I agree that McCain is a disaster waiting to happen, especially on the judges front. McCain's alleged off the cuff remark about Sam Alito betrays what we all already knew: McCain has an agenda in the judiciary and it centers around keeping his signature legislative achievement alive and well -- McCain -- Feingold. Alito would not uphold this 1st Amendment squelching law, and McCain knows it.
And not that it needs to be said, but a judge who will ignore the 1st Amendment is a judge who will never recognize the right to life of the unborn.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Big Mac on judges
Bench Memos is ablaze today with a conflagration over John McCain's privately-expressed opinion that Justice Alito was a bad pick for SCOTUS because he "wears his conservatism on his sleeve." The reader bears in mind that McCain is the same Senator who, with Russ Feingold, sponsored the most effective curb on political speech to come out of Congress in decades. So, one reasonable interpretation of "wears his conservatism on his sleeve" might be "thinks that the First Amendment means what it says."
Whatever McCain meant by the statement, the statement is surely troubling. If McCain means that Alito is a judicial activist who substitutes conservative policy preferences for considered legal reasoning then the statement is simply wrong as a factual matter. This calls McCain's veracity into question. This is not to say that McCain lied. Perhaps McCain misrepresented the truth because he wasn't paying attention during the Alito confirmation hearings. (Was he asleep, bored, playing video games? I was 2000 miles from the Capitol yet I watched with intense interest.)
If McCain intended to equate originalism with conservatism, then we have a real problem on our hands, as Wendy Long explains.
Whatever McCain meant by the statement, the statement is surely troubling. If McCain means that Alito is a judicial activist who substitutes conservative policy preferences for considered legal reasoning then the statement is simply wrong as a factual matter. This calls McCain's veracity into question. This is not to say that McCain lied. Perhaps McCain misrepresented the truth because he wasn't paying attention during the Alito confirmation hearings. (Was he asleep, bored, playing video games? I was 2000 miles from the Capitol yet I watched with intense interest.)
If McCain intended to equate originalism with conservatism, then we have a real problem on our hands, as Wendy Long explains.
"Slow down our economy"
We here in the Cloakroom commend Bill Clinton for his candor.
Now, if Mrs. Obama is inclined to advocate for emboldening our enemies by withdrawing from Iraq, we would gladly provide a forum for her comments.
Now, if Mrs. Obama is inclined to advocate for emboldening our enemies by withdrawing from Iraq, we would gladly provide a forum for her comments.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
So long, Rudy
Say what you will about Guliani's candidacy for the White House (I, for one, was always skeptical about his commitment to appointing originalist judges to SCOTUS and the lower federal courts), the man is a great American and a terrific leader. Watching his speech from Florida last evening was a melancholic moment; it sure seemed like a concession speech.
More than that, it was a moment when I was proud to be a conservative. Even (arguably) the most liberal contender on the Republican side gets it. Rudy understands the existential threat that Islamic fascism poses to our nation. He acknowledges evil and understands how to resist it. He is optimistic about our nation and its future. And he believes that the solution to what ails us is not found in bigger government but rather in the American people themselves. In short, as President he would have been vastly superior to anyone on the Democratic side.
In a presidential election cycle in which conservatives are tempted to despondency, it is worth remembering that it is better to be a servant in the house of conservatism than a ruler in the house of the liberals.
More than that, it was a moment when I was proud to be a conservative. Even (arguably) the most liberal contender on the Republican side gets it. Rudy understands the existential threat that Islamic fascism poses to our nation. He acknowledges evil and understands how to resist it. He is optimistic about our nation and its future. And he believes that the solution to what ails us is not found in bigger government but rather in the American people themselves. In short, as President he would have been vastly superior to anyone on the Democratic side.
In a presidential election cycle in which conservatives are tempted to despondency, it is worth remembering that it is better to be a servant in the house of conservatism than a ruler in the house of the liberals.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Bob Casey: Economic Imbecile
Seriously...how did this guy get elected to the Senate?
Bob Casey says that when it comes to stimulating the economy we can't just do "things we want to do" but we need to "do things that will work." So his proposal is to take an already crappy stimulus plan and add more handouts to more Democratic constituencies. He wants to tack on unemployment insurance and more federal funding for food stamps...yes, that's right, onto an economic stimulus bill. As Cavuto rightly points out, this may result in a bill weighing in at over $200 billion (hey Dems, I thought you cared about the deficit?).
Welcome to liberal economics 101...or better known as never never land.
This is more of the same from Washington. We know how to stimulate the economy in ways that last, but few in DC have the political courage to propose it.
Bob Casey says that when it comes to stimulating the economy we can't just do "things we want to do" but we need to "do things that will work." So his proposal is to take an already crappy stimulus plan and add more handouts to more Democratic constituencies. He wants to tack on unemployment insurance and more federal funding for food stamps...yes, that's right, onto an economic stimulus bill. As Cavuto rightly points out, this may result in a bill weighing in at over $200 billion (hey Dems, I thought you cared about the deficit?).
Welcome to liberal economics 101...or better known as never never land.
This is more of the same from Washington. We know how to stimulate the economy in ways that last, but few in DC have the political courage to propose it.
The Republican Retreat
Cal Thomas is pitch perfect today in his column about the Republican retreat at last week's GOP "retreat" in West Virginia:
House Republican Leader John Boehner implored his fellow Republicans to "sacrifice" by agreeing to a one-year moratorium on earmarks to "prove" that Republicans are the party that can fix Washington. Someone should have pointed out to Boehner that the word "fix" is also used to describe the neutering that occurs at a veterinarian's office to keep a pet from reproducing. The Republican Party is engaging in self-mutilation.
President Bush, according to The Wall Street Journal, chose to "use his State of the Union address to lay down his toughest anti-earmarking pledge to date tell Congress that he will veto any fiscal 2009 spending bill that doesn't cut earmarks in half from 2008 levels" and issue "a Presidential order informing executive departments that from now on they should refuse to fund earmarks that aren't explicitly mentioned in statutory language."
This would have been more credible and more effective had it occurred when Republicans controlled Congress. Too many Republicans continue to embrace the notion that more spending on pork barrel projects will keep them in office. They should have been disabused of that notion when they lost control of Congress in the 2006 election, largely because their collusion with President Bush on spending and expansion of government mimicked the Democrats. The Republican rank and file and Independent voters prefer their liberalism straight up rather than diluted by party leaders.
The best opportunity Republicans had at their retreat to prove they see the light on spending was to name the tireless anti-pork crusader Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, to the powerful Appropriations Committee. This would have been the equivalent of placing a preacher at the entrance to a house of ill repute, or a member of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union on an alcohol beverage and control board. The analogies are apt because too many politicians are drunk on power and behave like harlots with other people's money.
Flake, who was passed over for the post, would be the conscience of the committee, which has been devoid of a moral compass no matter which party controls the House. He sends out news releases spotlighting the "Egregious Earmark of the Week." Last week's was $1.12 million for potato research, which he characterized as "a waste of money no matter how you spell it."
In a phone call from the retreat, Flake told me his colleagues rejected an earmark moratorium after hearing pleas from some members that earmarks were the only way they can get re-elected (whatever happened to ideas?). He said Republicans called on Democrats to act first and that by doing so they missed an opportunity to stand on principle and win political points. Flake predicted, "we'll get there" on earmark restraint, but not until after more Republicans are indicted and "an anti-earmark crusader like John McCain or Mitt Romney is nominated and elected president."
Olbermann can't help himself
Yesterday Keith Olbermann named Mary Katharine Ham "World's Worst Person" for no particular reason. Congrats to MKH. Question: Is it not excruciatingly obvious from the clip below that Olby is doing everything in his power to hide his crush on MKH?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
McCain Misleads on Taxes ... Again
McCain has been misleading voters about the reason for his opposition to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. At the time, he said it was because they favored the rich. Now he says it was because he wanted additional spending cuts.
Now, McCain is misleading voters about his opposition to making these tax cuts permanent. At the time, he said it was because extending them would increase the deficit. But today, on Meet the Press, McCain said it was because the economy in 2004 "was fine". He said he is now in favor of making them permanent because the economy has become "shaky". Check it out:
The national unemployment rate was HIGHER in June of 2004 (5.6%) when McCain said he opposed making the tax cuts permanent than it is today (5.0%). Also, the national unemployment rate in May of 2003 when he voted against the pro-growth tax cuts was over a full point HIGHER (6.1%) than it is today. In both instances, McCain opposed the tax relief when the economy was more "shaky" than it is now.
Nice try, Senator, but the only reason you are concerned about the economy now and claim to support making tax relief permanent is because your economic record is coming back to haunt you and could cost you the Republican nomination.
Now, McCain is misleading voters about his opposition to making these tax cuts permanent. At the time, he said it was because extending them would increase the deficit. But today, on Meet the Press, McCain said it was because the economy in 2004 "was fine". He said he is now in favor of making them permanent because the economy has become "shaky". Check it out:
The national unemployment rate was HIGHER in June of 2004 (5.6%) when McCain said he opposed making the tax cuts permanent than it is today (5.0%). Also, the national unemployment rate in May of 2003 when he voted against the pro-growth tax cuts was over a full point HIGHER (6.1%) than it is today. In both instances, McCain opposed the tax relief when the economy was more "shaky" than it is now.
Nice try, Senator, but the only reason you are concerned about the economy now and claim to support making tax relief permanent is because your economic record is coming back to haunt you and could cost you the Republican nomination.
Facts are irrelevant
John McCain and his surrogates are making a dishonest attack on Mitt Romney. McCain would have us believe that in April Mitt Romney endorsed the Democrat plans for a timetable for withdrawal. He makes this attack by twisting Romney's words to make them mean the opposite of what the former governor actually meant.
Allah has the transcript of the Romney remarks in April:
These are the same characters who brought us the amnesty bill this year and they are behaving the exact same way now as they did then. When they introduced the immigration bill they were smugly confident that they could simply repeat the words "this is not amnesty" over and over again. They thought they could do this and folks would fall in line and take their word for it. Things didn't quite work out that way then, and I hope and expect they won't this time either.
Allah has the transcript of the Romney remarks in April:
QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?Now check out Lindsey Graham denying reality:
MR. ROMNEY: Well, there’s no question but that — the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement. You don’t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.
QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn’t do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven’t reached the Rhine by this date, why, we’ll go home, or if we haven’t gotten this accomplished we’ll pull up and leave? You don’t publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don’t do that with the opposition.
These are the same characters who brought us the amnesty bill this year and they are behaving the exact same way now as they did then. When they introduced the immigration bill they were smugly confident that they could simply repeat the words "this is not amnesty" over and over again. They thought they could do this and folks would fall in line and take their word for it. Things didn't quite work out that way then, and I hope and expect they won't this time either.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Bush Legacy: A Fractured Party
Peggy Noonan wrote a bold column in the Wall Street Journal this week in which she accused President Bush of destroying the Republican Party.
Noonan's observation was tough to read -- tough because it rings true. The President has compromised conservative values time and again to pass legacy-building legislation. Now these decisions have fractured the Republican coalition and compromised the President's legacy.
On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It's not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn't work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That's the way to help.
Romney on Social Security Reform
There is a fascinating post over at Ground Game about the unidentified voice that was heard after Tim Russert asked Mitt Romney how he would save Social Security.
During last night's debate, Mitt Romney was asked if he would emulate Ronald Reagan's 1983 Social Security reforms. As the question was being asked, viewers could hear an unidentified voice whispering, "raise taxes." Was it a MSNBC producer accidentally speaking over the air? A Romney surrogate tipping the candidate toward his answer? Seems a bit paranoid, but that hasn't stopped bloggers from discussing. Maybe it was the box on President Bush's back from the 2004 debate? Listen and watch for yourself:Setting aside the conspiracy theories, I thought Romney's answer was pretty good on its substance. Taxes should not be raised and personal savings should be allowed. Romney left the door open to increasing the retirement age and to benefit cuts for those with higher incomes. Hopefully he wouldn't pursue a "comprehensive" fix like President did, which ultimately failed under its own weight. Social Security is a major problem that may need to be solved in stages. The first step should be to stop the raid on the Social Security trust fund and allow Americans to save a portion of their taxes in personal retirement accounts. Congress shouldn't be allowed to steal this money for spending on other government programs.
Audacity or shamelessness?
Work prevented me from commenting on this article yesterday, but I cannot let it pass into the e-archives without criticism. Michael Brendan Dougherty suggests in his article, The Audacity of Huck, that Huckabee's importance in this election cycle may arise out of his representation of a new evangelical political movement. According to Dougherty, Huckabee leads an evangelical groundswell that, no longer content to play second violin in the Republican orchestra, is bucking the conservative establishment.
I am not the only one here who thinks a Huckabee nomination would be a disaster for both the Republican party and the conservative movement. And perhaps I am not representative of evangelicals generally. But Mike Huckabee does not represent me. And I am anything but an establishment conservative. I grew up the oldest of six children in a ten-foot trailer. As a formerly-poor, currently-evangelical conservative, I resent Mike Huckabee's demagoguery.
And it is here that Dougherty touches upon the most irritating aspect of the Huckabee campaign. Huck invokes the identity politics that historically has been within the special purview of the Left. It is insulting to suggest that we evangelicals have a moral disagreement about poverty (for example). I expect that type of insult from Barack Obama. To hear it from Huckabee is galling.
I would love nothing more than to vote for a thoughtful, courageous evangelical candidate for President. So when Huckabee first announced his candidacy I was excited. I was prepared to support him. I wanted to like him. Then he opened his mouth and started talking. And it's all gone downhill from there.
Let me be clear: Mike Huckabee does not speak for this evangelical.
I am not the only one here who thinks a Huckabee nomination would be a disaster for both the Republican party and the conservative movement. And perhaps I am not representative of evangelicals generally. But Mike Huckabee does not represent me. And I am anything but an establishment conservative. I grew up the oldest of six children in a ten-foot trailer. As a formerly-poor, currently-evangelical conservative, I resent Mike Huckabee's demagoguery.
And it is here that Dougherty touches upon the most irritating aspect of the Huckabee campaign. Huck invokes the identity politics that historically has been within the special purview of the Left. It is insulting to suggest that we evangelicals have a moral disagreement about poverty (for example). I expect that type of insult from Barack Obama. To hear it from Huckabee is galling.
I would love nothing more than to vote for a thoughtful, courageous evangelical candidate for President. So when Huckabee first announced his candidacy I was excited. I was prepared to support him. I wanted to like him. Then he opened his mouth and started talking. And it's all gone downhill from there.
Let me be clear: Mike Huckabee does not speak for this evangelical.
House GOP addresses earmark reform
House Republicans were holed away at the Greenbrier in West Virginia yesterday. They spent much of the day trying to deal with the issue of earmark reform. After much discussion, some consensus was reached. The AP reports:
This looks pretty good on the surface, but as always in Congress the devil is in the details. A few initial thoughts...How long is this moratorium? It is unclear. Some folks on the hill are saying that contrary to what the Red State post says, this is only a six month cease fire. Why not make it a whole year? Who in the GOP is afraid to make it a year? If earmarking is as messed up as this letter indicates it is than why only take a break from it for six months? The answer, I am sure, lies in the fact that old bull appropriators still run rampant in the GOP, and they probably pulled the discussion at the Greenbrier away from a year or more long moratorium.
My second thought...We had better make darn sure that this commission called for in the letter is not stacked with congressional porkers who will eventually rubber stamp pork barrel spending. Anyone who has spent anytime watching Congress work understands that this is a very real possibility.
Finally, what happens when/if Nancy Pelosi rejects this proposal? I assume at that point this moratorium disappears and this becomes nothing more than a political football. Now don't get me wrong, being able to say that Dems turned down GOP efforts to reform earmarks is great politics, but without the GOP following through on the moratorium it ceases to become sound policy.
Republicans have historically been at their best when they started with sound policy that turned in to great politics. This unfortunately does not look to be one of those instances. Minority Leader Boehner should insist that his conference back up their rhetoric in this letter to Pelosi. If Dems reject the moratorium the GOP should walk the talk and enter into it anyway. Lead by example.
"House Republicans believe that the earmark system should be brought to an immediate halt, and a bipartisan select committee should immediately be established for the purpose of identifying ways to bring fundamental change to the way in which Washington spends taxpayers' money," House GOP leaders said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.More from the NY Times:
House Republicans called on Friday for “an immediate moratorium” on earmarking money for pet projects. They urged Democrats to join them in establishing a bipartisan panel to set strict new standards for such spending.Red State has the actual letter here.As an interim step, House Republican leaders said, they will insist that all House Republicans follow standards to eliminate “wasteful pork-barrel spending.”
Republicans set forth their intentions in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The letter reflects a fragile consensus reached Friday after more than two hours of impassioned debate among House Republicans, who met behind closed doors at their annual conference at the Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va.
This looks pretty good on the surface, but as always in Congress the devil is in the details. A few initial thoughts...How long is this moratorium? It is unclear. Some folks on the hill are saying that contrary to what the Red State post says, this is only a six month cease fire. Why not make it a whole year? Who in the GOP is afraid to make it a year? If earmarking is as messed up as this letter indicates it is than why only take a break from it for six months? The answer, I am sure, lies in the fact that old bull appropriators still run rampant in the GOP, and they probably pulled the discussion at the Greenbrier away from a year or more long moratorium.
My second thought...We had better make darn sure that this commission called for in the letter is not stacked with congressional porkers who will eventually rubber stamp pork barrel spending. Anyone who has spent anytime watching Congress work understands that this is a very real possibility.
