The American Spectator

A Good Day For Franken

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.12.08 @ 3:49PM

The Minnesota state Canvassing Board made two rulings today, both of which provide a boost to Al Franken, and both of which will be subject to further litigation. The major victory for Franken was the Board's ruling that improperly rejected absentee ballots should be counted. There could be 1,600 such ballots statewide, according to estimates, and Franken had an advantage in absentee voting. So, if they do end up getting counted after legal maneuvers by Norm Coleman, there's a good chance that it would eat into Coleman's current 192-vote lead. Additionally, the Board ruled that 133 "mystery" ballots that could not be found in one Minneapolis precinct should be counted, as they originally were on election day. Franken won those by a net of 46 votes, and the Coleman campaign has questioned whether they were missing in the first place. The other looming issue is over the thousands of ballots that have been challenged during the recount. Both campaigns have been cutting back on the number of challenges before the Board is set to begin reviewing them next week.

17 Comments | Add a Comment

The Mark-to-Market Mayhem Continues

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.12.08 @ 12:39PM

And so does our "Providing Relief from the Crisis" symposium. TAS economics editor Brian Wesbury weighs in here; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich here.

Bush Struggles to Save Auto Bailout

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.12.08 @ 11:47AM

Even if it means giving away the store.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Daschle The Dentist

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.12.08 @ 10:32AM

When health-care czar Tom Daschle talks about universal health care, he isn't merely talking about medical care. "A reformed health-care system also should guarantee that every American has access to affordable dental care," Daschle writes in his book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. Among the stories he tells is one of a Maryland boy who died from an infection relating to a dental abscess. Also, he cites a research report profiling a woman who suffered reduced employment prospects after she pulled out her own teeth because her toothaches were so bad:

Her physical appearance (missing and rotten teeth, a near-sighted squint, and her generally unkempt presentation) makes it unlikely that she can fulfill her dream job in a veterinarian's office, where she would be dealing with the public. She is more likely to be steered toward jobs like the one she found shortly before we met her -- conducting a phone survey during the evening hours at the local university.

As we reform our health care system, the question is, where do you draw the line? People are suffering throughout this country everyday for a litany of reasons -- sometimes self-inflicted, often a matter of bad luck or unfortunate circumstances. Daschle writes as if the government has unlimited resources to insulate people from the travails of every day life, and eliminate all human suffering.

Daily Must Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 12.12.08 @ 10:02AM

Dong Yun Yoon sets an example (LA Times)

British colonial gun laws made Mumbaikars more vulnerable (WSJ)

Arnold Kling's outlook for the economy (EconLog)

After some fooling around with bailouts and TARP, we know: we don't know (Weekly Standard)

So Obama: pragmatists, hard-left idealist, deliberative minimalist, or what? (American Scene)

"Simply evil" at University of San Francsisco (Crunchy Con)

Did Operation Chaos Elect Obama?

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.12.08 @ 9:46AM

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe reflects in an interview:

We went through as rigorous a primary as we've ever seen in our country's history, I think, and there's no doubt that made us a stronger general election candidate. A lot of our dirty laundry was aired, and we had practice in testing a campaign. Clinton, she was formidable, the campaign was formidable, it was very aggressive. We were the front-runner for a while, which meant the press took a bite out of us. We had really been tested, and we went into the general election in very much fighting shape. We were ready for those five months because we had been through 54 primaries and caucuses, and run the gauntlet. McCain hadn't done that. For all of his years in public life, he never went through anything like what we did in that primary.

This is an argument I entertained back in July. At the time, it was dismissed by RSM, who was still PUMA-struck.

AMA President Talks About Health-Care Reform

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.12.08 @ 8:16AM

Yesterday, I spoke with Nancy Nielsen, president of the American Medical Association, for a longer piece I'm writing about the prospects for health-care reform. I thought that in the wake of yesterday's appointment of Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services, it would be worthwhile to explain the thinking of the influential physicians' group.

Historically, the AMA has vociferously opposed efforts to expand the government role in health care (see, as an example, this classic 1961 LP "Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine" that was recorded on behalf of the organization).

The AMA now sees covering the uninsured in some type of universal health care plan as an urgent matter. Nielsen was sure to emphasize repeatedly that, "We are not in favor of government-run health care." The group's own proposal in many ways mirrors the one John McCain put out during the campaign by shifting the tax subsidy on employer-based insurance to individuals.

Nielsen made it pretty clear that the current AMA thinking is that if health care reform is inevitable, they'd much rather have a place at the table than draw a line in the sand and get excluded from the process, because either way, physicians will have to work within the system that gets created.

"It appears that change is probably going to happen," she said. "The important thing for us is that we are part of the solution. If we are on the outside looking in and just complaining without being pat of the solution, that's not a good place for physicians to be."

She said that Daschle reached out to the AMA shortly after the election, and the group expects to be involved as a plan gets hashed out.

"That's a better way than to cross your arms and say 'no' 100 times," she said. "Then nobody talks to you anymore."

The AMA may speak up at times to point out potential unintended consequences from some ideas, she explained, but it doesn't want to be an obstacle to reform.

I asked her specifically about Daschle's idea of a Federal Health Board, modeled after the Federal Reserve Board, which I criticized in my article on the main site today.

"It's a very interesting approach," she said. "I wouldn't immediately react negatively to it at all."

But she made clear that she'd have to know how it would take shape, and her ultimate opinion "would depend on the scope of the board."

11 Comments | Add a Comment

The Detroit Bailout

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.11.08 @ 11:59PM

Just ain't gonna happen under the current deal's terms. Mark my word.

Should We Listen to Karl Rove?

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.11.08 @ 4:27PM

Karl Rove offers strategic advice for a Republican comeback. My problem with Rove is that he was at the wheel when the GOP drove into the ditch, and to my mind that ought to disqualify him from telling everybody how to get out of the ditch. Having been such a prominent part of the problem, how can he have credibility in presenting himself as part of the solution? Shouldn't there be some kind of penalty box for bad strategists?

26 Comments | Add a Comment

"The Cesspool that gave birth to Obama"

Posted by Nicole Russell on 12.11.08 @ 3:56PM

That's what Rush says about Chicago politics and Obama's part in the Blago scandal.

Here's what he had to say on Obama's comment (if you need a refresher):

I had no contact with the governor what -- or, uhhh -- or his office, uhhh, and so we -- I -- I -- I was not aware of, uh, what was happening. And as I said, uh, it's a sad day for Illinois.

And what his response means:

It's Clinton all over again. This is proof of the assertion that I (and I alone) made yesterday trying to help everybody understand Obama is not what he says, folks. If you attack him and parse him on what he says, you're going to get nowhere. His supporters support him because of how he says what he says.

21 Comments | Add a Comment

On Intellectuals

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.11.08 @ 2:50PM

"Intellectuals need to say things that are not immediately obvious or do not occur to the man in the street. The man in the street instinctively sympathizes with the victim of crime; therefore, to distinguish himself from the man in the street, the intellectual has to sympathize with the criminal, by turning him into a victim of forces which only he, the intellectual, has sufficient sophistication to see."
-- Theodore Dalrymple

As much as I wish I could add more to Dr. Dalrymple's thoughts, alas, I lack sufficient sophistication.

8 Comments | Add a Comment

What Color Is My Freedom Parachute?

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 12.11.08 @ 1:55PM

I'll be speaking at the America's Future Foundation roundtable today. The topic is focusing on how to succeed as a conservative/libertarian in a career of your choosing, and I'll be the journalist of the crew. Of course, take the advice from a young journalist with a grain of salt, but I'll be speaking about the mistakes I've made as well as the good ideas. Hopefully, you'll benefit from my own meandering experience.

The blurb is here:

Tonight: 6:30pm - 9:00pm
The Fund for American Studies
1706 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC

What Color is My Freedom Parachute?

Given the daily headlines, the short-term outlook for freedom looks bearish; your career investment in freedom is long-term, however. At the next AFF Roundtable we will discuss strategies, tips, and pitfalls to building a career working in the Conservative/Libertarian movement. Our panelists will discuss and debate questions like: how to find your dream job, how to become the next Ed Crane/Ed Feulner and how to make a real living in "the movement." In addition we'll take your questions. Our panelists will include Kristina Rasmussen (National Taxpayers Union), Sally McNamara (Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom- The Heritage Foundation), Mike Flynn (Reason Foundation) and J.P. Freire (American Spectator). Chaz Cirame (ALEC) will moderate. This event will also launch AFF's latest venture, our new online Career Center.

This Roundtable will take place December 11th at The Fund for American Studies (1706 New Hampshire Ave NW). Drinks at 6:30 pm, panel begins at 7:00 pm. Roundtables are free for AFF members and $5 for non-members. Please RSVP to cindy@americasfuture.org.

Needless to say, if you're an intern or an entry-level employee, the tips we discuss will have some significance to you in a broad sense. I've plagiarized a number of them from mentors and accomplished friends, and I'm looking forward to passing them along.

Added benefit: This is a conservative event that will likely NOT feature tributes to Reagan. Just saying.

Bill Ayers Fisked, Briefly

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.11.08 @ 1:48PM

Bill Ayers' dishonest attempt to rewrite the history of the Weather Underground gets a concise rebuke from Charles Lane of The Washington Post.

More on the Mark-to-Market Mess

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.11.08 @ 1:15PM

The second installment of our series on the financial crisis, written by Edward Yingling of the American Bankers Association, is now up on the main site.

Republican Opposition to Auto Bailout Hardening

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.11.08 @ 1:03PM

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has come out swinging against the bill. For once, it may be the Senate Republicans who break with the Bush administration.

Princeton Settles the Lawsuit

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 12.11.08 @ 12:37PM

As Neal Freeman puts it in today's column, Princeton blinked. You should read the column (here) which explains how it came to be that Princeton and its largest benefactors became embroiled in a lawsuit. But you should also think about how universities are so monolithic and bloated now that they can do this to their alums. Not just any alums either -- alums who donate a significant portion of cash to their alma mater.

Now think of this another way: If the university administration isn't accountable to the people who contribute to it out of a sense of kindness, what on earth would make the university administration accountable to its students? In other words, let's say you're paying your way through college and they're screwing things up for you. How on earth do you crack the whip?

One thing is for sure: Donors who might give to Princeton are going to have to think twice about what they're giving, and pay attention to the specifics.

Don Young Out At Natural Resources

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.11.08 @ 12:34PM

Yesterday, the House Republican conference finally did what the voters of Alaska twice failed to do: deny power to pork-loving, scandal-tainted Congressman Don Young. Young is no longer the ranking Republican on the Natural Resources Committee. While Young bowed out himself and characterized it as a temporary move until investigations against him are resolved, House Minority Leader John Boenhner had informed Young that neither he nor the steering committee were likely to support Young for the post. Young is still a member of the committee and has said that once his name is cleared, "At that time, I look forward to regaining my post."

Daschle and the Health Care Fight

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.11.08 @ 12:20PM

Barack Obama has now made official the appointment of Tom Daschle to Secretary of Health and Human Services. I'll have a lot more on this (including some more from Tom Daschle's book on health care, which I just finished) but just a few quick things to emphasize.

Daschle is not reentering the public sector to run the daily bureaucracy of HHS. He played a key role in Obama's campaign and was rumored to be a candidate for chief of staff. The only reason he would accept this position is if he received assurances from Obama that health care would be a major priority of the new administration, and that he would lead the reform effort.

In his book, Daschle discusses the unraveling of the Clinton health care push in 1993-94 in great detail, and will try to learn from the mistakes that were made at the time. By having him lead the health care effort (somebody with vast experience moving legislation through Congress) Democrats will already be a step ahead of where they were with Hillary Clinton in 1993. He realizes that he'll have to involve members of Congress in the process, rather than huddling in secrecy, coming out with a plan, and telling Congress how it's gonna be. He also recognizes that one of the major problems with the original bill was that it was so long and detailed, that it was too complicated to explain to the public, and easy to pick apart by opponents.

The Obama-Daschle proposal will likely include some of the following elements: a requirement that insurers cover those with preexisting conditions; subsidies for individuals to purchase insurance in a government-run exchange that will include a new Medicare-like government insurance program as well as a choice among private plans that would have to meet certain government standards as far as price and benefits; a requirement that large employers either provide health coverage or pay taxes into a pool that would be used to purchase health care for others; and cost saving measures involving the use of electronic record keeping. What's not yet clear is whether any plan would include Daschle's idea of a Federal Health Board, modeled after the Federal Reserve Board, comprised of "experts" who would supposedly be insulated from the political process, and able to make judgments as to what drugs and medical procedures were necessary, and which ones we could do without in order to save money. The Health Board was also a key part of Daschle's vision for how to pass health care reform – by punting the complex medical questions down field, Congress could craft legislation that was less complicated.

Also, in 1993, there was a lot of opposition from insurers, but just last week, America's largest group of insurers agreed to accept a requirement that they accept enrollees with preexisting conditions as long as government mandates that individuals purchase health insurance. Many businesses, struggling with high health care costs, are also likely to welcome government action. And the American Medical Association is eager to see everybody covered, though their proposal achieves that in a different way than Obama would.

I asked Sen. Jim DeMint about the health care battle this morning, and he warned, "Because of down economic times and the promise of free health care, I think we're in real danger of losing this."

I'll reiterate that conservatives really need to get up to speed on this issue. If conservatives lose this fight, it's the end of the battle over the size of government.

DeMint Says Republicans Have Chance to Stop Auto Bailout in Senate

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.11.08 @ 11:30AM

Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina said in a just completed call with bloggers that conservative Republican Senators have a chance to stop the auto bailout on the Senate floor, but it will be difficult. His hope is that the legislation has the same percentage of support that it did in the House -- 58 percent -- which of course wouldn't cut it in the Senate. He said it may hinge on angry constituents calling those GOP Senators who are on the fence about supporting the bill.

On card check legislation, DeMint said that conservatives will have another difficult battle. Right now -- assuming Norm Coleman hangs on -- they have 42 Republicans, but they know they'll lose Arlen Specter. So what that means is that if just one more Republican flips on the legislation, it passes, making it a very difficult fight.

In response to my question, he said it's a real possibility that Democrats would drop the most controversial element of the legislation that denies workers the right to a secret ballot vote, acting as if they're being magnanimous, and thus getting a few Republicans to vote for a stripped down bill that nonetheless still includes the potentially even more destructive binding arbitration clause.

DeMint said he'll support legislation that would say that workers could not be forced to join a union if they don't want to. Though it wouldn't have a chance of passage, it would make an important statement, he said.

Daily Must Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 12.11.08 @ 10:46AM

Obama is in a better position to clean up Chicago now than he ever was before... but will he? (WSJ)

That's right, Blagojevich was in Freakonomics (Freakonomics Blog)

Has the CIA decisively made up its mind on Iran? (International Herald Tribune)

The Big Three won't disappear, bailout or no bailout (WSJ)

Will the FEC get around to Obama's campaign finances? (Weekly Standard)

More tinkering with the housing market means more problems (Taki's Magazine)

Obama Had A Lot of Buffers

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.11.08 @ 10:24AM

The NY Times reports today (toward the end of a story that appeared on page A40) that if Barack Obama did not talk to Gov. Blagojevich himself, that there were likely intermediaries between him and the governor, perhaps even Rahm Emanuel:

Mr. Emanuel was among the few people in Mr. Obama’s circle who occasionally spoke to Mr. Blagojevich. He declined to answer questions on Wednesday, waving off a reporter who approached him as he walked across Capitol Hill.

A Democrat familiar with Illinois politics and the Obama transition, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there probably were calls between the Blagojevich and Obama camps about the Senate seat. It was not clear if any calls were recorded by federal agents, who had tapped the governor’s phones.

The public has a right know what was discussed in these conversations and how much knowledge Obama himself had about them. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has already made clear that the indictment does not make any allegations about Obama, and as has been noted, Blago was angry that Obama apparently didn't want to play the game. Obama has promised to run the most transparent White House in history and yet in his first real test, all we're getting is the standard line of not wanting to talk about an "ongoing investigation." This isn't change, it's the typical Washington bunker mentality whenever scandal is in the air, and it's normally that very mentality that gets presidents in the most trouble.

Main Site Must-Reads

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.11.08 @ 10:22AM

Over on the main site, Neal Freeman reports on Princeton University's $100 million settlement after the Ivy League school was charged with using funds in ways contrary to donor intent. It's the biggest case of its kind and a subject of interest to many conservative alumni who are tired of having liberal administrators misspend their donations. We've also launched a series of articles by some of the country's leading economic minds on providing relief from the financial crisis -- and the various ways in which our federal government has instead made that crisis worse. The first installment, by former FDIC chairman William Isaac, is up, along with editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell's introduction.

Cox: Bailouts Need Sunsets

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 12.11.08 @ 10:18AM

Hey, y'all, if there is any one column to link to today, this is it, especially the last two paragraphs: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122895345612296365.html

Chris Cox, as usual, is right: These bailouts need a sunset date, and a means to achieve them.

Look, Cox got blamed for a lot of things that either weren't in his purview or that he privately opposed but was overruled on and felt an obligation because of his position not to speak up about. He was right abut the obligations of his position; his self-restraint is rare in Washington these days.

But here he is finding a way within his purview to offer a well-timed warning about the life-span of these atrocious bailouts. His warning ought to be heeded.

(And John McCain, by the way, ought to read this piece himself, learn from it, and then go crawl under a rock and eat worms since he won't eat his words from September blaming Cox for the crisis. And I hope somebody quotes me on this parenthetical remark.)

Obama and Chicago Sunshine

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.11.08 @ 10:16AM

Stephen Chapman and our colleague John Fund have good takes on the corrupt Chicago political culture in which President-elect Obama flourished.

Making a Big Move in Hollywood

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.11.08 @ 12:30AM

"I think that now is the right time to strike," Andrew Breitbart says, talking on his hands-free cell phone as he drives through Hollywood. He's en route to dinner with a screenwriter whose work has been filmed with big names like Michael Caine, Clint Eastwood and Michael Douglas. The writer (we won't blow his cover) is a prospective contributor to Breitbart's new "Big Hollywood" blog, which rolls out next month at Breitbart.com.

With Republicans at a low ebb, and Democrats gleefully preparing to take over the White House, Breitbart feels this is a propitious time to launch the Web project he's been planning for several months, aiming to create an online intersection between the conservative movement and Hollywood. Conservatives, Breitbart says, are entering "an era of opposition and an era of rebirth," and one goal of his project is to make the conservative establishment "realize they have a stake in the popular culture."

