- 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 26, 2008
Landstuhl Controversy Continues
Posted by on 7.26.08 @ 6:47PM
In London, Obama is forced to address the issue at a press conference:
Meanwhile, the McCain campaign already has a TV ad raising the issue:
(Both via Hot Air) The McCain ad is arguably inaccurate, but it achieves the effect of pushing the controversy into the next news cycle, with fresh coverage by Fox News, ABC, Associated Press, the Politico, the New York Times, CNN and the San Francisco Chronicle. In a campaign press release, McCain supporter Joe Repya -- a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Iraq war veteran -- says:
"Barack Obama had scheduled a visit with wounded American troops who have served with honor and distinction in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he broke that commitment, instead flitting from one European capital to the next. Several explanations were offered, none was convincing and each was at odds with the statements of American military leaders in Germany and Washington. For a young man so apt at playing president, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks. Visits with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans shouldn't be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes."So now this incident is on the front burner going into the Sunday talk shows.
The Other Klein
Posted by on 7.26.08 @ 2:17PM
Quin, I think it is problematic to accuse Joe Klein, who is Jewish, of bigotry against Jews, although certainly Jennifer Rubin is correct to say that the Time columnist is fostering "conspiratorial paranoia." Rubin also notes that there is zero factual support for Klein's accusation that John McCain's campaign is predominantly funded by "Jewish neoconservatives." For a journalist, lack of facts is even worse than ill motives. Klein is not even interested in facts; he doesn't attempt to adduce any evidence (FEC data, names of top McCain campaign donors, etc.) to support his charge.
What Klein seems to be counting on is the "any stick to hit a mad dog" attitude of the liberal media -- there is no such thing as an unfair accusation against Republicans (e.g., Time's Christmas 1994 cover depicting Newt Gingrich as Scrooge). This is like liberal indifference to racist stereotypes used against Condoleezza Rice. It's always open season on Republicans in the MSM.
Republican Capitulation of the Day
Posted by on 7.26.08 @ 1:57PM
The Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass the reckless bailout, er, housing bill. Republicans voted 27 to 13 in favor, though Jim DeMint fought the good fight.
Why does TIME let Klein write
Posted by on 7.26.08 @ 12:41PM
Joe Klein has turned into a bigot. Time should not let him write anymore.
John McCain Steals Newt's Line
Posted by on 7.26.08 @ 10:13AM
In his weekly radio speech, John McCain today said:
Last week, the President finally lifted the executive ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, and called on Congress to lift its ban as well. The Congress now has the sole power to lift the ban, but so far they just can't be bothered to get around to it. Lifting that ban would seriously lower the price of oil -- and Congress should get it done immediately. As a matter of fairness to the American people, we need to drill more, drill now, and pay less at the pump.Great line -- I'm sure Newt Gingrich is grateful to have McCain on his side.
Trouble in Hopeland?
Posted by on 7.26.08 @ 12:08AM
Barack Obama's decision to cancel a planned visit with U.S. troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center appears to be going viral -- it's all over the blogosphere and conservative talk radio really hammered Obama on Friday. Sean Hannity's reaction was typical:
So if you want my take on this, if you want to remember one thing about this trip is that Barack Obama chose to work out rather than see the wounded troops because he couldn't bring Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Brian Williams with him.
That "work out" remark refers to Obama's much-publicized exercise session with a German reporter, and whether Hannity's criticism is accurate or fair is irrelevant to the fact that this incident feeds into the perception of Obama's foreign trip as a weeklong photo-op for his adoring media fan club.
Team Obama (and the left-wing blogosphere) have inadvertantly fed oxygen into the story by trying to push back against the Right's suggestion that the canceled visit amounted to Obama snubbing wounded soldiers. This creates an excuse for media to run stories to "clarify" what happened -- what did military officials actually tell Obama about bringing his campaign staff? -- so that the dispute now spills into the weekend. And that means that the story will be discussed on the Sunday shows (it's at least certain to be mentioned by George Will on ABC's "This Week"), and perhaps then to be rehashed in Monday newspaper stories.
Whether or not this is on the level of the infamous Dukakis tank ride, it is certain to become a regular talking-point in the Right's critique of Obama.
UPDATE: The Washington Post's Dan Balz covers the story, as do David Espo of AP and Alexander Mooney of CNN. That this Thursday incident merits continued coverage on Saturday sort of undercuts the claim by MSNBC's Mark Murray that it is a "minor controversy."
UPDATE II: Major Garrett of Fox News has a transcript of the Friday press huddle on the Obama campaign plane in which spokesman Robert Gibbs attempted to explain the Landstuhl incident. The reader can judge how successful he was in that effort.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Re: "Tabloid Trash"
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 8:37PM
Our Corner counterparts ought to be beating their connections for verification of the story, not getting all delicate about it.Great minds think alike, Mr. Henry. As a matter of fact, I just got off the phone with J.P., suggesting a major investigative report on the Edwards story. A partial transcript of the conversation:
"... and this love-child angle is going to be big, big, BIG, I tell you! ... No, trust me, J.P., I've been in this business 22 years. I know a big story when I see one. I could be at Dulles in less than two hours and be at LAX before lunch tomorrow. ... Sources? Of course, I've got sources in L.A. ... Worth it? Sure, it will be worth it, J.P. I don't care if I've got to wine and dine every starlet in Hollywood, I mean to get to the bottom of this story -- in-depth coverage! The works. Now, all you've got to do is book the flight and get me a bungalow at the Chateau Marmont for a couple of weeks and ... Hello? Hello? J.P.? ..."
Phil is right
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 6:24PM
For what it is worth, I also agree with Phil that it makes NO sense for John McCain to announce his Veep pick early. The best time to do it is AFTER Barack Justanotherlyingpoltician Obama does, just in case Obama does something that sets up a different dynamic than expected. As I think I blogged earlier in the week, it's like playing cards: It's always an advantage to be able to see the other guy's cards laid on the table before you play your own. By virtue of having the later convention, McCain can hold his cards longer if he wants. That's what he should do. As Phil said, if that means waiting until the GOP convention, well, that's fine. It could draw attention away from Obama's momentum after the Demo convention, and thus cut into Obama's expected "bounce." And it could build suspense, and thus helpful interest, in the GOP convention that might otherwise be lacking -- and might mean that the whole GOP convention is overshadowed by media gushing over Obama's performance the previous week. After all, if there is no actual new "news" at the GOP convention, then the establishment media will have an excuse not to pay too much attention to it when, of course, they can claim that Obama's post-convention tour, etc., are SO newsworthy.
Finally, of course, waiting longer to name the running mate allows McCain to see how intervening events might change his own needs. What if there's a natural disaster in South Carolina in late August and Mark Sanford performs brilliantly in the national eye? Wouldn't that give McCain reason to pick him over, say, Pawlenty? Or what if, during the Olympics in China, some big story breaks about Chinese espionage? WOuldn't that put a new spotlight on Chris Cox's excellent bipartisan report on Chinese espionage a decade ago and make Cox suddenly a "hot" figure? Or.... the possibilities are endless.
In short, waiting is better. Far better.
Now, if I could only get McCain to see that even though Portman is better than Pawlenty, Portman in turn loses, quite clearly, on ALL points when compared (and the comparisons are VERY valid, because the parallels are enormous) with both Kasich and with Cox. Even more importantly, McCain must understand that whomever he picks MUST make the conservative movement happy, or else McCain will have no chance.
"Tabloid Trash"?
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 5:35PM
Our counterparts over at the Corner seem to have gone all sniffy over how the John Edwards "love child" story is "tabloid trash," even if true. This strikes me as the logical contrapositive ot Dan Rather's assertion that "the story is true" despite his embrace of forged documents about George W.'s National Guard service.
In both cases, you can't make something out of nothing. Dan Rather had a whole lot of nothing. The National Enquirer has a whole lot of something.
If what the Enquirer has hold of seems trashy, then perhaps John Edwards ought not to behave that way. As a perpetually public man who has made professions of devotion to his sick wife, Edwards deserves the attention, if he has fallen so spectacularly short of his stated ideals.
Our Corner counterparts ought to be beating their connections for verification of the story, not getting all delicate about it.
Re: Pawlenty Against Small Government
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 4:16PM
The Star Tribune, the paper that originally quoted Pawlenty as saying the era of small government is over, has since issued a clarification: "Pawlenty spokesman
Bob Michel Republicans Cont'd
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 3:40PM
Dennis Hastert stands by his man, Jim Oberweis, in his old congressional district. Perhaps the fifth time will be a charm. Or perhaps there are downsides to letting every district do its own thing when a political party is trying to gain back seats.
Baby Daddy Update
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 2:39PM
The National Enquirer reporters who broke the John Edwards mistress-and-love-child rendevous story now have filed a criminal complaint against hotel security staff who shooed them away from the Democratic ex-senator. Fox News follows up by interviewing the security guard:
The guard said he escorted Edwards, who was not a registered guest at the hotel, out of the building after 2 a.m.
Just a meeting with an esteemed associate. In a hotel room. At 2 a.m. Happens all the time, right? Business as usual. Nothing to see here. These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along.
UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times reportedly has banned its bloggers from discussing the National Enquirer story about Edwards because, an editor says, the newspaper has "decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations." However, as Greg Pollowitz of National Review notes, this aversion to "salacious speculations" has not stopped the LA Times from passing along gossip that accuses Sarah Jessica Parker's husband, Matthew Broderick, of having an affair with a 25-year-year-old redhead. The rule seems to be that tabloid trash is only legitimate if it involves movie stars, not Democratic politicians. One of these days, when some Democratic politician has an affair with a movie star, the LA Times will face an ethical dilemma trying to decide which gossip standard applies.
Romney, as Veep or otherwise
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 12:28PM
Quin, I'm a day late here, but my compliments on your thorough dissection of Romney's negatives as McCain's vp.
I have seen and heard Romney up close here in Massachusetts for a number of years, so let me add some important things.
Romney is at his best when he has to master a technical subject, particularly when he has to do it fast, then present its merits to the public. He particularly impressed when he mastered the details of pouring cement and contracting after the Big Dig fatality, where a woman was killed by a falling tunnel panel.
But there are things about him that just set the public's teeth on edge. For some percentage of the voting public, Mormonism will remain just plain weird. As a candidate, you can't afford to blow off any percentage segment of the electorate.
Romney, despite his apparent verbal felicity, has no sense of the rhythm of speech. He doesn't know when he's done saying something. He doesn't know how to stop talking. It makes you want to get rid of him, like shaking a piece of sticky paper off your shoe.
Either he, or his usual counselors, have no ear for advertising. His primary radio commercials had no lilt, no charm, no verve. What's more, they usually began with a solemn announcer intoning that "John McCain has spent 25 years in Washington." And giving the listener the impression he was about to hear a McCain commercial.
In a 30-second spot, you can't waste the first 7-10 seconds giving the wrong impression. He did it over and over again.
He may be the smartest and most principled man in politics (I don't know), but he is also a stunningly infelicitous candidate.
Video: It's About Obama
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 11:44AM
Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal discusses their recent poll:
The poll found what they termed "unease" with Obama among undecided voters:
When voters were asked whether they could identify with the background and values of the two candidates, 58% said they could identify with Sen. McCain on that account, while 47% said the same of Sen. Obama. More than four in 10 said the Democratic contender doesn't have values and a background they can identify with. . . .Team Obama wants the election to be a referendum on President Bush (whose approval rating is 28%) and the Republican Party (which is losing by 11 points on the so-called "generic ballot" question). As Patrick Ruffini has said, Team McCain must make the election a referendum about Obama. This WSJ poll indicates that, so far, the McCain campaign has been successful in defining the battlefield to their advantage.
"Obama is going to be the point person in this election," says pollster Peter Hart, a Democrat who conducts the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll along with Republican Neil Newhouse. "Voters want to answer a simple question: Is Barack Obama safe?"
Shark-Jump Meme Going Viral?
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 10:45AM
[Barack Obama] has grown accustomed to putting on this sort of saccharine show for the rock concert masses, and in Berlin his act jumped the shark. His words drift far from reality, and not only when talking about the Senate Banking Committee. His Berlin Victory Column treacle would have made Niebuhr sick to his stomach.Like I said . . .
Re: Has McCain Already Made Up His Mind?
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 10:19AM
So, it would appear, Maverick has already settled on a choice that Quin won't like and will announce it a time that Philip won't like. Thus, he's got an 0-and-2 count already.
Has McCain Already Made Up His Mind?
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 10:11AM
Charlie Black tells the Washington Post: "He's in a position to make [the decision] on short notice if he wanted to." That could be read as McCain has already made the decision, and now all that they need to figure out is when to time the announcement. According to the Post, there's a push to announce the pick before the Olympics start on Aug. 8, because the Democratic Convention starts right after the Olympics, and the Republican Convention starts right after the Democratic Convention. But I disagree with that move. I think at this point, it's best to hold out until the convention to announce the pick. Think of it. Obama will be speaking to 75,000 at a football stadium in Denver on Thursday Agust 28 -- he'll be coming out of the convention with a storm of publicity, and Republicans kick things off that following Monday (which is Labor Day). I think if McCain holds out on picking a nominee until then, it will generate more excitement and interest in a convention that risks being seen as a dull affair.
Re: Pawlenty Against Small Government
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 9:57AM
That's a disturbing quote, for sure, Quin. For what it's worth, Tim Pawlenty received a "C" from the Cato Institute in its fiscal report card of governors. To put that in context, it's the same grade as Mitt Romney, and they actually had similar records when it was written -- both did a decent job of trying to stop spending by the legislature, but also relied on heavy fee increases to avoid tax hikes.
Pawlenty Against "Small Government"
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 9:17AM
With John McCain dropping more and more hints that his Veep choice will be Tim Pawlenty (yeah, okay, whatever, wake me up when the campaign is over), conservatives hoping for a better outreach by McCain to the Conservative Movement will want to consider this Pawlenty quote from John J. Miller's piece in the most recent National Review: "The era of small government is over," he told a newspaper two years ago. "Government has to be more proactive, more aggressive." In other words, message from Pawlenty to the economic, small business-oriented, Milton Friedmanite backbone of both the Conservative Movement and the old Republican heartland: "Bleep you. Bleep you all." And that will be the same message McCain sends us if he picks Pawlenty.... who now, for what it's worth, is dropping like a rock on my list of picks conservatives could be at least reasonably satisified with. In fact, he has now dropped OFF my list.
Now, IF McCain picks Pawlenty and IF that ticket actually does carry Minnesota, I will loudly acknowledge that, politically at least, I was wrong, and will figuratively eat crow and my hat all at once. Even then, I still probably won't be thrilled with the idea of Pawlenty as the new Heir Apparent.
'A Manifesto for the Planet'
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 7:24AM
That's how Mike Allen of the Politico is describing Barack Obama's Berlin speech:
Billed as a speech about Transatlantic relations, it turned out to be a manifesto for the planet, with an appeal to "the burdens of global citizenship." . . .
Obama's speech, the centerpiece of his presidential-style sweep of the Middle East and Europe, set a global agenda as expansive and audacious as any contemplated by a candidate for United States president.
Allen also applies the phrase "sweeping vision," perhaps a euphemism for "grandiose delusion." While the speech will undoubtedly be celebrated as a success in the MSM, Noam Scheiber of The New Republic wonders if it helps Obama to seem "more popular in Germany than in rural Pennsylvania."
UPDATE: More arched eyebrows at TNR over Obama's decision to go ahead and start measuring the Oval Office for new drapes. Meanwhile, via Instapundit. there's this Associated Press headline:
Obama Scraps Visit to Wounded Troops
Congratulations on the shark-jump, Fonzie.
UPDATE II: And why did Obama skip the troop visit? NBC reports:
One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, "he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers." In addition, "Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit." (Emphasis added.)(Via Hot Air.) As Johnny Cochran might say, "If there's no photo op, Obama does not stop."
Re: Another Citizen of Earth
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 2:20AM
Phil,
Re: Another Citizen of Earth
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 1:20AM
Shawn, I'll see your John Kerry, and raise you a Jimmy Carter.
From our 39th President's Farewell Address:
Obama in Berlin yesterday:
This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons....
This is the moment when we must come together to save this
planet....
ANOTHER Citizen of Earth
Posted by on 7.25.08 @ 12:37AM
Obama isn't the first Democrat to not bother hiding the fact
that he sees his constituency as too big to fit between two shining
seas. Here's a bit from a
piece I wrote back in January 2004:
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Berlin Backlash Begins
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 10:09PM
Obama's "citizen of the world" line is being widely mocked. You knew paleocons like James Poulos and Daniel Larison would hate it, but the Weekly Standard's Dean Barnett and Red State's Kevin Holtsberry also join in the general rejection of Obama's expression of cosmopolitanism. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit:
He's not running for President of the United States. He's running for President of Earth.OK, everybody: Join hands and sing along!
Re: XX Factor on Edwards
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 7:37PM
Edwards is very much still in politics. Once a man gets the political bug, he's never really cured. But Edwards is almost certain to speak at the Denver convention, he is (or was) in the running-mate pool, and might be in consideration for any number of other positions (including a possible Supreme Court appointment) in an Obama administration. So his defenders can't be allowed to get away with the "he's just a private citizen now" gambit.
By the way, J.P., why were you reading that girls-only blog at Slate?
One Point in Romney's Favor
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 6:18PM
Mitt Romney did manage to finish ahead of Mike Huckabee in the popular vote if not the delegate count. Phil Gramm didn't come close to Pat Buchanan in either, dropping out after losing Louisiana and coming in fifth in Iowa.
Another Point Against Romney
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 6:04PM
Judging from some of the responses to Phil's piece that I've seen, not including John's, we'll be lucky to avoid competing identity-politics whining by both parties if McCain picks Romney. Legitimate criticisms of Obama will be dismissed by Democrats as racism; legitimate criticisms of Romney will be ruled out of bounds as anti-Mormon bigotry.
For the record, I've defended Romney's faith from both secular liberals and conservative Christians. As a Massachusetts native, I voted for him in both his runs for statewide office and would have supported his re-election as governor had he run. But I do think the extent of his "Mormon problem" is often exaggerated by overzealous Romney supporters, frequently without any evidence.
XX Factor to National Enquirer: Leave Him Alone!
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 3:42PM
I've done more reading on the National Enquirer, and I want to retract my comment yesterday (Stacy and Wlady: 1, JP: 0). Maybe Melinda Henneberger should do some reading too:
Wait, John Edwards is out of politics? Isn't he involved with ending poverty? Isn't that just lawyer-speak for demanding more government programs? Isn't that, by its very nature, political?
Well, if John Edwards isn't politically active, then how to justify the persecution of Rush Limbaugh? Nice double standard, there.
Here's a promise: If this story turns out as true, I'm going to write a piece defending John Edwards as someone who didn't buy into all the garbage about how every child ought to be a wanted child.
Re: In Defense of McCain-Romney
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 2:42PM
John, I've always been skeptical of the idea of picking a VP candidate on the basis of whether they could deliver a given state, because I don't think you can count on it. Most recently, John Edwards didn't do anything for John Kerry in North Carolina, or anywhere down south, for that matter. There are arguments to make for why Romney in Michigan would be different, but my view the actual evidence isn't compelling enough to make up for the rest of the baggage that Romney brings to the ticket.
In Defense of McCain-Romney
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 2:14PM
Unsurprisingly, Phil Klein's broadside against Mitt Romney is vastly overstated. "The only state Romney has the potential to help in is Michigan, but there is no hard evidence to back up this speculation," he writes. But you don't have to go far to find evidence of Romney's Michigan appeal -- just scroll up: "Romney was able to turn economic jitters to his advantage in the Michigan primary (after pledging $20 billion in subsidies for the auto industry), but he wasn't able to gain much traction on the issue elsewhere."
And why do you suppose that Romney gained traction in Michigan that he didn't gain elsewhere? Could it be that older Michiganders have warm feelings about George Romney, and his son has a built in advantage? Of course it is. Michigan Democrats are spooked enough by Romney's strength that they've already cut an attack ad, and he's not even on the ticket yet.
And it isn't true that Michigan is the only state where Romney might arguably help. There's also New Hampshire, where Romney is well known (thanks to the local-media overlap with Massachusetts) and has some very committed fans (I know because I encountered them on the campaign trail). McCain won 37% of the vote in the New Hampshire Republican primary to Romney's 32%; McCain-Romney would be a unity ticket that could at least conceivably help quell the lingering bitterness from that campaign.
Then there's Nevada, where Obama currently leads by an average of 1.7%. Nevada is 7.41% Mormon; presumably Romney would help goose LDS turnout, which could be decisive.
Does all this outweigh Romney's weaknesses? Perhaps, perhaps not. But to call a Romney pick "nothing short of political suicide" is nothing short of preposterous.
'I Know My Country Has Not Perfected Itself'
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 2:07PM
Absolutely stunning. A major party candidate to be President of the United States just spoke to a crowd of over 100,000 on foreign soil and tried to apologize for America. Barack Obama just couldn't bring himself to make an unqualified defense of America without criticizing the country for not having always lived up to its ideals. In order to curry favor with Europeans, he went after America for not being as tough on businesses in the fight against global warming as Germany, and in neutral terms said that the two superpowers came "too close, too often" to starting a nuclear war -- as if America and the Soviets were equal threats to world peace. A friend of mine emailed during the speech to say "I feel sick." I'm sure he isn't the only American who feels that way this afternoon.
The Netroots Won't Like This...
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 1:52PM
In the typically strong and well-received speech that Barack Obama is giving in Berlin, he looked back on the moment when Berlin finally "tore down this wall."
What?! That's a Reagan allusion! Doesn't he know that Reagan was a psychotic man who nearly blew up the world?
The Other Klein Getting Nervous
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 12:27PM
Philip might chastise me for citing Joe Klein as a source of vindication:
Lots of speculation on the web, and in whispering circles, about why Obama's foreign trip . . . hasn't resulted in a polling bump. The emerging conventional wisdom seems to be that the trip is a bit too grand, too...presumptuous and voters are wary of that. . .People may be thinking, what on earth is Obama doing over there when we have so many problems back home? Why isn't he talking about the economy? . . . I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is paying a price for vamping about overseas while banks are cratering, gas prices soar and people are getting really, really nervous about their futures.
From the get-go, I've seen this foreign trip as a mistake for Obama, and if Joe Klein's friends are now starting to fear the shark-jump potential, I will resist the temptation to engage in an end-zone victory dance. We're still too far from Nov. 5, and the race is still too close, for anyone to claim their prophetic insight has been proven.
UPDATE: Struggling to stay in the no-gloat zone, I observe that the latest Gallup daily tracking poll shows Obama 45%, McCain 43% -- a two-point lead that is four points less what it was three days ago.
Re: Romney As Conservative Rallying Point
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 12:16PM
In response to my column, one reader accuses me of "liberal bias" and another of "liberal dribble" for being critical of Romney.
Yeah, I guess I'm really liberal for opposing his Massachussetts health-care plan in which the government mandates that individuals purchase coverage, the government designs health care plans and decides what they have to cover, the government subsidizes the purchase of these plans, and then calls it a free market solution. I oppose the assault weapons ban that Romney signed as governor of Massachusetts, so I guess that's now a liberal position, because clearly conservatives are supposed to support such bans. And I'm against the idea of the federal government spending $20 billion in subsidies to the auto industry, which Romney proposed as part of his economic pandering in Michigan, so I guess that makes me a liberal, too. With so many liberal positions, I better apply for a job at the Nation.
Obama Snubs U.S. Troops, Holds Berlin Rally
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 11:56AM
In his first major mistake in an otherwise well-orchestrated foreign PR tour, Barack Obama has cancelled a visit to U.S. bases in Germany, including a military hospital, even though he still managed to find the time for his major rally in Berlin in front of cheering Germans.
Via
Ed Morrissey, I see that Der Speigel
reports:
1:42 p.m.: SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. "Barack Obama will not be coming to us," a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. "I don't know why." Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.
In May, Obama had the audacity to question John McCain's commitment to veterans because of his opposition to the G.I. Bill. Yet now, on a trip to Germany, he's more concerned with playing rock star for German citizens than he is with visiting our troops. It's the type of thing that just makes your blood boil.Romney As Conservative Rallying Point
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 11:55AM
Mitt Romney was the Phil Gramm of 2008: More popular with conservative elites than with actual conservative voters. Mike Huckabee was to Romney as Pat Buchanan was to Gramm. Romney has many talents but, unlike Gramm in 1996, decided this year to sell himself as something he is not. Not enough Republicans bought it. While some rank-and-file conservatives would be pleased by Romney joining the ticket, I think John McCain would find plenty of conservative Romney skeptics too.
Re: McCain +2 In Colorado
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 11:49AM
That Colorado Senate race is awfully close too and Republican Bob Schaeffer would be a lot more helpful when it comes to filibustering liberal legislation than Susan Collins, Gordon Smith or even Norm Coleman.
Obama's Incoherence On Israel
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 11:25AM
Even if you were to be as charitable as possible about Obama's stance toward Israel -- overlooking his stable of anti-Israel advisers and associations, his troubling past statements, and his blatant lie to AIPAC that he thought Jerusalem should be undivided (which demonstrates that he's perfectly willing to tell a pro-Israel audience what they want to hear even though he believes something different), what you're left with is a series of incoherent statements.
Obama takes an academic approach to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, recycling cliches like a high-minded panelist in a discussion on PBS. His statements are calibrated to show he understands the complexity of the situation, understands the concerns of both sides, and believes that the president should work toward a solution. This is par for the course for somebody seeking the presidency, but as a president actually setting policy, there would be no way for him to reconcile all of his statements.
In his press conference in Jordan, he said that "It is a very difficult process..." and "I think it's unrealistic to expect that a U.S. president alone can suddenly snap his fingers and bring about peace in this region. What a U.S. president can do is apply sustained energy and focus on the issues of the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I do believe that an ultimate resolution is going to involve two states standing side by side in peace and security, and that the Israelis and the Palestinians are going to both have to make compromises in order to arrive at that two-state solution."
The problem, he says, is that right now the Israeli government is weakened and the Palestinians are divided by Hamas and Fatah and thus are not in a position to make a "bold move" that would bring about peace. Despite this, Obama went to the West Bank and, according to the AP, "assured Abbas that he would quickly become engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not waste time..." And in Israel, he met with Benjamin Netanyahu, and according to Bibi, they agreed that "the most pressing issue concerning the foreign policies of both countries must be to prevent Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons." Meanwhile, "he made clear to Israeli politicians that he would not pressure them to 'accept any kinds of concessions that would put their security at stake.'"
So, to sum up, here's Obama's policy on the region: he wants to press hard for peace talks between two leaders that aren't in a position to make the type of "bold moves" required for peace, he wouldn't pressure Israel into making any "bold move" that would compromise its security even though "the Israelis and the Palestinians are going to both have to make compromises," and he's going to "quickly become engaged" in the conflict, while he's dealing with the most pressing issue in the region -- preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Hubris Watch: Obama Already Planning Transition
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 10:59AM
A "senior campaign adviser" tells Marc Ambinder that Team Obama is already measuring the drapes for the Oval Office.
UPDATE: Do polls fail to ratify the belief in Obama's inevitability? Ignore them!
McCain +2 in Colorado
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 10:48AM
It's McCain 46, Obama 44 in a key Western state, according to Quinnipiac. This is the first time the Republican's led a Colorado poll since 2008 polling of the state began in February. And considering that this is the host state for the Democratic National Convention, it's a very interesting result. Perhaps all the fallout over the cost of the convention has had a negative impact. Perhaps a similar explanation applies to why Rasmussen shows Obama leading by 13 points in Minnesota.
The Economy and the VP
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 10:13AM
That NBC/WSJ poll I noted below also found that 60 percent of voters want McCain to pick a running mate who is an expert on the economy.
Some think that this strengthens the case for Mitt Romney, but as I point out in my article on the main site, his advantages among economic voters are overstated:
Romney was able to turn economic jitters to his advantage in the Michigan primary (after pledging $20 billion in subsidies for the auto industry), but he wasn't able to gain much traction on the issue elsewhere. In Florida, for instance, despite targeted messaging emphasizing his business credentials, Romney lost to McCain among voters who considered the economy the most important issue, 40 percent to 32 percent.
A deeper look at his performance in the primaries shows that Romney's appeal was stronger among higher-income voters than it was among the type of working class voters who will determine the election. Also, Romney consistently did substantially worse among those who thought the economy was "not good or poor" than he did among people who thought it was "excellent or good." In an electoral environment in which Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the state of the economy, this would be trouble.
While Romney's strong business background was an asset during the Republican primaries, it could backfire in the general election. Democrats will point to Romney's vast fortune to make their case that Republicans are the party of the rich, and out of touch with the economic concerns of ordinary Americans. In his 1994 U.S. Senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney was torpedoed by television ads featuring workers who said they lost their jobs when he took over their companies.
Is Nader Taking Votes From...McCain?
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 10:03AM
A difficult to explain result in the latest WSJ/NBC poll:
But Obama's lead over McCain expands to 13 points when third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added into the mix -- with Obama at 48 percent, McCain at 35 percent, Nader at 5 percent and Barr at 2 percent.
One thing that I found potentially troubling for McCain is that 55 percent of Americans think Obama is the riskier choice -- that's a pretty high number -- and yet Obama still leads in the head-to-head poll by 6 points. That suggests that Americans are so eager for change, that they don't mind taking a risk -- and its hard to see that "risky" number getting much higher.
Wake Up and Smell the Markets
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 9:02AM
It's about #@#@** time that somebody stands from the rooftops and shouts that last week SEC Chairman Chris Cox saved the stock markets. When he issued his emergency rule, applicable to 19 leading financial firms, against "naked short selling" (promising to sell stocks at a low price that one not only doesn't yet own, but doesn't even have an agreement yet to borrow), and promised to ask the Commission to extend the rule throughout the market.... what happened? Well, despite all sorts of gnashing of teeth and wrongheaded criticism (including this absurd column by the WaPost's Sebastian Mallaby), the fact of the matter is that the markets, badly tanking up until then, staged an almost immediate rally -- big, bold, and deep -- which continues as of this writing. The Dow rose more than 200 points the very next day, and overall it is up something like 500 points since Cox's action. A number of news stories have directly tied the rise in the markets to Cox's action, but always buried deep within the article, and always in passing.
But it deserves headline-making attention. What this economy has needed for months has been part substantive corrections and partly a change in psychology. The latter, in circumstances of bank runs and panics, is often at least as important as the former. Cox's emergency order, substantive as it was (and it WAS substantive, and much needed, as will be the broader rule when/if it is issued), also completely changed the psychology at work, for the better. Combined with President Bush's announcement that he is rescinding the executive order against offshore drilling, which had the immediate effect of driving down oil prices (again, psychology at work -- or, rather, a change in outlook which is based on fundamentals but which acts through psychology), the Cox move may well be seen in retrospect as the turning point in this economic rough patch we've been having. Much more needs to be done, of course, most of it by policymakers in Congress or the administration who sometimes seem to want to do exactly the wrong thing -- but for now, Cox seems to have put a stop to the panic, reintroduced some much-needed cautious optimism, and also of course done the right thing substantively to ensure that buying and selling actually involves securities that exist somewhere other than in somebody's imagination.
Cox explains it all very well in today's Wall Street Journal.
But there's more to be said, from a political standpoint. A few months back, when Cox was enduring moronic criticism about supposed complacency during the Bear Stearns mess, the Chamber of Commerce took out a large ad in the Washington Examiner dedicated explicitly to singing Cox's praises. Few people in Washington enjoy such respect from such an important group. Cox also has the respect of the tech community for his sponsorship of the Internet Tax Freedom act and for all sorts of other tech-savvy actions during his years in public life. And he did yeoman's work as first-ever chairman of the then-brand-new Homeland Security Committee in Congress. It all makes one think that if he were even half as aggressive at running to the TV cameras as, say, Chuck Schumer is (any more than half as aggressive would be obnoxious!), he would be a familiar face in most news-watching American living rooms, with a well-deserved reputation as a steady hand in tough times.
Just saying.....
Bias? What Bias?
Posted by on 7.24.08 @ 6:32AM
Media employees have contributed more to Democrats than to Republicans during this election cycle by a factor of 16 to 1.
Which is encouraging in one regard, suggesting that at least somebody in this business is overpaid.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Quote Of The Week
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 9:04PM
The Palestinians' real tragedy is that they have not been able to produce a Nelson Mandela. Every single day, Muslims are killed by Muslims. You do not see a single Muslim leader get up and say, "Enough is enough." It's nearly as if we live in a world where if Christians kill Muslims, it's a crusade. If Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre. And when Muslims kill Muslims, it's the Weather Channel. Nobody cares.--Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman in his Sunday Q&A with Deborah Solomon, in which Solomon also muses perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "just a short man who needs to pontificate."
The Tree Whisperer & The Rights of Trees
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 8:53PM
More than six months after two Santa Clara residents were convicted under a state nuisance law for letting their redwoods cast shade on a neighbor's solar panels, the governor signed into law a bill that gives trees the right to grow as they please-as long as they predate any solar panels they might be shading. "I think we've demonstrated that there is nothing mutually inconsistent about trees and solar," said Mr. Simitian, a Democrat who wrote the bill, shortly after the measure was signed on Tuesday. "I was frustrated by the tone of the debate at the outset-that it was somehow about trees versus solar. I thought it should be about trees and solar."
Re: John Edwards, Baby Daddy
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 6:36PM
I didn't mean to inaugurate a wide-ranging debate over the virtues of the tabloid press, but I do note that this story about extramarital whoopie and the resultant love child -- er, alleged -- has generated as much discussion here as anything this side of McCain's veepstakes. Sex and celebrities are an irresistible combination for the ordinary American, and big-time politicians are de facto celebrities.
Frankly, I suspect Team Hillary has been pushing this Edwards scandal from the get-go -- first last fall, to damage him in family-values Iowa, and now again when his name has cropped up as a running-mate alternative to Clinton. Apparently, the National Enquirer serves a "vetting" function for the Democratic Party.
Re: John Edwards, Baby Daddy?
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 5:57PM
Asked about the National Enquirer story, Edwards says: " "That's tabloid trash. They're full of lies. I'm here to talk about helping people."
Translation: The story is 100% take-it-to-the-bank true. As Byron York notes, the Enquirer probably paid sources to get the story, but the reporting looks solid. If the account of him being caught in a hotel rendezvous with Rielle Hunter was false, Edwards wouldn't be changing the subject, he'd be suing.
Mickey Kaus, who's been all over the Edwards-Hunter story from the beginning, wonders if the mainstream media can continue to ignore this story.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 3:40PM
Crime and punishment during war
Karadzic to defend himself in war crimes court
Iran vows no concessions in nuclear crisis
Re: John Edward, Baby Daddy?
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 12:45PM
I stand corrected.
But kind of. If a newspaper is willing to be more unabashed in its reporting, whereas other newspapers are more restrained, the former can attribute errors to its tabloid style and not take a single hit. But then, you can't be certain that what you're reading is solid.
Hence my continued skepticism.
Re: Pawlenty
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 12:34PM
Quin is right that Pawlenty would be a boring pick, but I wonder if that is precisely his attraction to the McCain camp. They know they can count on him to stay on message, and though he may not say anything memorable, he's unlikely to say something embarassing. He won't excite conservatives, or anybody, for that matter, but I wonder if the McCain team is operating more under the "do no harm" theory.
Re: John Edward, Baby Daddy?
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 11:58AM
Um, J.P., none other that Mark Steyn sang the praises of the National Enquirer back in the gold old Clinton days.
"The National Enquirer has a better record on the O.J. trial that ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, et al.," he wrote in his April 1997 TAS column, in which he praised the tabloid press for its energy and resourcefulness, in contrast to the lazy, smug, and cowardly mainstreamers.
Pawlenty? Weak, Weak
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 10:57AM
If this is true, McCain is making a mistake. Pawlenty turns off economic conservatives, for good reason, and REALLY turns off people who want more drilling and who dislike extreme environmentalist trend-chasers. He's boring as hell on TV. He says nothing memorable, ever (other than making awful references to his sex life with his wife). And I will bet a pot of homemade gumbo that he can't even carry his home state of Minnesota for McCain. And he has shown absolutely none of the right stuff to suggest he would be a good president if he were forced to step in. Overall, he's a total yawn. But (everybody, roll your eyes now), other than all that, he's okay.
Re: John Edwards, Baby Daddy?
Posted by on 7.23.08 @ 10:56AM
Uh. Stacy, two words should make you skeptical: National Enquirer.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
John Edwards, Baby Daddy?
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 10:16PM
That's the angle the National Enquirer is pushing, saying that the former Democratic senator was caught in a rendezvous with his mistress -- the alleged mother of his "love child" -- at the Beverly Hilton. Of course, Edwards must have a perfectly innocent explanation for his meeting with blonde divorce Rielle Hunter, and this whole Enquirer story is just "completely untrue, ridiculous," as Edwards said of the magazine's original report about the alleged affair last year. Amazing that the Enquirer's reporters have nothing better to do than to smear innocent ex-senators like Edwards.
McCain by TEN in Ohio?
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 8:53PM
This Rasmussen poll is an anomalous outlier, so I'm keeping a grain or two of salt handy, but -- holy kamoley! McCain 52, Obama 42 in Ohio!
Given the parlous state of the Ohio GOP, which underwent a near-total meltdown in the 2006 midterms, if Ohio is solid for McCain, it would be the best news for Republicans in a long time. Other polls of Ohio have been mixed, but none has shown McCain leading by double digits in the state since last fall. It's possible that the Marc Dann scandal has hurt Democrats in Ohio -- a state which, it should be remembered, was won by Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
A Detroit News poll showing a dead heat in Michigan and a tie in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll constitute still further evidence that Obama has problems stateside that are unlikely to be helped by his European excursion.
The New Republic's Nate Silver notices the Ohio numbers and also sees American Research Group polls indicating a shift toward McCain in Florida and New Hampshire -- neither of which is in Europe or the Middle East.
Obama Denies Backtracking on 'Undivided' Jerusalem
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 8:22PM
Another interesting take from Katie Couric's interview with Barack Obama:
Couric: You said not too long ago that Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that statement. Does that play into the argument that some believe that someone more experienced would not have made that kind of mistake?Unlike her exchange with Obama about the "surge," Couric didn't ask any badgering follow-ups on this point. Obama's "phrased it poorly" explanation seems rather convenient. It was in a speech to AIPAC that Obama drew cheers for endorsing an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. And it was only after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said he "totally rejected" Obama's statement that the candidate "backtracked" (to quote The Washington Post) in a CNN interview.
Obama: Well…if you look at what happened, there was no shift in policy or backtracking in policy. We just had phrased it poorly in the speech. That has happened and will happen to every politician. You're not always gonna hit your mark in terms of how you phrase your policies. But my policy hasn't changed, and it's been very consistent. It's the same policy that Bill Clinton has put forward, and that says that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, that we shouldn't divide it by barbed wire, but that, ultimately that is … a final status issue that has to be resolved between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
So, when speaking to an audience of pro-Israel Jews, Obama is staunchly pro-Israel, but then when the Palestinians complain, it's another one of those "under the bus" moments for which the Democrat has become notorious.
McCain and Iraq
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 6:12PM
Ross Douthat has a short, thoughtful item up at the Atlantic. Like your humble servant, he notes that there is actually less daylight between the candidates on Iraq than before.
Obama's Circular Logic
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 6:05PM
"I don't have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face." --Barack Obama, press conference from Jordan.
Whew, that's comforting.
Keyes to the California Ballot
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 5:31PM
The California secretary of state decided to recognize the faction of the American Independent Party supporting Alan Keyes, though it doesn't sound like any serious effort was made to determine the validity of the competing claims. This means that Keyes will be on the ballot in California rather than Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, unless the pro-Baldwin faction successfully challenges this decision in court.
Bush and Spending, Cont'd
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 5:12PM
Matt Yglesias provides some charts from the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that show defense spending up and domestic discretionary spending down under President Bush, especially if you lump in all security spending with defense. I don't have much of a problem with defense increasing its share of federal spending while domestic programs shrink, because national defense is the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government. But I do have some problems with these figures. First, they use funding levels rather than actual expenditure levels. If you look at the money that was really spent as a percentage of GDP, you get different results. Second, looking at spending patterns from 2001 to 2008 allows Bush's resistance to spending by the Democratic Congress to cancel out the GOP spending binge of 2001-06. When Republicans had the greatest opportunity to control federal spending, they instead increased it virtually across the board.
Katie Couric: Closet PUMA?
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 4:35PM
I always thought Katie was pro-Hillary, but never thought she was anti-Obama. Look at how she gets annoyed at his prevarications over the surge in Iraq:
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?(Via Marc Ambinder.) I mean, wow. I don't think Katie Couric has ever badgered a Democrat like that, and she seems clearly annoyed by Obama's habit of trying to talk about Afghanistan every time she asks about Iraq.
Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.
Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …
Obama: Yes.
Couric … would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.
Re: Lunch With Boehner
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 3:18PM
It's nice that the Republicans have finally adopted a position that is both relatively conservative and relatively popular on an issue that voters actually care about -- energy. But I'm not as convinced as the minority leader seems to be that it is enough to say "drill," hope that John McCain wins with coattails to spare, and bank on individual members doing well at home. If Republicans had simply won back all the House seats in conservative districts they lost due to ethics issues in 2006, they would be a third of the way back to a majority. Instead retirements, poor recruitment, and abysmal fundraising has probably put this goal out of reach. It's at least as likely at this point that House Republicans will be knocked back to their pre-1994 levels.
If the Republicans were to hold onto their current numbers or even make modest gains, that would put them in the position that the Democrats were in throughout the 1990s -- continually within striking distance. Even then, it still took the Democrats twelve years to retake Congress. A loss of another ten, twenty or thirty seats will make it very difficult for Republicans for the forseeable future. That's why some kind of strategy, even if the conditions are not right for a Republican majority in 2008, is so necessary. Relying on your members to know their own districts is fine for a majority party that can afford to be complacent, but won't do anything for a party seeking to return to the majority.
I suspect Boehner probably knows all this on some level. When Al Regnery asked him what congressional Republicans would do if faced with a President Obama and a Democratic Congress, he didn't exactly reject the premise out of hand. Neither was he willing to make a concrete prediction as to how well the congressional Republicans would do, other than to say "better than expected."
Lunch With Boehner
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 3:00PM
House Minority Leader John Boehner spoke to a group of journalists about energy, the state of the Republican Party, and the 2008 elections earlier this afternoon, as part of The American Spectator's Newsmaker series.
Boehner's talk comes after he went on what was billed as an "energy tour" of the
During the question and answer session, I asked Boehner to respond to conservative critics who argue that the Republican Party still hasn't learned its lesson from 2006, and that it's still addicted to earmarks and wasteful spending.
"What I've tried to do over the last 18 months is to rebuild our team. Rebuild our team on Republican principles. And if you look at what we've done to stand up to wasteful spending, whether it was the supplemental last year or the supplemental this year, the end of the year fight on the omnibus spending bill, we worked closely with our Senate colleagues and the White House and held the line on spending."
He also noted supporting Gen. Petraeus and the surge strategy, and blocking the expansion of S-CHIP.
I followed up by asking why, if his main focus is on rebuilding the team, Rep. Jeff Flake, who is one of the leading opponents of earmarks in Congress, was denied a slot on the Appropriations Committee when one opened up early this year.
"The steering committee decided that another member was more qualified for the job," Boehner responded. "The steering committee made that decision. A lot of people think I control the steering committee. I wish I did, but I don't."
Michael Barone asked Boehner about the prospects for Republicans in the fall elections, and Boehner said that he thought House Republicans would do better than expected, and that John McCain would do better than expected. In response to another question, he said that he expected Republicans would do well in 23 or 24 of the roughly 30 seats being vacated by retiring Republicans, but he said he wouldn't deny that a few would be "tough."
Jim Antle asked followed up by asked what the overall strategy was for retaking Congress or at least mitigating losses. Boehner said that because it is a presidential election year, there were no plans to nationalize the Congressional elections, but instead, they are encouraging each candidates to tailor their message to their own districts. He also said that Republicans are on the right side of the energy issue.
UPDATE: Dave Weigel has more.
Re: Jindal
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 2:58PM
One argument against Jindal as running mate is that it might encourage more diversity-mongering from the melanin-obsessed MSM, e.g., the Washington Post:
Second, and more positively for McCain, naming Jindal would be a major symbolic step in fundamentally re-branding the Republican party. Jindal, an Indian-American, would put a whole new face on a party that is widely seen by voters as controlled by old white men.Just look at how much ponderous "what it all means" punditry has been unleashed by Obama's campaign. Jindal's status as one of the sharpest young politicians in the GOP is qualification aplenty, but it's obvious that Big Media would use his candidacy as an excuse for more such annoying "historic significance" blather.
Re: Cassius
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 2:49PM
The question is how one defines victory and whether that definition is broader than simply hoping for the election of people with R's next to their name regardless of what, if anything, they actually do in office. I agree that a lot of young conservatives are too cavalier about the consequences of unified Democratic government, especially at a time when the Democratic Party is more homogeneously liberal than it has ever been. I'm from Massachusetts -- I know one-party liberal Democratic rule and Republican minorities very well. It is a political development best avoided. But it is undeniable that conservatives have won by losing before: the Goldwater debacle of 1964, Gerald Ford's loss being followed by Ronald Reagan's victory, and George H.W. Bush's defeat being followed by 1994.
Should conservatives have accepted Rockefeller Republicanism and tried to move it in the right direction? Some influential conservatives at the time, like James Burnham, thought so. And the answer was by no means as clear then as it seems in retrospect: the 1964 LBJ landslide took out a lot of congressional Republicans, paving the way for disastrous Great Society liberalism. At least some of these Republicans might have survived with Nelson Rockefeller at the top of the ticket. The GOP recovered somewhat in 1966, electing one Ronald Reagan governor of California, and liberalism went totally mad in 1968.
Conservatives and Republicans would profit from a certain amount of house cleaning. The challenge is to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That and to avoid mixing metaphors.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 2:33PM
There aren't enough carbon credits in the world for Al Gore
Archbishop of Canterbury struggling to keep Anglicans together
Re: Cassius
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 2:22PM
Quin, I was merely chronicling the situation, examining the "is" and leaving the "ought" to others. In truth, there are not a few elders who've wondered whether the GOP might not benefit from a swift kick in the hindquarters (e.g., a certain "veteran communications operative" who shall remain nameless).
Having only abandoned my own hereditary Democrat yellow-doggism circa 1994, I sometimes feel like the world's oldest young conservative, as headstrong and enthusiastic as any College Republican or YAFer. On the other hand, I'm occasionally astonished by the arrogance and impatience of some 20-somethings, who seem to believe that anyone who hasn't become a regular on Fox News by age 30 is a failure. I've joked that my next book will be titled I've Got Ties Older Than You: Now Shut Up and Get Me a Cup of Coffee, Kid.
Beyond the issue of the current election, the brewing struggle between conservatism's Old Guard and its Young Turks is an important development.
UPDATE: Just noticed an interview with Jon Henke, the brilliant 30-ish online operative who was brought into the George Allen '06 campaign after the "Macaca" incident in a belated effort to stem the blog damage and subsequently became New Media strategist for Senate Republicans. Henke says:
Our view is that the Right is in many ways broken, and we need to rethink what the brand is, what the strategy is for the coalition, what the coalition itself looks like, and our tactics . . . how do you use the Internet, how do you organize people and mobilize them, how do you sell the message, how do you frame the message.Henke has definite ideas, but I've never seen him exhibit the know-it-all arrogance of some of his peers.
Re: Cassius
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 1:21PM
Our own good Mr. McCain has been posting some interesting
things about young conservatives hoping for a loss. My message
to them is the same, I think, as Stacy's: Grow the bleep up.
Anybody who thinks a loss is EVER better than a win is nuts, when
it is the nation's future we are talking about. Too much damage can
be done in four years for it to be safe to hope for some sort of
"cleansing" experience from being forced to the outside. Now it is
a good thing to turn a defeat into something positive by regrouping
and rethinking and re-working, but that does NOT mean, not at all,
that the loss itself is a good thing, but only that one must always
try to make the best of a bad situation by trying to improve rather
than sulking in defeat. But it would be better to be trying to
improve while still in some position of authority than it would be
to improve while in no position of authority, especially when the
opposition/Left is SO much worse, so much less responsible, than it
was in years past.
As the professor said at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe, What DO they teach these children in
schools these days?
McCain Merits Praise on Vouchers
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 1:06PM
Today we at the Washington Examiner give credit where it is due to John McCain for his strong stance in favor of school choice at last week's NAACP convention.
'Yon Cassius Has a Lean And Hungry Look'
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 12:54PM
One thing that clearly comes through in this Washington Post feature about the Beltway's young conservatives is the role of frustrated ambition in their discontent:
Matt Lewis, 33, is hoping a trouncing in November will force the old guard aside and give his generation a shot. . . .
"When everything is working well there is no hunger for new ideas," Lewis says. "Maybe there is room for some new up-and-coming thinkers to get a shot now. There is a bright side to seeing the Republican Party go through travail."
While not presuming to speak for Lewis and his fellow Young Turks, I think a lot of their grievance is rooted in the fact that the leadership structure of the conservative movement was established in the 1970s and '80s by a previous generation of Young Turks. More than two decades later, those erstwhile Young Turks are now in their 50s and 60s, firmly ensconced at the top of the heap, and show no interest in passing the torch.
The resulting generational conflict is less about ideology than about the resentment of young people frozen out of power. The conflict is exacerbated by the techological savvy of the youngsters who, in the New Media age, scoff at the "leadership" of people who can't even write basic HTML.
File Under: Not A Mental Recession
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 12:15PM
Here's an above the fold, front page headline from the New York Times today: WOMEN ARE NOW EQUAL AS VICTIMS OF POOR ECONOMY.
Union-Leader: Obama Dodging Questions
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 12:10PM
John McCain campaigned today in New Hampshire, prompting the Manchester (N.H.) Union-Leader to comment:
McCain has invited Obama to join him in a series of town hall meetings. Obama has chosen to skip them. Some bitter, gun-owning, religious American might be waiting with an embarrassing question.The Union-Leader mocked Obama as "playing to his real constituency -- those sophisticated non-Americans who speak multiple languages and eat organic arugula."
So he galavants across Europe and the Middle East, assuring the rest of the world that he will listen to them. Meanwhile, Americans wait in vain for him to hear their concerns face to face.
Three Cheers fo Andrea Mitchell (!)
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 10:58AM
I've gotta give credit to Andrea Mitchell for telling it like it is to Chris Matthews last night about how Obama keeps getting away with not being available to the press. He just puts out what Mitchell rightly calls "fake interviews." It IS pretty bizarre that Obama continually treats reporters with contempt, only to have them fawn over him more and more and more. The Saturday Night Live skit is correct (notable and honorable exceptions like Andrea Mitchell aside): The media's love affair with Obama is treacly, pathological, embarrassing and sickening. I won't send the political-correctness mavens haywire by making what to me seems an obvious comparison, so WITHOUT using the psychological term that often describes this, it seems to me as if most of the establishment media are like the kind of person to clings all the more tightly to somebody the more that someone disrespects and even abuses them. Remember when Obama got testy after answering all of eight questions? By now, every media outlet in the land ought to be demanding full press conferences by the Obamaessiah, PLUS at least a few of the series of joint town hall meetings that the lying politician earlier had indicated he would do with McCain. The truth, as Mitchell noted, is that this guy is the least accessible, and the most scripted, presidential nominee in modern history.
Jindal No PTPer
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 10:30AM
There will be much more of this to say later, but for now, let me just say that McCain is just crazy if he really is going to make his choice this soon, and even crazier if he makes Jindal his choice this soon. Jindal isn't ready for prime time. (In the words of b-ball announcer Dick Vitale, he's not yet a "prime time player," or "PTPer.") He's never faced a hostile media. He has never been forced to defend some of his more exotic past writings and statements. He has never had his record put completely under a microscope. And choosing him might perversely put Louisiana in play FOR OBAMA, because I fear a big backlash against McCain/Jindal if Jindal runs for another office so soon after a Louisiana desperate for reform elected him. There is REAL resentment growing against Jindal in Louisiana for all of his national politicking.
Finally, a Jindal election as Veep would turn Louisiana into a Landrieu-owned machine. If Mary Landrieu wins re-election to the Senate, which is definitely more likely than not, then Jindal becoming Veep would AUTOMATICALLY, by state law, make Mitch Landrieu governor. (Mitch is Lt. Gov now.) A state whose governor and senior U.S. senator are brother and sister is a state far too in the control of one family. And I say this as somebody who still strongly resents the fact that the Bush administration gave the tacit support necessary to re-elect Ray Nagin as mayor of New Orleans over Mitch Landrieu. Mitch would have been a good mayor, far better than the incompetent and highly weird Nagain; but Mitch as governor, where political ideology matters more than at the city level, would be a huge win for union bosses, trial lawyers, and big government.
Now that would be a terrible trick to have played upon the suffering people of Louisiana: If Jindal becomes Veep, then it would mean that national Republicans subjected New Orleans to four more years of Nagin as mayor and to three years (at least) of Mitch Landrieu as governor. But that, of course, is if Jindal wins, and the betting here is that in the long run the choice of Jindal would hurt McCain politically more than help him.
Obama and the Surge
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 10:19AM
In one of the defining moments of the last presidential election, John Kerry was boxed into saying that knowing what he knew in 2004, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. It seems to me that Barack Obama was trying to avoid that mistake last night, in an interview with "Nightline." The Web version of the interview reads:
"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."
So basically, even though the surge has been a tremendous success that has actually made withdrawing troops under stable conditions a much better possibility, he still wouldn't have supported it because he had a political disagreement with Bush. Obama would rather see failure in Iraq than take off his ideological blinders.Obama goes on to say that Gen. Petraeus expressed "deep concerns" about a timetable, but that doesn't seem to matter to Obama.
But the most startling statement in the interview was this:
However, Obama would not attribute the decreased violence entirely to the troop surge, which he opposed, instead saying that it was the result of "political factors inside Iraq that came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, my assessment would be correct. ... The point I was making at the time was the political dynamic was the driving force in that sectarian violence."
Obama's talking point about the surge up until now has always been that while violence decreased as a result of the sacrifice of the troops, we haven't seen any political progress. The only way we'll see political progress, Obama has argued, is to start withdrawing troops to force the hand of the Iraqis by showing them that our commitment isn't open ended. Though it's often difficult to decipher Obamaspeak, now he seems to saying that there was both a reduction in violence and political progress in Iraq over the past year and a half that correlated with the surge strategy, but somehow it's a total coincidence and so he still would have opposed the surge all along.No Snarking at Netroots Allowed
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 10:06AM
The editor of the Austin American-Statesman issues a terse apology about a feature writer's snarky article about the weekend's Netroots Nation gathering in the Texas capital. Michelle Malkin notes that the offending article is still available by Google cache:
Name-dropping Al Gore and his call for a switch to clean, renewable energy within 10 years was enough to pull whoops of approval from the 2,000 or 3,000 marauding liberals gathered for Netroots Nation at the Austin Convention Center on Saturday morning.Left-wingers humorless? How dare you suggest such a thing!
So when the former vice president and Nobel Prize co-winner made a surprise - and cleverly scripted - appearance during U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's talk, it looked like the conference might turn into a faint-in. . . .
Not that Gore's appearance was necessary to whip up the troops.
From the beginning, it was clear these people were convinced the electoral map would be repainted with a brush sopping with blue paint come November.
Politico: McCain's a Senile Geezer
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 9:41AM
That's the essence of Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei's story:
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said "Iraq" when he apparently meant "Afghanistan" on Monday, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition.Notice the canny use of media ventriloquism, whereby Allen and VandeHei project their own spin, as if it were an objective fact that such slips of the tongue "raise a serious ... question" about McCain's presidential capacity.
Just in the past three weeks, McCain has also mistaken "Somalia" for "Sudan," and even football's Green Bay Packers for the Pittsburgh Steelers. . . . McCain will turn 72 the day after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) accepts his party's nomination for president, calling new attention to the sensitive issue of McCain's advanced age, three days before the start of his own convention. . . . But McCain's mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?
Is It Jindal?
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 7:44AM
Rumors that John McCain is ready to announce his running mate -- and his suspiciously-timed visit with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal -- are reviving the arguments both for and against picking Jindal.
Conservative admiration for Jindal is almost boundless, but there is generally the feeling that the recently-elected governor would benefit in the long run from developing a track record of success in Louisiana before making his own bid for the presidency. There is also the concern that being picked as McCain's running mate could be a loss for both Louisiana and Jindal, as Jonathan Schwenkler writes:
[T]he last thing Louisiana needs is to see its charismatic young governor strapped to the back of a losing campaign or - worse - shipped off to Washington for four or - even worse!! - eight years under Old Man McCain.Meanwhile, Jonathan Martin of the Politico discounts the possibility of a VP announcement this week.
'The Obama Piece Worked for Me Because . . .'
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 7:02AM
The brilliant mind of New York Times editor David Shipley:
The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.In other words, Shipley says, McCain's rebuttal can't be published simply because his opponent got a free campaign ad on the pages of the New York Times. He must submit something that "works for" David Shipley -- who, quite naturally, establishes ground rules that favor Obama.
It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.
This was one of the arguments against McCain-Feingold: The major media will always be able to control the terms of its own participation in political discourse; regulation of advertising by "outside groups" only strengthens the media's monopolistic power. McCain is thus hoisted by his own "reform" petard.
John McCain's Rejected Op-Ed
Posted by on 7.22.08 @ 5:31AM
Not to side with the editors of the New York Times, but the piece could have used some re-write:
"Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years . . .""Fallen ... up" is a bad construction. This should be "fallen by as much as 80 percent" -- the word "percent" always being spelled out in newspaper style, by the way.
Of course, stylistic shortcomings weren't the source of the NYT editors' complaint. More likely they didn't like the stark logic of sentences like this:
"I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war -- only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will."Talk of America "winning the war" and defeating "our enemies"? On the New York Times editorial page? You must be joking.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Re: The Road to Bankruptcy . . .
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 11:26PM
Jim, what got me about Douthat's article was his sneer toward "the Norquistian position on the pressing need to drown the welfare state in a bathtub." A fundamental hostility toward the welfare state is necessary to the limited-government position. Unless conservatives can conceive of the welfare state as evil -- a menace to liberty -- and try to convince others to share that view, they consign themselves to merely negotiating with liberals over the size of the next increase. Rather than standing athwart history shouting "stop," conservatives who accept the welfare state as legitimate are doomed to chase afterwards, shouting "slow down."
How John McCain Can Win?
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 10:53PM
Step One: Save a bunch of money by firing all his paid advisors, since Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru are volunteering to run his campaign for free . . .
McCain-Eagleton '08?
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 9:59PM
The guessing game about John McCain's running mate is, according to Bob Novak, nearing an end:
Sources close to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on his foreign trip. The name of McCain's running mate has not been disclosed, but Mitt Romney has led the speculation recently."Sources . . . suggesting" isn't a very strong attribution, but an early announcement would spare us the misery of further speculation by the punditry. Speaking of speculation, McCain is supposed to meet with Bobby Jindal later this week.
Michael Mukasey Finally Listens to Ron Paul
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 6:45PM
Sort of. The attorney general has asked for a formal declaration of war against al Qaeda. "Any legislation should acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us," Mukasey said at the American Enterprise Institute. "Congress should reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations."
Keyes Gets FrontPage Coverage
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 6:34PM
FrontPage Magazine has published an attack on Alan Keyes. Their account of Keyes's madcap 2008 presidential campaign and his other political antics is mostly on target, though I'd quibble with a couple of points (Keyes said he would "pray and fast" about his exclusion from 1996 presidential debates, not that he was launching a hunger strike; some Constitution Party leaders did encourage Keyes to run for their party's presidential nomination). FrontPage criticized Keyes from the very beginning of his 2008 campaign, concluding, "Still, Keyes' performance in the debates could have a powerful impact on the presidential nomination - of the Constitution Party." I predicted at the time that even the Constitution Party's nomination would be a tough sell.
Re: Obama, Maliki, and Iraq
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 5:31PM
There's an opportunity here that neither campaign is seizing quite as effectively as they could. If the democratically elected Iraqi leadership is asking US troops to leave, that sure sounds like victory. I think the McCain camp is being far too defensive about this. McCain should be citing Maliki's comments as evidence that the war is winnable, and that it isn't an endless commitment. There's an opportunity here to emphasize that Obama's position has always been that we should withdraw regardless of whether it looks like defeat or like victory.
Conversely, Obama should start using the word "victory" when he talks about Iraq. If Obama has the guts to stiff the hard left, where it's blasphemy to suggest that Iraq is winnable, he can make more ambivalent voters a lot more comfortable with him as a war leader at very little cost.
P.S. I realize that lots of people -- particularly those skeptical of the prospects for stable Iraqi democracy -- are worried that Maliki is too close to Iran. But there's a case to be made that an honorable withdrawal frees our hand with Iran, at least in some ways. Fewer troops in Iraq mean fewer convenient American targets to retaliate against after a bombing run, after all.
Speaking of Media Bias...
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 3:56PM
The press, like late night comedians, is apparently being a little too obvious with Mr. Change Agent:
Media Bias
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 3:39PM
When liberals are accused of manipulating facts and lying to the public they receive academy awards.
When conservatives are accused, any channel that dares to air
the program faces legal
consequences.
Re: NYT Rejects McCain Op-Ed
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 3:08PM
Philip, I'll disagree with you only slightly.
This is the first time that the McCain campaign has been able to truly control a media cycle. But it's a meta-discussion about editorial judgment and media bias -- not about Barack Obama's nonsensical op-ed, nor about McCain's own plan.
Fine, it's on the record that the Times might be biased against the Republican candidate (BREAKING STORY!), but how much do you want to bet McCain will just pass this opportunity up and instead let the media run with whatever they want?
The Road to Bankruptcy, If Not Serfdom
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 3:01PM
Ross Douthat manfully tries to defend the Bush administration's record on spending from Peter Robinson, John Cogan, and Glenn Hubbard. Douthat's strongest argument is that domestic discretionary spending has only increased somewhat as a percentage of GDP and, at 3.6 percent, is still low by the bloated post-Great Society '70s standards. Some of Bush's critics exaggerate his spending binges. But I think this argument works better as a criticism of Bush's most unhinged detractors, not as a defense of the Bush spending record.
First, I'm not sure I would give the president a cookie for not expanding the welfare state as much as the Great Society liberals and their Nixonian enablers (especially since in other areas, like the national debt-to-GDP ratio and the unfunded liabilities of the major entitlements programs, the comparison isn't entirely favorable). More importantly, since Bush requested and received both a Medicare prescription drug entitlement and a war in Iraq, just tallying domestic discretionary spending stacks the deck in the administration's favor. But not counting homeland security spending, domestic discretionary spending rose 40 percent between 2001 and 2006. That's more than it increased under all eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency (39 percent) and at a faster annual rate (7 percent versus 4.2 percent). That is also faster than the rate of inflation.
Bush's spending record has improved since he began fighting a Democratic Congress instead of accomodating a Republican one. If he had succeeded at Social Security reform rather than (or even in addition to) passing the prescription drug benefit, the picture would look different. But a successful reformist conservatism will probably reject Bush's fiscal record rather than try to rehabilitate it.
NYT Rejetcs McCain Op-Ed
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 1:54PM
Drudge reports that the NY Times editorial page has rejected John McCain's op-ed on Iraq written in response to last week's op-ed that they published by Barack Obama. It's true that different rules apply for editorial pages, which don't pretend to be unbiased. But even an editorial page that is should have a basic sense of fairness, and certainly a vibrant page should want to welcome debate. According to Drudge, NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley, a former Clinton speechwriter said: "The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans... It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."
But Drudge printed the original McCain article, and comparing it to Obama's column, I see no qualitative difference. Yes, the McCain column is a political document that doesn't have many specifics, but the same can be said for Obama. To the extent that Obama does have some specifics -- a 16-month timetable -- that's a result of the a policy disagreement. It isn't evidence that somehow Obama article was more thorough or original.
Either way, this is now a big win for McCain. His article is now out as the lead item on Drudge, and it will get more attention that it would have had they printed it. It also should be a great fundraising tool for McCain among conservative donors.
Re: Obama, Maliki and Iraq
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 1:44PM
If there's anything to this New York Times story, Maliki's spokesman didn't say anything about being mistranslated and taken out of context until after U.S. diplomats complained. Andrew McCarthy provides some useful Maliki context. This has the potential to become a problem for McCain's Iraq position, even (perhaps especially) if Maliki is just playing to a domestic political audience, if an Iraqi desire for the U.S. military presence to wind down becomes one of the major facts on the ground.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 1:23PM
The Friedman approach to academia
Obama to meet with Iraqi commanders
The more nuclear power the better
Guantanamo war crimes case underway
U.S. Troops COULD leave Iraq by 2010
Re: Right-Wing Pointy Heads
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 12:37PM
My own view, Stacy, is that David Frum was rather brutally ridiculed in that NYT Week in Review piece:
Mr. Frum is one of those who has undergone a conversion (or two). His book "Dead Right," published in 1994, was a brisk catalog of Reagan's failures (especially his failure to reduce the size of government). Then, after writing speeches for President Bush, Mr. Frum wrote "The Right Man," in which he characterized President Bush's leadership as "nothing short of superb." But in his newest book, "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," Mr. Frum confesses that his former boss has "led his party to the brink of disaster."
Constancy, it would seem, is not one of his strengths.
Audio: McCain Campaign Conference Call
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 12:21PM
Now online, the full audio of this morning's conference call featuring John McCain's senior foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann. A quote:
Senator Obama's judgment on Iraq has been universally wrong. He opposed the surge. He predicted it would fail. He said not only would it not decrease sectarian violence, it would likely increase it. Had we followed his course of action there would have been no surge, funding for troops would have been cut off last year. He proposed a withdrawal plan in January 2007 that would have all our troops out of Iraq by March 2008. He rewrote his website on the surge and now he is trying to rewrite history saying he always knew the surge could reduce sectarian violence.Later, Scheunemann accuses Obama of "selectively misinterpreting" developments and advocating "unilateral cowboy summitry" with Iran.
Had we followed Senator Obama's advice in fact he would not be in Iraq today because Iraq would be in chaos. He couldn't visit Basra as he's doing today because Basra would be under the control of Iranian backed killers rather than under the control of the Iraqi government and coalition forces. So what we're seeing today is a real watershed moment for Senator Obama. Is he going to listen to our commanders in the field and talk about and listen to them when they say any withdrawal must be based on conditions or is he stubbornly adhere to his politically motivated plan to have an unconditional withdrawal driven only by dates, arbitrary dates, rather than conditions on the ground?
Re: Ashcroft as VP
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 12:02PM
The problem I see is that the image of Ashcroft the "heroic internal dissenter" is more known to Washington insiders, but to the public at large, he's still seen as a key player in the Bush administration. The Democrats will have an endless number of photos and videos that they could use tying Ashcroft to Bush, and I think this is one of those cases in which impressions would prove more potent than reality.
Re: Ashcroft as VP
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 11:55AM
Philip, the beuauty of Ashcroft as VP is that the new narrative is that Ashcroft was FIGHTING the White House, on behalf of the Constitution, and that he resisted White House pressure numerous times, and that the White House in turn rejected his highly respected choices for top Justice slots and instead tried to force JohnYoo down his throat. So now he is the heroic internal dissenter, but who had the grace not to go out whining and making money off it like, for instance, McClellan did.
GetDrunkAndVote4McCain.com
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 11:42AM
When someone mentioned this earlier, I thought it was a joke. Sean Higgins sends me a link to the actual Web site.
Cheers!
Re: Chris Hitchens Waterboarded
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 11:40AM
About time, some might say. Did he confess and give up the names of other atheist conspirators?
Ashcroft as VP
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 11:27AM
In his column today, Quin Hillyer points
to John Ashcroft as one of the leading picks to be John
McCain's runningmate. But for all of his advantages, I don't see
how McCain could pick somebody who is so identified with the Bush
administration without providing Obama the ability to easily make
the case that
McCain represents Bush's third term.
"It doesn't simulate drowning, it is drowning"
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 11:17AM
Christopher Hitchens is waterboarded.
Obama, Maliki and Iraq
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 10:46AM
It seems to me undeniable that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki provided a huge boost to Obama when he said, "U.S presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes."
In recent weeks McCain has been winning the Iraq issue by making Obama seem like a rigid ideologue who would withdraw troops at a reckless pace, regardless of the advice of commanders or facts on the ground, just to satisfy the left. What the Maliki statement does is provide Obama something he can point to coming from somebody who speaks with authority on Iraq, suggesting he isn't so naive by advocating a 16-month timetable.
It's true that Maliki did include the qualifier "assuming that positive developments continue" and the Iraqi government later distanced itself from the the interview in the German magazine Der Spiegel, saying it had "misunderstood and mistranslated" Maliki and that his statement didn't constitute an endorsement.
However, in political season, the nuances may easily get lost, and what Americans are left with is the basic impression that the Iraqi government is getting antsy about the presence of U.S. troops and wants to handle its own security, and that a 16-month timetable seems realistic to them.
With Obama in Iraq, McCain's senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann held a conference call in which he said that Maliki's statement was an "inartful" one that the government later backed away from. Scheunemann compared it to Obama's string of "inartful" statements, such as the "cling to guns and religion" comment.
Scheunemann said he hoped that by meeting with Gen. Petraeus and other commanders for the first time, Obama could come to understand why arbitrary deadlines set without regard to facts on the ground were a bad idea. He also noted that had Obama gotten his way last year, we never would have seen the security improvements we have.
Re: Right-Wing Pointy-Heads
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 7:37AM
From the same New York Times article:
Meanwhile, Megan McArdle, a libertarian writer, thinks conservative organizations will actually have a tougher time influencing policy if Senator McCain is elected. . . .Never having set foot in the Executive Office Building, I'm nevertheless dismayed by the "romantic appeal" of the wilderness for Ms. McArdle, who was in middle school the last time Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress. Should dissatisfaction with the status quo (almost universal on the Right) lead to the unconservative idea that change -- any change, even Change -- is progress?
Indeed, to Ms. McArdle, the possibility of a Republican defeat holds a certain romantic appeal. "Younger people are kind of excited about being in the wilderness," she said, evoking the pre-Reagan years when Republican thinkers plotted their revolution at nonprofit organizations and in bars instead of in the Executive Office Building and congressional majority offices. The longer you're in power, the more you want to preserve it. "That's where the Republicans are right now, and it's demoralizing for think tankers." Desperation has a way of focusing the mind. As Ms. McArdle said, "When they're out of power, they have to think in a clearer way."
A Young Pro-Lifer's View
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 7:03AM
Trying to get a handle on how the campaign so far is playing with "the base," I sent an inquiry to a social conservative activist, and got this reply:
Obama is so detestable that I have resolved to get drunk and vote for McCain, along with Ann [Coulter] of course. As the completely ignorant Obama followers have started to attack me as well for opposing him . . . I have been forced to see McCain's positive points when they rip on him. It's been a strange election cycle, feeling myself compelled to defend people I recently ranted against due to the utter stupidity and evil of the Obama cult: Hillary and now McCain. I am still hopeful that Mitt could be the VP pick, as well, which will bring some excitement for my side back into my life."Get Drunk and Vote for McCain" -- bumper stickers should be printed immediately!
Attack of the Right-Wing Pointy-Heads
Posted by on 7.21.08 @ 6:39AM
The New York Times has an article about "new-generation conservative" intellectuals, apparently anointing David Frum an elder statesman of the new wave:
Mr. Frum's transformation has caused him to rethink the role of government. Not only does he now promote an idea that has long been conservative heresy -- that tax rates have gone as low as they can -- he also calls for new taxes on consumption and energy. . . .Uh, wait a minute: Prison reform? David Frum's big departure from rigid right-wing dogma is prison reform? Excuse my scoffing, but this all strikes me as National Greatness II, a second dose of the same medicine that's already put the patient into intensive care.
Mr. Frum also departs from the smaller-government-is-always-better-government dogma and concedes that there are some areas where government has to step in - for instance, prison reform. . .
Many of Mr. Frum's allies in this debate come from a group of younger conservatives who were born more than 15 years after he was and came of age after Reagan. . . .
Another new-generation conservative, Ross Douthat, argues that "Reagan was right for his time, but now it's a different time." Mr. Douthat, 28, and Reihan Salam are the authors of a new book, "The Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream." Mr. Douthat says that social conservatives have gotten stuck and need to move beyond their focus on gay marriage and abortion -- a focus, he said, that does nothing to help a single African-American mother trying to raise a family.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Four More Years for George W. Bush
Posted by on 7.20.08 @ 6:22PM
I make the case in the Politico today.
Re: McCain=Ford?
Posted by on 7.20.08 @ 2:52PM
Maybe so, but Obama is every candidate since World War II.
Michael Barone: John McCain = Gerald Ford?
Posted by on 7.20.08 @ 2:20PM
At least that seems to be his argument:
Looking back over the last 40 years, the presidential campaign that most closely resembles this year's is the contest between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1976. . . . .It's worth reading the whole thing, considering the source is the principal author of the definitive guide to American politics -- who bummed a light from me after the 2007 Bradley Awards ceremony. (Shameless name-dropping alert!)
The Republican president who had been elected and re-elected in the last two campaigns, Richard Nixon, had dismal favorability ratings, far lower than George W. Bush's. His name could scarcely be mentioned at the Republican National Convention. The Democratic nominee was a little-known outsider. . . .
Barr's Buzz at Netroots Nation
Posted by on 7.20.08 @ 1:59PM
Reporters for the Washington Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal all seem shocked by Bob Barr's appearance at Netroots Nation in Austin, Texas.
Barr is in Austin to speak tonight at Americans for Prosperity's rival Right Online conference. It's odd that reporters would be surprised by his visit to Netroots Nation -- the left-wing blog gathering formerly known as Yearly Kos -- considering that Barr has said from the start of his Libertarian presidential campaign that he intends to compete for the votes of disaffected Democrats. He's said this in numerous venues, including ABC's "This Week" two weeks ago:
Re: Dickie Flatt for Treasury Secretary
Posted by on 7.20.08 @ 12:51PM
In releasing this statement (dated Friday, but emailed early this morning), the McCain campaign sees to suggest that Phil Gramm is not going to remain under its bus. He may have a Treasury future yet:
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm issued the following statement: "It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Senator McCain on important economic issues facing the country. That kind of distraction hurts not only Senator McCain's ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country's problems, it hurts the country. To end this distraction and get on with the real debate, I hereby step down as Co-Chair of the McCain Campaign and join the growing number of rank-and-file McCain supporters."
DNC Tries to Quiet PUMA Dissenters
Posted by on 7.20.08 @ 8:25AM
The continuing roar from PUMAs -- the disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters who have announced a Washington conference next month -- has caused several Democrats to try to get the PUMAs to STFU.
The latest to attempt taming the PUMAs is former Democratic National Committee chairman Don Fowler. In an e-mail to Clintonistas published by TPM, Fowler said:
I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with people who continue to carp, complain, and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support. . . .This produced a backlash, with one PUMA replying:
It is time to act in a mature and resourceful fashion. It's time to put the primaries behind us. It's time to support Barack Obama without conditions or demands.
How can you possibly say that Barack Obama won and Hillary Clinton lost when neither achieved the required amount of pledged delegates to receive the nomination. It's still undecided and won't be until the vote is taken in Denver.. . . [T]he DNC pushed the superdelegates to endorse him. He hasn't won anything.
The point about the delegate count -- in terms of pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries, Obama is still more than 300 short of the number needed for the nomination -- is the PUMAs' strongest argument for having Hillary's name in a first ballot roll-call vote in Denver.
Because of the super-delegates, Obama would win that vote, but the DNC and Obama HQ apparently feel that such a vote would highlight the division in the party. They want their guy nominated by unanimous acclamation, and seem to view opposition as disloyalty.
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
- Barney and Friends
- Breaking Fast With Bill Safire