- 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 18, 2008
Guess Who's Still Pushing Amnesty?
Posted by on 10.18.08 @ 9:33PM
Obama Buys the Election
Posted by on 10.18.08 @ 7:33PM
A 4-to-1 advertising advantage for the Democrat:
With advertisements running repeatedly day and night, on local stations and on the major broadcast networks, on niche cable networks and even on video games and his own dedicated satellite channels, Mr. Obama is now outadvertising Senator John McCain nationwide by a ratio of at least four to one, according to CMAG, a service that monitors political advertising. That difference is even larger in several closely contested states. . . .
"This is uncharted territory," said Kenneth M. Goldstein, the director of the Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin. "We've certainly seen heavy advertising battles before. But we've never seen in a presidential race one side having such a lopsided advantage."
The lopsidedness of the ad wars argues against any suggestion that John McCain's problems are purely a function of campaign tactics, media bias, etc. Look on the bright side: After this year, you'll have the ultimate comeback when your liberal friends slam Republicans as "the party of the rich."
Don't Bet on the Bradley Effect
Posted by on 10.18.08 @ 5:27PM
Some people -- both Republican and Democrat -- have been expecting that the reluctance of white voters to vote for a black man might be a headwind against Barack Obama. But the Politico's Ben Smith finds evidence that Bush fatigue and GOP "brand damage" may be so severe as to negate the so-called Bradley Effect:
Anecdotes from across the battlegrounds suggest that there's a significant minority of prejudiced white voters who will swallow hard and vote for the black man. "I wouldn't want a mixed marriage for my daughter, but I'm voting for Obama," the wife of a retired Virginia coal miner, Sharon Fleming, told the Los Angeles Times recently. One Obama volunteer told Politico after canvassing the working-class white Philadelphia neighborhood of Fishtown recently, "I was blown away by the outright racism, but these folks are … undecided. They would call him a [racial epithet] and mention how they don't know what to do because of the economy."
The most bizarre anecdote I've heard in this regard -- so bizarre that I suspect it's an urban legend -- was told by pro-Obama blogger Sean Quinn:
So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n-----!" Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n-----."
Like I said, that may be apocryphal, but there is no doubt that many voters now feel toward the Republican Party such a deep rage as to overcome all other considerations.
What Vote Fraud?
Posted by on 10.18.08 @ 4:27PM
In my Examiner column today, I explain that the Supreme Court has effectively asked the Justice Department to put a stop to vote fraud, but that DoJ is looking the other way -- and that its personnel who are supposed to be stopping the fraud are big Obama donors. At NRO, the great Hans von Spakovsky writes on the same situation and adds some important legal background.
Investigate Me, You Thugs
Posted by on 10.18.08 @ 4:14PM
Jennifer Rubin is right: The Obama campaign is using thuggish tactics to literally try to stifle opposition (who cares about free speech, anyhow?) while they try to steal the election. Yes, I repeat: The Obama people are trying to steal the election through the most massive voter fraud this country has ever seen. So now what are the thuggish Obama lawyers going to do: Ask that I, too, be prosecuted? Have at me. Come get me, you radical Alinskyite subverters of the republic. Come get me.
Splenetic Conservatism
Posted by on 10.18.08 @ 3:33PM
Since all the big shot pundits make their bones by putting adjectives ("crunchy," "compassionate," etc.) in front of conservatism, I'll go ahead and claim Splenetic Conservatism. The name comes from the tendency of splenocons to vent our spleens at Harvard-educated elitists.
Re: Spoiler in Oregon
Posted by on 10.18.08 @ 3:23PM
Jim, would I be correct in guessing that the Constitution Party candidate in Oregon is an outspoken opponent of amnesty for illegal aliens? Because for some reason, I think that might be relevant to Gordon Smith's woes. In fact, I think S.2611 has a lot to do with the woes of certain other Republicans.
A Constitution Party Spoiler in Oregon?
Posted by on 10.18.08 @ 1:32PM
Libertarian Party candidates have cost Republicans several Senate seats in close races over the past decade, most recently Stan "Blue Man" Jones helping to retire Montana Sen. Conrad Burns in 2006. This time, a Constitution Party candidate might make the difference in Oregon GOP Sen. Gordon Smith's tough re-election race.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Kmiec's Delusion
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 9:04PM
Kmiec's endorsement of Obama -- as well as a similar endorsement on different grounds by Philly radio host Michael Smerconish -- is evidence of the Bush fatigue/"brand damage" issue that has increasingly affected the GOP since the 2004 election. In the Republican ascendancy, the bandwagon became crowded (I remember Smerconish hawking a book at CPAC 2006) and now they're hopping off. As with Kathleen Parker and Christopher Buckley, the reasons offered for these Obama endorsements range from implausibly naive to absurdly superficial.
Kmiec's whole purpose is to persuade Catholics to vote for Obama, but his suggestion that sex education of the "comprehensive" variety that Obama advocates will reduce abortion is not merely naive, it is un-Catholic. Though I am myself strictly Protestant, in years of covering the pro-life movement I have necessarily become acquainted with Catholic doctrine on this subject (e.g., Humanae Vitae) which is directly at odds with the "comprehensive sexuality education" (CSE) philosophy that Obama and the Democrats support. Not only is CSE pro-homosexuality, but it mandates explicit instruction in the use of condoms and contraceptives ("safe sex"), which are forbidden by Catholic teaching.
Furthermore, as any truly hard-core pro-lifer would tell you, contraception causes abortion. I repeat: Contraception causes abortion. This counterintuitive fact involves several factors, including the undeniable reality that every method of contraception (except abstinence or surgical sterilization) has a failure rate. If a method of contraception is 99% effective, that 1% failure rate will result in a lot of unplanned pregnancies if millions of people are using that method regularly. At a more fundamental level, the widespread use of contraception gives rise to a culture in which sex without consequences is the norm and pregnancy -- which is the most natural outcome of sexual intercourse -- is viewed as an aberration. This inevitably leads to more promiscuity and less commitment in relationships, both of which contribute to the abortion crisis.
As to the propriety of sex education, perhaps Kmiec would benefit from dialogue with Jim Sedlak, a devout Catholic and president of the American Life League. Sedlak argues strongly against any classroom sex-ed program (including abstinence-based programs) on the grounds that this undermines the parents' role in their child's moral instruction, and that discussing sex in a room full of 25 kids violates modesty. (Read Wendy Shalit's A Return to Modesty, where she talks about her own experience with being mocked because her parents opted her out of her school's sex-ed program.)
Kmiec and his fellow Obamacons, like a lot of Americans, are in for a brutal disillusionment once Obama actually becomes president. It's been 14 years since Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress. If others have forgotten 1993-94, I have not.
Re: Movement in Louisiana?
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 5:30PM
I also keep hearing that Tim Johnson (D) versus Joel Dykstra (R) in South Dakota is a sleeper race, but I haven't seen any poll numbers to that effect.
Movement in Louisiana?
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 3:48PM
Now THIS, from the WaPost's Chris Cilizza, is quite interesting, and unexpected. It says there is serious tightening in the Landrieu/Kennedy Senate race in Louisiana. Look, Mary Landrieu is one of those Democrats capable of reaching across party lines. And I've usually found her reasonably likeable. I like her family personally a lot. Her brother Mitch is a nice guy and a solid, if too liberal, public servant. But for whatever reason, Mary has almost never reached across party lines on judges, though, much to my chagrin. In fact, she has joined the left's unprecedented filibusters, repeatedly.
John Kennedy, meanwhile, is a very enjoyable guy to be around. He and I were Fellows in the same class of the Loyola (New Orleans) Institute of Politics, a graduate seminar program. His instincts clearly lean more to the right than to the left. And he's a helluva smart guy, too -- Harvard, etc. This race bears watching.
Getting To 95 Percent
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 2:54PM
As a follow-up to my article on the main site, I have received an email from Brian Deese, an economic policy adviser for the Obama campaign, as to the rationale behind the campaign's claim that 95 percent of Americans would receive a tax cut under his proposals. The gist of his response is that the Obama team ties its refund payments to payroll taxes. While about a third of Americans don't pay any income taxes, for the most part, they have to pay payroll taxes (there are exceptions, for instance, some state employees). Even though the plan doesn't reduce effective marginal tax rates on 95 percent, Deese said that the campaign is on safe ground arguing that it would do so based on actual dollar tax liabilities after refunds, and he cited this chart from the Tax Policy Center. Also, he noted that the McCain campaign has claimed its health care tax credit as a tax cut, too.
Here's more detail from Deese's email:
Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Credit will directly cut taxes for 95% of all workers. It is structured as an offset to the payroll tax paid by all individuals who have positive wage income under $150,000. The MWP credit offsets payroll taxes on up to the first $8,100 dollars in earned income – (which is taxed at 6.2% payroll tax on the employee side) – resulting in up to a $500 tax cut per worker and $1,000 per working couple. The campaign arrived at the estimate that 95% of workers would benefit from the MWP credit – and get a tax cut - by deriving the number of workers in the economy who have positive wage income, but earn less than $150,000 (above $150,000, the MWP phases out)....
The other issue that is important to clarify is that when the McCain campaign asserts that “32%” (or 40%) of all workers pay no income taxes, this is misleading. Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Cut directly offsets the first $500 of payroll tax that a worker pays each year. It is therefore ONLY available to workers who pay payroll taxes, and no worker receives a tax cut that exceeds their payroll tax payments. Since its inception in 2007, this was the design of the Making Work Pay Tax Cut: “This refundable income tax credit will provide direct relief to American families who face the regressive payroll tax system. It will offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of their earnings while still preserving the important principle of a dedicated revenue source for Social Security." Accordingly, the allegation that the Making Work Pay Tax Cut goes to workers who do not pay income taxes is entirely misleading – the 95% of workers that Obama claims will benefit are all workers who pay payroll taxes, and none will receive a tax cut from the MWP cut that is greater than their payroll tax liabilities.
Deese's response raises another interesting point. If Obama is serious about cutting payroll taxes, he could either reduce the current rate or, alternatively, restructure the tax so that it only kicks in after the first $8,100 of earned income. However, one of the liberal criticisms of Social Security personal accounts is that allowing workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes would threaten the system by reducing the amount of revenue available to fund current retirees. So Obama doesn't want to outright cut payroll taxes. The whole complicated refundable tax credit formula allows him to argue that he's providing lower-income workers with payroll tax relief, while deflecting scrutiny from those who are concerned about removing money from the Social Security system.
Redefining Rubber Stamp
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 2:36PM
A rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi equals...independent voice?
In other New Hampshire news, John Sununu hilariously uses George W. Bush as a bludgeon against Jeanne Shaheen.
Counter Kmiec
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 1:04PM
Let me put this another way: Imagine I went around writing op-eds making the pro-choice case for John McCain. I could point out that Republican presidents have repeatedly failed to overturn Roe v. Wade on the rare occasions they have seriously tried. I could note that McCain in 1999 and perhaps at other times expressed concern about back-alley abortions and the consequences of overturning Roe in either the near or long term. I could argue on the basis of such isolated examples and his support for both expanded taxpayer funding of embryonic stem-cell research and federally funded fetal tissue research that, despite a long voting record and campaign promises to the contrary, he would actually increase access to legal abortion once in office. And heck, McCain has long supported legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is at stake.
Do you think anyone would take me seriously? Should they? If so, I would like to hear from the editors who are interested in these op-eds. Perhaps they might be in the market for a bridge I have to sell them, too.
Professional Pro-Lifer for Obama
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 12:26PM
Doug Kmiec is at it again, trying to make the pro-life case for Barack Obama. To make this argument, he has to stack the deck heavily in Obama's favor. Because he judges John McCain unlikely to succeed at overturning Roe v. Wade -- an assesment I share -- a vote for McCain isn't necessarily pro-life. But a vote for Obama, who opposes extending legal protection to unborn children in most if not all cases, is permissible because he believes abortion is "a tragic situation" that should occur less frequently. There are plenty of well meaning people who hold the position that abortion is regrettable but should be permissible, a necessary evil. But that position is not pro-life.
No, Kmiec argues, Obama would actually try to reduce abortions through aid to pregnant mothers, sex education, adoption services, and other mechanisms aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies and making it more feasible to bring crisis pregnancies to term. All McCain would do is repeat Republican promises to overturn Roe, an "effort [that] has not saved a single child," according to Kmiec. But Roe isn't the only issue in play here. Obama has said he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which invalidate state abortion restrictions that have reduced abortion rates. McCain would veto such legislation. Obama supports taxpayer funding of abortion while McCain favor the Hyde Amendment, which advocates on both sides of the issue believe has prevented many abortions.
In short, there is no clear evidence that anything Obama is proposing would reduce abortions and some reason to believe his policies, if enacted, would increase them. Kmiec even suggests in his penultimate paragraph that legal protection for the unborn should be negotiable. Issues of war and peace might provide proportionate reasons for Catholics and other pro-lifers to vote against McCain (though I think Obama's about as likely to please such voters as McCain is to overturn Roe). But Kmiec's odd pro-life case for being pro-choice, as Ramesh Ponnuru puts it, doesn't do the job.
Drop the Racism Thing, Already!
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 11:44AM
The left is playing with fire by yelling "racist" in an emotionally crowded campaign. And Barack Obama is subtly encouraging it. Charles Krauthammer brilliantly blasts him for it. Drudge had a link up called "Seventh grader called racist for wearing Palin t-shirt," but the link at time of this writing doesn't work. When I wrote my column last week on cultural issues, a whole host of readers sent me email accusing me of being racist, as if any mention of culture is code for race, which of course it isn't. (To give credit where it's due, more than half of the accusers had the grace to retract when I wrote them back and told them of my work against David Duke and a host of other actions I have taken to fight racism.)
Enough is enough. For once, can't we leave race out of it? Real racism is sickening -- which is why it is also sickening to accuse somebody of racism when racism isn't involved. As far as I'm concerned, that's as bad as accusing somebody of being, oh, say, a child molester without a smidgen of evidence. It's a scurrilous smear. And it's high time that conservatives stand up to it and call it a smear. (Now, if you actually do have racist motives, please kindly shut up and go crawl under the rock where you belong.) And call the accusers what they really are, which is slanderers, pure and simple. Hell, maybe even use the courts to our advantage for once, and sue the bleepers for their slander. But whatever we do, fight back.
Re: Journalism License
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 11:41AM
It wouldn't be the first time the Democrats tried to shut us down.
Signed,
Jim the Journalist
Re: Journalism License
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 11:12AM
Wow, we'd be in trouble in an Obama administration. Not only do we publish unlicensed writers, but we even employ somebody who likes to be called Jim the Journalist, even though that is not his first name, as well as somebody who is typically known by his initials. Add our founder to the mix and Team Obama would have plenty of material.
Can I See Your Journalism License?
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 10:56AM
Team Obama has made a big deal of the fact that "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher (a) is not licensed as a plumber by the state of Ohio, and (b) his first name is actually Sam.
So I have a confession to make . . .
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 9:57AM
- The lowest common denominator has won out in debate (WSJ)
- Joe the Plumber needs a little Reagan (Bloomberg)
- Catholics supporting Obama are unreasonable, a fact they will have to face if he's elected (Newsweek)
- Gates's thoughts on Afghanistan (Real Clear World)
- It's never over until the last out with the Red Sox (Boston Globe)
- Political risk was always a concern at Freddie (EconLog)
- The Axelrod method: gets you there, but unprepated (WSJ)
- Joe the Plumber is terrible for Obama, but maybe McCain should have thought twice before making him the centerpiece of his campaign (Politico)
An Era of Liberal Government
Posted by on 10.17.08 @ 9:40AM
The WSJ gives a good rundown of the big government programs we can expect if Barack Obama wins and Democrats gain a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The editorial makes the comparison to the eras of liberal dominance in 1933 and 1965, which of course brought us the New Deal and Great Society. In our October issue, I wrote a piece (currently unavailable online) that reported on liberal activists who are convinced that this is a moment for transformational progressive change, and they suggested that FDR and LBJ started out as moderates, and were only forced to adopt more ambitious agendas because of the presence of the labor and civil rights movements. Progressives hope to play the same role in forcing Obama to further to the left.
One of the barriers I mentioned when I wrote the article was that progressives did not have a major crisis that could be used to justify the sort of sweeping changes they desired. Since I wrote it, obviously, that much has changed -- they now have their economic crisis. But on the flip side, the severity of the crisis and the cost of the bailouts could tie the hands of Democrats in Congress. Before the New Deal and Great Society were enacted, government was much smaller so there was more fiscal agility. Now, as a result of those very programs, there just isn't much room for a major expansion when revenues are falling due to a week economy and we have to finance the bailouts. Another point I made still holds, though. And that is that in the prior eras of transformational progressive change, you didn't have as strong of a conservative movement, with think tanks able to offer detailed critiques of liberal proposals, conservative media capable of communicating those critiques to the masses and activists who could put pressure on elected officials. The thing to keep in mind is that when Democrats win modern elections, they do it by convincing voters that they are not the kind of tax and spend liberals they hated in the past. Democrats retook Congress in 2006, in part, by winning many seats in relatively Republican districts. The question is whether they'll be willing to satisfy the demands of the liberal activist base if it means risking re-election in 2010.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Awesomely Funny McCain! UPDATED!
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 10:29PM
This is John McCain at his rakish best. I have been gorged on politics for several years now and don't find much political content enjoyable or interesting, but this is U.S.D.A. PRIME, DRY, AGED AWESOMENESS.
UPDATE: Here's the second half of the speech. Even funnier.
OK, Maybe I Am Wrong
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 8:27PM
While I am not prepared to rescind my Oct. 7 declaration that John McCain has already lost the election, this puts me in conflict with my own rule of thumb that liberals are always 100% wrong about everything.
Andrew Hacker at the New Republic pronounces Wednesday night's debate "the final nail in an already tightly sealed coffin. . . . It's certainly the end of John McCain's campaign."
Hacker is a liberal, and therefore this must mean that McCain actually won the debate and is staging a comeback, according to my rule of thumb. Meanwhile, according to one Gallup reading of likely voters, McCain trails Obama by only 2 points, and Obama is under 50% among registered voters for the first time since Oct. 3.
Republicans should hope that liberals don't notice this tightening in the polls, because if liberals actually become worried that Obama will lose, that will mean -- according to my rule of thumb -- that Obama is certain to win in a landslide.
Poorly Spelled in Ohio
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 7:55PM
Given my own propensity for glitches and typos, I hate to bust on "Poor in Ohio" for her error. On the other hand, it is apparent that at some point since I finished college a quarter-century ago, English teachers stopped deducting points for errors of spelling, capitalization and punctuation.
We have witnessed the triumph of what might be called the "expressive" school of composition, where the whole point is to share what one truly feels. Concern for orthography is deemed incompatible with such sharing and feeling.
Frankly, I never thought I'd become so nostalgic for the grim and grizzled teachers of my youth, who wielded their red grading pens with an emphatic indifference to their student's feelings.
Buckley and Born Alive
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 7:27PM
In the war in ideas, you have some room for hedging. I don't actually find it shocking that Christopher Buckley went to Obama given the way he identifies Obama's strengths. If you're into intellectual-ish things, you've got to find Obama interesting in some way. It takes smarts to rise as quickly as Obama has, and our society tends to glorify youth while forgiving its excesses. Obama's refreshing because he's young, he "doesn't look like other presidents on our currency" (whatever that means), and he's not frightening to behold on a television set for the next four years. Even if some of his policies would be (natch). He writes well, which would get Petrarch's endorsement.
You also can't look at Christopher and say he's stupid, or even reckless. His upbringing, let alone his genes, are imbued with traits of a chess player, that is to think a few plays ahead. It's hard for me to think he'd operate any other way. He has made us laugh with his writing because he "gets it." I know that his father did not plan out novels ahead of time. He would have a general idea, perhaps, but he'd go wherever the writing took him. Christopher, Bill once told me admiringly, knew where things were headed from the very beginning. Everything Bill told me about Christopher, by the way, was admiring.
I don't want this to read like I think his was a calculating, scheming fellow trying to get himself some press. It's actually the opposite.
I wonder whether abortion played into his decision at all. Whether he wrestled with the idea that Obama's simply not pro-life. Or remotely pro-life, in that way that some moderates might think that partial-birth abortion is icky.
Perhaps Christopher isn't actually pro-life, or maybe he believes that the issue isn't so black and white. He did, at one point, support Ron Paul, which I take to mean that he found Paul's pro-life message in addition to the other properly conservative views.
Or perhaps he thinks that Obama is malleable, which I take to be a complete mistake. Maybe there's concern that McCain might not actually appoint pro-life judges. Even if his position papers suggest he would, there's always that maverick tendency which sometimes hurts Republican efforts in the legal arena.
We may not know. But given his statements so far, I take it that Christopher is omitting that from consideration. I'm hardly a single-issue voter, but a new publication, called "The Public Discourse," from the thoughtful Witherspoon Institute has a way of twisting my arm a little. Professor Robert P. George and Yuval Levin look at Obama's response to the debate last night about his stance on infants surviving abortion.
Obama had responded that the law was simply a reiteration of a law that had already passed, just that it didn't have the right provisions for his tastes. George and Levin write that the previous law Obama said worked just fine...
... only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act [the one Obama voted against --ed.] was necessary - and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as ''nonviable.'' As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That's how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there.
Obama mischaracterized his own earlier position. When he was dealing with this question in the Illinois State Senate, he argued not that the existing law did everything the newly proposed measure would do. No, he saw the born-alive bill as "placing too much of a burden" on the practitioners of abortion, because the doctor might be challenged on whether a fetus was unviable. But look at the wording here:
'As I understand it,'' Obama said during the floor debate, ''this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.'
Emphasis mine. "However you want to describe it"? Really?
He voted against it anyway, even as a neutrality clause that lifted this burden was inserted in the bill. By contrast, those who were against it on these grounds moved in favor of it.
If you're pro-life, it's an important enough issue that it can (and should) decide your vote. If you're pro-choice, it's, well, murky territory anyway where it's rare for such a clear delineation between right and wrong exists. Yet here you have it.
Bandwagon Psychology
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 7:06PM
Conservative blogger ZombieTime has an essay in which he discusses the influence of polling, media, suggestibility and peer pressure in politics:
Will the exaggerations become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as assumed, or are Obama supporters spinning further and further away from reality, constructing one unsupportable exaggeration on top of another -- only to be stunned on election day when the actual results, once again, don't match either their pre-vote opinion polling or their post-vote exit polling?
Yet it may very well be that an army of glum, dispirited and pessimistic conservatives will reluctantly trudge to the polls on November 4, each one imagining they are the only remaining person in the entire country voting for McCain, and lo and behold -- they'll turn out to be a silent majority after all.
We didn't hear Republicans pushing the argument that all the polls are wrong in early September, when John McCain was ahead by 5 points in the Gallup daily tracking poll. All polls inevitably include some error, but when you look at the RealClearPolitics compilation, what you're looking at is surveys of tens of thousands of voters, conducted by several different organizations. They all show Obama ahead, and only differ about the size of his lead. Now look at the RCP compilation of battleground state polls. It's the same story in state after state.
There is no doubt that voters -- especially independent "swing" voters -- can be manipulated by bandwagon psychology, as Zombie suggests. And media bias (including the way the media reports poll results) is part of that equation. At some point, however, those swing voters finally do swing one way or another, and the huge shift from Sept. 10 (McCain +5) to Oct. 9 (Obama +11) took place during the post-Labor Day period when independent voters are traditionally wooed and won. True, the polls have since tightened (now Obama +6), but it's very difficult to imagine how the bandwagon could roll in the opposite direction far enough and fast enough to produce a GOP victory.
The Tab
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 6:32PM
Joe the Plumber's Patriotism Bill apparently will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000. Come on, Joe. Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal.
Re: Getting A Real Job
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 5:57PM
I can understand the young lady's plight, JP. If someone as wealthy as Ludacris is really paying her way through college, she should be able to eat more than Ramen noodles. That's probably where she gets this idea that people making money don't help others out. On the other hand, if that's how this student intended to spell "ludicrous," then perhaps Charles Murray had a point in this Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Okay, So Which Part Is Wrong?
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 5:45PM
From Matt Bai's New York Times Obama profile:
"I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls," Obama told me. "If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants to be somebody like that?"
