- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Talking Paul Weyrich with Richard Viguerie
Posted by on 12.20.08 @ 8:10PM
After writing the piece on Paul Weyrich for Friday's online TAS, I found out a friend had a connection to Richard Viguerie, one of the pioneers of the modern conservative movement. He recalled a decade beginning in the in mid-seventies of breakfasts with Weyrich and other conservatives, including Newt Gingrich at one point, in his home.
Viguerie, like everyone I've spoken to so far, had a high opinion of Weyrich and his value to the movement. "Paul was a master strategist. He saw around corners. There were many occasions when he alerted our group to issues well ahead of time." When I pressed him to explain Weyrich's virtue as a strategist, he said, "Many people have mentioned that Paul coined the term 'moral majority.' That's not so much. His influence was bigger than that. It was Paul's idea to bring the religious right on board."
One of the things that stood out most as I listened to Viguerie was his recollection of Weyrich's force within the context of a meeting. "When Paul had something to say, he spoke with confidence and authority. You had to be awfully sure of yourself to contradict Paul. I know I rarely did. The man was clearly a political genius."
Viguerie also reinforced the positive things I've heard about Weyrich's character. "Paul had one face for the world. One face. Period. Once he made a commitment, that was it." He echoed others, too, in emphasizing that Weyrich was not a self-promoter. He was committed to the movement and not to building up his own reputation.
His estimate of Weyrich's contribution to the movement? "He ranked with Goldwater, Buckley, and Reagan. He was a major contributor." It sounds grandiose. I don't claim to be in a position to evaluate the statement. But one thing is certain. Viguerie is not the only person I've heard put Weyrich in that class.
Hatin' on Melissa Beech
Posted by on 12.20.08 @ 3:54PM
One of my favorite writers in the whole world, Jillian Bandes, pummels "Melissa Beech" for her "mutually beneficial arrangement" with a Sugar Daddy. It seems to me, however, that much of this outrage is misplaced.
Obama's Weird Science
Posted by on 12.20.08 @ 11:46AM
Obama names as his top science advisor John Holdren, who is an admirer of the discredited Paul Ehrlich and (of course) a global-warming fanatic.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Facebook Shuts 'Em Down
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 6:10PM
Per Fox News, and their tip to Facebook, the largest social networking site blocked a new jihadist group that was using Facebook to spread their message. The group had grown to 120 members after a week and "had been exhorting its members to wage 'Jihad to aid the religion of Allah and his Prophet.'"
And they say terrorism isn't alive and well.
But this makes me wonder: What about free speech? Why did Facebook deem this group radical? What are their boundaries? I agree, obviously, that they are. But Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. One of these days, one of these folks is going to get upset and raise a stink about their lack of freedom of speech.
What if I start a radical group againsn't radical Islam? (Maybe there is one, I don't know.) Would that be shut down because it's 'hate speech'?
Don't get me wrong, I applaud Facebook. Not only was it a solid decision, but as importantly, they are a private company and can shut down any group they want, including "When I was your age Pluto was a Planet." But I wonder how they came to this kind of decision and if anyone will give them some flack for it.
What the Rick Warren Flap Reveals
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 4:44PM
If the reaction to the passage of Proposition 8 did not make this clear, some supporters of same-sex do not merely wish to prevail in the battle over public policy and in the court of public opinion. They do not simply want to keep the beliefs of conservative Christians from affecting how government policy treats same-sex couples. They want to completely marginalize opposition to same-sex marriage and treat traditional Christian beliefs about human sexuality as morally equivalent to racism or anti-Semitism. Consider this paragraph in Byron York's piece on the Rick Warren controversy:
For some gay groups, the inclusion of [civil rights leader Joseph] Lowery doesn’t undo what they see as the damage done by the Warren invitation. “To say that we’re going to kick off the program with a known homophobe and end it with somebody who’s good on our issues doesn’t really cut it for us,” Luna told me. “I don’t think any Jewish Americans would feel much comfort in knowing that an anti-Semite is starting the inauguration with an invocation, but we’re going to end it with a rabbi.”
In their view, Rick Warren's fidelity to his religious beliefs -- as strongly and passionately felt as his opponents' -- is no different than having a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite give the invocation. And perhaps not as appropriate as having the prayer delivered by Jeremiah Wright.
I Will Fight, I Will Fight, I Will Fight
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 3:36PM
Shorter Rod Blagojevich: Who are you gonna believe -- me or your lyin' ears?
Franken v. Coleman Part CCCXLVI
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 1:21PM
I don't know if you're sick of hearing about this, but I'm embarrased to say my hometown Senator is now down by 265 votes as of the Strib, 1:30 EST with 1215 ballots reviewed.
However, it has inspired local political reporters/bloggers to write this little diddy:
How the Court Stole Christmas
With apologies to Dr. Seuss:
All the Whos down in Whoville liked Christmas a lot,
But the Court in St. Paul very clearly did not."We've got to stop Christmas from coming somehow,"
Said the Court as it ruled that the Whos must be fooled.Then the justices had an awful idea,
A scary and maybe unlawful idea."Let's make them keep working and fighting all season,
"Let's just keep them squabbling ‘till they lose touch with reason!''And the thought gave the Court a warm lawyerly feeling,
While reporters in Whoville just about hit the ceiling...
Oy. Let's hope it stays in rhyme only, though I have a feeling much of this is already coming to pass.
Is Blago Bananas?
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 12:09PM
When the Illinois state supreme court declined to declare Gov. Rod Blagojevich unfit to serve at the attorney general's request, I though it was the right decision. The argument that the fallout from his crimes was comparable to a debilating illness seemed a stretch, at least based on the written law. Blagojevich's actions are rightly dealt with by other elected officials through the impeachment process. And allowing the court to boot an elected governor from office is a power that seems ripe for abuse, if not a judicial coup.
But I am beginning to wonder if Blagojevich might not in fact be stark, raving mad.
Reading Russell Kirk
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 11:35AM
It's the end of the year, so the book lists are out. I'm thinking about conservative icon Russell Kirk.
If you want a really enjoyable and edifying read, I recommend you begin with The Roots of American Order. That book will give you an understandable and historically grounded sense of what "ordered liberty" means. It will also open the mysteries of Kirk wide to the uninitiated reader. The prose is lively. Highly readable.
Kirk is more widely known for the book that made his reputation, The Conservative Mind, but I think The Roots of American Order is a better read for the vast majority of people.
Daily Must Reads
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 10:28AM
- So card check is not only thuggish and terrible for business, it's also unconstitutional (WSJ)
- Is this the typical Madoff victim? (Daily Beast)
- Change isn't supposed to happen to your home town (Culture11)
- Stalin receiving a nice revisionist makeover from Russia (Chicago Tribune)
- Part two of a long interview with Bush (Real Clear Politics)
- Look at the facts: the Fed has become obselete (MSN Money)
Minnesota Madness, Morning Edition
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 10:09AM
Norm Coleman's lead in the recount has now dwindled to a mere five votes as the state Canvassing Board has been rejecting most of Coleman's challenges to Franken ballots and those ballots have been added to Franken's vote tally. (When a ballot is being challenged, it's removed from the stack and considered a non-vote until the Board makes a ruling.) However, there are still thousands of ballots that the campaigns initially challenged, but then withdrew their objection to, and these have not yet been added to the totals. The Coleman campaign thinks that once they are, his numbers will get a boost.
In another important development likely to yield votes for Franken, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that improperly rejected absentee ballots would have to be counted, though they don't have to be counted immediately, and the campaigns still have to establish a standard for which ballots will be included.
Coleman's move to make sure duplicate ballots do not get double counted is still outstanding.
The bottom line is that at the moment, it appears that Franken has the momentum, but the race is so close, and there are so many uncertainties, that it's hard to say.
Bad omen for Norm Coleman
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 10:05AM
It comes from Tim Pawlenty, the Republican governor who has tacitly supported Coleman throughout his protracted recount battle with Al Franken.
He thinks it's unlikely he'll have to do it, but Gov. Tim Pawlenty is looking into the possibility of appointing a temporary senator if Minnesota's tight U.S. Senate race remains unresolved.
...
He says Minnesota wouldn't want to have a Senate seat remain vacant very long, given the "huge legislation" that will pass when a new president and new Congress take over in January.
But the seat wouldn't be vacant! Norm Coleman, after all, is still a senator. Is Pawlenty suggesting that Coleman will fall behind in the vote count and that the Democratic Senate will refuse to seat him? Has he been told as much?
There are still lawsuits to be filed, but if Franken moves ahead of Coleman when the canvass of challenged votes ends today—as local media expect will happen—he may be in the lead when the new Senate is sworn in, two-odd weeks from now. That's what Pawlenty is planning for.
Labor's Lady
Posted by on 12.19.08 @ 9:36AM
Over on the main site, Jim has a piece on all of the union love for Barack Obama's appointment to be Labor Secretary, Rep. Hilda Solis. I'd just also draw your attention to the fact that over the course of her Congressional career, she has received $888,000 from organized labor, according to OpenSecrets -- more than double what she received from any other sector.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
News You Can Abuse
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 9:24PM
In what I'm sure will come as a shock to my friends, I've been numbered among "the most blindly loyal of Bush followers" by Glenn Greenwald, who is inciting the most blindly disloyal of Bush haters to join him in pushing for war crimes prosecutions of administration officials. That such a crusade is a lemming stampede that won't be joined by any Democrat more mainstream than Dennis Kucinich is no deterrent to the True Believers.
Ridiculing their suicidal fanaticism, of course, only incites Greenwald's lemming herd in their headlong rush toward that cliff. It's the least a blind loyalist can do.
Obama Shows Some Love for Big Labor
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 4:28PM
Nearly every time I heard a Democratic candidate speak to a progressive audience last year, there was a line about how "We need to once again have a Labor Department that is actually pro-labor," which was typically met with thunderous applause. Well, it looks like Obama has granted progressives' wishes. The left is absolutely ecstatic over Obama's choice of California Rep. Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary. "Hilda Solis is great," the American Prospect's Harold Meyerson beams in a fawning post. SEIU president Andy Stern has declared the pick "extraordinary," noting that she has stood with big labor on every important issue. And based on her voting record, she has received pristine ratings from virtually every major union, which isn't surprising, because she owes her Congressional seat to union backing. As Jim wrote in our print edition last year, the Labor Department has been one of the few conservative success stories in the Bush administration, and now it's looking like it will be a long four to eight years for the business community.
For a taste of what's to come, here's a speech she gave in favor of card check legislation that is making the rounds on liberal blogs,in which she discusses coming from a union family:
Oh, the Bias
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 2:10PM
It actually kind of makes me giddy, in a morbid sort of way. John Dickerson at Slate says we should leave Obama alone on the Blago scandal. For now. He concedes that Obama's first response was 'flaccid' and that reporters should keep asking questions.
But that "it would be a mistake to assume Obama is acting in bad faith." I mean, really, "give the new guy a break."
What?
Obama aside. Blago aside. Any connection--or no connection--aside, the bigger picture, the whole piece struck me as such an ironic, blatant--almost naive?--example of media bias I just had to chuckle (hence, the strange giddiness).
If this had been Bush, President-Elect in 2000, in some kind of similar-looking scandal, (pre any of the issues we know of now) Slate and everyone else would be saying, Feed him to the dogs! Barrage him with questions! Demand reasonable answers! Now!
Bill Clinton Releases Foundation Donors
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 2:10PM
The William J. Clinton Foundation has finally released the names of its donors going back to 1997. I'm currently working on another project so haven't had a chance to review the list myself, but you can have at it here. (Warning -- the page is very slow to load.)
Update: More here.
President Bush: I Believe in Markets Except When I Don't
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 12:45PM
"I am a firm believer in markets," President Bush declared this morning, and then joked that he understands it doesn't seem that way lately.
Appearing at an American Enterprise Institute event at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, Bush fielded questions for about an hour put to him by AEI's Christopher DeMuth. During his remarks Bush defended adding the prescription drug benefit to Medicare and the recent string of bailouts all the while presenting himself as a champion of the free market.
On Medicare, Bush claimed that he supported the prescription drug plan because it saved money on surgeries by providing senior citizens with preventative medication, and argued that the plan cost 40 percent less than anticipated because he insisted on "market-oriented principles."
President Bush said he understood the frustration people felt over the financial industry bailouts, but at the time Ben Bernanke had told him that if he didn't act, there could be an economic crisis greater than the Great Depression.
"I didn't want to be the president who was there at the beginning of a crisis that is greater than the Great Depression," he said.
Although he emphasized that a final decision hasn't been made, Bush spoke as if the auto bailout were a foregone conclusion.
"Under normal circumstances, no question bankruptcy court is the best way to work through credit and debt and restructuring," Bush said. "These are not normal circumstances. That is the problem."
Bush argued that we'll never know what kind of economic catastrophe would have resulted had he not taken the actions he did. He said that all the actions he took should be viewed as "temporary" and he doesn't believe that government should be running the auto industry or mortgage system over the long run.
"This is a difficult time to be a free market person," Bush observed at one point in his remarks.
No kidding, Mr. President.
An Update From the Coleman Team
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 12:39PM
Here is an excerpt from a Coleman campaign press release on how they see the Minneosota recount:
First, the board is making steady progress as they work through all of the challenged ballots. As you are likely aware, because of the way this process has been structured, all of the Franken challenges were considered first and now the board is working their way through the Coleman challenges. Our campaign brought around 1000 challenges before the board. We are in the process of withdrawing approximately 400 of those, and because the board did not have time to pull them out of the line-up before today’s meeting, today you’ll likely see the numbers flip upside down as a significant number of those withdrawals go back into the Franken column. Because of the timing, the withdrawn challenges that will provide additional Coleman votes will not be awarded until later. This will cause a temporary flip today that will be righted once all the ballots have been reviewed and withdrawn challenges reinstated, likely by tomorrow.
We fully and confidently expect that by the time the review process is complete, the vote totals will right themselves, and Senator Coleman will be ahead, as he has been throughout this recount process.
We also are expecting the board to deal with the issue of duplicate ballots soon. As we’ve said, we have serious concerns about a number of instances throughout the state where double counting has occurred, as both duplicates and the originals these duplicates were intended to replace were counted separately during the recount. The agreement reached before the recount to deal with this issue has now been proven not to work since numerous local officials did not follow the statute election night. Attached is a brief letter we sent to the canvassing board. It explains that their current path will result in the double count of ballots, which violates the tenet “one person, one vote”. We are committed to making sure that no one person’s vote counts more than any others. It’s a pretty simple concept, and it needs to be protected.
Paul Weyrich, R.I.P.
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 10:42AM
Paul Weyrich -- leader of the Free Congress Foundation, a founder and early head of the Heritage Foundation, and founding father of the religious right -- has died. Here is a statement from House Minority Leader John Boehner on his passing.
The New Billy Graham?
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 10:01AM
It turns out that gay rights leaders and other social liberals are as angry with Barack Obama for choosing Rick Warren to give the invocation -- a decision Nicole Russell blogged about yesterday -- as some evangelicals and other social conservatives are with Warren for accepting. In addition to opposing abortion, Warren supported Proposition 8 in California. Welcome to the culture wars, 2009.
Some chalk it all up to Obama's religious outreach and Warren's desire for publicity. Others point to the younger evangelicals' interest in getting beyond the culture wars and focus instead on so-called "social justice issues" where they have common ground with the left and the wider culture. Some might even wonder if this isn't the most extreme example of the religious conservative leaders' place-at-the-table mentality.
There's probably something to all of the above, but I wonder if Rick Warren isn't taking a page out of Billy Graham's playbook. Although Graham was not exactly silent on social and political issues, he subordinated them to preaching the Gospel. Graham also prayed with and implicitly gave his blessing to such liberal presidents as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He took on a role as pastor to the presidents and juggled his role as a Christian evangelist with his place in American civic religion.
This approach had its ups and downs. On balance, I think it did expose Graham's message to a wider audience as well as communicate the idea that Christianity was bigger than any political party or movement. But there are plenty of cases where the need for access kept Graham from speaking truth to power as forcefully as he perhaps could have, from some of his trips to communist countries to his taped conversations where Richard Nixon was saying ugly things about Jews. In any event, I won't say the torch has been passed but I do wonder if Franklin Graham would have been as willing to give the invocation.
UPDATE: Whatever it says about Warren, A.C. Kleinheider
thinks this was a political masterstroke for Obama.
Daily Must Reads
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 9:53AM
- Ford's CEO not quite as woebegone as the others (Washington Post)
- Gays somehow miss entire Obama campaign, are surprised at his choice of "bigot" pastor Rick Warren (Politico)
- The more conservative the stimulus, the better (Townhall)
- Sean Penn should probably stick to acting (New Yorker)
- Tough times to be a Republican job-seeker on the Hill (Culture11)
- Jesse Jackson Jr.: corrupt pol or stealthy informant (DC Examiner)
Eliot Spitzer Resurfaces
Posted by on 12.18.08 @ 12:00AM
You know what's good? When you see someone rehabilitated and ready to come back into his former seat of prominence. You know what's bad? Being haunted by earlier sins.
Which is why I'm pleased to share that Eliot Spitzer, apparently, will be speaking at an IntelligenceSquared debate on whether we should blame Washington for the economic crisis. (I'll let you guess which side he's on.)
And I'm also sorry to note the title of the debate that follows his: "It's Wrong To Pay For Sex."
Oh fate can be a harsh overzealous prosecutor!
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Obama's Republicans
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 8:12PM
Word is that Obama will appoint retiring Congressman Ray LaHood of Illinois as his secretary of transportation and the second Republican in his Cabinet. LaHood is quite literally a Bob Michel Republican.
Death of Reading, Part MCMLXVI
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 7:16PM
The newspaper industry has been circling the toilet bowl for years. Conservatives love to claim that liberal bias explains the decline of newspaper circulation and ad revenue. Technophiles say that dead-tree Old Media is losing circulation because readers are going to the Web.
Whatever the merits of these explanations, they are not sufficient to account fully for the loss of readership. I have often argued, in response, that what we are actually seeing is a decline of reading, period. Pay attention the next time you're on an airplane. Notice how relatively few of your fellow passengers -- especially the younger ones -- pass their time reading a newspaper, magazine or book. Rather, they're watching the in-flight movie or listening to their IPods. People are reading less than they once did, a tendency especially pronounced among the young. As a result, there is less demand for the written word.
Evidence for my explanation can be seen in the recent news that several major magazine publishers are slashing their Web staffs. Conde Nast, for instance, let go 25 of their 30 online writers, while Fortune magazine cut a half-dozen Internet staffers. This computes neither with the "liberal bias" theory nor the "Good Riddance, Old Media" theory of readership decline. Fortune and the magazines in the Conde Nast stable -- Vogue, Vanity Fair, GQ, etc. -- aren't losing readership because of politics, and their efforts to lure an online readership have not been cost-effective.
The Readership Crisis, as we might call it, is a demand-side problem. It is not caused by anything that publishers have done (or not done), and it cannot be solved by the facile assumption that losses in print readership will be compensated for by gains in online readership.
The Map of Doom
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 4:26PM
The liberal-leaning bloggers at Swing State Project are doing us all a service by crunching the numbers for the presidential race from every congressional district. Remember that great factoid from 2004—George W. Bush carried 255 of the 435 congressional districts? Remember how that meant Democrats had an impossible uphill climb back to the majority?
Well... the good news for Republicans is that their chances of gaining power again are about as good as the Democrats after the 2004 drubbing. With only 32 states counted so far (not including California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas and New York), Obama has won at least 34 districts that went for Bush in 2004. Some standouts:
- The Eighth District of Wisconsin, which covers Green Bay, and which Republicans fought like dogs to win back this year (unsucessfully), went 54-45 for Obama. It had voted 55-44 for Bush.
- The Third District of Kentucky, which covers Louisville, had been a marginal district: Al Gore only carried it 50-48 and Kerry carried it 51-49. Obama won it 56-43 even as he was losing the state in a rout. John Yarmuth, the liberal newspaper publisher elected in a 2006 upset, is safe as milk now.
- The Eighth District of Illinois, represented by Republican Phil Crane for decades until Democrat Melissa Bean won it in 2004, went 57-42 for Obama over McCain. Bush carried it over Kerry 56-44.
Keep in mind, many these are districts that were gerrymandered by Republican governors or legislatures in 2001 to elect a maximum number of Republicans. For all of that work, it looks like Obama carried 17 of 19 districts in Illinois, 13 of 15 districts in Michigan, seven of eight districts in Wisconsin, and six of 11 districts in Virginia. Marginal seats in Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado went for Obama by landslides. Factor this in when you get overly optimistic about something like Joseph Cao's win in Louisiana.
The Limits of Tolerance
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 3:38PM
Godwin's Law and birthday cakes:
The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.
Via Hot Air.
Health Care May Wait Until 2010
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 2:21PM
I have an article that was just posted on the main site, from a conference call earlier today in which Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), who serves as chairman of the health subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, said that Democrats were unlikely to vote on a comprehensive health-care reform proposal until early in 2010.
He said that any proposal would have to include a new government-run program modeled after medicare, and likely a mandate requiring that individuals purchase health insurance.
Also, he had some tough words for insurers and doctors:
"You won't get the insurance companies onboard I don't think, but they are the easiest to roll, because nobody likes insurance companies," Stark said. "Somebody has to be the bad guy."
He also struck a mocking tone when asked about doctors who complain about how much they get paid under government-run health-care programs.
"To somehow suggest that whatever some heart surgeon wants for a transplant in Los Angeles, and has to make $600,000 to $700,000 a year, as opposed to maybe they make $400,000 a year with Medicare fees, doesn't get much sympathy from me," he said.
Later in the call, he added: "I have been tussling with this for over 20 years, and I have yet to see a physician come into my office talking anything about their patients -- the first thing they say is that they are going broke…That's like my kid saying they're going to hold their breath and turn blue if they don't get their second dessert."
Purpose-Driven Inauguration
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 2:13PM
Surprise! Purpose-driven mega-church pastor Rick Warren is giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration.
Says the CBN blog:
It makes a whole lot of sense. Even though Warren and Obama disagree on the life issue, they do see eye to eye on many social justice issues. This move is also classic Obama because it is a signal to religious conservatives that he's willing to bring in both sides to the faith discussion in this country. Obama has never shied away from that.
Even though they disagree on the life issue? Um. Kind of a big deal. For a conservative. And for a pastor. I would think.
Holding a forum forcing Obama to discuss his views is one thing. Supporting him publicly by praying/speaking at his inauguration is another. Frankly, this is a spineless move on Warren's part and a so-so move on Obama's. Unfortunately for the latter, it will be effective for many 'religious conservatives' who love the "Purpose-Driven" series though it will succeed in irking others.
On Gersonism and George W. Bush
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 1:57PM
The John O'Sullivan article I mentioned earlier is now available online. It is useful reading not only as a rejoinder to Michael Gerson's "conservatism," but also as a reminder that George W. Bush was actually not all that conservative himself.
Re: Michael Gerson Cares
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 1:53PM
How very nice of Gerson to introduce to the discussion John C. Calhoun who, in his Disquistion on Government, wrote:
The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is, to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes, and, of course, bear exclusively the burthen of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds, through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into taxpayers and tax-consumers. . . .
[T]he more the policy of the government is calculated to increase taxes and disbursements, the more it will be favored by the one and opposed by the other.
The effect, then, of every increase is, to enrich and strengthen the one, and impoverish and weaken the other. This, indeed, may be carried to such an extent, that one class or portion of the community may be elevated to wealth and power, and the other depressed to abject poverty and dependence, simply by the fiscal action of the government; and this too, through disbursements only — even under a system of equal taxes imposed for revenue only. If such may be the effect of taxes and disbursements, when confined to their legitimate objects -- that of raising revenue for the public service -- some conception may be formed, how one portion of the community may be crushed, and another elevated on its ruins, by systematically perverting the power of taxation and disbursement, for the purpose of aggrandizing and building up one portion of the community at the expense of the other.
This is one of the most concise arguments for limited government ever made, but one seldom gets the chance to quote it, and you see why. In his column, Gerson invokes both slavery and Jim Crow as alternatives to his own particular philosophy. This is a strawman -- no one is advocating either slavery or segregration, nor is there any comparable evil now demanding federal intervention -- but it is a very effective strawman. One dare not invoke the name of Calhoun to contradict Gerson, since the invocation invites the accusation of bad faith.
It's odd how this works. Russell Kirk featured Calhoun (along with Randolph of Roanoke) in the fifth chapter of The Conservative Mind, but somehow this fact doesn't taint Kirk, whose name can be safely invoked as an authority without inspiring suspicion. Don't dare mention Calhoun directly, however, or you're beyond the pale.
Daily Must-Reads, Afternoon Edition
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 12:59PM
- Some of the best must-reads from the past year (Culture11)
- Best headline of the day: Put Madoff in Charge of Social Security (WSJ)
- High wages in Detroit create a sticky situation (Bloomberg)
- Going to China first thing as president is effectively a kowtow (Washington Times)
- Abortion industry bailout? (American Papist)
- Michelle Rhee isn't going to be Sec. of Education, but her mirror image is (DC Examiner)
The Outrage Merchant
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 12:36PM
You know Glenn Greenwald's about to write something particularly stupid when his first line includes a descriptor like "extremely pro-war, neoconservative." (Why not just "pro-war"? Why must it be bookended between "extremely" and "neoconservative"?)
In the case of Greenwald's latest emission at Salon, the elaborate descriptor is applied to the defunct New York Sun, two of whose former staffers have recently contributed to the New Republic. One of them, Jacob Gerhsman, published an article expressing surprise toward Eliot Spitzer's early attempt at political rehabilitation. This article -- "a finger-wagging sermon," per Greenwald -- inspires a counterblast comparing Spitzer's crimes (hiring high-priced call girls) with the crimes alleged against Dick Cheney who, Greenwald says, "literally admitted, brazenly and unapologetically, to committing war crimes; blithely justified the atrocities that were committed as part of our attack on Iraq; and glorified the whole slew of illegal surveillance programs he ordered."
Greenwald's a one-trick pony. Being outraged at Republican "war crimes" is his shtick, and God knows how he'll fill his days when the Bush administration leaves office. The man certainly doesn't get work on the basis of his engaging prose. A single sentence as sample:
The reason the American political establishment tenaciously refuses to acknowledge the devastation and crimes that have been unleashed during the Bush era is obvious: aside from the generalized belief that Americans are inherently good and thus incapable of meriting terms such as "aggressive wars" and "war criminals" no matter what they actually do (those phrases are applicable only to lesser foreigners), most of the establishment supported these crimes and the criminals who unleashed them.
Seventy-four words, in case you were counting, and not much real meaning except: "Boy, do I hate Bush!" If you share Greenwald's outrage, perhaps it's satisfying to watch him reiterate it endlessly -- a sort of online Olbermann rant to tide you over until you can go home and watch "Countdown." If you aren't outraged, however, there's no reason to read Greenwald except as a species of grim duty.
Anti-Bush indignation is his stock in trade, and the sell-by date of that particular commodity has probably already passed. No one, however, has told this to Greenwald. He's like one of those guys who got on the "who killed Vince Foster?" bandwagon in 1993 and kept peddling it long after the public had lost interest.
Expect Greenwald to keep chasing his idee fixe. He won't change his tune, he'll just look for new excuses to sing it. Some member of the Obama administration will be caught in a minor scandal, and Greenwald will trot out his obligatory column saying that whatever the administration official did, it can't possibly be compared to "the devastation and crimes that have been unleashed during the Bush era."
By 2010, this method of argumentation will be known as the Greenwald Defense, and will be widely employed throughout society: "Yes, officer, I realize I was doing 83 mph in a 55 mph zone, but is this really worth a traffic citation, when you consider the devastation and crimes that have been unleashed during the Bush era?"
Refining "Christianism"
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 11:29AM
Peter Suderman, I think, is far too magnanimous in his response to Andrew Sullivan's knock on his perfectly reasonable blog post concerning faith & politics. Actually, I'd love to see Sullivan's grand declaration that "religious restraint in politics is critical to the maintenance of liberal democracy..."--agreed--reduced down to simply "restraint in politics..." I no more want to live at the whim of the hope-obsessed than the faith-obsessed, but it seems to me that so long as we're going to accept politics' devolution into a game of which team's king of the mountain gets to regulate and mandate, we have little cause for complaining about whatever the fantastical bee in the ultimate victor's bonnet. Sullivan spent a good deal of this year stumping fanatically for Barack Obama, a self-declared Christian dedicated to "discovering His truth and carrying out His works" and a man who wants to lead a government intervention (or, sometimes, unappreciated "nudging") into any number of areas of my life, and chooses to frame all of it in moralistic terms. Sounds familiar, no?
A Christianist, it seems via process of elimination, must be someone Andrew Sullivan didn't endorse for president.
Michael Gerson Cares
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 11:13AM
In his latest column for the Washington Post, Michael Gerson undertakes to defend compassionate conservatism from John O'Sullivan. It's unfortunate that O'Sullivan's National Review piece isn't online, because Gerson fails entirely to respond to O'Sullivan's critique on any substantive level. But he does do a nice job of underscoring O'Sullivan's point.
Gerson doesn't bother to prove that any of the compassionate conservative programs he cites will work or raise arguments as to why those to his right are wrong. He simply cites these programs as evidence that he and President Bush care and that his critics don't. On his side is Tory democracy, neoconservatism, progressive conservatism, and national greatness conservativsm. On the other is the slaveholding conservatism of John Calhoun (though he does generously allow that Dick Armey's libertarian objections to government provision of health care and preference for a free market in health care instead are less evil than support for human bondage).
One could be a Gerson-in-reverse and claim for his side the peace-and-prosperity conservatisms of the past while consigning Gerson to the outer darkness of warmaking conservatism, imperialist conservatism, and big government conservatism. But that isn't really necessary. The main problem with compassionate conservatism is that it is only secondarily interested in relieving poverty, expanding access to health care, eliminating AIDs, and improving living conditions in the Third World. It is primarily a PR campaign designed to show that members of Gerson's clique are not like those other mean, racist, isolationist, and antigovernment conservatives. They are nice, caring conservatives instead. It is, as O'Sullivan said, an act of moral self-congratulation masquerading as policymaking.
UPDATE: NR has now posted O'Sullivan's article.
NOW vs. Obama
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 11:04AM
In today's Washington Post, the group laments the number of women in Obama's cabinet:
"So far the numbers of women don't look great," Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said of Obama's picks. "George Bush started off with this many, and Bill Clinton, at the height of his presidency, had nine out of 19."
No Comment Obama
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 10:28AM
Dana Milbank on our say nothing president-elect:
But the Chicago Tribune's John McCormick didn't want to talk basketball. He wanted to know about contacts that Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, had with disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
"John, John, let me just cut you off," Obama interrupted, "because I don't want you to waste your question." The president-elect said the "facts are going to be released next week" -- when he, by random coincidence, will be enjoying Christmas vacation in Hawaii -- and "it would be inappropriate for me to comment" before then. "So, do you have another question?"
Another One Bites the Dust
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 10:21AM
The guys at Powerline think one of the two major papers from my home state, the Star Tribune is "getting an early start on the age of Obama" by firing Katherine Kersten, the conservative columnist/reporter this week. I read Kersten regularly when I lived in MN, and still read her occasionally even though I've moved. She's a solid reporter and writes with a clear, persuasive--though virtually lone--conservative point of view.
Despite the fact that they fired the more liberal--err independent-minded--Nick Coleman this week as well, I tend to agree with Powerline.
Despite the apparent symmetry, the termination of Kersten's column is something else entirely. Her voice plays a crucial role in the state. She speaks for many in Minnesota who now are voiceless in the mainstream media. I have seen her speak before several audiences whose members testified that she was the sole reason they hadn't cancelled their subscriptions. Unlike Coleman's mindless left-wing pap, Kersten's perspective is otherwise absent from the Star Tribune.
She has also broken major stories in her column...[and] Kersten has introduced a culturally conservative perspective to the paper...
Eric Black, a former reporter for the Strib is equally disappointed in both of his friends getting the ax. He says reasons are financial and also, political.
But here's the deal. Being interesting isn't enough, but being dull can't possibly be the answer. If you're going to do down anyway, go down trying to be interesting.
Coleman and Kersten were more likely than most to be interesting at least once a week or so, and controversial, which is a form of interesting. They stirred the pot. They made people mad. They didn't play it safe.
It's sad, but not surprising. The Strib couldn't be more liberal if George Soros paid them too. Given her talent and expertise, I'm sure Kersten will find gainful employment elsewhere. As for the Strib I think they'll find the 'age of Obama' isn't as enlightening as they'd hoped.
Free Market Banker Retiring
Posted by on 12.17.08 @ 8:00AM
John Allison of BB&T, which has branches in 11 southeastern states, is retiring as CEO at the end of the month. The Charlotte Observer accurately calls him "a fierce defender of free markets and individual rights," and his wise leadership has helped his bank to even now remain profitable and increase payouts to shareholders. A sampling from an interview with the Observer:
OBSERVER: You've spoken about "perverse incentives" for bank regulators. Can you explain that?
ALLISON: The only bad thing that can happen to regulators is if they don't identify a problem. If they identify too many problems, nothing happens to them, right? It will be the next guy's problem. ...
Another thing is, a lot of them are academics who are detached from reality. The regulators are enamored with mathematical models, instead of thinking in concrete examples. ... From about 2004 till really very recently, we were told over and over that if we just had as good a risk management as Wachovia, then we would do very well.
Great stuff.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Coleman Campaign "Surprised" By Early Board Decisions
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 5:33PM
The Coleman campaign is "surprised" by some of the judgments being made by the Minnesota state Canvassing Board on its first day of reviewing challenged ballots, according to a campaign representative.
The Board convened at noon Minnesota time and has ruled on 120 ballots in four hours, awarding 14 of the challenged ballots to Franken thus far. (The process can be watched live here.)
"We were a little surprised by the treatments of some ballots," the representative said, particularly in the instances in which an X is put through a filled-in bubble.
The representative said that according to the campaign's calculations, Norm Coleman stands to gain over 50 votes as a result of the challenging process, provided that the Board treats challenges from both campaigns consistently. Since the Board has not yet ruled on any of the ballots being challenged by the Coleman campaign, the representative said it was difficult to say whether an equal standard was in fact being applied.
Asked about the widespread assumption that Franken stands to gain from the recount process by virtue of the fact that the current 188-vote Coleman lead is inflated by the fact that Coleman is challenging more ballots, the representative said that it's important to keep in mind the quality of the challenges. Not surprisingly, the campaign is confident that its challenges are more valid than Franken's.
But the challenged ballots are just one of many outstanding issues in the Minnesota Senate race.
The Coleman campaign has also filed a suit to make sure what it holds are duplicate ballots are not counted twice, in violation of the "one person, one vote" principle.
Duplicate ballots can result if a physically damaged or crumpled absentee ballot comes in, and an election worker decides to create a cleaner duplicate copy. The worker is required to write "DUPLICATE" on the ballot, but the Coleman campaign said it has identified hundreds of examples in which this step was not taken, leading to the double-counting of ballots.
There is also the issue of the rejected absentee ballots. The Secretary of State asked counties to sort rejected absentee ballots into five piles: the first four representing ballots that were rejected for legitimate legal reasons, and the "fifth pile" representing those that were improperly rejected.
The problem is, with over 130 counting areas, there is the potential for 130 different standards for what constitutes an improperly rejected absentee ballot. A Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon to consider the matter.
Blackwell Forms A Ticket
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 4:57PM
Tina Benkiser, who chairs the Texas Republican Party and was viewed as a possible candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, has announced that she is instead running for RNC vice chairman on a ticket with Ken Blackwell.
The Bush Legacy
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 3:35PM
This isn't the best way to start a post but let me first concede: Someone more intelligent than me should probably write about this. I welcome those who believe they are to comment (really, I'm not being sardonic).
This op-ed in the Buffalo News takes on the task of trying to describe the Bush Legacy by basically saying: There have been ups and downs. Some people like him, some don't. But it'll take years for 'historians/us' to decide what the Legacy really is.
The piece describes those ups and downs in detail but what stuck out to me is his repetition on what historians. scholars and intellectuals think of the President and the rush to figure out what they think.
While it is way too soon to make a final judgment on his presidency, at this early writing we can say that he had some minor domestic successes, two major domestic mistakes and an ambiguous legacy on foreign policy that will likely take decades to play out. Bush is leaving a mixed record that will likely be very complicated for historians to sort out.
I suppose, at the end of eight years, it's normal to do that, to sum up two terms in a paragraph fit for history books. Especially with a Presidency like Bush's that is mixed.
But what exactly is the rush? History is still unfolding. Iraq is still blooming/failing depending on who you ask. Whose deadline are these guys on anyway?
And what, can someone please explain to me, is the obsession with what all the scholars think? (Especially the one who said Bush was the 'worst President ever.'). The reflexive Republican in me wants to say, "Really, you try it," but that sounds as defensive as it is.
Still: I tend to agree with Col Carl von Clausewitz'--the Prussian soldier and historian himself:
There is danger in theoretical speculation of battle, in prejudice, in false reasoning, in pride, in braggadicio. There is one safe resource, the return to nature.
Bush, for better or worse, has never failed to do that.
Re: Race to Zero
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 3:03PM
Phil, it's interesting that the Fed would lower the target rate to a level the effective funds rate has not eclipsed since over two weeks ago. Since the 3rd of December, the effective overnight rates have been around or below .15%, and haven't gone above .20%.
So I take it that when the Fed says 0 - .25%, they really must mean 0. Otherwise, why even announce a cut? The rates aren't just "exceptionally low," they are or will be zero. In other words, money will be free.
Sean Penn v. Chelsea Clinton
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 2:39PM
The New Yorker has an interesting little blurb today about Sean Penn, his recent journalist endeavours interviewing Chavez and Castro, his recent 'political' film "Milk" and finally argument that it's just as silly that Sean Penn, a great actor, gets to interview incredible subjects simply because of acting abilities as say, the idea that Chelsea Clinton gets to be a Senator just because she's the offspring of one.
A few excerpted gems:
I saw "Milk" the other night and thought: this man is the greatest actor of his generation. When Penn plays Harvey Milk, he's a sweet, whimsical gay-rights politician...
Why does someone like Penn think he can do this job, which isn't his job? [Me: Regarding his recent attempts at journalism.]
Penn's moonlighting shows a kind of contempt for journalism, which turns out to be rather difficult to do well. It also shows that he's missed one of the main points of Obama's election, which has Penn shedding tears at the end of his dispatch. Obama is the splendid fruit of a meritocracy. In a meritocracy, actors who act well get good roles.
Interesting thoughts--and even acknowledgements--especially from The New Yorker, of all places.
Race To Zero
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 2:35PM
The Federal Reserve has determined that in the midst of an economic crisis caused by an easy money environment, the best course of action is to lower interest rates below what they were at the height of the bubble, and has now set a target range of 0-.25% for the fed funds rate.
Its thinking, according to the Federal Open Market Committee statement:
Since the Committee's last meeting, labor market conditions have deteriorated, and the available data indicate that consumer spending, business investment, and industrial production have declined. Financial markets remain quite strained and credit conditions tight. Overall, the outlook for economic activity has weakened further.
Meanwhile, inflationary pressures have diminished appreciably. In light of the declines in the prices of energy and other commodities and the weaker prospects for economic activity, the Committee expects inflation to moderate further in coming quarters.
The Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote the resumption of sustainable economic growth and to preserve price stability. In particular, the Committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time.
So in other words, buy now, pay later.
Chelsea Would Be More Fun Than Caroline
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 1:03PM
Posted elsewhere, I make the case that dynastic politics are messy to begin with, so why not inject a little fun into the mix? Philip's got a solid case overall against Caroline Kennedy, which is why I think we'd be better off with Chelesea.
Drudge links to this wire story and puckishly asks why not have Chelsea fill in her mother’s shoes in the Senate? You may think this is an awful idea, but considering the options, I’d prefer a Clinton to a Kennedy.The business of hereditary politics is an ugly one to be sure, and the cult of Camelot has animated the worst parts of the American imagination. That is to say, the public has been willing to overlook that little thing at Chappaquiddick and that other little thing with the car and the pole. It’s one thing to roll your eyes at the celebrities doing dumb things. It’s another thing to vote so they can continue representing you in Congress. Fine, Caroline Kennedy isn’t a drug-popping lush with a bad driving record, but since her name is all that commends her to become junior senator of the Empire state, perhaps we ought to consider how that name has helped out those who’ve shared it. Hey, maybe New York really wants a senator that comes with a last name that gives her a blank check from the bank of accountability. At least there won’t be a surcharge.
On the other hand, the Clintons have enjoyed no such insulation based on name alone. The impeached president got a pretty easy ride during his lame duck year, and the press is still refusing to revisit much of Pardongate and the roles played by certain Obama cabinet nominees. But the Clintons had already upset liberals with NAFTA and welfare reform, and, oh yes, torpedoing progress on healthcare for at least 10 years. They went even further by delaying the Inevitable One’s nomination by, gasp, having the nerve to continue running. The press had started out talking about how much Bill could help Hillary on the campaign trail, and by the end, they were saying that Bill was a liability.
The Clintons continually trip themselves up, even as the press is willing to forgive and forget. The Kennedys, on the other hand, operate from a political chair of Peter. I never thought I’d say it, but if we have to go the dynastic route, Chelsea Clinton is better for the Republic.
To go a step further, though, there is nothing funny about the Kennedys. They have a horrific curse that demands that the Kennedys will suffer untimely deaths, mostly from doing stupid things (pulling secret servicemen away from the convertible, playing football while skiing, flying a lightweight aircraft in a storm). You can't make jokes about it, or if you do, it always elicits the "That's not fair" look and makes you the outcast at all those cocktail parties Conor Friedersdorf is concerned about.
The Clintons, on the other hand, are a hoot. The only catch is that you then get accused of "Clinton Bashing," even when you're referring to documented facts of record (cigars, dresses, troopers, pardons, real estate). All I'm saying is that if Bubba starts fundraising for his little girl, it's going to be a YouTube Christmas. A wonderful, hilarious YouTube Christmas.
Blackwell Woos the Right
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 12:23PM
When the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote up the race for RNC chairman last week, he broke the contenders up to into three tiers. The top tier consisted of Michigan state party chairman Saul Anuzis, current Republican National Committee head Mike Duncan, and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. The second tier includes former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, South Carolina party chair Katon Dawson, and former Mike Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman. Tina Benkiser of Texas, Jim Greer of the Florida state party, and budget director Jim Nussel bring up the rear.
Since then, Blackwell has announced a flurry of endorsements on the RNC and from outside conservatives. Last week, he received key endorsements from committee members Chuck Yob, Roger Villere, and Gary Jones. He has been endorsed by Steve Forbes. And yesterday, Club for Growth President Pat Toomey also came out for Blackwell. Although not everyone sees ideology as an important criterion for a good RNC chair -- Jim Geraghty included that idea as one of the six myths about the RNC race -- Blackwell is clearly making a push for the votes of those who want to make sure the next chairman is a conservative.
Bush's Bankruptcy
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 12:14PM
President Bush is now as bankrupt politically as GM is financially. He spent the last week lobbying Senate Republicans to bail out GM, Chrysler and Ford and succeeded only in alienating the people he needed most.
Among the senators and Republican staff I spoke to, none agreed with the president and most resented the White House's strong-arm tactics.
As to Bob Shrum's advice to Republicans, my own personal response was inspired by Rod Blagojevich. A bailout is a . . . valuable thing.
Minnesota Madness Update
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 12:01PM
The state Canvassing Board will begin to review challenged ballots today in the Minnesota Senate race. All along, I've been cautioning that Norm Coleman's often cited 192-vote lead may have been overstated, because he challenged more ballots than Franken. Given that most of these challenges have been ruled on by local election officials once, I anticipate the Board will throw out an overwhelming majority of challenges and because Coleman has made more challenges, he's likely to lose more of them, and Franken is likely to make gains. In recent days, the Associated Press and the Star Tribune have released the results of their reviews, which anticipate Coleman's lead being erased once the Canvassing Board rules on the challenged ballots (the Star Tribune analysis was done by its readers, and thus especially susceptible to partisan manipulation). Obviously, there will be a lot more twists and turns and legal moves down the road, and it's hard to really predict how this will all turn out, but it now seems that Franken has a very plausible path to victory once you factor in the challenged ballots, and potential gains from rejected absentee ballots.
Bob Shrum's Advice to Republicans
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 10:58AM
Republicans are conflicted about the auto bailout. On the one hand, this is a federal intervention that is harder to justify on credit-crunch grounds than the Wall Street bailout. As written, it doesn't require nearly enough concessions from labor or management to make these companies potentially viable, as opposed to merely throwing good money (that we don't really have) after bad for a few more months. And they know that most polls show the public broadly against the idea of bailing out the Big Three using taxpayer dollars.
Yet the Republicans also fear being blamed for any economic dislocation that results from a disorderly bankruptcy proceeding, in the unlikely event that the federal government does nothing. They worry in particular about taking an enduring hit in the Rust Belt -- Pat Buchanan has warned them they can kiss the Reagan Democrats goodbye forever if the Big Three go under -- where there is still a lingering GOP presence in some areas. Finally, autoworkers and others dependent on that industry are more sympathetic figures than the bankers who received a bailout with a much bigger price tag. While most Republicans, at least in the House, opposed that bailout, the party's leadership did not.
In rides Bob Shrum to tell Republicans what to do: for the GOP, he argues, it's bailout or bust. Relevance or Herbert Hoover time. This input is more helpful than it initially appears. Since when has Shrum been so concerned about Republicans? Moreover, the record of his advice to Democrats has been spotty at best.
The Kennedy Thing
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 10:47AM
The idea that Caroline Kennedy would be considered a plausible appointment for the U.S. Senate is absolutely sickening. She has absolutely nothing to qualify her for the job, other than this Kennedy thing that's been going on for a half-century. Dynastic politics in America is troubling as a general rule, but this brings it to a whole other level. At least when Bush used his father's name, he had to defeat a sitting Texas governor in 1994, and win a tough presidential election in 2000. Even Hillary Clinton, when she came to New York, at least had to put in some leg work when she ran for Senate to overcome charges she was a carpetbagger. She campaigned tirelessly upstate, dealt with media scrutiny, and debated a paper-waving Rick Lazio. It's one thing if Caroline Kennedy wants to jump through all the hoops needed to run for Senate, and allow New Yorkers to decided whether or not they want to send somebody who is completely unqualified to represent them in Washington -- if people in the state are that pathetically starstruck, then that's their choice. But for a Kennedy to get appointed to the Senate without doing anything at all to work for it other than raising her hand, is truly an abomination. And let's be clear on what's going on -- Democrats are intrigued by her huge fundraising potential. Is there really much difference between Blagojevich's attempt to sell a Senate seat, and what would be taking place if Patterson appointed Kennedy, and had her help him with fundraising when he runs for reelection? I have to say, I was too young to be around for the days of JFK and RFK, so I have always found the Kennedy obsession, particularly among Baby Boomers, to be utterly obnoxious and nauseating (as evidenced by Ruth Marcus's embarassing Caroline is a fairytale princess column). It was a great national tragedy when JFK was assassinated, but that was 45 years ago. How many Senate seats do we have to hand the family on a silver platter before we can move on?
Daily Must Reads
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 10:32AM
- Among many other things, Caroline Kennedy's personality is badly mismatched for political office (Slate)
- Libertarians survey their prospects in an Obama administration (Reason)
- Sorry, the only reasons to support Planned Parenthood are still idiotic reasons (The Atlantic)
- Newspapers face a perfect storm and don't know what to do (New Yorker)
- Obama has the chance to do wonders for the family if he wants to (NRO)
- Now is not a great time for Carter to be hobnobbing with Syria (Jerusalem Post)
You Can't Thwart Economic Principles
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 10:13AM
Benny Peiser confirms today in Wall Street Journal Europe what I wrote last week about economic reality overcoming climate change alarmism, especially with regard to how the EU now sees Kyoto:
Nowhere has the fundamental change of the political landscape been more pronounced and less expected than in Germany. For more than 20 years, Europe's economic powerhouse has been the major bastion of green politics.
In the 1990s, Angela Merkel steered and implemented Europe's Kyoto policy as Germany's first environment minister. Now serving as chancellor, she was hailed as Europe's climate savior after playing host to last year's G-8 summit in Heiligendamm. Only 18 months later, however, she no longer wears a halo. As a result of a concerted campaign by Germany's heavy industry, as well as growing opposition from within her Christian Democratic party, Mrs. Merkel has been forced to abandon her green principles and image.
The deepening economic crisis seems to transform the mood of the German public. Next year's general election looms large, and voters right now are worried about the economy and jobs, and not green issues. In early December, more than 10,000 angry metal workers and trade unionists -- most of them from Germany -- protested outside the European Parliament in Brussels against the EU's climate policy, which they fear will increase unemployment.
Of course, Benny's fine work helped inform my piece in the first place!
Get Ready to Approach the Trough
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 8:56AM
That's what at least one U.S. congressmen is telling his constituents, expecting the passage of a massive, infrastructure-driven "economic stimulus" package during the third week of January.
U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., urged local government officials Monday to have their requests for infrastructure funding ready when the new Congress convenes in early January....
Towns and counties that already have their projects planned are more likely to have their funding requests approved, Butterfield said.
“If you have your project ready to go, the more likely you will get funded,” he said.
'NUTS1'
Posted by on 12.16.08 @ 5:00AM
Today is the 64th anniversary of the beginning of the final German offensive in World War II that became famous as the Battle of the Bulge. Jules Crittenden remembers
.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Paulson, Bailout, and the Failure of Technocracy
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 7:59PM
What exactly happened in the wake of Henry Paulson's impassioned plea for a bailout of no less than $700 billion dollars? Irwin Stelzer narrates:
Consider this. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson persuaded congress to give him a $700 billion pot of money with which to buy the rotten IOUs on banks' balance sheets. The theory was straight-forward: relieved of this burden, the banks would resume their role of lenders to potential homeowners, businesses, and consumers. Sounded like a good idea. But almost immediately it occurred to Paulson that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had a better idea--recapitalize the banks by buying shares so that they could begin lending again. That, too, was confidently touted as a good idea. But we have moved beyond the range of what we know about credit crunches. All we know is that the results so far have not matched the predictions of the proponents of these policies. Which is one reason why Paulson decided not to use the second half of his $700 billion, and to leave it to the next congress and the incoming president to decide whether it might not be better to pass the remaining $350 billion directly to home owners falling behind in their mortgage payments.
Think about that for moment. The Secretary of the Treasury demanded a massive bail-out of Wall Street and banks predicated on the idea that there was no choice and that something had to be done immediately. There was no time to think it over, to consider alternatives, etc. This same bail-out affected the dynamics of the presidential election and, more importantly, scared millions of consumers into save mode thus exacerbating economic forces pushing toward recession.
THEN, he decides his approach was the wrong one! And further concludes he should wait on figuring out what to do with half of the huge bail-out funds? Congressional spines should be stiffening everywhere. The technocrat who came in with demands based on his incredible authority and expertise has been left flailing.
RNC Chair, explained
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 7:14PM
Over at NRO, Jim Geraghty has a great column about what is REALLY needed -- and what is irrelevant -- in the search for the best RNC chairman. Well worth a read.
Caroline Kennedy, Meet John Houseman
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 5:58PM
John Houseman was the wonderful actor who became a cultural touchstone by doing commercials for Smith Barney saying that they make money the old fashioned way: "They EARN it."
In essence, that's what we at the Examiner say Caroline Kennedy should be forced to do if she wants to be a senator. Read it here.
Obama Self-Inquiry Not Just A Literary Device
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 5:46PM
Posted directly from the Associated Press's department of starry-eyed and unquestioning acceptance:
CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama says an internal investigation backs up his assertions that he and his staff had no involvement in the scandal enveloping the Illinois governor. Obama called the corruption charges against the governor an "appalling set of circumstances" that he said had nothing to do with his own office.
Obama says he's prepared to release the findings of what he called a "thorough and comprehensive" review, but that prosecutors have asked him to wait a week so that he doesn't interfere with an ongoing investigation.
He reiterated at a news conference Monday that he hasn't had any contact with the office of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell or trade Obama's now-vacant Senate seat.
Look, we can trust people to review their own work. That's why schools allow students to grade their own papers, criminals to arrest themselves, and governors to resign when they've been caught selling a Senate seat.
OH. WAIT.
More Minneosota Madness
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 5:17PM
In a prior post, I wrote about the absentee ballot issue in Minnesota, but of course that's just one of several unresolved areas in the Minnesota Senate race.
Last Friday, Al Franken received a boost when Minnesota's Canvassing Board ruled that Election Day totals should be used for a precinct in Minneapolis in which 133 ballots that were originally included were not found during the recount process. All along, the Coleman campaign, has maintained that there were, in fact, no actual "missing ballots" in the first place.
Earlier today, Coleman's senior counsel Fritz Knaak issued the following statement:
The concept of ‘one ballot, one vote' is an inviolate right that must be upheld to protect the sanctity and integrity of Minnesota's elections. No one's vote should count more than anyone else's," said Knaak. "Unfortunately, through no fault of the voter, we believe there are a significant number of these situations in which the original ballot and the duplicate ballot are both being counted -- in other words, one voter gets two votes. That devalues the vote of everyone else. The Franken campaign wants to simply accept the double counts; however, once those ballots are put in the pile, as the Franken campaign wants, they are part of the count. To protect the right of every voter in Minnesota, we are asking the Supreme Court to straighten out the problem of including both duplicate ballots and original ballots in the final recount number."
It's difficult to see how they could go about proving that there were a duplicate counts, but this does raise an interesting question. If they just revert back to the election night total whenever fewer ballots turn up than expected, what's the point of doing a recount?
Meanwhile, TPM reports on growing optimism from Team Franken.
A Rare Lapse of Etiquette from Code Pink
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 4:10PM
The press release of the day from everyone's favorite break-into-congressional-hearings-and-scream-to-end-the-war group:
In solidarity with an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush at a Baghdad press conference Sunday, peace activists will gather outside the White House with bags of shoes representing Iraqis and U.S. soldiers who have died since the Bush Administration's illegal invasion of Iraq.
They aim to show support for Iraqi journalist Muntader al-Zaidi, who hurled his shoes at President Bush while he spoke at the conference on his "surprise" visit to discuss the war. Al-Zaidi is currently being held by Iraqi police and questioned on his actions. The peace activists are calling on the Iraqi government to release al-Zaidi without charges and have set up a fund to support him and his family."
"It's outrageous that al-Zaidi could get two years in prison for insulting George Bush, when Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis and 4,200 U.S. troops, and 5 million displaced Iraqis," says Medea Benjamin of CODEPINK. "The one who should be in jail is George Bush, and he should be charged with war crimes."
Anti-war activists were rather fond of shoes even before Mr al-Zaidi's act of incredible courage and irregular-object-hurling. Walk by the left-wing cafe Busboys and Poets in Washington and you can still see a massive glass container of baby shoes that Code Pink collected to symbolize all the kids "murdered by the Bush regime" in Iraq. Regular Americans might not share their thrill in an act of pointless violence against an outgoing president. But when's the last time they paid attention to Code Pink?
Time's Carney to Work for Biden
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 3:41PM
The revolving door between the mainstream media and the Democratic Party continues to revolve.
Small Government Sense From Sanford
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 3:12PM
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is one of the rare Republicans who not only talks about small government, but who is capable of making clear arguments to back up his beliefs without resorting to empty talking points. That's why I wasn't surprised to see (via Marc Ambinder) that Sanford had sent this letter to President Bush, making a cogent argument against using U.S. Treasury's TARP funds to bailout the auto industry.
These two paragraphs especially stood out for me:
What's unfolding now is ultimately bigger than credit in our financial system and distressed businesses. We are placing an unhealthy and unprecedented level of debt on present taxpayers and future generations. And I believe we are at a tipping point in moving from a market-based economy to a politically-based economy, wherein one's success can be determined not by good decisions and hard work, but by the size of one's voice and connection to Washington.
The real economic stimulus of our country lies in the daily work and effort of the millions you have seen across this land. These bailouts represent not only an enourmous cost that they will be left to carry, but a shattering of the rights and responsibilities that have historically been linked to achieving the American Dream.
People keep asking me what I think is needed to revive the Republican Party. Finding more candidates who can make this type of argument would be a good place to start.
Republican Retirements
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 12:58PM
The Hill reports that Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra will not seek reelection in 2010, and will instead run for governor. His district went 60 percent for Bush in 2004, but only went 50.8 percent for McCain, so it's a possible pickup opportunity for the Democrats. It raises the larger question of how badly hurt Republicans will be by retirements next time around. This year, the GOP's fate was sealed far in advance when a rush of retirements created a lot of open Republican seats for Democrats to target. The Hill notes:
The retirement list could still grow. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) is considering a bid for a Senate seat left open by the retirement of Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), the third-ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, had to be convinced to run for a twelfth term in 2008, leaving some to wonder whether he will run again in two years.
It's the vicious circle of being in the minority. Veteran members of Congress don't want to be stuck in the minority, so they retire in greater numbers just as it's more difficult to recruit strong candidates to run for office.
Christmas Carols
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 12:12PM
My favorite has long been "O Holy Night," of which there has been many fine renditions. Unfortunately, the song has also been performed by many people who... shouldn't.
Ruining Church
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 11:50AM
Julia Duin, religion editor of The Washington Times, has a new book, Quitting Church: Why the Faithful are Fleeing and What to Do about It, She's interviewed at the Rutherford Institute:
The whole seeker friendly movement has ruined the church. . . .
The seeker friendly movement started in the 1980s. It was the effort to dumb down a lot of church services, make them shorter, easier to grasp, cut the number of hymns, cut the preaching time and get it to a kind of package deal. The idea was to get nonbelievers interested in going to church because it would not take up too much of their time and wouldn't challenge them too much. But what happened is that a lot of people who had been believers for some time suddenly found that the sermons were like milk instead of meat. They were so simplistic. Many were finding that what they were getting was pabulum. . . .
I found that this was a major complaint from people. . . .
Many came to the conclusion that they could not get decent spiritual food. So they were looking at their calendars, looking at their schedules, and saying, "I spend three to four hours a week going to this place on a Sunday morning, and it is a waste of time. I am not getting good community. No one knows me, and no one talks to me. I am not getting fed from the pulpit, and we are down to about three hymns." Thus, they started leaving the church.
"Down to about three hymns" -- oh, don't get me started on the way "praise" music is replacing the hymnal in many churches. It's not as bad as "Frosty the Snowman," of course, but the simplistic, repetitive, saccharine choruses of "praise" music are tedious.
The Biggest Loser
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 11:20AM
In my column over on the main site today, I argue that big-government conservatism is a political loser for the Republican Party as a whole (even if it certain individual Republicans might be able to ride it to an election win here or there). But I'm under no illusion that activist government itself is unpopular or that there is a majority clamoring for the Constitution to be restored. Anyone who has ever spent a Sunday morning groggily fielding telephone calls from C-SPAN viewers demanding government solutions to problems of varying degrees of severity -- even when calling in on the Republican line! -- knows that there isn't a very big audience for patient explanations of the limited government concept.
But I don't think that means Republicans can simply become the more efficient welfare party. For one, the people most eager for an expansion of government services have no more patience for arguments about how to structure a Detroit bailout responsibly than they do for the idea that one shouldn't occur at all or that the concept is unconstitutional. Second, for the past seventy years the American people have turned to one party when they want new government programs. That party is the Democrats. That's not changing anytime soon even if we let a thousand Kristols bloom. For all his big spending and compassion, George W. Bush is still perceived as a guy who was too miserly with taxpayer dollars when it came to meeting the people's needs. As Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind both prove, these are bidding wars the Republicans cannot win.
If conservatives can't change the terms of the debate, it will be very difficult to elect Republican candidates. And, if they have to govern as Democrat Lite, probably almost pointless to do so.
Re: A Drifters Christmas
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 11:12AM
Stacy, I am with you (and Huckabee) all the way on the subject of Christmas carols and holiday songs, although I would take it a little further. I find the holiday songs you list written during the 40s, 50s, and 60s somehow soul-crushing in their commercialism. In particular, I have to avoid "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year" in order to stave off a kind of holiday malaise.
In my opinion it's tough to beat out "Silent Night." My grandfather always used to play an old record with a version of "Stille Nacht" recorded, incredibly, by the workers of a BMW factory in I think Munich, unaccompanied. There's an honesty to that recording that the overproduced and overcommercialized Andy Williams (who sings the version of "Wonderful Time of the Year" that most stores play) sorely lacks.
Though I have to give a nod to "It Came Upon A Midnight Clear," since the author, the Rev. Edmund Sears, lived on the same street I did in South Lancaster, Massachusetts. Although he is said to have actually written the song in another town nearby, Lancaster residents always claim that he did in fact write it on a clear Lancaster Christmas Eve, so I won't argue with them.
That being said, I don't let a Christmas go by without a little Trans-Siberian Orchestra, especially "Christmas Eve/Sarajevo 12/24."
Minnesota Absentee Ballots
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 11:10AM
Most analysts have a assumed that Al Franken stands to gain ground if an estimated 1,600 improperly rejected absentee ballots are counted in the Minnesota Senate. Nate Silver notes that a pre-election poll (PDF) showed Franken up by 8 percent among absentee voters, which according to what he calls a "crude estimate," would mean a net gain of 128 votes for Franken -- a substantial portion of his 192-vote deficit. However, the poll was conducted by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, and it also showed Al Franken with an overall lead of 5 points in the Senate race. Given that Franken's general level of support was substantially overstated in the poll, it likely overstated his support among absentee voters as well. The Franken campaign wants these votes to be counted and the Coleman campaign does not -- after all, in a recount, it's always the team that's behind that wants to expand the universe of ballots and the winning side that wants to freeze them in place -- but until we get a better idea of how the absentee ballots in question are distributed among the counties, there's no empirical reason to believe that Franken actually would make significant gains, even if they were counted.
Daily Must Reads
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 10:09AM
- Expand the government, increase lobbying interests (Washington Post)
- Obama reads "My Pet Goat" as Chicago burns (Reason)
- Boo hoo, Harvard can't lavish their faculty and students with meaningless perks for now (Boston.com)
- Tough cookies, UAW: $73/hour or not, you're overpaid (NRO)
- Football as metaphor: The pernicious Zorn effect (Econlog)
- Obama as Lincoln II? Well how much did Lincoln preen, strut, and make self-aggrandizing comparisons? (Politico)
- Suddenly China and India fall off their incredible pace of growth, and enter unfamiliar territory (Economist)
A Drifters Christmas
Posted by on 12.15.08 @ 8:06AM
While it's not mentioned in my rundown of holiday tunes, the Drifters' 1954 version of "White Christmas" is amusing.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Secularism Can't Defeat Jihad
Posted by on 12.14.08 @ 2:35PM
Institutions of the Enlightenment are incapable of effectively countering the fanaticism of radical Islam, Elizabeth Scalia argues:
The West loves its court systems, its bureaucracies, its diversities, but jihadists use these tools to further their ends. They will not be legislated, jailed, sued, or celebrated out of existence. Appeasement and the stodgy language of diplomacy will not stop them, either, because "diplomacy" is not the language being spoken in these attacks. . . .
It is with the language of faith that Islamic terrorism must be engaged and defeated, and therein lies the disconnect for the diplomatic West. Having reasoned itself out of faith, its incomplete arsenal is fit for battle, but not for victory. The West can speak only of borders, boundaries, markets, and measurement. Faith exists beyond boundaries and borders; it defies markets and measurement. The negotiables of the West are worldly and "the world" means nothing in the face of paradise. Islam, like all faith, is not of this world but of the world to come. Islam's extremists, like all extremists, would like to speed their agenda along.
Obama's Bert Lance
Posted by on 12.14.08 @ 11:40AM
Liberals are complaining bitterly about press coverage of the Rod Blagojevich scandal. "[T]he media have tried to shoehorn Barack Obama into the Rod Blagojevich scandal," as Jamison Foser of Media Matters put it in a 2,900-word tirade Friday:
Most telling is the tendency of many journalists to speculate that the Blagojevich scandal may ensnare Obama without acknowledging that the complaint against Blagojevich contained absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama . . .
Associated Press reporter Liz Sidoti set the standard for pointlessly speculative news reports with an "analysis" piece declaring that "President-elect Barack Obama hasn't even stepped into office and already a scandal is threatening to dog him." . . .
We cannot afford to be distracted from serious problems by overheated conjecture and baseless insinuation masquerading as journalism.
That's how the media behaved the last time we had a Democratic president. They devoted wall-to-wall coverage to invented "scandals," ignored exculpatory evidence, saw evidence of guilt everywhere, took people out of context in order to accuse them of lying, and generally behaved like a pack of wild animals who couldn't tell right from wrong or truth from fiction -- or who simply didn't care. As a group, they behaved without ethical standards and without regard for the truth.
Foser is correct that nothing now known indicates wrongdoing on Obama's part. However, the revelation that Obama's choice for chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was in communication with Blagojevich -- sending him a list of potential Senate replacement appointees acceptable to Obama -- undermined Obama's press conference claim that "no representative of mine would have any part in any deals related to this seat."
Foser
compares the press coverage to how the Whitewater scandal dogged
the Clintons, but a more accurate analogy would be to the scandal
that felled Jimmy Carter's OMB director, Bert Lance. A Georgia
banker and influential figure in state Democratic Party politics,
Lance was forced to resign eight months into the Carter
administration by
revelations about his financial dealings. Lance was never
convicted of any crime, and the scandal involved no suggestion of
wrongdoing by Carter, and yet the swirl of accusations damaged --
if it did not entirely destroy -- Carter's image as a
squeaky-clean reformer. Perhaps most importantly, the Lance
scandal brought an early end to whatever honeymoon Carter had
enjoyed with the Washington press corps.
The scolding of Foser and other liberals won't undo the damage that the Blagojevich scandal has already done to Obama, and more damage is likely. The Republican National Committee has issued a Web video aiming to cement in the public mind the idea that Obama (a) is a close ally of Blagojevich, and (b) has been dishonest in his responses to the scandal:
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
