- 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, October 4, 2008
More on Pro-Palin/Anti-Palin
Posted by on 10.4.08 @ 10:27PM
Daniel Larison of The American Conservative takes issue with my taking issue with the conservative Palin critics. He feels pretty strongly she's an empty suit (empty skirt?).
He thought her convention speech was substance-free and her debate performance was mediocre. I view things a bit differently. That convention speech was one of the finest political performances I've ever seen. The line about not seeking the good opinion of the media/political elite alone was worth the price of admission. And not just in entertainment value. That was substance. It was about embracing a different scale of values than those some think are so dominant as to brook no dissent.
But leave that aside. Sarah Palin has a political record. Let's forget the ups and downs of her public speaking career and consider that. Are there conservatives who are going to argue her record is less than admirable? I don't think it can be done. (No, this is not a challenge to see whether conservative contrarians can provide great e-alert material to the Obama camp.)
Palin is still imperfectly seasoned, but I think she's going to be a transformative political figure in American politics. We'll have to revisit that question in due time.
Populism Pays
Posted by on 10.4.08 @ 9:19PM
When I wrote this column in March (called "Conservative Economics 101"), readers seemed to like the whole thing EXCEPT that one proposal enraged a number of them. Here's what they didn't like: "For ALL of an executive's compensation above, say, $500,000 per year -- including the current value of stock options, and including bonuses and anything set up as "contract" work rather than wages -- have the company pay its half (6.9 percent) of what the executive's Social Security taxes would be if those taxes weren't capped as they presently are at $102,000 annually. (The executive would not be made eligible for any additional retirement benefits, though.)"
I argued to correspondents that you needed some sort of populist item to help get the overall plan to pass, and that, really, a corporation should not be able to consider salaries of more than $500,000 as a normal business expense, anyway -- that of course compensation should be allowed to be higher, but that it shouldn't be utterly without cost to the corporation.
Well, now the Washington Post reports about how the "executive compensation" portion of the godawful bailout bill will work: For any corporation that participates in the bailout plan, NO deductions (from corporate income tax) will be allowed for ANY executive compensation above $500,000. That's a 35% loss/extra cost, not just the 6.9% I had suggested back then. And the item was popular among liberals AND conservatives, both.
The biggest problem is that this provision was used as bait not for all the good, conservative economic policies I advocated in my column, but instead as bait o gain support for a godawful bailout. Ugh. If you don't use rather harmless populism every once in a while as bait for something good, it sure will be used as bait for something bad. Conservatives need to learn that lesson.
I Dunno, Alaska
Posted by on 10.4.08 @ 1:18PM
I don't think we'd be having any back and forth about Palin's debate performance if she had showed this kind of grasp of substantive details Thursday night (Hat tip: Powerline):
Imperfect Moral Argument
Posted by on 10.4.08 @ 2:46AM
Most of what writers classify as hate mail I would call simply strong disagreements. However, this item, which arrived in my inbox tonight from a writer who was too cowardly to sign his (or her!) name to it, surely counts: "You are the perfect moral argument for abortion. If you were black, you'd be the perfect moral argument for lynching, and if you were Jewish, you'd be the perfect moral argument for Auschwitz."
The writer doesn't provide context but this is likely in response to my Guardian piece today judging Sarah Palin the winner of Thursday's debate. The moderator already had to remove several items from the message boards there. Don't know what more to say except that this is ugly stuff, folks.
Friday, October 3, 2008
On Intramural Palin Battles Among Conservatives
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 10:02PM
We've got our Conor Friedersdorfs and Kathleen Parkers shooting at Sarah Palin and Erick Ericksons defending her. The defenders wonder what team the critics are on. The critics appeal to intellectual honesty.
I appeal to the concept of edificiation. Do the words we write or say actually contribute anything to the election and to the civic discussion? Are they adequately considered after time to look at all the evidence? If I look at it in those terms, I have to side with the defenders.
The only possible way the critics could be in the right is if the writer really believes Palin is unfit to serve. I have a hard time believing that a bad interview demonstrates that. The situation is simple. A person with a career in state and local government, so greatly cherished by conservatives who love federalism, needs a little time to adjust to the national frame. I think it is really that easy. Patience is a virtue, friends.
I think the problem is endemic to the pundit class. We feel a need to produce a product, which is opinions, and so any thought that might have any possibility of generating a little action or emotion is vomited into the ether. When it comes to punditry, the idea of holding one's tongue (or pen or keystroke) is counter to the entire business as it has evolved in the internet era. Words are free and readers are checking for updates constantly.
Later That Same Day
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 6:23PM
Later that same day (see post below), I added this: If you want to reassure 14 million homeowners that they have just a bit of relief and thus some hope, and if you want to avoid a panic that feeds on itself as mortgage companies declare bankruptcy, a tiny rate cut might just be the right solution -- IF it is understood, because of a clear Fed statement, that it does not signal a long-term lack of concern with inflation.
What it comes down to is this: A whole bunch of people bought their first homes about four years ago when rates were absurdly low, and made the mistake of getting an adjustable rate mortgage. (This does NOT apply to me, by the way, thank goodness.) They are now realizing they can't make their payments, and they need to sell. But buyers are a bit wary. It is amazing what even a quarter-point can mean to a new home buyer. It could make the difference between buying or not. If they buy, they get an asset, and the over-extended seller gets out of a bad deal rather than being forcelosed upon or declaring personal bankruptcy, or whatever. Which is why yesterday would have been a good time, as Cramer said in his rant, for a little help from the Fed.
And the next day, in another post, this: My goal is to help the homeowners and potential home buyers -- the individuals, not the lender/profiteers -- AND to guard against a generalized panic that would harm not just the lenders, but the fairly innocent bystanders such as the builders and construction workers who they employ, and, from there, all the others down the line who would be affected. Also, note that I am not suggesting a bailout of the lenders -- the typical Democratic response, which is what Bush in the past two days has so rightly rejected -- but a VERY modest move by the Fed to stabilize the economy as a whole.In January, I wrote this column. The closing lines: "Stagflation could make its ugly face obvious as early as this summer.
And nothing, nothing at all, would do more to assure an Obama or Clinton victory in the Fall, with horribly liberal policies on economics, defense, and judges sure to follow."
Greatest Hits
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 6:10PM
Way back in August of 2007 I wrote here that the market was as much about psychology as it is about anything else. That post started a long-running series of me writing blog posts and columns on the economy. I had no idea at the time that such things as "credit default swaps" were even allowed, or else my warnings would have been even more strenuous. But I really think the Fed action I described 14 months ago is what started the unraveling that has reached today's crisis levels. And at every step of the way, I have written that Bernanke and Paulson (and Congress and the White House, if applicable) did exactly the opposite of what they should do -- and also warned last winter that we would start to experience stagflation by mid-summer if we didn't work then to strengthen the dollar, cut the right taxes, and cut spending; and that if we did not do those things to head off a crisis, the economy would tank and would drag down McCain's campaign with it.
In coming days I hope to reprint or link to some of those columns and blog posts, AND to explain why I still believe that, despite it all, and despite McCain's panicked and idiotic handling of the credit crisis so far, McCain still has a chance to turn this election around. But it won't be easy.
Anyway, here's what I wrote back in August of 2007 -- and remember, it was panicked bank run (i.e. psychology), not a lack of cash reserves, that killed Bear Stearns. Here, from Aug. 2007:
I am no expert on monetary policy, but I have been developing a theory for years that the few things actually done by the Federal Reserve Board Open Market Committee have at least as much impact on the psychology of investors and businessmen, at least short-term,�as they do on their actual economic bottom lines. My proposed solution is for the Fed at times to send not one but two signals at its meetings, with those signals deliberately appearing to contradict each other. For instance, it could raise the�fund rate while indicating, in its accompanying statement, that its bias thereafter would be in favor of guarding against a recession. Or, in the case of today's circumstances, it could do just the opposite -- which is what I wish it had done yesterday. What do I mean? Well, it could do at least a tiny bit to ease the current credit crunch by lowering the fund rate by a quarter point, while at the same time in its statement saying that fighting inflation remains not only its primary concern foing forward, but that its anti-inflation vigilance will be enhanced BECAUSE it just cut the funds rate and so must watch out to ensure that inflation doesn't result FROM that move.
Why would it do that? Because it gives everybody something to like. The tight-money folks would be reassured that the Fed's move does NOT signal a change in its commitment to fighting inflation and does NOT signal a change in long-term strategy. But investors AND potential home-buyers looking for a reason to be bold would see an opportunity to actually make the leap -- knowing that the new, lower rates might not last long, but that they are available now to improve their deals at the margins. If economic activity, especially in the building sector, moved up even a little bit as a result, it would stop�any negative psychological snowball effect from developing. When it comes to big-money decisions by ordinary people, both optimism and pessimism feed on themselves. Right now, pessimism reigns in the building market. the pessimism is not at crisis levels yet, but it needs to be kept from reaching crisis levels. A small rate cut could be the difference needed to avoid such a crisis of pessimism.
Now, a major caveat: I would prefer that the Fed do less rather than more fine-tuning of the economy. Many of my supply-side friends would prefer that the Fed change its entire approach and target dollar-price stability (by buying and selling bonds, I think) while letting the Funds rate float. That would be fine with me. But if the Fed is going to continue its game of interest-rate manipulation, which it seems determined to do, then I would rather that it show show an understanding that it has a recent history of overshooting its targets, and therefore a willingness to ct to mitigate against bad results therefrom.....
I await the outraged howls of monetary experts from all sides of the debate. I offer this, therefore,�not as a definitive policy prescription, but as a suggestion to be considered in recognition that money these days is such a fast-moving commodity that the market, and the minds of the market's investors, will affect money's supply and its value as much as any group of central bankers can do.
Who Did Palin Help?
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 6:07PM
I actually do agree with Quin that many conservatives are like homers in sports who just root, root, root for the red team and if they don't win it's a shame -- the biggest downside of the Reagan legacy is that he got conservatives into the habit of worshipping Republican politicians, very few of whom are Reagans. That said, even if the post-debate polls favor Biden, favorable reactions to Palin's performance last night could be found far outside the conservative echo chamber. There are theatric, emotional, and psychological components to politics, and on that level Palin did very well, in addition to exceeding (very low) expectations on substance.
This morning, I was on the radio with a Democratic consultant who emphatically agreed that Palin did very well last night. But he also argued that Palin did more to help herself, by rehabilitating her own national profile, than she did to help McCain. I'm not entirely convinced -- Palin fires up the base more than McCain ever will, which obviously helps the ticket as a whole, and a Palin flop would have certainly dragged the ticket down. Palin's liberal-baiting with a wink and a smile is a service McCain can't really perform himself. But I'm struck by how much of the Palin talk has focused on her specifically, while even Biden has managed to recede (no pun intended) into the background of the Obama-Biden ticket. Let Sarah help Sarah?
Blacks Against the Bailout
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 5:49PM
Although the federal government's need to Do Something eventually won out, there was a diverse anti-bailout coalition in the making. I was listening to a black radio station while riding in a cab earlier today. The callers were overwhelmingly opposed to the bailout and more than one singled out the House Republicans for praise. One fellow thanked the House GOP for "finally standing up and saying 'enough is enough.'" Of course, that is before enough of them caved to give us too much of nothing.
UPDATE: Dave Weigel points out that members of the Congressional Black Caucus amounted to a third of the Democratic switchover in favor of the bailout package.
Re: Palin vs. McCain
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 5:36PM
Giving up Michigan is no small deal. That's 17 electoral votes in what might be a close election. Palin's appeal would most certainly help there. If the handlers knew what they were doing, they'd buy her and Todd tickets to upstate Michigan and have them work their way south.
Beware of the GDP Bomb
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 5:02PM
It's becoming difficult to write about the presidential horse race, because I think we've reached the point where the daily back and forth among the candidates and their surrogates means very little, and the campaign has been largely been overtaken by events -- specifically, economic events. The passage of the bailout package is better for McCain than if it didn't pass, but either way the financial crisis will not resolve itself in the next 31 days. Meanwhile, between now and Nov. 4, every few days we'll be treated to another sobering economic report, such as the bad job numbers that came out today. And at the end of this month, less than a week before Election Day, the Bureau of Economic Analysis will be releasing the advance estimate for third quarter GDP, which could very well show an economic contraction, and thus dominate the news cycle the weekend before the election.
So far, John McCain's reaction to the recent economic news has been to strike a populist tone in hopes that it will shield him from the perception that he's out of touch, and make up for the fact that economic issues are not his strong suit. It hasn't been working, as he's still sinking in polls. As much as I'd like to say that he'd be fine if only he confidently made the case for economic conservatism, from a political perspective, it probably wouldn't make a difference. The problem is, though Barack Obama doesn't engender much confidence on the economy, he's the Democrat in a year in which most voters blame Republicans for our troubles. I could be wrong, and obviously there's always the caveat in politics that anything can happen, but it's getting more and more difficult to see how McCain can pull this thing off with so much of the race now out of his control.
Palin vs. McCain
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 4:53PM
She doesn't have the quitter gene:
Palin said the decision to pull out of Michigan, which was announced Thursday, was "not a surprise" to her since polls show McCain slipping in the state.Her willingness to speak her own mind is admirable. I will repeat that I have always said it was a mistake to try to shield her from the press. She's got better political instincts than her handlers do.But Palin said that when she read the news, she "fired off a quick e-mail and said, 'Oh come on, do we have to?'"
"Todd and I, we'd be happy to get to Michigan ...We'd be so happy to speak to the people there in Michigan who are hurting," she said. "Whatever Todd and I can do in realizing what their challenges in that state are .... I wanna get back to Michigan and I want to try."
David Brooks: Wrong Again?
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 4:46PM
Given his recent track record, there must be some fundamental flaw in his argument:
By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night.Brooks sneered at Palin as unqualified, now he says she won the debate. My Official Decoder Ring translates that as: Palin is qualified, but she lost the debate.
'George F. Kennan She Is Not'
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 4:26PM
Methinks J.P. covets the Understatement of the Year Award. A savage cut, Mr. Freire.
Pretty Reasonable
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 4:10PM
Let's try to remember that this hacktastic spin came from McCain's campaign and their supporters, and Palin willingly went along in making this farcical claim on more than one occasion. It is now supposed to be evidence of journalistic misconduct to make the mistake of taking the campaign's own idiotic statements as though they were serious. Duly noted. Whenever the McCain campaign claims anything about either candidate, we should assume that it is equally nonsensical and give it no credence.
You have a sixth sense about Russian fighters and bombers intruding into your territory, or daring to come as close as possible. You are relieved when U.S. military planes scramble from Elmendorf Air Force Base to escort them back. Meanwhile, you make nice. You invite the Russians on trade missions, and you invite them to international conferences.On August 12, Governor Sarah Palin addressed the 8th Annual Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region held in Fairbanks, hosted by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and sponsored by the University of Alaska. The Russian parliamentarians were included along with the Canadian, Danish, Finish, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish legislators. They focused on human health in the region, particularly among the indigenous peoples common to all the nations. They talked about preserving renewable, non-renewable and alternative resources. Governor Palin reported on Alaska's progress with the new gas pipeline and with alternative energy.
Re: Polls Agree With Me
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 3:12PM
Quin: I would assume that any polls from CBS and CNN would reflect that bias off the sponsors. According to that CNN dial you mention, at least when I watched, women clearly didn't like Palin accusing Biden of waving the white flag regarding Iraq. So who's being sexist now? All women hate war and thus are willing to settle for peace at any price? In any case, I'd be worried -- or at least untrusting -- if CBS and CNN polls agreed with me on anything.
New York Times: Beyond Biased
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 3:06PM
Russ Smith on the Obama campaign newsletter:
[L]et's be clear: the Times had forced McCain to walk their well-appointed plank months before he chose Palin. On Feb. 21 of this year, a front-page story in the Times . . . implied that the Arizona senator had an extra-marital relationship with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist for telecommunications companies. After the story appeared, the Times was roundly criticized, and not just by conservative journalists, for its salacious suggestions. So it seems that McCain, at least on trial before the Times' judges, was deemed guilty of breaking the conduct of principle and honesty before the vast majority of Americans had even heard the name Sarah Palin.In many ways, the trajectory of the McCain campaign has mirrored that of George Allen's 2006 re-election campaign.
There were early indications in 2006 that the media were gunning for Allen -- who was then every conservative's odds-on bet for the GOP 2008 presidential nomination -- but the Allen campaign failed to engage the emergent narrative. (Excuse this lapse into media analyst jargon.) Then, when the "Macaca" video hit, it was like popping the top of a well-shaken bottle of beer-- a torrent of negative media coverage that the campaign could not stop.
So, too, with McCain this year. Between Feb. 7, when Mitt Romney effectively ceded the Republican nomination, and Aug. 29, when Palin was named as nominee, the media had clearly shown that it viewed Obama as the inevitable and deserving winner. (Ask Hillary Clinton about that.) But the McCain campaign hadn't really started pushing back against the "inevitability of Obama" narrative until July. By then, however, the media had already elected Obama in its own collective mind, so that McCain's attempt to win the election was viewed as fundamentally illegitimate.
The media turned Sarah Palin into McCain's "Macaca moment." But a failure of media relations is always a two-way street, and the GOP's image problem -- of which this episode is an illustrative example -- is not entirely a function of liberal bias.
Polls Agree With Me
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 3:00PM
CBS and CNN polls both agree with me on the debate. And here's an interesting note that might explain the reaction of the two women with whom I watched the debate: A colleague today told me that he watched CNN (I watched Fox last night) and that CNN broke down its handy-dandy enthus-o-dial (or whatever they call it) into separate lines for women and men. The colleague said Palin did GREAT among men, but that she did far worse among women, and that Biden did quite well among women. What does it mean? Maybe men are reacting to Palin's looks, while women want reassurance that she is actually up to the job, and just don't see it.
Or is that sexist-in-reverse to say that?
:)
Jewish Comedian Wars
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 2:20PM
They Declined the Regular Crap Sandwich Monday...
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 1:39PM
...so instead they wolfed down a foot-long double-decker for lunch today.
Re: Mass Conservative Delusion
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 1:26PM
Wlady, thanks for standing up against "accentism," of which I am a victim. Jeff Foxworthy says the minute a Southerner opens his mouth, people deduct 15 points from his IQ score, and since coming to Washington 11 years ago, I've learned the truth of that. I grew up in a four-bedroom brick ranch house in a suburb of Atlanta, but my Piedmont twang seems to evoke images of moonshine, banjos and outhouses in the mind of the typical Yankee.
As to the debate itself, I think the important thing is that Joe Biden did not lose. He may have told 14 lies, but he told them convincingly, and he played the class-warfare card with such Edwardsian relish that I am beginning to suspect Biden might have a "love child" out there somewhere.
Sarah Palin performed well, but that did not surprise me, and her performance won't reverse the momentum shift against the GOP ticket that has been the dominant fact of the campaign since Sept. 15. As I wrote Sept. 22, if Obama had bombed in the first debate, it would have been the Democrats' turn to panic (again), but Obama did well enough to maintain his momentum. Two telling omens:
- McCain's InTrade stock has fallen to 32% -- losing two points today since yesterday's close.
- The McCain campaign is pulling out of Michigan.
Conservative enthusiasm for Palin is irrelevant to what happens Nov. 4.
Re: Re: Mass Conservative Delusion
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 12:35PM
Ahh, Wlady, you cut me deeply. Huckabee? Well-aimed shot. It smarts. No, I would not prefer Huckabee. Then again, I would not prefer Huckabee for president even if the only other choice were, oh, I don't know, Tony Romo in a depression if whatsername Simpson dumped him.
As for her "irresistible charm," I'm resisting it. Actually, I don't even see it. What I see is a lady with good values who doesn't even know what it is that she doesn't know, but who insists she knows everything. If I had a neighbor like that, I'd build a higher fence.
As for delusion, I see nothing wrong with people liking a candidate. What's wrong is when their rooting for a candidate gets in the way of being able to honestly assess the candidate's faults, and therefore to honestly assess the relative strength of their cause. What has bothered me in recent years is the inability of people to simulataneously approve of a politician on one issue and disapprove on another. Case in point: When I first returned to Washington in early 2006, President Bush was still, for whatever odd reasons, a hero on the right. I wrote a couple of columns and blog posts critical of him, and I was subjected to absolute vituperation for not supporting "our" president. A year later, when his popularity was in the tank, I was subjected to utter vituperation from the same set of conservatives for having dared to defend such a traitor to our ranks! Again, it's like people are choosing a sports team to back: They're either all for it, or all agin it, and nothing in between.
The key thing is that if conservatives do this too much, they fail to recognize when their side is in trouble. I dare say that the one demographic they would want Palin to appeal to would be the rather apolitical but conservative leaning women in the 30s and 40s who I watched the debate with last night. If conservatives don't realize there is something about Palin that comes across as "calamitous" to that demographic, they are in for a rude awakening.
Meanwhile, I report now on another rather apolitical guy, this one in his 40s, very bright, again conservative leaning -- a guy whose immediate response to the introduction of Palin five weeks ago was to email me to tell me he was "pumped" and hadn't been so excited about politics for a long, long time, because with Palin the GOP finally had come up with the real deal.
Now, here's what he wrote me this morning: "I don't get all this Republican talk about Palin 'winning' last night.... It was kid gloves. Biden won because he didn't lose. She lost because she didn't win."
My point is not to slam Palin. I want her to do well. But if conservatives don't understand why she and McCain aren't closing the deal with more people, well, then, they never will be able to close the deal.
Re: Mass Conservative Delusion
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 11:34AM
Quin: I think you give it away when you express disdain for the "cloyingness" of Palin's "nasal" and "long drawn out" pronuciations -- you simply don't like her accent. I never thought I'd see "accentism" become a major problem in our culture.
But as it happens, it's the alluring way she puts her words together that is part of her irresistible charm. And at least unlike the buffoonish Biden, she didn't start referring to herself in the third person. Her words on paper aren't as damning as you might think. What matters is how they sound when she delivers them. That's a whole different thing. I've seen the text of many political speeches that on paper appear duller than a molasses race. Yet uttered by the right pol they take on a life of their own.
Mass conservative delusion? That's a terribly cheap shot. What's wrong with voters actually liking a candidate, as opposed to spewing disgust with him or promising to sit the election out or spending the rest of their natural lives worshipping at the shrine of Ronald Reagan? Without life, politics is dead. Palin is very much about life. Her conservatism is scattershot, to put it mildly, but the fact remains she's an irresistibly attractive political talent and the only game in town. You'd prefer Mike Huckabee?
House Party
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 11:28AM
It's quite possible that this year's election could result in a 269-269 electoral tie. All that would need to happen would be for Obama to win the Kerry states and Iowa, as well as the swing states of Nevada and New Mexico, or Al Gore's 2000 states plus Colorado. In that case, the incoming House of Representatives would decide who gets elected. One would think that this would be a slam dunk for Obama given that Democrats control the House, but it isn't so simple, as Charlie Cook explains in the National Journal. Rather than requiring a simple majority vote in the House, each state would only get a single vote, so a candidate would need 26 to win.
Cook wonders:
Re: But is she ready for the '24' scenario?
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 10:43AM
"What if the Silver Surfer came to Earth and said Galactus was going to consume the planet? Who would make him feel safe then?"
Better yet: Let's say Magneto had started a war between super-powered mutants and humans, claiming that the only way super-powered mutants could be safe is for humans to die. Could Sarah Palin possibly broker a truce between the factions?
Or: Doomsday comes to earth and kills Superman. Would the DC gun regulations as they stand get in the way of Sarah Palin loading up on some buckshot and taking the fight to him?
Or: A gigantic asteroid is flying toward earth. Will she, Todd, and a group of scrappy oil rig workers be able to prevent us all from meeting certain doom?
Or: A cyborg sent from the future is sent to kill her in order to prevent her from leading us in the coming robot wars. Is John McCain strong enough to protect her?
Or: A group of evil alien robots are looking for a special cubed object lost here on earth. If John McCain dies in office, will Sarah Palin be able to align herself with the good alien robots and lead humans in an intergalactic robot war?
Or: The Joker dies, as does John McCain. Will Sarah Palin be able to reprise the leading villain for the next Batman movie?
Or: Sarah Palin's real identity is discovered, and her loved ones are put in danger. Will she give up her crimefighting to protect her family?
Or: Sarah Palin is dropped in the middle of the desert with no food or shelter. How long will she survive using techniques learned from Man vs. Wild, and will the McCain campaign continue to shield her from the press even if a Discovery Channel camera crew has been hired to record her progress?
REMEMBER: This is the most important election we'll ever vote in. EVER. MOST. IMPORTANTEST.
Mass Conservative Delusion
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 10:41AM
I hate to say it, but I think conservative activists have become like hometown sports fans who so desperately want their team to win that they see EVERYthing through the lens that shows their team as being the best -- and that therefore sees ANY loss or setback as the result of an unfair third party, like a bad referee, or something.
Exaggerating only slightly for effect, this was Sarah Palin's message last night, except that just written down it doesn't capture the cloyingness of the nasal "all" and the long drawn-out "o" in her "also."
"Well, awl-so-o-o [also] in Alaska, mavericks in Alaska, also, where we produce a lot of oil, also, we know that we've gotta reform Washington, also, you-betcha!"
Sorry, but if the Democratic candidate had put forth this sort of performance, we would all be yelling about how the MSM was giving that candidate a pass on their utter lack of knowledge, depth, specifics, and coherence.
This IS an actual quote from last night from Palin: "I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts? We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that."
And: "Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also."
And: "Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It's not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it's near and dear to my heart. I'm very, very concerned about where we're going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena."
Again, if Joe Biden had talked like this last night, we would be blasting him unmercifully. We would be yelling to high heaven that he can't put thoughts together in coherent sentences.
But is She Ready for the '24' Scenario?
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 10:29AM
While I've raised questions about Sarah Palin's readiness myself, I think Conor Friedersdorf gets a bit carried away:
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 9:40AM
Free the Airwaves for ownership (WSJ)
Talk about failure of regulation: Chinese childrens' milk (The Economist)
Obama doesn't understand the impact of losing a war (WSJ)
Outlining the government's role in the collapse of the mortgage market (WSJ)
222 years later, back to hunting pirates (Washington Times)
About that British diplomat in Kabul... (Newsweek)
Naked Gunning down liberals (Culture11)
Killing 'Em With Kindness
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 6:44AM
That's the strategy Sarah Palin used against Joe Biden last night, or so I argue in the Guardain.
It's only 10 pm Alaska time...
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 2:09AM
But the real losers in this debate were Katie Couric and Chaaaaaaarlie Gibson. My article today (east coast time, that is) notes the strange and unproductive tendency of reporters to turn interviews into gotcha games. They have the ratings because they have the guest, so why not allow viewers to really understand the guest and judge them in full, rather than portray them as contestant on Who Wants to be Vice President?
Say It Ain't Joe
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 1:04AM
Here's my brief take on the foreign policy part of the debate in the Washington Post. I conclude: "[Biden] didn't expect Palin to punch very hard on foreign affairs. What he got was a purse full of quarters aimed right his unnaturally white teeth."
To the Scorecards
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 12:45AM
As a long-time fight-fan, I score tonight's 10-round bout 5-4, one even. (This is mostly on style of course, because both of them were prone to talking-point gibberish, over-simplifying, and occasionally borderline incoherence on issues -- as in Palin's response to the global warming question -- though this is understandable as McCain's position on "climate change" is incoherent.) Their discourses were too prone to the standard election-time, "My low-life opponent voted 99 times to snatch food from the mouths of widows and orphans" nonsense that people listening in can't make head nor tail of.
Sarah won at least partly, perhaps largely, because she didn't lose. Didn't look foolish. Other than the brain-numbing response to the "is global warming real?" question, she was not noticeably incoherent. Other than mis-identifying General McClellan, she made no mistakes that I saw. So she didn't turn out to be the boob that Democrats wanted to see tonight. She wasn't Dan Quayle in drag. She showed there's no reason to be embarrassed about her.
The people who like her folksy demeanor and straight-forward style (count me in) still like her. The folks who can't stand her because she loves her country, loves her family, loves her God, and packs heat, still can't stand her. I doubt the debate moved the vote meter much either way. She's a smart, energetic, patriotic woman who will learn fast in office. Folks who are willing to see that saw it tonight.
Gwen Ifill
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 12:41AM
I thought she did a fine job, though perhaps because of conservative criticism rather than in spite of it. She might not have let Palin get away with changing the subject in her answers as much if she thought her fairness was a given.
Re: Biden Won Overwhelmingly...BUT
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 12:29AM
Quin: You chide Palin for too often straying from the question, but I think she did that brilliantly on one of the two issues you urge McCain to exploit: gay marriage. Gwen Ifill tried to corner her regarding gay rights; having already commented on that, she turned Ifill's gotcha effort immediately around by returning to the matter of gay marriage, which she reiterated she opposed, just as Joe Biden had just said he does.
This episode brought out why Palin had a fine night: it captured her competitiveness and thus essential toughness. And she did it smilingly. It was a huge relief for her to be her unfiltered self.
Remember too that this was television above all. She looks great. She and the camera get along. Biden more often than not looked irked and never did find the camera -- with eyes that looked surgically repaired.
My one regret is that Palin can't combine her folksiness with better syntax. In any case, the real loser tonight was the drive-by media, as a liberated Palin was again back being herself -- "the Sarah we really know," as one friend of hers just said on Fox.
The Palinator
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 12:27AM
Sarah Palin did fine and may have even "won" by exceeding expectations. She was likeable, she was lookable, but I don't think she was wildly persuasive on substance. It was clear that they bought into the "Let Palin be Palin" argument, because she played to her strenghts: folksiness,"adorability" as the Luntz panel guy put it, Joe Six Pack and the Hockey Moms. She displayed knowledge in areas where she was not expected to and whenever she was asked a question where Biden was clearly better informed she capably steered the conversation back to things she did know -- Alaska, personal anecdotes, energy policy, arguments about Democratic tax increases.
Joe Biden avoided putting his foot in his mouth, was well informed and crisp if occasionally to Washington-wonkish, and struck the right balance in terms of challenging Palin without bullying or patronizing her. He was a little flat in the beginning but picked up steam as he went along. But the expectations game did not favor him.
A lot will depend on how you were disposed to view the candidates going in -- if you like Palin, you'll find her personal touch charming; if you don't like her, you'll find it grating -- but given the Couric and Gibson interviews I'd have to think Team McCain is happy with Palin. She was effective on the attack, comfortable with the format, and willing to turn tough questions to her advantage. I liked Palin the Buchananite a lot better than Palin John McCain's Mini-Me and thought this was more of a pillow fight than a debate, but tonight helped the Alaska governor and should quiet some of the calls for her to leave the ticket. There were no "You're no Jack Kennedy" deer-in-the-headlights moments tonight. A better comparison would be when Dan Quayle held his own against Al Gore in 1992.
Re: Luntz Panel Picks Palin
Posted by on 10.3.08 @ 12:11AM
I'm sorry, but I know a lot of people who vote but don't follow politics and aren't at all ideological -- which tends to be your average October undecided voter -- and I've never heard any of them say pundit-like things like "she exceeded expectations."
Thursday, October 2, 2008
9 a.m. meeting for House Republican conference
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 11:49PM
Sounds like they're trying to shore up some votes. It looks like the GOP isn't entirely confident the bill will pass, because they wouldn't call a morning conference if they were.
Re: Luntz Panel
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 11:47PM
Soledad O'Brien's panel preferred Biden (though it wasn't that lopsided). Good demonstration of the general principle that focus groups aren't all that useful for scoring a debate.
Biden Won Overwhelmingly...BUT....
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 11:18PM
I think Joe Biden just gave the greatest presidential campaign debate performance I have ever seen. He was absolutely commanding and absolutely convincing. But (and you'll have to read all the way down before I explain this) he gift-wrapped two big opportunities for the McCain campaign if the campaign is smart enough and tough enough to exploit them.
I thought Sarah Palin did about as well as she could. She wasn't bad. She wasn't great, by any means. But she was out of her league. Unfortunately, my opinion of her performance was HIGHER than that of my "test group." I watched with two women, both rather apolitical but both conservative, both of whom wanted her to do well, both in the mid-thirties to mid-forties age range. They thought she was absolutely godawful.
Young woman #1: "She's just not polished enough."
"ANSWER the question!"
and, at the end: "He smoked her. He smoked her. He smoked her."
Young woman #2: "She's just a calamity." and again at the end: "She was calamitous."
Both young women thought in particular that Palin souned like a broken record talking about Alaska as an energy state, as if that is the only subject she really knows well and the rest was just memorized as if for a test. And both were incredibly annoyed that she so often strayed from the question. Both women also thought Biden did a superb job. "I don't agree with anything he said," said Young woman #1, "but he sounded convincing" -- and extremely knowledgeable, in a very reassuring way.
Frankly, I thought Palin was pretty solid for the first third-to 2/5 of the debate, and again for a little portion about 2/3 of the way into it. She got in a couple of good licks. But by the end, I wanted it to be over to let her out of her -- or my -- misery.
So how, after all that, can McCain make hay out of this debate? Two reasons. First, gay marriage. Second, judges.
Even though Biden in his follow-up said he does not support gay marriage, Palin smoked him on the exchange. Her answer was just about perfect. Biden seemed SO overly enthusiastic about gay visitation rights, etc., that a lot of middle Americans would, I think, recoil; there's a difference between benign tolerance and strong support for same-sex couples. He sounded overenthusiastic about the latter, and at one point he actually did say he was talking about rights for couples "in a same sex marriage." As a pure political judgment here -- not to say whether he is right or wrong, but just in terms of political impact -- I think he overdid it so much that it will allow McCain's campaign to bring up the Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama opposed. This isn't gay-bashing. It should NOT be gay-bashing, because gay-bashing is despicable. But handled soberly, it's a great issue, and it is the issue that turned out millions upon millions of voters who made the difference for George W. Bush in 2004.
Now, judges. I cannot BELIEVE Biden deliberately brought up the change in his view on what makes a good judge. I can't believe he actually said ideology should be a factor. Most Americans strongly disagree with that. And if the McCain people have any sense, they will drive a truck through that opening -- first, just on the thought of judges imposing ANY ideology at all, which is unpopular. Second, as I written time and time and time again, if the idological or philosophical RESULTS of conservative vs liberal jurisprudence are put before the public, the public overwhelmingly, unambiguously, and with great passion supports conservative results more than liberal ones. Biden made a HUGE mistake in bringing the issue up, and especially in the way he discussed it. If McCain doesn't exploit the opportunity, he's a fool.
Final verdict: In terms of who won the immediate debate, Biden by as big a margin as that of Secretariat in the Belmont. But in terms of who is able to do more to make long-term hay (long-term in campaign time, meaning in the next four weeks) from the campaign, the opportunities are there for McCain to do quite well. No one thing in particular that Biden did or said will be tremendously commercial-worthy for Obama's purposes. Nothing that Palin did or said will provide TV ad fodder that helps Obama drive McCain down further -- there were no major "gaffes" to be exploited, even though there were times she looked in general out of her league. But Biden on gay marriage and on judges provided real fodder for McCain to attack, if he does it effectively, soberly, not nastily but still forcefully. We'll see if the McCain folks recognize their chance.
Palin Won
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 11:03PM
Vice Presidential debates generally don't matter a whole lot, and I don't expect this one to shake the race up much. Both candidates did fine, but Palin shattered low expectations, so she had the better night.
Sarah Got Her Groove Back
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:54PM
Sarah Palin did as well if not better than anybody could have expected. This will help repair some of the damage that was done to her reputation over the past few weeks. She was likeable, spoke to the concerns of average Americans, defended McCain and went on the offense against Obama. She wasn't afraid to mix it up with Biden either, and she added good humor. Most of all, she seemed comfortable up there and avoided any major incident.
And I would add that Joe Biden also did what he needed to. He communicated his experience and knowledge, was an able attack dog, and most of all, remained respectful and averted a big gaffe.
I don't think this changes the big picture of the race much, but it will ease doubts about Palin.
Biden's Change
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:34PM
So the best example he can think of of changing his mind is deciding that honest and qualified judges should not be confirmed if they fail ideological litmus tests? That's some kind of personal growth.
I Guess Biden Won't Be Running in 2016
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:15PM
He just said a Biden Administration would be a national tragedy.
Kerry-izing Biden
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:14PM
Palin's teasing Biden for his vote in favor for the war was effective, I thought. Playing it as the Washington outsider who just can't square his two positions.
Biden on Iraq
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:14PM
So if he knew the war was going to be such a debacle, why did he vote for it? Because he thinks Democrats would run it better? At least Palin straightforwardly says she thinks McCain has magical war-winning powers.
Sarah Palin: Aw Shucksing Her Way Up
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:11PM
I don't know how the "aw shucks" face goes with your average voter, but it strikes me as lovable and cute. Adorable isn't really a quality I look for in presidents, or vice presidents, but hey! Why not.
McClellan
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:10PM
It sounded to me like Sarah Palin got the mame of the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan wrong. I heard McClellan, but it's McKiernan. Biden didn't call her on it though. I imagine the liberal blogs will make hay out of this, but think it's pretty thing gruel.
Bosniacs?
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:10PM
Biden gets his interventionist on, playing the John McCain who won't get anybody mad.
"Let Me Say It Again"
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:07PM
Biden seems to like repetition. He's much more energetic in the second half of the debate than in the first.
Biden Lies on Obama and Iran
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:00PM
He says Obama never said he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, but
once again, here is the video -- look at the Ahmadinejad photo that
flashes across the screen in this clip.
No one's a greater friend to Israel...
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:59PM
Than Joe Biden?!?!?!?! Joe, I have another guy named Joe for you to meet. His last name is Lieberman.
A superficial note...
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:58PM
Did Joe Biden recently have a facelift? Because his eyebrows are definitely looking that way.
Surgin' Sarah
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:52PM
She hesitated before launching the non-nuanced attack on the Obama-Biden ticket's Iraq's position but once she was in for a penny she was in for a pound. She sounds more like McCain than paleo Palin.
Tolerance
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:51PM
Interesting that Palin went out of her way to make clear that she isn't hostile to gay people. Take that, Lindsay Lohan.
Re: Same-Sex Benefits
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:47PM
Are friends with benefits also mandated by the Constitution?
Do I support same sex benefits?
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:43PM
Does the government really have to offer gay couples same sex benefits? Don't they sort of enjoy that on their own?
Biden's Style
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:43PM
Perhaps because he's concerned about making one of his horrible gaffes Biden is coming across as painfully dull, full of Washington legislative rubbish. Palin is dominating on energy.
Remember kids...
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:38PM
Cleaning up the planet starts with your room. Get to it.
"Get on the Stick"
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:36PM
That's the kind of stuff you hear when a regular guy debates a regular gal.
Everybody Is Consistent on One Thing
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:34PM
Nobody will cancel any of their campaign promises to pay for the bailout. Palin didn't mention McCain's spending freeze -- she did mention his campaign suspension -- but nothing she said was inconsistent with it.
My favorite part of watching CNN's broadcast
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:29PM
... is watching the uncommitted Ohio voters drop in their opinion once Gwen Ifill appears onscreen. Turns out they don't like Gwen.
So Far, So Good
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:28PM
Palin is fiesty, charming, and isn't afraid to go on offense. She also is showing command of the facts so far, and clearly learned from her Couric interview by having responses prepared on McCain's regulatory record, mentioning tabacco and campaign finance reform. Her answer on the housing meltdown -- putting all the blame on Wall Street greed and predatory lenders -- was a bit too populist for my taste, but she is McCain's running mate. If Palin can maintain this throughout the debate, she'll be in good shape.
Sarah's ... well, she's being Sarah.
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:25PM
She's way more comfortable in this. Way more.
Palin Attacks
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:22PM
The moderator and talks directly to Joe Six Pack and the Hockey Moms.
Biden Goes on the Attack
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:21PM
He was clearly prepared for the tax hike argument and pointed out that Palin didn't answer his criticisms of deregulation.
Joe Six Pack and the Hockey Moms
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:19PM
Not a band, but Sarah Palin's first references to these Middle Americans tonight. Palin repeats McCain's Wall Street stuff but says "never again" and touts personal responsibility. Might not be as effective as Joe Biden's policy specifics and strawmen about deregulation.
Vice President Biden
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:16PM
Did the Obama book writer just call him the vice president?
Debate Staging
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:10PM
Interesting that the staging has returned to the more formal lectern format as opposed to having the two of them sitting at the table as we've seen at the 2000 and 2004 debates.
Pre-Debate Thoughts
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 9:02PM
My sense is that Sarah Palin has more to lose than she has to
gain. If she exceeds expectations, it may help relieve doubts about
her readiness, but
I would be surprised if McCain gets much of a bounce out of it,
because the focus will soon shift back to the bailout plan.
However, if she messes up, it will keep the focus on whether or not
she's up to the job, and that's a loser for McCain. Fair or not,
that's the field of play.
Joe Biden would be best off ignoring Palin as much as possible. He should just answer the questions and keep attacking McCain and try not to engage Palin and risk a backlash. But will he be able to keep himself from saying something really stupid? We shall see.
Palin needs to play to her strengths and recapture that likable authenticity that she had coming out of the convention, while at the same time, come across as confident in her answers. She can't afford another one of the Couric moments on such a large stage.
But at the end of the night, relax. Historically, the VP debate has very little influence on the outcome of the election, if any. Remember this?
Conservatives and Palin, Continued
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 7:29PM
Matt Lewis responds, and I'll take on a few of his points.
He writes that, "here is where I think Philip misses it. His analogy of Bush and Palin is a false one. Unlike my criticisms of Bush, the criticism directed at Palin has had nothing to do with philosophical reasons. Instead, her unforgivable sin was in merely giving a few unimpressive interviews."
But that was precisely my point. If the criticism directed at Palin isn't philosophical, than how can it have any bearing on whether or not the person doing the criticizing is a true conservative?
Lewis also observes:
It seems to me that there are essentially three groups of people who have specific problems with Palin that has resulted in their resenting her. They are as follows:
1. Intellectuals -- I'm quite familiar with great thinkers such as Burke, Kirk, Hayek, Friedman, et al. But I also have great admiration for men like Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan -- both decidedly anti-elitist conservatives. My suspicion is that much of the criticism of Palin is actually an elitist tendency to be suspicious of anyone who hasn't spent years working in government or academia.
... It just strikes me as too much of a coincidence that Palin's greatest defenders have been men like Fred Thompson and Rush Limbaugh, while her loudest detractors have tended to be members of the conservative Intelligentsia. Could it be that they view outsiders like Palin as merely rubes?
I don't think it's fair to say that Palin's critics "resent" her. Speaking for myself, I actually like Palin and think she's a fine governor of
Lewis brings up Reagan. But if you go back and read Reagan's a 1964 "A Time for Choosing" speech, or, if you prefer something unscripted, his 1967 debate with RFK just a few months into his governorship, it reveals somebody who has a true philosophical understanding of conservatism as well as a person who has thought seriously about world affairs. He may have been anti-elitist, but he certainly wasn't anti-intellectual.
In any event, if Lewis wants to call people who criticize Palin "elitist," that's an entirely different question from whether or not they are truly conservatives.
McCain Camp on the State of the Race
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 6:30PM
Just got off a McCain campaign conference call on the "state of the race" with senior advisor Greg Strimple and Mike DuHaime, the political director.
Here were the main points:
-- They confirmed that the McCain campaign will be pulling ads out of Michigan and scaling back operations in the state. They will shift resources to Maine where the electoral votes are split. Keep in mind, though, that Michigan has 17 electoral votes and Maine only has four.
-- Said they were tied and ahead in traditionally Republican states such as Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana and Florida. Obama will have a tough time here because of his inexperience and "aggressively liberal" voting record. Also noted that Obama was far behind in red states he hoped to compete in, such as Georgia and Montana, and will have to pull out.
-- Said that their strategy was to have Obama expend vast resources earlier in the race so the McCain campaign could step up spending down the stretch. Said the RNC raised $66 million last month, which was the highest total in eight years.
-- Said they would be competing in large blue states including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota, which Obama realized he could not take for granted.
-- Reported encouraging trends in absentee ballot requests among their voters in Colorado, Florida and North Carolina.
Conservatives and Palin
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 5:29PM
Matt Lewis, echoing Rush Limbaugh and Erick Erickson, takes conservative writers to task for daring to question Sarah Palin's readiness for higher office, even putting quotes around the word "conservative" as if to question their ideological purity. Given that I've been critical of Palin in recent weeks and have received some reader feedback on this myself, I'd like to address this issue.
Let me say right off the bat that I don't get out of bed every morning and ask myself what I can do to get Republicans elected. If that were the way I operated, I'd work for the party or join a campaign. Were I to merely say whatever is helpful to Republicans at any given moment, I would have no value as a writer. All I can do is tell the truth as I see it.
Anticipating this point, Lewis writes that, "there is a vast difference between asking a conservative to be blindly loyal to the GOP -- something neither Rush or I would suggest -- and asking a conservative to simply not become a liberal." But how does the mere act of criticizing a conservative politician mean somebody has "become a liberal"? If the commentators in question were attacking Palin for being staunchly pro-life, favoring gun rights, opposing talks with Ahmadinejad, and advocating lower taxes, then it would be one thing. But what does one's opinion on whether or not Palin is prepared to be VP have anything to do with whether somebody is ideologically liberal or conservative? When I closely watch several interviews and honestly reach the conclusion that Palin is out of her depth when talking about foreign policy as well as many national issues, what should I do? It seems that in Lewis's view, I should either a) keep quiet or b) lie and say that I thought she did great and the interviewer is just a biased liberal hack. Or did I betray conservatives merely by thinking that Palin was unready?
Lewis focuses on the fact that when conservatives criticize Palin it provides fodder for liberals. But incidentally, I don't think it does Palin any favors for conservatives to cover up for her and convince the campaign that her performances in interviews have been adequate for the office she's seeking. If it's only liberals who are doing the criticizing, she can chalk it up to their built-in biases. But when it's coming from those who should be her natural allies, it's much more likely that she'll work harder to improve.
I write this having just completed an essay for our upcoming issue on the Bush legacy in which I argue that one of the biggest mistakes conservatives made during his presidency was to circle the wagons defending him because he was on our "team" against the liberals. Now, the failures of the Bush administration have come to be identified as failures of conservatism, even though they are nothing of the sort. I don't think conservatives should make the same mistake yet again.
Palin Porn
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 4:13PM
Amanda Carpenter documents the phenomenon, and notes that, "conservative women who don't hide their femininity are forced to pay a price."
Rip His Lungs Out
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 3:06PM
In the Washington Post, I have some subtle suggestions for the governor of Alaska.
The Gaffe-anator
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 1:52PM
The McCain campaign is out with this new Web ad highlighting some of Biden's most embarassing moments. It's funny, but I'm not sure what the point is of setting Americans up to think of Biden as a complete bafoon when Republicans should be lowering expectations for Palin.
Re: No Shame Is No October Surprise
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 1:50PM
Based on Shawn Macomber's post, I've never felt so disinclined to vote before in my life.
There's something really bizarre about celebrity. What is it that makes these people think that they really need to "help out" by appearing in these ads?
Just because they enjoy the products of democracy doesn't mean they should try to run the factory.
Finally, A Peaceful Ramadan
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 1:26PM
Today is
the first of a three day holiday that concludes Ramadan, the Islamic month of
fasting. As such, it seems a good time
to remember that we really have turned the corner in Iraq. For the first five years of the war, Ramadan
was a nasty month for US troops. Why? Because in addition to their
normal program of fasting, Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq like to honor Allah
by literally festooning their roads with bombs. I was in theater (i.e. in the combat zone) for three of the last four of
these, and we always took more casualties during Ramadan.
This year,
word coming to me from marines and soldiers alike is that Ramadan has been
uneventful. No spikes in local activity,
no inordinate number of casualties just another month in Iraq. This Ramadan has seen less coalition forces
killed in Iraq than any of the five preceding it.
That's
really good news.
Key Wooden Arrows Provision of the Bailout
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 1:10PM
If anyone remains worried about the ability of the Senate
to properly address this financial crisis, you may now sleep softly. I've
jumped through the bailout package and found my very favorite remedies to the
situation:
SEC. 205. CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES. SEC. 314. INDIAN EMPLOYMENT CREDIT. Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 324.
Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventory.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
\Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
Re: Huck and 2012
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 11:55AM
The problem both Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are going to have is staying relevant four years. Of the two of them, Huckabee may have an easier time because he'll be a regular commentator on television. But he'll have limited opportunities to expand his appeal beyond his evangelical base. Though I am glad to have moved beyond the 2008 race to 2012.
Huck and 2012
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 11:36AM
Marc Ambinder gives Mike Huckabee a plausible shot at winning the Republican nomination in 2012, should Obama win this year. No chance. Although Huckabee defied expectations this year, at the end of the day, he was not able to expand his appeal beyond the evangelical base, and I don't see that changing much. His fiscal record is still atrocious and his national security views are erratic. He benefitted this year from coming out of nowhere and thus avoiding a lot of negative press until the very end, but this time around his record in Arkansas will get a lot more scrutiny. Also, it's hard to know who else would decide to run in four years and how that might shake up the race. This year, Huckabee was able to dominate among evangelicals because he was running in a heterodox field and none of his competitors were particularly appealing to that key constituency. But that would change if, say, Sarah Palin ran. She'd go back to Alaska after this election and get four more years of experience, and have time to study up on national and international issues and rack up more accomplishments. Whether or not she'd win the nomination is questionable, but one thing is for sure -- if she ran, her core appeal would be to the same working class and evangelical voters that Huckabee drew from.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:38AM
So many alternatives to Paulson plan (Marginal Revolution)
Voters still care about taxes, Obama (WSJ)
Bloomberg hopes to fare a little better than Guiliani against
term limits (Freakonomics)
Democratic capitalism fights for its life as a system (The Guardian)
One 1933 measure could work today -- but with conditions (Growthology)
Sports: Scott Boras is baseball's villain (ESPN)
The market could be saved by...the market (RealClearMarkets)
"Loopholes" means "income redistribution," apparently (Townhall)
No Shame Is No October Surprise
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:23AM
This new video wherein celebrities use a kind of milquetoast reverse psychology--Don't vote! Seriously, who cares? Don't vote...unless you care about the sick, civil rights, polar bears!--to convince young people to vote is exactly the sort of dreck that I explore in detail in the October issue of TAS. If there are people still totally unaware of the election and the issues after the last 18 months, then there is only one reason why anyone would want to herd them into a voting booth at the last minute--because they are malleable, susceptible to nonsense platitudes, and easy marks.
Hey Undecided Voters...
Posted by on 10.2.08 @ 10:11AM
...if you liked being racist, you're going to love being stupid.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
An Open Door to a Carbon Tax?
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 9:27PM
From the bailout bill (PDF):
SEC. 116. CERTAIN INCOME AND GAINS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL SOURCE
CARBON DIOXIDE TREATED AS QUALIFYING INCOME FOR PUBLICLY TRADED
PARTNERSHIPS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subparagraph (E) of section
6 7704(d)(1) (defining qualifying income) is amended by in7
serting ''or industrial source carbon dioxide'' after ''tim8
ber)''.
9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment made by
10 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment
11 of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
12 SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.
13 (a) STUDY.-The Secretary of the Treasury shall
14 enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
15 Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Inter16
nal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and
17 specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on
car18
bon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate
19 the magnitude of those effects.
20 (b) REPORT.-Not later than 2 years after the date
21 of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of
22 Sciences shall submit to Congress a report containing the
23 results of study authorized under this section.
24 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There is
25 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
26 $1,500,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
Industrial source carbon dioxide as income?
Off the Hook
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 6:50PM
Earlier today, when I tried to get through to the Capitol switchboard (202-224-3121) I got a busy signal. Libertarian blogger Tom Knapp reports from St. Louis:
Kit Bond's office is giving me an "all circuits are busy" response; Claire McCaskill's number has been forwarding to a "voice mail box is full -- goodbye" message all week.I've heard several people say that this level of switchboard-meltdown reaction is rivaled only by the thermonuclear response to last year's Kennedy-McCain "shamnesty" bill.
Re Re Re: Who is David Frum?
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 6:50PM
But Jeffrey, my point is made exactly by this sentence of yours: "I think, though, that it is vastly unfair to think that Governor Palin should be able to adjust overnight to her newfound role." My point is that if she were qualified for the role, there would be nothing to adjust to.
(Look, I'm on a lonely island here. Conservative activists refuse to acknowledge any fault with the choice of Palin for Veep. Those of us who express doubts are barely tolerated. But, dammit, the reason she has sounded so godawful in some of these interviews is because she did a godawful job in those interviews. And until shown otherwise, it is fair to surmise that she did a godawful job because she doesn't know what she is talking about. And THAT should worry all of us, even as we heartily wish for this woman of high character and principle to rise to the challenge.)
Re: Gerson Emerges
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 6:27PM
Quin, when I saw Gerson's column this morning, I had one thought:
SEPARATED AT BIRTH?
The
obvious question: What is it about the experience of being
repeatedly beaten up for his lunch money as a child that turns a
standard-issue mama's boy into a whiny Republican apologist for big
government?
Re: Defending McCain
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 6:22PM
Quin, your sotto voce "XXXX you, McCain" reminds me of the first time I met Ann Coulter. She shook my hand and said, "You have a most unfortunate name." And I replied, "Oh, you mean, Crazy Cousin John?"
Kmiec Continues His Pro-Life Case for Obama
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 5:42PM
Doug Kmiec doesn't believe the National Right to Life Comittee that the Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate restrictions on public funding of abortion, along with most other state abortion restrictions. Does he believe the National Organization for Women, which supports the legislation, when it says so? Kmiec also argues that Obama supports a stricter health exception than under current law, a position for which there is no basis besides a statement to a Christian publication that Obama essentially said was his (erroneous) interpretation of current law. And the Freedom of Choice Act also codifies the existing Doe v. Bolton definition of health, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America (pdf).
Re: Who Is David Frum?
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 5:36PM
Friend Quin, we are perhaps dealing with a mild case of semantics here. I say "philosophy, character and good old-fashioned common-sense judgment" and you say "the wisdom that comes from experience." I suspect the latter is nothing more than another way of saying the former. One man's wisdom that comes from experience is another man's common-sense judgment. Good judgment comes, as they say, from having had bad judgment -- aka experience, experience from which you learn. And certainly I believe to understand the conservative philosophy is to have "knowledge," something I would never denigrate. I think, though, that it is vastly unfair to think that Governor Palin should be able to adjust overnight to her newfound role. Quite demonstrably the roles in her famous ascent in Alaska were always a gradual step up the ladder -- PTA to council member to Mayor to State Energy & Gas Commission chair to Governor. Clearly in each instance she handled herself very, very well. Today is October 1 -- which means she has been in this new role for exactly a month and a couple days. There is no reason to think she will not adapt well -- very well -- as this continues. Her convention performance was, as they say in show business, boffo. An achievement that escaped Senator and former Congressman Dan Quayle, who had 14 years in House and Senate but whose debut as the VP nominee was, to put it mildly, memorable.
As it happens, I saw right after her selection an earlier, extensive interview she had done well before she was picked with a visiting Maria Bartiromo for CNBC. Maria was very good, very thorough, and there was no air of "gotcha" since at that point Palin was just the Governor of Alaska. Palin was very, very good. She drilled in on energy issues (pardon the pun) in great detail and with great confidence, discussing everything from ANWR to the physical aspect of husband Todd's job as a sloper -- separating the oil from water and gas as it is pumped out of the ground. The subject was complex, the interview a full half-hour and done far better than McCain, Obama and Biden could possibly hope on the same subject.
The problem, I agree, is that the election is in 30-some odd days and the VP debate is tomorrow night. I suspect if she is just herself -- and is not over-coached (a problem that beset President Reagan in his first 1984 debate with Mondale -- and he was already president!), she will be just fine. It takes a while to get your footing. But particularly at this point as she realizes the import of the Gwen Ifill revelations and her treatment thus far by the media she knows exactly that the game is on to make her a buffoon and a lightweight. She surely has had this problem in Alaska -- and won the day. What, after all, do you think the Murkowski crowd -- he of the 22 years in the Senate and an incumbent governor -- were saying about her back then?
Last but not least, if I may say from a New Englander turned Pennsylvanian to a Louisianan, I do think one of the more shameful aspects of culture in the Northeast United States is this up-in-the-air attitude about a good many people who are not from the same turf or have some version of the proper school tie or size of wallet or family history etc., etc. This used to be a North-South thing, something I became aware of when my family lived briefly in southern Virginia for a couple years and my high school English teacher asked me bashfully if he taught as well as my teachers in Massachusetts. I was stunned -- the answer was very much yes -- but the mere asking of the question said volumes. Eyes open as a teenager I began to see this kind of thing and understand it a lot more afterwards whenever the topic of things Southern came up with my Yankee friends. It made life a particular hell in the White House for LBJ ("Uncle Cornpone" from Southwest Texas State Teachers College), which inevitably led to his simultaneous deriding of "the Harvards" while letting them plunge him into Vietnam and, most dramatically, making them come into the bathroom while he was on the john, taking great delight in their discomfort and his ability to command them. Even Jimmy Carter would speak of this kind of treatment. Alaska is becoming, in this campaign, the New Old South. Filled with funny talking hicks who, per Saturday Night Live, think incest is best. Joe Biden can be a virtual gaffe machine and have made serious personal and policy mistakes and, well, it's all a yawn because Joe went to Syracuse, comes from Delaware via Scranton and he's, but of course, a Democrat. Sounds elitist.
Defending McCain
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 4:55PM
Some bloggers (and even a Drudge headline) are saying that this interview of McCain with the Des Moines Register editorial board shows him "irritable" and "angry and sarcastic." Well, yes, there are a few little places where the man gets irritable. And there were two spots where I said (under my breath) "XXXX you, McCain," because I find his personality, especially his self-righteousness, extremely grating. But his irritability in those few spots is only slightly greater than I think any human being showing ordinary feelings would show. On the whole, he comes across as -- well, not exactly the kind of guy I personally would want to spend time with, but -- a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and engaged candidate. AND, importantly, as a real conservative on the vast majority of issues.
Regular readers of this blog know how much McCain rubs me the wrong way. But in this case, if you watch the interview in toto (it's almost an hour long), you just won't be being fair if you say it shows him as a hothead. The criticisms this time are overblown. See for yourself.
Re: Who is David Frum
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 3:38PM
I rarely disagree with my good friend Jeffrey Lord, but I strenuously disagree with his take on what qualifies somebody for Veep or president. Specifically, I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement: "Any American conservative should know by now that there are three core qualities needed to be a good president: philosophy, character and good old-fashioned common-sense judgment."
That's only a partial list. I know literally hundreds of people, personally, who have those three core qualities, and I know of thousands (i.e. not in person but OF them). But that doesn't mean those hundreds or thousands would all be good presidents or veeps. Any conservative who denigrates experience and knowledge -- which apparently these days means 90% of conservative activists -- isn't the sort of conservative that I thought was part of the very definition of conservatism. Maybe I inherited too much from Russell Kirk by osmosis through my godfather, who knew him, but a conservative who doesn't value the wisdom that comes from experience is.... a mere ideologue. or so I thought until a month ago.
As for Harry Truman, it is true that the elites sneered. And true that he was a failed haberdasher. But he had shown great leadership as an officer in World War I, and he had served incredibly admirably as chairman of a phemonenally important and successful, bipartisan Senate oversight committee during World War II. His experience makes Palin's pale in comparison (pun not intended, but not bad nonetheless, eh?). Even so, I think his reputation these days is far better than what he deserves.
The problem with Palin isn't just what elites sneer at her for -- her mannerisms, her accent, her expressions -- but what so far seems like an incredibly lack of comfort with national issues. She just doesn't seem to know what she's talking about, and she often talks in utterly incoherent sentences. While it is true that the elites have all sneered at her for the unimportant things, and that some of them have been incredibly nasty and out of line in doing so, I don't think it's fair to lay those sins on Frum. Those things, in my reading, are not the basis of his objections.
Despite my doubts, I for one will be rooting hard for Palin in tomorrow night's debate. I think she is a lady of admirable character and engaging personality. But those traits do not, in my book, suffice for a good vice president. I hope, deeply, that I am wrong. But if I am, it is not because I am an elitist, but because Palin will have risen above her level of experience. Very few people can do so. And it is decidely NOT elitist to say so.
The Tancredo of the Bailout Debate
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 1:34PM
Ron Paul continues to make the case against the bailout.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 1:27PM
A vote against rashness (Washington Post)
Meanwhile, Europe nationalizes its banks -- and that's not good (Bloomberg)
Gwen Ifill is unfit to moderate a vice presidential debate (NRO)
Holding out the welcome mat for Ahmadinejad in the White House (Boston.com)
Low fare bus wars continue to benefit travelers (Wired)
Communism: the ultimate failure of separation of church and state (CatholicCulture.org)
Palin is too popular to give interviews -- but what else is she doing? (Politico)
The bracelet Barack doesn't want but can't take off (WSJ)
Regulators are bullies (Townhall)
Who Is David Frum?
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 12:38PM
Did you catch this trashing of Sarah Palin in, where else, the NYT?
"I think she has pretty thoroughly -- and probably irretrievably -- proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States," David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush who is now a conservative columnist, said in an interview. "If she doesn't perform well, then people see it.[...]"
Now, I don't know David Frum at all well. We've spoken on the phone once during the Harriet Miers uprising and done that across-the-room nod at some event or another. Nice guy. Smart guy. But...one has to say based on the above, if accurate...an elitist guy. Any American conservative should know by know that there are three core qualities needed to be a good president: philosophy, character and good old-fashioned common-sense judgment. Harry Truman, as Frum should certainly know, was your basic New Dealer. But he had the same problems -- almost exactly the same problems -- as Sarah Palin. Which is to say the elites of the day could not stand him. Why? Succeeding the urbane New Yorker FDR, who was Harvard educated and spoke in that famous upper crust accent, New Dealer or not Truman was no FDR. He had only a high school education. He had been a farmer and a farmer's son. He had gone bankrupt as a haberdasher. He spoke in what was called at the time a "Missouri twang." The accent grated on the ears of Easterners, and was expressed in a plain-spoken Midwestern fashion.
Truman used words and expressions like "hooey," "something the cat dragged in," "cut out the foolishness," "get in harness," "come on boys, let's do the job," and "sure as shootin'." "Your Ma," he once wrote daughter Margaret, "put on her best bib and tucker…"
Were Truman seen to be nothing more than a "provincial" he would have gotten off easy. He didn't.
Harold Ickes (FDR and Truman's Interior Secretary and the father of todays' Clintonite Harold Ickes) left the Truman Cabinet in a huff, calling Truman "stupid." Truman, according to biographer David McCullough, was made fun of for his mid-American mannerisms, his Missouri pals, the by now famous devotion to his mother. "Every day is Mother's Day in the White House" went the snicker. The jokes demeaning Truman were rampant in Washington. He was supposedly late for a Cabinet meeting "because he woke up stiff in the joints from trying to put his foot in his mouth." The columnist Walter Lippmann thought Truman an embarrassment. The New York showman Billy Rose "suggested W.C. Fields for President in 1948, saying, 'If we're going to have a comedian in the White House, let's have a good one.." The torrent was so bad Time magazine wrote about "the shrill pitch of abuse heaped upon the President."
"What a test of democracy if it works," wrote one reporter when Truman became president. When a reporter asked Truman if he was the "sublimation of the average man" Truman replied: "Well, what's wrong with being the average man?" Dean Acheson, Truman's Secretary of State and the epitome of an Eastern elitist rose, to Truman's defense. According to McCullough, Acheson saw the man he was dealing with as "straightforward, decisive, honest and, if inexperienced, likely to learn fast." Eventually Acheson called Truman "the captain with the mighty heart."
To return to Mr. Frum of Yale and Harvard Law. The Frum review of Governor Palin reeks hilariously of the same kind of elitism that snapped at Truman's heels. Palin has thus far shown herself, precisely like Truman, to have the wrong accent, a tendency to be plain spoken, use non-elitist phrases ("doggone" escaped from her the other day somewhere on the trail) and, most un-forgivingly, had to work her butt off to get through the University of Idaho. Yet she has already shown in her career thus far a "mighty heart," excellent character, an instinctive understanding of conservatism (her father said she always had -- elitist alert here -- "her nose buried in some book") and, like Truman, if inexperienced an ability to learn fast. Fast enough to suit David Frum or the D.C. Green Room crowd? Apparently not. More ethical then Gwen Ifill, the VP debate moderator from PBS, NBC and the New York Times who signed on to moderate the debate knowing full well she had a pro-Obama book in the works and had done an Obama family puff piece for Essence magazine? Absolutely.
What disappoints is that Mr. Frum over there at National Review has apparently forgotten the wisdom of William F. Buckley. Sarah Palin -- like Harry Truman -- is the embodiment of Buckley's saying that he would rather be governed by the first one hundred people in the phone directory than the faculty of Harvard. For heart, character, common sense and good judgment Mrs. Palin -- like Truman and the British middle class Margaret Thatcher before her -- is hard to beat. Even if she never shows for drinks at the Yale Club.
Gerson
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 12:37PM
But Quin, didn't you get the memo? When somebody hurts, government has got to move! It doesn't matter what it crushes in its path.
Aghanistan
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 12:34PM
Whatever the merits of our own intervention there on behalf of the mujaheddin, it unmistakably ended up being a disastrous military intervention for the Soviet Union. I'd say the Afghan mujaheddin were freedom fighters in the sense that they didn't want to be ruled by an outside imperial force governed by an anti-freedom ideology, even though they obviously weren't themselves believers in freedom as we would understand it.
Of mistakes and laser-guided missiles
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 12:12PM
Radley Balko, who is probably aware I want to nationalize his brilliance, strikes a chord that, to me, sounds flat. I might be taking something he said and running with the wrong definition, so allow me to simply make this an example:
Well, not to mince words, but they were fighting for freedom, just their own freedom to subordinate women and propagate the Jihadi-based guide to personal success. And there was a perfectly good reason to calling them freedom fighters. On the "Spectrum of Grey" Tyranny-meter, the Soviets were jet black with expansionist impulses and nuclear weapons. The mujaheddin were thorns in their side, and helping in a greater cause of freedom.
Anyway, I'm weary of this strawman argument. Those of us who dig on foreign adventurism, or perhaps think that sabre-rattling is useful, don't see the world in black and white anymore than critics polarize the world according to those who see shades of gray and those who see black and white. The use of black and white rhetoric is not simply a consequence of stupidity, simple-mindedness, or mere partisanship. It is no more detrimental to the intellect of the electorate than is a libertarian suggesting that more government is bad. Everything a politician or ideologue says is, in some way, propaganda, something intended not only to convey a political message to the people, but to convince them of it. That McCain engages in this sort of thing is not morally hazardous, but actually necessary. It's in his job description, right behind "Get Really Mad At Coworkers."
Doing so does not ignore the perils of foreign conflict. Any person with a lick of education knows that other countries are pretty complex, just like ours is. I'd wager it's tough to be on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and not have a better idea of that than your average joe. Reagan's language wasn't a mere sideshow, but an instrument he used to strengthen his hand at the negotiating table.
Whatmore, the U.S. meddling in foreign conflicts, particularly Afghanistan, has generally been a force of good in the world. Obviously, restraint is tantamount to that good. So we ask for land to bury our dead and move on. Should we have taken action against Russia when they invaded Georgia? No. But the history of U.S.-Russian diplomacy teaches us that Russia is perfectly comfortable with testing our limits to see what they can get away with, especially during an election season. Language (and the might to back it up) is the most important tool for confronting it.
I'm just saying: Sometimes, threatening to make the rubble bounce prevents you from having to.
Bloomberg! That Fascist!
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 11:46AM
Michael Bloomberg is seeking to change New York City law to allow him to serve a third term, citing the financial crisis. When Rudy Giuliani tried to do this in the wake of 9/11, he was attacked as a fascist, and this was used against him in his presidential campaign to paint him as somebody who saw himself as dictator and had an extreme view of executive power. Somehow, when a liberal media darling like Bloomberg tries it, I don't think he'll get the same reaction. Keep in mind, too, when Giuliani tried it was just a months before the end of his term, unlike the more than a year that Bloomberg still has, and Rudy was seeking to extend his term for an extra few months rather than run for yet another four years.
Re: Obama and the Swing States
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 11:37AM
We'll obviously have to wait for more polls to see if he's up "big," but if you look at the trend in the electoral map, you get a sense of the recent move toward Obama. And remember, Obama's route to 270 isn't all that difficult.
If Obama can hang on to all the Kerry states, he's already at 252. Assume he wins Iowa, where he's well ahead, and he's up to 259. This means that Obama becomes president if he's able to flip any one of Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, or Indiana. Or, any two of: Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.
McCain is either going to have to play effective defense of the Bush states, or reverse recent Republican fortunes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and/or Minnesota to win. Given the economic crisis, that seems like a pretty tall order.
Obama Up Big In Swing States?
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 10:14AM
I'd want to see this confirmed in other polling, particularly in Florida, but Quinnipiac has three polls out that aren't good news for McCain. They show Obama leading 51 percent to 43 percent in Florida, 54 percent to 39 percent (!) in Pennsylvania, and 50 percent to 42 percent in Ohio. These could be outliers and I haven't looked at the cross-tabs. But if anything like these numbers holds up, Obama might ride the financial crisis right into the White House.
Not A Showstopper
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 10:03AM
A reader of Jay Nordlinger's suggests that when Obama tries to tie McCain to Bush in the next debate, McCain should respond, "Say what you will about President Bush, senator, but he is the twice-elected president of the United States and a good and honorable man. I would rather be associated with him than with Billy Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko, to begin with." The reader called it a "debate clincher" and "showstopper."
My guess is that such a response would excite people already safely in the McCain camp, but that any undecideds out there would merely hear McCain reaffirming his Bush ties and talking about three people they've barely heard of.
Gerson Emerges From Underneath Rock
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 10:02AM
Michael Gerson just can't help himself. He is the most sneeringly supercilious, pompous jackinape writing today. And like McCain, he spews most of his anger and contempt at the right. Herewith, a few quotes from his column today: 1) "House Republicans... spout[ed] their ideological purity from atop the ruins..." 2) "most House Republicans with ideological objections had nothing better to propose and no intention to try." (NOTE: That sentence is a flat out lie. Maybe Gerson the Great is also Gerson the Incredibly Lazy: How could he have missed the detailed proposals offered by the House Repub. Study Committee or the House Repub. Policy Committee?) 3) The consensus [for the bill] included everyone who matters" 4) "it is the political philosophy of Samson: Bring down the entire temple to make a political point."
No wonder the Bush White House has been such a failure: It was populated by arrogant SOBs like Gerson.
Hewitt Interviews Palin
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 1:32AM
You're not going to find more of a softball interviewer of Republican candidates than Hugh Hewitt in full Romney apologist mode, but Sarah Palin does come off well in this interview.
B.S.
Posted by on 10.1.08 @ 12:15AM
That's actually what I happen to think of the underlying bailout.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Absolutely Disgusting Tactic
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 10:29PM
The Senate tomorrow will attach the Wall Street bailout to a "must pass" tax extender bill. This is dirty pool. When you are talking about the single most significant growth of government power EVER, you should let it sink or swim on its own. You don't attach it to a goodie basket and dare the other chamber to vote against it. To do so is a cheap, despicable tactic. It is the tactic of people without the courage of their convictions -- the tactic of cowards. Yes, cowards. I am utterly disgusted with McConnell and the entire Senate leadership. This is not the way to handle legislation as serious as this is. If the House GOP had any guts, then if the Senate sends the House the bill in this form -- thus also making a mockery, via legerdemain, of the requirement that such financial bills should start in the House -- MORE of the House GOP than before should vote against it, in protest against this sort of hardball pressure.
I think every conservative in the country should raise holy hell about this. AGAINST this tactic. WHATEVER you think about the underlying bailout, this BS is utterly insulting.
Thompson on Palin
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 6:06PM
Fred Thompson makes an eloquent pro-Palin case. Worth a read.
Tatoo You
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 5:59PM
Here's an October surprise for you: Liberal blogs claim Sarah Palin's lip gloss may actually be a tattoo.
I hope this isn't true, because it sure changes the joke: What's the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A tattoo. And let's not even get into putting a tattoo on a pig...
Re: Friends of Fannie and Freddie
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 4:10PM
Barney Frank makes his case against making Fannie and Freddie a "Genahwul Shibboweth" quite well.
Palin or Paleo?
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 3:39PM
Remember the controversy over whether Sarah Palin was, gasp, a Buchananite? Sean Scallon has an interesting article in the current issue of the American Conservative exploring how Jacksonian social conservatives migrated from the 1990s Buchanan Brigades to the Bush Leagues, even though they represent polar opposites in terms of foreign policy.
The break between Buchanan and Jacksonians like Palin had at least as much to do with foreign policy as with his split from the Republican Party. The anti-interventionist arguments of his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire might have thrilled old Taft Republicans in the upper Midwest and warmed the ground around Col. Robert McCormick's grave, but they alienated Buchanan's demographic base, which preferred the culture warrior to the anti-warrior. The America First movement had always been weak in the South and border states-with all their bases and military industries and their martial culture extending back to Scots-Irish roots-and the surplus population from those areas continued to settle throughout the country even after World War II, including in Sarah Palin's Alaska....Palin represents not the return of the Buchanan Brigades but, as Daniel Larison has said, the "recreation of the Bush II coalition" of Jacksonian Protestants and neoconservatives. Her presence on the ticket reconnects the voters who supported Mike Huckabee to the Republican establishment from which they were alienated between 2006 and the moment of Palin's nomination. That's why Bill Kristol is as much a fan of Palin as Buchanan is: her presence on the ticket reinvigorates the party's base and gives the GOP a chance to keep Kristol's friends and associates in power. He knows the neoconservatives need the Jacksonians in order to win, which is why he wasn't promoting Joe Lieberman as McCain's running mate.
How in line with the neocons Palin ends up being could help shape the direction of the American right, Scallon concludes. But for now, he says, "The Buchanan Brigades of which Sarah Palin was a member are long gone, their ranks now firmly in neoconservative hands." The one question I wished he'd explored is whether there is anything paleos themselves could do to influence conservatism and appeal to the voters who have gone from Buchanan to Bush. The last few years have shown paleos were wrong to romanticize "Middle American Radicals." Dismissing them as red-state fascists may also prove a mistake.
Re: David Brooks
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 2:42PM
He lost me in March 1997, Wlady. Despite the self-evident and manifold failures of "National Greatness," both as policy and politics, Brooks seems never to have entertained a second thought about his paean to "an affirmative view of the public realm," his sneering dismissal of "populist resentment," and his flat declaration that "American purpose can find its voice only in Washington."
That infamous essay is one of the reasons I so fear the consequences of a Republican defeat on Nov. 4. The GOP has shown in recent years a habit of misreading its defeats. Bob Dole's defeat in 1996 convinced not only Brooks but apparently many other Republicans that opposition to Big Government was a losing proposition. Not only the Brooks/Kristol "National Greatness" theme but also the Olasky/Bush "Compassionate Conservatism" were born from a Republican desire to escape the Spirit of '94.
It seems never to have occurred to anyone that Dole's defeat was largely the fault of Bob Dole himself. Certainly Dole -- "the Senator From Archer Daniels Midland" and "the Tax Collector For the Welfare State" -- was no anti-government firebrand. And yet, though the Gingrich-led insurgents maintained their majority in the 1996 election while Dole lost, the politics of Gingrich got blamed for the failure of of the Dole candidacy.
That counterfactual interpretation of the 1996 election led to "National Greatness," and one heard a lot of talk at that time that the essential problem was that the GOP had become too "mean-spirited" and "partisan." Ergo, the solution was the "compassionate" Bush, who would bring a "new tone" to Washington.
I fear that John McCain's defeat in November will lead to a similarly disastrous misinterpretation, and the fact that Brooks and Kristol now have platforms at the New York Times and Fox News to spread such wrong-headedness only increases my sense of foreboding.
Re: Dreams of Jim Antle
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 2:41PM
I've never dreamt that my teeth fell out but there were two memorable dreams that involved teeth. In the first, I bit the thumb off of a one-fingered bum who was using it to attack me and felt rather bad about it after.
The second involved a dog jumping up and biting me in the face. For some reason I was sleeping with my hand on my face that night and it twitched. The nocturnal scream woke everybody in the house. I'm surprised it didn't wake everybody in the neighborhood.
Friends of Fannie and Freddie
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 2:37PM
A new video is circulating that shows Democrats resisting new regulations -- and protecting Franklin Raines -- while Republicans were concerned about the state of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae:
Re: Pelosi's Successful Failure
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 2:34PM
Whether it was incompetence or malice, the main drawback to McCain's campaign suspension and bailout leadership role was always that he could only succeed if the Democrats let him. It would be asking too much to expect McCain to have a sense of where the Republican conference stood on the issue.
... and I Feel Fine
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 1:55PM
Actually, we (collectively) feel fine. The reference is, of course, to the REM song: It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." Well, Hank Paulson, the nation's chief panic-monger, told us for two weeks that if we didn't bail out Wall Street, the world as we knew it (or at least the economic world as we knew it) would come to an end. Yeah, right. As I write, the Dow industrial average today is up 350 points. Paulson can take back what John Boehner called his "cr@p sandwich" and swallow hard.
At a press conference today, the ever-interesting Newt Gingrich not only again demanded Paulson's resignation, but he also said there should be an investigation into Goldman Sachs. Why is it that G-S, Paulson's old firm, is about the only investment bank coming out of this smelling like a rose? WHy is it (if true) that, as reported by the NYTimes, a G-S official was the only private-sector rep in the meetings at which AIG (or was it Fannie/Freddie -- I think it was AIG) was bailed out? Is it true that G-S had a $20 billion stake in AIG? And was G-S shorting Bear Stearns, as rumor has it? With Paulson asking for a $700 billion blank check, and with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten being a former G-S exec, and with other G-S execs or former execs playing outsized roles in this whole seven-months long "crisis," I alread had been joking (for days before the Gingrich press conference) that George W. Bush has been acting as if he is Chairman of the Board of the United Executives of Goldman Sachs.
Well, this bailout might have been a great idea from the narrow little standpoint of G-S and Wall Street, but the American people smelled a rat. Other good ideas abound as to how to help get credit flowing again. Meanwhile, the market is smart enough to know bargains when it sees them. The market works well enough to absorb losses and move on. It's not the end of the world as we know it. No thanks to Paulson, we do feel fine.
Barletta vs. Kanjorski
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 1:23PM
I think the AmSPec already carried a column about a month ago on the Pennsylvania congressional race between incumbent Paul Kanjorski and challenger Lou Barletta, the famous mayor of Hazleton who cracked down on illegal immigration. But here's my take on it, for the Examiner, after interviewing Barletta last week. If I had my druthers, I would have expanded the column far beyond the immigration issue, because Barletta is far more than a one-trick pony. He's a very impressive politician, in the good sense of the word. But I thought you readers out there would still enjoy this.
Re: David Brooks
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 1:00PM
Shawn: Without going into such philosophical depths as James Poulos, I contend that David Brooks lost me when, in starting out his never to be forgotten column, he wildly denounces the current "generation of political leaders," including the pro-bailout George W. Bush ("completely out of juice"), Henry Paulson ("inept"), Barney Frank (a "too busy" "media darling") and Nancy Pelosi ("did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser...?") -- yet attacks the 228 "nihilists" who voted against the Bush-Paulson-Frank-Pelosi bailout plan for refusing to follow such leadership.
With any luck, President Obama will appoint David to high office and we'll see for ourselves how well he does.
A Tax Cut Idea for the McCain Campaign
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 12:38PM
Normally our friend George Wittman covers national security. This time, though, in a note to me, he proposes something more in tune with domestic retiree security:
As the McCain campaign is looking around feverishly for a vote-getting device to attract the "middle class," I have a suggestion: He should recommend that the annual required IRA distribution of people of advanced years NOT BE TAXED. Starting with this year and going on through his presidency, this would be extremely welcome to middle class retirees. The money would be valuable to the retirees, not be that big a revenue loss for the Treasury, and have a maximum political effect.
Re: Dreams of Antle
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 12:25PM
Jim: It was only a bye week. The Patriots will play again this weekend. No need for any long national nightmare.
Re: David Brooks
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 12:10PM
Yeah, Shawn, that Brooks column was enough to make me abandon my blood feud with Ross Douthat. What I resent in Brooksian anti-populism is the insinuation that ordinary Americans are not fit judges of their own self-interest, and the hidden assumption that the interests of the elite are the only interests that matter.
In February 2006, when the battle over the (first) immigration bill was just beginning to strike sparks, I found myself in a casual conversation with Mark Krikorian, who explained the political conflict simply as between the Elites (in both parties) vs. Everybody Else. I spent that spring doing a lot of talk radio interviews as part of a book promotion and, even though the book wasn't about immigration, I was frequently asked to respond to the issue. This was because the audience was extremely interested in the issue, and the audience was overwhelmingly against any amnesty for illegals.
Ordinary Americans believe that illegal immigration is harmful to their interests, they vehemently oppose amnesty, and no amount of argument is ever going to convince them otherwise. Yet, for the Brookses of the world, it seems as if this very fact of populist opposition constitutes proof that amnesty is the way to go: "If the knuckle-dragging troglodytes in flyover country hate it, it must be good."
The same calculus seems to be at work in the bailout debate. It apparently never occurs to elite journalists that what's good for elite journalists in Washington and New York is not necessarily good for truck drivers in Tulsa and Tupelo. Rather, the chattering classes attribute this to the presumed ignorance of the benighted plebes.
Re: Dreams of Antle
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 11:49AM
Yeah, forgetting to attend a class for a whole semester -- or forgetting the final -- is a common dream for everyone who's ever been to college. (Rather a simple debunking of Freudianism there, by the way.)
As to football dreams, when the Crimson Tide's 5-0 and ranked No. 2 in the AP poll, Alabama fans don't have to sleep to dream of a national championship, even though (a) it's a rebuilding team with true freshmen in the starting lineup, and (b) going undefeated in the SEC is an extremely difficult feat, as Florida learned Saturday. Plus the Tide has to play LSU (currently No. 3) in Baton Rouge, and then try to break its losing against Auburn.
Still, it's a wonderful thing: The market's cratering, Obama's up by 8, and all I really care about now is Alabama football.
David Brooks Went Looking For A Spanking This A.M.
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 11:47AM
And James Poulos got out a mighty, unforgiving paddle.
Is Social Conservatism Soooo 2004?
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 11:44AM
Over at Culture 11 Erika Andersen offers a very candid and heartfelt plea that important social issues not be thrown under the electoral bus in the name of conversational convenience/traveling the path of least political resistance.
Re: Dreams of Antle, Re: Bailout
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 11:25AM
Jim, I've had that dream about the teeth falling out. Must be standard issue, like the one where you forgot a class for a whole semester until the very end, or the one where you are naked in public.
Regarding the bail-out, I keep wondering about what this means for the financial sector in terms of their true value to the economy. Is it possible that the extraordinary bonuses, perks, and salaries are not necessarily justifiable in terms of real worth? Is it possible that we have been subsidizing Wall St. to some degree?
I mean, the financial rocket science of managing risk has not worked out, but as with a plaintiff's lawyer who wins a big suit that is later shown to be junk science, the rewards have already been disbursed and the damage already done.
Pelosi's Politics of Successful Failure
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 11:02AM
If you haven't yet read today's Prowler column about how Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel manipulated the defeat of the bailout bill, please do so. This rather confirms my own hunch:
It was as if the whole point of Monday's vote was to embarrass John McCain. The GOP nominee having identified himself so strongly with the bailout, a defeat for the bailout was a defeat for McCain, and the Democrats saw a chance to make him look like an idiot.Bailout supporter Megan McArdle attributes the failure to incompetence, rather than malice. While I have no problem conceiving of Pelosi as incompetent, where Rahm Emanuel's involved, malice seems a more likely explanation.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 10:46AM
Can
McCain and
Nearing the end of his rope, Paulson needs to rely on the news, not his own powers of persuasion. (Bloomberg)
Would you like cream or sugar with your conservatism? (Culture11)
Eric Cantor thinks that there's still a way to make the bailout palatable (NRO)
Indians outsourcing phone jobs to Americans -- it's the new
Alternate take: market intervention is as American as apple pie. (
Out with personal freedom in
Biden won't call Palin out on a gaffe, for his own sake (Politico)
Same Old Deal
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 10:42AM
Yesterday, NRO asked longtime conservative former Congressman Vin Weber how he would have voted on the bailout. To explain why he would have voted in favor, he proposed a thought experiment for small government conservatives: "Imagine, just to play a mind game, if Herbert Hoover had engineered an intervention that had prevented the stock market collapse from turning into a full-scale depression. The whole course of history might have changed in a direction far more to the liking of conservatives."
In other words, if one little financial intervention could have prevented the New Deal and preserved something like the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover-era size of government, wouldn't it have been worth doing? I understand this sentiment, but think it relies on a misreading. Hoover actually undertook unprecedented economic interventions in response to the Great Depression, including public works spending, efforts to guide wages and prices, policies intended to benefit labor unions, and especially higher taxes and tariffs. Hoover was in some ways a precursor to the New Deal, not the last gasp of laissez-faire economics from which FDR was a radical departure.
But today we remember Hoover as an anti-government ideologue and FDR's New Deal as our economic savior, ushering in a new era of big government that the conservative movement has never really been able to undo. Already, we hear that compassionate conservative George W. Bush, despite his big spending and this $700 billion bailout package, is an anti-government ideologue too. If the bailout is passed and fails, it will actually be used to justify even greater economic interventions -- and cited as evidence of the failure of anti-government Bush.
Dreams of Jim Antle
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 10:16AM
Last night, I had a dream that the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl with Matt Cassel rather than Tom Brady, beating the Green Bay Packers by a field goal and avenging the loss of over a decade ago. Later, I dreamed that a bunch of my teeth fell out. Clearly, the optimistic and pessimistic strains of my psyche are at war.
Dana Milbank vs. America
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 9:39AM
If you want the consensus of the Beltway elite, Page 3 of today's Washington Post is a good place to start:
After the shocking vote of 228 to 205, party leaders did their usual rounds of partisan finger-pointing, but it really wasn't a partisan issue at all. The center had collapsed in favor of a coalition of far-right and far-left zealots. What was once the lunatic fringe was now a majority: 40 percent of House Democrats, going by yesterday's vote, and fully two-thirds of Republicans. . . .
The new majority isn't worried about ephemeral things such as 700-point drops in the Dow. "No, I'm not," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) declared after the vote. "The market may be down, but the Constitution is up!"
So, Nancy Pelosi can deliver only 60 percent of her caucus, and the problem is . . . Republicans. Be assured that, if the bailout had passed, Dana Milbank would have found a way to use the passage as an occasion to attack . . . Republicans. If the Republicans are going to be blamed either way, I'd prefer them to blamed for doing maximum damage to Milbank's 401K. Congratulations, "lunatic fringe"!
Re: How Revolting
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 2:45AM
John, the minute I laid eyes on Brooks' column today, I forgot all about my blood-feud with Ross Douthat. Compared to Brooks, Douthat is Jesse Helms.
How Revolting
Posted by on 9.30.08 @ 1:30AM
Arnold Kling, yesterday, in a blog post titled "Revolt of the Elites":
I am struck by how bitterly some commentators have taken the House vote against the bailout. The elite, including many conservatives, are appalled that House members would listen to their constituents rather than their betters. The title of Chistopher Lasch's book, The Revolt of the Elites, comes to mind, to characterize the feelings of the jilted establishment. David Brooks must be horrified.David Brooks, today, in a column titled "Revolt of the Nihilists":
And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no - the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.Eerie.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Re: The Curse of Douthatism
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 9:11PM
Well, Jeremy, considering I disagree with just about everything Douthat has ever written, I suppose one link was as good as another, eh?
Book Party and I'm Old
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 8:52PM
On Wednesday night, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is hosting a party for my second book, The Warm Bucket Brigade, on the outskirts of Chinatown in Washington D.C. That also happens to be on my thirtieth birthday. Here's the Facebook page, if any readers would like to come.
A Jeremy Lott Public Service Announcement
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 8:35PM
In which I bravely come out against union thuggery.
Re: The Curse of Douthatism
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 8:33PM
1. You have the wrong link for the Douthat item. Here's the right one.
2. Your long standing hatred for the man has led you to spectacularly misread what he had to say.
The Curse of Douthatism
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 7:19PM
Another elitist advocate of eat-your-broccoli politics:
Even though most Americans claim to oppose the bailout, the House GOP's obstructionism is widely viewed as having worsened the economic situation . . .What an Everest of haughty Harvard-educated condescension is contained in the phrase "most Americans claim to oppose the bailout." The same establishment insiders who did nothing to avert the disaster offer their expert solution to the problem -- foisting a $700 billion burden on the taxpayers -- and the people who angrily answered, "Hell, no!" are credited only with claiming to oppose the bailout. Obviously, without benefit of an Ivy League education, nobody actually knows what they believe.
Re: McCain's Blunder
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 7:02PM
Phil, the basic politics of the bailout resembles nothing so much as the immigration reform measures that Crazy Cousin John twice tried to shove through the Senate. It was one of those "elite consensus" deals, fiercely opposed by ordinary Americans.
It's eat-your-broccoli politics -- the condescending Washington-knows-best message that seeks to impose top-down solutions and treats voters as an obstacle to progress. You cannot win elections by campaigning against the people.
UPDATE: I see that while I was composing this response, Jim Antle made the same comparison. Great minds, etc.
A Bigger Debacle Than McCain-Kennedy
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 6:44PM
In my column Friday on the main site, I compared the bailout package to the Senate's immigration amnesty. Both were supported by the establishment of the two major parties, by the Bush administration, and by McCain and Obama. But this has been an even bigger collapse. Unlike in the case of amnesty, the House Republican leadership had already folded by today's vote. So had relatively conservative Republicans like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and John Shadegg, though Shadegg did vote against the bill today. And there was a greater sense of urgency in favor of fixing the financial markets than there was pushing for an amnesty.
And yet... The bailout plan somehow failed, with 60 percent of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats voting no. Like the last version of McCain-Kennedy, what started as a bill backed by a left-right coalition ended up being defeated by one. Dennis Kucinich, Neil Abercrombie, and Jesse Jackson, Jr. voted with Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, and Ron Paul. Everybody said it had to pass and we Couldn't Just Do Nothing. But it didn't pass.
This will prove to be like amnesty in one other way, however: This won't be the last time the White House and the congressional leadership try to push this through.
McCain's Suspension Blunder
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 6:12PM
I just got off of a conference call with McCain economic adviser Doug Holz-Eakin reacting to the failure of the bailout package, and it did nothing but reinforce my view that the decision to suspend his campaign was a major blunder that may very well have cost McCain the election.
McCain's entire argument for why he should be elected is that he has the experience to lead and record of forging bi-partisan compromises to get things done. He's supposed to be a doer, rather than just a talker. The suspension gambit was supposed to demonstrate this, when in reality, it made it look as the opposite.
Eakin said McCain suspended the campaign to bring the parties together, but when he got to
So did McCain give a rallying speech, and use his awesome legislative skills to forge a compromise, or present an alternative plan? No, said Eakin. He "held his tongue" so as not to be too partisan, and purposely didn't present his own proposal. He wanted to bring House Republicans into the process. Over the next few days, Eakin recounts, McCain "continued to monitor the process" and made dozens of phone calls. He came "to do his best to lead a process that would get results, and it didn't happen"
Now that's inspiring!
Eakin also called for the House and Senate to regroup and return to the negotiating table. He doesn't plan on suspending his campaign again, but will " engage as much as he feels it will be productive." In other words, do exactly what the campaign mocked Obama for last week.
If you check out the Gallup tracking poll, McCain still seemed to be hanging in there after the financial crisis, rallying to a tie the day after he announced his suspension (which wouldn't have reflected much reaction to the decision). Within three days, he was back in an eight-point hole. And I can't imagine that the failure of the bill will boost him any. Of course, if instead of playing the role of McCain the bipartisan leader, he played the deficit hawk role, he could have adopted the House Republicans plan and been proclaiming today that he saved American taxpayers $700 billion.
Re: The World Has Gone Mad . . .
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 4:41PM
Phil, this is a classic example of Pelosi's failed "leadership." She could deliver only 60% percent of her own caucus and, needing Republican votes to pass what she said was an emergency bailout, she decided this would be a perfect occasion to score partisan points.
Worse still for Democrats, among their members casting unpopular "yea" votes were Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski -- who faces a formidable Republican challenge from Lou Barletta (leading by 9 points in the most recent poll) -- and freshman Florida Rep. Ron Klein, who faces underdog challenger Lt. Col. Allen West. It will be the simplest thing in the world for these Republican challengers to strike a populist tone against the incumbents who voted for the "billionaire bailout bill." (I suspect that the obvious political liability was a major reason Pelosi had so much trouble getting votes for the bill.)
Re: McCain Camp Reacts
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 4:29PM
Phil is right: McCain actually had a big chance here to look like a statesman, and instead he just lashed out, again, like an angry old man seeking partisan advantage. He should have offered something positive -- AND reassuring, to try to stop the panic -- rather than just another descent into all-out attack mode.
The world has gone mad today, and good's bad today
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 3:48PM
Via Matt Welch, here's the video of Nancy Pelosi's "partisan" speech that Republicans blame for scuttling the bailout bill, in which she she attributes the crisis to "anything goes" economic policies. My favorite line is, "I don't know what's so 'great' about the Depression, but that's the name they give it."
McCain Camp Reacts to Bailout Failure
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 3:38PM
Here's the statement from McCain economic advisor Dough Holtz- Eakin, which I find pretty weak:
"From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families.
"Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill. "Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.
"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country."
Considering most Republicans voted against the measure and McCain's leadership didn't get them on board, I don't really see how McCain can gain much ground with this approach.
The Right-Left Alliance
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 3:03PM
It's not often that you see Mike Pence and Dennis Kucinich on the same side of a roll call vote.
Bailout Failure and the Elections
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 2:41PM
The Dow is now down over 500 points on the failure of the bailout. In the immediate term, I think this hurts McCain. He made such a show of suspending his campaign so that he could go to Washington, bring the two parties together, and get things done. The fact that everything collapsed undermines that argument. Furthermore, the longer the stock market is in turmoil and Americans are uncertain about the economy, the harder it will be for McCain to win, because, fair or not, the public holds Republicans responsible for this mess.
Wanted: Liberal Rape Victim
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 1:53PM
Back during the "homeless crisis" of the '80s, liberal advocates once famously sought out a homeless "typical family" to testify at a congressional hearing on the issue. Now, it appears, Team Obama has been on the hunt for its own emblematic victim:
Barack Obama's campaign earlier this month sought to find a rape victim to appear in a campaign commercial, according to an email obtained by Politico.Hmmmm. Exploiting rape in a presidential campaign. It's so ... 1988, don't you think?
Kiersten Steward, director of public policy at the Family Violence Prevention Fund, served as a conduit between the campaign and victims and women's advocates.
"Obviously, this is a big ask and I haven't seen a script but presumably it will be a brief this is what happened to me, we need someone who will fight for women like me, these are the guys to do it," Steward wrote in a September 15th email. "Again, that's just my assumption given how these things usually go."
Steward, a former top aide to Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), said the Obama campaign would have a crew in Washington and was hoping to film that week.
AmSpec's Pig Roast
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 12:41PM
I don't know what you did with your Saturday, but The American Spectator got together in the Virginia
wilderness to eat Wilbur and shoot stuff.
Click below for a few photos of the action.
Gamblin' Man
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 11:36AM
Piggy-backing off of the 4,600 word plus NY
Times
investigative report (the typical anti-McCain piece with over
lots of smoke but no fire), the DNC has released a new ad
highlighting McCain's ties to the casino industry. There could be
many reasons for the ad -- the lobbying issue, trying to rile up
social conservatives, and perhaps portray him as an unreliable risk
taker. Perhaps it's just because I have my own industry ties having
spent my childhood in the Atlantic City area with a father in the
casino business, but I don't really see this ad accomplishing much
-- and remember, casinos are the largest employer in Nevada, a
swing state.
Michelle Malkin, Michael Moore Agree?
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 10:51AM
Michelle Malkin has been an outspoken critic of the proposed bailout from the start. Now Michael Moore adds his considerable weight to the opposition:
The biggest robbery in the history of this country is taking place as you read this. Though no guns are being used, 300 million hostages are being taken. Make no mistake about it: After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years, Bush and his cronies -- who must soon vacate the White House -- are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door.This is probably not the kind of "bipartisan consensus" Nancy Pelosi and John McCain had in mind.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 10:10AM
Get ready for likable George W. to make a reappearance (NYT)
Leverage needed in talking with Tehran (WSJ)
Even the Globe thinks Barney Frank is guilty (Boston.com)
Get rid of mark-to-market, just do it (Bloomberg)
A historical perspective on bailouts: they're not worth it (Reason Hit & Run)
P.J. O'Rourke comes to grips with cancer (LA Times)
Michael Arrington notes Peter Wallison's 1999 mortgage prophecy and one damning graph (TechCrunch)
Godspeed you,
Libertarian Populism
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 5:49AM
I attended Friday's event at Reason magazine's DC office where Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr "debated" John McCain and Barack Obama. Barr viciously mocked the proposed bailout as a boondoggle: "The bailout plan, anyway you slice it, is a bad idea for America." In doing so, Barr aligned himself with the firestorm of grassroots opposition to the bill -- congressional staffers report that their phones are ringing off the hook and practically all the calls are from bailout opponents.
FreedomWorks -- the free-market think tank led by Barr's former GOP House colleague Dick Armey -- has a list of "Ten Reasons to Oppose the Wall Street Bailout." With Big Government coming to the rescue of Big Business, the bailout presents one of those rare occasions when libertarians find themselves handed an issue with widespread populist appeal.
Here's video of Friday post-debate Q&A with Reason editor Matt Welch, in which Barr addresses foreign policy, the bailout and Ron Paul's recent endorsement of Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin:
A Bailout Prediction
Posted by on 9.29.08 @ 4:30AM
If the bailout passes, my bet is that Barack Obama finds an excuse to vote against it, so as to position himself to denounce the "Bush-McCain bailout."
That's a mighty big "if," though. The fact that House Republicans are being pressured to vote for the "crap sandwich" is an indication that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have enough House Democrats on board to pass the bailout, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich confirms that.
Everyone on Capitol Hill says that incoming phone calls are overwhelmingly opposed to the bailout.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Obama and the Uh's, Ah's, and Ummm's
Posted by on 9.28.08 @ 10:06PM
Much has been made by some conservative pundits about Obama
being teleprompter dependent and how he racks up the speech pauses
when he goes off the cuff. One might recall Rush Limbaugh compiling
just the "uh's" in an Obama appearance for comedic effect or Hugh
Hewitt wondering how many of the awkward pauses he would accumulate
during the first debate.
I don't think the issue is that Obama is 'prompter dependent or
that he is inarticulate off the cuff. I followed him closely during
the Democratic primary season and found him smooth whether working
from prepared remarks or not.
The reason he has begun to seem halting is simple. Obama runs effortlessly to the left because that is his comfort zone. When he can give the "workers of the world unite" rhetoric and promote his reasons for dovish foreign policy, he is at home, talking to his people about what they all believe. That's why he was so good in the primaries.
But in the general, he faces a different problem. He can't roll the same way. He has to think carefully about what he says because all kinds of Americans are paying attention. Those pauses are necessary because the wheels do need to turn. He HAS to find the nuance in order to avoid appearing radical.
Just a little note to the moderates . . .
The Bailout Cometh
Posted by on 9.28.08 @ 8:20PM
Just don't try to visit the website where you are supposed to be able to download the text.
UPDATE: Republican leadership to support this particular "crap sandwich."
That Said
Posted by on 9.28.08 @ 3:49PM
Sometimes administering an old-fashioned a**-whipping on debater's points can be disastrous politically. Take this observation of Phil's, for example: "When Obama spoke, he looked at McCain and McCain ignored him and looked at Jim Lehrer as if Obama were too insignificant to look at, while Obama watched McCain as he was speaking as if he were listening to a lecture." If you're watching the debate like it's a boxing match, that could make McCain appear dominant. But it could also make swing voters conclude McCain is rude and a jerk while Obama is polite and thoughtful.
Obama has some experience with this. Watch his debates against Alan Keyes during the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes frequently made detailed arguments that Obama was unable to rebut, and sometimes didn't even seem to understand. Yet in doing so, Keyes often seemed bullying and pedantic while Obama seemed reasonable. Keyes's over-the-top fire and brimstone style also made it easier for Obama to seem moderate by comparison. In fact, Keyes's infamous comment calling Cheney's daughter a "selfish hedonist" actually came from his refusal to concede a debater's point. He was arguing with an interview that non-procreative sex is a form of selfish hedonism, but he did not bring any names into it. The interviewer asked if that meant Mary Cheney was a selfish hedonist and Keyes concluded that, yes, by definition she must be.
Re: Polls Say Obama
Posted by on 9.28.08 @ 3:34PM
Look, there were polls that showed Edwards edging Cheney in the 2004 vice presidential debate and that doesn't change my evaluation of who won that exchange in the least. Obviously, pre-election debates are ultimately remembered for their political impact, which sometimes goes against who won on debating points. Nixon-Kennedy 1960 and the Bush-Gore debate in 2000 are two examples that quickly come to mind. I don't at all dispute that apolitical people are going to judge these things differently than well informed people and that there is some benefit to trying to get inside their heads -- and casting aside ideololgy -- to assess electoral impact. Ultimately, what the candidates need to do in these debates and the rest of the campaign is try to win votes.
But for journalists writing for an informed audience, I think there is more to analyzing these things than just trying to guess the outcome of (sometimes dubious) post-debate snap polls. And even though we all know what the political impact of that famous Bush-Gore debate was, I'm not going to pretend that Bush won that one on debating points just because Gore sighed a lot and turned off voters by acting like a jerk. If the political environment is such that a plurality of voters prefer a Democrat so long as he seems likable, competent, and reasonable, Obama is likely to "win" all of the debates no matter what McCain does. In the first debate, there is a sense in which Obama won just by getting McCain to show up.
UPDATE: This Nate Silver post over at TNR strikes me as a pretty good explanation for why the polls say what they do and why us non-Quin pundits missed it.
