- 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, March 14, 2009
Describe the Democratic Party in 20 Words or Less
Posted by on 3.14.09 @ 12:31PM
Let's have a contest. I'll start:
Anyone want to try to top that?
Unreality on the Left
Posted by on 3.14.09 @ 8:19AM
At times--many times, actually--it appears that Right and Left live in parallel universes. Take Al Hunt, for example, a long-time Wall Street Journal staffer now at Bloomberg. He finds fault with Republican criticism of Barack Obama's drive to turn over not just the American economy but American society to the government. No surprise there. Hunt, a thoroughly likable character, long has been advocating more expansive and expensive government. However, Hunt's argument is that we are in the economic mess today because, apparently, we just lived through a horrid period when Milton Friedman was in charge.
Yet most of the carping is either irresponsible -- a business news cable network demagogically sought to frighten people -- or the same old stale alternatives: more tax cuts for the wealthy, smaller government and more deregulation. It's as if the last eight years have been expunged.
There's a lot of blame for today's economic mess to go around, but when over the last eight years did we see smaller government and deregulation? It was a time of unprecedent spending increases, punctuated by the biggest expansion in the welfare state in four decades and continued centralization of power in Washington. Some Lefties even talk about the time of laissez faire, as if the IRS, SEC, Federal Reserve, FTC, Justice Department, Treasury Department, OSHA, FCC, FDA, Department of Labor, Comptroller of the Currency, multitude of other alphabet federal agencies, and host of state and local bodies didn't exist.
Indeed, it would be nice if Hunt & Co. would explain how the worst excesses of government which did so much to create and exacerbate the housing crisis represented "smaller government and more deregulation." You know, like the expansive Fed monetary policy, congressional pressure on banks to lend in poor neighborhoods irrespective of creditworthiness through the Community Reinvestment Act, and appallingly irresponsible financial behavior of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Justice Done to Susette Kelo--A Few Years Too Late
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 8:28PM
Even when the overbearing state wins, it is important to fight. Susette Kelo proved the point when she resisted the attempt by the city of New London, Connecticut to take her property in order to turn it over to developers who would create more "productive"--that is, generate more tax revenue--uses for the land. Kelo lost before the Supreme Court, but New London eventually lost in the marketplace.
"Never, ever delegate the powers of eminent domain,'' Beth Sabilia, the mayor at the time of the property-rights battle, told attendees at a panel discussing the controversy and its aftermath. Sabilia referred to the city's role in assigning eminent domain powers to the New London Development Corp., a move that failed to distance city officials from the subsequent land grab even as it limited their decision-making power in the process.
Sabilia added, "My lesson is, if the state offers you $70 million, say 'no thank you'. Yes, the city won, but no one in the City of New London really won. In New London we are all connected. I don't care if you live in a lean-to or a 4,000-square-foot house. It's where we all take our babies home."
Sabilia has much to regret. She revealed that she personally received 4,000 email death threats and that New London still suffers bad feelings from the successful campaign to force some residents from their homes to make way for a project that was intended to generate higher tax revenues. The battle led to the Kelo v. New London decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said that governments have the legal power to displace property owners for economic development -- that is, people can be booted from their homes and businesses if anybody else can be found who would pay higher taxes at the site.
New London never actually received those taxes. The case's notoriety dampened interest in doing business at the stolen property, and then the economic downturn killed the project. Journalists visiting the scene have found the land to be "barren."
That means the city lost money on the deal: the cost of the legal battle plus the potential tax revenues from homes and businesses forced out and never replaced.
It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of government thieves!
Speaking of Kristols
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 4:52PM
Charles Murray's 2009 Irving Kristol lecture at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner is well worth a read. Though somehow I doubt the Harvard faculty is going to be much different in 2020 than it is right now.
Obama Owes John McCain an Apology
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 4:11PM
This is pretty shocking. Today, President Obama said, "if we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation, and dynamism in this country, then we're going to get through this. And I'm very confident about that." Video below.
It seems like ages ago, but when John McCain came out in September and said the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" candidate Obama responded furiously, in what became a defining moment of the campaign.
Back then, McCain's said, "And my opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals -- the American worker and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America, and I think they're strong."
That sounds strikingly similar to what President Obama said today, but at the time, candidate Obama said:
"I just think he doesn't know," Obama said in Grand Junction, Colo. "He doesn't get what's happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works.... Why else would he say, today, of all days -- just a few hours ago -- that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong? Senator -- what economy are you talking about?"
The Progressive Quiz
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 3:40PM
The Center for American Progess has created a new 40-question online quiz to determine how progressive you are. I ended up with a very low score, which makes me "extremely conservative."
AFL-CIO Tries to Buy Specter's Vote on Card Check
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 3:25PM
As somebody might say, a Senate vote is a *bleeping* valuable thing.
Via Jenifer Rubin, I see that Greg Sargent is reporting that "Senior officials with the powerful AFL-CIO have privately assured GOP Senator Arlen Specter that they’ll throw their full support behind him in the 2010 Senate race if he votes for the Employee Free Choice Act." How will Specter stave off his GOP primary challengers if it turns out that he went against his party on controversial and economically damaging legislation to get money from big labor?
China Seeks Its Pound of Flesh
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 2:46PM
The Chinese, who hold a humongous chunk of the U.S. government's national debt, are getting nervous about America's economic prospects -and they're right to be jittery- so they're demanding security.
"We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S., so of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. Frankly speaking, I do have some worries," the Wall Street Journal quotes Premier Wen Jiabao saying.
The premier called on the U.S. to "maintain its credibility, honor its commitments and guarantee the security of Chinese assets."
Short of registering a lien against the whole country, it's unclear what kind of security the U.S. could give the People's Republic that would satisfy our new Communist overlords. But when the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, whose natural triple-A bonds (called "Treasurys") are used as the credit rating benchmark throughout the world, is beginning to be doubted by bondholders you just know that America is beginning to get the change President Obama promised - GOOD AND HARD.
Then there's the separate issue of what would happen if foreign central banks like China's were to stop buying U.S. Treasurys, whose proceeds Uncle Sam uses to fund operations.
It's worth noting here that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's trip to China last month during which she pleaded with the Chinese to keep buying our debt didn't go over so well. ("By continuing to support American Treasury instruments the Chinese are recognising our interconnection. We are truly going to rise or fall together," Mrs. Clinton said.)
There are at least two ways to look at the prospect of the Chinese balking at buying more Treasurys.
If you're a statist who loves ambitious government programs, the sky is falling, but if you believe in limited government, you might optimistically argue that it's an opportunity to force the U.S. to rein in spending.
Not so fast.
Given the current composition of Congress and the Obama administration's determination to drive the economy into the ground FDR-style with unprecedented levels of federal spending, the inability of the government to find buyers for its debt would lead to catastrophe. Such a situation, as Philip Klein notes, "will eventually force the Federal Reserve to inflate our way out of the mess by printing money to buy up the Treasury bills that nobody wants."
Either way, America is screwed.
Maybe we could just give them California and call it even.
New DNC Ad Blasts Sanford
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 2:24PM
The DNC campaign against Mark Sanford's prudent attempt to divert some of the stimulus money to pay down state debt continues, with this new attack ad:
UPDATE: Joel Sawyer, Sanford's spokesman, responded to the ad with the following statement:
"Governor Sanford continues to believe that problems created by too much debt will never be solved by more debt. It's time to put the partisan politics aside and for people who supported this stimulus legislation to start shooting straight with taxpayers on who is paying the bill for all of this spending. This so-called 'stimulus' represents a federal predatory loan, the cost of which will be borne by future generations who will never have a chance to vote from office the very people who are saddling them with unprecedented spending and guaranteed future tax increases."
Re: Re: Douthat and Kristol
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 1:50PM
Jim: I've looked at that 2004 NYT piece you had stored in your mind's computer and found no references to Kristol being squishy on life issues, just in typical fashion taking up John Kerry on his call for sending more troops to Iraq -- what in due course came to be known as the Surge, which surely saved our bacon in that war. That was Kristol's top priority -- but I didn't detect any change in his social thinking in order to get it realized. Frankly, I can imagine a number of other reasons why Kristol would prefer a liberal to Pat Buchanan even though both are staunchly pro-life.
Tony Perkins Won't Challenge Vitter
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 1:36PM
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has announced he won't challenge Louisiana Sen. David Vitter in 2010:
"I am grateful for those who've encouraged me to consider returning to elected office, but this is not the right time," wrote Perkins in a letter to state party chairman Roger Villere. "Along those lines, I would like members of the State Central Committee to know that I support Senator David Vitter's bid for reelection in 2010."
Vitter has got his share of problems, but now a prominent socially conservative challenger -- who once drew 10 percent in an open primary for Senate in Louisiana -- isn't one of them.
Re: Douthat and Kristol
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 1:19PM
Wlady: I do recall Bill Kristol saying he'd vote for a New Republic liberal on Iraq over a non-squishy pro-lifer. So I'd say that he and Douthat are even on that score or else the New York Times specializes in getting quotes from conservatives that undermine their conservative credentials.
Alarmists, meet petard
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 12:50PM
The standard refrain of the global warming alarmist industry, including their media enablers, is to shriek "ExxonMobil!" at every turn, in a fairly sad manifestation of the form of argumentation designed to distract from facts known as argumentum ad hominem.
The thinking for years was that -- because ExxonMobil supported both sides of speech on the issue, even over a decade giving approximately, say, 5% or so of the $300 million that someone(s) have just given the Green P.T. Barnum, Al Gore, to cram the global warming agenda through before the cooling becomes an insurmountable impediment -- why, anyone who's budget included a tranche from the oil giant is clearly just doing their bidding.
Things became a little more difficult when the pressure campaign became such that, following a change of leadership, ExxonMobil decided to distance itself from any groups still fighting the agenda. The cry "you're funded by ExxonMobil" quickly turned on our modern day Winston Smiths to "you're not even receiving funding from ExxonMobil!" Don't ask. Just hear "ExxonMobil!" and know that's enough to nod obediently.
One form of this is rather humorously on display in an article in yesterday's Guardian, ostensibly about last weekend's International Climate Change Conference in New York thrown by the Heartland Institute. To wit: "...Heartland Institute, a Chicago thinktank that hosted the conference and was funded in the past by Exxon Mobil."
This got me thinking, what a useful way of educating people, saying so much by, really, saying nothing at all. Now, applying the lesson, the object of the Heartland conference participants' ire was two-fold: first, the selling of science for guaranteed billions in return for pushing, and in the name of imposing, a particular agenda. Second, that agenda's big ticket item is the cap-and-trade rationing scheme, or global warming tax, stuck in the Obama budget to pay for his social engineering. That's what this whole enterprise is about.
Again, we know that Group A previously received support from ExxonMobil -- a very bad thing, apparently, even though green groups get piles of ExxonMobil money, still -- and this fact informs whatever comes out of Group A.
So, now allow me to re-introduce President Obama's global warming tax, and in a manner designed to gain the understanding of global warming alarmists: ...Barack Obama, the president who proposed this tax and who in the past spent time doing drugs.
There. That makes things much clearer. Thanks, greens!
Douthat and Kristol
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 12:39PM
Jim: "At least as good [as Bill Kristol] on social conservatism"? I don't recall Bill Kristol ever calling himself "squishy" on life issues, as Douthat is quoted in the NYT's report of his hiring:
On abortion, he said in an interview, “I’m sort of a squishy pro-lifer,” interested in finding areas of compromise. He initially favored the war in Iraq, but later opposed it.
Maybe the Times here was trying to clip Douthat wings from the outset. Maybe Douthat was merely playing possum. But I also don't recall Kristol ever cutting and running, New Republic style, regarding Iraq.
That finally brings me to what irks me most here: much of the commentary about the Douthat hiring goes out of its way to take cheapo shots at Kristol and how awful he was as a NYT columnist. The fact remains, he brought 20 plus years of seasoned political experience to his work, an astute and intelligent insider who also always had his eyes on a bigger picture. There's no substitute for that, at the Times or anywhere else.
Death Penalty on Film
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 11:32AM
In the department of shameless family promotion, I'd like to inform readers of a new documentary film opening in select cities today called Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead. It explores the moral complexity of the death penalty issue by portraying the odd relationship that develops between Robert Blecker, a New York law professor and strong proponent of the death penalty, and Daryl Holton, a death row inmate who shot and killed his own four children with an assault rifle in Shelbyville, Tennessee in 1997. And it was produced by my brother.
You can read a review in today's Washington Post here, and the New York Times did a feature on it a few weeks back. The trailer is below. And if you're in the DC area, it opens at the E Street Cinema tonight.
All Enemies to the Right
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 11:13AM
When I say that some "reform Republicans" seem to have disdain for the entire conservative project, this is an example of what I mean. The concerns of "[c]onservatives who object to moderate Republican officeholders" are not too subtly compared to a 1960s smear campaign against moderate Republican Sen. Thomas Kuchel. Kuchel voted with his party's conservatives on some issues (he was against censuring Joe McCarthy and for the Vietnam War) and with liberals on others, like Medicare. He supported civil rights legislation, but so did some Republicans to his right. Kuchel lost a primary to a more conservative Republican in 1968 and liberal Democrat Alan Cranston ended up holding the seat for four terms.
The moral of the story? Writes our blogger, Geoffrey Kabaservice: "Given that California has not elected a Republican senator since 1988, however, it may be time to examine Kuchel's lessons of how to win in the nation's largest state rather than continuing to emphasize the dictum of 'no enemies on the right.'"
Where to begin? The Kuchel-Rafferty primary came six years after William F. Buckley Jr. denounced the John Birch Society. It came two years after Ronald Reagan -- who Kabaservice acknowledges did not support the anti-Kuchel smears -- beat a moderate Republican in a primary and distanced himself from the Birchers, winning the governorship in the process. It was followed by the Reagan re-election, S.I. Hayakawa, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Republicans carrying California in every presidential election for the next twenty years.
Conservatives haven't done very well in statewide elections in California since the mid-1990s. Of course, neither have moderate Republicans: Ed Zschau, John Seymour, and Tom Campbell all lost Senate races. One moderate, Michael Huffington, and one conservative, Bruce Herschensohn, came close to winning Senate seats there in the '90s. The latter lost in part due to allegations he frequented a strip club. Arnold Schwarzenegger arguably won his last election in California by following Kuchel's lessons, but future generations of California taxpayers may wish their ancestors had voted for Tom McClintock instead.
Smearing Sanford
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 10:50AM
Daniel Nasaw reports that the DNC already started circulating opposition research on Mark Sanford because it sees him as a potential threat in 2012. Among the articles they sent around was a Politco item that quoted Sanford comparing our current economic polcies to the ones that had caused hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. And for that, liberals are accusing him of either being racist or dumb. The first charge is a disgraceful smear, and the second charge reveals how much ignorance there is on the left when it comes to economics.
To start with, here's what Sanford actually said when defending his decision to use a portion of the stimulus money to help pay down state debt against those who were urging him to spend it:
"What you're doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don't have, send it to different states - we'll create jobs... If that's the case why isn't Zimbabwe a rich place?"..."why isn't Zimbabwe just an incredibly prosperous place. Cause they're printing money they don't have and sending it around to their different - I don't know the towns in Zimbabwe but that same logic is being applied there with little effect."
In response, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina (an earmark addict who has long been at war with the frugal Sanford) said, "For him to compare the president of this country to Mugabe. ... It's just beyond the pale."
Asked if he was implying Sanford's comment had racial overtones, Clyburn replied, "I'm sure he would not say that, but how did he get to Zimbabwe? What took the man to Zimbabwe? Someone should ask him if that's really the best comparison. ... How can he compare this country's situation to Zimbabwe?"
There's a very clear reason why Sanford used the Zimbabwe comparison -- it's because it's the most prominent current example in the world of hyperinflation. Do a Google search on "Zimbabwe inflation," and you get 1,580,000 hits. Clearly, things aren't going to get that bad in the U.S., but Sanford was just making a point that we're using the "same logic" here.
For other liberal bloggers, even if Sanford wasn't racist, he was being stupid. Over at Washington Monthly Steve Benen snarks, "But while I have no idea if the governor is a racist, I do know he's dumb as a sack of hammers." Since he can't explain for himself why he knows this obvious truth, he leaves the heavy lifting to Matt Yglesias.
Here's Yglesias:
Not only is this comparison really offensive to people living in Zimbabwe and struggling with a horrible situation, far worse than the misery Sanford is trying to inflict on the population of South Carolina by refusing to extend unemployment benefits, but the ignorance on display here is really appalling. Sanford’s like a guy standing next to a burning building worrying that it might rain tomorrow. There’s no inflation right now in the United States. None whatsoever. It’s actually a big problem, because it means that our standard macroeconomic stabilization tool—federal reserve open market operations—doesn’t work. Serious inflation would be bad, of course, and Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation would be ruinous, but some increase in inflation would be helpful. It would serve as a real cut in interest rates and help to spur growth. And long before inflation reached problem levels, the Fed could increase nominal rates to head the problem off. Sanford’s just out to sea on this.
Let's leave aside Yglesias's moralizing and just focus on his farcical economic arguments. For starters, Yglesias notes that there isn't inflation now. But that's a red herring, because Sanford was talking about why he thinks the economic policies we are pursuing will trigger inflation down the road. It's like telling somebody warning about a housing bubble in 2004, "Sit down and shut up. You're a complete jackass. Look around you. The housing market is booming."
As I've written in depth, a real fear among economists is that at some point, we will no longer be able to find buyers for the unprecedented level of debt we are issuing, which will eventually force the Federal Reserve to inflate our way out of the mess by printing money to buy up the Treasury bills that nobody wants. This isn't a ridiculous theory. In fact, just today, Premier Wen Jiabao said he was "worried" about China's investments in the U.S. Zhao Qingming, a Beijing-based analyst at China Construction Bank, explained that, "China is worried that the US may solve its problems with the fiscal deficit and banks by printing money, which will stoke inflation."
Finally, Yglesias argues that at the first sign of inflation, the Fed can simply raise rates. There are several problems with that assumption. For one thing, the Fed will be under tremendous pressure to not raise interest rates at a time when the U.S. is still weak and just emerging from a severe economic crisis. Nobody wants to be remembered as the Fed chariman who forced us into a deep double dip recession. Even if the Fed were willing to raise rates, Yglesias is making the mistake of assuming that all inflations are created equal and can be treated the same way. But an inflation caused by a glut of Treasury debt is an entirely different beast from a traditional inflation caused by too many dollars chasing too few goods. When you have the traditional inflation, raising interest rates as Yglesias suggests can reduce inflation by choking off demand. However, as John H. Cochrane, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, explained in a recent article of mine, "Once you have a flight from U.S. government debt, there's nothing the Fed can do about it...If people don't want more U.S. Treasury debt, then the Fed is out of ammunition."
Liberals always attempt to paint conservative Republicans as stupid and racist, and as Sanford's profile rises, they evidently want to make a preemtive strike to cement that impression in people's minds. But in the process of doing so, the've done nothing but reveal their own ignorance.
UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has more, exploring the Washington Post yesterday portraying hard times in South Carolina.
Flake Fights Corruption
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 10:24AM
At the Examiner today, we urge Jeff Flake to keep fighting against corruption of the earmark-for-campaign-cash variety. Conservatives need to elevate this issue.
Steele-ing a Base
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 10:08AM
At first glance, there seems to be a 180-degree difference between what people expected of Michael Steele's Republican National Committee chairmanship and what he's delivered. The area where he was supposed to be most effective -- as a communicator and messenger for a tainted GOP brand -- has actually been where we've so far seen Steele's biggest blunders. Yet his top-down review of the RNC has gotten some favorable press, even though there was widespread concern about Steele's abilities as a nuts-and-bolts party administrator.
On the other hand, a lot of criticisms of Steele have been validated by his early performance. I repeatedly heard people complain that Steele was too eager to ingratiate himself to his audiences, something that would make him an unreliable defender of the more controversial Republican platform positions when he ventured (as he inevitably would) into hostile territory and an unsteady if charismatic messenger. So far, that's exactly what we've seen. It's still very early in his tenure and things could change. But for now Phil is absolutely right: a lot of Republicans are probably missing Mike Duncan's quiet but effective fundraising right now.
Grand New York Times Party
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 9:40AM
As Joe mentioned yesterday, a lot of conservatives are down on the New York Times' choice of Ross Douthat as the latest edition to their opinion page. Liberal praise for Douthat's "healthy skepticism for many of the trappings of modern capitalist society" probably won't help matters. I certainly have my differences with Douthat, though I suppose if I were to run down my own idiosyncratic ideological checklist I'd rate him an improvement over Bill Kristol (better on foreign policy, better on immigration, at least as good on social conservatism, equally unreliable on economics and size-of-government issues).
The "at least as good on social conservatism" probably doesn't do Douthat justice, however. Bill Kristol has been one of the most outspokenly pro-life voices in the neocon orbit, for which he deserves credit, but Douthat is easily the most passionate and articulate social conservative ever to get a regular slot on the New York Times op-ed page. As nice as it would be to have someone going hammer and tong after big government in the Age of Obama, that's not a small thing.
Many soi-distant reformist conservatives are the right-wing equivalent of Robert Frost's liberal who is too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel. Others are engaged in fruitless crusade to drive the vast majority of self-described conservatives out of the movement (though lately there has been some pushback against this odd strategy from even sympathetic commentators). If Douthat avoids those temptations and fights some un-Times-like battles, his conservative critics may well be pleasantly surprised. Either way, he is a bright and fair-minded observer of the political scene.
More on Vitter
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 9:33AM
My good friend and former boss Clancy DuBos weighs in on David Vitter here. Strong stuff.
It's Just Not Easy Staffing the One's Administration
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 6:09AM
A potential embarrassment of a different sort.
President Obama's newly appointed chief information officer is on leave from his post after an FBI raid Thursday that resulted in the arrests of his former deputy and another man in connection with a D.C. government bribery scandal.
Authorities did not implicate Vivek Kundra in the scandal, but a White House official said he was on leave "until further details become known" about the investigation into the D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer, which Mr. Kundra headed from 2007 until this year.
The White House official asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing investigation.
The incident is the most recent embarrassment for the Obama administration, which has struggled to make scandal-free high-level appointments.
"Obviously, this is a serious matter," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
About the Stimulus: Just Wait for the Waste!
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 5:49AM
Remember, Mean Joe Biden is going to protect the integrity of the Treasury. Well, maybe not.
The chief watchdog for spending from the $787 billion stimulus package says it's guaranteed there will be waste and fraud.
Earl Devaney, tapped by President Obama to track the giant spending plan, also said it will be at least a year before the government gets recovery.gov, the Web site the administration has touted as a key part of its transparency, up and running properly.
"I'm afraid that there may be a naive impression that given the amount of transparency and accountability called for by this act, no or little fraud will occur. My 38 years of federal enforcement experience tells me that some level of waste and fraud is unfortunately inevitable," Mr. Devaney told state officials charged with coordinating the spending.
"Obviously the challenge for all of us, especially those charged with oversight, will be to significantly minimize such loss."
The White House hosted the state officials yesterday in an eight-hour conference designed to answer their questions and get their thoughts on how to manage the spending. But federal officials were also clearly worried about how the money would be spent, repeatedly telling them that the future of all federal grants to states rests on their performance.
"Six months from now, if the verdict on this effort is that we've wasted the money, we built things that were unnecessary, or we've done things that are legal but make no sense, then, folks, don't look for any help from the federal government for a long while," said Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Alas, we have plenty of experience on how "free" federal funds get used by their recipients, and the results aren't pretty.
Economy Not So Bad, Obama Says: Then How About We Cancel the Stimulus?
Posted by on 3.13.09 @ 12:44AM
President Obama now admits the economy isn't really as bad as he said it was last month when he was trying to stampede Congress into embracing his bloated so-called stimulus package.
"I don't think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say. Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They're not as bad as we think they are now," he told business leaders Thursday.
This stands in stark contrast to the president's tone on Feb. 4 when he was forecasting economic Armageddon if Congress didn't give him everything he wanted immediately: "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future."
Given that things are now, unlike in February, looking so rosy, how about we rescind the stimulus funding? After all, the president now suggests we don't really need it.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Bristol Palin and the Failure of Abstinence
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 9:18PM
In response to Bonnie Erbe's blog entry on Bristol Palin, Maggie Gallagher has it just right: Whatever the merits of abstinence-only sex education -- it's an empirical question, but every study I've seen on the matter was conducted by an organization biased one way or the other, with predictable results -- it is fanciful to pretend that everyone who has an unintended pregnancy is ignorant of contraception. And the exploitation of this girl's mistakes as a stick with which to beat her mother is unseemly.
Vitter's Tirade
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 3:40PM
The report about Sen. David Vitter's temper tantrum at the airport catalyzes me to tell this story again, which I THINK (but am not sure) I have told in short in this space before.
Back in about 1988 I had served as the key "witness" for a Tulane Law School mock trial in a trial-ad (or maybe moot court?) class for which Vitter had been paired with a good friend of mine as defense counsels. We worked well together, had some fun and, no doubt due to my superb acting job as witness (not really -- it was due to Vitter's and my friend's good lawyering), Vitter and my friend earned 'A's. So I was at least somewhat favorably disposed toward David. Then, three years later, a truly bizarre thing happened. I was managing editor of Gambit Weekly in New Orleans by then and Vitter was making his first run for State Rep. We had a feature called "Scuttlebutt" which involved short, hard-news (i.e. not just gossip) snippets of behind-the-scenes political goings on. I wrote a series of scuttlebutts one week about Vitter's race. Any reasonable person would come away from those scuttlebutts thinking Vitter was the candidate most on the ball, far and away. I reported things along the lines of Candidate A having taken the first step by hiring a campaign manager, and candidate B having just leased a campaign office, etc. Vitter, meanwhile, according to my report (this is from memory), had already done something like "blanketed every house in the district with not one but two pieces of glossy campaign literature touting his credentials and platform."
Again, it was just straight reporting, but reporting that by any objective criteria made Vitter look good.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I got a phone call from David where he literally was yelling and occasionally cursing into my ear -- so loudly that I literally had to hold the phone away from my head, about six inches from my ear -- like he was absolutely unhinged. This went on for something like seven or eight minutes straight. Why was he so upset? Because, he said, my use of the word "glossy" -- hey, uh, David, that is a type of paper, dude, as in do you want your photos glossy or matte? -- was a deliberate attempt to insinuate that he was "slick and insubstantial." How DARE I? I was a dirty, rotten, bleeping yellow journalist. Or so he yelled, or words to that effect.
As I said, he sounded unhinged. It was truly, 100 percent bizarre. And this was from a guy for whom, if I had lived in his legislative district, I probably would have voted (before this incident) because his credentials seemed stronger than the other good and worthy candidates in the race. But he was convinced that I was out to get him. Weird. Very very very very weird, and thoroughly unpleasant.
In that light, his tantrum at the airport does not surprise me one bit.
(That Vitter later won his U.S. House seat in a thoroughly dishonorable campaign is yet another story for yet another day.)
How Liberal Is Obama?
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 3:20PM
So liberal that that, according to the Washington Post, the U.S. is now trying to prod "a reluctant Europe to prop up the reeling world economy with more aggressive government spending."
The article goes on to explain that, "In Europe, some officials doubt the wisdom of falling deeply into debt to create jobs and halt the plunge in consumer demand, as the United States is doing."
The Post quotes Luxembourg Finance Minister Jean-Claude Juncker as saying, "Recent American appeals insisting that the Europeans make an additional budgetary effort to combat the effects of the crisis were not to our liking."
Conservatives have been arguing that Obama is putting us on the path to European socialism, but as it turns out, the socialsts are more skeptical about government intervention in the economy than our current administration.
Did the "Open" RNC Chair Race Backfire?
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 1:48PM
In light of further evidence, Liz Mair, who was trying to give Michael Steele the benefit of the doubt, now concedes, "I really am questioning whether Steele knows what Steele thinks about abortion." Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan notes that the GQ interview, in which Steele seems open to the idea of civil unions, closely coincided with the time he went on Mike Gallagher and suggested it would be "crazy" for Republicans to consider supporting civil unions. (Sullivan says that both interviews were conducted on the same day, but the GQ interview was conducted over a period in late February/early March, according to a magazine spokesman, and the Gallagher interview was on the 23rd). Either way, it doesn't change the point that he seems to be catering his position to the audience.
But the important thing to keep in mind about this diversion is that it shouldn't really matter at this point what Michael Steele's personal views are -- he's there to represent the party and its platform, not himself. When Robert Gibbs gives a press briefing, he isn't offering his own opinions, but conveying the thinking of the administration. That's why I'm starting to wonder if all of the hoopla surrounding this year's RNC chairman's race has actually backfired. At the time, there was a lot of talk about how "open" the typically behind the scenes process had become. Candidates actively engaged blogs and there was even a debate among the candidates, in which they were asked for their views on a wide range of issues. But I wonder if, in the end, it turned the race into more of a personality contest. To the candidates, it became all about them. And Steele emerged the victor out of this process with the mindset of somebody who had just been elected to political office. In his post-election news conference, a haughty Steele even taunted Obama by asking, "How do you like me now?" So, it's in some ways understandable that he thinks he's the conquering hero and the RNC members actually want him to go around spouting his personal opinions on everything.
Big Labor Disrupts Senate Hearing on Card Check
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 10:35AM
Unions and their political allies expect us to believe that denying workers a secret ballot will not result in worker intimidation, and yet they can't even contol themselves at a U.S. Senate hearing:
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 10:17AM
- Obama's road to hell is magnificently paved (Washington Post)
- Reasons that the U.S. is still no. 1 (Christian Science Monitor)
- Amity Shlaes's detractors mostly have a cartoonish view of how things work (Growthology)
- Sully is a hero. But a two-book deal seems excessive even for a hero (Daily Beast)
- Berkeley vs. Chicago, an Economist debate (Economist)
- Harder and harder to deny Obama's extremism on human life issues (Moral Accountability)
Steele Responds to Abortion Comments
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 10:16AM
I'm not sure how this is supposed to clarify anything:
I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.
I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a "choice" before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.
But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.
Yes, Steele's mother chose life, but the whole question is whether or not she should have been legally allowed to choose to terminate her pregnancy instead.
And as Matt Lewis notes:
Ironically, his statement -- meant to clarify -- actually raises more questions. The only reasonable conservative defense of Steele's GQ comments were that he is a Federalist (meaning that he opposed Roe, but supported state's rights). Even that defense is a weak one based on his previous statement, but I digress. But the above statement, Steele reaffirms that Steele supports the GOP platform and a Human Life Amendment, which, of course, undermines the argument that he believes states should decide...
What a mess.
Re: Why Steele's Bungles Matter
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 10:15AM
Ditto what Phil said.
I'll add this: When are conservatives/Republicans going to stop looking at what short-term impressions somebody makes and start looking at actual records and experience and accomplishments?
I would give plenty of examples (starting in a very cold state), but then I'd get some nimrods mad at me.
Pretty Startling
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 9:10AM
I think David Broder has lost it. Lucky for Chas Freeman his name isn't Jesse Helms.
Why Steele's Bungles Matter
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 9:00AM
In an earlier post, I wrote about Michael Steele's muddled abortion comments to GQ, but I'm not sure I really conveyed what a disaster Steele is turning out to be for the Republican Party. It's not just that he's coming across as a complete jackass and alienating conservatives while failing to win over moderates, but that each minute the RNC dedicates to cleaning up a mess he created is a minute not dedicated to pointing out why President Obama's policies will ruin the health care system, stifle business, run up our debt, raise our taxes, cause inflation, and endanger our national security. He's the gift that keeps on giving for the Obama administration. And I'm sure Steele's stumbles aren't helping fundraising.
Steele's biggest problem is that he has a massive ego, and actually thinks that being the chairman of the RNC is all about him. He has bought into this idea that he has incredible media savvy and is going to personally bring new people into the Republican Party. But people don't vote for a political party on the basis of its chairman. In 2008, Americans didn't vote Democrat because Howard Dean was heading the DNC, but because Barack Obama was running for president. The chairman of the party has a role in raising money, allocating resources to candidates across the country, and pummeling the other team. He isn't running for political office himself. In hindsight, Mike Duncan's leadership at the RNC is looking better and better. You never heard a peep out of him. He just quietly went about doing his job, and raised a ton of money in a lousy year for Republicans. Steele needs to wake up and realize that it's called the Republican Party, not the Steele Party.
Pay Up! White House Tells Another Appointee
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 6:55AM
Okay, this time it isn't taxes. It's just a long overdue bill for home renovation. Reports the New York Daily News:
The White House told urban czar Adolfo Carrión on Wednesday to pay the architect who did work on his Bronx home more than two years ago.
The Daily News reported that Carrión, the former Bronx borough president who is now the White House urban policy director, had the architect draw up renovations in early 2007. That work came as Carrión's office was reviewing the architect's plan for a housing project.
Carrión still hasn't paid for the work, raising questions about whether it was a freebie done to win approval of the project.
Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson's office confirmed Wednesday night it was looking into the matter.
No wonder Democrats believe in the eternal free lunch. For Democratic politicians, everything truly is free!
Et Tu, Barack
Posted by on 3.12.09 @ 6:43AM
Candidate Barack Obama criticized the Bush administration for its promiscuous use of signing statements. And appropriately so, since presidents should veto legislation which they believe to be unconstitutional, rather than choosing to apply the provisions they like and ignore the rest.
However, guess who now is employing signing statements?
Two days after criticizing his predecessor for issuing guidelines on how to put legislation into practice, President Obama issued such a directive himself.
Out of public view Wednesday, Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill that includes billions for items known as earmarks, the targeted spending that lawmakers direct to projects in their districts. Obama promised during the presidential campaign to curb such spending.
He also issued a "signing statement" in which he objected to provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had advised "raise constitutional concerns." Among them are provisions that Obama said would "unduly interfere" with his authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments.
Another provision, Obama said, would limit his discretion to choose who performs specific functions in military missions.
On Monday, Obama ordered a review of former President George W. Bush's guidelines for implementing bills passed by Congress, his signing statements.
Bush often issued statements when he signed bills, objecting to parts of the legislation. Critics said the statements often showed government officials how to get around a law if Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.
"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused," Obama wrote Monday in a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies. "Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements."
Ain't politics wonderful!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Michael "Zelig" Steele
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 10:15PM
In 1983, Woody Allen made the mockumentary film Zelig about a man who longs for approval so badly that he changes to fit the people who are surrounding him. The movie may as well have been written about Michael Steele, who continues to tie himself in knots as part of his effort to reach out to moderates.
Steele already has been ridiculed by all sides of the political spectrum for blasting Rush Limbaugh on CNN only to apologize when he received blowback. But now, via Matt Lewis, I see he told GQ that he believes abortion is an individual choice. Here's the portion of the interview:
How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
So basically, in an effort to seem more inclusive, Steele tried to appropriate the language of the left by saying life is a choice, but then he allowed himself to be backed into a corner in which he said that women have the right to choose abortion -- by definition, a pro-choice postion. Perhaps realizing what he had just said, Steele then tried to add nuance to his point:
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!
So, after getting boxed in, he suddenly shifts from "individual choice" meaning "women have the right to choose an abortion" to it meaning that states have an "individual choice" about whether or not to permit women to exercise choice. Liz Mair, charitably, thinks that Steele was trying to express the pro-choice, anti-Roe, position but that he just was clumsy about it. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn't be consistent with other recent statements he made on the subject.
In December, when he was under fire during the RNC race for being a member of Christine Todd Whitman's moderate Republican Leadership Council, he portrayed himself as emphatically pro-life to CBN's David Brody, barbing, "I was a monk for goodness sakes ok?" Appearing on Fox News Sunday after his election to serve as RNC chair, Steele declared, "I'm a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been."
In a debate moderated by Tim Russert during the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Maryland, Steele was all over the place on Roe. Check out the following exchange:
MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.
MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?
LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that
should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.
MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.
Huh?
The problem with Steele's defenders is that they like the idea of Steele -- i.e., the idea that Steele is going to reach out to moderates. But the reality of Steele is quite different. He is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit.
Kristol, All But Forgotten
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 5:37PM
So it seems that the New York Times has indeed found its conservative replacement for Bill Kristol: Ross Douthat, of the Atlantic.
This had been rumored previously, although most were skeptical because Ross is so young -- he's still in his twenties. But now it is happening.
Certain AmSpec contributors have voiced criticism of Douthat's brand of reform conservatism in the past. In specific the knock on him is that he doesn't have a sufficient appreciation for limited government.
Whether or not that's the case, I am personally glad to see Douthat end up at the Times. First, a real alternative was for Kristol to be replaced by no one. A conservative a little squishy on limited government is better than no conservative voice at all (unless you count David Brooks). Second, I suspect that Douthat is more conservative than his Atlantic record would indicate. Any good writer knows his audience, and his audience at the Atlantic was liberal. He was was accordingly willing at least to entertain liberal ideas. If that's the case, he will continue to do so at the Times.
Third, even if his conclusions do not reflect principles that conservatives in general would like to see advanced, there is no doubt that Douthat has as intellectually deep an understanding of conservative thought as anyone. At a time when conservatism is widely mocked as being headed by Limbaugh and Joe the Plumber, it is at least useful to have someone eminently fair-minded and respectable in a highly visible venue.
Credit to Michelle Malkin on La Raza
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 4:56PM
I just found out that Michelle Malkin beat us to the punch on the La Raza lobbyist story I blogged on in the last hour. She had an excellent post up on it last night. As usual, Malkin is on top of an important story. Belated credit to her. Good stuff!
Barone Gets it Right on Economy
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 4:19PM
The always-astute Michael Barone explains why it was NOT deregulation that caused today's financial problems. As a sidelight (tooting my own horn), I would note, interestingly enough, this sentence from Barone's piece:
"Taylor writes that the financial crisis first became evident in August 9 and 10, 2007, when the spread between Libor interest rates and the three-month overnight index swap widened hugely."
That happens to be EXACTLY the time when i first started my regular warnings that monetary policy had baked stagflation into the cake. See this from Aug. 8, 2007, my very first blog post on the subject. Two blog posts later, this. A few minutes later, I even more explicitly tied the problems to the housing market. The next morning I was back at it, this time noting the LIBOR spread that Barone talks about. This kept on for a while in my blog posts, until finally I started writing full columns on the subject. My main reason to bring all this up is not to say I understood all of it then (I didn't even know then what a credit default swap was), but to say that one day before eveything started going haywire publicly (as ID'd by Barone), I had picked up on it and already said that the psychological panic response was the absolutely key thing to avoid, and that the Fed was inept at understanding that psychology. In short, I continue to assert that the Fed bears a large part of the blame not just for long-ago actions in 2002-2005, but all the way through this whole decade right up until now.
Lies AND Amnesty
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 3:44PM
This Examiner "Hot Zone" editorial should be a double-whammy against Obama's claims of integrity and moderation. Not only is he yet again breaking his word on hiring lobbyists -- whether he should have made the promise in the first place is worthy of discussion, but having made it, he should not give the lie to it -- but he is doing so on behalf a a radical La Raza type. Look, I'm a moderate on immigration. I supported the Krieble plan. I support, under certain restricted circumstances, the concept of guest workers in flush times (i.e., NOT now). But La Raza is beyond the pale, and so is this appointee, especially if she requires an ethics waiver. Read all about it at the link above. (A Hot Zone is a quick-hit, online only, shortish editorial by the Examiner.)
Mark-to-Market Update
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 2:10PM
Holman Jenkins's article in today's WSJ on Warren Buffett's observations on mark-to-market accounting is a must-read in light of TAS's series on the pitfalls of mark-to-market.
Apparently Buffett, during his CNBC interview the other day, was trying to highlight mark-to-market's drawbacks not for disclosure purposes, but for regulatory accounting purposes. It seems that CNBC edited this out of the clips they played on air, but it is an important note coming from a money manager of Buffett's stature.
The point is not that marking down assets based on similar assets falling in price creates a problem for investors looking for value. The problem is when the markdown brings the bank below a regulatory minimum capital requirement, at which point regulators force them to raise capital, often at steep prices. This added expense puts a major strain on the banks.
In other words, the government gets them coming and going. First they are required to mark down their assets, and then to recapitalize because their assets have been marked down. As Buffett put it, it's like throwing gasoline on a burning building. It does not seem like the effects the accounting system has on regulatory capital requirements is given enough consideration. There are no quick fixes, but if this could improve the balance sheets of banks with simple changes to the accounting requirements, isn't it worth a shot?
An Oafish Bunch of Drunken Frat Boys
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 2:05PM
That's what Camille Paglia--one of President Obama's biggest supporters--calls the new administration's actions towards Rush Limbaugh, of whom she is also a fan.
Paglia points out what few people have, that Limbaugh, in addition to being a talk-radio host with talent on loan from God and 20 million listeners per week, is a private citizen, whom Obama and staff are targeting because they lack the skills to do the real work of the "crushing demands of the Presidency."
Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.
And this gem:
Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does [...] Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way.
If only her Democratic colleagues had such insight.
Can Peg Luksik Save Arlen Specter?
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 1:03PM
Dave Weigel talks to PA conservative activists and concludes that the answer is: probably not.
Conservatives are not at all happy about a Luksik run - it creates some hope for Specter, where a one-on-one race with Toomey meant his certain defeat. But Toomey, who won the endorsement of Dr. James Dobson in 2004, can outflank an activist who has never won an election and who left the Republican Party before Miley Cirus was born. The Luksik run could create space for Specter, or it could allow Toomey to portray himself as the pragmatic conservative in between a moderate and a fringe activist.
A precedent would be last year's Republican primary in Maryland's First Congressional District, when both Andy Harris and E.J. Pipkin challenged Congressman Wayne Gilchrest from the right and Harris still beat Gilchrest. Meanwhile, Matt Lewis says to look at Specter's card check vote as an indicator of whether he's planning to switch parties.
At this rate these Arctic birds will kill us all!
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 12:29PM
Hat tip to reader Mark S for this classic. He writes:
"Today's WaPo had this item on P. B1.
'A snowy owl -- an Arctic species rarely seen this far south -- spent part of yesterday afternoon surveying downtown Washington from a high ledge at 17th and L streets NW. The owls, which usually spend winters near the U.S.-Canada border, have turned up in several places across Virginia and Maryland this year. Birding experts think the problem might be a shortage of lemmings, an important prey, on their home turf.
Bird experts said the last time a snowy owl was seen this close to the city's urban core was 1994, when one was spotted at Reagan National Airport. Greg Butcher of the National Audubon Society said he hoped this owl would move on from downtown: "We don't have too many lemmings here.'
I can't help but wonder where Mr. Butcher was in January..."
Oddly, the cooling trend of recent years and specifically that it's bloody cold this year! doesn't even appear to be a consideration for Arctic owls, rarely seen in these parts, now hanging out on L Street. Of course, were we instead speaking about the Arctic and a dragonfly or robin showed up -- or when someone's computer model predicts that soon there might be no more Arctic owls in Gucci Gulch...why, faster than expected, too! -- why, no doubt the Grey Lady would be swooning on its front page, detailing the horrors.
Advanced Techniques in Blogging
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 12:22PM
There is no justice in the universe, and perhaps even less in the blogosphere. One of my duties during the Conservative Political Action Conference was to act as chaperone/tour guide to a former intern attending her first CPAC. An associate editor for a lifestyle magazine, she found herself being asked repeatedly, "Do you have a blog?"
So a week ago, she decided to start one, after soliciting advice from her "Illustrious Mentor" on installing SiteMeter, etc. And today, she got her first Instalanche -- blogger slang for being linked by Professor Glenn Reynolds a/k/a "Instapundit."
As I explained to her, it took Jammie Wearing Fool six months of blogging before he got his first 'Lanche. Some guys blog for years and never get a 'Lanche. Maybe I should get a new business card printed: "Illustrious Mentor."
Sanford Asks To Use Stimulus Money to Pay Down Debt
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 12:17PM
Gov. Mark Sanford has sent a well-reasoned letter to the South Carolina legislature, informing them that he's requested that the Obama administration allow the state to redirect $700 million of the stimulus money that he has control over to pay down the state's debt.
"The reason we think it is not in our best interest to spend these monies lies in the fact that when one is in a hole, the first order of business is to stop digging," he writes. He explains that, "As a believer in federalism, I find it appalling that Washington would seek to effectively remake the entire budget process of the states. But philosophy aside, in the case of our state, doing so would lead to potentially disastrous budgetary consequences in future years."
The whole letter is well worth a read. Whatever you say about Sanford, he isn't just a Republican shouting empty platitudes about government waste for short-term political gain. He's actually a thoughtful conservative making a philosophical, moral and practical argument against expansive government power and reckless spending.
National Security Ethics 101
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 11:59AM
A lot can happen in three weeks. Back in early February, few had ever heard of Charles "Chas" Freeman. All that changed mid-month, when Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair formally nominated the former Clinton-era Ambassador to Saudi Arabia to serve as the new head of the intelligence community's top analytical body, the National Intelligence Council.
The nomination touched off a firestorm of controversy, with critics in the media and on Capitol Hill highlighting his anti-Israeli animus, his apologia for the Chinese government's brutal crackdown at Tiananmen, and his close links with Saudi Arabia's corrupt, autocratic regime as signs that Freeman was unfit for duty. (See, for example, here, here and here.) As repugnant as they might be, however, Freeman's personal views were not the real issue. Rather, it was his former service on the advisory board of China's state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and the fact that the think tank he founded, the Middle East Policy Council, receives not insignificant sums of money from the Saudi government, which raised insurmountable conflicts of interest that ultimately torpedoed his nomination. It was publicly withdrawn yesterday.
That someone closely linked to two regimes of significant concern to the national security of the United States - one an emerging strategic competitor and potential military challenger, the other the world's leading exporter of radical Islamist ideology - would raise red flags among policymakers should come as a surprise to no one, least of all a career diplomat. Freeman doesn't see it that way, however. "The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East," he wrote in an email message to supporters. "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth." Never mind that the coalition opposing Freeman's nomination was made up of much more than simply pro-Israel supporters, or that it was Freeman himself who had forged the commercial links to China and Saudi Arabia that ultimately disqualified him from being an impartial arbiter of intelligence.
In the grand scheme of things, the Freeman affair is a flash in the pan. The position for which the good ambassador was vying was not a confirmable one, or even one particularly well understood by those not versed in the ways of Beltway politics. But the lessons to be gleaned from it are significant, and international in scope. After years of their surrogates operating in Washington's corridors of power with relative impunity, Riyadh and Beijing have both been put on notice that their ability to peddle influence will no longer be as uncritically accepted. And that, in the end, is an unequivocally good thing for an administration that came to power promising greater transparency and an end to politicized intelligence.
We don' need no stinkin' treaties!
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 11:07AM
At the Heartland Institute's International Climate Change Conference in New York this weekend, I gave a talk addressing the argument made by Brookings' Nigel Purvis that, when it comes to roping the U.S. into Kyoto's successor, we need to recognize that "The United States should classify new international treaties to protect the Earth's climate system as executive agreements rather than treaties", because "The treaty clause has never worked as the framers of the Constitution intended."
By that really he means, upon clarification, that "The treaty process created by the framers of the Constitution requires an exceptional degree of national consensus that is no longer reasonable given the frequency and importance of international cooperation today", or, translated, that that which was intended to keep us from doing something too promiscuously has been overtaken by the practice of doing it too promiscuously and must be thrown overboard.
Kyoto II therefore should just be an executive agreement requiring 50-plus-1 "fast tracking" in both houses of Congress, not two-thirds Senate ratification.
Now, to be accurate and in apology to the tremendous audience which packed the room for our panel, in my haste to pull up the file and remove from it a few slides that I saw being covered by Marc Morano speaking before me, I actually gave a version of my 8 minute CPAC talk the week before - the correct, more in-depth treatment of the issue is the version which will be posted.
This talk tracked a piece I had in the February Engage of the Federalist Society.
I have had Kyotophiles raise their hands the moment I raise this issue, aah-aah-aah! a la Kramer of "Seinfeld", firmly instructing me that no one is really thinking about such things don't raise them don't raise them I don't hear you, etc.
As that could indicate, this isn't an issue that they find helpful to raise in advance of whatever's going to be done being done.
So it is with interest that I read a paper for Team Soros, the Center for American Progress, sent to me by someone in the audience and titled "A Changing Climate: The Road Ahead for the United States", making the same points made by Purvis, offering the same prescription and on the same grounds of restoring our credibility and so on.
It's full of pap about the U.S. having muzzled its scientists, cites hyper-alarmist and Obama nominee to be of all things chief science advisor John Holdren for propositions of a catastrophically warming world and the like, but is most intriguing for this:
The United States' own ratification process meanwhile presents special challenges. Ratifying a treaty is much tougher than passing domestic legislation, both because the Senate is classically hostile to requirements imposed by outside bodies such as the UN and because it requires 67 votes rather than the 51 required for domestic legislation or even the 60 required to break a filibuster. Even if a U.S. domestic cap-and-trade system were enacted, ratifying a treaty could be difficult, especially if the treaty required changes to elements of the domestic system, as it well might.
The obvious solution in the face of such meanies getting in your way by adhering to the Constitution when you've got a revolution to carry out is of course the congressional-executive agreement suggested by Purvis. The authors? "Todd Stern...senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a partner at WilmerHale in Washington, D.C. [and] William Antholis ... managing director of the Brookings Institution."
Stern is of course the new "climate envoy" for the United States, the apparent voice of reason downplaying the idea of U.S. involvement in some grand Kyoto 2.0 treaty (credit for which apparent realism I give him in a Human Events piece from yesterday).
So it's unclear which Stern is at work, but at least we do know that he, too, harbors aspirations of finding an end-run around the Constitution's troublesome two-thirds Senate approval requirement. It's pretty clear that this is in fact the Party Line. Maybe it's ok to talk about it now?
Greenspan Passes the Buck
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 10:43AM
Writing in the WSJ, Alan Greenspan argues that the Fed did not cause the housing bubble because the historically low mortgage rates that triggered the boom were not a result of Fed rate cuts, but of changes in the global economy. It's worth noting that during the height of the housing boom, Greenspan denied that a national housing bubble was possible. Here's what he had to say at an October 19, 2004 speech at America's Community Banker's Annual Convention:
Overall, while local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity.
Bad Day for Card Check
Posted by on 3.11.09 @ 9:05AM
After lots of bluster, Harry Reid was forced to acknowledge that he may have to delay card check legislation as even Democrat Ben Nelson came out against it (at least in its current form). When it came to the stimulus package, Democrats could pass lousy legislation by arguing that there was an urgent need to do something about the economy. But card check is such a transparently bad bill that would not only be undemocratic by denying workers a secret ballot, but it would actually increase unemployment at a time when the Obama administration has allegedly made job creation its top priority. It's hard to see how anybody would support this unless they're either a member of a union or receiving money from unions.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Specter and Card Check
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 5:38PM
Ramesh Ponnuru writes that the politics of the Employee Free Choice Act "don't seem all that complex" and Arlen Specter's "own political interests counsel opposition to EFCA." In the Republican primary, that's certainly true but the politics of EFCA are more complex for Specter than most other Republicans. Specter typically enjoys union support -- that is, the backing of union leaders, not just the rank-and-file -- in general elections. The AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the American Federal Government Employees Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -- all these unions and more endorsed Specter in 2004.
Specter's political interests in the Republican primary suggest that he should join the rest of his party in voting against card check, as he now seems open to doing. But that level of union support can be helpful come November in a state like Pennsylvania, and it might not be forthcoming against a pro-EFCA Democrat unless Specter toes the line.
Peg Luksik
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 5:15PM
Could potentially beat Arlen Specter in a two-way race, though she'd make it very difficult for Pat Toomey to win in a three-way race and would have an even harder time than Toomey at holding the Senate seat (assuming political conditions aren't radically different by 2010). Luksik won 46 percent of the vote in the 1990 Republican gubernatorial primary against Barbara Hafer. As the Constitution Party's gubernatorial nominee in the next two elections, she won 12 percent and 10 percent. Even assuming some shrinkage in her base, neither Specter nor Toomey can ignore her.
Conservative Activist to Challenge Specter in Primary
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 2:06PM
From the Associated Press in the last hour, making the rounds in Pennsylvania:
A conservative activist from Johnstown who ran for governor three times in the 1990s says she'll challenge Arlen Specter for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate next year.
Peg Luksik said Tuesday she is not deterred by the prospective candidacy of former congressman Pat Toomey, a fellow conservative who narrowly lost to Specter in the 2004 primary. Toomey recently said he's considering running again in 2010.
Luksik says Toomey told her in February that he wasn't running for the Senate. She says it's up to Toomey to decide whether he want to risk dividing the GOP's conservative wing and allowing Specter to win a sixth term.
Luksik is best known as an anti-abortion activist.
This could complicate life for Toomey, far and away the better positioned to challenge Specter.
Unions and the High Court
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 1:51PM
My latest at the Examiner. Comments welcome.
Clinton Going Soft on Human Rights
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 1:24PM
The Washington Post hammers Hillary Clinton, and by extension the Obama administration, for the unwillingness to call out China, Egypt, and now Turkey on human rights violations and supression of speech. "Ms. Clinton is doing a disservice to her own department -- and sending a message to rulers around the world that their abuses won't be taken seriously by this U.S. administration," the Post editorializes.
While none of this should come as surprising, it's worth noting that during the Democratic primaries, Clinton touted her record of fighting for human rights as a key part of her vast resume of foreign policy experience, specifically boasting about a trip she made to China in 1995 in which she gave a speech about women's rights. "I've been standing up against, you know, the Chinese government over women's rights and standing up for human rights in many different places," she told CNN last March.
Specter's Primary Problem
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 11:40AM
Dave Weigel reports that Arlen Specter is in serious trouble with Republican primary voters.
Freeze!
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 11:19AM
The House Republicans are getting a lot of grief for their unsuccessful attempt to freeze domestic discretionary spending at last year's levels. "Irresponsible," "insane," and "Don't they know there's a recesssion going on?" are some of the responses. But all such a spending freeze would do -- we're not talking about the entire federal budget here -- is replace the Democrats' $410 billion omnibus spending bill with last year's appropriations at a savings of not even $20 billion.
A $17 billion reduction in the context of a $3.55 trillion budget isn't insane or irresponsible. If anything, it is far too small to make much of a difference in Washington's $1 trillion-a-month club. Like a lot of what the Republicans do, it is neither as outlandish as the Democrats make it sound nor something likely to produce great benefits for the economy or the GOP's political fortunes.
UPDATE: Apparently I'm not making myself clear. As a fiscal and political response, the spending freeze falls well short of what the Republicans need to do. All I am saying is the argument that this would be some kind of radical defunding of the federal government in the midst of a recession is false.
Analyst Downgrades Wal-Mart Stock on Card Check
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 10:57AM
A Citigroup analyst has downgraded Wal-Mart's stock writing that it would increase labor costs and and pinch their profits. "We believe that (Wal-Mart) would be the primary target if EFCA/card check were to be passed," the anlayst wrote. Just what the economy needs.
Card Check Is In the Mail
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 10:39AM
The Employee Free Choice Act is going to be introduced in both houses of Congress today. There had been some speculation that it was to going to be altered to bifurcate card check and mandatory arbitration, since the latter is just as important to organized labor but more difficult to make readily accessible arguments against, but I'm hearing both components will be in the bill. We'll know soon enough.
Have You Hugged an Abortionist Today?
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 10:34AM
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 3.10.09 @ 9:59AM
- When faced with a false choice between science and politics, Obama takes the extreme anti-life route (WSJ)
- If you don't have one tenth the moral character and understanding of bioethics that Bush had, you must be Barack Obama (NRO)
- Dr. Seuss environmentalism (Economix)
- Yes, wanting the Dems to fail is as American as apple pie (DC Examiner)
- The left turns its sights on Eric Cantor (Politico)
- If you're so smart, Harvard MBAs, how come you have destroyed the world? (Times UK)
Monday, March 9, 2009
I Heard The Crowd Laugh And Knew In My Heart They Wanted Socialism
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 4:04PM
Just as a matter of personal taste, I haven't even the slightest interest in seeing Watchmen, but I did think it was amusing to see Entertainment Weekly so swoony over the film's "at least two shout-outs to Woodward and Bernstein"--breathtaking!--and accidental endorsement of Obama's stimulus plan:
The biggest laugh Watchmen got at the sold-out, 9 a.m., IMAX suburban-theater show I went to on Saturday occurred [SOMETHING OF A SPOILER ALERT HERE--LOOK AWAY IF YOU MUST!] when the Lee Iacocca-businessman-figure said, "Free is just another word for socialist." It was the happily derisive laugh of a crowd that was totally into the movie, and which also seemed well aware of the recent effort to label the Obama stimulus package as "socialist"--and the audience clearly thought the use of that supposedly-inflammatory word was a joke.
One of the silly reactionaries most concerned over "that supposedly-inflammatory word" is, of course, Barack Obama, who some of you may recall from a recent issue of Spider-Man.
UPDATE: See also Tabin's take on the complicated politics of the film.
Re: Bush Started It!
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 3:39PM
Philip is absolutely on target on all counts. Of course, Obama doesn't NEED to maintain intellectual consistency, because he is THE ONE chosen by the lefty establishment media.
As for Bush, way back when a certain actress was still hedging about her own level of purity, in either 2004 or early early 2005 -- I'll have to look up the exact date -- I wrote that "Bush is a conservative in the same way Britney Spears is a virgin: only when it suits his marketing."
Credit Don Devine's Conservative Battleline for printing that column of mine, and credit the San Francisco Chronicle, now endangered, for reprinting it shortly thereafter.
But don't blame Bush alone. Blame Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, and a host of others as well. The 2 a.m.-to-5 a.m. vote on the prescription drug abomination was mostly their work (although Bush did arrive back from abroad and start making calls sometime in that last hour of cheating), as were the pork fests beginning in 1998 and the corporate whoredom that made the tax code so much more of a monstrosity than it already was.
All of which is just to add to Phil's excellent post.
Meanwhile, In The States...
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 3:34PM
Since last fall's electoral drubbing, bewildered Republicans have increasingly looked to the states, where the party's crop of governors are providing leadership and policy direction. One such state is Indiana, where Governor Mitch Daniels has spent the past few years fighting the state's exorbitant property taxes.
Last March, the state legislature passed Daniels's tax-relief plan which restructured the state's property tax code to add a penny to the sales tax and drop Indiana's property taxes to the 9th lowest in the nation.
One year and a legislative session later, the governor is urging Indiana's lawmakers to make the tax-relief permanent by amending the state's constitution to include a property tax cap of 1 percent of a home's assessed value.
Interestingly, Indiana's Democrats, who apparently did not get the memo from President Obama regarding change, are fighting such an amendment which they want to put off (at least) until next year. This delay is awkwardly timed considering Indiana's home values and sales have sharply declined, and construction has slowed to a crawl. Now would seem to be the time for permanent tax relief.
To that end, Hoosier's will be gathering at their statehouse tomorrow morning to stage a tea party of sorts, with a special appearance by their governor. Daniels, along with those gathered at the rally, will urge the state legislature to permanently reduce the burden on Indiana's property owners.
A property tax battle in the Midwest might not exactly be a headline grabber, but if the states are indeed going to be the testing and refining ground for new and fresh applications of tired and true principles, and if we are indeed going to look to Republican governors for inspiration, this is a battle worth watching.
Bush Started It!
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 3:25PM
In response to the question of whether or not his policies were socialistic, Obama said:
"I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -– the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can’t say the same."
I can't say I'm surprised to hear Obama make such an argument. In fact, back in 2007, before all of the Bush bailouts started, I wrote:
In a sense, President Bush has already paved the road for a figure with Obama's skills to reassert liberalism. Under Bush, the size of government has increased at a faster rate than during any administration since Lyndon Johnson's, and it has given us the monstrosities of the Medicare prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind. Rhetorically, Bush gave away the store by touting "compassionate conservatism "and notoriously uttering, "When somebody hurts, government has got to move." Considering that this all came from somebody identified as a conservative president, Republicans are left with little leverage to argue against Obama's "slight change in priorities."
Unfortunately, this is where we now find ourselves. But at the same time, by painting Bush as a big government conservative, President Obama is undermining his own argument that somehow eight years of Bush showed us what happens if a society is overly reliant on free markets.
Rorschach as Objectivist?
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 3:07PM
Note: If you haven't read Watchmen or seen the movie, skip this post. There are spoilers, and you won't know what I'm talking about anyway.
Brian Doherty writes at Reason that Rorschach is "probably the most vivid and well-thought-out Objectivist hero that Rand didn’t create." It's true that Steve Ditko created The Question as an Objectivist hero, and that Alan Moore based Rorschach on The Question. But it's a little silly to think of Rorschach as a Randian given how much Moore, a leftist, deviates in his portrayal from how Randians actually think. In one scene Rorschach menacingly scolds Moloch for having illegal medication; Randians are generally libertarian on drugs, and wouldn't get indignant about a violation of prescription drug laws. Rorschach's attitudes toward sex also don't quite fit for an Objectivist; Rand herself had convoluted and sometimes contradictory ideas about sexual morality that some of her followers may defend, but there's nothing Randian about Rorschach's repulsion at fornication per se.
The political landscape of Watchmen really doesn't allow for philosophical subtlety. The right-wingers are all grotesque caricatures. The New Frontiersman at one point runs an item from the "crank file" addressed to "The Jewnited States of America." Moore has actually refered to Rorschach in interviews as a "very fascist character" (which indicates that Moore doesn't really understand fascism, either). This is defensible in a comic book, especially in Watchmen, where the twist at the end is that the good lefty turns out to be the villain and the crazy righty turns out to be the only one who stands up for the truth. In a way, Rorschach is both too simple and too interesting to really be thought of as an Objectivist hero.
Frum vs. Limbaugh
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 2:43PM
As a broadly "paleo-sympathetic" conservative, I have no problem with right-wing criticism of the conservative movement. From that perspective, what the movement has actually conserved is more important than how many elections it has won. But a trend I first noticed among some of my paleo friends is starting to repeat itself among self-styled "reformist" conservatives like David Frum. (Never thought you'd read a Frum-paleo comparison, did you?) At some point, reproaching the mainstream conservative movement, criticizing its most popular writers and commentators, and expressing befuddlement at the political habits of millions of ordinary voters who sympathize with the movement all end up becoming stronger identifying characteristics than the alternate vision of conservatism the non-movement cons seek to promote.
This isn't so much of a problem for those paleos who have basically given up on trying to influence the conservative movement. Some of them hope to replace mainstream conservatism with stronger right-wing stuff; some of them aren't looking for political relevance at all. But the reformist project is specifically aimed at saving the conservative movement -- and the Republican Party -- from itself. Whatever you think of that mission, it can't succeed without maintaining a certain level of influence among regular conservatives and Republicans. Becoming known as the conservatives Newsweek can go to for scathing rebukes of Rush Limbaugh does not seem to be the best way to maintain or build that influence. Just ask Kevin Phillips.
Enjoying Upstream
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 1:58PM
I recently got a copy of Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism by AmSpec's publisher Al Regnery and went to work on it.
First, if you are a conservative without much knowledge of the history of the movement, then you must read the book. You'll have a much richer appreciation of the battles that have been fought and why some of the fault lines are still there.
Second, the book is just fun to read. Regnery tells the story in an entertaining fashion and has interviewed many of the big names. SLIGHT SPOILER: Hubert Humphrey embraced conservatism before his death! Or, at least, so claimed Paul Laxalt in an interview with Regnery.
Upstream stands up nicely to other movement histories like George Nash's The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945 and Lee Edwards' The Conservative Revolution.
Obama Reverses Bush Policy on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 12:17PM
The Washington Post editorializes -- er, I mean reports -- that "Obama aims to shield science from politics." If that's so, why is Obama only lifting the restrictions on taxpayer-subsized human experimentation demanded by his political base? (Hat tip: Ramesh Ponnuru.) And why is this happening so soon after new breakthroughs in stem-cell research without the embryo destruction? Perhaps the Obama administration's science policy is not above politics.
UPDATE: The president's remarks before signing the executive order were classic Obama: thoughtful, respectful, and nuanced -- but ultimately what the rhetoric giveth, the substance taketh away. Consider:
It's a difficult and delicate balance. And many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. And I understand their concerns, and I believe that we must respect their point of view.
But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and from all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.
That is a conclusion with which I agree.
But the "we" who should "pursue this research" is the American taxpayer. Obama wants to respect the viewpoints of people who oppose the deliberate destruction of human embryos. But not respect their point of view enough to avoid taking money from them by force for this purpose, even as other alternatives develop.
The Bright Side's Dark Side
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 10:33AM
Obviously, I agree with Daniel Larison that the gap between Barack Obama and John McCain was less than seismic. In fact, before the election I wrote:
Obama and McCain agree on expanded taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research, campaign-finance reform, a costly cap-and-trade approach to reducing emissions, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and maintaining the current high levels of legal immigration. Until McCain flipped before his second presidential bid, they both opposed the Bush tax cuts. They agree, with some nuances, on affirmative action and bilingual education. They agree on an interventionist foreign policy, though they would intervene in different places. They agree on effectively imposing pharmaceutical price controls through Medicare (McCain’s otherwise honorable vote against the prescription-drug benefit was largely motivated by this concern.) Even on issues where they disagree, like gun control, they are not always as far apart as advertised -- Obama received an F from the National Rifle Association, McCain a C.
To that you could add the fact that Obama and McCain agreed on the TARP bailout, both favored some form of mortgage bailout, and share the same basic Government Must Do Something impluse on most policy questions. I also said repeatedly to anyone who would listen -- which, unfortunately, turned out to not be very many people -- that the next president was likely to be worse in many key respects than George W. Bush no matter whether Obama or McCain was elected.
Maybe the stimulus bill wouldn't happened or would have taken a more productive, less costly form under McCain. But that's just a maybe. The federal budget for the coming fiscal year would probably contain fewer earmarks and one could hope, though not guarantee, that it would have clocked in at less than $3.6 trillion. President McCain would not have gotten rid of the Mexico City policy on abortion or boosted card check. His judges -- at least the nominees he could have gotten confirmed by a Democratic Senate -- would have been better than Obama's, but not great. McCain's health care plan would have been much better than Obama's, though probably forgotten about as soon as the election was over and never implemented.
Having said all that, we don't have a President McCain implementing bad policies. We have a President Obama implementing bad policies. It would seem to make more sense to oppose the bad policies being implemented right now than to worry about whether we would have less company in opposition on the right under McCain. Arguing "McCain would have been as bad or worse" is no more productive right now than arguing "McCain is a Republican, so everything he does is okay," even if the former statement is truer than the latter.
Buffett Comes Out Against Card Check
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 10:29AM
I've long been an admirer of Warren Buffett since my days as a financial journalist even though his political views tend to be misguided. But he gave conservatives something to cheer about this morning when he came out against card check on CNBC in his characteristically plain-spoken style. "I think the secret ballot’s pretty important in the country," he said. "I’m against card check to make a perfectly flat statement."
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 8:37AM
- Obama's best skill is glossing over inconsistencies and hidden motivations (Washington Post)
- Lazy, undisciplined Obama unable to maintain the pace set by superhuman workout machine George W. Bush (Telegraph)
- For those who haven't seen it, hopefully the last episode in the Rush wars (Newsweek)
- Mary Eberstadt picks up where George Will left off re: food (Policy Review)
- Time to get spiritually tough (USA Today)
Miniter Nails It, Right Off the Bat
Posted by on 3.9.09 @ 8:35AM
In the e-mail press release announcing his hiring as Vice President of Opinion at The Washington Times, Richard Miniter is quoted thus:
"The Internet has transformed the environment for opinion writing," Mr. Miniter said. "Every blogger has an opinion and the market for pure opinion is saturated. We are going to be different. Readers want editorials, op-eds and columns based on reporting and news. We expect our editorial writers to act like reporters and then add insight and perspective to explain what it all means. And we will respond at blog speed."
I've been saying the same thing for years. The privileged positions within the newspaper industry enjoyed by op-ed columnists like David Brooks have been rendered obsolete by the rise of the blogosphere. Were there any justice in the world, the New York Times would have axed overpaid opinionators like Brooks and Maureen Dowd rather than eviscerating its news-reporting operation.
Good to see that finally someone in the newspaper business gets it.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Britain's Green Clown Prince
Posted by on 3.8.09 @ 9:19PM
From time to time evidence surfaces to remind Americans that they did exactly the right thing in booting out the British monarchy. This is such an occasion.
Prince Charles, already renowned for his obnoxious bloviations about the environment, is turning up the volume Al Gore-style. His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales now says the nations of the world have "less than 100 months to act" to save the Earth from a climate-change induced death spiral, the Telegraph reports.
Of course this is utter nonsense.
Long may Queen Elizabeth reign, if only to keep her embarrassing son off the throne that it's clear he would use as a leftist bully pulpit.
Socialist? Moi?
Posted by on 3.8.09 @ 7:40PM
President Obama is quite touchy about being referred to as a "socialist."
After appearing dismissive of a New York Times reporter's question about whether he was a socialist, he took the unusual step of placing a post-interview call to the Old Gray Lady to clarify his remarks, the Washington Times reports.
"It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," said the new Oval Office inhabitant who remarked during the campaign that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Explaining the various government spending sprees and bailout packages that dwarf anything that President George W. Bush may have even fantasized about, Obama blamed the ancien regime and "lax regulation," a favorite whipping boy for those who don't understand how markets work.
"The fact that we've had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk taking has precipitated a crisis," Obama said.
You may recall that Vice President Joe Biden got similarly defensive during the campaign when TV reporter Barbara West asked Biden if Obama-Biden policies were "Marxist."
Finally, a Good Idea to Save the Banks
Posted by on 3.8.09 @ 6:39PM
It took a while, but Secretary Tim Geithner finally figured out how to develop a plan to save the banks. At least, it sounded like Secretary Geithner. Check out the SNL clip on Greg Mankiw's blog. It certainly made more sense than what Geithner has said in the past.
Kind of Ironic That He's Named "Freeman"
Posted by on 3.8.09 @ 12:42PM
Matt Welch can't understand why liberals are defending Chas Freeman, BFF to Saudi and Chinese oligarchs. "Remember," he asks, "when Saudi-bashing was a lefty thing?"
Yes, but that was when there was a Republican in the White House. Now that a Democrat is president, it's perfectly okay to appoint dictators' stooges. Hope and Change!
- The Podhoretz Method
- Two Weddings and a Demerol
- No Freedom Left Behind