- 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 19, 2008
NYT Pushing Mitt for VP?
Posted by on 7.19.08 @ 8:11PM
Hate to break Quin Hillyer's heart, but John McCain's favorite newspaper, the New York Times, seems smitten with Mitt:
These days Mr. Romney, a telegenic former Massachusetts governor, is serving as a wingman extraordinaire for Mr. McCain on cable television. He has dutifully raised money for Mr. McCain. And Mr. Romney has developed a reputation as a campaign surrogate who can talk fluently about the economy, and who has roots in Michigan, an important swing state. . . .Perhaps resident vice presidential expert Jeremy Lott will weigh in here.
Mike Murphy, a political consultant who has worked for both Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney, said that he thought both men would be able to get along, and forgive things said in the heat of battle.
"McCain is like a character in a John Wayne movie," he said. "His best friend is often the guy he just had a bar brawl with -- as long as he won."
Re: Dickie Flatt for Treasury Secretary
Posted by on 7.19.08 @ 7:20PM
Jim, I don't get it. Since when did leaking to Novak become a firing offense? Everybody leaks to Novak. That's how political operatives know they've really arrived in D.C. -- being quoted anonymously as the "senior administration source" in a Novak column.
Dickie Flatt for Treasury Secretary
Posted by on 7.19.08 @ 5:14PM
Phil Gramm's departure from the McCain campaign is bad news for fiscal conservatives. It means that McCain may well end up getting economic advice from someone worse. And the strongest free-market argument for McCain was that someone like Gramm would be setting policy as treasury secretary in a McCain administration. But if the McCainiacs don't want to associate with him as a behind-the-scenes adviser, they surely won't appoint him to a high-level post that requires Senate confirmation.
Ramesh Ponnuru says that Gramm's resignation appears to have happened because the former senator's rivals in the McCain campaign were up in arms over this Robert Novak item. One hopes they were personal rather than policy rivals.
Obama's Foreign Trip: Gain or Loss?
Posted by on 7.19.08 @ 4:42PM
Barack Obama arrived in Afghanistan today to begin his weeklong overseas excursion. Will it help or hurt him? As of today, the Gallup tracking poll has Obama ahead by 2 points (45-43%) and Rasmussen has Obama tied with John McCain (46-46%), and the Real Clear Politics average is Obama by 4.2 points.
The trip will be over by July 27 and, allowing three weekdays of daily tracking polls to assess the overall impact, we should have a preliminary verdict in the Gallup/Rasmussen numbers of July 31, with other polls released in the following week to verify. So, if Obama's foreign adventure succeeds, he should have a definite lead in the two tracking polls by July 31. Otherwise . . .
Video: 'Worse Than a Flip-Flopper'
Posted by on 7.19.08 @ 2:44PM
That ad is by the non-profit group Let Freedom Ring, a fact in which the New York Times endeavors to find something scandalous.(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
Katie Couric Notices Obama's Critics
Posted by on 7.19.08 @ 1:57PM
Media Research Center's Brent Baker provides this transcript from Friday's CBS Evening News:
COURIC: Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, is about to begin a major overseas tour designed to bolster his foreign policy and national security resume, and help him be seen as a credible Commander-in-Chief and potential leader of the free world. . . . Our senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield tells us there is a lot riding on this trip. . . .A "misstep"? Is Greenfield suggesting that Obama is not infallible? Heretic!
GREENFIELD: Obama has little choice but to take the overseas gamble to shore up his credentials. . . . There's little question that throughout this trip Senator Obama will be walking a fine line. . . . This saturation coverage has already led the conservative blogosphere to offer blistering critiques of a liberal media slavishly treating Obama as a pop star. But, of course, Katie, the sheer presence of media in no way guarantees favorable coverage. In some ways, it makes the possibility of a misstep that much more dangerous. (Emphasis added.)
Audio: Spectator & Andrea Shea King
Posted by on 7.19.08 @ 1:40PM
Click here to hear audio of Andrea Shea King's Blog Talk Radio interview with myself and Philip Klein, discussing our recent columns about Barack Obama.
Obamamania Hits Kabul
Posted by on 7.19.08 @ 11:27AM
Throngs of enthusiastic Afghan admirers, lining the streets and shouting "Yes, We Can!" -- well, none of that is actually in the New York Times story online today, but by the time the editors get it ready for A1 of Sunday's print edition . . .
Friday, July 18, 2008
Obama Travel Briefing Book
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 7:46PM
From the McCain campaign via Marc Ambinder (click the image to download in Word format):
No Marriage, Says Megan
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 6:40PM
Megan McArdle, the lone lady in the otherwise all-male Atlantic Monthly blog lineup, has apparently decided to spurn her many suitors:
I assume that contrary to the popular stereotype, men actually must do much better out of marriage than women do, because society expends so much energy on telling women that they cannot be happy unless they marry, and trying to make sure they can't be happy by stigmatizing women who don't.In her fierce resistance to the efforts of "society" to impose marriage on her, Miss McArdle somehow reminds me of another headstrong heroine:
Judging McCain on Judges
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 5:58PM
Gerald V. Bradley disagrees with Bruce Bartlett's Politico column about John McCain's reliability on judges. Some of Bradley's arguments are right -- there is no perfect way to prevent another John Paul Stevens, though the establishment of well credentialed conservative legal networks like the Federalist Society offers some assurance -- but this one strikes me as wrong: "[I]t is McCain and not Obama who has the sense of the Senate on judges - and the sense is that Roberts and Alito are confirmable. The most obvious lesson is that, if McCain nominates more Alitos and Robertses to the Court, they will be confirmed... Bartlett does not explain why the politics of the Roberts/Alito battles have changed dramatically."
The politics of judicial confirmation have changed since Roberts/Alito in one fairly obvious way: Roberts and Alito were confirmed by a 55-45 Republican Senate. They could only be defeated by Democratic filibuster. The next president's judicial nominees will almost certainly have to be confirmed by a majority Democratic Senate, one where the Democrats have a larger majority than their current 51-49. They can be be voted down by a majority of the full Senate.
Roberts peeled off enough Democratic votes to have won confirmation even in a Democratic Senate -- assuming the pressure on Senate Democrats to resist Republican judicial appointments doesn't increase with their majority -- but Alito didn't. Alito got just four Democratic votes, seven less than Clarence Thomas in 1991. If the Democrats pick up four Senate seats this year, they can vote a Sam Alito down without a filibuster.
Time Warp at the Open
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 4:33PM
It's as if Boris Becker had walked onto the courts of Wimbledon a few weeks back at the age of 40-something (or whatever he is) and proceeded to win his first four matches without losing a set. That's how amazing it is that 53-year-old Greg Norman, who has been retired in all but name for about seven years, is in solo second place at the British Open. The wonders of the rejuvenative powers of Chris Evert!!!! (Norman and Evert married each other less than three years ago after, well, carrying on, as they say, for a while, apparently.) People should remember that Norman, the Great White Shark, was by far the most galvanizing figure in golf for about 12 years straight. He had almost the athleticism of Tiger Woods (he looked like he would be comfortable on a professional soccer team, or as a free safety in the NFL, or something) while hitting his drives straighter than Tiger; he had an ability second only to Jack Nicklaus to "man up" after a defeat and give credit to the victor; he unfortunately displayed all the brains under pressure of Phil Mickelson; and he famously had the ill-fatedness of Job or perhaps of somebody from a Greek tragedy. And now, out of the mists of time, he's back, heading into the weekend rounds in the final (i.e. top) pairing!!
But that's not all. Tied for fourth is David Duval, the onetime top player in the world whose skills fell off the face of the earth for about seven years (beginning almost immediately after winning the British Open in 2001), much like 1991 champion Ian Baker-Finch, now relegated to the TV tower after being unable to find a double-wide fairway if his life depended on it.
Tied with Duval is Rocco Mediate, proving that his epic battle with Tiger last month was no fluke and proving that 45-year-olds still "got game" for more than one flukish week. Finally, lurking just 5 strokes back in a tie for 16th, still very much in the hunt, is Jean "Triple Bogey" Van de Velde, who somehow crawled out of the wee burn at Carnoustie only to fall prey to a mysterious illness so seemingly grave that he was the subject of an elegaic feature just a year or two ago, as if he weren't long for the world.
Norman, Duval, Rocco, and Van de Velde: If this isn't a time warp, then it's the Twilight Zone. Amazing stuff.
(Finally, as an addendum, it is worth noting that the players at +9 who just barely squeaked in below the cut line include a veritable feast of superstars and/or Ryder/PResident's Cuppers: Ernie Els, Davis Love III, Michael Cambell (former US Open champ), Lee Westwood, Paul Casey, Nick O'Hern, Andres Romero, and Lucas Glover. Believe it or not none of them is too far back, under this week's conditions, to be out of contention for the title.)
McCain "Troop Funding" TV Ad
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 3:39PM
With Obama getting ready to head overseas, John McCain has a new ad out going after Barack Obama for being against funding for the troops.
Attention Student Journalists
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 2:56PM
Tomorrow, I'll be lecturing at the Leadership Institute's Student Publications School between 2 and 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Some of the other speakers at the two-day seminar include Daniel McCarthy of the American Conservative, Daniel Suhr of the Federalist Society, and Stephen Bird of the National Journalism Center. It will be held at the Leadership Institute's offices at 1101 N. Highland Street in Arlington, right across the street from the Clarendon Metro station. If you're a student interested in creating or perpetuating a conservative campus publication, you can register here.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 2:48PM
What they can do about pollution for the Beijing Olympics: nothing
The tab on Gore's energy plan: $5 trillion
Gitmo lawyer drops pants for press
Obama's misjudgment on the surge
Cox Against Naked Shorts
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 1:30PM
In Investors Business Daily, Chris Cox explains his decision to rein in "naked short selling" of financial stocks. Good stuff.
