- 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, June 21, 2008
Re: Dems Still Chasing Plamegate Dragon
Posted by on 6.21.08 @ 12:10PM
Yesterday I observed that, in questioning former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan, Democrats were ignoring the fact that it was Richard Armitage who told Bob Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA employee. Now, Mary Katharine Ham has quantified the media's role in obscuring this fact:
Google News Search for the following, when sorted according to date:
"scott mcclellan" + "bush" = 110 news results in the last 24 hours
"scott mcclellan" + "cheney" = 86 news results in the last 24 hours
"scott mcclellan" + "libby" = 80 news results in the last 24 hours
"scott mcclellan" + "rove" = 41 news results in the last 24 hours
"scott mcclellan" + "armitage" = 4 news results in the last 24 hours
More importantly, perhaps, both the Democrats and their media allies are still pushing the central fallacy of the Plamegate narrative, namely, that there was something malevolent or illegal in the revelation of Plame's identity.
As Novak relates in his book, he asked Armitage a perfectly reasonable question: Why would the CIA send Joe Wilson, a retired diplomat with no previous intelligence experience, to investigate the reports that Saddam was seeking "yellowcake" uranium ore from Niger? Armitage's answer was that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and she suggested him for the trip. As Novak explains, he checked with CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton administration hold-over) to see if revealing Plame's identity would be a problem, and Tenet did not say that Plame's identity was secret. (Which it wasn't.)
Friday, June 20, 2008
Not So Nice-A on FISA
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 6:21PM
Some liberals are pretty mad about Obama's stance on FISA reauthorization. I wonder if the Obamacons, who tend to be civil libertarians, will follow suit.
Counterproductive Conservative Arguments, Cont'd
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 5:44PM
Lawrence Lindsey is right that Obama's plan to apply payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000 is economically boneheaded and contrary to Social Security's status as an earned entitlement. "There is," as Lindsey writes in the Wall Street Journal, "a very good and principled reason why Social Security taxes are paid on just $102,000 of income: Benefits are calculated based on that same $102,000 of income."
But it is taking the polemical point too far to endorse FDR's characterization of the current Social Security program as "a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts." It is really a welfare program merged with a Ponzi scheme to mask its redistributive effects. Defending this system rather than pointing to the lousy rate of return today's workers can expect on their compulsory "investment" is counterproductive.
Obama vs. Facts
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 5:35PM
Actually, vs. FactCheck.org:
Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.(Via Hot Air.)
One reason, he said, is that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."
We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.
Chris Cox in the WSJ
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 5:30PM
My favorite choice for Vice President, Chris Cox, had an excellent column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, here. It's actually a bit dry and perhaps too jargony for a general audience, but it shows his admirable seriousness of purpose, thoroughness and thoughtfulness. It's about how the SEC should move forward in its oversight of investment banks in light of the Bear Stearns mess. I would note that the SEC had no direct statutory authority over investment banks before, but that it did its job of protecting the cash of Bear's customers.
Re: Obama and Public Financing
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 5:29PM
Stacy, you are back in your alternate universe again. In this universe, a popular vote majority is not required to become president, Bill Clinton served two terms as president because he got more votes than his Republican opponents, and you'll never find me characterizing "Clinton as an overwhelming electoral juggernaut." George W. Bush has amply proven that you don't have to be an electoral juggernaut to beat your political opponents.
Of course Clinton "inspired the opposition to historic success," but that didn't include success in booting him out of office. The possibility that Obama might do the same is a pretty good argument for the Obamacons. Like anti-Clinton sentiment, anti-Obama sentiment can only take you so far.
Re: Bloomberg in Boca Raton
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 5:19PM
Since when did Bloomberg become a de facto spokesman for the
Jewish people? Bloomberg focuses on a straw man argument suggesting
that reservations among Jews are related to misperceptions that
Obama is a radical Muslim, rather than an outgrowth of his stable
of anti-Israel advisors, his questionable statements, his thin
record, and his Farrakhan-loving spiritual mentor.
Brown-outs on the way
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 5:12PM
A consistently intelligent voice on energy, Mark Mills writes a column for Forbes. Though he did write for AmSpec during the Gilder years, I actually met him at Cornell, and even had him debate an environmentalist professor. His column today has the classic Nostradamus quality that is so good, it will obviously be ignored by those hoping to just slap more regulations on our problems.
Forget oil. Electricity prices are going to start climbing:
Forget the Election: Obama Wins!
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 5:04PM
Or at least, so says this Newsweek poll, which has Barack Obama leading 51% to 36%. I am somewhere between profoundly skeptical and eye-rolling dubious of an anomalous result in a poll of "registered voters" (as opposed to "likely voters"). Chris Matthews is probably feeling the tingles, though.
Bloomberg for Obama in Boca Raton
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 4:44PM
The New York Times reports from Florida:
Injecting himself directly into the presidential campaign and speaking before one of its most crucial constituencies, Jewish voters, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Friday morning forcefully rejected what he called a "whisper campaign" in the Jewish community linking Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to Islam.Note that Bloomberg made this speech in the 22nd District, where Republican challenger Allen West's campaign manager told me that many Jewish voters were "uncomfortable" with Obama. I don't think such discomfort can be rightly attributed to a "whisper campaign," but is far more due to Obama's affiliation with radicals like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Michael Pfleger.
Re: Obama and Public Financing
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 4:31PM
Jim, we're talking about the distance between perception and reality. Bill Clinton never won a popular vote majority, period. In six consecutive elections (1994-2004), Republicans won congressional majorities, their longest winning streak in decades. (The brief 2001-02 Democratic Senate interregnum was caused by Jim Jeffords jumping the fence in a fit of pique over dairy subsidies.)
There is thus no basis for your characterization of Clinton as an overwhelming electoral juggernaut who "repeatedly ate the right's lunch at election time." It is much more accurate to view Clinton as a divisive and polarizing figure who inspired the opposition to historic success.
Dems Still Chasing Plamegate Dragon
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 4:16PM
Scott McLellan says Vice President Dick Cheney and others should be questioned about the "leak" of Valerie Plame's CIA identity to the meida, the most ridiculous waste of time imaginable.
The fact that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA employee was first reported by Robert Novak, who has since explained that he got that tidbit from Richard Armitage. Novak's full account of this is included in his recent memoir, The Prince of Darkness. Considering Novak's book was a New York Times bestseller, I am stunned that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are unaware of the source of the "leak." The story is explained in the first chapter, pages 1-14.
Obamaconservatism You Can't Believe In
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 3:55PM
I'm with Daniel Larison here. My biggest problem with the Obamacons is that while they are remarkably clear-eyed about the Republicans -- no, a McCain administration is not likely to make the federal government smaller, cut meaningful amounts of spending, overturn Roe v. Wade, secure the borders, etc. -- they are willing to strain to believe all kinds of things about Obama that are similarly unlikely. I understand why some antiwar conservatives are willing to roll the dice on Obama and Iraq given the alternative. But let's not pretend it is anything other than rolling the dice and let's certainly not pretend there is much else to it.
"UN Urges End to Sexual Violence"
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 3:35PM
This is the actual headline of a recent Al Jazeera report. Apparently, whereas the UN was all about rape and sexual assault last week, they have since decided that it's a bad thing. This isn't completely unworthy of attention: there is a resolution on the issue being debated at the UN. The resolution discourages using sexual violence as a tactic of war by excluding these crimes from post-conflict amnesty. Still, the headline is priceless.
Re: Obama and Public Financing
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 3:33PM
Stacy, in your universe did Bill Clinton lose a presidential election? In mine George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole got even lower percentages of the vote than Clinton -- 37.5 percent and 41 percent, if I recall correctly. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and won just 50.7 percent of the vote as an incumbent in wartime after 9/11 during a growing economy with low unemployment. But that still was plenty for two terms.
In 1994, the best election for both the right and the Republicans during the 1990s, the GOP was running against the Clintons' tax increase, their big-government healthcare program, their gun-grabbing, their midnight basketball approach to crime, and their social liberalism. In 1992, 1996, and 1998 when the campaign focused on Bill Clinton's character we lost. "Where is the outrage?" Bob Dole asked. The outrage was in that alternate universe where pointing out the fact that Clinton is a phony ever won an election.
Student Could Face 38-year Sentence for Cheating
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 3:31PM
A student of Tesoro High School in Orange Country is charged with larceny, burglary, identity theft and computer fraud. He faces up to 38 years in prison if convicted.
His actual crime: breaking into high school computers to change his grades.
In 2004 the average rape sentence was 13 years; the average homicide 22 years. Clearly, eighteen year old hackers who can think of no better way to use their skills aside from changing high school grades deserve to be facing 38.
Flat-Footed Conservatives
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 3:19PM
Jonathan Martin reports that despite Barack Obama playing the victim card to justify his reversal on public financing, there actually isn't any sort of large-scale anti-Obama 527 effort. One of the major reasons is that large donors don't want to spend millions of dollars to go after Obama only to be publicly denounced by John McCain.
But another key reason is that conservatives were simply caught off guard because they were overly focused on the Clintons:
"We spent 18 months and millions of dollars making 'Hillary The Movie,'" laments David Bossie, head of Citizens United and a longtime Clinton tormentor. "We're incredibly proud, but the problem is the film has no relevance anymore."
