- 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 31, 2008
Hillary adds 24 delegates
Posted by on 5.31.08 @ 9:30PM
Not enough to close the gap, reports Marc Ambinder, who notes this comment from Clinton honcho Harold Ickes:
"Mrs. Clinton has reserved her right to take this to the credentials committee."
Yeah, all the way to Denver, baby! Meanwhile, Hillary's brother Tony Rodham makes a strange comment:
[Tony] Rodham, a self-described "yellow dog Democrat all my life," is unsure who he would support in November if Clinton is not the party's standard bearer.This is turning into one of the weirdest campaign years in decades.
"If my sister doesn't end up with the nomination, I gotta take a look at who I'm gonna vote for," he said.
... Does that mean, [a reporter asked], Rodham would vote for Republican John McCain.
"I didn't say that. It could be Bob Barr," he said, referring to the Libertarian presidential candidate who, as a House member from Georgia, was a prime player in the impeachment of Rodham's brother-in-law, Bill Clinton.
'The Gold States': Barr's electoral strategy?
Posted by on 5.31.08 @ 2:40PM
Stephen Gordon, a campaign strategist for Bob Barr's Libertarian presidential campaign, offers this map:
Gordon describes this as merely a hypothetical scenario: "What
a three-party system might look like on Election Day." On the other
hand, it could be viewed as a preliminary sketch of Team Barr's
campaign strategy. Campaign manager Russ Verney has mentioned plans
to target "certain states" and
David Boaz of the Cato Institute said:
"The best opportunities would be New Hampshire, which is arguably the most libertarian state in the country and where, in 2006, the Republicans just got wiped out," Boaz said.What's significant is that Team Barr actually is thinking about an Electoral College strategy, something Ross Perot never seems to have considered. Meanwhile, in a Newsweek interview, Ron Paul says nice things about Barr:
From there, Barr should look west.
"Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona," Boaz said, adding Alaska and Colorado.
New Mexico could be a possibility, also, he said.
For third-party junkies, I've got a long discussion about the Paul/Barr axis at my personal blog.What are your feelings toward [Libertarian nominee] Bob Barr?
We're pretty friendly. We're allies, he's a good friend. He has called me a couple times recently, so it's very cordial.Even though he has been targeting your supporters?
I can't blame him. I'm sure that's his goal. [Laughs]
James Gilmore....
Posted by on 5.31.08 @ 2:16PM
...wins Virginia Republican Senate nomination...barely.
Re: Gersonism
Posted by on 5.31.08 @ 10:37AM
I'm not here to defend Gersonism, but I think it is fair to say Gersonism is not responsible for the terrible brand value of George W. Bush. Gersonism is probably very popular with the American people and would have served as a decent platform for a mix of school choice, welfare reform, pro-marriage policies, etc. All the momentum that was building nicely on those fronts has regrettably dissipated in two terms dedicated largely to foreign policy.
The problem with the Bush administration in the eyes of public has been and remains Iraq. It isn't discussed frequently enough, but I really believe the American people were not prepared for the type of war this has been. They thought it would be quickly prosecuted and that the reconstruction effort would be largely funded out of Iraqi oil revenues.
Instead, it has been long, expensive, and if it was a case of blood for oil, certainly doesn't seemed to have helped us on the price of the commodity!
Friday, May 30, 2008
Re: Gersonism
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 5:09PM
Quin, it seems to me the essential problem is that Gerson and his ilk don't understand the "tough love" aspect of conservatism. They are so afraid of being perceived as hard-hearted and uncaring that they will compromise away anything in order to avoid that perception.
This is what I see as the contrast with Reagan, who understood hardship as an incentive, a motivator. The conservative believes that if you're poor, if you suffer from unfair disadvantages, if you have a few tough breaks, this should spur you to greater effort. In striving to overcome obstacles, we become better people, and the man who triumphs over adversity can take justifiable pride in saying, "I did it." If, on the other hand, government treats you like a charity case, so that you make your way in the world with the constant sympathy and assistance of the Nanny State bureaucracy, where is the self-improvement, where is the sense of triumph, where is the source of meaningful pride?
Reagan understood all this, in a way that Gerson obviously doesn't.
Why DC Goes Broke
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 2:58PM
In my latest Examiner column, I examine a case that shows one more reason why the DC government can't make ends meet sometimes. This time, it is not the fault of the lawmakers or the executive branch officials.Â
Gersonism
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 2:56PM
Stacy,
As Frum might say (but in a different context), you are "dead
right." I agree with you entirely. Of course, we now have tried
Gersonism for 7 1/2 years, and the results are plain for all to
see: a president with the lowest sustained approval ratings in
modern history. Seems to me that Gersonism doesn't work. And I say
that as somebody who was putting the words "conservative" and
"compassion" together, deliberately, in speeches and talking-point
notes, half a decade before the current Bush was running for
president. I remain enamored with many of Jack Kemp's urban plans,
etc. But that doesn't mean I think compassion modifies
conservatism, as Gerson seems to believe; I think it DESCRIBES
conservatism, rightly understood -- and rightly understood is
certainly not as Gerson understands it. In Gersonism I smell more
than a whiff of compulsion. It is a whiff which offends both my
politics and my faith.
D.C. to ban Mom, apple pie and Old Glory?
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 2:55PM
A slippery slope awaits us, if "emergency" action is needed to ban fireworks on the Fourth of July:
District of Columbia officials are calling for a ban on the sale and use of consumer fireworks.
Mayor Adrian Fenty says an emergency bill will be introduced at a D.C. Council meeting next week. . . .
If passed, it would take effect immediately. . . .
Fire Chief Dennis Rubin says that there were six "significant injuries" related to fireworks last year in Washington.
Considering that Washington averages well over 200 homicides per year, this fireworks "emergency" -- occasioned by a mere six injuries -- is laughable. Then again, most things done by the D.C. government are laughable. A fireworks ban is logically analogous to the absurdly ineffective D.C. handgun ban.
The risks of consumer fireworks have been purposely exaggerated by the anti-fun lobby. Most fireworks injuries are caused by a failure to follow basic common-sense safety guidelines that are printed on the package, including the most basic rule of all: "Light fuse, get away."
Fireworks are a personal hobby of mine. Three years ago, my twins sons (then 12) assisted me in assembling and igniting a Fourth of July consumer fireworks display that ended with this finale:
Our guests told us it was "better than Disney World."
Re; The Tragedy of Gerson's Compassion
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 2:37PM
Ditto, Quin. Better for conservatives to let themselves be accused (falsely) of being hard-hearted that to be accused (truly) of being soft-headed. I find it worthwhile to contrast Gersonism and Reaganism.
Good News on Al Qaeda
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 2:33PM
These type of intelligence assessments are always changing, but this report from the Washington Post is quite encouraging:
Re; The Tragedy of Gerson's Compassion
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 2:30PM
Jim, you are so right. Michael Gerson is a self-absorbed, self-important, sanctimonious so-and-so. I do not pick up my op-ed page to be lectured on theology. I have my own theology degree, earned through rigorous study and rooted in a highly ecumenical personal background, to work with in order to apply my faith, privately, to my politics, or not to apply it, as the case may be. I hardly need Gerson's fulminations to instruct me.
 Anyway, your last line is right on target: Gerson seems so busy shouting his own good intentions from the rooftops that he sometimes misses the fact that results are what matter. Meanwhile, Gerson preaches that "the goal of Christianity is to allo Him to shape us, not the other way around." Fine. I am perfectly willing to let Jesus shape me. But that is a far cry from letting a government run by sanctimonious nudges like Gerson try to shape me for what they, in their self-absorption, think they have discerned about what Christ's purposes are with relation to me and my own expression of compassion (or enforced compassion, which is all government can do, and which is an oxymoron) for the broader world.
Why is it that when the Post and the Times hire new "conservative" columnists, they always turn out, like David Brooks and Mike Gerson, to evince utter disdain for conservatives and to insult our motives, our good will and, yes, our faith? Gerson is to conservatives what Scott McClellan is to Bush.
Is Krispy Kreme The Toyota Prius Of Donuts?
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 1:13PM
Over at Human Events Jillian Bandes delivers a funny treatise on "Donut Elistism," and argues, in part, that the conservative movement might want to spend its time "arguing about donuts rather than presidential candidates anyway, since sweet emotions will trump painful ones." Good stuff.
Obama's "Kook of the Month" club
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 1:12PM
Just got off the air with New Orleans talk-radio host Jeff Crouere. Originally booked on Crouere's show to talk about Bob Barr, I found myself instead asked to spend a half-hour discussing the Rev. Michael Pfleger's "white entitlement" sermon against Hillary Clinton. Clearly, this is a hot topic in Louisiana, with its large Catholic population.
Crouere made the point that Barack Obama seems to be surrounded with these radical nutjobs, who pop up out of the woodwork on a regular basis. In March, it was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In April, it was Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Now, it's Pfleger, the "brother beloved" whose ridiculous rant has become a YouTube classic just before the DNC meeting in Washington that is to decide whether to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations.
Democrats have to wonder, Crouere said, if Pfleger is the last radical shoe that's going to drop out of Obama's closet. By reminding Democrats of this, Pfleger might somehow resurrect the dwindling hopes of Hillary's nomination. Will this be the miracle that Team Clinton's been praying for? If so, will it qualify Pfleger for canonization?
Liberals, Good & Evil, Movies, etc.
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 12:32PM
Hey, Shawn, I watched "Mississippi Burning" on my DVR a few nights back. Good movie, well made, but way, way black 'n' white in its moral orientations: FBI good, rednecks bad. You remember when Bill Clinton said he remembered black churches being burned when he was a boy, and it turned out there never had been any such epidemic of church burnings? "Mississippi Burning's" opening credits show one after another firebombing of...black churches! Suppose Bill Clinton "remembered" his history from a movie, as Ronald Reagan was so often accused of doing?
The Tragedy of Gerson's Compassion
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 11:24AM
As if on cue, Michael Gerson is back with another column showcasing the trend I discussed in my column today for the main site. For his latest wallow in self-righteousness, Gerson takes on Sen. Tom Coburn's contention that "Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not his neighbor's possessions." Gerson complains that Coburn is turning Jesus into a libertarian, but this is a strawman argument: Coburn himself isn't a libertarian.
It is Gerson who has turned support for activist government into a test of one's compassion. Coburn is simply pointing out that the believer cannot simply shunt Jesus's injunctions onto the state. In fact, the specific Bible verses Gerson references to counter Coburn are injunctions for the individual lender and farmer, though they are handed down in the context of law-giving for the people of Israel. Gerson then recruits 18th- and 19th-century evangelical reformers to serve various 20th-century liberal cliches, though he does at least admit, "The argument that government is often a flawed instrument to improve social conditions has merit. There are limits to take-a-number-and-wait bureaucratic compassion -- and tremendous advantages to the commitment and sacrificial love of volunteers. Which is precisely why compassionate conservatism looks first to the expansion of private, community responses to poverty and need."
But the actual track record of big-government conservatism that the Huckabees and the Gersons defend goes well beyond this, and in the case of programs like Medicare Part D they did not look first to private and community responses. Compassionate conservatism began admirably enough with works like Marvin Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion, which honestly sought to grapple with why welfare state liberalism went wrong. Great Society-style programs were designed based on a flawed view of human nature, exaggerated confidence in the life-changing powers of impersonal bureaucracies, and a failure to appreciate the likelihood of unintended consequences. Compassionate conservatism's biggest problem is that it seeks first to establish the good intentions of the compassionate conservative and only secondarily to actually have any results for the poor.
I Thought Liberals Were Beyond Good and Evil?
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 10:56AM
I saw Recount this week and it was pretty much exactly what I'd been led to expect it would be--a series of scenes alternating between Democrats heroically striving to sustain democratic institutions and James Baker craftily working to subvert them. According to an Entertainment Weekly chat with Laura Dern, a self-described "like, out of the womb" Democrat (Congratulations on making it, sister!), this set-up is the definition of politically unbiased artistic interpretation. Dern herself "had a job" to achieve a non-partisan understanding of the "perspective" of her character Katherine Harris--the understood perspective being, of course, she was a make-up encased, Bible-thumping half-wit easily manipulated by the forces of evil.
Neverthless, when asked to defend the film's portrayal of Warren Christopher, which some former Gore campaign officials have complained is too "wuss"-like, Dern gets right to the point: "I never thought he was a wuss. What I got from the script was, he's from another time--when nobility meant something. But that doesn't fly with this administration. That's the tragedy."
Well, she got one thing right. That definitely is what you get from the script.
Pastor of Disaster
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 10:20AM
Now Senator Obama is scrambling to distance himself from the saddest excuse of a white radical priest you'll ever see, on YouTube or anywhere else. But judging what from the content of the message Tom Craughwell wrote about for us sixteen months ago, the creepy Rev. Michael Pflegler might as well be a Hillary plant.
It WAS the Scott They Knew
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 9:25AM
In a development that is sure to further upset the "what happened to Scott?" crowd, Politico reports that McClellan is noncommittal about who he will support in the presidential campaign:
"It's a message that is very similar to the one that Gov. Bush ran on in 2000," McClellan said.
He offered similar comments about Obama on ABC's "World News Tonight."
In his book, the former Bush spokesman describes his upbringing in a house where his mother was the moderate Democrat mayor of Austin (Carole Keeton Strayhorn later became a Republican before running as an independent for governor in 2006). McClellan recounts how, when he first came to work for Bush in 1999, he admired the governor's willingness to work across party lines in the Texas capitol.
When loyalists to President Bush -- most notably Karl Rove -- say they are shocked about the things McClellan wrote in his new book about the administration (and what he's saying now), I have little sympathy. After all, this is what (pretty much) the whole Republican establishment tried to sell with the Bush package back in 2000, including how great it was that he worked with Democrats:
"His handlers are going to position him in the campaign as a conservative answer," Pauken told an alternative publication, the Austin Chronicle. "So many Republicans who are so desperate to win the White House will say he is our only hope, that we need to vote for him. But grassroots conservatives, movement conservatives, know he's not one of us."
During Bush's campaign for re-election as governor in 1998, he was endorsed by the most powerful Democrat in the state, Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock. A few other prominent Democrats supported him against their own candidate, Garry Mauro, because as PBS reported at the time, "he has made it a policy to work in a bipartisan way to get his agenda passed." The Washington Post noted in a May 1997 article that Bush was "more likely to draw opposition from his party's right wing than from the Democrats," and that he worked well with Texas House Speaker Pete Laney and the "legendarily terse and strong-willed" Bullock.
And these are the kinds of people he brought with him from Texas to Washington. Remember?!
Update, 9:30 a.m.:
Just discovered that the Washington Times has an article up about McClellan's Texas roots. In two words: Blame Mom.
Jeremy: You're right
Posted by on 5.30.08 @ 1:52AM
In response to a reader's letter about the kiddie-porn furor with Libertarians, Jeremy Lott writes:
It's very likely that [LP presidential contender Mary] Ruwart's writings on kiddie porn -- and, ahem, the amplification of those writings by certain media outlets -- cost her the nomination. You're welcome, Libertarians.
Very accurate perception, Jeremy. During the presidential balloting Sunday at the LP convention in Denver, I was told that delegates were discussing the fact that both the Washington Times and Denver Post had picked up on the kiddie-porn angle about Ruwart. This was said to have influenced Wayne Allyn Root's decision to endorse Bob Barr after the fifth ballot.
I asked Root about this later Sunday, and from his answer -- he said he had been told about the newspaper stories, but hadn't seen them -- it wasn't clear whether that was the most important factor in his decision. (I think Root and Barr were simpatico all along, although Root obviously might have resented Barr's late entry into the presidential nomination contest.)
Still, some delegates and candidates were aware of the media interest in the kiddie-porn angle, and obviously they could see the potential for this explosive issue to do serious damage to the LP's reputation. I don't doubt this concern helped prevent a shift toward Ruwart in the later ballots.
By the way, giving credit where credit is due, it was an anonymous commenter at Third Party Watch who first raised this issue against Ruwart, which was subsequently publicized by David Weigel, thus contributing to the "Fear and Loathing" paranoia on the part of some Libertarians about a Richard Viguerie-led Republican plot to take over the LP. Considering that the kiddie-porn issue was also mentioned in a May 3 blog here and reported by Phil Klein, I'm surprised no one has tied AmSpec to this alleged plot. Did I miss a memo from Conspiracy HQ?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
America Runs On Dunkin'
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 3:53PM
Is this Rachel Ray flap as absolutely ridiculous as it seems to me, or is there really some "terrorist chic" fashion trend going on that I don't know about?
McCain By A Whisker
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 1:14PM
That's how Bob Novak calls it. He and Tim Carney think the Electoral College would break down 270 to 268 if the election were held today. Neither candidate has much margin for error.
Books and Toys
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 12:00PM
Drudge took notice of soon-to-be-former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's plan to write a book for release next year, but evidently did not find worthwhile another story linked at the same site about a minor league baseball team's promotional giveaway: The Larry Craig "bobblefoot."
Nunn the Less
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 11:45AM
The Prowler reports on the main site that Sam Nunn, the former Georgia senator, is actually being vetted by the Obama camp. Nunn brings some of the advantages that Webb would, and then some. Like Webb, he is a respected voice on foreign and military affairs who was a Cold War hawk rather than a McGovernite. Also like Webb, he opposed the Iraq war (he also voted against the first Persian Gulf War, probably in anticipation of a 1992 presidential bid, though for obvious reasons that did not work out as well for Nunn politically). Nunn chaired the Armed Services Committee.
Unlike Webb, Nunn actually was frequently to the right of the Democratic Party line in the Senate. He was instrumental in beating back Bill Clinton's gays in the military gambit and also voted against the 1993 Clinton tax increase. Nunn was also among the conservative Democrats who helped get the BTU-based energy tax dropped from the budget. He was originally pro-life and continued to support some abortion restrictions after becoming pro-choice. Although not fully on board with the Reagan program, he did help fortify the 1980s supply-side consensus. And between Nunn and Bob Barr, McCain might really have to fight for Georgia, which Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton carry in 1992.
The Prowler's Democratic sources raise some Larison-like objections to Nunn: They argue he would tower over Obama and emphasize his weaknesses rather than compensate for them. It's also worth noting that Nunn has been out of office for over a decade, is unfamiliar to most voters, and has become something of a nuclear-weapons abolitionist. It's not difficult to imagine how that last position might be portrayed on the campaign trail.
Southern Man
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 11:22AM
Byron York wonders if Jim Webb's "considerable pride in his Confederate forebears" might not bother some liberals if he were chosen as Barack Obama's running mate: "Just to make my own views clear: I don't see anything wrong with what Webb has said about his ancestors, but I think some liberal bloggers who have said some pretty negative things about the South might have a hard time with it."
You might think. But at the risk of sounding like a full-time defender of the Webb-for-veep meme, it's worth noting that Webb was a darling of liberal bloggers during the 2006 Senate race. The candidate himself blogged on Daily Kos. Aside from a few Hillary dead-enders, it's hard to imagine the netroots becoming less willing to overlook the Confederacy angle once Webb is linked to Obama. A McCain-somebody ticket may be in a better position to make some hay on the issue than George Allen, whose own history with the Confederate flag was the stuff of long New Republic articles. But even then, it is a tough issue for a Republican whose best region is the South to raise. (The n-word business may play differently if there is any actual evidence to support it.)
Bob Barr's strategery
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 10:08AM
A first for the Libertarian Party: A presidential candidate with an Electoral College strategy:
Barr and his campaign manager, Russell Verney, said they're developing a plan to raise $30 million before Nov. 4, and a plan to target certain states that Barr said are "top priority in terms of meeting the goals, both the vote goals and the electoral vote goals." . . .Having recently been on several talk-radio shows where the hosts seemed obsessed with the notion of Barr as a "spoiler" for Republican John McCain, I share David Weigel's assessment that the MSM (e.g., this Christian Science Monitor story about Barr's showing in an Insider Advantage poll of Georgia) is "missing the forest for the trees":
"There are certain states that are a one-party state," said Verney, a veteran of independent Ross Perot's 1992 campaign, when the Texas billionaire got more than 19 percent of the vote. "Republicans write off certain states, Democrats write off certain states. We will devote more resources to certain states."
Those states would most likely include Barr's home state of Georgia, where one recent poll showed him getting 8 percent, compared to 45 percent for Republican John McCain and 35 percent for likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama.
Barr doesn't actually need to spoil Georgia, to use the state. He merely needs to force McCain to fight for the state. That, as much as Florida, was the effect of the 2000 Nader run. In the waning days of the race, Al Gore had to waste time campaigning in states he should have locked up long before, like Minnesota and Oregon, because Nader was polling close to 10 percent in them.
A simplistic "spoiler" conception of Barr's LP bid ignores certain wild-card scenarios. For instance, what if Barr takes advantage of the "Hillbillies for Hillary" phenomenon and capitalizes on Barack Obama's weaknesses by campaigning in West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania? (The "Bitter for Barr" vote?) Ex-Libertarian Ron Paul got 16 percent of the vote in the Pennsylvania Republican primary, and 128,000 votes is nothing to sneer at in a key swing state.
It is possible (though by no means certain) that by appealing to disaffected voters of both major parties, Barr could force Republicans and Democrats alike to alter their campaign calculus. As Barr's running mate, Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root, might say, it's like playing Texas Hold 'Em with a joker in the deck.
Apocalyptic Gas Shortage Scenario Ruminations...
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 9:47AM
...may be the new national pastime, but things might actually not be that bad. Sorry to disappoint, America.
The Essence, Per Usual
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 9:12AM
Lord, does George Neumayr ever hit the nail on the head with his column on Scott McClellan this morning:
Suddenly a flack the press considered a buffoon a few years has become in their eyes a major thinker, whose words deserve magisterial treatment. From David Stockman to John Dilulio to Scott McClellan, nothing excites the press more than a "Republican" critical of an old boss, provided the defector shows a willingness to fortify the media's prejudices. Had McClellan written in the book of his disappointment with Bush's sham conservatism, the book would sink without a trace.
Obama Uses Bush and McCain Fundraiser In $ Appeal
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 8:39AM
This just hit my inbox:
Philip --
Right now you have a unique opportunity to go head-to-head with George W. Bush.
This week, John McCain and George Bush gathered behind closed doors, away from the cameras, to raise money for McCain's campaign.
McCain used Bush to raise a reported $3.5 million from a group of about 500 Republican contributors.
That's a lot of money that will undoubtedly be used to attack us and make the case to continue George Bush's failed policies.
But I have an idea about how we can match it. And we don't need George Bush.
Right now, someone who has already given once to the campaign is ready to give again -- but only if you make your first donation right now.
If you take the next step and decide to own a piece of this campaign, that supporter will double your gift.
You'll see the name and hometown of the person who matched your donation. And you can even choose to exchange a personal note about why you've decided to support a different kind of politics...
Obama and his "Revisionist History"
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 6:37AM
Maybe this is so obvious nobody has said it, but reading Karl Rove's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal made me think of it once again.
Obama is not making "gaffes." He's been a myth-maker from the first. Isn't that the message of his books? He is basically nothing, with a mother who's a total flake and a father who's as absent as a father can be, no real other family to depend on. So he uses his brains (he has some), and he turns to literature of various kinds to assemble an identity.
In a big part of that identity construction, as John Derbyshire has written, Obama gets "hung up on his negritude." And for all the rest, it's a Chinese menu, with two from Column A and one from Column B.
He's Gatsby, he's the King (or the Duke) from Huckleberry Finn, he's Philip Roth's carefully constructed professor from The Human Stain. He is, in short, a creature of American literature, not really an organically developed person at all. He is an exemplar to the max of identity politics, or all politics is persona.
NYT late to the miracle fruit party
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 12:57AM
As ever, the Times notices a trend a few years old and reports it. It seems that trend pieces are okay to get scooped on... except... this piece... is almost exactly like the one provided by the Wall Street Journal more than a year ago.
Here I'll feel a bit like Jorge Luis Borges writing Pierre Menard's Quixote, if only because I just want to write that, but look at the comparison:
NYT:
WSJ:
This is ridiculous. The lede didn't have to be about a party of miracle fruit tasters, but TWO reporters from the Times figured it might be a good way to go. Hey, they're in good company, right? But really? In the course of researching for their article, they didn't type "miracle fruit" into Nexis and Factiva to see what pops up? Maybe not even into Google, where the Journal piece was sure to appear?
I went to Grier's second miracle fruit party, which, conspicuously, went uncovered by the Washington Post. However, they might want to get in on the action.
United Against Kiddie Porn
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 12:33AM
Radley Balko realizes that some Libertarian Party folks are "flat-out nuts," and apologizes for getting snarky with me. Apology accepted --and props to him for displaying intellectual honesty.
Re: Great Scott!!!
Posted by on 5.29.08 @ 12:08AM
Actually, the first person I heard that from wasn't a critic.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Great Scott!!!
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 9:12PM
How long do you suppose it will be before someone (presumably a critic) writes that Scott McClellan is the son of Barr McClellan, the Texas lawyer and assassination conspiracy buff who authored Blood, Money and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK published in 2003, most recently excoriated in Vincent Bugliosi's Warren Commission defense tome, Reclaiming History?
Webb Again
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 9:02PM
The discussion of Obama-Webb continues. Reihan Salam, noting the bad press John McCain has received in the GI Bill debate, goes so far as to say, "The question is no longer whether Barack Obama should select Jim Webb as his nominee. It is whether he can justify not doing so." Some commenters at this site have weighed in taking the opposite point of view: Webb's writings, prickliness, and past political incorrectness will doom him.
I'll take up the commenters' points first: These things might doom him with the Obama inner circle, especially since they are going to be sensitive about a running mate who will upstage the top of the ticket, bring his own baggage or anger the women who voted for Hillary Clinton. But they didn't hurt seem to hurt him in the Virginia Senate race, in part because they are difficult issues for Republicans to credibly raise. Saying that Webb's books are dirty makes Republicans look censorious; saying that Webb is too conservative makes them look silly.
Daniel Larison argues that picking Webb "will simply draw attention to the 'weaknesses' that have been attributed to Obama" and foolishly fight the campaign on the Republicans' terms. Maybe. But this seems divorced from the actual history behind presidential running mate choices. Every candidate has flaws and political liabilities that have to be dealt with in some way. People made fun of George W. Bush for relying on Dick Cheney, but they won two presidential elections.
The advantage that Obama had when campaigning against Hillary was that she wasn't meaningfully more experienced than him -- her argument was bogus. John McCain, for all his faults, does have a longer resume and more experience. Perhaps Obama could use the Perot-like line of "It's true I don't have any experience leading the country into a $1 trillion war." Or perhaps rounding out the ticket with someone who has military and foreign-policy experience, who would be credible defending the ticket's Iraq stance in the veep attack-dog role, might be a better idea.
Which is why a choice of Webb wouldn't be engaging in "a bidding war over who is more militaristic and irresponsible in foreign policy." Webb took the same position on Iraq as Obama (so did Sam Nunn). But he brings more relevant experience to the table than being a Chicago community organizer or college instructor. As Andrew Ferguson put it, "the use of warrior rhetoric to discredit the Bush administration's war" might reframe the debate. Or, given the track record of the "fighting Dems," it might not.
To my mind, the strongest arguments against Webb are these: He has not, in fact, voted like a conservative Democrat in the Senate. And he did not actually win the type of voters he is supposed to appeal to when he ran against George Allen, calling into question whether these voters actually would be moved by his addition to the ticket.
Re: McClellan
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 6:53PM
James: I certainly have not held up McClellan as a wise insider. I just noted that his criticisms are valid even though he was an ineffective press secretary and that he is a backstabber of low class and character. There is a difference between wisdom and observational ability; I say McClellan shows the latter withOUT showing the former.
Re: Scott McClellan Has A Point
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 5:02PM
Quin, I agree with most of McClellan's criticisms of the administration too. But for people to be holding up someone who was such a fumbling disaster in his role as White House spokesman as if he he had been some kind of wise insider is a little hard to take.
Re: Visit Iraq? No We Can't
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 4:59PM
John, that PR risk may indeed be why Obama won't visit Iraq -- and why he is particularly unlikely to accept McCain's offer for a joint visit -- but it seems to me that politicians with all kinds of different views on the war have traveled to Iraq and have come back saying they met people on the ground who agreed with them.
RNC from SC asks, 'Who would Osama vote for?'
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 4:08PM
As David Freddoso mentioned yesterday on NRO, there is an interesting race for National Committeeman this weekend at the South Carolina Republican Convention. Delegates will choose between Glenn McCall, the chairman of the York County Republican Party, a movement conservative who would be the first black committeeman from the South elected to the RNC since the 50's, and Drew McKissick, a former director of the Christian Coalition, respected political operative and Mitt Romney staffer in the recent presidential primary. It is worth noting that McKissick worked for Warren Tompkins in the '08 primary and that Tompkins' firm is now helping run McKissick's campaign. In addition to working for Romney in '08, Tompkins is the consultant who masterminded the attacks in 2000 on John McCain, including the infamous "black child" smear on McCain's daughter.
Today a South Carolina political blog is running pictures of McKissick's car with a bumper sticker on it that asks "Who would Osama vote for?"Â While they're pretty blurry, you can clearly see the sticker and the rest of the car with the license plate.
While I don't find this sticker offensive, it is interesting in light of McCain's skittishness about attacks of this type on Obama and the Democrats. One could make an argument that this should be far more troublesome to the campaign than anything Soren Dayton or the NC GOP did. Dayton was just a staffer, and McCain strongly denounced the North Carolina GOP. But McKissick is a sitting member of the RNC with a sticker on his car that runs directly contrary to the stated position of the nominee.
Jill Hazelbaker, call your office.
Visit Iraq? No We Can't
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 3:23PM
Jim Geraghty notes that Team Obama doesn't seem interested in their guy touring Iraq before Election Day. Geraghty writes that this leaves Obama vulnerable to criticism, but isn't it obvious that going to Iraq would be a major political risk for Obama?
According to the Military Times poll, more than 60% of active-duty servicemen believe the US is either "somewhat" or "very" likely to succeed in Iraq. But less than 20% of them think "the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops" in 2 years or less. That suggests that a sizable number of the troops on the ground think that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would amount to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Imagine if a soldier, marine, or guardsman were to express that opinion to Obama's face, in public, on the ground in Iraq.
If Hillary Manages An Upset
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 3:06PM
It will be on account of two things: She will have to manage to win the overall popular vote -- something she hopes Puerto Rico will help her do -- and press the swing state argument with the superdelegates. The odds aren't good for her, but that seems to be Clinton's last best hope.
Scott McClellan Has a Point
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 12:31PM
All over the conservative blogosphere, people are ripping into former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, who was markedly ineffective in his job, for his new book taking all sorts of nasty shots at President Bush and others in the White House. Those criticisms are valid: It really does show a decided lack of class for McClellan to knife Bush in the back like that when Bush did so much for him, etc.
But there is a point at which one must separate the issue of McClellan's classiness from that of his truthfulness and the accuracy of his observations and analysis. And here, at very first glance, McClellan actually fares well and does a service for history, because, unfortunately, much of what he writes rings true. I am basing this ONLY on the account in today's Washington Post, so I reserve the right to revise and extend these remarks, but every one of the following parts of the Post summation of McClellan's book confirms very much of what seem to be highly justifiable criticisms of the president. To wit: "He describes Bush as demonstrating a 'lack of inquisitiveness.'"
"Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president's intellect...but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job. 'A more self-confident executive would be more willing to acknowledge failure, to trust people's ability to forgive, those who seek redemption for mistakes and show a readiness to change.'"
"'...never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising.'"
"He says the White House's reaction to Katrina was more than just a public relations disaster, calling it 'a failure of imagination and initiative' and the result of an administration that 'let events control us.'"
I repeat, every one of these observations, both within the direct quotes from McClellan's book and the portions summed up and paraphrased by the Post, absolutely match observations that I and many others have made for the past eight years.
After all, a backstabbing SOB can be right even in the course of his backstabbing.
Democrats Can't Fully Reseat Delegates
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 12:20PM
In a setback for Hillary Clinton, Democratic lawyers say the party can seat some of the delegates from Florida and Michigan but can't restore them all. If this holds, it is a rebuff to Clinton and further complicates her delegate math.
Examiner Blasts Reid
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 12:04PM
At the Examiner, we re-enter the arena about the judge fights. Harry Reid and Pat Leahy don't fare very well in our analysis.
Mixed Marriage Polling in California
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 11:11AM
According to the Washington Times, a new Field poll shows a majority of Californians supporting gay marriage for the first time in any public poll, by a margin 51 percent to 42 percent. Fifty-four percent oppose the idea of a constitutional amendment reversing the state supreme court ruling on the issue, a number that drops to 51 percent when respondents are they are told they will get to vote on the amendment. This is consistent with what happened in Massachusetts, where a defense-of-marriage amendment surely would have passed before Goodridge but gay marriage actually gained in popular support afterward.
Yet that's not the final word on the matter. A Los Angeles Times poll last week found that 54 percent of Californians supported the defense-of-marriage amendment and only 35 percent opposed it. Social conservative groups say this result is closest to their own internal polling.
The Libertarian West
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 10:50AM
In yesterday's Idaho Republican primary, Ron Paul won 24 percent of the vote, his best primary showing yet. Of course, John McCain won with 70 percent.
UPDATE: Dave Weigel notes that some Paul supporters were actually disappointed with the result. He rightly points out that the Paul campaign has hoarded its campaign cash, which makes no sense given that the contest has shifted to the cheap media markets and McCain, having clinched the nomination, has effectively disengaged from the GOP race.
Well, That's Not Very Nice Way to Say Good Morning
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 9:42AM
Obama, Webb, and the White Working Class
Posted by on 5.28.08 @ 12:11AM
Daniel Larison writes:
[T]he selection of Webb validates the attack on Obama by acknowledging that there is some sort of liabiliity or vulnerability that Obama had to balance out by choosing Webb. Choosing Webb is another way of saying, "Yes, Democrats must have a military veteran with culturally conservative attitudes on their ticket in order to demonstrate their fidelity to the United States, which is otherwise suspect." Selecting Webb and selecting him specifically because of what he represents, rather than what he can do, accepts the judgement that Obama's patriotism and American-ness need bolstering. This has the risk of being every bit as self-defeating and embarrassing as John Kerry's "reporting for duty" moment at the national convention.
But there clearly is this sort of vulnerability for a Democratic nominee, this has been a line of attack in more elections than not since 1972, and it is particularly a problem for Barack Obama now with certain working-class white voters in his own party. You can say that it can't be fixed. You can say that attempts to fix it are likely to be self-defeating and embarrassing, as John Kerry's reporting for duty line surely was. You can say you disagree with this critique of Obama. But the political liability clearly exists and doesn't require any Democratic validation. Democratic acknowledgement may or may not not help, but it doesn't seem arguable that this is a problem. It only seems arguable whether it can be solved.
By the way, pre-Cheney didn't major parties always pick their running mates on the basis of what they represented or could at least deliver electorally rather than what they could do?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The future of the abortion debate
Posted by on 5.27.08 @ 5:54PM
An orthodox Catholic I know cares more about abortion than any other political issue. He votes for candidates based largely on his expectations about the kinds of judges they'll appoint or confirm, behavior I completely understand given the certainty he feels that every abortion is a murder. At the other extreme are pro-choice voters whose number one issue is protecting Roe vs. Wade from being overturned, preventing any restrictions on abortion, etc.
These are by their nature long term political struggles, or so you might think: the composition of the Supreme Court is always going to change, legislatures can be influenced to hue closer to one side or the other, etc.
But I predict that what we now think of as the abortion debate is going to radically change within our lifetime in a way that makes many of the strategic gambits employed by both sides irrelevant, or at least beside the point.
Specifically, I think that technology is going to make fetuses viable outside the womb earlier and earlier. In fact that is already happening. And eventually there will be artificial wombs, enabling doctors to extract a fetus from a pregnant woman during the first trimester with a procedure no more invasive or dangerous than abortion, and to keep that baby alive in an incubator.
Today we are used to thinking about a woman's right to end a pregnancy as the functional equivalent of ending the fetuses' life. In the future, however, that need not be so. A woman could be afforded the right to end her pregnancy, but be denied the right to end the life of the fetus. Although I am not an expert in abortion jurisprudence, it is at least conceivable that this could happen without any need to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
It is conceivable that adoptive parents would step in to raise children who would've been aborted prior to artificial womb technology, though it is unlikely that enough adoptive parents could be found to raise all the children now aborted. It is possible that society's views about killing fetuses would change in the pro-life direction once that change didn't entail forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, and that the government would be in the business of funding large scale orphanages.
It is even conceivable that women would find themselves in the same position that some men find themselves in now: forced to pay for the upbringing of a child they'd rather have aborted. Were I a strategist at a pro-life or pro-choice advocacy group I'd be spending a lot of time and effort figuring out when changes like these are going to happen, what I thought about them, and how I could shape them to advantage my side.
This paper considers similar arguments in far greater
detail.
Barr'd From My Ballot?
Posted by on 5.27.08 @ 3:57PM
David Weigel reported yesterday that Massachusetts Libertarian Party chairman George Phillies is so "concerned" about the Bob Barr/Wayne Root ticket that he might call a state convention backing a different ticket in the Bay State. That seems a little ungrateful to the Republicans whose votes have helped the Libertarians secure statewide ballot access in Massachusetts in past elections.
Conservatives and Liberal Guilt
Posted by on 5.27.08 @ 2:20PM
Ross Douthat responds to this Ron Rosenbaum column. Persuasively, I think.
Re: The Real Indiana Jones
Posted by on 5.27.08 @ 2:01PM
Rumors that Barack Obama is a gay archaeologist who joined the SS are untrue.
McConnell in Trouble in Kentucky?
Posted by on 5.27.08 @ 1:53PM
This Rasmussen poll has Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell down 5 in his race against Democrat Bruce Lunsford. This is despite the fact John McCain leads Barack Obama in Kentucky by 25 points (!). According to Rasmussen, McConnell is carrying only two-thirds of the McCain voters. If these numbers hold up, they point to a nightmare scenario for both parties: the Republicans may face a congressional bloodbath while the Democrats may have nominated a presidential candidate poorly situated for beating McCain.
Let Coburn Be Coburn
Posted by on 5.27.08 @ 11:55AM
Sen. Tom Coburn is also on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page today making the case for Republicans who behave like Republicans:
Many Republicans are waiting for a consultant or party elder to come down from the mountain and, in Moses-like fashion, deliver an agenda and talking points on stone tablets. But the burning bush, so to speak, is delivering a blindingly simple message: Behave like Republicans.
Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government. Instead, we are being told our message must be deficient because, after all, we should be winning in certain areas just by being Republicans. Yet being a Republican isn't good enough anymore. Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.
Many conservative reformers would tell us that Coburn's message is exactly the wrong one for the GOP. In his recent conservatism-is-dead piece, George Packer argues that there are two explanations for why the Republicans are currently in trouble: "One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people." Then there is the second version, which holds that conservatism "has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems."
I'm just not entirely sure that these two points are mutually exclusive. Certainly, if Republicans spend more energy on earmarks and liberal-baiting than conservative health care reform they will lose. There are new problems that require conservative attention. But if an essentially welfarist view of government wins out, if we accept that the right ten-point plan can "save the American dream" or some such, conservatives still lose even if our brightest lights are able to come up with a way for Republicans to contain the damage. There's a lot of truth to the conservative reformist argument. But the Republican Party still needs its Tom Coburns.
The GOP's Iraq Problem and Ours
Posted by on 5.27.08 @ 11:13AM
In an exchange over this Doug Feith op-ed, Byron York gets to the heart of why much of the electorate has turned against the Iraq war:
For many of us, the war was supposed to be about U.S. national security and only about U.S. national security. It would be nice if we could make Iraq a better place, just as it would be nice if we could make Afghanistan a better place, but that was never a sufficient reason to go to war. The reason to go to war was to find and kill every last son of a bitch who had anything to do with 9/11. And that job was not the main focus in Iraq, and in any event is unfortunately not finished.One of the main reasons John McCain is facing such an tough job today is that we are now in the sixth year of a war that the president of his own party started by mistake. That's a major headwind when you're running for president; an error of that magnitude will exact a political price. Would anyone be surprised if voters say that they've had enough?
Feith complains that the Bush administration has emphasized democracy promotion as a war rationale at the expense of the "terrorism/state sponsorship/WMD nexus." The trouble with this argument is that we didn't find the anticipated WMD stockpiles and the extent of Saddam Hussein's connections with jihadists is more controversial and disputed than the prewar intelligence on WMD. Virtually all the major world intelligence agencies, as Feith reminds us, believed the WMD were there. There's nothing like that consensus about a strategically meaningful al-Qaeda/Iraq relationship.
The Real Indiana Jones
Posted by on 5.27.08 @ 9:40AM
The New York Times euphorically recounts the scene this weekend at Wesleyan University when word came down that Barack Obama would "pinch hit, Indiana Jones-style"--the reporter's balanced interpretation of the heroic nature of Obama stepping up to a mic in front of a crowd of college kids (!)--for ailing Ted Kennedy. Here's a snippet:
Let's face it, Wesleyan's getting Mr. Obama as
a last minute graduation speaker, even if under trying
circumstances, was a little like Notre Dame getting the
pope.
"Everyone found out at the same time after we put
it on our web page," said Holly Wood (yes, but she's actually just
a working-class kid from the Poconos), co-founder of a widely read
student blog, Wesleying. "I got out of my car and everyone was
screaming, and my phone went off and someone told me, and I
screamed. It was like this relay effect of people on the campus,
all screaming."
Summation: New York Times on Barack Obama--bigger than the pope, hot as a young Indiana Jones and able to make the kids--even working-class kids from the Poconos!--scream like the Fab Four combined Voltron-like into one giant hope-spewing machine. It's settled, I think. He's got all the right qualifications. Let's make him president.
Carter Clan Watch
Posted by on 5.27.08 @ 9:24AM
The world's foremost expert on giant, free-floating boobs maintains his dominance.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
If You're Reading the AP's Coverage
Posted by on 5.25.08 @ 6:24PM
...of the LP race, stop. They described defeated Libertarian presidential candidate Mary Ruwart as "the party's presidential nominee in 1983 and vice presidential candidate in 1992." That would come as a surprise to David Bergland, the actual 1984 presidential nominee, and Nancy Lord, the 1992 vice presidential candidate. Ruwart did run for both offices but lost. Expect to read future reports saying she was the 2008 presidential nominee. For more accurate information, read this here blog instead.
Barr wins LP nomination
Posted by on 5.25.08 @ 2:03PM
DENVER -- Rep. Bob Barr has won the Libertarian Party's nomination on the sixth ballot at the LP convention, with 324 votes to 276 for Mary Ruwart.
The ex-Republican from Georgia won the nomination after a tough battle that one of his supporters called a "dog fight." Ruwart, a longtime LP activist, was the favorite of the party's more radical or "purist" faction. In early balloting, Barr and Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root split the "pragmatic" vote in the early rounds of voting, but when Root was eliminated on the fifth ballot, he endorsed Barr and declared his desire to be the party's vice-presidential candidate.
In a subsequent vote for the running-mate spot, Root narrowly edged Steve Kubby, a California activist best known for successfully promoting a ballot initiative that legalized medical marijuana in that state.
PREVIOUSLY:
Awaiting the sixth ballot totals, but the suspense is over and
everyone knows the result: Barr will be the Libertarian
presidential candidate for 2008, likely with Root as his running
mate. I asked Barr if he could get the high-energy Root to switch
to decaf for the general-election campaign. "I wouldn't even want
to try," Barr answered, smiling.
Barr's assistant, Jennifer Chambrin, was skipping along the sidewalk of 16th Street outside the Sheraton: "We won! We won! We won!" Inside the convention hall, she hugged Barr publicist Audrey Mullen, who then said, "Oh my God, we've got so much work to do now."
FIFTH BALLOT: Ruwart 229, Barr 223, Root 165, None of the above 6.
So Ruwart's not maxed-out, now with 37% of the vote. Root is eliminated, and now addresses the convention: "I would like to be part of a Barr-Root ticket in 2008."
223+165 = 388 = Victory on the 6th ballot?
FOURTH BALLOT: Barr 202, Ruwart 202, Root 149, Gravel 76.
A dead heat, and Gravel will be eliminated on the fifth ballot. Seems that Barr got a surprisingly large share of Phillies' vote. The remaining vote can be seen several ways. The ex-Republican candidates, Barr and Root, have 351 votes between them. The two former office-holders, Barr and Gravel, have 279 between them. With all the other radical candidates eliminated, Ruwart's 32% represents the maxed-out power of the Radical Caucus. It's hard to see how she could win at this point.
Awaiting results of the fourth ballot, Barr operative Stephen Gordon says, "It's a game of chicken" between Barr and Root. Combined, they have 332 votes -- a clear majority against the Ruwart-led radical faction. A Ruwart delegate suggests that Barr's vote is maxed out, but Phillies' unity-themed concession speech could be read as a rebuke of the radicals. Gravel should be eliminated on the next ballot, and the Barr campaign has been wooing Gravel.
Mrs. Barr is at Barr's exhibition-hall booth, watching the balloting on the campaign's plasma-screen TV. She's sitting with Sharon Harris of Advocates for Self-Government. Harris is a Georgia LP delegate.
THIRD BALLOT: Barr 186, Ruwart 186, Root 146, Gravel 78, Phillies 31.
This is not good news for Barr, who loses 2 votes, Ruwart gains 24. Now the fourth ballot begins, with George Phillies eliminated. He now addresses the delegates: "I will not speak ill of a fellow Libertarian." Thanks Gravel and Root, Ruwart and Barr. "The enemy is not here! The enemy is out there! The enemy is not our fellow Libertarians!" A unity speech.
Lots of strategizing and intrigue going on in this dogfight. Official ballot results at the LP site.
Just spoke to Bob Barr's wife, Jeri, who said, "It's a nail-biter." Her husband's campaign staff is working the floor of the convention. I just overheard one Barr staffer tell another, "Who wants to be Ruwart's running mate?"
SECOND BALLOT: Barr 188, Ruwart 162, Root 138, Gravel 73, Phillies 36, Kubby 32.
Kubby, the California pro-pot candidate, will be dropped from the third ballot. Kubby now addresses the convention, throws his support to Mary Ruwart.
After the first ballot, a Barr delegate from Alabama said, "Oh, God, it's a dog fight." Barr's vote grew from 25% on the first ballot to 30% on the second ballot, while Ruwart's vote increased from 25% to 26%. Whether Kubby's endorsement will add to Ruwart's third-ballot total will be interesting to see. Some Kubby votes may go to other candidates.
FIRST BALLOT: Bob Barr leads on the first ballot with 153 votes, Mary Ruwart with 152 votes, and 123 votes for Wayne Allyn Root. This is a strong showing for the two "pragmatist" candidates, Barr and Root, with a combined 276 votes. Three other candidates will qualify for the second ballot: Mike Gravel with 71 votes, George Phillies with 49 votes, and Steve Kubby with 41 votes. Michael Jingozian and Christine Smith were eliminated in the first round, where there were also several write-in votes for Ron Paul.
Jingozian just spoke "by indulgence of the chair," endorsing Gravel. Smith also speaks, very angry, slams Barr.
Expect updates ....
PREVIOUSLY: It's just been announced that a total of 652 delegates are eligible to vote at the Libertarian Party convention, and it will take a majority of 327 to win. The first round of voting just commenced.
My friend John LaBeaume, a DC delegate, predicts Wayne Allyn Root and Mary Ruwart for a 1-2 finish on the first ballot, with Bob Barr third. A first-ballot win for any candidate is unlikely. The real wheeling and dealing is expected to begin before the second ballot.
One delegate told me that Ruwart seemed visibly angered by Michael Jingozian's endorsement of Mike Gravel. Jingozian had to solicit tokens from other candidates in order to qualify for the C-SPAN debate, and if Ruwart gave Jingozian tokens, she has a right to feel betrayed.
UPDATE: Just talked to Bob Barr, who said he's feeling good about his chances, and is prepared for multiple rounds of balloting. "We'll be here as long as it takes," he said.
Also talked to Wayne Allyn Root, who said he got a "landslide" from the California delegation on the first ballot. The first-ballot totals will be announced in just a few minutes.
UPDATE II: South Carolina and Virginia went strong for Barr. Tennessee and Texas went heavily for Ruwart. Georgia gave 33 votes for Barr.
Free speechifying
Posted by on 5.25.08 @ 12:46PM
DENVER -- Presidential candidates and their supporters are now giving their nominating speeches at the Libertarian Party Convention. In his speech, Bob Barr sought to emphasize that he is a true Libertarian, distancing himself from his Republican past. The importance of his credibility as "the real deal" was underscored by the candidate who followed Barr, Christine Smith, who didn't qualify for last night's C-SPAN debate. Smith gave a straight-out defense of radical Libertarianism and -- without naming names -- heaped scorn on "neoconservatives" whom she accused of trying to take over the LP.
One of Mary Ruwart's nominating speakers just now told delegates "don't be fooled by the newcomers." Ruwart is just about to speak.
UPDATE: Ruwart's speech was mild and inclusive. She comes across as a very nice, sincere woman -- sort of the calming Valium antidote to the extra-caffeinated Energizer candidate, Wayne Allyn Root. George Phillies just gave a short speech -- his nominators went on and on, chewing up Phillies' allotted time, so he had just a minute or so left when it was his turn to talk.
Both David Weigel and I are using the Barr campaign's Wi-Fi connection -- strong signal, superfast, and way superior to the Wi-Fi provided by the LP for the convention. The professionalism of the Barr campaign may, in some ways, be a drawback. Weigel just pointed out to me that Team Barr is a bunch of guys in dark suits, which doesn't necessarily mesh with the anti-establishment vibe in the LP.
UPDATE II: Blogger Jason Pye hears what I also heard in reaction to last night's debate:
Everyone I've talked to seems to believe that Ruwart really hurt herself by playing the gender card. One delegate told me that using her gender "was one of the most anti-intellectual things she could have done." She did not have much of a stage presence either.Indeed, Ruwart made four or five references to her status as a woman, trying to do the Hillary Clinton "it's time for a woman" thing.
Meanwhile, David Nolan and Tom Knapp are giving nominating speeches for Steve Kubby. I rode out here in a van full of Georgia LP members, and we stopped in St. Louis to pick up Knapp.
UPDATE III: Just talked to Barr campaign operative Stephen Gordon, who says he expects Barr, Ruwart and Root to have approximately equal votes on the first round. But also talked to Ruwart's campaign manager, Lee Wrights, who said that his candidate is the only one who could potentially score a first-round win. Not likely, but possible, if there's a radical avalanche.
BTW, contrary to Weigel's assertion, not all Barr supporters are guys in suits.
UPDATE IV: Holy crap! Candidate Michael Jingozian just gave the nomination speech for Mike Gravel. Jingozian's 63 tokens combined with Gravel's 67 tokens could mean as many as 130 votes on the first ballot, potentially outpolling Barr, Root and Ruwart. This is weird beyond words.
Gravel gives the last speech, and when he's done, Barr's delegates will do a demonstration on their candidate's behalf, before the voting starts.
Showdown in Denver
Posted by on 5.25.08 @ 10:46AM
DENVER -- Today's the day of the presidential nomination vote at the Libertarian Party convention. Bob Barr's campaign expects their candidate to lead on the first ballot, with multiple rounds of balloting. After last night's debate, Barr was still soliciting delegates one-by-one and two-by-two, first at a post-debate reception and then informally as he relaxed with a cigar on the sidewalk cafe outside the Sheraton lobby bar.
Here's video of Barr talking to his supporters at last night's reception:
And here he is talking to a TV news crew:
