- 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, May 10, 2008
Get Thee to Gitmo
Posted by on 5.10.08 @ 9:05PM
Daniel McCarthy includes yours truly and Robert Stacy McCain in his short list of "people Dick Cheney would like to see in Gitmo."
Mrs. Obama vs. Mrs. Clinton
Posted by on 5.10.08 @ 2:53PM
A Democratic duo dynamic detected by Robert Novak:
Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.Frankly, I don't think Hillary -- who came into the contest like it was a coronation -- would accept the No. 2 spot if it were offered. She has more power as a senior senator than she would if she joined The Warm Bucket Brigade.The Democratic front-runner's wife . . . has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.
We should have known all along
Posted by on 5.10.08 @ 12:54PM
"[T]he major networks are run by right-winged conservatives
who still see black people as subhuman and portray black people as
such."
-- church bulletin article, April 15, 2007,
Trinity United Church of Christ
Amanda Carpenter Nails The WashPost
Posted by on 5.10.08 @ 7:55AM
In this tour de force, columnist Amanda Carpenter absolutely rips to shreds an incredibly tawdry attempt at "gotcha journalism" by the Washington Post, now joining the NY Times in twisting facts with clever use of innuendo to make perfectly legitimate legislative activities by John McCain look sleazy. This was all predictable, of course: The media darling McCain is going to be in for a bumpy ride now that his opponent is Obama, the media savior who makes the commentariat feel wam tingles run up their legs. The media will throw over a darling for a messiah every time. It is absolutely sickening. As Carpenter shows, McCain did nothing wrong here, and indeed his involvement with the federal land swap at issue clearly made the swap a better one for the public than it was when first proposed. At the rate the establishment media is going, pretty soon it will try to show that even McCain's support for a strong military is due to nothing other than the influence of lobbyists. One can only hope that honest reporters/columnists like Carpenter are able to keep up with all the sleazy journalism, correct it, and somehow get the truth out to a wide enough audience.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Why can't Clinton quit?
Posted by on 5.8.08 @ 12:20AM
The political press corps is now clamoring loudly for Hillary Clinton to quit the race, as witness Wednesday's question from a network reporter at her press conference in Shepherdstown, W.Va. :
"But what do you say to those Democrats who fear that you're putting the Democratic Party's chances at risk by...continuing to stay in?"Media concern for Democrats' fears drew fire from the Commander-in-Chief of "Operation Chaos" :
"All of these media types are demanding that Hillary drop out of the race now . . . and the Drive-Bys are saying, 'Get out of the race to save the party.' Now, what's the party got to do with the media? I ask rhetorically, of course," [Rush] Limbaugh told his listeners after watching TV coverage of the Shepherdstown press conference.
Pundits pronounced Hillary's doom yesterday -- "The Democratic primary is over," John B. Judis of the New Republic stated flatly -- yet she keeps campaigning. She's scheduled for an event this morning in Charleston, W.Va., then off to Oregon for more events before flying to Kentucky for a Friday night event in Louisville.
Why is it so hard for her to call it quits? No Clinton has lost an election since 1980, when Bill got beat in his first bid for re-election as governor of Arkansas. Unless Hillary can come up with a miracle, she'll be blamed for having broken the Democratic duo's 28-year-year undefeated streak.
Can a miracle happen? John Tabin's done the math, and figures it's still too early for Hillary to stop thinkin' about tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Life Is Complicated
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 7:37PM
I'm not really sure which I find more strange. A pro-life, antiwar Obama supporter trying to pretend his support for Obama has more to do with abortion than the war. Or a pro-choice, pro-war former Giuliani supporter chastising him for caring more about the war than abortion.
Alan Keyes Is Still Running
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 7:05PM
The Constitution Party may not want Alan Keyes but some people do. Keyes scored his best Republican primary performance of the campaign last night, winning 3 percent of the vote in North Carolina (although he still trailed John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and "no preference"). Keyes continues to run as an independent. And the state party chairman of the American Independent Party, Keyes's largest bloc of support at the CP national convention, told Ballot Access News that he would still like to nominate Keyes for president. This would pose an interesting dilemma for the Constitution Party: Theoretically, the AIP has agreed to abide by the will of the national party's convention. But if it doesn't do so and instead gives its California ballot line to Keyes, then what? If you disaffiliate the AIP, the Constitution Party loses its claim to be America's third largest political party.
Re: It Ain't Over
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 3:36PM
"If I Were a Superdelegate" sounds like a great reality-show concept, doesn't it, Tabin?
Heck, if I were an uncommitted superdelegate at this point, I wouldn't commit to either candidate in exchange for anything less than a promised appointment as Ambassador to the Court of St. James's.
The true believers among superdelegates committed long ago; now it's a patronage auction for the crafty wheeler-dealers.
It Ain't Over
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 3:13PM
CONGRESSIONAL SOURCE: Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her... 'No one wants to see her today'... Developing...I'm sure some people will read this as a sign that superdelegates are about to declare for Obama en masse. Don't count on it. If I were a superdelegate -- i.e. a politician or party hack -- I wouldn't want to talk to Hillary on a day like this, when the wind is blowing against her. But I wouldn't be rushing out a press release embracing Obama, either. I'd wait for the last month of the race -- and the March 31 DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting, where they'll discuss the status of Florida and Michigan. Why jump the gun and risk the wrath of the Clintons? Even if Hillary isn't the nominee, she can still use her position as a Senator to make life tough for at least some of the superdelegates in the future, so it's probably best not to cross her.
New state, same story
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 2:45PM
SHEPHERDSTOWN, W.Va. -- West Virginia is "a new day, a new state, a new election," Hillary Clinton told her audience here in front of Shepherd University's McMurran Hall. For the political press, however, the story remained the same: How long can she go on?
"I'm staying in this race until there's a nominee," she said in response to a question at a press conference after her "Solutions for America" rally here, vowing to "work as hard as I can to become that nominee."
During her speech, Clinton's voice sounded tired as she repeated the promises of what Philip Klein has dubbed her "Say Anything" campaign. At one point, she seemed to slip from her accustomed stance of certainty, telling the crowd what would happen "if I become president" instead of her habitual "when I become president."
While she campaigned in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle-- and patiently endured a barrage of "when-will-it-end" questions from reporters -- the word from Barack Obama's headquarters was that the front-runner would begin focusing on the general election. Obama himself was reported to be resting in Chicago.
Re: The Oxymoronic Democratic Gentleman
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 1:35PM
Wlady, maybe he thought he was still being a gentleman. When a ship is sinking, don't you evacuate women and children first?
The Oxymoronic Democrat Gentleman
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 1:14PM
In calling for Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the presidential race, George McGovern, alas, is just remaining true to his cut-and-run self. Only last October our Phil Klein caught up with him at an Iowa rally at which McGovern, in introducing Hillary to the 2,000 strong crowd, explained why he was being true to her:
"I hope to live long enough to see a black president in the White House," McGovern said. "But we have an old rule and courtesy in the United States: 'ladies first.'"
First abandoned, it sounds more like.
