The American Spectator

Bad Move, O

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 1.10.09 @ 4:10PM

I suppose, inevitably, he would be required to get specific, but this is not smart politics:

President-elect Obama raised the jobs forecast for his stimulus plan from 3 million to as many as 4 million on Saturday, upping the ante of his economic blueprint for the second time in three weeks.
The president-elect also rebutted conservative claims that his plans would create new bureaucracies, saying 90 percent of the new jobs would be in the private sector, up from the "more than 80 percent" he claimed last weekend.

Revising expectations upward, at a time when every indicator points downward? Those numbers will come back to haunt him because, of course, it won't work.

Also notice that the Politico reporters use the word "rebutted," as if Obama had disproven the claims of his critics merely by gainsaying them. The honeymoon continues . . .

20 Comments | Add a Comment

In Like Flynt

Posted by Reid Collins on 1.10.09 @ 11:33AM

Larry Flynt and associates in the adult pornographic business point to declining revenues and suggest that about $5 billion from the Troubled Assets Recovery Program fund be steered their way, giving rise to a new slogan on the Hill:

TARP for Tarts!

14 Comments | Add a Comment

Putting My Finger On It

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 1.10.09 @ 7:11AM

This morning, reflecting on David Frum's much-discussed attack on Sarah Palin, I found myself pondering the question, "What is this really all about?" And finally I concluded it's about Bush:

That born-again, down-to-earth, drawling Texas thing -- somehow, it had once made Bush seem like Gary Cooper in High Noon. But as the disasters mounted and the poll numbers headed southward, that Gary Cooper glow faded and these conservative intellectuals turned on their TVs to behold, with unspeakable horror, President Jethro Bodine.
Thus their reaction to Sarah Palin. While the Republican Party grassroots looked at Palin and saw an American Margaret Thatcher (except much sexier), the conservative intellectuals looked at her and saw . . . Vice President Ellie Mae Clampett.
Shootin' her some vittles! Takin' care of young 'uns. Let's go a-swimmin' in the ce-ment pond!
You see? The fear and loathing of Sarah Palin among (some) conservative intellectuals is a subconscious reaction to their belated recognition of Bush's weaknesses.

There's more, if you're interested. In the end, the question becomes, "To whom does the Republican Party belong? To the intellectuals, or to the people?" Perhaps you can guess my allegiance in this proprietary dispute.

37 Comments | Add a Comment

More Questions for Eric Holder

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.10.09 @ 6:57AM

It looks like Eric Holder's confirmation fight could get rough.  He still has to be counted as the favorite, but now there is an undisclosed Blagojevich connection at issue.  May not be much in substance, but these days any tie to Blago is, shall we say, "less than helpful."

Reports the Washington Post:

Eric H. Holder Jr. is facing increasing resistance to his bid to become the next attorney general, emerging from President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet nominees as the prime target of Senate Republicans, both because of troubling episodes during his service in the Clinton administration and because of the sensitivity of the post overseeing the Justice Department.

With two days of confirmation hearings set to begin Thursday, Holder must demonstrate his independence from Obama to a vocal chorus of GOP lawmakers who want to warn the incoming president that he should not veer too far to the left on national security and judicial nominations. The attorney general plays a pivotal role in those issues, which are of intense concern to conservatives.

What was considered a smooth path to confirmation has recently been complicated as signs of hostility toward Holder have increased over the past month. Political operative Karl Rove and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for example, singled out the longtime Washington lawyer as the candidate who would face bruising questions.

"The attorney general nominee, Mr. Holder, has got serious questions to respond to with regard to his role in the . . . pardons at the end of the Clinton administration and some other matters," McConnell said yesterday. "Beyond that, I don't anticipate trouble for the new president's nominees."

The confirmation process, said Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the judiciary panel's top Republican, will be Holder's "day in court" and a chance to "state his case" -- an awkward position for a man more accustomed to negotiating disputes than engaging in bare-knuckled fights.

Specter previewed the main line of attack in a floor speech this week, asserting that, in Holder's years as President Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, he at times "appeared to be serving the interest of his superiors" rather than heeding recommendations from career Justice Department lawyers. The argument echoed criticism that former attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales, who resigned in 2007, had acted to please his friend President Bush rather than to uphold the principles of justice.

In a pointed effort to scrub Holder's past, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and two other leading GOP Judiciary Committee members submitted a public records request this week to Illinois officials, seeking information on a thwarted $300,000 legal services contract that Holder won from now-disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D).

Let the fun begin!

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Blago Waxes Poetic

Posted by Nicole Russell on 1.9.09 @ 5:28PM

Governor Blagojevich apparently, is somewhat of a literature buff.  Last year he was quoting Kipling, this year, he ended his final press conference as Governor of Illinois with a portion of Lord Tennyson's 'Ulysses:' To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Hmm. 

Maybe "A day may sink or save a realm" would have been more apropos? Or, "A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies"?

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Neuhaus and the Academy

Posted by Hunter Baker on 1.9.09 @ 5:13PM

Part of the reason Richard John Neuhaus will be remembered is for his impact on Christians in higher education.  There is no question that his seminal book The Naked Public Square and then his journal First Things changed the way many of us think about religion and culture.  He also did something I think is nearly impossible with FT.  He created a serious journal that causes many people (a great many of them professors) to do a little dance when they find it in their mailbox. 

First Things is not an academic journal, but it is close and better.  Instead of dividing knowledge up into a million little pieces and then writing ad nauseum about those subcompartments.  First Things invites strong minds to contribute big essays about the intersection of religion, culture, law, politics, art, music, etc.  The result is readable and edifying.  When I was younger, I knew it was above my head, but I pursued it for improvement, just like a gangster listening to a pronounciation soundtrack to improve his speech.  First Things took me places.  Today, when I meet a fellow reader, I meet a friend.

Enough of the unsolicited advertisement.  I saw a snippet of an email exchange about Neuhaus that is worth reproducing here.  I won't include the name in case the person wants that to remain private:

Converted (to Catholicism) about 1990 or 91.  He is one of those Missouri Synod Lutherans who had a tremendous early education in their prep schools and liberal arts college…then a fine seminary education.  It was the old German gymnasium system where young guys went off to prep school at 14 and learned German, Greek, Latin, church history, the confessions even before they got to college.  The college at Fort Wayne gave them a terrific liberal arts education—classics, literature, history, languages—and then off to seminary.  Pelikan, Wilken, Neuhaus, Marty, and many lesser lights came through that system.  Valparaiso’s golden age occurred when these highly educated pastors also went into other fields and got doctorates.   They had dual educations that made faith and learning engagement a natural thing.   M.Divs with a degree in law, economics, literature.  Very erudite types who occupied many positions at Valpo.  But that has all disappeared….a great but probably necessary loss.  How many families would send their boys off to prep school at 14 and what church could afford to run prep schools all over the country for their young men? 

But Richard was one of that group….didn’t really need a doctorate.

No, he didn't really need that doctorate.  Wish we could reproduce that system for young people from families without tremendous means.

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Neuhaus's Bridge Building

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.9.09 @ 4:33PM

Ross Douthat offers a nice remembrance of Richard John Neuhaus as an intellectual.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

A Load of BCS

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 1.9.09 @ 2:27PM

So Florida won the BCS title game last night, in a fairly boring fashion, but Texas, USC, and especially Utah also have legitimate claims to the championship title.

Every year, we run into this same problem. Every year, the BCS suffers abuse from college football commentators ranging from the oft-blustery Michael Wilbon to the revered baseball stats guru Bill James, who clamor for a playoff system that would determine the winner based on performance on the field as opposed to politically biased polls and inscrutable computer rankings.

Even the incoming president has threatened to replace the BCS with an eight-team playoff. As if he didn't have better things to do.  

There's no doubt the system is unfair -- Auburn in 2004 and LSU in 2003 got shafted, big time. But it's obvious that there is a tradeoff between a fair bowl system and a compelling regular season.This tradeoff became apparent in 2005, when my team, Notre Dame, played one of the best games ever in the regular season.

First of all, realize that the system would never be fair, playoffs or not. Is it fair that Oklahoma State gets to play in a brand new complex donated by T. Boone Pickens while smaller schools run on a shoe-string budget? Is it fair that Syracuse has to convince high school students from Florida and Texas that it will be fun for them to wake up at 5 AM to practice in -20 degree temperatures? No, it's not, but the reality of these differences is what lends drama to games.

This inequality makes college football the best regular season sport. It's why tiny Appalachian State's upset of giant Michigan in 2007 was so epic. Think -- if there had been a playoff system Michigan could conceivably have snuck into the playoffs and then won the championship after losing to Appalachian. A monumental upset would have been reduced to a meaningless opening season stumble that the traditional power shrugged off en route to the playoffs.

The greatest football game I've ever seen wasn't a playoff game. It was, without a doubt, the 2005 showdown between #9 Notre Dame and #1 USC in only the eighth week of the season. The storyline could not have been better if it had been written in a novel. The two traditional superpowers collided with USC riding a 27-game win streak, and the Notre Dame program resurgent under new head coach Charlie Weis. The forecast in South Bend was perfect, and the Hollywood stars were all about. The anticipation crested on the Friday night before the game with a pep rally of 50,000.

The run-up to the game was only outdone by the game itself, which was a no-holds-barred shootout that ended, to Notre Dame fans' eternal chagrin, with the infamous 'Bush Push,' when future Heisman winner Reggie Bush shoved his Heisman-winner QB Matt Leinart  into the end zone (illegally, mind you) for the win.

The 2005 BCS title game match up between Texas and USC was a godsend for the BCS: both teams were undefeated and had been clearly the best teams for the entire year, precluding all controversy. Vince Young's performance in that game, in my opinion, was the greatest by an individual in all of sports. Nevertheless, I still maintain that the Bush Push game was the best that year, and others often agree. In what other sport can a regular season game transcend a perfectly-matched title game?

And that's not one isolated instance. The Gators' championship in 2006 was memorable, but even more unforgettable was the titanic showdown between undefeated rivlals Michigan and Ohio State in the last Big 10 regular season game of the year. If all they were playing for had been playoff seeding, it would have been just another regular season game. 

So yes, the BCS is unfair. But leave the fairness to the professionals, who play for money. Let college keep the regular season with games that are played for no other reason than to win, with the championship a secondary consideration.

If your team goes 11-1, winds up second in the AP poll, and makes excuses as to why they should be declared co-champion, tough luck. They should have won when it mattered, which is always.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

If He's Calm, I'm Calm

Posted by Nicole Russell on 1.9.09 @ 2:16PM

So pronounces Jack Shafer at Slate of Barack Obama's ability to soothe a nation heading towards even more troubled economic times. Slate has, save a piece here and there, continually drooled over Obama since his campaign began. Despite that, even I'm surprised at Shafer when he extols the virtues of Obama's 'Voice' which "works like aerosolized Paxil on my limbic system, reducing my blood pressure and lifting my mood."

Shafer praises Obama's announcement of his stimulus plan, brilliantly of course, not actually called a stimulus plan (since that sounds too depressing).

Shafter continues: "When I watched him in the video below...he made me feel oddly good about the challenges of coming economic Armageddon."

Oh, how sweet. Perhaps Obama's administration will record him singing lullabies and every night will be so kind as to pipe them over a taxpayer-paid-for satellite system throughout America (or the world if it should be so lucky) so we can fall asleep to a man who makes us feel 'oddly good.'

The drooling doesn't stop there:

For one thing, he's better at remaining calmer and more deliberate in his speech patter than John Wayne in a firefight-and better at it than any politician since Ronald Reagan...[snip] It's not what Obama says that narcotizes the citizenry, but the way he says it. He can't possibly be certain that his plan will work, but he sells it as a done, settled deal, never showing a speck of doubt.

If I didn't know better, I would have thought Barack Obama had been our President for seven years already and actually done Americans a world of good.

Cynicism aside, that's my point. I'm so glad Obama makes the world feel good.  I'm glad his Voice is soothing. I'm glad he avoids talking about pain and that his desire to "bring Kumbaya moments to all endears him to the multitudes."

But he's not the President yet and he hasn't done one thing to prove his bite is as incredible as his bark.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Blagojevich Impeached

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.9.09 @ 1:00PM

The Illinois House vote was overwhelming, 114 to 1. Now he will face a state senate trial. Roland Burris had good timing.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Summing Up a Great Man's Life

Posted by Hunter Baker on 1.9.09 @ 12:55PM

I wrote it in this space already.  Richard John Neuhaus is dead.  We've lost some big ones in the last year.  Many of you will not realize how big this one was.  I pray Jody Bottum and some of the others in the First Things (Neuhaus' hugely influential journal) world can carry on his legacy.  Though Neuhaus' death leaves a chasm to be filled, I think Dr. Bottum is the right man for it. 

Anthony Sacramone is a former managing editor of First Things.  He is also one of my favorite writers.  So, I'm happy to bring you his wonderful tribute to Neuhaus.  Here's a taste:

Woody Allen said that 90% of life is just showing up. Richard John Neuhaus showed up. Whether it was at civil-rights marches in the 1960s or pro-life marches of the 1980s, Richard John Neuhaus showed up. Whether it was at the altar as a parish priest or at the bedside of a dying friend, Richard John Neuhaus showed up. As writer, lecturer, editor, raconteur, counselor, teacher — Richard John Neuhaus showed up. Every day. Until today.

And by the way, the New York Times didn't do badly, either.  I give them credit, particularly since Father Neuhaus spent part of his last column writing about how his desire to read the NYT had continued to slip.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

A Paleocon Case for Israel

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.9.09 @ 11:50AM

By Ilana Mercer.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Annihilation for Peace

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.9.09 @ 11:41AM

Unfortunately, the ugliness on Israel's Gaza incursion does not all flow in one direction. There's this bit from columnist Debbie Schlussel: "While I want Israel to beat HAMAS, there is only one way to do so--total annihilation of the Palestinians, who are all HAMAS. And again, Israel neither has the guts to do this, nor the ability to do so with its unfortunate dependence upon America and the international community."

She actually shares many of the assumptions that I've encountered in anti-Israel pieces: the latest offensive is just a "Kadima campaign commercial;" the U.S. is pulling the strings; exterminationist sentiment is in Israel's interests.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

One Other Kemp Note

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.9.09 @ 10:52AM

Jack Kemp is a pretty good example for how reform-minded members of the House GOP can influence the debate while being in the minority and in an all-Democratic Washington. Kemp-Roth very much predates the Reagan years.

Add a Comment

Obama and Hamas

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.9.09 @ 10:51AM

Last June, after wrapping up the final primary, Barack Obama gave a highly-publicized speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in order to assuage concerns about his views regarding Israel. It was in this speech that he said:

We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations.

Today, the Guardian reports that the "incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's ­doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organization, sources close to the transition team say."

Granted, we don't know for sure that this report is accurate, and it deserves at least some level of skepticism as with all anonymous reports. But if true, it certainly should not be a surprise to anybody who is a regular reader of this site, which scrutinized Obama's trail of associations throughout the campaign and examined the broader implications of his pledge to meet with our adversaries. Robert Malley was forced to resign as a foreign policy adviser to Obama when it was revealed that he was meeting with Hamas, and it was perfectly logical to assume that Obama's rational for meeting with Iran could easily be extended to the Palestinian terrorist group. As I wrote last May, "Why should it be beyond the pale to question the earnestness of Obama's vow not to negotiate with Hamas, when he has promised, as part of his sweeping program for change, to negotiate with its patron, which shares the same ultimate goal?" Unfortunately, those of us who asked such legitimate questions were dismissed as paranoid along with the rest of the conspiracy theorists and smear artists who sent around emails claiming Obama is a Muslim and that he was born in Kenya.

I don't want to do too much preaching to the choir. I'm sure there are people reading this who share my mix of anger and sadness at this development. That the American government would want to legitimize a terrorist group that not only is dedicated to destroying Israel, that not only raises its children to aspire to exterminate Jews in Israel, but that has declared all Jews in the world legitimate targets, right down, presumably, to my school-age niece and nephew, is just unconscionable. As much as I saw this coming, I remain heartbroken by the reality.

But I know that there are others who don't feel the same way as me and who would argue that there's no harm in merely talking, and that pragmatism requires that we're in contact with all players involved in this volatile region. Okay, so let me put aside any Israel-centric reasons for isolating Hamas or any moral arguments. What signal does it send to the Fatah leadership in the West Bank if America were to reverse its policy of isolating Hamas? Fatah has suffered internally for its moderation relative to Hamas and the perception that its relationship with Israel and America is too cozy. One of the motivating factors for their relative moderation is that they do not want to suffer the diplomatic isolation that Hamas has, and they hope to be the legitimate government of any newly-created Palestinian state. It would be nothing short of a slap in the face to Fatah, which has participated in the peace process and critcized Hamas rocket fire, if America were to bring Hamas into the fold. From Fatah's perspective, they have done everything right, and Hamas has been an obstacle to peace. Given that Hamas expelled Fatah from Gaza at gunpoint, I don't see how America can deal with the terrorist group without completely alienating Fatah and strengthening the more militant wing of the group. The prospect of the U.S. engaging Hamas is a troubling development no matter how you analyze it.

27 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 1.9.09 @ 10:24AM

• Risky business in the world of finance (NY Times Magazine)

• Obama ventures into new territory, economically and politically, with the stimulus bill (NY Times)

• Fr. Neuhaus, a great journalist, RIP (Mere Comments)

• One problem is that Hamas and others believe that Israel is in its last gasp (Jerusalem Post)

• Christina Romer is on the record against Obama's tax cuts, will she sway him? (Forbes)

• Obama might take a few pages out of W's foreign policy playbook (Politico)

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Lord is Right About Kemp

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 1.9.09 @ 10:21AM

There are some excellent pieces on today's site. My friend Doug Bandow has an eloquently written discourse on the role of faith in politics. But the must read of the day is my friend Jeff Lord's wonderful tribute to Jack Kemp. I note only one... well, not exactly error, but a misimpression created. It was not just by 1980 that Kemp convinced Reagan of the value of tax cuts and supply-side economics; I have photocopies of old Human Events from the fall of 1976 -- too late to be part of Reagan's presidential nomination battle against Gerald Ford, but not too late for the fall election if it had been used -- in which Reagan is cited as joining Kemp's call for tax cuts to stimulate the economy. In short, Kemp was, if anythng, even further ahead of his time than Lord indicates, and Reagan did not take too much convincing before Kemp was able to enlist Reagan in the cause. So both men deserve even MORE credit than they have received!

That aside, Lord's essay is wonderful stuff, beautifully written, rich in enlightening and entertaining detail. Jeff didn't say it, but I will: Jack Kemp was the single most influential House member since James Madison was serving as Washington's floor leader in the first two terms of Congress. Nobody else has so successfully used a base in the House to so effectively change the entire debate in Washington. Even Newt Gingrich, after Kemp left the House, was building on Kemp's foundation; it was Kemp whose presence provided the heft for Gingrich, Walker, Lott and Lungren to make the Conservative Opportunity Society (the five were the original founders of the group) immediately more than just a meaningless rump caucus.

I join Jeff Lord and assuredly hundreds of thousands or evem millions of others in adding my prayers for Kemp's recovery from whatever form of cancer it is that ails him.

Add a Comment

A "Pragmatic Progressive"

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.9.09 @ 9:06AM

That is how President-elect Barack Obama describes himself:

Ever wondered how Barack Obama sums up his philosophy?

"Pragmatic progressive".

That's how the president-elect dubbed his philosophy on Thursday while introducing Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as his pick to head the Democratic National Committee.

"Tim and I share a philosophy," said Obama. "It's a pragmatic progressive philosophy that was at the heart of my campaign and will be at the heart of this administration."

Add a Comment

Just How did the Bail-Out Money Get Used?

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.9.09 @ 8:47AM

The Treasury Department apparently doesn't know.  But as a friend of mine observes when he pulls out his credit card to buy something he can't afford:  "it's only money!"

Reports ABC News:

A scathing new report by a congressional watchdog panel blames the Treasury Department for failing to track how banks are spending taxpayer money provided through the government's $700 billion financial rescue package, also known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

The panel, which has been charged with overseeing TARP and is led by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren, said in its 56-page report that it "still does not know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money."

By investing in banks that have refused "to provide any accounting of how they are using taxpayer money," the Treasury Department has "eroded" public confidence, the report stated.

I don't expect the Obama administration to be any less wasteful than the Bush administration.  But could the new crowd at least try to account for how the money is being used?

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Cyclically cynical

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 1.9.09 @ 8:44AM

Looking over what our delicious Associated Press has proffered for the morning:

The government says the nation's unemployment rate bolted to 7.2 percent in December, the highest since early 1993, as employers slashed 524,000 jobs. The Labor Department's report underscores the terrible toll of the deepening recession and highlights the hard task President-elect Barack Obama faces in resuscitating the flat-lined economy. For all of 2008, the economy lost 2.6 million jobs. That was the most since 1945, when nearly 2.8 million jobs were lost, although the number of jobs in the U.S. has more than tripled since then.

What's important about lines such as those above is recent memory. You all remember 1993, right? The bread lines, the dust bowl in the midwest. It was a time when the nation had to pull together and consider pulling the lever for a Republican legislature. Hard to fathom in these days, I know.

Last night as I was browsing the interweb, I came across this entertainment/celebrity news show that was streamed on the web. There were clips associated with the main show, where the behind-the-scenes people were discussing how inexpensive the outfits on the show were. Several things struck me: 1. Someone is funding such a venture. 2. They have advertisers who think people want to buy stuff. 3. People are still advocating shopping, but just on a bargain scale. 4. When are they finally going to discuss Jennifer Aniston's bikini?

The more I read these doom and gloom stories, the more I realize how good we've got it. I don't mean to whitewash -- what is happening is certainly tragic and jarring, particularly for those whose retirements were riding on the booming economy. But when economic hard times befall less fortunate countries, they have a hard time finding, let alone buying, food, finding shelter, and generally being safe from mob violence. The institutions of their civil society begin to break down.

The only mobs we're going to see in the next few weeks are those descending on Washington to (a.) celebrate the inauguration of a new president, and (b.) protest for the rights of the unborn.

This is not the behavior of a nation teetering on the brink of desparation. It is, however, a nation eager to see someone "fix" the problem, a prospect which is altogether disconcerting. We've been in tough economic times and come out of them before unscathed. The political reforms, on the other hand, have not been helpful. In other words, the political, not the economic, is the darkest cloud on the horizon.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Anuzis: 'Everybody's Second Choice' at RNC?

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 1.9.09 @ 12:05AM

One Republican told me after Tuesday's RNC chairman debate that Michigan's Saul Anuzis would win because he's "everybody's second choice" for chairman. That's one of those things you hear as a reporter and write it down dutifully and let the reader decide for himself whether there is any truth to it.

But Ralph Z. Hallow of the Washington Times had a bit of a shocker yesterday:

Several members attending a first-ever special meeting of the national committee on Wednesday told The Washington Times that they expect either Michigan party Chairman Saul Anuzis or South Carolina party Chairman Katon Dawson to emerge as the party's top national official.
"I think [current RNC chairman Mike] Duncan wins the first-ballot plurality, but not the next ballots," said Maryland RNC member Joyce Lyons Tehres, who supports former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, an accomplished public speaker, for national party chairman. She said she thought Mr. Steele continued to lead the field after the Wednesday meeting, but others saw a trend.
"I sensed it was catching on, the idea that the next chairman should be a member of the committee, not a former member," said Curly Haugland, a North Dakota rancher and committee member. . . .
"Saul showed his savviness and had the best grasp of the latest in communications tools," North Dakota Chairman Gary Emineth told The Washington Times after the RNC member-only meeting at the Capitol Hill Club.

That kind of fits what I'd heard Tuesday. Anuzis is very much a hands-on operator, extremely energetic. He was all over the room at the Press Club before the debate, shaking hands and soliciting support. I caught him afterwards for a brief video interview:

20 Comments | Add a Comment

RedState Takes on Mitch McConnell

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.8.09 @ 10:37PM

It's bad enough to be in the minority.  But what if the minority won't fight?  Erick Erickson at RedState.com takes on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for a history of folding:

Allow me to be blunt:

There are some of you who have fallen under McConnell's spell in the same way the lefties have fallen under Obama's spell. McConnell can do no wrong.

You all wet your pants when McConnell publicly rebukes Reid and engage in private actions that might cause you to go blind behind closed doors in the bathroom to his floor statements against defunding the war.

The idea that Mitch McConnell is protecting us from the Democrats is bullcrap.  We should collectively rip off his jaw and shovel the crap back down his throat that he's been serving us.

Erickson adds a dozen examples of McConnell surrenders.  It makes for depressing reading.

Michelle Malkin joins in the McConnell-bashing.

All this and we're only in the first week of the new era.  Conservatives should never forget that before the Republican Party can become part of the solution it has to stop being part of the problem. 

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Off Key

Posted by Reid Collins on 1.8.09 @ 8:53PM

Whoever wins the BCS Bowl, "The Star-Spangled Banner" lost early.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Taking the Blue Dog Democrats for a Ride

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.8.09 @ 7:43PM

Remember those supposedly fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats.  They are now being taken for a ride by their leadership and especially President-elect Barack Obama who, they believe, intends to transform entitlements and most everything else.

Reports The Hill:

The costs of the stimulus will not abide by pay-as-you-go principle, one of the most important issues for Blue Dogs.

After years of waging a frustrating battle to get their congressional leaders to act on their fiscal reform plans, Blue Dog Democrats are buoyed by the hope that Obama will finish the job for them.

In fact, Blue Dogs believe the president-elect's commitment to economic reform is so pronounced that a number of them who have bucked Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) past efforts to bypass pay-go are lining up in favor of a stimulus bill.

Blue Dogs, though, know they don't have much leverage on this stimulus legislation because it is expected to sail through Congress - with or without their backing.

Pelosi spent much of her first term as Speaker fighting, cajoling and sometimes giving up on dozens of fiscally conservative Democrats who agreed with much of her economic agenda, but who could not stomach borrowing more money to pay it.

As she leads the House's efforts to pass a new economic stimulus bill that could top $1 trillion, the Speaker is not only finding Blue Dogs in her corner, but seeing them publicly backing her and even standing alongside her leadership lieutenants at policy press conferences.

The irony is that the change has almost nothing to do with anything Pelosi has done.

The Blue Dog euphoria that swept through the House chamber on Wednesday had almost everything to do with Obama, and his consistent and amplified commitment to the Blue Dog caucus; long-term entitlement reform; and a return to balanced budgets over the long term.

Waiving pay-go rules could become a common occurrence this year, however. Democrats will have to move a Medicare payment fix and an Alternative Minimum Tax measure that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Moreover, Democrats have suggested major healthcare reform will not be fully offset, meaning the price tag of that measure could also be hundreds of billions of dollars.

Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), who voted against the last two stimulus bills on the grounds that they were not paid for, joined a number of Democratic leaders at a Wednesday press conference to talk up the new stimulus plan.

"Government can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can stimulate the economy and address our long-term problems at the same time," said Cooper, who later joked that he couldn't remember the last time he was asked to attend a leadership press conference.

Maybe the Blue Dogs will be proved right.  Alas, I have this sneaking suspicion that in four years we will have is a lot more debt for the present but only reform promises for the future.

8 Comments | Add a Comment

Democrats Against Even Keynesian Tax Cuts

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.8.09 @ 6:30PM

Democrats have come out swinging against Barack Obama's inclusion of tax cuts in his stimulus plan. What do they want? More spending, of course. As John Kerry put it: "I'd rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion, on other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job."

Well, that point is rather debatable. But as Peter Ferrara noted on the main site, there are good reasons to object to some of Obama's poorly designed "tax cuts." Just not the reasons the president-elect's Democratic critics cite.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

No Bush Bumper Sticker?

Posted by Ryan L. Cole on 1.8.09 @ 6:08PM

Robert Dallek, one of the most hyper-partisan liberal historians around (I'm sure Spectator Readers can name a few more) postulated on NPR yesterday that all important and consequential presidencies can be summed up by a bumper sticker.

From the January 7 edition of Morning Edition:

"The most memorable presidents without question are those who had some kind of catch phrase -  a bumper sticker, if you will," Dallek says. "Franklin Roosevelt - the New Deal; John Kennedy - the New     Frontier; Lyndon Johnson - the Great Society, Reagan remembered for saying, 'It's morning in America.'  What is there with George W. Bush? What's the bumper sticker? I don't know."

Dallek also says that because he has no bumper sticker, Bush will eventually be forgotten. No bumper sticker for George W. Bush???? This revelation comes as a surprise to those of us who had to drive behind cars plastered with vitriolic anti-bush bumper stickers the past eight years.

The truth is, for better or worse, the modern president runs a government staffed by thousands of political appointees spread out across hundreds of agencies, divisions and offices, all engaged in multitudes of occasionally worthwhile initiatives and programs. Though the scope and size of this enterprise pains some of us, consigning a presidency to a simple bumper sticker shows a stunningly simplistic view of something Dallek professes to be an expert on. Either that or he is just participating in the "dumbing down" of history and politics our elites lament and prosper from at the same time.

12 Comments | Add a Comment

Who said Economics was Boring?

Posted by Nicole Russell on 1.8.09 @ 5:46PM

Via Andrew Sullivan, via Harvard economist Greg Mankiw.

Oh, do the rich pay more. Or as he says, here's "the progressivity of the tax system."

The CBO has released a new report on effective tax rates (total taxes divided by total income). Compared with previous reports, it includes more information about thin slices at the top of the income distribution. Here are the total effective federal tax rates for 2005, the most recent year available:

Lowest quintile: 4.3 percent
Second quintile: 9.9 percent
Middle quintile: 14.2 percent
Fourth quintile: 17.4 percent
Percentiles 81-90: 20.3 percent
Percentiles 91-95: 22.4 percent
Percentiles 96-99: 25.7 percent
Percentiles 99.0-99.5: 29.7 percent
Percentiles 99.5-99.9: 31.2 percent
Percentiles 99.9-99.99: 32.1 percent
Top 0.01 Percentile: 31.5 percent

In other econ news, the Mercatus center--or what the WSJ called a "Thundering fortress of deregulatory theory"--at George Mason University has started the 'Financial Markets Working Group,' to clarify some of the current misunderstanding about how market economics works, and to contribute to the current crisis by providing their experts' research.

Ongoing financial market turmoil is leading policy makers and the public to contemplate increasingly complex regulation - in other words, crisis will lead to action. But without a sound understanding of both the causes of recent instability and the effects of proposed policies, action is likely to lead to unintended consequences and undesired outcomes. The Mercatus Center's Financial Markets Working Group will lead the effort to inform forthcoming policy debates with rigorous economic analysis through credible academic research.

Read and be enlightened.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Where is Global Warming When We Need It?

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.8.09 @ 5:08PM

Reports the Associated Press:

Johnson planned on using a set of logs to a build a cabin in Alaska's interior. Instead he'll burn some of them to stay warm.

Extreme temperatures - in Johnson's case about 60 below zero - call for extreme measures in a statewide cold snap so frigid that temperatures have grounded planes, disabled cars, frozen water pipes and even canceled several championship cross country ski races.

Alaskans are accustomed to subzero temperatures but the prolonged conditions have folks wondering what's going on with winter less than a month old.

National Weather Service meteorologist Andy Brown said high pressure over much of central Alaska has been keeping other weather patterns from moving through. New conditions get pushed north or south while the affected area faces daily extremes.

"When it first started almost two weeks ago, it wasn't anything abnormal," Brown said. "About once or twice every year, we get a good cold snap. But, in this case, you can call this an extreme event. This is rare. It doesn't happen every year."

Temperatures sit well below zero in the state's various regions, often without a wisp of wind pushing down the mercury further.

Johnson lives in Stevens Village, where residents have endured close to two weeks of temperatures pushing 60 below zero.

The cold has kept planes grounded, Johnson said. Food and fuel aren't coming in and they're starting to run low in the village, about 90 miles northwest of Fairbanks.

Johnson, whose home has no heater or running water, said he ventures outside only to get more logs for burning and to fetch water from a community facility. He's been saving the wood to build a cabin as a second home, but that will have to wait a few years now because the heat takes precedence.

"I've never seen it this cold for this long," he said. "I remember it 70 below one time, but not for a week and a half."

2 Comments | Add a Comment

I hear those internships calling

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 1.8.09 @ 1:04PM

Just a friendly reminder that we do, in fact, have internships, and we're very flexible on starting dates. They're typically paid, depending on how long you can work with us. They're also, in the journalism world, very, very valuable. I worked on my college paper and thought I knew enough to get a start in journalism, and as it turns out, my AmSpec internship taught me I was wrong.

We're currently looking for good writers who want to learn a thing or two for the spring and summer. More information is on our About page. And even if you're not interested, you can pass this on to any college students you know -- people are always chomping at the bit for an opportunity for some real journalistic work.

One benefit among many is that we don't do the "Make A Copy For Me And Get Me Coffee" thing. Our interns get to write frequently and can really carve out a place for themselves if they have an idea of what they like to do. So come and be a part of the AmSpec family!

6 Comments | Add a Comment

It's Starting Already

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.8.09 @ 11:24AM

The Republican retirements that could make 2010 more difficult than it needs to be, that is. First Mel Martinez, then Sam Brownback, and now Kit Bond of Missouri. The Bond and Martinez seats are potential Democratic pickups, Brownback's seat probably not.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Richard John Neuhaus Has Passed

Posted by Hunter Baker on 1.8.09 @ 10:27AM

This is a terrible loss.  I imagine First Things (his stellar journal of religion and culture) will provide information about the funeral and tributes in the near future.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama, the Fashion Industry and Other Weapons of the Patriarchy

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 1.8.09 @ 10:23AM

You may be asking yourself, "What the heck does Barack Obama have to do with the fashion industry?" According to one feminist blogger, a lot:

This is what the victory of Barack Obama means for women: We are all fair game.

The video she chose to illustrate her point:

The video blames these magazine ads for everything from rape and murder to international sex trafficking. If that claim doesn't make sense to you, well, obviously you're not a feminist.

Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 1.8.09 @ 10:14AM

• GMAC is the winner of the bowl season with its raids on the Treasury (Washington Post)

• If regulations didn't stop Madoff this time, when would they work? (Reason)

• Calling Obama "Mr. Tumnus" is a bit much, but yes Chicago wins this round (Chicago Tribune)

• Bias often means self-deception, and being well-informed doesn't help (Ezra Klein)

• The stimulus is like the Battle of the Somme, with technocrats sending the economy "over the top" (EconLog)

• Father of Sabermetrics Bill James takes to the pages of Slate to crusade against the BCS

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Obama's Fiscal Acrobatics

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.8.09 @ 9:32AM

While President-elect Obama has predicted "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come" and wants to push through a roughly $775 billion economic stimulus package on top of the $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009, he's also talking about the need to restrain spending. As the AP notes, "The incoming president has walked this same tightrope each day this week - advocating fiscal discipline and taxpayer largesse together at nearly every turn, though in every case with little detail to back it up."

Pretty soon we'll witness the difference between speaking and governing -- between being able to say whatever you want and actually having to make decisions and sacrifice some things for others.

During the campaign, Obama was brilliant at making everybody think that he agreed with them and was sympathetic to their goals. Rhetorically, it's easy to convince people that he could give them everything they wanted while being fiscally responsible at the same time. During the first presidential debate, Jim Lehrer asked the candidates what they would give up as a result of the cost of the bailout. Obama started by saying, "there are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed" and "there's no doubt that we're not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done. There are some things that I think have to be done." Then he went on to say, "We have to have energy independence..." and "We have to fix our health care system" ... and "we have to do is we've got to make sure that we're competing in education" ... and we have to "make sure that college is affordable for every young person in America" ... and "I also think that we're going to have to rebuild our infrastructure" ... and "mak[e] sure that we have a new electricity grid..." 

So in other words, we'll have to make tough decisions, but trillions of dollars in new spending is non-negotiable. That's par for the course during campaigns, but impossible in the real world because it's inherently contradictory. While it's typical of presidents to not live up to the promise of their campaigns, Obama set the bar so high during the campaign with his soaring rhetoric, that the gap between election year fantasy and governing reality will be more pronounced.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Will Joe Biden Stay on the Ticket?

Posted by David Weigel on 1.8.09 @ 9:00AM

I'm not as convinced as Doug at the disposibility of Joe Biden. First, it's not right to say Biden was "chosen at the one moment when [Obama's] candidacy seemed in danger." Obama picked Biden right before the Democratic convention, when he was leading McCain. The only moment of true danger was that two week period between Sarah Palin's convention speech and the economic meltdown. Indeed, that's when we first started reading silly "Hillary will replace Biden on the ticket" stories.

Second, we always see these sorts of takes in the weeks before a party takes power—remember Tim Noah's much-linked and quite boneheaded "time to dump Pelosi?" article, right after John Murtha lost his majority leader bid (for which all non-redneck Democrats must still be grateful)? When it comes from the Weekly Standard, the magazine that did the most to push McCain to pick the Alaska Albatross as his VP, I shrug. Terzian's arguments are mostly cant—did Colin Powell or Condi Rice "solicit advice" on foreign policy from Dick Cheney? Well, then. Dick Cheney must have been a weak VP!

As to whether Obama will dump Biden in 2012... eh, I read too many "time for Bush to dump Cheney" stories from 2001 to 2004 in order to take that seriously.

I'd give Biden a year or so in the role before I read an assessment like this. For now, I suspect a lot of those Politico-driven "Biden to give up powers" and "Biden won't lobby Senate" stories were false flags. It's just impossible to believe that the fourth most senior senator will twiddle his thumbs and dream of retirement when his party's led in the Senate by a bumbler like Reid.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Back to the Unimportant Vice Presidency

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.8.09 @ 6:06AM

Poor Sen. Joseph Biden.  Senator since the beginning of time, it seems.  Two-time presidential aspirant.  Chairman of the exalted Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Chosen by Barack Obama to add foreign policy heft to the Democratic ticket in the midst of the Russia-Georgia conflict. 

But then President-elect Obama chooses Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State.  We can imagine how often she will be calling Joe for his advice!  If he's not going to be the administration's foreign policy guru, then what?

Philip Terzian suggests in the Weekly Standard that the incoming veep will go back to the usual "inconsequential" model.  He writes:

Joseph Biden, the 66-year-old six-term senator from Delaware, who is nothing if not a quintessential politician of his time, is destined to be more typical than not. We know this for two reasons. First, because the Obama apparatus has not even bothered to say that Joe Biden will have unprecedented responsibilities during the next four years. And second, because the only significant story to emerge about Biden since the election has been the fact--duly reported in the press--that the Bidens beat the Obamas in their quest to acquire a puppy. (For the record, Biden's new dog is a German shepherd.)

In fact, it may be fair to assume that Biden will be the least consequential vice president since Alben Barkley, the amiable 71-year-old Senate fixture from Kentucky, known popularly as the "Veep," who was so underwhelmed by his four years' service in the Truman administration that he subsequently got himself elected to the Senate again.

It is difficult to imagine either Hillary Clinton or General James Jones actively soliciting Joe Biden's judgment in foreign affairs, or -Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers consulting Biden on the economy. Similarly, if the neophyte Obama seeks advice on politics or policy, is Biden destined to be the one to set him straight, or whip the troops into line, or populate the White House and executive branch with Biden people? Will Rahm Emanuel be expected to "clear it" with Joe?

To ask such questions is to answer them--even without laughing. Indeed, if there were any doubt about the insignificance of Joseph Biden in Barack Obama's administration, it was answered with last week's announcement that Biden would chair a special, cabinet-level task force to assess the conditions of American middle- and working-class families. ("Is the number of these families growing?" asks the vice president-elect. "Are they prospering?") This is close to pure Democratic boilerplate. It might have been more entertaining to put Biden in charge of a White House council on change we can believe in, or appoint him to be the logorrhea czar, but no less humiliating.

Poor Joe. But he still has a choice.  He's been reelected to the Senate, so he still has time to change his mind.  And then President Obama could nominate someone he really wants, instead of a campaign stopgap chosen at the one moment when his candidacy seemed in danger.  How about it, Joe?

Add a Comment

More Fire at Eric Holder

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.8.09 @ 5:50AM

With the Democrats possessing 58 (after the imminent seating of Roland Burris) or 59 (if Al Franken wins the court fight) votes in the Senate, it won't be easy (make that well nigh impossible!) to stop an Obama Cabinet nominee.  But there's more reason to believe that the Eric Holder fight could be interesting.  And even if he wins, he will face some embarrassing questions.

Reports the Washington Times:

The battle lines have been drawn for what is shaping up to be a bruising confirmation battle for Attorney General nominee Eric H. Holder Jr. , though even his foes acknowledge he probably will be confirmed to lead the Obama administration's Justice Department.

Partisan posturing continued Wednesday with some Republicans attacking Mr. Holder's prior work in the Justice Department and questioning whether he will show the independence necessary to succeed in its top post. Democrats and civil rights leaders defended Mr. Holder as eminently qualified and accused critics of playing politics.

Confirmation hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee are scheduled to start Jan. 15.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and a member of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters Wednesday Mr. Holder's quest for confirmation will not be "smooth sailing."

"He still may end up being attorney general. And I wouldn't say that I wouldn't vote for him because you can't say he's not qualified for it; he is qualified," Mr. Grassley said. "But there's a lot of people that are qualified. They have other reasons that maybe they shouldn't be in that position."

Republicans are gearing up to vigorously question Mr. Holder during the hearing, particularly about his time as the deputy attorney general, the Justice Department's No. 2 post, under President Clinton.

This increasingly looks like a target of opportunity for conservative groups.  Heck, if Sen. Arlen Specter is getting involved, you know there's got to be something there!

Add a Comment

The Jew Among Nations

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.7.09 @ 10:40PM

One can criticize Israel, we are told, without being anti-Semitic, but Taki Theodoracopulos has blurred the distinction with his latest screed, entitled: "Israel: The Bernie Madoff of Countries."

He fumes:

Israel can now safely be called the Bernie Madoff of countries, at it has lied to the world about its intentions, stolen Palestinian lands continuously since 1948, and managed to do all this with American tax payer’s money. Every American taxpayer, starting with George W. Bush, has Palestinian blood on their hands thanks to the butchers that run Israel.

He goes on to write that "neocon Zionists like Frum, Podhoretz and Kristol trumpeted Israel’s withdrawal in the American media (neocon Zionists should be made to register as foreign agents—which they are—of a terrorist state, to boot)"...

Aside from the nasty tone and transparent bigotry, Theodoracopulos doesn't get his basic facts correct. He writes that "Israel pulled out 800 Israelis from Gaza in 2005" when the actual number was more than 10 times that amount, or around 8,500.

138 Comments | Add a Comment

Interview with Cheney

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 1.7.09 @ 5:16PM

Today I had the pleasure of a small-group lunch with the Vice President. Here is my report. Read it not only for the usual, firm defense of enhanced interrogation and the like but also for a great story about Gerald Ford's decisionmaking regarding a running mate.

Now, for Spectator readers especially, some of what didn't make the report above.

Most interesting, I think, was the methodical and dispassionate way Cheney laid out his explanation for how he has gone from being a very popular figure who was widely respected for reasonableness and sober judgment to the unpopular Darth Vader of today. "There is no question it [his reputation] has been diminished in the last eight years," he said, without sounding terribly concerned about it.

The four reasons he listed: 1) The "residue" of people being "angry" about the outcome of the close Florida recount in the 2000 race. 2) "The nature of the job." His job is "strictly advisory," and he would lose his effectiveness and trustworthiness as an advisor to Bush if he goes out and talks about his advice. "To be effective, I had to be out of the limelight, not explaining myself," he said.  3) "The basic challenges of 9/11." He said he and Bush were determined that "there wasn't going to be another 9/11 on our watch." That led to programs like the intelligence surveillance efforts and the enhanced interrogation techniques, where "secrecy was a very important part of a successful policy" about things that by nature had to be "highly classified." All of which "played into the image that 'Cheney is secretive," which then led to fears about what he was being secretive about. 4) "Torture. That word gets thrown around with great abandon. And it makes it hard to portray oneself as warm and fuzzy." (For the record, he flatly said: "We don't torture.")

More later, if I find any more good nuggets when reviewing my notes......

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Prayers for Richard John Neuhaus

Posted by Hunter Baker on 1.7.09 @ 5:14PM

The great Father Richard John Neuhaus, who was an associate of Martin Luther King, Jr., a high profile convert to Catholicism, and editor of the seminal journal First Things, is near death. Per K-Lo at National Review:

His friends and family are keeping vigil and he was administered last rites shortly after midnight. Fr. George Rutler, who gave him the Catholic Sacrament, says that “he is not expected to live long” and suggests “that it is appropriate that prayers be offered for a holy death.”

Fr. Neuhaus has come close to this moment before and been back. If it’s his time: Go in peace. He's a man who has loved and served His Lord. When he leaves this world, his vast intellectual and spiritual body of work will have a long life here.

I cannot tell you how much he means to those of us, Catholic and Protestant, who are Christians in higher education.  My intellectual life would have been far poorer without his work in First Things and his important book The Naked Public Square.  He has not wasted an ounce of his energy in this life.

Those of you inclined to pray, please do.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

A Possible Silver Lining to Senator Franken

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.7.09 @ 4:28PM

He may play a role in the fight against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Though if this is what Hill conservatives are telling David Freddoso, they must not be wildly optimistic about Norm Coleman's chances.

8 Comments | Add a Comment

Nerd Wars

Posted by John Tabin on 1.7.09 @ 4:13PM

Wagner James Au, king of the Second Life corner of the blogosphere, covers the virtual protests and attacks that have periodically plagued SL Israel since the real Israel began its military response to the rocket barrage from Gaza. I've been "in-world" for some of this (I waste an embarrassing amount of time on SL); at one point someone was demanding that the name of the region be changed to SL Palestine.

Let that sink in for a minute: These people can't abide the existence of an imaginary Israel.

The best response to the SL protests I've seen is this post by Crap Mariner, better known to the political blogosphere as Laurence Simon.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Bush Excess and Burris

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 1.7.09 @ 2:08PM

You didn’t know there was a Bush angle to the Senate's reluctance to seat Roland Burris? The enlightened Walter Dellinger, arguing for Burris, explains: "As we emerge from eight years of extravagant executive claims of unreviewable authority, Congress should be especially scrupulous about having a solid legal basis for controversial actions."

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads, Afternoon Edition

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 1.7.09 @ 1:26PM

• A look at Obama's tank-like presidential limo (Wired)

• Could you become a Nazi? Milgram's experiment repeated for today (Reason)

• Everybody has a legitimate claim to the BCS title (CBS Sports)

• When cash gets scarce, some people just print their own (WSJ)

• The press fell for the story on failed abstinence pledges hook, line, and sinker (WSJ)

• When intellectualy property rights don't seem to matter: free album also tops sales charts (Ars Technica)

Add a Comment

Solis for Fairness

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.7.09 @ 12:55PM

To further Jim's point, it's worth noting that Hilda Solis, Obama's pick for Secretary of Labor, was a co-sponsor of the Paycheck Fariness Act. Here's a video of her arguing in favor of the legislation on the House floor:

1 Comment | Add a Comment

More Fairness Doctrines

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.7.09 @ 12:42PM

Card check isn't the only item on the labor unions' wish list. The Washington Times reports that the House may take up the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, both parts of the labor agenda. The first bill would overturn a 2007 Supreme Court decision that required people who were suing for employment discrimination to follow the statute of limitations. The second bill mandates that businesses justify pay differentials between men and women, stopping just short of the comparable worth idea that if predominantly male truckdrivers are paid differently than predominantly female nurses, the difference must be due to discrimination.

I discuss both pieces of legislation and their importance to the labor unions in the December 2008 issue of Labor Watch (pdf).

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Get Ready for Senator Burris

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.7.09 @ 12:13PM

With Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White starting to distance himself from his refusal to sign the certificate of appointment, with Senate Democrats starting to splinter, with key members of the Congressional Black Caucus calling for Burris to be seated, and with Harry Reid making conciliatory noises after their meeting, I'd say the odds are heavily in favor of Roland Burris becoming the next U.S. senator from Illinois.

How did Rod Blagojevich manage this? He knew that if he picked a respected black politician, there was virtually no way that the Senate Democratic leadership could stand by its refusal to seat a senator he appointed. By bringing in Bobby Rush and making the race issue explicit, he pretty much sealed the deal. Burris was a perfect choice -- credentialed and respectable enough to be a plausible candidate, desperate enough to take a Blagojevich appointment (Burris has lost races for governor, senator, and mayor of Chicago and is now 71). Burris's decision to take a high media profile while confidently asserting that the law is on his side has also helped move momentum in his direction.

Although things could still change and Reid might find a way to keep Burris from serving as a voting senator for the next two years, it looks like Blago won this round. He didn't get any obvious financial reward, but he proved that he still held the powers of the governor's office and forced the ball in his detractors' court. In other words, he didn't just f--king give the Senate seat away for nothing. It's a very valuable thing.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Hamas and Human Shields at the U.N. School

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.7.09 @ 11:51AM

The AP reports:

GAZA CITY, Gaza (AP) -- Residents of a Gaza neighborhood are confirming Israel's claim that Hamas militants had opened fire from the cover of a U.N. school where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge.

Israeli forces fired back with mortars, and hospital officials says three dozen Palestinians were killed.

Two residents say a group of militants had fired their mortars from a street near the school, then fled into a crowd of people in the streets. The Israeli army says two of the dead were militants. It accuses Gaza's Hamas rulers of "cynically" using civilians as human shields.

And here's a video from 2007 of Hamas members firing rockets from the same location. Nobody who is being intellectually honest can dispute the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields to make Israel hesitate, or, alternatively, to gain a propaganda victory when civilians are killed. That forces Israel to make a choice. Either Israelis target Hamas militants -- with the unfortunate consequences that civilians may be killed -- or they never fire if civilians are in the area, which would send a signal to terrorists that as long as they hide among women and children they can fire their rockets with impunity.

As I've mentioned before, this is also another reason for the disproportionate death tolls. Israelis go to great lengths to protect their own civilians, while Hamas makes the strategic decision to place its own civilians in harm's way.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

The Immigration Crisis You Never Hear About

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 1.7.09 @ 11:06AM

Law-abiding people who want to play by the rules are put through the wringer, as in the case of an American who wanted to bring his pregnant Polish fiance to this country:

I met Justyna while studying abroad in London in 2005. She is Polish by birth but had been living, working, and attending school in the United Kingdom for over two years at the time. With only an easily obtained student visa, I enjoyed the same privileges, including England's national health care system -- a resource that proved especially useful when Justyna became pregnant in the spring of 2006.
We decided that I would return to America and finish my degree while she would go home to Poland to have the baby near her family. With the intention of bringing my wife to America after the birth of our child, I filed an I-129f Petition for Fiance(e) visa in October 2006. Thus began our protracted and degrading experience with the United States Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS.

"Degrading" being the key word here. The necessary corollary to boundless tolerance of illegal immigration seems to be a process for legal immigrants that is humiliating and expensive. Ask any Canadian or Brit who's tried it.

There is a passage in Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation where a foreign-born friend talks about the difficulty of bringing over his mother, and Brimelow advises: "Just get her a tourist visa and let her overstay." It's very practical advice. The enforcement mechanism is broken and, even if La Migra came for Mum, the appeals process can delay deportation almost infinitely. It's easier to break the law than to obey it.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

The Obama Inflation?

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.7.09 @ 10:26AM

The AP is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office will project a $1.2 trillion annual deficit for 2009, more than double the $455 billion record set last year. Yesterday, Barack Obama predicted "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come." I really wonder when we're going to start having a serious national debate about inflation. When the Federal Reserve decided to lower interest rates to near zero last month, the FOMC statement said that, "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." In their judgment, the main focus should be on jump-starting the economy, and they'll deal with price stability down the road if they need to. But when the government is simultaneously employing expansionary monetary and fiscal policy, issuing an unprecedented level of debt, and introducing more and more government programs without any plans to pay for them, it will have to print a massive amount of money, and I have a difficult time seeing how serious inflation can be avoided. And historically, inflation has often proved harder to lick than a simple economic downturn. Most recently, we had stagflation in the 1970s, and Paul Volker had to choke us into a major recession in the early 1980s to get inflation under control before the Reagan tax cuts kicked in and the economy was off to the races. People may make counterarguments as to whay we shouldn't be worried about inflation, but given the potential consequences, it should be a part of the conversation.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Burris Edges Closer to Joining the Club

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.7.09 @ 9:05AM

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) sure messed up the Dems' talking points.  She said Roland Burris should be seated, making the obvious point that the gubernatorial appointment power risks becoming a nullity if the Senate can reject appointees despite meeting all of the legal requirements.  So now the search is on for a face-saving out for poor Harry Reid. 

Reports Politico:

Roland Burris heads into a pivotal meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin on Wednesday with an unmistakable sense of momentum.

He's now got a top Senate Democrat on his side, a growing chorus of Congressional Black Caucus members backing him and an apparent edge in pending lawsuits.

Burris' Senate appointment by Gov. Rod Blagojevich has caused an uproar because Blagojevich has been charged with trying to sell that Senate seat, vacated by Barack Obama.

The key question now for Reid and Durbin: How do they find cover in a political story that has run amok? One idea being considered is to have Burris win an endorsement from the sitting lieutenant governor, Pat Quinn, one Democratic insider said.

A Democratic aide familiar with the process said that the idea of urging Quinn to endorse Burris is being seriously considered, and that strategy may emerge depending on the outcome of the meeting. Democrats are also considering urging Burris to not run in 2010 as one condition for their support, aides said.

In an interview with Politico on Tuesday, Reid said he would support a Quinn appointment, even if it was Burris.

"What should happen, Blagojevich - if he really cared about his state and cared about Mr. Burris - should just step down and let Quinn do what Quinn would do," said Reid, who has spoken to Quinn in recent days. "Whoever Quinn appointed, unless there were something I don't understand, I just think anybody that he suggested ... they'd all be fine."

Another out for Democrats: If Burris wins his state lawsuit and the Illinois secretary of state is forced to certify his appointment, Senate leaders could say their hand has been forced and they have to follow the order of the court.

Might as well start printing up the "Senator Burris" stationery! 

1 Comment | Add a Comment

A Limit for Yoo?

Posted by Steven Rybicki on 1.7.09 @ 7:00AM

Eric Posner (E) has been busy mocking the realignment of political principles of both the Left and Right now that the person possessing the executive power will wear a blue jersey instead of a red one.  In December E’s b.s. detector was triggered by the shifting positions of Bush critic David Cole. Now it’s the Right’s turn for a little smacky-face: in a New York Times editorial by Johns Yoo and Bolton, E’s noticed a re-acquired interest in emphasizing limits on executive power.

Some speculate that this is E blasting away at John Yoo for Yoo being inconsistent on the topic of executive power. But that’s a petty summary because E’s lede is, indeed, the lede: "It didn’t take long for conservatives to rediscover limits on executive power. You’d think something—if not philosophical consistency, then at least manners—would cause them to hold off until, say, inauguration day." (Emphasis mine)

E does snipe at Johns Yoo and Bolton’s (partial) defense of the need for a supermajority of votes in the US Senate to ratify a treaty. But what is more valuable about E’s comments is his underlying meta-critical position regarding how day-to-day partisan politics shape and influence the “principles” that ideologically-bound partisans hold. Notably, that the principles are determined by the degree of power those partisans enjoy. A strong, unitary executive is defensible if you’re a GOPer and there’s a POTUS-R (and it’s not so much the case if your preference is a POTUS-D). And now, as January 20, 2009 is at-hand, the inverse will be the case. This change allows us to gauge the extent to which arguments made in favor of or against the Bush Administration’s claims about executive power were grounded in veiled partisanism or in some other, deeper conception of the executive that persists despite the particular partisan affiliation of the current POTUS.

But given E’s post and regardless of the misunderstanding that E has found an “inconsistency,” it is interesting that it is Professor John Yoo who is making this case. Prior to this, in the pages of the New York Times, Yoo has explained, approvingly, of how the executive power has regained the “energy” necessary to act in the post-9/11 age. In the Wall Street Journal he has defended Congress’s explicit legislative reprimand of the judicial branch when the Supreme Court “limited” executive power. And yet E points out that for no articulated reason Professor Yoo has shifted his emphasis when discussing executive power in order to find a limit that he believes exists on executive power. This may not be an inconsistent position in terms of Professor Yoo’s broader vision of executive power, but it is certainly a decisive shift in what Yoo chooses to emphasize when explaining executive power in public (he's speaking of limits instead of prerogative).

Yoo, rightly or wrongly (probably the latter, but I’m a relativist without a JD so what do I know…), is despised in many quarters of the interwebs. Haters consider Yoo a nefarious spectre haunting the W era and a figure viewed as an immanently evil force during the aftermath of 9/11. I won’t presume that I’m the intellectual equal to Professor Yoo and challenge his credentials or actual arguments that he made on behalf of President Bush, but I don’t believe it’s disrespectful to suggest that Yoo is aware of his public image and reputation.

When Professor Yoo ties himself to an op-ed, he is not the writer of a sensitive piece of legal reasoning that intricately works through an argument based on his interpretations of specific statutes and precedents. Instead the action is provocative: he is an influential public figure offering a first draft of arguments regarding a specific issue on which he is treated as an expert.  He is legitimizing the terms and tactics that will trickle down and be regarded as “facts” to other less capable pundits and eventually to grass-roots partisans.

So when Professor Yoo goes from being a crucial defender of executive power to pontificating on its limits, it’s kind of a big deal. And without any other statement explaining the impetus for his change of tone, the advantage goes to a Schmittian like E and his cynical theory of the relationship between partisans and their principles.

P.S. In order to read some of Professor Yoo’s academic papers check out his UC Berkeley page (current through 2006).

P.P.S. And way back in 2005: a Posner/Yoo threesome with John Bolton in the middle. Sexy.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Specter Takes on Holder

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.7.09 @ 5:58AM

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is the squishiest of the squishy.  But he appears to be growing a backbone when it comes to Attorney General-designate Eric Holder.  Reports the New York Times:

Before Tuesday, Mr. Specter had been mildly critical of Mr. Holder's role in President Bill Clinton's pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich. He said Tuesday that he would wait until the hearing next week to decide how he would vote, but in the Senate speech he let loose on Mr. Holder, comparing him with Mr. Gonzales in his ability to maintain independence from the president.

Mr. Specter raised questions about Mr. Holder's role as deputy attorney general on a range of issues that included an investigation into the 1993 federal siege in Waco, Tex., that left David Koresh and about 80 of his Branch Davidian followers dead, and an espionage investigation involving a nuclear scientist, Wen Ho Lee.

But he saved his sharpest criticism for Mr. Holder's role as deputy attorney general in three controversies in Mr. Clinton's second term: Mr. Clinton's pardon of Mr. Rich in 2001, the president's decision in 1999 to grant clemency to 16 members of a Puerto Rican militant nationalist group, and the Justice Department's rejection in 1997 of an independent counsel to examine accusations of campaign finance abuse by Vice President Al Gore and the White House. In each case, Mr. Specter said, Mr. Holder appeared to go against the advice of career professionals at the Justice Department.

"Further inquiry is warranted on the issue of Mr. Holder's independence to follow the facts without respect to political bias," Mr. Specter said in his prepared statement.

It could be all talk, of course.  But Sen. Specter has pointed to reasons for fighting the Holder nomination.  A return to the bad old Clinton Justice Department surely isn't "change that we can believe in."

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Re: RNC Rumble

Posted by John Tabin on 1.6.09 @ 7:42PM

My laptop died yesterday afternoon, and with it went a post about the RNC debate yesterday. That's okay, though; all I really have to add to what Phil and Stacy have already reported is an observation about the peculiar nature of the Steele for Chairman campaign. Because Michael Steele is from Maryland, Washington is convenient for his supporters, and they were handing out Steele signs and stickers an hour before the event. Unfortunately for Steele, the Steele paraphenalia was mostly confined to the sides of the auditorium; the Committee members who actually vote for the chairmanship were seated in the middle of the auditorium behind the press tables. After the debate Steele was mobbed by well-wishers at the front of the room, while his rivals, like Mike Duncan and Ken Blackwell, slipped behind the press tables and started actually glad-handing the Committee members, which is to say securing votes. I did think that Steele came off as the most charismatic of the candidates on the stage (not that that's saying a whole lot), and weird things can happen in a six-way race with 168 voters, but for now it seems like Steele is basically making a big show of losing.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

About Those House Rule Changes

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.6.09 @ 5:28PM

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer offered his own spin on Democratic rules changes to end term limits for committee chairmen and make it more difficult for Republicans to debate or affect legislative outcomes:

Second, the rules will no longer set term limits for Committee chairs. I understand that our Republican colleagues once wrote term limits into the rules in an effort against entrenched power. But it is now clear that that effort fell victim to what conservatives like to call the law of unintended consequences: With chairmanships up for grabs so frequently, fundraising ability became one of the most important job qualifications, and legislative skill was sacrificed to political considerations.

Third, these rules limit the abuse of motions to recommit. We invite good-faith efforts to improve legislation—and in these hard times, we need the Republican Party to be a constructive partner in policy making. But we all understand which motions are not offered in good faith: Those are the motions that attempt to kill bills through parliamentary tricks and waste our constituents’ time on 'gotcha' politics.

Let's not waste our constituents' time while wasting their money too! Some motions are offered in good faith; others the Democrats disagree with.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Shadow Senator Burris?

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.6.09 @ 5:20PM

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has floated a possible compromise between Harry Reid and Roland Burris I hadn't heard: Allow Burris to serve as a shadow senator. For the remaining two years of Obama's term, Burris could serve on comittees, attend hearings, walk around on the Senate floor, and maybe even introduce legislation. But he'd have no vote.

I have to say it sounds like a nonstarter to me. Nonvoting "shadow" status isn't good enough for many residents of Washington, D.C. Why would it be acceptable to people who live in an actual state?

Add a Comment

No Jeb, How About Jack?

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 1.6.09 @ 5:04PM

Our friend Dave Weigel reminds us, just now, of an unsuccessful senatorial draft campaign I ran here about three years ago. Somehow, I don't think my idea of a replacement for Jeb Bush in the Senate race in Florida is quite as good now as it was then (when it was suggested as an emergency replacement for the flawed Katharine Harris), but even when I took it out for a test, uh, drive a few years back, I knew it wasn't a gimme. Meanwhile, I am disappointed in Jeb's decision. I am no fan of the  Bush family in general, but this Bush was a very solid conservative governor and would have been a near shoo-in for election to the Senate. Unlike Caroline Kennedy, he would have EARNED his spot by election from constituents who have already seen how he performs in office.

I do find him a bit arrogant, to say the least, and I would never want him to run for or be president, but I think he really ought to have run for the Senate. After all his brother did to hurt the Republican and conservative "brands," the least Jeb sould do is to help make up for his brothers' (and fathers') harm by holding a seat conservatives desperately need to hold. Again, then, the Bushes disappoint.

And if Jack wants to run, even at age 70, I'm sure we could do worse....

;)

3 Comments | Add a Comment

In Trouble With Ken Blackwell

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 1.6.09 @ 4:42PM

Yes, I use Twitter, but it would never occur to me to run a campaign based on it. And I probably wouldn't use Twitter to project my quotable self, but then again, it appears our own contributor, Dave Weigel, feels differently. From his report on the RNC debate yesterday:

Blackwell, leaning back in his chair and speaking slowly, was as grim and confident. “When Ken Blackwell speaks,” commented American Spectator managing editor J.P. Freire, “I feel like I’m in trouble for something.” Blackwell framed the GOP’s problems as those of an ossified organization unable to reap the benefits of its good ideas.

Well, that's all in good fun. Then I receive this:

CHILLING, PEOPLE. THIS IS CHILLING. I NEED A MEDIA SHIELD LAW PASSED FORTHWITH.

No wonder Blackwell was so proud of his Facebook friend count. These are people he chides into submission. You haven't heard the last of me, Ken Blackwell.

Add a Comment

Ron Paul Lashes Out at Israel, Predicts "Consequences" to U.S. Support

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.6.09 @ 4:41PM

Via Alarming News and Hot Air, I see this video of Ron Paul condemning Israel's defensive action in Gaza. At no point in the near 7-minute video can he muster any criticism of Hamas terrorists, scoffing that "they have a few small missiles." He blames the crisis solely on Israel and the United States for supporting Israel. Our support, Paul argues, has "antagonized the Muslim/Arab world more than ever before and unfortunately we'll suffer the consequences from this." I wonder what "consequences" he has in mind. Remember that this comes from the man who argued that U.S. bombing of Iraq during the 1990s was the cause of 9/11.

730 Comments | Add a Comment

Jeb Bush

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.6.09 @ 3:40PM

The word seems to be that he's not running for Senate in Florida. Not only does that take the strongest Republican candidate off the table in that particular race but it also could dampen recruitment for other races. Being able to attract a big name like Jeb Bush might entice other big names to run as Republicans in 2010. Maybe his dad embarrassed him.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

15 Seconds in Sderot

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.6.09 @ 2:02PM

This video of Israeli children dancing the "Hokey Pokey" one second and sprinting for cover the next, is a haunting example of how the every day lives of southern Israelis are disrupted by regular rocket attacks. Even though Israeli efforts to protect their civilians limit the casualties inflicted by the rockets,  they still create terror. American liberals like Josh Marshall have labeled Hamas a "distraction." Try telling that to the children in this video.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

The Anti-Blackwell Brigade

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.6.09 @ 1:23PM

Jim Geraghty has been trying to figure out who is behind an anonymous hit on RNC chairman candidate Ken Blackwell and includes Ohio Republicans on his list of suspects. Blackwell has long been hated by members of his state party establishment for the same reasons many conservatives like him. And there are other Republicans, some of them Blackwell admirers, who worry that his strategy for Republican success is too close to what worked in 2004 but failed in 2006, including in his own gubernatorial race. It remains to be seen whether his Conservative Resurgence Plan will allay those concerns or not.

Though while we're on the subject of Blackwell, bloggers, and conservative credentials, I might as well say this: Blackwell's reported 1976 vote for Jimmy Carter is now as far in the past as Ronald Reagan's 1948 vote for Harry Truman was in 1980. A lot of reliable Reagan coalition members, including Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, voted Democratic in 1976. I think we can stop holding it against him.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Free Paul Jacob

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.6.09 @ 12:38PM

Oklahoma has taken the lead in attempting to criminalize political differences.  The state is notoriously difficult for third parties seeking ballot access.  Now state Attorney General Drew Edmondson, reputed to be yet another gubernatorial wanna-bee, is trying to use criminal indictments to shut down initiative campaigns.  Paul Jacob, a long-time leader in the fight to limit politicians' terms, cut taxes, and reduce spending, and two others have spent more than a year under criminal indictment for having the temerity to ask Oklahoma citizens to sign a petition to place a tax and budget limitation measure on the ballot. He deserves the support of liberals as well as conservatives and libertarians, since what he was engaged in involve both free speech and the right to petition government.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette recently editorialized:

THE NAME Paul Jacob will be familiar to folks who followed the struggle to get term limits adopted in Arkansas. For he pretty much led it. An Arkansas boy, he went national as head of U.S. Term Limits and now runs an outfit called Citizens in Charge. It seems he's never outgrown his need to put the people, not the politicians, in control of government. One needn't agree with his ideas to admire his commitment-or defend his right to express them.

But anyone so interested in reform was bound to rile an establishment with an overweening sense of entitlement. So when Mr. Jacob and his merry band of reformers showed up in Oklahoma, they naturally attracted the attention of Drew Edmondson, that state's attorney (and zealot) general.

This time Paul Jacob and company were gathering signatures for a proposal that would have limited legislators' power to spend, spend, spend. Their reward for this show of civic interest? Mr. Jacob and his fellow signature-gatherers, Rick Carpenter and Susan Johnson, were indicted.

The charge? Being part of a criminal conspiracy, to wit democracy. Or as General Edmondson phrased it, attempting to defraud the state by hiring folks from outside Oklahoma to help them gather signatures. Even if according to Paul Jacob, they sought signatures only from duly registered Oklahomans.

"The attorney general's office," to quote Mr. Jacob, "is well aware that the people who pursued this petition drive on the ground went to state officials first, asked them what the rules were and followed their advice. And they were told that as long as someone is residing in the state for the duration of the petition drive, that's residency."

No matter. Mr. Jacobs and friends were indicted anyway. Welcome to Oklahoma.

For more information on the case go to Paul's website.  Everyone expects the courts to eventually toss out the case, but he needs our support to ensure that happens.

Add a Comment

Israel and Its Own Civilians

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.6.09 @ 12:18PM

As the debate continues to rage about the number of civilian casualties on both sides, one aspect of the story isn't receiving enough attention. Supporters of Israel have rightly noted IDF efforts to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza and pointed out that Hamas leaders purposely hide themselves and their arsenals among civilians, who are used as human shields to give Israel pause, or alternatively, to gain propaganda victories from civilian deaths. Less focus has been given to explaining that one of the main reasons that the death toll is relatively low on the Israeli side is that Israel goes to great lengths to protect its own civilians. Every building in Israel must be equipped with a bomb shelter and they have developed an alert system to warn civilians about incoming rocket fire. The IDF has a Homefront Command branch specifically dedicated to coordinating civil defense and educating the public about what to do in the event of a given attack. Furthermore, if any Israelis are injured, the nation has developed among the best emergency response medical services in the world. So, putting this together, if you have one side that puts its energy into protecting its own civilians and another side that tries to keep its civilians in harm's way -- even putting aside the variable that one party has a more powerful military -- it isn't surprising to see more casualties among the Palestinians than the Israelis.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

No Admission for Burris

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.6.09 @ 11:48AM

Roland Burris was denied entry to the Senate floor today as he tried to take the Illinois Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. If the Republicans tried something similar with a distinguished African-American politician who would be the only black senator, they'd surely be compared to Democrat George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. As I write today in my column on the main site, Bobby Rush may make sure Harry Reid doesn't get off any easier.

As Doug notes below, the Democratic leadership has tipped its hand with a possible compromise that's being floated in the press: they might be willing to seat Burris if he agrees not to run in the 2010 election. This suggests that some Democratic senators are more worried that Burris wouldn't be able to hold the seat in two years than about the taint of Rod Blagojevich's appointment. (Not that Illinois Democrats have had any problems voting against Burris in primaries in recent years.) There is also the possibility that they will ask Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn to endorse the appointment to lessen the taint.

The speculation that the Democrats might allow Burris to serve as a placeholder for two years but not run in the 2010 election comes after reports that Harry Reid lobbied against appointing Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., Congressman Danny Davis, or State Senate President Emil Jones, who are all black. His preferences were Attorney General Lisa Madigan and former congressional candidate and Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth, who are not black.

4 Comments | Add a Comment

A Scam So Easy A Caveman Could Run It

1.6.09 @ 11:37AM

From NewsBusters, NASA's Hansen to Obama: Use Global Warming to Redistribute Wealth.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Panetta and Interrogation

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.6.09 @ 11:28AM

It's being widely reported that the reason for the bizarre appointment of Leon Panetta to lead the CIA was his opposition to aggressive interrogation, whereas other more experienced candidates were in some way linked to the Bush administration's interrogation policies. Whatever the moral and practical arguments are against such interrogation methods, it seems awfully dangerous to apply such a rigid litmus test on that one issue, and take a risk on somebody with no intelligence background. The Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq War arose out of major intelligence failures, demonstrating the glaring need for somebody competent in charge of the CIA who actually has real world experience in these matters, not just a Democratic Party loyalist who has a cozy relationship with the incoming president.

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama and Gaza

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.6.09 @ 11:13AM

As the Gaza situation enters its 11th day, Barack Obama finally says something -- sort of:

"Obviously, international affairs are of deep concern. With the situation in Gaza, I've been getting briefed every day. I've had consistentconversations with members of the current administration about what's taking place. That will continue. I will continue to insist that when it comes to foreign affairs, it is particularly important to adhere to the principle of one president at a time, because there are delicate negotiations taking place right now and we can't have two voices coming out of the United States when you have so much at stake."

How difficult would it be for Obama to reiterate his proclaimed support for Israel's right to defend itself and place the blame for the crisis on Hamas, as President Bush has? How would that affect delicate negotiations at all? This is an early indication that perhaps he doesn't really believe his campaign's overtures to the pro-Israel community.

12 Comments | Add a Comment

Che

Posted by J. Peter Freire on 1.6.09 @ 10:02AM

Ericka Andersen goes a little further than most when she bravely asks a liberal friend what is up with the Che fetish. The friend answers:

Che was a doctor who took a trip on his bike all around SA and worked as a volunteer in a rudimentary jungle hospital in Sao Paolo, Brazil and later decided to change his life goal from being a physician to being a revolutionary in the name of the voiceless…

He is the symbol of outrageous bravery who said "Shoot, coward, you’re only going to kill a man" right before he was executed and who believed in the immortality of the revolution to save the masses of unequal citizens.

He and Castro killed many too, but they did it for an ideal, a belief that many Liberals accepted and preferred to imperialism deaths. He traveled and spent his life, truly to fight for what he believe was right, equality of the people and his image is now ubiquitous…

Equality of the people... to be shot in front of a wall for being gay? Or to starve?

The left has a morbid fascination with mass murderers, to be sure. Che, Fidel, Chavez, Lenin have all received plaudits on account of their tireless struggle for "equality," that is, "equality" of everyone else. Do all liberals feel this way? Maybe it's just a majority. But I'm surprised there's no chill effect. If Tom Cruise's latest flick, Valkyrie, were sympathetic to Hitler, and showed how Hitler was really just a courageous man who wanted to bring Germany back to its former glory, the directors would never heard the end of it (and rightly so!). Yet what was different about Hitler? He, like Che, sought to extermine those he deemed unfit. They both did so systematically. The difference is that one had a fondness for open collars and cigars, while the other one was big on Wagner.

People who speak well of Pinochet on the right usually make sure to put it in the context of how he was also a dictator and human rights violator. But the dialogue from the left rarely gets into the messy details of Che's life -- they just prefer to ignore the bad parts and portray it as all unicorn giggles and sparkles.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Roland Burris: So Much for Principle!

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.6.09 @ 8:47AM

Remember all that talk by the Democrats about how they were worried about the "tainted" appointment process for Barack Obama's Senate seat.  When it comes to Roland Burris, it appears that they have other considerations in mind--like holding the seat in the next election.  I am shocked, shocked ... .

Reports the Associated Press:

Democrats privately expressed concern that Burris would not be able to hold the seat in a special election that must be held in 2010. Reid has denied that political calculations are involved, but one Democratic official suggested that one potential outcome would be for Burris to be seated and pledge to retire in 2010.

Lynn Sweet makes the same point in the Chicago Sun-Times:

This brings me to why Burris will be much closer to a deal if he takes himself out of the 2010 contest. The Senate leaders want someone in the seat who has an excellent chance to win it in the next election.

Makes you proud to be an American!

1 Comment | Add a Comment

She Said, She Said

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 1.6.09 @ 7:00AM

Does the feminist ideal of gender equality lead to gay marriage? Yes, says Helen Rittelmeyer:

Gender differences matter; men and women are not equivalent; gay marriage pretends that they are, and so reinforces a falsehood that’s already dangerously prevalent. . . . Don’t be fooled when feminists say that they want equality, not sameness. It may sound like a concession, but it isn’t one. . . . The very fact that people think of hetero- and homosexuality as inflexible sexual preferences tells us that gender isn’t just any characteristic, but a fundamental one.

Traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are different in complementary ways, so that their union forms an integral whole. If, as feminists claim to believe, men and women are essentially the same, then the notion of complementarity is invalid, and it doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman.

The centrality of gender difference to the marriage debate was discussed Monday by Eve Tushnet.

Add a Comment

Second Amendment Paradise

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.6.09 @ 5:38AM

When I visited Pakistan several years ago I was struck by how every business seemed to have an armed guard.  In Lahore the Pizzeria Uno had three armed guards in front.  The doorman held a shotgun in his right hand as he opened the door with his left hand.  Even the McDonald's had a fellow with an AK-47 sitting on a folding chair in front.  Imagine blathering on to these people about gun control!

Now the Wall Street Journal reports that gun ownership is spreading throughout the middle class.  When the government can't, or won't, protect you, what other choice do you have?

Reports the Journal:

After escaping kidnappers who chained him to a bed for 25 days, Mohammad Javed Afridi pressed Pakistani law enforcement for swift justice. The police offered him something else: temporary permits for four automatic assault rifles.

Since Mr. Afridi's ordeal ended in mid-October, police in his hometown of Peshawar, in northwestern Pakistan, haven't made an arrest in his case. They raided the kidnappers' hide-out, but the captors got away, a senior Peshawar police official says.

So the cops allowed Mr. Afridi to arm himself against future abductions. The 35-year-old journalist now carries an AK-47 to work and back home to his wife and five children. Relatives rotate duty as his bodyguards. If his car is again stopped by armed men on a dark road, Mr. Afridi vows to shoot first.

"I'm not going through that again," he said in an interview in this city in northeastern Pakistan.

Guns have long been part of Pakistan's traditional culture, especially in the rugged northwestern part of the country. Handed down through generations, rifles have been used for hunting and for firing celebratory fusillades. Now, however, modern assault rifles and handguns have come into vogue among middle-class Pakistanis, and gun registration has jumped.

And the Left thinks it is bad here!

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Re: RNC Rumble

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 1.6.09 @ 4:27AM

Phil, I don't know whether it's Seasonal Affective Disorder or what, but when I got back from the RNC chairman's debate, I was so sleepy I had to take a four-hour nap. At any rate, I did a round-up post at my blog, including this video clip of Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis in a post-debate interview:

 Also: Does Ken Blackwell have an impressive resume, or what?

Add a Comment

Leftists for More Dead Israelis

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.5.09 @ 7:11PM

A DailyKos poster ponders, "Why Do I Find Israeli Troop Deaths Satisfying?"

Via Contentions.

31 Comments | Add a Comment

Republicans Tearing Down Pelosi's House

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.5.09 @ 6:49PM

The House Republican leadership team has presented a united front against Nancy Pelosi's proposed rules changes that would make it harder for the minority to have any voice in legislating and easier for committee chairmen to wield their gavels for life. "President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent," the leaders wrote in their letter (pdf) to Speaker Pelosi. "This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago."

That's exactly the right tone to strike, though there is little time to generate public outrage over a power grab that may seem more like an arcane rules change and little that can stand in the way of such a large Democratic majority. One-party rule isn't likely to turn out to be "change" you can believe in.

56 Comments | Add a Comment

Minnesota Madness Update

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.5.09 @ 6:20PM

The latest is that Al Franken has been declared the winner by 225 votes, but he will not be able to receive an actual certificate of election until all legal challenges are resolved. The main remaining issues concern the Coleman campaign's contention that hundreds of rejected absentee ballots from Coleman-friendly areas should have been counted just as the ballots from Franken-friendly areas were, and the dispute over whether some ballots were double-counted.

Coleman recount attorney Tony Trimble released a statement on the matter, and here's an excerpt:

The actions today by the Canvassing Board are but the first step in what, unfortunately, will now have to be a longer process. This process isn't at the end; it is now just at the beginning. We will contest the results of the Canvassing Board -- otherwise, literally millions of Minnesotans will be disenfranchised.

While we appreciate the effort of this board to do the work, the reality is that any certification of vote totals at this point is only preliminary. As this Canvassing Board has recognized, there still exist serious problems with inconsistencies in the administrative recount, and therefore in the validity and reliability of the numbers certified today. There can be no count that is accurate or valid when 654 potentially valid absentee votes remain disenfranchised and when some votes are counted twice - leading to a violation of one of the most sacred principles of our constitution - "One person, One vote."

And, there can be no justification to report out a total when 133 votes were included in a count where there are not ballots to support them. Or when a batch of votes were not counted on Election Night, but were miraculously "found" during the recount and included.

If the Canvassing Board had resolved all these issues, then the process might be completed. But the Board has deferred the resolution of those issues for the contest phase provided for in Minnesota law. Since the process is far from complete, there can be no confidence in the current results of the United States Senate Recount, and we will file a contest within the next 24 hours to promptly correct those problems and inaccuracies. The Supreme Court ruling today also emphasizes that that's what we must do to provide an accurate count for this election.

Roll Call is reporting that Harry Reid will try to seat Franken without a certificate of election, even though he has cited a lack of a certificate of election in Illinois as the reason why he won't seat Roland Burris.

8 Comments | Add a Comment

Panetta as CIA Director

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.5.09 @ 6:00PM

The knock on President Bush is that he made selections based on personal loyalty rather than qualifications, and Barack Obama has earned praise for moving away from this practice. However, it's hard to reconcile that narrative of Obama's appointments with his naming of Leon Panetta -- a key political ally with no relevant experience -- as director of the CIA during a time of war.  Even Dianne Feinstein was caught off guard by the bizzare pick, according to the NY Times: "'My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,' said Senator Dianne Feinstein who, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, would be in charge of Mr. Panetta's confirmation."

28 Comments | Add a Comment

RNC Rumble

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.5.09 @ 4:27PM

Earlier this afternoon, I attended the RNC chairmanship debate sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform. As I noted in an earlier post, it's difficult to determine from this sort of event who would make a good RNC chair given that so much of that role happens behind the scenes. During the debate -- which was more like a forum since there wasn't much arguing going on -- there was broad agreement that the party needed to stick to Republican principles, make better use of technology, help Republicans become competitive in all fifty states, and do a better job of reaching out to young and minority voters.

Ken Blackwell used examples of his record of as an activist and politician and showed flashes of humor to make the case that Republicans needed to reinvigorate the base by returning to conservative principles on small government and individual liberty; RNC chairman Mike Duncan emphasized that in a tough year for Republicans, under his leadership the RNC still did a good job raising a lot of money and recruiting volunteers; Michael Steele tried to deliver an optimistic message, dismissing as "bunk" the idea that the Republican Party is at "death's door" and he discussed providing adequate resources at the state and local level; Saul Anuzis cited his experience in the blue state of Michigan as an asset in expanding the map; Chip Saltsman boasted that his leadership as state party chairman helped defeat Al Gore in his home state of Tennessee in 2000, which made the difference in electing Bush; Katon Dawson described how he turned around a South Carolina Republican Party that was in disarray when he took over in 2002.

Moderator Grover Norquist asked the candidates who was their favorite Republican president (you can guess who each of them named), and then Norquist followed up by asking who was their least favorite president. Four candidates declined to take the bait, while Duncan named Warren Harding, and Blackwell named Hoover, for setting the stage for massive government intervention before the New Deal, just as President Bush set the stage for Barack Obama to pursue big government economic policies.

While, as I said, there wasn't much of an actual "debate," to the extent that there was some back and fourth, it seemed to be between Blackwell and Dawson -- which may or may not be an indicator of anything. In his opening remarks, Blackwell noted that he's won more elections than anybody else on the stage except perhaps Dawson, joking, "we all know how difficult it is to win races in the swing state of South Carolina." Dawson later responded that there was difficulty in winning those elections, and told me after that Blackwell benefitted from the Republican Party infrastructure when elected to public office, but Dawson was the one who was getting other people elected, which is more in tune with the role of the RNC chair.

Dawson has been hurt by his longtime membership in an all-white country club, an issue which he not-too subtly tried to address in his opening remarks, when he asked Ron Thomas -- a black Army veteran who he hired as his political director when he took over the SC GOP -- to stand up to be seen by the hundreds of people in attendance. When I asked Dawson about the controversy after the event, he said it was a "political ploy" and that it had been answered by his recruitment of and hiring of qualified minorities, as demonstrated by Thomas.

One thing to keep in mind is that, as Dawson told me, the audience isn't Americans for Tax Reform or anybody else, but the RNC members who will actually be voting for the new chairman. So that's why it's hard to say who "won" the debate in the traditional sense.

175 Comments | Add a Comment

Nancy Pelosi's House

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.5.09 @ 4:08PM

The Democrats are considering rolling back the reforms adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives after the Republicans took control in 1995. That means eliminating the term limits for committee chairs and making it even more difficult for the Republican minority to have any input or impact on legislative outcomes in the House. Republicans will effectively be banned from amending Democratic bills, proposing alternative bills or even participating in open debate under motions to recommit. It's not clear whether open committee hearings or the ban on committee proxy voting are similarly in danger.

Remember all the outrage of how intolerant Tom DeLay's House was of the Democratic minority? If these rules changes are adopted, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats will be getting rid of protections for the minority that existed throughtout DeLay's tenure and the Republican majority. House Republicans leaders have pledged to fight the changes, but votes on these procedural issues tend to be along party lines.

50 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama Conceding the Tax Debate

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 1.5.09 @ 12:06PM

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Barack Obama and the Democrats are adding up to $300 billion in tax cuts to their stimulus proposal, making the plan now 40 percent tax cuts. Some of these tax cuts, like speeding up the ability of businesses to write off losses and adding investment incentives, make sense. Others, like the human employment tax credit, less so. The move is being billed as an effort to peel off Republican votes.

Republicans should instead up the ante, using this latest concession to push more tax cuts and less spending. Barack Obama has already conceded that tax increases could hurt the economy, at least under present conditions. He has conceded that tax cuts can help. And he hasn't done much to make sure that his tax proposals are realistically revenue-neutral. At the very least, these points need to be remembered when Obama and the Democrats move to raise taxes later.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

RNC Candidates Ready to Rumble

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.5.09 @ 11:07AM

I'll be heading over to the National Press Club soon to see six candidates for the RNC chairmanship debate (Mike Duncan, Saul Anuzis, Ken Blackwell, Katon Dawson, Chip Saltsman, and Michael Steele). The event is being organized by Americans for Tax Reform and they've set up a website where you can submit questions and watch live starting at 1 pm. I have to say that in all honesty, I'm not really sure what makes a good RNC chair in the first place, let alone how I could gauge something like that from a debate. Much of what an RNC chair does is behind the scenes, making phone calls, attending meetings, and raising money. There's an argument to be made that the RNC chairman needs to be a dynamic spokesperson for the party, but also an argument that a relatively boring leader who is a great fundraiser is a better choice. How relevant are the chair's individual policy positions to whether that person can competently run the RNC? Does having a more conservative RNC chair mean the party is going to become more conservative? I'm not sure I really know, so it's hard for me to get as passionate about this race as a lot of other people here in DC. But I'm curious to learn more about the candidates today and hear what they have to say. I'll report back in the afternoon with some impressions.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Resigned

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 1.5.09 @ 10:42AM

Over at Townhall, they're spotlighting a petition drive calling on "Rahm Emmanuel" to "resign." Wouldn't such an initiative have greater cred if it first bothered to spell Emanuel's name right?

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Did You Hear the One About When Harry Reid Won the Iraq War?

Posted by Philip Klein on 1.5.09 @ 10:19AM

A reader passes along this shameless exchange from "Meet the Press":

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about the war in Iraq.  In April of 2007, this is what you said: "I believe myself that ... this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything." Were you wrong?

SEN. REID: David, I first met General David Petraeus in Iraq.  He was training the Iraqi forces at that time.  At that time, he knew it wasn't working.  After he became the commander in Iraq, he and I sat down and talked. He said to me, and he said within the sound of everyone's voice, "The war cannot be won militarily." I said it differently than he did.  But it needed a change in direction.  Petraeus brought that about.  He brought it about--the surge helped, of course it helped.  But in addition to that, the urging of me and other people in Congress and the country dictated a change, and that took place.  So...

MR. GREGORY: But you said the surge was not accomplishing anything.  Even Barack Obama said last fall that it exceeded everyone's expectations and succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

SEN. REID: Listen, at that--the time that statement was made, the surge--they weren't talking about the surge.  Petraeus added to the surge some very, very interesting things that changed things.  He said a lot--just simply numbers of troops is not going to do the deal.  What we need to do is work with the Iraqi people, which we haven't done before.  That's where the Awakening Councils came about, as a result of David Petraeus' genius.  He's done--he will be written about in the history books for years to come.  My original statement was in keeping what David Petraeus said; that is, the war cannot be won militarily.

With the possible exception of the sentence, "I first met General David Petraeus in Iraq," everything that Reid says is contradicted by history.

When Petraeus said the war couldn't be won militarily, he meant that the war couldn't be won with military action alone, but only with a more comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that involved working with local tribal leaders as well as using diplomacy to improve the political situation. When Reid said the war was lost, he meant the war was lost ... and that we should withdraw troops from Iraq. Reid and the Democrats did want a change in direction, but that change in direction was supposed to be withdrawal, not the surge, which they referred to as an "escalation" and fiercely opposed.

Yesterday Reid said that, "at that--the time that statement was made, the surge--they weren't talking about the surge" -- but the surge was proposed in January of 2007, and was already underway when Reid made his statement in April of 2007. In fact, Reid's statement was, "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."

And Reid is right that simply adding more troops wasn't sufficient to do the job, but they were still necessary to implement the overall strategy.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 1.5.09 @ 10:15AM

• Can't keep the change in Argentina (WSJ)

• We need a farm bill that's less... evil (NY Times)

• Trouble in progressiveland as Vermonters struggle to argue against, of all things, pornographic snowboards (Boston Globe)

• Obama administration vs. Barnum and Bailey (National Review)

• To win Republicans' support, Obama's increases in spending will also include... increases in taxes (Cafe Hayek)

• Business as usual in horribly corrupt Democratic Massachusetts (Dan Dunn's Podium)

• Obama and Burris, making race politics a little more interesting (Democracy in America)

Add a Comment

What About the Voters?, Asks the Chicago Tribune

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.5.09 @ 9:17AM

Roland Burris wants the Senate seat.  Harry Reid doesn't want to give it to him.  But shouldn't someone else have a say?

Editorializes the Chicago Tribune:

We know what Roland Burris wants: a U.S. Senate seat he thinks he's earned by riding shotgun to an accused felon.

We know what Rod Blagojevich wants: to share the humiliation that has doomed his own big dreams by now humiliating as many other public figures as he can.

We know what Dick Durbin and Pat Quinn want-or wanted-because they told us early in this fiasco: a special election to fill Illinois' vacant Senate seat. Durbin and Quinn have since lost their voices on this point. That stuff about holding an election? That was then.

We know what Harry Reid of Nevada wants: a Senate seat that stays reliably in his party's possession-so much so that he was tutoring Blagojevich on whom to appoint.

We know what Illinois legislators want: damage control. They failed last month to schedule the special election that every voice of fairness initially wanted. The Springfield lawmakers figure that when a new governor sends someone other than Burris to Washington, they'll quietly be forgiven for having left Blagojevich with the power to make them look so foolish.

We can guess what Barack Obama wants: for the buffoonery over what was once his proud Senate seat to abate. Illinois is embarrassing its president-elect.

But what about the voters in this plundered state? Is anyone asking them what they want? They elected Barack Obama to the Senate. Obama quit to accept a better job. That's his privilege. Choosing his replacement should be their privilege, just as replacing Rahm Emanuel is the privilege of voters who live in his congressional district.

Add a Comment

The Next Bail-Out: Academia!

Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.4.09 @ 3:51PM

If you thought that no one else was coming after your money, think again!  America's universities, already deeply on the federal dole, want an extra dose of taxpayer money.  Reports Barbara Hollingsworth in the Washington Examiner:

Just before Christmas, the Carnegie Corporation of New York - a philanthropic organization set up by steel baron Andrew Carnegie, who in his day was the richest man in the world - took out a rare double-page ad in several prominent newspapers.

The ad, an open letter asking President-elect Barack Obama to put them on his economic stimulus list, was signed by the heads of 54 academic institutions, including UVA president John Casteen.

Like most investors, UVA lost $1 billion in the recent stock market meltdown due to the fact that if followed the so-called "Yale model" - shunning safe, traditional investments such as Treasury bonds to pursue much higher yields in risky hedge funds and then-popular private equity offerings.

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine also says that the commonwealth's own worsening financial condition will force him to cut $23 million out of the $160 million UVA typically receives.

So like many of his peers, Casteen is now publicly begging for a federal bailout. Does the man have no shame?

For one thing, UVA had a $4 billion endowment as of October 31. Watching it lose $1 billion in value was no doubt a most unpleasant experience, as millions of workers with much smaller 401(k)s can attest, but when you still have about $3 billion left over, it's survivable.
And despite the fact that UVA will receive $23 million less in state funds, the university has no plans to lay off any employees - even though payroll accounts for two-thirds of UVA's operating budget.

Besides his reported $797,048 university salary, Casteen himself also made $220,000 annually for serving as a part-time director of Wachovia Bank. He's apparently okay with the federal government taking even more money away from single mothers and truck drivers, but won't even consider scaling back his own lavish lifestyle.

I keep arguing that the best thing we could do is load up B-52s with $100 bills and carpet bomb America.  Then at least everyone would have a chance of getting their hand on some of the loot!

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Gaza, Greenwald and Goldfarb

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 1.4.09 @ 12:54PM

Glenn Greenwald today lectures Michael Goldfarb about "excessive tribalistic identification," and I have a few thoughts on the subject. Meanwhile, a quick rundown on the war in Gaza:

• IDF has surrounded Gaza City.
• Melanie Phillips on "moral inversion."
• Speaking of "moral inversion," a Newsweek columnist insists that Barack Obama must "get tough" -- not with Hamas, but with Israel.
• Abu Zakaria al-Jamal joins Hussam Hamdan, Muhammad Hilo, and Nizar Ghayan among the Hamas terorrist leaders killed during the Israeli offensive.

An IDF video briefing on the Gaza campaign:

In related news, don't mess with Sonny Corleone's sister:

3 Comments | Add a Comment