March 2, 2010
Huh?!?
Harold Ford, Jr., who had considered following Hillary Clinton from the South to carpetbag his way into the Senate from New York, has decided not run after all. In an op-ed in yesterday's NYT, Ford explains why. If The Refugee may be so bold as to summarize, his reasoning goes something like this: "The Senate and the Democrats are in big trouble and New Yorkers are clamoring for change. The current Democrat establishment that created the mess needs to be swept out or nothing will change. That's why I'm not running so that the current Democrat establishment can maintain the status quo."
Wow. With courage like that, who needs heroes?
Huh indeed. Ford has always been one of my favorite Democrats. I agree that he does not get a "Profile in Courage" award for dropping out, but it's hard to phrase that so you do (ask Gov Palin...)
I had heard the news but did not read the editorial until you linked. It's clear that the NY Dem machine -- with a vintage that includes George Clinton, Tammany Hall, Martin Van Buren, Chester Arthur and the Roosevelt's -- said "No!"
I'd add one line to your paraphrase:
"New York Democrats are clueless, corrupt, and completely out-of-touch. Other than writing about it in the NY Times, I wouldn't do anything to jeopardize their electoral success."
February 21, 2010
Barnburner
I was going to make this an "Otequay of the Ayday" post but there were too many good quotes. Glenn Beck keynoted this year's CPAC conference. It was brilliant. He told Republicans it's time to say, "I'm sorry."
"It is still morning in America, it just happens to be kind of a head pounding, hung over, vomiting for four hours kind of morning in America."
Why? Progressivism. And it's in both parties.
"I'm so sick of hearing people say, 'Oh, well, Republicans are going to solve it all.' Really? It's just Progressive Lite. (...) Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution. To 'progress past' the Constitution."(...)
"This is the cancer that is eating at America. It is big government. It's a socialist utopia. And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot coexist. And you don't cure cancer by, 'Well, I'm just gonna give you a little bit of cancer.' You must eradicate it.
(...)
"Dick Cheney, a couple of days ago, was here and he says, 'It's gonna be a good year for conservative ideas.' That's true. That's very true. It's gonna be a very good year, but it's not enough just to not suck as much as the other side."
He then played on his own battle with alcohol addiction and mocked the Republican party with the first step of the Twelve Step program: "Hello, my name is the Republican Party and I've got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government."
Watch the video to see what he said about the Big Tent concept, and many, many other good points. Like American citizens giving ten times the charitable contributions of France ... per capita. And the depression of 1920 as compared to the "Great Depression." And Calvin Coolidge versus Woodrow Wilson.
Hat tip for the vid link to a critical Ryan Witt at examiner.com.
Some good comments there and he promises to "fact check" Beck's speech "later today."
Like a good joke, I enjoyed it the FIRST time (comment on post above).
But this thing kicks off once every hour. No wonder liberals hate Glenn Beck -- he won't shut up!!!
Without objection, tomorrow I will replace the embed with a link.
Hey, have you heard that Tiger Woods plans to legally change his name? From now on he'll be known as Cheatah Woods.
(Sorry if it's not the first time for that either. I attempted to fix the vid.)
Posted by: johngalt at February 22, 2010 2:58 PMAnd my brother in law told me that Michelle Obama is pregnant!
-- of course, they're blaming George W. Bush!
Sad to say that crazy man once again tried taking over my workday. Jeez! No wonder everybody hates him...
Posted by: jk at February 22, 2010 4:51 PMFebruary 17, 2010
Don Luskin on Kudlow & Co.
The virtues of gridlock! Hard to argue...
Except that the Republicans will compromise -- again -- and turn up the temperature just a little more. Boiling frog, remember? The GOP is about to have this "health care summit" where they'll cave in to some of the Democrats' demands, and in return the Democrats will...give nothing.
Don't make the mistakes of equating lower deficits with gridlocked government. As I've pointed out before, the federal deficit decreased in the late 1990s while total spending increased, only because tax revenues were increasing faster than Congressional spending increased. The historical data from the CBO shows that federal spending as a percentage of GDP was in fact quite consistent during the 1980s and 1990s. In line with what I said about the late 1990s, the economic recovery and growth of the 1980s gave the federal government more of our money to spend.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 17, 2010 8:37 PMBut wait, federal spending as a percentage of GDP actually was going down with GWB and a Republican Congress. How can that be, when supposedly they were such spendthrifts together? Because they were, in absolute dollars. Notice that the outlays, in absolute dollars, kept going up and up -- just like they were going up during Reagan's terms, GHWB's term, and Clinton's terms too.
Bottom line: it's economic growth, from factors beyond the federal government's ability to create, that reduced budget deficits, not this "gridlock" or "divided government" so many cling to.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 17, 2010 8:37 PMI Guess I AM a Conservative
If all Conservatives think this.
Insty links (and at 11:55 MST the Instalanche seems to have overwhelmed the petition signing process) to the Mount Vernon Statement. Some enjoyed the One Sentence Tea Party manifesto last week, but if you like a little more meat on the bone, I recommend this. Highly.
We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.
And it just gets better...
First I'll refine one of Perry's points on "illegal immigration" in a way I'm sure he'd support: Without a welfare state, nowhere near as many freeloaders will want to [immigrate here.] Those who want to work hard for the American dream like the rest of us (in the private sector) are welcome to be our neighbors.
The comments here reflect most, if not all, of my initial impressions with the MVS but I didn't want to poison the thread. Hence my attempt to provoke thought instead. And having thought on it myself I conclude that it is not, nor could there ever be, an iron-clad unmistakable road map to a utopia of individual liberty on earth. To me, the greatest significance of the Mount Vernon Statement is that the establishment GOP has acknowledged the existence and morality of the TEA Party movement. It's an important first step. But there will never be a day that lovers of liberty can rest comfortably with any government anyway, so we may as well just follow BR's awesome analogy and start driving toward the other goal line. And the way I see it we're in a pretty good position to do so. As John Elway once famously said on a cold Cleveland gridiron, "We've got 'em right where we want 'em."
Posted by: johngalt at February 18, 2010 3:28 PMSome snippets at QandO prompted me to finally read through the statement, not just the opening. These couple of things should bother anyone who believes in liberty:
It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.George Washington is most certainly spinning in his grave. This is what neo-cons want, the license to wage war and call it "national interest."
It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.Here's the real proof that the talk of "individual liberty" is mere lip service. It's the same old crap of conservatives voting .
What if I don't like my family? I personally do, but some people want nothing to do with theirs. What if I don't like my "neighborhood" or "community"? My neighbors leave me alone, except when it comes to voting on how to use my property for their own interests. In my local jurisdiction, it's not just elected officials who raise taxes. Locals will vote in actual referendums on whether they approve a new school budget. The new budgets are always more and more, with tax hikes, and they always get approved.
God save us all from these people of "faith."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 19, 2010 1:14 PMThose passages indeed cause shivers up my spine (not my leg) but they aren't the only ones in the MVS with, uh, "versatile" meanings. But that's where it's utility can be found: Let all conservatives find their own pet meaning in each statement so that they'll direct their political antibodies toward the nearest Democrat instead of each other. A little pragmatic for my part but it's better than any alternatives I can imagine actually coming to pass. You?
Random thoughts:
The tradition of family deserves a vigorous defense on anti-statist grounds. It is the individual rights and responsibilities alternative to "it takes a village."
Advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world, as in America, is the work of the local citizenry. I have no compunction against "prudently" aiding others in that work. By and large that aid amounts to official public statements of support, encouragement, and promises of future free trade.
The saving grace of "people of faith" is that they believe in a morality that is at least consistent with individual rights, if not holding it as the highest authority as you and I do. Those we should most vigorously oppose and denounce are they who say there is no such thing as morality.
How to protect individuals from creeping taxation and tyranny of the majority? Still working on that one but an obvious first step is to thoroughly discredit Progressivism.
Posted by: johngalt at February 19, 2010 3:27 PMConservatism's darkest day -- relying on a fulsome defense from jk.
Both the segments you excerpted did give me a twitch, Perry; neither would I have written.
But we are seeking to do politics by addition here and I ask whether these are deal breakers -- and they certainly are not. The first is a call to balance national interest and a desire to promote freedom in a Constitutional framework. We talk about it here all the time. If that section has fault, it is that it doesn't really say anything, not what it says. I think it leaves Jefferson versus Jackson unresolved.
The second quote is not at all outside the bounds of liberty: "...firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith." You read that as a license for Pat Robertson, but I suggest all of these institutions need protection from government. I read nothing about establishing a national religion, but the protection of one's beliefs and protection from the many, many government intrusions into matters of family and community.
Once again, we must consider the source. If you take those words literally, they're mostly innocuous. However, we know exactly what those points mean.
Conservatives don't approach those two from any perspective of individualism. It's their own brand of collectivism where, damn the individual, he'll be lumped together so his taxes will be used to "advance liberty" elsewhere -- like it or not. Do you really think these conservatives plan to promote freedom passively, i.e. by this country serving as an example to others? It's doubtful they're thinking that more people can come here freely to escape their own oppressive governments.
Consider the source, and you'll know exactly what the fourth point means: waging more wars. What about people like me who no longer support it? On what moral basis can we, should we be compelled to "advance liberty" for others?
The tradition of family deserves a vigorous defense on anti-statist grounds. It is the individual rights and responsibilities alternative to "it takes a village."But some people don't believe in that tradition, so this "conservatism" is in fact imposing a moral system upon them.
Advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world, as in America, is the work of the local citizenry. I have no compunction against "prudently" aiding others in that work. By and large that aid amounts to official public statements of support, encouragement, and promises of future free trade.But again, you know the fourth point's implication is a military approach. Do we, can we trust modern conservatives to take Washington's advice?
The saving grace of "people of faith" is that they believe in a morality that is at least consistent with individual rights, if not holding it as the highest authority as you and I do. Those we should most vigorously oppose and denounce are they who say there is no such thing as morality.Actually, I don't trust a whole lot of my fellow Baptists. While I share the same beliefs about salvation and sin, there are too damn many of them who want to use the force of law to make people moral. It's great to love your neighbor, but not force the love upon him, or force him to love others.
Have you ever heard Christians say that the Bible teaches us to submit to authority, i.e. government? But when that conflicts with God, what happens to Acts 5:29? "We ought to obey God rather than men." What this particular type of Christian leaves out is that it's a two-way street. Children are to obey their parents AND parents are not to treat them badly so that the children will become angry. Slaves are to obey their masters AND masters are to treat slaves well. And people were told to submit to authority AND such authorities were expected to treat people justly.
Therefore it's a covenant like we have with God. God is always faithful, of course, so if any side breaks it, it's mankind. But these covenants between men don't give carte blanche to the one with authority, so children are not required to submit to bad parents, and slaves are not required to submit to masters who beat them. Should a people, then, be required to submit to a government that does not treat them justly?
On the flip side, "faith" isn't a prerequisite for morality, as we readily see with Randians. They have the higher morality of leaving me alone to my own conscience.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 20, 2010 10:56 PMBut we are seeking to do politics by addition here and I ask whether these are deal breakers -- and they certainly are not. The first is a call to balance national interest and a desire to promote freedom in a Constitutional framework. We talk about it here all the time. If that section has fault, it is that it doesn't really say anything, not what it says. I think it leaves Jefferson versus Jackson unresolved."it doesn't really say anything" is exactly the danger. As I was saying to JG, we know exactly what conservatives are saying behind nice-sounding words.
The second quote is not at all outside the bounds of liberty: "...firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith." You read that as a license for Pat Robertson, but I suggest all of these institutions need protection from government. I read nothing about establishing a national religion, but the protection of one's beliefs and protection from the many, many government intrusions into matters of family and community.It's the individual, and his freedom to act without harming others, who alone should be protected. Why should institutions be so specifically enumerated, when to protect the individual is to protect any voluntarily associations of individuals? Why should the institutions have a special protected status over those who want to live in solitude, away from neighbors, and without faith? Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 20, 2010 11:07 PM
February 11, 2010
Hope and Change Update
Democratic strategist Roland Martin writes:
Obama's critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let 'em know that if they aren't with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.
Hope. Change.
How soon his own party forgets. Doesn't "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother" sound familiar? Or is that the history that will be "forgotten" in the New Obama Order?
I won't excuse Shelby and his rent-seeking friends, but how hypocritical (surprise!) of the Demorats. How soon they want to forget that they did the same "obstruction" for years on Bush's judicial nominees. Does anyone else remember John Bolton? Miguel Estrada? (Estrada was in Phi Beta Kappa and graduated magna cum laude from both Columbia and Harvard Law. Affirmative action, at least at those schools, even at those schools, won't help you graduate near the top of your class.)
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2010 2:00 PMFebruary 8, 2010
Fat Cat Bankers Cause Depression!
Must read lead editorial in the WSJ today. If you have to subscribe to read it, pony up!
NYAG Andrew Cuomo has filed a fraud lawsuit against Bank of America joining as the WSJ Ed Page declares "the long queue of politicians blaming bankers as the chief culprits in creating the financial panic and recession"
But they click on over to the Housing and Urban Development web site. Take a moment and imagine explaining to the ghost of James Madison that we have a Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and that it is contained in the Executive Branch... I digress. Here's an item from the HUD accomplishments during AG Cuomo's tenure as HUD Chief under President Clinton.
HUD's Web visitors learn that in 1999 "Secretary Cuomo established new Affordable Housing Goals requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mactwo government sponsored enterprises involved in housing financeto buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages in the next 10 years. This will mean new affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families. The historic action raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that the companies must buy from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percenta 19 percent increasein the year 2001."
Damned, fat cat bankers!
The good part of this story is that I have been overwhelmed of late with nostalgia for the Clinton days. Spending was down, Buffy was on, NAFTA and GATT were kicking in -- as was China's MFN and WTO status. Yeah, he was boning the interns (Umm, that would depend on what the definition of "boning" is...) but IPOs were happening and life was good.
It is worth remembering that Al-Qaedas growth was unabated and that these seeds of future economic troubles were being sown. Hey, I still take him any day of the week over the present occupant, but the pleasant, silver-haired magistrate of bonhomie we see helping the Haitians is always pitched as being better than his successor. I'm not buying.
To be specific, budget deficits were down during in the Clinton years. But as I've pointed out in the past, it wasn't because spending was down. Federal expenditures were as high as ever. It's just that tax revenues were increasing faster than Congress accelerated its own spending.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 8, 2010 12:01 PMFebruary 5, 2010
Quote of the Day
But Tancredo, a committed protectionist and anti-immigration crusader, would have been equally disastrous. Its too bad that the Tea Party would open their first official convention with a politician who so ferociously opposes one of the key tenets of the capitalism. Fact is, committed socialists and Tancredo have plenty to agree on. -- David HarsanyiMy hope for the TEA Party convention does not match my hopes for the TEA Party movement.
UPDATE: Blog friend Terri and I do not see eye-to-eye on immigration, but she's no happier with Rep. Tancreado's speech:
If Tom Tancredo is the face of the Tea Party movement, then the tea party movement is dead. Hes pretty certain we should have Jim Crow laws for voting.
People who could not even spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House, he said.
January 29, 2010
The Best Part of Politics
(The link is to his Facebook page).
How about 1.12 billion cubic yards of fill dirt to raise the city of New Orleans to sea level?
Posted by: johngalt at January 31, 2010 4:45 PMAs the kiddies say, LOL, brother jg, LOL.
Posted by: jk at February 1, 2010 9:58 AMJanuary 25, 2010
Quote of the Day
Where you getting all this economic freedom all the sudden Canada? Just happen to find it laying around in the snow somewhere? Well it turns out weve recently misplaced a good deal of it around here. A little suspicious if you ask me. -- Adam OzimekHat-tip: Instapundit
January 22, 2010
On a TEA Party Platform
What is a RINO? As JK and I agreed, it depends who you ask. I suggested we'd agree with the definition used by the TEA Party movement but that's more than a bit nebulous since it's a movement and not a party organization. For the sake of argument, let's consider the commendable platform of the Boston Tea Party:
Platform of the Boston Tea PartyThe Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.
Being a "black-and-white" type of guy myself I like this concise expression of a consistent policy that is applied to every issue. But where jk would probably see "reduce the scope and power of government to limit illegal immigration" I would instead point to Article I, Sections 8 and 9 and say that establishing and enforcing laws regarding migration and naturalization are Constitutional functions of government. As is the repelling of invasions.
Ultimately though, I don't see this platform standing the test of time. If the scope of the movement is allowed to creep beyond taxes, regulations and government spending it is doomed to fragment and fall through the policy planks of the established GOP and DNC parties. I'll take an impromptu swipe at a better TEA Party Platform:
Platform of the _____ TEA PartyIn order to promote a just and sustainable civil society in the United States, the ____ TEA Party supports the requirement of Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution that all direct taxes be apportioned among the states according to their representative numbers and, in so keeping, calls upon the state legislatures to ratify a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th amendment.
Furthermore, the Party supports a robust exercise of Judicial power to constrain the Executive and Legislative branches to the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution, most importantly in regard to regulation of commerce and expenditures from the national treasury.
Thoughts?
I don't want to do a lot of either ... either. I also don't want to spend the rest of my life in Washington trying to make sure the right amount of both gets done, and no more. I like our Constitutional Republic and think it was in darn good shape until a few bad amendments slipped through (some without actually being ratified.) And no, I don't think this idea is an overreach for the vast majority of Americans. Why would you think so?
My reading of your proposed platform is an attempt to strengthen adherence to the Constitution but if swearing an oath to uphold it doesn't achieve that then why would these few words in a platform make a difference?
You also mentioned "Tea Party" legislators, executives and candidates, which exposes an area of confusion by the name "Tea Party." I don't propose that it be a political party, but an alliance of patriots that takes its name from the historical party at Boston Harbor. Perhaps a better name would be Platform of the TEA Party Patriots.
My wording may be lacking and it may be too lengthy to gain the desired traction and following. But I do have the sense that this is where most TEA Partiers have been saying they want to go - lower taxes, fairer taxes, less government welfare and meddling with matters of commerce, and much, much more transparency.
I've seen many mentions of border security and some, but fewer, of abortion bans at the rallies I've witnessed. It would be tragic for the anti-tax and spend message to be diluted by those or any other issues. Hence, my suggestion to repeal the 16th amendment. If the Constitution is restored I am hopeful that voters acting in their own interest will refrain from electing representatives who intend to raise taxes. What is so overreaching in that?
[I tried to keep this comment to less than a zillion words. I also hoped the post would attract the views of a variety of regular commenters. Good intentions, by the board.]
Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2010 8:33 PMNope, I had the overnight brainstorm here it is:
All Ten in 2010!
We, the undersigned legislative candidates of either political party do promise to craft and approve all future legislation expressly to restore and protect our rights as granted in the Bill of Rights.
The first ten amendments were crafted by our founders and the original authors of the Constitution. They protect individual freedom from government intrusion and limit the size, scope, and power of government.
Therefore in 2010, the signers pledge to govern as Tea Party Patriot Legislators, protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Hate to duck a direct question, but I wanted to get my All Ten in 2010 platform up (above).
I thought we'd worn through this, but I don't see any interest in rolling back government services to pre-16th Amendment levels. Once I leave the lofty, intellectual heights of ThreeSources I am confronted with the fact that people like Medicare, Social Security, the EPA and the Department of Education. Nobody has been able to shave off 1% from any of those. Even with miles of evidence at their inefficacy and unconstitutionality, they (and the mohair subsidy) live on.
Trying to kill them all in one fell swoop (what is a fell swoop?) would be quixotic at best. Trying to preserve the Bill of Rights would get a little more purchase.
When you start tossing out Amendments that were ratified on shaky procedure, you would have to start with the Civil War Amendments (13-14-15) which were ratified by occupational governments. Worms. Can. Opener.
Give folks time. It is not only a weekend, it is a playoff weekend.
Good feedback. My intent in rolling back the 16th is not to eliminate the income tax, but to make the tax on everyone equal. It's the inequity that enables redistribution. Congress would just have to figure out a way to tax every individual equally, and at a rate to get the same revenue. All programs could then remain intact to the extent voters continue to support them. Given this policy I'd be fully willing to allow illegal aliens to not only have amnesty and use government services, but to vote - provided they have social security numbers and pay their taxes.
I've considered the "first 10" approach in the past but see a few that came later we'd all agree should stay: women's suffrage and emancipation, primarily.
It looks like "fell swoop" came from Shakespeare, and hunting birds.
Posted by: johngalt at January 24, 2010 5:48 PMMethinks me wuz misconstrued. I did not want to lop the Constitution off at the end of the Tenth -- I wanted to focus on the Bill of Rights as a cause for the Tea Partiers.
I questioned the 12th and 17th, thinking that popular elections have not increased freedom. But I publicly wavered in the face of Gov Rod Blagojevich's putting a Senate Seat up on eBay last year. Maybe the people should do it.
There are facets of the 14th that disturb me, but I am quite ready to take the whole thing: chicks voting, MTV's solemn right to rock the vote, holding inaugurations on Jan 20, I'm in...
I'm just sayin' that it would be easy to make the TPer's look bad if they say the first 10 are "the most important" or "our focus" or whatever. But I think we're both thinking too hard. Let's not talk about "10" but about "The Bill of Rights." Who could villify that?
Posted by: johngalt at January 25, 2010 11:47 AMEverybody Wants a Pony!
I don't think they teach "Civics" anymore, but a young person could learn much about government by reading Scriveners awesome Pony Reform
I want a pony. You want a pony. Polls show that everybody wants a pony!Let's build a New Permanent Majority by enacting Pony Reform!
OK, we're committed. Upon this foundation of popular reform we will build our power base...
January 21, 2010
The Black Vote and the Party of Lincoln
Thomas Sowell wants to know why Republicans haven't given more thought to winning the black vote. "If they get 20 percent of the black vote, the Democrats are in trouble-- and if they get 30 percent, the Democrats have had it in the general election."
Many of the key constituencies of the Democratic Party-- the teachers' unions, the trial lawyers, and the environmentalists, for example-- have agendas whose net effect is to inflict damage on blacks. Urban Renewal destroys mostly minority neighborhoods and environmentalist restrictions on building homes make housing prices skyrocket, forcing blacks out of many communities. The number of blacks in San Francisco has been cut in half since 1970.But, unless Republicans connect the dots and lay out the facts in plain English, these facts will be like the tree that fell in an empty forest without being heard.
He has some good practical advice. "The teachers' unions are going to be against the Republicans, whether Republicans hammer them or keep timidly quiet. Why not talk straight to black voters... Blacks have been lied to so much that straight talk can gain their respect, even if they don't agree with everything you say." Come to think of it, that last part applies to voters of any race. Just ask Scott Brown.
A tale of two RINO's
Until April of last year many considered Senators John McCain and Arlen Specter to be RINOs based on their support for signature Democrat policies in the areas of immigration, global warming and campaign finance among others. Specter's announcement that he was switching back to the Democrat party after 44 years made big news, but John McCain stealthily embarked on another track. First he reversed his support for cap and trade. Then he bumper-hitched the Tea Party movement and started befriending candidates like Scott Brown and voting against the Obamagenda. Now, he's in pretty good shape to hold his own seat in the senate with campaign endorsements and appearances by his former running mate Sarah Palin and even the newly minted junior senator from Massachusetts.
This goes mostly to show that McCain was never as much a RINO as Specter but also that Arlen seriously misread the staying power of the Obama Express. Losing the presidential election and inspiring some primary challengers seem to have rekindled McCain's conservative sensabilities. I'm already willing to predict that McCain's strategy will succeed and he'll be re-elected in November. And I'm even OK with it. He is a war hero, after all. (I just hope he'll remember what he really believes in if he ever again becomes a media darling.)
And this is as good a place as any to point out that if just one of the current 40 Republicans in the senate can be persuaded to follow Specter into the abyss, then the significance of Scott Brown's victory would be nullified. Fortunately, I can't imagine anyone being that stupid - not even a Republican senator.
Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2010 4:00 PMI would never call Senator McCain a RINO. I would call him a few other names, but...
Senator McCain has been an unreliable vote in the GOP Senate caucus, but he is usually there when needed. I think of Senators Snowe, Collins, Voinovich as RINOs. Senators McCain and Graham can be irritatingly absent on issues, but I would never call either a RINO.
The distinction is to envision "pulling a Specter." The three I mentioned would fit in the Democratic Caucus, McCain and Graham never!
I clarify because if/when immigration becomes a GOP litmus test, you are going to lose not only McCain, but also Kudlow, the WSJ Ed Page, and umm, me
Posted by: jk at January 21, 2010 6:26 PMHuman Events' top 10 RINO's in the senate as of March, 2009, based on an overall analysis of votes in the 110th congress. Specter 6, McCain 7.
Posted by: johngalt at January 21, 2010 8:49 PMIf Human Events is the arbiter of all things Republican, I am certainly a RINO. The next list is Family Research Council's top ten in the House. I'd suggest if they're deciding, you are one too.
Posted by: jk at January 22, 2010 10:09 AMIf there was such a thing as the "TEA Party Top 10 Big Government Republicans in the Senate" I'd have used that instead. Let's not miss the bigger point though by arguing over what RINO means to the nth degree. McCain has clearly been a leaf in the Capitol Hill wind and that's quietly changed since last April. I call that good news. He and Specter read the same political landscape and saw it exactly opposite from each other.
And for his part, Specter seems none too comfortable with his current predicament.
Posted by: johngalt at January 22, 2010 12:50 PMI agree that RINO-taxonomy does not affect your post nor your excellent point.
But we occasionally digress down a side road around here. And Scott Brown's candidacy has spotlighted the question of who/what defines a Tea-Party RINO?
If it turns out that the Tea Partiers come out full-on against baby-killers, queer-lovers, and (gasp!) open-border types, then you and I are in a spot of trouble, nicht wahr?
Posted by: jk at January 22, 2010 1:55 PMJanuary 20, 2010
A little more cold H2O
C/O our buddy Donald L Luskin:
January 19, 2010
Quote of the Century
RE: disposition of Ted Kennedy's seat:
Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?-- Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) (via Ann Althouse, Jonah Goldberg, FOXNews, Instapundit, &c.)
Ow! That's gotta hurt!
Dr. Freud, please call your office.
Posted by: johngalt at January 19, 2010 12:11 PMJanuary 18, 2010
Holiday Quote of the Day
"The only person ever prosecuted under the Georgia income tax perjury statute was Martin Luther King." -- Corey R. Chivers, Desuetude, Due Process, and the Scarlet Letter Revisited, 1992 Utah L. Rev. 449, 454 n.27 (Gated paper, HT: TaxProf)Stunning. This brings the abstract concept of liberty home. I sound black-helicopterish to myself some days. But power given to State can be used as the State chooses.
January 12, 2010
The GOP's "Negro Problem"
Jason Richwine hits a blog post out of the park.
In a short ThreeSources discussion, jg commented that "If putting the Democrat majority leader of the Senate on the defensive for a few cycles can help keep them from peaking too soon, so be it." It's hard to argue with that, but my concern is that we are adopting the victimologists principles and rhetoric.
Richwine asks how the GOP can govern when it makes short term plays like demanding Reid's resignation and foreswearing Medicare cuts.
Senator Reids remarks, unremarkable as they were, should have elicited no comment whatsoever from GOP leaders. Instead, party chairman Michael Steele called for Reid to resign his leadership post. Why is this bad? Because for decades the Left has attempted to enforce a strict set of rules regarding what may be publicly stated about race. We are safe if we stick to platitudes like diversity is our strength, but any critique of affirmative action or mention of racial differences is immediately suspected to be insensitive, intolerant, or just plain racist. For conservatives to make progress on racial issues, it is essential that the boundaries of the debate be expanded to allow a more open discussion.Steeles extreme over-reaction is a surrender to political correctness, just for the sake of having a talking point to emphasize for a few days. Republicans will never have anything useful to say about racial issues if they allow the Congressional Black Caucus and NAACP to set the terms of the debate. Yet that could easily be the long-term effect of their latest rhetorical misadventure.
Jason Richwine strikes exactly at the heart of the matter. As much as we we love to savor Reid's squirm, it is best to let this slide without GOP comment. That is because it would be best for everyone if politics of this "gotcha" nature were to disappear from our national dialog for good. Only then will we have truly entered the "post-racial" era.
The GOP can never win the day on race for long because the left controls the language and the rules. That much should be evident from the Dem's handling of Reid. Instead of trying to beat the Dems at their game using thier rules, we should be trying to change the game.
Posted by: Lisa M at January 12, 2010 9:15 PMRiddle me this, Bat-bloggers: How does racial gotcha politics come to an end when only one side foreswears it? Isn't that a bit like saying, "The way to stop terrorism is to educate terrorists and their progeny that it would be best for everyone if terrorism were to disappear from the Earth?"
Isn't it more effective to say, "If you attack us we'll attack you seven times over" and then DO IT? And in the case of racial indignation, using it against the Dems has a dual effect of instructing the glass-house-dwelling Democrats to use caution lest they face the same treatment and exposing their hypocrisy to the racial minorities they posture to champion.
So this is not just the pragmatic course that pays short term dividends. Principled me still sees no reason to object.
Posted by: johngalt at January 13, 2010 2:22 PMjg, that strategy hasn't worked out so well for us thus far, has it? I say we stay above this kind of politics--let the Dems do their kabuki theater apology dance of attrition for transgressions--but we stop playing. There are many many reasons for Harry Reid to step down as Senate leader; this is the least of them.
The other part of it is that we stop eating our own. We are trying to play by their rules--which they change to suit themselves. It's a game we can never win. The race baiters and the feminists, professional grievance mongers all, control the game. The game is hopelessly rigged against us. So we stop playing. Then the next time one of our boneheaded Republicans says somethign stupid, we simply point to Harry Reid and we say, "Well, it wasn't as bad as all that, now, was it? We think we'll keep this guy right where he is, just like you guys did."
Harry Reid does enough damage to himself and the democratic party with each apssing day he is in office. Do we really want someone more competent in there before they have been completely destroyed?
Posted by: Lisa M at January 13, 2010 7:35 PMYeah -- what she said! (Seriously, nicely put.)
Another point to consider is that they own the outrage and aggrievement channels. Astonishing to me is how innocuous this comment is. The "racist outburst" of the dim bulb from Searchlight was his disparagement of Justice Thomas (I remember because it scored me a Taranto link). Leader Reid asserted that Thomas's decisions were "poorly written" and compared his intelligence negatively to Justice Scalia.
This episode was the real deal and it got little attention outside of Taranto's BOTW and ThreeSources.
You make a great case LisaM. I still don't get why the GOP forced out Lott. But I still see race as a powerful tool to sway elections. I'm not sure we could all endure the Democrat takeover that lasts until the electorate figures out they're being played.
Earlier you said, "...we should be trying to change the game." Agreed, but how? My best suggestion is to replace the race divide with something more appealing to those who think themselves aggrieved. The great difficulty lies in replacing group identity politics with individual identity politics.
Posted by: johngalt at January 14, 2010 2:25 PMJanuary 11, 2010
Huck-a-whack
Mike Huckabee never looked so good as he has since becoming a regular contributor on Fox News Channel. This flattering exposure has concerned me since he might harbor ambitions for another presidential run. So I'm pleased to see someone I'd actually want to run now following his lead:
NY Daily News: Sarah Palin joins Fox News as a contributor in multi-year deal
Jeesh. Dan Quayle? He's a good man if not an inspirational politician but comparing Dan Quayle to Sarah Palin is like comparing The Professor to Mary Ann after a day at the salon (and $50,000 of "GOP wardrobe.")
In parting, please remember to judge Palin by her words and deeds and not by her media caricature.
Posted by: johngalt at January 12, 2010 3:05 PM"judge Palin by her words and deeds"
I have tried that, and I still came to JK's conclusion. And heck, I an't no Palin hater -- the reason I am on your guy's blog role is because I wrote a nice post on why I had been advocating for her place on McCain's ticket long before such a move was announced.
I just cannot get around the fact that she quit. You can give me excuses about how she was tired of being a lame duck Governor, that the Presidential run had ruined politics in Alaska (a sad truth -- I wonder if Palin might have been much more if she had never been chosen for vp running mate at all) -- but none of this changes the fact that she quit.
To be honest, I am not a great fan of quitters.
Sarah Palin is a great tragedy of our times. I believe if she had stuck to it, if she had put her nose to the grind stone and devoted herself to acquiring knowledge, wit, and political expertise, she could have become something truly great. Ten years of work and America could have her own Thatcher. Instead, we America is getting one more politico blow hard to fill her airwaves.
As I said, it is a tragedy.
Posted by: T. Greer at January 13, 2010 6:18 AMAnd, if I recall correctly, Mary Ann's wardrobe was fine.
I would happily pull the lever for Governor Palin. My point is that I know A LOT of needed votes who won't. I hate to offer anecdotal polling as data, but the moderate to right-leaners I know have all written her off.
Maybe in the same 16 years as Reagan's AuH20 speech to his election she can rehabilitate her image. But it is not going to happen in four. I blame the McCain handlers more than the Gov, but she is badly damaged goods.
JK, are you forgetting about Moore's law? Things happen faster now. It must be that internet thingy.
So you know people who've written her off. Yeah, me too. Just tell them they're wrong, they should take a closer look, and move on. Silence in the face of baseless criticism reinforces it.
As for "quitting" as governor of Alaska, how many Boston patriots quit their jobs to take a leadership role in the revolutionary war? The tree of liberty is parched and Palin knows we're darn desperate for field generals.
Posted by: johngalt at January 13, 2010 4:50 PMYou good folks are again too quick for me. I almost ceded the point in advance. The Internets thingy will cut her rehab time down to eight years (likely a good time for a Presidential run).
I do correct folks. But many of them don't buy it. Some of my friends, you'll be surprised to hear, think me a partisan hack. And I suspect there are some people in this country that I don't even know.
Sure thing JG, we are in need of field generals. But you are kinder to our class of political pundits than I. Field generals? All I see them do is dig latrines.
And when you are in that line of business, one quickly gets too covered in muk to transfer out of it.
Posted by: T. Greer at January 14, 2010 1:04 AMJanuary 10, 2010
Great Idea
ThreeSourcers should enjoy their six weeks of Silence Dogood. Our favorite left-of-center commenter has posted some interesting items today, including this, which I had not heard before:
The real term limits we need - limits on time as a committee chair. Stay in congress as long as you like (and can get elected). But you have to do it on more than your ability to deliver pork through the power of a committee chair.
I like that a lot. I am very torn on term limits. They seem arbitrary and counter to liberty. And yet, the problems of incumbency...
Next March, College basketball will take him away. So like I say, enjoy while you can!
Ha, OK I deserved that. I try to keep up really! Surprise I had not mentioned my limits on chairmanships before, I have long thought this was the one fair way to limit terms (of power). Elections are free and open, chairmanships appointments with obscure, questionable motives.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 10, 2010 12:38 PMWhere Silence wants to limit terms of power, I want to limit the power itself. Remove the governmental power to redistribute wealth - through inflation of the currency and inequitable taxation - and most of the leeches in the congress will lose interest.
Posted by: johngalt at January 10, 2010 2:14 PMBaby steps johngalt. I don't disagree with your proposition, just that I consider even my suggestion a long shot, your's would hardly seem to register on the possibility scale. Or, put it another way, one could help lead to the other, I am just adding a step to the ladder.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 10, 2010 6:47 PMI've always liked the vertical game.
Posted by: johngalt at January 10, 2010 8:18 PMJanuary 6, 2010
Not Another Party Party
The Tea Party Patriots (very official spokespeople for the movement as they have Facebook, Ning, and Twitter accounts) renounce the move to create a Judean People's Front Party. Good for them.
There is much talk of the formation of a third political party based on the tea party movement. In Florida, a Democratic operative with absolutely no connection to the tea party movement has filed papers to form a third party called the Florida Tea Party. He has issued legal threats against local tea parties demanding that they cease using the name "Florida Tea Party."Tea Party Patriots is issuing this statement in order to make it clear that we are not associated with this, or any attempts to form a third party. Additionally, we believe that such efforts are unproductive and unwise at this time. The history of third party movements in this country is one of division and defeat. We believe that it is instead time for all Americans to rise up and demand appropriate reform within their own parties. The mechanisms exist for citizens to participate in their parties, and to drive their parties in the right direction.
The Tea Party Patriots encourage all citizens to get involved in the party process, and to reshape their parties into something in which they may once again believe. This country does not belong to any one party, nor does it belong to the career politicians. This country belongs to the citizens. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "We have given you a republic madam, if you can keep it." The founders knew that it would be our sacred obligation as citizens to get involved, and to work hard to hold on to this great nation. We have much work to do, and future generations will look back in judgment. We hope you will join us in preserving the republic.
January 5, 2010
The Best Chance to Stop ObamaCare?
Some are calling it the best chance to stop ObamaCare. I gave $50 and follow @ScottBrownMA on Twitter.
And that was before I saw how cute his daughters are! You want to make a difference, I don't think this is a bad place to start. The national GOP has given up but some bloggers are thinking of making it a race, He's nine points down, and the race is in Massachusetts, but...
December 15, 2009
Extinguish Liberty and Prosperity
An anecdote and a WSJ column add to the same sad conclusion. As the lamp of liberty is extinguished in the US, the lamp of prosperity dims concomitantly (boy if we had an editor around here, sentences like that would be struck or fixed...)
At lunch with two socialists and two dyed-in-the-wool American progressives last Sunday. I kept my mouth shut until the virtues of Michael Moore's "Sicko" came up. This was more than I could bear. "...and you go to the cashier after your doctor's visit and they give YOU money!" I snapped -- I waved my chopsticks in the air (it was dim sum) and said "and the money comes from faeries waving magic wands! They don't tax anybody or anything!"
It was all good natured and I got a little lecture on how socialism has "worked" in France for 60 years. But then my Parisian friend said something which did bug me. "Nobody there wants to come here anymore. My friends and family used to be jealous and they all wanted to come here. Now nobody does."
That line has stuck in my head. At one level it was a debating point, but the sentiment was real. Why would you? In a down economy, the world's highest corporate tax rates and a shining new era of increased regulation, why indeed?
You didn't come to ThreeSources to hear jk bash the USA (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?) so I will pass the baton. Dana Matioli of the Wall Street Journal careers section says With Fewer U.S. Opportunities, Home Looks Appealing to Expats. Unemployment, Visa issues and more dynamic economies in their home countries are luring ex-pats back. Matioli cites examples from Australia, Germany and Asia.
How much worse will it need to get before President Obama decides to return to his home country?
Posted by: johngalt at December 15, 2009 3:47 PMDecember 10, 2009
Campaign Finance Reform
I have a goofy idea, but it is a good idea. Here is a new way to raise campaign cash:
Create a "Director's Level" ("Wonk's Level," whatever..) and members who donate a certain $$$ get put on a special list that will receive -- how can I put this -- not-completely-idiotic campaign literature.
I have received a couple copies of an email from Jane Norton. She is running against Senator Bennet in 2010. I want to support her. I want her to win, but I really can't handle these emails. I know we all get 100s electronic and print:
[Two sentences][Three bullet points]
&c.
As blog pragmatist, I understand that she cannot win by a 100% pure appeal to higher philosophical virtues (though she could do a little better than this letter). And yet, I am tired of being treated like a child. AND, I am wiling to pony up a certain amount ($250, maybe $500) to get emails that are substantive and targeted at somebody with a knowledge of politics and government that is not third-grade populism.
I'd like to receive her serious thoughts on health care at a level that would be suitable for readers of this blog. And I'd pay for the privilege.
Michael Steele, same offer buddy, I'm not three and your vehicles are causing me to contribute less than I would normally.
UPDATE: I conflated Jane Norton with Gale Norton (since corrected). ThreeSources apologizea for any inconvenience.
UPDATE II: Gale vs Jane
December 8, 2009
Quote of the Day
As someone who worked inside a White House, I say you really believe government should be small when you see your friends running it. -- Bill McGurn
...and even smaller when you see Bill Ayers' friends running it.
Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2009 3:44 PMDecember 5, 2009
Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally
Having wished out loud here for a conservative candidate like Sarah Palin to advocate limited government in the economic AND the social spheres I was naturally pleased to hear evangelical Christian Kevin Miller talk about his new effort to "reestablish crucial commonality and shared success among social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians and all freedom-cherishing Americans." (Hey, that got your attention din't it!)
Christians know from the New Testament that virtue is not accomplished even by Biblical law so how much more powerless is civil law to create virtue? No national government can achieve both freedom and virtue: neither will be accomplished ...
Hat tip: Mike Rosen's second hour today [audio file].
November 10, 2009
Whiteboard
Mister Gillespie is in form today:
Hat-tip: Instapundit
November 3, 2009
Quote of the Day Dos
Mister Taranto is in rare form today:
Virginia is one of two states that elect statewide officials a year after presidential elections, and in the governor's race, Republican Bob McDonnell looks to win big over Democrat Creigh Deeds. (We're not sure whether Creigh rhymes with "gay" or "brie.")
October 31, 2009
Tea Partiers Get First Scalp
That will certainly be the spin, and I am not disposed to contradict it. New York Republicans ran a woman for whom RINO seems too kind. The Tea Party crowd came out big for the Conservative Party candidate and was pitted against the GOP establishment in the person of Speaker Gingrich (praise be upon the 104th Congress).
Yesterday, the polls turned toward the Conservative candidate and today:
Republican Dede Scozzafava has suspended her bid in next Tuesdays NY 23 special election, a huge development that dramatically shakes up the race. She did not endorse either of her two opponents -- Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman or Democrat Bill Owens.The decision to suspend her campaign is a boost for Hoffman, who already had the support of 50 percent of GOP voters, according to a newly-released Siena poll, and is now well-positioned to win over the 25 percent of Republicans who had been sticking with Scozzafava.
Instapundit had highlighted a suggestion by blogger Bill Quick for Scozzafava to drop out. I could not understand why she would -- in solidarity for a candidate she didn't agree with? That's like saying "jk, if you'd just shut up, we could pass socialized medicine." "Well, all right then..."
In all the hubbub, I confess that I have not paid a lot of attention to Hoffman's views. Many of his big supporters are a bit more populist than I am, but they say he's the real deal (for example, I cite St. Louis blogger/talk show host Dana Loesch).
If every journey begins with a single step, I would call this one significant.
Happy as I was, I was going to revisit this issue. FOXNews (not a real news organization, but what you gonna do?) said that Scozzafava was "pro-Choice and pro gay marraige." Are those her crimes?
Posted by: jk at November 2, 2009 12:19 PMPro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-Big-Labor, pro Card Check, pro-ACORN, pro-high-taxes, pro-government-owned healthcare. This wasn't a case of a purge of someone failing a litmus test or two. This was a case of a candidate with an R after her name being farther left than her Democrat opponent.
I, like most people (I hope), understand that I'm never going to get everything I want from a candidate; politics today boils down to getting some or most of what you want instead of none of it. If a candidate agrees with me on 75% of what's important to me and his opponent disagrees with me on 75%, I'm not going to withhold my vote - hell, I held my nose and voted for McCain.
The issue in the NY-23 is that Scozzofava had zero percent in alignment with conservatives. She didn't fail a litmus test; she failed the entrance exam.
Posted by: Keith at November 2, 2009 12:33 PMOh no, Keith, this was a supposed reporter, not an op-ed columnist. The article was masqueraded as news.
Trust me, if it had been that blowhard Rich, I'd have remembered it with his holier-than-thou, smug smile.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 2, 2009 2:03 PMApparently the "journalist" and Frank Rich are both working from the same talking points:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/opinion/01rich.html?_r=1
Posted by: Keith at November 2, 2009 2:35 PMI'm tasting bile in my mouth again.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 2, 2009 8:30 PM
She was a big Cap'n Tax supporter as well, as I heard it. Barely a Specter of a Republican :-)
[Aftermath computing]: if the 7000 absentee ballots for the Scofflaw had all gone to Hoffman, he'd have won the seat. Bad GOP, easy on the eye of Newt!
Posted by: nanobrewer at November 4, 2009 12:24 PMOctober 23, 2009
Some Ammo for Brother JG
Your cousin comes at you with an email, you reply with an IBD editorial, She sends you an AP link, you mail her a copy of Atlas Shrugged. It's the Chicago Way...
I have heard "The Chicago Way" many times (they even had it on the Irish TV series "Ballykissangel"), but I never knew where it was from. Kim Strassel provides a citation, quotes it, and then compares it to the Obama Administration. Great stuff and another Friday jk link to Strassel won't surprise nobody.
But my blog brother was looking for examples of "disingenuousness" from the President. And I feel the biggest bait-and-switch was the promise of "a new kind of politics" that is post-partisan, post-racial, post-political, post-toasties, &c. Candidate/Senator Obama promised Gandhi; President Obama gives us a cross between Nixon and Al Capone.
What makes these efforts notable is that they are not the lashing out of a frustrated political operation. They are calculated campaigns, designed to create bogeymen, to divide the opposition, to frighten players into compliance. The White House sees a once-in-a-generation opportunity on health care and climate. It is obsessed with winning these near-term battles, and will take no prisoners. It knows that CEOs are easily intimidated and (Fox News ratings aside) it is getting some of its way. Besides, roughing up conservatives gives the liberal blogosphere something to write about besides Guantanamo.The Oval Office might be more concerned with the long term. It is 10 months in; more than three long years to go. The strategy to play dirty now and triangulate later is risky. One day, say when immigration reform comes due, the Chamber might come in handy. That is if the Chamber isn't too far gone.
White House targets also aren't dopes. The corporate community is realizing that playing nice doesn't guarantee safety. The health executives signed up for reform, only to remain the president's political piatas. It surely grates that the unionsnow running their own ads against ObamaCarehaven't been targeted. If the choice is cooperate and get nailed, or oppose and possibly win, some might take that bet.
There's also the little fact that many Americans voted for this president in thrall to his vow to bring the country together. It's hard to do that amid gunfire, and voters might just notice.
It's Kim Strassel -- ya gotta read da whole thing, wheddah you's from Chicago er not.
UPDATE: Not just mean old Republicans complianing: Politico: White House Attacks Worry Moderate Democrats
"Its a mistake," said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. "I think its beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations."Altmire was talking about the Obama administrations efforts to undercut Fox News. But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.
"Theres no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies," added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. "The Chamber isnt an opponent."
September 23, 2009
You Have to Love the NYT
From the NYT's coverage of Palin's speech in Asia:
A number of people who heard the speech in a packed hotel ballroom, which was closed to the media, said Mrs. Palin spoke from notes for 90 minutes and that she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling.
[Emphasis added.]
As an Ex-Governess ... and what candidate for president would NOT rail against the opposition presidency. How many Governor-cum-Presidents cooed over their opposition? Perhaps Reagan ...
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at September 23, 2009 1:25 PMUsed to be a point of protocol that "politics stopped at the water's edge" and in Asia, we're all 'merkuns.
It was not that people did not oppose -- it's that they were criticized for it. Don't know that I miss the good old days, but it seems a bit inconsistent.
Hmmm. Did she call President Obama an "idiot?" Did she say he is "illegitimate?" How about "he's not MY president" or "I apologize to the world" for him?
Not exactly.
Mr. Goode, an African-American who said he did some campaign polling for President Obama, said Mrs. Palin mentioned President Obama three times on Wednesday."And there was nothing derogatory in it, no sleight of hand, and believe me, I was listening for that," he said, adding that Mrs. Palin referred to Mr. Obama as "our president," with the emphasis on "our."
She did say that she was against the Obama administration's tariff on Chinese tires.
Posted by: johngalt at September 23, 2009 4:15 PMPersonally I liked the excerpts in this report.
Palin, Sounding Like Ron Paul, Takes on the Fed
Posted by: johngalt at September 23, 2009 4:21 PMWSJ has reviewed a recording of the speech. Story here.
"We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place," the former Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate said Wednesday at a conference sponsored by investment firm CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. "We're not interested in government fixes, we're interested in freedom," she added.
Dunno brother Keith. She's giving you a run for my money and support as president in 2012.
Posted by: johngalt at September 23, 2009 4:26 PMGood reporting, jg. I guess I misconstrued early reports. I cannot find them to shift blame.
Condi 08, 12, 16, 20 for me. But you might have better patronage position with Brother Keith.
September 21, 2009
Reconcile This
Don Surber highlights a Rasmussen poll. Voters provided a Q-Rating (favorable - unfavorable) of occupations:
No. 1 Small Business Owners at +91 (94% favorable/3% unfavorable).No. 2 People Who Start Own Business at +87
No. 3 Pastors and Religious Leaders at +48
No. 4 Bankers at -1
No. 5 Journalists at -11
No. 6 Lawyers at -12
No. 7 Stockbrokers and Financial Analysts at -13
No. 8 CEOs -42
No. 9 Members of Congress at -47 (25% favorable/72% unfavorable).
Surber says "Im thinking swine flu could give Congress a run for the money." Good line, but I wonder how? how? how? voters (those polled) continue to elect politicians who steep more money, power, and privilege to Congress (-47) and away from small business owners (+91). Huh?
I think it boils down to this: Every election there's never a lever to pull (or a chad to dislodge) for "NONE OF THE ABOVE."
Posted by: johngalt at September 21, 2009 4:30 PMInteresting how we elect the people we like the least to congress, isn't?
Posted by: T. Greer at September 21, 2009 8:43 PMBecause the people who RUN for congress are the type we like the least - lawyers who couldn't make it as stockbrokers or CEOs - and behave in ways we like even less. See comment #1.
Posted by: johngalt at September 21, 2009 9:57 PMSeptember 14, 2009
President TR
In my tour of the Presidents, I am still a dozen whiskered men away from Theodore Roosevelt.
I have promised myself and one ThreeSources friend that I will choose Theodore Rex for President #26. It is a well reviewed biography that is pretty positive to our first Progressive. Where I have previous opinions about a President, I make an effort to find a contradictory view.
