- 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 12, 2008
Remembering Tony
Posted by on 7.12.08 @ 2:50PM
Just about everybody in Washington will be telling Tony Snow stories for the next several days. Almost every one will have the same elements: Tony's decency, his generosity with his time, his sincerity, his good humor, his upbeat attitude, and his deep love for his family. I share my Tony Snow story below not because it is unique, but because it is so typical of Tony; because so MANY people can tell similar stories that the re-telling of it really captures who he was, rather than me having some unique insight into Tony's human goodness.
Anyway, when I was press secretary for U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston, Tony happened to be a neighbor and friend of another guy in my office. I was lucky, therefore, to have a better-than-usual introduction to Tony, and he struck me as an incredibly approachable guy. I was thinking then, I think this was in 1995, about returning to journalism, and wanted some advice about how to go about it, so I asked Tony if he could spare time for a cup of coffee one day. Instead, he invited me to lunch and told me to meet him at his office at the then-USA Today building in Rosslyn. Well, we walked from there to some brass-and-fern chain restaurant, and had lunch, and I kept asking Tony questions, and he kept giving good, REALLY thoughtful answers.... and lunch ended and we paid and I said something about knowing he needed to get back to work -- but he said, no, let's just relax and linger awhile, that he was enjoying the conversation and he could see I still had more questions and that he wanted to be sure he could be as much help as he possibly could be. So, despite my protestations that I didn't want to take too much of his time, we ended up taking something like a two-hour lunch, all the way until Tony seemed satisfied that I now seemed comfortable with a plan of action.
His advice, by the way (in a nutshell) was that I may need to leave DC in order to get back here as a top columnist; that I should go to a decent paper anywhere in the country and build up clips and awards and just see where it would take me. And that's what I ended up doing, exactly, first in Little Rock and then in Mobile. And while I didn't speak to Tony often during that decade away from DC, the few times I did call him he responded immediately and warmly. I remember comparing notes with him at some length, for instance, during the Bush-Gore legal fight.
Anyway, when, ten years after I had left DC, I got a chance to come back, but had some concerns, I called just two people for advice: Livingston, and Tony. Again, Tony got back to me right away, and was incredibly generous with his time on the phone, and he basically said what Tom Cruise's character said in Risky Business, which is that "sometimes you've just gotta say 'what the ****'" and take a risk and see if it works. In short, he said, I should jump at the chance. So, again, I took his advice.
The coda to that is that when I wrote the column that Wlady linked to below, I received more reader responses to it than anything I have ever written, literally hundreds of e-mail letters and some phone calls as well, almost every one of them asking where they could "sign up" for a Snow for Senate (or even Snow for President) campaign. I was absolutely overwhelmed with the positive feedback, and took the opportunity to e-mail Tony at the White House a couple of examples of them. Note that I wasn't in regular touch with him or anything; I think we had spoken just twice in the year since I had moved back to DC. But within two minutes of sending the e-mail, I received a phone call from Tony, laughing delightedly at the kind responses my column had gotten but insisting that no, he never would be a political candidate. But he invited me over to the White House just to chat, and a few days later I went on over and we sat in his office in front of a roaring fireplace for nearly an hour; he just mainly wanted to check up on how things had been going for me since I had returned to DC, and, as always, acted as if there were absolutely nothing in the world more important to him or more deserving of his time right then than to inquire about my life and my happiness.
And the key thing here, it wasn't ME in particular who attracted such kind attention from Tony; this was, it seemed, how he tried to treat EVERYBODY who entered his orbit. He just cared about people. And he was fun to be around. And, as everybody will tell you again and again, when he talked about himself, it was always not really about himself but about his family. I remember being struck by that back in Rosslyn in 1995 and struck again by it at the White House in 2007: This man just LOVED his wife and children, and he couldn't go more than a few minutes in any conversation without working in some warm family reference.
He was a happy man, and a good one. My prayers are with his family and his close friends. I will miss him. So will this nation. May he rest in God's peace, and in joy.
Tony Snow at CPAC '08
Posted by on 7.12.08 @ 2:39PM
CPAC in February was the last time I saw Tony Snow, and he seemed optimistic and full of fight. Townhall has video of his speech, and the transcript is online:
You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don't be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer. . . .His relentless optimism was his best quality.
This may be a time of testing. But it's not our swan song. Not by a long shot.
Instead… this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best -- turn adversity into strength.
Re: Tony Snow
Posted by on 7.12.08 @ 2:00PM
It is nice, John, to see that those who once spoke ill of Tony Snow now see him in all his handsomeness and decency. Best I know, he was always a kind and noble soul, whether coming over at a political convention just to say hello or proudly bringing his shy teenage daughter to a Christmas party at the White House. As well as anyone, Quin Hillyer understood Tony's rare and inspiring appeal (a column that received rowsing reader approval). Now, as always, Bill McGurn captures most astutely the real reason why he was a political and human success: "Tony did his job with more flair than almost any press secretary before him. He loved the give-and-take. But that was possible only because Tony was a man of substance who had real beliefs and principles that he was more than able to defend."
Re: Tony Snow
Posted by on 7.12.08 @ 1:42PM
I heard Tony Snow speak at this year's Media Research Center awards dinner, where he received an award named after William F. Buckley, Jr. He seemed as vigorous and upbeat as ever. But my favorite Snow anecdote involves a chance meeting at an airport. A friend of mine excitedly approached him, the way someone might go up to a professional athlete or movie star. To my friend, conservative movement figures are movie stars. Snow, who had already left the administration by this point, was not just patient with him but totally friendly, interested, and engaged. My friend remembers him as "one of the nicest guys." And so do I.
Re: Tony Snow
Posted by on 7.12.08 @ 12:42PM
It always struck me that Tony Snow was almost preternaturally well-liked, including by people who didn't care much for each other. Bush loyalists liked him, obviously, because he was a great press secretary (especially compared to his predecessor Scott "Flopsweat" McClellan). But he was also smart and interesting enough to win fans like Tim Cavanaugh, who reacted to the prospect of Snow flacking for the White House by lamenting that he was "too good for that." And as John Podhoretz notes, "his ascent from peak to peak earned him no enemies."
Snow's death isn't exactly a surprise; as you can see in Fox's Brit Hume-narrated obit, Snow aged at a heartbreakingly fast pace during his short tenure as press secretary. But that doesn't make it any less awful. RIP.
Tony Snow, RIP
Posted by on 7.12.08 @ 10:19AM
Beautiful obituaries are spilling out about the just passed Tony Snow.
Notes From the Underground
Posted by on 7.12.08 @ 1:32AM
Conservative Kevin DeAnna goes incognito to a Campus Progress conference:
The Young Democratic Socialists handed out a flyer featuring Martin Luther King stating, "We are saying that something is wrong with capitalism, there must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism" -- which would shock my movement colleagues who tell me every January that MLK was a conservative Republican. . . . The tendency of attendees to speak of overthrowing the "system" and in the next sentence talking about the upcoming Obama Administration is exactly how activists should think. . . . They understand that the role of activists is to push politicians towards an independently defined agenda rather than serving as cannon fodder. Hence, a common concern of many activists was how to avoid being "co-opted" by the Democratic establishment -- even if that establishment is headed by the most liberal candidate in American history. Similarly, a comment during the civil rights panel about how any movement needs a "militant resistance" was met not with nervous glances but agreement to what all perceived to be an obvious point.
DeAnna perceives among young conservatives too much of a careerist focus, which tends to work against independent activism. He concludes that young conservative activists have more to learn from the Left than vice-versa.
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
Friday, July 11, 2008
Re: Obama and Hagel
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 4:43PM
Hagel is Lieberman in reverse: he breaks with his party on the war but sticks with it on too many other issues to make stalwarts of the opposing party happy. His lifetime American Conservative Union rating is just under 85, he gets 100 percent from the National Right to Life Committee, and a zero from NARAL.
Obama and Hagel
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 3:59PM
Are traveling to Iraq together. If he ever wanted to formally defect to the Democratic Party, he could make a formidable running mate for Obama as an anti-war Republican with experience who replaced McCain as the media's favorite maverick.
Re: Bob Barr in NH
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 3:48PM
On the bright side for McCain, the fact that he's still within three points of Obama in the state even with Barr pulling 10 percent, has to be seen as a good sign.
"Ideally, There Would Be No President"
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 1:37PM
Todd Seavey gets to it in the first line of his Bob Barr endorsement.
Constitutionalists for Keyes
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 1:21PM
I've been remiss in keeping you all updated on various third-party doings. Last weekend, the faction of California's American Independent Party led by Ed Noonan held their convention. They nominated Alan Keyes for president and Wiley Drake for vice president. This faction is aligned with America's Independent Party, which exists to promote Keyes's 2008 presidential campaign. Their rivals within the party already held a convention in Los Angeles at the end of June, nominating Chuck Baldwin for president and Darrell Castle for vice president. They are aligned with the Constitution Party nationally, as the American Independents have been since at least 1992.
At issue is whether Keyes or Baldwin will receive the party's ballot line in the presidential election. Which faction is recognized as legitimate will also determine which political party has the third-largest number of registered voters. The American Independent Party gives the Constitution Party that honor currently. If the Noonanites prevail, that distinction will go to the nascent America's Independent Party.Of course, a very high number of American Independents likely believe they are registering as independents -- the official designation in California is "decline to state" -- making a good bit of this fairly meaningless.
According to Ballot Access News and other sources, fewer than 20 people attended the pro-Keyes convention, including two who disputed the legitimacy of the proceedings. About 35 central commitee members attended the pro-Baldwin convention, with total attendance around 55. The Baldwin faction also gave the legally required notice of their convention and retained an outside parliamentarian. It does not appear that either of those things were true of the American Independents led by Noonan.
Re: A Rousing Endorsement
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 1:16PM
James, would you mind providing the link to that blog post by Yglesias that I'm not supposed to waste my time reading? I want to read it, just to spite that arrogant bastard.
A Rousing Endorsement
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 12:51PM
"Thus, blog reading is a completely worthless exercise and nobody should really engage in it. I started writing this blog as a hobby; I thought it would be a fun thing to do. And I not only continue to enjoy writing it, but people pay me to write it. But the mere fact that I'm writing it doesn't make it a worthwhile thing to read, which is why the overwhelming majority of Americans have never read this blog and never will." -- Matthew Yglesias, Atlantic blogger
Geez. I guess some people are better at talking themselves up than others.
Bob Barr at 10 Percent in New Hamsphire
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 12:40PM
At least according to Zogby. Two important caveats: The poll is described as "an online survey of likely voters," methodology that would favor Barr; it's still an open question as to whether Barr will be on the ballot in New Hampshire.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 11:37AM
Prediction markets could be a boon... if the Commodity Futures Trading Commission allows them.
Getting rid of bad teachers ain't easy, but it's got to be done.
Obama can slip the lefty label that threatens to sink him.
Global warming talks accomplish little
What to do about Freddie and Fannie
Looking For A Fox To Guard This Here Henhouse
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 11:31AM
Mark Warner has developed a new end run around what minor-but-pesky criticism he receives from the media--start his own wire service where campaign apparatchiks more sycophantic than the average mainstream media reporter can compose the news more to his liking. From the press release:
There are so many blogs and news
outlets covering Mark Warner's Senate race that sometimes it's
tough to keep up. That's why today, we're rolling a
WarnerWire.com, a place you can go to find the best, most
up-to-date information on Mark's campaign.
From debate coverage and on-the-road campaign news, to political cartoons and online contests, WarnerWire.com will give you the tools you need to stay informed.
This is just what the country needs: More blind trust in authority figures.
Obama's Iraq Quagmire
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 11:27AM
ABC News has a report from Iraq on the strong pushback by top U.S. military commanders against the idea of a quick withdrawal strategy along the lines of Obama's that is based on an arbitrary 16-month timeline rather than conditions on the ground. When Obama hears this directly from commanders, he'll find himself in quite a bind. Either he listens to them and "refines" his withdrawal plan, which vindicates John McCain, deflates the left, and opens him up to the same flip flop charges as John Kerry. Or, he rejects the counsel of commanders, in which case he comes across as anti-military and intransigent. Somewhere, McCain is smiling.
Fannie and Freddie Fears
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 10:59AM
In my column today, I contemplate the worst case scenarios presented by an Obama administration, but there aren't many things he could do that would be more frightening than this:
The government officials said that the administration had also considered calling for legislation that would offer an explicit government guarantee on the $5 trillion of debt owned or guaranteed by the companies. But that is a far less attractive option, they said, because it would effectively double the size of the public debt.
This is a scary example of creeping socialism. When they were created in 1970, Fannie and Freddie were granted a relatively modest $2.25 billion line of credit from the government. Though they have never dipped into it, the implicit government backing has allowed them to finance bond purchases at cheap rates. The whole idea was to boost home ownership by spreading risk around so that mortgage lenders were more comfortable issuing loans knowing they would be backed by Fannie and Freddie. Of course, what this translated into was companies issuing loans to people who weren't credit worthy enough, and instead of risk getting spread out, it actually became heavily concentrated into these two companies.
While neither of these mortgage financiers loan money directly to consumers, they hold the bundled mortgages from the companies that do, and as a result own or back more than half of the nation's $12 trillion in mortgage debt. Nationalizing their debt, on top of the tremendous potential costs involved, would mean the federal government ultimately owning a massive portion of American homes.
John McCain, sadly, has already come out in favor of some kind of bailout for Fannie and Freddie.
How to Embarrass Yourself
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 10:46AM
Say "Why should I help you embarrass me?" to a reporter, then hang up.
Michael Kinsley: So Earnest It Hurts
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 10:10AM
In his Time column, Kinsley manages to make me forget why it is I love reading him. (That is, his ability to make fun of himself and take things with a grain of salt.) Completely earnest statements like these just send me up a wall:
I came. I saw. iPhone.
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 8:20AM
Well, not me. But Peter Suderman and Megan McArdle have managed to survive the Arlington wilderness, and are en route to obtaining an iPhone. Correction. A 3G iPhone. According to his last message, the staffers clapped as they entered the store. "We deserve it," he writes. Yes. Yes, you do.
Nice Job. Way to win it.
Posted by on 7.11.08 @ 7:46AM
Morning shows are going crazy over Gramm's "whiners" comment. If there's one example of how the McCain campaign has no capability of controlling a news cycle, it's this one. McCain's response to the outrage shouldn't have been throwing Gramm aside, but instead coopting his message into a "straight talk" moment. Knowing that everyone's favorite meme is "his campaign is out of control," how could McCain give the press another opportunity to talk about it? Instead, if he jumps on the opportunity to talk about the economy and show his chops, he could have had the media cycle focusing on his economic plan.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Dickie Flatt
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 5:41PM
I had forgotten about the "Dickie Flatt test." At times, the 1996 Gramm for president campaign seemed to be about electing a ticket of Dickie Flatt and My Mama.
European Obamagasms
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 5:40PM
Marc Ambinder predicts that the European press "will climax, repeatedly" over Barack Obama's visit later this month. Ambinder sees the benefit of foreign adulation outweighing the potential political risks, but admits:
There are potential drawbacks: gaffes will be magnified through the lens of a voracious, excited press corps. His trip has to be flawless, message-wise, tone-wise and in its execution. If Obama appears presumptuous and arrogant and not humble, there's a good bet that we'll see that reflected in the coverage back home.One could argue -- indeed, I already have argued -- that the mere fact of Team Obama scheduling this trip less than 120 days before Election Day is "presumptuous and arrogant." When even such an enthusiastic Obamaphile as Andrew Sullivan is warning of hubris, it's hard not to suspect that some sort of serious gaffe will occur during this European excursion. Combined with Obama's condescending sneer about Americans' lack of multilingualism, this courting of foreign favor could easily add to the perception of the Democrat as a Kerryesque snob.
More Audacity
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 5:32PM
James is right, of course, that it was stupid for Gramm to say
it. Then again, Gramm showed in 1996 that he was politically tone
deaf. Running around the country singing the virtues of a guy named
"Dickie Flatt" won't exactly get a man elected president.Â
James is also right that the McCain camp needs to pay attention to
the fallout from this. It is beyond a doubt that McCain needs to
fight for hearts and minds on economic issues, and that he is not
very good at talking the economi game even when his policy
prescriptions (no earmarks, excellent health care plan, etc) are
superb. This is all the more reason for him to pick somebody for
Vepp who can make the case on economics. Tim Pawlenty just doesn't
cut it on this front -- not on substance, where he is not
conservative enough, and not on style, where it's almost impossible
to remember five minutes later what it was that he just said.
Solution: Cox, or Kasich, or Ryan, or Sanford, or even Herman
Cain.
All that said, Gramm remains right that Americans had become
whiners long, LONG before they had any right to be so. Two years
ago we were experiencing the greatest economy in the history of the
world, and yet all we ever heard was whining. It still makes me
sick.
Re: The Audacity of Saying Quit Your Bellyaching
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 5:17PM
I like Phil Gramm and would certainly prefer a Gramm for president campaign to, uh, our current situation. I think Gramm as treasury secretary is one of the strongest pro-McCain arguments. I even agree with what I take to be Gramm's point: some of our economic woes are exaggerated and the very economic dynamism that creates financial instability also makes us better off overall. But it's politically boneheaded to tell middle- and working-class families whose income growth has stagnated -- the very people whose votes McCain needs to win if he is to have a prayer in this election -- to stop their whining. That's fine for columnists, but not a very smart move for someone associated with a presidential campaign that already fails to connect with people's economic concerns.
Re: Audacity
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 4:11PM
I've been saying for several years the same thing Gramm said. Granted, the economy was far better two years ago than it is now, but even now, it is far better than it has during all of the 1970s and even much of the 1980s and 1990s. At the beginning of this year, in a blog entry, I even matched Gramm's tone: He called Americans "whiners," while I called them "spoiled." I still say I was right.Â
McCain Raises $22 Million in June
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 3:48PM
A strong month. The AP also notes: "McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said Thursday that McCain and the national Republican Party together entered the month of July with about $95 million in the bank."
The Audacity of Saying Quit Your Bellyaching
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 1:58PM
Is it too late to launch a Phil Gramm for President bandwagon?!
Why Did Jesse Go Nuts?
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 12:32PM
Sure, Obama's been "talking down to black folks" -- as Jim Geraghty points out, he does that to everyone. But why does that prompt Jesse Jackson to engage in castration fantasies? My sense is that many of the old-guard race hustlers are seething at the prospect of a black president who owes them nothing. That's perhaps the most appealing thing about Obama -- that he could leave Jesse Jackson and his ilk in the dust. What was so upsetting and damaging about Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright, of course, was that it made it look as though Obama has more of a connection to toxic racial politics than he'd seemed to. Having Jesse Jackson upset with him is sort of the Wright issue in reverse, which is to say that it's great for Obama.
CAIR Bait
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 12:24PM
The Zucker Brothers have produced this sure to be controversial
ad for the energy independence group NozzleRage.
Re: A T-Bone for T. Boone
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 12:16PM
Pickens is a smart guy, which is why he donates money to AmSpec (consider that our obligatory disclosure). I'm not entirely sure what to think about his plan; my tentative view is that wind and natural gas will play a big part in the future of American energy, but not necessarily in exactly the way Pickens envisions.
Jon Henke has some worthwhile if disjointed thoughts, along with some links worth following. Further reading: Earth2Tech editor Katie Fehrenbacher gives some background on natural gas vehicles; energy policy consultant Geoffrey Styles provides an on the one hand/on the other hand analysis of the Pickens Plan.
McCain Campaign Screening Calls?
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 12:11PM
There's some carping on the left accusing the McCain campaign of screening questioners on its conference calls so that he or his surrogates only get asked soft balls by preferred journalists. I have no idea whether or not this is true. There have been many occasions on which I wasn't able to ask a question, which I find especially frustrating when the operator closes the call by saying "at this time there are no further questions."
But I will say this. I have been called on a number of occasions, as have many other journalists on the right and left who have asked critical questions of McCain or his aides. Last month, Quin, a long-time critic of McCain, was called on during a conference call, and confronted McCain on his treatment of conservatives. On the same call, Townhall's Matt Lewis grilled McCain on Juan Hernandez, his Hispanic outreach director who has been controversial on the right. Personally, I've gotten into a scrap with McCain over James Baker, and more recently, pointedly asked his top economic adviser, Doug Holz-Eakin, whether McCain would rule out raising taxes as part of a bipartisan compromise on Social Security (sadly, he wouldn't).
McCain also reached out to allow liberal bloggers on the calls, and has received a number of critical questions from them.
But I'd like to know, how many conservative journalists are invited on Obama calls? I've only been on a few myself, but have never been able to ask a question. I have spoken to David Axelrod, but only when I've caught up with him at an Obama event or cornered him in the spin room following a debate, in which case I basically had to shout my question louder than other reporters.
Give Generously -- To Government
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 12:11PM
Via Mark Hemingway, we see why odd news stories make bad law: Leona Helmsley's decision to leave $8 billion to her dogs is hardly proof that private charity is more wasteful and capricious than government spending. Yet we end up with a New York Times op-ed worrying about the tax dollars we are losing through the tax deduction for charitable contributions. Don't get me wrong: some of these perpetual foundations can be as boneheaded in their use of money as the federal government. But I'd rather roll the dice on the former than the latter.
No More Mister Nice Guy
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 11:53AM
Meet Alice Cooper, rocker and Bible student: "Alice might slit your throat but he'd never use the F word." (Hat tip: Rock and Roll Conservative Steve Martinovich.)
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 11:49AM
Liberals to Obama: Hands off the Constitution!
Iranian diplomats consider talks with West
Very green conscious: buying a piece of your own farm
Where have all the heroes gone?
Malaysian PM to step down by 2010
Jesse Jackson goes for the kill
How Hillary Made Obama
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 11:19AM
Over the course of writing my earlier post about Obama's tendency to claim the moral high road while doing the politically opportunistic thing, I began to wonder whether his ability to pull off such a grand political fraud stems from the fact that he had Hillary Clinton as an opponent. At the start of the presidential race, people didn't know much about Obama, but the Clintons had been on the national stage for 16 years, and had a well-earned reputation for being among the most conniving and calculating political operators we've ever seen. A lot of people (especially in the media) reflexively took Obama's side in many of the major controversies during the primary season, giving the benefit of the doubt to the fresh face who always talked about changing politics, over the political couple who they knew would stop at nothing to return to the White House. The Obama myth, thus, was largely built on the fact that he had Hillary Clinton as his foil. It is now up to McCain, who has gained a reputation as somebody who is more concerned with doing what he thinks is right rather than what is politically unpopular, to undo that myth.
Obama Flip Flops on His Own Kids
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 10:58AM
Earlier this week, Barack Obama had his wife and kids sit down for an interview with "Access Hollywood," and received glowing coverage along these lines:
It may have been a campaign stop for the Obamas, but family, as always, came first.
However, Obama is trying to prove he's a new kind of politician, and so he quickly changed his tune:
"I think that we got carried away in the moment," Obama told NBC Wednesday morning. "We were having a birthday party and everybody was laughing, and suddenly this thing cropped up, and I didn't catch it quickly enough, and I was surprised by the attention it got."...
Appearing on ABC Wednesday morning, Obama said he didn't think it was healthy for his two daughters to be so exposed.
"Particularly given the way it sort of went around the cable stations, I don't think it's healthy, and it's something that we'll be avoiding in the future," he said.
Speaking with CNN Tuesday, Menounos, the Access Hollywood reporter, said the campaign had reached out to the show for an interview and her only goal was to show the Obama family dynamic.
It is simply risible for a man who has been running for president for a year and a half to pretend he was "surprised by the attention" that the first interview with the Obama kids received. Clearly, the Obama campaign wanted the video of him and his family to be broadcast as widely as possible. That was the whole point of doing the interview. By saying he regretted it only after the fact, the video gets even more airtime, but he also gets favorable coverage as somebody who wants to keep his kids out of the spotlight and who is averse to exploiting them for political gain.
I note this because it is part of a larger overall pattern with Obama of doing the politically opportunistic thing, and then acting as if he's taking the moral high road. He calls for a civil campaign, dispatches a number of surrogates to attack John McCain's military background, and then haltingly criticizes the surrogates after the fact. He promises to take public financing, breaks his promise to gain a political advantage, and then portrays his action as a courageous stand against the system.
Jesse Jackson, Jr: Shut Up, Dad!
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 10:46AM
Of all the reactions to Jesse Jackson's "regretfully crude" and "hurtful" (his words) comments about Barack Obama, these two are my favorite: The New York Post quotes Al Sharpton as saying Obama "is running for president of all Americans, not just African-Americans... [We] must be careful not to segregate Senator Obama and impose some litmus test that is unfair and unproductive." Even topping Sharpton as responsible statesman among race-baiters is Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s statement: "I'm deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson's reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama." Geez, you wouldn't even think they were related.
McCain pees on the third rail?
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 10:37AM
... is how Matthew Yglesias calls McCain's decision to discuss Social Security. Never mind the fact that the Bush administration's lackluster attempt at reforming the system was the first time anyone sought to really fix the problem of social security running out of money. He then admits that the quote he's referring to *was* taken out of context, but how can he help not knowing what McCain's stance is when he's using diversions like his war record?
Well, Matthew, it's not exactly news that Republicans are concerned about Social Security. And it's not exactly "generations looking after eachother." It's more pandering to unions and the AARP than anything else.
What *I* don't get is why the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear are so earnest when they write that McCain has "sparked controversy":
If that payment system is a disgrace, it has been one since Social Security was created during the Great Depression. For as long as the popular program has existed, today's workers have paid the benefits of today's retirees. Future problems are projected as Baby Boomers retire and the ratio of workers to retirees begins to shrink to levels that may not be able to support the benefits now promised. But the system has not changed since Franklin Delano Roosevelt created it.
The "popular program"? Would that mean that income taxes are a "popular program," since, heck, we don't get to opt out of that, either? The whole problem is that the system has not changed since FDR created it! McCain was clear in saying that there's something wrong with the fact that young workers are likely not going to benefit from the system, given the way things are headed.
In fact, those who are "burbling" about McCain's "gaffe" are noting that things have always been this way. What about that change mantra?
Cox on immigration
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 10:13AM
The conservative base is, of course, mostly furious at McCain, still, about immigration. Well, just now I came across a lengthy note from Newt Gingrich that talks about a great idea Chris Cox had in 2004 about how to better assimilate the immigrants who do come here legally. Now THIS is the sort of thing McCain needs to be stressing, and it also shows one more reason why McCain would be able to rally conservatives if he picks Cox for Veep.I
Portman and Cox
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 9:54AM
Our old friend Jennifer Rubin does an absolutely superb job in laying out the case for McCain to pick either Rob Portman or Chris Cox as his running mate. Do give it a read.Â
Bias? What Bias?
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 9:39AM
Peter Nicholas of the L.A. Times does a softball human-interest feature on Barack Obama and the rigors of the campaign trail. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail with John McCain, Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times does a story about how the Republican is trying to manipulate media coverage of the campaign.
Of course, McCain deals with the same campaign rigors as Obama, and the Democrats want to manipulate media coverage, too. But that's not how it's reported, is it?
UPDATE: Jeff Zeleny of the N.Y. Times does another typical softball human-interest feature about Obama. This guy gets the kind of hard-hitting coverage that Donnie Osmond got from Tiger Beat in 1972. Notice how even the photographers get in on the pro-Obama bias -- he's always shown greeting adoring supporters. Does John McCain never greet any adoring supporters?
Rove on Obama's 'Ground Game'
Posted by on 7.10.08 @ 9:24AM
Not normally given to praising Karl Rove, I find that he makes an important point that I've emphasized myself:
In the primaries, Mr. Obama instead moved hordes of volunteers from state to state. It was a brilliant tactic, but Nov. 4 is different. The volunteers adequate for primaries held over five months will simply not be enough to compete in 51 separate elections (all 50 states plus the District of Columbia) all on one day.
Many people (including some conservatives), impressed by what Team Obama accomplished in the Democratic nomination campaign, seem to assume that the same methods will automatically translate to victory in the general election. But the challenges of a general election are in several ways fundamentally different from a primary campaign. This is not the Iowa caucuses.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
A T-Bone for T. Boone
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 10:12PM
Why is T. Boone Pickens the only man in America, presidential candidates expressly included, with the first idea of what to do about the American energy crisis? Spending his own dough on an educational ad campaign explaining how, through the years, we trudged into the oil deficit jungle until we now import $700 billion yearly in foreign-purchased oil.
His plan to be revealed includes a massive wind-propelled energy program over 400,000 acres in west Texas and an ambitious drilling campaign that could get the country back on its feet and end the servitude that subjects us to the whim of those who would kill us when the oil-money slows.
Why did it take some successful wildcatter to outwit all those who insist they can lead?
Call Off the Effing Feds
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 7:15PM
Brian Walsh at the Heritage Foundation had a terrific column at the Fox news web site the other day. Summary: Congress is federalizing too many crimes -- and federal prosecutors are going overboard in enforcing them. It's a must read, on an important topic.
Re: Operation Obama
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 5:37PM
Stacy, did you even read the Daily News article you linked to past the headline? It quotes one pledged Clinton delegate who says her name should be on the ballot in Denver, but a number of other former Clinton supporters (from her "home" state of New York) who are calling for party unity:
"It would be wrong," said former New York State Democratic Chairman Herman (Denny) Farrell, a superdelegate who strongly supported Clinton's candidacy. "There should not be a roll call ... they should unify."
A full roll call could be a reminder of how divided Democrats were.
"I don't see any compelling reason to do anything that is not directed towards unity," said City Councilman John Liu of Queens, a delegate pledged to Clinton. "She said she's supporting Sen. Obama and now we just all need to be on the same page."
Julie Hutchinson, 45, a rank-and-file pledged Clinton delegate from upstate Rochester, said she still believes Clinton would be the better President but agrees it's time to close ranks.
"While I am so disappointed that Hillary did not get the nomination, I don't agree with the roll call," said Hutchinson, her voice breaking with emotion. "It's divisive and it's not good for the party."
That doesn't sound like much of a fight to me.
Meanwhile, while it's true that McCain is in a dead heat with Obama in the Gallup poll, it's important to point out that he also was in February, and March, and April, and so on. True, he would have had more time to unify the party, but the Rev. Wright controversy would have been a political firestorm yet to occur, and now it's in his rearview mirror.
Re: Operation Obama?
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 5:10PM
Phil, you write of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" that it "doesn't seem as though any of the supposed benefits of the
protracted primary battle panned out, and if anything, the race with
Eh? In today's New York Daily News, there's a story about how Democrats are now fighting over whether Hillary's name should be put in nomination in Denver. There would be no such argument if Hillary had called it quits in March or April, instead of fighting it out to the end and winning Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky. That all-out battle -- and its psychological effect on Hillary's supporters -- is why the Clintons must now be appeased. Or else.
Also, Obama and John McCain are now in a virtual dead heat in the Gallup daily tracking poll, If Clinton had quit in April, wouldn't Obama have healed the breach and unified his party by now, thus building a formidable lead?
Obama and Helms: BFF?
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 3:04PM
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign refused to make a statement about the death of Jesse Helms according to the Wall Street Journal:
It's probably smart for Obama to avoid talking about Helms, whose complex shift on racial issues isn't an easy thing to discuss. But it is sort of strange to hear that despite his refusal to comment, he not only voted for a resolution commemorating Helms's achievements, but he also co-sponsored it.
This shows how far Obama has come in alienating his more radical base in favor of looking like a centrist. Today's column from Roland Martin is pretty indicative of how many liberals feel about Helms:
It's easy in this age to say that Helms, who carried his dislike of African- Americans like a badge of honor for 30 years around the U.S. Senate, was a son of the South who was simply honoring good, old-fashioned Southern values. But when you stand in opposition to a bill that would, for the first time, give African-Americans from border to border the constitutionally guaranteed right to cast a vote, then I refuse to call you a stand-up person for the rights of every man, woman and child.What is Obama doing sponsoring a resolution to commemorate someone who so clearly grates his followers? Why not simply vote for it?And don't try to suggest that because Helms hired several African-Americans in his office that he was still a good and decent guy who was misunderstood. No, he was very clear in how he looked at issues, and if you had the wrong skin color, sorry, but you didn't fully count as an American.
UPDATE:
Speaking of his base, what about the Kossacks? Are they happy about the sponsorship? They certainly didn't like Helms. Just click here to look at everything they've posted.
Here's what "Al Obama" writes of Dr. No: "A rat bastard. And a champion of the Republican conservatives. ... Deserving of scorn, derision and opprobrium, even on the day of his descent into a most deserving fate."
Or bfuentes with this headline: "Right decides to beatify hatemonger Helms"
Or "latest outrage": "Helms was a disgrace to North Carolina and the nation, and what better time to celebrate our independence from the bigoted, hate-filled politics he stood for."
Every Democrat cosponsored this bill -- if Obama was so above politics, wouldn't he have done differently? And even as he hasn't, why is no one on Kos critical of him for doing what he's done? Sounds like they're giving the honcho from Chicago a lot of latitude.
Boeing Boing Bong
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 2:00PM
So Boeing will get a limited
modified rebid of the troubled air tanker contract. And what
will the bully company do when it loses the rebid because its plane
still isn't good enough and isn't ready? How many threats will it
throw around then? How loudly will it whine? How many more whoring
congressmen will Boeing work like marionettes to spout the
company's party line?
In all my years following the federal government, I have never,
ever, EVER seen treatment of a major government contract bid as
underhanded, as scurrilous, as brazenly bullying, and as nasty as
the campaign Boeing has conducted sinced losing the tanker
contract. Poetic justice would be for this new limited rebid to end
as the first bid did, with Boeing's chances up in smoke.
Operation Obama?
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 1:56PM
Reading the account of "Operation Chaos" in the surprisingly fair NY Times magazine piece on Rush Limbaugh, I found myself reflecting on the consequences of the stunt, as well the more general conservative effort to extend the bitter Democratic primary season. While I wonder how much of an affect Limbaugh listeners actually had on the primaries, let's just say for the sake of discussion that they did influence the outcomes and make it more difficult for Obama to clinch. Based on the evidence we have at the early stages of the general election, it doesn't seem as though any of the supposed benefits of the protracted primary battle panned out, and if anything, the race with
Obama was supposed to have problems with the Hispanic vote in the general election, but as Jim noted, the opposite appears to be true. Polls have shown Obama with large leads among women, despite all of the noise about disgruntled Hillary voters. Obama has a solid lead in
Extending the Democratic primary season was supposed to allow McCain more time to raise money and build his organization, but more than four months since clinching the nomination, he's still reshuffling his campaign staff, overhauling his political apparatus, and searching for a message. Obama, meanwhile, as a result of having to take on the
Perhaps most important of all, many of the most damaging controversies about Obama came out at a convenient time for him -- when he all but had the nomination wrapped up, but before the general election. He was able to leave
This isn't to blame Limbaugh, an entertainer who was having some fun at the Democrats' expense, but it's just to point out that there was a lot of wishful thinking on the right this spring.
The Course of Candidate Events
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 1:40PM
Because I was out of town, I missed Mark Impomeni's absolutely brilliant Independence Weekend blast at Barack Justanotherlyingpolitician Obama. Great stuff!Â
Is Jesse Ventura Running for Senate?
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 1:03PM
Maybe, maybe not. I think this kind of confusion will serve to remind Minneosotans of what they didn't like about Ventura, making it less likely he could win the election. He's also a lot funnier looking than when he won in 1998.
Debating Single Digits
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 12:22PM
There's a story in the Politico that tries to debunk yesterday's news that Congress has a single-digit approval rating in a Rasmussen poll. The Politico writer raises some valid points: do the 36 percent of Rasmussen respondents who rated Congress's performance as "fair" count as approving or disapproving? And while the 9 percent figure isn't that far off from other polling asking a straigh approve or disapprove question, some surveys have shown a much higher percentage of people have a "favorable" impression of Congress. It is more difficult to separate favorability and approval ratings for an organization than it is for a person like the president or an individual member of Congress, though I would suspect the favorable ratings reflect people's impressions of Congress as an institution.
But some of this corrective is tendentious. The story contains the complaint that "asking respondents - as Rasmussen did - to say whether Congress is doing an excellent job or a good job amounts to setting a higher bar" than approval/disapproval. There's also this bit: "Rasmussen is quick to note that polls such as his do not presuppose that respondents are paying close attention to the daily goings-on in the halls and hearing rooms of Capitol Hill." Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution tells the Politico most Americans are too dumb to know much about Congress anway: "The reality is, most Americans don't have a clue of what is actually being done or not being done by Congress," Mann said. "They are sort of grasping at bits of information that they come on that is general statements of general productivity."
Look, it's true of any poll that the people being surveyed may not be well versed in the subject at hand. Even if all of this condescension is justified -- and I don't necessarily concede that point -- that doesn't mean that public opinion isn't what it is. People don't take a civics test before going into the voting booth either. The relevance of the Rasmussen poll is debatable -- I don't think Republicans get their hopes up based on the Democratic Congress's unpopularity -- but this story doesn't really dent the idea that Congress is unpopular.
Obama's Broken English First
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 11:23AM
Via Jim Geraghty, I see Barack Obama has argued against official English initiatives by pointing to the benefits of people being multilingual in a global economy:
You know, I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, "We need to have English- only." They want to pass a law, "We want English-only."
Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.
You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup." Right?
You know, no, I'm serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get ajob. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age, because children will actually learn a foreign language easier when they're 5, or 6, or 7 than when they're 46, like me.
Well, aside from the obvious differences between multinational, multilingual Europe and the continental United States that might explain why the ability to speak more than one language is more common in the former than the latter, and aside from the liberal condescension, there is this blindingly obvious point: Official English initiatives have never been about eliminating all foreign-language instruction in American schools -- that is, getting rid of French and Spanish class. It has been about whether immigrants and their children will receive bilingual education or primarily learn English, by immersion or other methods. It has also been about maintaining English as the official language of government. But it has nothing to do with the points Obama is raising here.
McCain and the Hispanic Vote
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 11:04AM
Matthew Continetti reports that John McCain bombed at the League of United Latino Citizens (LULAC) convention and predicts McCain will lose the Hispanic vote to Barack Obama. Dana Milbank zings both McCain and Obama for pandering to the LULAC crowd, but Continetti says McCain gave a speech that frequently sounded like it was aimed at a national audience rather than a special interest group. McCain has, shall we say, seemed to go off message on his revised enforcement-first position recently and probably wasn't eager to generate more headlines on that front. McCain was always fairly unlikely to make inroads among Hispanic voters in this political climate, despite his immigration legislation and relative popularity with Arizona Hispanics. He is much more likely, in my view, to flip back to his original immigration position if elected.
Iran Is No Joke
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 10:22AM
John McCain makes another unfortunate Iran joke, the Washington Post's "The Trail" blog reports:
He quickly caught himself, saying "I meant that as a joke" as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.
Chicago to the White House?
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 10:10AM
I've been out of town for six days, but the Examiner editorial board came up with a terrific editorial in my absence, on a subject that EVERY conservative ought to be mentioning every day between now and November. Summary: Obama left a big mess behind in his state Senate district, where the only people who benefited -- indeed, made out like bandits -- were the rich developers who paid his campaign bills. See for yourself.
Not All Honor Helms
Posted by on 7.9.08 @ 8:02AM
One employee in North Carolina state government refused to lower the flag to half-staff in memory of the late Sen. Jesse Helms, and it cost him.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Offensive Metaphor Update
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 5:05PM
A gravity vortex seems to be sucking the common sense out of discourse in Dallas:
Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections "has become a black hole" because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.
Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud "Excuse me!" He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a "white hole."
That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.
Rod Dreher calls this a triumph for "the Idiot-American community." For the benefit of the astronomically-impaired, a black hole is a celestial phenomenon in which, scientists say, the collapse of a massive star creates a body of tremendous density with a gravitational force so great that even light cannot escape. The term has no racial significance whatsoever, although the "tremendous density" reference might be appropriate for Commissioner Price.
UPDATE: Jammie Wearing Fool notices that Commissioner Price is, among other things, the founder and president of an annual "Kwanzafest" in Dallas.
NY Times: Not Biased Enough?
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 4:51PM
Media Matters, in case anyone is unaware, is an organization dedicated to the proposition that the liberal media is insufficiently liberal. So when the New York Times published a friendly 8,000-word profile of Rush Limbaugh in its Sunday magazine, it was inevitable that Media Matters' Eric Boehlert would have a conniption over the "squishy-soft . . . puff piece":
For Limbaugh, the ego-stroking profile was quite an achievement: The mighty, and allegedly liberal, New York Times conducted what appeared to be a lengthy, in-depth, and objective profile of Limbaugh and came away very impressed by the titan talker. The Times, quite emphatically, provided its editorial seal of approval to Limbaugh, complete with the flattering, Tony Soprano-like cover photo. . . .Twenty million listeners -- some "fringe"! Boehlert can be forgiven for pining nostalgically for the days when Time magazine presented Limbaugh as a threat to America, and when Limbaugh was among the "purveyors of hatred and division" President Clinton blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing.
I understand that Beltway media players routinely play nice with Limbaugh and his fringe brand of conservatism. Spooked by his liberal-bias charges, the mainstream press corps has for years treated Limbaugh with undeserved respect, worked overtime to soften his radical edges, and presented him as simply a partisan pundit.
Re: Lunchtime
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 3:57PM
Good point, Jim. I've got to stop borrowing hyperbole without proper attribution.
Re: D.C. Cyclist hit by garbage truck
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 3:53PM
Bicycling is so ... collegiate. Preppy, if you will. Not my scene.
But you've got a legitimate point about D.C. drivers, J.P. -- the worst I've ever seen. Incapable of understanding such basic terms as "merge" and "yield." The incompetence of the drivers is exceeded only by the wretchedness of the roads, which suffer from perpetual disrepair or haphazard patching that leaves the surface lumpy as mashed potatoes. There are one-traffic-light towns in Alabama with better pavement. And don't even get.me started on the badly-designed Beltway, where drivers have to cut across the on-ramp traffic in order to reach the off-ramp.
If the "easiest mode of transportation" turns out to be a one-way ticket to the morgue, maybe it's a convenience you can do without.
Lunchtime
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 3:51PM
By the way, I seem to remember someone chastising me for saying Bill Clinton "ate the right's lunch" because the Bushies weren't really the right -- no argument from me there -- and Clinton was only a plurality election winner. So I'm pleased to see that a 53 percent to 37 percent loss in New Hampshire counts as eating Bush 41's lunch.
Re: Who's Afraid of Bob Barr?
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 3:45PM
There's also the not insignificant matter of Ross Perot's moolah. Perot outspent Bush 41 and Bill Clinton in 1992. Barr isn't going to be another Perot, but I'll be awfully surprised if he's another Badnarik.
Re: Who's Afraid of Bob Barr?
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 3:38PM
Everybody keeps making the comparison of Bob Barr to Ross Perot, Jim, but it's important to remember the differences. Perot popped up on the national radar screen much earlier in the cycle than Barr did, and in a much higher-profile way.
Perot announced his candidacy on "Larry King Live" in February 1992, just about the time Pat Buchanan was eating Bush 41's lunch in the New Hampshire primary. Perot was a successful businessman whose basic pitch -- that the government was a fiscal disaster and needed business-like efficiencies to fix it -- resonated with a lot of the same people who had responded to Buchanan's populism.
In 1992, immediately after the Gulf War had made CNN a national phenomenon, Perot's hour-long appearances on "LKL" had a huge impact. And Perot had the huge advantage of running against one of the most unpopular presidents in history, at a time when the unemployment rate was about 8 percent. By May '92, Perot was polling ahead of both Bush and Bill Clinton.
One thing that seems obvious this year is that voters are not reacting to John McCain as if he were a Bush surrogate. Bush's job approval rating is barely 30 percent and the "right direction" poll numbers are well under 20 percent, and yet John McCain is at 44 percent in the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, virtually tied with Barack Obama. If McCain's numbers were to collapse -- so that the Republican became perceived as a certain loser -- then you might see a big shift to Barr. But so far that perception hasn't taken hold.
D.C. Cyclist hit by garbage truck
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 3:30PM
This morning at 7:37 a.m., just a few blocks from where I was exercising with a friend, tragedy struck a 22-year old girl:
D.C. Police this afternoon identified the cyclist as District resident Alice Swanson, although no other details about her were released.
Swanson was struck at 7:37 a.m., D.C. police spokesman Kenny Bryson said. An officer in the uniformed division of the Secret Service was nearby and pulled her from under the truck to administer CPR, said Alan Etter, a spokesman for the D.C. Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
She could not be revived.
There are four of us in the office that regularly bike. It's the easiest mode of transporation in this town, but the refrain in my explanation to others has always been that D.C. drivers are truly reckless. While it's not clear, based on this story, whose fault it is, I'm reminded of a number of situations in which I learned important lessons about life, death, and balancing the two on a two-wheeled, man-propelled vehicle. Chief among these is that no one seems to be aware of the need to yield to bikes. And cyclists don't realize how the drivers are unaware of this, thus taking their safety for granted.
I don't think more bike lanes solve the problem, because they're usually not well-marked, and cars don't look for bikes in their rearviews. I'd suggest more signs around town reminding drivers to check their mirrors for cyclists.
Something also worth mentioning is that I've seen the garbage trucks in this town going way over the speed limit especially early in the morning. You can hear them from a while away, and when you're on something so small, wouldn't your first reaction be to get away from it?
Congress: Even Less Popular Than Bush
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 3:02PM
And that's really saying something. One poll has Congress's approval rating at 12 percent. Rasmussen has it in single digits, with just 9 percent saying the Congress is doing a "good" or "excellent" job. It sounds remarkable, but it really shouldn't be surprising: the people who voted for the Democrats to end the war, lower energy prices, and expand government health care haven't gotten what they wanted. Those who dislike Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi haven't gotten what they wanted either. So who would approve of this Congress?
Re: Love Story
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 1:31PM
"Hope for a better life, vote for one"?!
At the moment, I'm hoping for a better candidate.
Gene Healy, Call Your Office
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 1:12PM
Don't hope for a better life, vote for one? Cult of the Presidency, indeed.
Love Story
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 12:15PM
John McCain is out with a bio-ish ad with a culture war twist. It starts by contrasting hippies partying during the "summer of love" with McCain "half a world away" displaying "another kind of love -- of country."
Risky Fiorina
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 12:06PM
Dana Milbank reports from a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with fromer HP CEO and top McCain economic surrogate Carly Fiorina, and explains why she would be a "risky" VP pick for McCain. She would be a problematic pick because she's never had to run for political office and brings corporate baggage , plus she's a blank slate on most issues that matter to conservatives.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 12:06PM
Kissinger on U.S.-Russia relations
It's a little late to rescind Mugabe's honorary degrees
G8 asked to curb their greenhouse gas emissions
Church of England split on women bishops
Who's Afraid of Bob Barr?
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 11:45AM
Steve Kornacki has a column in the New York Observer arguing that Bob Barr's national poll numbers are "wildly inflated right now" and that there "is really no reason to believe that Barr will do any better than any previous Libertarian candidate." Maybe. As I've said before, third-party challenges from the right have fizzled in recent years so it's not unreasonable to bet against Barr. And with Ralph Nader currently polling better than he actually ran in 2000, much less 2004, it's possible that his current poll numbers are inflated.
Nevertheless, Kornacki's case really isn't as airtight as he seems to think. For one, he points out that Ron Paul didn't effect the outcome of the 1988 presidential race, even though he was a former Republican congressman and there was conservative discontent with George H.W. Bush. But Paul wasn't anywhere near as big a national figure in 1988 as he became after his 2008 presidential campaign. Paul always enjoyed a national cult following but in the pre-Internet era he wasn't anymore famous across the country than Harry Browne.
Second, the political environment was very different twenty years ago. While there was always conservative discontent with Bush, conservatives simply felt better about the Republican Party after eight years of Ronald Reagan than they do now. Conservatives didn't even try that hard to beat Bush in the Republican primaries. One of the examples Kornacki cites as evidence actually bolsters my point: In 1988, even Howard Phillips wasn't publicly endorsing Paul and was instead telling the New York Times that he backed Bush. Phillips tried to run to the right of Pat Buchanan in the 2000 presidential election!
Buchanan actually would have been a better example for Kornacki than Paul. When Buchanan bolted the GOP for the Reform Party in the fall of 1999, he was getting a John Anderson-sized share of the vote in national polls. He had run second in the 1996 Republican primaries, taking more than 3 million votes. He was among the best known conservatives in the country. On election day, he got a little over 0.4 percent of the vote -- barely beating the Libertarian nominee for fourth place and receiving a lower percentage of the popular vote than did Paul in 1988. Part of this was due to the closeness of the Bush-Gore race. So far, polls show McCain-Obama to be close too.
Yet even here there are differences. Barr is running in a much more favorable issue environment than Buchanan. Barr had to slog through six ballots to win the Libertarian nomination, but Buchanan had to battle a rump faction of the Reform Party in dueling conventions and in court. And finally, John McCain is not the George W. Bush of 2000.
Maybe Barr's actual numbers will be much lower than what the national polls suggest. But I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that he does better than the Brownes and Badnariks. Even if he isn't a Ralph Nader, he could be 2008's John Schmitz. Schmitz, a more obscure Republican congressman than either Barr or Paul, didn't effect the outcome of the 1972 presidential election but he still got 1 million votes.
Google and Us
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 11:32AM
This note was just posted on our main site:
Obama's European Odyssey
Posted by on 7.8.08 @ 7:41AM
The Chicago Tribune reports that Barack Obama will spend at least four days later this month traveling to Europe and the Middle East:
The French news agency Agence France-Press reports that French President Nicolas Sarkozy will meet with Obama at the Elysee Palace on Friday July 25.
In Israel, Obama is expected to arrive on Tuesday July 22 or Wednesday July 23 for a two- or three-day visit to include a meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which cited a report in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot.
As I wrote last week, this is a risky political move by Obama. While incumbent presidents often schedule foreign-policy events during campaign years to highlight the prestige of the office, the spectacle of a challenger gallivanting abroad is something unusual -- especially since the basic message the Democrat intends to send is, "Look! Foreigners love me!" The backlash potential is huge.
And the prospect of Obama giving a speech at the Brandenburg Gate . . . well, I guess his handlers aren't giving too much credence to concerns that the candidate might be perceived as arrogant.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Re: The Barr Factor?
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 5:16PM
Violating my own advice to Jim Antle, the latest poll from Georgia:
- McCain 46%
- Obama 44%
- Barr 4%
The Libertarian's percentage is greater than the difference between the Democrat and the Republican. We await the Obama campaign's denunciation of Barr as a "spoiler" who's taking away votes from their candidate.
Re: Rich Lowry, Campaign Consultant
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 5:10PM
"He Seems to Need More Help" -- now there's a winning slogan!
McCain vs. Mount Everest
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 5:06PM
Stuart Rothenberg assesses the status of the presidential race:
Given all of this evidence, Obama has a far easier road to the White House than Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). The Illinois Senator merely has to take advantage of the political current, while McCain must swim against it, persuading voters to support him in spite of his party and Bush's performance.Rothenberg clearly underestimates the value of Rich Lowry's services as a campaign consultant.
Finally, Obama is a great orator, while McCain is not. The Arizonan has a wonderful story to tell and is a true American hero, but he is not nearly as charismatic as Obama. And he is 71 years old, which does not present an ideal visual contrast with the Democrat.
This isn't a tough climb for McCain -- it's a veritable Mount Everest.
Re: Rich Lowry, Campaign Consultant
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 5:02PM
I think McCain gets more unsolicited advice because he seems to need more help.
Rich Lowry, Campaign Consultant
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 4:53PM
Being a magazine editor? Boring. Being a Republican sloganeer? Exciting.
Obama leads in the polls and in campaign cash, but McCain's definitely way ahead in the amount of unsolicited advice he gets from journalists.
More Helms
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 4:31PM
Bush chief speechwriter Marc Thiessen makes a decent case for why our memory of Helms shouldn't be frozen in the 1950s and '60s.
Re: Admiring Jesse Helms
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 4:17PM
Actually, I don't take for granted that the anecdote is true. But others, like the "University of Negroes and Communists" line, are fairly well documented.
Webb Rules Out VP Slot
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 4:03PM
Well, so much for that. It wasn't quite as Shermanesque a statement as Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's, but it sounds like Jim Webb has pretty firmly ruled out being Obama's running mate. All that's left is us columnists and our fevered dreams of what might have been.
Re: Admiring Jesse Helms
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 4:03PM
James, excuse my uncharitable skepticism, but why do you take for granted that the Sojourners columnist's anecdote is true? Liberals lie about such things habitually and routinely. The anecdote that they claim is seared in their memory (which also conveniently vindicates their liberal politics) is almost always a laughable exaggeration, if not an outright fiction. Remember Bill Clinton and the non-existent Arkansas church arsons of his youth?
Admiring Jesse Helms
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 3:51PM
Matt Yglesias passes along an anecdote about Jesse Helms saying something unflattering about interracial marriage while criticizing some college protesters, concluding snarkily "And George Bush, Mitch McConnell, National Review, and the Heritage Foundation admire [Helms] greatly." As if any of them admire Helms because of his 1960s racial views rather than in spite of them.
The "hands" ad was perfectly legitimate and a factually accurate description of the impact racial preferences can have on white workers. But Helms did have an actual, regrettable record as a racial segregationist early in his career (though he did in fact shift toward color-blind rhetoric and policies later in his career, even if he didn't apologize for his past statements). He defended policies that hurt and denied opportunities to his black fellow Americans. Conservatives should not minimize that or pretend he was an early Ward Connerly. Neither should they discard all recognition of Helms's real, substantial, and, yes, admirable accomplishments just because he was, like all of us, a product of his time and place. Perhaps Yglesias should have read that Soujourners article for its message of charity as well as for its anecdotes.
Re: The Barr Factor?
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 3:49PM
Jim, you'd better be careful what you say about a certain candidate's 6% showing in that Zogby poll. Having been chewed out by my conservative friends for covering a certain campaign -- one editor actually warned me that such coverage would be bad for my journalism career -- I've tried to avoid raising the topic here lately, for fear of offending those who insist that Ob-Bay Arr-Bay must be ignored.
What's the Matter with Republicans?
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 2:57PM
There was a thoughtful letter in Reader Mail today in response to my June article on the Ohio Republican Party. I'll reproduce it here because I think it has some national implications:
I appreciated W. James Antle III's piece on the Ohio Republican Party, particularly his concession at the end of the piece that 2006 Republican gubernatorial nominee J. Kenneth Blackwell, despite striking all the right conservative notes, was swamped by his opponent, Democrat Ted Strickland. I would direct Antle, and your readers, to political scientist John Fenton's 1960s book "Midwest Politics," which branded Ohio's politics as "issueless."Blackwell ran an issues campaign: He talked about a constitutional amendment that would have limited state spending growth -- that is, before the state's sane moderate wing persuaded him to throw it out because it was disastrously worded -- and leasing the state turnpike. Strickland, meanwhile, ran on a platform that supported grandma, apple pie and the American Way.
Throw out the Democratic tidal wave in 2006; Blackwell never would have won modern Ohio, which, as Fenton noted, likes bland politicians who don't rock the boat. Politicians who, as legendary Ohio GOP Chairman Ray Bliss put it, keep issues out of campaigns. Despite sending two bedrock conservatives, John W. Bricker and Robert Taft, to the Senate in the middle of the last century, the leaders of the Ohio GOP since the 1960s have largely been moderate. Four-term Gov. James A. Rhodes loved big bond issues; George Voinovich and Mike DeWine, Ohio's two recent GOP senators, were decried as "RINOs" -- Republicans In Name Only -- by their conservative detractors in Ohio.
Better a RINO in Ohio, because, here, "true conservative" is a euphemism for "loser."
Obviously, I don't entirely agree with this. My correspondent is right that Ohioans tend to be nonideological, which is why such a nondescript Republicanism was able to gain power there in the first place. But ultimately, the GOP was brought low by its "sane moderate wing." Moderate Gov. Bob Taft was enormously unpopular and every bit as much a liability to Ohio Republicans as the national party. Moderate Sen. Mike DeWine went down to defeat by 12 points, losing to a Democrat who would have been too liberal to win statewide less than ten years ago. Uber-moderate Betty Montgomery lost her race for attorney general, albeit narrowly. Moderate Jim Petro would have lost the governor's race too, and conservative Ken Blackwell won statewide three times before 2006.
That said, there is something to the critique. Most voters aren't ideologues in Ohio or most other places, though many of them may be partisans. Some conservatives, even promising and talented ones, run for office as if it is their mission to implement Heritage Foundation white papers. Blackwell was one such candidate. Steve Forbes was another. There's nothing wrong with Heritage Foundation white papers -- the country would usually be better run if they were implemented -- but people vote for political programs they connect with personally. The average voter isn't an ideologue or systematic political thinker. Campaigns that try to appeal to them on that level are likely to fail.
Obamatarians
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 2:19PM
From the San Fran Chronicle:
"I do know libertarians who think Obama is the Antichrist, that he's farther left than John Kerry, much farther left than Bill Clinton, and you'd clearly have to be insane to vote for this guy," said David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "But there are libertarians who say, 'Oh yeah? Do you think Obama will increase spending by $1 trillion, because that's what Republicans did over the past two presidential terms. So really, how much worse can he be?' And there are certainly libertarians who think Obama will be better on the war and on foreign policy, on executive power and on surveillance than McCain."
This is something I often hear from libertarians, and it strikes me as absolutely inane. The fact that spending has grown by $1 trillion under President Bush is irrelevant to choosing a president this time around. The only thing that should matter is who is better on spending between Barack Obama and John McCain. During the Bush years, McCain opposed many of the spending initiatives that drove up the cost of government. He never requested an earmark, voted against the energy bill, and the farm bill, and even campaigned in Iowa against ethanol subsidies. Obama has the opposite view of McCain on all of these issues, and has proposed hundreds of billions in new spending, including a health care reform package that creates a new government run Medicare-like entitlement as an alternative to private insurance. Furthermore, in 2006, some libertarians were arguing for a Democratic takeover of Congress under the theory that divided government produces the most spending restraint. Along these lines, McCain has promised, if elected, to veto any bill with an earmark in it. By contrast, Obama would be a rubber stamp for any initiatives proposed by the Democratic Congress. It's one thing for libertarians to vote for Obama because they think his foreign policy views (whatever they are today) are closer to their own, but voting for him over McCain because they think that President Bush spent too much money makes absolutely no sense.
The Barr Factor?
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 1:30PM
In addition to projecting a convincing Electoral College lead for Barack Obama, this Zogby poll shows Bob Barr polling at 6 percent nationally. Barr takes 7 percent of conservative or very conservative voters, 11 percent of independents, and 43 percent of self-described, small-l libertarians. Unlike the CNN poll last week, Zogby has Ralph Nader at less than 2 percent. Obama leads McCain 44 percent to 38 percent, according to the poll.
The assassination that wasn't!
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 12:15PM
Foul play gone awry in Rome has left the Iranian President alive -- and ticked off:
He said that the regular radiation level of such equipment in
Italy was "300" but on this machine it had reached "800".
Thankfully, Ahmadinejad was wearing his trusty tin-foil hat to prevent the X-ray from scanning his brain!
Obama Boldly Opposes Abortion in Cases of Blueness
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 11:47AM
Abortion has become the latest issue where Obama has attempted a maladroit move to the center. In an interview with a Christian magazine, he said:
I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.He also tries to spin his vote against a bill in the Illinois legislature that extended legal protection to children who survive botched abortions. But Obama's comments on "mental distress" being an invalid health exception to a late-term abortion ban go against the standard set by Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade. It also contradicts Obama's co-sponsorship and continued support of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would among other things essentially codify the Roe/Doe regime, including requiring mental-health exceptions that would render most late-term abortion bans essentially meaningless.
Now, via Yuval Levin, I see that Obama has moved to clarify his position:
My only point is this -- historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is ..I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case.
I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, it can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that is important to emphasize and understand.
It isn't clear to me whether Obama is promising to make mental-health exceptions more rigorous or whether he is (falsely) claiming that the existing definitions are more rigorous than some pro-lifers would have people believe. But this does seem to be another case of Obama trying to move to the right and then take all the substance of his shift back.
UPDATE: John McCormack has more.
The High Cost of the Internet (In Iran)
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 11:44AM
Internet usage is about to become an even riskier business in Iran. Iran's parliament, the majles, is now reportedly considering a new law that would greatly expand penalties on what the regime deems inappropriate uses of the World-Wide Web. If passed the bill, which parliamentarians say is intended to "toughen punishment for harming mental security in society," makes offenses such as "establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy" a crime punishable by death.
Mile High Obama
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 11:25AM
This just hit my inbox:
I wanted you to be the first to hear the news.
At the Democratic National Convention next month, we're going to kick off the general election with an event that opens up the political process the same way we've opened it up throughout this campaign.
Barack has made it clear that this is your convention, not his.
On Thursday, August 28th, he's scheduled to formally accept the Democratic nomination in a speech at the convention hall in front of the assembled delegates.
Instead, Barack will leave the convention hall and join more than 75,000 people for a huge, free, open-air event where he will deliver his acceptance speech to the American people.
It's going to be an amazing event, and Barack would like you to join him. Free tickets will become available as the date approaches, but we've reserved a special place for a few of the people who brought us this far and who continue to drive this campaign.
If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person. Each of the ten supporters who are selected will be able to bring one guest to join them.
Make a donation now and you could have a front row seat to history:
https://donate.barackobama.com/openconvention
We'll follow up with more details on this and other convention activities as we get closer, but please take a moment and pass this note to someone you know who might like to be there.
It will be an event you'll never forget.
Thank you,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 10:57AM
Economy creates problems for both McCain and Obama
Conservatives set for platform fight with McCain
Iraq might set timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal
It was awfully easy to convince FARC that an NGO was there to help
G8 summit kicks off with Africa talk
British look at food prices and biofuels
McCain on the Budget
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 10:38AM
John McCain's economic speech today contains some good stuff about the budget, the strongest of which is this:
UPDATE: In a just completed McCain campaign conference call, Holz-Eakin reiterated McCain's support for a bipartisan solution.
The Democrats' Reagan
Posted by on 7.7.08 @ 10:18AM
This David Frum column strikes me as about right, assuming Barack Obama can, Reagan-like, close the sale and break out of his virtual tie with John McCain:
Not since 1964 has the Democratic party simultaneously won a majority of the vote for president while also increasing its representation in both Houses of Congress. There's a very realistic possibility that they will do just that this year. Which opens the question: Then what?Will they launch a dramatic policy revolution, as Reagan did in 1980? The temptation to try will be strong, perhaps overwhelming. But what kind of revolution? How far left will they go? They are not saying, and probably they do not know.
Policy revolutions are risky things. If they succeed, as Reagan's succeeded, they can transform a nation and realign politics for a generation. But if they fail, they can recoil in disaster. After all, George W. Bush also tried to launch a policy revolution, and look where he and his party are now.
Two things ought to give conservatives some degree of confidence. The way Obama has campaigned recently makes it seem less likely that he'll succeed as a "liberal Reagan." Second, policies have to actually work for a policy revolution to succeed. Policies that slow economic growth to a crawl and exacerbate pressing national problems aren't the stuff that make lasting national majorities. Then again, it can take a while for policies to fail. And programs like national health insurance tend to create lasting constituencies for the party of government no matter how well or poorly they work in the long run.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Video: Pyro-Dad's 2008 Fireworks Show
Posted by on 7.6.08 @ 1:33PM
One of the guests* pronounced this year's show "Better than Epcot!"
The finale starts kicking in about the 2:45 mark of the video, which was recorded by one of the guests. At the end of the video, you'll hear somebody yelling, "Stacy McCain!" That's Darryl, the proprietor of "Camp FUBAR," the lakefront property in Alabama where we shot the show.
Also during the video, you'll hear someone say, "I'm getting rained on" -- i.e., some of the debris was falling on them. That's one reason that a good consumer fireworks show is actually better in some ways than a professional display. When you're only 100 feet from the firing station and the shells are breaking directly overhead, it sometimes feels like you're actually inside the finale.
(*OK, so this particular guest was on her fourth margarita. But the compliment was sincere.)