In Defense of Bill Tucker
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 12:31PM
The caboose in today's Reader Mail is pretty funny with a young liberal inviting Bill Tucker to spend some time in rural Pennsylvania with him--cue AmSpec slumber party-esque chit chat as to whether such a trip would constitute a date--where he will presumably continue to take our esteemed colleague to task for a recent column "What Conservatives Want." His letter reads, in part: Liberalism makes sense to me. I like the idea of making sure that my neighbor is taken care of. And I like the idea of my neighbor taking care of me.
Okay, so then...take care of
your neighbor. Do you really need the government or Bill Tucker to
validate that dream before you make it a reality? Is Barack Obama's
ascension the starting gun to allow young liberals to stop
lecturing and start actually--gasp!--living up to their professed
ideals? Then again, I suppose leading by example is a quaint notion
in a nation that has spent the last 100 years convincing itself it
is more noble to compel with state power than force of argument.
(No, Young Liberal, I obviously do not believe Republicans are
guiltless on this point.) Charity is the business of the government
and not the individual, etc., etc. It's sad to see people so
convinced of their own personal impotence making declarations of
faux strength like:
You guys blew it. It's our turn
now. Turn to do
what? Let someone else do it for you, yet again?
Alas, we're asked to believe
people who by their own admission cannot hope without a certain politician they've never met winning
the presidency are the ones who will empower us. Nonesense. Having
come up in the kind of towns and trailer parks Russell Banks has
made a career of detailing and, thus, knowing the kind of people this kid
claims to have come to know between episodes of The Daily
Show, I can't help but
suggest he give himself another in-depth tour of his town before he
brings Bill Tucker down there. I think he'll find his neighbors
don't feel nearly as bad for themselves as he feels for
them.
Re: House Republicans Ready for Disaster
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 12:20PM
Apropos of this emergency fourth-rate version of the Contract with America -- a Contract with Congress? ugh -- Daniel Larison and I join in solidarity with the general irritation expressed by Jim, Paul, and others over Newt's never-fulfilled promise.
High Noon the Day After
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 11:47AM
SHEPHERDSTOWN, WV -- Hillary and Chelsea Clinton will speak here at noon and a crowd of hundreds is gathered in front of McMurran Hall at Shepherd University. The event originally scheduled with just Chelsea was updated only this morning to include the former first lady, who canceled her appearances on this morning's news shows following her disappointing results in yesterday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries. In addition to hundreds of Hillary supporters, the crowd here includes two dozen or so Barack Obama supporters waving their own candidate's signs. Also spotted in the crowd were at least two Ron Paul supporters.
Hillary Prepared To Kick In More Family Cash
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 10:59AM
Just about to hit the road from Raleigh, but wanted to post some quick notes from this morning's Clinton Campaign conference call.
The most important takeaway item was communication director Howard Wolfson disclosing that Hillary Clinton has now contributed a total of nearly $11.5 million of her and Bill's joint money, and that she "is willing to do so going forward" to "remain competitive" with Obama on the spending front. Could Clinton morph into a largely self-funding candidate? And will the media bring up the fact that Bill has earned a lot of his money from overseas speaking engagements, including China, a nation that Hillary has vowed to "get tough on"?
Among the other items that came up:
--Strategist Geoff Garin described Clinton's win in Indiana a "come from behind victory" and "significant accomplishment" in a state that Obama had called a "tiebreaker." Garin said they made progress in North Carolina. In Virginia, Obama won the white vote, he noted, but Clinton won whites by 24 points in North Carolina. He acknowledged that she didn't do as well among blacks.
--Wolfson said that going forward, their strategy will be to do well in the remaining primaries, especially West Virginia, a swing state; seat Florida and Michigan; make the case that she is the stronger candidate against McCain, and does better among working class voters, in the "key swing votes" that any Democrat needs to win.
-- Deputy communications director Phil Singer noted that if FL and MI counted, Clinton would gain a net of 58 delegates. (Based on RCP estimates, that would still give Obama a lead of nearly 100 overall delegates).
--Wolfson said emphatically that there have been "no discussions" about not going forward.
Re: House Republicans Ready for Disaster
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 10:55AM
Paul, I agree. I don't see much in Newt's grab bag of pandering proposals that will help much. But I think Tom Cole's concerns are more significant. Even if you don't think the special election losses mean much -- and I do think that even they demonstrate superior Democratic candidate recruitment, if not a need to play defense in formerly safe districts -- congressional Republicans are not well positioned going into the fall.
UPDATE: This kind of nonsense doesn't help.
The Word For Hillary
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 10:42AM
There is a word for Hillary Clinton: "Loser."
Five weeks ago, with her significantly trailing Obama in pledged
elected delegates and votes cast (not counting the nonsense "cheat"
votes in Florida and Michigan), and winning by a lesser margin
among pledged superdelegates, the expectations were for her to:
A) Win Pennsylvania by more than 15 points
B) Run about even in Indiana
C) Lose North Carolina by about 15-18 points
D) Maintain her lead among superdelegates
E) Significantly eat into Obama's votes-cast lead
Instead, despite EVERYTHING going her way before the
Pennsylvania primary -- the "bitter" remark, more REzco stuff, the
beginnings of the Ayers stuff -- she won that state by LESS than
double digits (I think the final margin was 9.6 percent).
Then, despite everything ELSE going her way -- the truly terrible
Rev. Wright explosion and more attention to Ayers -- she still
barely squeaked by in Indiana, and lost North Carolina by a huge
margin, almost as large as originally projected.
Overall, in the three states combined, she significantly LOST ground among pledged superdelegates, picked up NO ground among pledged elected delegates, picked up only 3,000 votes total among votes cast overall (after well over 4 million more votes were cast), and fell BELOW the day-of-primary expectations in all three states. (I.e., in all three states, the expectations had shifted by election day, so that she was STILL expected to win Pennsylvania by double digits, was expected to win Indiana by mid-to-HIGH single digits, and hold Obama to mid-to-high single digits in North Carolina.)
In other words, the best she could do despite everything going her way was to lose ground overall, by breaking even in total votes and elected delegates and losing among superdelegates and losing in the updated expectations game. Meanwhile, the exit polls consistently show that about half of voters in DEMOCRATIC primaries do not think she is honest. That is devastating. And it a stigma that will not leave her, because it is an accurate stigma.
The truth is, the lady is not a popular candidate. Even with a large number of white workers voting AGAINST Obama as much as for her, she still can't make up any ground. She has had every advantage during this whole primary season, but the only way she can win now is by changing the rules. (Yes, that IS still a possibility; see the excellent analysis by Mark Impomeni.) All of which makes her a loser, through and through. And it also makes her decidedly NOT a good choice for Obama for Veep, because Obama would be foolish to saddle himself with a running mate of whose basic integrity half of his OWN party seriously doubts.
Re: House Republicans, Ready for Disaster
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 9:39AM
Jim, I'm going to seize the opportunity of your post, and the Politico article you link, to critique Newt's plea to Republicans that Human Events posted, which the Politico piece draws from heavily.
Newt's assessment of the malaise plaguing the GOP is indisputable, although I don't think it's news to anybody, and I do think the two House races featured extremely weak candidates. Clearly improved recruitment is needed, but I don't see anyone getting excited over his prescribed remedies. For example, his solutions to the energy problems are, much like the Clinton/McCain proposals to temporarily repeal the gas tax, are cosmetic and accomplish little. More boldly conservatives ought to be bashing biofuels and pursuing repeals of ethanol subsidies. But Newt has bought into the global warming alarmism and so his responses on the enviro/energy issues aren't likely to be strong.
And is anyone going to get their dander up over flaws with the census? A space-based air traffic control system? Union workers' rights to a secret ballot? Some or all of these may be great ideas, but I don't see them as issues in most peoples' top 50, much less the top 10.
Given his reputation, I expected more out of Newt.
House Republicans: Ready for Disaster
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 8:56AM
Now that it looks like "Operation Chaos" won't be enough to save Hillary, perhaps Republicans should focus on congressional races where the picture is rather dismal.
Cynical? Who are you calling cynical?
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 8:54AM
Is this just cold-eyed realism for the Maverick?
John McCain, the caped crusader of reform for more than a decade, has taken to bending rules so he can remain competitive: His campaign pledged his eligibility for federal matching funds as collateral for a bank loan, then declined public funding and its spending limits for the primary season.A cynic's rule of thumb: Whenever a politician says "reform," mentally substitute the word "scam."
'Evangelical' Meaning is Lost
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 8:41AM
USA Today reports this morning about an effort by Christian scholars and theologians to recover the meaning of the identity of what an "evangelical" is, by issuing a new "manifesto:"
The manifesto condemns Christians on the right and left for "using faith" to express political views "without regard to the truth of the Bible," according to a draft obtained last week by the Associated Press. When faith "loses its independence," it says, "Christians become 'useful idiots' " for politicians.
I wrote over a year ago that that term is no longer meaningful, and I doubt this new manifesto will change that. I suggested a new one that would be more difficult for liberals to co-opt.
Losing, but not quitting
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 7:48AM
Last night's Obama victories -- and, let's face it, keeping the margin to 2% in Indiana was in its own way a victory as big as his North Carolina blowout -- have probably cinched the Democratic nomination, as Philip Klein reported from Raleigh in the wee hours. Michael Crowley of The New Republic and Ben Smith of the Politico both thought Hillary's speech last night showed signals of a weary acceptance of her doom.
Despite Team Clinton's increasingly dismal prospects, however, Hillary will hit the ground running today in West Virginia, with a noon event at Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, W.Va. This event had originally been slated as an event for daughter Chelsea. The former first lady's appearance is a last-minute schedule update announced to the press in a 6:35 a.m. e-mail from Clinton HQ. She then hits Washington, D.C. for an afternoon fundraising event, then returns to Charleston, W.Va., for a rally tomorrow before jetting off to South Dakota and Oregon.
Whether Clinton's "tenacity" is to be admired remains a point of dispute, but what I observed in March still holds true: She may lose, but she won't quit. Is a loser more admirable than a quitter?
B.J. Lawson Wins in North Carolina
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 1:32AM
In addition to incumbent Walter Jones, the other Ron Paul-endorsed North Carolina Republican won his congressional primary. B.J. Lawson will be the the GOP nominee in the 4th District, dispatching his opponent by a landslide margin.
Re: Clinton Squeaks By in Indiana
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 1:27AM
She got her split decision, but I don't think this is what she needs. A shellacking in North Carolina and a 51-49 squeaker in Indiana that we're staying up all night for? I don't think so. Even with wins upcoming in West Virginia and Kentucky -- and even with the lingering concerns about Barack Obama and working-class whites-- I don't see this dislodging the superdelegates she needs to win the nomination. This was, on balance, Obama's night.
Clinton Squeaks By In Indiana
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 1:22AM
CNN has just projected a Clinton win in Indiana. With 99 percent of the vote in, it looks like she'll get by with about a 20,000 vote margin.
Walter Jones Wins
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 12:20AM
Will all the results in, anti-war Republican Rep. Walter Jones has hung on with a 19-point victory over Joe McLaughlin in the NC-3 primary.
Did Obama "Dewey Defeats Truman" Himself?
Posted by on 5.7.08 @ 12:13AM
About a half an hour ago, I spoke with RiShawn Biddle, an AmSpec contributor and an experienced reporter in Indiana, who was explaining to me how there may be enough votes outsanding in Lake County -- a big county with a large black population -- for Obama to overtake Clinton in the state. It seemed odd to me, because Obama himself conceded the state to Clinton in his remarks. But sure enough, shortly after hanging up with RiShawn, the votes from Lake County started to come in, and within minutes Clinton's margin was cut in half from around 40,000 to about 20,000. He estimated that if Obama wins over 60 percent of the vote in the county, Obama would actually have a shot at pulling this off, which would be game over for Clinton.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The View From Obamaville
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 10:18PM
RALEIGH, NC -- I just spoke to a handful of Barack Obama supporters after his speech here, and they were obviously enthusiastic about tonight's results. They had mixed views on whether Hillary Clinton should drop out, but what was most striking to me was that none of them would seriously entertain the possibility that Obama could be denied the nomination at this point.
And for good reason. Given his strong victory in North Carolina and the close results in Indiana, it's hard to see any way that superdelegates would hand the nomination to Clinton. She may hang on for the next few weeks until the primary season officially wraps up, but with no big states left, how can she win over any superdelegates she hasn't already?
In his speech, Obama clearly was looking toward the general election, including a section on the importance of party unity, and some sharp barbs at John McCain.
I am working on a longer piece on the results, so will check out for now, but one other thing worth noting is that in his speech Obama congratulated Clinton on her "victory" in Indiana even though, an hour later, she the networks still haven't called the state for her. Does he know something we don't?
Status Quo Minus
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 9:06PM
If you want Hillary Clinton to stay in the competition, you must vote -- to borrow a phrase from Ryan Seacrest. Trouble is, she can only muster enough votes to linger in the competition, not to win it. For a while now I've been insisting that, contrary to the daily drumbeat coming from the MSM, this is really a super-boring Presidential race. Mr. Black, blogging at The Economist's Democracy in America, agrees. Not a terrible problem, especially if it's not also a banal race, but Hillary's only hope now -- as it has been for some time -- is living parasitically off the political media's need for daily hype, for the high-stakes story, the human-interest drama. Never mind the bollocks: the race belongs to Obama.
Re: Expect Indiana to Be Closer?
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 9:05PM
So far, that seems to be about right: Hillary still has a solid lead but down from the double digits. With 67 percent in, she's up six points.
Expect Indiana to be closer?
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 8:42PM
An Obama field operative here in West Virginia says to expect the Indiana result to be closer than the numbers currently showing. The state's in two time zones, polls close an hour later in the West, and Western Indiana is better for Obama -- or so the operative says.
Indiana Exits
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 8:05PM
Looking through the Indiana exits briefly, I see that the demographic breakdown of the vote is similar to what we saw in Pennsylvania, though Clinton's advantages over Obama in key demographic groups are narrower.
Obama improved his performance in Pennsylvania among Catholics, weekly churchgoers, women, and by a smaller degree, whites overall (he pulled 40 percent of whites). He's still having trouble with gun owners, and continues to trounce Clinton among black voters (winning 92 percent of their votes). Though, interestingly, according to the current exits, Clinton has a very slight lead among men.
Overall, if the data are accurate, I would say that the exits point to a small Clinton win in the state.