Honestly, I don't watch Fox News, so I cannot speak to whether the channel is hypnotizing the poor man-sheep who according to Obama make up its viewership. But...Who wants to be somebody like that? Does he mean aside from the entirety of his original base? Or, um, other than himself? Seriously. Does Obama not read the New York Times? If not, he should. As a daily reader, I can assure him the articles concerning his candidacy are generally friendlier than the birthday cards I receive from my parents. Do I have this guy all wrong? Did I miss the chapter in Dreams From My Father during which Barack shuns lattes while blasting shots from his massive arsenal of guns in the non-effete wilderness he most certainly didn't drive to in a Volvo? Is he eschewing liberalism? Is running for the presidency a couple years out of the Illinois state legislature a sign of modesty? Which part of this nefarious description is Obama seeking an outlet in which to repudiate it? If all else fails, Senator, The American Spectator will air your clarification/confession!
If these are truly the reasons Barack Obama wouldn't vote for himself, well, then, I hate to break the news to his acolytes, but he isn't voting for himself. Perhaps he should watch less Fox News? Break the spell, Senator, you need you!
Getting a Real Job
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 4:55PM
I found this comment, from "Poor in Ohio" so poignant in Phil's last post, I wanted to call other readers' attention to it:
This plumber Joe is the epitome of greed! Maybe I am a little biased because I am still in college, working a crap job, and maintaining life by chowing down on nothing but Ramen noodles, but I am going to college so that I CAN make 250,000 dollars or more a year, I am spending ludacris amount of money out of hopes to some day even come close to that, and I am very aware that I will spend a good portion of my life trying to acheive that. This Joe is just a greedy man that has no desire in giving anymore than he has to. To this country that gives him the oppurtunity to make that kind of money and even indirectly giving back to those people that are his customers. It's just disgusting... What ever happend to give a little, get a little?
Here's the thing Poor in Ohio: Joe wants to hire people to work for him. He doesn't yet make 250,000 dollars. When he does, you can bet he'll start hiring more people. Not a lot of people go to college, and they need jobs. Sometimes they have skills, such as plumbing. Those people need jobs. Joe's doing a service for those people.
Any money the government taxes him on, though, is money he can't put into his business that pays the wages of employees. The government will then divide up that money amongst a variety of programs that will not be terribly effective.
When the government takes money, it isn't saying "Help us out here." It is saying, "We can use this better than you can." Time and again, it's proven wrong.
That's My Joe!
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 3:49PM
The NY Times reports that Joe the Plumber is not a a member of the plumbers' union. And this is supposed to make me like him less?
Senator Government Catches On
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 3:42PM
This gets funnier and funnier (and funner and funner).
Re: Awkwardly Inauthentic
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 3:36PM
First, J.P., it's interesting to recall that Diane Sawyer once served as a press aide to Richard Nixon.
Second, Sawyer demonstrates a widespread elite belief that Ordinary Americans are incompetent to judge their own interests.
Elite faith in big government is both a cause and effect of that attitude. On the one hand, if you assume that Joe the Plumber is socially, politically and economically incompetent, then you have a ready-made argument for the necessity of the Nanny State's guidance and protection. Once you decide that Joe needs the Nanny State, his refusal to recognize this need is proof -- "A-ha!" -- that he doesn't know what's good for him.
This attitude was best explained by Thomas Sowell in The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, a book I most enthusiastically recommend.
"Holy Toledo"
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 1:26PM
What a week for Toledo, Ohio. On Saturday the University football team travels to the Big House in Ann Arbor and knocks off the Michigan Wolverines 13-10. But amaizing as that seemed the triumphs of the Rockets would soon be eclipsed by the insight and words of a plumber from nearby Holland, Ohio. It was at a O'Bama rally in Toledo on Sunday that a camera crew would catch Joe Wurzelbacher not questioning but stating to Senator O'Bama, "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more." The Senator's "spread wealth around" response to Joe's challenge was as lame as Michigan's last second 26 yard field goal attempt to force Toledo into overtime - both went wide left. Fox News took the Joe - O'Bama interchange to its national audience on Monday and Tuesday - a day later 25 mentions of "Joe the Plumber" in the Presidential Debate would make Joe Wurzelbacher the most famous plumber in America. By mid-day today(10/16/08) Joe had held a press conference and made appearances on morning network TV. Much the dismay of the network interviewers he clealry understands kitchen counter economics and the effect of tax rates on economic behavior much better than they and most members of congress do. Joe saw the O'Bama "spread it around" tax policy for the socialist welfare program it is. Joe distilled all the wonk out of both campaigns' economic discussions and left viewers with the simple but elegant truth on how an economy grows and who really creates jobs. But two more dots need to be connected as we struggle through this economic maelstrom. As Joe was confronting Senator O'Bama about his taxes on income over $250,000 going up the cover picture on the Time magazine issue dated 10/13/08 was a Depression era picture of men in business suits in a soup line. Message to those no-value-add investment bankers in Wall Street out of work - grab a wrench, there are plumbing entrepreneurs in the heartland now making $250,000+. If the McCain team wins this election someone needs to carry Joe Wurzelbacher off the field on their shoulders. Go Rockets - and fighter jocks too!
Getting Off Light
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 1:10PM
The Dubai Sex on the Beach Two are headed to jail, but Sen. Obama will be relieved to learn the punishment did not include anything draconian--like, say, a baby.
Awkwardly Inauthentic
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 12:46PM
Judging by who could really connect with the audience in this interview, I wonder if Mr. Wurzelbacher might be interested in taking on Diane Sawyer's job. Sawyer's smile is the physical manifestation of the Internet acronym "OMG," as though she can't believe she's talking to a plumber. Wurzelbacher seems far less excited to be there than Sawyer. There's also something eerie about Sawyer asking about the higher taxation of those who make one to five million dollars. Forbes reported in 2005 that she pulls in about $12 million annually.
That Mr. Wurzelbacher finds it weird that the government would punish success, and that Ms. Sawyer appears to blindly accept, or even expect it, is quite an interesting contrast.
Senator Government -- The Song!!
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 12:19PM
Okay, everybody, you MUST listen to this song. This is pretty good stuff. Now, who wants to make a button and a bumper sticker?
A Turning Point?
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 12:04PM
Madonna has finally found someone she hates more than Sarah Palin--and the poor bloke is still married to her! Hey, Guy, I think Kabbalah is stupid, too, but, alas, I don't expect Madonna or her mountains of cash to be in a spiritual/forgiving mood in court. Sadly, you don't have, like, a prayer.
The whole things is almost enough to make me go see one of Ritchie's crap movies. (Sympathy ticket, anyone?) I can't imagine RocknRolla could be any worse than An American Carol, right?
Joe the Plumber: Racist?
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 11:57AM
Katie Couric got the "get" with Joe Wurzelbacher of Holland, Ohio, now the world's most famous plumber. Wurzelbacher said:
You know, I've always wanted to ask one of these guys a question and really corner them and get them to answer a question of--for once instead of tap dancing around it. And unfortunately I asked the question but I still got a tap dance. Do you - almost as good as Sammy Davis Jr.
This obviously got a huge blog reaction, with lots of liberal bloggers implying that Joe is a racist. Of course, he applied the tap-dancing metaphor to both candidates, and while I suppose it might have been possible to compare Obama to Fred Astaire -- a skinny guy with big ears -- it's kind of hard to find bigoted malevolence in the comparison to Davis, who (a) was universally beloved and (b) supported Richard Nixon in 1972.
The Man in the Arena
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 11:17AM
Bill Kristol called the McCain campaign "pathetic" and on Monday suggested that McCain fire his entire campaign staff. Last night, campaign manager Rick Davis was asked about that on Fox News:
Davis: "it's a good thing Bill Kristol has never run a political campaign because he'd probably have to fire himself at least two or three times."
Kristol has run exactly one political campaign, Alan Keyes' 1988 unsuccessful Senate bid in Maryland. Kristol's only direct involvement with a winning campaign was when he served as deputy issues director for Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1976 Senate campaign in New York.
While sharing Kristol's view that the McCain campaign has been hapless since mid-September, I also see Davis' point of view: Kristol is essentially trying to run the campaign from the op-ed page of the New York Times.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 9:35AM
- History lesson on appreciating the sacrifices made for us (Washington Post)
- Promises you can't keep: Massachusetts' huge cutbacks, including health care (Boston Globe)
- Bailout memes don't bode well for free-marketers (Reason)
- Obama tries to convince religious conservatives tonight. Good luck (National Post)
- Catholic bishops' condemnation of Obama on abortion becoming more explicit and vocal (American Papist)
- Warren Buffett got a much better deal than the taxpayers (The Guardian)
- A more topical Nobel pick (Asia Times)
Re: Re: Stop Right There!
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 9:32AM
I will gladly step up to the challenge of having been the single harshest critic of the McCain ticket's debate performances. Name me one other conservative who wrote after ALL THREE PREVIOUS DEBATES (including Palin's) that the Republican lost the debate. Add to that my immediate criticism of the choice of Palin to start with.
Obama's Imaginary Cuts
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 8:32AM
Phil has an important piece on the main site this morning about Barack Obama's tax plan. If you live in a competitive state, you've no doubt seen all the ads about how Obama is offering a middle-class tax cut while John McCain is going to tax health benefits. According to at least one poll, this strategy is bearing fruit for Obama: by 51 percent to 46 percent, voters view McCain as more likely to raise taxes. Why McCain hasn't pushed back against this more forcefully, I'll never know. If he lets Obama get to his right on economics with imaginary tax and spending cuts, it will be the biggest missed opportunity of the entire campaign. In a campaign that has already seen too many missed opportunities.
Axelrod: Releasing Names of Obama's Small Donors Would Be "Logistical Nightmare"
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 8:21AM
Given the controversy surrounding the fictitious names found in Barack Obama's donor database, last night I asked the campaign's chief strategist, David Axelrod: 'In the interest of full transparency, would you consider releasing the names of donors under $200”?
Here's what he had to say:
"The fact is that we have 2.5 or more million donors...and the logistical nightmare associated with that in the closing weeks of the campaign are such that it would be very hard to do. I think that what we would be willing to do is say that in the future, we’ll have a mechanism in place, because we didn’t know, nobody anticipated the volume of support that we’ve gotten in this campaign.”
McCain's Economic Adviser on McCain's Mortgage Proposal and Free Markets
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 8:02AM
In the spin room following the debate, I caught up with Doug Holtz-Eakin, and asked him about an issue of concern for a lot of conservatives. How can he reconcile McCain’s advocacy of a free market approach to issues such as health care with his proposal to support government-engineered refinancing of mortgages to avert forclosures?
He replied:
“He’s looking for the most effective way to stabilize the housing market -- this happens to be it. Letting 14 million mortgages fail is going to be disastrous for the population as a whole. So it’s borne of the circumstances. It’s not something he would have liked to have had to do. It is not something he is going to let us be put in the position of having to do again.”
Joe the Plumber
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 1:22AM
Do you think he could beat Dickie Flatt in an election?
I wonder if this will end up like Obama's debates with Alan Keyes. Any intelligent observer would have to conclude Keyes had better arguments but Obama came across as the more likeable, reasonable guy swatting down his opponent's ideological objections. But McCain at least gave a strong performance.
Re: Stop Right There!
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 12:45AM
I'm not even voting for McCain, so top that! Nor am I pulling a Christopher Buckley and voting for Obama. And I don't live in a red or purple state, so my vote is not the equivalent of a vote for Obama under any meaningful definition of that phrase.
UPDATE: How can you look at the subject line of this blog post without thinking of Meat Loaf's "Paradise By The Dashboard Light"?
Re: Stop Right There, Quin
Posted by on 10.16.08 @ 12:39AM
You blogged twice that McCain would lose? Wouldn't that make it a double-negative?
Quin, if you keep saying that no one's more critical of McCain than you, I'll give you the dubious distinction of the Joe Biden Award for McCain Criticism -- with "nobody but me" etched onto the plaque.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Stop Right There, Quin
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 11:06PM
"[T]he conservative pundit who has been the single harshest critic of the McCain ticket's debate performances, and for that matter of their entire campaign performances."
There are several people who'd arm-wrestle you for that honor, Quin. Hell's bells, I wrote that John McCain had lost the whole election -- on Oct. 7. (A fact I'd declared on my blog Oct. 2.)
How to Score This One?
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:50PM
McCain was certainly a lot stronger in this debate than in the last one, though I do worry that his demeanor may have been a little too aggressive for a lot of swing voters. Was there a moment that A) will be remembered and replayed and B) helped McCain significantly? I can't think of one. (No, I don't think "Senator Government" qualifies.)
Did McCain win on points? Yes. Will it matter? I'm not so sure.
A Solid Win for McCain
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:49PM
I write this as the conservative pundit who has been the single harshest critic of the McCain ticket's debate performances, and for that matter of their entire campaign performances. I wrote that McCain lost the first debate. I wrote that Palin lost her debate. I wrote that McCain lost the second debate. I wrote that McCain has mishandled his response to the economic crisis. And I wrote a whole lot of other criticisms of McCain. So this isn't the analysis of a cheerleader, not one bit. But this independent-minded observer thinks that John McCain achieved a solid victory in tonight's debate.
It wasn't a knockout by any means. McCain missed some opportunities. He didn't hit Obama's lack of experience. He didn't hit the divided government issue. He didn't QUITE close the deal entirely on judges or on abortion, although he did well on both. But he won. Oh yes, John McCain won. He was real; Obama was a politician so deliberately unflappable that the unflappability for hte first time looked fake, like a put-on. McCain was on the offense without being offensive; Obama was on the defensive without being entirely convincing. McCain said some memorable things while Obama said nothing memorable. McCain scored big hits on vouchers and on spending and on accountability and on taxes. Obama sounded like a guy getting lost in the details rather than using details to make a clear point.
And McCain's deep love of country showed through, especially in his debate closing statement. Finally, his slip of the lip in calling Obama "Senator Government" was terrific because it was so CLEARLY unintentional (McCain was going to say the word "government" just two words later in the sentence; it was obviously a mistake, but in this case a Freudian slip that made the opponent, not the slip-maker, look bad, because it was so obviously appropriate) and yet such a perfect description of what Obama offers.
Okay, I interrupt this to say that I just watched Frank Luntz' focus group. Luntz said it showed Obama won. I am a huge believer in Luntz' abilities and usually take his word as near-political gospel, but I heard something different from his group. I heard a clear subtext from several of the group (especially the men) that they were coming around to McCain's side but just weren't ready to commit. Their words did not match the simple "up-or-down" conclusion that Luntz asked them for. (In other words, they said they were still undecided, but the actual explanations of their feelings were pro-McCain.)
Anyway, back to the analysis: I thought McCain showed an undeniable command of what he was talking about. It wasn't always eloquent, not by any means, but he NEVER came across as being too old; instead, he came across as wise and feisty.
It's still an uphill battle for McCain, because he didn't land a knockout blow and had only one truly memorable line ("SenatorGovernment"), rather than a Reaganesque line that will be played over and over again for the next 30 years. But McCain started a comeback tonight, and gave him a chance to claw himself back into the match before reaching the finish line. Obama, meanwhile, lost a little bit of his air of invincibility. Short version: McCain won.
The "Partisans" vs. Neutrals on CNN
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:36PM
I'm looking at the line-up and not quite getting it. They start with the "partisan" desk, then go to the neutral desk. But the neutral desk has David Gergen and Campbell Brown. Really? How's that work?
Michelle Rhee for Secretary of Education
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:27PM
No matter who wins, DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee ought to be offered a position in the US Department of Education. With Obama giving her a nod in this debate, and McCain being a clear advocate for education reform, I wager she will be.
Whether or not she would accept is another question. When asked in a recent press conference if she would leave DC's school system for a cabinet position, Rhee noted how important continuity of leadership was for the DC school district.
Keep your eyes on this rising star.
Much, Much Better
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:27PM
Overall, John McCain was much stronger tonight than in the earlier debates. Obama spent much more time on the defensive, and he didn't do particularly well.
Education
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:22PM
Note that Obama says we should have more competition within the public school system. McCain hits him back on vouchers, and he's dead on.
McCain Won on Abortion
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:16PM
McCain didn't handle the abortion thing perfectly, not absolutely clearly -- but overall, he came across much better on the subject than Obama did. Not because he was pro-life, but because he made Obama REALLY look extreme, even after Obama's tortured explanations for his positions.
Senator Government! Wow!
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:06PM
The slip of the lip that may have just won the election was John McCain calling Obama "Senator Government." This needs to be repeated again and again and again. It needs to be on bumper stickers: "No to Senator Government!"
Obama Distorts McCain's Health Care Plan Again
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:05PM
Obama continues to assert that McCain's $5,000 tax credit wouldn't cover the full cost of a $12,000 policy, but what he leaves out is the fact that it would more than make up the tax advantages currently offered for those purchasing insurance through their employers. Employers would still compete for employees by offering higher salaries. The difference is that workers would now be able to choose among more plans rather than merely the ones offered by their employers, they could take their policy from job to job, and those who are self-employed would actually have the same advantages as those purchasing through their employers.
Health Care
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:04PM
I'm glad McCain at least brushed on the government mandates that would proliferate under Obama's plan. This is one of the best ways to advertise to an uneducated health care voter the dangers of government intruding on health care. If only he had time to talk about some of the tough decisions Obama would have to make about what the government pool would cover, especially in the light of cutbacks that are going to be necessary.
Joe The Plumber
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:04PM
Wouldn't it be simpler to skip the election and just have Joe pick the president? As long as the candidates are going to act as if he's the only voter...
Half Way Through
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:48PM
I still haven't heard McCain make the divided government argument, despite reports that he would.
Special Needs
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:45PM
By saying that more funding for special needs children would be impossible if McCain were to implement an across the board spending freeze, Obama just cut to the heart of the inherent contradiction of McCain's current campaign -- he wants to run as a populist who will take care of everybody's problems AND as a fiscal conservative who will fight runaway spending.
Obama's Body Language Lacks
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:42PM
Obama's body language isn't as good when he is sitting down. And he seems to be shrinking from McCain. He seems less in command.
McCain Seems Real
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:27PM
McCain is coming across as a real guy with real feelings, while Obama is coming across as a programmed computer which occasionally is getting power interruptions.
McCain Gets Snippy
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:25PM
Even before the "I am not President Bush" line, McCain was striking a rather combative tone. If the pander-meter on CNN is to be believed, men like it and women don't.
Scalpel
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:24PM
Look it up: Bob Livingston and I were the first ones to talk about using a scalpel -- specifically, a "Cajun Scalpel," which was a big sharp Bowie type knife -- to balance the budget. Again, look it up. And we made it everyday lingo.
"If You Wanted To Run Against President Bush, You Should Have Run Four Years Ago"
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:22PM
Great line by McCain. Not only does it deflect the Bush issue, but it raises the question, "Where was Obama four years ago?" Oh yeah, in the Illinois state senate.
Hatchet and Scalpel
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:18PM
Obama's argument against a spending freeze is that people always talk about it, but it never gets done. What happened to the politics of hope and change?
McCain says he would not only take a hatchet to the budget, but also a scalpel.
How about a chainsaw?
Punchy
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:16PM
McCain's doing a better job of being on the attack. This is about the level he was at during the first debate.
Re: Joe Plumber
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:15PM
J.P., I'm glad they're providing for Joe the Plumber, but what about Bob the Builder? What about him?
_
Joe the Plumber
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:07PM
... is that anything like Joe SixPack?
I wonder if the drinking game is going to center on Joe the Plumber.
Note the spooky resemblance to Vic Mackey from The Shield.
Bottom's up, Joe!
Lowering corporate taxes.
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 8:57PM
McCain looked pretty awkward when he tried to articulate the "Joe the Plumber" story, but he won the exchange on taxes, which has arguably been the biggest battle in these debates. It's not enough to point out that Obama would raise taxes on businesses, as McCain has several times already--he needed to explain to Americans why this would be terrible for the economy right now. For the first time, he talked about how America's corporate taxes are already too high, and how this creates an exodus of jobs to other countries.
Obamanomics
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 8:56PM
His defense of raising taxes on Joe the piumber is that he would have given him a tax cut before he became successful--classic liberal philosophy aimed at punishing success.
What Qualifies You?
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 8:56PM
John McCain should look Obama in the eye and ask directly: What in your whole life have you ever done, ever actuallya ccomplished, that makes you qualified to be president of the United States and Commander in Chief in a dangerous world?
Interview: McCain Political Director Mike DuHaime
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 8:29PM
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- I'm here at Hofstra University, the site of the final presidential debate, and just had the chance to speak with Mike DuHaime, political director for the McCain campaign.
He had the following to say:
On what 2004 Kerry states the McCain campaign still feels it can flip this year: Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and the split electoral vote from Maine's 2nd Congressional District.
On why McCain has poured so much money into Iowa and Minnesota even though polls don't give McCain much of a chance: "They are states that are historically close," DuHaime said. Also, he said the campaign's internal polls show the race in those states to be narrower than the public polls suggest.
On which Bush 2004 states they feel most comfortable in, and which they feel will be most difficult: He said they would be best positioned in the traditional Republican states of Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Virgina, and Florida. He said the Democratic registration advantage would make New Mexico difficult, and he also described Colorado and Nevada as "tough states" that would be decided by a few points either way.
On whether McCain should make the case for divided government in the closing weeks: "I think it resonates with some people; I don’t think it’s a macro argument," he said. He went on to explain that Obama's recent comments to a plumber in Ohio that he wants to use the tax code to "spread the wealth" makes the prospect of unified Democratic government especially frightening. "I think that should alarm some people," DuHaime said. "Having that kind of philosophy about government and then having Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of both houses of Congress, that should be scary.”
On conservatives who have problems with McCain's recent populist proposals on government renegotiation of mortgages to prevent foreclosures: "For economic conservatives it's a no-brainer to be with McCain in terms of free market principles, lower taxes, halting spending.”
15 Minutes Are Up
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 6:29PM
Thanks to the likes of Howard Kurtz, Christopher Buckley today enjoyed 15 minutes of victimhood fame. It does seem fatuous to depict him a victim of right-wing intolerance after he demonstratively announced he'll be voting for Obama. Why no such stunt back when he gave money to Ron Paul? Be that as it may, Kurtz's report is as shallow as his subject. Buckley didn't "lose" his back-page column, but rather was writing it during Mark Steyn's absence. Yes, his father endorsed Joe Lieberman, but at the expense of the unpleasant RINO, Lowell Weicker. But one needs to go no further about Buckley's usefulness to the left than E.J. Dionne's citing Buckley's invoking of his father's words to excuse his own turn to Obama: "You know, I've spent my entire lifetime separating the right from the kooks." You know, the very pro-McCain voters whom Dionne depicts as forces of "fear, xenophobia, racism and anger."
For some genuine insight into the Christopher-NR flap, read these comments that a friend sent me:
WFB's endorsement of Allard Lowenstein is a better example than backing Lieberman over Weicker. I think the whole flap reflects poorly on everyone involved. Buckley's endorsement of Obama was poorly reasoned, self-absorbed, and self-indulgent, a (successful) attention-grabbing maneuver by an unserious person. It's more reflective of Buckley's class and in-group prejudices than any high principle. Plus, when you insult a group of readers it is hard to feel sorry for you when it generates hate mail.
But I don't see why NR felt the need to accept his "resignation." It was something that was obviously going to blow over and Buckley is, for all his faults as political non-thinker, a talented writer. Are we really in such bad shape we can't tolerate a prodigal son (perhaps in reverse) in our midst? Is severing their last surviving connection to the Buckley legacy something worth doing for McCain? However much righties imagine themselves to be in the tank for McCain, they should have no illusions he'll be in the tank for them/us.
The whole thing, like so much of what passes for American political debate today, is pathetic.
Obama, Abortion, and the Objective Record
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 6:18PM
The Princeton philosopher Robert George takes a backseat to no one when it comes to thinking and writing about abortion and the sanctity of life. Professor George has taken the time to carefully parse Obama’s positions on life issues.
I am going to list the more spectacular points. All are direct quotes from the article:
- For starters, [Obama] supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest.
- [Obama] has promised that ”the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ”fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy . . .
- Obama, unlike even many ”pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice.
- Appallingly, [Obama] wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ”pro-choice” about that.
- Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child.
- [A]s an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability.
There is much more in Professor George’s article. He has painstakingly put it all together for anyone who wants to make a decision based on all the information to do so.
Republicans Pull Out of Louisiana
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 4:22PM
Remember those Senate races I keep warning about? The Washington Post is reporting that the National Republican Senate Campaign Committee is pulling out of Louisiana, where Democrat-turned-Republican John Kennedy is facing off against perennially troubled incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu. That means the national GOP is writing off its last realistic pickup opportunity and is now completely playing defense in the race to keep the Democrats from winning a 60-seat majority. Have a nice day.
UPDATE: Just a couple days later, WaPo says the NRSCC is going back on the air after some "tightening" in their internals. Whether this is a head fake or the result of Kennedy really posting improved numbers, I don't know.
Tim Mahoney Rides Again
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 12:18PM
Mark Foley's Democratic successor appears to have been involved in another affair. Is there something in the water in that Florida congressional district?
Re: What's the Matter with the Weather Underground?
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 12:05PM
I can accept people being nice and wrong. I'd just prefer they avoid blowing stuff up in the process.
Re: What's the Matter ...
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 11:54AM
Jim, true fact: I sat next to Thomas Frank at a 2006 CPAC banquet, which he was covering as a journalist. Thomas Frank is also "a nice guy." So are they all, all nice guys.
It is possible to be a nice guy and have disastrously wrong ideas. It is also possible to be rude and obnoxious and have excellent ideas. At some point, being right should count for something in politics, but politics is hard on the unfashionable, the unkempt, the ill-mannered and the inarticulate. This is the ultimate meaning of democracy: the glibly persuasive rule, for ill or good.
What's the Matter with the Weather Underground?
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 11:35AM
Bill Ayers is a nice guy and the one you go to if you're a liberal who needs to learn about fundraising. So says Thomas Frank. Well, that settles it.
Re: Gerson, Wrong Again
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 11:29AM
Stacy is right: It wasn't the economic crisis that automatically hurt McCain, but his bumbling, pathetic, mercurial, scapegoat-seeking response to it. Here is where the campaign's fundamental incompetence came in: For months and months and months it was obvious that a credit-crunch crisis MIGHT WELL occur. Even if few people thought that it would definitely hit, much less hit as hard as it did, any sentient observer knew that it was a far from unreasonable possibility. Therefore, any sentient campaign would have had a contingency plan in place in case it did happen: The campaign and candidate would have had already approved lines -- even focus-grouped language -- in the can, ready to use in case the awful eventuality occurred. And not just language, but a basic thematic approach.
This does not mean the campaign should have had specific proposals ready at the drop of a hat; after all, nobody knew exactly what form a crisis would take. But a competent candidate would have at least had a pre-formulated, thoughtful, understandable and explainable template available with which he could describe his preferred reaction to a crisis. In other words, he needed a cogent set of principles that explained his general approach to economic instability. Instead, McCain advocated replacing Chris Cox with Andrew Cuomo (!!!!!), the very person whose policies as HUD chief helped caused this mess. And, as Stacy listed, he made a bunch of other nonsensical statements as well.
Actually, a crisis like this could have played directly into McCain's hands. His campaign has been built almost entirely on his ability to be trusted in a crisis and strong as a leader. The crisis offered him the perfect opportunity to demonstrate those characteristics. Instead, as I wrote elsewhere, the American people looked for John Wayne but McCain gave us Joe Pesci.
Re: Obamacons and Obamacommies
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 11:16AM
John, what did you think of Hitch's foreign policy writing during the Cold War? As for Christopher Buckley, you'll get no argument from me.
Gerson: Wrong Again
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:51AM
He actually comes near to making a valid point before going disastrously astray:
Some attack [John McCain] for "frenetic improvisation," while others urge him to frenetically improvise. His campaign is in a "defensive crouch" while also being "obnoxious" in its "phony populism." McCain's running mate is a "fatal cancer" who should "read more books." . . .
If only the candidate would fire his entire campaign staff and travel the country in a used Yugo, speaking in the parking lots of 7-Elevens, the gap would be closed.
Here, Gerson is making a valid criticism of the widespread misconception that all political defeats are the result of flawed campaign strategy and tactical blunders. This misconception is favored, for obvious reasons, by campaign strategists and wannabe strategists.
From there, however, Gerson proceeds to promote an equally erroneous misconception: That the economic crisis, in and of itself, doomed the McCain campaign. It was not the crisis itself, but McCain's response to it, that was fatal. McCain first denied that there was a crisis, then reinforced the liberal message of Wall Street "greed," next blamed the Republican chairman of the SEC, made himself the leading proponent of a big-government approach to the crisis and most recently advocated the effective nationalization of mortgage banking.
Republicans don't win elections that way; never have and never will. Maybe if the GOP had nominated a tall, handsome millionaire, things would be different, but that alternative was rejected.
Re: Losing With Dishonor
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 10:20AM
I really hope the conservative takeaway from this election isn't that McCain could have won if only he hit Obama harder on his personal associations. Voters tend to make decisions based on what they see, and as Jim noted yesterday, character arguments weren't effective against Bill Clinton, even though in the end character issues weighed heavily on his presidency. Don't get me wrong, I think that it's perfectly ligitimate to bring up Obama's pattern of shady associations, because they reveal a high threshold of tolerance for utterly radical views, and because he has such a thin actual record on which to judge him. But as politics, I think the problem McCain faces is that whatever is said about Obama or his past, the bottom line is that in public appearances he has the ability to come across calm and reasonable. He may very well be an intellectual radical, but tempermentally he is nothing close to radical. If anything, the attacks on his past only make him come across more moderate in debates, because his demeanor is such a stark contrast to the way he is being portrayed by opponents. Were there actually video of him giving fire and brimstone speeches in the past, echoing some of the views of Ayers, Khalidi, Wright, etc., it would be a different story.
As for McCain, while I have been quite critical of him on economic issues over the past several weeks, this much has to be said. Back when this presidential election started, the Republicans were given a very low chance of winning. This was reinforced all last year as Democratic candidates swamped their Republican opponents in fundraising, and earlier this year as turnout in Democratic primaries vastly exceeded what Republican nomination contests were drawing. In spite of the unpopularity of the incumbent president in his own party, McCain kept the race competitive -- and even could have been considered the emerging favorite -- until a financial system collapse that Americans reflexively blamed on Republicans. Although I think McCain squandered any last chances of winning with the suspension debacle, once the financial bomb exploded, there was very little he could do. In short, I don't think it's fair to suggest that McCain threw away an election, given that he was an underdog to begin with.
Losing with Dishonor
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:48AM
Way back in the late winter or early spring, at a Spectator dinner, I suggested the possibility, or rather the likelihood, that John McCain might have a chance to win the election and instead grasp on a matter of FALSE honor -- of honor wrongly understood, of supposed honor that was more a conceit than an objectively definable matter of real honor -- and thereby lose the election that otherwise was winnable. Today, in a brilliant column, our friend Jennifer Rubin discusses the same scenario, in greater depth.
O Canada
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:35AM
Those American conservatives thinking about moving up north after next month's U.S. elections will find the environment a bit more inviting following last night's Canadian elections, where conservatives made gains. Given the recent American descent toward socialism, in a sense, we're all Canadians now. But as a binational friend of mine pointed out to me last night, "It's better to be Canadian with 30 million people than with 300 million people."
Re: Divided We Stand
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 9:16AM
I'd second John's point. This is the last oppourtunity McCain will have to make the case for divided government to a large national audience. McCain needs to hammer home the fact that Obama has never seriously opposed his own party, and as President would simply be a rubber stamp for whatever legislation Democrats dream up. It's also a way to go after Obama's inexperience, as a man with a thin legislative record who merely went along with whatever the boss Harry Reid wanted. Also, in contrast to many of my fellow conservatives, I don't think this is a good time for McCain to bring up Ayers and Obama's pattern of radical associations. McCain is simply not comfortable going on the attack on such grounds, and he really needs to beat the grumpy old man rap. Dave Weigel also has some good advice in the same symposium in which John participated.
Daily Must-Reads 10/15
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 8:49AM
Uncle Sam's market-manipulating resume (WSJ)
Buckley's coming-out aftermath (Daily Beast)
Youtube the clear winner in this election (Politico)
Ben and Jerry's, slowly selling out (Culture11)
Obama better clear up his Columbia years before the rumors start a-flyin' (Just One Minute)
Defusing the Russian situation will take skill (Christian Science Monitor)
Obama is an extremist -- when it comes to abortion (Townhall)
Tonight's debate: If McCain "says it to his face," it will be from 3 feet away (Slate)
Divided We Stand
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 8:42AM
In a symposium over at Culture11 on what the candidates should say in tonight's debate, I advise John McCain to talk as much as possible about the dangers of a government under unified Democratic control.
Hitchens and Obama
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 8:38AM
The thing about Hitchens's "endorsement" of Obama is that it actually makes very little of a case for Obama, and mainly focuses on McCain's temperment and Palin's unreadiness. All he actually writes when it comes to Obama is:
Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience.
Hitchens is more of a contrarian than a liberal or conservative, and is great at stirring up a fuss and drawing attention to himself. I remember seeing him at a panel on terrorism in front of a conservative audience in which he started out offering a sharp critique of Islamic radicalism, but drew jeers when explaining that the War on Terror was a fight to defend secularism.
Re: Obamacons and Obamacommies
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 8:38AM
I would say, Jim, that Hitchens embracing Obama says precisely nothing about those (like me) who admire for his foreign policy writing. It's obvious that Hitchens is just put off by Palin, which, given that Hitchens is a militant atheist, is not exactly a surprise.
As for Christopher Buckley, all his misleading self-congratulation says is that Christopher Buckley thinks very, very highly of himself.
Another Unhappy McCain Relative
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 8:23AM
Frustrations inside John McCain's camp boiled over on the eve of Wednesday night's presidential debate as the candidate's brother unleashed an e-mail blasting the campaign's "counter-productive" strategy.
"Let John McCain be John McCain," wrote Joe McCain in a missive sent out shortly before midnight Monday. "Make ads that show John not as crank and curmudgeon but as a great leader for his time."
McCain's younger brother was sharply critical of unnamed top campaign officials who "so tightly 'control the message'" that they are preventing reporters from speaking with those, like himself, who know the candidate best. His complaint echoed those of other McCain intimates who have chafed for months at orders not to speak with the news media without advance permission from the campaign.
The younger McCain called this news management strategy "counter-intuitive, counter-experiential, and counter-productive" because it conflicts with his brother's reputation for openness. The clampdown "has gradually bled away all the good will that this great man had from the press," he wrote.
OK, let's unpack this:
- If John McCain is perceived as a crank and a curmudgeon, I'm thinking it's not entirely the ad-makers' fault. The man's 73 years old and is notoriously ill-tempered.
- One reason that McCain's ads are so negative is that Obama's outspending him by a huge margin in every swing state. Obama can afford to run positive ads; McCain can't.
- I agree 100% with Cousin Joe's criticism of the media "strategy" at his brother's campaign. To say that Sarah Palin was suited to be vice president, but yet couldn't face a press conference?
It's way too late to do anything now, though. Any new ads the McCain campaign puts out now are immediately buried in the avalanche of Obama ads. Mid-October is not when you start building cordial relations with the media. And as to the "curmudgeon" problem, it's the candidate, not the campaign, that's the cause of that.
Obamacons and Obamacommies
Posted by on 10.15.08 @ 7:41AM
To channel Bob Dole once again, where is the outrage over Christopher Hitchens' endorsement of Barack Obama comparable to the flap caused by Christopher Buckley's? Of course, a longtime left-wing radical's embrace of Obama is less surprising than an endorsement by the son of National Review's founder. But what does that say about many conservatives' embrace of Hitchens in the run-up to the Iraq war?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Panic Peddler
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 8:51PM
"WALL STREET CRISIS: Is Your Money Safe?"
The above alarm has been a signature of CNBC's financial coverage for a week now.
It appears full screen as the header to the net's special shows on the financial situation and is flashed on screen occasionally during the day and now has a little flashing companion in the lower left corner of the screen in which "Wall Street" is sometimes altered with "Main Street," in each case asking the provocative, "Is Your Money Safe?"
If repetition is an advertiser's method, surely this can have but one result -- to further fuel the panic.
Re: Character Counts
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 6:53PM
Character does indeed count, Quin. But I'm afraid I remember how far character arguments got Republicans against Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. It was well summed up by Bob Dole shouting ineffectually, "Where is the outrage???" In the end, we get the leaders we deserve.
Character Counts
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 5:48PM
Pete Wehner makes a great case for why Obama's terrible past associations actually matter. In particular, this sentence is good advice for McCain: "There is a responsibility to make this case in a calm, responsible, factual way. We believe it’s important to explain why Obama’s radical associations bear on the question of his character, and why Obama’s character bears on the question of electing our next President." I've been making the same point in almost the same words in a slew of radio interviews over the past week. (I usually say a "calm, sober, reasonable, but firm manner.") Let's hope McCain listens.
Obama the Abortionist
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 5:26PM
Well, he may as well be. I have written that the McCain campaign should blast Obama about his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act every hour of every day between now and the election. I stand by that. But Princeton's Robert George explains, in far more erudite form, why the entire abortion issue should be used against Obama again and again and again -- namely, because he is (my words) the most radically pro-abortion legislator in modern times. Read the article for yourself. George is magnificent.
Iran's Radical Moderate
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 4:36PM
I've always been struck by the tendency of U.S. newspapers to describe Middle Eastern leaders as "moderate" just because they aren't as radical as the most extreme elements within the country. I was reminded of this tendency today when reading a NY Times article on the possible comeback of former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, which refers to him as a "moderate" in the first paragraph. (In the print edition, he's described that way in the headline too, but headline was changed for the web version) However, even this Iranian blogger notes that Khatami's rhetoric toward Israel was also quite inflamatory. For instance, in 1998, the Jordan Times reported Khatami describing Israel as a "plague" and "the greatest enemy of Islam and humanity." In 2000, his government stood in opposition to Arafat because he was negotiating with Israel, and the NY Times itself reported that he declared Israel a "terrorist racist Zionist regime" and he "urged 'resolute action' to punish it." In America, these views aren't considered "moderate" -- they would rightfully be described as radical. The only way it is acceptable to apply the term moderate to Khatami is as part of the phrase a "moderate by Iranian standards."
Obama the Kenyan Radical
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 1:18PM
Our friend Mark Hyman brought up another extremely disturbing association of Barack Justanotherlyingpoltician Obama. Read it and try not to get sick.
Making Abortion an Issue
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 12:45PM
Over at The Shrinking Cleric, our friend Bob Jones IV makes the case for making abortion an issue. Worth a read.
What's The Big Deal Isn't A National Security Policy
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 12:33PM
Conor puckishly suggests the differences between an aging hippie and Al Qaeda:
This is where J.P.'s argument becomes absurd. Does he really doubt that Barack Obama is serious about fighting Al Qaeda? Does he really doubt that Obama wants to capture Osama bin Laden, to weaken terrorist camps in Pakistan, to undermine the Taliban in Afghanistan? How exactly does using a relationship with Bill Ayres to advance his political career "smudge the promise" that Obama wants to fight Al Qaeda? It doesn't!!
Indeed there are very stark contrasts between Ayers and Bin Laden (though I wonder what he thinks they are). But Conor's too eager to assume that when looking at terrorism, we ought to use binoculars. The most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City Bombing carried out by two U.S. citizens in the heartland. The undergirding philosophy of this attack was in support of a militia movement, sure, but the enabling belief was that innocents can and should be killed for the greater good. As it happened, Ayers, in his fight against the Vietnam war, was willing to kill children, and in recent years has said that he doesn't regret setting the bombs.
He doesn't regret setting the bombs. Think about that in all its italicized glory.
He wasn't just a member of the Weathermen. He was a leader of it.
To Conor's ear, this guy isn't much of a threat. If I get on a plane with him, the logic goes, I'd be ridiculous to be as fearful as I would if I were to get on a plane with Al Qaeda. Well, sure, but I've checked a lot of seating plans. Turns out most airlines don't force you to pick between sitting next to Mohammed Atta and Bill Ayers. The culpability of one doesn't exonerate the other.
The intent is to exploit the fact that Bill Ayres can accurately be labeled a terrorist, thereby saying that Obama is sympathetic to "terrorists" knowing full well that many Americans who hear that charge will think not that Obama once associated with an anti-Vietnam radical who bombed government buildings years before, but that he is sympathetic to the Islamic radicals we're fighting in the War on Terror.
This reminds me of something John "Terrorism is a Law Enforcement Issue" Kerry suggested. To many of his supporters, the idea of the "War on Terror" is that we nail Al Qaeda, and then we eat a sandwich. There's a valid policy debate on how to treat domestic and foreign terror, but it's not a debate about what's the greater priority.
For many on both sides of the aisle, "War on Terror" is just a phrase for a renewed effort to dedicate resources to fighting terrorism in general. Terrorism didn't become a word after 9/11. It's just that quite a few people started thinking about it more after 9/11. And 9/11 was, in part, a consequence of our lack of response to earlier attacks, something that Bill Clinton will wag his finger at the moment you bring up. During the 90s, many Americans made a false distinction between terrorists that kill their fellow countrymen, versus the ones who leave their country to kill.
The first one is more heinous. After all, Ayers enjoyed American privilege throughout his life, yet was willing to put a young boy's life in jeopardy, just because he was the son of a judge who was doing his job.
So there's no "sleight of hand" when I refer to Ayers as an unrepentant terrorist. The McCain campaign isn't trying to "confuse" people. They'd be "confusing people" if Ayers didn't place "threatening innocent lives" as a qualification on his resume. Did he do terrorist-y things? You betcha.
Now, a closing note, referencing another point Conor makes:
I don't see any candidates running for president who haven't associated with unsavory characters who were willing to throw a fundraiser or donate to their campaigns. As for working on the board of an education non-profit with Ayres, I don't see why Obama should've refused to do so. Again I ask my readers - were you named to the board of a charity you thought to be worthwhile in its mission, and one of the other dozen people on the board was an unsavory character, would you work with him to advance the mission of the non-profit that you find worthwhile, or would you refuse to work with the non-profit?
This is the most dangerous sort of equivocations. "Unsavory characters"? Is that what people are calling Ted Kazcynski who didn't have the benefit of a popular political protest to hide behind after he had performed his own reign of terror? Please don't confuse Jack "Never Met A Tribe I Couldn't Swindle" Abramoff with a man whose own chemistry set martyred two of his own friends.
Worse, it suggests that everything is fair game when you're an aspiring politician. It's a tacit endorsement to the character flaw of overturning character in favor of political expediency. This has become a feature of the Democrats and the far left, a fear that repudiating what is clearly wrong would undermine appeals to their constituency. Bill Clinton's Sister Souljah moment was effective because he understood the wisdom of skirting the fringe. Just because you're looking for attention doesn't mean you hire a prostitute.
Yes, I do expect Barack Obama to have a problem with sitting on the board of a non-profit until Ayers is removed from it. (If Ayers was so dedicated, he might be willing to drop the ego and take a backseat for the sake of the greater mission.) Or to protest the anti-American slurs rolling off the tongue of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. If that's asking too much, if it's simply too hard for him to make higher office without condoning such behavior, then we've gained a very valuable insight into the next likely president of the United States.
Investigating (journalistically) Sarah
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 12:06PM
Reading Noam Scheiber's piece on Sarah Palin, we finally see the bits and pieces of her career that were obscured by journalistic laziness. While most journalists were caterwauling about not being able to sit down and interview her, Scheiber went and interviewed other people:
"I don't think he had too much patience for her lack of understanding," says John Stein, then the town's mayor. In internal discussions, Carney would be relentlessly logical while Palin was vague and intuitive. "Nick had a way of being direct and to the point, something that Sarah was uncomfortable with," recalls Chase. Which is to say, when it came to garbage removal, what Palin seemed to have chafed against was less the substance of Carney's position than what she felt was his elitist, Ivy League bearing. And, over the next few years, she found ways to get him back.
There's anti-elitism, and then there's insecurity. I don't mind elitism or anti-elitism -- both are political tools that are used by intelligent people. Insecurity, on the other hand, is a problem in decision-making. The portrait Scheiber paints is one of an ambitious woman whose desire to compete with those who she viewed as holding themselves higher.
The motivation isn't clear, though Scheiber indicates that Palin is pretty uncomfortable around higher intellects. There may be more to it than that. I don't think it's hard to believe that Palin believes that she has a special understanding of the "common folk," and doesn't see others as being in touch.
This is the reporting I like in The New Republic. It's the reporting that enables TNR writers to go to the Times, or the Journal as reporters, rather than as editorial writers. It's also the reporting that conservatives are only now beginning to do more of at a young age. (See also David Freddoso.) If there's any chance conservatives can ensure the balance of the press, it's by doing pieces like this for actual print journalism outlets.
Daily Must-Reads 10/14
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 11:53AM
Common sense on GSEs from someone with a track record (WSJ)
There's no real reason baseball commentary should be horrible (Slate)
A libertarian for Krugman getting the Nobel... (Reason)
And another against Krugman getting the Nobel (Cafe Hayek)
First grade class taken to gay wedding. Hard to tell the difference between tolerance and indoctrination (MarketWatch)
Master spinner Daley will make sure there's no story with OBama and Ayers (Chicago Tribune)
Unregulated hedge funds might have rushed to the market's rescue -- but government thwarted them (Economist)
Tomorrow night's Ayers showdown (Politico)
Dumb Economic Medicine
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 11:47AM
Among other proposals today, John McCain recommends cutting the capital gains tax. Okay. Uh. Gee. I'm all for cutting the capital gains tax rate, but why now? What good will that do in the current crisis? The market is off about 30 percent. How many people right noweven have any capital gains? If McCain were in favor of cutting capital gains taxes, he should have been in favor of them all along. But to present them now as part of the response to the current crisis is akin to advocating consumption of lots of Vitamin D in order to cure a broken back brought on by bones that weren't dense enough. Yes, Vitamin D is a crucial preventative to guard against broken bones, but once you have a broken bone, you need to treat the break itself.
McCain still doesn't get it.
Busholini
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 11:40AM
From Wikipedia's definition of "economic fascism":
Trying to handle the crisis, the Fascist government nationalized the holdings of large banks which had accrued significant industrial securities.[39] The government also issued new securities to provide a source of credit for the banks...
Busholini, anyone?
We're All Racists Now
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 9:59AM
Conor Friedersdorf at Culture11:
When the McCain campaign vaguely notes that Barack Obama has "ties to unrepentant terrorists," it purposefully muddies the distinction between a leftist radical who bombed government buildings as a young man in the Vietnam era and a suicidal death cult that today threatens our very way of life.
This isn't to say that the long ago deeds of Bill Ayres aren't despicable, or that having failed to repent he should be accepted into polite society. Insofar as Barack Obama abetted Ayres' social standing, criticizing Obama is fair. But the McCain campaign has exploited the fact that Bill Ayres was a terrorist to imply that their opponent is sympathetic to our enemies in the War on Terror, a campaign tactic so irresponsible that even GOP partisans should forcefully denounce it, and for a reason that hasn't anything to do with fairness.
That's a strawman. This argument doesn't say Obama is sympathetic to terrorists. It says that Obama is either a bad judge of character and fairly naive about terrorism, or so politically ambitious that he doesn't care who he associates with in order to rise in his career.
Obama's campaign has hit John McCain for the lobbyists on his campaign staff, including Aquiles Suarez from Fannie Mae. They bring this up because they feel it makes McCain look unserious about reform. Barack Obama, however, says he's calling for a new sort of moderated politics. Yet Jeremiah Wright, his spiritual mentor, has been a radical the entire time Obama has known him. Obama says he wants to fight corruption, yet the organization he used to work with has been historically incapable of going through an election without engaging in voter fraud. And then, Obama says he's serious about fighting terror, and he pretends as though a relationship with an unrepentant homegrown terrorist doesn't smudge that promise.
Conor goes on:
The conventional case against the McCain campaign's tactics is that they stoke the most dangerous impulses of certain anti-Obama partisans. A black contender for the presidency cannot help but make us subconsciously fearful of an assassination attempt. The YouTube clips of McCain/Palin rallies, where mere mention of Obama's name provokes cries of "kill him," "terrorist," and "treason," make those fears conscious.
What?! This meme is popping up everywhere, that John McCain has inadvertantly opened the Pandora's box of racism, and Barack Obama is under threat of assassination on account of it. Or worse, we all become "subconsciously fearful of an assassination attempt." Whatever that means.
I'm subconsciously fearful of a lot of things, I guess, like pâté, or commitment. But John McCain is no more responsible for these fears than he is responsible for the "subconscious racism" Democrats love to fetishize. I'd like to go a single week without being reminded that many people still believe that Obama is a Muslim. They love this anecdote, because it's an opportunity to remind others that the only reason John McCain is popular because Republicans were told to support him at their latest Klan rally.
To support this point, he turns to George Packer:
"It's a big leap from hateful talking points and shouted epithets to vigilantism and the lone gunman," George Packer writes. "What's undeniably true is that Republican rallies and the incendiary language of party leaders are stirring up the darker, destructive mob passions that have a long history in American politics."
This doesn't pass a smell test from a congested squirrel. I've received plenty of emails demonstrating the "darker, destructive mob passions that have a long history in American politics." Strangely, they come from the side of "Hope" and "Change," which are as multicultural as a public school holiday pagaent.
This is what happens with rallies. People get stirred up. They say idiotic things. Look at any small-time blog. The Secret Service deals with this all the time: who's a real threat, versus who wants to simply sound like a threat. Both types get a knock on the door, but we're not swamped with press releases about The Growing Threat of Racist Racism.
It's just another way for Obama supporters to tell us they're really enlightened. Once their man is in office, though, we'll see about that.
Bidentox
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 9:44AM
Joe Biden spokesman David Wade denies Biden has had botox. Because there's no way Senator Hairplugs would ever be so vain...
Jesse Spills The Beans
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 9:42AM
The New York Post's Amir Taheri reports on a speech Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson delivered to a conference in Evian, France in which he predicted the changes the world could expect from an Obama administration:
The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.
Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama nters the White House.
"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."
I know what Obama's defenders are going to say -- that Jackson does not speak for Obama, and in fact, wants to cut his nuts off. That's a fair enough argument. But it does strike me as quite curious that so many hostile critics of Israel are looking forward to Obama's policies in the Middle East.
UPDATE: Just another thought. If the media standard is that McCain and Palin are responsible for inciting all of their angry supporters at rallies, isn't it fair game to hold Obama accountable for the fact that supporters like Jackson hate Israel?
Thank You for Not Drinking the Kool-Aid
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 9:20AM
On October 10, 2008, Christopher Buckley, the son of the great William F. Buckley, author of Thank You for Not Smoking and National Review shareholder/back page columnist, informed the waiting world that he's pulling the lever for Obama in November. He unburdened himself on a website appropriately named The Daily Beast. Ron Reagan, Jr. has owned the genre of true confessions by sons of famous conservatives, but here we had Chris Buckley, a well-known author in his own right! No matter how unpleasant, surely Buckley the younger would deliver a wallop.
Regrettably, the read is scarcely worth the click. Buckley provides a mundane and unconvincing explanation for his desertion of party and candidate. It is as though he couldn't quite get his heart into it or worse is like a hostage trying to signal with his eyelids that what he's saying isn't true. Because Buckley is justly known as a comic author, one wonders whether he is kidding and simply failed to develop a good punch line. Whatever the reason, the result is disappointment. After all, this is the scion sprung from the loins of the founder of National Review, the mightiest political provocateur of his age.
Buckley begins with a bit of cheek regarding his parents, which is off-putting considering that both died recently. The title of the piece is, "Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama." At one point, Buckley joshes that his parents' passing is fortunate lest they be around to cut off his allowance for betrayal of the family cause. Funny stuff, that. He also acknowledges that the only reason any one would care about how he is voting is because of his last name, which he inherited. So, if the reason for the interest is so poorly founded, why offer this true confession?
The NR shareholder begins by admitting a longtime admiration for John McCain and refers to a column he wrote in The New York Times earlier this year defending McCain against Rush Limbaugh and others. But the author would have us believe things have changed in a period of months and that McCain has gone from being real, unconventional and someone Buckley felt should be president to a temperamental and inauthentic person.
But what about the list of particulars? Buckley has them. For example, John McCain promises to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Buckley finds that indefensible. It is difficult to imagine why such a promise would be so troubling. Both parties maintain the desirability of balancing the budget sooner rather than later. When it happened during the Clinton years it was almost like receiving an unmerited gift from God. He also questions the McCain decision to suspend his campaign to address the financial crisis. Again, the critique is hard to sustain. If anyone in the senate has shown an ability to pass legislation, it is John McCain. Were we to have a hall of fame for senators, McCain would be in it on the basis of his accomplishments. Is it so strange for such a person to feel he needs to actually do his day job during a time of trouble? Meanwhile, Obama stood on the side saying his fellow senators knew where to find him if he could help.
Then, we get to a possible nub of the complaint. Christopher Buckley, like his colleague Kathleen Parker, can't understand why John McCain chose Sarah Palin. He offers no explanation for his unhappiness with Mrs. Palin. Her faults are supposedly spectacularly apparent. For my part, I am aware of a single edited interview where the vice-presidential nominee is thought to have performed poorly. Based on a full reading of the piece, one could arrive at the conclusion Buckley is dropping McCain in chivalrous defense of Ms. Kathleen Parker who, according to Buckley, received 12,000 nasty emails as a reward for her call for Palin to withdraw.
Before he addresses whatever positive reasons he has for supporting Obama, Buckley offers the following homage to John McCain:
All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain-who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust.
I agree with every word of that and wonder why Buckley would wish to contribute in any small way to the occurrence of the tragic event he describes.
As for Obama, Buckley likes his savoir faire and his status as a Harvard man. When I read the bit about Harvard I recalled his father's famous quip about preferring to be ruled by the first several hundred names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of the university. He also thinks Obama is a very good writer. And that's it, the whole positive case for voting Obama in 2008!
The rest is simply strange. Buckley reiterates his own position as a small government conservative with libertarian leanings. He would just as soon leave abortion and gay marriage to laissez faire, so Obama is attractive to him on that front. I suppose he didn't consider the left's (and Obama is a doctrinaire leftist) approval of taxpayer funded abortions. Neither does Buckley, despite his pedigree, seem to think at all about whether there are basic questions of right and wrong in the abortion debate that may deserve some legal intervention. There are non-arbitrary reasons, of course, for forbidding stealing, murder, or running red lights. Might abortion be the same?
Buckley cites his friend P.J. O'Rourke for the proposition "that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away." The very notion that a fellow quoting such a bracing coda could even consider voting for Obama, whose image decorates the t-shirts of college radicals in the same way Che Guevera's does, is simply risible. Mr. Buckley, there is a reason Ralph Nader can't get any attention this year. His natural constituents are all with Mr. Obama.
Having deluded himself that voting for Obama is somehow a vindication of his libertarian instincts, Buckley, like many Obama supporters, inflates the candidate with his own hopes. You see, because Obama is so wise, he will "surely understand that traditional left-wing politics aren't going to get us out of this pit we've dug for ourselves." At this point, one wonders whether the cynical, hard-bitten Chris Buckley has finally given in to the desire we all have to at some point DRINK THE KOOL-AID and join the fun. The idea that a man who came up the ranks of radical politics will somehow suddenly transform into Bill Clinton minus the libido is a fantasy. That candidate was Hillary, Chris. You should have endorsed her while you had the chance!
Obama's 95%
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 9:18AM
The WSJ does a great job exposing the myth that Obama will cut taxes on 95% of Americans. In reality, Obama's plans would create a raft of new government handouts and subsidies masquerading as tax relief.
Re: Fourth and Long
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 9:05AM
Thanks for the reminder on the history of the Dole '96 disaster, Jim. I have never forgotten the utter cynicism of the Dole campaign that year, when the election was recognized as a lost cause by Labor Day. They poured on a massively wasteful TV ad campaign that had one very important effect: Paying lucrative commissions to key people in the campaign.
The enormous budget of a presidential campaign inevitably attracts . . . well, political entrepreneurs might be a fair term. By Election Day, John McCain's campaign will have spent something like $300 million (not including separate expenditures by the RNC and 527s) and that budget represents a lot of opportunity for opportunists. For the clever operative, a losing campaign can be a financial windfall in the same way that some CEOs get rich running their companies into bankruptcy.
McCain To The Rescue
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 8:45AM
Today, McCain will unveil his new "pension and family security plan" and has already released a fact sheet. The key elements:
SENIORS: Lower Taxes On Seniors Tapping Their Retirement Accounts.
SENIORS: Suspend Tax Rules That Force Seniors To Sell Their Stocks In The Midst Of This Financial Crisis.
SAVERS: Accelerate The Tax Write-Off For Those Forced To Sell At A Loss In The Current Market.
SAVERS: Reduce Capital Gains Taxes For 2009 And 2010 To Raise The Incentive To Save And Invest.
HOMEOWNERS: Purchase Mortgages Directly From Homeowners And Mortgage Servicers, And Replace Them With Manageable, Fixed-Rate Mortgages.
WORKERS: Eliminate Taxes On Unemployment Benefits.
I think the idea to lower taxes on seniors accessing their retirement accounts makes sense, but am spooked by purchasing mortgages directly from homeowners and replacing them with "managable fixed rate mortages." Also, I'm not clear on why you'd reduce capital gains taxes AND "accelerate" the write-off for those who sell at a loss. If the idea is that lower capital gains taxes will create an incentive for people to buy, won't accelerating the tax write-off do the opposite, and encourage people to sell? Also, I'm not a fan of temporary tax relief. Either you reduce tax rates or you don't. People make investment decisions over the long haul, so the two year window for capital gains tax cuts is problematic, and would actually create an incentive for investors to sell in late 2010, just before the rates go back up. Overall, I think McCain would have been better off with a broad-based middle class tax relief package than these sort of targeted proposals, that don't do much for those who aren't retired, unemployed, or facing foreclosure -- in other words, most voters.
Socialist America Update
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 8:30AM
We've already seen America nationalize mortgages and the nation's largest insurer, and now the U.S. government will be buying equity stakes in U.S. banks. Of all the elements of socialism, I think this is the best part so far, because it solves two problems by both injecting capital into cash strapped banks, while enabling taxpayers to share in the upside. Best of all, it will come out of the initial $700 billion, and not require an additional request from Congress. The key, though, is the implementation, and most importantly, government has to sell its shares when the market recovers so that it doesn't have a permanent ownership stake in private banks.
Re: Fourth and Long
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 8:25AM
I think there is a very good reason Republicans are going to be hesitant to admit defeat and particularly demoralized when it likely comes: The last time the GOP pitted a grumpy septuagenarian against a charismatic young Democrat, there was never really any hope of winning. Bob Dole never led Bill Clinton during the thick of the 1996 campaign -- though he did in some 1995 polls -- and was frequently down by double digits. After the 1992 Democratic National Convention, Clinton enjoyed a pretty consistent and occasionally formidable lead over George Bush the elder.
Barack Obama has generally had pretty narrow leads over McCain in national polls and, before his spending advantage and the Wall Street mess, had trouble closing the sale in the battleground states. A few national polls show Obama with a less-than-imposing single-digit lead now. Worse, McCain actually led Obama after the Republican National Convention and the Palin pick. There was a point not too long ago where even hardened McCain skeptics like myself thought the Old Maverick might pull it off.
If McCain had been down by 15 points since the Democratic convention, I think a lot more rank-and-file Republicas would be resigned o what's coming. And some of the more conservative of them would be saying, "Screw it, I might as well vote for Barr."
Re: Fourth and Long
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 7:32AM
Phillip, you'll recall that the first time I covered the Clinton campaign in March, the title of my article was "Fourth and Long for Hillary."
As I learned last week, Republicans don't want to consider the possibility that it's already too late for John McCain, so what's the point in debating the question of whether it's already over? I said it was over on Oct. 2, the day the McCain campaign pulled out of Michigan. I would be only too happy to be proven wrong, but I'm looking at the Electoral College math and thinking that only some kind of mutant Bradley effect on steroids could turn this around.
My concern, as I've tried to explain, is that Democrats will claim victory before Republicans will admit defeat and therefore the liberal spin on the result is going to get a three-week head start. Already, you're seeing the pundit corps starting to offer a variety of wrongheaded explanations: McCain is too "mean spirited," Palin is too "populist," etc.
Bill Kristol's advice yesterday, for example, is 180 degrees out of phase. It's not "strategic incoherence and operational incompetence" by the campaign staff that's hurting the McCain campaign, it's John McCain. The Democrats nominated a tall, young, charismatic candidate, and the GOP nominated a short, grumpy, bald septuagenarian. Every time they debate, the visual mismatch alone drives more independent voters into Obama's column. No amount of strategic or operational savvy can overcome that basic dynamic.
Lessons never learned
Posted by on 10.14.08 @ 12:18AM
Watching TV after the Phillies-Dodgers game, I just saw several car commercials in a row. The first was a Toyota ad promising 0% financing and the next was an Infinity ad offering a 0.9 % APR for the first 18 months. This as global credit markets have collapsed under the weight of easy money, prompting trillions of dollars of government interventions throughout the world. So, go ahead and buy that car you always wanted. Don't worry if you can afford it -- taxpayers will pick up the tab if you fall far enough behind on your payments.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Re: Fourth and Long
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 4:50PM
Phil, is this your subtle way of taunting me over the New England Patriots' loss?
Bolton on North Korea
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 4:28PM
I was both looking forward to and dreading John Bolton's inevitable op-ed about the Bush administration's latest capitulation to North Korea, because I knew it would be right on target and utterly disheartening. In today's WSJ, he does not disappoint, demonstrating how the Bush team got schooled, ending up with an agreement that gives Pyongyang everything it wants, while the U.S. has little to show for it. Based on its history of violating agreements, there's no reason to believe North Korea will live up to this one, which is both a slap in the face to our allies Japan and South Korea, and a lesson to rogue nations such as Iran how they can manipulate U.S. policmakers through intransigence. One thing that Bolton doesn't mention, but which absolutely infuriates me, is that the deal turns the state sponsors of terror list into a bargaining chip, rendering it completely useless as an indicator of what nations are, you know, sponsoring terrorism.
Almost Ayers, I Mean Almost There
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 4:12PM
The McCain campaign in this web ad does a better job -- not perfect, but better -- at explaining the Ayers connection and why it's important. The KEY word is "pattern." It should be repeated again and again: Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, the bit about "clinging" to God and guns, all form a PATTERN of behavior that shows that Obama has disdain for middle American culture. This web ad actually, for the first time, uses the word pattern. But it doesn't emphasize it heavily enough.The campaign should cut 19 seconds from this ad (it runs a minute 19 seconds), do more to emphasize patterns (DO bring up Rezko and others; maybe even play the "clinging" to God/guns quote), and use the word pattern at least three times -- and then test it with at least two focsu groups to get it perfect, and run it on the air instead of just on a web video.
The Old Obama Was Right
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 4:07PM
Barack Obama has now endorsed the idea of a government-engineered freeze in foreclosures, even though when Hillary Clinton proposed the idea earlier this year, he said it could be "disasterous." He was right then. In addition to further rewarding irresponsible behavior, the problem is that if lenders know that they don't have the ability to obtain housing assets in the event that people are unable to repay their loans, they will be even less likely to loan money than they already are, making it even harder to get mortgages, and driving up rates. Somewhere, Hillary is spinning in her political grave now that Obama has adopted yet another one of her policy positions that he attacked during the primaries. It's only a matter of time before he adopts the idea of individual mandates in health care as a means of keeping healthy people in the risk pool.
Fourth and Long
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 4:03PM
In today's New York Times, Adam Nagourney cites six reasons why the presidential race still isn't over, and of course it's always true that things can change over the next few weeks, that Obama's newly registered voters may not actually turn out, that there's the race wildcard, and so on. But there's a certain point late in the fourth quarter of a football game when it's fourth and long with one team way behind, and you can theoretically say, "All they need is to get this first down, score a quick touchdown, then return an interception for a touchdown, successfully recover an onside kick, score again, and they can pull it off." Yes, all of that is theoretically possible, but quite unlikely, especially if the other team has home field advantage and the ability to keep making first downs with a strong running game. The bottom line is that though a lot can change over the next few weeks, and it's quite possible McCain can make things interesting down the stretch, basically everything needs to break McCain's way from now until Election Day for him to win, because Obama has built up such a large cushion, is riding the wave of the economic crisis, and has the ability to outspend McCain in key states. All Obama has to do is run out the clock. Barring a major international crisis or late-breaking Obama scandal, for McCain to win the election, he's going to have to convince Americans that he's the person they want to lead them through this financial market meltdown. He has an opening because Obama still has not done anything to distinguish himself during the crisis, and for that matter, neither has any leader in the country inspired much confidence. So there's a leadership vacuum that McCain can fill. It's just difficult to know how he can make the sale given that: 1) He's a Republican and 2) His initial reaction to the crisis was so haphazard.
Re: Shocker in Stockholm
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 3:46PM
Not that much of a shocker; in the 90s everyone thought Krugman was on the verge of winning a Nobel for his work on trade (the one major issue where he parts ways with the hard left). For a while there was speculation that his reinvention as a partisan polemicist might hurt his reputation enough to cost him the medal, but I guess that didn't happen.
Re: Guilt By Association
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 3:45PM
McCain can't win. Take a look at this YouTube video of him defending Obama from supporters who called the Democrat scary and an Arab. About half the commenters take McCain to task for not telling the old woman there is nothing wrong with being an Arab.
There Are No Economists But Krugman
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 3:44PM
Jonathan Chait sneers at the economists who signed a petition opposing Obama's economic plans. David Boaz corrects the record about their credentials (he also notes that the letter does not endorse McCain's economic plan).
Guilt By Association
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 12:43PM
Without any sense of irony, the media has created a new narrative that the McCain campaign's sharp attacks on Obama are to blame for inciting every angry and misinformed crank at their rallies. So let's just get this straight. When Louis Farrakhan praised Obama as the Messiah and Hamas endorsed Obama as the second coming of JFK, the argument was that he can't be responsible for all of his supporters. When questions are raised about Obama's close 20-year relationship with racist pastor Jeremiah Wright, his personal friendship with former PLO spokesman and leading anti-Israel professor Rashid Khalidi, business dealings with convicted felon Tony Rezko, and ties to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, we're told it's an unfair attempt to establish "guilt by association." With Obama, all that matters is whatever he is currently saying. Yet when an angry dude grabs a microphone at a McCain town hall and says he's scared of Obama, and old woman says Obama's an Arab, it tells you all you need to know about McCain --even though McCain himself immediately condemns them and defends Obama
Capital Gains Tax Cut
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 10:41AM
McCain is contemplating one, apparently. Now, I'm not one to oppose any tax cut, but have to admit I've been a bit confused by Republicans who have been talking about cutting capital gains taxes as a response to the current problems in the financial markets. Not to state the obvious, who has capital gains in this market? Who has gained money on real eastate? Their stock portfolio? As far as I can tell, the problems people are dealining with stem from excessive capital losses. I suppose the theory is that by lowering taxes on capital gains and dividends, it would motivate more people to invest in the market and thus get capital flowing, but in an environment in which the market still tanks after a 50 basis point cut that brings the fed funds rate down to 1.5 percent, it's hard to imagine lower capital gains taxes would make those investors more willing willing to put their money into investments they consider risky.
Christian Higher Education
Posted by on 10.13.08 @ 6:14AM
Having read Shawn Macomber's excellent piece on King's College in the latest print issue of AmSpec, I feel obliged to offer a few comments of my own about Christian higher education and my experience with it.
I have spent the last five years of my life with two goals.
One has been to write a book about secularism which would demonstrate what I believe to be the uselessness of the concept. That goal has been achieved. The End of Secularism comes out in August 2009 with Crossway Books.
The other has been to do anything I can to take Christian higher education to the next level. I worked to that end while trying to save the presidency of Robert Sloan at Baylor University. What I saw there was a growing community of serious Christian scholars taking shape. Those on the outside can laugh if they want, but what I saw happening there in Waco was the first emerging signs of a Christian Ivy. Baylor is surprisingly large with about 15,000 students. It is part of the Big 12 athletic conference. The endowment is over a billion dollars. However, since Dr. Sloan left Baylor the basic identity of the school has remained in doubt. I cannot say who will prevail. It will either be an alliance of iiberals and Christian pietists who think their faith is private or it will be Christians dedicated to bringing their faith and scholarship together. I certainly hope the latter group eventually runs the school.
I just received the latest issue of the Baylor Alumni Association's magazine. They have consistently been against the Sloan vision for a renaissance of Christian higher education. The issue contained a series of suggestions from various alumni and other stakeholders on how to unify Baylor. I was particularly repulsed by a letter from retired professor Rufus Spain who dripped contempt for the new "world class" (quotes added by him) faculty at Baylor. I don't get that. Why wouldn't you want your university to improve? Why wouldn't you be happy to be associated with people who have reached the top rank of their profession? I don't fancy myself a great Christian scholar, but I am thrilled to see them do their work and to help them influence the culture.
I finished my own doctoral work in December 2007 and have joined Dr. Sloan at Houston Baptist University to continue the project of renewal for Christian higher education. I have been there nearly a year and a half and have never had such good work to do in all my life. Culturally speaking, we dare not ignore the university. College students are amazingly open. They are thinking everything through and are figuring out:
- What work they will do
- What their view of the world is
- Whether they will go to church
- Whom they will marry
- How they will vote
And a number of other things about life. Christian universities need to be attractive and ready to meet the challenge of mentoring students. It is clear to me that while it is good to have big cultural ministries like Focus on the Family, we have underinvested in colleges and universities. These institutions are force-multipliers, better than think tanks and policy institutes by far. At our colleges and universities we can have both character and worldview formation of the young AND research and publication by our faculty. This is where many of us need to be working and giving today.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Re: Antle and Buckley
Posted by on 10.12.08 @ 7:37PM
"[A]s indefensible as I think a conservative endorsement of Barack Obama is, let's not forget that the alternative is John McCain."
That's probably the best I've heard it put. Hunter, it's not quite the fault of National Review that Christopher feels less inclined to support the party on this one. I wonder if father Bill felt a similar disinclination toward Republicanism in the 1950s, though.
I just wish there was more to Christopher's argument that this is what the historical moment seems to be calling for. As it happens, Obama's campaign has been centered on the historical moment and making us feel it. He's been bludgeoning all of us with that very notion. We are, after all, the ones we've been waiting for. I'm just surprised that it's swept so many.
Just A Thought
Posted by on 10.12.08 @ 6:27PM
As we come to the end of the second Bush presidency, it just occurred to me that, if you asked either of the presidents Bush why their tenures in office had ended in such devastating setbacks for the Republican Party, neither would be able to give a clear answer. The second President Bush seems to have learned from his father's presidency only, "Tax increases, bad; tax cuts, good." From his own presidency, he seems to have learned nothing at all.
Allen West Debates Ron Klein
Posted by on 10.12.08 @ 3:34PM
Florida 22:
Michael Steele, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter came to the district to raise money for West last week. Klein voted for the bailout:
Freshman U.S. Rep. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, has received $789,238 in 2008 campaign contributions from finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) interests, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Only seven House members have received more. Considering all that campaign cash, Klein's support for the $700 billion financial industry bailout "kind of looks like a conflict of interest to me," said Klein's Republican challenger, Allen West, who opposed the bailout. Klein spokeswoman Melissa Silverman called it "outrageous to suggest Congressman Klein had the interests of anyone other than South Florida families in mind."
Outrageous even to suggest it!I interviewed Lt. Col. West in June.
Re: Palins Are Creepy
Posted by on 10.12.08 @ 3:31PM
At some point since 2001, Sullivan conceived a grievance against the Bush administration and the Republican Party that he's been pursuing monomaniacally ever since. The man unmistakably has the temperament of a minority backbencher, never so happy as when he's denouncing Her Majesty's Government during Prime Minister's Questions. I suspect within a year or two, he'll become disillusioned with the Obama administration, and then we'll be treated to the spectacle of similarly splenetic attacks on the Democrats.
Re: Palins Are Creepy
Posted by on 10.12.08 @ 12:30PM
First of all, Christopher, Mike Wooten was a man who had tasered Sarah Palin's 11-year-old nephew over the objections of the boy's mother. Wooten was a man who, according to Molly Palin's testimony, had committed "extreme verbal abuse, violent threats, physical intimidation… driven drunk multiple times, threatened her father, and told her to 'put a leash on your sister and family or I'm going to bring them down.'" The Palins would have had to be nearly inhuman not to be a little fixated on Wooten.
Second, you should never, ever link to Andrew Sullivan -- who is still pursuing insane conspiracy theories about Trig Palin's parentage -- as an authority on the Palins. Sullivan's credibility is just a tick or two above David Icke's at this point.
Palins Are Creepy
Posted by on 10.12.08 @ 11:29AM
The terms 'creepy' and 'peculiar' are no longer being used to refer to Obama's followers, but the Palins. It'll be interesting to see how the McCain campaign spins this. So now Todd Palin is a psychotic and obsessive stalker. At this rate McCain will be lucky to limp across the finish line.
- No Freedom Left Behind
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified