- 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, August 2, 2008
The 'Vuja De' Election
Posted by on 8.2.08 @ 6:07PM
One of my pet peeves is "experts" who try to analyze elections on the basis of trends, i.e., "In seven out of the past nine elections ...." etc. For example:
Forecasting models based on past elections predict Obama to get something like 53% of the two-party vote. . . . In short: macro conditions for the Republicans are not so bad as all that: Obama is a legitimate favorite but there's no reason to expect that there would be a landslide. Things are going about how one might suspect based on historical patterns of the economy, incumbency, and presidential elections.Yeah, I know: What's past is prologue, those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it, yadda yadda. But one of the lessons of history is that sometimes "trends" don't forecast events. Unpredictable things happen, and to suppose that past trends can be projected flawlessly into the future as "forecasting models" is to ignore the potential influence of indvidual actors and unforeseen events.
The late comedian George Carlin once coined the term "vuja de" -- the opposite of deja vu. "Vuja de" is when you get the eerie feeling that nothing like this has ever happened before. This is the first election since 1952 when neither major party has an incumbent president or incumbent vice president as its presidential nominee. I can't even think of the last election to pit two incumbent senators against each other. Also John McCain will be 72 on Election Day, while his opponent . . . well, as Barack Obama likes to remind us, he doesn't look like the guys on the currency. Plus, Obama got the nomination by defeating the only former First Lady ever to run for president, in the closest primary campaign since Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976.
In short, there are many reasons to suspect that this will be an unpredictable election, in which the "forecasting models" aren't really helpful. It's the "vuja de" election.
GALLUP: STILL TIED AT 44%
Posted by on 8.2.08 @ 4:07PM
Second day of a dead heat in a row in the daily tracking poll:
Obama received a brief increase in support near the conclusion of his overseas trip last week, gaining a nine percentage point advantage in July 24-26 polling. But that bounce disappeared almost quickly as it emerged.Looks like full-on backlash against (a) Obama's absurdly grandiose "this is our moment" speech in Berlin, and (b) his canceled Landstuhl visit. Meanwhile, via Politico, Obama campaign strategist David Plouffe tries to claim that this has been a bad week for John McCain:
And if you believe that, maybe you'll go for the assertion that the "Celeb" ad was a secret "dog whistle" appeal to racism. Note that this assertion is made by Melissa McEwan, the erstwhile John Edwards blogger most famous for her addition of "Christofascist" to the progressive vernacular.
McClatchy Newspapers: Obama Might Drill
Posted by on 8.2.08 @ 1:45PM
The McClatchy news service is reporting that Barack Obama is now open to offshore drilling if it is part of a broader energy package. It's clear, however, that Obama is still not thrilled about the idea: "Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," he told the Palm Peach Post. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."
Although the shift leaves him open to charges of flip-flopping, Obama is probably trying to take one of the Republicans' best issues off the table, the way Bill Clinton did in the 1996 campaign by finally signing welfare reform. But after signing the reform bill, Clinton didn't leave much room for Bob Dole to get to his right on welfare. Obama's tepid position on drilling still leaves plenty of room for John McCain to get to his right. And in 1996, the new welfare reform law was a reality. This is just a campaign promise that differs from past promises.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 6:46PM
Con Coughlin argues that with Olmert on the way out, Israel is one step closer to a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Keep in mind that all a bombing run would do is buy time; the Iranians could get back to the same place in a few years. The Obama or McCain administration had better have a strategy for what to do with that time.
Re: House Republicans Refuse to Adjourn
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 6:00PM
Rob Bluey was Twittering from the House all afternoon, ultimately getting escorted from the premises by Capitol police. My favorite update: "Just talked to some tourists who got caught up in the action. 'This was way better than the White House,' says one."
Energized Republicans
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 5:36PM
The House Republicans' refusal to adjourn is about the first sign of life they've shown since losing control of Congress. Perhaps not coincidentally, this is also the first time they've been on the winning side of a top national issue during that time period.
ABC News: Dollar Bill Remark About Race
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 4:29PM
David Axelrod admits to ABC News that Obama was referring to his race after all when he said he didn't look like the other presidents printed on our currency. Team Obama had previously tried to deny it.
DNC Digging Obama Deeper
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 4:07PM
The McCain campaign's "Celeb" ad has gotten so far under the Democrats' skin, they can't stop calling attention to it, the latest example being this DNC response ad:
The Democrats are committing a fundamental error of political public relations, responding to an attack in ways that tend to amplify the opponent's message. By jumping up and down and shouting "Racist! Smear! Unfair!" Democrats are merely calling attention to the original attack (which Democrats must recognize as very effective, considering how much they're complaining about it).
Once again, as with the ill-considered decision to hold a Friday press briefing on the canceled Landstuhl visit, the Democratic response to the "Celeb" ad has only guaranteed that Team Maverick's message will be Topic A on the Sunday shows. And as Allahpundit says, "Let Obama's numbers drop another three or four points and we'll see how they feel about negative ads then."
House Republicans Refuse to Adjourn
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 3:23PM
Great embarrassment to Nancy Pelosi & Co:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess. . . . Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.(Via Instapundit.)
Israel: Iran an Existential Threat
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 1:56PM
From Bloomberg:
"It is an existential threat," Mofaz said at a forum on Iran at
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "We have to make
sure we are prepared for every option."
In preparation to deal with the existential threat, Israel should sponsor a series of literary workshops focusing on existentialist themes in Kafka, Hesse, and Dostoevsky. Then we can turn to the nihilist threat from North Korea, the platonic realist threat of China, and the unspoken but all-too-familiar pythagoreanist threat from Moscow.
GALLUP DAILY TIED AT 44%
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 1:55PM
Obama loses a 9-point lead in five days:
This suggests that the recent surge in voter support for Obama has truly subsided.It's also the first time Obama has been below 45% since May.
The contrast between Obama's recent advantage over McCain (ranging from six to nine points) and today's result is particularly notable because this is McCain's strongest showing in over a month.
Racists Heckle Obama
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 1:02PM
"What about the Black community, Obama?" -- so said the banner unfurled in St. Petersburg, Fla., today by what Marc Ambinder calls an "international African socialist collective." Perhaps they're upset that the Democrat has been spending so much time hanging out with Britney and Paris lately.
How the Game is Played
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 12:59PM
I actually generally have sympathy for airlines these days, because some of their problems are not of their own making. But Tim Carney today shows how they are trying to game the system. A good read.
Media as Obama Surrogates
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 12:41PM
One of the interesting dynamics of political discourse is the use of campaign surrogates -- third parties who act as spokesmen or "attack dogs" for the candidate. It is always helpful to have a surrogate with a non-partisan image, which was why Zell Miller was such an effective surrogate for Bush's 2004 campaign, and why John McCain is grateful to have Joe Lieberman on his side this year.
This is why Republicans have complained so bitterly about the media's liberal bias over the years. The careful student of this phenomenon will note the tendency of network news reporters to present accusations against Republicans as if the accusations were self-evidently legitimate, often without adequately identifying the partisan origin of the charges. The passive voice -- "President Bush came under fire today ..." -- is used to distract viewers from the source of the criticism. Democratic talking points are repeated without being identified as such.
How does this happen? Mark Finklestein and Matthew Sheffield at Newsbusters catch MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell arguing that Obama didn't play the race card yesterday because reporters covering the campaign didn't think he did so. Where reporters sympathize with the candidate and share his political worldview, the candidate's rhetoric tends to be viewed as inherently legitimate. And because the press corps is overwhelmingly liberal, the sort of water-cooler conventional wisdom that shapes the media consensus tends to hinder recognition of unfair tactics by Democrats. Thus do liberal reporters function as Democratic campaign surrogates.
Juxtaposing Images
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 11:53AM
J.P., if the New York Times considers it an "attack" to "juxtapose" images of Barack Obama with white women, then what will they say about this?
Liberalism in Black and White
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 11:32AM
The liberal reaction to the McCain ad illustrates the folly of trying to achieve race-neutrality through heightened racial consciousness. People for whom racial tolerance and equality are top virtues scour a political ad with no overtly racial content to locate racial stereotypes. They end up looking at an ad that simply includes a black man and young white women and they see, "Barack Obama will rape yo daughters overtones." And they assume everybody else, especially evil racist conservatives, must see it too. But you can't fight racism by adopting the racist mindset.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 11:14AM
Pelosi's plan collapses on environmental terms
MIT researchers make step towards cheap solar power
Russia's foreign policy something to keep an eye on
Bill Rebuilds The Broken Vow
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 10:53AM
So I admit I was a little hurt when I learned Hillary Clinton, who promised me dinner under the stars, was two timing with that rogue Robert Stacy McCain. Now Bill Clinton writes to smooth it all over:
Dear Shawn,
During the campaign, Hillary and I didn't have the chance to eat together much because we were usually on the trail in different states. Now that the campaign's over, I'm glad we can share more meals again. Of all the people I've had the privilege to break bread with, the person I most enjoy is still Hillary.
Now you have a chance to have dinner with her. And if you contribute today to help Hillary retire that pesky campaign debt, you and a guest might be sitting down to dinner with her soon. I think you should go for it and enter today. Join Hillary for dinner. Make a contribution today. Trust me on this one. If you're the lucky winner, it will be a night you'll really enjoy and one to remember.
All my best,
Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton thinks I should go for it. And that breaking bread with Hillary is and has always been a real hoot! (Although cigars and Walt Whitman with Hillary...presumably less so.) Can there be any further debate? I'll see you all over at the Hillary For Prez Internet Credit Card Machine. May the best--or mostly okay--man win.
We're All Client No. 9's Now
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 10:08AM
In Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin's "Yeas and Nays" column, New York governor David Paterson brings us all down a level:
Patronizing prostitutes? Unethically bullying corporate CEOs?
Oh yeah. Just like the rest of us. We've all been there.
NYT: McCain Playing the Race Card
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 10:02AM
Now the New York Times editorial board has joined the fray, claiming that McCain's Paris and Britney ad is somehow racist and that the McCain campaign put "the sin for the racial attack not on those who made it, but on the victim of the attack." Their evidence? Any ad that makes fun of the cult of Obama or "juxtaposes" a black candidate with images of young white women is inherently racist, says the New York Times. And a lawyer who defended O.J. Simpson over a decade ago talked about playing the race card from the bottom of the deck. Apparently when Obama makes actual racial references he is being race-neutral, but McCain-approved comments that don't mention race at all can be racist if you are wearing the New York Times' secret decoder ring.
Bush Has Stockholm Syndrome
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 9:49AM
Why is the president nominating liberal Democrats to the federal bench? That's what I ask in my column today at The Examiner.
Save Talk Radio
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 9:47AM
Keep the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" dead and buried. So we say at the Examiner today.Â
I'm Just Saying...
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 9:41AM
John Edwards, a former trial lawyer and a politician, has never been particularly shy about talking to the press, but...
Edwards apparently ducked out a side area used by the kitchen staff in the fourth-floor ballroom of Washington's historic Hotel Monaco. Edwards emerged from a lower-level handicap ramp near the rear of the hotel with two men. When approached by a Charlotte Observer reporter, Edwards said, "Can't do it now, I'm sorry" and quickly walked past.
Asked what he was doing at the Beverly Hilton last week, Edwards said "sorry" and got into a waiting car with the other men.
Obama: McCain Attacks Me, Please Send Money
Posted by on 8.1.08 @ 4:30AM
A fundraising e-mail that went out last night:
Friend --So, if Republicans point out that Obama is a media-generated phenomenon with a thin resume -- which was the point of the "Celeb" ad -- this is an unfair "attack." Criticism of his energy plan constitutes "false claims." Ergo, since neither his qualifications nor his policy proposals are subject to scrutiny and appraisal, no Republican criticism of Obama is legitimate. Remind me of this, the next time some Code Pink wacko asserts that Republicans are stifling dissent.
A few hours ago John McCain, the same man who just months ago promised to run a "respectful campaign," said he is "proud" of his latest attack ad.
That's the one attacking your enthusiasm, comparing me to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, and making false claims about my energy plan.
Now, we're facing some serious challenges in this country -- our economy is struggling, energy costs are skyrocketing, and families don't have health care.
Given the seriousness of these issues, you'd think we'd be having a serious debate. But instead, John McCain is running an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day brings a desperate new set of attacks.
And they're not just attacking me. They're attacking you.
They're mocking the desire of millions of Americans to step up and take ownership of the political process.
They're trying to convince you that your enthusiasm won't amount to anything -- that the people you persuade, the phone calls you make, the donations you give, the doors you knock on are all an illusion. They believe that in this election the same old smears and negative attacks will prevail again.
They're wrong.
And right now, we have a few hours left to prove them wrong in a very concrete way.
Make a donation of $5 or more before the July fundraising deadline at midnight tonight.
Show the strength of our movement for change.
Thank you,
Barack
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Race Card Politics
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 5:05PM
Now on the defensive, the Obama campaign is pushing back against the suggestion that it is playing the race card. Jonathan Martin reports that an Obama spokesman denied that Obama was talking about race when he accused Republicans of wanting to scare voters by reminding them that he doesn't "look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills." Meanwhile, Marc Ambinder writes that:
Obama "doesn't have the typical biography that others do," and he "doesn't come to this the way that others did," says his chief message maven, Robert Gibbs. And that's what Obama means, Gibbs says, when he points to the faceplate of currency.
This is totally absurd. He didn't say, that he "came form a different background than all those other Presidents on those dollar bills," he explicitly said he didn't look like the other presidents.
Furthermore, this isn't an isolated example. As I noted below, Obama said on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday that, "I don't look like previous commanders in chief." Back in June fundraiser, Obama predicted, "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
During the Democratic primary, Obama could get away with such comments, because his constintuency was composed mainly of blacks and upper class white liberals who were sympathetic to such grievances, whether or not they were true. Now that he's trying to appeal to a broader electorate, playing the race card is a huge blunder.
Reductio Ad Absurdum in Riyadh
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 3:44PM
Saudi Arabia's official thought police appear to be getting into a new business: animal control. The Agence France Presse reports that Saudi Arabia's feared Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice has formally banned the sale of cats and dogs in the Kingdom's capital, as well as prohibiting existing owners from taking their pets out for exercise in public places. The reason? Saudi men use them "to make passes on women and disturb families," a Commission official has told the Al-Hayat newspaper.
Those Wild and Wacky Democrats
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 2:17PM
This is Obama's election to lose, and for whatever reason he seems increasingly hellbent on doing so. If he manages to pull off this feat, one only slightly less impressive than losing an election to Walter Mondale, this will be the third consecutive presidential election the Democrats have blown by nominating a candidate who makes himself odious to vast swathes of Middle America. I remain deeply skeptical about McCain's electability and Republican fortunes more broadly, but lately Obama has been reinforcing all of his negatives. He should stop believing his own press releases and go back to selling change someone can believe in.
GALLUP: OBAMA 45%, McCAIN 44%
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 2:02PM
Barack Obama's margin has shrunk by 8 points since Sunday:
The latest three-day average confirms that Obama was unable to solidify the significant lead he briefly enjoyed among registered voters at the height of publicity surrounding his weeklong visit to Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, and Europe. Gallup tracking showed Obama's lead rising at one point as high as nine percentage points (for the average from last Thursday, Friday, and Saturday), but the presumptive Democratic nominee has been losing ground since that point.Don't forget to get your Prozac prescriptions refilled, Democrats.
Playing the Race Card Against the McCain Ad
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 1:30PM
Newsday blogger John Riley accuses the McCain campaign of sending out anti-miscegenation signals in its ad, saying that Britney Spears and Paris Hilton were chosen as top celebrities because they are "two sexually available white women." Ross Douthat pushes back against this nonsense: "For many people, comparing Obama to Tiger Woods or David Beckham or J.K. Rowling would be a compliment. Whereas the whole point of picking Britney and especially Paris Hilton is that they're figures of ridicule, famous primarily for being famous and widely derided as embarrassing airheads who only exist to feed the paparazzi machine."
Examiner Blasts Reid
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 12:43PM
For what it's worth, the Examiner today backed Jim DeMint and blasted Harry Reid on both substance and on procedural tactics. On the latter, it's worth noting that New Hampshire's Sen. Judd Gregg had very VERY harsh words for Reid, on the exact same topic, in on-the-record remarks at a Spectator-related dinner earlier this month.
McCain Campaign Responds to Obama's Straw Man
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 11:58AM
The McCain campaign just released the following statement:
Enforcement Works
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 11:55AM
The Christian Science Monitor on attrition through enforcement as a way of dealing with illegal immigration.
OMG! Forget Those Polls, People!
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 11:54AM
All credit to a Democratic blogger for this extremely important insight so brilliant that I'm surprised I didn't think of it myself: Current polling is quite possibly invalid because many voters don't yet realize that Hillary Clinton won't be Barack Obama's running mate.
Big Tent Democrat -- an erstwhile Hillary supporter, but not a PUMA -- lays it out:
The new Quinnipiac polls for Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are mostly encouraging for John McCain. How can that be? you might ask. McCain trails in all 3 states . . .
First of all, I do not believe Obama is leading in Florida. In fact, since he is not going to pick Hillary Clinton, I do not think he has a chance in Florida. The crosstabs tell the tale in my opinion. Two key numbers - Obama leads with women NOW 47-42 (not enough, McCain will win men by more than the 47-45 the Q poll is showing.) He will lose women, especially in South Florida, when he does not pick Hillary. McCain leads with white voters 53-39. He will lead by more than that come November, especially if he does not pick Hillary. Obama will not win Florida.
Brilliant, and inarguably true. A large percentage of voters who now say they support Obama haven't been paying close enough attention to notice the clear indications that he's not even seriously considering Hillary as his running mate.
These voters quite naturally assume that, after such a close-fought contest, Hillary has earned the right to be on the ticket. They haven't noticed Obama's comments and furious vetting efforts that show he's seeking an ABC ("Anyone But Clinton") running mate, with most speculation centering on Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. And when it is finally announced that Hillary won't be on the ticket, it's going to be a huge jolt, one that many will perceive as a purposeful insult to the former First Lady.
So look at Obama's 3-point RCP average lead and try to estimate how many points he will lose when he gives Hillary the Cagney-with-a-grapefruit treatment:
Re: Obama's Straw Man
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 11:54AM
This is a very risky approach for Obama. Much of his appeal is based on being a post-racial candidate. Playing the race card, even subtly, can undermine that.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 11:48AM
Don't let maxims determine success in Iraq
Food "apartheid" in LA is paternalism
Housing bailout fit for TV drama, says Amity Schlaes Food bank to fight hunger
Inside the Progressive Mind
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 10:40AM
Having noted the MSM's furious reaction to the "Celeb" ad -- a sure sign of the ad's effectiveness -- I must now, alas, take note of the Rorschach inkblot reaction of certain liberal bloggers, who perceive subliminal messages where any ordinary viewer sees only a spoof of the Democratic "rock star" candidate.
How many times must we tell progressives that the cheap generic store-brand tinfoil they're using in their hats won't do the job? As any regular listener to shortwave conspiracy-theory radio knows, only Heavy-Duty Reynolds Wrap(TM) can effectively block CIA brain-control signals.
Obama's Straw Man
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 10:16AM
Here's what Obama had to say at an appearance in Missouri yesterday:
Authors Against Obama -- Update
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 10:13AM
Jim Geraghty has taken notice of the sweetheart deal Barack Obama got on his first book when he was a 28-year student with no real track record as a writer.
'Childish'?
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 1:34AM
The past two weeks have (finally) seen something like a spark of life in the John McCain campaign, for which Steve Schmidt deserves credit. So, now that Team Maverick has seized the initiative and started scoring points against Obama, who's complaining? The guy who ran the McCain campaign into bankruptcy last year.
Interviewed by Marc Ambinder, John Weaver called the latest McCain campaign ad "childish" and said the aggressive attack strategy "reduces McCain on the stage." As opposed to what? Blowing through more than $20 million by mid-2007?
The Media's Two Candidates
Posted by on 7.31.08 @ 12:20AM
David Weigel sees hypocrisy in John McCain's media-bashing:
I don't think McCain's comeback would have been possible had the political press not been scoring points for him all throughout 2007. His comeback was willed into existence by reporters. . . .This is inarguably true. The media did make McCain the Republican nominee . . . and then they picked Obama as the Democratic nominee. And now the media are in the process of trying to pick the next president with the exact matchup they wanted: Old, Bald and Grumpy vs. Young, Hip and Sexy.
Yet even if, despite their herculean efforts on Obama's behalf, the media's Democrat somehow manages to lose, the media's Republican still wins. Kinda neat how that works out for them, huh?
Oh, almost forgot: The way MSNBC and the Washington Post are howling over the "Celeb" ad -- which has driven the left-wing blogosphere into a blind apoplectic rage -- tells me that this one's an absolute bullseye. As folks say down home, a hit dog will holler.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Re: Obama's Polling Trend
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 5:32PM
Exactamundo, Jim. It's a gamble, but it's the only possible ... er, hope for Team Maverick. I'm reminded of one of my favorite scenes from one of my favorite movies:
Flounder: Will that work?Cheers!
Otter: Hey, it's gotta work better than the truth.
Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Re: Obama, McGovern, and Dukakis
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 5:29PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that in both 1972 and 1988, the Republican incumbent presidents were much more popular than Bush. In July 1988, Reagan's approval rating was at 54 percent, while in June of 1972, Nixon's was at 57 percent. As I write, Bush is at 32 percent.
It's only fair to note, per Stacy's point, that McCain's own favorable rating is still at a strong 62 percent, so there's certainly an opening for him if Obama comes to be seen as too liberal. I just wonder how McCain gets more of those people who seem to have a favorable view of him actually vote for him, especially given the Republican fatigue.
Re: Obama's Polling Trend
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 5:09PM
Of course, George McGovern was running against an incumbent and Michael Dukakis a quasi-incumbent. They had a higher bar to reach because they were the challengers. Maybe John McCain is in the quasi-incumbent role this time out and Barack Obama will be seen as the challenger, to be rejected by swing voters as too liberal, inexperienced, and risky. Maybe not. That's the gamble McCain is going to have to make.
Re: Obama's Polling Trend
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 4:48PM
The obvious responses to your doubts, Phil, would be (a) George McGovern and (b) Mike Dukakis.
Richard Nixon was never a beloved hero or a rallying point for the American people. Nor was Bush 41 a charismatic figure. Yet in 1972 and 1988, the Democrats suffered blowout defeats because they nominated candidates whom the Republican Party could portray as outside the political mainstream.
For 40 years, Democrats have refused to face up to an obvious fact: Americans don't want a liberal president. Democrats have won the White House during this four-decade span only when they have nominated Southern governors who could be depicted, however inaccurately, as moderate/centrist types.
As to the positive appeal of John McCain, ideologues like ourselves cannot resist eye-rolling, shoulder-shrugging exasperation over the man's unprincipled Maverickhood. Yet the fact is that the guy's POW biography, his "Straight Talk" shtick, and his non-partisan reformer "brand" have a genuine appeal to independent voters. And the powerful Geezer Vote is a factor not to be dismissed.
I am not guaranteeing that Team Maverick can pull this off, but to see how it could happen, you've got to think in terms of non-ideological "swing" voters out in the sticks -- the people I call "ordinary Americans," who see politics very differently from the way we political junkies do.
Re: Obama's Polling Trend
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 4:27PM
If you look at the Gallup daily tracking chart, Obama's numbers have been in the 45-49 percent range and McCain's have been in the 40-44 percent range. While I can think of many things that can keep Obama's numbers down, I wonder what it would take to get McCain's numbers up into the high 40s, let alone low 50s. The larger point I'm making is that historically, convincing voters that your opponent is bad can only get you so far. At some point, you have to give voters a reason to vote for you rather than merely against the other guy. In 2004, for instance, anti-Bush sentiment got John Kerry more than 48 percent of the vote, but because people weren't particularly hot for him, it couldn't put him over the top. Even if he can raise doubts about Obama, what does McCain have to do to get more people to rally behind him? I'm not so sure.
HuffPo's Idea of a Scandal
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 3:08PM
Republicans who don't buy their shoes at Wal-Mart.
Like, you just know Obama gets his footwear at Payless Shoes.
Olmert to Resign
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 2:59PM
It seemed like this day would never come, but Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced he would resign after his Kadima party elects a new leader in September. This could mean either another Prime Minister from the centrist Kadima party, or potentially new elections, in which Likud would have a chance to regain power.
Poll: Obama's Trend Is Not His Friend
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 2:45PM
Barack Obama 46%, John McCain 42% -- The latest Gallup Daily shows a continued post-Obamamania World Tour decline of Hope:
After moving into a nine percentage point lead over John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national registered voters this past weekend, Barack Obama now leads by just four points, 46% to 42%. . . .This doesn't rule out the possibility of Obama slumping still further and, as noted in my column today, Gallup's tracking poll is of registered (rather than "likely") voters, and therefore may overstate his actual level of support.
With Obama now back on U.S. soil and filling less of the nightly news, voter preferences have reverted to their pre-trip levels.
Obama Aide Calls Ludacris a 'Talented Individual'
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 2:41PM
The Obama campaign has bungled its initial response to the Ludacris firestorm. Via the Brody File, I see that campaign spokesman Bill Burton has issued the following statement:
Re: Ludacris
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 2:32PM
Obama met with one of his favorite rappers back in November of 2006, while contemplating a run for president, and the two reportedly spoke of "empowering the youth."
Not only does the
song reference Hillary Clinton as a "bi&ch,"it includes the
line, "McCain don't belong in ANY chair unless he's paralyzed." To
say that about a war hero who suffered permanent injuries as a
result of his service to his country, is absolutely disgusting.
Wehner Takes Down Joe Klein
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 2:09PM
Pete Wehner does a number on the increasingly unhinged Joe Klein. Great stuff.Â
'Tabloid Trash' Update
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 1:53PM
More irresponsible and unfounded gossip-mongering by the National Enquirer:
A NATIONAL ENQUIRER investigation has uncovered John Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter - the mother of his "love child" - has been secretly receiving $15,000 a month as part of an elaborate cover-up orchestrated by the former presidential contender. . . .While our high-minded friends at The Corner reach for their smelling salts, I'll note that the famously litigious Edwards hasn't even threatened to sue for libel.
And The ENQUIRER is also exclusively revealing that Rielle's baby is a girl named Frances Quinn Hunter and was born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital.
Rapper:Vote Obama to 'Paint the White House Black'
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 1:25PM
Jammie Wearing Fool asks, "Question for Ludacris: Ever been thrown under a bus?"
Quote of the Day
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 1:22PM
"The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government's business." -- Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) at a press conference on his proposal to end federal penalties for Americans carrying fewer than 100 grams of marijuana. I agree with Frank on pot (and online gambling), but I wish he'd extend his libertarianism to the vast amount of human activity that goes on in the economic sphere.
The Road to Hell
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 1:04PM
When Michael Gerson finally talks about results rather than intentions in one of his attacks on conservatives, I might take him seriously.
Re: Does Ted Stevens Doom the GOP?
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 12:58PM
Regardless of whatever electoral damage it may inflict in the short run, Jim, the destruction of Republican scoundrels is ultimately good for the GOP.
Not (merely) to engage in shameless self-promotion, but the differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to scandals and corruption was something I had to ponder at length while working on Donkey Cons. The inescapable fact is that Republicans are less likely to engage in corrupt activity because their electoral base won't stand for it.
For better or worse, the GOP's core support comes from decent, respectable middle-class people with small-town sensibilities -- the American bourgeoisie, if you will -- and if there's one thing those people can't stand, it's a politician on the take. If Republicans don't purge their own scoundrels, the electorate will do it for them. Republicans often complain that the Democrats commit similar offenses (and worse) without seeming to pay so heavy a penalty. This is demonstrably true, but misses the point.
One of the strongest and most traditional appeals of the GOP is the promise of honest government, a contrast to the sleazy wheeler-dealer ways that have been the hallmark of the Democratic Party since the founding of Tammany Hall more than two centuries ago. When a Republican goes crooked, he should be condemned as a carrier of the corruption virus and summarily cast out, lest the disease infect the entire GOP.
ADDENDUM: Let me hasten to add that I'm not advocating a goody-two-shoes approach to governance. There is a difference between a free lunch and criminal corruption, and there is a certain truth in Jesse Unruh's most famous saying.
Does Ted Stevens Doom the GOP?
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 12:36PM
Certainly, Ted Stevens's indictment isn't good news for Republicans but some of these stories seem slightly overblown. If you look at the polls, the Democrats had a better than even shot of taking Stevens's seat even before his indictment. Given the lack of credible Republican alternatives -- at least among those who elected to run -- this has been a good bet for a Democratic pickup for months now. Where Stevens could be a bigger problem for Republicans is if he helps revive the "culture of corruption" narrative and taint the party as a whole. The Politico story I linked above talks about the Republicans finding some footing on the energy issue. If Stevens further tarnishes the Republican brand, it will be similar to how Mark Foley was the final nail in the coffin right as it seemed the GOP's fortunes were starting to improve in the fall of 2006.
The Non-Capitulator
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 12:15PM
Jacob Sullum has a nice piece on Tom Coburn and the Democratic omnibus spending bill he managed to keep Senate Republicans from capitulating on.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 12:12PM
Bush signs measure for homeowners
Karadzic to face war crimes court
Turkey's ruling party escapes ban
EU agrees to go beyond UN sanctions
Re: World's Biggest Celebrity
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 12:06PM
Indeed -- a very well-focused message, Phil. More evidence of the improved effectiveness of Maverick's campaign since Steve Schmidt came aboard. Making the election "all about Obama" -- a referendum on the Democrat's character and qualifications, with John McCain running as the Not Obama candidate -- is really the only hope for the GOP this year. (An insight I first picked up from Patrick Ruffini, by the way.)
Republican Capitulation of the Day
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 11:46AM
Bush signs the housing bill. Privatizing profits, socializing risk -- crony capitalism at its "finest."
Re: John Facebook Kerry
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 11:44AM
No doubt Kerry is also lucky that Facebook couldn't capture him asking repeatedly, "Do you know who I am?"
Is the World's Biggest Celebrity Ready to Lead?
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 11:43AM
A strong ad from the McCain folks.
Tying Loose Ends at Baylor
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 11:33AM
Back when I was a Ph.D. student at Baylor University, I became interested in and wrote about the controversy at the school over the presidency and vision of Robert Sloan. He intended to turn Baylor into the only comprehensive research institution among faithfully Protestant universities. Those articles appeared here, at National Review Online, and at Christianity Today.
Sloan was ultimately forced out because he was unable to tame massive protests from older faculty and constant assault from some alumni. Despite his resignation, Baylor still purports to follow the Baylor 2012 vision that was the centerpiece of his presidency. I now have the privilege of working for him at Houston Baptist University.
Last week, Baylor fired Sloan's successor and offered similar reasons about division on campus.
On another note, one of Sloan's primary alumni tormentors was sentenced to 20 years for investment fraud of senior citizens last month.
My advice to the board: Find your horse, the one you really want. Back him. Close your ears for five years.
The Hubris Narrative
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 11:11AM
It has mostly been confinced to the right thus far (see Charles Krauthammer, our own John Tabin), but in this morning's Washington Post, Dana Milbank dubs Obama the "presumptuous nominee," and catalogues how he is acting as if he is already president. While Americans like to see confidence in their politicians, I think this is the one narrative that has the potential to hurt Obama, because his hubris is inversely proportional to his experience.
You May Have Jumped the Shark If . . .
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 11:05AM
. . . you begin telling people about your own "symbolic importance."
or . . . Washington Post columnists start mocking you as the "presumptuous nominee."
or . . . . your recent poll trend could be interpreted as a net loss of 19 points in 38 days.
Novak Update
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 9:52AM
Bob Novak 's family released the following statement:
John Facebook Kerry
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 8:21AM
The album of snapshots showing John Kerry -- beer in hand -- with a bevy of young women has prompted a defensive-sounding denial:
"The caption on this TMZ gossip website is completely erroneous and insulting, and it should be immediately corrected. As Sen. Kerry and two friends left dinner at the Straight Warf restaurant on Nantucket and walked down the dock, a large group on a boat recognized Senator Kerry and asked if they could have a photo taken. The group came off the boat and onto the dock, took a photo with Sen. Kerry and his friends, and then Sen. Kerry and his two friends immediately walked away. End of story," said Kerry spokesperson David Wade.
Apparently, this "spokesperson" fears that some people don't get the ethos of the Facebook generation. The whole point of having a Facebook page, as any College Republican could tell you, is to post photos of yourself and your friends that enhance your reputation as a popular, fun-loving party animal. Kerry (and his "spokesperson") can breathe a sigh of relief that at least none of the girls started doing that fake-lesbian-kissing thing that's so common in Facebook photos.
UPDATE: A clarification seems necessary. While this photo appears to show Sen. Kerry holding a beer, it's also possible that the hand holding the beer belongs to the wasted-looking woman beside him. It's like Rashomon . . .
That Two-Timer, Hillary Clinton
Posted by on 7.30.08 @ 7:49AM
You know, when Hillary Clinton asked me yesterday to have "dinner under the stars" with her, I was flattered. But now I discover she's also invited Shawn Macomber! Either she's trying to make me jealous, or else she's really on the prowl these days.
She can't play these games with me, though. I guess I'll go hang out backstage with Obama instead.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Re: Broke Barr?
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 11:41PM
Philip, that's got to be one of the most ill-considered fundraising e-mails in the history of fundraising e-mails. Imagine Barr's reaction to seeing that in the Wall Street Journal -- yow!
The fundraising shortfall is very surprising, considering that the LP reported record contributions at this year's presidential banquet, the party's traditional big fundraiser at the end of the convention. That would have indicated strong support within LP ranks, and at a private reception for Barr I attended in Denver, many delegates were writing contribution checks on the spot.
Given Barr's extensive media exposure (certainly more than any Libertarian nominee in decades) I'm wondering if the shortfall complained of by Verney represents some structural problem with the campaign's operation.
Broke Barr?
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 7:10PM
The WSJ's Susan Davis reports:
In perhaps the most desperate sounding e-mail solicitation yet this election cycle, third party Libertarian candidate Bob Barr's campaign manager sent out a plea today to supporters to raise $15,000 each day this week -- or else.
Under the subject line, "Have I said or done something to offend you?" Russ Verney writes, "You see, I have to report that unless we receive and immediate cash infusion of $85,000, our progress will stop dead in its tracks. To be very blunt, I am presently faced with bills equaling our bank account balance, and I know there are many more expenses on the horizon."
According to the latest report with the Federal Election Commission, Barr's campaign had just $69,000 cash on hand at the end of June, and he raised just under $200,000 last month.
Barr, thus far, has run a cautious campaign by third party standards. When he speaks, his statements are measured, as if he thinks he may actually become president; he has embraced the Libertarian Party, but rejected its more radical elements in a concerted play for conservative votes. In theory, it looked like it a promising strategy for him -- combining Ron Paul voters with disgruntled conservatives could make for a historic showing for a Libertarian candidate, and mean trouble for John McCain. But I wonder if the high-wire act he has been trying to pull off has left Barr with the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, his play for conservative voters and measured tone has made it more difficult for him to tap into the enthusiasm (and wallets) of the Paulites, while his shift from conservative stalwart to Libertarian standard bearer has turned off potential supporters on the right. One would think that in an election year such as this, in which you have a sizable number of frustrated libertarians and limited government conservatives and a Republican nominee unacceptable to many of them, that the political terrain would be ideally-suited for somebody like Barr. But, while it's a long way until November, right now, Barr doesn't appear to be catching fire, and that has to be seen as good news for McCain.The Tories on National Security
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 6:52PM
In an earlier post, I raised alarms about the British conservatives' abandonment of Thatcherism on the domestic front. This afternoon, I attended a talk on the party's approach to national security matters featuring Dr. Liam Fox, a Tory member of parliament who is the shadow Defence Secretary, set to take over should the Tories return to power, which seems increasingly likely.
On the one hand, Fox said he expected a continued British presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and said any withdrawal from Iraq should be conditions based. But, he also distanced himself from some of the idealism of the Bush and Blair administrations, especially when it came to democratization. He said that it may not have been the strategy that failed in Iraq, but the fact that expectations were set too high, and there wasn't a realistic timescale for how long it would take to create a stable democracy. Democracy could not be achieved overnight, Fox said, and it's a lot more complicated than just holding elections.
Fox was intentionally vague when it came to Iran, saying only that all options should be on the table. He said that there can be no accepting an Iranian nuclear weapon for three primary reasons: the dangers posed by a regime that has threatened to wipe a neighboring country off the map, the regime's sponsorship and export of terrorism, and the fact that if it went nuclear, it would set off a nuclear arms race among all nations in one of the most unstable regions in the world.
A Tory government, Fox vowed, would be tougher on the European Union, which signed an agreement in Lisbon that would create a standing army that would duplicate, and perhaps compete for troops with NATO, and compromise British sovereignty.
He also noted other threats, specifically signaling out the dangers posed by a "re-emerging" Russia.
Former Army spokesman Crispian Cuss talked about the financial challenges Britain faced in funding its military, given their robust social spending, and Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion (which conducted the survey I mentioned yesterday on Islam on British campuses), warned about the dangers of Muslim radicalization in Britain. Murray said that the Tories decision to name Sayeeda Warsi to their shadow cabinet is a troubling indication that the party doesn't understand the threat. Warsi, who is Muslim, has attacked Murray for using the term "Islamist terrorism" objecting not only to the "Islamist" part, but to the use of the word "terrorism" as well. Murray said she has also refused to condemn the killing of British troops in Iraq by Iranian-backed terrorists. Nile Gardiner has written about Warsi in the past, noting that, among other things, she welcomed the election of Hamas in 2006.
Our Happy Center
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 6:01PM
Gerald Seib argues that if liberals are irritated with the Democrats and conservatives are irked with the Republicans, voters in the middle should be happy. That's a nifty theory and it makes a certain amount of superficial sense. But President Bush's approval rating hovers between the 20s and low 30s, Congress's ratings are closer to the teens (and in one poll, the single digits), and the presidential race features two major-party candidates stuck below 50 percent of the vote with 10-15 percent of the electorate still undecided. That doesn't sound like happy moderates to me.
Re: Ted Stevens Indicted
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 4:32PM
When pork is outlawed, only outlaws will have pork.
More on Obamaconomics
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 4:02PM
Not far from the takedown of RomneyCare, Michael Boskin has a fine Wall Street Journal piece on the dangers of Obama's economic platform: "What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the 'rich' to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?"
I'd only quibble with a couple of things: I don't really mind people seeing our "country's social insurance system" as "explicit welfare"; and let's be careful about predicting recessions. The fact that so many conservatives, myself included, overstated the economic pitfalls of the Clinton tax increase and predicted a recession that did not actually occur helped rehabilitate the Democratic approach to fiscal policy, which had been discredited in the transition from Carter to Reagan. True, Obama will be inheriting a weaker economy and wants to raise taxes higher than Clinton. It's also true that the Clinton tax increase would have done more damage if it hadn't been minimized by Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress, by stripping the BTU tax and other provisions. But Obama may not get everything he wants either. Ramesh Ponnuru has more.
Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 3:48PM
A resolution apologizing for "the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans" seems likely to pass the House.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 3:39PM
Australia changes asylum policy
China defends human rights record
Lower Than Dirt
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 3:33PM
The lefty blogosphere is so full of hate and bile. Look to this site to see what a truly foul-souled individual says about the ailments that killed Tony Snow and have stricken Robert Novak. (It is so foul that I can't even bear typing it again here.)
At Firedoglake, a lead post asks "What do Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage Have in Common?" Answer: The guy who did the mass shooting in Knoxville "was a fan of all three." And it goes downhill from there.Â
Re: Ted Stevens Indicted
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 2:09PM
Stevens has six Republican primary challengers, none of them as strong as Sean Parnell's challenge to Don Young. The most serious challengers are Dave Cuddy, a developer and former state representative who spent $1.5 million to lose to Stevens in the 1996 GOP primary, and attorney Vic Vickers, who is up with ads now. The last poll I saw had Stevens up 15 points over Cuddy, though that was late June and this development may change things. The Democrats have recruited a strong candidate in Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, who has led Stevens in several polls. The latest poll shows a statistical tie, with Begich at 47 percent to Stevens's 45 percent.
Ted Stevens Indicted
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 1:53PM
The vulnerable 84-year old Republican Senator and pork king was indicted. With the primary set for August 26, Republican voters will get the chance to dump him. But this seat, already in doubt for the GOP, may move to the "likely Democratic pickup" column.
Re: Credit Where It's Due
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 1:48PM
I'll second Phil on this -- despite my fears, the Senate Republicans stepped up. All the more reason it would be nice to have a critical mass of Republican senators in the next Congress.
Fearing the Tories
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 1:39PM
In the latest issue of the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes takes a look at the resurgence of the Tories in Britain, and argues that Republicans should learn from them. Lord help us.
If British conservatives want to throw Thatcherism under the bus to retake power, that's an unfortunate development, but one that I can live with as I am not British. But if a Tory victory will convince the American right that we have to imitate them and throw Reaganism under the bus, than consider me worried.
Barnes paints a portrait of a Tory party rebranding itself after a long time in the wilderness by co-opting the language of the left, using terms such as "social justice" and adopting the environmentalist slogan, "vote blue, go green."
But we've seen this movie before, only in America it was called "compassionate conservatism." Far from creating a permanent Republican majority, its signature policies of No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug bill, along with additional bloated spending bills, destroyed the Republican brand as the party of fiscal discipline, and now Republicans are well-positioned for another electoral disaster this November.
Now Fred "Rebel-in-Chief" Barnes, overlooking the utter debacle that big government conservatism has become in the U.S., wants us to look to statist Britain for answers. No thanks.
Obama's Memory Hole
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 1:15PM
Yesterday, I noted that Barack Obama was using the Jeremiah Wright "snippet" defense to argue that he really thought the surge would reduce violence. Today, ABC further frisks his claim.
Credit Where Credit is Due
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 12:31PM
Despite Jim's fears, GOP Senators went to bat for Tom Coburn.
Rasmussen: McCain Within One Point
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 11:34AM
Latest daily tracking poll: Barack Obama 47%, John McCain 46% -- now a virtual tie.
UPDATE: Just three days ago, Obama led by 6 points. We await today's latest from Gallup, but this is already the second consecutive day of profoundly depressing poll news for Democrats.
UPDATE II: While seeking the latest Gallup daily, I found a report that included this graphic:
Obama-Kaine?
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 11:31AM
The Politico reports that Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is "very, very high" on Obama's short list for VP, while the Washington Post writes that Kaine has told associates he has had "very serious" discussions with Obama about the job.
By tapping the governor, Obama would be awarding Kaine for being the first high-profile public official to endorse him back in the days when Hillary Clinton was seen as the inevitable nominee. I remember going to a small-dollar fundraiser in Richmond with the both of them in May of 2007, and this June, right after he clinched the nomination, Obama held a large rally in Bristow, Virginia featuring Kaine and Jim Webb. Kaine fired up the crowd with a speech about how Obama would be the first Democrat to carry the commonwealth since 1964, while Webb gave a bizarre and depressing speech. Many of the Obama supporters I spoke to after said they would prefer to see Kaine as his running mate. While choosing Kaine would clearly be a play for Virginia, it's also worth noting that Kaine grew up and went to high school and college in the ultimate bellwether state -- Missouri.
The biggest downside to Kaine has to be the fact that he has even less foreign policy experience than Obama. Picking Kaine would mean doubling-down on the "change" theme, rather than choosing somebody more seasoned to help close the riskiness gap.
The Perils of RomneyCare
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 10:45AM
The WSJ has a solid editorial explaining the fiscal nightmare created by Mitt Romney's health-care plan in Massachusetts, which looks worse and worse with each passing day. But there's one part that I found extremely rich.
While I was writing my health-care story for our July/August issue, I looked at how state mandates requiring that insurance policies cover specific treatments (as opposed to allowing people to choose a plan that's right for them) drive up the cost of health care by anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent, according to a study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance.
Now, says the editorial:
In the Blue Doghouse
Posted by on 7.29.08 @ 10:44AM
I recently observed that the conservative Southern Democrat was making a comeback as Democrats in general have seen their fortunes rise and the national party has decided it likes winning better than social-issues litmus tests. The question is how enduring this comeback will be, especially once liberals no longer feel they need right-leaning Democrats to pad their majorities. If this Glenn Greenwald piece essentially calling for a purge of the Blue Dogs -- and defining that term broadly enough to include liberal hawks -- is any indication, folks like Travis Childers had better watch their back.
I should add that from a liberal perspective, Greenwald's objections to the Blue Dogs make perfect sense. Conservatives would have equal reason to be concerned if the Republican Party developed a strategy of retaking Congress by electing Chris Shays clones in the Northeast. (Well, that would require the GOP to have a strategy, so it is purely hypothetical, but you get the idea.)
Monday, July 28, 2008
Re: Nuking the Fonz
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 8:23PM
You raise a good point, Shawn. But I'm more impressed with Poulos and his Paleo Sideburns From Hell. If only Pat Buchanan had seen fit to grow a pair of righteous mutton chops like that, he'd have won the nomination in '96 and changed the course of history.
Western Wall-Gate
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 7:09PM
The Israeli paper Ma'ariv took heat for publishing the prayer Barack Obama left in the cracks of the Western Wall on his vistit to Israel. The fact that anybody would grab his private note in such a holy place is disgusting, no doubt. But all along, Obama's message had a certain made for publication quality: "Lord - Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will." Now, a spokesman for Ma'ariv says that the Obama campaign revealed the note to reporters before placing it into the wall:
Barack Obama's note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put in the Kotel [Western Wall], a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
The Obama campaign is denying the report, so it's a he said, she said, situation. But what's sad is that Obama's campaign was supposed to be about making people less cynical about politics, and yet I find it completely believable that the Obama campaign would leak his "private" prayer to a newspaper for publication.
