- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Feb 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28
- Mar 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Apr 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- May 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Jun 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Jul 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Aug 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Sep 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- Oct 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Nov 1–7 8–14 15–21
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Sad News for Our Mother Tongue
Posted by on 1.17.09 @ 6:22PM
I am very distraught to hear that Jim Boulet, of English First, has died of cancer. This is a great loss to the conservative movement and to the country. Jim was a wonderful man, kind and generous, and absolutely dedicated to the cause of protecting our common culture by protecting the English language as its official language and the tongue of everyday life and commerce. He had nothing against other languages, of course, but felt, correctly, that having one language as the accepted and official one is an essential factor in keeping a nation as ONE nation no matter how many ethnicities or prior nationalities comprise it. He was always a usefol font of information, and very persistent but never pushy. I had no idea he was sick, so this comes as a very sad shock. Please say a prayer for him and for those he left behind. I just said one now. Jim, we will miss you. R.I.P. -- and in God's everlasting love.
A New Birth of Pomposity
Posted by on 1.17.09 @ 4:50PM
The ghost of Abraham Lincoln looms large over the coming inauguration of Barack Obama...or so they keep telling us. This piece from Bloomberg is an interesting compendium of the supposed symmetry between the 16th and 44th presidents.
"Both of them were born to modest circumstances," says former Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo, an amateur Lincoln historian.
Obama's childhood, as the son of a single mother who sometimes relied on food stamps, is a modern analogue of Lincoln's log-cabin upbringing.
It's interesting to know that being the son of a single mother who sometimes relied on food stamps is now analogous to being reared in log cabins in the wilds of Kentucky and Indiana by an uneducated farmer.
Spectator readers will probably also get a kick out of the last paragraph:
"To the extent that he's emulating any president, Lincoln is about as good as it's going to get," Wilentz says. "If he was trying to emulate Calvin Coolidge, that would be a problem."
Anyone uncomfortable with a trillion dollar "stimulus" might be tempted to disagree.
In any case, it is worth pointing out that the portion of Lincoln's inaugural trail Obama is copying was actually altered at Allen Pinkerton's urging after rumors of plots to kill to soon to be president sprouted. In the end, Lincoln, in his own words, snuck into Washington"like a thief in the night." Hardly the arrival Obama would want to emulate. Still, it is no surprise if the president elect's advance team are unaware of this: Obama and his presidential choreographers seem to struggle with the little details of the glorious parts of U.S. history they so freely appropriate.
Friday, January 16, 2009
So Let Me Get This Straight
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 5:18PM
I'm trying to follow Sullivan's logic on the spending front, Phil. If the Republicans massively increase spending and then the Democrats come in and increase spending at an even faster rate -- which is what Obama is proposing to do -- we should criticize the former but not the latter? Sure, the Republicans would have more credibility if they had followed their alleged principles for the past eight years. But are the rest of us, including those of us who opposed the GOP spending binge as well as the coming Democratic expansions of government, just supposed to throw up our hands in a fit of anti-Republican pique?
Sullivan and Obama's Spending
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 4:39PM
Andrew Sullivan still tries to portray himself as a small government conservative who was turned off by Republicans, in part, because of their embrace of massive spending during the Bush administration. Yet in a post today criticizing conservatives for spinning the Iraq War, he concludes:
It's of a piece with the looming Republican plan to assail Obama for massive spending after the GOP increased government spending for eight years at a pace not seen since the 1930s.
If these people had any shame, they might hold their peace. But we know at this point that the more shame is merited the less these people feel.
So would Sullivan be happier if Republicans sat on their hands and refrianed from protesting massive spending so that Obama can expand the size of government even more rapidly than he otherwise would be able to? Would he rather a situation in which nobody in Washington advocates the type of fiscal restraint that he supposedly supports merely for the sake of consistency?
Stay in the Kitchen (of liberalism)
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 4:33PM
S.E. Cupp, a newly minted contributor to Fox Forum, is happy that Ms. magazine has run a cover with Obama sporting the "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt. It's an acknowledgement that women's issues can be advanced from men, and a positive sign from feminists. Does this mean that Obama is clipping the wings of civil rights profiteers both of racial minorities and women?
Ms. magazine has offended a lot of women in the past - both by glorifying and, in fact, celebrating abortion as an act of defiance against men, and by appearing anti-Semitic in refusing to run an ad honoring Israeli women. If the election of Barack Obama is opening feminists' eyes to the realities of the world - that men are valuable and important, and shouldn't be excluded from our fight for equality - then I am now a huge supporter of Barack Obama. Here's hoping the new feminist mantra can be "I Am Man, Hear Me Roar."
I sincerely doubt that American feminists, under current leadership, are ever going to consider the human rights side of their movement before the bra-burning part of it. If it were to step outside of the narrowly-defined box (we'll call it the Kitchen of Liberalism), left-leaning organizations that assert a right to abortion and mandated sick leave would drop their support and supposedly "delegitimize" them.
U.S. Airways Stock Soars
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 4:30PM
I'd say it's a pretty rare occurance for an airline stock to surge 13 percent on the day after one of its planes crashes, but it's harder to think of anything that could have provided a bigger public relations boost to the company than the performance of the pilot and crew under such impossible circumstances.
More Obama on Card Check
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 4:22PM
Marc Ambinder has posted a more complete transcript of of Obama's remarks. As I speculated earlier, Obama believes that "the way the Bush Administration managed the Department of Labor, the NLRB, and a host of other aspects of labor management relations put the thumb too heavily against unions."
Hitting Rock Bottom
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 3:33PM
Dr. No diagnoses the Washington spendaholics who, faced with a financial crisis, are looking for a little hair of the dog.
Andrew Wyeth, RIP
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 3:07PM
Andrew Wyeth is dead at 91, the Washington Post reports. (Go ahead and look at the slideshow. It's wonderful.) Wyeth was best known for his painting "Christina's World," a painting that captured the struggle of his polio-stricken neighbor crawling toward a house. It was a painting that became his defining piece, one that would haunt him. My mother once told me that in an interview, he was asked what the one thing he would change in his work if he could. He said he wouldn't have put "that girl in that damned painting." I wonder if there's any truth to it.
At a lecture for the National Endowment for Humanities, John Updike did a slideshow of American art, narrating it. If you've never heard Updike speak, try to find an audio sample. His voice is weathered, but sweet, not bitter. American art, he explained, was put down as being defined by too many lines. It was all "too liney," sniffed European connoisseurs. But over time, this "flaw" was considered a defining characteristic. You could go through the whole of American art, and find that similar characteristic.
Wyeth conveyed parts of American life that were at once bleak and beautiful. His scenes were simple, never ornate. Where Norman Rockwell thrived on drawing the little trinkets that would appear on a teacher's desk, Wyeth preferred to draw some grass and the shadows that fall upon dried out wood. He played with shadows in a way that rivaled Edward Hopper, but it seemed like a different austerity entirely -- where Hopper was curious about how light could hit a building, Wyeth seemed focused on how the light left it, or how things, generally were left after being touched. It's not that his work was a study of ruin. Instead, it was the study of subtleties.
Art rooted in subtlety, art that doesn't beat you over the head with a message. The subtlety of art today comes in its abstraction, in its impenetrability. It's so subtle you can't get it, because it's hidden from you. And then it's still loud. Look at a Rothko (this one is more subtle than others), and then this. They share a certain liney-ness. Look at the artist's effort with Christina's belt. How the creases in her dress cast small shadows. The line of the horizon, and the house set against it. Things don't blend in these areas. They stand out. But quietly.
Where we now face a difficult climate for the economy, where every forecast from Washington is about how much poorer we are all becoming, Wyeth's paintings provide a glimpse of the quiet dignity and restlessness that define the American character. You only need look at Christina's struggle, not as a fool's errand, but as a great task that can be tackled. You only need to be reassured that her hand is reaching down to move herself forward, not reaching upward and merely hopeful. This can be done.
Andrew Wyeth, rest in peace.
UPDATE: On the official Andrew Wyeth site, they are apparently soliciting people to tell where Wyeth's work has wound up. If you or anyone you know has an original work by Wyeth, please contact them. Otherwise, just stare at the art in amazement.
As Jimmy Carter Built Houses
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 2:22PM
So Roland Martin wants soon-to-be former President George W. Bush to rebuild the Gulf Coast. Or something.
Rosie the Riveter
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 2:03PM
Rosie O'Donnell, known as a model of sanity to all
of America, has some
thoughts she'd like to share with us regarding Ann Coulter.
"She's angry if you ask me. She's full of rage. When you see someone like that, you have to go back to what happened in their childhood... You don't know what went on in their household. Sometimes people with very controversial views, there is some part of their humanity that you can relate to. Even though they think differently than you do, you can still reach them as a human being, but she's not one of them for me."
Re-he-eally. Ann Coulter as flesh-eating radical? Well, c'mon, Rosie. Maybe she's just somebody who has an ideology she integrates into her humor. And she doesn't mind getting people upset.
On whether Coulter really has extremist views: "Yeah, I really do. I don't think it is a show. The passion from which she spews it... It's deep-seeded. It's bizarre."
Deep-seeded. Interesting. I hope this is an error on behalf of the glossy but if you've ever looked at Rosie's blog, she's not what we call "fluent in the language." Anyway, the reason all of this is funny is that in the same article, we have this:
"I didn't drink one time in my 20s for about nine years. From 20 to 29, I didn't drink at all. I was dating a woman at the time who was a shrink, and she told me, 'I think you have a drinking problem.' I went to an [Alcoholics Anonymous] meeting and heard all these people's stories about leaving their kids in the car... so I quit."
She quit. Okay. But what about this?
"My little daughter, Vivi, came to me on her birthday and said, 'I wish that you would not drink beer.' And I was like, 'Oh my god!'... I stopped drinking beer. I'm off the beer. I haven't for about a month and a half... Anyway, beer gets to be so fattening when you get older."
So wait. Did Rosie quit when her girlfriend told her she had a drinking problem (or superpower. whatever.) or when her daughter Vivi told her to stop drinking beer. Or did Vivi just convince Rosie to drop the extra calories? Or does Rosie count beer as a soft drink?
These are important issues that need to be clarified before the American people.
Inaugural Hypocrisy
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 1:57PM
The year is 2005, and Bush just got reelected to every Kerry supporter's chagrin. In the news recently was armor for humvees and the cost of war. Courtesy of Newsbusters, we can now remember that the Associated Press, in the guise of an impartial observer, reports, as Bush prepares for his second term, "The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?"
Fast forward to the present. It is 2009, and Barack Obama is preparing for his inauguration as the first black president in American history (something about the word "historic" comes to mind). There's cause for celebration. There is also a recession on. And the wars obviously. Yet the Associated Press, in this time of widely accepted economic bust, goes all out:
So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?
To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.
The people want to celebrate (as they did in 2005). So they should. But why was the AP so intent on spoiling all the fun when it was a Republican?
Anyway, come to think of it, it may actually be an urban legend that DC will be overcrowded, and that everyone is making way down to Washington. From Kashmir Hill in the Orange County Register:
But the turnout now looks likely to be less than two million, with enthusiasms dampened by the expense and difficulty of traveling, the crowds, the economic downturn, the cold weather and the scarcity of swearing-in ceremony tickets. Despite early reports of area hotels being sold out, as of Jan. 7 there were still 627 hotel rooms available in the city, and over 12,000 within a 400-mile radius, according to the official tourism organization, Destination, D.C.
Tour organizers across the country have discovered that inauguration enthusiasm has faded. GotoBus.com, an online bus tour company with one, two and eight-day inaugural packages from Boston to Washington, still has tickets for sale on every trip.
Obama supporters in Florida had planned a "Yes We Can 2009 Cruise," with over 300 people to sail from Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., to Baltimore, Md. But the cruise was cancelled, due to a lack of demand. Now the group will just send two buses, said Obama campaign volunteer Karen Phillips.
Two buses is a long way off from a luxury cruise. But that would explain why my apartment, only 5 blocks from the White House, hasn't had any takers for what is clearly a good rate. Don't you people want to enjoy the Rapture?!
"The excitement seems to have died," said Neal Kellman, owner of SolidPlanIt, a tour and events company in Brooklyn, N.Y. His 56-person bus was only half full by Jan. 13, though the package had been discounted to $175 from $233. "This was supposed to be a big deal. Everyone said they were going to go...But now little small issues-'It's cold. There will be a crowd.'-seem to be making people decide against it."
Look people. My plan is for all of you to get in the same frigid windtunnel (we call it the National Mall) and endure the cold chill of your government getting bigger. In the meantime, I wanted to appear smarter for going skiing or swimming on a beach. Are you telling me that my comparative advantage is being diminished at this very moment?
A comparative advantage deferred is a comparative advantage denied.
And guys, Moby is totally doing a monster set at 9:30 Club on Sunday night that I totally need to get in on.
The Thrill Is Gone
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 12:36PM
Wednesday night, I saw Megan McArdle at an America's Future Foundation Roundtable event in D.C., where she explained that she had voted for Barack Obama, but also warned that we are in for a tsunami of "massive and stupid government spending." Here she is expressing her disdain for the House Democrat "stimulus" proposal:
The rest of the bill is about what you expected--a lot of probably useless green energy spending that I fairly confidently predict will come to nothing, some stuff we should have done anyway, and a bunch of pandering, porky highway spending. The better the projects are, the less likely they are to be stimulative, because they're complicated and time consuming, like healthcare IT and high-speed rail. If we do them on a stimulus timeframe, we'll screw them up, waste an enormous amount of money, and likely make American voters worse off in the long term by locking them in to bad solutions--we won't get a second bite at high-speed rail between LA and San Francisco. Mostly, Democrats took their wish lists, called them "stimulus", and look set to inflict them on the American people in badly done drag.
Ah, the yawning gap between Hope and reality! Well, if massive and stupid spending is going to be inflicted on the American people, at least let Democrats do the inflicting, eh?
Making Men Moral: A Conference
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 11:35AM
Robert P. George is arguably the most potent conservative in the academic firmament. Through his scholarship and the outstanding programs of the James Madison program at Princeton University, George has contributed powerfully to the philosophical debate over the sanctity of life, marriage, and religion in the public square.
Next month, Union University in Jackson, Tennessee is holding a conference in honor of the 15th anniversary of the publication of George's outstanding book Making Men Moral. The roster of speakers is quite good. In addition to Professor George, Hadley Arkes, James Stoner, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and many others will be in attendance. I'm not certain of it, but Francis Beckwith may also be there.
Richard John Neuhaus had been slated to attend before his death last week. I imagine most of those attending this conference will be his friends and admirers. Informal tributes may bloom.
For those who don't remember, Union University is the school that rebounded so admirably from a devastating tornado strike last year.
What "Other Mechanisms" Is Obama Considering Instead of Card Check?
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 10:59AM
Barack Obama had the following to say in a meeting with the Washington Post editorial board:
On the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow unions to organize by obtaining a majority of signatures from employees in a workplace rather than having to win secret-ballot elections, Mr. Obama signaled willingness to consider other mechanisms to address the concern that employers unfairly use the current process to intimidate workers not to join unions. And he seemed in no hurry to have Congress bring it up. "If we're losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize, so my focus first is on those key economic priority items," Mr. Obama said, declining to state whether he wanted to see the issue debated during his first year in office.
It's unclear from this what "other mechanisms" Obama could have in mind, but one possibility is that he could allow the Labor Department to take actions under the radar to strengthen unions without having to ignite a contentious legislative battle. Under Elaine Chao, the Department has actually taken its responsibility of regulating unions seriously. Last week the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which carries out that duty, reported that in the last 8 years, it had pursued criminal cases that led to the conviction of 929 corrupt union officials, recovering over $93 million for union members. In part, it's the aggressive policing of unions by the Chao Labor Department as well as the liberal accusation that she's in the pockets of big business, that provided the impetus for the drive for "card check." But now that big labor will have one of their own in charge of the Labor Department in Hilda Solis, things will change. Maybe Obama is thinking that he can slip one by the goalie by using the regalatory tools of the Labor Department to decrease scrutiny of unions and pressure businesses without having to go through Congress. Business groups will make a stink and conservatives who closely follow these issues will huff and puff, but at the end of the day most Americans don't have a clue what happens inside the Frances Perkins Building, nor do they care.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 10:38AM
- More health care caring (WSJ)
- The outlook is bleak: Bill Nye is one of our most respected scientists (SciGuy) (via Marginal Revolution)
- Timmy G. may not be so innocent after all (NRO)
- W: "...just another poor soul in his brief transit through this sorry world" (Democracy in America)
- The quickest fix to Bush's legacy: Obama's donning the mantle (Washington Post)
- Rick Warren lends a moment of honesty to Democrats (Weekly Standard)
Barnes: Free Libby!
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 10:34AM
Now the wonderful Fred Barnes weighs in. C'mon, Mr. President, pardon Libby now!
Ukraine's Last Hope
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 10:27AM
Reading George H. Wittman's article in the main line-up about why Russia and Ukraine are energetic in their energy troubles, I couldn't understand for the life of me how the structure is set up. So I made a visual.
Well, okay. That clarifies it a bit. Except Wittman excluded the part that the "Swiss" part of RosUkrEnergo is alleged to be Ukrainian businessmen that may or may not have criminal ties. Just wait till you read about how these companies interact with Belarus. At least Ukraine has a democratic government -- Belarussian president Lukashenko has said that the opposition in Belarus is "not needed" because it is financed by foreign entities, and holds referendums all the time that miraculously prolong his tenure.
The thing I find most interesting in the article, though, is the grandfather clause aspect of these pipelines. The reason the Russians have them in the first place is because they forced their way through the markets via invasion and plunder. They also received financial backing from European countries who liked the idea of cheap gas (thanks to low labor costs!), namely Germany and France. This is the "untold" story of Soviet imperialism -- they were buying partial allegiance from our own allies.
From Miracle on Ice to Miracle on the Hudson
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 10:12AM
Many of us remember the U.S. victory over the Soviet Union in the 1980 Olympics at Lake Placid. It came at a good time.
We all know the story. The 1970's had been hard on America. We were beginning to look like losers buffetted by economic uncertainty, high inflation and unemployment, the loss of prestige on the international stage, the looming threat of nuclear war . . .
We often point to Ronald Reagan's election as where it all turned around, but that hockey game at the Olympics, a moment when Americans (college kids, no less) rose to the occasion against all expectations, seemed to be part of a comeback in the public consciousness.
I had a little of the same feeling this morning while listening to Mike and Mike on ESPN Radio interview a guy who was seated on the exit row in the US Airways plane that crash-landed in the Hudson River. He described a scene where people didn't panic, but instead did what they needed to do in an orderly fashion to survive. Everyone, from the pilot to the crew to the passengers to the ferry operators and other rescuers, worked together to bring life out of a deadly situation.
This is a proud moment. It comes at a time when we've been smacked around by crisis and negativity. We have had a feeling of looming disaster. We walk around psychically hunched, braced for a hit. The actions of everyone involved in the miracle on the Hudson shows that we may be better suited to weather a storm and to rebuild than we thought.
I didn't have anything to do with this wonderful story, but these people are my countrymen. I'm standing a little taller on the inside today. This may be the start of our turnaround.
Deferential Holder
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 9:11AM
Given his intellegence and reputation for competence, it is very
diificult to believe Eric Holder's contention that he thought
Marc Rich was just another tax crook and that he had no idea that
he was also an arms dealer. Also, his contention that Bill
Clinton's pardons of FALN terrorists were "reasonable"
because they served time, hadn't harmed anybody (tell that to
Joseph Connor), and the pardons were supported by an
impressive list of
luminaries, is disturbing. The pattern here seems to be one
of deference to authority, and it's questionable whether Holder
would be willing to stand up to Obama if necessary. During the
Bush administration, Democrats made a fuss about the lack of
independence of the AG's office, but they seem to abandoning that
now tha the administration is Democratic.
The Geithner Precedent
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 8:39AM
The reason why Geithner is getting a relatively free pass on the Capitol so far is that he's a Democratic nominee who is viewed by Republicans as a solid, business-friendly Treasury Secretary who is the best they can expect to do under Obama. But if Republicans let the nomination sail through without a fight, they wouldn't be performing their duty as an opposition party, and would be setting a bad precedent that could potentially come back to haunt them when trying to oppose future nominees. Though I suppose if Republicans ever return to power and nominate a tax cheat, they'll be able to say too Democrats, "Hey, we confirmed your tax cheat without much fuss."
Strange New Liberal Respect for Tax Evasion
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 6:37AM
It's odd. The nominee for Treasury Secretary, who has ultimate authority over the IRS, "forgets" to pay substantial taxes for which he was reimbursed by his employer (the International Monetary Fund). And the liberal chattering classes stay largely silent.
Now don't get me wrong. I'd like to have a private tax cut as much as the next guy. But unless Secretary Geithner intends to extend the practice to the rest of us (as someone who is self-employed, just let me tell how much I hate paying the Social Security and Medicare taxes!), this issue certainly deserves more than a wave and "oh well" by the Senate.
No Atheists on Flight 1549?
Posted by on 1.16.09 @ 12:47AM
"Miracle" and "omen" are good words to describe the survival of everyone aboard Flight 1549, but I like Michelle Malkin's choice: "Providential." What other word can describe the life-saving fact that a plane struck by such a near-certain disaster just happened to be piloted by a recognized air-safety expert?
The pilot of Flight 1549 was Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III, 57, of Danville, Calif. . . . who runs a safety consulting firm in addition to flying commercial aircraft. . . .
Sullenberger had been studying the psychology of keeping airline crews functioning even in the face of crisis, said Robert Bea, a civil engineer who co-founded UC Berkeley's Center for Catastrophic Risk Management.
Bea said he could think of few pilots as well-situated to bring the plane down safely than Sullenberger.
"When a plane is getting ready to crash with a lot of people who trust you, it is a test.. Sulley proved the end of the road for that test. He had studied it, he had rehearsed it, he had taken it to his heart."
The passengers aboard the plane reportedly prayed as they made their descent toward the Hudson River. It would appear, however, that their prayers were answered before they ever boarded the plane.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Omen?
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 6:14PM
Believe in omens? Occurrences that portend future events? Either way, let us celebrate the miracle of the Hudson River off Manhattan. An Airbus laden with 150 souls had struck a flight of geese upon takeoff from LaGuardia airport, veered left, losing power, sailed over the George Washington Bridge and landed in the Hudson River.
A miniature 9-11? No. The pilot made what amounted to a dead-stick landing in the water without tearing his plane apart and soon everyone aboard had been rescued by the covies of boats and helicopters that raced to the scene.
No diminishing the pilot's skill. But there was another element, undiscoverable but salient, we might acknowledge. It will not require an incoming President to invade another country, or to cast blame. It was good fortune. We can hope, pray if you do, that this is a portent of those things to come under Barack Obama and that whatever we may do to make this so, will be done.
Miracle on the Hudson
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 5:02PM
God bless all the New York City rescue workers, who were reportedly able to safely evacuate all passengers onboard the flight that crashed into the Hudson River after it's engines were taken out by a flock of geese. And kudos to the pilot, who by all accounts did an incredible job gliding the plane to a stop on the water.
Three Bush Spectives -- One Pro-, Two Retro-
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 4:48PM
Today, Bob Woodward has a trenchant and mostly defensible analysis of the Bush years, especailly where Bush went wrong. Even those, like me, who aren't huge Woodward fans (So how did he talk to CIA director Casey when Casey was in a coma and surrounded by guards?) will be moved, probably, to agree with Woodward's assessments here.
Deroy Murdock has an even better, devastating analysis here. It's a brilliant piece of work by Deroy, especially the longer version of it that I have seen that probably will run at NRO in the next few days. (Deroy refutes one statement by Woodwards -- without knowing that Woodward wrote it. Woodward writes: "Powell was right that to conclude that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden did not work together." Deroy writes, more correctly: "Bush and his minions refused to detail the multifarious ties between Saddam Hussein and Islamofascist terrorists. They even stayed quiet about Manhattan-based, Clinton-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer’s May 7, 2003 decision that Hussein provided “material support” to the 9-11 conspirators.
Meanwhile, I find it remarkable how much the column I wrote for the day after the 2004 election reads like Woodward now, with a little of Murdock now thrown in. I reprint it at full length after the jump, but first, I append it here for a purpose: to show that so much of what went wrong for Bush was eminently (and imminently and perhaps even imanently) forseeable. I also note that although this column of mine was written in criticism of Bush BEFORE he won (as if I thought he would lose), I actually had gone on record just two days earlier predicting that Bush would indeed win -- so the criticisms were indeed criticisms of somebody I expected to be a winner. Anyway, this column, combined with the Murdock and Woodward pieces, makes one wish for what might have been if the flaws of a basically good man had been corrected back at the beginning of his second term.
Good Account in Minnesota
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 2:43PM
Gary Gross, who runs the excellent Let Freedom Ring blog in Minnesota, has a good post up now on the Minnesota Senate fiasco. He says Coleman still has a decent chance.
Holder Says We Didn't Realize We Were at War in the 1990s
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 2:37PM
Lindsey Graham asked Holder whether or not he thought we were at war. He said that we are, and that in the 1990s -- when he served in the Clinton Justice Department -- "We didn't realize we were at where when we were." He cited the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
Senator Burris
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 2:03PM
It's official, Dick Cheney just swore-in Roland Burris as the newest U.S. Senator. Score one for Blagojevich.
Lookin' Bad, Timothy!
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 1:14PM
The Washington Examiner points to evidence that Treasury nominee Timothy Geithner was reimbursed by the IMF for taxes that he never paid. Explains the Examiner:
Timothy Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Treasury secretary, says he didn't pay his federal self-employment taxes for four years because he "forgot." That is no longer a credible explanation in view of today's reporting by National Review's Byron York. Geithner accepted reimbursement from the International Monetary Fund specifically to cover federal taxes totaling $42,702 he had not paid, according to Senate confirmation documents examined by York.
This is damning because on the IMF's Annual Tax Allowance Request, Geithner promised to "pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments..." In truth, he didn't pay those taxes until it was brought to his attention, first by the IRS in 2006, and now as part of the vetting process for his Treasury nomination.
This makes Geithner's behavior look substantially more culpable and far more embarrassing for President-elect Barack Obama. On the plus side, it's hard to see Secretary Geithner, who appeared to take his own private tax cut, lobby Congress to raise rates on the rest of us!
I'm With Quin
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 12:37PM
It's a pretty sad statement that so many Republicans are rolling over for Hillary Clinton. And the fact that many conservatives consider Hillary preferable to other alternatives shows that our political debate is continuing to drift left over time.
Holder Says FALN Clemencies Were "Reasonable"
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 12:24PM
Eric Holder just defended Bill Clinton's clemencies of 16 members
of the FALN Puerto Rican terrorist group as "reasonable." He said
that it was a "difficult decision that the president had" because
though they were terrorists and criminals, they had been in
prison for a long time, they weren't convicted of killing, and
their clemency was supported by the likes of Jimmy Carter,
Coretta Scott King, and Desmond Tutu.
Holder on Gun Rights
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 12:09PM
Eric Holder, in an amicus brief for the Heller gun rights case, had taken the position that the right to bear arms was a collective right. In his confirmation hearings, he said that as Attorney General, he would have to abide by the Supreme Court ruling that decided the opposite -- that Americans do have an individual right to bear arms. Whatever the legal arguments, the Supreme Court "is the umpire -- they call bals and strikes," he said.
Re: Clinton Nomination Clears
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 12:03PM
For the first time since about 1991, I will say something good about David Vitter. His vote against Hillary Clinton today for Secretary of State should stand as a stark rebuke of every other member of the committee, including the usually stalwart Jim DeMint, who didn't have the guts (or the basic judgment) to oppose this corrupt, leftist, unqualified, and highly conflict-riven nominee. Vitter ought to retire rather than seek re-election in 2010 -- he won't -- but this stance, cosidering the 16-1 vote, was a profile in courage.
Blackballed from the Beginning
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 11:40AM
The other day, the Hotline had an item speculating about the significance of Ohio Republican Party Chairman Robert T. Bennett endorsing current Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan over fellow Ohioan Ken Blackwell. They shouldn't have wondered. Neither Bennett nor outgoing RNC Co-Chair Jo Ann Davidson are known for being Blackwell fans. And of course Bennett played a role in pushing Blackwell out of the 1998 gubernatorial race in favor of Bob Taft.
Bennett wrote in his letter endorsing Duncan: "As the longest-serving state chairman on the Republican National Committee, I have personally witnessed many of our successes and failures. ... I have seen what works and what doesn't..." All true. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which category the Taft coronation falls into.
Remembering Vince Foster
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 11:36AM
Fifteen years later. It should temper any conservative's enthusiasm for the Clinton reunion tour sponsored by the incoming administration.
Clinton Nomination Clears Committee
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 11:33AM
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee just voted 16-1 in favor of moving the nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State to the Senate floor. The only "no" vote came from David Vitter. Jim DeMint said while he supported moving the nomination out of committee, he still has concerns about the perception of a conflict of interest involving the Clinton Foundation.
Poll Shows Overwhelming Conservative Support for Israel
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 11:17AM
A new Pew poll found that Americans sympathize with Israel rather than the Palestinians, by a 49 percent to 11 percent margin. It also found that 41 percent of Americans think Hamas is responsible for the violence as opposed to 12 percent who hold Israel responsible, while 50 percent believe that Israel has responded about right and 7 percent said it has not gone far enough, compared to 24 percent who said Israel has gone too far. When put differently, the results were a little more mixed, with 40 percent of Americans saying they approve of Israel's action and 33 percent saying they disapprove.
But some of the more interesting data comes when you break down the numbers down. For instance, while 75 percent of conservatives sympathize with Israel, only 34 percent of liberals sympathize with Israel. Also, 70 percent of white evangelicals sympathize with Israel.
Another Call for Libby's Pardon
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 11:16AM
Today in the Wall Street Journal, Dan Henninger does an excellent job making the moral case (as opposed by the legal case for a pardon, which he also endorses but does not belabor in this column) for Bush to pardon Scooter Libby. It's a brilliant piece.
So what in tarnation is Bush waiting for?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!
Holder's New York City Game
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 11:04AM
Sen. Herb Kohl just asked Eric Holder if he could beat Obama in a basketball game during the confirmation hearings, because we know that there isn't anything more important to discuss. Holder said that even though he's 10 years younger than Obama, he's "got a New York City game" and that if he got back into shape, "I think I can be in a position to hang with him." But he said he probably couldn't beat Obama, and that it probably wouldn't be a good idea. In a subtle sense, I think this tells you a lot about Holder being deferential to the White House.
Specter Grills Holder
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 10:51AM
Arlen Specter isn't buying Holder's line on the Rich pardon. Given Holder's experience and record of competence, Specter said, "It's hard to brush it off, it seems to me, as a mistake." Rich, Specter recounted, had committed tax fraud, was an arms dealer, a fugitive, prosecutors involved in the case opposed the pardon, and normal pardon procedures were not followed. Under questioning, Holder reiterated, "I express regret" and specifically, he denied that he recommended that Rich's lawyer, Jack Quinn, go straight to the White House. Asked if he was aware or Rich's "atrocious" background, Holder staggeringly responded that, "I did not really acquaint myself with his record."
Holder on Rich Pardon
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 10:40AM
"My actions in the Rich matter were mistakes," Holder said. "Given the opportunity to do it differently, I certainly would have." He said he shouldn't have spoken to White House and that he made too many assumptions. "I learned from that experience. As perverse as this may sound, I will be a better attorney general having learned from the Marc Rich experience."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 10:37AM
- India and Israel, brought together by common enemies (Bloomberg)
- Washington getting rich is not a good sign for the rest of the nation (Reason)
- Well now the IRS can't get us for our "honest mistakes" (Politico)
- Turkey really hates us. If even want to improve our relations, it's gonna take work (Weekly Standard)
- The vitriolic conservative Catholic blogosphere replies to Doug Kmiec (American Papist)
- Inside Obama's uniquely formed perspective (Asia Times)
Holder: Waterboarding Is Torture
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 10:33AM
Answering questions from Pat Leahy, Holder declared, "Waterboarding is torture." He also said that it violates the Geneva Conventions, and that the president doesn't have to power as commander in chief to authorize the practice.
Holder Wants Less Political Justice Department
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 10:25AM
In his opening statement, Eric Holder said he wanted to restore the reputation of the Justice Department that has been tainted by partisanship -- this coming from the man who helped suecure the Marc Rich pardon. Among his other goals is to use every tool against our adversaries while abiding by both "the letter and the spirit of the law." In addition to going after terrorists, he emphasized the department's role in fighting crime, protecting civil rights, and policing financial wrongdoing. In an obvious reference to the Rich episode, Holder said he admits his mistakes. "I can see my errors clearly, and I can tell you that I have learned from them," he said.
What Did Panetta Know About Clinton Era Rendition?
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 10:03AM
In the Washington Times, Eli Lake has an eye-opening article documenting how the much criticized Bush-era policy of "extraordinary rendition" was carried out dozens of times during the Clinton administration, transporting suspects who were captured abroad to places like Egypt, where they were tortured. The reason why this is relevant now is that one of the major factors leading to the appointment of Leon Panetta to be CIA chief was that he was seen as a strong opponent of torture and rendition, but these cases all took place when was serving as chief of staff to President Clinton. Panetta's defenders argue that he wouldn't have known about these decisions, but then that undercuts the argument that he's qualified to be CIA director because he was involved in intellegence and national security decisions as chief of staff. The whole piece is well worth a read.
AmSpec Official Inauguration Map
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 9:53AM
Friends, you've probably wondered how on earth you were going to get through Washington, D.C. to celebrate the coronation inauguration of President-Elect Barack Hillary Obama. Well, we consulted with the greatest graphic artists in the world, and they told us to get lost because they knew who we were and they voted for Obama. (Yes, even the ones outside the country.) But we persevered, secured a pirated version of Photoshop, and after several weeks of re-reading the online tutorials (and watching some videos), we finally figured out what the heck a "layer" was. Srsly dudez, graphic art is hard.
Here's what you need to get by in a city gone loco:
Forget the Washington Post map, and please print out this map and bring it with you when you come to Washington. It's got more words than the Secret Service map. More importantly, it was given to you by ideological bedfellows, meaning you don't have to be afraid of subliminal Communist cartography.
Hope you have a good time. We here at AmSpec will be sipping mojitos somewhere where there is not an overwhelming number of liberals in a crowd cheering on their Great Leader. So, obviously, we're not going to be in California. Perhaps Florida? Whatever. We just need to rest up because we're going to be very, very busy for the next 4-to-8-years-but-dear-God-hopefully-not-12-or-16-or,-oh-man,-we-may-never-win-an-election-again. Barkeep! Another mojito!
UPDATE: I realize I should have included a designated yoga zone and a few Whole Foods concession stands. Mea culpa.
Specter Wants Answers
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 9:45AM
"I have an open mind, but I think there are important questions to be asked and questions to be answered," Arlen Specter just said in the Eric Holder hearings. He ended his comments by reading a statement on behalf of Senate Republicans, arguing that they weren't granted sufficient time to review all of the information on Holder.
Holder's Character
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 9:37AM
In his opening statement during the Holder confirmation hearings, Sen. Pat Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, echoed Martin Luther King by saying people should be judged by the "content of their character" -- was he trying to suggest that critics are judging Holder by the color of his skin? Leahy urged "prompt confirmation" and said that the attorney general position is "too important to be delated by partisan bickering."
Poll: Majority of Americans Want to Block TARP Funds
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 9:15AM
A new Gallup shows that 62 percent of Americans support blocking the release of the remaining $350 billion in TARP funds until more details are provided about how they would be used, with an additional 12 percent saying they should be blocked entirely. Only 20 percent believe the money should be released.
How About a "Tim Geithner Tax Amnesty"?
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 8:27AM
The Democrats are a forgiving folk--at least if you are one of them. Average people who make tax mistakes should be hung. But potential nominees for a Democratic Cabinet, well, that's something quite different. The Wall Street Journal proposes applying the same compassionate standard to the rest of us. Editorializes the Journal:
Some of our readers may recall something called "the tax gap," which is the estimated difference between taxes due under the law and the taxes that the Internal Revenue Service actually collects. In 2007, the IRS estimated that the gap stood at $290 billion a year. And since Democrats took control of Congress, Senators like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad have made a fetish out of closing the gap. Mr. Baucus has browbeaten the IRS over the gap, demanding plans to close it and putting out newsletters decrying it.
...
But now Mr. Geithner has come along seeking the job of overseeing the IRS, among other duties. And lo, Mr. Geithner is a living embodiment of The Gap.
He's no different from those people -- you know who you are -- who overestimated their charitable contributions or "forgot" about that $500 cash payment they received when it came time to do their taxes. Even after the IRS audited him in 2006, Mr. Geithner paid back taxes only for the two years -- 2003 and 2004 -- for which he had been audited. He did not bother to amend his 2001 and 2002 returns until late last year, when the tax issue came up during the Obama vetting process.
But Mr. Baucus, who once called the tax gap "an affront to all the rest of us who pay our taxes," is not affronted. "This is an honest mistake and it's clear there was no intention not to pay," said the Finance Committee Chairman.
For our part, we are delighted that Mr. Baucus and Democrats are suddenly in such a forgiving tax mood. In addition to being a teaching moment for liberals, perhaps Mr. Geithner's tax snafu can do all of America some good. We'd suggest that Mr. Geithner and Mr. Baucus together set a new standard for the IRS in dealing with people who, like Mr. Geithner, make a boo-boo on their tax returns.
Let's have an amnesty -- with penalties waived, as they were for Mr. Geithner -- for all those Americans who somehow "forgot" to pay their taxes but are now willing to fess up or are audited. If forgiveness is to be the order of the day for the man who may soon be responsible for the IRS, American taxpayers deserve a similar reprieve.
Florida Without the Sunshine
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 8:19AM
That's basically what a Wall Street Journal op-ed says the Minnesota Franken/Coleman recount has been--an episode of Florida in 2000 without all that yummy warmth. (It was written by former associate dean of the University of Minnesota Law School.)
Minnesota is Bush v. Gore reloaded. The details differ, but not in terms of arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards, inconsistency in how local recounts were conducted and counted, and strange state court decisions.
Consider the inconsistencies: One county "found" 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted -- once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines' tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.
While it's nice to see some people are analyzing this with a clear head, I have heard from a lot of people I respect, Minnesota is not Florida in 2000. Maybe, in this aftermath, and given that Franken's folks have sued for him to take his Senate seat, they would agree with this assessment.
Obama Appointment Battles
Posted by on 1.15.09 @ 6:13AM
Republicans are taking after Eric Holder's work for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, while Democrats dismiss any serious connection. Reports the Los Angeles Times:
As Eric H. Holder Jr. gears up to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee today for his confirmation as attorney general, some Republicans say they will question him aggressively about whether his ties to Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich are more extensive than Holder has acknowledged.
GOP staffers investigating Holder's background say that although he has downplayed his connections to Blagojevich, new information suggests Holder did legal work for Blagojevich on an investigation into the controversial award of a state casino gambling license by the Illinois Gaming Board.
The Republicans said they have obtained a letter Holder wrote to the board requesting records on the casino license. Holder did not bill the state for any work. Even so, the GOP senators want to know the details of that arrangement, and why Holder initially left out any mention of it -- and of his relationship to the now-disgraced Illinois governor -- in the disclosure form that he was required to file with the committee for his confirmation.
"I have every anticipation that the issue will be talked about at length during the confirmation hearings," said a staffer working on it with the Senate GOP leadership. "It is certainly an issue that has not been fully aired or answered."
Nick Shapiro, an Obama transition spokesman, said Holder was chosen "because of his extensive experience in investigating and prosecuting corrupt public officials," and that he was "prepared to follow the facts wherever they led and make a report to the people of the state. Holder's firm never signed an official retainer agreement with the state because the state could not resolve which agency would actually employ the firm and because of a contractual issue unrelated to the investigation itself."
In 2004, Blagojevich tapped Holder as a special investigator for the Illinois Gaming Board, which had approved a controversial license for a casino to be built in Rosemont, Ill.
Responding to rumors of corruption and mob connections, Blagojevich promised a full, independent investigation. At a March 2004 news conference, he introduced Holder as the state's special investigator into the matter. But the investigation was canceled almost immediately, after some state officials objected to Holder's appointment.
Last month, the controversy resurfaced when Blagojevich was arrested on corruption charges. About a week later, Holder submitted his background report, which was supposed to contain all of his business relationships in the eight years he had spent in private practice since he left the Justice Department at the end of the Clinton administration.
When the Senate committee's ranking minority member, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), asked Holder why he had not mentioned it, Holder said the deal had never actually "materialized" and that he had "never performed substantive work on the matter."
However, in the cases of both Holder and Timothy Geithner the GOP lacks not only a knock-out punch, but unity within the caucus. Reports The Hill:
But the GOP has not been able to maintain the same unified front as Democrats. Their efforts to raise serious concerns about Geithner and Holder have been undermined by Hatch, who is also the second-ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
Hatch said he would vote for Holder as well as voice support for Geithner.
Others will break ranks too.
Still, even if the Republicans fail to derail either nomination, they might provide some entertaining theater. And evoke some illuminating answers from the nominees along the way.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
President Obama? Could you be more specific?
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 6:04PM
Among the many "firsts" the president-elect will bring to the White House, one less-noticed change is how the daily newspapers will address him. That is, by first name on first reference.
Breaking with a decades-old tradition, the Associated Press -- keepers of the AP Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, which purports to serve as the "bible" for copy desks everywhere -- announced in a Nov. 12 ruling that henceforth, it would use a president's title, first name and family name whenever he or she is first referenced in a story. In other words, rather than calling him President Obama, newspapers will be expected to spell out that it is President BARACK Obama to whom they are referring (presumably, to distinguish him from the very many other President Obamas out there.)
According to the AP, the change is being made to bring the style for presidents in-line with its rules for addressing other heads of state, whose first and last names have always appeared on first reference. Apparently, showing such deferential treatment as to assume Americans know their own president's first name is the kind of imperialist attitude that no longer can be tolerated.
The old rule came into existence with Franklin D. Roosevelt, which only underscores how one can't attempt to apply logic to an institution like the AP. The Stylebook first started counseling against using first names with the 32nd president, who shared the same family name as the 26th president. They have begun instructing journalists to use them as the 43rd president leaves office, who shared the same first AND last names as the 41st. And the rule goes into effect in earnest with the 44th president, who has arguably the most distinctive name in U.S. history.
Alas, believing these changes will matter much, in practice, requires two rather large leaps of faith. One is the assumption either that newspaper writers will note the changes or that newspaper editors will consistently apply them. A cursory glance even at stories produced by the A.P.'s own staff will disabuse one of that notion pretty quickly.
The other assumption, of course, is that these things we call "newspapers" will still exist by the time the 45th president comes to town.
Hitchens vs. Hillary
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 5:54PM
Christopher Hitchens does a real number on Hillary today. While the rest of the pundit world spins its wheels about an utterly unimportant matter (Geithner's back taxes: an obviously innocent and understandable mistake) and about an only moderately important set of disqualifiers (Holder's problems: Hell, if Jeff Sessions thinks Holder is pretty good, that's plenty of solace for me!), leave it to Hitchens and Hillyer, clearly an ideologically aligned pair (NOT!), to focus on the real, clear and present danger to the Republic: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It is a mark of the continuing lack of seriousness of the Republican Party and perhaps of the conservative movement that Hillary's nomination has been met with so little outrage. This is evidence that political calculation more than principle is involved in who draws opposition: Hillary is seen as more politically potent, and thus is treated as off limits now to vocal criticism. But on the merits, there is no way that ANYbody else with Hillary's light foreign policy record, manifold current conflicts of interest, and incredibly shady ethical past that includes a host of highly suspicious foreign entanglements (Riady/Huang/Chung etcera etcetera almost infinitum), could possibly survive even the ordinary level of scrutiny afforded a nominee to such a high position. Compared to Hillary's record, the late John Tower was an absolute saint -- and Tower was deemed unfit for office.
Consider me, once again, the canary in the coal mine. Conservatives will rue the day they didn't make more of a fuss about the appointment of Hillary Clinton to the State Department. It's a dangerous power base for a dangerous woman.
Eric Holder Next on the Hot Seat
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 5:53PM
Hillary Clinton got off easy. Attorney General-designate Eric Holder is likely to have a rougher time tomorrow. Reports ABC News:
Hillary Clinton may have received mostly cordial treatment in her confirmation hearing Tuesday, but Attorney General nominee Eric Holder may not be so lucky. At tomorrow's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican senators will call witnesses who will testify on the 1999 clemency of members of a violent Puerto Rican Nationalist Group, setting the stage for what may become a grilling over Holder's actions when he was Deputy Attorney General overseeing pardon recommendations to President Bill Clinton.
Holder could again face questions over controversies such as the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich and the prison sentence commutation of a cocaine dealer. Critics said the Justice Department's handling of the pardon process, under Holder, broke down in the waning days of the Clinton administration.
The Los Angeles Times reported last week, based on previously undisclosed documents and new interviews, that Holder repeatedly pressed his subordinates at the Justice Department to drop objections to the 1999 clemency request of 16 members of two violent Puerto Rican nationalist groups. Clinton's decision to commute their sentences angered law enforcement officials and families of victims who said they were never consulted.
Joseph Connor, whose father Frank was killed in 1975 when members of the Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation) bombed a New York restaurant, is expected to testify at the Holder confirmation hearing.
Also expected to testify is former FBI special agent Richard Hahn who investigated FALN.
Holder has some Republican supporters who say that his earlier mistakes will make him a better AG. Maybe. But the issues deserve serious questioning, not the sort of group hug that occurred at Hillary Clinton's hearing.
Permanent Tax Cuts
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 4:37PM
Matt Yglesias carps:
Not only is this barrel full of tax cuts proposed by the Republican Study Committee pretty bad stimulus, but to even call a package of permanent tax cuts a “alternative stimulus” is a serious abuse of the term. The idea of a stimulus measure is that you increase the budget deficit over the short-term to try to get the economy back to something like a full employment of available resources. But a permanent increase in the deficit extends, by definition, into non-recessionary periods in which such deficits operate as a drag on growth.
I haven't studied the RSC proposal closely enough to comment on the details, but Yglesias's theoretical argument is way off base. For one thing, as Peter Ferarra noted on our main site last week:
Tax cuts stimulate the economy when they involve reductions in tax rates. The reduction in rates improves incentives for savings, investment, business creation and expansion, job creation, entrepreneurship, and work, by allowing people to keep a greater percentage of the reward produced by these activities. This improves the economy not just by the dollar amount of the tax cut. The improved incentives affect every economic decision and every dollar in the entire economy. The astoundingly successful Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, as well as the astoundingly successful Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, were both based on reducing tax rates, and were successful for these reasons.
By making tax cuts permanent, it allows individuals and businesses to make longer-term decisions.
But overall, the problem with Yglesias's argument is that it defines "stimulus" only in narrow Keynesian deficit spending terms -- i.e. providing a short term boost -- rather than taking a broader view of what type of policies are compatible with longer term economic growth.
Chavez on Geithner
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 2:49PM
Linda Chavez, writing at Contentions, recalls:
What a difference eight years make. Some may recall that my nomination as Secretary of Labor in 2001 was derailed when the press learned that I had taken an illegal alien into my home a decade earlier. I was accused of everything from hiring an illegal “nanny” (she wasn’t an employee she actually worked for someone else and my kids were in high school at the time) to practicing slavery or indentured servitude.
Reporters camped out on my front lawn, and the issue was the top item on both network and cable news for days. I decided I was becoming a distraction, so I withdrew, holding a press conference with a half dozen other individuals — most of them immigrants to whom I had given financial assistance or taken into my home over the years. (The most accurate news story on the controversy didn’t appear until weeks after I withdrew.)
Geithner’s treatment suggests that Republicans want no part of the search-and-destroy tactics that Democrats practiced eight years ago. That is a good thing, by and large. But it remains to be seen, even with the press playing down Geithner’s tax problems and many Republicans ready to forgive him, whether the American public will look as lightly upon someone who failed to pay more than $43,000 in taxes owed, a sum equal to more than the average American’s yearly wage.
A Few More Pardons
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 2:34PM
We at the Examiner today say that Bush should pardon Ramos, Compean, Libby,.... and the dreaded Honduran Lobster Three. You'll see if you read the latter link that the Honduran snared in that, uh, net was represented on appeal by the great Miguel Estrada, who ought to be a federal judge -- and WOULD be a judge, probably, if a certain White House counsel named Gonzales had not decided that it was beneath the White House's dignity to openly fight the Senate's unprecedented use of filibusters to block judicial nominations, starting with, yes, Estrada.
But I digress. Bush's failure to pardon any of the people mentioned in the Examiner editorial would make him either a gutless wonder or else just somebody clueless about the meaning of "justice."
You Had Me At Hello
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 2:28PM
Finally, George Packer blogs at the New Yorker, a President who can do something right--talk!
This piece in today's Times reassures me that Obama knows the difference between campaigning and governing, and between strategic communications and deliberative democracy.
Am I the only one who thinks this is laughable? Perhaps Packer is delving in deep political theories beyond my brain (I know, I know, I've never written for the New Yorker), but what exactly has Obama done yet?
Governed? Led a democracy? Oh wait, just campaigned, just strategized, just talked.
Rather than simply asserting his plans with anodyne uplift and ignoring the counter-arguments, he's explained honestly, he's reasoned, he's even offered to listen.
Lots of people can do this. Lots of great men and women in positions of leadership have done this, but it doesn't mean they were able to execute and actually lead.
I'm not saying Obama's not going to live up to the expectations (after all, I am implying Packer leave out premature judgement and so should I), I'm just saying, who gives a flying inauguration speech that he can speak well?
We know this. So let's see what he's actually going to do. This, we don't know.
'24' Reax (SPOILERS WARNING)
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 1:47PM
I watched the two-night/four-hour '24' season premier, and while it's still entertaining escapism, I have a few issues so far. While "24" by its nature strains credulity, I have found this season especially hard to swallow, particularly the scene when Jack Bauer busts Tony Almeda out of FBI headquarters. I mean, Almeda is a top suspect -- and the only lead -- in a major international terrorism case that puts the nation's air traffic control system, water supply, and electrical grid at risk and that is being used to coax the President to call off a military invasion aimed at stopping genocide in an African nation. The idea that a single guard would be securing Almeda, was too distractingly absurd, and I wish they could have found a more clever way to pull off the escape.
Also, it's getting to the point where Jack Bauer's actions are
even more difficult than ever to justify in terms of preventing
terrorism. Working on the same team as the terrorists to break
into a State Department safe house
and kidnap a foreign leader is just too far adrift from what the
audience can be expected to accept of Bauer, even knowing it's
just television.
Harmless Greg Talks Naughty
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 1:08PM
The story, thus far: The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) declares Greg Gutfeld one of 2008's worst people. Gutfeld responds by creating his own award for GLAAD, the GLAGG, expounded upon here. Ceremony info is as follows:
The GLAGG award can be picked up in Bryant Park between 3 and 4 am - stall six. Remember to whistle “Smalltown Boy,” when entering.
Oh no he didn't! Or...did he?!
Republicans Staying the Course on Iraq
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 12:45PM
Byron York has an interesting piece (subscription required, but gist easily gotten from the excerpt) in World Affairs on the dog that didn't bark after the last two elections: Republicans and conservatives have talked about rethinking virtually every issue that could be considered a political liability except for the Iraq war. Even though there were predictions that this debate would come -- York mentions criticism of the neoconservatives at the post-election conservative gathering hosted by Brent Bozell -- there isn't much evidence of it now.
Indeed, for all the political problems that the war in Iraq caused for Republican candidates around the country, if you ask virtually any group of rank-and-file conservatives what has gone wrong with the Republican Party, a majority will point first to out-of-control government spending. Some will say the GOP has abandoned its core, Reaganite values. Some will rue the party’s failure to connect with young and minority voters, and some will say Republicans need to find better ways to address health care, or education. But very few, if any, will mention Iraq, or the Bush Doctrine, or the war on terror in general—the issues most closely associated with neoconservatives.
I complained about Iraq emerging as a litmus test issue before the primaries (though, as it turned out, Rudy Giuliani's support for the war did not actually make up for his social liberalism with key primary voters). But I think there are a few reasons conservatives haven't engaged in any rethinking of Iraq since 2006 and 2008. One is that an overwhelming majority of them supported the invasion in the wake of 9/11, not just the neocons, and most conservatives seem to believe that the success of the surge in reducing violence has vindicated the entire Iraq project. This is even more true of conservatives with foreign policy or national defense expertise; conservatives with such expertise or even a primary interest in foreign affairs were strong supporters of the Iraq war. The exceptions were the paleos, who operate almost entirely outside of the mainstream movement, and the realists, many of whom took the Chuck Hagel route of being lukewarm supporters of the initial invasion and voiceiferous opponents of the surge, a combination which did not make them look very realistic. The fact that there is no shortage of conservatives who primarily work on tax and budget policy who privately grumble about the war doesn't do much to shift the intraconservative foreign-policy debate.
Ron Paul tried to launch that debate with his Republican presidential candidacy. His antiwar views contributed to him doing better than anyone reasonably expected when he jumped into the race, but they also created a ceiling on his support within Republican primaries (some of his enthusiastic young followers were also a liability). Paul is currently more popular among Democrats and independents in some polls than among Republicans. Maybe a Republican whose opposition to the war was part of a less radical critique of American foreign policy than Paul's would have done better. But, given that the likeliest alternative was somebody like Hagel, maybe not.
Two things have to happen before we conclude that a Republican/conservative Iraq rethink will never happen. The first is that George W. Bush will have to leave office. The second is we'll have to see what happens when Barack Obama starts running the country's foreign policy. If Obama presides over a disastrous withdrawal from Iraq, it is unlikely that we'll see significant Republican second thoughts about the war. If instead he stays the course himself while engaging in numerous humanitarian interventions around the globe, anything is possible.
Re: Sex Sells
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 11:10AM
Well, Nicole, whether or not it's a "step back" for the feminist movement, I would argue that the Internet virgin has at least proven something:
Laura Gallier, who runs a Texas-based abstinence education program, was dumbfounded by the news that bidding in the online auction of a California woman's virginity had reached $3.7 million.
"When I communicate to young people that their virginity is valuable, that's not exactly what I have in mind," said Gallier, author of Choosing to Wait.
Yet if 22-year-old Natalie Dylan has proven nothing else, she has demonstrated that virginity -- though not exactly innocence -- has market value.
Please feel free the read the rest of it. However, any critic who accuses me of "cherry-picking the evidence" will be pun-ished.
No Incumbents, No Problem
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 10:48AM
The Politico looks at the Republicans lining up to replace retiring GOP senators in Florida, Missouri, and Ohio, concluding that these seats may not go blue after all.
Haunted Honeymoon?
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 9:29AM
In the wake of the news that Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in federal taxes for a housekeeper, President-elect Obama's allies in the media are starting to see a pattern of blunders, given that it is coming off Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw his nomination as Commerce Secretary. The NY Times calls the Geithner news, "the latest of several stumbles by the previously smooth-running Obama," the Washington Post describes it as "the latest in a series of missteps by Obama's team," and the Associated Press refers to it it as "another jarring distraction just days before Obama's inauguration" that "raises fresh questions about his team's judgment, vetting procedures and political sensitivities." The AP also quotes Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution as saying the episode is "really quite stunning for a transition team that has so carefully studied everything that might go wrong, and which was faultless up until about a week ago."
Let's Do the TARP Time Warp
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 9:10AM
Originally, the $700 billion bailout package was picthed as a way to remove toxic assets from the financial system so that credit would flow freely once again. That idea was scrapped shortly after Paulson and Bernanke got their money. Now, the Fed Chairman is making the case for Congress to allocate the second $350 billion authorized in the bailout package, and the Washington Post reports:
Among other steps, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and vice chairman Donald L. Kohn suggested taking troubled assets off the books of banks -- a strategy that Fed officials backed before it was abandoned months ago -- and also using some of the money to help homeowners at risk of foreclosure.
Barney Frank, Savior of Homeowners
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 8:57AM
Washington is just so ... so ... so Washington! The Left is falling all over itself positioning itself as defender of homeowners against evildoers seeking to foreclose on houses the buyers can no longer pay for. Never mind that many our current economic problems derive from the artificial bubble that has burst, and only a painful price adjustment downward is going to allow the economy to return to steady and solid growth.
Moreover, many people purchased homes they could never afford, and have no claim to pick the pockets of the rest of us. Especially the pockets of those of who were careful in how much house they bought, as well as potential homebuyers, who held off buying what they couldn't afford. In this case lower prices reward the thrifty and responsible. Further, lower prices will turn more people into homeowners.
The worst poseur today is Rep. Barney Frank chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He is seen by the Left as the bulwark against even the Obama administration-to-be in ensuring a bail-out of as many irresponsible people as possible. Explains Harry Meyerson in the Washington Post:
Yet even after their recklessness propelled their nation into an economic crisis, America's bankers remain the coddled children of Bush-Paulson economic policy and might just remain so under the Obama administration. Last Friday, the panel that Congress appointed to oversee the Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which administers the $350 billion bailout to banks, reported that the Treasury has not monitored what the banks have done with the funds they received and that despite the language in the bailout legislation "to maximize assistance for homeowners" none of the bailout has been put to that purpose.
Indeed, if the Treasury had set out to design a system to demonstrate once and for all that trickle-down economics doesn't work, it could not have done better than TARP. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has thrown money at the banks, which resolutely refuse to lend it to businesses and homeowners, no matter how creditworthy they may be.
That's why a bill that Barney Frank is promoting in the House, which would direct banks that choose to take bailout funds to start lending to creditworthy borrowers and designate no less than $40 billion for mortgage relief, is necessary if Congress is to authorize the Treasury to spend another $350 billion on TARP. Over in the Senate, the Democrats seem inclined to think that the need for such legislation is obviated by President-elect Obama's promise to administer the TARP in the ways that Frank's bill would mandate.
If Obama's appointees inspired sufficient trust that they would be willing to take on the banks, such legislation would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, they don't.
Of course, this is the same Barney Frank who worked so hard to turn Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into political slush funds while assuring the world that they were safe and sound. Oops! But in Washington people just go from failures to bigger and better things. Rep. Frank is a prime example, having a big hand in the "rescue" of the American economy which he did so much to sabotage.
Pork-Barrel Stimulus
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 8:30AM
The news that Las Vegas is seeking federal money to build the Mob Musuem has raised the issue of whether the stimulus package will amount to one giant pork-barrel spending bill. President-elect Obama has said that, "We don't want is this thing to be a Christmas tree loaded up with a whole bunch of pet projects that people have for their local communities." Of course, that's easier said than done. In addition to the Mob Musuem, a group formed to oppose a $20 billion dollar expansion of O'Hare Airport has raised concerns that the federal stimulus will be used for the project, a key goal of Mayor Richard Daley, which Ronald Burris has said he would support. Daley himself has declared that mayors would have to go around the state government run by Blagojevich and take their case directly to Washington. The group, Stop the O'Hare Modernization Program, asserts that the $20 billion proposal would "1) require one-hour bus rides from remote terminals and parking lots, 2) require 45 minute aircraft taxiing times from remote runways to the terminals, 3) result in massive aircraft taxiing traffic jams because of an improperly placed runway 4) result in a several hundred percent increase in runway crossings which endanger public safety." This is something worth keeping an eye on.
Timothy Geithner Makes the Case for Tax Reform
Posted by on 1.14.09 @ 5:07AM
Who doesn't hate the hassle of the income tax and curse the fools in Congress who make the tax code ever complex even as they claim to be lightening the load on taxpayers. Maybe we will have a champion in the Obama Administration. It turns out that Treasury Secretary-designate Timonthy Geithner has trouble paying his taxes. Reports the Washington Times:
President-elect Barack Obama's Treasury Secretary nominee, who would oversee the Internal Revenue Service, failed to pay nearly $35,000 in federal taxes from 2001 to 2004 and has a history of mistakes and late-filing, senators preparing to vote on the pick said Tuesday.
In addition to the tax problems, the senators said the nominee, Timothy Geithner, also failed to fill out immigration forms for three housekeepers who worked for him since 2004, and he employed one of the housekeepers for more than three months after she was no longer legally allowed to work in the U.S.
Democrats said the delinquent taxes, some of which Mr. Geithner paid only after he learned that Mr. Obama was considering him for the post, were an "honest mistake." Republican senators said they will have to see what details emerge before deciding whether to support Mr. Geithner's confirmation.
Of course, it would be easier to respect him if he was a full-blown tax resister, prepared to go to jail for his beliefs. The apparent mixture of carelessness and procrastination looks a lot less noble. But maybe it will encourage him to look for ways to lighten the administrative if not the financial burden on the rest of us!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Obama Meets With Ex-Conservatives
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 8:52PM
The One had dinner this evening with George F. Will, Bill Kristol and David Brooks. Just like Bill Buckley cozied up to Jimmy Carter and Rush Limbaugh made friends with Bill Clinton. You remember that, don't you?
It's a Gas (Tax)
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 5:37PM
Or maybe not. William Yeatman and Jeremy Lott argue that the "net zero" gas tax scheme is running on empty.
Sex Sells
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 4:19PM
I'm sure you've read the story (via a link on Drudge) about the 22-year-old woman from California who is auctioning off her virginity to to pay for her Master's in--get this--Family & Marriage therapy. So far, the bidding is up to $3.7 million. I guess, she's cute enough.
There's also a mystique about virginity and an anonymous woman just trying to achieve her own version of the American Dream. I'm sure that explains the price as well.
Despite the twisted-ness of it all, I bet there's a modern-day Gloria Steinem out there saying, "Way to go! You've turned the glass ceiling on it's head!"
Yet it's so obvious, she hasn't. She's turning to the last resort, the one Steinem and others like her argued women should not lean on. Instead of using their bodies to succeed, women should use their brains. Imagine!
For all her ingenuity, I think it's a step back.
Plus, who wants to go to the marriage therapist who sold her virginity so she could charge you $80/hr to talk about your sexual relationship with your spouse?
Yes Virginia, There Is A CPAC
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 1:01PM
With all due respect to Marc Ambinder, George Allen's 2005 CPAC straw poll victory probably had less to do with the fact that he was from Virginia than the perception that he was one of the more conservative viable 2008 possibilities. And the idea that he wouldn't blow a 2006 Senate race in which he was heavily favored by using a racial slur to describe a volunteer for the opposing campaign while on camera.
UPDATE: So much for my memory. Allen won the straw poll in 2006, not 2005. It's also should be noted that participants were asked that year who they thought would win the nomination rather than their preference, though I suspect there was considerable overlap.
If You Took A Holiday
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 12:08PM
Some conservatives have been touting a payroll tax holiday as an alternative to the Democrats' fiscal stimulus plan. Suspending the payroll tax for 2009 would increase workers' disposable incomes while reducing a tax on hiring and retaining workers for employers. It would be a progressive tax cut. Any payroll tax relief is politically vulnerable to complaints about diverting revenue from Social Security, like personal accounts except without any compensating effort to deal with the long-term unfunded liabilities of the system, but both the payroll tax and the Social Security/Medicare trust funds are accounting fictions.
This would be preferable to Obama's massive new spending on projects of varying degrees of merit. But it would likely increase government borrowing and might otherwise fall into the stimulus trap noted by economist Tyler Cowen:
The biggest problem with a fiscal stimulus is this: our economic problems stem from having spent too much in the first place. Now that our homes are no longer rising in value every year and America is aging, more saving is in order, not more spending. Recovery will come only when we discover which new and valuable things the economy should produce as it shifts out of real estate and finance. Simply borrowing and doling out more cash doesn't solve that problem.
A payroll tax holiday is a politically attractive alternative to a warmed-over New Deal, and in many ways an economically attractive one too. But the borrow-and-spend holiday from history needs to end too.
Hillary on Arms Agreements
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 11:42AM
Under questioning by Dick Lugar, Hillary Clinton expressed that the new administration would pursue arms control agreements and non-prolifiration, specifically a new START treaty with Russia that would reduce the nuclear arsenal, and she reiterated Obama's desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons. She dismissed the criticism that such agreements are useless because good actors don't need them and bad actors ignore them, arguing that by pursuing such agreements, the U.S. is in a stronger position to isolate bad actors. In his book, John Bolton makes a strong argument for why such agreements tie the hands of the U.S., especially when it comes to pursuing missile defense.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 10:57AM
- To the Keynesians: let's hope for better luck this time (WSJ)
- Brooks on Neuhaus (NY Times)
- 25 Top Bushisms, 1999-2008 (Slate)
- Bullet points to make it easy: Stimulus spending doesn't work (Reason)
- Evolution and design in computer science (American Scene)
- Madoff apparently has a big supply of get out of jail free cards (Bloomberg)
Hillary on Iran
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 10:55AM
Hillary Clinton, again, was much more nuanced on Iran than either she or Obama were on the campaign trail. No talk of meeting with Ahmadinejad within the first year of the administration or "obliterating" Iran. She said they would try all diplomatic strategies including trying to convince other members of the U.N. Security Council that a nuclear Iran is in nobody's best interest. However, all options remain on the table because a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable." As far as meeting directly with Iran, she said that the new administration would be open to "trying new approaches," but would have to sit down with friends and allies first before making a decision on talks with Iran.
Block Hillary
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 10:54AM
It remains astonishing that somebody with the ethical baggage of Hillary Clinton should be receiving less attention and less serious attempts to block her nomination than is Eric Holder. If Holder is not worthy of office because of the pardons of Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican terrorists, then why do those things not disqualify Hillary as well? Especially when combined with.... the Hollywood fundraising scandal, the coffee klatsches in the White House, the entire sordid history of Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm, the missing billing records, the corrupt cattle trades, her lies in the White House Travel Office fiasco, her unethical behavior on the Watergate Committee, her repeated going to bat for big donors to her husband's foundation, her husband's convoluted business affairs, her husband's conflicts of interest (which benefit her, too) with so much speech money and foundation money coming from foreign interests...... etc etc etc etc etc.
She is no more fit to be secretary of state than Bernie Madoff is fit to be an ethics counselor.
Pardon Scooter Libby
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 10:52AM
Time's a wastin'. The president should pardon Scooter Libby. NOW!
Hillary Helped Bill's Donors
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 10:46AM
As she answers questions before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the AP reports that, Hillary Clinton "intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found."
Clinton on Gaza
Posted by on 1.13.09 @ 10:28AM
In her opening statement during her confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hillary Clinton gave a typically nuanced statement on the conflict in Gaza. She said that U.S. policy has to take into account Israel's security concerns and Palestinian aspirations. Israel has a right to defend itself and stop the rocket fire, she said, but the conflict in Gaza is a reminder of the toll on both Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The Obama administration, she said, would work with all sides that desire peace.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Carol Browner a Socialist?
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 6:16PM
There's a tendency of conservatives to carelessly toss about the "S" word. Like John McCain, who opposed the Bush tax cuts while spouting left-wing rhetoric, then accusing Barack Obama of being a socialist because the latter proposed to increase taxes on the rich. It was bad liberal redistributionist policy, but McCain--for every bail-out as well as cap-and-trade--was in no position to call his opponent a socialist for advocating the same dumb liberal redistributionist policies.
However, as the Washington Examiner pointed out last week (and the Washington Times mentioned today), Carol Browner really is a socialist. Or at least, she belonged to the Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which is part of the Socialist International. Granted, these are pretty wimpy socialists, rather than serious guys with guns intent on seizing everyone's property. But still. Reports the Examiner:
Conservatives are often accused of scaremongering when they claim left-wing environmentalists are actually socialists hiding behind green disguises. But with Carol Browner, incoming President Barack Obama's freshly appointed Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change - the so-called White House "Climate Czar" - there is no question about the socialism. Browner is a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International. Oddly enough, the group's web site was recently scrubbed to remove Browner's picture and biography, but her name is still listed next to the photo-biographies of her 14 colleagues on the commission. The Socialist International is no group of woolly-headed idealists. It is an influential assembly of officials from across the international community whose official Statement of Principles describes an agenda of gaining and exercising government power based on socialist concepts.
Browner's CSWS is similarly open about the economic costs it is willing to impose, across national borders to achieve its environmental utopia. On Sept. 5-6, 2008, the commission noted that the costs of its proposals would "rang[e] in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades," and it called for a "redesign of the international rules on intellectual property." That is international bureaucratese for compelling an inventor to surrender property rights in order to "share" technologies with less-developed countries.
At the Congress of the Socialist International held last June 30-July2, the CSWS officially resolved that "market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development." Again, that's bureaucratese. It means that international taxes should be imposed to provide the "resources necessary" to impose what the CSWS repeatedly refers to as a ‘regime" against "global warming." By appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at the least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration's environmental policy. The incoming chief executive thus strengthens critics who contend environmental policies aren't really about protecting endangered species or preserving virgin lands, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.
The best part is that Browner obviously is embarrassed by the connection, since someone has engaged in a bit of Stalinist air-brushing of history by eliminating her picture and bio from the socialist website.
Alas, she's headed to the White House--ironically, to be "Czar" of the Climate. (Didn't socialists revolt against the last real Czar?). That means there will be no Senate confirmation process, with an opportunity ask appropriate questions.
Hamas Robbing Aid Trucks
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 6:00PM
The Jerusalem Post reports:
Hamas on Monday raided some 100 aid trucks that Israel had allowed into Gaza, stole their contents and sold them to the highest bidders.
Nominate a Bush Judge!
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 3:28PM
Today, National Review Online makes an eloquent case for Obama to renominate a Bush judicial nominee. I had made virtually the same case last week in the Examiner. Several other bloggers have picked up the call, including Jonathan Adler and Ed Whelan at Bench memos (also NRO) the excellent Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy and the always on-target Curt Levey at the Committee for Justice, who noted that the Wall Street Journal made a similar argument back in November. So I hereby dub this movement a real "groundswell," and it might be worthwhile for readers and bloggers to make the ground swell even more.
RNC Endorsement
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 2:17PM
No, not by The American Spectator, but by Red State. I'd tell you who they've endorsed, but don't want to confuse anyone with those tricky "quote marks."
Speaking of Kasich
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 1:46PM
The Democrats are already making an issue of his Lehman connection. I predicted this problem (as did Quin Hillyer) and previewed possible responses in a piece a while back.
His Royal Hateness?
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 11:46AM
Ready for a pop quiz? A video of Prince Harry of Wales clowning around with his army friends has caused an uproar in England because:
- A. The Prince mocks the national anthem by pretending to ring off the phone with his grandmother, saying "God save you."
- B. The video is full of crude sexual references, including mocking an army comrade as "gay" and "queer."
- C. He referred to a fellow soldier as "our little Paki friend, Ahmed."
If you guessed "C," you're correct. Both "A" and "B" are also true, but it was mainly the "Paki" that compelled an apology from Harry, third in line for the throne. Over at PJM, I ask, Is Harry a bigot?
Pelosi's Rules
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 11:41AM
Although they can't resist lecturing the Republicans in the process, the Washington Post editorializes against the treatment of the minority in Nancy Pelosi's House.
Voinovich's Retirement
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 11:22AM
George Voinovich has never been a conservative favorite, to put it mildly, but reports that he won't seek reelection in 2010 makes the next round of elections more difficult for Republicans. The senior senator from Ohio was virtually a lock to win reelection regardless of political climate -- that is, he would be heavily favored even if Republican fortunes failed to improve significantly between now and 2010. Now there will be an open seat in a swing state that has been trending Democratic and where the Republican bench has been decimated by the last two elections. John Kasich is a possibility, but he has been looking at a run for governor instead.
Retirements cost the Republicans House seats in 2008, where the damage might have been contained if there were fewer open seats to defend. The retirements compounded other problems: it made it even more difficult to recruit other viable candidates and it forced Republicans to spread money, which they were having problems raising, too thin. In 2010, the process already seems to be repeating itself in a challenging Senate environment where Republicans will have to defend the seats they won in 2004.
Of course, Republican fortunes can -- and probably will -- change between now and then, after two years of unified Democratic control of the elected branches of government. Look how quickly the Rovian "permanent Republican majority" of 2004 gave way to the elections of 2006. But even in this scenario, the retirements could complicate things. Think back to 1996, when the Democrats had a worse year than they otherwise would have because Democratic legislators retired when political conditions looked bleak and weren't around to take advantage when things shifted back somewhat in the Democrats' favor.
UPDATE: Quin points to the possible ticket of Kasich for governor and Rob Portman for Senate. It would indeed be a conservative ticket, and it would also avoid a gubernatorial primary between Kasich and Portman.
Ohio, yes!
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 11:19AM
The collapse of the Ohio Republican Party in 2006, a collapse attributable largely to the utter incompetence and lack of conservative principle of former Gov. Taft and to the corruption scandals that engulfed his administration, led the way to the GOP's national defeat that year and in 2008. (Not that Ohio CAUSED the national problems, but it became particularly symptomatic of them.)
Would it not be wonderful, then, if Ohio, so long a stalwart GOP state, were to lead the way back?
Sen. Voinovich's retirement announcement opens up the chance for a great conservative trifecta in the Buckeye State that could do wonders to revive the conservative movement nationwide.
A host of big-name conservatives have endorsed Ohio former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell for chairman of the Republican National Committee. Imagine if he wins, and then Ohio follows up in 2010 by electing solidly conservative Rob Portman (former Congressman and Bush official) as Voinovich's replacement in the Senate while electing solidly conservative former House Budget Chairman John Kasich as governor?
I would then say that Ohio had more than made amends -- and that both it, and the nation, would be tremendously well served.
Whether or not Blackwell is the best man for the job is for the RNC to decide, although there is every reason to believe he is among those who could do a truly superb job in that office. But just the sheer fact of his serious challenge for that post combined with the chance of a Kasich/Portman ballot bonanza in 2010 is a reminder that despite recent troubles, the Ohio GOP has produced some of the finest conservative talent around. Conservatives ought to be thrilled at the prospect.
Massachusetts Health Care Disaster
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 10:37AM
The Washington Examiner has an editorial on how the Massachusetts universal health-care program has become "an embarassing flop." It is tremendously over budget, has meant wait times of up to a year to see a physician for a physical, and the individual mandate requirement hasn't even led to universal coverage. What's even more scary is that the broad outlines of the plan are similar to what Obama-Daschle envision at the national level -- the government subsidizes individuals to purchase government-designed coverage from a government-run exchange. So, if Mitt Romney has done one thing for conservatism, it may have been producing a big government health-care system so rotten, that Republicans now have a real life example that they can use during the upcoming health-care battle to demonstrate the flaws of the Obama plan.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 10:30AM
- Obama wants to cut entitlements? Good luck with health spending (Washington Post)
- But Obama will get his tax increases, sooner or later (WSJ)
- How insulting (NY Times)
- Will we ever know everything about Bush's fateful decisions? (Slate)
- Stick to singing, Bono (Crunchy Con)
- What a country: the conservative outpouring for Hillary continues (Democracy in America)
- P.J. O'Rourke starts warming up for the Obama administration (Weekly Standard)
Browner the Socialist
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 10:07AM
The lead story in the Washington Times today is tremendously important, showing the officially socialist ties of new White House "climate czar" Carol Browner. I should note that we at the Examiner were, as far as I know, the ones who first reported on this in the daily print media, with this editorial last Thursday. And, frankly, our editorial has more details than the Times story does about the radical agenda of Browner's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, including the group's own acknowledgement of the severe economic costs of its proposals. For all who believe in limited government, this is truly scary stuff.
As a final credit-where-it's-due note, let me mention that we at the Examiner were alerted to Browner's Socialist ties by the excellent Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch (and loosely affiliated with the John Locke Foundation) and by Steven Milloy of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Why Would Republicans Provide Obama With Cover?
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 10:06AM
President-elect Obama has rankled Democrats by proposing $300 billion in tax relief as part of his economic stimulus plan in an effort to win over Republicans so he can claim bipartisan support, but I question whether it makes much sense for Republicans to be bought off so easily. For one thing, as Peter Ferrara pointed out on our main site last week, the proposed "tax cuts" are really a mirage, because they don't reduce actual rates, which is something I also wrote about during the campaign. And in pure political terms, I'm not sure what Republicans gain by strengthening Obama. When the midterm elections roll around, if the Obama stimulus package is viewed as a failure, it will only benefit Republicans if they opposed it and reestablished themselves as the party that fights wasteful spending and massive government intervention in the economy. If the legislation is perceived a success, then it will benefit Democrats even if many Republicans also supported the bill. So it seems pretty clear to me that from an ideological, branding, and political perspective, Republicans would be best off united in opposition to Obama's plan.
Change Socialists Can Believe In
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 10:03AM
In the Washington Times, Stephen Dinan reports that Carol M. Browner, Barack Obama's pick to be global warming czar, served as one of the leaders of Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society.
The Debtor's War
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 7:46AM
Whether you're pro-war or not, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has a new study out taking a look at how the war in Iraq is being funded. The discussion on financing foreign adventure has been generally limited to, "This War Costs A Lot Of Money," which is probably persuasive to people unaware that government activity generally costs a lot of money. But in these economic times, citizens would do well to take a look at the dollar signs and evaluate for themselves if they can stomach the idea of an interventionist foreign policy that costs more than a defensive one.
Waging a war, however, is not your average government activity. When Spain was pursuing an empire and annoying British fleets with a hefty armada, it did so through direct financing with gold. Their industrial revolution was sacrificed because of an unhealthy desire to spend on immediate goals and not invest in the longterm, something that has plagued Spain's economic history.
So then:
...[The administration's] reliance on supplemental appropriations, often submitted in the middle of the year and supported by inadequate justification materials, the process has reduced the ability of Congress to exercise effective oversight. It has also tended to obscure the long-term costs and budgetary consequences of ongoing military operations.
It's interesting that such a passive aggressive approach has been taken to war spending. But perhaps that's because Americans are rarely comfortable with spending a large sum of anything that has no direct benefit to them. The cost of a defensive measure is likely to be more acceptible than the cost of a foreign intervention. Their support of the surge also showed that they also understand the importance of winning.
Whatever the case, the administration has refused to address these budgetary issues, well, conservatively:
A reasonable—although ultimately subjective and unprovable—case can be made for attributing a share of federal interest costs to these wars. With the exception of the 1991 Gulf War, which was a brief and relatively inexpensive war financed primarily by contributions from US friends and allies, the costs of all previous major conflicts were financed through a combination of tax increases, cuts in domestic programs and borrowing. By contrast, rather than raising taxes, the Bush Administration proposed, and Congress implemented, significant tax cuts. Nor have major reductions in spending been implemented in non-defense portions of the budget to help pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a certain irony here. The war may have served as an excuse to cut domestic programs, but this was avoided in favor of charting a course that sought Democratic support -- during a Republican majority. In other words, even when he didn't have to pander, Bush did.
Perhaps a plank in the next Republican platform can be, "When next there is Republican dominance of both the Congress and the White House, the agenda shall be to reduce the size of government."
Our Sources, Ourselves
Posted by on 1.12.09 @ 4:41AM
"Eek!" That's a quote from a chagrined journalist who has just discovered that his blog post quoting a Republican supporter of Saul Anuzis has been misrepresented as The American Spectator endorsing Anuzis.
The wild-and-woolly fight for the RNC chairmanship is no place that a mild-mannered reporter should intrude himself as a combatant. It's dangerous enough to be a spectator (American or otherwise) at ringside. I'm an opinionated person by nature, but I don't have a dog in this fight, and the only opinions that really matter in the chairmanship contest are those of the 168 members of the RNC, whose opinions are hard to gauge.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Eric Holder's Lengthy Client List
Posted by on 1.11.09 @ 7:09AM
Originally the Marc Rich pardon saga appeared to be the main barrier to rubber stamp approval for Eric Holder's nomination as Attorney General. But the GOP is now looking at his lengthy client list for potential conflicts of interest. Reports the New York Times:
Chiquita was facing the prospect of federal charges for paying protection money to Colombian terrorists to safeguard its banana crops, and the company needed help. It turned to Eric H. Holder Jr., an elite Washington lawyer well versed in the ways of the Justice Department.
"We were in an extraordinarily difficult position," James E. Thompson, the general counsel for Chiquita, recalled in an interview last week. As a former prosecutor, Mr. Holder "carries a level of credibility with him, and that's a valuable commodity," he said.
Mr. Holder, now President-elect Barack Obama's pick for attorney general, made his name publicly during a quarter-century in government service, first as a corruption prosecutor, then as a judge, and finally as the second-ranking official in the Clinton Justice Department. But it is as a power lawyer in Washington over the last eight years that Mr. Holder, 57, has made his wealth, as well as a reputation as a legal fixer for clients in crisis.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is to begin confirmation hearings on Mr. Holder on Thursday, and if he is confirmed he will take over at the Justice Department with perhaps the most extensive private practice of any attorney general in modern times. Colleagues and admirers see his impressive range of work as a sign of a lawyer who has seen the law from all sides.
But some Republicans plan to press Mr. Holder about what they view as the potential conflicts of interest posed by his client list and how he would go about deciding whether to bow out of issues that come before him involving past clients, staff members said. Others question how his corporate ties would affect his work at the Justice Department.
"We've had eight years of an administration that turned a blind eye to corporate criminals," said Terry Collingsworth, a Washington lawyer who is suing Chiquita over the Colombian protection money and is facing Mr. Holder in the case. "We need someone with his level of experience and cachet to clean up the Justice Department. Yet I do have a concern and I sure hope that he doesn't carry over his corporate defense practice into his approach to the job and how he handles these types of cases."
When the National Football League was facing a legal and public-relations disaster in 2007 over a dogfighting scandal involving the Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, it turned to Mr. Holder to help navigate the maelstrom and represent the league. The pharmaceutical giant Merck tapped him as its lawyer in a Medicaid overbilling case that ended in a $671 million civil settlement. And Rod R. Blagojevich, the now-impeached governor of Illinois, picked him, albeit briefly, to investigate for the state a controversy over a casino development and its possible ties to organized crime.
Already, Mr. Holder's brief association with Mr. Blagojevich has drawn scrutiny from Republicans, who are waging a more spirited campaign against Mr. Holder's nomination than many had anticipated. Until now, most of the scrutiny has focused on controversies during the nominee's time as deputy attorney general at the end of the Clinton administration, particularly his role in the pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich.
While nomination opponents still face long odds, they are likely to force Holder to answer some potentially embarrassing questions. With confirmation hearings set to begin Thursday, the process could put another blemish on President-elect Barack Obama's incipient administration.
On Endorsements
Posted by on 1.11.09 @ 1:41AM
Tom Wilson, the New Jersey GOP chair, sent out an email on behalf of Saul Anuzis. Included in it was this line:
The American Spectator wrote that "Saul is everybody's second choice" for RNC Chair. Well, I've been giving Saul a tough time about that one as a joke because Saul is my first choice; but if there's a multi-ballot vote, being everybody's second choice is right where you want to be.
That was news to me, because we don't take positions, at least not as a magazine, and certainly not on the blog. But it was even taken out of context. The "everybody's second choice" line was taken from a quote that Stacy McCain got from an audience member at the Press Club. It wasn't something put forward by Stacy himself. This was a pretty misleading thing that Wilson did.
Of course, Anuzis being the most easily-reached candidate ever, once I told him this, he immediately made the adjustment on his blog to reflect that. But I wanted to say clearly and for the record we're not endorsing Anuzis or anyone else.
Unfortunately for him, though, it appears there are other people who actually DID support him, but aren't now. One is Richard A. Bennett, who, sources say, has switched from all-out supporting Anuzis to supporting Mike Duncan. The rest of the Maine delegation followed suit.
Nebraska GOP chairman Mike Quandahl, an Anuzis supporter, also lost his race to keep his seat as of yesterday. We're not yet certain whether his successor, Mark Fahleson, will continue that support. The committeewoman of that state, DeMaro Carlson, may also have retracted her support.
I'll also have a few updates tomorrow about Blackwell and Steele. But now, it's time for bed.
