The Spectacle Blog
Today, the Washington Post recounts how Magen David Adom, the Israeli equivelent of the Red Cross, finally became a member of the international Red Cross, after nearly 60 years of being denied entry because it wanted to use the Star of David as its emblem. Missing from the article was a recounting of a 1999 incident, in which Cornelio Sommaruga, former head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), was quoted as saying, "If we're going to have the Shield of David, why would we not have to accept the swastika?"
Everyone seems to expect President Bush's unpopularity to be a huge drag on Republican candidates in November. But the funny thing about Bush is how closely his approval ratings correlate to gas prices. So if it's true that the price at the pump is poised to keep falling for months, shouldn't we be more optimistic about the GOP's fortunes this November?
Given our Giuliani discussion, I thought it would be worthwhile to point out some data from the latest Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. It backs up what I've been saying about Rudy's chances of capturing the Republican nomination.
The headline number is that Giuliani is the first choice of 32 percent of Republicans, McCain, his closest rival, is at 20 percent. Meanwhile, Gingrich at 10 percent, Frist is at 8 percent, Romney is at 5 percent and Allen is at 4 percent.
There have been questions raised as to whether Giuliani can succeed in the South, given his liberal social views. Well, a separate question asked respondents how they like certain politicians "as a person," on a scale from 0 to 100. In the South, Giuliani scored 62.4, which is higher than anyone else on the list, including McCain and President Bush.
People may like Giuliani as a person, critics may contend, but their support will errode once they learn of his liberal social views. However, yet another question in the poll asked:
It happens every once in a while. You discover something that is really special, that should be incredibly successful, but unaccountably, isn't. A very well read friend made me aware of the fiction of Lars Walker. He writes mostly about Vikings during the period when Christianity contended with pagan religions, but he also has a contemporary novel (which happens to deal with Viking lore!).
I cannot give a high enough recommendation to Lars Walker's The Year of the Warrior. I had to wait for it, but it was completely worth the wait. The narrator of the story is a young Irishman taken captive to sell as a slave by Vikings. They give him a tonsure to make him look like a priest so he'll fetch a higher price. A newly converted Viking nobleman buys him because he needs a priest for his village. The Irishman decides to play the part of the priest in order to survive and the action flows from there.
From the Washington Post:
In a speech Monday to the General Assembly's money committees, Kaine again offered a laundry list of transportation projects that need more money, including improvements to Interstate 66, the Capital Beltway, Metro and Virginia Railway Express. But he conceded that the public strongly opposes the tax increases he proposed earlier.
"They are aware that solutions will cost money," Kaine said, citing recent polls of the public. "But they don't want to pay more taxes."
That grinding sound you hear is the Post editorialists gnashing their teeth.
I'll be on tonight (about 5:45 pm) debating Larry Korb on the Rumsfeld speech yesterday. Interesting part of that is the AP story which kicked off the misreporting of what Rumsfeld said. Kudlow's producer sent the first to me yesterday, and it didn't sound right. Checking with the Pentagon proved it materially wrong.
Their first version -- since rewritten at least twice -- said Rumsfeld, "...accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease a 'new type of fascism.'" But Rumsfeld never made that accusation.
After the Pentagon raised hell with AP, the third re-write said, "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday the world faces 'a new type of fascism' and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement."
Hunter, I grew up in and around New York city. I remember it at its (pre-Bloomberg) worst. Trash everywhere, gangs on the streets, pedestrians unable to have a conversation because of all the horns blowing. The broken warehouse window should have been copyrighted as the city's trademark. Then came Rudy.
Clean streets, a city once again a pleasure to walk in, and much safer to do just that. He proved his worth long before 9-11. And now Bloomberg is ruining it all over again.
But does all of Giuliani's good translate into a warfighting president who can lead the nation and the world? Is he dedicated to being a small government conservative? Will the right-to-lifers even let him compete for the nomination?
I'd like to like Rudy. So far, there are too many unanswered questions to make any judgment other than he'd be better than McCain. ABM voters unite.
Shawn, fair enough if we're talking about things from a philosophical, rather than purely political perspective. I agree that Republicans can use a healthy dose of anti-statism. With that said, it's worth adding that there's a lot libertarians could do to gain more influence within the Republican Party. The reality is that politicians are primarily interested in winning elections, and the only way to gain influence is to convince them that you can help them win. Religious conservatives weren't always a major part of the party, but once they proved themselves a dependable voting bloc, willing to volunteer and turnout on Election Day, they won a seat at the table. Sure, they haven't gotten much of what they wanted, but they are surely better off than they would have been had they sat on their hands for the past several decades (if nothing else, look at Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts). In contrast, libertarians tend to be a cynical bunch not likely to get involved in the cheesy elements of bumper-sticker politics that dominate elections.
Phillip writes: I have done a lot of writing about how frustration over spending may hamper turnout among conservatives and swing control of Congress to the Democrats (see the March issue of TAS and also here), but my basic point earlier today was that the type of libertarians Tierney found in Amsterdam already defected from the Republican Party. So, I don't think Gillespie's statement that, "Most of the libertarians I know have given up on the G.O.P" means much for November, because I'm sure he would have said the exact same thing two years ago.