No bitterness at Obama HQ
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 8:01PM
Here at the offices of the Berkeley County (W.Va.) Democratic Party, the Barack Obama campaign is holding a phone bank party and watching primary results on MSNBC.
The mood here? Anything but bitter after North Carolina was called for Obama as soon as the polls closed, although in Indiana, Hillary Clinton was reported leading by double digits with nearly one-third of precincts reporting.
Local volunteer Dana Stewart is standing outside on Queen Street here, holding up a campaign sign and shouting "Obama!" at passing motorists. Stewart says he got a warm reception when he visited nearby Shepherd College to pass out campaign literature. "Those students were coming up to me left and right," he said.
The Obama campaign is well-organized here in West Virginia, even though Hillary is expected to win the state. Local precinct captain Robert Scalf said he'd been "knocking on doors" canvassing his precinct for the past two weeks.
May the Worse Candidate Lose
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 7:55PM
I was traveling yesterday, so I'm late to the "May the best candidate win" discussion, and while I was going to dispute Stacy's contention that we can't tell which Democrat would be worse, he seems to have done it for me with his apt question as to whether "a principled progressive like Obama would do the nation less harm than an unprincipled panderer like Hillary." I'm inclined to answer in the negative.
Ain't That Something
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 7:53PM
Flipping through channels, I keep hearing what a big win Barack Obama enjoyed in North Carolina. I just heard on MSNBC that the NC results will convince superdelegates that Obama weathered the Rev. Wright matter. Oddly, I'm not hearing as much about the early returns in Indiana where Obama isn't doing nearly as well.
Obama Wins NC--That Was Quick
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 7:40PM
RALEIGH, NC -- MSNBC has already projected Barack Obama the winner in North Carolina as the polls closed. But I'm here at the site of the Barack Obama victory rally at NC State, and the doors don't even open for another half hour, so all I heard was scattered cheers of the few campaign workers who are already on hand as event ushers. About a dozen of them just started shouting "Yes We Can." Needless to say, the win has to be by the huge margin the campaign was hoping for. Indiana awaits.
North Carolina: Ron Paul Country?
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 6:15PM
If the polls hold up, two Ron Paul-endorsed congressional candidates may win their Republican primaries today: incumbent Congressman Walter Jones and challenger B.J. Lawson. Dave Weigel reports. I wrote about Jones's primary fight on the main site in December.
Re: Klein in Carolina
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 6:01PM
On Republicans for Clinton, I stand by what I wrote last May. Though obviously we're now in a Giuliani-free zone.
Re: Kauffman, Conservatives, and War
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 5:53PM
If I were a bit less busy, I'd weigh into this conversation. So instead I'll just plug my review of Kauffman's book in an upcoming issue of Reason. Shorter take: I like it, with some quibbles.
UPDATE: Daniel Larison has something more substantive and less self-aggrandizing to add to this discussion.
Klein in Carolina
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 3:09PM
Philip Klein's pique over the possibility of a Clinton comeback makes for interesting reading today:
IT HAS BECOME popular in conservative circles these days to suggest that "you just gotta admire her tenacity" . . .Having also heard Clinton's shameless pandering first-hand, I know what Phil's talking about. On the other hand, are we so sure that a principled progressive like Obama would do the nation less harm than an unprincipled panderer like Hillary? Something to think about on my way to a nearby Obama headquarters, where they're having a "Barack the Vote! Results Watching and Phone Banking Party" tonight.There is absolutely nothing admirable about a politician so narcissistic and hungry for power that she is willing to say or do whatever suits her political interests at any given moment. . . .
Whatever Obama's faults, conservatives should ask themselves whether they can bear the possibility of the nation being held hostage by the psychological drama of the Clinton family for another four or even eight years.
Kauffman, conservatives and war
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 12:56PM
Bill Kauffman will be at Cato Institute on Thursday to talk about his new book, Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism.
Kauffman is a charming writer whose brand of small-town Burkean conservatism gives him an unusual perspective on current politics. I enjoyed his book With Good Intentions? Reflections on the Myth of Progress in American. However, the title of his new book is a bit off-putting. I just don't like the phrase "anti-war," for the simple reason that I don't think any sane person can be "pro-war," at least not in a general sense.
War is a dreadful thing to be avoided if possible, but it is not always possible to avoid it. The history of the 20th century teaches that outright pacifism -- such as flourished in England and France after World War I -- can be an incitement to aggression. If France had been willing to fight a small war when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland, they could have avoided the big war they eventually got.
Of course, most of Kauffman's readers are likely to see his new book through the prism of Iraq, an issue where I think the schism among conservatives is much deeper than has been generally recognized.
Woe Is Us
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 11:41AM
As is now common with political campaigns of all stripes, I was
emailed a copy of John McCain's prepared remarks at Wake Forest
University this morning well before they were delivered. I never
understand why we aren't just provided the meat of the speech,
rather than the meat and all the niceties
and playful banter which instantly reveals itself to be meaningless
once you're informed it's contrived. For
example:
We appreciate the hospitality of the students and faculty of Wake
Forest University, and especially during exams. I know exam week
involves some tough moments, like when you're up at 3:00 a.m. and
have to choose between studying or watching one of Fred's old
movies. Most of the students here look confident
and ready, so you need no advice from me as final exams draw
near.
Was Fred in Harold and Kumar Go to White
Castle? Well, at any rate, that's the American college
student for you. Long before you've even actually laid eyes on them
you can already be sure they'll look confident and ready at 10 a.m.
on a Tuesday morning. Things have apparently changed since I was in
college back in ought-two when students would stumble into 3 p.m.
classes bleary-eyed and woefully unprepared. That was before Obama
started filling their hearts with hope, I guess.
More:
But for those of you who might be feeling a slight sense of panic
coming on, all I can say is that a few bad grades don't have to be
end of the road�-- so just give it your best
and move on. An undistinguished academic record can be overcome in
life, or at least that is the hope that has long sustained
me.
Talk about an inclusive campaign--Good morning students! Confident and ready to aim low? Join us! Slavishly in need of a strong leader you've never met to validate your existence and re-make your life? Choose the other guy!
Lord, woe is us.
McCain Draws Contrast With Obama on Judges
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 11:28AM
WINSTON-SALEM, NC -- I'm here at Wait Chapel in Wake Forest University where John McCain just delivered a very strong speech on judges and the U.S. Constitution.
The central challenge of the McCain candidacy is how he can solidify support among conservatives while still appealing to independents as somebody who is non-partisan, and I think he did that quite will today.
After being introduced by Ted Olson, with Fred Thompson sitting behind him, he spoke about the separation of powers, and noted that, "In America, the constitutional restraint on power is as fundamental as the exercise of power, and often more so." Conservatives, of course, wish he had displayed such faith in the constitution, particularly the First Ammendment, eight years ago when he pushed the campaign finance reform.
But there was plenty in his speech to pacify conservatives. He railed against judicial activism, and cited specific cases that have infuriated the right in recent years, including the Supreme Court's Kelo decision on eminent domain, and the Ninth Circuit's ruling against using "under God" in the pledge.
He complained about Senate obstructionism holding up judicial nominations, and noted thte contradiction with the fact that they always seem to find time to place earmarks in spending bills. He also vowed to appoint judges in the mold of John Roberts and Sam Alito.