Finally, what happens when/if Nancy Pelosi rejects this proposal? I assume at that point this moratorium disappears and this becomes nothing more than a political football. Now don't get me wrong, being able to say that Dems turned down GOP efforts to reform earmarks is great politics, but without the GOP following through on the moratorium it ceases to become sound policy.
Republicans have historically been at their best when they started with sound policy that turned in to great politics. This unfortunately does not look to be one of those instances. Minority Leader Boehner should insist that his conference back up their rhetoric in this letter to Pelosi. If Dems reject the moratorium the GOP should walk the talk and enter into it anyway. Lead by example.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Two important moments last night
I agree that Mitt Romney was the best in show last night. Unlike previous debates he was able to spend time communicating his ideas and burnishing his credentials instead of deflecting attacks from his peers all evening. He also showed a sense of humor seen here:
The other moment that stood out to me was when Huckabee made what I thought was a lame at best and distasteful/nasty at worst joke about Mitt's sons. The joke came a few minutes after Mitt had finished explaining why he was investing a significant amount of his own money in the campaign (incidentally, I thought that was a good answer too but that is another post).
Huckabee's wisecrack reminded me a little of John Edwards' attacks on Dick Cheney's daughter four years ago. Multiple people today have told me I am overreacting...still I don't think this will play well. Leave the kids out of it, and leave the subtle class warfare out as well.
The other moment that stood out to me was when Huckabee made what I thought was a lame at best and distasteful/nasty at worst joke about Mitt's sons. The joke came a few minutes after Mitt had finished explaining why he was investing a significant amount of his own money in the campaign (incidentally, I thought that was a good answer too but that is another post).
Huckabee's wisecrack reminded me a little of John Edwards' attacks on Dick Cheney's daughter four years ago. Multiple people today have told me I am overreacting...still I don't think this will play well. Leave the kids out of it, and leave the subtle class warfare out as well.
Free Money!
The New York Post nails it with this headline:
The prospects for this monstrosity in Congress are sadly very good. John Boehner, whose leadership we have lauded much recently, made a bad decision to sign off on this thing already. I expect Republican leadership in the Senate to capitulate as well, although there are some rumblings that the Senate GOP's number two man, Jon Kyl, may make a fuss about this, which would be wonderful to see.
And the Democrats of course love this. All Nancy and Harry needed to know was one thing: Does this give free tax payer money to people who don't pay taxes? "Yes? Great sign us up, we love redistributing wealth! And we love it even more when we sucker Republicans in to joining us in our inexorable march toward French-style government."
January 25, 2008 -- The Bush administration and House leaders yesterday announced a tentative deal on a proposed $150 billion economic stimulus plan.
Their solution?
Free money!
That's the crux of the proposal, which would send rebate checks of at least $300 to all Americans earning up to $75,000 a year, plus some added relief for mortgaged-strapped homeowners and businesses making capital investments.
Some of this is surely good news.
The Senate is not yet on board, so it's necessary to wait to see what finally emerges from the congressional sausage factory.
But at least for now, the package seems happily free of some of the more reckless spending items Democrats were hoping to include.
Unfortunately, the entire plan ultimately reflects one of the most enduring - and politically convenient - economic myths around: the notion that hard times can be softened by throwing money at them.
What's worse is that we have seen this many times before and it never works. In 2001 Bush pushed similar handouts, er...I mean rebates...and the economy stayed slow. It wasn't until the pro-growth tax cuts of 2003 that the economy started humming. But alas, pro-growth tax cuts don't poll so well in an age of instant gratification and economic ignorance.
The prospects for this monstrosity in Congress are sadly very good. John Boehner, whose leadership we have lauded much recently, made a bad decision to sign off on this thing already. I expect Republican leadership in the Senate to capitulate as well, although there are some rumblings that the Senate GOP's number two man, Jon Kyl, may make a fuss about this, which would be wonderful to see.
And the Democrats of course love this. All Nancy and Harry needed to know was one thing: Does this give free tax payer money to people who don't pay taxes? "Yes? Great sign us up, we love redistributing wealth! And we love it even more when we sucker Republicans in to joining us in our inexorable march toward French-style government."
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Senate GOP Cave In
Erick Erickson at Red State yesterday got his hands on some emails flying around the Senate this week. The long and short of it is that the emails confirmed what we knew was coming. A staffer for the Senate GOP's number three in leadership has made it clear to other Senate staff that that the leadership team is looking to push legislation that is either authored by Democrats or has a Democrat cosponsor.
In short, bipartisanship is the new buzzword in the Senate Republican cloakroom.
This morning's Roll Call confirms the Red State post. John Stanton reports:
As I have said before, that is a sure fire strategy for permanent minority status. If we prove that we can work with the Democrats to pass legislation (and wait until you see the actual atrocious contents of these would-be bipartisan bills) then all we have proved is that there is no need to once again bestow the majority on Republicans. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that the go-along-to-get-along crowd in the Senate could care less who is in the minority or majority, so long as business as usual in the Senate is maintained.
Thanks to the Framers and fortunately for conservatives, the House of Representatives is not as insulated as the Senate. Boehner continues to make moves, and he may over time be able to have some influence over his Senate counterparts.
But I get the impression that the Senate will continue to be unresponsive to the deep desire of the American people to see bold leadership based on principled beliefs -- not bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship. Sadly, it may take another drubbing at the polls for the old men of the Senate to wake up. Let's hope the House guys and our eventual nominee can save us from that disaster.
In short, bipartisanship is the new buzzword in the Senate Republican cloakroom.
This morning's Roll Call confirms the Red State post. John Stanton reports:
Senate Republicans outlined a modest election-year agenda Wednesday based on the cooperative, bipartisan approach that new Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) has pushed while avoiding issues like immigration and earmark reform that have caused rifts within the party.
According to internal Conference e-mails and participants in a daylong, closed-door Conference retreat at the Library of Congress, Senate Republicans will rely largely on supporting legislation that has garnered bipartisan support regardless of who the lead sponsor is.
Bipartisanship is not in and of itself a bad thing. But the sleepy senators in the Republican Party have made the mistake of reading a poll that says the American people are tired of partisanship and concluding that they want the Republican Party to play nice with all things liberal.
As I have said before, that is a sure fire strategy for permanent minority status. If we prove that we can work with the Democrats to pass legislation (and wait until you see the actual atrocious contents of these would-be bipartisan bills) then all we have proved is that there is no need to once again bestow the majority on Republicans. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that the go-along-to-get-along crowd in the Senate could care less who is in the minority or majority, so long as business as usual in the Senate is maintained.
Thanks to the Framers and fortunately for conservatives, the House of Representatives is not as insulated as the Senate. Boehner continues to make moves, and he may over time be able to have some influence over his Senate counterparts.
But I get the impression that the Senate will continue to be unresponsive to the deep desire of the American people to see bold leadership based on principled beliefs -- not bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship. Sadly, it may take another drubbing at the polls for the old men of the Senate to wake up. Let's hope the House guys and our eventual nominee can save us from that disaster.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Fly By Night Government
I think this is what we can expect from a Hillary Administration: bad jokes and mechanical errors.
Hill Force One: Doomed By Mechanical Error
A week ago, Sen. Hillary Clinton, welcomed reporters to "the maiden voyage of Hill Force One," delivering a gimmicky speech that elicited a few laughs from reporters. But now it seems that all the plane has amounted to is one big headache.
The aircraft hasn't been leaving on time and seems to be suffering from heavy mechanical failures.
Senator Clinton's staff Monday morning cited logistical issues as a reason the plane was delayed from taking off. Reporters sat aboard the aircraft for an hour and a half waiting. As a result, Clinton missed the Columbia, South Carolina Martin Luther King march to the capitol. Clinton's Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama was there and won cheers from the crowds.
On Tuesday night , as reporters embarked the large 737 in Phoenix, Arizona for a flight to Washington, D.C. -- the central fuel tank suffered a problem with the valves. This caused a delay of more than an hour.
Reporters boarded the plane Wednesday morning only to learn that there was a problem with the tire. When the mechanic came out to fix it, he brought out the wrong wrench and reporters were delayed yet again. Finally, it took five people on the ground to lift off the tire to swap it for a new one -- further delaying the Senator and reporters.
It is unclear if Hill Force One will be retired for a new plane. With the hectic travel schedule leading up to February 5th, it may be difficult to find a carrier of that size with such little time.
And she wants to make our health care decisions for us.
Gore, oblivious (are you surprised?)
So did you hear the one about same-sex marriage and equal rights for homosexuals? You know that one already? Can you believe Al Gore fell for it? Yeah, I can too.
The creation of same sex marriage entails removal of the conjugality requirement from the definition of marriage. It necessarily involves the rejection of the opposite-sex predicate to the institution of marriage. So, endorsement of same-sex marriage is not morally neutral. It does not follow from any principle of equality, autonomy, or any other morally-neutral principle. (Homosexuals have access to conjugal marriage on terms equal to heterosexuals. Just like heterosexuals, they can marry one person, who is not a close relative and is a member of the opposite sex, who does not carry a loathesome disease, and is not currently married to someone else.)
The only rational argument to be made for same-sex marriage is that homosexual conduct adds something of value to same-sex friendships -- in the same way that conjugal sexual conduct adds something of value to committed, opposite-sex friendships in the context of marriage -- and thus deserves approbation in law, just like conjugal marriage. Those of us who defend conjugal marriage and oppose same-sex marriage are not arguing that same-sex friendships have no value, or that homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, or that homosexuals are less deserving of dignity or autonomy. We simply disagree on the moral value of homosexual conduct. We think it is beneath the dignity of all human persons, whether or not they are attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Gore, like most Liberals, refuses to engage us social conservatives on the merits of our argument, instead fighting the straw man of putative inequality. This would be insulting were it coming from someone other than Al Gore. Ever since he started performing his Chicken Little schtick on global warming, I have had a hard time taking him seriously. It's sad, in a way, to watch a former Vice President be so unintentionally comical.
The creation of same sex marriage entails removal of the conjugality requirement from the definition of marriage. It necessarily involves the rejection of the opposite-sex predicate to the institution of marriage. So, endorsement of same-sex marriage is not morally neutral. It does not follow from any principle of equality, autonomy, or any other morally-neutral principle. (Homosexuals have access to conjugal marriage on terms equal to heterosexuals. Just like heterosexuals, they can marry one person, who is not a close relative and is a member of the opposite sex, who does not carry a loathesome disease, and is not currently married to someone else.)
The only rational argument to be made for same-sex marriage is that homosexual conduct adds something of value to same-sex friendships -- in the same way that conjugal sexual conduct adds something of value to committed, opposite-sex friendships in the context of marriage -- and thus deserves approbation in law, just like conjugal marriage. Those of us who defend conjugal marriage and oppose same-sex marriage are not arguing that same-sex friendships have no value, or that homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, or that homosexuals are less deserving of dignity or autonomy. We simply disagree on the moral value of homosexual conduct. We think it is beneath the dignity of all human persons, whether or not they are attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Gore, like most Liberals, refuses to engage us social conservatives on the merits of our argument, instead fighting the straw man of putative inequality. This would be insulting were it coming from someone other than Al Gore. Ever since he started performing his Chicken Little schtick on global warming, I have had a hard time taking him seriously. It's sad, in a way, to watch a former Vice President be so unintentionally comical.
Another canard against Israel debunked
For years misguided liberals and fascists asserted that Palestinians were led by violent, despondent, blood-thirsty men only because of Israeli occupation. Then Israel voluntarily withdrew from Gaza and violent Palestinian men continued to send their children, social outcasts, and even grandmothers to homicidal deaths.
Israel has taken heat for its security wall around Gaza. The wall is supposed to demonstrate how intolerant Israelis are of their Muslim neighbors. But Israel isn't the only country with a realistic understanding of Palestinian aggression. Last night the security wall separating Gaza and Egypt came down, and hundreds of thousands of Gazans have flooded across the border into Egypt.
Yes, Egypt erected a wall against its Muslim, Palestinian neighbors. Yes, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians today demonstrated that Egypt, for all its faults, is an immensely more desirable place to live than the hell hole their oppressors in Hamas and Fatah have built for them in Gaza.
Now, perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall ever having read in the mainstream media about Egyptian intolerance of Palestinian Muslims. Nor have I heard of the overwhelming desire of Palestinians to go any place, even Egypt, that is not Gaza. Why, I wonder?
UPDATE: It appears that most, though not all, of the Gazans have returned to Gaza after buying food and other necessities. Of course, the media attributes the scarcity in Palestine to Israeli policy. However, history teaches that embargoes starve people only when they coincide with tyrannical leadership.
Israel has taken heat for its security wall around Gaza. The wall is supposed to demonstrate how intolerant Israelis are of their Muslim neighbors. But Israel isn't the only country with a realistic understanding of Palestinian aggression. Last night the security wall separating Gaza and Egypt came down, and hundreds of thousands of Gazans have flooded across the border into Egypt.
Yes, Egypt erected a wall against its Muslim, Palestinian neighbors. Yes, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians today demonstrated that Egypt, for all its faults, is an immensely more desirable place to live than the hell hole their oppressors in Hamas and Fatah have built for them in Gaza.
Now, perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall ever having read in the mainstream media about Egyptian intolerance of Palestinian Muslims. Nor have I heard of the overwhelming desire of Palestinians to go any place, even Egypt, that is not Gaza. Why, I wonder?
UPDATE: It appears that most, though not all, of the Gazans have returned to Gaza after buying food and other necessities. Of course, the media attributes the scarcity in Palestine to Israeli policy. However, history teaches that embargoes starve people only when they coincide with tyrannical leadership.
Boehner to shake things up
Two reports of note this morning following yesterday's news about John Boehner's leadership in the House compared to the lack thereof in the Senate...the first from Congressional Quarterly:
As a feisty, ambitious backbencher in the “Gang of Seven” in 1994, John A. Boehner worked with his top aide, Barry Jackson, to develop a list of conservative principles that would become the “Contract With America.”
Now House minority leader, Boehner has once again turned his attention to devising a conservative manifesto, with ending earmarks as its centerpiece. And again, there is input from Jackson, who is now a top political adviser to President Bush.
“We’ve had conversations for weeks,’’ said Boehner, R-Ohio. “Barry and I worked closely together back in the 1990s. And we’re working closely together now. We know each other. We trust each other. And we’re open with each other. He’s a perfect bridge for the administration for dealing with Congress.”
One would hope Jackson's role in this could help the White House avoid this impending disaster, but I digress.
The second report comes from the Politico:
The Republican plan to slam the minority over wasteful spending is far from novel — it’s a trick often used by the party out of power.Ahhh...but this is simply untrue. If the President swings for the fences and issues an executive order deleting all the earmarks in this year's appropriations bills he will be lauded as a hero by the conservative base and he will be supported by Boehner, a handful of Senate conservatives and many rank and file members who are beginning to see that earmarking was a central enabler of the corruption of the GOP.
But with many conservative activists still fuming at record spending under President Bush, Republicans are planning to make this a staple of their agenda for all of 2008.
Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), one of the new leaders to swear off earmarks consistently, is aggressively pushing the plan over the objection of many appropriators.
At the same time, Bush is threatening to target what he calls wasteful spending in his final year.
He has asked Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with earmarks, and members from both sides of the aisle are waiting nervously to see if he’ll follow through on his cost-cutting threat...
...While Democrats in the House cut earmarks by a significant measure, once the spending bills were reconciled with the Senate, much of the targeted spending was restored.
That left some lawmakers committed to cutting spending feeling cheated.
“What they said they did, they didn’t do. It’s a sham. There has been no reform to earmarks in the Senate,” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a fierce budget hawk.
And attempts by Bush and his conservative allies to turn them into a partisan issue will likely be muted by their own party’s history on the matter and their continued use of them.
Democrats are just as addicted to earmarks as Republicans (some more so because they have been waiting so long to have the power of the majority and they don't want to give it up now).
Yes there will be bipartisan backlash against such a bold move. But the result of that bipartisan backlash will be to give the conservatives the moral high ground. Conservatives will rightly be seen as the future of the GOP, while the old bull appropriators and other pork-addicted Republicans will be seen as a dying relic of the past who are simply hanging on to old times. It would be the beginning of the end of the GOP inside-the-beltway establishment, and it would be welcomed by conservatives across the country.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The rationale for the Fred candidacy
It is looking increasingly likely that our own contributor was right about the Fred candidacy. From Hot Air:
I don’t quite believe it, but Cameron mentioned something about this yesterday too on FNC. Can it be? Can the whole Fredhead phenomenon be nothing but a lark spun off from a stunt aimed at raising Fred’s profile to the point where he’d be viable as John McCain’s number two?Question: Will the Fredheads who adored the man still respect him if Maverick picks him as his veep? Or better yet, will they support a Maverick-Fred ticket? One would hope all the rhetoric about secure borders, federalism and small government conservatism would preclude them from doing so.
Roe at thirty-five
Meanwhile, our own Roe v. Wade is now 35 years old and shows no signs of ill health. Nearly fifty million unborn human persons have suffered the ultimate indignity since January 22, 1973. Even as the culture of life advances, casualties continue. It is high time to euthanize the Roe decision.
UPDATE (Titus): And how do our abortion loving friends at Planned Parenthood plan to mark the anniversary? This from today's Wall Street Journal:
UPDATE (Titus): And how do our abortion loving friends at Planned Parenthood plan to mark the anniversary? This from today's Wall Street Journal:
WASHINGTON -- For the first time, abortion-rights advocate Planned Parenthood is launching a major effort to elect pro-abortion-rights candidates to Congress and the White House in November.
The nation's largest reproductive-health-care provider plans to spend $10 million in hopes of persuading one million people to vote for abortion-rights candidates in the 2008 election. Planned Parenthood will roll out its election plans today to mark the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal.
Cheaper by the decade
As Canada kicks off the count down to the 20th anniversary of the regrettable R. v. Morgentaler decision, which created an unlimited right to abortion on demand in that country, David Frum begins the lamentations. Recent technological advances have rendered the embryonic stem-cell debate, which Frum references, moot. However, that does not make Frum's argument that the Morgentaler decision cheapened human life any less forceful.
The conception of personhood that the Morgentaler court employed, like that described in the United States Supreme Court's infamous Casey decision, is purely subjective. Personhood begins whenever the mother wants it to begin. As it usually does, subjectivity in this case leads to tyranny. Just as dissidents of Communist regimes are at the mercy of Stalin's or Mao's or Castro's whims and preferences, the unborn human baby residing in a Canadian womb lives only if her mother wants her to live.
Freedom thrives only where self-evident principles -- the intrinsic value of human life, the endowment of all men with certain inalienable rights, the value of institutions such as marriage and the Church -- are held inviolate. Tyranny thrives on relativism.
The conception of personhood that the Morgentaler court employed, like that described in the United States Supreme Court's infamous Casey decision, is purely subjective. Personhood begins whenever the mother wants it to begin. As it usually does, subjectivity in this case leads to tyranny. Just as dissidents of Communist regimes are at the mercy of Stalin's or Mao's or Castro's whims and preferences, the unborn human baby residing in a Canadian womb lives only if her mother wants her to live.
Freedom thrives only where self-evident principles -- the intrinsic value of human life, the endowment of all men with certain inalienable rights, the value of institutions such as marriage and the Church -- are held inviolate. Tyranny thrives on relativism.
Uninspired leadership
This is a truly stunning article from Roll Call this morning. As Congress reconvenes this week, the House and Senate GOP caucuses will be huddling separately to compile their game plans for the coming congressional session.
On the House side of the Capitol, Roll Call reports that John Boehner is preparing to tough message for his colleagues as they gather this week:
According to Roll Call, the Senate GOP's newly elected message man Lamar Alexander will focus his presentation at tomorrow's retreat on the need to cooperate with Democrats. Earmarks and corruption, two of the main reasons these guys are in the minority, are not on the agenda, but cooperating with Harry Reid is. Alexander is convinced that voters are tired of partisanship (true) and that if Republicans roll over and cooperate with liberal in Congress, Republicans will win the approval of the voter and retake the Senate.
Hmmm...forgive me if I disagree. This is a tailor-made strategy to stay in the minority for the foreseeable future.
On the House side of the Capitol, Roll Call reports that John Boehner is preparing to tough message for his colleagues as they gather this week:
Meanwhile, House GOP leaders will make earmark reform a major topic of discussion at their retreat in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., later this week.That sounds about right. It is encouraging to see House leadership getting serious about a problem that plagued this party with the likes of Jack Abramoff. So what will the Senators be talking about? Not pork or corruption, that's for sure.
“There will be a conference-wide discussion about the earmark process both on the appropriations side and the authorization and tax side,” Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said last week at a press conference. “And I’m hopeful that we as a conference will be able to come to a position about what we would do about fixing the earmark process.”
Republicans are likely to discuss a variety of options for changing the process and reining in wasteful spending. Possible ideas range from banning earmarks outright to issuing a moratorium on the practice while it is studied to trying to develop a process that would help weed out earmarks that are superfluous.
The debate over which direction the party goes is a touchy subject since Members rely on bringing funds back to their districts for projects, and their constituents have come to expect it.
But Boehner is expected to make the case that substantive earmark reform, and the development of a corresponding policy, has to be a centerpiece of the GOP’s effort to regain its fiscal conservative posture.
The earmark discussion is part of a larger effort — spearheaded by Boehner — to rebrand a party that in many ways is still reeling from its loss of power following the 2006 elections.
On the House side, Republicans appear to be honing a message that Washington is broken and they need to show voters that they are the party that can fix it.
“Reforming earmarks is at the top of the list of fixing a broken Washington,” said one GOP aide, telegraphing what is likely to be a major theme coming out of the retreat.
According to Roll Call, the Senate GOP's newly elected message man Lamar Alexander will focus his presentation at tomorrow's retreat on the need to cooperate with Democrats. Earmarks and corruption, two of the main reasons these guys are in the minority, are not on the agenda, but cooperating with Harry Reid is. Alexander is convinced that voters are tired of partisanship (true) and that if Republicans roll over and cooperate with liberal in Congress, Republicans will win the approval of the voter and retake the Senate.
Hmmm...forgive me if I disagree. This is a tailor-made strategy to stay in the minority for the foreseeable future.
Conservatives silenced in debate about economy
The Senate returns today from its Christmas recess and the economy will be front and center as an issue. Congressional conservatives, bolstered by outside supporters like Rush Limbaugh and the Heritage Foundation, are doing their best to inject some common-sense economic sanity into the debate between ineffective and temporary rebates (political handouts) or real long term pro-growth solutions.
Martin Kady has the scoop:
Martin Kady has the scoop:
Fiscally conservative Republicans in the House and Senate are complaining bitterly that GOP leaders are shutting them out of the bipartisan effort to quickly pass an economic stimulus package.These conservatives, many of whom helped frame the Republican fiscal message over the past several years, are accusing President Bush and their own congressional leaders of sacrificing long-held principles for short-term political gain by embracing a one-time tax rebate, some social welfare spending and some modest business tax incentives.
The biggest gripe from the right: The push for permanent tax cuts is being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Conservative leaders complain that putting gas and grocery money in the hands of taxpayers — especially in an election year — is much easier than debating President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts or a reduction in the corporate tax rate.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Uh oh Rudy...
The nail in the coffin for Rudy?
Maybe...but remember, Floridians have been voting now for quite a while, and the absentee ballots cast weeks ago don't reflect the changing mood of Florida voters today. If Guiliani can make it close on election day, he might be able to squeak it out thanks to the absentees.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Time for Fred To Go
I said earlier I was convinced a McCain-Thompson alliance existed. Now that Fred has finished 3rd in South Carolina (and helped McCain win with only one-third of the vote), it's time for him to get out of the race. At this point, Fred's candidacy only serves the purpose of dividing conservatives and doing great harm to the Republican Party.
I don't expect Fred to endorse McCain immediately. That would be too obvious and would certainly create a backlash among conservatives. But I believe the McCain-Thompson alliance will be exposed at some point and will be remembered as one of the shrewdest yet most dishonest campaigns in American history.
I don't expect Fred to endorse McCain immediately. That would be too obvious and would certainly create a backlash among conservatives. But I believe the McCain-Thompson alliance will be exposed at some point and will be remembered as one of the shrewdest yet most dishonest campaigns in American history.
Who's Having Abortions?
New statistics show that cases of young high-school girls having abortions are actually the exception, not the rule. In fact, over 80% of the women in the U.S. who have abortions are age 20 or older, and more than half are 25 or older. For the most part, women who have abortions in America are not young girls but adults.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Required reading/viewing for the weekend
Friday, January 18, 2008
Meet McCain's Domestic Policy Advisor
His name is Senator Joseph Lieberman. The Democrat-turned-Independent senator has been pushing the idea of guaranteeing wages for displaced workers who get new jobs that pay less. And now McCain -- who has been endorsed by Lieberman -- has adopted the idea as his own. The Club for Growth's Pat Toomey called McCain out on this during Mark Levin's radio show the other night. The audio is here.
Rebates are for liberals
Washington is abuzz with talk about various economic stimulus packages. The conventional wisdom has it that some form of a rebate will be dished out to Americans, presumedly in hopes that the recipients will vote accordingly down the line.
I think it was Fred Thompson who criticized this thinking, saying that we might as well put cash in helicopters and drop it from the sky. That criticism is sadly lost on the knuckleheads in Congress.
Democrats of course love distributing cash.
Republicans should be pro-growth and know better, and they do for the most part. Unfortunately, the thinking in GOP leadership circles right now is that rebates win votes and move polls, so for this reason, I expect them to capitulate and go along with some sort of stimulus that is total garbage despite their understanding that it will not really stimulate the economy.
This will just be the most recent example of the GOP compromising principle in the name of political expediency.
If politicians wanted to help the economy they would pass a series of pro-growth tax cuts. Instead, they look poised to pass a political throw-away bill and do nothing to spur the economy.
I think it was Fred Thompson who criticized this thinking, saying that we might as well put cash in helicopters and drop it from the sky. That criticism is sadly lost on the knuckleheads in Congress.
Democrats of course love distributing cash.
Republicans should be pro-growth and know better, and they do for the most part. Unfortunately, the thinking in GOP leadership circles right now is that rebates win votes and move polls, so for this reason, I expect them to capitulate and go along with some sort of stimulus that is total garbage despite their understanding that it will not really stimulate the economy.
This will just be the most recent example of the GOP compromising principle in the name of political expediency.
If politicians wanted to help the economy they would pass a series of pro-growth tax cuts. Instead, they look poised to pass a political throw-away bill and do nothing to spur the economy.
The funniest thing I've read this year...
... is this line in a scholarly article I am reading this morning: "Modern academic scholarship represents an infusion of reality into current thinking."
Wait...
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha!
Okay... hold on... need... air... can't... breathe...
Omigosh. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.
Wait...
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha!
Okay... hold on... need... air... can't... breathe...
Omigosh. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.
The perils of wearisome tripe
Christopher Hitchens is at his best and most acerbic this morning. A choice selection:
Those of us who follow politics seriously rather than view it as a game show do not look at Hillary Clinton and simply think "first woman president." We think -- for example -- "first ex-co-president" or "first wife of a disbarred lawyer and impeached former incumbent" or "first person to use her daughter as photo-op protection during her husband's perjury rap." One might come up with other and kinder distinctions (I shall not be doing so)... .
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Rove goes after Obama, Team Obama rejoices
Karl Rove hits Obama:
This criticism is of course dead on, but I wonder if that fact really matters here (or even if facts themselves matter)? Doesn't news coverage of Karl Rove attacking Obama just feed in to the perception that Obama is a clean break from the last eight years? Obama is an idea without substance. People who want to believe in him are going to believe in him regardless of well-marshaled arguments.
Trotting out Karl Rove to explain how to take him down just makes folks like the idea of Obama more because it reminds them of the bitter partisanship in Washington.
Meanwhile, we have Barack Obama out there extolling the virtues of Ronald Reagan. The contrast plays well for Obama.
This criticism is of course dead on, but I wonder if that fact really matters here (or even if facts themselves matter)? Doesn't news coverage of Karl Rove attacking Obama just feed in to the perception that Obama is a clean break from the last eight years? Obama is an idea without substance. People who want to believe in him are going to believe in him regardless of well-marshaled arguments.
Trotting out Karl Rove to explain how to take him down just makes folks like the idea of Obama more because it reminds them of the bitter partisanship in Washington.
Meanwhile, we have Barack Obama out there extolling the virtues of Ronald Reagan. The contrast plays well for Obama.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Will "nomentum" hurt the GOP?
Brit Hume's panel tonight discusses the lack of sustained momentum for any Republican in the field right now. First it was Huck, then Maverick now Mitt and after South Carolina who knows where the pendulum swings.
Folks are even mentioning the possibility of a brokered convention where the nominee is decided old-school style on the convention floor. Could that be good for the GOP as Newt suggests, or is Krauthammer right that this is bad news because the three front-runners represent three strains of the Republican Party -- all of which are bitterly divided.
Certainly there is division. When even these two guys find each other on opposite teams, you know feelings are strong and emotions are high. But don't we need to have this intra-party scrap? It just seems to me that we have been glossing over real division for the better part of the last 6 years.
I think it is possible that we come out of this process stronger, at least over the long haul.
Folks are even mentioning the possibility of a brokered convention where the nominee is decided old-school style on the convention floor. Could that be good for the GOP as Newt suggests, or is Krauthammer right that this is bad news because the three front-runners represent three strains of the Republican Party -- all of which are bitterly divided.
Certainly there is division. When even these two guys find each other on opposite teams, you know feelings are strong and emotions are high. But don't we need to have this intra-party scrap? It just seems to me that we have been glossing over real division for the better part of the last 6 years.
I think it is possible that we come out of this process stronger, at least over the long haul.
Landrieu Earmark
Senator Landrieu reportedly requested taxpayer funding for an education project after receiving over $30,000 from a campaign contributor and his relatives. She is yet another lawmaker getting tripped up by a special-interest earmark. Maybe someday Congress will realize this kind of thing isn't worth the scandal it creates.
McCain-Thompson Alliance
I have been skeptical about the rumors that Fred Thompson is only running to divide up conservative votes so John McCain can win the Republican nomination. But now I'm reconsidering.
A friend tells me that when Fred was in the Senate he was very close to McCain. He says they would always sit together in the back of the room at a separate table during the weekly GOP lunches. Everyone knows Lindsey Graham is McCain's buddy now but apparently Fred was the original McCain booster.
Fred has tossed a few barbs McCain's way but they are always sandwiched between a half-dozen attacks on the other candidates.
It may seem far-fetched to some that Fred would run just to help McCain but it was always known that McCain needed a divided field to win, especially when the race reached South Carolina. Fred supported McCain in 2000 and he has done very little in 2008 other than other than divide the conservative field and make a McCain nomination possible.
A friend tells me that when Fred was in the Senate he was very close to McCain. He says they would always sit together in the back of the room at a separate table during the weekly GOP lunches. Everyone knows Lindsey Graham is McCain's buddy now but apparently Fred was the original McCain booster.
Fred has tossed a few barbs McCain's way but they are always sandwiched between a half-dozen attacks on the other candidates.
It may seem far-fetched to some that Fred would run just to help McCain but it was always known that McCain needed a divided field to win, especially when the race reached South Carolina. Fred supported McCain in 2000 and he has done very little in 2008 other than other than divide the conservative field and make a McCain nomination possible.
Washington State's dance with death
I found the text of the ballot initiative that would legalize assisted suicide in Washington State. As far as I can tell, it is modeled closely on Oregon's law. That alone is cause for concern, given Oregon's troubling experience with legalized human destruction over the last 13 years.
A couple of things in particular jump out. Under the definition of "competent" (sec. 1(3)) a patient's competency to make and communicate the decision to end her own life can be assessed by any of the following: a court, an attending or consulting physician, a psychiatrist, or a psychologist. The "or" is all-important. The statute does not require the patient (or, more likely, the patient's son, daughter, or other caregiver) to obtain an evaluation from a mental health professional. Section 6 of the initiative requires an attending or consulting physician to refer the patient to a mental health professional for counseling only if the physician first determines that the patient may be suffering from psychological or psychiatric disorder or depression. Because persons suffering from depression and other mental disorders are so vulnerable to the suggestion that they end their lives, these provisions seem reckless.
I searched in vain for a provision stating "It shall hereinafter be permitted..." or "This statute repeals any and all prohibitions against assisting suicide..." or "The assistance of suicide in the State of Washington, being not a crime or immoral act...". Instead, buried deep in the initiative, section 19 provides immunity from civil and criminal liability to anyone "participating in good faith compliance with this act." This is sly drafting, at least. The proponents of assisted suicide in Washington want the citizens of Washington to legalize the practice without having to express approbation for the practice. Of course, approval of self-destruction is implicit in any law that legalizes the assistance of suicide. Perhaps the proponents of the initiative know that the iniative would fail if voters were forced to think about what a "yes" vote means. For the sake of Washington State's sick and elderly population, I hope Washington's citizens are more thoughtful than the pro-death lobby assumes them to be.
McCain picks up a conservative
Mitt Romney is the one who had the big night last night. Faced with a do or die moment, he and his revamped campaign came through and their cause was aided by conservative base voters.
But this morning it is McCain who is getting some help with the conservative base:
Maverick needed this one, big time as his conservative street cred is in question. Coburn is a hero to the conservative base, mostly for his anti-spending crusade. However, while Coburn is pro-life and good on the social issues in general, that has not been the emphasis of his Senate career (much like McCain). As such, it remains to be seen whether a Coburn endorsement can allay the concerns of social conservatives with regard to Maverick. One such social conservative is Rick Santorum:CHARLESTON -- The McCain campaign is touting a major endorsement tomorrow set for Greenville, South Carolina.
It's Sen. Tom Coburn, the Senate's resident earmark curmudgeon and staunch social conservative doctor.
The campaign hopes the endorsement will kick-start four days of intense campaigning here with a jolt of momentum that yesterday's Michigan primary did not provide.
Santorum’s criticisms cut to the heart of conservative concerns about McCain: that he’s not a conservative, that he’s been damaging to conservative causes while in the Senate, and that he would be no friend to conservatives — never mind being one himself — in the White House.I suspect the Coburn endorsement will not change this dynamic. Coburn's main issue is fiscal restraint, and that is why he has endorsed John McCain. Coburn knows that McCain is a grumpy old guy who hates big government (much like himself...just not as old) and that he will not hesitate to veto pork-filled spending bills. From my vantage point, this -- not McCain being a well rounded conservative -- is the driving force behind this endorsement.
