- 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, July 5, 2008
More Helms Reading
Posted by on 7.5.08 @ 4:37PM
A fine John Fund column about Jesse Helms, and an older article by Fred Barnes.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Speaking of Politicians Who Died on July 4th
Posted by on 7.4.08 @ 5:09PM
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died within hours of each other on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration. Edward J. Larson recounts the bitterness of the 1800 campaign in a WaPo op-ed. He doesn't get into how Adams and Jefferson later reconciled, a story told, albeit greatly simplified, in the last episode of the fabulous HBO miniseries John Adams. After watching the miniseries I picked up The Adams-Jefferson Letters, a volume that I highly recommend for history buffs.
Re: In Memorium
Posted by on 7.4.08 @ 4:37PM
The "works he considered homoerotic" line is priceless. The implication is that this is a subjective judgment, and some people would look at, say, Mapplethorpe's self-portrait with a bullwhip hanging out of his anus and say I don't know what you're talking about, I don't see anything gay about that.
This seems like a good excuse to link to The Onion.
'The People's Curmudgeon'
Posted by on 7.4.08 @ 4:28PM
The Guardian's Jesse Helms obituary is a typical liberal hatchet job, but they get it right in their headline.
In Memoriam
Posted by on 7.4.08 @ 3:34PM
"In 1989, he drew national attention for an attack on the National Endowment for the Arts after it funded works he considered homoerotic and anti-Christian," the Washington Post obit of Jesse Helms reads, without telling us whether it too might have characterized those works -- which remain unidentified -- as homoerotic and anti-Christian. The purpose, of course, is to suggest that Helms was off his bigoted rocker.
At least the New York Times does the more responsible thing by providing context and naming names, if still somewhat euphemistically:
In the 1980's he took on the National Endowment for the Arts for subsidizing art that he found offensive, chiefly that of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, who explored gay themes in some of his work, and of the artist Andres Serrano, who depicted a crucifix submerged in urine.
Regardless of the fusillade of condemnations his death has set off from all the usual sources -- and some new ones, such as the Post's online "On Faith" column, where writer David Waters only pretends to follow his grandfather's injunction not to speak ill of the dead (and don't miss the comments here) -- suffice it to say that Helms will forever have the last word. He died on July 4.
Jesse Helms, R.I.P.
Posted by on 7.4.08 @ 1:47PM
Senator No, the 86-year-old conservative stalwart from North Carolina, has died, on July 4 of all days. This obituary is reasonably fair. I wish I could say all of them were. Helms was far from a flawless figure, but he is arguably the most consistently consequential legislator associated with the conservative movement. Dave Weigel reviewed William Link's Righteous Warrior: Jesse Helms and the Rise of Modern Conservatism for us here; I reviewed it here.
The Obama Coalition
Posted by on 7.4.08 @ 1:24PM
Put Phil and Jim's critiques together and what do you get? A broad yet extraordinarily fragile coalition of Obama voters -- all of whom want at least one kind of substantive, even sweeping change in policy, and all of whom stand to be significantly disappointed. Michael has already beaten this drum --
But what if these effects start piling up before Obama wins? A reminder of the reality of politics, yes, but also of its pathologies.
Believe It Or Not
Posted by on 7.4.08 @ 10:05AM
The New York Times slams Obama in its lead editorial:
The advantage that Obama has in making these shifts is that Democrats are so desperate to retake the White House, that they are going to give him a lot of wiggle room, and that a willingness by Obama to abandon any position that causes him problems does undermine McCain by making it harder for him to portray Obama as a radical liberal.
However, here's where I think that the flip flop problem could be disastrous for Obama, and perhaps even more damaging than it was for John Kerry. Obama has absolutely no real accomplishments to run on, and a very slim public record. He has made a world of promises to change the world, but there's nothing tangible in his past that he can point to that would demonstrate he has the ability to achieve any of it. If people stop believing in him, if he loses his image as a new kind of politician, if people don't trust his words, what's left? Why take a risk on somebody with practically no experience if you can't trust a damn word he says?
Like an inflated Internet stock in the late 1990s, Obama's meteoric rise on the basis of superficial factors may very well be followed by a precipitous fall, triggering a "flight to safety" in the form of John McCain.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Watch J.P. Freire
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 6:49PM
J.P. will be on MSNBC tomorrow from 10 a.m. to noon discussing the McCain camp's shake-up, Obama's attempted lurch away from the left, Rush Limbaugh, the veepstakes, and more.
Order of Canada
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 5:37PM
Doctor Henry Morgentaler receives the Order of Canada, Canada's highest civilian honour. The award has struck a nerve. The good doctor is best known as an abortion activist. He opened an illegal clinic in 1969 and has consistently fought for the right to choose.
Some Canadians are annoyed with the decision because they feel that the Order should be given only to people whose work is unanimously considered beneficial to Canada. Clearly, an abortion activist doesn't fit the bill.
Father Lucien Larre has actually returned his Order, which he received some 25 years ago, saying that he couldn't in good conscious be linked to the activist.
Still, Morgentaler is only being given a "Member" medal in the Order. This status, the lowest awarded to a Canadian, specifically honors people who have serviced a "particular community, group or field of activity."
Well, abortion supporters are certainly a particular group. Now all Canada has to do is recognize a hero from the other side and the chaos can end.
On Washington and His Army
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 4:51PM
Rich Lowry has a very nice piece out today on George Washington and his Continental Army. A good read heading into Independence Day!
All Spending Is Emergency
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 1:15PM
"Once again, Congress and President Bush have turned legislation intended to fund American troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan into a Christmas tree for domestic spending." Brian Riedl reports on the new bloated emergency appropriation that creates a new entitlement and hands out other new goodies at taxpayer expense.
Obamacans and McCainocrats
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 12:54PM
An interesting story on Obama's Republican supporters and McCain's Democratic supporters in the Politico. Though Lincoln Chafee left the Republican Party, and I'm not sure Lawrence Korb would identify himself as a Republican at this point either.
Re: Obama as John Kerry
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 12:23PM
Obama has been vacilating between promising a speedy withdrawal and attaching so many caveats to this promise as to render it meaningless for some time now. While Obama's position on the wisdom of the Iraq invasion and the desirability of leaving is much clearer than John Kerry's in 2004 (and, in my view, sounder than John McCain's now), they are close enough to make me find the Obamacons entirely unpersuasive. Just as I didn't see why antiwar conservatives should want to vote for a pro-war liberal in 2004, I don't see why I should vote for a candidate who wants to raise taxes, grow government, codify Roe v. Wade, promote taxpayer-funded abortion, expand government control of health care, appoint liberal judges, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, add regulations, throw more money at Bush's compassionate conservative initiatives, impose cap-and-trade, and constrict free trade on the basis of foreign-policy and civil liberties issues where I can't figure out what in the hell he'd actually do anyway.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 12:13PM
Iraqi-U.S. security pact on its way
Wesley Clark's beef with McCain
Disorder in the International Criminal Court
Obama vs. His Website on Iraq
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 11:10AM
Barack Obama's position on Iraq is adjusting so rapidly, that his own website cannot even keep up with his campaign's shifts.