Boogyin' With Barack
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 1:04PM
In Case You Were Wondering...
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 12:14PM
...what insane people with such cushy lives they can spend half their social outrage time wailing apocalyptically over a discount retail chain thinks Wal-Mart's new logo should be...well, the suspense is over.
What Happens When You Take The Guns Away
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 11:55AM
On Monday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced a series of measures that he said would make it "completely unacceptable to carry a knife." The plan includes automatic prosecution for anyone over the age of 16 caught with a knife and doubling the maximum sentence for knife possession, to four years. It also sets up a $6 million advertising campaign to discourage young people from committing crimes with knives and a program to force perpetrators to confront their actions by, for instance, attending courses that describe what happens to stabbing victims.
"Peel the Bark Off of Barack"
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 11:29AM
Pat Buchanan agrees with Phil Klein on the New Yorker Obama cover.
More of Me on Judges
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 11:28AM
Here's my latest at The Washington Examiner. Short version: Specter and company have a good plan for fairness on judicial nominations, and it is timely, considering that Robert Conrad of North Carolina has waited a whole year, exactly, for the courtesy of a hearing.
Sick Society
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 11:12AM
Samir Qantar (also spelled Kuntar) was the leading militant released by Israel as part of the prisoner swap with Hezbollah in which Israel received the remains of two dead soldiers. In 1979, Qantar killed three Israelis -- he shot a father in front of his four year-old daughter, and crushed the young girl's skull with a rifle butt.
Despite the fact that he's a grizzly cold-blooded killer, not
only will he be receiving a hero's welcome in Lebanon, but it may
launch his political career:
In Lebanon, many consider it too early to discuss a possible political career while Qantar is still away from home. But some already see him as an MP or as a leading opposition figure. “As a resistance hero and a model of persistence, Qantar is destined to play a role on the political stage,†said Nazih Hamzé, Secretary General of the People’s Democratic Party, to which Qantar used to belong in his youth. The conditions of Qantar’s introduction to the Lebanese political stage, known for its complexity, still needs to be defined.
On Cox and Snow Together
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 10:47AM
In my post yesterday on Chris Cox's actions on short selling, in the penultimate paragraph, I wrote of an experience back in 1993 where I and Bob Livingston worked closely with Cox on a small matter that gave me a window into Cox's views on short selling. Amazingly, today I run across a blog by a guy who doesn't agree with that position, but who otherwise tells very accurately the rest of the story. I also wrote last week about how I first met Tony Snow because a top aide in Livingston's office was a friend and neighbor of Tony's. What I didn't write was that it was through this episode, described by this blogger, that I met Tony. It was this blogger who wrote the study that prompted Tony to write the story that prompted Livingston and me to follow up with Tony for more details and then start the little investigation that began with four congressmen and ended up basically with just Cox and Livingston leading it.
We actually unearthed some serious evidence that Hillary Clinton had good reason to know she would profit from her jihad against the pharmaceutical companies, but not in a way that was demonstrably illegal. But the tawdriness of her actions was missed by the public as a result of an errant (and rather unimportant) footnote in our report that mistakenly assumed a document was referring to Hillary's hedge fund, Value Partners, when instead the Hillary allies claimed that it was referring to the "value of the partnership," or something like that. Of course, the media, especially Newsweek, ignored the absolutely rock solid rest of the report (which soberly laid out the facts and made no extravagant claims) and seized on the errant footnote as if the footnote's side point were the key claim in our report, in order to dismiss the whole report as unreliable. But the truth was that Hillary was indeed part of a tightly held hedge fund group (I think I remember that the only three partners were Hillary, Webb Hubbell, and Vince Foster) that was short selling pharmaceutical stocks rather heavily just as Hillary's health care task force, and her public statements, were attacking the pharmaceutical companies and driving their stock price down.
The hedge fund manager did indeed report those shorted positions to the White House (and we think to Foster specifically) BEFORE Hillary's public anti-pharmaceutical statements. Tony Snow's column on it was absolutely correct in its essentials, and the little Livingston-Cox report on it was absolutely right, and Cox did a friggin' brilliant job explaining it all on TV -- again, in measured tones and terms -- before the errant footnote got in the way. And it was in the course of the lengthy meetings on the subject, sometimes with just Cox and one aide of his and Livingston and me in the room, that I saw first-hand the power of Cox's mind and also his essential fairness and thoroughness and decency. It was also during all of that that I first got to know Tony Snow a little bit, and found him to be the wonderful, generous human being who has so rightly been praised and missed so deeply by so many this week.
The Dark Knight
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 8:46AM
I caught the 12:01 a.m. showing last night/this morning, and have to say that it lives up to its billing. It really is less of a straight comic book movie, and more of a urban crime epic that happens to have some comic book characters. The acting was all superb, and Heath Ledger did really turn in an incredible performance as The Joker, much more haunting and less amusing than Jack Nicholson. Lots more to discuss in the film, but will wait until next week, after more people have seen it, because I don't want to spoil anything.
Krauthammer on Obama
Posted by on 7.18.08 @ 7:24AM
The first of what will likely be many negative reactions to Barack Obama's foreign excursion:
What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. . . .And then Krauthammer connects it to the developing meme:
Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? . . .
Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech.
Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? . . .Bon voyage, Obama!
His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Re: Obama's Exercise
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 9:56PM
Whaddya want, Philip, consistency from the establishment media? Lord forbid, next thing you know, you'll be expecting Barry Bonds to become a humanitarian. Seriously, these people are so far gone that they can't even RECOGNIZE their own double standards even if you point the double standards out to them. They'll just look at you blankly and say something like, "What's your point? Obama's not only incredibly fit, but he also went to Harvard Law! And it's just so cool to see somebody so vigorous who is running for president." Never mind that Bush went to Harvard for his MBA.....
Obama The Exercise Horse
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 6:15PM
My brother emails a good point, that today's news is playing up the fact that Barack Obama worked out for 188 minutes yesterday, creating the image of a young and fit candidate (who happens to be running against an old fella). But ever since he ran for office, and through out his administration, President Bush has been lampooned for the fact that he's an obsessive exerciser -- it has been cited as evidence that he's a lightweight who is lazy and isn't taking his job very seriously. Jonathan Chait once wrote in the L.A. Times that, "Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy." Somehow, I don't see that sort of reaction to the Obama news.
Tony Snow's Funeral
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 5:50PM
Tony Snow's funeral today, by the way, was a magnificent celebration of the life of this good man. I guarantee there were more than 2,000 people in attendance. President Bush's remarks were very nice, just the right tone. Tony's daughter sang, angelically. His brother gave a nice, heartfelt eulogy. His son read aloud the final paragraph from this wonderful column Tony penned last summer for Christianity Today. Do read the column; it is so beautiful I almost wept. Americans of every stripe should be heartbroken that Tony was taken from us. He spread joy and kindness everywhere he went. God blessed us with him. May God bless Tony's family with unfathomable comfort. Amen.
Re: Obama vs. Obama
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 5:48PM
Makes it tough to argue that Barack Obama has been consistent . . . or honest. What's amazing is that this hurts Obama without regard for whether you're pro-war or anti-war. It's the inconsistency, the attempt to have it both ways, the opportunism, the "just another lying politician" factor that hurts him. And it hurts him on the one issue where John McCain has been rock-steady from Day One. Obama ran as the anti-war candidate. He won the Democratic nomination as the anti-war candidate. And he has subsequently forfeited whatever value there was in being the anti-war candidate on Nov. 4.
Obama vs. Obama
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 5:38PM
The McCain campaign released a video of Obama's ever-shifting positions on Iraq. I think it's good compilation of where he's been, but at nearly 8 minutes, I wonder if it's too long to have an impact.
Larry Craig Talks About His Nozzle
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 5:31PM
Unintentional humor from Sen. Wide Stance:
At some point, he'll need to assign somebody on his staff to proofread his speech texts and look out for such unfortunate double-entendres. Notice you never hear Ted Kennedy say, "We'll cross that bridge when we get there."
Kmiec's Judicial Activism
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 5:10PM
Ramesh Ponnuru reads Doug Kmiec so I don't have to.
High Marks for Cox
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 4:53PM
SEC Chairman Chris Cox gets high marks from this knowledgeable blogger -- the SEC's equivalent of what SCOTUS blog is to the Supreme Court.Â
Re: Further Note on Treen
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 3:44PM
Yesterday I promised to provide excerpts of the speech on energy policy given by Louisiana then-Gov. Dave Treen to the Republican National Convention on his 52nd birthday back on July 16, 1980. The point is that not much has changed politically in 28 years. Treen was right then, and he's right now. After complaining that the Democrats repeatedly had blocked efforts to "lift controls on domestic oil," Treen went on to say this: "We have the solution to the energy crisis. It lies not in some new scheme for production of energy by government. It lies not in some vast bureaucracy allocating and rationing energy. it lies no other place than in the free market. Yes, the answer lies in freeing the imagination and initiative of all Americans to match energy supplies to energy demands.
"Permitting the law of supply and demand to operate in the energy field will deter wasteful use of energy; it will provide the incentive needed for the production of more of our traditional forms of energy -- oil and gas and coal; it will sput the genius of American technologists to find ways to convert our vast deposits of coal into readily usable forms of energy; it will produce other scientific breakthroughs; it will provide the capital to put into production new forms of energy made economically feasible by a pricing system which works in an atmosphere free of restraints.