In an interview with Mark Levin on Levin’s radio show Thursday night, Santorum went so far as to call McCain “very, very dangerous for Republicans” on domestic policy. Santorum said: “I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the Senator from Arizona.”
Santorum told Levin: “The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him, 6 years in the United States Senate as leader, one of the leaders of the Senate — the number-3 leader — who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”
As much as he may wish it did, this does not change McCain's record.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The company Obama keeps
Flopping Aces reported yesterday on some troubling ties between Barack Obama and Louis Farrakhan, a detestable racist. Obama has responded to the criticism, attempting to distance himself from his own church. Today, Professor Bernstein explains why Obama's explanation, unlike a Snickers bar, fails to satisfy.
UPDATE: It is instructive to contrast the coverage (or lack thereof) of Obama's equivocal condemnation of Farrakhan with the hue and cry that followed Trent Lott's enigmatic comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. No one in the media then gave Lott the benefit of the doubt. Do you suppose the reaction to Obama's church's decision to honor Farrakhan will be half as merciless? Don't count on it.
UPDATE: It is instructive to contrast the coverage (or lack thereof) of Obama's equivocal condemnation of Farrakhan with the hue and cry that followed Trent Lott's enigmatic comments at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. No one in the media then gave Lott the benefit of the doubt. Do you suppose the reaction to Obama's church's decision to honor Farrakhan will be half as merciless? Don't count on it.
My Michigan Prediction...
...assuming Buzz is correct and Romney wins tonight, rival campaigns will send their surrogates out to discredit the victory, pointing mostly to this...the MSM which already hates Romney, will gladly play along.
UPDATE: John Hawkins has more predictions here.
UPDATE: John Hawkins has more predictions here.
A bad idea, revisited
Focus on the Family Action reports that Booth Gardner, former governor of Washington Sate, is advocating for a ballot initiative legalizing physician-assisted suicide in that State. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer confirms. Thus far, only Oregon has legalized the assistance of suicide in the United States; Washington would be second. Fortunately, Washington's current governor opposes the measure.
It was Washington's ban on assisted suicide that gave rise to the Supreme Court's watershed Glucksberg decision in 1997. The Court there affirmed the authority of states to prohibit the practice.
As many studies have shown (see, for example, the scholarship of Judge Neil Gorsuch), what is called for public-relations purposes "assisted suicide" is often, in truth, euthanasia. In Oregon and the Netherlands, anecdotal and statistical evidence suggusts that offspring and health care providers routinely pressure elderly parents and patients to shuffle off before their time. Remember, we're not talking about Terry Schiavo here. Most of these people are capable of living without extraordinary assistance. Most of them simply need a little help. The situation is so dire in western Europe that many elderly persons are now drafting living wills expressing their desire to be allowed to live.
Fundamentally, however, our disagreement with supporters of assisted suicide is over the value of human life. They think human life merely has instrumental value and that, once life ceases to be enjoyable, no reason commends preserving or defending it. We think human life has instrumental and intrinsic value; my life is valuable both because it enables me to enjoy friendship, skiing, and symphonies and because it is valuable qua human life. Human beings are reasons for action, in and of themselves. If once we lose sight of that truth, we have lost all.
It was Washington's ban on assisted suicide that gave rise to the Supreme Court's watershed Glucksberg decision in 1997. The Court there affirmed the authority of states to prohibit the practice.
As many studies have shown (see, for example, the scholarship of Judge Neil Gorsuch), what is called for public-relations purposes "assisted suicide" is often, in truth, euthanasia. In Oregon and the Netherlands, anecdotal and statistical evidence suggusts that offspring and health care providers routinely pressure elderly parents and patients to shuffle off before their time. Remember, we're not talking about Terry Schiavo here. Most of these people are capable of living without extraordinary assistance. Most of them simply need a little help. The situation is so dire in western Europe that many elderly persons are now drafting living wills expressing their desire to be allowed to live.
Fundamentally, however, our disagreement with supporters of assisted suicide is over the value of human life. They think human life merely has instrumental value and that, once life ceases to be enjoyable, no reason commends preserving or defending it. We think human life has instrumental and intrinsic value; my life is valuable both because it enables me to enjoy friendship, skiing, and symphonies and because it is valuable qua human life. Human beings are reasons for action, in and of themselves. If once we lose sight of that truth, we have lost all.
Newt: Reagan was a unique, one-time personality
I know this is the the second Newt clip I have posted here in as many days, but I think he is making an important point.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Raise Gas Taxes?
The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission will release a report Tuesday that recommends raising gasoline taxes by up to 40 cents a gallon over the next 5 years.
What?@#! That's a national gas tax increase of over 200 percent. Is this what American motorists need when gas prices are over $3 a gallon? And should we raise taxes when the economy could be slowing?
Fortunately the White House, led by Secretary Mary Peters, will oppose this nonsense. According to the Wall Street Journal:
What?@#! That's a national gas tax increase of over 200 percent. Is this what American motorists need when gas prices are over $3 a gallon? And should we raise taxes when the economy could be slowing?
Fortunately the White House, led by Secretary Mary Peters, will oppose this nonsense. According to the Wall Street Journal:
Three commissioners, including Ms. Peters and Maria Cino, a former deputy secretary of transportation now organizing the 2008 Republican National Convention, oppose raising gas taxes because it would result in higher pump prices for motorists...Exactly! Maybe if Congress would stop spending our tax dollars on "bridges to nowhere" we wouldn't need to raise taxes.
“Raising federal gas taxes won’t improve traffic congestion...and sends more of Americans’ hard-earned money to Washington to be squandered on earmarks and special-interest projects,” said Brian Turmail, a spokesman for Ms. Peters.
Michigan Prediction
I’m with Marshall at On Tap in predicting a Romney win tomorrow in Michigan. This will likely open up the race, making the contests on Saturday in South Carolina (24 delegates) and Nevada (34 delegates) extremely important.McCain is leading in the polls in both states and they're his races to lose. But if Romney wins one of them (maybe Nevada), the Straight Talk Express could run out of gas.
UPDATE: Latest Michigan polls are all over the place (Romney up 8 points, down 3, up 1). It will come down to turnout. If turnout is high, Romney will lose. If turnout is low, he will win.
Justice Stevens' alarming footnote
Ed Whelan commented last week on Justice Ginsburg's dissent in John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States. As Whelan rightly pointed out, Ginsburg demonstrates some antipathy to the doctrine of stare decisis. Her opinion is merely the most recent in a long line of exhibits demonstrating that liberal judges love stare decisis, except when they don't.
Justice Stevens' dissent in this otherwise-unremarkable decision bears mention for a slightly different reason. While explaining in a footnote why he, like Justice Ginsburg, believes that the Court should not wait for Congress to amend the Court of Federal Claims statute of limitations, he offers this revealing tidbit:
This must be a cheery thought for a liberal activist judge. Think of the possibilities! The House is dragging its feet on the Democrats' latest proposed tax hike? Can't get an immigration amnesty through the Senate? Well, you know how much Congress has on its plate. Send the bills across the street to SCOTUS. Justices Ginsburg and Stevens will happily give them the force of law without having to bother with that whole time- and expense-consuming legislative process.
The capacity of liberals to invent new justifications for subverting the democratic process never ceases to amaze.
Justice Stevens' dissent in this otherwise-unremarkable decision bears mention for a slightly different reason. While explaining in a footnote why he, like Justice Ginsburg, believes that the Court should not wait for Congress to amend the Court of Federal Claims statute of limitations, he offers this revealing tidbit:
[T]he logic of the “special force” of stare decisis in the statutory context is that “Congress remains free to alter what we have done” … . But the amendment of an obscure statutory provision is not a high priority for a busy Congress, and we should remain mindful that enactment of legislation is by no means a cost-free enterprise.(Citation omitted) In other words, where Congress has not acted, the Court is free to step in and act like a junior varsity Congress, re-writing legislation as it sees fit, as long as the justices are able to divine that Congress would have acted if it were not so busy or cash-strapped.
This must be a cheery thought for a liberal activist judge. Think of the possibilities! The House is dragging its feet on the Democrats' latest proposed tax hike? Can't get an immigration amnesty through the Senate? Well, you know how much Congress has on its plate. Send the bills across the street to SCOTUS. Justices Ginsburg and Stevens will happily give them the force of law without having to bother with that whole time- and expense-consuming legislative process.
The capacity of liberals to invent new justifications for subverting the democratic process never ceases to amaze.
Who is the "changiest" candidate of them all?
Is anyone else sick of the "change" jargon? Might as well have a little fun with it...
Beneficiaries of evangelical conceit
Two groups of pharisees are prominent within evangelicalism. These two groups seem to be enjoying a disproportionate measure of influence this election cycle. And for better or worse, they have thrown their weight behind Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.