This week on MSNBC, Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice
described Obama's position this
way:
"He has said that the best military advice he's received leads us to believe that we can safely withdraw our forces at the pace of one to two combat brigades per month, and depending on the number of combat brigades he inherits, our best estimate is that that could be accomplished in roughly 16 months. That's not a deadline. That's a timetable, and obviously if Senator Obama has said on numerous occasions, he will listen to his commanders on the ground, he will follow and heed their advice as he decides how at the strategic level we must proceed. So he will do this very carefully and responsibly as he always said but he will do it."
The McCain Message
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 10:30AM
Though he's had the nomination wrapped up for four months (about the same amount of time as between now and Election Day), McCain has shaken up his campaign to put Steve Schmitt in charge so that he can craft a message. I think it'll be a pretty tall order for a number of reasons. One is that the fundamentals so favor Democrats and the public is so against Bush, that no matter how skilled a political operator is, it would be difficult to craft a winning message for any Republican candidate. McCain has to appeal to independents while trying not to anger the conservative base too much; he must distance himself from Bush, but can't throw Bush under the bus. It's a real high wire act. But the biggest obstacle to consistent messaging is the idiosyncratic personality of McCain himself. By nature, he's not very scripted, and that's one of the very things that makes him appealing to a lot of voters. It's also not clear that he has any sort of clear ideology that ties all of his various positions together. I mean, how does somebody try to talk about free markets and limited government, have a good record of fighting pork-barrel spending, and yet want to go after CEO pay, support the re-importation of price-controlled Canadian drugs, and regulate political speech? So, no matter what Schmitt does, at the end of the day, McCain himself will always be the message.
Like A Bridge Over Troubled Waters
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 10:20AM
Freddy Gray starts a self-help group for journalists fighting the urge to waterboard themselves. If only he could have saved Christopher Hitchens in time.
Additional Gephardt Thoughts
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 10:15AM
In addition to being boring and having underperformed in his own presidential campaigns, Dick Gephardt would not go over well with the netroots. Not only did he vote for the war, but he was instrumental in negotiating the specific resoluton authorizing force that actually passed. At the time, many Democrats who were unwilling to vote against the Iraq war wanted a resolution that had more strings attached -- required more time for inspections, diplomacy, etc. Gephardt pulled the rug out from under them and delivered something closer to what the president wanted. David Corn wrote a piece at the time titled "Now, It's Gephardt's War."
Though I suppose if Gephardt can help carry Missouri and reassure working-class whites, Obama might be willing to risk the netroots' wrath. That's the direction in which he's been trending lately, anway.
Re: Get Ready for Gephardt!
Posted by on 7.3.08 @ 2:55AM
I don't think Gephardt as veep is crazy or even mildly implausible. But does even the most ardent McCain backer find it scary? Really? If so, wow. This must be a Democratic year if an exciting candidate like Gephardt can roil the waters.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
How Obama "Worked His Way Through College"
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 7:35PM
With two summer jobs. Maybe they paid really, really well...
Re: Get Ready for Gephardt!
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 7:20PM
I don't think that's as crazy as you seem to, Jim. Gephardt may be boring, but he would please labor leaders, who can be valuable allies on election day. The lobbying is probably a disqualifier, though.
Sam's Club Tax Cuts
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 6:00PM
Peter Ferrara takes on Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam today on the main site; I review their book, Grand New Party, in the July/August issue of the print magazine. I agree with most of Ferrara's criticisms, especially his argument with their treatment of welfare reform (I discuss it a little bit here, but don't really get into it in the review). But I differ with him on the expanded child tax credit. These tax cuts do help families keep their hard-earned money and therefore should not be described as a subsidy or bribery, unless all tax cuts are bribery. (Ferrara doesn't actually use the word "bribery," but the implication of buying political support is close.) Second, while it's true that this tax cut won't have much of a supply-side or pro-growth effect, capital investment isn't the only behavior conservatives should want to incentivize. Finally, the point is to broaden the constituency for a conservative governing coalition. Empowering that coalition by protecting the paychecks of working families and promoting affordable family formation will make it easier to enact the purer supply-side policies that Ferrara and I would prefer.
Get Ready for Gephardt!
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 5:20PM
Reports U.S. News and World Report, "Gephardt is the one we're most afraid of," said a key GOP strategist and Bush ally. Seriously?
Re: Prayers and Thoughts for Brian Beutler
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 5:10PM
I just wanted to second J.P.'s message. I've only met Brian a few times, but have always found him to be a good guy. Here's to Brian's speedy recovery.
Tax Cuts and Other Reforms
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 4:57PM
I mostly agree with the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial mentioning my June piece on the sad state of the Ohio Republican Party, except this bit about reform ,"which Antle seems to define as tax cuts." Well, yes, I like tax cuts. But given the rapid spending increases, at a much faster clip than inflation plus population growth, I'd say some budget reform is in order. To say the least. Ohio's state government is a petrified creature neither party will tackle.
The Once And Future King Of Obamerica
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 4:49PM
Lord, is Sam Anderson's recent
Like
This, apparently, explains why his legislative record is
pretty thin gruel: It must be difficult to moonlight as a senator when
you're day job is going through the no doubt painful process of fusing yourself to the nation formerly known as the
It's significant that he used his first appearance in the national spotlight, the keynote speech at Kerry's DNC, to meta-sketch the inspirational origin of that very keynote speech: "Let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely," he said, and then unleashed, in about 60 seconds, a pithy intergenerational family saga spanning three continents and all the major events of mid-twentieth-century America (Depression, Pearl Harbor, postwar boom)--complete with such unlikely details as goat herding, a tin-roof shack, oil rigs, and Patton's army marching across Europe. It was like a brilliant movie trailer designed to promote the incalculably awesome feature attraction of his future political career. To deny his candidacy, after that, would be to deny a very powerful narrative logic--the goats, the tin-roof shack, Patton, all of it.
This sounds like the rantings of an overbearing salesman: If you want the goats and Patton, you're
going to have to take the Obama--and trust me: You want the goats and Patton. They
really tie the room of the national tin-roof shack together. And later:
My relationship to Obama has been a complex cycle of
enthusiasm canceled immediately by self-correcting cynical objections, canceled
by self-correcting enthusiasm, canceled again by the cynicism, canceled by the
enthusiasm.
I guess I'm starting to see why people faint at Obama rallies. Hope...make...brain...huuuurt.
Prayers and Thoughts for Brian Beutler
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 4:34PM
Brian Beutler, a leading liberal blogger was shot three times in the stomach during a mugging, I'm told by mutual friends (then confirmed by TPM). It's especially sad as this poor guy had no business getting shot -- some desperate guy wanted his cellphone. Clearly, he wasn't one to be reasoned with -- were he, I'm confident Brian's charm and thoughtfulness would have triumphed (I've met him a few times). But ours is a crazy world, let alone a crazy city, leading to what I would assume to be a frightening ambulance ride for Beutler and his companion.
His spleen has been removed, particularly disconcerting as that will severely impact his ability to fight illness. Then there are the risks inherent in major surgery.
I can only echo Megan's thoughts about the state of crime (and crime-fighting) in this city -- it reminds me of the needless and violent murder of the New York Times's David Rosenbaum, who was left unaided, ailing on the sidewalk, ignored in his death. There's an illusion of safety in this city, conveyed by the economic development and the swollen demographics familiar from college. But we're not on college campuses where things feel safe (and are sometimes very much not). We're in a city, a particularly criminal one.
When I lived on Capitol Hill, police reports would include muggings where someone had been assaulted with a brick. Scofflaws would remove them from sidewalks under construction, then lob them at people to disable them long enough to steal a wallet or a purse or an iPod. This, in the "newly" gentrified neighborhood just six blocks east of the Capitol building.
The temptation to discuss gun control law, how this doesn't or does apply, is strong, but I think there's a more obvious philosophical point that I hope Brian derives from this tragedy -- and the miracle of his survival, and that is this:
Life is far too short, and you have to do what good you can while you live it. Brian, AmSpec wishes you the speediest of recoveries and the warmest of our wishes.
Will There Be Nader Effect?
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 4:18PM
The conventional wisdom is that with liberal voters desperate to return to the White House and conservatives tepid about the Republican nominee, Bob Barr will be a much bigger threat to McCain than Ralph Nader will be to Obama. But a new CNN poll suggests just the opposite.
The poll has Obama beating McCain 50-45 in a head-to-head match up, but:
In a four-way matchup that includes independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, Obama's lead over McCain dwindles to 3 percentage points, 46 percent to 43 percent. (Nader registers 6 percent, and Barr gets 3 percent.)
It's hard to know what to make of this, since I haven't seen any other polls reflecting such a strong showing for Nader. I would have thought that with the most liberal candidate since George McGovern on the ticket and with Nader's controversial charge that Obama was "talking white," that the old consumer advocate wouldn't be able to pull off anything like he did in 2000. I'm still pretty much of that view. But maybe the far left won't have as much tolerance for Obama's general election moves to the center as I've assumed. His reversal on FISA and initial rejection of Wesley Clark's comments seem to have struck a particular nerve. Kos and Arianna Huffington have both registered their discontent with Obama. Just another wild card to keep an eye on.
McCain's Conduct
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 11:29AM
Over at the Corner, Kathleen Parker responds to John McCain skeptics who argue that his decision to refuse early release as a POW was merely in keeping with the Code of Conduct and thus not truly heroic. I would just add that at the time he was offered early release, McCain was still severely sick and injured, and there was doubt as to whether he would survive in the prison camp. Given his debilitated condition, fellow prisoners supported him accepting early release, and wouldn't have seen it as a breach of the Code. But he refused anyway, knowingly subjecting himself to the most brutal beatings he received in all of his years at the camp.
Back to Red and Blue
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 11:25AM
If the latest round of polling holds up, some reliably red and blue states thought to be in play have reverted to form. For example, a Strategic Vision poll shows McCain leading Obama by eight points in Georgia, with Barr in the mix taking 3 percent. And while Obama looked weak in Massachusetts polling earlier this year (Survey USA had McCain up by five in late January), recent polling has him with a double-digit lead over McCain. The latest Rasmussen polls shows Obama beating McCain by twenty points in the Bay State. I'm not surprised by Massachusetts, though McCain should be relieved to maintain his Georgia lead.
Re: The $400 Million Man
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 11:22AM
And best of all, he did this without having to sign with the Clippers.
The Hypocrisy of Webb
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 11:08AM
Jim Webb is the latest Democrat to take aim at John McCain, but his comments show perhaps an higher degree of chutzpah than Wesley Clark's:
A Marine who served in Vietnam -- a fact he mentioned often as he campaigned for the Senate, occasionally while wearing his son's desert combat boots -- Mr. Webb said "we need to make sure that we take politics out of service."
One of the, one of the great problems we have right now in, in, in discussing this war is that very few people who have brought us this war have served and very, very few of the children of these people who have brought us this war have served. And if you have to wake up every morning wondering about a loved one, you will look at, at words like this much differently.
The only person who needs to calm down here is Jim Webb.
The Republicans Are Getting Restless
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 10:22AM
The Politico talks to Republican strategists and state party chairmen -- mostly off the record or on background, of course -- and they complain that the McCain campaign is slow to take shape. Some of this is the usual summer second-guess; some of it is just underdog jitters; there's also probably even some grumbling from strategists who don't work for the campaign. But I'm inclined to agree that the McCain camp's messaging has been inconsistent, even as they've developed a critique of Obama as too liberal and too inexperienced that has some resonance. McCain also still lags behind Obama in organization and fundraising, though the longer Democratic race did provide him withi some opportunity to catch up.
The $400 Million Man
Posted by on 7.2.08 @ 10:19AM
Drudge reports on Rush Limbaugh's staggering new contract, and previews a New York Times mag piece on him.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
No One Marginalizes Megatron
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 5:10PM
Megan McArdle brings some meat to the table in a post on how she's a feminist, yet not. She boils down her feminist inclinations into 3 points, and then notes her heresies. (Quick plug: This makes reading Christina Hoff Sommers's feature in our July/August issue all the more necessary.) To wit, McArdle's a feminist because she believes:
2) Privilege exists, and is in many unfortunate ways invisible to those who possess it.
3) We should try to change those things.
Her point assumes that it is possible to reach a near-perfect equilibrium in which the social pressures can be neutralized. I'm assuming here she's not suggesting that tax codes are structured to favor men as the primary breadwinner, but instead that the organic traditions of the population are biased toward moms being traditional moms and dads being traditional dads. In that case, though, I always wonder. If you have a group of traditional moms who have chosen to be mothers, perhaps because of false consciousness, or perhaps because of their own free will, they will be inclined to believe that different choices made by others are in some way flawed. We see this behavior currently, and we see the opposite coming from feminists who think that the traditional moms have sold out The Cause.
In other words, I can't imagine a world in which everyone will be okay with what everyone else will be doing. If you don't buy that there are systemic legal obstacles inhibiting female achievement at companies (aside from the possibly sexist dispositions of the men who run them), I don't really even see her point about the existence of privilege as being relevant. But maybe I'm misreading.
My point is that I think that getting the more lukewarm responses from people might actually be more difficult to achieve than getting the more volatile ones. I think it's easier to polarize people on the points of Ultimate Feminine Liberation vs. Be Tradition, than it is to get people to say, "Eh, whatever you want."