"And the benefits to Americans will be enormous. We will eliminate the monumental cost to taxpayers of monstrous regulatory bureaucracies. We will lessen our dependence on foreign sources which imperil our national security. We will provide more and better jobs for people not only in new energy-producing industries, but all across a revitalized American economy."
Treen was outlining some pretty simple concepts, and concepts that proved abundantly true through the 1980s and 1990s. For the congressional Democratic leadership to still be arguing in the alternative is just mind-boggling. They are largely responsible for the high energy prices today, and the American people are surely smart enough to hold them accountable.
The Struggle to Make Collective Defense Sexy Again
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 3:27PM
D.C. Stonewalling on Heller?
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 3:16PM
Jacob Sullum says that even Heller himself might not get to register his handgun: "As I feared, the district's position is that all handguns that accept magazines holding more than 12 rounds-meaning 'all bottom-loading guns,' according to a local news report-are prohibited under D.C.'s ridiculously broad 'machine gun' ban. So even though Heller's pistol is a semiautomatic with a seven-round clip, it might as well be an Uzi as far as the district is concerned."
UPDATE: Robert VerBruggen e-mails to clarify that is not just the D.C. government's reading of their machine gun ban that produces this ridiculous conclusion, but the actual wording of the law itself.
Re: Wooly Willy Obama
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 3:15PM
Shawn, that brings up another point. Hunter thinks that Obama's time at the University of Chicago makes him more sympathetic to free markets because of the economics department. As an anti-war conservative, why isn't he worried about the possibility that Obama also has a soft spot for Straussian neocons?
What Respecting International Institutions Entails
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 3:15PM
Boy, Texas isn't going to like this much. There are apparently five Mexican nationals on death row in Texas whom Mexico feels didn't receive a fair trial. They took it to the World Court, which agreed. The Bush Administration, too, agreed, and pledged cooperation. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, was not keen on forcing Texas to accept the international court ruling. Thus, Mexico returns to the World Court and:
Re: Wooly Willy Obama
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 2:59PM
In his wonderful, revealing feature on Obama's life in Hyde Park--which really should be read in full--Andrew Ferguson got into the question of University of Chicago's conservatism:
Kudlow Comes Late To The Party
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 2:51PM
Today, Larry Kudlow writes:
Why does it seem to me that all Washington ever seems to talk about these days is bailouts? Bailout Freddie Mac. Bailout Fannie Mae. Bailout Wall Street. Bailout homeowners. Is it possible in America today that no one is allowed to fail?
You know, Phil Gramm was right. We are a nation of whiners. No one wants to believe that failure is an option anymore. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Or learning from your mistakes? Or going through transformative difficulties that just might change your life and your behavior? But it seems like failure is off the board nowadays and that it's government's job to rescue everybody.
I could hardly agree more, which is why, back in March, I warned the Bear Stearns bailout would set dangerous precedent. Too bad Kudlow, along with other so-called free marketers, supported it.
Hope. Change. Or Death.
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 2:33PM
Pro-Hillary PUMAs say they're now getting death threats from Obama supporters. This comes in the wake of a HuffPo feature about diehard Clinton supporter Ricki Lieberman. The raw ugliness of the Obama-Hillary fight, like the equally ugly Ned Lamont campaign in 2006, is a permanent rebuke to Democrats who've blamed Republicans for "incivility" and "divisiveness" in Washington.
Wooly Willy Obama
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 1:59PM
Larry Hunter, a supply-side conservative who has a piece on our main site today opposing Canadian drug reimportation, takes to the NY Daily News to explain why he plans to vote for Barack Obama. Hunter's argument is mainly rooted in the fact that he's an anti-war conservative, but his assumptions about Obama on domestic policy are utterly ridiculous.
Hunter writes:
Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.
This is an argument that I come across from time to time, and it makes no logical sense at all. The fact that Republicans haven't keep true to their promises to restrain spending has no bearing whatsoever on whether Obama will restrain spending, or how he stacks up against John McCain, who has been one of the few Republicans good on spending. Obama has already proposed more that $600 billion in new spending for his first term, and it's only July.  That includes his plan to nationalize health care, spend an additional $15 billion a year on his energy plan, $6 billion more a year on infrastructure, $18 billion more on education, doubling our foreign development assistance to $50 billion, and so on. Obama supported the farm bill and energy bill, McCain opposed both. Obama accepts earmarks, but McCain has promised to veto any bill containing earmarks. Beyond that, if Hunter won't take Obama at his word on domestic issues, than how can he be so confident that Obama will keep his word on national security issues, Hunter's primary rationale for supporting him? After all, Obama already disappointed civil libertarians on FISA -- something that Hunter doesn't address. Â
Hunter continues:
Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the
University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That's got to rub off.
While it's true that the economics department of the
More Hunter:
When it comes to health care, I am hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect. And in any event, McCain's plans in this area are deeply problematic, too. Take drug reimportation. McCain (like Obama) says he's perfectly comfortable with this ill-conceived scheme, which would drive research and development dollars away from the next generation of miracle cures.
I'll grant that McCain's position on this issue is indefensible, but I certainly won't be "hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect." I remember attending a townhall meeting in
If Hunter wants to vote for Obama, that's his right. But if he wants to make an argument, he should rely less on hoping, and more on presenting actual evidence to back up his points.
With that said, this does illustrate one of the assets that Obama brings to the race. Since he's such a blank slate, it allows voters to believe whatever they want about who he is. He's the political equivelent of Wooly Willy. Â
Democrats: Time to Panic?
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 1:32PM
Democratic operative Susan Estrich, who ought to know, points out the obvious:
July polls don't tell you who's going to win in November. Just ask President Dukakis or President Gore, both of whom were well ahead in July and went on to lose in the fall. . . .
The polls make me nervous. Not desperate, not hopeless, not resigned, but nervous. Barack Obama should be ahead right now. Way ahead. . . . . But the fact that my old candidate Mike Dukakis was running better 20 years ago against George Bush than Obama is today against John McCain makes me nervous.
The latest Rasmussen tracking poll has it a tie (46%-46%) and five of the eight most recent national polls have Obama's lead at 3 points or less.
UPDATE: The Keith Olbermann of libertarians, David Weigel nominates Estrich for "stupidest column of the day." Weigel went to school in Chicago -- Northwestern University, to be exact -- and he's neutral toward Obama the way Harry Carey was neutral toward the Cubs.
The Downward Spiral
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 11:19AM
Conventional wisdom has it that the last days of second-term presidencies are a sorry sight to behold, and the Bush administration seems determined to prove the old adage correct. Yesterday, news broke that the White House was sending Undersecretary of State Bill Burns to the upcoming talks with Tehran in Switzerland this weekend. Burns is the highest-ranking member of the U.S. government to meet officially with the Iranian regime in twenty-eight or so years, and his participation in the discussions of the new "5+1" package is a major diplomatic coup for Iran. It is also marks a significant walking back of the dog by the administration, since the deal proffered by EU foreign policy czar Javier Solana to Iran last month does not expressly ask Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment entirely as a precondition to dialogue, but simply to freeze it at current levels. That distinction makes all the difference in the world, since even notorious skeptic Mohammed ElBaradei is now giving a one year estimate on Iranian nuclearization. Burns' participation, therefore, is tantamount to an implicit American acceptance of the idea of a nuclear Iran -- a fact that has certainly not been lost on folks in Tehran.
Sen. Gregg Says Gas Prices Will Decide Election
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 10:34AM
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), at a dinner in Washington hosted by The American Spectator last night, predicted that gas prices would be the dominant issue in this election, called Barack Obama a "transcendent figure" but a "blank page," ripped the tactics of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and branded earmarks a "fraudulent debate" that distracted attention from the entitlement crisis.
"This is not going to be a foreign policy election, and I think
McCain is focusing to much on it," Gregg said. "This election will
be about gas."
Gregg said the public is more passionate about gas prices than
it has been about any issue in his political career, perhaps since
HillaryCare.
If he were advising McCain, he said he would "start every day saying 'drill,' and end every day saying, 'drill.'"
He said Obama was not just another Jimmy Carter, but he was a "transcendent figure," and people generally like him because he represents something different at a time when the public wants something significantly different from Republicans.
Unless people are convinced he can't handle the gas prices situation, Gregg said, Obama will probably win.
Gregg endorsed Mitt Romney during the primaries.
When I asked him to describe his experiences with Obama as a Senate colleague, he said they were limited. He used to see him in the gym in the morning, and said Obama was in "great shape." But he didn't see him on the floor much, because Obama started running for president so soon into his freshman Senate term.
"I don't know who he is or what he stands for better than anybody else," Gregg said. "He's a blank page."
He did concede, however, that one has to respect Obama for what he's been able to accomplish having come out of nowhere.
Gregg also expressed concern about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, explaining that because so many banks hold their bonds, if they fail, it would reverberate throughout the financial system.
He had harsh words for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who he said was turning the Senate into the House of Representatives by using procedural mechanisms to stifle debate and the ability to add amendments in an effort to stymie Republicans and prevent Democrats from having to take tough votes.
By using a practice known as "filling the tree" Reid adds all sorts of amendments to a bill, blocking Republican efforts to add their own amendments. When Republicans filibuster, Reid will brand them as obstructionists, so he sees it as a win-win. Gregg said this was a troubling development for the Senate, and no other Majority Leader -- Republican or Democrat -- has behaved similarly.
Gregg was more optimistic about Republican prospects in the Senate than most, insisting that all of the Republican incumbents considered the most in danger would get elected including Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and John Sununu in his home state of New Hampshire.
The two reasons he gave were that they were all "exceptional candidates" and that McCain would do well in all of those states. He also said there is an undercurrent of opposition to Obama, when people get into the voting booth, they may ask themselves, "Do I really want somebody three years removed from the state senate to be president?" Gregg suggested that that's what happened when Hillary Clinton upset Obama in New Hampshire.
Gregg acknowledged that Republicans are in danger in open seats in Virginia, New Mexico, and Colorado and he also said a few incumbents not normally seen as vulnerable, may prove to be, but he wouldn't name names. In the end, he said he thought that Republicans would end the year two or three seats down.
Asked about John McCain's views on earmarks, he said that it was a "fraudulent debate" and a "straw dog" argument. Though they make for good one-liners, in reality, they represent a small amount of money compared to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which nobody has the courage to do anything about. He said a lot of lawmakers can get away with voting for all sorts of spending by opposing a small earmark here or there. But he's all for forcing their disclosure, and for making the lawmaker who asked for the earmark defend him or herself on the floor.
Obama Raises $52 Million in June
Posted by on 7.17.08 @ 8:57AM
So much for the idea that the delayed announcement suggested a weak haul. The Obama fundraising phenomenon continues. Remember, McCain only raised $22 million in June.
David Plouffe emails:
Philip --
Keep the Momentum Going I have some big news we want to share with you.
In the month of June, supporters like you helped raise $52 million. And together with the DNC, we now have nearly $72 million in the bank. That's a very strong financial position to be in.
But we remain at a massive disadvantage to our opponents.
As I mentioned in my video message earlier in the week, the McCain Campaign and the Republican National Committee finished June with nearly $100 million in the bank.
We can't stop now. It's going to take everything we've got to defeat John McCain and his allies in November.
Can you make a donation of $5 now to strengthen our movement for change?
https://donate.barackobama.com/junenumbers
I know this isn't the first time we've asked you for financial support, and it won't be the last.
We have developed a strategy -- a very aggressive strategy -- that will only work if our millions of supporters continue to contribute their time and their money.
That strategy will work, and it has to. The stakes are too high and the need for change too great.
But victory is only possible with your continued help.
We can't do this without you.
Thanks,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
UPDATE: The Weekly Standard questions whether Obama's burn rate makes his June haul less than it's cracked up to be, while Matt Lewis notes $20 million of funny business with Plouffe's announcement.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Re: McCain and the NAACP
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 5:19PM
Of course, Jim, there was zero prospect that John McCain would woo many black voters by his NAACP presentation, but that's never really the point of such ethnic pandering by Republicans. These gestures are actually aimed at suburban "swing" voters -- particular college-educated women -- who require reassurance that, contrary to the endless message of the liberal media, Republicans actually are not bigoted hatemongering racists.
It's the political obverse of the concern expressed by an Obama staffer at a Pennsylvania rally: "We need more white people."
Perception is reality in politics, and each party struggles to counter its own stereotypical image. Regardless of whether the GOP increases its share of minority voters, McCain's speeches to La Raza and the NAACP serve a political purpose as symbolism.
The politics of symbolism annoys jaded cynics like us, but the electoral impact can be very real. Consider Obama's upcoming overseas excursion as an example. The trip is a purely symbolic gesture intend to signal the Democrat's foreign-policy acumen, his ability to renew American popularity abroad, and his readiness for the role of Commander-in-Chief.
But then again, Democrats had a symbolic argument for why Mike Dukakis should take that tank ride . . .
Falls Church to Regulate Karaoke?
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 5:00PM
From the D.C. Examiner:
...
The owner said none of the young men involved in the karaoke-inspired dispute seemed particularly drunk, and noted that Gomez-Carreto was on his way out at the time, having already paid his bill.
This is the classic case in which someone would say, if the assailant had a license, guns make it easier to commit acts of violence. But what would have happened if a number of these folks had the benefit of concealed carry? Anti-gun activists suggest that we'd see a nasty fire-fight, but consider a world in which it's more likely that people nearby have firearms on their person -- do you think the assailant would take that risk?
UPDATE: Speaking of homegrown terror, one can't help but ask, after looking at this photo of Andy Dick: "WHY SO SERIOUS?"
Walking a Fine Line
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 4:48PM
France is in for the long haul. Two separate court cases highlight a country rift with religious-political strife. In June, a Muslim woman saw her marriage annulled when it came to light that she had lied about being a virgin. While feminists were outraged, the rule of that land states that an annulment can be granted if an "essential quality" has been lied about. More recently, a woman was denied French citizenship because she dons the traditional Muslim Burqa. According the the BBC, the woman, who lives with her French husband and three children, reports to have "never challenged the country's fundamental values." The French Urban Affairs Minister thinks otherwise. Humorously, in both cases, the French government protected women's rights by doing exactly the opposite of what the women in the cases would have preferred. What a tangled web we weave.
McCain and the NAACP
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 4:38PM
It doesn't sound like John McCain's speech to the NAACP today (shorter version: I like Obama and vouchers) will cause as much controversy as his speech to the National Council of La Raza. But it had even less potential to swing votes.
Somewhere Else
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 4:09PM
Liberals have perenially threatened to move to Canada if a Republican wins. Or France. But now I think I know what happens if the feminists don't get their pick for the Democratic nomination, thanks to a NYT headline: "Journeys: Belgium: A Lost World Made by Women."
Of course, if they do wind up there, I think they'll have a hard time growing accustomed to the traditions. Then again, I think it might be good for'em.
Panhandling for Change
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 3:11PM
Near my office, I am constantly accosted by underemployed young men who ask me the following: "Excuse me sir, but do you have a minute for Barack Obama?"
No, actually, I don't.
When Bad Candidates Collide
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 2:26PM
Wes Pruden asks the multi-trillion dollar question: "What happens if it turns out that we've nominated two unelectable candidates for president? Do we get our money back?"
Why Didn't We think of That?
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 2:20PM
From the Daily Telegraph:
Smoking tobacco in restaurants and cafes across Holland is now illegal, but customers are still allowed to light up pure cannabis cigarettes.
More yucks here.
Obama's Invisible Hand
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 1:52PM
I'm not going to write any articles on AmSpec about Obama for at least a week given the amount of attention (well-deserved, of course) he's getting. I'd suggest launching an Obama Fast, but the problem with doing that is that he'll then say something like this:
"I've always said that [Somethingorotheristan/Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan] won't be helped by [military aid/military intervention/continued military presence/money we send them/chocolates/toys]. This doesn't [contradict/change/bankrupt] what I said earlier, because it [is a natural evolution/doesn't exclude hefty caveats/perfectly complements the goals of some other foreign person]. The critics are all [playing politics/misrepresenting what I've said all along/being paid off by oil companies/confused by how brilliant I am]."
Anyway, all of this is to say that I want a large number of
Obama supporters to click
on this link (via Andrew Sullivan) and just tell me,
in earnest, the same things they've been telling me about Obama for
weeks. The Daily News
writes:
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.
"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which
cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of
U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
A campaign spokesman says Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
This gets down to what I said in my article on the New York Times op-ed -- that you might get away with flip-flopping in a speech, but flip-flopping in print is different. And while "Chicago politics" might have permitted such flaps, an entire nation is watching as he tries to employ the same tactics here.
Oddball Prediction
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 1:51PM
There's nothing like going out on a limb. I hereby predict that the winner of The Open Championship at Today Birkdale Golf Club in Southport England will be 2004 champion Todd Hamilton.
Others to watch, in addition to oddsmakers' favorite Sergio Garcia: Ernie Els, Fred Couples, Steve Stricker, Justin Rose, and Andres Romero. And look for 49-year-old Tom Lehman not to win, but to finish in the top 15.
We're safe. Finally.
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 1:20PM
Not sure of the details about it, but I just wanted to note for all our readers that we're no longer listed as distributing malware in Google.
Iraq Convergence?
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 1:18PM
While substantial differences obviously remain, it's worth noting that for all the back and forth between the campaigns, McCain and Obama are closer in their Iraq policy proposals than they've ever been. The Bush administration, without McCain's objection, is considering stepped up withdrawal from Iraq. McCain has suggested he would like the war to be more or less over by 2013 and his budget projections assume substantial withdrawals. (Some critics argue they would require near-total withdrawals.) Obama has indicated a willingness to withdraw more slowly than he originally proposed if facts on the ground warrant, without making the reduction in violence following the surge the only relevant fact. While his position is not conditions-based enough for the liberal hawks at the Washington Post it nevertheless has plenty of doves aflutter. I'm not the first person to notice this. McCain's position has been more consistent and stable, which gives supporters of the war more reason to trust him. Obama would still draw down troops faster than McCain. But the differences between the candidates on this issue are getting smaller, not larger.
Just In: Laura's Satellite Feed
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 1:00PM
Laura Ingraham is getting a bad rap for this video, courtesy of Gawker and Harry Shearer. Which is too bad, because it doesn't exactly show the sort of arbitrary rough behavior one would hope for from anyone with any degree of celebrity. She's really not bad at all when you note that she's clearly pointing out the things that need to be fixed. She doesn't seem arbitrary.
I can only speak as a sometime guest, but television news is the most chaotic arrangement I can think of.
Everyone is ridiculously young: It's not unusual to speak to about 4 or 5 people who have to be (at the oldest) about 23 years old prior to getting on your segment. Everyone is working on a bunch of shows, and there are usually a small number of grown-ups involved with all of them. Decisions are made at the last minute -- in part because of breaking news, in part because some folks are just too busy/hesitant to decide what to go with.
Booking happens that morning, usually done by a strange alliance between someone who has a long list of people who the show can invite, and a 21 year old with a communications degree and dreams of becoming a host. (This latter person will become the former in a few years, that is, if she doesn't get disillusioned and go to law school, get married, or go into PR. [And yes, "she" because there are way more women than men in television.])
The person who takes all the flack and looks ridiculous if the show doesn't go well is the host. That host is surrounded by these twenty-somethings, the technical crew, and the occasional adult. Sometimes the producers don't know when to stop speaking into the host's ear. Sometimes the teleprompter goes on the fritz. Someone misses something. Research (that is usually a bunch of articles pulled together by a twenty-something) is forgotten.
All of these things add to the pressure you feel when you've got to speak for 5 to 10 minutes to America's largest television audience, about something you might not be up to date on.
In other words, I'm surprised she's so collected. She's not as chipper and happy as that old Katie Couric tape -- who was lambasted for being mean, but frankly, ain't that bad.
Young Ladies Love...
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 12:35PM
Cox Testimony Yesterday
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 12:31PM
Nobody will be surprised at this, because I am so openly a fan of SEC Chairman Chris Cox, but it is worth positing that if the current financial woes had hit about 18 months later, Cox would have been in position to do a lot more to head them off -- in part because of reforms Cox already was in the process of making. Here's yesterday's testimony by Cox to the Senate Banking Committee, which shows a man firmly in control and readily believable, somebody who inspires confidence. It is worth noting several things: First of all, Cox mentions that new technology allows for greater success in tracking down illegal rumor-mongers/stock manipulators. What he doesn't say is that until Cox joined the SEC three years ago, the SEC was backwards technologically, and that it was specifically because of reforms pushed by Cox -- who long was by far the most tech-savvy member of Congress -- that the SEC has such technological prowess. Critics who don't know better will say tht Cox, on this front and on others, is fixing the stables after the horse is out of the barn. What they miss is that the sort of stuff Cox has done in response to the Bear-Stearns mess and other problems is stuff he was already working on before Bear Stearns collapsed, stuff nobody had worked on before, and that the measures he has implemented would have been implemented, under his direction, regardless of whether Bear Stearns collapsed or not; in short, he anticipated some of the problems and for the first time ever was getting the SEC in position to head them off, but the problems happened first. Another few months and the safeguards would have been in place -- or, put another way, if Cox had taken over the SEC in, say, 2003 instead of 2005, the safeguards probably would have been in place.
Likewise, he had begun asking for more statutory authority vis-a-vis investment banks before the Bear Stearns mess; as even Chuck Schumer noted, Cox can't be blamed for not exercising authority he didn't have in the first place. He now is getting that authority, via congressional action.
Finally, there may be some question about his announcement yesterday of new rules against naked (or semi-naked) short selling. Some critics have called it a panic move. It's just the opposite: It is the result of a longstanding Cox belief that short-selling can be abusive. I know this personally because of a small project I worked on with Cox when I was Bob Livingston's press secretary, during which I heard first-hand, in private meetings, Cox's strong beliefs on this issue. For the record, I agree with him: Short-selling is a form of market manipulation that amounts to betting against a company and in effect against the whole economy. If I remember correctly, the great James Glassman (longtime media giant and AEI fellow) once called short-selling, (and this is a quote from memory so it might be not exact, but the words I remember were:) "fundamentally unpatriotic." At the very least, the short sale itself ought to be done with actual, honest-to-goodness stocks, not with phantom stocks that haven't actually been borrowed yet. (It's sort of complicated stuff; if you don't understand the lingo, I suggest you do a web search for "short selling.")
All of which is to say that, watching the video linked above makes me sorry that Cox is relegated to talking about such technical stuff rather than outlining economic policy more generally. He is articulate and persuasive, but he suffers from a degree of fastidiousness that means he is hyper-vigilant against stepping outside of the bounds of his own authority. He just will not allow himself to be seen encroaching on somebody else's turf. More's the pity: He could do the cause a lot of good if he were out front in proposing and explaining the sound economic policies he has always believed in and that he effectively promoted in Congress.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 12:11PM
SEC to determine if markets were illegally manipulated
Was Teddy Roosevelt a conservative?
Guantanamo captive tape released
Belgium goes to war with itself
Further Note on Treen
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 11:32AM
It's worth noting that on the day before Ronald Reagan accepted the Republican nomination for president in Detroit in 1980, then-Gov. Treen, speaking on his 52nd birthday, made a pretty darn good address to the GOP national convention. His subject: Energy policy. His message: TANSTAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch. I have a copy of the speech at home; I will try to remember to post some quotes from it tomorrow. Why? Because if policy-makers had kept Treen's prescriptions in mind consistently since 1980, and done what he said, we would not be in the mess we're in today.
Happy 80th Birthday to a True Pioneer
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 10:40AM
Republicans and conservatives, especially in the South, should all send birthday wishes to David C. Treen of Louisiana, who turns 80 today. Treen put himself on the line again and again to build a two-party system in the one-party South, against what at first were impossible odds, and (at least for a while) much to the detriment of his own personal finances. When he finally won election as the first Louisiana Republican in Congress in the 20th Century, it sent a jolt through the state GOP and set the table for significant growth. In Congress, he served as one of the leading young conservative reformers of the 1970s. When elected governor in a close race in 1979, GOP registration jumped again, quite significantly -- helping set the table for the explosion of GOP growth in Louisiana under Ronald Reagan.
Treen also served as an early mentor to U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston, the single best chairman of the House Appropriations Committee ever (and the only one to actually cut actual dollars from domestic discretionary spending: $50 billion worth in just two years).
It is also very much to Treen's credit that he took strong, unshakeable moral stands against the meteoric political rise of neo-Nazi David Duke in the late 1980s and early 1990s. When other leaders cowered, Treen stood tall. It may seem in retrospect to have been an easy thing to do, but anybody who was there at the time knows just how effectively Duke had pulled a sheet over the eyes of much of the public and convinced people that he had shed the worst of his KKK/neo-Nazi past and was a new, Yuppified version of Ronald Reagan. The truth, of course, was quite the contrary, as Duke secretly maintained many KKK and neo-Nazi ties -- but it took somebody with Treen's reputation for conservatism and probity to make enough people look beyond Duke's carefully crafted TV persona and acknowledge the frightening facts.
At the age of 70, Treen tried to make a comeback in a special election for Congress in 1999, helping to dispatch Duke in the open "jungle" primary in the process. Treen was expected to win the runoff against David "D.C. Madam" Vitter, but was distracted in the final week when his grandson went missing on a Western hiking trip. Treen suspended his campaign and used every bit of his fame to rally a huge search for his grandson -- a search that was successful when one of the TV helicopters attracted by the story found the teenage grandson, safe but scared, in a remote area. Treen returned to Louisiana just a day or two before the election, only to find that Vitter had run an underhanded and dishonest campaign against him. Flyers went out in black neighborhoods, for instance, claiming ludicrously that Treen was an ally of Duke (despite Treen's strong record against Duke, his strong record as governor of appointing blacks to government offices, and Vitter's almost total silence against Duke in the races when it really counted). Buoyed by huge margins in Vitter's favor among the small slice of the district's electorate that was black, Vitter squeaked out a narrow victory, 61,661 votes to 59,849 for Treen. That race effectively ended Treen's career as a political candidate. But it cannot erase the services he performed for the conservative cause.
A good and decent public servant, Treen lives today in Mandeville, LA. Happy Birthday, Governor!
About that WaPost Editorial
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 10:01AM
The Washington Post editorial page for several years now has been what The New Republic of the early 1990s was: the voice of the constructive and thoughtful center-left. (I wish its news pages were as consistently fairminded.) But it's still definitely left of center, which is why that editorial (see post below) was so devastating. It is just incontrovertible now that Barack Justanotherlyingpolitician Obama was wrong -- dead wrong, dangerously wrong, pathetically wrong -- about the surge. The man has absolutely no business being commander in chief. His foreign/defense policy experience is narly nil, and his foreign/defense policy judgment is appalling. To see the Post point that out is an early indicator of where public opinion is headed -- which bodes ill for Obama's sickeningly messianic campaign.
Obama the Intransigent
Posted by on 7.16.08 @ 9:06AM
The Washington Post runs a devastating editorial against Obama's current position on Iraq. That's right, an editorial, not an op-ed. The editorial begins with a point that I've been meaning to make for awhile:
In October of 2006, Obama said, "Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now" Last January, when President Bush announced the strategy, Obama said, "I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." He also said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Obama was completely wrong. He won't admit it. He won't alter his policy now that the facts on the ground have changed. And yesterday, he had the gall to speak from a lectern with the slogan "Judgment to Lead."
While the Post editorial board is more sympathetic to the war than, say, the NY Times, it isn't exactly the Wall Street Journal either. The fact that they are starting to come down so hard on Obama for this is a sign that he isn't wearing well.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Hume Stepping Down at Fox News
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 6:01PM
Brit Hume, a top anchor and executive with Fox News since the channel was launched 12 years ago, plans to step down at year's end. But he won't disappear entirely.A sort of semi-retirement, it seems, with the younger Wallace stepping up and the other FNC news people moving a notch upward on the ladder.
Sources familiar with the situation say that Hume, 65, will give up his job as Washington managing editor and anchor of "Special Report." They say he is near a deal to continue with Fox in a senior statesman role, not unlike that of Tom Brokaw at NBC, for roughly 100 days a year.
In his new role, Hume would be a senior political analyst, anchor special events, serve as a panelist on "Fox News Sunday" and occasionally substitute for the host, Chris Wallace.
More on 'Gonzo'
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 5:16PM
Much like my own Gonzo review, The Washington Times' Scott Galupo saw an excess of politics in Alex Gibney's Hunter S. Thompson documentary:
"Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson" was wrapped at the same time as filmmaker Alex Gibney's last effort, "Taxi to the Dark Side," an Oscar-winning documentary about the Bush administration's controversial techniques for interrogating terrorist suspects."Drearily sententious" -- fine phrase. Elsewhere, the aphoristic Galupo attributes to Thompson "a theory and practice of journalism so idiosyncratic as to defy imitation." And rather than risk an idiosyncratic (if not indeed dreary) descent into inimitable sententiousness, let's just roll the clip:
Not coincidentally, "Gonzo" is overly pushy with Nixon-Bush and Vietnam-Iraq parallels, but if today's antiwar left were more like Hunter S. Thompson, perhaps it wouldn't be such a drearily sententious lot.
Joementum vs. Obama
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 4:32PM
Al Gore's 2000 running mate Joe Lieberman rips into this year's presumptive nominee:
I wish he would just say that the surge has worked. He doesn't have to give credit to John McCain or anyone else. He can give credit to General Petraeus and the troops who have carried it out. . . . A president's credibility is based on the courage of his or her convictions, his or her acceptance of reality, and consistency of views are critical elements of national leadership. A president who squanders those does so at our nation's peril. . . .In other words: Obama won't stand up to George Soros, MoveOn.org and DFA, so why should we believe he would stand up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas and al-Qaeda?
Sen. Obama said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that is tough, smart and principled. . . . Was it tough when Sen. Obama voted to order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders or conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Sen. Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve our security? ... Was it tough and principled when Sen. Obama said he would be open to changing his plan on Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus, which I think was the right position, only to change that position hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like MoveOn.org? I say respectfully the answer to all those questions is, no.
Bob Barr Selling Out?
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 4:14PM
Bob Barr's Libertarian presidential campaign is now engaged in the free-market enterprise of selling "Barr '08" T-shirts, hats and signs. Since the merchandise sales don't seem to be counted as FEC-regulated campaign contributions, it must be assumed that some greedy capitalist is behind this profiteering scheme. Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard would probably be pleased by the idea of a political campaign that turns a profit.
Perhaps to the disappointment of "Thirsty McWormwood," however, official Barr flip-flops are not listed in the inventory.
Pre-Coronation News
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 3:39PM
The Christian Science Monitor lavishes praise on Team Obama honcho David Axelrod:
As political scientists dissect just what happened between last fall and this spring, and how a junior senator with a funny name and little experience on the national stage was able to dethrone the Clintons, much of the credit will likely go to Axelrod - and to what is a pairing of candidate and adviser who are unusually well suited to each other.Two minor quibbles:
He's Obama's answer to Karl Rove, the big-picture architect of the campaign who always seems to have his pulse on what will resonate with voters. But he's also, say colleagues, a rarity among political advisers: someone who still carries the idealism that got him started in the business.
- What happened in the Democratic primary campaign has already been thoroughly dissected by journalists and bloggers, without assistance from "political scientists." The fact that Hillary was sailing along fine until Tim Russert tripped her up on Elliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens is conveniently omitted from the CSM tongue-bath testimonial to Axelrod's brilliance.
- Obama is still merely the Democratic nominee, and Axelrod is thus so far proven a genius only equal to the masterminds behind the campaigns of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, et al.
If hubris had a scent, the Obama campaign would be reeking of it, and you know it's getting bad when even such an enthusiastic Obamaphile as Andrew Sullivan has begun to complain of the aroma. Media adulation like the CSM profile of Axelrod is unlikely to deflate the supernova egos at Hope HQ. If their man ever slips a few points behind McCain in the Gallup poll, Axelrod will likely be surprised at how quickly he's demoted to the rank of ex-genius.
Finally: Obama Throws Himself Under the Bus
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 2:11PM
The newly pragmatic Barack Obama -- the one who promises to listen to U.S. military commanders in Iraq -- has attempted to make the old anti-war Obama disappear:
Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence. "The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004. (Emphasis added.)
Of course, as the pro-Hillary site No Quarter shows, the old anti-war Obama still exists in Internet caches, and this clumsy "surge purge" belies Team Obama's rep for 'Net savvy.
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out that the scrubbing occurred (a) just after the McCain campaign began slamming Obama as a flip-flopper on the Iraq war, and (b) barely a week before Obama's departure for a foreign trip that will include a visit with U.S. forces in Iraq.
Memeorandum has lots of links to the jeering that the blogosphere has unleashed at Obama's Orwellian reinvention of himself.
Foreign Press Not Allowed On Obama's Foreign Trip
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 1:48PM
In his speech today, Barack Obama called for "rebuilding our alliances" and declared that "now is the time for a new era of international cooperation." Indeed, much of his candidacy is based on the idea that he'll be a superior diplomat who will improve America's reputation abroad. Yet when he heads on a high-profile overseas trip this month, his campaign won't be allowing journalists from foreign media outlets to travel along, according to a U.S.-based correspondent for a prominent overseas news organization who I chatted with at the Obama speech. The new kind of international politics, I suppose.
Obama Forgets The Forgotten War
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 1:22PM
I just came back from the "major" Barack Obama speech on
I thought John McCain was strong on the latter point in his speech in
"Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to
Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."
In Defense of John McLaughlin
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 11:34AM
I love The McLaughlin Group like upper middle class white liberals love Barack Obama--which is to say, near unconditionally--so I admit I am no unbiased observer, but the furor over his use of the term "Oreo" this weekend does not hold up in any reasonable context. First of all, McLaughlin was clearly using the word in an attempt to label the root cause of Jesse Jackson's animus toward Obama--i.e., "the stereotype blacks once labeled as an Oreo--a black on the outside, a white on the inside." Jackson was the one being skewered here, and all the panelists used McLaughlin's cue to flail the bad Rev. and not Obama. Second, regular viewers of the show can attest that McLaughlin, while predictably skeptical and tough, has not been anything approaching an Obama-hater on his show and, indeed, at times has seemed quite warm towards his candidacy.
Obama's Dishonesty
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 10:17AM
It is worth noting that John Hinderaker yesterday did a brilliant take-down of Barack Justanotherlyingpolitician Obama's intellectually dishonest piece in the NYT on Iraq. As Jeffrey Lord entertainingly describes today, even the left is starting to realize just how dishonest their savior is. Particularly fun for me is that not only have so many lefties now explicitly called Obama a liar, but also, "Others on the left are now sneering that Obama 'is just another politician'." Of course, the combination of these two increasingly obvious truths is exactly why, a few weeks back, I vowed never to blog Obama's full name here without replacing his apparently unmentionable middle name of "Husse**n" with "Justanotherlyingpolitician." Now that the lefties cll him a liar and just another politician, I have been completely vindicated. I wish others would take up the cause. Because Obama is indeed just another lying politician. What was that? Was that not loud enough? Okay: JUST ANOTHER LYING POLITICIAN. Obama. Yes. Him.
Quit Laughing, I Said It's Not Funny
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 10:13AM
The New York Times has a front page story today on the kid gloves approach late night television hosts have been using on Barack Obama, explaining it away as a natural product of Obama's lack of "buffonish" qualities. Hence, the absurd headline, "Want Obama in a Punch Line? First, Find a Joke."
Abstract Obama
Posted by on 7.15.08 @ 8:09AM
There's lots of good stuff in Ryan Lizza's New Yorker profile of Barack Obama's years in Chicago that has been overshadowed by the cover art. Many conservative bloggers have noted Obama's absurdly naïve response to 9/11, as well as his unbridled political ambition and high self regard. But I found the following bit, in which Obama describes his days as a community organizer, as the most telling:
"But I didn't come out of a political family, didn't have a
history of activism in my family. So I understood these things in
the abstract. When I went to Chicago, it was the first time that I
had the opportunity to test out my ideas. And for the most part I
would say I wasn't wildly successful. The victories that we
achieved were extraordinarily modest: you know, getting a
job-training site set up or getting an after-school program for
young people put in place."
It's hard to think of any Obama quote that tells you more than you need to know about the man. He talks a big game about abstract ideas and theories and he's adept at ruminating about the failures of others, but when given the chance, he has never accomplished anything tangible himself. It's the difference between a critic and an artist, a sports writer and a star athlete, or a business professor and a CEO.
Of course, from a conservative perspective, this is comforting. If there is going to be a President Obama, I'd like for him to accomplish as little as possible.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Re: Barr's Flip-Flops
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 9:29PM
According to a highly-placed source, "Thirsty McWormwood" is not Karl Rove, contrary to my earlier (and completely unfounded) speculation.
McCain: 'Tolerance' vs. Pandering
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 6:13PM
Celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton (a/k/a Mario Lavandeira, who is openly gay) makes an excursion into politics with this "Quote of the Day" from John McCain:
"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption."
That's from a New York Times interview with the Republican. Keli Goff at HuffPo says:
Younger voters in particular, who have been raised in a world of Will & Grace and Ellen have become increasingly intolerant of intolerance.
Is Goff trying to suggest that, far from being mere light-hearted entertainment, these programs are effective propaganda for the gay agenda? Just a few years ago, as I recall, scorn and ridicule were sure to rain down on any conservative who dared suggest there was even such a thing as a "gay agenda," much less accused Hollywood of promoting it. Now that the triumph of "tolerance" is a fait accompli, I guess liberals don't mind discussing their sitcoms-as-subversion strategy.
Goff says reactions to McCain's quote "highlight a fundamental problem for John McCain as he tries to formulate a winning strategy for November: How to win an election decided by voters in the middle, while continuing to pander to voters on the right."
Two questions:
- Is support for gay adoption a sine qua non in reaching "voters in the middle"? In Montana (the state where Obama spent his Fourth of July holiday), voters in 2004 approved by a 63-37 margin a ballot measure banning gay adoption. This suggests that the Will & Grace agenda has not progressed as rapidly as Goff might believe.
- Does anyone "on the right" feel that John McCain's been pandering to them lately?
McCain Losing Michigan?
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 4:13PM
Having earlier referenced John McCain's campaign in Michigan, now I see that the latest Rasmussen poll has the Republican trailing there by 8 points, Obama having doubled his Michigan lead since June. Considering that this is one of the states "disenfranchised" by the DNC, McCain's evident inability to capitalize on the opportunity with disaffected Democrats in Michigan has to be a disappointment to the GOP.
Where Gay Marriage is the Status Quo
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 2:45PM
A Republican consultant argues that the defense-of-marriage amendment on California's ballot will fail. I don't know if he's right -- I suspect there will be plenty of black and Hispanic voters who go to the polls to vote for Obama and against gay marriage -- but the concerns he raises are valid. I wrote nearly five years ago about how the judicial imposition of gay marriage helped move public opinion to the left on this issue in Massachusetts.
A Shudder at the Sound of Tumbrels
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 2:22PM
My article today elicited an e-mail from a college instructor who, apparently being a disciple of Harry Jaffa, wondered if I'd be interested in his thoughts on "natural rights theory." From my reply:
As a proper Burkean, I shudder at the mere mention of "natural rights," a phrase that always summons to my ears the sound of tumbrels rolling to the guillotine. . . . Let's get the damned meddlesome federal bureaucracy off our collective back, and then we'll have plenty of time to amuse ourselves with fine phrases and theories.Why would anyone want to be an intellectual, when we anti-intellectuals have all the fun?
Saying Something Nice About McCain
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 1:51PM
Stephen Moore mounts a strong defense of John McCain's halfway decent tax plan, debunking some Democratic fuzzy math along the way.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 1:00PM
International Court charges Sudanese president with genocide
Med Union priorities explained
What if economists had it their way in the election?
Re: The New Yorker's Obama Cartoon
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 12:37PM
I think one has to be an insider to see the New Yorker's cover as in any way an attack on conservatives. If anything, the Remnick-Hertzberg rag is guilty of being too clever by half, taking some generally known unserious tropes and having a field day with them, as if at some level the magazine actually thought such a caricature had some basis in fact. Obama-Osama aside, what could it have been thinking depicting Michelle as the second coming of Angela Davis? This is all of a piece with the Obama crowd's Achilles' heel: its elitism. The smug look on Obama's face says it all.
Re: Bob Barr's Flip Flops
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 12:36PM
Speaking of which, I just got a phone call from a senior aide to the Barr campaign, asking if I knew who this "Thirsty McWormwood" might be.
Of course, suspicion immediately falls on Karl Rove, but I have no knowledge, so don't bother with the subpoena.
Re: The Worst That Could Happen
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 12:31PM
Granted, Jim, the Gotterdammerung of the GOP is an unlikely event, but unlikely things happen every day. As for putting eggs into baskets, I'm prepared for any outcome. If either Obama or McCain wins, I predict next year there will be a land-office business in T-shirts with the slogan: "Don't Blame Me -- I Voted For Bob Barr."
Bob Barr's Flip Flops
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 12:29PM
Thirsty McWormwood documents them in devastating fashion on the main site today (though I think he exaggerates Barr's shift on immigration and appears to invent one on abortion, where Barr remains pro-life*). But I am not as bothered by Barr's flip-flops as I might be, say, Mitt Romney's. For one, Barr has been evolving in a more libertarian direction for a longer period of time than he was expected to be a presidential candidate. More importantly, Barr isn't going to be elected president. Any major-party candidate might be. Thus what Barr would really do in office isn't a concern. The relevant question is whether any significant vote for Barr is seen as an endorsement of his platform, which is both more libertarian and more conservative than the one John McCain is running on, and creates any incentive for major-party candidates to woo small-government voters.
Conservatives not persuaded by this argument have two options: McCain and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. I'm not sure what better choices libertarians who distrust Barr really have, besides not voting.
* Once upon a time, Barr did change his position on abortion. He ran for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Georgia as a pro-choice candidate, though he did make a play for pro-life votes against his pro-choice primary opponent Paul Coverdell. Coverdell won the primary and the general election, the latter in a runoff.
Re: The Worst That Could Happen
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 12:05PM
The Republican Party survived the Great Depression and New Deal, the Democratic Party survived the Civil War. So I think it's premature to suggest that an Obama presidency would spell the end of the GOP. That's more likely to happen because the party becomes too divided over a salient issue -- like, say, immigration -- than because the Democrats beat the Republicans out of existence. The conservative movement is of more recent vintage. There's always the possibility that it won't be able to recover from the final triumph over limited government that an Obama presidency could represent. Or it could also be made irrelevant by tying its fortunes to a succession of non-conservative Republican presidents. The reality is that for entirely different reasons, either Obama or McCain could turn out to be a boon or a bust for the right. It would profit conservatives not to put all their eggs in either basket.
On the Other Hand . . .
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 11:40AM
. . . maybe the doomsayers are right. It's hard to exaggerate the sheer awfulness of John McCain as a candidate. Stephen Hayes captures a little vignette of McCain in a Michigan townhall, where a voter had asked him, essentially, whether conservatives could trust him:
[McCain] defended his vote against the Bush tax cuts and, at some length, reiterated his concerns about global warming. Later, he went out of his way to emphasize his respect for Hillary Clinton and boast about his work with Democrats Joe Lieberman, Russ Feingold, and Ted Kennedy.
"At some length!" In general, environmentalism is an elite concern, to which the ordinary American is either indifferent or fundamentally hostile (i.e.: "bunch of crunchy-granola tree-hugging fruit loops!"). At any rate, it is not an issue where any Republican can out-pander the Democrats, so the best GOP response is always a short one. The idea of McCain wading into the tall grass to talk "at some length" about global warming must elicit big smiles at Hope HQ.
If the candidate is incapable of the basic campaign discipline of avoiding lengthy discussions of issues where he has nothing to gain, then my friend the "veteran communications operative" is right: "We're doomed."
Re: The Worst That Could Happen
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 10:36AM
Phil, I hope I was not guilty of misrepresenting your views, but you've been in a lot of the same bull-session discussions as me, and you know that the Bright Young Minds of the Right are hardly in a panic over the prospect of an Obama presidency. If George W. Bush has been president since you were in college, and if you were in middle school when Republicans captured Congress, it is understandably difficult for you to remember what it was really like the last time Democrats controlled everything in Washington. So while I don't mean to say you've got a "who cares" attitude, a lot of your peers do have that attitude, and it's not hard to see why.
Nor is this indifference to the possibility of an Obama presidency exclusive to callow youth. A lot of older conservatives recall how quickly the backlash to rampant Clintonism built into the tsunami that swept the GOP into the congressional majority, and seem to assume that something similar would automatically be the result of an Obama presidency. At any rate, they'd rather have a liberal Democrat in the White House than to see further "brand damage" caused by another non-conservative Republican president.
All of which may be valid in theory -- the idea that a sojourn in the wilderness will cure whatever ails the GOP -- but it is just theory, and what actually happens might be quite the opposite. Obama could be hugely successful and popular, a two-term president who expands his party's power and hands the office off to his VP, extending the GOP's "wilderness" sojourn to 12 years. In which case, the conservative coalition might completely collapse, and George W. Bush could have the historical distinction of being the last Republican president, period.
Your own "worst-case scenario" assumes the Republican Party and the conservative movement to be permanent fixtures of the American political landscape. I assume no such thing.
The New Yorker's Obama Cartoon
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 9:58AM
I don't understand why there isn't more outrage over the New Yorker Obama cover on the right. The cartoon is intended to make fun of conservatives as ignorant racists, and essentially marginalize any criticism of Obama as moronic. Remnick tells the Huffington Post that, "it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed 'lack of patriotism' or his being 'soft on terrorism' or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office." Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg writes that, "it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review." Doesn't that kind of prove Remnick's point?
More on What's The Worst That Could Happen?
Posted by on 7.14.08 @ 9:33AM
My column from Friday contemplating the worst case scenario of an Obama administration generated a lot of reader response, and many readers surprisingly thought I was being overly optimistic. But what I was really wondering was whether Obama would be able to advance liberalism the way FDR and LBJ did, which would be irreversible, or if he would be more like Carter and Clinton, who were both inconsequential historically. I am under no illusions as to the far left policies that Obama would like to impose in his heart of hearts were he to get his way, but ultimately it doesn't matter what he wants, it matters what he can do. If he is too inept (like Carter) or too much of a phony (like Clinton), he won't actually be able to accomplish anything of lasting import. His reversals on a number of policy issues don't seem genuine to me, but they do suggest that no matter how liberal he may be, like Clinton, his personal political ambitions come first. That's why I ended the article by arguing that if Obama were elected, it would be up to conservatives to drum up opposition to his policy proposals to get him to fold like a cheap suitcase.
UPDATE: I see Robert Stacy McCain wrote that my column "expressed a very widespread belief among younger conservative intellectuals that an Obama administration might not be so bad." Again, I think that Obama would be a disaster for four, or, Lord help us, eight years. But what most concerns me is whether we'll still be reeling from his policies 70 years from now, as we are with FDR.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Flip-Flop Free Zone
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 6:20PM
Surely this is one area where we won't see Obama flip-flopping. Unless I've totally underestimated his political skills. To be sure, he may just choose not to bring the subject up again, but the fact that he stood by his diagnosis despite Jesse Jackson's misgivings suggests there's no going back, not on this subject.
Kasich Moving Up?
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 5:22PM
Over at Let Freedom Ring, Gary Gross makes a strong case for John Kasich for Veep. He joins me (A couple of weeks ago I moved Kasich up as my choice 1A to Chris Cox as choice #1) and the great and wise Michael Novak, who last week wrote a post at NRO's The Corner that also strongly endorsed Kasich.
Tony Rocks
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 4:20PM
Very sad news about Tony Snow. Good news guy. Good guy. So many news guys (and gals) are a mile wide and an inch deep. Tony wasn't. It was clear from much of his commentary that while he was politically astute, he didn't consider politics even close to the most important part of life, as so many reporters do. He was smart, learned and sophisticated without making a show about it. He was funny and very human.
Tony and I had a little exchange on a segment of "Fox New Sunday," though he had the only speaking part. I watched "FNS" from the creation and liked it. The only irritant in the beginning was the short little tracks of hard rock they used for seques. (They don't it anymore, thank goodness.) It seemed inconsistent in a well-done and intellectually satisfying program on current affairs to have it punctuated with such trifling, and to many like me, downright irritating noise which had nothing I could see to do with the subjects being introduced. (I got really quick at going for the mute button.) I emailed Tony that while I liked the show, I wished he would ditch the kid noise. I pointed out, what I thought Tony would have known, that people who are keenly interested in public affairs at the level presented on "FNS" go out of their way to avoid any contact with hard rock "music." I reminded Tony that the folks who like this kind of "music" aren't even up yet when "FNS" is aired. As was his custom, Tony read two or three letters/emails at the end of the broadcast on the Sunday after I sent my email. Mine was the last one he read. After reading it, and with a large Tony smile on his face, he said, "I have only one thing to say to you, Larry (takes a beat) -- Rock on."
I learned only this morning, while viewing the many well-deserved tributes to Tony, that he not only liked rock music, but occasionally played in an amateur rock band. Well, nobody's perfect. And our Tony, with all his fine qualities, surely earned a quirk or two. (As disturbing as it was to learn Tony was a rocker, it wasn't like finding out he liked to pull legs off of grasshoppers.)
So to Tony, rather than the customary "rest in peace," I'll just say, "You done good, buddy -- Rock on."
Freedom Is On the March
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 4:14PM
About 5,000 to 6,000 Ron Paul supporters attended a march on Washington, D.C. in yesterday's blazing sun. There were more than a dozen speakers, including Paul himself and Constitution Party presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin has been vying for the votes of Paul's most conservative supporters. As best as I can tell, Bob Barr wasn't on the roster or in attendance. Dan McCarthy has more details from the scene.
No Mo' Joe-Mentum
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 3:42PM
Senate Democrats are ready to give him the boot, says Bob Novak:
Despite assurances to the contrary from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democratic insiders are certain Sen. Joseph Lieberman next year will be kicked out of the party's caucus and lose his Senate chairmanship if he addresses the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., as planned.
This is the handiwork of the MoveOn.org/DFA/Howard Dean wing of the party, which backed Ned Lamont's primary challenge of Lieberman in 2006. "Progressive" Democrats may stridently defend the right of dissent in wartime, but they would not tolerate a prominent Democratic senator who refused to march to their anti-war music.
Perhaps Joe should get together with Zell Miller and form the Ex-Democrat Party. Maybe they can persuade Hillary Clinton and the PUMAs to join them.
McCain's 'Very Clear Record' on Immigration
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 1:36PM
Former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin says Latinos "now have a very clear record of what [Sen. John McCain] would do" on immigration if elected president.
In a campaign conference call with reporters, Marin praised McCain's "integrity" and said he "courageously" pushed immigration reform legislation in the Senate "at great political peril" to himself.
Speaking in advance of Sen. Barack Obama's address today to the National Council of La Raza's meeting in San Diego, Marin predicted that Obama would "do the same thing he has been doing" by claiming that "Senator McCain has changed his position on immigration reform. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Marin blamed the failure of Senate immigration legislation on "people like Senator Obama casting votes that eventually unraveled the compromise" that McCain had crafted. She specifically blamed Obama for voting for an amendment to the 2007 bill that "cut the number of guest workers in half."
Obama "has not shown any great leadership," said Marin, who praised McCain's "unquestionable" integrity. "He not only says what he means, he means what he says."
She said McCain's current emphasis on border security was because "the American people have said that they want border security first," and that, if elected president, other elements of McCain's immigration agenda would be done after securing the border. "He will do it in steps," Marin said.
Asked about polls showing that a majority of Hispanic voters favor Obama, Marin said that polls also show 26 percent of Hispanics are undecided, and said many are unaware of McCain's role in pushing immigration reform. McCain will address La Raza's conference Monday, a move for which he's been excoriated by Michelle Malkin and other conservatives.
The Egocentricity of Hope
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 11:32AM
Jonah Goldberg takes on a big topic, Barack Obama's ego:
[T]here's little evidence that he's interested in dispelling or rebutting the cult of personality he's developed. Obama himself talks of reversing the ocean's tides.If somehow Obama should manage to fumble away this election, his own hubris will be to blame.
The overarching theme to his entire campaign . . . is that voting for Obama is proof of the cosmic superiority of ... Obama voters.
In a speech in Madison, Wis., Obama told his supporters that rallying to his cause was today's equivalent of the "greatest generation" rallying to defeat Hitler and Tojo. Oprah merely calls him, "The One," saying he will help us "evolve to a higher plane." . . .
Take his decision to deliver his acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver. It seems that the venue for the rest of the Democratic convention - the Pepsi Center (occupancy 21,000) - is just too small. . . .
A demigod, it seems, is never so tall as when he stoops to bask in the adoration of the little people.
Cynthia McKinney Wins Green Party Nomination
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 5:14AM
Adding an extra dose of crazy to the presidential campaign:
The liberal environmentalist Green Party nominated former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney as its presidential candidate Saturday.
McKinney, 53, held off three rivals to win the party's nomination during its convention in Chicago, Illinois. . . .
First elected in 1992, she lost a primary challenge in 2002 after suggesting in a radio interview that members of the Bush administration stood to profit from the war that followed the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
In 2004 she ran again and won with a low-key campaign in which she largely avoided controversy. But voters ousted her again in 2006 after she was accused of a physical altercation with a U.S. Capitol Police officer who questioned her after failing to recognize her at a security checkpoint.
She joins fellow Georgian Bob Barr in the presidential field. (BTW, the fundraising ticker at Barr's Web site is now nearing $450,000.) Time magazine has a feature about Barr who "could conceivably Naderize John McCain in a few key states." The Time story has a Nevada dateline.
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
PUMA Update
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 4:38AM
Andrea Shea King has an interview with Will Bower, co-founder of the dissident Democratic group PUMA/Just Say No Deal:
Nearly 18 million people voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primaries and many of them believe their candidate was cheated out of being the Democratic nominee for president.A lot of people have underestimated the Clintons' ability -- or perhaps their will -- to cause havoc within the Democratic Party if she was denied the nomination. Part of the reason was that the media tended to portray Obama as the only candidate with enthusiastic grassroots supporters. Bower and the PUMA crowd are a reminder that there still are Hillary fans out there, and that they represent a potential source of trouble for Obama and the DNC.
Now more than two million, based on donation and other records, are determined to protest the nominating process and push for an open convention in Denver this August. . . .
"We said we are not falling in line just because Obama and (David) Axelrod and the DNC were saying 'All right, this is over, let's all get behind Barack Obama.' There are plenty of us out here saying, 'No this is not over. You have treated us very unfairly and in fact, anti-democratically,'" he said. . . .
"CNN did a poll at the beginning of June that showed 1 of every 5 Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama. Well, just one month later that's now 1 in 3. So we're getting our numbers up and we're growing strong. And if the DNC's not worried about us, then they're clueless as to this movement."
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
Obama = Clinton II
Posted by on 7.13.08 @ 2:23AM
People wondered if Hillary would be Clinton Presidency II: The Sequel, but little did they realize that Obama's just as good a candidate. From MoDo:
If Bill Clinton weren't still sulking, he would appreciate Obama's emulation of his style in '92, taking a bit from the left and a bit from the right.She did miss Obama's ridiculous quasi-Sister Souljah moment, where he takes issue with Bernie Mac. The press spun it as a repudiation, but looking at his remarks, he actually seems like he's being chummy with Mac when it suits him (in front of a black audience), but then repudiates him harshly later through a campaign spokesman. This is an even more ridiculous flip-fop -- having Bernie Mac speak for you isn't like inviting LeVar Burton from Reading Rainbow.
- Advent Is Coming
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- Michael Ledeen on Iran and Democracy