The first group, what I call the Pat Robertson Know-Nothings, have for years embarassed serious, thoughtful evangelicals with their inflated rhetoric and simplistic policy proscriptions. This group thinks that solo scriptura is a mode of constitutional interpretation. These folks will patiently (God bless 'em) spend an hour repeating over and over to their secular friends their reasoning that same-sex marriage is bad because the Bible says so. And San Francisco endures earthquakes because it hosts a gay pride parade.
Huckabee enthrals the Know-Nothings. They love him. And when Huck declames that his health care policy proposals follow from the Golden Rule, the Know-Nothings rush to man the phone banks. This is not to suggest that thoughtful evangelicals cannot or do not support Huck. It is to suggest that Huckabee has cornered the Know-Nothings market.
A second group of evangelical pharisees are the Jim Wallis Accomodaters. What these folks want more than anything is an invitation to the cocktail party. They love being seen with secular Liberals because (they assume) talking about poor people with the academic and cultural elite demonstrates their enlightenment. Unlike their knuckle-dragging cousins, the Theocrats, the Accomodaters care about the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, and puppies. Especially puppies.
I have been unable to locate any poll data on this, but in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, an appreciable number of Accomodaters are backing Obama. This is a perfect fit, of course. Like the Accomodaters, Obama defies commitment to any particular set of convictions. No one knows what he believes. Sure, there's retreat from Iraq, single-payer health care, and ambiguous proposals to rob from the rich and give to the poor, but those positions are de rigueur in the Democratic party these days. What really sets Obama apart is his commitment to Hope. He is unequivocally and without reservation opposed to darkness, despair, and puppy-killing. Unlike the Theocrats. And Hillary. I suppose.
The first group, what I call the Pat Robertson Know-Nothings, have for years embarassed serious, thoughtful evangelicals with their inflated rhetoric and simplistic policy proscriptions. This group thinks that solo scriptura is a mode of constitutional interpretation. These folks will patiently (God bless 'em) spend an hour repeating over and over to their secular friends their reasoning that same-sex marriage is bad because the Bible says so. And San Francisco endures earthquakes because it hosts a gay pride parade.
Huckabee enthrals the Know-Nothings. They love him. And when Huck declames that his health care policy proposals follow from the Golden Rule, the Know-Nothings rush to man the phone banks. This is not to suggest that thoughtful evangelicals cannot or do not support Huck. It is to suggest that Huckabee has cornered the Know-Nothings market.
A second group of evangelical pharisees are the Jim Wallis Accomodaters. What these folks want more than anything is an invitation to the cocktail party. They love being seen with secular Liberals because (they assume) talking about poor people with the academic and cultural elite demonstrates their enlightenment. Unlike their knuckle-dragging cousins, the Theocrats, the Accomodaters care about the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, and puppies. Especially puppies.
I have been unable to locate any poll data on this, but in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, an appreciable number of Accomodaters are backing Obama. This is a perfect fit, of course. Like the Accomodaters, Obama defies commitment to any particular set of convictions. No one knows what he believes. Sure, there's retreat from Iraq, single-payer health care, and ambiguous proposals to rob from the rich and give to the poor, but those positions are de rigueur in the Democratic party these days. What really sets Obama apart is his commitment to Hope. He is unequivocally and without reservation opposed to darkness, despair, and puppy-killing. Unlike the Theocrats. And Hillary. I suppose.
Newt: End of Reagan Era, Time to Redefine
Yesterday Newt declared an end to the Reagan era and the beginning of a new era for the GOP in which the Party must "redefine" itself based on people's needs.
On one hand, it probably needed to be said. However, the "redefine" talk needs to be approached with caution. There are many who would use this as an opportunity to remake the Party of Reagan -- the Party of limited government, values and national defense -- into a Party we no longer recognize. I think Newt would be a good steward of the Party's heritage, but not some others. One person in particular comes to mind.
UPDATE: Newt elaborates...
On one hand, it probably needed to be said. However, the "redefine" talk needs to be approached with caution. There are many who would use this as an opportunity to remake the Party of Reagan -- the Party of limited government, values and national defense -- into a Party we no longer recognize. I think Newt would be a good steward of the Party's heritage, but not some others. One person in particular comes to mind.
UPDATE: Newt elaborates...
Good 'ol Jack!
The New York Times Editorial page slams Jack Murtha:The new earmark disclosure rules put into effect by Congress confirm the pre-eminence of Representative John Murtha at procuring eye-popping chunks of pork for contractors he helped put in business in Johnstown, Pa. The Pennsylvania Democrat, a power player on defense appropriations, exudes pride, not embarrassment, for delivering hundreds of millions of dollars in largesse to district beneficiaries. They, in turn, requite with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations.Read it all here. This is one of those rare occasions where the NY Times hits the nail squarely on the head. Their conclusion that "the Murtha operation — which has become a model for other entrepreneurial lawmakers — is a gross example of quid pro quo Washington," is impossible to disagree with when you look at the evidence.
The House of Representatives returns from their holiday recess this week, the Senate next week. Don't expect lawmakers to be clamoring for too much reform on this, as many of them are in neck deep in the pig pit.
UPDATE: President Bush may have the last laugh with the porkers in Congress.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The "Clinton Strategy"
Not only do we see Democrats using unions to attack other unions but Democrats are now employing racial politics against other Democrats. The Clintons have launched an intense campaign to question Senator Obama in ways that many believe are racial in nature.
Senator Clinton has repeated said this election is "not a game" as if Senator Obama is only playing around. Former President Bill Clinton went further and used the phrase "fairy tale" to describe Obama's campaign. And a Clinton surrogate said the candidates can't "shuck and jive" their way to victory, insinuating (in racial terms) that Obama is misleading voters.
Perhaps the Clintons are just questioning Obama's authenticity. But a more cynical view is that they are trying to subtly tell white liberals that Obama is not electable because of the color of his skin.
Democrats have blasted Republicans in years past for using racial politics. They accused them of using a "Southern Strategy" to secure electoral votes in southern states by using race to scare white voters. Now the Clintons are doing something similar against Obama. If their "Clinton Strategy" continues (and works), it may become much harder for Democrats to accuse Republicans of using racial politics in the future.
Senator Clinton has repeated said this election is "not a game" as if Senator Obama is only playing around. Former President Bill Clinton went further and used the phrase "fairy tale" to describe Obama's campaign. And a Clinton surrogate said the candidates can't "shuck and jive" their way to victory, insinuating (in racial terms) that Obama is misleading voters.
Perhaps the Clintons are just questioning Obama's authenticity. But a more cynical view is that they are trying to subtly tell white liberals that Obama is not electable because of the color of his skin.
Democrats have blasted Republicans in years past for using racial politics. They accused them of using a "Southern Strategy" to secure electoral votes in southern states by using race to scare white voters. Now the Clintons are doing something similar against Obama. If their "Clinton Strategy" continues (and works), it may become much harder for Democrats to accuse Republicans of using racial politics in the future.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Nobody is writing about absentee ballots
The buzz from some of the various POTUS '08 campaign staffers is that Hillary Clinton was able to overcome Obama's lead in New Hampshire by relying heavily on running the tables with the absentee balloting.
Remember, many of the folks who voted with absentee ballots cast their votes before the euphoria of Obamomentum began.
The same folks are cognizant of the fact that the polls in Florida are tightening for the GOP candidates. The conventional wisdom is that this state is a do or die for Rudy. Pay attention as the Guiliani campaign follows the Clinton lead with regard to absentee balloting which began in Florida today.
Remember, many of the folks who voted with absentee ballots cast their votes before the euphoria of Obamomentum began.
The same folks are cognizant of the fact that the polls in Florida are tightening for the GOP candidates. The conventional wisdom is that this state is a do or die for Rudy. Pay attention as the Guiliani campaign follows the Clinton lead with regard to absentee balloting which began in Florida today.
Union vs. Union
It's not every day we get to see one union attacking another. But that's exactly what is happening in Nevada where the state teacher's union has filed a lawsuit to make it more difficult for members of the Culinary Workers Union to participate in the Jan. 19 Democratic caucus. According to the AP report:
I thought teachers were supposed to encourage people to participate in the political process, not to suppress it. This union on union hostility seems highly unusual and it shows just how far the Clintons will go to win.
The suit claims that party rules making it easier for Las Vegas Strip shift workers to attend the precinct meetings violate Nevada law and federal equal protection guarantees.As it turns out, the Nevada Education Association is backing Hillary Clinton but the Culinary Workers Union recently endorsed Barack Obama. Naturally.
I thought teachers were supposed to encourage people to participate in the political process, not to suppress it. This union on union hostility seems highly unusual and it shows just how far the Clintons will go to win.
Pot, meet the kettle
In a Michigan mailing McCain accuses Romney of being a tax hiker, despite the fact that he himself twice opposed the Bush tax cuts.
Romney has been beating McCain up over those two votes over and over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)