- 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 24, 2009
Obama's Weekly YouTube Address
Posted by on 1.24.09 @ 2:03PM
It's not just radio anymore:
(H/T: Hot Air.) You really have to ask yourself why the media-strategy geniuses of the Bush administration never thought of doing the weekly radio address via YouTube. Meanwhile, note the new president's justification of his plan:
"I know that some are skeptical about the size and scale of this recovery plan. . . . We won't just throw money at our problems - we'll invest in what works."
"What works"? Apparently not highway construction. Despite all the yadda-yadda-yadda about fixing America's infrastructure, only 3% of the stimulus is targeted for roads and bridges.
A bait-and-switch you can believe in!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Winning the Great Northeast
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 4:42PM
Speaking of the New Majority's interest in winning places like Greenwich and Lincoln, the site published a piece by John Avlon on how Republicans could once again win in the Northeast. The suggestions aren't all bad, but some of its analysis of the GOP's current Northeastern dry spell seems a bit simplistic.
Avlon: "Ten years ago, before the Bush/Cheney/Rove/DeLay-era, centrist Republican congressmen and mayors dotted the Northeast - and only two states north of (and including) Pennsylvania had Democratic governors." We're talking about the 1990s here, when Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson were given speaking roles at the Republican National Convention, when the Christian Coalition was a far more potent political force than it is today, when Ralph Reed and George W. Bush were rising stars, when the Republican congressional leadership included controversial Southern political figures like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and -- Tom DeLay.
Yet "centrist Republicans" like Rudy Giuliani, William Weld, Tom Ridge, Lincoln Almond, John Rowland, and Christine Todd Whitman did indeed dot the Northeast. None of these elected officials were socially conservative but the national party they belonged to certainly was. And the social conservatism of Jesse Helms and Oliver North was articulated in terms far less sensitive to centrist, suburban sensibilities (don't say that phrase out loud if you have a lisp) than Bush's. In the 1990s, both moderates and "rigid social-issues conservatives" -- according to Avlon, "the primary internal obstacle to Republican renewal nationally" -- flourished.
Just as they once flourished together, today both Republican factions are united in defeat. Moderate to liberal Republicans Chris Shays, Sue Kelly, Lincoln Chafee, and Connie Morrella weren't purged by social conservatives -- they were removed from office by the voters. Chafee was challenged by a more conservative candidate in the 2006 Republican primary but the conservative lost. Exit polls showed Chafee winning 94 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of conservatives that November. Arlen Specter beat a conservative in his 2004 primary. It's true that there are a lot fewer moderate Northeastern Republicans in Congress than there once were. But with few exceptions -- maybe Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest or New Jersey Sen. Clifford Case (in 1978!) -- it hasn't been the social conservatives throwing them out of office.
So if moderate Republicans were once able to win despite the national party's socially conservative brand, and if Republicans lose elections today even when they are personally moderate, it seems a little too simple to say that the problem is social conservatism as such. In the 1990s, both the Gingrich-Armey-DeLay national Republicans and the Giuliani-Weld-Whitman Northeastern Republicans were able to run against entrenced Democratic majorities that had governed badly. They disagreed about social issues but had a common platform of low taxes, balanced budgets, welfare reform, and crime control that resonated broadly. Republican hegemony in New England was as dead as the Democrats' hold on the South, but the party still had a model for winning elections in hostile territory.
The Republicans' biggest problem is that they are now seen as the entrenched party that governed badly. Social conservatives are not blameless in this, but neither are they the primary culprit -- I don't see many New Majority posts complaining about the Republican Party being out of touch about the war in Iraq, which pre-surge had more to do with the GOP's decline than stem cells or Terri Schiavo. That may not be as easy to fix as the Republican platform plank on abortion. But that is where Republicans now find themselves, in the Northeast and most other places.
Is Obama Keeping His Pakistan Pledge?
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 3:59PM
In 2007, Barack Obama famously said, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Today we learn that a series of missile strikes in Pakistan that killed at least 20 are suspected to have been carried out by the U.S., though the Obama administration has its lips sealed.
If true, it would certainly fit a pattern for Obama, given that the strikes occured just a day after his orders to close Guantanamo Bay within a year and tighten restrictions on interrogation methods. Remember that his statement about striking terrorist targets in Pakistan came on the heels of his declaration that he would meet unconditionally with leaders of Iran and other hostile regimes. Maybe this is what we can expect from Obama -- any move to the left on national security will be followed by action to reassure hawks that he isn't keeping his eye off the ball in the fight against terrorism.
Helping Hans
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 3:17PM
Hans von Spakovsky has an important story today in The Weekly Standard about bad guys in the Justice Department. I discuss more fully here. Please read all internal links of internal links.
Meet the New Majority, Same As the Old Majority
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 2:41PM
It seems to me that, other than the Michael Powell piece, the New Majority website is more concerned with winning over educated, upper-income whites than winning more black and Hispanic votes. They want Republicans to once again be able to carry places like Greenwich, Connecticut and Lincoln, Massachusetts.
Assimilation and Skeptics
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 12:21PM
J.P., I didn't mean to start a flame war between you and Kathy Shaidle, or to provoke a discussion of immigration politics. On the other hand, this sentence of yours is provocative:
That's not what immigration skeptics are concerned about though -- it can't be, because of the way that people have historically assimilated in the U.S. and that first generations always have trouble leaning the language.
Assimilation has occurred historically under conditions much different than conditions that now exist in much of America. It seems obvious that, as a general rule, there would be less assimilation where the natives-to-immigrants ratio is lower, and where new arrivals are constantly replenishing the pool of the unassimilated.
If we are going to compare anecdotes, I'll match your Vietnamese barber with my childhood friend Andy Marquez. Andy is Puerto Rican, but there was no "Puerto Rican community" in Douglas County, Ga., and so he was just another kid in our Scout troops and on our baseball teams. Nobody thought of Andy as any different than anyone else.
But what would the situation have been if one-third of the kids in our school had been Hispanic? Would there have been an undertow of group solidarity to inhibit Andy's assimilation? Would the presence of a larger group of Hispanics have created more possibilities of ethnic conflict and friction?
Many people use "assimilation" in the same way that a magician uses "hocus pocus" -- a ritual incantation of supposedly magical power. But assimilation doesn't occur magically, and it seems to me that our current immigration policy tends to hinder, rather than encourage, assimilation. Adding amnesty and "guest workers" is a step in the wrong direction.
If Hillary is Iago, Who Plays Cassio?
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 11:48AM
Alex Massie, responding to a report that the Royal Shakespeare Company sent out a press release entitled, "Obama: Is he an Othello for our times?" writes:
Perhaps the RSC mean to suggest that Obama will be manipulated by his subordinates - one of whom may feel that they have, unjustly, been overlooked for, nay denied, a prize they thought was deservedly theirs. Presumably, then, the RSC mean to cast a woman as Iago and that this actress will bear an uncanny, if disturbing, resemblance to one Hillary Rodham Clinton...
To take this further, perhaps the suggestion is that after being denied a prize to one of his subordinates, the person who feels slighted manipulates the one who was actually chosen as his lieutenant. In other words, does that mean that Joe Biden is Cassio?
Obama's Abortion Sensitivity
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 10:34AM
Didn't last very long. Reports are circulating that he'll rescind the Mexico City policy today, allowing taxpayer funds to be used to perform or promote abortions overseas.
Assimilation and other codewords
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 10:23AM
Looking over Stacy's post, I clicked through to Kathy Shaidle's page, and found myself confronted by my own ambiguity on immigration. I don't think the skeptical position is a bad one, and I certainly think that characterizing immigration skeptics as racist is a ridiculous venture (see also my review of Geraldo Rivera's HisPanic). But there's a simplicity of argument in the paragraphs below I found jarring.
The well-documented (if largely ignored) phenomenon of present-day Hispanic aliens' disinclination to assimilate is something patriotic Americans should condemn, not embrace.
Karl Rove's ill-fated strategy of courting the Latino vote didn't help Republicans much in the last two elections. For every illegal alien cum "future GOP donor/voter", there are dozens of non-Latino, law-abiding, tax paying citizens sick of having to "press ONE for English."
Does this mean ignoring the Latino vote? They are generally socially conservative, and become small business owners given the opportunity. There's something wrong with offering government aid to those who circumvent the law, certainly, but that has more to do with the way government aid is distributed (if you offer it, they will come).
I haven't read Shaidle, and I'm sure her opinions on this are well-documented (and probably well-substantiated). I don't much care to refer to Hispanic immigrants as "aliens," if only because "immigrants" is the more common word for legal immigrants, and "aliens" is a legal status. As for whether they're disinclined to assimilate, I do see this as different from the Italians, whose home country was not as close to their new home as their old one. Living in ethnic neighborhoods and cloistering, though, was entirely common, and just as much a result of the negativity they faced from nativists as it was a desire to be around their own.
When I hear "assimilation," and then I hear that old Andy Rooney bit about pressing one for English, it seems more like people are annoyed that people are coming to this country with a bad grasp of English. That's not what immigration skeptics are concerned about though -- it can't be, because of the way that people have historically assimilated in the U.S. and that first generations always have trouble leaning the language. (See also my kind Vietnamese barber.) Pressing "one" is not driving people to the voting booths.
What is, I think, is a concern that America is being redefined as having a trill on the "r" and an accent on the "i." That the following generations will remain within their own groups, leading to severe cultural segregation rather than blending. Arguments that fall short of making this case tend to sound simplistic, and worse, racist, when they're handed down from a time that the language needn't have been so scrutinized.
I guess I'm saying that I'd like to hear someone argue about immigration without sounding contemptuous of hispanics writ large, or sounding like an undue burden has been placed on white people whose calls are handled by machines. I don't think they are racists, but they're using a lexicon that worked better in the 80s or 90s.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 10:21AM
- We think that the rest of the world will finance our consumption forever, but we're dumb (WSJ)
- Anti-stimulus economists abound, if you're honest enough to look for them (Marginal Revolution)
- Not a lot of change on the GITMO front, not too much hope for change, either (Politico)
- Robert George on saving America's soul (Public Discourse)
- What did poor, innocent Caroline Kennedy ever do wrong? (NY Post)
- Big-box stores and McDonald's have destroyed many towns -- but Wasilla? Say it ain't so! (Splice Today)
Is NY's New Senator Really a Conservative Democrat?
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 10:11AM
Kristen Gillibrand, Gov. David Patterson's pick to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate, is being described in media accounts as a "conservative Blue Dog" Democrat. The National Journal gave her a 58.7 liberal rating for 2007, putting her to the right of most House Democrats. Her conservative streak appears to be most pronounced when it comes to gun rights and immigration. The NRA has given her an 'A' rating, and last year, she opposed comprehensive immigration reform, telling the Times-Union of Albany that it was, "an amnesty program that's the wrong approach..." (I accessed on Nexis so the link is unavailable). Her website also includes pro-enforcement language:
Our immigration system is broken and hard-working Americans often bear the brunt of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders and provide adequate protections for the American worker and the shrinking American Middle Class. I believe the first step to fixing our immigration system is to stop the flow of illegal immigration. This can be accomplished by securing the Southern border, enforcing the employment laws on the books and ensuring that our farmers and businesses have the adequate number of legal workers after they have exhausted their search for American workers. I am firmly against providing amnesty to illegal immigrants. In my first year in Congress, I passed legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives that would bar employers, who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, from receiving federal contracts.
In addition, I am a sponsor of the SAVE Act, which will hire 8,000 new Customs and Border Patrol agents, while utilizing new technology and fencing along the border. I have also sponsored the Legal Employee Verification Act, which would require all employers to verify, through the Social Security Administration, that their employees are legal.
But if you move beyond her stances on guns and immigration, and look at her voting record on abortion, taxes, and labor issues, she's a more reliable liberal Democrat. She has received a 100 rating from NARAL, a 96-percent rating from the AFL-CIO, and an 'F' from the National Taxpayers Union. The question is whether she'll become more liberal now that she's no longer running in a relatively conservative district, and needs to position herself for a 2010 Democratic primary.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 10:10AM
If the second-term congresswoman from Hudson Valley actually ends up taking Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, she is about as conservative a choice as could realistically be hoped for. She is to the right of her Democratic Party on guns, on middle-class tax cuts, on amnesty for illegal immigrants, and on fiscal policy. A Gillibrand selection would signify that New York Gov. David Patterson wants to diversify the Democratic ticket going into 2010, shore up upstate New York, and protect the new senator from any midterm backlash against President Obama.
The downside for Republicans, obviously, is that Gillibrand would conceivably be harder to beat in an election than Caroline Kennedy (though as a Blue Dog, she could be vulnerable to a primary challenge from her left). It's also possible that not having to represent a traditionally Republican district would free her to move to the left herself. On the other hand, it raises Republican chances of winning back her House seat.
Injustice by DoJ
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 9:54AM
In yesterday's Examiner, I did a four-part feature on the case of a mild-mannered would-be inventor imprisoned for 21 months because of an outrageous series of overreactions by the EPA and by the extremely left-leaning, officious, power-besotted Jacobins and Javerts at the Justice Department's environmental unit. Be sure not just to read the link above, which is just one of the four stories, but to also follow the three links in the final paragraph of THAT story so as to read the other three. All of them are short, each under 600 words. This is important stuff -- part of a joint effort of our friends at the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, the Washington Legal Foundation, and CATO, in conjunction with the, uh, less conservative ACLU, ABA, National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, and others. The whole effort is called the Overcriminalization Project, and it is really important.
Gitmo Dilemmas
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 9:48AM
The New York Times -- give them credit for reporting this -- has a story about a former Guantanamo Bay detainee who was released and now is a deputy Al Qaeda leader in Yemen. Barack Obama has ordered all of the prisoners to either be relocated or released within a year, but the possibility that any one of those detainees can resurface on the battlefield is real.
Kathy Shaidle on 'Rebuilding'
Posted by on 1.23.09 @ 8:45AM
Taking a few shots at David Frum's New Majority, the blogger/columnist writes:
Alas, too many of these "rebuilding" enterprises share a misguided focus that's also bound to be the seed of their own undoing: that is, an obsession with "winning elections." NewMajority's slogan, for example, is "Building a conservatism that can win again." But what good is "winning" if the "conservatism" that "wins" is faddish, unprincipled and unmoored from traditional American, Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism? [B]ack in the early sixties, it was grassroots activist and housewife Phyllis Schlafly's self-published, million-selling anti-GOP Establishment book, A Choice Not An Echo, that led to Goldwater, who led to Reagan. Not bad for a small-town mom running an accidental movement from her kitchen table, without email, the web -- or any support from Party bigshots. Unless the "new GOP" is run bottom up, by the grass/net roots, it is doomed to fail.
Shaidle (who blogs at Five Feet of Fury) somewhat inflates Schlafly's role in the '64 Goldwater movement -- which was built by Young Americans for Freedom, Cliff White, William Middendorf, Bill Buckley and many others -- although there is no doubt that "A Choice Not An Echo" was a major factor in galvanizing grassroots support. As to the larger point, Kathy is correct that the GOP in recent years has tended toward a top-down method of operation that drained enthusiasm from the grassroots.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Justice Done in Oklahoma!
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 9:29PM
After spending more than a year trying to shut down popular democracy in Oklahoma, state Attorney General Drew Edmondson has dropped his prosecution-persecution of three initiative activists, including my friend Paul Jacob. The great news is reported in the Tulsa World:
Attorney General Drew Edmondson said Thursday he has decided not to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court that struck down an Oklahoma law barring nonresidents from circulating initiative petitions.
Edmondson also said his office dismissed criminal charges against three people accused of violating Oklahoma's out-of-state petitioner ban. All three were scheduled for a preliminary hearing in Oklahoma County on Feb. 6 but Edmondson said he was awaiting the outcome of the appeals process before deciding whether to proceed.
"The statute under which these defendants were charged has been declared unconstitutional, and the appellate process is complete," Edmondson said. "The statute is no longer enforceable."
Paul Jacob of Virginia, a national leader of the term limit movement, Susan Johnson of Michigan, head of a signature-gathering company, and Rick Carpenter of Tulsa, director of Oklahomans In Action, were accused of conspiracy to defraud the state by using out-of-state circulators to collect signatures for the so-called taxpayer bill of rights in 2006.
Last month, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled the nonresident petitioner law was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment's free speech protections as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.
This is good news for the movement, since Jacob has fought for term limits, budget and tax limitations, and educational choice in the past and has much more work to do. But Edmondson's final capitulation is particularly welcome for Jacob and his family, who have been suffering in the shadow of an unjust felony indictment.
The next step is for the people of Oklahoma to give Edmondson an appropriate "reward" for his services.
My Favorite Button at the March for Life
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 8:11PM
It concerned the Freedom of Choice Act, discussed by Tracy Mehan on the main site today. The button read: "What the FOCA?"
Economic Recovery or, y'know, not
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 8:02PM
Amy Menefee at the Galen Institute quirks an eyebrow at the idea of Congress "stimulating the economy" with your tax dollars. That's why we're going to try out the Pepsi Challenge for Socialized Medicine! (Copyright pending):
The U.S. Congress is hammering out a legislative attempt to "stimulate" the economy with taxpayer-funded health care initiatives, including information technology (IT) and comparative effectiveness research on drugs and treatments.
It looks like China has a similar -- and similarly misguided -- idea about linking government involvement in health care to economic "stimulus."
What Amy doesn't know is that we've replaced the Chinese version of socialized medicine with the brand new flavor of American socialized medicine! Let's see if she can tell the difference.
...Government bureaucrats might deem some treatments or drugs acceptable and get rid of the rest. What frightening effects that would have on the patients who respond only to a particular treatment. It would be a devastating blow to patient freedom and would eliminate the choice to find what works for each individual.
Nope! She can't! She dislikes it just as much!
But what if there are people out there who never bothered checking out Chinese socialized medicine? Well, they're about to.
Joking aside, have you ever met anyone that did a medical trial of a drug, and found something that worked, only for that medicine to be deemed "ineffective" on a larger scale, and thus discontinued, effectively dooming the patient? Happens. All. The. Time. Will it get worse under the Obama plan? Yes.
Sebelius: Release Gitmo Prisoners, But Not to Kansas
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 6:19PM
As I noted below, closing Gitmo is a lot easier said than done. Case in point.
Closing Gitmo
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 5:48PM
Here's the nut of the executive order Barack Obama released today on Guantanamo Bay:
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
The whole thing is available here.
As I've noted before, after Sept. 11 President Bush was confronted with an unprecedented challenge when it came to devising a strategy to fight terrorism. One thing the administration inevitably had to grapple with was how to deal with detainees caught during this ongoing war who do not respect the Geneva Conventions themselves. President Obama is now determined to reverse many of Bush's policies, and in this case, close Gitmo within a year. But between now and then, difficult questions remain. Will these prisoners be accepted by their home countries? What if a prisoner's home country is one that engages in torture, does sending him back violate the Obama administration's principles on rendition? What third countries would accept these men? Will Americans be comfortable with terrorists being held in their neighborhoods? How do we try prisoners if releasing the evidence we have against them could compromise our intelligence? And what do we risk by simply releasing prisoners? If the new administration can resolve these issues, close Gitmo within a year, and do so without putting Americans in greater danger, then I'd be happy to give Obama credit. But now that he's in power, we no longer have to have a theoretical debate about this.
Inaugural Poetry
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 4:27PM
The inaugural poem was offered by a woman whose love of language was mitigated by her use of it. Unlike a few others, I don't mind the tradition of exalting poets and artists in political settings. I didn't mind Billy Collins as poet laureate. I don't think all modern poetry is awful. I just don't think the people that do the decision-making in this area are very good at making these decisions.
For one thing, there's more of a divide between poets and people who don't know poetry. The average person's exposure to it involves a few lines of Whitman, something from Frost, discussing that Emily Dickinson was weird, and then a little while on Shakespeare's sonnets. Next comes "modern poetry," where you read a few things from 10 years ago, and the teacher gives you a writing assignment to do "your own poem." Most people will do an ABAB rhyme structure, and the goth kids in the back of the class will talk about "piercing souls that are dark and hollow," but for the most part, the lesson imparted is: "Poetry has no meaning, it can be anything, and as such, you can go on with your life." If the teacher is so inspired, and really wants to make sure you remember poetry, you'll watch a video called Dead Poets Society, and stop your learning of poetry at the romantics. You'll then remember Whitman as that crazy guy who inspired kids to stand on their desks as Robin Williams left the classroom.
The poets, on the other hand, get wacky. Some of them don't do the reading, so they write cliches without realizing it. Others offer poetry that's simply too inward. In other words, you have common people with little knowledge of poetry, and poets who have little knowledge of people.
In a moment of self-awareness, Billy Collins offers a fantastic poem on what it's like to workshop with others... first stanza excerpted here, but the rest available at this link.
Workshop
by Billy CollinsI might as well begin by saying how much I like the title.
It gets me right away because I'm in a workshop now
so immediately the poem has my attention,
like the Ancient Mariner grabbing me by the sleeve....
Warning: This pretty much only falls under the category of "clever poetry," another brand of poetry that, while nice, is hardly the guiding light of higher aesthetics. See also the hilarious Ogden Nash.
Middle East Mitchell
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 4:03PM
After days of rumors, President Obama has officially named George Mitchell as a special envoy to the Middle East. In 2001, Mitchell led a commission to study the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. While the group's report (available here) is a bit dated now, it does provide a sense of how Mitchell views the conflict. Overall, the report reflects the type of thinking that is typical of the so-called "even handed" approach to the conflict which laments the cycle of violence, calls for confidence building measures on both sides, and endless negotiations. "In their statements and actions, each side demonstrates a perspective that fails to recognize any truth in the perspective of the other," the commission observed. In an effort to achieve artificial balance, the report downplayed the extent to which Arafat's PLO continued to pursue terrorism during Oslo and the way it helped orchestrate the Second Intifada.
Those who consider themselves the responsible ones in Washington are obsessed with a never-ending peace process, regardless of whether it ever achieves any actual peace. The jury is still out on the Israeli incursion into Gaza, but it's pretty clear that Hamas will still be a potent force on the Palestinian side, and peace will never be possible so long as that is the case.
Evans-Novak Report Shutting Down
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 2:02PM
Sad news for conservatism when what we really need is more investigative reporting. From Tim Carney:
Now, most people ask me, what is happening to the venerable Evans-Novak Political Report. Sadly, after more than 40 years, this publication, launched in 1967 by Rowland Evans and Bob Novak, is folding. Next week's will be the final issue. After Novak's illness forced his retirement, the reins were handed over to me. With the personnel changes and the market changes, Eagle has decided to retire the publication.
I worked at ENPR for 2 weeks as a fill-in researcher/reporter. David Freddoso and Tim Carney cut their teeth under Novak for years -- making them two of the brightest lights for conservative reporting inside the beltway. Hopefully, other publications will learn from Novak's important example of what it means to have a real impact.
Coleman Spokesman: Senator Needs To Earn A Living
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 1:10PM
A spokesman for Norm Coleman cautioned against reading too much into the news that his boss has accepted a job at the Republican Jewish Committee, which I blogged about earlier.
"It's pretty simple, Sen. Coleman is not a member of the millionaires' club and he needs to work to a earn a living," spokesman Mark Drake told me on a phone call. "This changes nothing in the current contest, which we expect Sen. Coleman to prevail in."
He added that, "he has a mortgage and he's got a couple of kids in college."
The Coleman campaign is contesting the election on grounds that some ballots were double counted while the state did not follow a uniform standard across the counties for including in the recount absentee ballots that were orignially rejected. Yesterday, the Al Franken campaign asked a court to dismiss the contest.
Another Note on Cheney/Libby
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 12:51PM
I just can't seem to get off this topic. The question is, what could possibly possess Bush to refuse to pardon Libby? The more I think about it, the more I come up with bad or even unethical motives by Bush. I will not indulge them here, at least not now, because it is speculation of this sort that leads the nut-roots on the left to make all sorts of baseless allegations. But do let it be said that many reports now are that a number of influential people did try to convince Bush to make the pardon -- and I feel sure that Cheney found a way to let his own feelings be known -- but that Bush was just unmoveable.
One wonders if he would have been similarly unmoveable if the person who had been wrongly convicted was one of Bush's own inner circle like Rove or Miers or Gonzales or Bartlett. One tends to think the answer is "no" -- that Bush would instead have told all the nattering nabobs to go bleep themselves while he issued the pardons.
From first to last, like father like son, the Bushes show too MUCH loyalty to their personal inner circle and to their top sycophants, and too LITTLE loyalty to those who serve them ably but at one remove from the inner circle. Thus did John Ashcroft get sent out to catch spears with almost no White House backing, while Alberto Gonzo was allowed to stay far too long. Thus was Scott McClellan of the Texas gang allowed to bumble his way through even though he was manifestly unsuited for the job of press secretary. Thus was Harriet Miers chosen for the high court on a purely "trust me" basis while others far more qualified were overlooked. And so on.
It is worth noting that Fitzgerald also had Karl Rove in his sights before a last-minute discovery by Rove's team proved Rove's innocence. Even then, Fitz was quite obviously reluctant to let Rove off the hook. Bush now reportedly thinks the execrable Fitz did a good job with the whole case. Did it become good in Bush's mind only once Rove was cleared?
The sad thing is, not even historians will be able to pardon Bush for the absolute mess he made of his presidency on so many fronts -- the last of which, the front of justice and decency with regards to clemency, is truly unforgiveable.
The Caroline Nightmare Is Over
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 12:03PM
The prospect of her being appointed Senator because of a pathetic, morbid, infatuation that older Americans have with her family, was always offensive. I'm happy to see she's now officially dropped out.
Advice to Microsoft
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 12:02PM
According to MSNBC, Microsoft is laying off 5,000 employees over the next 18 months, the first such lay-off since their founding in 1975. While unfortunate, this could be a good thing for the goliath, whose own employees have expressed concern over the bloat and bustle.
I would suggest starting with the Vista department, and then moving on to the folks behind Exchange.
Heart Locked in a Gran Torino
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 11:55AM
Gran Torino is good, really good. For a long time, I’ve heard writers and film directors talk about the importance of showing people something instead of telling them. The best films are those that set a scene which demonstrates a fundamental truth about people’s lives instead of having some character give a dramatic speech spilling out an entire philosophy of HOW IT IS and HOW IT OUGHT TO BE. Gran Torino succeeds on that score. Eastwood as the director working from a masterful script rolls out scene after scene revealing truths about our lives to us.
Is this a film, which the trailer portrays, in which we get to see Eastwood doing his Dirty Harry thing? There is some of that. No question. That’s what I went to see. But Gran Torino rewarded me with a deep reflection on America, on faith, on family, on immigration, on aging, and on heroism. Who are we as Americans? We’re immigrants. To some degree we’re nationalistic, chauvinistic, racist, aggressive. But there’s something else about us, too. We tend to come out of the right side of things. We love justice more than anything else. Gran Torino shows us all of that.
Nothing preachy here. Just solid, solid storytelling. Everything works. I can’t imagine anyone seeing this movie and feeling disappointed, as I did with the much splashier and showier Quantum of Solace, which left me empty and relatively unthrilled.
Coleman Takes Job as Consultant to the RJC
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 10:54AM
The Republican Jewish Coalition announced today that Norm Coleman has taken a job as a consultant and strategic adviser to the group. In a statement, RJC executive director Matt Brooks said, "We are confident that in a few months Senator Coleman will return to his seat in the Senate, but until that time, we are eager for him to travel across the country on our behalf and to be an important voice within the organization." However this is spun, the fact that Coleman is taking another job doesn't inspire much confidence that he truly believes he'll prevail in court and head back to the Senate.
UPDATE: The Coleman campaign explains the decision.
Romney's Eye On 2012
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 10:44AM
Mitt Romney released the following statement on today's March for Life:
“Today in Washington, many thousands of American women and men have proudly gathered on the National Mall for the March for Life. In a city of many competing political interests, these marchers have come to speak for only one cause: the goodness of every life, and the rights of the unborn.
Thirty-six years ago, those rights were denied by our highest court, in a decision that also denied the rights of all Americans to resolve the abortion issue through democratic debate and legislation. To their great credit, the organizers of the March for Life never let this anniversary pass without speaking to the conscience of America, and calling our nation to uphold its highest ideals in the protection of human life.
America owes these marchers a debt of gratitude for their perseverance in a noble cause. I am honored to count myself as their friend and ally. And because of their dedication and their goodness of heart, I am certain that one day this cause will prevail. “
One Day Late
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 10:21AM
Darn... yesterday I meant to post my annual birthday wishes to one of the greatest living Americans, Jack Nicklaus. Consider it done now, one day late.
"We'll Take It To The Streets"
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 10:17AM
With a new government in Washington poised to enact the big labor agenda, an intra-union war has broken out within one of the nation's largest unions. The dispute pits the central Service Employees International Union (led by Obama-backer Andy Stern) and a local, Oakland branch of the United Health Care Workers-West. It centers around efforts by the national union to remove the head of the local union "for allegedly engaging in a pattern of financial malpractice, including improperly diverting $3 million to fund a campaign against the international union," the Wall Street Journal reports.
Yesterday, the local branch took out an ad in the Washington Post, featuring the photo of a nurse, and including the text, "Employee Free Choice? Not if You're a Member of the Service Employees International Union." In the video below -- found on its website -- a few dozen members of the local storm what they call a "secret SEIU office" in Alemeda, California alleging that it was established just to shut down their union.
"You guys are attacking members; you should be attacking bosses," one woman representing the local union hollers. "You want a fight? You'll get a fight! Take it to the streets? We'll take it to the streets!"
An SEIU spokeswoman told the WSJ that the angry members, "harassed and assaulted the staff, stole materials and damaged office equipment."
With a battle over "card check" looming on the horizon, conflicts like these make it a lot easier for conservatives to make the argument that being pro-big labor doesn't necessarily mean you're being pro-worker.
,/p>
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 10:10AM
- The Keynesian "multiplier" might be more like a "dampener" (WSJ)
- And also "stimulus" doesn't "stimulate" (NY Times)
- Not all bad news for the pro-life cause (NRO)
- But abortion is devastating African-American communities (Weekly Standard)
- If spending our way out of a recession sounds too good to be true, it probably is (Reason)
- Now that he's actually making decisions, we'll start to learn key things about Obama (Politico)
- "He's not a fanatic about abortion, he's what lies beyond fanaticism" (First Things)
In Honor of Linda Lichter
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 10:00AM
Every week, it seems, brings another death of somebody either an important part of the conservative movement or whose honest work outside the movement served the cause by confirming movement assertions and beliefs. In that latter category was Linda Lichter, who with husband Robert continued to use pure, unchallengeable, even-handed methods to measure and report on media bias -- and of course, being honest, they found that the bias is overwhelmingly leftward. Linda Lichter also wrote a charming book on Victorian chivalry. She did great work when she was alive, and died too young, and apparently without warning, at 53. She will be missed. Our hearts and of course our prayers go out to Robert. RIP -- and in God's love.
Cheney Mad at Bush re: Libby
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 9:46AM
Terrific reporting by Stephen Hayes. Cheney speaks up for Libby. Good for Cheney. I had gotten the strong impression that Cheney really wanted Libby pardoned but fell constrained from saying so in public (and was correct to feel so constrained). Now he speaks up, like the stand-up guy he is. I continue to wish that Cheney had been president all these years, not Bush. Bush's failure to pardon was utterly dishonorable.
Crediting Antle
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 9:06AM
As I was late in finishing today's piece on Ken Blackwell, I accidentally left out a few things in my haste to get it done in time -- one of which was a shout-out to my colleague Jim Antle for his excellent earlier piece on Blackwell, which in some respects mine merely updates. So consider this credit where credit is due. :)
What A Country!
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 8:11AM
It is so amazing to see what the daughter of a son of a mill worker can achieve in the dawning Age of Obama!
At Least Someone is Prospering in the Age of Obama!
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 6:19AM
It turns out that the hated lobbyists, despised by the new tribune of the people, are doing quite well, thank you. Reports The Hill:
K Street lobbyists expect a bonanza this year because of the aggressive agenda of President Obama and congressional Democrats.
"Big government is back," said Mark Ruge, who heads the policy group at K&L Gates. "It's going to be a very, very active Congress."
A day after the Inauguration of Obama, lobbying firms were releasing weak 2008 money numbers, but realized that big government was going to mean big demand from corporate America for lobbyists to play offense and defense on their behalf.
The dismal economy will force tough decisions for some cash-strapped corporations, especially those in hard-hit sectors like financial services and home building, on how to spend scarce resources.
"If you're having trouble making payroll then you're not going to be able to hire lobbyists," said Scott Chesson, the chief financial officer at Dutko Worldwide.
Corporations also recognize, however, that they can't afford to cut expenses on K Street. They need lobbyists to grab their piece of the government-spending pie and to make sure that Obama and his Democratic allies do not enact policies that would disadvantage them.
The economic recovery has begun!
Fighting 'Card Check' at the State Level
Posted by on 1.22.09 @ 6:04AM
Opponents of Democrat-backed "card-check" legislation, which would abolish the right to a secret ballot in union elections, are pushing state constitutional amendments to guarantee workers' rights.
The amendment effort, now going forward in 10 states, is necessary because Congress "seems bound and determined to deny workers the secret-ballot guarantee that they have under current law," said former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), chairman of Save Our Secret Ballot (SOS Ballot), the organization backing the effort.
Istook announced yesterday that the group has added five new target states -- Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and North Dakota -- to its list, which already included Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada and Utah.
SOS Ballot aims to take the issue to voters in the 2010 mid-term elections, asking approval for state constitutional amendments that would read: "The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."
The initiative effort is a response to proposed federal legislation, the Employee Freedom of Choice Act (EFCA), which Istook says is "grossly misnamed." While longstanding federal law requires secret ballots when employees vote whether to unionize their workplace, EFCA permits union organizers to substitute signed pledge cards for secret ballots, a change that would expose workers to intimidation tactics, Istook said.
While some have questioned whether states could pre-emptively protect workers' rights against the EFCA provisions, SOS Ballot sponsors are "fairly confident" that state constitutional amendments "would hold up" under federal court challenges, former South Dakota Attorney General Mark Meierhenry said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday.
The Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute is "prepared to defend this language against any court challenges," said Istook, who is affiliated with the Heritage Foundation.
Istook noted that Democrats supporting EFCA "are trying to claim that they are not abolishing the right to a secret ballot," but said such card-check sponsors would be "smoked out" if they filed suit to overturn state measures guaranteeing that right.
Democrats began pushing the card-check measure after they took control of Congress in the 2006 election. The House passed EFCA in March 2007 by a 241-185 vote, with only two Democrats voting "no," but was stopped by a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Now, however, Democrats control at least 58 Senate seats, and EFCA opponents fear that the Republican minority will not be able to block the measure should it come to a vote again. President Obama has voiced strong support for EFCA.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Obama Takes the Oath Again
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 8:42PM
Apparently worried that the flubbed oath might actually be a problem -- or perhaps just seeking a pristine version -- Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to President Barack Obama a second time.
Credit Where It's Due (First in a Series, We Hope)
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 6:32PM
Obama freezes last-minute regulations imposed by the Bush administration, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute is pleased.
Feckless Senate
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 6:25PM
The Senate's 94-2 vote to confirm Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is a disgrace. There is no previous nominee, EVER, who has been confirmed for such a high post with so much ethical baggage PLUS so many conflicts of interest, past and present, including ones that directly relate to the post for which she was nominated, PLUS such a thin resume in the subject area, a resume rightly mocked last year by now-President Obama himself. In the Great Beyond, John Tower must be fuming, considering how less important (not unimportant, mind you, but just comparatively far less important) were the transgressions that blocked him from being confirmed to head the Pentagon.
Frankly, "disgrace" is not a strong enough word for the overwhelming confirmation vote. "Obscenity" is more like it. And all those senators who failed even to do due diligence, to ask a huge number of basic and very fair questions of HRC, have shown themselves utterly unserious about their own jobs. They should hang their heads in shame.
New White House Site Still Hostile to Bush
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 5:00PM
When I first read about this section of the new White House website, I thought it was going to be removed swiftly, but apparently not:
President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.
President Obama swiftly responded to Hurricane Katrina. Citing the Bush Administration's "unconscionable ineptitude" in responding to Hurricane Katrina, then-Senator Obama introduced legislation requiring disaster planners to take into account the specific needs of low-income hurricane victims.
Doesn't sound very post-partisan to me.
Hillary Clinton Overwhelmingly Confirmed
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 4:53PM
The Senate voted 94 to 2 to confirm Hillary Rodham Clinton as the next secretary of state. The two Republican holdouts? Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas used a hold to keep her from being approved by unanimous consent yesterday, but did not oppose her on the roll call vote.
"Consign the Anti-Government Evangelists to the Dustbin of History"
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 1:26PM
That's Katrina Vanden Heuvel's advice to the new president. It sounds a lot like Michael Gerson's advice to the last one.
Treasury Secretary Turbo Tax
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 12:52PM
Despite Timothy Geithner's manifest inability to explain his tax problem, so far it doesn't sound like Senate Republicans plan on taking Newt Gingrich's advice.
Post-Inaugural Cartoon
1.21.09 @ 12:01PM
That guy in the front row sobbing?
That would be a taxpayer.
Frum Launches NewMajority.com
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 11:57AM
His new site is online and I know Quin Hillyer will be excited to see that Douglas Holtz-Eakin is among the featured contributors.
Wilders To Stand Trial for Making "anti-Islamic Statements"
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 10:16AM
An outrageous development as a Dutch court has decided to put politician and filmmaker Geert Wilders on trial for being too openly critical of Islam, arguing that, "In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line." Brett Joshpe has written about Wilders and the international war on free speech for our main site.
"Not the Time For Great Speeches"
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 10:05AM
Ezra Klein writes of Obama's speech, "The speech was good. Not great. But then, it couldn't be a great speech because this is not the time for great speeches." No, it isn't the time for great speeches, but it is the time for a $170 million inauguration. As I asked in my column on the main site: "Are we to believe that if Obama knocked it out of the ballpark, the media would say it was too showy and inappropriate for the occasion?"
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 9:02AM
- One postpartisan dream: a solvent U.S. (WSJ)
- The death of the newspapers has taken over 200 years already (New Yorker)
- A few malapropisms in Obama's inaugural speech (NRO)
- A few more missteps in the inauguration, spared no snark by Spengler (Asia Times)
- Mitt and co. would ask Geithner some pointed questions (NYTimes)
- Seven (fairly obvious) reasons to be skeptical of the Obama regime (Politico)
- Out of the limelight, Kosovo makes great strides (Christian Science Monitor)
Inaugural Fashion Rashomon
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 7:14AM
Quite an interesting discussion of Michelle Obama's fashion choices is emerging, with Townhall's Amanda Carpenter and Culture 11's Theodora Blanchfield panning the new First Lady's Isabel Toledo day ensemble, while her Jason Wu ball gown was dissed by Robert Verdi: "It's an inauguration, not a prom."
As for her husband's speech, well, let Philip Klein tell you about that "flat and unfocused talk."
Gingrich Back to the Fray
Posted by on 1.21.09 @ 7:05AM
Newt Gingrich is back in battle mode, calling on the GOP to fight the nomination of Timothy Geithner. Reports the Washington Times:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is challenging Senate Republicans to take on President Obama's nomination of Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary.
Mr. Gingrich said Mr. Geithner's failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 should automatically disqualify him, and that if Mr. Obama doesn't withdraw the nomination Republicans should make a stand.
"Senate Republicans should make it clear that they will not permit a tax evader to become the secretary of the Treasury," the Georgia Republican told The Washington Times. "Even after he was explicitly sent material telling him he had to pay them he did not do so."
Gingrich's stand raises two issues. One is whether Senate Republicans will pick up cudgels in what appears to be their best bet to block an Obama Cabinet nominee and win some popular points along the way. Second--and far more interesting--is whether this is the beginning of a Gingrich bid to take over leadership of an essentially leaderless party. With the Republican presidential contest in 2012 looking very open at this stage, might this be Gingrich's "Churchill coming in from the Wilderness" moment?
Whaddya' think?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Ruining the Moment
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 8:36PM
The recording of the first black president taking the oath of office is of great historic significance, something that could be played repeatedly. But will anyone want to play it the way John Roberts and Barack Obama both flubbed their lines?
Patriotism and the Left
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 5:31PM
Charles Kesler writes of the inaugural address, "Obama intends to take back patriotism, and to a lesser extent religion, for the Left." I noticed some of that at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, noting it in a column at the time.
Cornyn's Clinton Hold
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 5:18PM
Seven uncontroversial nominees to Barack Obama's Cabinet were confirmed today. Hillary Clinton remains in the as-yet unconfirmed pile alongside Eric Holder and Timothy Geithner. That's because Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) put a hold on her based on concerns about the Clinton Foundation's foreign fundraising. Since Cornyn can't stop a roll call vote, however, it's unlikely that this will delay Hillary's confirmation by more than a day.
Re: Sour Note
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 5:06PM
Via Ken Shepherd at Newsbusters, here is video of the "hey, hey, good-bye" send-off for President Bush:
This is, of course, perfectly consistent with the "Hail, to the Thief" protesters who marred Bush's 2000 inaugural, as well as the obscenity-spewing protesters at Bush's 2005 inaugural. Meanwhile, our old friend Jeremy Lott reflects on the universalization of Bush hatred.
The Bungled Oath
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 4:23PM
Here's the video. With all the planning that went into this event, you'd think that the two Harvard Law grads would be able to get the most important part correct. Pretty remarkable that they flubbed it. Bonus question: how long before some crank files a lawsuit claiming that Obama isn't really president because he never took the oath properly?
A Wall Street Welcome for Obama
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 4:09PM
The Dow dropped 332 points, or 4 percent, to 7,949 on renewed banking fears. First sub-8000 close since November.
Credit to Bush
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 3:47PM
In line with my post yesterday about the classiness with which GW Bush left office, but far more substantive than my post, Norman Ornstein in the NYT today gives credit where it is due to a president who always tried to keep the country's best interests first and foremost.
The legacy of this president is an incredibly hodgepodge of very good and very bad. So much that he has done has been infuriating, or incompetent, or short-sighted, or ill-considered. And so many of his personal characteristics -- arrogance, a tendency toward insularity bordering on cronyism, refusal to acknowledge error -- have been serious defects. But his dedication to duty, his seriousness of purpose, his personal kindnesses, and his resolutely upbeat demeanor, all have been a credit both to him and to his office. Ornstein tells an important story about how well he conducted the transition. Credit where credit is due.
A Sour Note
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 3:43PM
Whatever my reservations are about President Obama, it was quite
an amazing site to be standing at the Capitol overlooking all of
the jubilant faces on the Mall. It was a reminder of the
resilience of the American system, and the ability for people to
change their government if they don't like its leadership. Also,
it was hard not to appreciate the obvious enormity of the moment
given the historical significance of this being the first African
American president.
But for me, everything was marred by the fact that when President
Bush was announced, I could hear loud booing as well as chants of
"Na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!" This was not only
classless, but completely at odds with President Obama's avowed
goal of bringing civility to Washington.
Flat Obama
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 3:14PM
I'm sure I'll be dissenting from most people (and perhaps it was different on TV), but I thought the speech was a bit flat. To be sure, it wasn't terrible. But it was solid and workmanlike whereas the gravity of the moment and all the buildup suggested he'd offer something more. The idea that we're facing tremendous challenges and can overcome them if we work together is nothing new, and it wasn't a theme that was presented with particular creativity this time around. This wasn't Lincoln's Second Inaugural in 1864, or FDR in 1933, or JFK in 1961, or Reagan in 1980. It was just another run-of-the-mill inauguration speech. Perhaps Obama was worried about overreaching and this was intentional. But either way, it doesn't really matter anymore. Obama doesn't have President Bush to kick around and now he's going to have to start making decisions and take responsibility for them. "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply," Obama said. "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works..." The American people will be the judge of that soon enough.
Itzhak Conquers the Elements
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 3:11PM
My favorite fiddle player, Itzhak Perlman, provided one of the high-points of today's Coronation (other than Aretha Franklin's hat, which I'm fairly sure I saw atop the Christmas Tree at Rockefeller Center this year) when he once again produced his magic tone, this time without any feeling in his fingers.
The rest was mostly risible, even for the half-way alert viewer. One of the larger chuckles came when our rookie President spoke of putting away "childish things." Perhaps he was referring to his voting record.
And on the evidence of the body of his speech, cognitive dissonance will be a major feature of the Obama administration, as it was of his campaign. He had the nerve to raise up "risk takers, doers, and makers of things," this after a career in Washington and Illinois of voting for legislation that put obstacle after obstacle in the path of risk-takers, doers and makers of things.
Ted Kennedy Has Convulsions at Luncheon--MSNBC
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 2:53PM
President Obama just sent his prayers in his remarks at the lunch, where Sen. Kennedy was taken out in a stretcher.
UPDATE: Sen. Robert Byrd also was taken was taken from the luncheon for medical problems, but reportedly for a less serious issue.
Congratulations to the Brattleboro High School Marching Band
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 2:17PM
When asked by Fox to "play us out," they did not begin shouting obscenities. (Warning: link will expose you to naughty words.)
Kudos for Cheney
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 2:06PM
At The Corner, the always-thoughtful Shannen Coffin has a short but very eloquent, and well-deserved, tribute to his old boss, Dick Cheney. I think it safe to say that Dick Cheney has been the most important vice president (AS vice president; this doesn't count the later work of Veeps who eventually became president) in American history. Not just important, but important for the better. What a tremendous public servant Cheney was, and for what a long period of time! Cheney is a great American, one to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude -- and, may I add, we also ought to be grateful for his wife Lynne Cheney, whose services to the nation and whose scholarship also has been impressive, and whose next project, a biography of James Madison, is one whose completion we should all eagerly await. I remain sorry that Cheney did not run for president in 1996; I still think he could have won, and that our country would have been far better off had he done so.
But read Shannen's tribute linked above; it says it better than I can.
Re: Obama's Nervous
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 1:14PM
Actually, the trouble with the oath was at least partially Chief Justice Roberts's fault -- he prompted Obama incorrectly.
(At least Roberts got Obama's name right; Harlan Stone messed up Truman's name during the oath.)
President Obama
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 1:09PM
Congratulations to him and his throngs of passionate supporters. The presidency belongs to all of us, but this is their day especially. Godspeed.
Joseph Lowery
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 12:49PM
Managed to keep his disdain for white people to himself until the very end.
Obama's Speech
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 12:32PM
The delivery was good. The substance was classic Obama: Respectful of tradition and conservative ideas, but in the end unfailingly liberal in its premises.
A Few Quick Notes
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 12:03PM
1. Rick Warren will probably be criticized in some quarters for praying in Jesus' name and ending with the Lord's Prayer, but there was little to offend in his invocation.
2. Democrats do music at these things better than Republicans.
3. I thought Joe Biden was going to hug John Paul Stevens after taking the oath of office.
That Middle Initial
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 11:44AM
The president-elect was introduced as "Barack H. Obama."
No, He's Wearing A Coat
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 11:40AM
Not even Obama is impervious to the elements. And Nancy Pelosi is wearing a large smile.
Moving Beyond Race
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 10:32AM
If we really are post-racial, then let's ACT post-racial. As I write in my column (linked in the first sentence), it's time to stop all the racial bean-counting.
Oh -- and P.S., May God bless this new president and these United States.
The Obama Blue Burger
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 8:48AM
A D.C.-area watering hole I frequent was offering a Barack Obama cheeseburger with bleu cheese and a slice of ham on top. I don't know exactly it means but it sounds tasty. That's change I can believe in.
Bye Bye Bush
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 8:33AM
I'm not the world's biggest fan of George W. Bush, for all the conventionally conservative reasons and those Jeremy Lott discusses on the main site today. The bargain conservatives cut with him is that he'd probably be soft on spending, immigration, racial preferences, and other issues but would make up for it on judges, Social Security reform, tax cuts, and national security after 9/11.
That's why Harriet Miers, Medicare Part D, and both amnesty and the Dubai Ports World deal were the issues that elicited the most conservative opposition to Bush: he seemed to be caving in the areas where he was presumed rock solid. Katrina had the same impact on swing voters: Even if the criticism was overstated and let (mostly Democratic) state and local officials off the hook for their greater incompetence, federal flat-footedness made people wonder if the government really had learned the proper 9/11 preparedness lessons (even if we were safe in the years following the 9/11 murders themselves).
I don't think he's a bad man and believe even some of his shortcomings were due to his basic decency, not his mendacity or worse. Bush made the right calls on taxes, embryonic stem-cell research, Roberts and Alito, and Petraeus (if not the Iraq adventure itself). But he made some wrong judgments too, for which future generations will be paying in tax dollars and worse for a long time to come.
But most of all, the legacy of Bush is making the election of Barack Obama -- a freshman Illinois senator who was in the state senate when the planes crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon -- possible. Whatever the failings of the incoming president, he would not be in the White House were it not for the failures of the outgoing president. Best wishes to both of them.
Off to the Capitol
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 8:21AM
I'm heading over to the inaugural procedings now. Given the security and the fact that it's about 20 degrees, I don't plan on bringing my laptop to blog live and am assuming the world can wait a few hours to hear what I have to say. But I'll bring binoculars and let you know if Obama swears-in using an Indonesian Koran.
Beginning of a New Democratic Era?
Posted by on 1.20.09 @ 2:25AM
After every big election victory of either Republicans or Democrats, analysts, columnists, and just plain folks have a tendency to dance on the grave the loser, proclaiming the permanent ascendency of the other party. And it never lasts. Indeed, sometimes the turnarounds are incredibly swift--Richard Nixon resigning just a couple years after his massive reelection victory, for instance. And the Bush debacle instead of the supposed permanent majority.
Nevertheless, the GOP appears to be in quite a hole. Next year should be good for Republicans on Capitol Hill as a mid-term election, but the Senate math looks bad and the numbers are being compounded by a rash of retirements. And the electoral college has gone from the supposed Republican "lock" to a Democratic one. Patrick Buchanan writes:
As President Barack Obama delivers his inaugural address to a nation filled with anticipation and hope, the vital signs of the loyal opposition appear worse than worrisome.
The new majority of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation Nixon cobbled together in 1972, that became the Reagan coalition of 49 states and 60 percent of the nation in 1984, is a faded memory. Demographically, philosophically and culturally, the party base has been shrinking since Bush I won his 40-state triumph over Michael Dukakis. Indeed, the Republican base is rapidly becoming a redoubt, a Fort Apache in Indian country.
There's no doubt that the GOP can rebound. But it would help to have quality national leadership. Mitch McConnell is the highest ranking elected Republican in the country and he ain't a winning public face for the party, whatever you think of his tactical legislative abilities. It appears the GOP is living out that ancient Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Re: Re: Re: Sorry, John
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 10:48PM
If I may intrude on the rhetorical badminton match between John and Quin, the main thing about the Scooter Libby prosecution is that -- as once was said of the Whitewater scandal -- it was a cover-up in search of a crime. The whole theory of prosecuting Libby was that he supposedly had been acting on orders from his boss, Dick Cheney, who was believed to be ultimately responsible for an illegal "leak" involving Valerie Plame.
That "leak" was reported by Robert Novak, who has explained that it didn't come from Cheney or Libby, but from former State Department official Richard Armitage -- on the afternoon of July 8, 2003, as Novak places it rather precisely in his memoir, The Prince of Darkness.
It is by no means clear that it was a crime to tell Novak that retired diplomat Joe Wilson got a CIA assignment (to investigate British intelligence reports that Iraq had sought uranium ore from Niger) through the urging of his wife, a non-covert agency employee. But if it was a crime, it was committed by Armitage, not Libby. The only purpose of prosecuting Libby was to attempt to implicate Cheney, who seems to occupy in the minds of some liberals the role of Darth Vader in the Evil Empire of the Bush administration.
Whatever the truth of any specific allegations against Libby, the larger and far more significant truth is that he was a scapegoat who was crushed to satisfy the vindictive impulses of Wilson, Plame and their admirers.
Ramos/Compean Reactions
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 6:25PM
Unlike those seeking a full pardon for Scooter Libby, supporters of Ramos and Compean don't seem to be too upset that their sentences were only commuted. The Center for Individual Freedom sent out an e-mail saying, "Congrats -- Ramos and Compean freed!" This WorldNetDaily story quotes WND editor-in-chief Joe Farrah saying, "Thank God for this commutation." And Congressman Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who had been pushing for a pardon, described himself as "very grateful that President Bush has heeded the cries of the American people." The two Border Patrol agents will be released from prison on March 20.
At Least Bush is Classy
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 5:07PM
Eight years ago, Bill Clinton held a huge to-do at Andrew AFB right at a time that detracted directly from a key ceremonial part of Bush's inaugural festivities -- some key part of the parade, if I remember correctly. It was televised, self-indulgent, self-reverential, and way overlong. It was Clinton doing the "me, me, me, me, me, me!" routine. And it was utterly classless, one last attempt to hold onto attention on what really was, and should have been, Bush's day.
Tomorrow, Bush shows how it really ought to be done. From a WH press release:
1:25 pm THE
FORMER PRESIDENT makes Remarks at Departure Ceremony
Andrews Air Force Base – Hangar 6 | Andrews Air Force Base,
Maryland
CLOSED PRESS
Note that: CLOSED PRESS. It will not be televised. It will be low-key. It will not take the focus away from Obama on Obama's day.
What that is, is CLASS. Not as in social strata, but as classiness, an element of character. It speaks well of Bush.
Meanwhile, I guarantee that the exiting Bush staffers won't vandalized the White House offices, leaving juvenile booby traps and ruined computer keyboards, the way the puerile Clinton staffers did when they left office.....
Re: Re; Sorry, John
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 4:11PM
John, you're not gonna convince me, and I'm not gonna convince you. Here is the WSJ take on it. Here was my take on it. I have also before and since made other, broader philosophical points, at much length, about why the pardon is so essential. But I leave you with this: Even a couple of the jurors, interviewed right after the trial ended, said in public that they hoped Libby would receive a pardon, and more than a few said they felt quite sorry for him. That's a pretty darn powerful argument, that jurors who found him technically guilty still thought he was, in effect, attitudinally innocent. I've never in my life seen jurors vote to convict and on the same day say they hoped the guy would be pardoned.
The whole trial was a travesty of justice. Justice demands that travesties be reversed.
Re: Sorry, John
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 3:35PM
No evidence that Libby lied? Really, Quin? I'll just be lazy and cut & paste what I wrote when the indictment came down:
The other part of the obstruction charge appears to be the most damning: Libby told the grand jury that he was surprised to hear from Russert that Wilson's wife was CIA. But the indictment alleges that Libby had discussed the topic nine times prior to the conversation with Russert -- with the Vice President, with the Undersecretary of State, with a CIA briefer, with Judy Miller, with the White House Press Secretary, with the Assistant to the Vice President, with Judy Miller again, and with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President.
Sure looked like evidence to me. It did to the jury, too.
P.S. Tom Maguire, who followed the Plame mess closer than almost anyone, addressed the WSJ editorial here and Barone's column here. The important bit:
Fine, I don't think Cheney, Libby, or anyone in the White House had any notion that Wilson's wife may have been covert (was she?), so the notion that this was a staged leak to punish Wilson was simply a convenient partisan fiction.
However, I do think Libby lied to the investigators of this non-crime, thereby committing a crime. His motives would have been to cling to his own security clearances and to protect Dick Cheney from embarrassment.
Obama's Big Cell-out
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 3:23PM
President-elect Obama's announcement last week that he will reverse Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy early in his tenure is clearly meant to appease those angry about Pastor Rick Warren's inauguration invocation. So, Obama's initial inclusive gesture to social conservatives was quickly canceled out by actual policy changes more in line with his leftist campaign rhetoric.
Reports swirl around Washington that conservatives are being "wooed" by Obama's charisma. As air kisses distract, we may expect impending leftward policy reversals through the recision of executive orders and federal regulation "adjustments." With the March for Life fast on the heels of the inauguration, I'm betting President Obama will not use that opportunity to govern from the center. Rather, we should expect another hard left near the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22.
The most likely move, one which he probably hopes can be done quietly, might be the reversal of the Bush limits on the use of federal funding for research using new embryonic stem cell lines. This cynical move will be designed to warm pro-abortion forces gathered in Washington to celebrate their favorite Constitutional overreach, while sending a chill down the spines of hundreds of thousands gathered to march for life.
It's not just the prospect of embryo farming that should concern conservatives. The redirection of research monies into embryonic stem cell research will impede progress into truly important stem cell therapies. The dirty little secret liberals don't want you to know is that stem cell science has moved beyond the use of embryonic stem cells. George Bush, as Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, was right. There was a better way.
The really exciting stem cell research in the last year or so has centered on the transformation of adult cells into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Right now, researchers can take adult skin or blood cells and turn them into iPS cells as powerful as embryonic SCs. These cells have the potential to reverse heart disease, diabetes, paralysis and a host of other diseases. The benefit to individuals and our economy will be enormous.
The respect-for-life issues aside, it probably isn't a good sign that this new administration is falling back on antiquated policies and approaches to embryonic stem cell research. It surely will keep President-elect Obama's constituencey, the abortionists, happy, but it isn't good that tax dollars will be wasted on research that is now obsolete.
Sorry, John
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 3:16PM
For reasons I (and others)ave amply explained in numerous columns and blog posts, I utterly reject this key paragraph by Otis:
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton noted that there was ample evidence that Libby intentionally lied. Jurors took care (they did not convict on all counts), and the evidence before them makes it hard to believe that Libby's misstatements were merely a product of poor memory or confusion. The case was proved, and the conviction should not simply be wiped away.
I am convinced the man did not lie. Logic says he did not lie. (No motive, no evidence other than the decidedly faulty memory of Tim Russert.) His entire demeanor during the trial -- and his original willingness to testify sans attorney -- says he did not lie.
I'll gladly stand with Fred Barnes, the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Sowell, and Michael Barone, among others, who have argued strongly for Libby's pardon. Otis means nothing to me. Prosecutors like to stand up for prosecutors. Big deal.
Libby is innocent; AND he was entrapped; AND the investigation was abusive; AND.... on and on go the arguments in his favor, all of them valid. Pardon Libby now!
Re: Bush Shafts Scooter
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 2:25PM
As I said when the commutation came down, good for Bush. Here, again, is William Otis's case for commuting Libby's sentence without giving him a pardon. Bush was right to follow that path. Sorry, Quin.
History Calls
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 1:50PM
When I read the headline of this Politico story -- "Obama vs. the First Black President" -- my first reaction was: is Bill Clinton acting up again? Many of Obama's critics are annoyed by the constant references to his "historic" election and inauguration. It turns out that Obama himself views the racial angle as a bit of a distraction.
Given the country's history with race, slavery, segregation, and the civil-rights movement, however, it's hard to see how things could be much different. It is an inescapable fact that the inauguration of the first black president is historically significant, no matter how Obama's presidency turns out.
Bush Shafts Scooter
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 1:42PM
On the pardon front, President Bush slinks from office by providing the half-measure of a commutation for border agents Ramos and Compean, but apparently will leave intact the commutation of Scooter Libby rather than provide the full pardon that Libby so clearly merits. To quote the article, "Bush technically has until noon on Tuesday when President-elect Barack Obama is sworn into office to exercise his executive pardon authority, but presidential advisers said no more were forthcoming."
Words fail.
No Pardons for Ramos and Compean
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 1:38PM
But President Bush did commute the two Border Patrol agents' sentences. My guess is commutation is where he'll leave it with Scooter Libby too, but I suppose we'll soon find out.
Your Daily Depression
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 1:00PM
Need a burst of anxiety courtesy of the pitiless abyss that swallowed High Finance? Then let’s talk bonds.
So, what happens when a government creates debt and no one buys it? Specifically, what if the government of one of the strongest economies in the West created debt and no one bought that debt? Well, it’s happened in Germany. The Telegraph’s own Zarathustra (Ambrose Evans-Pritchard) has the details:
The danger became all too real [January 8, 2009] when even Germany failed to sell a full batch of government bonds at its annual `Sylvester Auction', which kicks off the debt season. Investors took up just two thirds of a €6bn (£5.6bn) sale of 10-year Bunds, leading to consternation in the markets. Bund price dropped sharply as the yield jumped 34 basis points to 3.29pc, with copy-cat moves by bonds across the eurozone. "It's very poor," said Marc Ostwald from Monument Securities. "In 20 years covering Bund auctions I can't remember the Bundesbank ever being left with a third of the bonds."
And it’s Britain and Spain on the chopping block next because they may not be able to maintain their credit ratings, which diminishes the attractiveness of their government-issued bonds to potential investors. Obviously, Pritchard sees this as indicative of the shape of things to come. And, for effect, he’s called the top-and-pop of the “sovereign bond bubble.”
This means there’s a horrifying “what-happens-next” narrative emerging for the United States: the government will be the only major, domestic economic actor spending money, but the government will need other international actors to finance the accrued debt. And, according to Pritchard, it may be the case that it won’t be bought by our most vital economic ally:
Beijing needs the money at home in any case to prop up the Chinese economy – now in trouble. Even Japan has slipped into trade deficit. Clearly, the US and European governments cannot rely on Asia to plug the $3,500bn hole in their budgets this year.
Henry Kissinger concurs via an articulation of the
conventional geopolitical wisdom on China:
… the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5
percent that Chinese experts have always defined as the line that
challenges political stability. America needs Chinese cooperation
to address its current account imbalance and to prevent its
exploding deficits from sparking a devastating inflation.
Hoping the depression would improve soon? Breathe a little bit and enjoy the oxygen, because it only gets worse from here on in.
Don't Have MLK Day Off?
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 12:43PM
Maybe it's time to heed Steve Sailer's suggestion that Martin Luther King Day be moved to the Friday before Labor Day to commemorate King's "I Have A Dream" speech -- and make the holiday more popular with the private sector by creating a four-day, summer-ending weekend.
TARPed & Screwed
Posted by on 1.19.09 @ 7:00AM
According to CNN, Larry Flynt and Joe Francis will submit a plea to Congress for $5bn in bailout funds for Big Porn. Suffering financially as a result of the Internet, “the business” needs stimulation. Slurred from the luscious lips of Flynt, himself:
"People are too depressed to be sexually active. This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex…. With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind. It's time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."
Wait, don’t interrupt me here, I think the logic is airtight (if not, it can be cut, tucked, and/or filled with silicon until it is): if government doesn’t bail out Big Porn during this depression, then we (the depressed) will forget how to get it on… or at least we will be deprived the only means we have of reminding us to get it on.
Your libidos have been warned, America! Use your other hand and write your representatives in order to not have to give up giving it up!
But someone needs get this word to Larry and Joe before they do D.C.: don’t whore yourselves by potentially having to offer favors to 435 members of Congress. That’s a waste of energy and it’s also groveling for plain-old-boring, white-bread, missionary, Congressional stimulus. Instead, take the barely legal route: go to Treasury and beg for $5bn from TARP. It would be easy to do: Flynt and Francis could buy up the mortgages and car loans of every person in porn and call that bundle of debt a bank holding company. I’m sure Henry Paulson would dig being the USofA’s Patron of Porn. Hell, come to think of it, they should ask Big Ben to loosen up Section 13, Paragraph 3 a little more and take the really easy money. He’d be the ideal savior because “Bernanke” already sounds a lot like…
P.S. Need more depression and sex? Try Alejandro Escovedo + The Gun Club.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Still Waiting
Posted by on 1.18.09 @ 2:51PM
Just 45 hours remain in the presidency of George W. Bush, and he STILL hasn't pardoned Scooter Libby. A whole essay could be written about this next sentence, but.... If Libby isn't pardoned, it will confirm a terrible tendency of conservatives failing to protect and defend their own when their own aren't guilty of much of anything. This potential pardon not only is of great personal importance to Libby and his family -- a man and family who do not in the least deserve to have gone through the persecution they went through -- but also important symbolically, to all conservatives and indeed all with a sense of fair play, because it is a test of whether or not a man can successfully be persecuted for doing nothing other than stand up for his principles and the administration he served. If the president does not pardon Libby, it tells all other potential public servants that if they get sucked into the maw of trouble without any dishonest intent, they will be on their own, entirely at the mercy of leftist adversaries. In short, it discourages good people from ever agreeing to serve their country. That is a terrible signal to send. Where is Bush's vaunted loyalty when it is really needed?
Burrowing Into Strawmen
Posted by on 1.18.09 @ 2:48PM
According to Matthew Yglesias, "W. James Antle III writes that we shouldn't care about the integrity of the civil service." That would indeed be a stupid thing to write. Except I did not write or say any such thing. I don't agree with burrowing (shifting political appointees into career government positions before leaving office), but it is a bipartisan practice and I see no evidence that President Bush has engaged in it to a greater degree than previous administrations, much less to the point where it will be a serious impediment to Barack Obama's administration. If somebody can give me such evidence, I'll agree that Bush-burrowing is a bad thing because elections have consequences.
Some of Yglesias's commenters are skeptical of my claim that federal civil service employees tilt heavily Democratic, which I argue would at least somewhat mitigate the impact of any Republican burrowing. Hatch Act constraints make this more difficult to quantify than in other lines of work, but I'd point out that the federal employees unions are overwhelmingly Democratic in their campaign giving. It could be that the union leadership is more Democratic than the rank-and-file and thus spends money disproportionately on one political party, but that never happens, right?
The Geithner Confirmation Exception
Posted by on 1.18.09 @ 8:21AM
Without question Treasury nominee Timothy Geithner didn't pay some of his taxes. Even though the IMF warned him about them and reimbursed him for them. One can argue whether this was an honest mistake, but it looks a bit dubious. However, give him teh benefit of the doubt. He also didn't go back and pay what was due on previous years after being audited. Certainly this was a conscious decision: the IRS hadn't noticed and/or the statute of limitations had run, so big whup (or whew, that's a relief!) probably was his reaction. Until that wonderful Cabinet nomination came along, at which point he quickly paid.
My friend Timothy Carney over at the Washington Examiner reflects on how the rules have changed:
Did Geithner, a former high-ranking official in the Clinton Treasury Department, really not know he wasn't paying Social Security and Medicare taxes after he moved to a new job at the International Monetary Fund in 2001?
What was he thinking when he signed papers pledging that he would pay those specific taxes? And what was he thinking when he accepted the IMF's customary reimbursement for taxes he had not paid?
Those questions are why we have confirmation hearings. Geithner's problems are serious, and they deserve a complete airing. But there is a bigger issue in the Geithner situation, and it is this: Should an offense that would have sunk a nomination in years past be considered acceptable today?
There's no doubt that Geithner's tax problems, even what we know about them before a full public hearing, would have killed a cabinet nomination in 1993, or 1997, or 2001, or 2005.
The real questions are: have the rules changed only for Democrats, and only during economic emergencies? Only time will tell.
S.E. Quotes J.P.
Posted by on 1.18.09 @ 6:57AM
In a Washington Post column about conservatives' inauguration blues, S.E. Cupp turns to an authoritative source:
J.P. Freire, the managing editor of the American Spectator, hopes to rent a lake or beach house with some buddies. "You can't get away from this" in town, he wrote. "It'll be in the bars till 4 a.m. every night when you're trying to sleep, and it'll flood the streets with traffic when you need to get groceries."
The fact that Inauguration Day falls on the Tuesday after MLK Day, creating a four-day weekend for Democratic celebrations, might contribute to headaches in D.C. However, I don't think most conservatives are really so disconsolate. There was a big crowd Friday for Matt Vadum's monthly Taco Night party at the National Press Club, most of them conservative and all of them cheerful -- including the Bush administration political appointees who were just a few days from unemployment.
- Feeding the Beast
- Michael Ledeen on Iran and Democracy
- Obama's Vision Through History