But at a moment in history when Americans are war-weary and eager for change, the optimistic, fresh-faced Obama should at the very least be considered a formidable candidate. To those who care about limiting the size and scope of government, the threat of Obama goes deeper than his potential to capture the presidency. In the Illinois senator, Democrats may have finally found a political figure capable not only of winning an election, but of advancing liberalism.
Is it now too late?
No Hot Air Balloon Near Gore's Place
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 3:09PM
Americans for Prosperity has been conducting a state-by-state "Hot Air Tour" to draw attention to the dramatic economic harm that would be caused by global warming alarmists' "solutions." Today they were scheduled to launch their attention-getting hot-air balloon over Al Gore's home near Nashville, after getting their permits all lined up, but I just got this message from AFP director of policy Phil Kerpen:
Yes, clearly this would represent too much embarrassment in one week for the former veep.
UPDATE 3:30 p.m.: From Phil Kerpen, and AFP's blog,
Sounds like lawsuit potential. Meanwhile, Nashville Parks Dept. Contact info:
http://www.nashville.gov/parks/administration.htm
Centennial Park Office
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: (615) 862-8400
Fax: (615) 862-8414
UPDATE 4:00 P.M.:
Per a phone conversation I had with AFP's Phil Kerpen, he explained that AFP acknowledged a defect in the permit application to Nashville Parks Dept. So AFP agreed to limit its activity in the park to what it outlined in its application, not fully launch a hot-air balloon, and keep it to tethered rides, and let the event go on. That was not good enough for the Parks Dept., who refused to permit AFP at all to hold an event, and demanded that they leave. Kerpen said the Parks Dept. knew all along what AFP was going to do, to the point that they were asking for insurance information for the balloon rides yesterday afternoon.
Why? Curt Garrigan of the Nashville Parks Dept. told me, "they did not submit an application for the event that was accurate. For that reason we did not issue a permit for the event." So I asked him, why not still issue the permit if they were willing to comply with the guidelines they laid out in their application. Garrigan's answer: "They sent out a media release to the public that said they were launching from that site."
So, apparently the Parks Dept. refused to allow AFP to hold any event at all based upon what they perceived to be public deception. Great public servants at work here: upending a well-publicized event in which they knew all the details, but dismissed on a technicality.
Re: Obama and Public Financing
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 3:07PM
Bill Clinton "repeatedly ate the right's lunch at election time" -- in which alternative universe did this occur, James? In the universe where I was living:
- Clinton won the 1992 election with 43% of the popular vote against George Bush, who most definitely was not "the right."
- The backlash against Clintonian misrule fueled the historic 1994 GOP congressional sweep.
- Clinton was re-elected in 1996 with 49% of the popular vote against Bob Dole, who was only slightly more "right" than Bush had been.
- The sole claim to a Clintonian victory was the 1998 midterm backlash against the impeachment, which still was not enough, however, to regain Democratic control of the Congress.
Where I come from, that doesn't count as eating the right's lunch. Clinton was arguably the worst thing that happened to the Democratic Party since LBJ.
Re: Obama and Public Financing
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 2:47PM
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but this public financing stuff is a dead end street. Bill Clinton was an even bigger flip-flopping phony, and he repeatedly ate the right's lunch at election time.
Re: Obama and Public Financing
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 1:46PM
Jim, the issue to me isn't public financing of campaigns, but simple fact that smooth-talking Obama's word is not worth the tape it's recorded on. Combine in it with, say, the staggering insincere sincerity of his Kansas values ad, and one can only conclude is that this guy will not only say anything to get elected, but will not consider himself bound by any of his pre-election promises and pledges once in office. Who knows what kind of monster he could turn out to be...
Obama and Public Financing
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 1:14PM
If conservatives take this example and weave it into a larger narrative about how Barack Obama isn't the "change agent" he says he is, that's all well and good. But focusing narrowly on the public financing angle is a waste of time. First, conservatives ought to oppose public financing, a message that gets muddled if we attack the Democrats for not taking it while the Republicans do accept welfare for politicians. Second, McCain wouldn't be taking public financing if his campaign was better funded. He is already taking advantage of loopholes in his own campaign finance law to try to close the gap. No matter how "cynical" it is, no politician as well funded as Obama would give up their biggest advantage in a close race out of idealism. Third, we are talking to ourselves. Nobody who doesn't obsess about politics for a living is going to care about this issue. This will not hurt Obama at all, except among a few lefties who might now vote for Nader.
The Obama Enigma
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 12:45PM
Michael Gerson and David Brooks are out with columns today more or less about how Barack Obama is a big phony, but they attack the subject from different angles. Gerson notes how Obama's rhetoric is conciliatory in tone, but yet his liberal voting record belies his claims of being bipartisan. There is not one example of him crossing party lines to pass legislation that would seriously anger the liberal base, though John McCain on a number of occasions has incurred the wrath of conservatives to work with Democrats. Brooks focuses on how Obama's high-minded rhetoric about a "new kind of politics" masks his inner Machiavellian nature. There's truth to what both Brooks and Gerson are saying, but their portraits would have drastically different implications on how Obama would govern were he elected.
If Gerson's portrait holds true, then a President Obama would be a nightmare for conservatives -- somebody who could get ultra-liberal legislation passed by convincing Americans that it's actually moderate. If Brooks' is right, then perhaps things won't be as terrible. America is still a right of center nation, which means that the calculating side of Obama may sell out his progressive principles for short-term political gain.
Fulbright Blight
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 12:32PM
Eli Lake in the New York Sun writes of a curious omission in the Fulbright application process: screening for terrorists. While certainly not the first concern on anyone's mind when an American submits an application to study celebratory costume in outer Mongolia, it's worth looking into when a few flags come up. Below is just such a "flag":
With around 19,000 students attending the university, it would surprise me to think that anyone involved with the school has a "terrorist link." I'm a generally hawkish person, but I attended a school with 12,000 and it was pretty hard to know what was going on even then. If these guys are linked to terrorism by Israeli intelligence, I think the university affiliation is a red herring.
Whatever the case, it is surprising to hear that these folks aren't vetted in such a way prior to participating in the Fulbright program. But given the so-far hamfisted approach being suggested, maybe it's better if we don't.
Fight the Feds
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 11:42AM
Forgive the self-promotion, but today at the Examiner I write about a problem that the good folks at the Heritage Foundation are focusing a much-needed spotlight on. In short, Congress continues to "federalize" too many crimes, and it is a very bad thing. Read all about it, please.
Did The Long Democratic Primary Help Obama?
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 10:54AM
There was always a debate over whether the protracted Democratic nomination battle was a good or bad thing for the party, and watching the early stages of the general election, its looking like it may have been helpful for Obama. Here are some of the reasons why:
1) It forced Obama to organize in all 50 states, and add more names to his donor base.
2) It may have benefitted him to have a lot of damaging stuff come during the period when he essentially had the nomination wrapped up, so by the time the general election rolls around it won't be as fresh. For instance, if the Jeremiah Wright controversy had happened in September or October, it could have been a bombshell. But now it'll come across as old news, and he had the chance to leave the Church. Remember that Clinton dealt with the Gennifer Flowers scandal during the primaries.
3) It allowed Obama to identify his problems with white working class voters, so he could tailor his message in the general. (See his first ad, where he wears an American flag lapel pin and highlights his rural white family.)
4) The early indications are that all of the talk of Democratic Party disunity was overstated.
Time will tell whether all of this holds true when we look back at the election when it's all over.
Dead Heat In Georgia?
Posted by on 6.20.08 @ 10:28AM
As if the prospect of a 3-1 spending disadvantage in the fall isn't bad enough for John McCain, a new Insider Advantage poll shows a dead heat in Georgia. McCain is ahead of Obama just 44-43 with Bob Barr pulling 6 percent of the vote. The high number of blacks and young voters is helping Obama make it competitive. Even if he doesn't ultimately win Georgia, if Obama can keep it in play by pouring money into the state, he'll force McCain to spend his much more limited resources in a state that should already be in the bank. Bush carried it by 17 points in 2004.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Obama's "Typical White Person" Ad
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 5:55PM
Barack Obama has launched his first general election ad, prominently featuring his white mother and grandparents, including his grandmother who he once described as a "typical white person" after publicly outing her as a racist during the Jeremiah Wright controversy. The ad boasts that his mother and grandparents taught him "values straight from the Kansas heartland where they grew up." Even liberal blogger Matt Yglesias calls the ad "hilariously unsubtle." Clearly, Obama is trying to convey to white working class voters who eluded him in the primaries that he loves America, and white people. The ad will air in 18 states, including many red states that Obama hopes to win: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
Meanwhile, Matt Lewis notes several instances in which the ad exaggerates Obama'a accomplishments.
Treasonous Turkish Teens Go Free
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 4:47PM
Some of the charges against a traveling Turkish choir of 12 to 17 year olds were dropped today by a judge in Diyarbakir. The youth had been charged with spreading propaganda for an illegal rebel group, the PKK, at a musical festival appearance in San Francisco.