Breitbart grew up in the Los Angeles suburb of Brentwood -- yeah, O.J.'s neighborhood -- and knows Hollywood as well as he knows the Web, where he's been associated with some of the most successful ventures online. He worked for years as an assistant editor for Matt Drudge's famous Drudge Report, and helped his friend Arianna Huffington create the Huffington Post, before launching his own news site.

While culturally attuned to the ways of Tinseltown, Breitbart’s conservatism puts him politically at odds with the predominantly left-leaning entertainment world, a gap he's long sought to bridge. He has tapped into a nexus of actors, writers, directors and producers who are trying to peel off the toxic label attached to center-right views in Hollywood, where Republicans are as rare as snowstorms. Such is the risk of career damage that almost all these Left Coast conservatives are "underground." (The Presidential Citizens Medal that President Bush recently awarded to Gary Sinise makes him a marked man in an industry where Sean Penn and Oliver Stone constitute the political mainstream.)

That's one reason Breitbart is not dropping names about the folks who will be contributing to "Big Hollywood." Several of the bloggers will be pseudonymous, with only "vague bios" to identify them. "It's just so bad out here," he says, that many people prefer to "stay undercover" about their politics.

Monday's announcement of the forthcoming venture drew positive notice from the Weekly Standard and the popular Power Line blog, but Breitbart says he doesn't "feel a compelling need to overplay it" by "blabbing big names." Among the contributors he does name is L.A. radio host Steve Mason, who's shown an uncanny ability to predict the box-office receipts of movies. The site's editor will be Dirty Harry's Place blogger John Nolte.

The content of "Big Hollywood" will be a "constant evolution," Breitbart says. He recalls that the Huffington Post was originally conceived as a group blog for Arianna's celebrity friends, but has since "developed organically" into a more news-oriented venture with political commentary and only occasional contributions by big names. "It really is hard to look at that site and see it as a celebrity blog," he says.

And while he expects "Big Hollywood" to undergo a similarly slow process of development, the one aspect of HuffPo that Breitbart's new site won't emulate is the vitriol. "That's not my style," he says, declaring that the blog will strive for "a more tolerant tone."

Tolerance? In Hollywood? What a concept!

Senator Select

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.10.08 @ 5:45PM

There is another reason why Harry Reid would want Obama's replacement to be appointed. Beyond the fact that a special election opens up the possibility, however slight, that Democrats could lose the seat, a special election would delay the seating of a new Senator, likely by months. Reid's letter imploring Gov. Blagojevich to step aside so that Lt. Gov Pat Quinn can make the choice emphasizes that such a route "would be the most expeditious way for a new Senator to be chosen and seated..." Why is time of the essence? With the Minnesota Senate seat either lost or in flux, without the Illinois seat, Democrats would be at 57 seats in the Senate. That's still a lopsided majority, but the vacancy would make it more difficult to thwart Republican filibusters on legislation that Democrats want to ram through during Obama's first 100 days in office. Card check would be one example that comes immediately to mind. That's why it actually surprised me yesterday to hear Dick Durbin call for a special election, and I wonder if such an outcome can be avoided now that the cat's out of the bag.

Harry Reid Wants Obama's Successor Appointed

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.10.08 @ 5:27PM

I've been asked several times today whether I think a Republican could win a special election for Senate in Illinois. My answer has always been no. But the fact that Harry Reid doesn't want a special election suggests he feels differently and gives me second thoughts.

Kirk for Senate?

Posted by John Tabin on 12.10.08 @ 4:31PM

Many Illinois Democrats are calling for a special election to fill the Senate seat that Barack Obama is vacating and that Rod Blagojevich attempted to sell; that includes the leaders of both houses of the state legislature, which probably makes a special election inevitable. Contra Jim Geraghty's reader, I wouldn't count on Jim Edgar running; the Illinois GOP has tried before to get Edgar to come out of retirement before and he hasn't seemed interested. Liberal Republican Congressman Mark Kirk is considering a run, however, and he'd be a strong candidate.

12 Comments | Add a Comment

'Joe the Plumber' Appalled

Posted by Nicole Russell on 12.10.08 @ 4:17PM

Gasp! 'Joe the Plumber' told Glenn Beck he was 'appalled' at some of the things he heard come out of McCain's mouth while the two travelled together for a short period during the campaign. Specifically, 'Joe' was unhappy about McCain's opinion on the bailout, which shouldn't exactly have been news to him. I mean, the Maverick ran as a Republican, but he wasn't exactly a card-carrying conservative.

He did, however, think Sarah Palin was 'the real deal.' Whew. Aren't you relieved?

I guess if anyone can smell out the sometimes-appalling opinions of a politican it's a plumber, but then, 'Joe' wasn't appalled at the offer to sign a deal with a small publishing company in Texas (which he did).

It's America, anyone can have opinions. I'm the first to admit I liked the way 'Joe' was able to dissect some of Obama's ideas in a way the McCain camp had failed to by that point in the race. ('Redistribute the wealth' has never been heard so many times in a span of a few days.) And sure, he can be appalled at some of McCain's ideas, but it seems disingenuous for 'Joe' to go from just bein' a simple plumber looking to expand his company, to a knowledgable source on the bailout wondering why one of the more liberal GOP Presidential candidates in recent years wasn't more conservative, to signing a book deal to write "Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream."

But then, maybe, more power to him?!

It is, after all, America.

16 Comments | Add a Comment

What Did Obama Think of Blago?

Posted by John Tabin on 12.10.08 @ 4:09PM

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan held a conference call this afternoon to discuss the Blagojevich scandal. As one would expect, the RNC is emphasizing the embarrassment this all causes for Barack Obama. Duncan urged Obama to hold a press conference and said Obama has a lot of questions to answer. Interestingly, Duncan focused on the report that a union official with the SEIU acted as an intermediary between the Obama camp and Blagojevich. "Why did he feel it necessary to have an interemediary?" wondered Duncan. "What was his feeling toward the governor?" The implication is that perhaps Obama, or someone advising him, sensed that Blagojevich could become radioactive and thought it prudent to keep him at arm's length. I'd bet on an advisor; Obama himself doesn't exactly have the greatest record as a judge of character...

Not in the Mood for Work?

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.10.08 @ 4:02PM

Just call in gay.

Yob Endorses Blackwell for RNC Chair

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.10.08 @ 1:53PM

Chuck Yob, who has been circling the race for chairman of the Republican National Committee, has come out for Ken Blackwell. I'll have more to say about this later.

UPDATE: J.P. Freire has more to say now.

RNC Update: Yob, Blackwell, and Duncan

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 12.10.08 @ 1:43PM

That didn't take long. Chuck Yob, the Michigan insider who was rumored to be doing a double-bid with Fred Thompson, had backed out of the race. That's probably going to make the race a little cleaner, considering how much dirt has flown between Anuzis and Yob for a while. But I did say only a little. Yob just endorsed Blackwell. From an organizing perspective that should signal to GOP insiders that Yob's probably going to give Blackwell some help on the ground -- meaning that concerns about Blackwell's ability to organize a state should be informed by the endorsement. (Think about it: Why would it matter if Yob was endorsing someone? This is a message.)

In the same statement, Steve Forbes endorsed Blackwell. When I spoke to an insider from another campaign, it's clear that Blackwell's considered to be a real conservative, and thus a formidable candidate. His failed gubernatorial bid, I'm told, is somewhat ameloriated by the Yob endorsement.

Mike Duncan's own intentions to run were confirmed yesterday. This will likely have the effect of dividing loyalties. Some GOP chairmen really like Duncan, while others feel he's ignored the state-to-state game.

Minnesota Madness Update

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.10.08 @ 1:37PM

A quick update for those following the Minnesota Senate recount:

--So far, 171 Minneapolis absentee ballots may have been rejected erroneously. The Secretary of State's ordered every precinct to sort through their stack of rejected absentee ballots to determine how many may have been rejected by accident after the Canvassing Board refused to rule on whether or not they should be counted. The Franken campaign has argued that as many as 1,000 such ballots were rejected erroneously, and the issue is likely to end up in court.

-- Next Tuesday, the Canvassing board is set to begin its review ballots challenged by both campaigns during the recount, but the law is unclear on how that process should be conducted.

-- Minneapolis has given up on searching for 133 "mystery" ballots.The Franken campaign argues that they should be counted as they were on Election Day, giving them a net gain of 46 votes. But the Coleman camp disputes that there are missing ballots in the first place.

--Meanwhile, the Pioneer Press is reporting that the FBI is investigating whether a close Norm Coleman friend Nasser Kazeminy tried to funnel money to him through Coleman's wife's business, an issue that is also the subject of two lawsuits.

--Currently, Coleman leads the Senate race by 192 votes.

Obama: Blagojevich Should Resign

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.10.08 @ 1:06PM

Under the bus:

President-elect Barack Obama is calling for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to resign. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs says the president-elect agrees with other prominent politicians that "under the current circumstances, it is difficult for the governor to effectively do his job and serve the people of Illinois."

(Via Hot Air.)

Was Jesse Jackson Jr. Ready to Pony Up?

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.10.08 @ 11:57AM

ABC News is reporting that Jesse Jackson Jr. is "Senate Candidate #5" in the Blogojevich indictment, who is alleged to have offered $1 million for the Senate seat.

Big Isn't Beautiful

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.10.08 @ 11:42AM

In his fine new column, Terry Jeffrey is kinder than I would be to Bill Kristol's suggestion that it is good politics for conservatives to bankrupt the country by expanded unfunded entitlements programs. But he does a good job of pointing out the real harm to the country that will be done if the Republicans continue to succeed at growing entitlements while failing to rein them in.

But even as a narrow political point, I think Kristol is wrong. Yes, it's true that trying to restrain the growth of Medicare spending was unpopular in 1995-96, just as the prescription drug benefit was popular in 2002-03. The former helped reelect Democrat Bill Clinton while the latter helped reelect Republican George W. Bush. Yet look at the longer term picture: The Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years after their Medicare-cutting gambit. They controlled Congress for three years and the White House for five after Medicare Part D. Was big government conservatism really the path to the promised land?

Similarly, the work congressional Republicans did in controlling spending during the 1990s -- yes, with the at least partial cooperation of Bill Clinton -- produced a budget surplus and paved the way for a Republican president to cut taxes. The explosive growth of government under Bush and the expired GOP Congress of the past decade enlarged budget deficits that paved the way for a Democratic president to come in and raise taxes. The Medicare prescription drug benefit may be the mechanism through which Democrats introduce price controls over pharmaceuticals or further expand federal control over our health care system. Not only is big government conservatism constitutionally, morally, and economically wrong, it will prove long-term political failure as well because it enters Republicans into a bidding war against the Democrats they cannot win.

The Ax Man Cometh

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.10.08 @ 10:17AM

I'm now pretty convinced that David Axelrod will need to be kept in some dark office in the White House, well out of range of any reporters or cameras. Yesterday, I noted that Barack Obama denied having spoken to Blagojevich about his vacant Senate seat, even though Axelrod told a television interviewer a few weeks ago that, "I know he's talked to the governor." Later yesterday, Axelrod came out with a statement explaining, "I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."

So, two possibilities: Axelrod was lying yesterday to cover for Obama, or, a few weeks ago, when he said "I know he's talked to the governor," he actually had no clue what he was he was saying. Ever since I asked Axelrod what he thought about Hamas's endorsement of Obama, and he responded, in part, by telling me that it was "flattering" that the Hamas spokesman compared Obama to JFK, I had my questions about his ability to deal with the press. But this seals it. Obama should let this Chicago political operator advise him behind the scenes, but if Axelrod continues to double as a flak, I predict trouble, or at least hilarity.

Daily Must Reads, Blagojevich-free Edition

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 12.10.08 @ 9:59AM

Mandating CAFE standards doesn't even begin to make the bailout good policy (WSJ)

The Japan example for public spending in downturns (Washington Post)

A letter from a young, disillusioned banker (Bloomberg)

About that moronic Newsweek article... (NRO)

Human rights: getting better or worse? (Weekly Standard)

Joe the Plumber puts down his von Mises long enough to cast aspersions at McCain (Politico)

Hitler Buys a Digital Camera

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.10.08 @ 9:43AM

(Via VodkaPundit.)

The Brutal Truth . . .

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.10.08 @ 9:32AM

. . . about the Detroit bailout. (Content warning, for those shocked by the kind of language used on FBI wiretaps lately.)

Sellers' Market

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 12.10.08 @ 1:20AM

Chauncey Gardiner couldn't have put it better:

Social change has a natural rhythm. The season of prosperity gives way to the season of economic scarcity, and out of the winter of recession, new growth has room to emerge. A stimulus package may be necessary, but unless designed with care, its main effect will be to prop up the drying husks of the fall.

Paulson's Error: Where is the Rule of Law?

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 12.9.08 @ 4:51PM

This is a terrific piece by Gary Wolfram of Hillsdale College, writing in the journal of the Business and Media Institute. It captures so much of why so many of us are appalled at this Year of the Bailouts. Short version: Where is the recognition that Paulson and Bernanke are actually constrained by understandable laws? Right now, nowhere.

I particularly like the James Madison quote early on.

Read this column!

17 Comments | Add a Comment

Did Obama Have Contact with Blago or Didn't He?

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.9.08 @ 4:28PM

"I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening," Barack Obama told reporters today in the wake of the Blagojevich arrest, the Chicago Tribune reports.

But Jake Tapper notes that on November 23, Obama adviser David Axelrod was singing a different tune. "I know he's talked to the governor," Axelrod said on Fox News Chicago in response to a question about Obama's involvement in filling his Senate seat (see the 1:20 mark of the video below).

Furthermore, in the excerpt of the indictment that has been promoted as clearing Obama (in which Blagojevich uses a colorful Oedipus slur to describe the President-elect), the governor laments that Obama wants his preferred candidate appointed, but that he won't give him anything in return. Of course, everything Blagojevich said needs to be taken with a certain grain of salt, but this nonetheless does raise questions as to how Blagojevich would have known about Obama's preferences, or his unwillingness to deal. Also, it raises a question as to whether Obama knew that there was dirty dealing going on over his Senate seat, and said nothing.

Politicians often get themselves in trouble not by the act itself, but by subsequent denials. We'll know more in the coming days and weeks, but I wonder if Obama will come to regret his blanket statement today that, "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening."

75 Comments | Add a Comment

Religious Case for Gay Marriage

Posted by Nicole Russell on 12.9.08 @ 4:26PM

Newsweek's cover story this week is the religious case for gay marriage. Politico reports religious leaders are unhappy about it.

No kidding.

The piece is an timely read in light of California's failed Proposition 8. After reading it, it's unclear, at least to me, what exactly the goal of the piece is, despite the title. Who was the author, Lisa Miller, trying to convince? Most religious leaders aren't going to buy that the Bible is in favor of same-sex marriage and even a lot of gay activists either don't, or don' t want to.

Maybe it was just a nice fluff piece her editors at Newsweek wanted to see because, hey, gay marriage is still a hotly debated topic!

In seriousness, overall, Miller's use of actual text to support her thesis seems lacking. While marriage is praised in the Bible--both Old and New Testaments--(and no, Miller, the Bible didn't refer to marriage as 'between one man and one woman,' that phrase just came about some time after the inspired Word did), homosexuality (a 'man lying with a man' is what the text usually says) is never praised, admired, encouraged. Ever. In any context. In Hebrew. Or Greek. Old or New.

Her textual references and understanding of theology is a bit curious as you head down the stretch. First she pokes fun at references to marriage relationships--celibacy, polygamy, adultery--in Scripture as inadequate or inconsistent or outdated in this day and age, but then she closes the piece by saying according to Scripture, Jesus was all love and warmth and inclusion--therefore her religious case is made. (Nevermind His reasons for being so. It wasn't for any kind of cultural acceptance, agenda or goal like she posits. But, I wouldn't expect your average Newsweek journalist to really have a solid theological understanding of Jesus Christ.)

Is the Bible, or isn't it outdated! Make up your mind and make your case with one or the other, not both.

Had she not been so inconsistent within her own piece, it might have been more persusasive, though, still I guess, would have ticked those 'religious folks' off.

19 Comments | Add a Comment

Shilling for Mike Duncan

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 12.9.08 @ 4:24PM

The aforementioned pro-Mike Duncan blog is a very pretty one, and while it allows you to make comments, don't be fooled. You can't. Not unless the author allows it. It's possible the obviously neutral (/sarcasm) blogger doesn't realize how to moderate comments. But he's responding to posts that aren't even visible. And then he goes to trash Anuzis and Saltsman for their own minor errors.

Monetize This!

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.9.08 @ 3:16PM

Reading through the Blagojevich indictment and counting the expletives (20, FYI), I'm thinking this is how you know you're dealing with Chicago Democrats: You have to issue a "not safe for work" warning before linking their federal indictment. Also, I notice that the federal prosecutor felt compelled to issue his own disclaimer:

The public is reminded that a complaint contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right. And the public is also reminded that "corrupt Chicago Democrat" is redundant. From the prosecutor's press release:

On November 10, in a lengthy telephone call with numerous advisors that included discussion about Blagojevich obtaining a lucrative job with a union-affiliated organization in exchange for appointing a particular Senate Candidate whom he believed was favored by the President-elect and which is described in more detail below, Blagojevich and others discussed various ways Blagojevich could "monetize" the relationships he has made as governor to make money after leaving that office.

"Monetizing" politics is the raison d'etre of Chicago Democrats. According to Chicago rules, Blagojevich's mistake wasn't being greedy and dishonest, it was being greedy, dishonest and stupid.

Re: The Judgment Thing

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.9.08 @ 2:32PM

Phil asks:

Can somebody emerge from a corrupt political world, navigating it adroitly, without internalizing some of its tactics?

Hey, Phil, ever hear of a place called Little Rock?

Newsmaker Breakfast with Saul Anuzis

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 12.9.08 @ 2:17PM

This morning a group of right-of-center journalists met with Saul Anuzis during a ATR/AmSpec Newsmaker Breakfast. I'll post the audio shortly, but I wanted to make the point that Saul Anuzis's greatest strength is his availability. When I wrote my article on him earlier, I called him on his cell phone pretty frequently (and annoyingly). That comfort with the masses should inform the rest of the RNC candidates. Although David All (a tech consultant and blogger who openly [admirably so] supports Anuzis) was in the room, there was never an impression that Anuzis was being handled. He was handling himself.

Anuzis asserted that his candidacy was really based on his belief in the American dream, coming from a Lithuanian immigrant family. He pointed out that Republican had forgotten how to make their case effectively.

The opening questions focused on platform and policy. David Weigel (now a regular contributor to AmSpecBlog) asked whether social wedge issues have really been beneficial to the Michigan GOP, considering the bad last two cycles. Anuzis responded that it really came down to tone. Al Regnery noted that Reagan picked up votes where Goldwater didn't thanks to a change in tone.

Matt Lewis (who follows up here) asked Anuzis whether there was merit to the claims that his technological affinities were really just self-promotional. Anuzis responded that it was a pro-Mike Duncan blog that had made the claim, and that he felt that technology works best when it's personal. (On Twitter, @AmSpec dissents.)

I asked him how he felt the lack of electoral success in Michigan might hurt his chances for GOP chair. His response was savvy, and took a dig at Katon Dawson, Anuzis's competitor for the seat and currently the South Carolina chair. He said that if electoral success was the measure by which an RNC chair was selected, then of course the only guy who could get it would be from South Carolina. But, he noted, it would probably be a whole lot easier for him to win elections. But he felt that his experience getting into fights would be valuable. Working in a blue state, he feels, gives him credibility.

That may be so. There's the matter, however, of a lack of any major electoral success. It's one thing if he managed to pull off some upsets -- that would certainly show a fighter's ability under duress. But Tim Walberg, a Michigan Congressman who won his nomination via a primary challenge assisted by Club for Growth, lost in a district that should have gone his way.

Anuzis pins this and other losses on McCain's pull-out. There is a visible impact on the polling before and after McCain (clumsily) announced his decision to pull out of Michigan. But even before then, the GOP candidates weren't exactly cruising to victory.

This criticism isn't exclusive to Anuzis. None of the announced candidates really have a record of turning back the tide. Many of them have a bit of a record of losing (Ken Blackwell, Mike Duncan, Michael Steele). Or otherwise running state machines that face few threats (Katon Dawson). The one thing Anuzis has over and above the others, however, is accessibility. He did do a Newsmaker Breakfast. His competitors should follow suit.

Illinois Governorship

Posted by Reid Collins on 12.9.08 @ 1:38PM

And you thought Maryland was the only state with a governors' suite in its penitentiary!

Patty F---ing Blagojevich

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.9.08 @ 12:31PM

Since this seems to be Undiluted Language Day at AmSpecBlog, I'm tempted to quote Rod Blagojevich's wife, but I'll let Michelle Malkin handle those honors.

The Judgement Thing

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.9.08 @ 12:21PM

Dave is right to point out that as far as we can tell from the indictment, Obama appears to be in the clear with regard to the charges about Blagojevich trying to sell the Senate seat. However, the Blagojevich connection is merely the latest in a long line of troubling associations for Obama. The most charitable assessment of the pattern is that Obama is content looking the other way in the face of wrongdoing to gain political advantage at the time. This is the case with the financing he received from Tony Rezko, his membership in Jeremiah Wright's church, and his relationship with Blagojevich. While the issues didn't cost him the election, the question that remains is whether the judgment he's displayed in his associations in the past, will be a prologue to how he conducts himself as president. Can somebody emerge from a corrupt political world, navigating it adroitly, without internalizing some of its tactics?

Reward the Responsible Homeowners

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 12.9.08 @ 12:06PM

Now THIS is a good proposal for boosting the economy withOUT creating moral hazard!

Blago vs. Barack

Posted by David Weigel on 12.9.08 @ 11:54AM

Jeffrey, the silver lining for Obama is in the excerpt that Phil grabbed—in his final, crooked effort to use Obama's Senate seat as either a safety net or a cash cow, Blagojevich considered the president-elect an obstacle, not an ally. From another part of the complaint:

ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck it up” for two years and do nothing and give this “motherf---er [the President-elect] his senator. F--- him. For nothing? F--- him.”

That's got to have Obama and David Axelrod breathing sighs of relief. The scent's off them. For today.

In the long run, though, you're right. This is why the people filing junk lawsuits about Obama's ties to Kenya need to simmer down—there are real crimes occuring in Illinois government, and Obama was allied with the criminals. The Blagojevich investigation has, so far, implicated Obama in none of the illegal activity engaged in by the governor, his aides, and fellow travellers like Rezko. But we need full investigations.

But I guess we now know why Obama is choosing Clintonites for his cabinet instead of allies from Chicago. By comparison, the Clintonites look like monks.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

topics: Obama

It's Howard Baker Time

Posted by Jeffrey Lord on 12.9.08 @ 11:43AM

This is staggering news for Obama and company. Obama made it all the way to this moment essentially untagged with the "he's just another Chicago pol" label (meaning he's a crook, allegations unspecified -- although his property transaction for his house didn't help him). Anyone who has spent a lick of time in politics knows that a governor and his chief of staff are de facto the leaders of a state party. Which in turn means a myriad of connections to other party leaders, in this case the two senators from Illinois, Obama and Durbin. At a minimum there had to be some awareness on the part of these two that their leader was…ahhh…somewhat over ripe. The obvious question is the old Howard Baker line from Watergate: What did the President (elect) and the Senate Majority Whip know -- and when did they know it?

The troubling part of this is that the country has deeply serious problems obvious to all. Is this the tip of an iceberg that is about to unleash the hounds to such an extent that it adds unimagined turmoil to a situation chaotic enough as is? Impeach Obama -- already? Or have we elected the Virgin King? Is Joe Biden already remembering Vice President Jerry Ford's words to wife Betty as she went on and on about the decorations of the newly acquired VP's residence where the Fords were scheduled to move from their longtime home in Alexandria? "Honey, we're never going to move in."

Buckle in!

RICO vs. ACORN?

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.9.08 @ 11:30AM

Since this is Indict Crooked Democrats Week at the Justice Department, here's a timely suggestion:

It's not clear whether Minnesota is one of the states where ACORN's practices are being probed; neither the FBI nor the Justice Department would say. But with Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a hyperpartisan Democrat who was endorsed by ACORN in his 2006 election, as one of five people overseeing the recount, Mr. Coleman should rightly be afraid, very afraid of having the election stolen out from under him. . . .
[I]t's hardly "hyperbole" to be alarmed at ACORN's long track record of questionable (at best) voter-registration practices. That's why the Justice Department should bring a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) prosecution against ACORN nationally, and shut it down permanently before it can taint any more elections by delivering its legions of multiply (or otherwise fraudulently) registered "voters" to the polls.

Corrupt Democrats -- y'know, somebody ought to write a book about that.

Cyber Attacks: Be Careful

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 12.9.08 @ 11:15AM

Good thing are coming from my native New Orleans this week! First, Joseph Cao. Now, my friend John Kelly has a very important piece in Policy Review. It's about the growing threat of cyber attacks. Read it, and be forewarned.

About That Culture of Corruption

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.9.08 @ 11:09AM

It doesn't seem to have ended after the 2006 and 2008 elections after all. Too bad Illinois doesn't have much of an alternative in the Republican Party.

Blagojevich Drove a Hard Bargain

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.9.08 @ 10:59AM

The Smoking Gun has posted a portion of the criminal complaint, and it's a dandy. Here's a great excerpt (from page 56):

Later on November 3, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with Advisor A. By this time, media reports indicated that Senate Candidate 1, and advistor to the President-elect, was interested in the Senate seat if it became vacant, and was likely to be supported by the President-elect. During the call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated, "unless I get something real good for [Senate Candidate 1}, $hit, I'll just send myself, you know what I'm saying." ROD BLAGOJEVICH later stated, "I'm going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I'm saying. And if I don't get what I want and I'm not satisfied with it, then I'll just take the Senate seat myself." Later, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that the Senate seat "is a fu--ing valuable thing, you don't just give it away for nothing."

Illinois Governor and Obama Ally Arrested

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.9.08 @ 10:33AM

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris were arrested by the FBI this morning, and accused of "a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy that included Blagojevich conspiring to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama in exchange for financial benefits for the governor and his wife."

Keep in mind that Blagojevich was, in part, the political creation of Obama and his incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and a close ally. Here's how Ryan Lizza described it in the New Yorker:

That year, (Obama) gained his first high-level experience in a statewide campaign when he advised the victorious gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich, another politician with a funny name and a message of reform. Rahm Emanuel, a congressman from Chicago and a friend of Obama’s, told me that he, Obama, David Wilhelm, who was Blagojevich’s campaign co-chair, and another Blagojevich aide were the top strategists of Blagojevich’s victory. He and Obama “participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor,” Emanuel said. “We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two.” A spokesman for Blagojevich confirmed Emanuel’s account, although David Wilhelm, who now works for Obama, said that Emanuel had overstated Obama’s role. “There was an advisory council that was inclusive of Rahm and Barack but not limited to them,” Wilhelm said, and he disputed the notion that Obama was “an architect or one of the principal strategists.”

15 Comments | Add a Comment

Have Your People Call My People

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.9.08 @ 10:33AM

Andrew Breitbart is launching a Hollywood-themed blog next week. Curiously, he did so without so much as contacting my blog agent.

Andrew, sweetheart, we really should do lunch soon. Ciao, babe.

Answering Kristol

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 12.9.08 @ 10:32AM

Mark Tapscott at The Copy Desk today takes on Bill Kristol's odd paean to the oxymoron that is and always will be Big Government Conservativism. Unlike a lot of people who were conservatives even before Reagan was elected, I always have been and remain a big fan of Kristol's. I think he is a good man who overall has contributed mightily to the conservative cause. But for the reasons very well explained by Tapscott today, Kristol is wrong as wrong can be in his diagnosis. This is worth a whole essay, not just a blog post, but the short response is that Kristol, like almost every other member of the media elite, utterly misrepresents the success of "small government conservatism" in the few times it has been tried -- and misrepresents, or more precisely does an evasive maneuver, when talking about what happened to the "Gingrich Revolution" in 1995 and 1996. As I was there right in the middle of it, successfully helping shape the public message in the winter and spring of 1995 for what turned into $50 billion of actual (not projected) savings in just two years, this chaps me, no end.

When we actually governed as careful stewards of the public fisc, cut domestic discretionary spending, reformed welfare, and balanced the budget, we won. When we abandoned fiscal conservativism, we started losing. The Medicare fight Kristol mentions is a red herring: Yes, of course we lost the Medicare battle in the winter of 1995 and 1996, but that is because we muddied our message, let tactics get ahead of (and utterly undermine) our strategy, chose the wrong ground to fight on, and played a funeral dirge when we were supposed to be blowing a trumpet (or, at times, when we were supposed to be playing no music at all but merely guiding a discussion in patient tones while doing a lot of listening).

As I said, a more extensive explanation awaits a full-length column, but for now, let me throw in my lot with Tapscott, and ask the often wise Mr. Kristol to reconsider.

The High Cost of Big Labor

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.9.08 @ 10:09AM

An analysis by Heritage's James Sherk demonstrates that United Auto Workers laborers cost the big three automakers over $70 per hour in salary plus benefits. With compensation like this, it's no surprise that American car companies cannot be competitive with their foreign competitors, and as long as such wage rates persist, no bailout (or series of bailouts) will alter the long term trajectory of this domestic industry.

I find this especially relevant given that Democrats are eager to pass card check legislation, which would deny workers a secret vote on whether to unionize, thus allowing big labor to rapidly unionize through intimidation. If they have their way, the entire U.S. economy would function about as efficiently as the auto industry.

Milton Friedman and Auto Bailouts

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.9.08 @ 6:03AM

Last night, restless because of a cold and bummed by reports about the auto bailout, I picked up my copy of Bright Promises, Dismal Performance, a collection of Milton Friedman's old Newsweek columns. I was drawn to one in particular, a September 10, 1979 piece on the prospect of an auto bailout, titled, "Chrysler: Are Jobs the Issue?" This part jumped out at me as especially relevant today:

Bailing out Chrysler will not change the total amount of capital available to the economy. But it will divert capital to Chrysler from other more productive uses.

Bailing out Chrysler would simply preserve unproductive jobs at the expense of productive jobs. However, the people who would be denied jobs by a Chrysler bailout do not even know who they are, so they cannot speak out to counter the self-serving claims of the firm's present management.

The private enterprise economic system is often described as a profit system. That is a misnomer. It is a profit and loss system. If anything, the loss part is even more vital than the profit part. That is where it differs most from a government-controlled system. A private enterprise that fails to use its resources effectively loses money and is forced to change its ways. A government enterprise that fails to use its resources effectively is in a very different position.

14 Comments | Add a Comment

Shut Up, Boss

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.8.08 @ 9:22PM

Over at Andrew Sullivan's blog, Patrick Appell gives Sullivan's Palin pregnancy conspiracy obsession the treatment such kookery deserves.

Saltsman Distances Himself from Huckabee

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.8.08 @ 8:59PM

Nashville Post blogger A.C. Kleinheider reports that Chip Saltsman -- former Mike Huckabee for president campaign manager and current candidate for RNC chairman -- is trying to quell rumors he'd be a stalking horse for a Huckabee 2012 run:

“[The Huckabee campaign] is part of my resume but it doesn’t define me politically,” Saltsman explained. “I’m not sure if you look at my history that you’d think I was a Huckabee guy. You could just as easily say I’m a Bob Corker guy, a Lamar Alexander guy or a Frist guy.”

He also noted his strong leadership against his political mentor Governor Don Sundquist on the state income tax issue shortly after becoming chair of the Tennessee Republican Party as evidence that he is a man willing to go against politicians he may be associated with.

Saltsman certainly made no apologies for his association with Huckabee and spoke with pride of his “13 months” on the campaign but he did make sure to put a bit of distance between himself and the Huckabee message. Saltsman made it plain that he was a straight politics guy in his role as campaign manager — a hired hand — not the idea man.

“Mike Huckabee was responsible for the issues in that campaign, not me,” Saltsman said.

Those disclaimers might come in handy when persuading RNC members who backed candidates other than Huck during the primaries.

Franken's Change of Heart?

Posted by Nicole Russell on 12.8.08 @ 8:02PM

It couldn't be! Talking Points Memo says Franken's downplaying--maybe even backing down--from the possibility of the Senate getting involved in the 100-Year-Recount. During a conference call with reporters:

Franken's lead recount lawyer Marc Elias said that on occasions when he's referenced the Senate as a possible place to ensure that ballots are counted -- and those quotes have been a main source for this speculation -- he was really referring back to a top state official's statements that this could go to the Senate as a point of law. In other words, he was not implying that the Franken camp thought this would be their chosen route.

"We have said consistently that we are taking this one step at a time," Elias said, later adding: "The suggestion that there are these discussions, which I read about in the newspaper, that suggest more than that, I just think is jumping the gun."

Does this mean Franken's had a change of heart? That he's suddenly not going to be a sore loser? That he'll sulk back to St. Louis Park--I mean New York--with his tail between his legs, satisfied to write satire until he's old and gray?

Heh. Now that's funny.

Elsewhere in the Strange Pile

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 12.8.08 @ 6:24PM

Some people think they've made it when they do television. Or when they get syndicated. Others know when they get quoted, say, on NPR.

National Review's Mark Hemingway (former AmSpec contributor and fellow Phillips Fellow) has a different barometer for success: Pancakes on his head.

An artist in Shakobee, Minnesota has made this his shtick. So while Andy Warhol gets away for tinkering with the colors of a bunch of Marilyn Monroe photos, I'm happy to report that this man shows that the economy hasn't done away with everything strange and unnecessary.

Hilariously, this was posted because the artist took umbrage that Hemingway sniffed at his previous painting: a nude Obama riding a unicorn. He (apparently wrongly) assumed it was a pro-Obama painting. I never bothered looking into the thing, but it always struck me as being a simply ironic kitschy thing the kids are into these days. Turns out that's exactly what the artist was going for.

Go to eBay and get your own.

I Am Above Bragging

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 12.8.08 @ 6:24PM

That is all.

Bragging

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 12.8.08 @ 5:44PM

I have tried to avoid doing this all day, but I just can't help myself. In Al Kamen's column today in the Washington Post, he identifies me as one of only three people (among many hundreds of entrants way back in September) who was among his top 10 both in predicting Obama's victorious vote percentage and his number of electoral votes. It re-ignites a string of my prognosticative successes that was broken, badly, in 2006, when early, early in the year I was one of the first to say Republicans could actually lose the House but then never moved from that and ended up predicting the GOP would keep the House majority by a single seat -- missing by a whopping 19 seats! Ugh! I deservedly ate a lot of crow then.

Anyway, it was a nice return to Kamen's column, because in 1998 he wrote a note in the same WPost space calling me the "Oracle of Mobile" (where I then worked) for being the only one in print in the country to correctly predict that the GOP would lose House seats that year (and to give the exact number of seats at that).

The rest of my predictive record is as follows: Two weeks after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, I wrote a memo for my then-boss Bob Livingston explaining why Republicans were likely to win a House majority in 1994 and, for that matter, why he would eventually pass Newt Gingrich for the speakership.

In 1994, Bob and I wrote, in advance, an election-day column for the Washington Times that said the Dems that day were going the way of Ozymandias. This was, of course, as Charlie Cook and others were saying there was no way Republicans would do SO well as to actually win a majority.

In 1996, I made no predictions. But in 1998, see above --and that year I also was right on the money on Senate seat numbers. In 2000, I got the House and Senate numbers EXACTLY right again. In 2002, I got the House exactly right and the Senate I missed by only one (I let myself be talked into predicting a New Hampshire win by Jeanne
Shaheen, on the assurances of the Register¹s political editor, who is a New Hampshire native.)

In 2004, I again got the Senate right, and finally missed on a very weakly worded, hesitant prediction on the House. I also called the Bush win far in advance, and missed only one state, Wisconsin, which Kerry won only by a tiny margin (and after some shenanigans with Democratic workers flattening the tires of GOP vans, among other questionable activities).

All of this is documentable. Finally, although this is NOT provable in print, I hope that all these years later my three witnesses will remember that I predicted the EXACT percentage of the vote that Nazi David Duke would win against Bennett Johnston for the Senate in 1990.

Then, also this year, I was clearly the first one in print anywhere to say that Anh "Joseph" Cao actually had a real chance to upset William Jefferson in New Orleans.

So I'm feeling my oats right now. Somebody needs to send me to to one of those head-shrinking outfits to keep my hat size from growing too big....

;)

Reagan vs. Kristol

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.8.08 @ 4:25PM

I just now got around to reading the atrocious Bill Kristol column that Stacy linked to earlier. I'm tempted to refute it line by line, but I specifically wanted to take issue with this:

Five Republicans have won the presidency since 1932: Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. Only Reagan was even close to being a small-government conservative. And he campaigned in 1980 more as a tax-cutter and national-defense-builder-upper, and less as a small-government enthusiast in the mold of the man he had supported — and who had lost — in 1964, Barry Goldwater. And Reagan’s record as governor and president wasn’t a particularly government-slashing one.

It's one thing to say that Reagan wasn't effective at reducing the size of government, but to say he didn't run on a small-government message is simply not backed up by the facts. Here are some excerpts from his acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican National Convention:

As your nominee, I pledge to restore to the federal government the capacity to do the people's work without dominating their lives. I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely; its ability to act tempered by prudence and its willingness to do good balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us....

It is essential that we maintain both the forward momentum of economic growth and the strength of the safety net beneath those in society who need help. We also believe it is essential that the integrity of all aspects of Social Security are preserved.

Beyond these essentials, I believe it is clear our federal government is overgrown and overweight. Indeed, it is time for our government to go on a diet. Therefore, my first act as chief executive will be to impose an immediate and thorough freeze on federal hiring. Then, we are going to enlist the very best minds from business, labor and whatever quarter to conduct a detailed review of every department, bureau and agency that lives by federal appropriations. We are also going to enlist the help and ideas of many dedicated and hard working government employees at all levels who want a more efficient government as much as the rest of us do. I know that many are demoralized by the confusion and waste they confront in their work as a result of failed and failing policies.

Our instructions to the groups we enlist will be simple and direct. We will remind them that government programs exist at the sufferance of the American taxpayer and are paid for with money earned by working men and women. Any program that represents a waste of their money--a theft from their pocketbooks--must have that waste eliminated or the program must go--by executive order where possible; by congressional action where necessary. Everything that can be run more effectively by state and local government we shall turn over to state and local government, along with the funding sources to pay for it. We are going to put an end to the money merry-go-round where our money becomes Washington's money, to be spent by the states and cities exactly the way the federal bureaucrats tell them to.

I will not accept the excuse that the federal government has grown so big and powerful that it is beyond the control of any president, any administration or Congress. We are going to put an end to the notion that the American taxpayer exists to fund the federal government. The federal government exists to serve the American people. On January 20th, we are going to re-establish that truth.

Cato's Michael Tanner has more about Planet Kristol, where President Bush's big government policies were a smashing political success.

Not All Special Election News Is Good

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.8.08 @ 3:57PM

For Republicans, that is. Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy prevailed in a close race for a House seat in Ohio's suburban Franklin County.

The Franken Nuclear Option Update

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.8.08 @ 3:26PM

Roll Call is reporting that, "Senate Democratic leaders are leaving open the possibility of inserting themselves into the Minnesota Senate race if Sen. Norm Coleman (R) prevails and Democratic challenger Al Franken protests the results." Meanwhile, TPM observes that the Franken camp itself is "downplaying" the possibility (i.e. saying it remains an option, but not wanting to signal that it's their intention to take advantage of that option while less controversial means still exist for protesting the election results).

It would be surprising to me if this did come to the Senate floor. Throughout the campaign and thus far in the transition, Barack Obama has emphasized that he doesn't want petty partisanship to get in the way of advancing his agenda. This was demonstrated by his desire to keep Joe Lieberman within the Democratic fold, rather than alienating him by seeking vengence at the behest of liberal bloggers. Harry Reid followed Obama's wishes in that instance, and I would expect that Obama would prefer a pragmatic approach in this instance as well. Had Saxby Chambliss lost in Georgia, meaning a filibuster-proof majority were on the line in Minnesota, perhaps the Democrats could justify going to the mattresses over the Senate seat. But it just doesn't make much sense that they would risk so much political blowback for the goal of getting from 58 seats to 59. There would be no better way for Democrats to tie up the Senate and put the breaks on Obama's agenda than for them to instigate a partisan floor fight over this issue. Come to think of it, maybe Reid should bring this before the Senate!

Newsmaker Breakfast with Saul Anuzis

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 12.8.08 @ 2:17PM

Following my report on Michigan state GOP chair Saul Anuzis's campaign to chair the RNC, the man himself has agreed to do a newsmaker breakfast with us. Our publisher, Al Regnery, will be moderating. For some background on Saul, here's the article I wrote when he announced his candidacy. It's critical, but we're thankful that Saul had the wherewithal to still agree to do this with us -- a big problem for Republicans has been the refusal to confront critics.

Since Saul is big on technology, we figured this would be an appropriate time to encourage you to send us questions via Twitter. Our handle is @AmSpec. We'll ask the questions, then blog the answers later for you. Perhaps it would work best if we used a hashtag, so please use #TASNewsmaker.

Speaking of Twitter, we've been following with interest the use of Top Conservatives on Twitter. While it's not immediately clear this can be an effective way of politically dominating, there is something to be said about creating a community of conservatives who can speak to eachother only 140 characters at a time. I have a feeling that there may be fewer flare-ups in an environment where there's a strict word limit.

For the uninitiated, I highly recommend it. It's basically a blog that forces you to write very brief posts. Others follow you, finding you through common interests, etc. You can also find others you like, including entire news organizations. For one thing, it encourages good behavior -- if someone is annoying, they'll see that fewer people are following them. And people who actually interact with those who criticize them get more people to follow them.

The real trick to Twitter is that it's really just an ongoing discussion. We like that approach, so feel free to send messages to @AmSpec about news you'd like to see or comments you have on articles.

A Deadbeat Is a Deadbeart Is a Deadbeat

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.8.08 @ 1:09PM

You can't help uncreditworthy borrowers by adjusting their payments:

"The results, I confess, were somewhat surprising, and not in a good way," John Dugan, head of the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said in prepared remarks for a U.S. housing forum.
"Put simply, it shows that over half of mortgage modifications seemed not to be working after six months." Dugan said . . .
Dugan said recent data showed that after three months, nearly 36 percent of borrowers who received restructured mortgages in the first quarter re-defaulted.
The rate of re-default jumped to about 53 percent after six months and 58 percent after eight months, Dugan said, without providing an explanation for the trend.

Via AOSHQ.

No Monopoly on Reform

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.8.08 @ 12:26PM

Jumping off of what Jim wrote, I'd add that it would be a mistake to allow the David Brooks/David Frum set to appropriate the term "reformist conservatives," because implied within the term is the idea that they want to change things, while the rest of us merely want to cling to the past. Limited government conservatism is perfectly compatible with change, but it's a matter of applying that philosophy to contemporary problems, rather than focusing attention on an issue such as marginal rate tax cuts, which isn't as salient as it was when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and the top rate was 70 percent. There are opportunities to do this on health care, for instance, by removing burdensome regulations and government policies that take power and choices away from the ultimate consumers of health care, while driving up costs. I wrote about this at greater length in our magazine's summer issue. Also, one way to address rising income inequality would be to reduce payroll taxes, which slam lower income Americans who don't pay income tax. Proposing such a cut would also make life difficult for liberals, who would be forced to choose between demagoguery on Social Security to scare senior citizens, and providing tax relief to middle class families. The point is, the Brooks/Frum crowd doesn't have a monopoly on "reform," so we would be better off referring to them by a cruder but more accurate term: big government conservatives.

Limited government is so 1994:

Kristol Defends Big Government

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.8.08 @ 12:25PM

I can't help but admire some of my fellow conservatives' loyalty to the small-government cause. It reminds me of the nobility of Tennyson's Light Brigade, as it charges into battle: "Theirs but to do and die." Maybe it would be better, though, first to reason why.

The exact opposite of my advice. So that's Kristol and David Brooks urging conservatives to learn to love big government. It's getting kind of lonely over here in the conservative wing of the conservative movement.

8 Comments | Add a Comment

The Ron Paul Youth Movement

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.8.08 @ 12:19PM

For a somewhat different take on conservatism than Frum's, there is the new Ron Paul-endorsed Young Americans for Liberty.

Yesterday's Conservatism

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.8.08 @ 11:46AM

David Frum's post on George Packer's latest provides a valuable insight as to what motivates some, though by no means all, self-styled reformist conservatives: "While political conservatism is founded upon deep and enduring truths, political conservatism itself is a political movement that arose in response to certain conditions and that must fade with those conditions."

Modern American conservatism, therefore, was a movement that rose up in reaction to the social turmoil of the 1960s, the economic problems of the 1970s, and the United States' deteriorating strategic position in the Cold War during that period. It contains some valuable insights that can be applied to today's problems and there needs to be some political movement that is more friendly to markets, skeptical of domestic government intervention, and willing to project American military power than the coalition or movement that elected Barack Obama. But Buckley-Reagan conservatism's moment has passed into history along with Abbie Hoffman, stagflation, and the Soviet Union. Reformist conservatism is about replacing it with something else.

It refreshing to see this argument stated expressly rather than merely implied, and it is a challenging point of view. It is also an indication as to why reformist conservatives have had such trouble gaining traction on the right -- that's not close to how most American conservatives see conservatism.

The "He Has Black Friends" Defense

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.8.08 @ 11:14AM

Last week, I noted that Katon Dawson, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party who is running for chairman of the RNC, had a 12-year membership in a country club that excluded blacks from being members. Today, a representative of Dawson emailed this post from the Minority Report, which includes a letter in defense of Dawson by Glenn McCall, a black RNC committeeman.

Blogger Brian Simpson concludes that it's absurd to call Dawson a bigot because of "his friendship with McCall" and also notes that Dawson attempted to change the club's whites-only policy. "This should be touted as a lesson in how to act as a responsible adult," Simpson writes. "When you are made aware of a policy that you find morally objectionable, your first reaction should be to attempt to change the policy. When, and only when, it appears that your actions will be unsuccessful, you must leave the organization. That is exactly what Chairman Dawson did."

The problem is, as the State reported, Dawson only raised a fuss about the policy this August. We're not talking about the segregationist South of the 1950s, this is 2008. We're supposed to believe that in the 12 years that Dawson was a member, he wasn't suspicious about the fact that there were no black members, and it was mere coincidence that he waited until a few months before he announced he's going to run for RNC chairman to leave the club. And this is what makes him a "responsible adult"? That's about as believable as Barack Obama's contention that he never heard Jeremiah Wright's racist and anti-American vitriol until it showed up on YouTube.

To put this in a larger context, I should note that I'm a big believer in the right of free association. Even though I'm Jewish, I think anti-Semites should have every right to hang up a giant "No Jews Allowed" sign outside a private club, and exclude me from walking through the doors. But I also think that people who belong to such clubs should get a taste of their own medicine, and be harshly criticized by the rest of society. I have no idea whether Dawson himself is personally a bigot, so I won't make such accusations. But what is clear is that Dawson derived benefits from belonging to a club that excluded blacks as members, whether in terms of prestige, business and political contacts, or merely because he spent some pleasant time there. The proper method to change the ways of these exclusive clubs is not through the legal system, but by showing its members that there are consequences to excluding minorities. The Republican Party would be making a clear statement along these lines if they were to deny him the chairmanship. At the very minimum, Republicans should be seriously considering whether, after America elected its first black president, the party wants to be led by somebody who spent more than a decade as a member of a whites-only club.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

No Way to Treat a Lady

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.8.08 @ 10:17AM

The Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute's 2009 calendar has provoked left-wing bloggers to their usual classy reaction:

Less than twenty-four hours after the launch of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute's "Pretty in Mink" calendar, an onslaught of angry leftist bloggers unleashed a torrent of visceral hatred-aimed at everything from the calendar's photography and makeup to the women's physical appearance. . . .
The ladies are "sexy loudmouth whores" according to a blogger. Another claims the calendar is "an attempt to make erections lean to the right." The women, they complain, "aren't even remotely attractive." . . .
But what can explain such malicious prejudice among the very sector of society that chooses as its public altar the utopian notions of tolerance and acceptance?

The calendar is available here.

Daily Must Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 12.8.08 @ 10:07AM

Pro-lifers not even allowed to compromise (NY Times)

We're adopting Sharia finance, whether we want to or not (Bloomberg)

P.J. O'Rourke on Disney's idea of the future (Atlantic)

Liberals becoming increasingly wary of Obama's appointments and backtracking (Politico)

Benedict XVI, "magnificently right" (Asia Times)

Keynes is making a comeback, so better know what he's about (Marginal Revolution)

The Useful Recession

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.8.08 @ 9:13AM

Jennifer Rubin makes a good point about the careful balancing act being employed by Obama when talking about the recession. On the one hand, he wants to describe things as severe enough so that he can justify the rapid expansion of government, but at the same time, he wants to reassure investors, businesses, and consumers, hence the statement he made yesterday on "Meet the Press" that things are going to get worse before they get better, but the crisis we face is "nothing compared" to what FDR faced in 1933. Obama also suggested that one of the main reasons why it isn't as bad is the existence of Social Security and other government safety nets, thus creating the opening for him to argue for national health care. This will emerge as one of the primary talking points in the drive for universal health care, and the media is already starting to do its part, with stories like this one from the NY Times, titled, "When a Job Disappears, So Does Health Care." Of course, there is a pretty clear way to get around this problem -- changing the tax code so that people obtain their health care on their own rather than through their employers, allowing them to keep it when they lose their jobs or switch from one to another. But unfortunately, John McCain didn't to a very good job explaining his own health care plan during the campaign, so we're left with Obama's plan, filled with government subsidies, regulation, and a new Medicare-like program with expanded elgibility. And if Tom Daschle gets his way, perhaps a Federal Health Board that oversees it all, doing for medicine what the Federal Reserve did for banking.

Kathleen Parker and "Secular" Reason

Posted by Hunter Baker on 12.8.08 @ 12:39AM

Kathleen Parker has a major case of secular reason sickness and it needs to be cured. I'll keep this short and simple. Here is an offensive line from one of Kat's latest columns:

How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one’s values, but let reason inform one’s public arguments.

Problem #1: Social conservatives very rarely argue for their public policy positions on the basis of straight-up revelation. It is much more common to hear them talk about scientific evidence that life begins from conception (which could be found in an embryology textbook, for example) than to hear a scriptural exegesis of, say, Jeremiah 1. If anything, American social conservatives have worked quite assiduously to persuade their fellow citizens without direct appeal to revelation.

I think the Yale Law professor Stephen Carter was more correct several years ago when he complained conservative Christians relied on a platform that lacked spiritual distinctives and simply mimicked Republican positions. See, Kathleen, Mr. Carter is a scholar in the area of law and religion. His observation runs completely counter to yours, which you have seemingly formed on the fly in response to your personal Sarah Palin fiasco.

And let us not forget that when some Christian leaders hid behind the separation of church and state to avoid addressing topics like Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and nuclear proliferation, their liberal colleagues were applauded for highly public spiritual approaches to those controversies. When liberals do it, we call it "speaking truth to power" or "speaking prophetically." When conservative religionists enter the political process, everyone suddenly frets about impending theocracy.

Problem #2: Ms. Parker acts as though everything we discuss in politics can be parsed scientifically. This is the same sort of casual toss-off we get when some self-satisfied personage says, "You can't legislate morality." Really? Hate crimes? The illegality of segregation? A welfare state? Human rights?

The simple fact is that politics concerns itself with the realm of value as well as the realm of fact. There are both religious and philosophical approaches to questions of value. Is there any compelling reason to commit epistemological segregation, Ms. Parker? Must the religious contestants sit at the back of the bus to satisfy you?

13 Comments | Add a Comment

topics: kathleen parker, secularism

What a Weird Feeling…

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.7.08 @ 10:17PM

. . . when a conservative finds himself nodding in agreement with Frank Rich.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin is also feeling weird.

Remember Pearl Harbor

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.7.08 @ 10:16PM

Republican Firsts

Posted by Nicole Russell on 12.7.08 @ 7:13PM

Republican Anh "Joseph" Cao, a man who earned degrees in law, philosophy and physics, is the first Vietnemese-American to be elected to Congress. He will represent Louisiana's 2nd District. Democrats received plenty of accolades when they elected the first Muslim to Congress, Keith Ellison, representing Minnesota's 5th District, yet Republicans are responsible for their share of notable firsts.

The first (non-elected) African-American Governor was P.B.S. Pinchback, who represented Louisiana and who was a Republican.

Louisiana was also the first state to elect an Indian-American as Governor, the now famous political prodigy, Bobby Jindal.

Maybe there is a secret in that Louisiana soil.

Saudi Sunday

Posted by Roger Kaplan on 12.7.08 @ 6:46PM

You have to hand it to the Washington Post: they've just discovered that there is chronic slavery and domestic-servant abuse in Saudi Arabia. Interestingly, in the same Sunday paper, they mention that women in Iraq have had enough of the usual fate reserved Arab women (including honor killings) and are trying to do something about it. Not a word in there suggests this may be due to the presence of an American army in the neighborhood. But the major papers -- like the major human rights organizations, so called, that usually share their mind-set -- have a problem with the chronic, indeed normal and customary, abuses of human beings in the large swathes of the non-Judeo-Christian world, as one might say, since "third world" is out of fashion. It reminds me, if I may lay out some sour grapes, that when I published a major investigation years ago on female genital mutilation, the only person in either the big papers or the human rights organizations to take an interest was Abe Rosenthal, then a mere columnist at the paper whose honor he saved and unable to impose some big assignments on his erstwhile staff.

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Congress To Have a Cao

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 12.7.08 @ 2:41PM

This is surely the Quin Hillyer find of this young century.

Obama Embraces Deficit Spending

Posted by Philip Klein on 12.7.08 @ 11:21AM

Barack Obama, in an interview that just aired on "Meet the Press," acknowledged that the federal deficit was already massive, likely over $1 trillion, and yet he said that wouldn't dissuade him from pushing an economic stimulus package that would be "substantial." Obama said that we have to get a "blood infusion to the patient" first, and couldn't be concerned about the short-term deficit. Nor, apparently, will the deficit sidetrack his health care, education, or energy agenda.

What's clear is that Obama has fully embraced Keynesian economics and the idea of deficit spending, which was discredited in the last century. Despite the massive New Deal projects that FDR employed upon taking office, unemployment remained in the double-digits until WWII.

Also, what's interesting is that in a departure from his campaign rhetoric, our new president-elect now says that the economic crisis we face is "nothing compared" to what we were going through when FDR took office in 1933. But what he didn't acknowledge is that when FDR took office -- before the New Deal, before the Great Society -- federal spending was just over 7 percent of GDP, but now it's above 20 percent, or nearly triple in proportional terms. In other words, FDR had a lot more fiscal agility than Obama does.

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Cao Wins in Louisiana!

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 12.7.08 @ 3:19AM

A Republican wins in New Orleans? Somebody pinch me:

Nine-term Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, who has been battling scandals and a federal indictment for the past three years, lost his bid for re-election on Saturday.
Republican challenger Anh "Joseph" Cao, an attorney and community organizer, defeated Jefferson in the 2nd Congressional district race. He will become the first Vietnamese-American elected to Congress.
With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Cao had almost 50 percent of the vote to Jefferson's 47 percent.. . .
"The people of the second district were able to transcend party, transcend race," Cao said after claiming victory Saturday night.

Note that Cao is a "community organizer" -- a cruel irony for "Cold Cash" Jefferson.