The American Spectator

Today's Word

Posted by Christopher Orlet on 11.22.08 @ 3:39PM

Like many of you, I like to engage now and then in a bit of lexpionage (the sleuthing of new words and phrases). Neologisms say so much about the precarious state of our civilization. Here's one from today's headlines: "Web death," as in "Family shock at Florida web death."

Story here.

A Thumbnail Guide to Obama Cabinet Picks

Posted by John Tabin on 11.22.08 @ 2:45PM

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner -- More of the same, for better or for worse. Sympatico with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke on the bailouts. Wall Street seems happy, for the moment.

Attorney General Eric Holder -- Awful. Hostile to both the Second Amendment and the First, and horrible in lots of other ways.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano -- Mixed. In the short history of DHS, the politician (Tom Ridge) has been much less impressive than the obscure national security expert (Michael Chertoff). But she might be decent on border enforcement.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle -- Grating. We have to listen to that damn stage whisper throughout the coming health care policy debates. Potential harbinger of the apocalypse.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (likely) -- Jury's out. Does she get to bring in Richard Holbrooke as deputy secretary? If so it's a good sign. If not, it may mean the Obama foreign policy team is trying to make her a figurehead Secretary, as Kissinger did with William P. Rogers. Think she'll stand for that?

UPDATE: A reader reminds me that Bill Richardson is reportedly being tapped for Commerce. I often forget about the Commerce Department, and when I remember it I mainly just wish that it would go away. Anyway, if it means that Richardson is being shut out of the foreign policy loop it's probably a good thing.

11 Comments | Add a Comment

Re: Best and Brightest

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.22.08 @ 1:03AM

Joseph, at some visceral level, my John Bender-like rage against the overprivileged and underexperienced is profoundly personal, and I recognize it as a Jets-vs.-Sharks kind of thing. In a town like D.C., overcrowded with Ivy Leaguers and people with multiple graduate degrees, sneering at snobs is de rigueur for a guy with a state-school B.A. It's about morale.

"Ivy" and "evil" aren't necessarily synonyms. The very best intern who ever passed through The Washington Times in my 10 years there was Laura Vanderkam of Princeton. Her first day, she got an assignment at 11 a.m. and filed 700 words by 2:30 p.m. Joe Curl -- now a White House correspondent but then an assistant national editor -- opened the story in the queue, read through it and said, "Damn. She can write." The story required almost no editing at all. An astonishing thing to any editor who's ever had to deal with journalism interns. (BTW, Laura is a homeschool alumna from Indiana.)

In the matter of SAT vs. GPA, Brooks is correct. Competition for top grades in high school has become insane, especially in posh suburban districts and at the tonier private schools, where there are lots of kids angling for elite university admissions. I mean, OK, if you're aiming for med school or planning a career as a research scientist, acquiring the grind mentality at an early age might be a necessary evil. But beyond that, a kid ought to have some kind of life outside of books and school. The world would be a better place if more of these "Young Leaders Of Tomorrow" types were spending their evenings and weekends working the grill at Burger King or stocking the shelves at Food Lion.

Intense academic pressure on bright kids is unnecessary and misguided. Take a smart kid who's going to score a 700+ verbal SAT no matter what. As long as he's going to school, doing the work, and staying out of trouble, he'll get into some good college somewhere and do just fine in life. And even if he starts running with a bad crowd, turns into a semi-hooligan and barely graduates high school (ahem), it's not the end of the world. If it weren't for underachievers, slackers and discipline cases, state universities would enroll only industrious bright-normals.

I'm not saying that smart kids should be allowed to skate through high school, but being a teenager is tough enough without a Harvard-Or-Die burden.

Les Nessman Interviews Sarah Palin

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.21.08 @ 3:27PM

Didn't anybody learn from the "Turkey Drop" episode of WKRP in Cincinnati? Warning: actual turkeys were harmed during the making of this video.

Re: The Best and the Brightest Redux

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 11.21.08 @ 2:05PM

Stacy, Brooks made the exact same point at the ISI's Civic Literacy event at the National Press Club yesterday.

After his talk, someone asked him if he thought that the SAT should be rejected as an indicator of college and intellectual performance, as it merely rewards test-taking ability and not knowledge or education. He answered that the high school GPA standard bothered him more, as applicants to Harvard and other Ivies need such high GPAs that only "professional students" can gain admission. Kids who have a passion for one subject and pursue it at the expense of A grades in other classes won't get into the top schools. The overall effect is that students at Harvard et al. aren't very interested or interesting to others.

He added that, for that reason, he's glad his own son is interested in Rhodes College, not some Ivy school.

The Best and the Brightest Redux

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.21.08 @ 11:31AM

Tyranny of the grinds:

The next administration will be a valedictocracy - rule by those who graduated first in their high school classes. If an enemy attacks the United States during a Harvard-Yale game, we're in trouble.

A couple of days ago, someone asked me why I so disdain Harvard alumni. There are many, many reasons, mostly having to do with the belief that an aptitude for apple-polishing -- i.e., eager participation in the whole "gifted"/honors/NMS/valedictorian rigamarole -- does not represent genuine merit. Being a teacher's pet and being smart are not the same thing.

Perhaps there should be a bumper sticker: "My Angry Populism Beat Up Your Arrogant Meritocracy And Stole Its Lunch Money."

35 Comments | Add a Comment

"It's Not the Language That We Need Right Now"

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.21.08 @ 10:34AM

That was Barack Obama, responding to Hillary Clinton's statement that America could "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. Now, if reports are accurate, he's set to tap her as his Secretary of State. Video below.

Minnesota Recount Update

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.21.08 @ 9:59AM

Via the Star Tribune, here is the latest:

With about 46 percent of the 2.9 million ballots counted by Thursday evening, the gap between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and DFL challenger Al Franken continued to close. Coleman was leading by only 136 votes, a drop from his unofficial lead of 215 that was confirmed Tuesday by the state Canvassing Board.

There are several ways of viewing the data so far. On the one hand, the consistent trend toward Franken is clearly good news for the Democrats, and Franken has gained 39 votes in Ramsey County, which is only 31 percent in. On the other hand, 67 percent of St. Louis County and 43 percent of Hennepin County -- both high population Democratic strongholds -- are in, so things could be a lot worse for Coleman than they currently are. Furthermore, Franken has gained 30 of his 79 votes in 17 precincts with older "Eagle" vote-counting machines, and only one of those precincts remains. But this thing is certain to come down to decisions made by the Canvassing Board, which reviews all the ballots being challenged by both campaigns. Right now, there are 823 ballots being challenged (414 by Franken and 409 by Coleman). Many of the challenges are frivolous and unlikely to succeed, but of course we're dealing with an unusually narrow gap here so every step in the process is crucial.

Daily Must Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 11.21.08 @ 9:59AM

Step right up and let GM, GS, and GE fleece you some more (Bloomberg)

Republicans tried to serve two masters: Jefferson and Hamilton (Politico)

Venezuela holds a referendum on Chavez and socialism (Christian Science Monitor)

Running James Madison out on a rail (Townhall)

Republicans need patience and luck and not much more (Reason)

Will Obama actually end the war in Iraq any quicker than Bush would have? (Daily Beast)

Pick your battles, and then fight them (Culture11)

Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times reports:

Obama Will Delay Gays in Military

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.21.08 @ 9:35AM

President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.
Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said. , , ,
"What's the reality for the new administration?" he said. "Financial crisis. Economic upheaval. Health care reform. Environmental challenges. Where does 'don't ask, don't tell' fall in all this? I would say it is not in the top five priorities of national issues."

It remains to be seen if Obama's gay supporters will be patient.

Marriage Has Consequences

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.21.08 @ 8:51AM

When the subject of same-sex marriage is raised, why does the burden of proof fall on defenders of traditional marriage, rather than on the proponents of change in established custom?

Wednesday, I attended the "Whither Conservatism?" conference sponsored by National Review Institute and Hillsdale College, and was struck by Maggie Gallagher's comments:

"Ideas have consequences," Gallagher said, noting that the essential argument of gay radicals is that "Christianity is a form of bigotry," so that the result of the gay rights agenda will be the elimination of Christian moral arguments from the public square. Gallagher called attention to the August decision in the Benitez case in California, requiring physicians to provide insemination services to lesbians, as an example of the impact of the gay-rights doctrine.

In other words, the same court that requires the state to recognize gay marriage also resorts to the coercion of private physicians. One is reminded of the sign that appeared in a shop window in Berkeley, shortly after that city's government was taken over by radicals in the early 1970s: "That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

The long-term consequences of any particular policy change may be unimagined at the time of the change, but it stands to reason that the more radical the change, the more numerous and disruptive the consequences. Edmund Burke did not prophesy every consequence of the French Revolution, but was wise enough to see that a terrible precedent was being established, and it is only in retrospect that we can trace the straight line from Liberté, égalité, fraternité to the killing fields of Cambodia. As I mused yesterday:

The burden of proof in policy disputes ought always to rest with the advocates of innovation. The Burkean insight is that established law and social custom are presumed legitimate, and that revolutionaries who would overthrow the established order must first demonstrate (a) the necessity of the change to remedy existing evil and (b) some reasonable assurance that the new order would be a genuine improvement on that order which is to be destroyed. (Or, to quote Lord Acton: "Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.")

Conservatives ought not let themselves be intimidated into retreat or cowed into silence by radicals who angrily demand a justification for the preservation of the established order -- justifications that the radicals will never accept.

AG Mukasey Collapses at Fed Society Dinner

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.20.08 @ 10:21PM

A friend just called to tell me that Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed a few minutes ago while giving a speech at the Federalist Society's annual dinner. According to my friend who was in attendance, about 10 or 15 minutes into his speech, Mukasey began to slur his words, his eyes glazed over, and he collapsed. People rushed to the stage, and ambulances were arriving as my friend spoke on the phone. I'll report back when I hear more, but obviously let's hope for the best.

UPDATE: He was just carried off in a stretcher with a life-support mask on.

UPDATE II: The WSJ report has this positive bit:

Mr. Mukasey appeared to be somewhat alert as he was carried on a stretcher by District of Columbia fire department medics. He was heard to say he thought he had fainted. A medic could be heard to tell the attorney general "just relax."

He was taken to George Washington University Medical Center and appeared to be alert and in good condition, according to the D.C. Fire Departmen

Cao has a chance

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 11.20.08 @ 3:49PM

I handed in today's column on Louisiana congressional candidate Joseph Cao before I got a call back from my friend and former boss Clancy DuBos, owner of Gambit Weekly newspaper in New Orleans and also easily the most astute political columnist in the New Orleans area. Clancy has no ideological dog in the hunt; he's a true centrist/reformist. Direcct quote on Cao's race: "If Republicans get behind him, I think he's goa a shot." He then went on to explain, in some detail, why he thinks that "shot" is not just an outside one, but a reasonable (if still uphill) one. Space doesn't permit a full recittaion of the possibilities, but the basic thrust was that a lot of skill and just a little luck could really allow Cao to pull the upset. It's worth watching.

Don't It Make the Blue Dogs Blue

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.20.08 @ 3:06PM

As I contemplate the coming show trials, er, I mean, hearings and cap-and-trade legislation that are sure to accompany Henry Waxman's ascension to chairman of the House Energy and Commerce panel, the more I think this is a setback for the Blue Dogs. Business groups have given a lot of money to moderate-to-conservative Democrats in the last election cycle because in the era of Hope and Change they are the last pro-business group of pols with any power. (Republicans have basically been reduced to the peanut gallery.) But much of their power comes from their ability to attain seniority and leadership positions on committees. If liberals aren't going to tolerate dissent from their committee and subcommittee heads on important issues, the Blue Dogs -- being a minority of the caucus -- will be less influential. The Waxman-Dingell vote shows that they can be beaten within the caucus even when they come to the aid of a pol with a half century of political alliances and at least some support from Congressional Black Caucus members who want to preserve seniority. They can surely be beaten under less favorable circumstances. Of course, the Blue Dogs could always start voting with the Republicans when too-liberal legislation comes to the floor.

Will Minnesota Lizards Decide the Senate Race?

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.20.08 @ 2:21PM

More recount hilarity here.

18 Comments | Add a Comment

Landslide Al

Posted by Nicole Russell on 11.20.08 @ 1:20PM

Right now, Senator Norm Coleman still holds a (tiny) lead over Franken (only 168 votes). But on the Star Tribune's blog, the Big Question, political reporter Bob von Sternberg does a little recount math and describes a hypothetical scenario that has Franken laughing all the way to the Senate:

Based on what the first-day totals of the Great Minnesota Recount hint at, the winner of the U.S. Senate race will/might/could be….Al Franken – by 12 votes, out of the nearly 2.9 million-ballots that were cast.
Here's how the numbers work: Franken started the day Wednesday unofficially trailing Sen. Norm Coleman by 215 votes. By the end of the day, with 18 percent of the state's votes counted, Franken had shaved that lead to 174 votes. If that pattern continues to hold in the remaining 82 percent of the precincts (admittedly a BIG if), Franken would pick up 227.7 votes. And that would leave him the winner, by 12.7 votes.

Point is, anything could happen, though this scenario does seem unlikely. But then, so did Franken running for Senate, much less a recount into late November.

Finally admitting the obvious:

The Truth Too Late

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.20.08 @ 12:54PM

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to McCain's failed campaign, said Nov. 19 that McCain's support for the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector was the "key strategic policy error of the entire campaign."
"We also make mistakes," Holtz-Eakin told a group of conservatives at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. "There's no doubt about it--20/20 hindsight. I think the key strategic policy error of the entire campaign, that is mine, is believing that the bailout bill would help."
Both McCain and President-elect Barack Obama voted for the bill, which has taken on a different role since being promoted as a measure that would have given the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to purchase the troubled assets thought to be behind the current financial crisis.
Holtz-Eakin said it was a move of desperation because the campaign was taking a lot of criticism for not being more proactive at the time. . . .
"That was the key strategic error that we really made," Holtz-Eakin added. "Had we stayed away from Washington, stayed away from being identified with that bill - which was ultimately against the John McCain brand-- that's not a bill he normally would support-- we would have been better served in the long run, I believe. But, that financial market meltdown combined with bad strategic decisions, I think, was a real crippling combination of events."

Told you so. Where do Republicans find these "senior policy advisers" who give such disastrous advice? Is there some Institute for Expert Ineptitude where GOP candidates hire people to tell them to do the wrong things for the wrong reasons?

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Is 'Net Right for the Right?

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 11.20.08 @ 12:53PM

Our esteemed editorial page editor at the Washington Examiner, Mark Tapscott, makes a well-argued case that the Internet will eventually help drive younger voters rightward. As a bit of a Luddite, I harbor a few doubts, but what Mark says does make a lot of sense. Well worth a read.

Waxman Wacks Dingell

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.20.08 @ 12:12PM

Henry Waxman has defeated John Dingell, the dean of the House, in his bid to take over a key committee overseeing environmental policy. The narrow margin yesterday on the Steering Committee -- which is packed with liberals and Pelosi loyalists -- gave some Dingell supporters hope their man would hang on to his gavel. But the vote in the full caucus was 137 to 122 for Waxman. This isn't the first time liberals have targeted Dingell, who has served in Congress since the 1950s after succeding his father, but it's the first time they've won.

Although Dingell himself had become more liberal on climate change legislation in recent years, reflecting the direction of his party, this is pretty big in terms of policy implications. Waxman champions much tougher emissions standards and is in favor of a much heavier handed cap-and-trade approach. Dingell is more sympathetic to the auto industry's interests. Make no mistake: this is a shift to the left and much more consequential than the Joe Lieberman vote in the Senate.

UPDATE: As the charming Jane Hamsher puts it, "Blue Dogs Get Spanked."

Under Obama, Hope is the Only Legal Drug

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.20.08 @ 10:49AM

Jacob Sullum declares probable Obama attorney general Eric Holder a drug warrior. What exactly did pro-Obama libertarians get in exchange for their votes?

A More Conservative Minority?

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.20.08 @ 9:48AM

After the 2006 elections, some conservatives offered this by way of consolation -- the Republican membership in Congress may be smaller, but at least in the House those who remain are more conservative. A lot of the low-hanging fruit, it was argued, was in the more moderate districts the Democrats picked off. If that was true, it didn't have much of an impact, aside maybe from the energy debate this summer.

Now after further losses in 2008, there are indications that the Republican remnant in the House is more conservative and it might -- I emphasize "might" -- mean something. Every member of the leadership below Eric Cantor is a member of the Republican Study Committe, with Mike Pence chairing the conference. John Boehner has tapped Jeb Hensarling, a bailout opponent, to help oversee how the bailout funds are spent. Boenher and Cantor have backed an earmarks moratorium pending some meaningful reform of the process.

The picture is a little murkier in the Senate, where the minority has more power. Moderate Republicans like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and newly re-elected Susan Collins will have a lot of influence, assuming the Democrats remain below 60 seats, even if Mitch McConnell's leadership team is reasonably conservative. But even though the House has less ability to block Obama administration initiatives, it has a long history of making trouble for those in power.

Daily Must Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 11.20.08 @ 9:24AM

The presidential transition is even harder with no executive experience (WSJ)

Fiscal conservatives ran out of ideas at a clutch moment (Reason)

Long, long after virtue (Culture11)

Leaner, but more conservative, is the the goal (NRO)

Macroeconomics: there's no manual (Forbes)

Paulson is in control of everything, including the facts (Portfolio)

Interview with Bob Novak (Townhall)

Iran Moves Closer To Nuclear Weapon

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.20.08 @ 8:40AM

With Americans distracted by their own economic problems and the media swooning over Barack Obama, we learn:

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.

The figures detailing Iran’s progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country’s main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.

Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.

As I reported earlier this week, Israeli officials are saying that they are prepared to do what it takes to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, and this has now been more explicitly corroborated by other reports. One of the early challenges of the Obama administration will be to determine how it would respond to any preemtive action by Israel, including any likely consequences of such action. Or, alternatively, what diplomatic tools he would use to prevent Iran from making the political decision to kick out inspectors and go independent, at which point Iran would possibly be able to build a weapon within a year. Personally, as an American, I'm not comfortable delegating this job to the Israelis, but I don't view it as feasible that Obama would launch a preemtive strike should it come to that. Either way, can we now finally discredit last year's national intellegence estimate that claimed Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003?

Time Blogger: Obama Already Beating Racist Terrorists

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.20.08 @ 8:12AM

The Time blogger previously known as Anonymous writes that Obama is already winning the War on Terror:

The Zawahiri letter is one of the first real indications we have of the new international state of affairs (the Ahmadinejad letter of congratulations may also have been a good sign, but was leavened by the author's lack of real power and the fact that he's running for reelection). The terrorists are now exposed as racists, on top of everything else. We have many miles to go in Afghanistan and the northern and western precincts of Pakistan, and more blood to shed--and innumerable ways to screw up, since no one has ever gotten Afghanistan right--but the wind seems to have shifted slightly and is now at our back.

Translation: Terrorists have killed innocent civilians by the thousands, decapitated living human beings, and used woman and children as suicide bombers, but two wars and seven years of struggle by troops from America and around the world have not stopped them. Yet now that Obama has exposed them as racists, victory is within sight!

Nuclear Syria

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.20.08 @ 8:02AM

Surprise! It turns out that the Syrian facility that Israeli planes destroyed in September of 2007 is looking like a nuclear reactor after all:

The first independent investigation of the suspected nuclear site in Syria that Israel destroyed last year has bolstered U.S. claims that Damascus was building a secret nuclear reactor, according to a U.N. report that also confirmed the discovery of traces of uranium amid the ruins.

Conservative Women All Year Long

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.20.08 @ 4:16AM

Everybody will want to order a copy of the 2009 Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute calendar, which features the theme, "Pretty in Mink." The Luce Ladies held a soiree in DC last night to debut the calendar, with some of the calendar girls in attendance, including Miss May (Mary Katharine Ham), Miss July (Amanda Carpenter), Miss August (Sandy Liddy Bourne) and Miss October (Kate Obenshain). The photos are shot in classic 1940s glamour style and you'll have a different leading conservative woman to inspire you every month.

Wildmon Backs Dawson for RNC

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.20.08 @ 3:39AM

Don Wildmon of the American Family Association has endorsed South Carolina's Katon Dawson -- and taken a shot at Michael Steele -- in the battle for Republican National Committee Chairman:

In an e-mail sent to supporters today, Wildmon writes that "if the Republican Party is to survive,it must get back to its roots. I believe that Katon Dawson...has the ability to take the party where it needs to go."
As a post script, Wildmon throws a little dirt at one of Dawson's opponents. He passes along a transcript of Lt. Gov. Michael Steele equivocating about Roe v. Wade in 2006. "[F]or many in the pro-life movement, Steele's comments could disqualify him from receiving their support."

Wildmon thus repeats the unfair assault on Steele's pro-life bona fides that Jim Antle reported yesterday. When I heard about this attack Wednesday night at an event in DC, I was angry. Steele is a faithful Catholic and a solid pro-lifer, and anybody who says different is just wrong. It is one thing for opponents to question his success as a fundraiser at GOPAC -- that's fair game -- but it's something else entirely to distort Steele's political beliefs.

I'm told that Wildmon is urging Michigan's Saul Anuzis to throw his support to Dawson. It will be interesting to see how Anuzis responds to Wildmon's tactics, and it will also be interesting to see how Dawson responds to the use of such tactics on his behalf.

Barack the Hawk?

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.19.08 @ 8:04PM

That's how Ross Douthat is betting. In response to cautiously favorable comments about Obama's foreign-policy feints by Jim Geraghty and Michael Goldfarb, he argues:

I suspect we'll be seeing quite a few comments along these lines as the Obama Administration proceeds. Of the three legs of the modern right-of-center stool - social conservatives, small-governmenteers, and foreign-policy hawks - it's the hawks who almost always have the least to fear from savvy Democratic Administrations. And Barack Obama is nothing if not savvy.

Here's a fearless prediction: On an awful lot of issues, the Obama foreign policy will end cutting to the right of Bill Clinton's foreign policy, which was already more center-left than left. Even with the GOP brand in the toilet, Republicans are still trusted as much or more than Dems on foreign policy, mostly for somewhat nebulous "toughness" reasons. So why give the Right a chance to play what's just about its only winning card, when you can satisfy your base with a phased withdrawal from Iraq that's scheduled to happen anyway while waxing hawkish on Pakistan, Afghanistan ... and who knows, maybe Iran as well? (I have a sneaking suspicion that a President Obama will be slightly more likely to authorize airstrikes against Iran than a President McCain would have been.) Meanwhile, on detainee policy, wiretapping, etc. you can earn plaudits from liberals for showily abandoning the worst excesses of the Bush era, while actually holding on to most of the post-9/11 powers that the Bushies claimed. Obama already made fans of Niall Ferguson and Eli Lake; by 2012, I wouldn't be surprised if he's converted Max Boot as well.

And with his right flank safely guarded (assuming, of course, that Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran doesn't become his Administration's Iraq), he'll have that much more political for the big-ticket goals that will guarantee his place in the liberal pantheon - universal health care, a New Deal for energy policy, a succession of young liberal judges who will tilt the Supreme Court leftward for a generation, etc. Among right-wing hawks, there will be strange-new-respectful talk about Obama's centrist instincts, his Scoop Jackson-ish tendencies, his Reaganesque blend of idealism, pragmatism and strength. Meanwhile, the rest of the right-wing coalition will be getting steamrolled.

I think he overstates the case a bit -- I'm sure Max Boot would have liked the McCain administration's Iran policy better and much of Obama's hawkery is likely to be spent on humanitarian interventions -- I suspect he's closer to the mark than my old boss Scott McConnell, who is optimistic that Obama will represent a clean break from Bush on foreign policy. The most thoughtful of the Obamacons -- that is to say, the ones who weren't just voting for fancy book writin' and against "You betcha!" -- were realists or noninterventionists who opposed the Iraq war and any sequels its authors might be planning. If personnel is policy, the last few days of rumors and announcements suggest they are going to be disappointed.

Al Franken is Challenging This Ballot

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.19.08 @ 5:44PM

No further comment.

Via the Star Tribune.

91 Comments | Add a Comment

McCain Wins Missouri

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.19.08 @ 4:58PM

The final state gets called, so the official electoral tally is 365 to 173 for Obama. Thus ends the Show Me State's bellwether streak.

Daschle's Return

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.19.08 @ 4:30PM

In the surest sign yet that Barack Obama is serious about plans to forge a government takeover of America's health-care system, he has tapped former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Daschle, among other things, has called for a Federal Health Board to manage our nation's health care system just like the Federal Reserve Board manages the banking system. I suppose, like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Health Board will mess up the health-care system so that liberals can blame the private market and call for yet more government intervention.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Steele Scrutinized on Abortion

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.19.08 @ 4:24PM

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, has come under fire from pro-lifers for his association with the Republican Leadership Council (RLC). The RLC is a group of Kathleen Parker Republicans like Christine Todd Whitman who believe the GOP's problems, though some members (such as John Danforth) actually do have pro-life records. Patterned after the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, the RLC describes its mission as follows:

Inspired by a drive to get back to the fundamentals of the Republican Party, Senator John Danforth, Lt. Governor Michael Steele, and Governor Christine Todd Whitman created the political organization the Republican Leadership Council, which advocates for the historic Republican principles of liberty, individual responsibility, and personal freedom.

RLC-PAC's vision is a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members…We believe, as you can see through our diverse National Board, that people who believe in the core Republican values can find common ground on social issues.

But Steele ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and for the Senate in 2006 as a strong pro-lifer who supports overturning in the long term and politically achievable abortion restrictions in the short term while opposing taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research. Steele, a devout Catholic, also opposes capital punishment. The National Right to Life Committee, a Republican National Committee member who has known Steele for twenty years, and David Brody are defending Steele on abortion. Says Brody:

Look, here's the reality. Steele's critics have a huge task ahead of them if they're going to make the case that the guy is not pro-life enough. He's got the solid track record on the life issue. It's hard to argue against it.

If anything, the ties to the RLC could be seen as a plus in his corner. After all, the Republican Party will not win presidential contests if their candidate is seen as an ideologue. The challenges for the incoming chairman will be numerous including how to brand the GOP a certain way without sacrificing conservative principles.

I don't know about the second paragraph arguing the RLC ties are a plus, but the first paragraph strikes me as right.

Waxman Wins the First Round

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.19.08 @ 3:20PM

The House Democratic Steering Committee voted 25 to 22 to recommend that Henry Waxman replace John Dingell as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committe. Like yesterday's Lieberman vote in the Senate, this was done by secret ballot. Unlike the Lieberman vote, this has clear policy implications with which the netroots should be pleased: Waxman is well to the left of Dingell on environmental regulations and climate change. A vote for Waxman is a vote to move left on these issues.

It isn't clear whether the entire 255-member Democratic caucus will go along with this narrow vote, but it's a start. Waxman is said to be favored by liberals and freshman Democrats who won their races with the help of Waxman campaign cash. Dingell is believed to be supported by moderate-to-conservative Blue Dogs and members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the latter wanting to preserve the seniority system for committee chairs. Dingell was even more generous with his campaign money than Waxman this year, but he did not target his giving as carefully to winnable races.

Dumb and Dumber, Starring Kathleen Parker

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.19.08 @ 3:00PM

Kathleen Parker wrote a memorable column blaming Abu Ghraib on soldiers watching too many Farrelly brothers movies. If this moronic caricature of social conservatism is what she believes to be the real thing, I'm not surprised that she would think it is a political liability. If this is what she thinks passes for thoughtful political commentary, however, I am surprised anyone takes her seriously.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Boehner Re-elected House Minority Leader

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.19.08 @ 1:22PM

Dan Lungren got the forum he requested on the Republican future, but little else. John Boehner was easily re-elected House Minority Leader by a shrinking Republican caucus. I haven't seen or heard any numbers to compare to Mike Pence's unsuccessful challenge in 2006, but Lungren's was little more than a protest candidacy. There were some leadership changes -- Eric Cantor was elected minority whip and, in the biggest concession to conservatives, Pence was elected conference chairman -- but those were basically preordained, as Roy Blunt and Adam Putnam stepped down and Boehner endorsed their replacements. Among them, only Pence opposed the Wall Street bailout.

Two things factored into this result: One is that Republicans don't blame Boehner for their losses. To some extent, that is understandable. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war, and the economic contraction aren't really to be laid at Boehner's doorstep (other than his votes for the war and unpopular Bush policies). Boehner has worked to address some conservative concerns over the past two years, while keeping a fractious caucus more or less together.

Yet there is very little in Boenher's recent record that suggests he is someone who can lead Republicans out of the wilderness. (Congressman Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican who made the case for the incumbent minority leader, reminded younger congressmen that Boehner had been part of the "Gang of Seven" that exposed the House banking scandal back in the day.) His legacy includes Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the bailout, and the election defeats of 2006 and 2008. David Freddoso is right when he says, "House Republicans look a lot like the football team that fires all of its assistant coaches and keeps the head coach after two consecutive losing seasons."

Unfortunately, Lungren offered very little in the way of a contrast with Boehner on policy substance or in what he'd do differently as leader. All he could say is that he wasn't Boenhner and he was in Congress the last time Republicans got tired of being in the minority and decided to do something about it. Boehner supporters like Hastings were able to counter that argument by pointing out that their man could say that too. And while Boehner's conservative credentials don't match Lungren's from the 1980s, they are pretty close right now.

The only rebuke to the current team in the leadership races so far is that Tom Cole dropped out of the race for another term as National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee chairman and the GOP instead elected his challenger, Pete Sessions. But after this election, that was a no-brainer. Massive retirements, bad recruitment, and abysmal fundraising turned what could have been manageable losses into another 2006-style debacle.

UPDATE/CORRECTION: Boehner backed Sessions' challenge. The orginal version of this post misstated Boehner's preference in this race. I regret the error.

UPDATE II: I've also heard from a few people objecting that Boehner wasn't the leader when Medicare Part D passed. That's true. But as I said in my column on the main site before the leadership election, he did vote for it. And he has defended it subsequently. So I do consider it part of his legacy.

Blaming Social Conservatives

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.19.08 @ 11:35AM

I say this as somebody who supported Rudy Giuliani during the primary and has a libertarian streak on many social issues (including gay marriage): Kathleen Parker is absolutely nuts to blame the Republican defeat in this year's election on "the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP..."

Republicans went into this year heavy underdogs, with an incumbent president who an overwhelming majority of Americans thought sucked. The election was a referendum on Bush, and if the country wasn't already upset enough by his foreign policy, the financial system collapsed about six weeks before the election. Social issues were hardly debated at all during this campaign, and to the extent that they were, Barack Obama felt the need to woo evangelical voters at the Rick Warren forum, run away from his radical pro-abortion record, and declare his opposition to same sex marriage (even if he didn't support legislation to prevent it). Republicans nominated somebody who was initially seen as unacceptable to many social conservatives. It's true that they also nominated Sarah Palin as vice president, but even if you were to buy the argument that Palin cost McCain the election, it's important to keep in mind that the main problem with Palin was that a lot of independents didn't think she was ready to be president, which raised question about McCain's judgment and exacerbated fears about his age. If her social conservatism turned off indepependents, then she wouldn't have experienced her initial boom of popularity.

This is the extent of Parker's hard data:

Among Jewish voters, 78 percent went for Obama. Sixty-six percent of under-30 voters did likewise. Forty-five percent of voters ages 18-29 are Democrats compared to just 26 percent Republican; in 2000, party affiliation was split almost evenly.

Unfortunately, my co-religionists typically vote overwhelmingly Democratic, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. And is it any surprise that party affiliation among voters who came of age during the an unpopular Republican presidency shifted to Democrats? Why are social issues to blame rather than, say, enviornmental issues, or the Iraq War? It's pretty clear that Parker is basking in her role as a conservative who bashes other conservatives. And no, Andrew, I don't have a contempt for honesty, but a bias for arguments that are backed up by facts and evidence.

47 Comments | Add a Comment

Al Qaeda Channels Nader on Obama

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.19.08 @ 10:43AM

Ralph Nader infamously accused Barack Obama of "talking white" and also declared that, "His choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations."

Now the AP reports that Al Qaeda's number 2 has released the following message:

Ayman al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.

In al-Qaida's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect—along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza—"house negroes."

This could be interpreted several ways. In a more positive sense, it could mean that al-Zawahri is concerned that the election of a black president who speaks in concilitory tones could make it more difficult for Al Qaeda to demonize the U.S. among followers and potential recruits, and thus weaken the group's standing in the Muslim world. Alternatively, it shows that no matter who is the president, Al Qaeda will see the U.S. as the enemy and is intent on continuing its war against Americans.

12 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 11.19.08 @ 8:52AM

Obama will wade through the wreckage of the New Deal for any Deal of his own (WSJ)

Prop. 8 opponents don't have a right to win (NRO)

Speaking of stimuli, doesn't $2 gas count? (Econbrowser)

A roundhouse kick to gay activists (Townhall)

We don't want to be Keynesian, though (Bloomberg)

Outlying contingencies can be interesting (Marginal Revolution)

Supercomputers powerful enough to change the scientific method (Wired)

Lies, lies, lies -- but not this Thanksgiving (Investor's Business Daily)

Election Explained In 3 Sentences

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.19.08 @ 8:17AM

Brendan Miniter:

In Ohio, Barack Obama actually won about 40,000 fewer votes than John Kerry did four years ago. Mr. Obama took Ohio only because John McCain pulled 350,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush did in 2004. Republicans and Republican-leaning voters stayed home.

Compare 2004 and 2008 results in Ohio.

19 Comments | Add a Comment

Our November Issue

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 11.19.08 @ 6:18AM

For the first time ever, our November issue is completely free and now online! Click here to check it out. It includes Phil's take on the Bush legacy, and a review of Richard Perlstein's Nixonland by none other than Tom Charles Huston. Jeremy Rabkin takes a look at freedom and the nation-state in this month's Templeton essay. Read, enjoy, and comment!

More where that came from.

Joe on Palin, Jindal, etc.

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.18.08 @ 10:57PM

A student reporter for the Tufts Daily scores an interview with Joe the Plumber:

Q: As a Republican, do you feel that Gov. Sarah Palin was the right vice-presidential selection?
A: Honestly, I think she shines too much. I think vice president no, president definitely. She has moral values. She has a record of change that ... John McCain had supposedly ... Sarah was actually too big of a personality, too big of a person to be vice president. . . .

Q: The Republican Party was dealt another devastating blow [on Nov. 4]. In your opinion, what do you feel the party needs to do in order to successfully regain control of the government? Also, what should disappointed conservatives like yourself do following the election?
A: The party should remember that they are conservative Republicans - that has been forgotten. They no longer hold to their ideals. They blow with the wind on just about every public opinion poll. So they are not right-wing; they are trying to show that they're middle or even left-of-middle sometimes. You have to remember two years ago, the Democrats loved John McCain. That is not what this is about. If you're a party, you have to stick to your ideals. The frontrunners in the Republican Party have definitely seem to forgotten that. Governor [Bobby] Jindal of Louisiana seems to have the right idea. We have got to get back to the grassroots of the Republican Party and not apologize for being conservative ...

20 Comments | Add a Comment

Shep Smith Goes Nuclear

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.18.08 @ 10:23PM

A liberal e-mailer chides Shep over the proposed auto industry bailout, and Shep makes like the Enola Gay over Hiroshima:

(Via Hot Air.)

8 Comments | Add a Comment

Beautiful Losers, Cont'd

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.18.08 @ 9:24PM

The headline says it all: "McCain returns to Senate, is greeted by Kerry."

Ted Stevens Defeated

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.18.08 @ 9:06PM

So the AP is now reporting. If these numbers hold, the Democrats will reach 58 Senate seats. This is the second seat the Democrats secured today -- the first by not pushing Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus, the second through the apparent election of Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.

If Loving Her Is Wrong . . .

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.18.08 @ 8:35PM

. . . they don't want to be right: The 2012 Draft Sarah Committee is up and running. Jonathan Martin reports that it is the brainchild of Connecticut anti-amnesty activist Paul Streitz.

Seems like I recall somebody saying something about the importance of leaders being "equipped to address Republican deficiencies . . . in online organizing."

Can the Rocky Marriage Between So-Cons and Libertarians Be Saved?

Posted by Hunter Baker on 11.18.08 @ 5:18PM

I wrote a piece for the Acton Institute's Religion & Liberty on the question of whether the old Reagan coalition has a future. Check it out here.

Here's a big teaser:

As the standard bearer for American conservatism for two decades, Ronald Reagan effortlessly embodied fusionism by uniting Mont Pelerin style libertarians, populist Christians, Burkean conservatives, and national security voters into a devastatingly successful electoral bloc. Today, it is nearly impossible to imagine a candidate winning both New York and Texas, but Reagan and that group of fellow travelers did.

In the meantime, the coalition has begun to show strain as the forces pushing outward exceed those holding it together. The Soviet Union, once so great a threat that Whittaker Chambers felt certain he was switching to the losing side when he began to inform on fellow Communist agents working within the United States, evaporated in what seemed like a period of days in the early 1990s. Suddenly, the ultimate threat of despotic big government eased and companions in arms had the occasion to re-assess their relationship. The review of competing priorities has left former friends moving apart. Perhaps nowhere is the tension greater and more consequential than between the socially conservative elements of the group and devotees of libertarianism.

The two groups have little natural tendency to trust each other when not confronted by a common enemy as in the case of the Cold War. Libertarians simply want to minimize the role of government as much as possible. For them, questions of maintaining strong traditional family units and preserving sexual and/or bioethical mores fall into an unessential realm as far as government is concerned. The government, echoing the thought of John Locke, should primarily occupy itself with providing for physical safety of the person while allowing for the maximum freedom possible for pursuit of self-interest.

Social conservatives similarly view the government as having a primary mission of providing safety, but they also look to the law as a source of moral authority. Man-made law, for them, should seek to be in accord to some degree with divine and natural law. Rifts open wide when social conservatives pursue a public policy agenda designed to prevent divorce, encourage marriage over cohabitation, prevent new understandings of marriage from emerging (e.g. gay marriage or polygamous marriage), prevent avant garde developments in biological experimentation, and a variety of other issues outside (from the libertarian perspective) the true mandate of government that cannot seek to define the good, the right, and the beautiful for a community of individuals. To the degree social conservatives seek to achieve some kind of collective excellence along the lines suggested by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, libertarians see a mirror image of the threat posed by big-government leftists. (READ ON . . .)

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama Taps Eric Holder as AG

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.18.08 @ 4:53PM

Newsweek reports that Obama has chosen Eric Holder, who pushed through the pardon of Marc Rich, as the Attorney General. This is really turning into the Clinton administration 2.0.

Lieberman the Survivor

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.18.08 @ 1:44PM

Democrats let Joe Lieberman keep his chairmanship.

The netroots are already apoplectic.

In a post titled, "Suck On That, Liberals," Jane Hamsher writes:

Cillizza: "Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."

I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world.

No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.

Kos adds:

There's that. But there's also disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.

I'm done with Reid as Senate leader.

Meanwhile, as I write, a poll of DailyKos readers finds that 85 percent do not approve of Harry Reid as majority leader, compared with 8 percent who approve.

Always angry, even in victory.

The Lieberman Vote

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.18.08 @ 1:42PM

For all the noise, Senate Democrats decided to give Joe Lieberman a slap on the wrist while letting him keep his committee chairmanship and remain in the majority caucus. The vote wasn't even close. I'm not surprised. In addition to the recent comeback by liberal hawks, Democrats have been backing away from more draconian measures for at least two weeks. Obama gave them cover when he said he wanted Lieberman in the caucus. The votes coming up focus on areas where Lieberman votes like a regular Democrat. And I'm sure they figured now is not the time to give the Senate Republicans a new member.

But Quin, Technology is the Wave of the Future!!!!

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.18.08 @ 1:28PM

And Pepsi is the choice of a new generation. Quin is obviously right that the importance of these things can be exaggerated, and it would certainly be foolish to oppose Lungren on the basis of "bloggers' row", which might even be a onetime slip-up in any event. But in a short leadership race, you are looking for indications that the candidates and their staffs are equipped to address Republican deficiencies. One of those deficiencies is in online organizing. That's far less important than basic vision and strategy for a House minority leader, becoming a bigger deal in an RNC chair. But it's not nothing and, though far from disqualifying, it's nevertheless worth noting with the limited information we now have.

Daily Must Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 11.18.08 @ 10:20AM

An economist's apology for not predicting the financial crisis (Cafe Hayek)

Liberals find themselves with no more excuses (WSJ)

Sports are overvalued, so short them (Bloomberg)

How to stop the Hydra that is Google (Boston Globe)

Detroit's already failed, and there's nothing the Dems can do about it (Washington Post)

For how long would Obama chase bin Laden's ghost? (Time)

The SAT: maybe not such a bad predictor after all (NY Times)

Fearless predictions: velocity and economy up by Q2 '09 (Forbes)

Of Lungren, Bloggers' Row, and Other Stuff

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 11.18.08 @ 10:03AM

I still don't have time to be my promised lengthier analysis of Dan Lungren's challenge to John Boehner, and I feel less of a need to do so now that Jim Antle has done his thorough and thoughtful column on the same. I still will try to make the time, and I'll again telegraph my conclusion that Dan Lungren is an unappreciated lion of the conservative cause.

But let me use this occasion to repeat a warning similar to those I've grumpily issued before: The right needs to stop finding reasons to nitpick itself to death. It's time for Palin critics to stop sneering at Palin supporters as if they are all a bunch of rubes, and for Palin supporters to stop acting as if all criticism of Palin is mere cultural snobbery. It's time for the economic conservatives and the social conservatives and the foreign policy conservatives to stop finding reasons to blame each other or rule each other out of the coalition and instead focus on why they should all stick together.

And it's time for the techno-wizzes and the techno-tards (I'm one of the latter) to stop acting as if one's choice of technology is an indicator of character or basic intelligence. (Okay, this is aimed at the techno-wizzes.) I have been absolutely appalled since the election to hear how much the younger techno-wizzes sneer at the 60-somethings who built the conservative movement just because the 60-somethings don't "get" the new technology. As if all wisdom relies in the ability to use Twitter, whatever the hell that is. And I heard multiple complaints yesterday that a news advisory from Lungren's office about a bloggers' phone conference called the event a "bloggers' row," when it was not a physical row but a conference call -- and as if Lungren himself had anything to do with the choice of terminology.

People, get over yourselves! Fast! And now! First of all, press secretaries put out news advisories. Press secretaries tend to be young. They probably damn well know what a real bloggers' row is. The terminology there was probably meant as a clever analogy. I mean, when it comes down to it, a "row" and a conference call achieve the same purpose: To have all conservative bloggers together in one "place" in order to concentrate the dissemination of the message. In this sense, even if the press secretary in question did NOT know the difference, well, who gives a flying fungo bat?!? Why does it matter? Why does that have anything to do with Lungren's fitness for leadership, or lack thereof (or as the expression goes, with the cost of tea in China)?

Just as the older builders of the conservative movement are wrong if they act as if the whole movement does not and cannot exist without them, and wrong if they don't take the younger generation seriously as leaders, so too is the younger generation not just wrong but friggin stupid if they do not value experience, not value the wisdom that comes with having been in the trenches -- and not have patience with people who don't know the difference between text messaging and emailing.

I'm right in the middle of all this, philosophically and in terms of age. I was born in 1964, either the final year of the Baby Boom or the first year of Generation X, depending on how you look at it. And in terms of the movement, I'm midway between its founders and its young guns. I value both groups. It makes me sick to see either group not value the other. And it really makes me sick to see how simple terminological differences and techno-differences can make one group not even be able to hear or to communicate with the other.

Jeesh.......

8 Comments | Add a Comment

Secretary of State Hillary?

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.18.08 @ 9:59AM

I was in Israel last week when I overheard some people talking about rumors that Obama was offering Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State job, and I dismissed it as idle gossip, or perhaps another hyped media story with little basis in reality. But now I come home and read that she was offered the job and accepted it. If true, this is a stunning development on many levels.

Politically, it doesn't make sense to me. Obama made the prudent decision to snub Clinton for the VP slot, and despite a small minority of disgruntled Hillary dead-enders, he was able to unify the party. She campaigned for him merely to save her own political hide. He won. The idea that he "owes" anything to Clinton supporters is absurd. It's also much easier for Clinton to wreak havoc from Foggy Bottom than it would be from the Senate, undermining the administration, leaking information to the press, and seeing herself as in charge of the nation's foreign policy rather than as somebody who is serving the president and representing his policies abroad. Then there are the conflicts of interest posed by Bill's globetrotting and foreign speaking fees.

Based on what we now know about how the Clinton campaign functioned and how she led the charge for health care in her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton is a terrible executive, so that doesn't speak well for her ability to manage thousands of employees at State, nor does she have any record suggesting that she has skills as a diplomat, other than in her own imagination.

Above all, what happened to change? Implicit in Obama's message during the primaries was that electing him would move us beyond the Bush-Clinton era, and yet, now he is staffing his administration with a collection of Clinton retreads as well as Hillary herself? Jim already noted their differences on the Iraq War, but their foreign policy disagreements were much more fundamental than that, at least as Obama told it. According to Obama, Hillary Clinton represented a continuation of "typical Washington thinking" on foreign policy, an attitude that prevails even as the administration changes from party to party. When Obama spoke of meeting unconditonally with the world's worst dictators and later of taking military action within Pakistan, he was mocked as naive by Clinton, who eventually would talk in terms of "obliterating" Iran. Now he wins, and he appoints her to the top foreign policy post in his administration? Utterly puzzling.

Just A Little Bit to the Right

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.18.08 @ 9:49AM

In writing about the House Republican leadership contest for the main site, I was reminded of the 1998 gubernatorial primary between Paul Cellucci and Joe Malone in Massachusetts. The two Republican statewide elected officials both wanted to be governor. Bill Weld had left in an unsuccessful quest to become Bill Clinton's ambassador to Mexico, thwarted by Jesse Helms. This made Lt. Gov. Cellucci acting governor and gave him a leg up in a contest where he and Malone, the state treasurer, might otherwise have been more equally matched.

Malone decided he would run to the right of Cellucci in the primary. It wasn't hard to do: By 1997, Weld's early fiscal discipline had vanished into thin air. Now that the budget deficits were gone and the Bay State economy was growing again, Weld-Cellucci had revenues they could use to jack up state spending even further. Cellucci was also, like Weld, a social liberal. The Boston Herald columnist Don Feder even reported that Cellucci had convinced Weld to take his far-left position on abortion.

So Malone had Republican attack man Arthur Finklestein do ads that made the race seem like a fight between Ronald Reagan and Michael Dukakis. Malone was Reagan, Cellucci was Dukakis. There was just one problem: in terms of actual policy substance, Malone positioned himself just millimeters to the right of Cellucci. Cellucci was pro-choice. Malone, a former pro-lifer, was pro-choice but supported a few more restrictions on abortion. Cellucci was for affirmative action. Malone favored affirmative action under somewhat more limited circumstances. Cellucci was for gun control, Malone was a little less for gun control. They both wanted to roll the income tax rate back to 5 percent, but Malone wanted to do it first.

Don't get me wrong: I voted for Malone in that primary. I'll take a millimeter if that's the best I can get and there was at least a chance Malone would prove even more conservative once in office. But Cellucci won in no small part because Malone couldn't convince many Republicans that the policy differences between the two men were really as big as between Dukakis and Reagan.

Israel and Iran

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.18.08 @ 9:38AM

Over on the main site, I have a piece up based on conversations with sources in Israel, reporting that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and that it is prepared to take military action if diplomacy fails to deter this existential threat. I would add, on a more speculative note than I included in my article, that in my view an Israeli military strike is likeliest possible outcome to the Iranian nuclear standoff. To be clear, by likliest, I don't mean the likely outcome, but merely the most plausible given the other scenarios. The way I see it, there are four main possibilities: 1) Diplomatic and economic pressure successfully thwarts Iran's nuclear ambitions, 2) President Obama launches a military air strike on Iran, 3) Israel luanches a military strike on Iran, or 4) Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

This Is Your Brain On Hope

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.18.08 @ 8:53AM

Via Hot Air, which links How Obama Got Elected with this info on Obama voters:

57.4 could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8 could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6 could NOT correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1 % could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

I pointed out weeks ago that 41% of CNN viewers didn't know Democrats controlled Congress. This goes back to my whole point about "low-information" voters. Don't overthink it!

Iraq War Supporters Have Bad Judgment Until They Work for Obama

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.18.08 @ 6:26AM

As I write, this report hasn't been confirmed yet but if Hillary Clinton is going to be Barack Obama's secretary of state, doesn't that discredit a major argument in favor of the change agent's presidential candidacy? During the primaries, and to a lesser extent during the general election, Obama argued that his lack of foreign-policy experience didn't matter because he showed better judgment on these issues than the foreign-policy establishment of both parties. The main evidence he showed superior judgment was his early opposition to the Iraq war. In fact, if Obama had not opposed the war from the beginning he would have been much less likely to win the Democratic nomination.

It was the equivalent of Ross Perot's rejoinder that he didn't have any experience running up a $4 trillion national debt. Barack Obama didn't have experience leading or voting the country into a $1 trillion war. Obviously, this line of argument wasn't persuasive to Joe Lieberman but it was in line with most rank-and-file Democrats' thinking -- and that of many independents as well.

So who does Obama turn to when he starts hiring people for major positions in his administration? Joe Biden for vice president, even though Biden voted to authorize the Iraq war. Rahm Emanuel for White House chief of staff, even though Emanuel supported the war and says he would have voted for it even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. And now Hillary Clinton for secretary of state, even though she famously voted for the Iraq war.

Obama now seems to owe Biden and especially Clinton an apology, given that he used their war votes and his early antiwar speech against them to great effect. If Hillary had voted against the Iraq war, it is difficult to see how Obama could have beaten her in the Democratic primaries without taking stands that would have doomed him in the general election. In fact, it's hard to see how he would have beaten her at all.

Again, if this report is confirmed, it will be interesting to see how antiwar activists react to this. Are they antiwar or just anti-Republican?

Non-Profit Recession?

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.18.08 @ 6:21AM

The news of layoffs at Focus on the Family includes this:

Donations are down, and Focus relies almost entirely on the charity of others.
That problem is reverberating throughout the nonprofit sector, said Colorado Springs Economic Development Corp. president Mike Kazmierski.
"It's probably going to get worse," he said. "When people have to cut back, the only place they have to go is their discretionary income."
Glenn Williams, Focus' chief operating officer, said that more than 95 percent of the organization's income comes from donations, with book sales accounting for the remainder. Donations to Focus set a record high in fiscal 2008, he said. But donations began to decline in October, which starts Focus' new fiscal year, and after polling major donors, Focus expects this holiday season - normally the most lucrative time of the year for nonprofits - to be even more painful to the bottom line.
"Looking at October trends and talking to donors who are not in a position where they can give, we thought we'd be facing a more severe decision in January or February if we waited," Williams said.

Obviously, the current recession is likely to have more widespread impact.

Un-Conservative Patriot?

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.17.08 @ 10:31PM

David Frum argues that (a) Republicans are a threat to suburban values, (b) Sarah Palin is Harriet Miers, and (c) Rush Limbaugh is part of the problem.

(Video via Hot Air.) Some readers may recall that, a year after leaving his job as a Bush speechwriter, Frum wrote a National Review article denouncing several critics of the Iraq war -- including Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak -- as "Unpatriotic Conservatives." Now that the $5-billion-a-week Iraq war has helped deliver Congress and the White House to Democrats, Frum is leaving National Review and who knows whom he'll denounce next? Probably not Barack Obama.

By the way, did I mention that Frum is . . . Canadian?

UPDATE: I guess I should add that, despite his attempt to cast several of my friends into outer darkness, I actually like David Frum. His book, How We Got Here is the definitive history of the 1970s and eminently readable. But, like several other conservative intellectuals, Frum seems so demoralized by the denouement of the Bush presidency that he's not going to let facts stand in the way of his panic stampede.

Take, for example, Frum's assertion that suburban voter view the Republican Party as "a threat to their values." Some actual election results:

Delaware County, Ohio (suburban Columbus) -- McCain 59%, Obama 40%
Cass County, Mo. (suburban Kansas City) -- McCain 59%, Obama 40%
Westmoreland County, Pa. (suburban Pittsburgh) -- McCain 58%, Obama 41%
Gwinnett County, Ga. (suburban Atlanta) -- McCain 55%, Obama 44%

Granted, more than five years after "Mission Accomplished" and with the economy circling the drain, the Democrats made tremendous inroads, but it takes a lot of effort to look at the actual vote totals and conclude that suburbanites see the GOP as a "threat." I repeat: Don't overthink it.

11 Comments | Add a Comment

Re: Huckabeeism

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.17.08 @ 10:11PM

John, I heard Huckabee talking about his book on the radio, bashing "libertarians," and it's just so depressing. Could someone at least ask him to read Hayek or Mises or Friedman or Sowell -- or to study the history of conservatism -- before running his mouth?

One of the things that is disturbing when I talk to College Republican types is that so many of them seem to have merely inherited their parents' loyalties, and their conservatism is informed by little more than Fox News and talk radio. You have Christian conservatives whose conservatism begins and ends with "it's a baby," and then you have hawks whose conservatism begins and ends with "our troops in harm's way." The limited-government/free-market idea -- which, to my mind, is the universal language of conservatism -- seems to have evaporated during the Bush era, or to have been dumbed down to meaning only tax cuts.

So along comes someone like the Huckster, who's all compassion and no conservatism, and plenty of people seem willing to listen to him. It's depressing, like I say.

Call 'Em As You See 'Em

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.17.08 @ 8:44PM

Jim Geraghty says that being in the minority isn't so bad: "I think almost everyone sensed there is something liberating about being in a position of opposition; you no longer have to hold your tongue or take it easy on a figure like Bush, McCain, or congressional leaders because they're your guys. On every bill, issue, and event that comes down the pike, you can call them as you see them."

That's all very true. But maybe we'd be better off if we always did this, even when "our guys" are in power.

Re: Re: Digital Natives

Posted by Hunter Baker on 11.17.08 @ 5:23PM

John, I think your points are good. There is no question that the laptop is superior to the pen and paper for notetaking. I type much faster than I write and would rather take notes on a laptop.

But, with regard to the question of whether students are getting the full learning experience because of digital distractions, I'm not so sure I can satisfy myself by thinking it is the students' problem. As Robert Stacy McCain points out in a comment to the original post, I have the ability (and the responsibility) to set the policy. I may well go laptopless in my classes.

Mr. Chips isn't always a popular guy!

Secret Ballots for Congress

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 11.17.08 @ 5:17PM

In light of the blog post below about "card check" union organizating thuggery, it's worth noting that we at the Examiner editorialized on that very subject today.

Lungren Impressed

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 11.17.08 @ 4:30PM

I know Jim is writing a full piece for tomorrow on Dan Lungren and the race for House Minority Leader, so I don't want to steal his fire, which means I will provide here only a few general observations, to be followed by more after I read Jim's piece.

Let it be said, first, that I am not a major Boehner basher (although at one point I was such a basher, because of his handing out campaign contributions on the House floor, which infuriated me). I think he did a slightly better job in the last two years than I expected, and I think his heart is in the right place and so too usually are his mind and his principles.

That said, just on his own merits without regard to Boehner, I thought Dan Lungren was terrific today. (I was only able to listen to about half of his phone conference with bloggers because I had another meeting, but this is based on the half of it that I heard.) Apparently some other bloggers weren't quite as impressed -- which may be an indicator that I am, at age 44, hopelessly outdated with what impresses these young techsters. I am beginning to think that their way of communicating and my own are hopelessly disconnected, which also means that they probably would not respond well today to a Ronald Reagan (stylistically) even if Reagan's message were updated to apply his principles to today's issues. Anyway, if the bloggers on the call weren't impressed, I don't know what will impress them.

Lungren came across to me as the principled, forceful, articulate leader I remember from the 1980s. Other bloggers are noting that, well, ho hum, he made a case against the auto industry bailout, as if that were just to be expected. But to me the key thing is HOW he made the case: He made it in a coherent fashion, with a concise explanation of what the alternative is (bankruptcy, which means not going out of business but business reorganization, which is a good thing, not a bad one).

He made a strong case, to me at least, about process. He gave quite an example about how and why he objected last year to a new slogan the House GOP Conference adopted that exploded in their faces. Maybe process bores people these days. To me, it makes a huge difference -- especially when one explains, as Lungren did, the NEXUS between process and substance. He explained WHY the bad process led to bad substance, and ALSO why the substance itself was bad on its own merits irrespective of process. That dual understanding is, to me, extremely important.

But again, I will leave a more detailed discussion (and explanation of what I was just writing about) until later, because I am curious to see Jim's fuller take on things tomorrow -- especially since, presumably, he got to listen to the entire call. But for now, let's just say that the GOP caucus is crazy if it doesn't seriously consider Lungren for a prominent role, very prominent, in the next two years.

Secret Ballots: Bad for Unions, Good for Democrats

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.17.08 @ 3:53PM

D-Day for Lieberman (D). Tomorrow is the day that Senate Democrats will decide whether they want to boot Joe Lieberman from their caucus for supporting John McCain and criticizing Barack Obama in a speech to the Republican National Convention. Of course, the Democrats won't directly throw him out but if they strip him of his committe chairmanship and key assignments, it's unlikely he'd remain a Democrat.

I've said before that the enlarged Democratic majority may make a Lieberman purge possible, but with the focus now on domestic issues -- where he overwhelmingly votes with the liberals of his party -- that doesn't mean it makes sense. And unless he starts voting with Republicans on issues besides Iraq, Lieberman won't be a big addition to Mitch McConnell's caucus.

Most interesting, however, is how the Democrats are going to decide Lieberman's fate: by secret ballot. Congressional Quarterly reports, "Lawmakers will write their vote on slip of paper, those papers will be collected and counted, and the final tally will be read aloud to the caucus. Lieberman, then, will be able to know how many of his colleagues stood with him but will not know their identities."

A friend points out: "This will be an amusing thing to bring up when the Dems try to pass card check."

Mike Huckabee's Heartless, Souless Conservatism

Posted by John Tabin on 11.17.08 @ 3:36PM

Well look here, Mike Huckabee has a new book coming out, in which he attempts to turn the tables on people like the Club for Growth who dared to argue that Huckabee is not really a conservative:

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." He is not so much concerned with the libertarian candidate Ron Paul's Republican supporters as he is with a strain of mainstream fiscal-conservative thought that demands ideological purity, seeing any tax increase as apostasy and leaving little room for government-driven solutions to people's problems.

Ahem.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say... But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

Good thing we have real conservatives like Mike Huckabee to defend the GOP from the insideous libertarian influence of "Faux-Cons" like Ronald Reagan.

14 Comments | Add a Comment

Beautiful Losers

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.17.08 @ 3:29PM

I'm all for losing graciously, handling defeat with dignity, answering the president's call regardless of party, loyal opposition, serving a cause larger than oneself, etc. But am I the only one who sees this and thinks Republicans seem a little too comfortable with their new role as good losers?

Re: Digital Natives

Posted by John Tabin on 11.17.08 @ 2:44PM

Hunter: I don't understand your complaint at all. Don't you test your students on the material? If they can show that they've learned it, what does it matter whether they're multitasking in class? If they can't learn because they're distracted, isn't that their problem, not yours?

And as for "pay[ing] sustained attention to public policy debates so they can participate meaningfully in the democratic process" -- are you really suggesting (in a blog post!) that people who don't spend much time at their computers are better informed?

The fact is that once you're used to taking notes on a laptop -- which I spend a lot of my time as a journalist doing -- the advantages become obvious. A computer keeps all your notes in one place, where they can be instantly searched by keyword. Notebooks fall apart. They get lost. They can't be searched automatically.

The one big advantage that pencil-and-paper has is portability -- but by the time your son goes to college, that will almost certainly be less of an issue. Some super-light hybrid large-screen smartphone-type thing (or maybe something even cooler that I can't even imagine) will have replaced the laptop as a note-taking device. But he probably won't be using a notebook and pencil, and you'd be doing him a tremendous disservice by demanding otherwise.

Lungren Makes His Case to Bloggers

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.17.08 @ 1:59PM

Dan Lungren, the Republican congressman from California who is challenging John Boehner for the House minority leader position, just held a bloggers' conference call. Lungren emphasized the need for a change in leadership after "two successive defeats" resulting in the loss of 50 seats. He also said the party needed to debate where it is heading and how it is going to promote its agenda. To that end, he is also proposing a rules change that would allow a three-hour debate rather than quick nominating speeches and a vote.

Lungren says he does not want to be part of the "coalition of the comfortable," arguing that Republicans should not be comfortable in the minority. He wants the party to take a clear position against the automobile industry bailout and to go back to the Conservative Opportunity Society days where Republicans like Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, Vin Weber, and himself promulgated a conservative agenda that could claim majority support.

While Lungren stressed the need to contrast sharply with the Democrats, he struggled a bit when asked to sharply contrast himself with Boehner. They both supported the Wall Street bailout -- or, as he prefers, "rescue plan" -- and he was reluctant to critize Boehner's conservative credentials. When I asked him if he agreed with Boehner's position that the congressional races should be left up to the individual members rather than be nationalized, however, he did differentiate himself and come out for a strong Republican national brand.

I'll have more to say about this on the main site later on.

California Screaming

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.17.08 @ 1:18PM

As an example of the "Gay Rights, Gay Rage" phenomenon, Christian evangelists require police in riot gear to protect them from a "tolerance" mob in San Francisco (strong language warning):

Digital Natives?

Posted by Hunter Baker on 11.17.08 @ 11:59AM

I teach political science courses at Houston Baptist University in addition to my work as an administrator for the school. I also occasionally speak to young people in other venues. Something that I see now, which was nearly non-existent when I first gained teaching responsibilities as a grad student years ago, is the backside of a bunch of laptops facing me while I lecture.

Speaking to a colleague in the education department, I expressed my concern that students are too distracted by technology to pay attention and learn. She assured me these young people have different brains and can handle the multi-tasking.

I'm not so sure. I imagine that while I'm lecturing the students are partly listening and are dedicating the rest of their attention to online chat, email, facebook, fantasy football, and wedding planning. There may be some evolution of neural pathways, but I find it hard to believe there is any substitute for actually reading material, listening carefully to a lecture, asking questions, and discussing the subject matter without any other distractions.

And forget the immediate question of education in the classroom. Are these the kind of people who can pay sustained attention to public policy debates so they can participate meaningfully in the democratic process?

When I send my son (now 6 and pretty tech savvy) off to school, I may be looking for one that bucks the trend by promising me that he WON'T have a laptop in class.

Oh, the Irony of It All

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.17.08 @ 11:52AM

The New York Times -- which might well be bankrupt in six months, perhaps due to the manpower drain of publishing massive numbers of corrections -- writes an obit for National Review:

Now, thanks to the coarsening effect of the Internet on political discourse, the magazine may have lost something else: its reputation as the cradle for conservative intellectuals and home for erudite and well-mannered debate prized by its founder, the late William F. Buckley Jr.

Evidence? The departures of Christopher Buckley and David Frum. They apparently took all the erudition and good manners with them when they left.

Impressions from Israel

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.17.08 @ 11:02AM

I spent last week in Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, which is an AIPAC-linked charitable organization. When you travel around the country and speak with public officials, citizens, and scholars, it becomes clear that there isn't any sort of monolithic opinion of Israelis, so it was a good opportunity to get a variety of perspectives ranging from a far-right settler who doesn't believe the much discussed two-state solution model is practical to a mom who supports the current peace process. I also had a chance to speak with a negotiator for the Palestinian Authority. It's hard to know where to start, but I figured I'd offer the following impressions, and hopefully as the week goes on I'll try to provide more detail on at least some of them.

-- It's pretty clear to me that the Israeli government views the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons as a worse outcome than the consequences of military action against the Islamist state. While the rest of the world -- including America – struggles with the issue, Israelis I spoke with believe that they don't have the luxury to gamble on whether or not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is serious about his threats to wipe them off the map. (Whether or not Ahmadinejad himself has power, or is merely a mouthpiece for the ayatollahs, is irrelevant in this context). While the threat to Israel from Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups is profound, a nuclear Iran would present an immediate existential threat. A significant majority of the Israeli population lives on a narrow band of coastal land north and south of Tel Aviv, so any nuclear attack there would have catastrophic consequences. Israelis hope that economic sanctions can stymie Iran's nuclear ambitions (especially with oil prices falling), but they are also convinced that time is running out, and they are prepared to do whatever it takes if sanctions don't do their job.

-- Israelis, overall, don't really know what to make of Barack Obama's victory. Most of those who I spoke with viewed Obama as intelligent, charismatic, and as a gifted orator. But from there, the views I got were quite divergent. Some Israelis were positive about him, and thought that his intelligence would guide him to the right conclusions. Those who liked Obama were somewhat envious of the U.S. for having an exciting new leader, given the boring choices in their own upcoming elections (more on that below). However, I also spoke to a number of Israelis who are a bit nervous about Obama given his conflicting signals on Israel and the fact that they simply don't know him as well as other American politicians. One man said he was utterly perplexed that Americans' memories could be so short that they would elect somebody so inexperienced just seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks. He said he thought Obama's victory speech was amazing, but he went back and replayed it several times and was shocked that Obama did not mention 9/11 once -- not even when he recounted the events witnessed by the 106 year-old woman. The Israelis will be watching his national security-related appointments quite closely.

-- The Israeli elections are coming up in February, and right now polls show a tight race between Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni, and Likud, controlled by Benyamin Netanyahu, with Ehud Barak's Labor way behind. Overall, Israelis are dispirited with their choices. Barak and Netanyahu already served as prime ministers and were overwhelmingly thrown out of office, while Livni lacks experience and represents a party that has been run by the widely unpopular Ehud Olmert. With Livni arguing for continuing the peace process and Netanyahu calling for pulling out and focusing on economic development in the Palestinian territories, the election outcome will largely be determined by events over the next three months. If the current relative calm persists, then Kadima has a better chance of winning, but if violence flares up before the election and Israelis become much more skeptical about the current prospects for peace, than it would favor Netanyahu's Likud.

-- I'm more convinced than ever that the current peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is a joke. The PA has absolutely no control over Hamas, which has only grown in military strength since the Israelis pulled out of Gaza. With Hamas in control of the area, rockets continue to harass citizens in southern Israel, and the terrorist group is no closer to reconciling with the Fatah arm of the PA. Earlier this month, Hamas pulled out of planned talks with Fatah, and a clash between the two groups is likely in January, when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' term ends. He's arguing for an extension of his term until 2010, which Hamas is fiercely opposed to. If the Palestinians cannot make peace among themselves, Abbas is powerless to prevent attacks originating from Gaza, and his grip on power is tenuous, it makes little sense for the Israelis to strike a deal with him. A PA negotiator I spoke with was dismissive of the Hamas issue, and tried to argue that Israel should cut a peace deal with the PA first, and then Hamas could be dealt with easier afterward. But imagine if the Israelis came to the negotiating table and told the Palestinians that they wanted peace, but had no control over the IDF. Still, the peace process itself does have an appeal to some Israelis. One Jerusalem mother of three who I spoke with explained to me how difficult it would be to continue living under the constant threat of Palestinian terrorism if there were no hope that the issue could be resolved peacefully.

Daily Must Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 11.17.08 @ 9:12AM

It's called rent seeking, and Obama loves it (Washington Post)

Three financial regulation metaphors (Econlog)

Dems just love crises (NY Post)

Tough year for smashing feminine stereotypes (NY Magazine)

Obama's not about to be bullied into a decision on Guantanamo (Newsweek)

A rising China hides its crimes against Falun Gong all too well (Weekly Standard)

Somalia's government on verge of collapse (Guardian)

History won't be that kind to Bush (Doublethink)

Arnold Can't Pump Up GOP

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.17.08 @ 1:17AM

Donald Douglas warns against a moderate "Schwarzenegger model" for GOP recovery:

[T]he "Schwarzenegger Model" of compromising core conservative principles on fiscal restraint and social policy is inherently dangerous for those looking to find a "middle way" back to power in the years ahead. Indeed, a Schwarzenegger approach could very well destroy the party by making a new third-party, conservative-libertarian movement entirely feasible. Instead, Republicans need to find an amalgamation of the Palin-Huckabee social forces and the Club for Growth economists that can provide a dependable path back from political exile in the coming years.

Actually, if I'm reading Palin's own statements about fiscal conservatism correctly, her actual governing philosophy owes more to Club for Growth than to Huckabee's brand of "compassionate conservatism." And as I pointed out Friday, it is a mistake to read this election as an ideological referendum. The GOP lost independent voters, but independent voters are not centrists, rather they are mostly "low information" voters whose choices are based on general impressions of candidates and parties. (BTW, a hat-tip to frequent Spectator contributor Matthew Vadum for research assistance on Samuel Popkin's theory of "low-information rationality.")

The immediate aftermath of a landslide defeat is not a good time for the losers to gaze into a crystal ball imagining the issues and messages they'll use to recover. In the short term -- that is, the next two to four years -- the real hope for the Republican Party lies mainly in the prospect that Obama and the Democrats will disappoint the expectations of independent voters, who were clearly fed up with the GOP, but who won't necessarily be pleased if the Democrats enact a liberal agenda.

23 Comments | Add a Comment

Alan Keyes Will Defeat Obama This Time

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.16.08 @ 6:31PM

Having run unsuccessfully for both the Republican and Constitution Party presidential nominations this year, nominated himself as the America's Independent Party presidential candidate, gotten his revenge on the Constitution Party by claiming its California state ballot line, and finally cracked 40,000 votes in the general election, some of us were curious as to what Alan Keyes would do for his next act.

Well, Dave Weigel found out so you don't have to. Keyes is trying to keep Barack Obama from receiving California's electoral votes until the president-elect has provided a birth certificate proving he was born in the United States. Of course, if Keyes was really serious about keeping Obama from becoming president the best thing he could have done was decided against his 2004 Senate race from Illinois.

As Weigel points out, Keyes is actually the sanest person actively involved in pushing this conspiracy theory. Phil Berg is a 9/11 truther, Andy Martin once ran for Congress (as a Democrat) in order "exterminate Jew power." More interesting is what has happened to Keyes. He was once an interesting conservative thinker, even if he lacked the people skills for electoral politics. But the Obama-Keyes Senate race seems to have been a sad turning point in the former Reagan administration official's career.

Confession/full disclosure: I voted for Keyes for president in the 1996 and 2000 Republican primaries.

59 Comments | Add a Comment

Good-Bye, Princeton

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.16.08 @ 9:01AM

Princeton University long had a reputation as the most conservative of Ivy League universities. Partly, this was because it was the southernmost Ivy (my great-grandfather's Confederate brigadier, Gen. J.J. Archer, was a Princeton alum) and partly it was the legacy of Princeton's sixth president, John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian of the old school.

Well, kiss that all good-bye, as Princeton alum Ron Coleman explains:

Princeton University announced last month that Shirley M. Tilghman, the University's president, will serve as "one of the founding trustees for King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, a new international, coeducational, graduate-level research university that is being created near Saudi Arabia’s second largest city, Jeddah." . . .

Coleman cites Steven M. Warshawsky:

In Tilghman, the student radicals of the 1960s finally have succeeded in occupying the university president's chair, not just his office. Since becoming Princeton's president in June 2001, Tilghman (who graduated from college in 1968) has pursued an activist feminist agenda to remake Princeton into a liberal paradise that even Kim Gandy would love. Today . . . Princeton is rife with political correctness, multiculturalism, and liberal groupthink.

Coleman notes that Tilghman is "the first non-alumnus president in the school’s recent history" and -- perhaps worst of all -- she's Canadian.

(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)