Obama Caves Into The Livid Left
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 5:02PM
Now he's denying that he condemned Clark's comments. "I notice that I think in at least one publication it was reported that my comments yesterday about Senator McCain were in a response to General Clark. I think my staff will confirm that was in a draft of that speech that I had written two months ago."
Shocking: Obama Isn't Winning the Evangelical Vote
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 4:19PM
Despite all the talk about how Obama might put the evangelical vote in play, among white evangelicals McCain is polling comparably to George W. Bush four years ago.
Re: Attacks on American Soil
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 4:12PM
Yet even with the escalating threats of the 1990s, it still took years before Islamic terrorists were able to pull off something of the magnitude of 9/11 on U.S. soil. A commenter raises the opposite objection: that I gave Bush too much credit by not mentioning the anthrax attacks. The fact that this case is unsolved is certainly disturbing, but we don't know that it was a foreign terrorist attack.
Re: Rethinking Big Government Conservatism
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 3:43PM
Jim, I don't have to re-think it. I never thought it in the first place.
Re: Attacks on American Soil
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 3:35PM
Jim writes:
Thought experiment: There were no jihadist attacks on American soil between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks (there were, of course, such attacks on U.S interests abroad, in addition to the Oklahoma City bombing). Does that fact invalidate all criticisms of the Clinton administration's foreign policy?
There was, however, the Khobar Towers bombing, the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, and the U.S.S. Cole bombing. Clearly, the threat of terrorism was escalating under Clinton's watch, with increasingly bold and sophisticated attacks that culminated on 9/11.
"Swamp" Logic
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 3:26PM
Checking out Time's Swampland blog, I found the following:
President Bush today signed into law today the G.I. Bill, which will double college benefits for troops and veterans, despite his earlier threats to veto the measure. The bill was attached to the $850 billion war supplemental that allocates and additional $650 billion for the war in Iraq and $200 billion for Afghanistan.
This immediately struck me as odd. While I am under no illusion about the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, $850 billion is an absolutely staggering figure for a supplemental bill -- one that would be much higher than the entire budget of the Department of Defense.
So I followed a link to the Tribune blog, coincidently named, the Swamp, and found a post headlined: "Bush signs $162 billion war spending bill." That seemed more like it, but then I read a few paragraphs in, and found this: "The bill adds more than $650 billion to the Iraq war and $200 billion for the war in Afghanistan."
How bizarre. I mean, what kind of $162 billion bill contains $850 billion in additional spending?
Finally, I checked out the AP story, and it all began to make sense:
The spending bill will bring to more than $650 billion the amount Congress has provided for the Iraq war since it started more than five years ago. For operations in Afghanistan, the total is nearly $200 billion, according to congressional officials.
The only logical conclusion to draw is that you shouldn't trust blogs with "swamp" in the title.
R Is For 'Republican' and 'Retirement'
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 3:21PM
Also at the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes has an interesting profile of several retiring House Republicans. What really jumps out is a fact that he brings up in the opening: John Dingell, Charlie Rangel, and John Conyers, who were no spring chickens back in 1994, waited 12 years to get back into the majority. A few committees and subcommittees are once again being chaired by the very same people who chaired them the last time the Democrats controlled Congress. Dozens of Republicans are rushing toward the exits after just two years. What gives?
Barnes gives one good explanation: Many senior Democrats expected to regain control of Congress quickly. In fact, the Democrats started whittling away at the Republican majority as soon as 1996. Republicans don't have any such expectation this time around. But the large number of retirements, in districts many of these retiring incumbents might have been able to hold this fall, is one of the things that put Republican gains so far out of reach in the first place. One wonders if Democrats, being members of the party of government, simply like holding office better, on average, than do Republicans. That may make Republicans quicker to retire when they aren't enjoying themselves while Democrats are content to wait a dozen years for their next majority or committee chairmanship.
Bushiecons vs. Obamacons
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 3:05PM
Over at the Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett goes after Andrew Bacevich's latest op-ed, apparently ignoring Jamie Sneider's advice against picking fights with paleocons. Barnett didn't lose any fingernails in the process, as far as I can tell, but I don't find his rebuttal persuasive. I don't dispute that the Bush administration deserves some credit for the lack of domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11. They would certainly receive their share of the blame if another attack were to occur. I am persuaded that some of the administration's actions have weakened al Qaeda. But this argument, and credit, has its limits. Thought experiment: There were no jihadist attacks on American soil between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks (there were, of course, such attacks on U.S interests abroad, in addition to the Oklahoma City bombing). Does that fact invalidate all criticisms of the Clinton administration's foreign policy? I don't think it does, and doubt Barnett does either.
The one aspect of Bacevich's op-ed I'd like to take up: He seems to be qualifying his support of Obama, or at least becoming more skeptical that an Obama administration would radically change foreign policy. The hope that was evident in Bacevich's American Conservative essay is still there, but in his Globe column he seems to want Obama to supply some evidence as well.
Re: Kasich for Veep?
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 1:04PM
Jim, my one experience with Kasich is less awe-inspiring. It was on Inauguration Day, 1997, as I was leaving a downtown D.C. reception, waiting in a crowd of people for the elevator. When it arrived, who stepped out but late-arriving John Kasich. On seeing such a crowd he seemed rather bewildered, his eyes darting around as if lost in the headlights. "Great day, great day," is all he could say.
Bill Clinton's reinauguration made it a great day? Perhaps he was simply being patriotic and celebrating the process. Still, it made me wonder. Next thing I learned was that Kasich is a Grateful Dead fan. That would explain the dazed look.
Rethinking Big Goverment Conservatism
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 12:55PM
Limited goverment isn't very popular in the current political climate and cutting federal programs that benefit the middle class is exceedingly difficult, to say nothing of politically dangerous. Conservatives need to adapt to these political realities without completely capitulating to them. I argue today in the Politico that big government conservatism, which seems like the easy solution for Republicans in a new era of big government, is in fact a path to failure.
Re: Re: Kasich
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 12:55PM
Jim, thanks for that quintessential Kasich story. He has a real "everyman" quality to his personality: If he thinks Boston is kicka$$, he'll say Boston is kicka$$. (Whereas I still hide it by putting the dollar signs where the Esses ["S"s] go.) It's worth noting that if you had asked me in 1996 or 1998 if I EVER would support Kasich on the ticket, I would have said "no way!" I had a little too much of him claiming credit at Budget for the much harder work done at Appropriations (the only time Approps actually was cutting the budget, bu a whopping $50 billion in two years) and at Ways and Means. But in retrospect, Kasich had a hard job, too, and did it pretty darn well, and didn't lose his way ethically, but instead kept his bearings. And he has a youthful appeal; heck, I think I remember that he's even a Grateful Dead fan and is quite conversant with all sorts of younger pop culture stuff as well. The more I think about it, the more he moves up in my political estimation for Veep.
Mass Mandates
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 12:30PM
One of the most common arguments used in favor of universal health care, specifically government mandates requiring individuals to purchase of health insurance, is that we end up paying for the uninsured the expensive way -- when they show up to the emergency room sick or injured. Universal coverage, supporters argue, will reduce the cost of unpaid care.