The savviest part of the speech came when McCain contrasted his approach to judicial nominations with Barack Obama's. I have always felt that this was the one of the strongest arguments McCain can make that he is committed to crossing party lines, and Obama is all talk. Go and read Obama's statement on John Roberts's confirmation, and it's a farce. He said, "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land," but voted against him anyway so he could fall in line with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
This morning, McCain went after Obama for that decision, and contrasted it with his crossing party lines to forge the "Gang of 14" compromise and voting for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer because they were qualified, even though he disagreed with them.
Whatever conservatives may say about McCain, from a political perspective, it's true that he has a record of bipartisanship, while Obama is simply not credible on this point.
It's final exam time here at Wake Forest, and Obama fever has hit the campus, but the old fella filled up much of the large chapel, and received a warm reception from the crowd.
Not Dann Fans
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 11:06AM
The Ohio Democratic Party is getting to ready to vote on whether to rescind its endorsement of Attorney General Marc Dann. If successful, that means Dann loses access to all party resources. Meanwhile, Sen. Sherrod Brown has joined the chorus calling for Dann's ouster as the move toward impeachment continues.
Like Imelda Marcos needs new shoes
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 11:03AM
Glad to know you enjoyed the Charlie Sheen metaphor, Shawn. The phrase "in like Flynn" also has a Hollywood referent. We need some new celebrity similes. We need 'em bad. We need 'em . . .
Racist, He Explained
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 11:02AM
Over at the Nation, Richard Kim seems troubled by Hillary Clinton's gains over Barack Obama and the continued existence of white voters.
Re: May the Best Candidate Win...
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 10:39AM
I don't have a problem with the motives behind Operation Chaos in general, but I do wish that Rush had recognized it could have negative (for conservatives) down-ballot effects in important state races. Here in North Carolina we have a very tight gubernatorial primary race on the Republican side between state Senator Fred Smith (he represents my district), who is both a social and economic conservative, and the more moderate Pat McCrory, the mayor of Charlotte. Any encouragement by El Rushbo for conservatives to vote in the Democrat primary would likely mean less votes for their likely preferred candidate for governor. But then again, that could be offset by McCrory's loss of votes from moderates (who are registered as "Unaffiliated") -- his likely base -- who are enticed by the Clinton-Obama contest.
There are other races in the state that could be affected in this way also.
Perhaps Rush has addressed this potential side effect. I don't know because I don't get to listen to him much, as I don't work very effectively when my radio is on.
Good News From Louisiana
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 9:33AM
Lost in the shuffle of the Woody Jenkins loss in Louisiana 6 was the overwhelming victory of Steve Scalise in my old district, Louisiana 1. Scalise is the real deal, a solid conservative with bedrock principles, unchallenged integrity, and political smarts. I first met him back in 1989, when he was just getting out of college, and have watched his career closely ever since. He will be a superb addition to Congress.
More Denial
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 9:05AM
For anyone who may be interested, I've followed up my recent Lawrence Solomon Q&A with a review of his excellent The Deniers in today's Washington Times.
Who Will Get More Votes Than Sheen's Had Hookers?
Posted by on 5.6.08 @ 9:01AM
Frequent AmSpec contributor Robert Stacy McCain's predictions for today's primaries live here. His lengthy defense of making Robert Downey Jr. cocaine jokes on the radio ("The dude's been in rehab more times than Charlie Sheen's been with hookers. OK, that's an exaggeration. Nobody's done anything more than Charlie Sheen's been with hookers."), meanwhile, is here.
Somewhere between these two posts is a great truth about the universe. First one to divine it send up a flare or something.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Re: May the best candidate win
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 10:22PM
I don't believe we've had the pleasure to meet, Mr. Friedersdorf, and I'm sure you're a wonderful fellow, but I'm frustrated by your assertion that we can tell which of the two Democratic candidates would be the worse president. You cite their stated positions on foreign policy and health care but need I remind you, they're Democrats? What they promise during the campaign and what they deliver after the election are two entirely separate matters. Or perhaps you don't remember the "middle class tax cut" that was the key economic promise of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.
Hillary says she wants mandated socialized health care and Obama says he wants socialized health care without mandates, but once such a proposal goes through the congressional meat-grinder, who knows what it might contain? And are we to accept at face value Hillary's protestation that she wouldn't meet with foreign radicals, even though her husband hosted Yasser Arafat at the White House?
Policy-wise, either Democrat would be a disaster, and it's impossible to guess -- based purely on their biographies, political histories, and rhetoric -- which would be worse. Thus, Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" idea: Stir up such a primary fight that, even if the Democrats are able to get their candidate elected in November, their party will suffer long-term damage in the process. A damaged Democratic Party would be less likely to hold the White House for two terms, or withstand a midterm backlash in 2010.
Given the dismal course of John McCain's campaign, Limbaugh's strategy seems the best available option, which is not the same as saying it's a good option.
Re: May the best candidate win...
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 10:18PM
Honestly, my interest in anything Rush does has always been something approaching nil for the same reason I don't listen to the Beastie Boys: Way too much of his show is taken up with preening about his spectacular abilities. Maybe it's a personality flaw, but I prefer to listen to someone with a little less self-esteem, late night guys who bring a little modesty or crazy to the table.
Nonetheless Conor, don't fool yourself: Obama is as likely, should Congress acquiesce, to institute mandates as Clinton--perhaps even moreso since his health advisors are already framing mandates as a necessary evil should corporations or Republicans fail to bend to Humpty Hope-Monger's will. (How likely do you think it is that a dyed-in-the-wool lib like Obama will be satisifed with corporate or conservative compromise?) I see Obama's devotion to meeting with bad men going the way of his solidarity with Palestine once he's playing to a general election crowd. And when the war was young the guy vigorously played both sides of the fence as well--for purely political reasons he now says. Very comforting!
So, yeah, of we want to discuss how stupid or brilliant "Operation Chaos" is or isn't, have at it. But we don't need to whitewash our aspiring Lecturer-in-Chief in the process.
Woody Jenkins Isn't Alone
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 9:09PM
Quin and Daniel Larison provide much needed demographic context for this weekend's special election in Louisiana, explaining why the sixth congressional district is likely to be less Republican post-Katrina than it was when George W. Bush carried it easily in 2004. Michael Jackson (not the singer) may actually deliver the seat to the Republicans in the fall anyway. But I don't think it's quite right to say "There hasn't even been a trend," at least if Larison is talking about the same trend I'm actually talking about.
If the special elections were all we had to go by, it would be premature to render a judgment. But there is ample evidence that the Republican brand is tarnished -- fundraising woes, primary turnout, generic poll numbers, the 2006 elections -- and plenty of cases where Democrats have won in areas where Republicans should have been favored. There are good reasons to believe that Democrats will add to their congressional majorities in November. It is against this background that the special elections in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi are daunting for Republicans.
Sure, there are extenuating circumstances in each of the above races. Since politics doesn't take place in a lab, there are always extenuating circumstances. If it weren't for scandals, Democrats wouldn't hold House seats that recently belonged to Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and Mark Foley. Plenty of extenuating circumstances helped the Republicans pick up formerly safe Democratic seats in 1994. That's how congressional majorities are built. The stronger party is better than the weaker party at adapting to changing political circumstances, recruiting strong candidates rather than relying on Woody Jenkinses and Jim Oberweises, and seizing opportunities in races that individually would serve as imperfect barometers of the country's politics.
