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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