A recent Belmont Citizen-Herald article included this bit about the Massachusetts universal health care program:
So, to save $194 million a year, the state will end up spending over $1 billion. Sounds like par for the course for a government program. And people wonder why, as a conservative, I have issues with Mitt "I like mandates" Romney.
Re: Kasich for Veep?
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 12:29PM
Quin, I like John Kasich too. Your post gives me a launching point to tell my favorite Kasich story, which I think of whenever I see him hosting "The Heartland." I had a photo-op with him in Cleveland in 1998 -- I think the occasion was the Cuyahoga County Lincoln Day Dinner, but I could be mistaken. We were shaking hands before the picture was snapped and he asked me where I was from. I told him I went to college in his congressional district but was originally from the Boston area. "Boston?" he replied incredulously. "That's a kick-ass city. Why would you ever leave there?" Even for the Heartland.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 12:20PM
It won't take ten years to see savings if we drill now
"Cruel and unusual" prison food
Ex-agent says CIA withholds Iran facts
Obama takes the road most traveled
Kasich for Veep?
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 11:48AM
I already am on record, multiple times, as favoring Chris Cox for Veep. I stand by that. I also like Paul Ryan, at least to consider carefully, and to a lesser extent Mark Sanford, Jim Demint, and Rob Portman. Frank Keating might not be bad, and neither would Mike Pence -- and I would now really consider Rep. Thaddeus McCotter and former Gov. John Engler. I would now also consider Rep. Candice Miller. (Do you notice a definite Michigan angle here?)
But what I don't get is why nobody in the McCain camp seems to be strongly looking at former House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich. Hey, when I worked in the House, Kasich wasn't my favorite, because he was a bit of a glory hound. But politically he is superb and substantively he is almost entirely solid. He was Budget Chair when they balanced the budget for the first time in something like 35 years, for goodness sakes. He's pro-life. He's quite clearly acceptable to conservatives of just about all kinds, but with the demeanor, working class background, and even the ethnic name that will help with moderates, independents, Reagan Democrats. Here's a guy who can help both in Ohio, which he represented, and in Pennsylvania, where he grew up the son of -- I believe -- a mailman. He has terrific people skills and speaking skills. He helps in Ohio more than Portman does -- he's better known, and represented Ohio longer -- and he is SO much more blue-collar, so much less boringly "white bread," than Portman that the difference is stark. He is better known nationally, too due to his regular hosting of a show on Fox News Channel and due to two reasonably well-selling books.
Because of his geographical and working class roots, he is PERFECTLY positioned to help McCain exploit Obama's weaknesses in the rust belt and probably Appalachia as well. He's the perfect age, 56 -- old enough and experienced enough clearly to do the job and to outshine Obama's thin resume, but plenty young enough to balance McCain's age and to reassure folks that there will be more than enough energy at the bottom of the ticket as well as the top. Politically, he would be a home run. He deserves very very very strong consideration.
Does McCain Represent Bush's Third Term?
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 11:17AM
That's an argument the Obama campaign seems to be winning at the moment. A new Gallup poll finds that about two-thirds of voters are at least somewhat concerned that McCain "would pursue policies that are too similar to what George W. Bush has pursued," with 49 percent "very concerned."
I think for McCain to win this argument, he can't focus on pointing to policy differences with President Bush, because in order to keep conservatives in the tent he's naturally going to have to support enough of Bush's polices for the Obama campaign to point to as evidence that he would represent a continuation of Bush's two terms in office.
A lot of the negative feelings for Bush go beyond his policies and to his personal bio -- somebody who never had to sacrifice for his country, who only got to where he is based on his last name, who wasn't a hands on leader when it came to maintaining a failed strategy, somebody who is ignorant of foreign affairs, etc.
Although it's tricky, a better way for McCain to contrast with Bush is how he would differ as a leader. Much of what a president does goes beyond pure policy. As 9/11 demonstrated rather dramatically, something completely unexpected can happen that changes everything in an instant, and challenges a president to respond. The set of experiences that McCain would bring to the table in such crises are completely different than what Bush brought to the table.
The fact that Bush wouldn't increase troop levels in Iraq while McCain advocated a surge-type strategy was a policy difference, but more significantly, it was a policy difference that reflected different leadership styles. McCain was unsatisfied with the situation in Iraq, made repeated visits there, met with leaders on the ground, studied the complexities of the conflict, dipped into his decades of military and foreign policy experience, and came to the conclusion that the conflict was winnable with a new strategy. That is very un-Bush like. If McCain can shift the debate toward leadership attributes, I think he'll have a much easier time distancing himself from Bush.
Clark and McCain's Judgment
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 10:44AM
Wesley Clark defended his criticism of John McCain in a statement that concludes, "as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues."
For years, McCain argued that more troops and a better strategy would improve conditions in Iraq and he tied his political fortunes to the success of the surge -- and his judgment has been vindicated.
But back when the surge was announced in January of 2007, Clark wrote in an op-ed for the Independent that the surge would backfire:
The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our
troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic
cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as
various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment
security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a
blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional
US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more
effective action to resolve the struggle at the political
level.
Clark Apologizes To Obama Rather Than McCain
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 10:15AM
From "Good Morning Ameirca" this Morning:
CLARK: Well, Robin, I want to say first that Senator Obama had nothing to do with this. These are comments that I was asked about several months ago in terms of me as a retired military officer, assessing John McCain's qualifications. And so I was on the Sunday interview show. The interviewer brought them up. He actually asked me the question. He's the one who stated it. 'Climbed into an airplane and got shot down.' All I did was directly respond to the question. So I am very sorry that this has distracted from the message of patriotism that Senator Obama wants to put out."
Sounds like somebody who heard the footsteps of the Livid Left.
Blame Lindsey Graham
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 10:00AM
Today's Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial on former Pentagon Counsel Jim Haynes, who would be an appeals court judge right now if it weren't for the vendett-based opposition of South Carolina quasi-Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, backed by John McCain playing Skipper to Graham's version of Gilligan's evil twin.
Short version: Haynes approached his job thoughtfully, carefully weighing the need for information from terrorists against the legal and moral standards that should apply to interrogations. It is no less than I reported in these two columns in 2006, and in many subsequent blog entries, The WSJ today rightly blames lib Carl Levin for his hearings attempting to smear Haynes and the administration -- and Levin does NOT deserve to be let off the hook. But again, the real tragedy is that Haynes isn't already a judge. Anyway, the WSJ editorial gives a much-needed defense of Haynes, who was blitzed last week by one of the nastiest snark columns ever by a pathetically informed Dana Milbank (but I repeat myself), who was so high up on his moral high horse that his back pockets were serving as the horse's blinkers. Milbank, who with each passing column tries even harder to become the male version of Snark Queen Maureen Dowd -- which means, inevitably, that he becomes more vapid and less substantive, as well as less fair or moored in reality each time -- does not even begin to consider any of the relevant facts or background that I or the WSJ have pointed out.
Again, Haynes acted honorably, decently, thoughtfully, diligently and, yes, judiciously. The nation was protected, and the end result of Haynes' actions were a set of interrogation methods that anybody with half a brain would recognize as being reasonable. Or almost anybody. Graham clearly has at least half a brain -- which leaves him no good excuse whatsoever for his perfidy.
How'd Kos Get Evil McCain's Secret Handbook?!
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 9:32AM
Per Phil's post yesterday I stopped by DailyKos this morning, where an informal poll shows 90 percent of the same people who have been wailing over the 2004 Swifties now back Clark's attack on McCain, yet nonetheless all freak out when Kos beats on Obama for criticizing Clark. It's also probably the only place you can pick up breaking news in the comment section like this:
the rich men who rule earth want stability and hunger. hunger isnt real to them unless stability is threatened. of course mccain might argue w need to use naplam on the hungry like we did in vietnam.
We already had some idea there was a bit of cognitive dissonance going on over there, right? Still, their take on the conservative mind is a little less generous.
Journalism as a Hobby?
Posted by on 7.1.08 @ 9:12AM
The downward spiral of the newspaper business is depressing to an old newspaper guy like me. Leave it to a liberal journalist to misread the handwriting on the wall. Here's Roy Greenslade of England's left-wing Guardian:
What exercises almost everyone connected to the newspaper industry - and industry is the key word here - is the belief that websites cannot generate anything like the revenue enjoyed by media companies throughout the last century. . . .
Why the worry? Profits, of course. Online news sites will never generate the kind of money that has made newspaper ownership so lucrative. . . .
Meanwhile, many journalists who have grown used to the idea that their work is inextricably linked to profitable enterprises are scratching their heads. They cannot conceive of a journalism that is gradually freeing itself from the yoke of commerce.
"Freeing itself from the yoke of commerce" -- now there's the kind of euphemism you don't hear every day. Kind of like the buggy-whip industry has been freed from the yoke of commerce? As Monty Python might say, journalism as a career field is now "pining for the fjords."
Greenslade concludes by joyfully proclaiming to his fellow journalists that "the journalistic future does not belong to ailing publishing companies. It belongs to us." In which case, it's not a job, it's a hobby.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Alan Keyes Lives!
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 9:43PM
Ed Noonan of the American Independent Party -- the vehicle that supported George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign and now exists only in California -- has broken with the national Constitution Party and filed paperwork to reaffiliate with America's Independent Party, a vehicle for supporting Alan Keyes's 2008 presidential campaign. The California delegation was Keyes's biggest bloc of support at the Constitution Party's national convention in April, where he lost the presidential nomination to Chuck Baldwin. If Noonan's move stands, Keyes will get the American Independent Party's ballot line in California and the America's Independent Party will surpass the Constitution Party as the third largest political party in terms of voter registration (both parties' claims are inflated by Californians who believe they are registering as independents).
This being third-party politics, however, it is by no means clear that Noonan's action will stand. His critics argue that a majority of party activists reaffirmed Baldwin as the nominee at their state convention last weekend and support continued affiliation with the Constitution Party. Some of Noonan's critics dispute his standing as state party chair while Noonan disputes his critics' legal standing. This will turn into a legal standoff, just like the war between competing versions of the Reform Party and the Prohibition Party.
UPDATE: In case I didn't make it clear enough, I don't think the Noonan faction's claims are valid. It was made by about four people without the required notice. The state convention supported Baldwin and the Constitution Party.
The Livid Left and McCain's War Experience
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 5:59PM
Liberal bloggers, and their commenters, are disappointed at Barack Obama's campaign for distancing themselves from Wesley Clark's comments. TPM's Greg Sargent writes that "by condemning
The DailyKos commenters, as usual, are in a class by themselves. Commenter Agnostic praises
JeffW followed up: "Not unless McTurd had led multiple attempts to escape, with some successes."
THEpersonal ISpolitical reminded everybody, "not to mention he crashed FIVE TIMES"
Addendum to Tiger
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 5:47PM
Let me also add to the post below how admirable it is that Tiger Woods has decreed that his tournament offers free admissions to active-duty military personnel. This is just terrific. And it's another reason why more players should be here.
Do They Not Like Tiger???
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 5:40PM
This may be some unfair reading between the lines, but it seems to me that the EXTREMELY weak field for this week's "AT&T National" golf tournament at Congressional Country Club in DC is a major slap in the face to tournament host Tiger Woods. Consider this: Two weeks before a major tournament, in this case the British Open, is usually when a huge number of players like to play their final tune-up event. It lets them get sharp while giving them a week of rest in between. This would especially seem to be important when the major requires an overseas trip, as The Open Championship does. Meanwhile, Congressional is one of the greatest courses in the country, a true delight to play. I had the good fortune of playing it about six weeks ago, and it was in superb shape. And it's just an absolute joy, tough but fair. Finally, this is the Fourth of July week, in the nation's capital. What could be better? Finish a round on Friday and then, from almost anywhere nearby, find a good vantage point to watch the nation's best fireworks spectacular. ALL those reasons argue in FAVOR of playing in the event. Plus you have the added benefit of the tournament's "prestige" factor just by virtue of being at Congressional AND being hosted by Tiger, but WITHOUT needing to beat Tiger himself, sidelined with knee and leg injuries. What could be better?
Yet from the world rankings, only two of the top 10, 5 of the top 20, and 7 of the top 30 players are competing at Congressional this week. Of the top 10, the only competitors are the ones who finished first and second here last year: seventh ranked Steve Stricker and 10th ranked K.J. Choi (both of whom are now in months-long slumps), which of course gives them personal reasons for wanting to come back. But this is a tournament without Mickelson, or Els, or Garcia, or Singh, or Goosen, or Aussies Ogilvy and Scott. No Stewart Cink either, nor Justin Rose, Padraig Harrington, nor the spring/summer's hottest player, Kenny Perry. Englishmen Lee Westwood and Luke Donald aren't here; neither is Spaniard Miguel Angel Jimenez. Hot Americans Justin Leonard and Boo Weekley are skipping it, too, as is 2007 Masters champ Zach Johnson.
One would think that, out of respect for Tiger at least, not to mention respect for the course, more of these players would be here -- ESPECIALLY when they know that the tournament will suffer fram the lack of its injured headliner from its field. If Tiger can't play, one would think other players would want to pick up the slack. But only the over-40 set seems to think this is important. Fred Couples is here. So is Davis Love III. So is Rocco Mediate, who played so valiantly at the U.S. Open before falling to Tiger's heroics. Steve Elkington, Jeff Maggert, Jesper Parnevik, Corey Pavin: They're all playing this week. So is local favorite Fred Funk, over age 50.
To be clear, I don't think the players who are NOT here are subtly-but-deliberately saying they don't like Tiger. But their absence DOES say that Tiger's association with the event certainly doesn't lead them to put any extra weight it. In other words, even if they like Tiger or respect him, their fondness for him (if there is any) or admiration for him is certainly not strong enough for them to make a special effort to make his event a success. This is passing strange. Especially considering, again, that Congressional is such a great course.
I'll say this: In the first few years of Jack Nicklaus' Memorial Tournament in the 1970s, NOBODY deigned to miss it. Jack was not only respected, but, by then, loved by most of his competitors. Every time a young player came along, Jack would go out of his way to welcome him, encourage him and, if they were serious challengers to his supremacy, to befriend them as well. He reached out to Ben Crenshaw that way, and to Jerry Pate, and to Tom Watson, and Greg Norman. Does Tiger do that? Perhaps, but if so, it certainly is below the radar.
Tiger Woods is the most dominant athlete, in any sport, since perhaps Babe Ruth. His feats are truly astonishing -- and, as he showed at the U.S. Open, so is his competitive heart and courage. And he does great work with his educational foundation, showing that his heart is in the right place as well. But something isn't right when his own tournament, in just its second year, does not attract nine of the 11 players immediately beneath him in the world rankings. It's just bizarre.
McCain-Romney Watch
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 5:23PM
Mike Allen reports that Mitt Romney tops the VP list, but I just don't see McCain pulling the trigger on this. Romney never sealed the deal with conservatives, did poorly in the South, and left the race with a net negative rating of 12 points (by contrast, the "polarizing" Hillary Clinton's rating is positive 10 points). If Romney's flip flopping didn't fly with Republicans who he was catering to in the primaries, how would it be okay with the public at large? Think of all the ads Democrats could run purely on clips of Romney attacking McCain, especially for not understanding the economy. And talk about a sure way to undermine the "Straight Talk" theme. Romney brings all of this baggage, and by all indications McCain dislikes him personally. I don't see how this could happen.
Re: McCain and Swift Boaters
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 1:50PM
While there will be a temptation in the media to compare the attacks on McCain's military service to those of the Swift Boaters, there's absolutely no equivalence here.
John Kerry tried to run on his war record, even though after serving in Vietnam for a few months he came back and testified against his fellow soldiers and accused them of war crimes.
John McCain served as a POW and initially refused to make such statements under torture. Only after McCain was severally beaten within an inch of his life, and he failed several times to commit suicide, did he agree to make any such statements to the North Vietnamese, and he expressed shame about it.
As recounted below, when he got back from Vietnam, instead of publicly smearing those he served with to launch his political career, McCain went through grueling physical therapy so he could learn to fly again and continue to serve his country.
As Jim notes, any attempt by the left to go after McCain's war record will blow up in their faces, big time.
Again, Bernanke Must Go
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 1:48PM
Commodity prices are a monetary phenomenon. The price of oil keeps going up. Yet Ben Bernanke still won't do anything serious to strengthen the dollar. Again and again I and many others have been warning for month after month that "Stagflation could make its ugly face obvious as early as this summer." Now it is just about here. And it's the fault of the Fed and the Treasury, along with a political class that keeps approving huge spending while failing to ensure that current low tax rates will remain low. And now things are getting really awful. Since Ben Bernanke and the Fed refused last week to back up Bernanke's "strong dollar" talk, from a few weeks earlier, with any actual discernible action, the stock market has tanked even further, horrendously so, while oil and gold have jumped even more. Bernanke is incompetent. Bush can't fire him, but he should ask for the Fed Chief's resignation, in favor of somebody who will actually protect the dollar.
McCain's Veterans For Truth
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 1:20PM
The McCain campaign launched a full-throated response to Wesley Clark's comments attacking McCain's military service, with a conference call unveiling a "Truth Squad" featuring fellow POWs Orson Swindle and Bud Day, Sen. John Warner, advisor Bud McFarland, and Carl Smith, a retired Navy pilot who served in the Navy squadron that McCain commanded.
Sen. Warner said he was "utterly shocked" that Clark would attack McCain in such a disrespectful manner, and it was an "exercise in poor judgment" for Obama to allow Clark to make such an attack.
Day noted how McCain could have went home early from Vietnam because he was onboard the U.S.S. Forrestal during a tragic fire on deck (video here, McCain was one of the pilots who had to escape from his plane during the inferno). Instead, he volunteered to join another ship and fly combat missions over downtown Hanoi, which was the most heavily defended city in the world, and spent 65 additional months in Vietnam, as a POW, as a result. His experiences inside that camp, including the fact that he refused offers of early release, made him a leader, Day said.
Day attributed Clark's "shocking insults" to "political shenanigans."
Smith spoke of serving with McCain during the time when he turned a large, mediocre, and "clumsy" Navy squadron into a unit that earned a citation for meritorious service.
"The credit goes to John McCain and his extraordinary leadership, it's as simple as this," Smith said. He said that when McCain came there, he fired all of the people who said that there was no way they could do better, and demanded more.
"The results were truly exceptional," he said.
The Daily Buzz
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 12:27PM
One Point for the Global Warming
Skeptics
Small Rise in the Value of the
Dollar
Obama's White Voter Problem: The Democratic
Party
The African Union Addresses Zimbabwe
Oliver Stone thinks he's next Shakespeare
Novak opines: Reversal of Gun Ban to hurt Obama
Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal
Venezuela's Change We Believe In
McCain's Military Credentials
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 12:03PM
Wesley Clark-like attacks on McCain won't fly and may backfire, even if the person leveling them has strong military credentials. I suspect the Democrats are misreading the Swift Boat situation from 2004. If it weren't for John Kerry's testimony after returning from Vietnam and already existing antipathy toward him among veterans, those ads wouldn't have been as effective either. Attacks work when they reinforce the voters' perceptions of a candidate, not when they tell the voters something they know is not so.
Actually, It's Clearly A Fantasy About Dick Cheney
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 11:01AM
Robert Thurman--Columbia University prof, father of Uma and the
first American to be ordained a Tibetan monk--got a little too
detailed in this
New York Times Q&A this weekend about his meditation
fantasies:
What do you think about when you
meditate?
Usually, some form of trying to excavate any kind of negative thing cycling in the mind and turn it toward the positive. For example, when I am annoyed with Dick Cheney, I meditate on how Dick Cheney was my mother in a previous life and nursed me at his breast.
You mean you fantasize about being breast-fed
by Dick Cheney?
It’s a fantasy of releasing fear and developing affection. It’s a way of coming back to feeling grateful toward him and seeing his positive side, finding the mother in Dick Cheney.
I'm sure Cheney is touched by the gesture!
Israel's Bad Deal
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 10:43AM
The Israeli government has agreed to release a brutal Hezbollah killer for the dead bodies of the two IDF soldiers that were kidnapped in 2006, providing the inciting incident for the Lebanon War. In one sense, this demonstrates the emphasis the Israelis place on the sanctity of human life, or in this case, the honor of the dead. But whatever the emotional reasons are for negotiating the swap, it's a deal that puts more Israeli lives at risk. Already, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has declared that the deal with Hezbollah will raise the price (in terms of Hamas terrorist prisoners) it will demand from Israel for the evidently living Gilad Schalit. In the future, this will encourage terrorist groups from kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and give them less reason to keep them alive. It's another example of the incompetence of the Olmert government.
Over at Contentions, Eric Trager wonders whether Olmert is the worst politician ever, and Emanuele Ottolenghi notes that if the captured Israeli soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser are in fact dead, it raises a number of "troublesome questions," including:
Obama Passes Clark's Military Test, But Not McCain
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 9:59AM
For the at least the third time that I can remember, Wesley Clark has launched a scurrilous attack on John McCain's military experience, this time on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Here's how it went down:
"I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down
is a qualification to become president."
Even if you get past the snide nature of Clark's statements and try to give it as charitable a reading as possible, his arguments don't hold up to much scrutiny.
The leadership attributes that McCain showed in commanding the Naval squadron were absolutely remarkable, all the more so because he achieved them after being released from five and a half years of captivity with severe injuries, after which most men would have put an end to their military careers.
Our own R. Emmett Tyrrell explained the episode in a recent column
In a 2000 feature story for the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof also offered details on this stage of McCain's career:
So he signed up for an excruciating therapy. Twice a week, for two hours at a time, he would lie in a whirlpool bath with water as hot as he could stand, and then the physical therapist (he called her his physical terrorist) would force his knee to bend.
''In physical therapy, you measure pain on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being maximum, off the wall,'' recalled the therapist, Diane Lawrence. ''Many times we got close to 10, and he would just put a hand over his face, and say, 'Honey, that's it.' And we would stop for a while.''
Obsessed with his dream of flying again, Mr. McCain embraced the pain and never missed a therapy session, and never was late, Mrs. Lawrence said....
Mr. McCain won a coveted assignment as commanding officer of the Navy's largest squadron, the Replacement Air Group in Jacksonville, Fla. This was Mr. McCain's first chance to command men (and a few women), but the squadron had a mediocre record and parts shortages meant that only half the planes were flyable at any time.
''Inertia had set in,'' recalled Carl Smith, then an instructor pilot in the squadron. ''We had some crusty old guys running maintenance, and they were masters at saying, 'no, no, no.' But then McCain came in and changed them overnight and brought in new people.''...
Officers recall that he would hurtle into the maintenance shops and start kidding the officers, peppering them with rapid-fire questions and jokes, urging them, scolding them and leaving them fired up. Mr. McCain learned the names of all the enlisted men so that he could tease them as vociferously as the officers, a mild breach of protocol that won their hearts.
They responded, and by the time he left the squadron in 1977, every single aircraft had left the disabled list -- the last one, which had been out for two years, was restored on his next-to-last day.
Although plagued by fatal accidents in the past, the squadron
had no fatalities under his command (a turkey buzzard that
shattered the windshield of a student pilot's plane almost changed
that, but officers talked the pilot down safely), and won its first
meritorious unit citation. Mr. McCain's success attracted notice
among the admirals in Washington.
Okay, so Clark has this ridiculously high threshold for what would qualify somebody as commander in chief that McCain doesn't make the cut, and yet he's endorsing Barack Obama to be president because of what? The military experience he gained as editor of the Harvard Law Review? The wartime executive skills he honed when he was trying to get asbestos removed from buildings as a community organizer?
McCain and Gas Prices
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 9:40AM
Liberal bloggers think that John McCain has been ensnared in an out of touch moment akin to the elder Bush not knowing the cost of a loaf of bread.
Here was McCain in an
exchange with the Orange County Register:
MCCAIN: Oh, I don't remember. Now there's Secret Service
protection. But I've done it for many, many years. I don't recall
and frankly, I don't see how it matters.
The Huffington Post said McCain "stepped in it" and Think Progress declared that it represented his "cluelessness about gas prices."
Nice try.
Any fair reading of the question makes clear that it was in reference to price of gas the last time he pumped his own gas, and really, do we now expect presidential candidates with Secret Service protection to pump their own gas regularly so they can answer such gotcha questions from reporters?
Meanwhile, Patterico notes that six days before the interview, McCain gave a speech in which he said, "The price of a gallon of gas in America stands at more than four dollars."
So McCain obviously knows the price of gas. If he can be accused of anything, it's not having more patience with a pointless question.
The 'Attack Machine' Myth
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 7:54AM
Barack Obama and media liberals have frightened Democrats with the specter of Obama being "swiftboated" by the vaunted "Republican attack machine" of lavishly funded 527 groups. But there's no such ship on the horizon, Steven Thomma reports:
An effort to corral money for an independent group to be run by former White House political guru Karl Rove hasn't materialized so far.One major reason for the shortage of anti-Obama efforts is that many conservative activists put all their eggs into the anti-Hillary basket. Conservative authors in the past couple of years had issued a whole catalog of anti-Hillary books that are now politically irrelevant. Richard Collins rolled out his StopHerNow.com group in 2006, and in January, Citizens United premiered "Hillary: The Movie." Having invested so heavily in stopping her, the "usual suspects" on the Right have fewer resources left for stopping him.
"There have been a lot of conversations trying to get this off the ground," said one Republican strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to talk about Rove.
Another Republican said the deal fell through when Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who helped bankroll the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, refused to write a seven-figure check to get the group going. He, too, refused to be identified because he wasn't authorized to speak about Pickens or Rove.
"Mr. Pickens has decided that he will not support any 527s involved in the presidential race this cycle and instead will focus his energies and his funding on a major, bipartisan, energy-focused public policy initiative that will be announced soon," said Pickens' spokesman, Jay Rosser.
Death of a beauty
Posted by on 6.30.08 @ 6:39AM
Edgar Allen Poe once observed that "the death . . . of a beautiful woman is, unquestionably, the most poetical topic in the world." Is anyone composing an ode to 20-year-old Ruslana Korshunova?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Keep Gates
Posted by on 6.29.08 @ 9:44PM
According to the Sunday Times, there is some sentiment within Team Obama for retaining Robert Gates as secretary of defense if Obama succeeds President Bush.
Kent Snyder, RIP
Posted by on 6.29.08 @ 9:40PM
Kent Snyder, the chairman of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, has died.
Sunday Afternoon Musical Interlude
Posted by on 6.29.08 @ 3:36PM
Classic rock from Dick and Dee Dee. That's Dick, who just cannot seem to pull the trigger, singing the high notes. Tragically Dick died in 2003 after falling off his roof.
The Lead Paint Candidate
Posted by on 6.29.08 @ 10:31AM
Ralph Nader is being interviewed on "This Week" and he's attacking Obama for not taking stronger action against lead paint in inner cities. Somehow I don't think the Obama camp sees him as a big threat.
