The Right Outlaw

Goodbye bland affluence? Meh...

2009-04-17T17:45:00.009-04:00

Unless the sense of resignation dripping from her column "Goodbye bland affluence" is merely an attempt at irony, Peggy Noonan appears to have forgotten a central message of Ronald Reagan's successful movement. To quote from his first inaugural address:

"It is time for us to realize that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We are not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.... We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we are in a time when there are no heroes just don't know where to look."

It is important to remember those words lest we slip into the malaise that gripped the nation in the 1970s, the decade with which Noonan compares our future. While there is much to recommend a simpler, more rooted lifestyle that eschews the excesses of conspicuous consumption, the picture Noonan paints of a New York City that has lost its brass and brashness and of an America that dreams small dreams fills me with something less than comfort.

There is little doubt that these are trying times, that belts will be tightened and sacrifices made, but I am unwilling to resign myself to a future of frayed carpets and a return to the haunted remnants of "WASP style" and "authenticity chic". That is a mindset of complacency and inaction where the facts on the ground are not only fairly acknowledged, but stoically accepted as inevitable. Noonan's is an indulgently nostalgic and almost post-war British vision for the future, one in which anxieties and quiet desperation are nursed by lonely cocktails and secret cigarettes while flipping through our collective album of a sepia past, a world where people give up on their physical appearances and their aspirations alike.

Moreover, Noonan misses the real importance of the Wojtowiczes' story. Yes, she recognizes that they are doing more than just surviving, but rather finding a new way to live. She fails, however, to recognize the motive energy behind what they are doing. They are not resigned to a gray, subdued future of shrinking incomes and silent cities. If they were, they would not have uprooted their lives to start again -- they would have meekly endured it, but this has never been a meek nation.

Faced with changing economic circumstances, the Wojtowiczes have taken the initiative to make for themselves a life worth living. They are "21st century homesteaders" in fact, and like their forebears, they and people like them making various choices will make new communities full of vitality and promise. In short, they have done what Americans have always done when faced with adversity. They stand among the heroes to whom Ronald Reagan was speaking in his first inaugural address. It will be the Wojtowiczes of the world that turn our economic woes around despite the Obama administration's economic policies and despite the elite few, like Peggy Noonan, who appear willing to accept a subdued and pared-down America.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 Unconstitutional?

2009-03-29T19:12:00.002-04:00

It's an open question, as George Will's Sunday column points out. Was there a serious discussion about this all too pertinent issue during debate on the bill? Of course not. How about moving forward as the Obama administration asks for more and more discretion to implement new regulations and as the Congress becomes more and more congenitally averse to fulfilling its regulatory obligations? We'll see, but let's not hold our breaths.

"Show some restraint!"

2009-03-29T19:01:00.003-04:00

That was Obama's advice to bank CEOs on Friday. I wonder if the President can think of someone closer to home who might follow the same advice. No? Well, 2010 is right around the corner.

A well-oiled foreign policy machine at work

2009-03-29T18:48:00.001-04:00

Hillary Clinton leaves flowers for Our Lady of Guadalupe, asks ‘Who painted it?’

Public-Private Partnership?

2009-03-29T18:24:00.003-04:00

Who in their right minds from the private sector would dream of signing on to one of the Obama administration's various outreach programs designed to partner public and private money to "solve" the current economic crisis?

First we had the Democrats in Congress, along with the White House and fringe advocacy groups such as ACORN, demonizing AIG bonuses that they specifically created a loophole to allow, followed by ongoing attempt to pass a confiscatory tax on those bonuses that amounts to little less than a bill of attainder.

Now we have the President demanding the resignation of of the CEO of General Motors in exchange for more federal money. Who exactly are they going to hire to replace him? Tim Geithner can't even staff the Treasury Department.

Is Obama just clueless, or is there a method to the madness? I'm starting to think there's something to the claims of some conservatives that Obama is deliberately manipulating events so that his first round programs fail, opening the door to more straightforward nationalization down the road.

Site redesign and another word about my return to blogging

2009-03-29T17:13:00.003-04:00

As you may have noticed, there have been some significant changes around here. After a two-year hiatus, I figured my return to blogging should be paired with a new look for the blog itself, and I've chosen as my banner image the famous painting of the Constitutional Convention by Howard Chandler Christy for a reason. There are many lessons to be learned from the political and economic upheaval of the last year, but none is more important than the realization that we've collectively forgotten what it is that binds us together as a nation. It isn't race, religion, economics, political ideology, culture or even the simple fact of geographic proximity. Rather, we are bound together by a commitment to a set of ideas, the principles set down in our founding documents. They are what make this nation unique in the history of the world.

While I've long been aware that these ideas were the living heart of our polity, I was poignantly reminded of how far we've drifted away from them this week when I happened upon links to Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address in 1981 and his farewell to the nation in 1989. Now, before you jump to the conclusion that I am just another example of a conservative taking an opportunity to let his Reagan obsession reach new heights, let me disclaim that I came across them on YouTube entirely by accident. I wasn't just sitting here feeling nostalgic, and I'll be the first to admit that Reagan's was a flawed presidency. But in these two instances (and many others beside), Reagan transcended the messy, often broken nature of issues politics and plunged into the deep, uniting themes that flow through our collective history as a nation. His ability and heartfelt longing to do so is part of what made him a transformational president. Watch, listen, learn and remember.

I'll be having a lot more to say in the coming days about these two speeches, so please tune back in soon.

It's been too long...

2009-03-29T15:45:00.000-04:00

Well, folks, it's been a while since I've posted. Too long. I'll be honest with you: the presidential election and all of the hullabaloo accompanying it put me off my usual diet of political news, but it's time to get started again. There's just too much going on not to speak out about the dangers our country and culture face on all sides. I probably won't resume blogging at full speed, but check back when you can. I will be commenting whenever I have something to say.

Better Late Than Never?

2007-05-21T09:28:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post reports what's been obvious for over a month now -- the Bush administration is slowly coming around to adopt the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. With more intensive regional diplomacy, an increased willingness to entertain benchmarks for Iraqi performance, and emphasis on coordination between US and Iraqi forces, we're seeing those policies implemented, albeit in slow motion. Moreover, prominent Republican lawmakers are co-sponsoring a bill to make the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group official policy of the US government.

The question is whether Bush has missed the window to use the group's findings to save US political commitment to success in Iraq:

"The administration is sort of being slowly compelled to adopt the bipartisan consensus that the Iraq Study Group presented them in December," said James F. Dobbins, a Rand Corp. analyst and former U.S. diplomat who served on one of the expert working groups advising the panel. "Eventually they are going to be pulled to it regarding troop reductions."

The trouble, he said, is that by coming around so late, the White House may have missed the last opportunity to rally Congress to support staying in Iraq under more limited circumstances -- rather than simply pulling out. "They are going to end up embracing all the provisions, without the benefit of bipartisanship," Dobbins said.

I fear Mr. Dobbin's analysis is correct given growing recalcitrance on Iraq among the Democratic leadership, but I hope there's still time to forge a compromise position. The solution is for Bush to give a speech with the following message:

My fellow Americans, I come to you tonight to explain that the stakes in Iraq are higher than ever. I understand that there's a great deal of controversy over how and why we invaded Iraq and that many people are dissatisfied with the way this government's policy has been implemented. I understand your concerns, and I share many of them -- mistakes have been made, and as Commander-In-Chief, I take full responsibility for those mistakes -- but failure cannot be an option. Whatever your opinion of how we began this war and regardless of your opinion of me, the consequences are simply too grave for us to withdraw without creating a stable and secure Iraq that can stand on its own two feet.
First and foremost, it's a matter of national security. If our Iraqi mission fails, there will be dire consequences in the Middle East that will make us less safe. The risks of a failed state in the heart of the region are real. We cannot accept the expansion of Iranian influence at a time when they are pursing nuclear weapons. We cannot allow Al Qaeda to use Iraqi territory as a new training ground for terrorists. We cannot allow instability in Iraq to destabilize its neighbors Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan, our allies all. These are all real possibilities, maybe even inevitabilities, should we fail.
Second, we must consider the suffering of the Iraqi people, and if we withdraw before finishing the job, there will be suffering on a monumental scale: civil war, ethnic cleansing, and massive dislocations of refugees. As a matter of morality and national honor, we cannot stand by and watch this happen to a people we have liberated. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell gave us good advice when he said, "If we break it, we own it." For better or worse, we're responsible for the outcome in Iraq, and it's time to redouble our efforts toward success.
As I've said before, mistakes have been made, and they weigh heavily on me as they do on our nation as a whole, and I take full responsibility. But there is still hope. The Iraqi people still long for the freedom they expressed when so many of them embraced democracy, voting in their first truly free elections. The Iraqi military is standing up with our help, and General Petraeus' plan is helping them stand up faster. This is a process that will take time, but those forces who ran in the first days are now standing to fight for their country, and we must stand with them until they can bear the burden themselves.
There is no shame in opposing this war, and it's not unpatriotic to have a different opinion. The free exchange of ideas is central to our own constitutional system, and I fully accept that many people strongly desire a change in policy. I recognize that there is growing dissatisfaction about how long things are taking in Iraq, and it was a mistake for me not to reach out sooner to ask you for more time, to call on you to sacrifice for this effort that is so vital to our national security. It was also a mistake for me not to have forged a bipartisan consensus on Iraq -- we are always stronger when we work together.
I am committed to rectifying those mistakes. I am committed to doing better by you, by the military that fights so valiantly, and by the Iraqi citizens who deserve a chance at a better life. It's time for us to set politics aside. As my first step toward that goal, I will immediately implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and I ask the Congress to join me by passing those recommendations into law. I also ask the Congress to come together to forge a bipartisan compromise on the war funding supplemental that will allow our troops to have the support they need to finish their mission.
In particular, I endorse the Warner Amendment that ties Iraqi reconstruction aid to specific performance benchmarks. We must sacrifice to insure that our mission is a success, but it's only fair that we ask the Iraqis to do the same. This plan demands that the Iraqi government shoulder more of the burden while insuring that they receive the support they need in a timely fashion. The accountability that the plan provides is essential to our confidence that we have a partner in the process, but it doesn't stop there. The Warner Amendment also provides for additional congressional oversight and testimony from independent experts on Iraqi and US performance. I want you to have confidence in your government, as well.
This isn't a war without end. None of us wants that, me least of all. But if our history in Vietnam has taught us anything, it's that our proud military cannot be defeated in the field, but only at home. We cannot accept defeat, and I pledge to you to do my best to chart a new course that gives you confidence in the very real hope we have to secure Iraq and stabilize the heart of the Middle East. Thank you and God bless.

Romney Flip-Flop on Immigration

2007-05-19T13:23:00.000-04:00

Just last year, Mitt Romney called comprehensive immigration plans similar to the compromise endorsed by President Bush reform "reasonable". Now that he's running for president as a purported conservative, he's changed his tune:

Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new Z Visa does, is a form of amnesty.

What position won't this man change to pander to the right wing of the Republican Party?

Science Saturday

2007-05-19T13:18:00.000-04:00

George Johnson and Sandra Blakeslee had a fascinating diavlog on this weeks edition of Science Saturday. Take a look!

The Warner Plan

2007-05-18T17:09:00.000-04:00

It seems that just as the parties seemed to be coming closer together after the President's veto, many Democrats are again playing politics with the war funding bill. Over recent days, the President has signaled that he is more than willing to entertain benchmarks that do not establish a timetable for withdrawal, but Democratic leaders Reid and Pelosi continue to view that position as too weak. Leading Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have give their leaders cover by supporting a deadline for US withdrawal.

Luckily, not all Democrats are quite so blithe about the consequences of failure and the real signs of hope in Iraq:

"An arbitrary cutoff date would take away an important negotiating tool," said Sen. Jim Webb, of Virginia, a Democratic critic of the war elected to his first term last November. He noted that the administration had recently taken steps to engage Iran in diplomacy in hopes of easing the sectarian violence in neighboring Iraq.

Fellow Virginia Senator John Warner has advanced a reasonable compromise amendment on war funding that conditions future US reconstruction aid on the Iraqi government meeting both political and military benchmarks. The amendment also establishes new congressional oversight, providing for independent expert testimony on Iraqi performance, and encourages the al-Maliki government to vote on continued US military presence in the country. The Warner plan mustered 52 votes (including seven Democrats), but failed to secure the 60 votes necessary for cloture.

I know it's primary season, and I know net-roots Democrats are clamoring for immediate withdrawal and defunding military operations, but our national security and honor are at stake in Iraq. No matter what your view of how our national ox got in the ditch of Iraq -- or your view of the man who got us into the mess -- it's time for reasonable people of good faith to come together to recognize that, best case scenario, our failure means genocide, a failed state in central Iraq, a fundamentalist Shi'a region beholden to Iran, and a destablized Kurdistan in conflict with Turkey. None of these possibilities bode well for American interests, and it could get far worse.

Why choose that path now when a compromise like Warner's that encourages Iraqi performance and insures much neglected and needed congressional oversight can advance the ball while we give General Petraeus time to improve the security situation on the ground? Politics is a bitch.

Vote No on Gonzales

2007-05-18T16:53:00.000-04:00

Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein plan to take advantage of waning GOP support for the Attorney General by sponsoring a no-confidence vote on his continuing tenure at the Department of Justice. Yesterday, Senator Norm Coleman became the sixth Senate Republican to call for Gonzales ouster. It's long since time for President Bush to end this national embarrassment by asking for the man's resignation.

Time for Gonzales to Go

2007-05-17T14:22:00.000-04:00

The New York Times reports that Arlen Spector now predicts Gonzales' departure:

The Justice Department, according to veteran Sen. Arlen Specter, can't properly protect the nation from terrorism or oversee President Bush's no-warrant eavesdropping program with Gonzales at the helm.
''I have a sense that when we finish our investigation, we may have the conclusion of the tenure of the attorney general,'' Specter, R-Pa., said during a committee hearing. ''I think when our investigation is concluded, it'll be clear even to the attorney general and the president that we're looking at a dysfunctional department which is vital to the national welfare.''

Ron Paul

2007-05-17T14:12:00.000-04:00

The call is out to ban Ron Paul from future GOP debates. It's an absurd reaction to his contrarian voice, but more importantly, as Jonah Goldberg points out, it's counter-productive:

I would like to see a debate with just the front-runners, or even one-on-one debates between Romney, McCain, Giuliani and anyone else, simply because I think we'd learn a lot more than we do in these 10 man steel cage matches. So reducing the size of debates doesn't bother me at all. But singling Ron Paul out just because he's off the reservation on this stuff strikes me as an unnecessary admission of intellectual and philosophical insecurity. After all, by any significant political measure Giuliani won that exchange. So what's so scary? Let Paul serve as a useful punching bag.

Immigration Deal

2007-05-17T13:47:00.000-04:00

The President and key bipartisan members of the US Senate have agreed on a compromise bill to create a path to legal status for undocumented aliens while dramatically strengthening border enforcement and illegal alien detection. This comprehensive bill still faces a fight from the Tancredo-Hunter wing of the Republican party, but it offers the potential to solve the immigration crisis once and for all with the compassion long promised by the Bush administration.

The bill creates a new class of "Z visas" that illegals can obtain by paying a fees and a $5,000 fine -- this approach clearly removes the compromise plan from the amnesty category so reviled by the right wing, but also includes a path to permanent residency and eventual citizenship after border security has been beefed up to prevent additional illegals from joining their ranks. The new class of visa would allow people to work legally in the United States. The new plan also shifts US immigration policy away from the long standing emphasis on family ties, replacing it with a program that favors particular educational and skill categories. Spouses and minor children of documented aliens or citizens will still receive preferential treatment.

ADDED: John McCain's participation in reaching the compromise on immigration may not be popular among right-wing Republican primary voters, but it further demonstrates both his work ethic and his independence. Name the last major presidential candidate who managed to help negotiate landmark legislation while running in the primaries -- the list is exceptionally short. The old McCain is back, and I welcome him gladly. It will be most interesting to see how the other top-tier candidates react to the compromise, especially Fred Thompson.

Last Night's AI Shocker

2007-05-17T13:39:00.000-04:00

Well, Melinda has left us despite being the best singer-performer in the competition. This isn't the first time America has gotten it wrong in a big way on American Idol, and it's surely not the last, but it came as a big surprise to me. My theory is that Simon's compliments Tuesday night made some of Melinda's supporters complacent -- they assumed she would make the final and instead cast their votes for Jordin or didn't vote at all. I see that Blake has the endorsement of Votefortheworst.com -- I can only hope they lack the influence to keep Jordin from taking the crown. Farewell, Melinda Doolittle, and good luck, though something tells me you won't need it.

Democratic Mistake

2007-05-16T15:17:00.000-04:00

After their fine handling of last night's GOP debate, the Democrats are making a mistake by locking Fox News out of their debate lineup. At the very least it shows an unwillingness to be challenged and a hard-headed resolve to punish purported media enemies, but at its worst it demonstrates intellectual cowardice. If the Republicans can put up with Chris Matthews' constant interruptions, the Democrats can soldier through the efficient, responsible questioning of Brit Hume, Windell Goler, and Chris Wallace.

James Comey on Ashcroft and Gonzales

2007-05-16T14:47:00.000-04:00

We've known the story for some time, but never has it been told in such stark terms as during James Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday:

Mr. Comey, the former No. 2 official in the Justice Department, said the crisis began when he refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the program, which allowed monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States who were suspected of having terrorist ties. He said he made his decision after the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, based on an extensive review, concluded that the program did not comply with the law. At the time, Mr. Comey was acting attorney general because Mr. Ashcroft had been hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery.
Mr. Comey would not describe the rationale for his refusal to approve the eavesdropping program, citing its classified nature. The N.S.A. program, which began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks and did not require court approval to listen in on the communications of Americans and others, provoked an outcry in Congress when it was disclosed in December 2005.
Mr. Comey said that on the evening of March 10, 2004, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, tried to bypass him by secretly visiting Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Mr. Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors.
Mr. Comey said that when a top aide to Mr. Ashcroft alerted him about the pending visit, he ordered his driver to rush him to George Washington University Hospital with emergency lights flashing and a siren blaring, to intercept the pair. They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.
Mr. Comey said he phoned Mr. Mueller, who agreed to meet him at the hospital. Once there, Mr. Comey said he “literally ran up the stairs.” At his request, Mr. Mueller ordered the F.B.I. agents on Mr. Ashcroft’s security detail not to evict Mr. Comey from the room if Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card objected to his presence.
Mr. Comey said he arrived first in the darkened room, in time to brief Mr. Ashcroft, who he said seemed barely conscious. Before Mr. Ashcroft became ill, Mr. Comey said the two men had talked and agreed that the program should not be renewed.
When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program.
“I was angry,” Mr. Comey told the committee. “ I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I thought he had conducted himself in a way that demonstrated a strength I had never seen before, but still I thought it was improper.”

The President eventually overruled the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the Director of the FBI, all of whom threatened to resign over the controversial presidential authorization.

Most troubling is the fact that the exchange led directly to John Ashcroft's replacement as Attorney General by Alberto Gonzales -- Ashcroft was an insufficiently staunch ally of the White House, so the President replaced him with a lackey he knew would be a rubber stamp, a hack he knew would respect no bounds of decency, even if it meant accosting a man in his hospital sickbed in the dead of night. If his incompetent, bumbling, apathetic handling of the US Attorney scandal wasn't enough to convince people that it's time for Gonzales to resign, perhaps this history lesson will do the trick.

Fred Thompson's Numbers

2007-05-16T14:30:00.000-04:00

In a new Harris Interactive poll, former Senator Fred Thompson has pulled even with John McCain for second place in the GOP primary contest. More interestingly, he has also closed the gap in the bell-weather state of Ohio, jumping seven points according to a more scientific Quinnipiac Ohio poll to score within the margin of error of second place. These are very encouraging numbers for those of us awaiting Fred's entrance into the race.
(Hat tip to Ryan Sager of the New York Sun's Latest Politics Blog)

After Sleeping on the Debate

2007-05-16T12:42:00.000-04:00

Rudy emerged as the big winner of last night's debate. His answers were forceful and sometimes humorous, and he's obviously a good debater. His responses to Ron Paul and and torture question were high points of the debate, despite both being misguided in my view. For the first time, he seemed presidential and offered up the sort of red meat that primary voters will love. Rudy also handled the abortion question in a much better fashion, focusing on prevention and alternatives rather than criminalization. I wouldn't be surprised if his performance solidifies his status as front-runner, at least until the next big event of the primary season.

McCain came in a clear second, seeming much more at ease with the format. He also appeared presidential and grew on me through the debate, deploying humor and his natural charm to great effect. His defense of his anti-torture stance was particularly moving, and I think he responded effectively to Mitt Romney's barbs on immigration and campaign finance reform. The old McCain many of us came to love was back in full force.

Romney was his usual polished self, but he seemed a bit less at ease, offering a few answers that sounded over-prepared and wooden. His glib smarminess doesn't wear well with me, and his responses to the flip-flop question leave me asking more questions rather than fewer.

Of the second tier, Huckabee again stood out as the best of the rest, but let's face it, it's time to winnow the list of candidates to a more manageable number. Jim Gilmore, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter have no reasonable chance of breaking through to the first tier, and it's time for them to go. Even Huckabee and Brownback have little chance, but they both offer a more broad-spectrum conservatism that isn't bound to a few issues. The hard question is how to craft a rule that limits the number of debaters while not completely excluding the second tier -- none of them routinely scores above 1-2-3% in national polls. And how do you deal with Ron Paul, the sole contrarian on the dais? His voice needs to be heard, and it would be a shame to exclude him. However, if the separation continues, the GOP will have no choice but to exclude the entire second tier, especially if Gingrich or Fred Thompson enters the race.

Judging the Moderators

2007-05-15T23:26:00.000-04:00

As much as I hate to admit it, the Fox News moderators did a much better job tonight. Both Brian Williams and Chris Matthews intruded on answers, injecting themselves into the debate inappropriately. Brit Hume, Windell Goler, and Chris Wallace asked good questions and then let the buzzer do the work of cutting off the candidates. With so many candidates to question, they left important issues out, but coverage was especially good given which issues are most important to Republican voters.

Fred Thompson...

2007-05-15T22:53:00.000-04:00

responds hilariously to Michael Moore's challenge to a debate on health care and Moore's controversial documentary Sicko. Good going, Fred!

Live Blogging the GOP Debate

2007-05-15T21:04:00.000-04:00

On Iraq:

McCain sounds much more at ease tonight, but he's essentially echoing the Bush administration line on Iraq, albeit strongly. He could have argued a better case and needs to. Romney makes another good turn on Iraq, but still stops short of a nuanced case for avoiding withdrawal. Giuliani is also smoother this week, incorporating the recent threat to Fort Dix into his argument for why we can't fail in the Middle East, but he fails to explain how our commitment in Iraq isn't open-ended.

On the economy:

Romney reiterates his promise not to raise taxes -- instead he wants to fix a "broken" Washington, cutting waste, but he fails to explain how such efficiency gains would fix the problem. McCain has a couple of great laugh lines and refocuses his attack on cutting spending -- he seems on top of his game tonight. Mike Huckabee delivers what is the best line of the election to date -- "Congress has been spending like John Edwards in a beauty shop." Giuliani offers his bona fides as a conservative spender -- "if you can lower spending in NYC, Washington is easier." He also pledges to reduce the federal workforce through attrition over the next presidential term. Brownback makes a good case for energy independence, bio-diesel and hybrid technology. Ron Paul sounds most convincing when he argues that we have to fundamentally change our view of what government can accomplish and cites the Department of Homeland Security as a good example of the expensive incompetence we need to cut from our budget.

At the first commercial break, all three of the first tier candidates are hanging strong. Of the second tier, Huckabee is again shining above the pack, though Brownback and Hunter have both given a solid performance. As the sole libertarian on the stage, Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.

Who's conservative?

Gilmore stammers while attacking his fellow candidates. Rudy responds first -- "Rudy McRomney would make a good ticket -- I especially like the order" -- Republicans should unite against Hillary -- He ran the most conservative NYC in over fifty years, but he looks for ways to come together, but there are ways to reduce abortion without criminalization. Results matter. McCain's purported liberalism is all about reaching across the isle to work together, but knowledge and experience matter most, and he's the most experienced. Huckabee gives even a stronger answer, defending his record of tax cuts and not apologizing for his spending projects that improved life for Arkansans. Romney argues his conservative bona fides -- he supports the 2nd Amendment and the assault weapons ban -- he supports gay equality but opposes changes to marriage -- he took a conservative approach in the bluest of the blue states. Eh...

Abortion and stem cells:

Rudy argues that there is a sincere disagreement on abortion -- when there is that kind of disagreement, you have to respect opinions and keep government out of coersion on the issue. It's more important to focus on reducing the number of elections and leave Roe v. Wade to the courts. A much better answer than during the California debate. Huckabee and Brownback offer the stock arguments. Romney faces up to the question of women being injured by illegal abortions -- the people should make the decision, not the courts.

Immigration:

Tancredo hammers McCain and the many conversions on the stage: "I trust conversions on the road to Damascus, but not on the road to Des Moines." McCain responds that he's been supporting the President -- reform has to be comprehensive -- boarder enforcement isn't enough -- those who were going to attack Ft. Dix were here on legal visas that had expired. McCain is heavily engaged in the negotiations and as an Arizonan is going to lead to get results. Romney splits hairs in accusing the McCain-Kennedy plan of creating a special pathway to legal status -- illegals shouldn't have special status over others waiting in line. McCain returns the slam -- he hasn't changed positions during even numbered years or based on what office he's running for. Rudy thanks Tancredo for calling him soft on anything -- a first in 20 years. Giuliani knows something about security -- he reiterates his plan for a national database and tamper-proof ID card for aliens.

Ron Paul says the party has lost its way -- the Republican Party has always been for a non-interventionist foreign policy -- even Bush was elected on a platform of a humble foreign policy. We need to follow the advice of the founders -- wars entered into carelessly don't end. Intervention was a major motivating factor leading to 9/11 -- we don't understand Middle Eastern politics. The enemy is delighted that we are on their territory. Giuliani responds -- that's an absurd explanation for 9/11 -- he asks Paul to withdraw his explanation. Paul explains the concept of blowback -- if we ignore it, we do so at our own risk.

McCain offers a great answer on the Confederate Flag in South Carolina and gets a big round of applause. Huckabee knows he can't be perfect, but he promises to do his best to avoid mistakes.

The environment:

Tancredo expresses skepticism over global warming, but petroleum independence is an issue of national security.

On terrorism -- it sounds like the final segment will ask the candidates to respond real time to a national crisis.... developing. Three shopping malls have been attacked. Another attack has been thwarted and we have the attackers in custody. We know other attacks are underway -- what do you do as president?

McCain would authorize coercive interrogation on his own responsibility in a ticking-time-bomb scenario, but we cannot endorse torture -- it's about us as a nation -- we would do ourselves great harm in the world by endorsing torture. Giuliani would give interrogators the order to do whatever they can think of -- he's seen what happens when mistakes happen. Romney says prevention is the key -- keep the bomb from going off -- intelligence and counter-terrorism -- keep them off our soil and away from lawyers -- The president has to make the call and enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used. McCain views enhanced interrogation as torture -- there's a divide between those who've served and those who haven't -- if we use torture, our enemies will use it on our soldiers. Huckabee offers a great answer on the need to call the country to sacrifice to defend the nation. Ron Paul would cut taxes to soften the effect of a deficit resulting from a terrorist attack -- enhanced interrogation is a euphemism -- the president has the power to do what he needs to do -- we need to deal with the situation we have going on now, not talk about hypotheticals. Tancredo is looking for Jack Bauer -- we are the last best hope of western civilization, so everything goes out the window when we are under attack -- make them fearful of attacking us.

Romney points out examples where he changed his mind in a way that's unpopular with the GOP: he used to oppose the USDoE, now he supports No Child Left Behind -- the civil rights issue of our time is education. Duncan Hunter offers a great answer on the national security threat of the Chinese holding so much US debt -- we have to enforce trade rules and make our relationship with China a two way street.

ADDED: None of the top tier candidates made a major blunder, but Rudy Giuliani performed much better tonight than during the California debate. By virtue of his forceful delivery and big applause lines in response to Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, Rudy won by a nose, especially given that the other two first tier candidates Romney and McCain spent an exchange sparring with each other over their conservatism. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were the real standouts from the second tier for very different reasons: Huckabee as the most charismatic and convincing true believer and Ron Paul as the black sheep libertarian. There's a lot of talk swirling about winnowing the field in future debates, but there are a number of voices among the ten candidates that need to be heard. Nonetheless, several of the ten candidates need to go -- a palpable division is beginning to form between those with a real chance to break through and those whose star is dimming.

ADDED: NRO's John Podhoretz and Ramesh Ponnuru agree that Rudy carried the day.

Rating the Idols: Final Three

2007-05-15T20:05:00.000-04:00

Judge's song selections:

Jordin sang "Wishing on a Star" (Simon) -- A
Blake sang "Roxanne" (Paula) -- B
Melinda sang "I Believe in You and Me" (Randy) -- A+

Producer's song selections:

Jordin sang "She Works Hard for the Money" -- A
Blake sang "This Love" -- A-
Melinda sang "Nutbush City Limits" -- A+

Idols' song selections:

Jordin sang "I Who Have Nothing" -- A+
Blake sang "When I Get You Alone" -- B+
Melinda sang "" -- A+

Melinda should sail through with Jordin joining her, but based on fan response, it's too close to call. Blake might very well eek out a spot in the final two.

Congress in the Doldrums

2007-05-15T18:43:00.000-04:00

Public approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress has dropped to 29% while George Bush's remains at a cheerful 33%. Matt Drudge and other GOP mouthpieces have been heralding the news as a blow to Pelosi's leadership, and no doubt there's some truth to it, but Ann Althouse makes the key point:

To be fair, Congress's average for last year -- per Gallup -- was 25%. People just don't like Congress too much. We're not crazy about the President either but -- again, to be fair to Congress -- it looks as though we're chronically down on the whole institution, whereas with the President, sometimes he's popular. So when the President is unpopular, we mainly don't like what he's doing. But when Congress is unpopular, it's mainly because it's Congress. Sometimes a few of us forget and think wow, Congress, and the number might get up to something like the 37% peak Congress hit this year when Congress was strutting around blabbing about its "mandate," but then, some time passes, and we're back to eh, Congress.

Pelosi and Reed may have missed an opportunity to wow us, but is anyone really surprised?

Bloggingheads from Baghdad, Part III

2007-05-15T17:44:00.000-04:00

The Tuesday edition of bloggingheads.tv again features New York Sun journalist Eli Lake broadcasting from Baghdad. Now embedded with a new battalion working in Abu Ghraib, the former site of the now infamous prison, Lake offers important insights into Iraqi tribal politics and the recalcitrance of the al-Maliki government. Under the leadership of General Petraeus, the US military has made great strides in working with individual tribes to stem the tide of tribal violence while also working to discredit Al-Qaeda operations among the indigenous people, regardless of their sectarian and tribal affiliations. However, the shocking lack of support from the elected government continues, in large part, Lake contends, because al-Maliki is able to use the cover of American political arguments to focus attention on the contingency of American withdrawal. As a result, Eli makes an impassioned plea to Democrats and net-roots operatives alike that they stop the rhetoric of immediate withdrawal. I encourage you to watch the entire diavlog.

To my mind, Lake's reporting argues strongly for the kind of compromise benchmarks that I've talked about before. The Bush administration seems open to non-binding benchmarks, but it strikes me that the goals they set have to have real teeth behind them to exert the sort of pressure that will motivate the Iraqi government. Rather than linking our military funding to goals out of its control, perhaps the best approach is to tie governmental aid directly to al-Maliki's performance. By this time, we're well acquainted with the way money seems to disappear in Iraq. If for no other reason, it makes sense to portion out our dedicated resources only once specific progress goals have been met with preexisting funds. Regardless, we don't want to give influential Iraqis the notion that they can drag their feet because of an impending and inevitable US withdrawal. That approach will certainly doom our efforts to failure.

Jerry Falwell, RIP

2007-05-15T15:29:00.000-04:00

Whatever view you take of his rhetoric and hard-right positions on social issues of the day, there's no doubt that Rev. Jerry Falwell has been a powerful force in American politics for more than a quarter century. Minister, founder of the Moral Majority, and advisor to presidents from Reagan to George W. Bush, his controversial legacy will live on for many years to come. While he always stayed true to his moralistic message of biblical inerrancy, he also showed an affable softer side and a willingness to reach across political and moral divides. His increasing tolerance of gays over recent years showed an openness to healing and reconciliation so often missing among members of the religious right. May he rest in peace.

Survivor Fiji Finale (Spoiler Warning)

2007-05-15T15:06:00.000-04:00

Since I haven't blogged before on Survivor, I'll just make a few brief comments on Sunday's finale. The now infamous double cross was duly rewarded with zero votes at the final tribal council, proving that honor and integrity still count for something, even in a game like Survivor. Earl's first-ever unanimous victory is testimony that smart, honest good guys can finish first.

Moreover, the diversity of the final four was a refreshing change. In a game that has in the past played parlor games with race, an alliance of two African-American men, one African-American woman, and an Asian man truly did outwit, outlast, and outplay their peers. The ongoing relationship between Earl and Yau Man was particularly moving to me as a uniquely American story: work ethic, integrity, and intelligence cutting across all divides of ethnicity, age and culture to create a strong and enduring friendship.

Also of great interest to me was the announcement that the entire next season of Survivor will take place in the heart of mainland China, a first for American television. I am enamoured with the sheer majesty of the Chinese landscape in which the cast will vie for the title of Sole Survivor, but I will be most interested to watch as the show unfolds a story of Chinese culture and history that can only be beneficial for our nation's relationship with an emerging superpower.

Brooks' Human Capital Agenda

2007-05-15T14:35:00.000-04:00

In his new NYT column, David Brooks outlines his vision of a campaign agenda that makes good on the false promise of compassionate conservatism by cutting across the lines of right and left to call for a new national focus on the value of human capital. In the process he lauds Bush's "masterstroke" of leadership in coining the phrase compassionate conservatism, despite its later failures:

Instead of looking small by chasing the approval of midlevel power brokers, he made himself look big by defining his own agenda and making them come to him. Instead of enmeshing himself in the controversies that were contributing to G.O.P. decline, he gave the country something unexpected, and offered a break with the past.
Today, Republican candidates should hunger to give that kind of speech, this time with a bigger policy agenda. Republicans should learn from Bush’s false dawn and create a real dawn. What the country needs is a candidate who can transcend current categories and give a speech laying out a human capital agenda, which offers several advantages.
....
[A] human capital agenda leads to policies that cut across left and right. At the very least, it means preserving low income-tax rates, which cause people to work harder and develop their capacities. It means creating high-quality preschools for children from disorganized single-parent homes. It means giving parents more school choice so they can take advantage of the information they now have about failing schools thanks to No Child Left Behind.
It means increasing child tax credits to reduce economic stress on young families. It means encouraging marriage, the best educational institution we have. It means a national service program, so young people can experience the world.

His praise of Bush for coming up with such a muddled concept is highly debatable, but Brooks prescription isn't wholly without merit. GOP candidates do need a way to escape associations with past mistakes and calcified ideological rhetoric that turns off moderates and libertarians.

As I've discussed before, the political challenge of our time for Republicans is to find new ways to approach seemingly intractable problems with conservative solutions that hold true to our commitment to small and efficient government, low and fair taxes, and personal responsibility. Brooks' approach is to focus these principles on education and economic opportunity, and I look forward to the specifics of his plan over the coming weeks, albeit with trepidation given his penchant for big government solutions.

But a human capital agenda is just one small piece of a truly national strategy and would only chip away at the edges of the political problems Republicans face. True, it would help recast what is a growing, vibrant economy in populist terms the public can understand, but what about energy independence, the environment, entitlement reform, health care and any number of other domestic policy issues. Those, too, need conservative answers that are compelling politically and effective in practice. Without a broad agenda that addresses all of the domestic slate of issues, it would be hard to call such a platform leadership.

Back from a little break...

2007-05-15T14:30:00.000-04:00

After a busy Mother's Day weekend, I'm back to blogging. I hope you all you moms out there had a very special day!

And Then There Were Nine

2007-05-11T15:42:00.000-04:00

Another name has been added to the growing list of suspicious US Attorney firings: that of Todd Graves, former US Attorney in Kansas City, Missouri. This newly revealed case may be the most troubling of them all.

Asked to resign in January 2006, Graves was replaced by a former aid to Karl Rove despite the fact that his home Republican Senator Chris Bond specifically requested an extension of his service for the district. Upon appointment, his interim replacement, Brad Schlozman immediately undertook an indictment of voter-registration activists in the weeks before the 2006 general election in what appears to have been an attempt to influence the nail-biter senatorial election between vulnerable Republican Jim Talent and now Senator Claire McCaskill. Graves' permanent replacement, confirmed this spring, is John Wood, Senator Bond's cousin. The more layers of this onion we unravel, the more rotten the core appears.

In his prepared comments yesterday, Attorney General Gonzales failed even to mention the case of Todd Graves. His unresponsive, stock-answer testimony made few friends among the House Judiciary Committee and certainly inspired little confidence. A national disgrace, it's long since time for Gonzales to have resigned, but with the president's continuing support, don't look for it any time soon.

Krauthammer on Giuliani on Abortion

2007-05-11T15:25:00.000-04:00

Charles Krauthammer's column in today's Washington Post explores Rudy Giuliani's much debated debate answer on abortion, striking just the right analysis:

Democrats are pro-choice and have an abortion litmus test for judges they would nominate to the Supreme Court. Giuliani is pro-choice but has no such litmus test. The key phrase in his answer is "strict constructionist judge." On judicial issues in general he believes in "strict constructionism," the common conservative view that we don't want judges citing penumbral emanations and other constitutional vapors to justify inventing new rights they fancy the country needs.
However, one strict constructionist might look at Roe v. Wade as the constitutional travesty it is and decide to repeal it. Another strict constructionist judge could, with equal conviction, decide that after 35 years the habits and mores shaped by Roe v. Wade are so ingrained in society that it should not be overturned.
....
Giuliani's answer on how to go about picking such judges is perfectly reasonable. It appears to be a dodge about the abortion issue itself simply because -- thanks to Roe -- every such debate becomes tangled with otherwise irrelevant issues of constitutional doctrine and stare decisis.

Just so. Giuliani's answer may have been shorthand, but it was far from the gaffe so many pundits make of it. Moreover, it happens to be the right answer to the abortion question. Given the judicialization of reproductive rights in 1973, the question by necessity falls to the court. Many different legal norms may inform a constitutionalists jurist, and the varying weight given to those factors could result in a variety of principled outcomes. Though Krauthammer endorses a different outcome from the one I would choose were I on the court, his analysis is a refreshing change from the gotcha politics that's already begun this primary season.

Cheney's Bellicosity

2007-05-11T11:05:00.000-04:00

In another unseemly aircraft carrier stunt, Vice President Cheney delivered a stern message to Iran:

With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we’re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike.... We’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Not exactly the language and symbolism of diplomatic engagement. It seems to me we ought to be taking advantage of the divisions within the Iranian leadership with constant diplomatic pressure, especially given the recent victory of Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France. Instead, we are striking a tone that will unite the Iranian people (not to mention other international actors in the region and the world generally) against us.

Benchmarks

2007-05-11T10:47:00.000-04:00

At long last, President Bush has made an overture to congressional opponents on Iraq, signalling that he is open to the idea of benchmarks in the war funding bill. It what may be one of the first sound political decisions the administration has made since the 2006 elections, Bush seems to be adopting a centrist position while, on the main, the Democrats are staking out immediate withdrawal territory. I'm not sure what pierced the bubble -- perhaps it was the on-going recalcitrance of the Iraqi leadership, perhaps it was the recent visit from moderate Republicans indicating the softness of GOP support for the administration's position -- but I'm thankful for the decision. This concession will give real potential for a compromise bill that applies even-handed pressure on the Iraqis to be real partners in the process General Petraeus has been implementing. My only fear is that President Bush has waited too long. The Democrats, especially Speaker Pelosi, seem to have calcified in their position that funding be tied to a withdrawal timetable. Let's hope not.

Romney, Sharpton and the Atheists

2007-05-10T10:26:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan makes a good point that's Romney's bigotry against non-believers is at least as strong, if not stronger than Al Sharpton's anti-Mormon bias. By saying that "we need to have a person of faith lead the country," Romney has endorsed a de facto religious test for the office of president, one of the few things barred specifically by the Constitution as a fundamental principle of our legal system. He should be called on it in the next debate.

Gonzales Confident

2007-05-10T09:56:00.000-04:00

One wonders why Alberto Gonzales continues to serve as Attorney General in the wake of the questionable and bungled firing of eight US Attorney's last year and the firestorm of political outrage it produced, but the fact that the man is still confident of keeping his job boggles the mind. The president's misapplied loyalty comes as no surprise, but he has shown a willingness to throw friends from the lifeboat when the controversy gets too hot (Don Rumsfeld, Michael Brown). What explains his recalcitrance in this case? I'm sure that Gonzales' tenure in Texas is part of the picture, as is his particularly close friendship with the president.

The biggest factor, however, is that news coverage of the scandal has been fragmented. From Anna Nicole Smith to the Virginia Tech shooting to Paris Hilton's arrest, lesser news stories have pushed the US Attorneys story off the front page and out of cable news coverage altogether. At times, only comedians like John Stewart and Bill Maher have been giving the controversy the coverage it deserves. This journalistic cover enables the president to keep his incompetent friend on the payroll month after month. Gonzales' upcoming testimony before the House Judiciary Committee provides one more chance for the press to get it right.

Bush Gets a Warning

2007-05-10T09:45:00.000-04:00

No longer just isolated voices of concern, a group of eleven moderate GOP congressmen have given Bush a stern message: Iraq must improve quickly, or he will lose significant votes from his own party in Congress. The fact that the contents of a private White House meeting so quickly made the headlines indicate that these folks mean business. I can't imagine the president took the news well or that it will produce changes in policy, but we can hope.

Stump Speech Redux

2007-05-09T19:07:00.000-04:00

Apparently, Fred Thompson is planning a redo of his first foray into the stump speech this Saturday at the Council for National Policy. I'm waiting anxiously to hear what he has to offer.
(Hat tip to Ryan Sager of The New York Sun)

KLo's Question for Rudy

2007-05-09T18:56:00.000-04:00

The Corner's Kathryn Lopez offers up a question for Rudy Giuliani: "Are you a practicing Catholic?" I fail to see the relevance of that query -- what difference does it make whether a candidate subscribes to a particular set of "orthodox" practices within the context of a particular faith. A more pertinent question might me something like: "Do you believe in god? If so, why, and how will your belief or absence thereof influence your presidency if you are elected?"

Cheney Pressures Iraqi Leaders

2007-05-09T17:54:00.000-04:00

During his surprise visit to Baghdad, Vice President Dick Cheney applied yet another round of toothless pressure to Iraqi leaders to clean up their act on a variety of issues ranging from militias to oil revenues, from federalism and local elections to complicated debaathification issues. This isn't a new message, and once again, it was delivered with neither carrot nor stick. The Bush administration has missed a huge opportunity by failing to negotiate with Congress a war funding bill that uses discrete benchmarks on Iraqi performance to measure our involvement to add pressure behind the message. General Petraeus' strategy, no matter how effective in the long term, cannot accomplish the goal of a stable Iraq with a functioning civil government if the the Iraqi leadership has no reason to buy into the process. While they jockey for position, our domestic political situation becomes more and more untenable. I fear our dwindling hope in Iraq will only be solved by regime change at home.

ADDED: I want to endorse Bradford Plummer's comments at TNR's The Plank:

Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Drum argue that September will definitely, absolutely, positively be the final "critical moment" for Iraq. Forget all those other moments. This one is the real deal. If progress doesn't happen by then, Sullivan says, we'll finally have "national cloture on the matter."

But I'm still confused as to what, exactly, is supposed to happen in September. Plenty of bloggers have flagged this Washington Post story, noting that military commanders are planning to continue the "surge" until April. Petraeus will no doubt appear before Congress and explain that we're turning yet another corner. Wayne Gilchrest has said that some "30 to 60" House Republicans secretly oppose the surge, and it's possible that they'll suddenly flip in September and decide to push for withdrawal, but the main pressure they're facing comes from the GOP base, which shows no signs of getting tired of the war--or even acknowledging that things might be going badly. It's hard to see how any of this will change until, at the very least, Bush leaves office.

I'm confused, too, and see no particular magic to the September date. Barring a miracle, a new administration is our only hope.

David Frum

2007-05-09T17:38:00.000-04:00

David From takes the GOP faithful to task. Money quote:

But as much as I blame the candidates, I have to blame the party too. Have Republicans absorbed how much trouble their party is in? To the (limited) extent that we do, we tend to to attribute everything to Iraq — as if Katrina, the Schiavo affair, corruption in Congress, and the intensifying irrelevance of our domestic-policy agenda did not exist. And so we demand from our candidates ever more fervent declarations of fealty to an ideology that interests an ever dwindling proportion of the public.

I wish somebody at the Reagan Library had said: "Ronald Reagan was a great leader and a great president because he addressed the problems of his time. But we have very different problems — and we need very different answers. Here are mine."

But if one of the candidates had said that, would we have hearkened? Or would we say: The path to the nomination will be crossed by the candidate who does the best job of ticking the boxes of a coalition that probably now spans no more than 30 percent of the electorate?

Good questions, and so far we don't have a candidate who can answer them convincingly. All the more reason for Fred Thompson to enter the race. More importantly, all the more reason for self-identified Republican voters to take a long, hard look at Hillary Clinton -- what are you willing to do to make sure the country doesn't fall into her hands? Are you willing to listen to someone who tells you what you don't want to hear? Are you willing to compromise on some points of your hard-right social agenda? Are you willing to support a candidate for whom nuance isn't a four letter word?

Character....

2007-05-09T17:25:00.000-04:00

Matthew Yglesias chimes in on the debate:

But look, here, by the time the extent of Bill Clinton marital issues came to light in 1998, the man had been President of the United States for more than a few years, so it was hardly necessary to go searching around for hints and clues as to whether or not one would approve of his conduct in office.

Um... have we forgotten Gennifer Flowers and that famous 60 Minutes interview with Bill and Hillary?

The Person for the Times

2007-05-09T16:32:00.000-04:00

Emily Bazelon's piece in Slate argues that Rudy's personal life might very well show that he's not the man we want leading our country. Ross Douthat's response makes a more convincing case that different personality traits can work out differently depending on the times:

In hindsight, for instance, it's clear that certain of George W. Bush's personal attributes - his intellectual incuriosity, his sense of personal calling, his abiding loyalty to friends and allies, his stubborness when challenged - have led his Presidency into disasters. But it's perfectly possible to imagine a Presidency in which those same qualities in the chief executive turned out to be great advantages that led to great successes. Loyalty, stubbornness, a sense of mission - all of these can be positive attributes in the right circumstances, and even Bush's incuriosity could have proven a better quality in a wartime President than, say, Bill Clinton's obsessive-compulsive intellectualism. That these traits worked out badly for the country is apparent, but only now, just as the only way to know for sure how Rudy Giuliani's various personality traits will affect his Presidency would be to elect him President and see what happens. Sure, his psychodramas might engulf the country, as Bill Clinton's often did - but electing Presidents without obvious inner demons gave us Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, while a morbid, moody depressive [Lincoln] was arguably our greatest Chief Executive. The pressures of high office work in different ways on different temperaments - alcoholics and philanderers sometimes rise to the occasion and sometimes don't, and the same seems to go for tee-totalling, uxorious, psychologically well-balanced types. At certain junctures, a self-consciously normal guy like Gerald Ford is the man you want; at others, you want a hard-drinking romantic like Winston Churchill. It's just tough to know what sort of character will suit the times until the times are over.

So what sorts of personality traits would fit our times? Perhaps we'll only be able to tell through hindsight, but I'd like to think we could prejudge the candidates well enough to have an inkling in advance.

ADDED: It strikes me that regardless of the times, we want a president who is curious, thoughtful and moderate in temperament (irrespective of political ideology). Leaders given to incuriosity and anti-intellectualism and those given either to passivity or aggressiveness are ill suited for an office that requires both engagement and compromise. Given our recent experience with two widely differing presidents, rigidity and inconstancy are the most dangerous poles of personality.

It's far too early in the process to tell who best fits the overall bill, but most candidates on both sides of the political divide seem already to demonstrate some of these negative characteristics. Whether its Hillary and Romney pandering to their respective bases like willows swaying in the breeze or McCain's dogged conviction on the war in Iraq and Rudy's authoritarian tendencies, we're still looking for the right combination. Perhaps that's why Obama and Fred Thompson offer so much appeal. Both men exude potential based on personal style, but both are largely blank slates onto which we can project our dreams of the perfect candidate.

If only flowers had bigger pockets...

2007-05-09T16:25:00.000-04:00

Ann Althouse wouldn't have to play the "ours is bigger than yours" game.

Rating the Idols, Final Four

2007-05-09T15:43:00.000-04:00

Melinda sang "Love You Inside and Out" -- A-
Blake sang "You Should Be Dancing" -- C-
LaKisha sang "Staying Alive" -- B-
Jordin sang "To Love Somebody" -- A+
Melinda sang "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart" -- A+
Blake sang "This Is Where I Came In" -- B-
LaKisha sang "Run to Me" -- A-
Jordin sang "A Woman in Love" -- A-

Based strictly on last night's performances, Blake should be going home, but I suspect that after Chris' departure, the beat boxer will get one more week on the show. Sadly, that means LaKisha is the contestant most likely to leave us tonight. She's been far from perfect over the last few weeks, favoring a shouting style that rules her out as finals material. Barring something unexpected, count on flawless Melinda and youthful and gorgeous Jordin to make the finals.

Bloggingheads in Baghdad, Part II

2007-05-08T09:51:00.000-04:00

Embedded journalist Eli Lake reports from Baghdad in the most recent edition of bloggingheads introducing Major Chris Norrie of the US Army. Their conversation with Bob Wright outlines a decidedly mixed bag from Iraq, but there's more good news than I would have expected. Take a look for yourself.

ADDED: The integration of Sunnis and Shi'a in the Iraqi army is particularly good news. The parallel with the history of our own armed forces is instructive. A cultural attachment to integration in the army can be a wedge to introduce the concept to society in general, and if that's happening in the Iraqi army, it's a very hopeful sign. If we can build a series of successes for Iraqi forces, the pride the community feels for the security they provide will create a basis for a more stable civil society, but as Eli Lake points out, that's going to be a years-long process given the strong tribal influences present in the country.

Victory depends on winning hearts and minds, and that's always something that happens on a long time horizon. The good news is that there is on-going progress -- if we can muster the political will to give Iraq another honest try (with good management and necessary resources), there is still hope for success. As with Vietnam, this war will be won or lost at home.

Novak's Review

2007-05-07T16:21:00.000-04:00

Washington Post columnist Bob Novak expressed disappointment with Fred Thompson's recent speech before the Lincoln Club of Orange County:

"It was not Reaganesque." "No red meat." "Too low key." That was the preponderant reaction I heard to Thompson's half-hour presentation (leavened by a few favorable comments, mostly by women, that he was more "statesmanlike" and "presidential" than the announced candidates).

....
The Fred Thompson whose vigorous style has led many prominent Republicans to await his announced candidacy was not present at the Balboa Bay Club. He wants a touch of "populism" in the GOP, and he is sure Republican corruption and profligate spending in Congress caused the 2006 election defeat. But there was none of that in what he said here.

Nor did the thoughtful Thompson who stakes out his own positions and prepares them carefully emerge. He recently has written forceful pieces for National Review Online taking issue with conservative Ramesh Ponnuru on federalism and leftist Michael Moore on Cuba (spawning a flood of Internet comments, mostly favorable, about Thompson).

Having now watched the presentation in full, I'm not exactly surprised by Novak's reporting. Thompson delivered a self-consciously adult speech, without the normal "red meat" pandering that so enthralls the base. Perhaps that's not to Novak's taste -- or perhaps Thompson offers the potential for a new kind of politics where our national debate is no longer dominated by a calcified polarity of Crossfire-style extremists. And what's with the dismissive tone Novak employs when he discusses the reactions of women? Perhaps he has forgotten that women now make up a majority of the electorate and that the GOP faces an entrenched gender gap.

Eshewing cheap sloganeering, Thompson struck a serious tone dealing with serious issues, the most important being that we really do need to have an adult conversation about the future of our country. His charm and wit was on full display for those inclined to see it. I'll admit that his message needs tightening, but that's exactly what this sort of speech will allow Thompson to accomplish -- this wasn't a stump speech, and there's plenty of time for him to create the right message for that forum.

In the interview I linked yesterday, Thompson makes a key point: a presidential election should be about finding the right man to fit the times we face. Often that's not been the case -- elections quickly devolve into shouting matches that offer little more than personality and a great deal of negative noise. If he runs, that's not going to be Thompson's style, nor should it be. If it were, he wouldn't be the right man to fit the dangerous and sober times we face.

Huckabee

2007-05-06T13:15:00.000-04:00

In a new bloggingheads.tv diavlog with Conn Carroll, Redstate's Erick Erickson agrees that Mike Huckabee came off as the best of the second tier candidates during last week's debate.

Thompson Interview

2007-05-06T12:35:00.000-04:00

Fred Thompson gives his first interview after the GOP debate. Take a look (hat tip to the Corner's Kathryn Lopez). Here's a taste:

National security has to be the overriding issue. We are going into a different era. We've got Islamic fundamentalism, suicide maniacs trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons that says it all.

If you can't get your message out, if you can't introduce yourself to people, and people can't figure out what kind of guy you are, and what kind of president you would be in the length of time we've got between now and the primary season, it's not gonna happen. You might oughta find another line of work. There is plenty of time to do that. I've never casually run for anything.

Fred Thompson

2007-05-06T11:34:00.000-04:00

Forgive the length of this post, but I think Thompson's Friday night speech to the Lincoln Club annual dinner in Orange County, California deserves it:

So we meet again, and I'm honored, because I know we're here for the same reasons: Love of our country and concern for our future.

A lot of Americans have these concerns tonight. They are concerned about the way things are going in our country right now. Some fear we may be in the first stages of decline. We've heard this malaise talk before.

Of course Iraq is a large part of it. Not only is it tough going, but the effort is besieged on all sides. From those playing the most crass kind of politics with it at home to criticism from around the world.

Even at home, as we enjoy the benefits from one of the best economies we've ever had, people seem uncertain; they raise concerns about global competition or a growing economic disparity among our citizens.

These are challenges. But how we react to them is more important than the challenges themselves. Some want us, to the extent possible, to withdraw from the world that presents us with so many problems, in the hope they will go away. Some would push us towards protectionist trade policies. Others see a solution in raising taxes and redistributing the income among our citizens.

Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all about.

Let's talk about the issues here at home, first. A lot of folks in Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many governments mixed up how much money the king had with how well-off the country was.

Taxes are necessary. But they don't make the country any better off. At best they simply move money from the private sector to the government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from working, saving, investing, and taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional dollar collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as two dollars worse off.

To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible. This isn't anything ideological, and it really isn't some great insight. It's common sense arithmetic.

That's why the economy booms when taxes are cut. When the Kennedy tax cuts were passed in the 1960s, the economy boomed. When Reagan cut taxes in 1981, we went from economic malaise to a new morning in America. And when George Bush cut taxes in 2001, he took a declining economy he inherited to an economic expansion -- despite 9-11, the NASDAQ bubble and corporate scandals.

The Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes. They only want to target the rich, they say. A word of advice to anyone in the middle class -- don't stand anywhere near that target. Wouldn't it be great if, instead of worrying so much about how to divide the pie, we could work together on how to make the pie bigger?

On globalization -- we're not afraid of it. It works to our benefit. We innovate more and invest in that innovation better than anywhere else in the world. Same thing goes for services, which are increasingly driving our economy. Free trade and market economies have done more for freedom and prosperity than a central planner could ever dream and we're the world's best example of that. So, why do we want to take investment dollars out of growth, and invest it in government?

I'd say cash flow to the government is already going quite well. Over the past year our current tax structure generated record levels of revenue for Washington. In fact it's time to seriously consider what we're getting for our "investment" in government.

For many years, several functions of the federal government have been descending into a sorry state of mismanagement and lack of accountability. I published a 68-page report on government's waste, duplication and inability to carry out some of its basic responsibilities. That was back in 2001 before 9-11, and it got little attention. Now the government's shortcomings are affecting our national security and are getting a lot of attention.

The growth of government is not solving these problems; it's causing a lot of them. Every level of new bureaucracy that is created develops a level of bureaucracy beneath it, which creates another one. Pretty soon there is no accountability in the system. A new head of a department or agency comes in from out of town and, after a protracted confirmation fight, wants to spend his or her few years in Washington making great policy and solving national problems, not fighting with their own bureaucrats. So they just let well enough alone. Then you start seeing the results. Departments that can't pass an audit, computer systems that don't work, intelligence breakdowns, people in over their heads.

Yet people in both parties continue to try to federalize and regulate at the national level more and more aspects of American society -- things that have traditionally been handled at the state and local level. We must remember that we have states to serve as policy laboratories for innovation and competition. That's how we got welfare reform. Our system also allows for the diversity of our large country. Our attitude should be, let the federal government do what it is supposed to be doing --competently. Then maybe we will give it something else to do.

The government could start by securing our nation's borders. A sovereign nation that can't do that is not a sovereign nation. This is secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security issue. We were told twenty years ago if we produced a comprehensive solution, we'd solve the illegal immigration problem. Twelve million illegals later, we're being told that same thing again. I don't believe most Americans are as concerned about the 12 million that are here as they are about the next 12 million and the next 12 million after that. I think they're thinking: "Prove you can secure the border and then people of good will can sit down and work out the rest of it, while protecting those folks who play by the rules."

Speaking of reforms and our economy, there is nothing more urgent than the fate that is awaiting our Social Security and Medicare programs. The good news is that we are living longer. However, we don't have enough young working people to finance these programs from their taxes.

People say the programs are going bankrupt. They won't go bankrupt. Even as these programs sap every dime of the government's revenue, the folks in Washington will raise the taxes necessary to cover the problem. At this rate the federal government is going to wind up as nothing more than a transfer agent -- transferring wealth from one generation to another. It will devastate our economy.

Sometimes I think that I'm the last guy around who still thinks term limits is a good idea. The professionalization of politics saps people's courage. Their desire to keep their job and not upset anybody overrides all else -- even if it hurts the country.

So the entitlement problem gets kicked a little further down the road. This action is based on the premise that our generation is too greedy to help the next generation. I believe just the opposite is true. If grandmom and granddad think that a little sacrifice will help their grandchildren when they get married, try to buy a home or have children, they will respond to a credible call to make that sacrifice -- if they don't think that the sacrifice is going down some government black hole.

I am going to quote my friend, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I don't think he'll mind, even though it was a private conversation. He said, "People talk a lot about moral issues, but the greatest moral issue facing our generation is the fact that we are bankrupting the next generation. People talk about wanting to make a difference. Here we could make a difference for generations to come."

It's clear with close numbers in the House and the Senate we need bipartisanship to have any chance at real reform in any of these areas. And there are many responsible people who are willing to try to make it happen. But the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people are demanding it. That's why leaders of reform and hopefully our next President, will have a mandate to go directly to the American people with truth and clarity.

These days in Washington, there's an awful lot of talk about the need for conversation -- that we should talk more to our nation's enemies; that we should speak "truth to power." However the speakers are usually turned in the wrong direction. Instead of talking to each other, leaders need to be speaking more to the American people.

The message would be simple: "My friends we have entered a new era. We are going to be tested in many ways, possibly under attack and for a long time. It's time to take stock and be honest with ourselves. We're going to have to do a lot of things better. Here's what we need to do and here's why. I know that, now that you're being called upon, you will do whatever is necessary for the sake of our country and for future generations. You always have." When the American people respond to that, as I know they will, you will have your bipartisanship.

I've been talking for a week now about the grounded ideas still present within the Republican platform -- ideas that, but for George W. Bush, are generally popular and effective. What we need is the right man to voice these ideas in a way that inspires, in a way that distances the ideology from the disasterous mistakes of the past. I can only hope he's making the right decision waiting so long to enter the race.

Brownback

2007-05-05T14:34:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan queries how Senator Brownback can question evolution given church teaching on the subject. I'll note that Brownback found his way to Catholicism through an Opus Dei priest -- is there any wonder he takes his church teachings with a grain of salt? This group of conservative catholics believes the three great evils of modern times originated with the theories of Freud, Marx and Darwin. From their perspective: two down, one to go.

ADDED: Ann Althouse questions whether conservatives should endorse Darwinian arguments to support their own positions, quoting an article by Patricia Cohen in today's New York Times. There are two schools of conservatism on the hard right: Burkeans and conservative Christians. The former group is quite amenable to Darwinist ideas in so far as they comport with a tradition-based political theory that venerates the past and established socio-economic, gender and power relationships. Of course, evolutionary theory is a two-edged sword that can also be used to encourage experimentation toward better adaptive outcomes -- so a Burkean would approach the theory selectively. The latter group finds Darwinism anathema to their god-centered world view, regardless of the many Christian voices that find the two concepts both compatible and complementary. I'd wager that all three Republican presidential candidates who expressed questions about evolution at the debate fall into the second category.

Godless

2007-05-04T15:35:00.000-04:00

Christopher Hitchens reveals Karl Rove's godlessness in a New Yorker interview:

Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn't shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, "I'm not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.

Of course, it doesn't take a man without faith to manipulate the faithful shamelessly, but it doesn't hurt.

Image Matters

2007-05-04T14:52:00.000-04:00

It's the most cliched statement imaginable, but image matters in presidential campaigns. Substance counts, too, but image wins the vast number of voters -- and this campaign demands that candidates, especially Republicans, contrast themselves with the image of George W. Bush. Regardless of the merits, a cloud of incompetent, unresponsive, insulated failure has grown around this president. This at a time when, despite obvious mishandling of the war in Iraq, the president's individual policies have been generally popular, resulting in a strong, expanding economy. Nonetheless, the cloud taints all he touches, including those vying to replace him as the GOP standard bearer.

Last night's debate outlined a two pronged counterattack to this trend: toughness and optimism. It's essential that top tier candidates not sacrifice the latter for the former, regardless of the demand from the base for a leader who embodies Bush's hardheaded steadfastness. Competence, responsiveness, openness, and toughness, yes, but always tempered with what Ronald Reagan brought to the party -- effervescent optimism about this nation's greatness -- morning in America.

The Corner's John Hood observes:

GOP activists and movement conservatives may feel upset or betrayed, they may want to see some anger and passion, they may even want "our" SOB to take on the enemy SOBs. But I don't see a lot of evidence to suggest that Republican primary voters as a whole have similar sentiments, and even less than swing voters do —
and as 2006 showed, that latter group still matters a lot.

Look at the big story in the Democratic contest to date. It's not the tougher of the Clinton duo. It's not the expensively coiffed populist firebrand. It's Barack Obama, a candidate of freshness, fuzziness, and, well, optimism. The nutroots may not love him, but they aren't the full Democratic primary electorate. Obama represents the Democratic flavor of what many voters are probably looking for this year: a clean break, a different dynamic. The Republican flavor, I submit, should be an optimistic competence that inspires confidence. That means someone who exudes the ability to run the federal government, to avoid Katrina-like fiascoes, to plan effectively for the use of military force, and who doesn't scrape his fingernails down the Washington chalkboard. That doesn't at all mean the same thing as he who is best suited to do very bad things to very bad guys.

The debate was just a snapshot, but it showed an interesting trend among the candidates. McCain is playing the tough guy, Romney the competent and experienced administrator. Giuliani is the only one who brought both roles together with the added seasoning of sincere optimism for what is possible when Americans unite in common purpose. No wonder the Democrats are most scared of him for his ability to fight on their turf. Only one other first tier potential candidate comes to mind with these characteristics, Fred Thompson.

Rating the GOP Candidates

2007-05-03T22:29:00.000-04:00

As expected, little of great moment transpired during tonight's debate on MSNBC hosted by Chris Matthews. For the most part, the top tier performed well, leaving few openings for the other candidates to score significant points. With Nancy Reagan present and the debate taking place at the Reagan Library, all of the participants abided by the famous eleventh commandment.

Mitt Romney has emerged as the consensus points winner, and he did come off as polished and presidential, if a bit smarmy. However, he failed to distance himself from President Bush and dealt unconvincingly with questions about his changing stance on abortion. His main strength derived from his style -- the camera loves Romney, and he sounds pitch perfect talking about complex issues. He offered an excellent summary of the risks involved with immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and his treatment of the clash of civilizations embodied in our war against Islamic fundamentalism was particularly well delivered.

Rudy Giuliani came off as strong, informed, articulate, and well prepared on issues of national security and foreign policy, especially when he accurately answered a question on the difference between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. However, he stumbled on the abortion question, giving answers that seemed to split hairs on his views on public funding and Roe v. Wade. Above all the other candidates, Rudy managed to capture the optimism and amiable hopefulness of Ronald Reagan invoking his legacy and experience of working among a Democratic constituency. Nonetheless, his tentativeness on social issues will be a topic of discussion tomorrow morning.

John McCain started out shaky and seemed nervous but brought home his determination on foreign policy issues with several strong declarations on, among other things, Osama bin Laden and Iranian nuclear development. He delivered the best line of the debate, promising to pursue bin Laden even to the gates of Hell. Once he hit his stride, McCain appeared confident, charismatic, and prepared, especially on the threat of Iran and when he admitted the mistakes of the Bush administration. His statements on the line item veto and out-of-control spending were strong and well delivered. McCain's full-throated endorsement of evolution was also very welcomed.

Perhaps the most significant break out performance from the second tier of candidates was delivered by Mike Huckabee who came off as eloquent, prepared, and more telegenic than I expected. His response to a question about global warming referenced the Boy Scout code of leaving the earth better off than when we found it and was particularly apt. Huckabee also won points on military policy distancing himself from the Bush administration by challenging the president's decision not to fire Rumsfeld and admitting to serious mistakes of judgment in the conduct of the war in Iraq. His best moment came when he said that our culture of life is what distinguishes us from the terrorists.

ADDED: I just wanted to quickly note that tonight's debate had a great deal more substance than the first Democratic debate, and that's with two additional candidates to share the time. I think that proves the Republican Party still has a lot to offer and a deep bench of talent to draw from. Watch out, Hillary and Obama.

ADDED: Survey USA's poll of California viewers of the debate found Giuliani in the lead with 30%, followed by Romney with 12% and McCain with 11%.

The Right Move for Florida

2007-05-03T14:44:00.000-04:00

The Florida House has finally passed a bill moving the presidential primary to January 29, ahead of the Super Duper Tuesday when almost half of convention delegates will be awarded. This move puts Florida's primary on the same day as South Carolina's Democratic primary, immediately on the heels of the Iowa and Nevada Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. The bill also mandates that the state will replace touch-screen voting machines with a system that has a paper record. Governor Crist has championed the bill and is expected to sign it into law shortly.

This move gives Florida the influence it deserves as the nation's fourth most populous state and as a diverse and politically balanced microcosm of the country as a whole. More importantly, it gives the state an important opportunity to demonstrate to the nation that we've gotten our electoral house in order. I'm tired of the Florida jokes, and it's good to see the state taking the right steps to remedying its reputation.

Hate Crimes Veto

2007-05-03T13:49:00.000-04:00

President Bush should veto the hate crimes bill currently under consideration by the Congress. I fully endorse state legislation adding additional penalties for crimes motivated by animus toward a particular group, whether it be based on age, race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, but federalism and the reasonable limits of the Commerce Clause rightly keep this sort of police power in the hands of the state. The bill before Congress is more than constitutionally suspect, and I'm gratified to read that Bush intends to use the veto for a constructive purpose.

ADDED: Andrew Sullivan objects that Bush's veto threat is motivated exclusively by Christianist antipathy toward homosexuality. I remain unconvinced of that, despite the unseemly glee with which Christian conservatives are heralding the administration's statement. I suspect that the bill would have met with the same veto threat had it neglected to add sexual orientation and gender identity to its list of protected groups. Bush has taken a principled stand against this sort of expansion of the federal criminal law in the past. Nonetheless, the seemingly casual omission of these groups from the White House statement's list is troubling -- its clearly a Rovian signal to the Christianist base designed to rile them at a time of low popularity for the President.

It's difficult to disagree with Andrew's assertion that the only basis on which to exclude sexuality and gender identity from hate crime laws is the same sort of animus that hate crimes laws are designed to punish. Such an overt exclusion stops little short from endorsing violence against gays, lesbians and transgendered people. It clearly violates the spirit of our national commitment to the equal application and protection of the law. Invidious discrimination or violence against one disfavored group is identical in kind to the same treatment of other disfavored groups, regardless of public attitudes toward those groups -- or rather specifically because of public attitudes toward those groups. Taking the contrary position is deeply incoherent.

That having been said, it's not incoherent in the least to endorse hate crimes legislation at the state level while opposing it as federal law. The ongoing federalization of the criminal law is not only costly in terms of law enforcement resources, but it also stretches the constitutional limits of federal power to the breaking point. Andrew has been an outspoken critic of the abuses of federal power under this administration, but, as James Madison understood, the first and best line of defense against the abuse of power is its limitation.

Mildly Surprised

2007-05-02T22:31:00.000-04:00

Though Chris Richardson has grown on me over the weeks, it was no shock that he was leaving the show tonight. Phil Stacy's departure, on the other hand, was a bit of a surprise. Several weeks ago, he was one of the weaker links on the program, but recently Phil's performances have improved dramatically as he's found his style and range. I wish them both the best.

Joan Baez at Walter Reed

2007-05-02T19:00:00.000-04:00

Despite what seems to be sincere regret on the part of Joan Baez about her role in fostering a hostile environment for soldiers returning from Vietnam and her determination to give troops returning from Iraq a warm welcome, the singer was uninvited from performing a concert Friday night at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Antiwar activist John Mellencamp, the headliner who initially asked Baez to perform, was still allowed to perform, though he reportedly toned down his rhetoric. This strikes me as yet another example of "us v. them" score settling that has become a hallmark of the administration and the conservative right generally. Letting her sing would have been just the kind of reconciliation this country needs.

Timid Tenet

2007-05-02T18:28:00.000-04:00

On NPR's "Fresh Air", host Terry Gross asked George Tenet to respond directly to Michael Scheuer's devastating criticism that:

[a]t day's end, his exercise in finger-pointing is designed to disguise the central, tragic fact of his book. Tenet in effect is saying that he knew all too well why the United States should not invade Iraq, that he told his political masters and that he was ignored. But above all, he's saying that he lacked the moral courage to resign and speak out publicly to try to stop our country from striding into what he knew would be an abyss.

Tenet responded in the most mealymouthed way possible, claiming that it wasn't his role to pass judgment or offer advice on the administration's policy decisions. He contends that he was merely there to offer objective intelligence data about the world without further analysis, and that his views on the war never entered into it. Perhaps his attitude was an artifact of the strict cabining of CIA prerogatives before the twin towers fell, but in a post 9/11 world, one can hardly imagine a Director of Central Intelligence failing to put all his cards on the table.

Scheuer's conclusions still ring true -- either Tenet was a cipher or he lacked the courage of his convictions. Neither paints a pretty picture.

Friedman's Farce

2007-05-02T17:47:00.000-04:00

Today's Friedman column outlines a Bush apology so abject that it beggars the imagination, but would his Hail Mary pass really accomplish the goal of uniting the world, especially the Middle East, behind our efforts in Iraq? Mere words from Bush are unlikely to sway doubters, no matter how humble. The international community needs to see action, and Thursday's conference is a good start. Moreover, the apology Friedman sets out would explicitly admit our weakness and lack of options at a time when we must continue to project power to other bad actors like Iran.

An apology is owed, but to the American people -- not the generic "mistakes have been made" and "I take responsibility" rhetoric we've heard so far, but an honest, complete admission of the mess Bush has made of the war. He needs to follow it up with the call for national sacrifice he should have made four years ago, outlining the very real consequences of failure. The fluctuating polls show that there is still time to rescue public opinion before a disastrous withdrawal from Iraq is required by political circumstances. Of course, my imagined apology is just as fanciful as Friedman's.

That having been said, Friedman makes a simple, but solid case why it's in the self interest of other Middle Eastern states to get on board:

You may think that I’m more dangerous than Bin Laden and that a strong America is more dangerous than Al Qaeda. You’re wrong. If we are defeated in Iraq, they’ll come after you. They already are. And if we’re defeated in Iraq, you’ll no longer have to contend with a world of too much American power. You’ll have to contend with a world of too little American power. You will not like it.

Don’t let your anger with me blind you to your own interests. You are holding your breath until I turn blue. But I’m not going to turn blue. You are. I want to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, but I need you Arab leaders to get off the fence. I know that you fear democracy in Iraq, but the alternative is much worse. If the jihadists win, the Arab world will have no future. I need your help in forging a settlement in Iraq and in denouncing this suicide madness from every mosque and minaret every hour of every day — with no qualifications.

I hope Condoleezza Rice reads it before tomorrow.

Scoring the Idols

2007-05-02T17:28:00.000-04:00

Bon Jovi Week

Phil sang "Blaze of Glory" -- A
Jordin sang "Living on a Prayer" -- B-
LaKisha sang "This Ain't a Love Song" -- A+
Blake sang "You Give Love a Bad Name" -- C
Chris sang "Wanted Dead or Alive" -- A-
Melinda sang "Have a Nice Day" -- A+

Phil has done enough the last two weeks to earn a spot in the final four, but don't count on him making the final two. Jordin's unfortunate song choice will hurt her somewhat, but her strong voice and stage presence deserve another shot -- she's the most marketable of the finalists. I would like to think that LaKisha's wonderful performance and cute kissing moment with Simon will save her, but I'm afraid she'll be going home. This was also a strong week for Chris, but his weak performances in past shows will probably catch up with him tonight. After his mangling of "You Give Love a Bad Name", Blake should be going home, but he seems to have a strong following. I suspect Simon was right when he said half the audience would hate it while the other half would swoon. Definitely count me with the former. Melinda was flawless as ever.

Abandoning Conservatism...

2007-04-30T19:35:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan goes a bit too far when he accuses Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru and Mike Gerson of abandoning the cause, but his ongoing critique of activist government has a great deal of merit. Bush has largely abandoned conservatism, there's no doubt about it, and many conservative writers have fallen prey to the trap of defending him.

But Ramesh made an excellent point in his advice to Fred Thompson:

Running on a strictly conservative platform has not won Republicans the presidency since at least 1988. Since that campaign was heavy on flag-waving, it might be more accurate to say “since 1980.” Even in 1980, moreover, Reagan made some innovations to conservatism: adding supply-side tax cuts to the mix, and backing away from opposition to entitlement programs. More to the point, Reagan succeeded not because his platform conformed to a philosophy, but because it applied that philosophy, creatively, to the problems of the day. If you end up being a successful candidate, you’ll have done that too.

When we're talking about electoral politics, it's hard to imagine a winning coalition made up solely of conservatives. One has to appeal outside of the base (and I know Andrew would agree with me that such appeals would be wise on other grounds, too). If Republicans must and should broaden their approach, it only makes sense to adapt in a Reaganite fashion.

However, we quickly get into the weeds at the specific policy level. Is this energy subsidy or that surveillance technique or the other entitlement reform conservative? I'm afraid that's case-by-case territory. All too often, though, the defenders circle the wagons.

Whither Compassionate Conservatism?

2007-04-30T18:50:00.000-04:00

That doesn't mean some changes in domestic policy wouldn't improve the Republican electoral model further. Compassionate conservatism was always little more than political window dressing to soften Bush's image while still coddling the base, but it identified the potential for expanding the appeal of conservatism generally. The disaster the Bush administration has become shouldn't completely discredit this kind of strategy.

Ross Douthat is on to something here and here. The broad appeal of conservative reforms directed at benefiting the working class very well could reignite Reagan Democrats in the Midwest. The problem is that Bush's attempts weren't particularly conservative, especially in the budgetary sense -- he has ceded the ground of fiscal responsibility time and time again.

Ross cites Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee as examples of how to make this appeal. Despite the fact that neither man is a particularly apt standard bearer, both resonate in a way traditional Republicans do not. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist could be added to the list, and they both present a more agreeable public image.

However, I think Ross errs when he assumes that an appeal to the upper-middle class will be fruitless and that abstract issues such as campaign finance reform aren't attractive to working class people. Who supported the hugely popular push for term limits during the 90s?

More on Brooks

2007-04-30T17:42:00.000-04:00

Here, Jonah Goldberg mirrors my sentiments exactly:

What Brooks sees as a [sic] the base's inability to accept change is often, in reality, a burning desire for change. He mocks the clamor for Fred Thompson to run as an Authentic Conservative" but he fails to see, or at least credit, the degree to which the call for "Authentic Conservatism" is a rebuke of Bush.

Change is needed, but not necessarily the sort of innovation Brooks is recommending. Just having another face to represent the GOP and American conservatism more generally will go a long way toward fixing the problem (thus the polls showing McCain and Rudy are competitive with Obama and Hillary). In addition to the war, expect two major themes to emerge in the general election -- competence and accountability -- all three in direct response to perceived and very real shortcomings of the Bush administration.

But Jonah continues:

Compassionate conservatism was the change. And, I would argue, that change has done lasting damage to conservatism and to the GOP. And so now many want something new. The call for authentic conservatism, fairly or not, is not a call for staying the course.

How would we know? From 9/11 on, compassionate conservatism took an immediate back seat. Does Jonah really think that the GOP's current malaise is caused by No Child Left Behind and the failure of Social Security reform? There are plenty of reasons to think that activist-government conservatism, if you can call it that, is a harmful phenomenon, but there's little reason to disbelieve that a more competent and less insulated president would be much more popular, even if he had implemented the same domestic agenda.

Kudos SCOTUS

2007-04-30T16:07:00.000-04:00

Today's Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Harris reverses an Eleventh Circuit decision granting an injured criminal suspect a jury trial on the issue of whether the police were reasonable to apply lethal force during a high speed chase. In the 8-to-1 decision, the justices found that such force was reasonable given the threat the suspect posed to innocent bystanders during the chase. This decision cures a split in the circuits and insures that police will not face an undue fear of litigation when applying deadly force to protect the innocent.

Another Oval Actor

2007-04-29T18:34:00.000-04:00

I'm a Fred Thompson fan, but if I have to listen to the Thompson-IS-Reagan meme for the next year (or four, or eight), I may change my mind. There's nothing wrong with comparing the two men, but come on, let's have a look at the candidate's positions and presentation first.

One More Mistake

2007-04-29T18:24:00.000-04:00

The US has refused a Russian offer to explore the moon jointly. Given our stated purpose to return to the moon in coming years in preparation for manned exploration of Mars, it would only to make sense to pool our resources with the only other nation with manned spaceflight capabilities.

If nothing else, the snub was poor diplomacy since we are so interested in influencing Russian policy on a number of issues from freedom of the press to non-proliferation. Lucky for us, the Russians were more than happy to accept nearly $1 billion to service the US segment of the International Space Station.

Evidence Mounts

2007-04-29T17:45:00.000-04:00

My analogy to the Soviet war in Afghanistan continues to ring true. US forces have begun using heavy artillery attacks on Baghdad neighborhoods. This was a common Soviet tactic when they failed to control a civilian area favorable to insurgents. Way to win hearts and minds!

At least we've managed to bring Iraq's neighbors to the table. The integrity of the country's borders is essential to what little hope we have left for success. Condoleezza Rice should meet with the Iranian minister to make a clear demand that the flow of arms to stop. Of course, the stick isn't enough -- we need a carrot. Unfortunately, that's not this adminstration's strong suit.

Slate of Mind

2007-04-29T17:17:00.000-04:00

The Slate symposium on the brain is great reading, especially George Johnson's piece on "neurotheology" and its contradictory implications. Reductive neuroscience research plants religious and mystical experience firmly in the physical realm, citing significant physiological changes in the brain when subjects enter spiritually aware or meditative states. There's little doubt that these phenomena will continue to be elucidated, but will it really say anything about the experiences themselves qua experiences? Divine inspiration or delusion -- our answers depends little on the research.

******

By the way, I want to wholeheartedly recommend the newish Bloggingheads feature, Science Saturday, which has so far featured a weekly diavlog between science writers George Johnson and John Horgan. From string theory to evolutionary psychology to astronomy to linguistics, these two make every conversation accessible and enlightening.

Grim Old Party?

2007-04-29T16:25:00.000-04:00

David Brooks makes another plug for big government conservatism while outlining an accurate, if incomplete, critique of current GOP malaise. He identifies the inherent instability of coalition politics, an "us" v. "them" mentality, the tendency of Republicans to be beholden to obsolescent ideology from the past, and a deep bunker mentality as the key problems facing the party. Continuing his search for a candidate who pushes new ideas(TM), Brooks seeks a Hamiltonian federal activism that mimics the rhetoric, if not the performance, of the Bush administration. Jimmy Carter with a big stick.

Of course, new ideas should be trumped by good ideas, and the old GOP still has a number. If not for an ineffectual PR machine and an unpopular war, I'm confident public opinion would favor Republicans on bread, butter, law and order. It's true the country wants and needs change, but that's more about foreign policy, personality and incompetence. Republicans need a candidate who can articulate the party's positions from principle while remaining flexible enough to compromise and govern. Even the war itself is not beyond salvation, although it's looking grim at the moment.

Lessons Learned by the Red Army

2007-04-28T16:18:00.000-04:00

While I appreciate Bill Buckley's appraisal of the surge (hat tip to Andrew Sullivan), I'm surprised that he and others haven't made more of the parallels between Iraq and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The circumstances leading to the Soviet invasion were significantly different, but the insurgency they faced was quite similar (the two are, of course, inextricably related both by personnel and ideology).

The Mujahideen used many of the same methods we see in Iraq today: roadside IEDs targeting convoys, bombing of Soviet sponsored government buildings, assassinations of officials and influential tribal chiefs, tactics designed to target and inflame the civilian population, and the destruction of essential infrastructure. Tribal and Islamic passions were a deliberate focus of their efforts.

The comparison with the Red Army's preparation for war is even more striking. They attacked without sufficient intelligence, planning, and with too few troops to get the job done. They lacked understanding of the culture. They were unprepared and untrained to wage counter-insurgency operations. Their armored vehicles were vulnerable to unsophisticated attacks. The army was comprised largely of reservists. Most importantly, generals showed a dramatic inability to adjust to the situation on the ground, in large part due to indecision and stubbornness in Moscow.

Like the US in Iraq, the Soviets won every major engagement of the war by a decisive margin. Nonetheless, their successes evaporated quickly. The Red Army found it difficult to rebuild the Afghan army and police, ultimately deciding to use their own forces to establish security (sounds familiar, doesn't it?). They soon found their control limited to the parts of Kabul where fortified installations were located.

For a fascinating read, take a look at this (just replace the words socialism and communism with democracy and the name Andropov with Cheney).

Lest we forget, the war lasted ten years before the Soviets admitted defeat -- at the cost of nearly 15,000 soldiers dead or missing, over 50,000 wounded, and untold Afghan casualties. Of course, the subsequent Afghan civil war created the power vacuum that facilitated 9/11.

I fear the outcome in Iraq has already been determined -- there are no good options thanks to the administration's feckless prosecution of the war. It's time they be held accountable.

Matthew Dowd's Confession

2007-04-01T20:25:00.000-04:00

As a once avid supporter of the president, I can sympathize with the sentiments of his former strategist. It's time to stand up and admit our collective mistake, but I'd go a step farther than Dowd. The signs were there all along, but we chose to ignore them -- our hopes for Bush never had much rational basis. Only through a colossal effort of self-delusion and wishful thinking were we able to transform George W. Bush into the refreshing change we needed after the Clinton years. It's heartening, nonetheless, to hear the truth from someone recently escaped from the inner circle.

British Sailors To Be Tried?

2007-03-31T14:21:00.000-04:00

The comments of Iran's ambassador to Russia are troubling -- it seems the Iranian government is now deciding whether to charge their captives with alleged violations of international law. The comments are clearly a threat to the British government: stop your rabble rousing against us, or we'll escalate things by punishing your soldiers.

I can only imagine the terror the sailors must be feeling as they hear "death chants" outside of their cells. But what's most troubling is the complete helplessness of the West to respond effectively to any of Iran's actions, whether it be the nuclear program, continued support for militants in Palestine or Iraq, or the seizure of British military personnel. The British have few options, no good options, thanks to the Iraqi quagmire.

Meanwhile, the Democratic House adjourned for their spring break without decrying Iranian actions. Perhaps Speaker Pelosi didn't want to jeopardize her warm welcome in Damascus. If the Democrats are ever going to compete convincingly on the foreign policy, they're going to have to get more serious about the threats involved.

More Sex Police Victories

2007-03-31T13:53:00.000-04:00

Connecticut substitute teacher Julie Amero awaits sentencing on her conviction for having porn pop-up ads appear on her computer during class. She could be facing up to 40 years in prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration. All this despite the fact that the school took inadequate steps to remove spyware from their computers.

I guess it shouldn't be a huge surprise given this country's morbid aversion to sexuality of any kind. After all, a teenage Florida couple still faces jail time and sex-offender registration for taking and possessing recreational photos of perfectly legal and consensual sex acts between them. While sustaining the convictions, a Florida appellate court reasoned that:

"[I]f these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos."

I guess the potential damage of jail time and sex-offender registration didn't figure into the judge's calculation. When are we going to learn that the stigmatization of sexuality causes far more problems than it solves? Shouldn't the state spend their resources more wisely -- say going after the John Coueys of the world?

Chocolate Jesus

2007-03-31T13:29:00.000-04:00

Catholics have finally managed a decent showing in their race to the bottom with Islam to assault free expression. The sculpture in question, "My Sweet Lord" by Cosimo Cavallaro, depicts Jesus, naked as if on the cross, made entirely of chocolate. I can only guess at the intended commentary, but it seems fairly obvious.

New York religionists had a variety of options when faced with this "scandalous" work. They could have ignored it, refusing to aid fuel to the fire of publicity. They could have co-opted the sculpture and incorporated it into messages against the crass commercialization of Easter. Instead, they threatened boycott of the hotel hosting the display, the archbishop calling the work "sickening" and using the example of militant Islam's reaction to cartoons of Mohammad as justification. Sadly, the gallery in question caved under pressure.

Walter Reed

2007-03-30T19:38:00.000-04:00

Bush finally apologies, but it's too little, too late. The president should have had the decency to visit Walter Reed within days if not hours of the story breaking (the lesson of Katrina remains unlearned). When he eventually visited today, his scheduled stay was cut short by an hour. The feeble attempt to pass off the scandal as mere "bureaucratic and administrative failures" lacked any acknowledgement of the fundamentally broken nature of the system over which he presides. Bushed again missed a huge opportunity to lead.

It's no surprise that corners were cut and roll after roll of red tape unfurled at Walter Reed. Whether its cutting VA benefits, privatizing active-duty hospital services (often at an increased price over preexisting arrangements), stop-loss programs, repeated tour extensions, relying on high-priced civilian contractors for security, or the fight-on-the-cheap approach to logistics in Iraq and Afghanistan, this administration has failed to take the well being of the troops seriously at every turn.

Whatever one thinks of the war in general, this aspect of Bush's policy has become a national disgrace. Mr. President, it's time for you to support the troops.

Votefortheworst?

2007-03-30T18:23:00.000-04:00

Well, it seems even a few mainstream bloggers have caught Sanjaya fever (here and here). As a viewer of American Idol who actually watches for good performances, I'm more than a little frustrated by the phenomenon, but it's a fascinating trend nonetheless. Some have a genuine affection for the soft-spoken kid who seems so oblivious to criticism and a wish to see him vindicated despite his shortcomings. Others have an axe to grind with the show. Then there's Howard Stern's faux-contrarian attention grab.

What do all these threads have in common? What themes bring people to Votefortheworst.com in droves? It's the same unattractive impulse that causes us to stare slack-jawed at a traffic accident, but in this case we get to participate directly in creating the wreck before settling in on the couch to watch it in slow motion. There's also a strong flavor of snobbery -- the show represents the low-to-middle brow tastes of popular culture, and any reversal for the franchise is a thumb in the eye of convention. One wishes that folks who don't like the program could use the simple method of changing the channel, but no. People actually have a visceral desire to bring the show down.

Of course, the producers of American Idol could solve this problem entirely by adding a per-phone-number limit on the calls viewers can make on any given night. Let people vote for their favorite three or four contestants and leave it at that. I can't imagine there's a technological limitation that prevents this sort of restriction, so why don't they do it? The producers must see an angle in fostering the controversy. All publicity is good publicity, they wager, and the Sanjayas, Scotty Savols, and Chicken-Littles certainly gin up attention for the show. This all belies the refrain that American Idol is a singing competition. It's not, or at least not exclusively. The inclusion of talentless and sometimes deranged contestants in the early stages of the season are purely for the prurient entertainment value of ridicule.

Ironically, this reminds me of a hilarious scene from Private Parts where NBC radio executives are discussing Howard Stern's ratings:

Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes a day. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Pig Vomit: How could this be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given: "I want to see what he'll say next."
Pig Vomit: All right, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.
Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?
Researcher: Most common answer: "I want to see what he'll say next."

Howard has been raking in the cash for years by pissing people off. The American Idol producers have refined the art form -- they are cashing in on allowing the viewing public to piss each other off. Maybe Votefortheworst is on to something...