Barr: Cutting Spending the Top Priority
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 6:14PM
I just got off a wide-ranging bloggers' conference call with Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr. Some of the topics:
- Barr strongly opposed the housing bill awaiting President Bush's signature.
- He said cutting spending would be the top priority of a Barr administration
- Everything would be on budget, including Iraq "which would be wound down"
- He said he would try to get into the debates with McCain and Obama, but declined to say whether he would debate Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin or other third-party candidates
- Barr argued that he was not an isolationist on foreign policy, that he would not "zero out" all U.S. foreign aid and military spending abroad, and that he supports a strong national defense posture (but "not offense and occupation) like that which Ronald Reagan used to win the Cold War but he will also reduce foreign aid and overseas military commitments
- Barr talked about streamlining the legal immigration process while deporting, without major national round-ups, those in the country illegally. He didn't take a full restrictionist line, emphasizng the importance of attracting skilled foreign workers as legal immigrants
In a future conference call, Barr said he would address the intricacies of state ballot access issues but he expected to be on the ballot in "virtually" all 50 states. He named Oklahoma as the one possible sticking point.
Prayer for Novak
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 5:40PM
I add my prayers for the full and speedy recovery of Bob Novak. We still don't know what sort of tumor it is; here's hoping it is no worse than the benign one that Arlen Specter had removed, with no lasting ill effects, several years ago.
Please Say It Ain't So
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 5:37PM
Jim Geraghty is hearing that the choice is Pawlenty. Please say it ain't so. His awful on-air joke about his wife not having sex with him earlier this year shows he is not ready for prime time. His global warming advocacy was so extreme earlier this year that it turned off fellow GOP governors, quite seriously. His TV appearances have shown him to coome across as without substance and without memorability. And his statement two years ago that the era of small government is over, and that government needs to be more aggressive and proactive, is a total deal-killer for the limited-government people who STILL remain the heart and soul of the heartland GOP and of the conservative movement. Again, please say it ain't so.
Boehner on Novak
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 5:18PM
The Republican House leader issued this fine statement, on learning that Robert Novak has been diagnosed with a brain tumor:
"This is stunning news for anyone who follows American politics, and my thoughts and prayers go out to Bob and his family. I know Bob will confront this challenge with the same courage with which he has taken on the political establishment in Washington for decades. And with God's help, he will prevail in this fight."
The Cyber Ceiling
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 5:17PM
Start taking female bloggers (floggers?) seriously, you sexist pigs!
Democrat Suicide Watch
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 5:05PM
USA Today poll: John McCain 49%, Barack Obama 45%. That splashing sound you hear is despondent Democrats throwing themselves off bridges near you.
UPDATE: This is the first poll in nearly three months to show McCain leading Obama, and is the Republican's biggest lead over Obama in any poll since early April. Liberal Democrats tempted to reach for the sleeping pills and whiskey are cautioned not to be so hasty: This poll is an anomalous outlier, as far out of whack with other polling data as that ridiculous Newsweek poll last month showing Obama ahead by 15 points.
In fact, this USA Today poll was conducted by Gallup -- the same firm whose latest daily tracking poll shows Obama ahead by eight points. So before turning on the gas and sticking your head in the oven, liberals, please remember to have Hope.
Re: Krikorian on Immigrants and Welfare
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 4:48PM
As written, Krikorian's suggesting the inability of unskilled workers to make it on their own, immigrants or not. That's a different point than saying that the poor will inevitably get social services. Why not just say that it's impractical to enforce on the welfare side because of the easy availability of these services, or their high demand among unskilled workers?
Re: Krikorian on Immigrants and Welfare
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 4:21PM
All he's saying is that unskilled workers are going to tend to be poor and that poor people tend to use social services and means-tested government programs. Krikorian is both disputing the idea that immigrants come to the United States to collect welfare rather than work, and the notion that immigrants who come here to work hard don't collect welfare. By my reading, that view isn't incompatible with believing that free markets will do more to improve the conditions of the poor than expanding the welfare state. The main difference Krikorian would have with our Tom Bethell, well known for arguing "Immigration si, welfare no," is as to whether the most practical way to deal with the problem of unskilled immigration and welfare is to cut off the welfare or cut off unskilled immigration.
Krikorian on Immigrants and Welfare
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 4:01PM
Reading the most recent National Review, I note a weird statement from Mark Krikorian that's striking me as a little (or maybe very) wrongheaded:
Well, I guess it depends on what the expectations are of our society. I'd argue that the subsidies from the taxpayer hardly scratches at the kind of support necessary to raise the families, and if nothing else, they likely make it more difficult for immigrants because of higher taxes/lower job growth. What we've learned from the free market is that frequently government subsidies undermine the individual's ability to support a family. This is a step further from "Government Is Inefficient," and closer toward "Government Does Harm."
In arguing this way, Krikorian gives far too much ground away to "compassionate conservatives" and welfare-loving liberals who point out that the state really does help the poor. People with very little education or few skills can earn enough to support their families, and treating immigrants' desire for social services as inevitable doesn't address the point that part of why they might be so dependent on these services is that they're in this country illegally (and finding work is difficult) or they're priced out of the market by the minimum wage.
Is Huntsman in the Hunt?
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 3:26PM
A smart friend who has reason to believe that John McCain wouldn't hesitate to choose a running mate from a bordering state, suggested to me the other day that McCain may end up picking Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.
Though he is relatively unknown nationally, Huntsman would fit the McCain mold in many important ways. He was an early and loyal endorser of McCain, which was especially bold on Huntsman's part because it meant passing over fellow Mormon Mitt Romney, who is popular in Utah, and who his father (a prominent businessman) endorsed. Huntsman's resume includes some private sector experience, a stint as deputy U.S. trade representative, and foreign policy experience as a U.S. ambassador to Singapore. He is fluent in Chinese.
His positions would also seem to be a good fit for McCain. In 2006, he received a solid 'B' rating from the Cato Institute in its fiscal policy report card for governors, midway through his term. He also shares McCain's views on environmental issues, including support for cap and trade. At 47, he'd bring some youth to the ticket, and would be a fresh face.
I remember meeting Huntsman in New Hampshire way back in January of 2007, and even then, he was acting as a surrogate for McCain, hosting an event at Manchester's Merrimack Restaurant. He talked about being stuck in Vietnam on Sept. 11, and being moved by visiting the remains of the Hanoi Hilton. He also recounted an overseas trip they took together, during which Huntsman was impressed by the way U.S. troops responded to McCain.
This in no way constitutes an endorsement of Huntsman on my part, and I have nothing firm to suggest that this is whom McCain intends to pick. Just consider it slightly informed speculation, of which there is a lot in Washington these days.
For what it's worth, Huntsman has brushed off VP talk, and is running for reelection in Utah this year.
Trial bar on Offensive
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 3:02PM
My two-part feature in Sunday's Examiner may be of interest: The plaintiffs' bar is not playing defense on Capitol Hill, but very much on offense.
Re: Former Wisconsin Hillary Delegate Defects
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 2:37PM
I would love to hear this woman explain what the major policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are.
Barack Obama: Rubinomics or Road to Serfdom?
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 1:58PM
Cesar Conda has a great piece on Obama's economic team in the latest Weekly Standard. The central question is whether Obama's approach to economics will be closer to the doctrinaire liberalism of his campaign platform or his more pragmatic, market-friendly advisers. Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee are well respected, centrist free traders, not wooly-eyed statist liberals, which is why many Obamacons cite them as evidence that Obama is not so bad.
Conda is fair in describing what's good about Furman and Goolsbee, but he doesn't spare the bad and the ugly:
But how much comfort can conservatives take from Obama having such "reasonable" economic advisers? There is certainly no question that an Obama administration is a frightening prospect for free-market advocates. This self-described "free market guy" has said he opposes the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and will reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He would sign legislation raising the minimum wage and ending secret balloting for workers deciding on unionization. He would require employers to pay for health insurance for their workers, mandate coverage for all children, and expand Medicaid and other government programs. He wants higher fuel-economy standards for new cars and trucks, power companies to produce some of their electricity from solar and renewable sources, and federal ethanol mandates.Furman and Goolsbee are obviously in agreement with much of this agenda, and both have been strong advocates of progressive taxation. Goolsbee, in particular, has taken direct aim at the conservative movement's biggest economic policy achievement of the past three decades: the sharp reduction in marginal tax rates, especially the top personal income tax rate. He is a leader in the liberal onslaught against the Laffer Curve, producing research to show that income tax cuts "for high-income taxpayers likely gave windfalls to those whose incomes were already sharply rising because of broader market forces."
Given the likelihood of taxes and spending rising on auto pilot anyway, that sounds like reason enough to be worried about even the pragmatic, market-friendly advisers.
Former Wisconsin Hillary Delegate Defects
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 1:23PM
Debbie Bartoshevich, a former Democratic delegate from
Wisconsin, is now voting for McCain, saying she's putting, "my
country before my party" because Obama was "selected" rather than
elected. Even if Hillary Clinton is Obama's running mate, it won't
matter. "I'm finished with the party, the Democrat Party,"
Bartoshevich said. Wisconsin represented one of Obama's most
impressive victories -- a 17 point thumping.
Metal Militia, Eastern Division: The Gathering
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 1:12PM
Iranian heavy metal fans, persecuted in their own country, cross over into Turkey to see Metallica perform. Sadly, Acrassicauda does not open.
Bob Novak Diagnosed With Brain Tumor
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 1:07PM
Very bad news, but he's already survived more than one cancer scare. Prayers for the "Prince of Darkness" (who, in fact, is a devout Christian).
Good Point from Steve Sailer
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 12:29PM
"'Divisive', of course, is elite Newspeak for a policy that unites a majority of American voters."
No Iraq Convergence?
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 12:20PM
In a post criticizing Obama's shifting 16-month goal posts, Mark Levin writes, "In my opinion, McCain has not come closer to Obama's position. McCain's position, like Bush's, has always been a conditional one, based on circumstances/conditions not ideology." Leaving aside the unmistakable ideological component on both sides of the debate, it's a fair enough point as far as it goes. Presumably, neither Bush nor McCain would be advocating a faster drawdown of troops if things were getting worse (how tenable their position would be in such conditions is another matter). They are reducing the numbers on the ground in response to conditions in Iraq, as envisioned during the planning of the surge.
But Bush and McCain's talk of drawing down has gotten much more explicit and specific. Earlier this year, who envisioned the debate over Iraq hinging on the 70,000--80,000 troops McCain would like to draw down to and the 50,000-man residual force Obama says he would leave in Iraq? Sure, McCain and Obama have different reasons and different approaches. That's why supporters of the war fear Obama would undermine security gains in Iraq by withdrawing too rapidly and opponents of the war believe McCain will never decide that conditions on the ground permit him to withdraw at his current proposed rate or faster. However, I don't think you can deny that in terms of specifics, even if not ideology, the candidates are getting closer rather than further apart.
The Next Republican Capitulation
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 11:57AM
Watch how few of them stand with Tom Coburn in his fight against spending. Clearly if you want smaller government, then vote for an obstetrician.
'Black Hawk Down' Veteran vs. Obama
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 11:53AM
Michael Durant, the helicopter pilot who was held captive in Somalia in the "Black Hawk Down" incident, weighs in on the Landstuhl controversy:
"Over the last week, Barack Obama made time in his busy schedule to hold a rally with 200,000 Germans in Berlin, hold a press conference with French President Nicholas Sarkozy in Paris, and hold a solo press conference in front of 10 Downing Street in London. The Obama campaign had also scheduled a visit with wounded U.S. troops at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, but this stop was canceled after it became clear that campaign staff, and the traveling press corps, would not be allowed to accompany Senator Obama."(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
"I've spent time at Ramstein recovering from wounds received in the service of my country, and I'm sure that Senator Obama could have made no better use of his time than to meet with our men and women in uniform there. That Barack Obama believes otherwise casts serious doubt on his judgment and calls into question his priorities."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 11:49AM
Mrs. McCain speaks on Rwandan women
Sweet vindication for Larry Summers?
Boehner wants energy action from the Democratic Congress
The hedge fund industry is moving ahead, but cautiously
Petraeus: not so fast with the timetable
Future Gaffe
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 11:48AM
Paul Sand uses the recent past to try to divine the McCain and Obama gaffes of the near future. My favorite:
Obama Snips Jeremiah Wright Defense on Iraq
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 11:20AM
On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Barack Obama was shown a video of his comment from early 2007 in which he said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it'll do the reverse."
Here was the exchange that followed:
SEN. OBAMA: You know, we don't know, because in my earlier statements--I mean, I know that there's that little snippet that you ran, but there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there's no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence.
That defense seemed a bit familiar to me, so I decided to take a stroll down memory lane.Obama in his "historic" race speech on March 18:
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man.
Apparently, if you're Obama, you can say that adding more troops to Iraq would increase violence, but actually mean that it would reduce violence. Of course, this is the same Obama who can watch his spiritual mentor say "God damn America," laud Louis Farrakhan, and call Israel a "dirty word," and still defend him as a tolerant religious leader and a patriot.
Take That, Lou Dobbs: Our Export To China
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 10:59AM
Legalized Extortion? I Love New York!
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 10:42AM
Last week New York Governor David Paterson signed a new law permanently denying his state's "public service" employees the right to conscientious objector status when it comes to the unions they may or may not believe are representing their best interests. Join a union. Don't join a union. You pay those dues either way in the Empire State. This sort of statist enforcement might seem a bit overbearing to the layperson--what? these magnificent unions aren't able to persuade people to join?--but, really, it's just sensible policy, according to...um, "labor leaders":
"In public employment, they have the right not to belong, but I still must represent them," said Richard C. Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers. "If under the law we're obligated to represent every employee, then it's only fair that every employee pays something toward the cost of being represented."
So as long as I pay for my union dues, I can choose not to belong to the union? Wow! Thieves should go into union management: Instead of going to jail for jacking people up, you get fancy dinner parties, absurd lionization from net-nerds and the governor driving your figurative getaway car. Not bad!
I know the phrase Orwellian gets thrown around a lot, but...
Islam in the UK
Posted by on 7.28.08 @ 10:34AM
A comprehensive new survey of British university students conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion came up with some disturbing results:
What's troubling about the findings is that this isn't a sample of unemployed, uneducated, youths living in Muslim ghettos --which is what radicalizes people in the minds of liberals such as Barack Obama -- but it is a group of educated and privileged students who have every opportunity to lead productive and rewarding lives.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Landstuhl Firestorm Still Raging
Posted by on 7.27.08 @ 7:50AM
Time, Boston Globe, Newsday -- this story is out of control now. Team Obama responds by accusing John McCain of "running an increasingly dishonorable campaign," which will only add more fuel to the fire.
Did you know that Thursday will be the 36th anniversary of Thomas Eagleton's resignation as George McGovern's running mate? Just thought I'd mention that . . .
UPDATE: McCain's spokesman on Fox News:
"He prioritizes throngs of fawning Germans over meeting with wounded combat troops in Germany. . . .This seems almost deliberately provocative, as if Team McCain were daring Obama to complain that it's unfair -- at which point they'll turn around and accuse Obama of "whining." This is the 95 mph fastball I was trying to warn the rookie about.
"I think there have been nine different excuses out of Barack Obama's campaign as to why that trip and that visit never took place, and all of them fundamentally ignore one fact, which is that he couldn't make time in his schedule to meet with wounded combat troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan."
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Useless Wonks
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