It turns out one of the choir songs, sung in an old form of Kurdish that the children didn't understand and in a foreign country, was grounds for prosecution. The judge dismissed the charge by deciding that the children had not intended to be so terribly treasonous. But fear not, it is still illegal to sing the song in question, "Ey Raqip" ("Hey, Enemy"), in Turkey.
Obama Will Meet With Ahmadinejad, But Not McCain?
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 4:06PM
The New York Times story on Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing includes the following:
Mr. Obama had pledged to meet with Mr. McCain following the primaries to attempt to work out an agreement on financing. That meeting never took place, aides to Mr. Obama said, because a meeting between lawyers for the two sides was not fruitful. "It became clear to me that there wasn't any basis for future discussion," said Robert Bauer, the general counsel for Mr. Obama's campaign.
Those of us who oppose Obama's call for presidential-level talks with Iran have made precisely this point -- that lower-level talks with the Iranian regime have offered no reason to believe that further discussion with its leaders would be worthwhile. Evidently, Obama imposed more preconditions on McCain than he would on the president of the leading state sponsor of terrorism.
It's Time To Get Cynical About Obama
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 3:42PM
I'm no fan of having publicly financed elections. However, it is a matter of extensive public record that Barack Obama has claimed to be a huge proponent of such a system and that he explicitly pledged to opt for public financing if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same, which John McCain has. (The McCain campaign has put out a useful timeline detailing Obama's progression on the issue). Obama's support for public financing wasn't some minor matter, but a crucial part of his call for a new kind of politics.
It should be clear to any fair observer to what has happened here. Obama tried to take the high road when he was an underdog candidate for the Democratic nomination. But now that he's won the nomination and the money is rolling in, he doesn't want to abide by the limits imposed by the public financing system. He figures that most Americans don't really care about the details of campaign finance, and that even if he takes a short term political hit, the long-term political advantages of having more money than his rival will be worth it.
Yet in perhaps the most craven act of his campaign to date, in selling out his deeply held progressive principles, he tries to spin his sell out as an example of him standing up for those very principles. Obama released a video on his website saying that the public financing system is broken, and the video is embedded to a fundraising form prompting potential donors to, "Declare Your Independence from a Broken System" by giving him money. (This is the same Obama who told Larry King last February, "the presidential public financing system works.")
The central theme of Obama's campaign has been that if Americans can overcome their cynicism there's no limit to what they can achieve. But Obama's devious actions today are a perfect example of why Americans are so cynical about politicians in the first place.
The Taxpayers Are A Bank and Lender Too
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 3:35PM
Tim Carney follows the money on the "Bank of America bill on steroids."
Re: Hyp-Obama-Crite
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 3:33PM
As soon as McCain clinched the nomination, there was no chance Obama was going to take public funding. Doing so would would have negated one of Obama's biggest general-election advantages in a contest that is already more competitive than he ought to be comforable with. Even he's not liberal enough to believe in that kind of unilateral disarmnament.
Latest polls: McCain leads FL, OH
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 3:23PM
Rasmussen finds John McCain up by 8 points in Florida, 1 point in Ohio, contradicting earlier polls in both states by Quinnipiac, which caused a bit of gloating by David Weigel. So, Obama is still bounceless, although today's Gallup tracking poll has him up by 5 points.
Hyp-Obama-Crite
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 3:02PM
After this latest reversal by Obama, the one on matching funds, it's time to coing the new word in the headline here. How many times will this cynical, mendacious, unaccomplished faker completely contradict himself and/or directly violate one of his own pledges before the Establishment Media AND the late-night comedians start calling him on it? The gall of this man is beyond belief. Mark Halperin at The Page at Time.com has the whole timeline of Obama's unambiguous statements that he would accept and abide by public financing. One day he says an "undivided" Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel; the next day he says that only part of Jerusalem should be the capital, subject to negotiations, etc., etc., et-lieing-etera. He said in 2004 that he was basically where Bush was on Iraq, and then campaigned as if he had opposed every step Bush took. And by now, the other examples (amply documented by other bloggers) are legion.
The man is a liar, pure and simple. A liar who got a corrupt sweetheart deal from a criminal so he could afford an expensive house. He's a disgrace.
I note that this is the very first time I have unloaded on this fraud. Check it out. I have until now totally restrained myself, thinking it better to focus on positive issues. But mendacity and hypocrisy just galls me no end. This guy is a liar, a fraud, a disgrace. It's not that the public finance system for the general election is something necessarily worth saving, but darn it, if you make repeated public pledges to save it and to abide by it, then you darn well ought to stick to your pledges.
"Change you can believe in," my a$$. It's more like Obama says "I'll change what I believe in (whenever I can gain advantage by doing so)."
Every sports profile ever written
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 1:42PM
This cracked me up:
Of course, seeing the stock phrases used by athletes in every sports interview ever given, you can see how sports scribes might fall into cliched patterns.The Ordeal Might Not Yet Be Over...
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 12:53PM
...for the Marine exonerated in the Haditha massascre yesterday.
Fred Says Obama Should "Stop Aologizing" To World
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 11:27AM
Fred Thompson, in a conference call organized by the McCain campaign, blasted the U.S. Supreme Court decision granting habeas corpus rights to terrorist suspects, and criticized Barack Obama for advocating a law enforcement approach to foreign policy.
"Senator Obama would do well to stop apologizing to the rest of the world for America's attempts to protect itself during the time of war," Thompson said.
He also criticized Obama for citing the prosecutions of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers as a model for how he would fight terrorism.
"That was the best example of why we can't treat these terrorist cases as ordinary criminal cases," Thompson said.
Thompson called the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on terrorism cases a "monumentally bad decision" that was "another example of the Supreme Court making policy."
McCain campaign foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, who also joined the call, went after Obama surrogate Bill Richardson, who in arguing for more detainee rights declared, "We have to protect our country from terrorists but we don't have to be like them by abridging our own freedoms."
Scheunemann said it was "a really shocking statement if you think about it, because we are not being like them by giving the detainees the rights they had prior to the Supreme Court decision. The terrorists behead captives on television, they fly planes into buildings, they recruit teenagers for suicide bombs, they use car bombs to blow up innocent men women, and children, most of whom are Muslims. It's really shocking that a representative for Senator Obama would say somehow we are being like the terrorists."
Scheunemann also went after Obama for stating that he wouldn't want to make Osama bin Laden a martyr. Noting that the definition of a martyr is somebody who dies for a cause, he said, "It seems to be that Senator Obama is ruling out capital punishment for Osama bin Laden were he to be captured alive and under U.S. jurisdiction. And I think that's another reversal of a position he previously stated…I think we've seen yet another series of confused and indecisive and troubling statements from Senator Obama and his spokesperson about how to prosecute this struggle against violent, radical Islamic extremists that wish to attack America and American interests again."
Could Obama Get Gored?
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 11:23AM
There's a story in the Politico exploring the possibility that Barack Obama could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. The scenario: Obama racks up more votes in states like North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Indiana but John McCain still wins them narrowly; McCain flips Michigan and New Hampshire, making up for the states Obama flips. The 2000/2004 map largely holds even though Obama wins most of his states big while McCains wins a number of his states by slim margins.
It's possible, though if Obama can get that close I would have to think his superior organization and fired-up base could tip a few more states than this scenario predicts. For those of us who would like to keep the Electoral College, it would not be a good development. The Democrats have unseriously been suggesting scrapping the Electoral College since at least the Carter years. Two Republican presidents who lost the constitutionally irrelevant popular vote in eight years would turn abolition into a major Democratic cause.
Obama Reverses Forward
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 11:06AM
No one inside the Obama campaign was surprised when Sen. Barack Obama announced earlier today that he would forgo federal matching funds.
The candidate, who previously promised to accept them, had polling data to back his decision.
"We know that most Americans don't understand federal matching funds. It's too complicated, so they just don't care. We aren't going to be penalized for this," says a political consultant who just signed on with the Obama campaign.
The Obama campaign not only saw an opportunity to announce the decision during a lull in the campaign, but also saw a chance to set off a huge online fundraising drive.
"This decision is less about Senator Obama reversing a decision and more about showing his supporters he will do what has to be done to win," says the consultant. "That's how he is going to run his campaign and how he will lead this nation."
Left Sees Obama Backtracking on Trade
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 10:00AM
Free trade is an issue where Barack Obama has tried to have it both ways. Articles like this one by John Nichols in the Nation demonstrate that this won't be easy to do.
John McCain IS the American Dream
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 9:31AM
Via a Facebook note, Rachel Marsden points out a Huffington Post column that tries to make a big deal about the fact that John McCain's wife, Cindy, inherited a fortune from her father's Phoenix beer distributorship. This is a bad thing?
This could be the key to unlocking the youth vote. There must be millions of frat boys who would be receptive to this message. "So, after being this war-hero pilot dude, then he marries a chick with her own beer company. How cool is that?"
My Hometown
Posted by on 6.19.08 @ 9:07AM
Paul Sands of Pun Salad has collected
a "best of" from the recent police logs of my hometown of
Rochester, New Hampshire. Highlights include:
10:12 a.m. - At the station a man reports getting
a strange message on his cell phone, to whit: "It looks like she's
dead." These dire words have come from a phone in Dover. Police
there track it to a city landscaper and discover he was talking
about a dead sprinkler head. So she may be restored to
life.
11:22 a.m. - Two strange sheep munch in a Dry Hill
Road yard, but then move along.
11:24 p.m. - A man steals a 30-pack from
Cumberland Farms on Milton Road and escapes on foot, despite baggy
jeans.
11:27 p.m. - A party rages on Main Street, Gonic.
No officers are available to handle the call. Rage on,
McDuff.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Shallow Talent Pool for Team Obama
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 9:28PM
When President Bush leaves the White House, Republicans will have held the presidency 28 of the past 40 years. This means that, when Democrats start scouting around for executive branch talent, they must draw from a relatively smaller group of potential personnel.
Thus, when Team Obama announced its "National Security Working Group," one conservative blogger immediately noted that the list of names was studded with "Carter & Clinton retreads," a prospect that is "Not so Changey." It will be hard for Obama to argue that his administration will be offer anything other than a return to Clinton-era personnel and policies in foreign affairs and national security. The Democrats seem to believe that voters weary of Bush and Iraq may want just such a reversion.
UPDATE: Cato's Justin Logan notes that among Obama's national security advisers is William Perry, who in 2006 advocated U.S. air strikes against North Korea. Now, explain to me again that part about Republicans being bloodthirsty warmongers . . .
With Enemies Like These . . .
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 8:58PM
A man named Larry Sinclair, who had made lurid accusations against Sen. Barack Obama, held a press conference today at the National Press Club, and was then arrested and held on a fugitive warrant. David Weigel attended the press conference that he calls a "circus." Looks like this crazy campaign year is getting even crazier.
Woods Out For The Season
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 2:27PM
Coming off of his incredible win in the U.S. Open, Tiger Woods, sadly, will have to skip the rest of the 2008 season to have ACL surgery. For him to miss the British Open and the PGA Championship, you know he must be in real pain. And in a testament to his incredible skills, ESPN reports:
Re: The Post-Post-9/11 Era
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 1:49PM
The entire presidential election hinges on whether the public perception is that we are a nation at war. If they feel that we are, McCain stands to win as the safer bet than Obama. If Americans are more concerned with gas prices, I don't see how McCain avoids being stigmatized as the old dude who is obsessed with staying in Iraq.
Re: The Post-Post-9/11 Era
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 12:48PM
Phil, I've been wondering the same thing. Obviously, national security and terrorism play to McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses but there is a danger in McCain's attacks on Obama's "9/10 mindset." First, that charge plays much better in conservative circles than it does in the country as a whole. To some voters concerned about the economy, returning to the Clinton era doesn't sound like such a bad thing. Second, if Obama is at all adept he can make Iraq and the willingness to wage Iraq-like ventures the main distinction between his and McCain's approach to counterterrorism. After all, Obama has endorsed Afghanistan, foreign snatch-and-grab operations, and, pace the Obamacons, reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
Re: And An Amnesty for All Who Overstay
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 12:44PM
Stacy, I'm relying on the government to make up for my fear of commitment.
Re: And an Amnesty for All Who Overstay
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 11:40AM
James, why would a foreign supermodel need to overstay her visa, when she could get a permanent residency by marrying you?
The Post-Post-9/11 Era?
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 11:37AM
I have a column up on today's page warning about how Barack Obama is the post-post-9/11 candidate who wants the nation to return to thinking that terrorism is not a major threat. But another aspect that jumped out at me from reading the Quinnipiac poll is that this may very well be a good thing for Obama, because his attitude seems to reflect the mood of the nation.
Let's take Florida for example. In 2004, 24 percent of the state's voters identified terrorism as the most important issue in the election, and they voted 87-12 for Bush. Only 16 percent named economy/jobs, and they voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.
In today's Quinnipiac poll, only 9 percent of Floridians identified terrorism as an important issue, compared to 53 percent who identified the economy.
And an Amnesty for All Who Overstay
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 11:35AM
Finally, in a principled exception to my restrictionist position, there's an increase in immigration I can support. (Hat tip: Dave Weigel at Hit and Run.)
With Friends Like These...
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 11:35AM
Over at today's edition of the London Guardian (enemy territory indeed!), I have an article on why Europe is essential to economic pressure on Iran -- and how European leaders, despite all of their positive pronouncements, are actually being rather counterproductive to our efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic.
The 'Distraction' Meme, Recycled
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 11:25AM
In response to John McCain's criticism of his remarks to ABC News about terrorism, Barack Obama says:
"Let's think about this: These are the same guys who helped engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," Obama told reporters on his campaign plane.
This is an utter non sequitur. Osama bin Laden and his gang escaped from the battle of Tora Bora into the Pakistani borderlands in December 2001 -- a full 15 months before the "distraction" in Iraq. The conventional military forces used in Iraq could not have been used to hunt down bin Laden, except by invading Pakistan. Did any of the reporters on the Obama campaign plane ask the senator if his remark meant that he favors a U.S. military invasion of Pakistan?
I hasten to add that this "distraction" argument is still a non sequitur, even if you believe that the Iraq invasion was misguided and mishandled. By the time U.S. forces went into Iraq, Osama had been hiding out in his tribal sanctuary near Pakistan's northwestern frontier for more than a year, and no Democrat in 2002-03 was demanding an invasion of Pakistan to go after al Qaeda.
FINALLY. Somebody says it.
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 11:20AM
Debra J. Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle nails it:
You now know more about Russert than you know about Paul R. Smith, Jason L. Dunham, Michael P. Murphy, Michael A. Monsoor and Ross A. McGinnis. Who are they? Men who received the Medal of Honor for their service in Iraq or Afghanistan.
But they weren't on TV.
Sitting in my favorite watering hole, Capitol Lounge on Monday, I was chatting with guys who described themselves as "Russert guys."
"He was us. He loved the game of politics," said one new friend. Really? Is that why the rest of America needs to be more upset about his loss than Iowa's displaced or our honored dead? Folks have tried to convince me that Russert changed how politics was played, because to be on Meet the Press meant to wager your candidacy. Shouldn't that always be the case?
And is politics really that important? It is to me, I suppose, otherwise I wouldn't have my job. It is to the fellow who says he's a Russert guy. But what a breathless loss of perspective, one that, among journalists, seems a dereliction rather than a tribute.
Russert was a man, all in all. Take him for what he was. We shall not look upon his like again. But have some sense of proportion, if only to spare yourself the embarassment.
Obama's Swing State Trifecta
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 11:17AM
On the down side for McCain, Quinnipiac is out with large sample size polls in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, and Obama has a lead in all three states. Obama's up by a large 52-40 margin in Pennsylvania, but Ohio is closer at 48-42, and Florida is 47-43. This is the first time in the poll that Obama has led in all three states.
In my view, any Obama lead in Florida, even at this early stage, is problematic for McCain, because it is a state that he should have in the bag.
Some more observations from the poll results:
--Obama has a large lead among women voters, while McCain has a slight lead among men. So much for the disgruntled Hillary voter backlash.
--McCain's oldness is more of a problem than Obama's blackness (though you could argue that people are more embarassed to tell pollsters that they wouldn't vote for a black candidate).
--It seems that Obama may be able make up for any erosion of Jewish support in Florida with his near universal support among blacks. In the past, I've calculated that even if Obama wins a majority of the Jewish vote in Florida, if his percentage dropped to 60 percent from Kerry's 80 percent, it could represent a swing toward McCain of 120,000 votes. However, this poll has Obama winning the black vote by a staggering 95-4 margin (as opposed to Kerry's 86-13 advantage). Because there are more than double the number of black voters in Florida than Jewish voters, Obama's improved performance among blacks would represent a swing of about 164,000 in his direction. Thus McCain may actually have to make headway among Jewish voters just to offset Obama's gains among blacks.
--Slightly more people now favor staying in Iraq until it is stable than withdrawing immediately and having troops home within 18 months, but the economy has now become a much bigger issue, which is especially being driven by gas prices.
Obama supporters boo Clinton mention
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 11:04AM
At a "party unity" rally in Detroit this week, there was an eruption of boos when Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm mentioned her own support of Hillary Clinton:
It may be hard to hear on your computer, but The Washington Post called it "a deafening chorus of boos."Obama Still Bounceless
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 10:35AM
The latest poll (June 12-14) from Zogby:
Democrat Barack Obama holds an edge over Republican John McCain in the race for U.S. President, but his recent win of his party's nomination has not produced a big bounce. . . .Despite the gloomy outlook for Republicans, there has been no electoral tsunami toward Obama. Meanwhile, Hillary's decided to take a three-week vacation.
Obama leads McCain, 47% to 42% . . .
Obama wins almost all of the support from African American voters, while McCain leads by a 48% to 38% margin over Obama among white voters. Among Hispanics, Obama leads with 54% support, compared to 44% support for McCain.
Black Like McCain
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 3:03AM
Ugandan opinion columnist Dorene Namanya asks, "What if McCain Were Black?" She asks readers to "mix a deep chocolate colour, paste it on McCain, and here, on pretend he is black. And then give him a chance."
The article argues that McCain's policies are actually quite good for Ugandans. His policy on war keeps Ugandan soldiers fed; his immigration policy would make many illegal American immigrants legal (some of them Ugandans); and he will likely continue Bush's trend of significant aid to Africa. Namanya implies that Obama's local popularity comes down to nothing more than race politics.
When it comes down to the Obama vs. Hilary debate stateside, I'm willing to blame the whole thing on marketing. While I find it interesting that the Presidency may very well awarded in the same order as was the right to vote, who wouldn't choose Obama with Black Eyed Peas' will.i.am serenading us about change?
However, that the differences in policy prescription between McCain and Obama are more startling than those between Obama and Clinton. That is to say, they exist. Hopefully, Americans will take Namanya's advice and pay attention to those differences -- and leave the race bickering and musical marketing of the primaries behind.
Ubuntu, Indeed
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 1:26AM
Somewhere Red Auerbach is lighting up a celebratory cigar. The Big Three, Pierce, Allen, and Garnett, all earned it and Rondo had an excellent game picking Kobe's pocket more than once. I've previously compared the Lakers to the Clinton '08 campaign and the Celtics to the Obama campaign, but tonight was Reagan-Mondale '84.
Obama Campaign Muffs Jerusalem Question…Again!
Posted by on 6.18.08 @ 1:19AM
Two weeks ago, at a speech to AIPAC that I attended, Barack Obama declared that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." The very next day, amid objection from Palestinians, Obama backtracked and said the status of Jerusalem would have to be determined by negotiations.
Now Reuters reports that a top Obama adviser is doing cartwheels to try to explain the about face:
"So he used a word to represent what he did not want to see
again, and then realized afterwards that that word is a code word
in the Middle East," Kurtzer said.
In other words, Obama is such an expert on the Middle East that he has a vivid picture of what Jerusalem looked like when he was a five-year old living in Hawaii, and yet in a major speech about that very region he has such expertise on, he bungles the language on one of its most hotly-contested issues.
It gets better:
Much of the debate over Obama's stance on Israel has focused on whether he is pro or anti, but perhaps a better question to ask is how much damage his careless use of language would do to the region. Over the course of the campaign, his statements have sent so many mixed signals, that people have drawn wildly different conclusions as to his true intentions. While this may allow him to skate through the campaign, the tendency would be absolutely disastrous should he carry out such policies as president, because ambiguous signals from the West have been a central problem all along. For instance, both sides claim that the British promised a state to their side earlier in this century. And one of the most disputed U.N. resolutions of all time, written after the Six Day War, calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict…" Arabs contend that this means that Israel must withdraw from all territories, but the clause was negotiated so as to specifically avoid the definite article "the" (as in "the territories conquered"), thus allowing Israel to maintain some border flexibility. The point is that this single clause has been the subject of fierce debate for over 40 years.
So to borrow a line from Obama himself, don't tell me that words don't matter!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Re: Habitues Against Hate
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 5:53PM
Greeley's column seems like a bizarre liberal application of the Bush doctrine: Pre-emptive excuse-making for another Democratic defeat. If Obama loses in November, it will have nothing to do with the fact that Democrats nominated a 46-year-old with no executive experience who was unknown outside Illinois until 2004. No, it's those bigots in barrooms who'll be blamed -- The Archie Bunker Nation triumphant.
Ross Perot Returns
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 5:41PM
Perot has launched a website filled with information about the deficit, national debt, taxation, and other issues. When it comes to charts, Ross is still boss.
Habitues Against Hate
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 5:35PM
Over at The Corner, there's some discussion of this pretentious passage in a -- believe it or not -- Andrew Greeley column: "How many of the male readers of this column who are habitues of bars, locker rooms, commuter train bull sessions, pool rooms and men's clubs have not heard the indigenous racial slurs of such environments applied to Obama?"
I don't spend much time in locker rooms or "commuter train bull sessions," but I have on occasion been seen in bars. I confess that yes, I have heard racial slurs used against Obama in a few such venues. I'm not sure, however, that this confirms much besides my rule that politics shouldn't be discussed in bars.
I Get By With a Little Help From My Friends
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 5:00PM
There's an old saying: If you want a friend in Washington,
get a dog. We can now add to that, "or become chairman of the Senate
banking committee." Senator Chris Dodd is one of the lucky legislators revealed
last week to have taken part in a special lending program for "Friends
of Angelo." That's Angelo Mozilo, president of Countrywide Financial. Dodd
saved about $75,000 by getting a loan through the exclusive "Friends of..." program. Sweet deal! But that's nothing compared to what Countrywide's
hoping to get out of it. Dodd, in his capacity as the banking committee chair
has spent the last few months boisterously pushing a $300 billion bailout of mortgage
lenders. Basically, the deal would allow lenders to cherry pick their worst
loans and offload them onto the FHA, meaning taxpayers would shoulder the risk
for lenders' bad bets (CBO predicts that more than a third of the loans
picked up by the FHA are likely to default). And one of the biggest
beneficiaries of the bailout would be – surprise, surprise – Countrywide
Financial. Now, Dodd, of course, maintains that he's only trying to
help struggling homeowners. Images of working-class folks, slaving away to keep
their modest homes come to mind. But considering the cap on eligible mortgages will likely be upwards
of $600,000, that doesn't seem to be the case. Instead, it looks like the
intersection of bad policy, bad politics, and the most obvious Washington
cronyism imaginable. To illustrate the point, a few of my young colleagues
recently visited the Capitol Hill rowhouse which Dodd refinanced through the Countrywide program. And they brought a panda with them.
Gore Still Sucking Up the Energy
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 4:47PM
Our friends at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research have been looking at Al Gore's personal residential energy consumption again, and things are only getting more embarrassing for the world's foremost global warming alarmist:
In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President's home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.Cross-posted at Cooler Heads."A man's commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home," said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. "Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption."
In the past year, Gore's home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
Re: J.P. on MSNBC
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 4:33PM
Being a father of six, I'd call that ad another MoveOn.org blunder. Republican leanings are most pronounced precisely among the Middle American married-with-children demographic, and I expect the MoveOn ad to produce nothing but an angry backlash -- especially considering that John McCain's own son volunteered for the Marines.
MoveOn is very good at stirring up the left-wing base, but they're tone-deaf when it comes to the rest of America. They surely didn't focus-group that ad, or they never would have released it, since it's a hanging curveball delivered straight into McCain's wheelhouse.
Re: John McCain and Global Warming
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 3:26PM
A friend of mine who happens to be a GOP activist got a message from a local legislator that Sen. McCain will be in Minneapolis for a townhall meeting this week, and she warmly responded that she'd love to help, but unfortunately there's a glitch, as she explained to me in an email:
I get a call back that the townhall meeting is on Energy- so it probably "wouldn't be a good fit" since I disagree with the Senator. So I can't even attend? Although in all fairness I'd be highly uncomfortable with people around me applauding for cap and trade.
McCain's in a lot of trouble if his people are putting off supporters who aren't on board with his whole agenda.
Re: J.P. on MSNBC
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 3:26PM
You just don't understand, Phillip. John McCain's thirst for war can only be quenched by the blood of our innocent babes. To prepare for the endtimes, we must sacrifice the young! And we would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those pesky MoveOn.org kids!
Another Asian Terror Group on Treasury's Blacklist
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 3:08PM
The Raja Suleiman Movement (RSM), a Philippine-based group with links to Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda affiliates both, has just been blacklisted by the Treasury Department. Today's measure also marks the RSM's leader, Ahmad Santos, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under U.S. federal law. The official press release is here. It cites Adam Szubin, the director of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, as charging the RSM with "reprehensible acts that include killing citizens and tourists in the Philippines to advance their terrorist agenda."
J.P. on MSNBC
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 3:08PM
J.P. Freire will be on MSNBC at 4 pm debating Eli Pariser, executive director of moveon.org, about their new ad campaign against John McCain's policy in Iraq. The absurd ad, which I posted below, features a mother talking about her baby Alex. It ends with the question, "John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him." Of course, that point may have some relevance if McCain were calling for reinstating the draft, but since we have an all-volunteer Army, it's a total non sequitur.
Rudy Blasts Obama
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 2:53PM
Rudy Giuliani issued the following statement, via the McCain campaign:
Parsing Obama
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 2:43PM
Daniel Larison tries to argue that Obama's comments don't represent a 9/10 mindset because he was only touting the prosecution of the first WTC bombing in the context of talking about the narrower question of handling detainees. "The candidate who has urged launching strikes into Pakistan and supported the bombardment of Lebanon is not one who is leery of using force to respond to terrorism and other security threats," Larison reassures.
Interestingly, in the very same post, Larison chides conservatives who tried to convince themselves that Obama is sympathetic to school choice. "I’ll keep saying it until it sinks in: his nods to conservative reform proposals are head fakes," Larison writes.
So Larison doesn't buy Obama's head fakes on domestic issues, and yet he expects those of us who favor aggressive action against terrorism to buy Obama's national security head fakes hook, line, and sinker.
Predictions vs. hunches
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 1:46PM
As any of the winners of my ill-advised election wagers can attest, I've got a lousy track record as a political prognosticator. One of the sharp operators who've fleeced me in the past, Dave Weigel, just sent me an e-mail chiding me over today's article about Barack Obama's Electoral College problems. Dave cited a new partisan Democratic poll showing Obama up 50-39% in Ohio. I replied:
I hope you understand that, having invested in the idea that Team Obama doesn't know what they're doing, I am now predisposed to disregard all contrary evidence. In reality, I haven't the foggiest clue what Obama's poll numbers are going to look like tomorrow, next week, or next month. A couple of weeks ago, however, I detected the stench of McGovernite arrogance emanating from the Obama camp, an aroma that they've done nothing to dispel in recent days, and experience leads me to suspect a McGovern/Dukakis-type meltdown might be in the offing.
I could be mistaken, of course. Prognostication has never been my strong point. But when I saw that McClatchy story about them planning to send Obama to Europe, so as to showcase how beloved he is by the European masses -- well, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!
Over and over in my lifetime, liberal Democrats have shown a tendency to overestimate the American voter's enthusiasm for liberalism. This tendency often manifests itself in the kind of overconfident talk now being heard from Team Obama.
Maybe my impression of Democratic overconfidence is wrong. Maybe the European tour idea, like David Plouffe's suggestion that Obama can win without Florida and Ohio, is just idle chatter. And maybe Obama will crush McCain in November. At this point, however, my hunch is otherwise. But it's a hunch, not a prediction. Despite my confessed predisposition to defend my hunch and ignore contrary evidence, I'll be willing to revise my opinion if and when Team Obama starts talking common sense.
John McCain and Global Warming, In Three Acts
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 12:47PM
Most movies have three acts. In the first act, you reveal some sort of problem; in the second act, you see that problem compounded; in the third act, the problem is revealed to be larger and more dire than anyone expected. So, in a monster movie: I) Uh-oh, there's a monster! II) And it can breath fire and shoot lightning bolts from its eyes! III) And it's grown to the size of the Empire State Building!
This is a useful guide to understanding John McCain's global warming plan. We've known for a while now it's some kind of monster, and it turns out now that, yes, it does breath fire and shoot lighting bolts from its eyes. How so? Well, McCain, possibly the most fervent GOP advocate of a cap-and-trade plan, apparently has no clue how the "cap" part of the plan works.
Via Obsidian Wings, here's a snippet from a recent press conference:
MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those -- impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met."
Except, of course, that the whole point of a cap-and-trade plan is to impose mandatory emissions caps. Apparently, as Hilzoy points out, this isn't the first time McCain has been confused about the policy, which he's been a leader on for years (he co-sponsored a cap-and-trade bill with Joe Lieberman). The only question now, I suppose, is what oversized terror this thing will mutate into for Act III.The Economics of Gay Marriage
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 11:33AM
This morning on Laura Ingraham's show, I sidestepped a question on this in order to make -- not very artfully, I'm afraid -- a point I wanted to fit in before the end of the interview. Suffice it to say, I haven't seen any evidence that gay marriage has an enduring impact on the local economy either way. In the first six months or so, as the backlog of same-sex couples who have wanted to marry clears, I imagine the wedding industry receives a noticeable boost. This will probably be especially true in California, since there is already a defense-of-marriage amendment on this November's ballot. But after the first six months or so, gay marriage tends to become a fringe phenomenon. I'd be interested in any economic literature that reinforces or contradicts my impressions.
Will Bill Come to Obama's Defense?
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 11:26AM
The McCain campaign's full-throated attack on Clinton's counterterrorism policies in the course of slamming Obama today may be the one thing that will unite the Clinton and Obama coalitions. As much animosity as Bill Clinton may have for the Obama campaign, nothing angers him more than any criticism of his record during the 1990s, especially on terrorism. Consider this a red-faced Bill alert.
Ex-Clinton CIA Director Blasts Obama as Naive
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 11:21AM
James Woolsey Jr., the director of the CIA during the first two years of the Clinton administration, blasted Barack Obama for advocating an "extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach" to countering the terrorist threat, in the wake of comments Obama made to ABC News touting the criminal justice response to the first World Trade Center bombing.
Woolsey, who lead the CIA at the time of the bombing, claimed in a McCain campaign conference call that the law enforcement-only approach of the 1990s was a "miserable failure." Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden were both indicted during the decade, but it did not prevent them from planning future terrorist attacks, including Sept. 11. Also, the CIA wasn't able to see information that would have allowed them to connect the dots. For instance, KSM was the uncle of the first WTC bomber, Ramzi Yousef.
"I do not say this lightly," Woolsey said of Obama's comments. "This is an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach."
John Lehman, who served on the 9/11 commission, said, "What Obama said, that this is the right approach, the way we went about it in the 1993 bombing was the correct approach, shows a very deep first ignorance of the facts, and a very, very, dangerous policy."
Lehman said he thought Obama would have to change his mind.
"It is a totally unsupportable position," he said. "It would provide such an opening for terrorism that no matter how naïve he is, he would not go forward with it. If he did, it would certainly make it far more dangerous in the United States."
McCain campaign foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann said, "Once again we have seen that Senator Obama is the perfect manifestation of the Sept. 10 mindset."
He added, "The only conclusion we could reach is that if Senator Obama got that 3 a.m. phone call that was so talked about during the primary, I guess his response would be to call the lawyers and the Justice Department."
Scheunemann also anticipated the likely counter argument from the Obama camp.
"I have no doubt that we will hear in the course of the day that the Obama campaign will say we're practicing the 'politics of fear,'" he said. "And the reality is what Sen. Obama's statement reflects last night is that he's advocating a policy of delusion that ignores what happened with the failed approach of the 1990s which allowed al Qaeda thrive and prosper unmolested. That policy clearly made America less safe and more vulnerable."
For His Next Trick, Tiger.....
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 11:05AM
For his next trick, Tiger Woods will cut off his own arm, hand it to an astonished gallery member to prove it's not a prosthesis, then place it back in place while saying "Abracadabra" -- with all signs of blood and other distress magically vanishing -- and proceed to hit a 420-yard drive into the cup for a double-eagle on a par 4. Against the wind. Uphill.
McCain Campaign Hits Obama on Terrorism Comments
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 9:58AM
McCain campaign foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann put out this statement:
There are a lot of silly issues that arise in the campaign, but this is a debate that needs to be had.
Obama and Moving Beyond 9/11
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 9:53AM
Here's what Barack Obama had to say about in an ABC News interview regarding the Gitmo decision:
I've always thought from the very beginning of this election that more than anything else, Barack Obama's candidacy was tapping into a desire among a growing part of the electorate to move into a post-post-9/11 world in which terrorism is no longer a central issue. This is what has scared me most about his candidacy. The only way terrorism can succeed is for civilization to become indifferent to its threat. Terrorists strike most effectively when we aren't paying attention. Normally, Obama's argument for moving on from 9/11 is subtle, as he promises to "turn the page" or end "the politics of fear." But now he is making the specific argument that we should go back to the 1990s way of handling terrorism, when it was treated as a criminal justice matter rather than part of a larger war. For him to cite the handling of the first WTC bombing is particularly discouraging.
Here's what the 9/11 Commission had to say about the aftermath of the first WTC bombing that Obama sees as an example of how he'd want to handle suspected terrorists:
Third, the successful use of the legal system to address the first World Trade Center bombing had the side effect of obscuring the need to examine the character and extent of the new threat facing the United States. The trials did not bring the Bin Ladin network to the attention of the public and policymakers.
No Plan B -- for Pharmacists
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 3:27AM
According to the Washington Post, pro-life pharmacies are popping into existence, opting out of the U.S. birth control market. Certain people are, of course, outraged. A right to birth control clearly trumps the right to act upon one's conscience, especially since there aren't any pro-choice pharmacists in this country.
Marcia Greenberg of the National Women's Law Center puts it best: "Contraception is essential for women's health." I'm going to have to make a note of how unhealthy pregnancy is, not to mention abstinence!
Re: Gore Asks for Obamabucks
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 12:35AM
Ah, but you can never have too much money in this seedy business. And many partisan Democrats believe Gore did win, remember? He also reminds Democratic stragglers of the Clinton years. The Clintons may currently be losers but they are their losers.
Re: Gore Asks for Obamabucks
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 12:14AM
Yeah, Jim, but Obama's got no money problems, and the way I'm looking at it, there are already enough losers hanging around Team Obama. They just picked up Patti Solis Doyle, you know.
Re: Gore Asks for Obamabucks
Posted by on 6.17.08 @ 12:06AM
I don't know. A fundraising appeal from Gore to an audience of partisan Democrats who believe he was the rightfully elected president in 2000 could probably help Obama bring in some coin, if nothing else.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Must reading about Hillary
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 11:55PM
You simply must read this article in New York, which is full of juicy stuff:
Clinton made a point of not naming names in the course of her media critique. But when I ask her former staff for particular examples of sexism in the press, they exhibit less restraint. "The whole MSNBC crew," says [Clinton supporter Ann] Lewis. "I mean, at what point in Chris Matthews's career do we choose? . . ."She doesn't name Keith Olbermann, but she definitely could have.
Re: Gore Asks For Obamabucks
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 7:50PM
Phil, I'm not sure exactly what Al Gore adds for Obama -- an endorsement by a loser, a reminder of the past, for a candidate who's supposed to be all about "change"?
I'd call Gore the Al-batross.
Jim on Laura Ingraham
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 7:49PM
Jim Antle will be on Laura Ingraham's show tomorrow morning at 10:30 to discuss his article on the beginning of gay marriage in California. Tune in.
Gore Asks For Obamabucks
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 7:35PM
This hit my inbox about an hour ago:
A few hours from now I will step on
stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator
Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do
whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United
States.
Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.
This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action.
That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/gore
Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.
With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.
If you've already contributed to this campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution right now. If you haven't, please take the next step and own a piece of this campaign today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/gore
On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.
We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president, and it begins by making a contribution to this campaign today.
Thank you for joining me,
Al Gore
LIVE TONIGHT -- 8:30 p.m. EDT: Watch streaming video of Al Gore and Barack Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan:
Those Rigorous Obamacons
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 6:24PM
Doug Kmiec is at it again. There are just two little problems with his pro-life case for Barack Obama. The first is that pro-lifers don't just believe abortion is an unpleasant or regrettable social phenomenon. They regard it, in most to all cases, as the unjust taking of a human being's life. It's true that "there is more than one rather indirect and elusive judicial way to address an intrinsic evil," but it is hard to square the pro-life position with an acceptance of the Roe constitutional regime explicitly denying unborn children legal protection.
Second, there is little to no evidence that Obama favors doing anything more than the average pro-choice politician to reduce the incidence of abortion. He supports the Freedom of Choice Act, a position that makes him worse than John McCain would be if the Republican did absolutely nothing about Roe. He supports taxpayer funding of abortion, even though the Hyde Amendment has done more to reduce abortions than any other single piece of pro-life legislation. He has not endorsed the pro-life Democrats' 95-10 initiative. At most, Obama might, according to Kmiec, support weak loophole-ridden restrictions on late-term abortions. Obama has probably said less to give pro-lifers are reason for hope than Hillary Clinton, even though he has expressed plenty of respect for the pro-life -- or is it anti-choice? -- position.
If Kmiec wanted to explicitly argue that he was supporting Obama in spite of his pro-choice views because of the war or some other proportionate reason, that would be one thing. But instead he wants to pretend that a vote for Obama somehow advances pro-life goals on abortion in some meaningful sense.
Gay Marriage Is Too Hard
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 4:31PM
After I wrote this column a while back, a blogger whose site has since passed into the ether charged me with advancing a new argument against same-sex marriage: "It's just too hard." Well, actually no. It wasn't a polemical piece; I was just pointing out some of the bureacratic hurdles and jockeying. But in California, the subject of my column today, some clerks actually do seem to think it's too hard. Others are taking advantage of loopholes to avoid implementing a decision they oppose and which may be overturned in the fall.
Don't Count Rocco Out
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 3:16PM
He's still hanging in there with Tiger, both are at +1 after 14 holes, and Tiger just hit an errant tee shot at 15. This will either be another chapter in the Tiger legend, or an upset for the ages.
UPDATE: After pinning it on the green with an incredible approach shot from the bunker, Tiger blows the birdie putt and Rocco makes a circus putt to pull one stroke ahead of Tiger.
UPDATE I: On to 18, with Rocco clinging to a 1 stroke lead, just like yesterday.
UPDATE II: Tiger ties it up on the 18th again, with a birdie. Now it's on to sudden death. Unbelievable.
UPDATE III: Tiger pulls it off in the sudden death. Tremendous. Kudos to Rocco for hanging in there for so long with the best ever.
McCain and Judges
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 2:29PM
Mickey Kaus is claiming that John McCain is wobbling on judges, a claim that has been picked up by the Corner, and Instapundit, but I they are misinterpreting McCain.
The impetus for the charge is a Politico report on a McCain meeting with disgruntled Clinton supporters, in which one former Clintonite is quoted as saying he was happy McCain "pointed out that he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsberg and Breyer."
But this is nothing new. In his speech on the judiciary at Wake Forest last month that I attended, McCain cited his votes for liberal judges as a way of attacking Obama for not voting for John Roberts and Samuel Alito, even though they were well qualified.
Here's what McCain said publicly at Wake Forest:
I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me. And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make.
My guess is that McCain said something along these lines, rather than that he actually wants more justices in the mod of Breyer and Ginsberg.
Rich Blue-Collar Guys
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 2:26PM
While I'm well aware that there are rich folks who like to pose as men of the people, I'm intrigued by this idea that there is something necessarily contrived about Tim Russert's blue-collar persona. Yeah, the guy lived and moved in the Beltway, reportedly earning some $5 million a year. But his dad was a Buffalo, New York sanitation worker. Russert legitimately came from a blue-collar background. Is it really that hard to believe that this background shaped and influenced him even after he left town and became wealthy?
I know lawyers and bankers who, like Russert and my own father, were the first white-collar people in their families. They live differently than their parents and in many cases they think differently. But in most cases, their upbringing is still a source of pride to them and a major influence on their values. They are often equally different from their colleagues who came from backgrounds of privilege. Maybe if Russert had stayed in Buffalo and been a local lawyer or teacher, it would have been more authentic. But I really don't find it that difficult to believe that a man could rise from a humble background to become a D.C. operator without losing his Buffalo pride.
Don't Bet on McCain-Romney
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 2:13PM
A telling moment occurred during the press conference when McCain was asked whether the fact that some Republican members of Congress haven't endorsed him yet indicates he was having difficulty unifying the party.
As part of his response, McCain rattled off a list of his former Republican rivals whose support he was proud to have -- Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee ... then he just paused for several seconds as if he had to think about it, before mentioning Mitt Romney.
I suppose some would call it a "senior moment" for McCain, but I interpreted it more as an "I still hate that phony but I suppose I have to mention his name" moment.
McCain Calls For Lifting Ban on Offshore Drilling
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 1:27PM
I just came back from a John McCain press conference in which he called for lifting a ban on offshore drilling for oil and natural gas to help cut our dependence on foreign imports. Instead of being decided at the federal level, he said individual states should be permitted to decided whether or not to allow drilling, and under what conditions.
Some More highlights from the McCain presser:
-- Renewed his call for town hall debates with Barack Obama, which he called, "the essence of democracy," and no doubt to the joy of conservatives, said he would be willing to hold one in front of La Raza.
-- Hit Obama on
-- He said he would win over Reagan Democrats by emphasizing lower taxes and strong national defense, and said, in an obvious reference to Obama, that he wouldn't suggest that small town Americans were clinging to guns and religion because they're bitter about their economic circumstances.
-- Recognized that
--Asked about whether he has anger management issues, McCain noted his record of bipartisanship, and said that yes, pork barrel spending and political corruption makes him angry, as it does the American people.
--Emphasized that his campaign had a lot of work to do, and said, "I consider myself an underdog."
-- Asked whether he would support the
Babbling About Boumediene v. Bush
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 12:47PM
I've got three radio appearances today, all of them about the Gitmo decision. On account of a bout of insomnia last night I'll be highly sleep deprived, so the chances of hilariously incoherent rambling are high.
If you're in the Norwich, CT area, tune in at 1:00 PM to 1310 AM, WICH (I know, short notice). If you're in the Pensacola, FL area, tune it at 6:30 PM to 1330 AM, WEBY. The rest of you can listen at 4:00 PM, when I'll be on with Al Kresta, who's widely syndicated and also available online (click on "Listen Live").
Democratic panic?
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 12:46PM
Team Obama seems to be whistling past the graveyard:
Barack Obama's campaign envisions a path to the presidency that could include Virginia, Georgia and several Rocky Mountain states, but not necessarily the pair of battlegrounds that decided the last two elections -- Florida and Ohio.Ri-iiight. Democrats can be forgiven for thinking that sounds like a frank admission that Plouffe & Co have taken a look at the polls in Florida and realized they're facing big trouble from the voters disenfranchised by the DNC. Also, the latest polls show that Obama got a smaller-than-expected "bounce" from clinching against Hillary.
In a private pitch late last week to donors and former supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe outlined several alternatives to reaching the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House that runs counter to the conventional wisdom of recent elections.
Jennifer Rubin of Commentary assesses the situation:
Barack Obama's campaign manager is throwing out the possibility that Obama might not win Ohio, Florida or Pennsylvania, but could still win in November. All, I can say is, had they made that argument during the primary Hillary Clinton's advisors would have had a field day with the superdelegates. Try it at home using this handy map. It is not impossible. But it is really, really hard for Obama to get to 270 in a credible way without these states.
Have the "Masters of Disasters" struck again? Remembering how the Clinton campaign used Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" in 1992, allow me to suggest as a theme song for Team Obama, "Over My Head":
It may not feel so nice on Nov. 4.
Shield Law Needs Business Protections
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 11:39AM
Carter Wood of the National Association of Manufacturers has an important warning about the damage that can be done by a poorly designed "media shield" law. It's one thing for media to protect sources in the public interest, quite another for bloggers or others to protect "sources" who provide access to intellectual property/trade secrets. Read his excellent column for a fuller explanation.
If I were a Liberal Literary Lion...
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 11:02AM
I could make statements like
Gore Vidal did in Sunday's New York
Times (Deborah Solomon's questions in bold):
Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. That’s what he tells us.
What a genius.Clark Questions McCain's Nat'l Security Cred
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 10:49AM
Liberal bloggers are giddy over possible Obama runningmate Gen. Wesley Clark's recent ham-handed attacks questioning John McCain's readiness to be commander in chief.
Matt Yglesias writes, "No idea how seriously the idea of Wesley Clark as VP is being considered, but he's a good surrogate attacking John McCain's alleged national security credentials who's got the credibility and the guts to take it right to him."
Here's what Clark told the Huffington Post last week:
Few voters are really going to believe that McCain, who narrowly escaped death as a Navy pilot and endured five and a half years in a POW camp, and then went on to become a leading voice on national security for 25 years in Congress, is insufficiently prepared to show leadership during a national security crisis.
Clark later elaborated on MSNBC, trying to argue that it didn't matter that Barack Obama had no experience on this front because he isn't running on experience, but judgment.
But Clark is clearly blowing smoke, and angling for the VP slot. Last fall, he endorsed Hillary Clinton when she was seen as the inevitable nominee, saying, "She will be a great leader for the United States of America and a great commander in chief for the men and women in uniform." But unlike McCain, she didn't any have military experience, and had spent about one-third the amount of time in office as McCain. Furthermore, she voted for the Iraq War, so clearly didn't display the so-called "judgment" of Obama.
Liberal bloggers have always had a soft spot for Clark, because they like the idea of a former general who talks like a liberal blogger. But the reality of Clark as a politician has been much different, as evidenced by his disastrous presidential run in 2004.
So, by all means Obama, choose him as your runningmate.
Jindal Speaks
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 10:05AM
In case you missed it, here he is on "Face the Nation." He
reiterates that he has the job he wants when asked about being VP,
talks about his reforms in Louisiana, how the GOP lost its way, and
teaching intellegent design.
TAS Congratulates Contributing Editor Jed Babbin..
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 10:03AM
...on his latest accolade, courtesy cool-headed paragon of fairness Keith Olbermann.
Kaboom!
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 10:01AM
A new coloring book for those who care enough to teach their children bin Laden is not as dangerous as those damn Bushies.
Totems
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 12:26AM
The Lakers' coach Phil Jackson, Montana-born, North Dakota-raised, belies his parental heritage at times. Both Mom and Dad were ministers. Known as the "Zen Master," he often invokes Far Eastern magic in his coaching. And he also pays tribute to his region's Native Americans, burning sweet grass in the locker room and even starting some practices with the beating of a Lakota-Sioux tom-tom.
Ah, but hardly known outside their court is the Celtics' use of exotics. Coach Doc Rivers is masterminding an all-black starting team and in a way he has Africanized the squad in spite of the Irish moniker it goes by. Rivers is quoted as saying he got the idea from his old school, Marquette, where he came across the African Bantu word, ubuntu, which roughly translates to "all for one, one for all." (In Musketeer-like parlance, collective success beats individual effort.) It is said ubuntu plus the shaving of the teams' skulls early in the season accounts for the squad's success.
That Bantu word, Rivers is quoted as saying, "has come into play all year...has been an important word for our team." In fact, the starters are supposed to chant Ubuntu as they break huddles in preparation for play. More than 60 million Africans speak some form of Bantu, mostly in the south. And the word has formed the backbone of several small communities, some established in the time of South Africa's apartheid days.
Few in Boston speak Bantu, or come from a Bantustan. Can you hear the late Red Auerbach pacing the sidelines and yelling "ubuntu, ubuntu!" to his charges on the court? I thought not. But look, whatever works, works.
As far as game five was concerned, there was a shortage of ubuntu, and the Zen Master was the master of the night, with more Boston Bantu to come.
Chris Matthews Bizarre Anti-Tribute to Russert
Posted by on 6.16.08 @ 12:07AM
I like Chris Matthews, erratic obsessions and all, more than most around these parts probably, but in this bit the Hardball host seems intent on proving our own John Tabin exactly right.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Karol Has A Bone To Pick With J.C. Watts
Posted by on 6.15.08 @ 11:41PM
Our pal over at Alarming News has posted an interesting interview she did with Watts from 2004 wherein the potential Obamacan sang a very different tune.
Tiger vs. Rocco
Posted by on 6.15.08 @ 9:26PM
One of the great things about golf is that unlike other sports in which people clearly cheer for one side or the other, in this game the crowd tends to pull for all the players. And really, how can you root against either of these two competitors in the U.S. Open playoff? Tiger Woods, one of the greatest ever, was literally grimacing in pain from his wounded knee, shouting "ouch" after some shots, and using his club as a cane to help him walk the course. He didn't have his best stuff on Sunday, and made several bad decisions, but was able to gut through and force a playoff in dramatic fashion by making a spectacular putt at the 18th. Rocco Mediate, meanwhile, seems to have stepped right out of the first Rocky film. A 45-year old who hasn't won anything since 2002, barely qualified for the event, and now has a chance to win it. It was just wonderful to watch him on the golf course today -- you could see he was enjoying every minute. So, good luck to both of them in this playoff, and may the best man win.
Tiger is Inhuman
Posted by on 6.15.08 @ 9:24PM
I must admit to have been pulling hard for Rocco Mediate to win the U.S. Open today. What a great personality! But it also is now beyond a doubt that Tiger Woods is superhuman. I don't think the world of sports has ever seen an athlete so amazingly able to make THE shot again and again and again and again and again and again and .... you get the picture -- when everything is riding on the outcome. His performance Saturday afternoon, with the two long-distance eagle putts plus the chip-in on 17, was one for the ages. And then to come down to 18 today needing birdie, only to hit a bad drive AND a bad second shot, and yet STILL make birdie after all, was a thing to behold. His third shot, from the rough, with spin, to just the right spot on the green, was ... just not human. To put that shot from that lie to within 9 feet was inexplicable. And then, of course, he made the quick, downill, breaking, bumpy putt, barely breaking into the very side/corner of the cup. Birdie. Playoff. Bad knee or no bad knee, Tiger is a lock for the title. Rocco, at age 45 and a short hitter, is a goner.
I also must note that although I had the names wrong, my column Thursday called the situation exactly right: one guy in the clubhouse, one stroke ahead of the final twosome, with Tiger and his playing competitor both off the fairway after their drives, both needing birdie to tie. I called it. And now I'm calling it for tomorrow: Tiger wins by about six strokes.
Twice Is A Charm
Posted by on 6.15.08 @ 8:03PM
John Edwards says he might "seriously consider" the second slot on the Democratic ticket if asked after all.
Obama's Middle Class Tax Cut
Posted by on 6.15.08 @ 4:42PM
Barack Obama adds a little sweetener to his plan to raise taxes on the "rich." In case you are still waiting for Bill Clinton's middle-class tax cut.
Lieberman in a Skirt
Posted by on 6.15.08 @ 11:58AM
Over at that website for conservatives of a certain bent, W. James Antle III offers an innovative pick for John McCain's choice of veep.
Barack Obama: A Primer
Posted by on 6.15.08 @ 4:34AM
Elias Crim and Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center have compiled a detailed 11-page background profile of Sen. Barack Obama's roots in Chicago politics:
The remarkable ascent of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama begins with his career as a "community organizer" for far-left causes in Chicago, an experience that served as a launching pad for his political career. Along with way, Obama acquired some unsavory friends including sleazy political fundraiser Tony Rezko and unrepentant Pentagon bomber William Ayers. Obama promises to carry his activist spirit into national politics, but does he also carry the smell of Chicago politics into the national arena?The complete report is available online in PDF format. Reprints are available for $2.50. Contact: mvadum@capitalresearch.org.
Mark your calendars: Wednesday
Posted by on 6.15.08 @ 3:17AM
American Spectator managing editor J.P. Freire will moderate a debate Wednesday, sponsored by America's Future Foundation, on the topic of "The Bush Legacy: Success or Failure?":
With a small grace period following the September 11th attacks, George W. Bush has been criticized from the right as being one of America's most disappointing presidents -- and worse, not the conservative he has claimed to be. On the other hand, many on the right have also argued that Bush's presidency is as good as it gets, and the successes outweigh the failures, especially considering the alternatives.I would argue that the worst aspect of the Bush administration (like his father's administration) is that it has left a lot of people confused as to what "conservative" means. Leaving aside foreign policy entirely -- and I suppose the GWOT is going to be the chief topic of debate Wednesday -- Bush sowed discord in conversative ranks by pushing measures like No Child Left Behind and amnesty for illegal aliens.
The debate begins at 7 p.m. Wednesday in Room 369 of the Rayburn House Office Building, booze will be served at 6:30 p.m., and any DC-area Tatorheads wishing to attend should contact Cindy@americasfuture.org (or RSVP at the Facebook page.)
- The Podhoretz Method
- When the Party Was Over
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified