in Pennsylvania. The former first lady, Drudge said, would win the primary "with headline-making margins, the campaign believes."
I cited the internal poll in today's story for The American Spectator, but today I got an e-mail from Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee: "We did not leak any poll to the Drudge Report. In fact, we have said repeatedly today that no such poll exists."
Hmmmm. If the campaign is denying the leak -- denying even the existence of the internal poll -- then who was the "senior campaign source" cited by Drudge, and why would they be hyping the results of a non-existent poll? Did Drudge get scammed by a phony source, or did some senior staffer inside the Clinton camp purposefully mislead Drudge?
We'll Tie One on on the Titanic
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 12:37PM
For all you current and former DC comics fans out there, I give you "Aquaman's Lament," in which the king of seven oceans tries to steal Batman's gal Vicky Vale. Just listen to it.
Hamas vs. Carter
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 11:43AM
The Washington Times reports:
Losing Is Winning
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 11:43AM
The stories are already coming in about how Obama will spin a loss tonight as a victory. If the polls leave you any doubt that Obama expects to finish behind Hillary, consider this: Obama will be speaking tonight from Indiana, not Pennsylvania.
"My Office is in Harlem"
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 11:31AM
If you want to have a laugh, listen to this recording of Bill Clinton accusing Barack Obama's campaign of playing the race card on him in South Carolina after he noted that Jesse Jackson won there too. Best line: "You gotta really go something to play the race card with me, my office is in Harlem."
NY Times vs. McCain
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 11:19AM
The NY Times has another odd investigative piece out on John McCain, and this too appears to be all smoke and no fire. The nearly 3,000-word article centers around McCain's relationship with wealthy Arizona real estate developer Donald Diamond. It says that on two occasions, McCain helped Diamond--a large donor--swap land with the federal government by sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation authorizing the Department of Interior to acquire land to expand a national park, and on another occasion, McCain wrote a letter of reference for Diamond that aided his purchase of a closing military base in California. The point that keeps getting made in the story is that post-Keating 5, McCain has made a name for himself trying to get money out of politics, and to avoid appearances of using his office improperly. But there's no allegation of actual wrongdoing or corruption here, and the Times even notes that on other occasions McCain publicly criticized Diamond, and "has occasionally rebuffed Mr. Diamond's entreaties as inappropriate..." Looks like strike two for the Times.
McCain's 'Special Medicaid Trust Fund'
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 10:47AM
As I noted at FreedomTalks last week, John McCain -- not always a favorite amongst the free-market crowd -- has recieved high marks from economic conservatives for his health care proposals. Cato's Michael Tanner has said that what McCain proposes is "more consumer-centered and taps into the best aspects of the free market."
In general, that's been true. But economic issues are (obviously) not McCain's specialty, and that's made him too susceptible to external pressure on the issue. Case in point: Responding to recent remarks by Elizabeth Edwards that, due to their histories of cancer, neither she nor McCain would be gauranteed health insurance under his plan (many insurers don't approve applicants with certain high-risk pre-existing conditions), McCain announced that he would cover those with pre-existing conditions through a "special Medicaid trust fund."
Adding to the problem, McCain's aides have so far been unable to provide much detail about the fund. Here's the Boston Globe attempting to track down the details:
Lately, some of McCain's aides have said he might try to divert some Medicaid funds into a program that would help people with preexisting conditions, but his advisers can't yet say how such a program would work or how many people would be covered.
"These are real questions, and I think there will be answers, and there better be, but they are not there yet," said McCain adviser Thomas P. Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot more remains to be hammered out."
Indeed, these questions should be answered -- and soon. Because, without further detail, I'm afraid I have to agree with Elizabeth Edwards when she follows up on McCain's proposal by writing:
McCain opposes universal health care because he claims it represents a "big government takeover and mandates." But yesterday, he said he would help cover people with preexisting conditions by creating a "special Medicaid trust fund."
A "special Medicaid trust fund"? Talk about a big government takeover. Tens of millions of Americans have preexisting conditions. If he is going to expand Medicaid to cover Americans with preexisting conditions, he is talking about a massive, massive increase in the Medicaid program.
She's right; such a fund would have to cover an awful lot of people, and it's hard to say that it wouldn't qualify as big-government health care.
Resolving Kmiec's Paradox
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 10:43AM
Doug Kmiec calls on Barack Obama to support a legislative package sponsored by pro-life Democrats -- the 95-10 initiative -- that aims to reduce abortions by 95 percent in ten years. He argues that doing so would help Obama address pro-life concerns while still disagreeing about the ultimate legal status of abortion. More importantly, it would help Obama resolve the conflict between campaigning for president as "a figure who transcends the old, tired politics of division" and voting in the Senate as a reliable liberal.
That's all fine as far as it goes. But Kmiec has his own paradox: He endorses first, on the basis of transcending the old politics, and then tries to come up with policy positions that will justify the endorsement later.
2008 Is Not 1988
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 10:32AM
Can John McCain win with a 1988-style Republican presidential campaign? In terms of issues, biography, and appeal to swing voters, he is probably better suited to do so than George H.W. Bush. Barack Obama has recently been coming down from the heavens to look more like Michael Dukakis, and possibly someone to Dukakis's left. Yet I think David Frum is persuasive in arguing that 2008 is no 1988 (though I might have dwelled longer on why it is that "Americans have lost confidence in Republican foreign policy leadership"). And if a 1988-style campaign does succeed without dealing with some of these fundamental challenges, Republicans will just be kicking the can down the curb for another four years.
Intellectual Property Theft
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 9:56AM
After first reading about this case at a Red State post by Erick Erickson, I wrote about it for the Washington Examiner last Friday. Erick followed up with a new post that includes links to the others, and I do urge you to read it, my column, and his first post, all within the linked post above. That said.... What is happening here is that California has a nasty habit of what amounts to stealing patents. It uses patented products or procedures without paying for them, and then turns around and licenses all other in-state users of the product or procedure -- and then, when challenged, cites the 11th Amendment's "sovereign immunity" to say that it can't be challenged.
Sovereign immunity is important, but I argue that it must be read in conjunction with other parts of the Constitution (and statutes) that seem to limit it in at least some small ways. Otherwise, states could control all commerce they want to muscle into, which is clearly antagonistic to both the spirit and, in some respects, the letter of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has not decided whether to consider the pending case on this issue. Instead, it has asked the Solicitor General to weigh in on the subject. Considering that the Constitution gives Congress the specific power to make rules governing patents, and considering that in 1992 Congress passed a law prohibiting states from infringing on patents, and that the law was signed by the current president's father, and that the law is still on the books, it makes sense that Solicitor General Paul Clement should weigh in by defending the federal government's existing law and thus supporting the small-business patent-holder against the intellectual property theft by California. Sovereign states are immune from slip-and-fall lawsuits by people from another state -- but not immune from abiding by national laws involving basic rights of property and contract.
Four More Years!
Posted by on 4.22.08 @ 1:36AM
Re: Our dueling cover package today, one of our readers on the prowl in Pennsylvania sends this in:
I was at a Bill Clinton event in a Quakertown high school when I overheard one campaign advance person tell a local party official not to allow people into the event with their own signs. The campaign would provide them with Hillary Clinton signs to wave around once they were inside the high school gym.
The local hack, a matronly woman, was taken aback. "Some of these people spent a lot of time making these signs," she said.
The advance guy, a young college-kid type, said that was too bad. They cannot allow "unauthorized" signs in the room because sometimes they do not catch embarrassing ones.
"We have to control the message," he explained to her.
You don't see this at the Hillary Clinton events, which often have homemade signs. One I saw more than once is "Hillary Offers Prove Experience" with the first letters all highlighted.
I don't think they are worried about Monica references or the like at the Bill Clinton events. Rather at those rallies there is a apparently problem with Bill Clinton nostalgia being too strong. At the Quakertown event, when he asked rhetorically, "Who would be the best candidate?" one guy shouted out "Bill!" at the top of his lungs.
Clinton paused for a second then went on, ignoring the guy.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Pennsylvania Polls
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 8:02PM
Charles Franklin at Pollster.com crunches the numbers and finds a pretty consistent trend: A 6% lead for Hill over Barry, with about 9% undecided. I'm betting undecideds break pretty heavily toward Clinton -- not only has Obama had a rough time of it lately, the Obama campaign's decision not to pay "street money" could seriously hamper their Philadelphia get-out-the-vote efforts.
The most motivated supporters
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 7:05PM
Patrick Ruffini has
a post up about the success Ron Paul supporters are having at
GOP county conventions across the country.
It's not that Ron Paul supporters are a fearsome army in raw numbers. I don't worry about them taking over the party. They couldn't manage 5% of the vote in most states, and are violently opposed by the other 95% when they care enough to show up.
It's that last part that worries me. If they care enough to show up. In primaries and generals they do. At county conventions, where the party's identity at the local level is forged, they don't. Ron Paul supporters are the only ones motivated to organize a bloc of people to take over local Republican Parties across the country. That matters.
You Get What You (Might) Pay For
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 4:47PM
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A gigantic American flag forms the backdrop behind the stage where Hillary Clinton is due to speak at 5:30 p.m. The gumbo-sized Old Glory was requested, presumably, to mask the pseudo-Islamic architecture of the Zembo Masonic Temple, which features a tile-and-minaret décor in the faux-Turkish style.
It isn't exactly clear why Team Clinton chose this as the venue for Hillary's final major event before Tuesday's crucial Democratic primary. Most likely, the Clinton campaign chose the Zembo temple because it's affordable -- and given the latest news about Hillary's fundraising, every penny counts. The lastest Federal Election Commission numbers show Hillary has more than $10 million in debts against only about $9 million cash on hand.
PA Predictions
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 3:25PM
Hillary wins by at least ten. She needs to win by at least twenty to blow this thing back open, however. That I don't think she'll do.
Waffles
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 3:22PM
I remember watching a TV news report of a last-minute campaign swing by George H.W. Bush in 1992. They showed him in a diner having breakfast. The reporter said something to the effect of, "The president devours his favorite campaign metaphor with relish." And I thought: Relish on waffles? Yuck.
Surreal Moment of the Week -- and It's Only Monday
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 3:14PM
W. James Antle III, folk hero.
Hillary Means Business
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 2:49PM
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Seven satellite TV trucks are parked in front of the Zembo Masonic Temple on Division Street, where Hillary Clinton will speak this afternoon at her last major rally before Tuesday's crucial Democratic primary.
Judging from the most visible indicators -- campaign yard signs -- Pennsylvania's capital city is a stronghold for Hillary's opponent, and an Obama sign sits in front of the house directly across 4th Street from the Masonic temple.
Still, Hillary has plenty of staunch supporters here, including businesswoman Linda Crum, who sat in front of the temple waiting for the doors to open at 3:30 p.m., prior to the event timed to make 6 p.m. newscasts throughout the state.
"I think she probably has an excellent business sense, a very intelligent woman -- certainly a force to be reckoned with," said Ms. Crum, who said she's undeterred by recent declarations by political analysts that it is mathematically impossible for the former first lady to win the Democratic nomination. "I think it's going to be difficult, but you still need to support who you need to support... I'm a hard-core loyalist."
Blackballing: Not Just For Scientists Anymore
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 2:43PM
Lawrence Solomon--who granted AmSpec an interview last week about his absolutely essential new book on global warming skeptics, The Deniers--has a new column up on the marauding trolls of Wikipedia, who work almost as hard at keeping honest assessments of scientists out of the user-driven encyclopedia as they do to keep slander in. It's an eye-opening read.
Obama Waffles On Hamas...Literally
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 2:20PM
Last week, Barack Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod turned away from me before I could get an explanation as to why Obama didn't condemn Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas as he forcefully as he did Don Imus.
Now, the Hotline reports:
Asked if he had heard that Carter reported a positive outcome from the meeting, Obama looked at the reporter who questioned him and said, "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"
Asked again by the reporter, Obama bit. Not at the question but into a butter-covered bite of Glider's specialty over-size Belgian waffles. With a wink this time he said, "Just let me eat my waffle."
Obama has criticized Carter previously for meeting with a terrorist organization, but the IL Sen. has also been attacked by John McCain for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly.
I suppose when reporters ask presidential candidates questions on the campaign trail they are engaging in the old kind of politics.Hillary, Big
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 1:50PM
I predict a big Clinton win in Pennsylvania tomorrow -- at least 10 points over Obama. If I had to be more precise, I would say between 11.8% and 12.3%.
The Heat Is On
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 1:47PM
Hillary Clinton makes her closing argument in this ad, which boasts that she can handle a hot kitchen. In a conference call with reporters earlier today, the Clinton campaign insisted that this was a positive message, even though at a townhall meeting I attended on Friday, she was using the same Harry Truman line to mock Obama for whining about tough debate questions.
The Clinton campaign spent most of the conference call pre-spinning the Pennsylvania primary results. While Obama sympathizers are saying she needs a double digit win to remain in the race, the Clinton team counters that Obama has significantly outspent them in Pennsylvania, and thus any victory by Clinton would raise doubts about his ability to win big swing states and appeal to working class voters.
In a sense, both campaigns are right. Unless she has a huge win, the delegate math will be become even more daunting for Clinton, and her chances of winning the popular vote even more remote. However, it is worth noting that typically, when one candidate is seen as the likely nominee, the party tends to rally around that candidate. The fact that Obama is in a position to lose a large state that he poured a lot of resources into suggests that there is still significant resistance to Obama among an important segement of the Democratic coalition, even as news reports continue to identify him as the all but certain nominee.
Is McCain Too Angry?
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 1:05PM
There's a lot of pushback against this Washington Post story on McCain's temperament. I've heard plenty of McNasty horror stories from people I trust, but the alleged Young Republican incident is certainly different from my own experience. I was one of two College Republicans to pick up McCain from the airport and basically shuttle him around when he came to deliver the commencement address at my school in 1997. He was very pleasant, even when I got into an argument with him about immigration, and good humored. My only exposure to him since then has been blogger conference calls and press availabilities, but I thought he was one of the nicer politicians with whom I interacted as a starry-eyed Republican lad. I write this as someone who is not particularly a fan of McCain's politics.
Rush Toward Hillary
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 12:59PM
MASON-DIXON LINE -- En route to a Hillary Clinton rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, I just heard Rush Limbaugh give marching orders to his troops in "Operation Chaos," his mischievous campaign to create confusion in the Democratic primary race. Right now, Limbaugh is pushing Republican voters in Pennsylvania to vote in the primary for Mrs. Clinton, yet Mr. Limbaugh admits, "Odds are Obama will win." However, Limbaugh, noting a large number of recent changed party registrations, predicted a large turnout of Republican voters for Hillary tomorrow. Limbaugh encouraged his "Operation Chaos" troops: "Brave volunteers, press on!...As the outcome becomes more obvious, remember the Alamo!"
Thunder on the Right
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 11:34AM
I think James Thunder's defense of the Electoral College on the main site today is right on the money. Being the pedantic jerk that I am, I would just quibble with this bit: "No voter has ever voted, and no candidate has ever campaigned, in the context of a national popular vote for president."
Actually, I voted for George W. Bush from a blue state in 2000 because I wanted him to win the popular vote regardless of the Electoral College result. (I talk about how I feel about that decision now in the current print issue of The American Spectator). My view was that a popular vote/electoral vote mismatch would either pull President Bush to the left or President Gore to the right. I wasn't dumb enough to believe it was going to come down to my one vote, but I thought the only way I could contribute to the outcome I wanted was to vote for Bush.
Second, I think in the aftermath of the 2000 race presidential candidates probably do give at least some thought to the national popular vote because they know it affects their legitimacy in the eyes of some voters. It is obviously a secondary concern after winning the states necessary to prevail in the legally binding electoral vote, but I think most candidates probably want to win the popular vote too. At least Electoral College defenders should hope so, because another mismatch so soon after 2000 would probably be damaging to that institution, however wrongly.
Stray Obama-McCain Thoughts
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 11:21AM
1. Barack Obama is wrong. All three of them will probably be worse than George Bush. And that's without specifying which George Bush.
2. At this point in the campaign, John McCain is polling better against Obama than he ever could have hoped. But he is not polling so well that he will actually win the election if his deficits in fundraising and organization aren't resolved.
McCain's Money Woes
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 11:04AM
The LA Times reports on the latest financial filings that
continue to show John McCain at a substantial disadvantage. Not
only has he only raised a third of the $240 million Barack Obama
has raised during this election cycle, but Obama's small online
donations alone eclipse everything that McCain has raised.
McCain has just $11.6 million in the bank compared to Obama, who
has $51 million. The story notes that McCain will likely be forced
to accept public funds. The only wrinkle of good news is that the
Howard Dean led DNC continues to trail the RNC in fundraising--$5.3
million at the end of March, compared to $31.2 million for the RNC.
How incompetent, really, does Dean have to be to lag so badly in an
environment that is so favorable to Democrats?
What McCain's weakness in fundraising really reminds us is that no matter how many polls come out showing him neck and neck with Obama, he still enters the general election with substantial disadvantages.
Santorum Comes Around
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 10:57AM
Rick Santorum got a considerable amount of attention for his harsh criticism of John McCain during the primaries. Now he's saying McCain is okay with him. This isn't terribly surprising -- the guy supported Arlen Specter -- but the bit about the Gang of 14 is interesting. Maybe Santorum will emerge as a point man to reassure social conservatives that McCain will be sound on judges.
Not So Smooth Obama
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 10:20AM
With each passing day, we get another reminder that Barack Obama is not an indomitable presidential candidate, but a rookie who is capable of straying way off message.
Yesterday in Reading, Pennsylvania, Obama said: "Either Democrat would be better than John McCain. And all three of us would be better than George Bush."
Doesn't that kind of undercut the whole McCain-is-just-a-Bush-clone argument that was central to the Democrats' strategy for eroding his support among independents? With one comment, McCain went from, "Return of the Son of the Bride of Bush" to a candidate who is kinda suckier than either Democrat.
Re: Sarah Palin
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 9:47AM
After reading that account you linked, Jim, it looks like the Palin household will be rocking for a while:
Chill, Parents: These Viking-Costumed Teachers...
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 9:33AM
...most certainly do not love Satan.
Michael Moore Fails To Fact-Check Michael Moore
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 9:25AM
Toward the end of Michael Moore's rambling endorsement of--shock!--Barack Obama, he writes:
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!" But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
Lord, that is magnanimous, no? I clicked through and, sure enough, there's a picture of Wright shaking hands with Bill Clinton, although a large cleric-breakfast is hardly a one-on-one "spiritual counseling" session. Still, it is impressive Obama "remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face."
Except if Moore had bothered to read the story he himself linked to...
In providing the photograph to The New York Times, the Obama campaign appeared to be trying to divert some attention to the Clintons after a week in which Mr. Obama's relationship with Mr. Wright has left him facing one of the biggest challenges of his campaign. There is nothing in the picture or the note that addresses whether Mr. Clinton had met Mr. Wright prior to the White House meeting or whether he or Mrs. Clinton knew anything about Mr. Wright's views.
Who knows? Maybe it was silent? Maybe Obama ran crying to the New York Times via email or something?
Out of my (chilled) dead hands…
Posted by on 4.21.08 @ 9:20AM
No, it's not a gag, an April
Fool's joke, or an Onion article. And
even I, long a hardened cynic about all things nanny state, have a hard time believing it. But it appears to
be true: The EU looks ready to wage war on
secondhand drinking:
The campaigns to combat the effects of
‘passive smoking’ are widely credited for Europe’s growing number of smoking
bans. Now alcohol is in the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they
have invented the concept of ‘passive drinking’ as their killer argument.
I have seen a leaked draft report for the
European Commission, which is due to be published some time in June. It makes
claims about the high environmental or social toll of alcohol, the ‘harm done
by someone else’s drinking’. The report is likely to inform proposals for a
European Union alcohol strategy later this year.
Dr Peter Anderson, the report’s lead author,
who has a background in the World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading
role in Tobacco Free Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social
harm takes the alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual
choice and addiction. ‘You can make the argument that what an individual drinks
is up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in mind
that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug…. But when you talk about harm to
others then that is a societal concern and justification for doing something
about it. I think that is an important argument. If there was not harm to
others then the argument gets a little less powerful’.
No smoking, no drinking. What's
next? No peanuts or pretzels? Will London begin sprouting pubs that only serve water and
organic fruit juices?
Anyway, I'm now starting to
wonder if maybe global warming is just a ruse, and this -- discouraging drinking -- is what those gravy-brained EU
biofuel policies driving up
beer prices are really about.
In other nanny state news,
EU regulators are cracking
down on bagpipers. I promise I'm not making this up. I couldn't possibly.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Stray Papal Thought
Posted by on 4.20.08 @ 2:01PM
The minister of the Methodist Church I attend ecumenically mentioned the Pope's visit in the pastoral prayer this morning, giving thanks for the people who were drawn to God as a result. My pastor didn't commit this offense but it reminded me of something I'd been meaning to complain about: I'm mildly annoyed by how common it has become to refer to the last two popes as JPII and B16. I thought it was cute the first couple of times I heard it, but now that people say it all the time it gives me the same feeling as when children call their hip and understanding parents by their first names.