The only good news for Republicans is that the Democrats are missing two things. In 1994, a large number of conservative congressional districts that had been electing Democrats stopped doing so. The number of Northeastern moderate districts electing Republicans isn't as large. Second, there hasn't been a clear public endorsement of the Democratic agenda except where that agenda is small (raising the minimum wage) or more popular in the abstract than in detail (think health care and Iraq).
Dumb Mistake of the Week -- and It's Only Monday
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 8:39PM
This is a blog post. This is an article. Supposedly tech savvy critics should learn the difference.
Re: May the best candidate win
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 6:08PM
My
post labeled "Operation Chaos" objectionable, not Rush Limbaugh
himself, though I find the
defense offered on his behalf problematic:
What is Rush Limbaugh? Is he a partisan political operative? Does he collect his paycheck from the Republican National Committee? Or is he, alternatively, an idealistic philosopher in an ivory tower, pondering obscure questions of the greater good?
No, Rush is a professional broadcaster whose livelihood is dependent on attracting listeners and advertisers to his show.
Other entertainers intent on attracting an audience include Keith Olbermann, Al Franken and Michael Moore. Is it verbotten to declare anything that they do "objectionable" because they're simply pursuing their livelihood? I should hope not.
This is a better defense:
Rush believes that what is bad for the Democratic Party is good for America. (If you want to argue that point, take it up with Rush.)
I think I just did. The counterargument offered is as follows:
I strenuously disagree that there wouldn't be any meaningful policy differences between the two Democrats. The fact that one supported the war in Iraq and the other opposed it suggests that they do differ on large, consequential questions. One example, off the top of my head, that is certain to come up in the future: Senator Obama is likely to conduct one-on-one talks with objectionable foreign leaders, whereas Senator Clinton is more reluctant to do so, believing that such talks lend abhorrent regimes legitimacy. Another is the difference between health care with mandates and without -- I'm against either plan, but I'd certainly prefer the latter, as should any principled backer of small government.
Nor do I think that policy differences are the only portents of how their presidencies might play out. These are people of different generations whose life experiences, advisors, temperments and supporters are all quite different.
Just as I don't think it is obvious which is most electable, I don't think it's certain which candidate would perform better, or please conservatives more, if elected. Forced to state a preference based on one metric or the other, however, a risk-averse, tempermentally conservative voter ought to choose the latter.
Stay in Baton Rouge, Ct'd
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 6:02PM
Yuval Levin disagrees with conservatives who aren't eager to jump on the Jindal-for-veep bandwagon. First Levin defends Jindal's experience, arguing, "I suppose that's less experience than some vice presidential candidates, but it's more than others have had, and it's more management and executive experience than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain can point to." But Levin is misreading the conservative case against putting Bobby Jindal on the GOP ticket. Most of us acknowledge that he is smart, capable, and has a good resume. We just don't think plucking him from the governorship before he has had a chance to distinguish himself in it is good for conservatism, the GOP, Louisiana, or the country.
Levin continues, "Kathryn [Lopez] says Jindal is needed in Louisiana, and as a model of good conservative government nationally. But if he could help Republicans win the presidency, wouldn't that be more important in the big picture?" No, I don't think so. If John McCain manages to win the presidency in spite of the conservative/Republican brand or is seen as the last gasp of a dying coalition, that is not better for conservatism or the country in the long run than having a model of good conservative government nationally. Conservatives need to re-prove to the persuadable portion of the electorate that they can govern and that conservative policies are prudent.
Granted, seeing McCain become president ranks very low on my list of priorities, somewhere between being mugged and being in an automobile accident. But even conservatives who are bullish about McCain and think it is vital that we have a Republican president for the next four to eight years might consider reinvigorating conservatism "more important in the big picture." If McCain is so important and he can't get elected without Jindal, then obviously something is wrong with the right's place in our politics.
For this reason, I might answer Levin's next question differently than he would: "[W]hat about what's good for McCain, or for Republicans, or for the country?" I think in the long term, having a successful reform-minded conservative governor is in the best interest of the Republicans and the country. It is certainly good for Jindal, though it might not be for McCain. But I'm less interested in McCain than in conservatism or the country. I am not, in any event, convinced that Jindal is the only way McCain can get elected and have to ask what is wrong with McCain if he is. Bad political timing has contributed to the thinning of the Republican bench. Let's not make the mistake again.
Re: May the best candidate win
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 5:17PM
If Conor Friedersdorf wants to label Rush Limbaugh "objectionable," I'll volunteer to be the first to rise to the bait.
What is Rush Limbaugh? Is he a partisan political operative? Does he collect his paycheck from the Republican National Committee? Or is he, alternatively, an idealistic philosopher in an ivory tower, pondering obscure questions of the greater good?
No, Rush is a professional broadcaster whose livelihood is dependent on attracting listeners and advertisers to his show. Nevertheless, let us stipulate that Limbaugh is also a patriotic American who wants what is best for his country. Why, therefore, would he launch "Operation Chaos," with the stated objective of tying the Democratic primary race into an ugly knot?
Short answer: Rush believes that what is bad for the Democratic Party is good for America. (If you want to argue that point, take it up with Rush.)
My problem with your "risk-averse approach," Conor, is your apparent belief that there would be any meaningful policy difference between an Obama administration and a Clinton administration. I see no basis for such a belief. Any consideration of electing the better of the two Democrats is a non-starter, if both are equally bad -- or if each is at least so bad that there's no point trying to calculate which is worse.
May the best candidate win
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 4:36PM
A whole lot of blog posts, here and elsewhere, assert that Democrats in Indiana and North Carolina should think carefully before voting for Barack Obama due to his Reverend Wright and Bill Ayres problems -- general election attacks on those issues may make him unelectable, this reasoning goes (strangely it seldom includes the fact that come a general election plenty of Clinton baggage will be aired too).
Electability is one factor to weigh as a primary voter. Another is which candidate would be a better president, a metric that shockingly few commentators discuss. I understand the focus on electability, of course, but I must say it isn't an ideal way to choose presidents insofar as both parties may wind up nominating people who are relatively more likely to win the most powerful office in the world, and relatively less likely to perform well once inaugurated.
That's why I find Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" so objectionable. Were he to assert that Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama will make a better president I'd not object to his working to secure that person the Democratic nomination, even if he preferred John McCain to either. But his stunt so far suggests that it's worth the risk of ending up with the poorer potential president on the Democratic side to marginally increase the chance that a Republican wins in the fall.
This seems insane to me, partly because electability is so uncertain a quantity -- who actually knows whether Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama is better on that metric -- and largely because there's a significant chance that the Democratic nominee will win regardless of who the candidate is. My own risk-averse approach would be to hope that the best Democrat wins the nomination not because I want a Democrat in the White House, but because I want two candidates squaring off either of whom will serve the country best if elected.
Perhaps the flawed incentives at play here are inevitable in a two party system conceived as ours is, but the country would be better off if at least the social norms around electing a president changed, so that everyone was rooting for the best potential president to emerge on the other side rather than the easiest potential electoral opponent. One step toward that better nation -- impossible though it is to achieve fully -- might be for the commentariat to focus a bit less obsessively on which candidate is most electable in a general election, and a bit more on which candidate would make the best president.
Where's Joe Goin' With That Gun In Hand? Poland!
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 3:58PM
Here's a bit that should make our Dear Leader Wlady's heart swell with pride:
Over 1900 Polish guitarists gathered at the
Wroclaw market square in southern Poland to play Hey Joe, a Jimi
Hendrix classic in unison during the 6th annual 'Thanks Jimi
Festival.'
Event organizer guitarist and music teacher Leszek Cichowski says the festival 'was just an idea ten years ago during a small music workshop in the town of Zakiew in southwestern Poland where 16 guitar players performed together: "Last year we had in the market square in Wroclaw 1881 guitar players. So we beat our world record . We had 1951 guitar players and again it's the best in the world."
Gov. Strickland to Ohio AG: Resign
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 3:41PM
I wrote about Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann's sex-and-sexual harassment scandal today on the main site. Now Gov. Ted Strickland, a fellow Democrat elected in 2006, has joined those calling for Dann's resignation. Strickland and other top Democratic leaders sent a letter to this effect to the Cleveland Plain Dealer last night: "We also want to make you aware that if you do not choose to resign, Democratic members of the Ohio House of Representatives will immediately introduce a resolution seeking your impeachment." Strickland is taking this position even though a special election will be called if Dann leaves office before Sept. 24. Good for him. It's also clear that leading Democrats want to put some distance between themselves and Dann before this endangers their party's Buckeye State ascendance.
Obama, Oprah; Oprah, Uma
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 3:24PM
Oprah Winfrey wisely picked up on something that eluded her candidate Barack Obama by leaving Jeremiah Wright's church years ago. But the Newsweek story about her decision does claim she was at least as opportunistic about when to associate with Wright as Obama.
Will Obama bomb in November?
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 3:15PM
While hestitating to handicap the North Carolina and Indiana primaries (the links are to RealClearPolitics poll summaries, which do not indicate any clear trend), I will say that Democrats in those states have a lot to ponder.
In addition to the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama has been plagued by his association with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. That connection roiled the blogosphere today when John Ruberry of Marathon Pundit found an online version of a 2001 Chicago magazine article about Ayers, featuring a color photo of Ayers stepping on an American flag.
Even Democrats who like Obama may be wondering whether these associations will doom the Democrats in November. They have to ask themselves, "What will Karl Rove do?"
Hillary's Big Day
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 2:05PM
Tomorrow is the most important day yet in Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The likeliest outcome is that she will win Indiana and hold Barack Obama to a single-digit margin of victory in North Carolina, which will provide her with a very strong argument for continuing her candidacy and taking the nomination away from a stunned Obama. Whether she convinces the superdelegates to vote for her in large enough numbers or the media to change its narrative is another matter. Of course, if she somehow wins North Carolina then it becomes a tough argument for the superdelegates or the media to ignore. It might even be enough to make her the frontrunner again. And if Hillary somehow loses Indiana, she's finished. But as I say, the first ambiguously pro-Hillary result is still the likeliest outcome.
Re: Woody Jenkins Loses
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 2:03PM
Jim is right that the Jenkins loss does indeed signal "rough terrain ahead for Republicans in congressional races." But there is also reason to think that Republicans may retake that very seat in November -- and even that Jenkins might be able to do so.
Jenkins is an interesting story. He ran not just twice but three times for the US Senate, in 1978 and 1980 in kamikaze missions where he did better than expected both times, and the third time having it snatched away from him by a suspiciously high turnout in 1996 engineered in the last three hours of the day by then-New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial. The key there was that GOP legislators stupidly had put a gambling measure on the ballot for that election rather than for an earlier one, so there was a ton of casino money "on the street" to help Morial bus his voters to the polls. Even so, Jenkins "lost" by just 6,000 votes, and proved that at least 1100 of them were fraudulent. But somehow his aggressive push for an investigation backt hen gave him the image of a sore loser which, combined with his image as an extremist (Ollie North connections, pro-life outspokenness in stark terms), have made him a figure less than acceptable to country club Republicans. He lost in the biggest part of the congressional district, the usually GOP-heavy East Baton Rouge Parish partly as a result of those factors. But he's a good man, albeit a stubborn one who refuses to run conventional campaigns.
Anyway, he lost Saturday, by a close margin, in part because a GOP-leaning independent pulled a lot of votes away from him (although my sources down there say she pulled almost as many votes from the Dem as from Jenkins), and in part because that district is just flat-out not the same demographically that it was when Bush won it so handily in 2004. Even then, it was a fairly marginal district, with Richard Baker holding it several terms back only by the skin of his teeth over a conservative Democrat whose father was a GOP secretary of state and whose grandfather was governor in the 1960s. Since Katrina, the district has become more Democratic, with lots of poor, largely black refugees from New Orleans settling there permanently. All of which means that any Republican running for the seat against an appealing candidate like Democrat Don Cazayoux would have had a tough time.
Now, here's where it gets REALLY interesting. A fairly liberal black state representative named Michael Jackson is angry at the national Democratic Party for favoring Cazayoux over him in the Demo primary. He already has announced that he will run in November as an independent. He is hoping that if Obama is the nominee, he, Jackson, will be able to ride a heavy black turnout to victory in a three-way race. What this means is that whomever gets the GOP nomination in the fall -- even Woody Jenkins -- effectively will be running against not one but two Democrats who will be splitting the votes in the center and left. That leaves an opening for the GOP to retake the seat even if the GOP candidate gets only 34% of the vote (although the likelihood is that it will take a good 40% to win, because the votes won't split in perfect thirds). Jenkins could do it if he gets the nod and motivates the religious right and some of his working-class folks (he's always been good with blue-collar workers) to turn out heavily at the polls. Somebody else like Secretary of State Jay Dardennes (if he runs; so far there is no indication that he wants to do so) could win by recapturing some of the country clubbers who clearly opted for either Cazayoux or the independent Ashley Casey on Saturday. (Even a GOP state Rep. Diane Winston, "dissed" Jenkins BEFORE the election this time, sniffing haughtily that he wasn't the right sort of Republican.)
What this all means is that this loss should not have happened, but it was NOT an easy race to win by any means, and it WILL be extremely competitive again in the fall if the GOP nominates a reasonably heavyweight candidate.
Thank Gawd for Sudan!
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 1:38PM
Judging by Jacob Laksin's fine reporting from Guantanamo Bay, you perhaps wouldn't expect Sami al-Haj's first words upon release to be "I'm very happy to be in Sudan," but, then again, whatever the crime or non-crime, freedom probably tastes better than captivity just about anywhere. Still, his present location does make declarations aimed at the United States such as, "Justice comes from lifting oppression and guaranteeing rights and freedoms and respecting the will of the people and not to interfere with a country's internal politics," seem a teeny bit ironic, even if you can't expect the guy to be anything but bitter. (Especially when one considers no charges were ever brought and, thus, his story of media-member-mistaken-for-a-criminal--something I have some minor experience with under very different circumstances--might very well check out.) Or perhaps he is, as DailyKos commentors are suggesting, Franklin-Jefferson incarnate roaming the wondrous free lands of Sudan.
Don't Stop Thinking About Now
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 1:12PM
HIGH POINT, NC -- Hillary Clinton just spoke at the train station here to a crowd of a few hundred for her last appearance in the Tar Heel State before tomorrow's primary.
She hit on her standard themes -- jobs, health care, pulling out of Iraq, etc. She wants to fight predatory college loan companies, predatory mortgage lenders, and big bad oil.
In an indication that she was somewhat sensitive to criticism that her proposal for suspending the gas tax this summer was just a short-term solution, she said that long-term solutions were important but we also have to be "living in the here and now" and come to the aid of those who are being pinched by rising costs.
Sure, It Looks Wonderful, But Is There Room For...
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 1:05PM
Well, There Was That Whole 2004 Primary Thingee...
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 12:54PM
"God used David to challenge Goliath," Sharpton said. "So what makes you think God can't use Al Sharpton to challenge George Bush?"
Come on, Rev. God didn't even want to use you to take on Dick
Gephardt. Plus, remember He once put an unholy love of tracksuits
in your heart. Not a good sign.
Stay in Baton Rouge
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 11:29AM
Speaking of Louisiana, as much as I like Bobby Jindal I think a McCain-Jindal ticket would be a bad idea. Yes, John McCain would benefit from having a young, talented, Asian running mate with executive experience and domestic policy know-how. If they pull off a win, Jindal might benefit by becoming the Republican presidential frontrunner in eight years without having to improve his personal charisma. But it would be bad for Louisiana, bad for the Republican Party, bad for the country if we spend Jindal prematurely, and, as Ross Douthat argues, probably bad for Jindal.
The Republican Party needs a real governing success story (and Louisiana badly needs a successful governor). Jindal ought to be given time to deliver instead of putting him on a national ticket so soon. Jindal isn't a senator. If he lives up to his potential, his moment will not pass after this election. Jindal only will become irrelevant if he decides to run for president a decade after his biggest accomplishments have passed. But who would do something like that?
Woody Jenkins Loses in Louisiana
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 11:15AM
In the latest example of the rough terrain ahead for Republicans in the congressional races -- even in friendly territory -- Democrat Don Cazayoux beat Republican Woody Jenkins in a special congressional election. The seat had been held by Republican Richard Baker, making this a Democratic pickup. Yes, Cazayoux is fairly conservative. Yes, Jenkins is a deeply polarizing figure and two-time statewide loser (though I think a case could be made that he actually did win the 1996 Senate race). Yes, he could have run a more professional campaign. Yes, the election was close. But there have been too many examples of this trend to explain away.
But They Will Never Take… Our (Internet) Freedom!
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 11:14AM
Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge has a long and thoughtful piece
on net neutrality, written largely in response to a column I wrote on the issue
for the Spectator, as well as to a Washington Times piece written by Dick Armey, the chairman of FreedomWorks (where I work). Brodsky claims that what's at stake is
nothing less than "freedom," and, naturally, that freedom's on his
side. Well, I (obviously) beg to differ. So as much as I'd love it if we could
all be Mel Gibson from Braveheart, riding around with
war-paint making stirring speeches about liberty, I suspect that our views just
aren't compatible on this.
The main thing I'd take issue with is his characterization
of the net as a public utility. He says
that it's "well established that private property is subject to the
law." That hardly, however, addresses whether or not it should be. And just because private property is subject to some law doesn't mean it's subject to
any and all laws -- it's not a free pass for whatever regulation can be dreamed
up.
Brodsky also takes issue with the characterization of
wireless networks as "private networks."
It is privately owned network, but
that’s different. A private network is what a company might have to connect its
employees. Wireless has 65.2 million retail customers. That would be some
humongous private network.
But the fact that it offers customers the opportunity to pay
for some use of its property doesn't suddenly mean it gives up rights to make
decisions about how that property is used. Think of a large retailer doing business on private property. Like a
wireless network, it's privately owned. And like a wireless network, it allows
the public to come into its store and make use of its property. But by doing
so, the store doesn't suddenly become a public utility; they can still throw
customers out for making trouble, deny them entry if they seem suspicious, and/or refuse to sell particular items if they think doing so will, for some reason, ultimately be better for business. That
doesn't mean they should – and you'll notice that smart retailers rarely do so
– but nor does it mean that these businesses should be legally prohibited from such activity.
And that speaks to my final point, which is that Brodsky seems to assume that all of us who oppose neutrality mandates think neutrality is, plain and simple, a bad thing. That's simply not the case. Neutrality is, in most cases, a good thing, and if my ISP were to suddenly stop allowing access to my favorite websites, I'd be on the phone complaining in an instant – but to my ISP, not to a Congressman. Because it's there – in the market, not on the floor of Congress – that these debates ought to be solved.
Save Us From Lindsey Graham
Posted by on 5.5.08 @ 9:46AM
On CNN's Late Edition this weekend, this is the best that the ever-annoying Sen. Lindsey Graham could come up with when asked how John McCain would be different from the current President Bush:
GRAHAM: I think there are a couple areas that would be different. One global climate change. John has been talking about global climate change for many years now. I think he would help lead the world to a solution there.
Give me a break. First, just a year ago the phrase was "global warming," not "climate change." But global warming doesn't exist. Second, if that's really the first, best selling point for McCain, then Lord Help Us All. Even if it did exist, which it doesn't, at least not caused by man, "climate change" would NOT be the worst environmental problem we face. The worst problem is the decline of the world's fisheries, which completely change the entire eco-system of the world's oceans and seas, which in turn messes up the global food chain in huge ways. But instead of trying to fix that, the global warming numbskulls take all sorts of actions which barely make a dent in carbon use/carbon debt, but DO exacerbate, in very deadly ways, a problem with, yes, the global food supply chain. While Sen. Graham prattles on about climate change, his solutions are making people starve to death.
Please give us another reason to vote for John McCain.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Bad News for Chevy
Posted by on 5.4.08 @ 6:28PM
I just completed a business trip to Atlanta where I drove a rental car all over the metropolitan area. I'd hoped for a Ford Fusion, but got a Chevrolet Impala. As a former owner of a 1988 Chevrolet Caprice Classic, I was stunned by how similar the experience of driving a twenty years younger Impala was to driving my old car. Same sense of being disconnected from the road. Same feeling of driving a sofa. Nothing bad,. It was just . . . there.
Here's the worst part. When I returned to the airport in Houston and picked up my 2000 four cylinder Honda Accord, I roared out of the parking lot surprised by the sensation of driving a race car in total communion with the asphalt. When the Chevy's great achievement is to make me feel like a king in my no frills eight year old Accord, one has to worry about GM.
As Goes Guam...
Posted by on 5.4.08 @ 8:03AM
Good news for Barack Obama: he has won the Guam caucuses. According to the AP, it was a close one. The margin of victory was seven. Not seven percent, seven votes.
On second thought, maybe that's not such great news for Obama.
Said Unironically, I Think
Posted by on 5.4.08 @ 1:38AM
"That bitch set me up" -- overheard in the parking lot next to my Fairfax townhouse Saturday night.