However, maybe a couple of TR fans might want to consider TR, the Progressive Party, and the Transformation of American Democracy, by Sidney M. Milkis. It is reviewed in the WSJ today. Jeff Greenfield suggests that "the real story of 1912 lies in the realm of public policy. So argues Sidney M. Milkis in 'Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party, and the Transformation of American Democracy.' The Progressives, he says, 'set in motion the central political events of the 20th century: the rise of direct democracy and the expansion of federal administrative power.'"
But Roosevelt's campaign as the Progressive Party's candidate went beyond reforming the political process. It was rooted in a belief that the constitutional structure of American governmentwith limited federal power and a judiciary striking down economic regulations as violations of "natural rights"simply could not cope with the realities of a 20th-century industrial behemoth. (In 1905, the Supreme Court had ruled, in Lochner v. New York, that New York state could not limit the hours that bakers could work.) Only federal power, in the form of regulatory bodies and laws, TR believed, could match the power of the corporations and trusts. But Roosevelt's philosophy went further: Even from a distance of a century it is hard to imagine the most consequential Republican of his time arguing, as TR did, that "our aim should be to make this as far as possible not merely a political, but an industrial democracy."
Milkis even blames TR for Wilson, not only splitting away Taft votes but forcing the Democrats toward the New Jersey Gov away from William Jennings Bryan. No, I am not suggesting A Bryan presidency would have been that much better.
But the drive toward direct democracy, federal control, and executive branch power, was greatly accelerated in the Progressive Era and I am reluctant to give its first practitioner a free pass because he was a cool dude.
We'll discuss -- next February open?
September 11, 2009
The Policy Equivalent of the Middle Finger
There's a new writer climbing the charts for jk's favorite: Ms. Shikha Dalmia. I really enjoyed her Dear GOP: Choose Liberty piece -- I think that's the first I read -- and she's had several solid columns after that. (Would it be unprofessional to mention that she is rather attractive? Ha! Made you click!)
Today she captures both the substantive flaws of the Presidents speech and the overarching stylistic one. In Put Up And Shut Up! She calls Wednesday's address "the policy equivalent of the middle finger."
I'm still auditioning to be the nice one and the reasonable one around here. "Mutual Forbearance!" is my Van Burenesque toast. I try to give political opponents the benefit of the doubt.
But Wednesday, I was home doing my best Rep. Joe Wilson through the whole speech. I was angry and tortured throughout. Anybody who disagrees with his plan for more government is spreading lies or in the pocket of lobbyists or, when he is feeling charitable, "misinformed." There are no legitimate injections to his magic pony* that will cost nothing, fix every problem, provide more for less, streamline everything and is completely safe for even your most delicate fabrics.
I did feel I was getting flipped off Wednesday, and you could tell the GOP caucus did too.
*"Magic pony" is the perfect description of the ObamaCare plan and it comes from another favorite writer of mine. She who shall not be named, but it rhymes with Beggin' Sack-Card-All."
September 10, 2009
America's Congressman?
Repeat after me: "Representative Joe Wilson was wrong to point out that a liar was lying last night. It may have been correct, but it was an importune moment."
America agrees. And that is why the website offering these shirts has not crashed from too much traffic. I mean, who'd be caught wearing a shirt like this:
Hat-tip: Don Surber
"Green shoots" of liberty.
Decorum has generally ruled the day in the halls of Congress but when before now, in the preceeding two centuries of this nation's proud history, has there been ample cause to fear a coup de etat? ["... and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."]
Desperate times call for desperate measures, such as momentary lapses of protocol.
Posted by: johngalt at September 11, 2009 12:17 PMDon Luskin asks What If It's True That You Lie?
Posted by: jk at September 11, 2009 1:02 PMAugust 29, 2009
No, No, No -- people believed GHWB
Insty links to two Below The Beltway posts today, One asserting that "Yes, Virginia (and the other 49), President Obama will raise taxes on the middle class." I know ThreeSourcers will be stunned at the unexpected news.
The other compares Candidate/Senator Obama's assertions to Candidate/VP GHW Bush's famous "Read my Lips" moments. He's got YouTube clips of both, which is fun.
But he suggests, and Professor Reynolds implicitly endorses, the idea that this will be as big a problem for President Obama. To which I say "Balderdash!" (sorry for the strong language). Nobody in the world actually believed Obama when he said that. The collectivists in his camp enjoyed using it to silence those of us who could add, but they knew their "promises" of more government were likely to be kept and, well, if he had to renege on one, it would be taxes.
Candidate Bush -- on the other hand -- was a Reagan heir, and he was reassuring the GOP faithful that he had been baptized in the Lafferian Waters and could be trusted. Stephen Moore documented the failure in 1987. Some folks had actually believed his pledge.
Too cynical? Surely the GOP will try to make the comparison -- but without the underlying sell out, I don't think they'll get much traction
No, but when we pointed out them that "yes, he will raise taxes".... they said, "no! no he wont!"
These individuals will not be held to account (see fall of Communism), but "they" will.
Posted by: AlexC at August 29, 2009 10:26 PMAugust 27, 2009
MEP David Hannan
On bringing the NHS to Americ'r: "When you see a friend making a mistake, you tell him."
Good stuff! Hat-tip: Instapundit
August 26, 2009
Hope Republicans Are Listening
Jennifer Rubin has an awesome column, hoping that the GOP can take advantage of the libertarian interest that the Obama Administration has perhaps rekindled.
The contrast between the parties is especially great for young voters who were swayed to vote for the hip, young guy over the grumpy senior citizen in 2008. It turns out the hip guy wants to force them to buy health insurance, load debt and an enormous future tax burden on their backs, and raise energy prices. Its not very 21st century. As Michael Barone observed after ticking off the list of statist policies at the core of the Obama agenda, The larger point is this: You want policies that will enable you to choose your future. Obama backs policies that would let centralized authorities choose much of your future for you. Is this the hope and change you want?
Great piece. Read it in full, especially if you are Michael Steele or are a Republican office holder.
August 24, 2009
Fair Cop, Guv!
Chris Edwards at CATO, gives RNC Chief Michael Steele, a well deserved whack. Steele goes straight for the Medicare demagoguery vote. Do not pass first principles, do not collect $200:
Steele uses the mushy statist phrasing our seniors repeatedly, as if the government owns this group of people, and that they should have no responsibility for their own lives.Fiscal conservatives, who have come out in droves to tea party protests and health care meetings this year, are angry at both parties for the governments massive spending and debt binge in recent years. Mr. Steele has now informed these folks loud and clear that the Republican Party is not interested in restraining government; it is not interested in cutting the program that creates the single biggest threat to taxpayers in coming years. For apparently crass political reasons, Steele defends our seniors, but at the expense of massive tax hikes on our children if entitlement programs are not cut.
Hat-tip: @ariarmstrong whom I've recommended a couple times this week as a great Twitter follow.
August 10, 2009
Un-American
Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi have written an op-ed in the USA Today calling those who have spoken out at the townhall meetings in opposition of the health care bill "un-American."
Where is John Kerry incorrectly referring to Thomas Jefferson about dissent when you need him?!
"And I'm proud to be un-american, where at least I know I'm free..."
Posted by: jk at August 10, 2009 12:49 PMMe too. I've been looking for "Proudly Un-American" t-shirts. All I can find are on anti-Bush sites. (They're so proud they put the "un" part in the fine print.)
Posted by: johngalt at August 10, 2009 2:18 PMThere's some funny up-to-date stuff here. Like "With Obamacare Seniors will be Shovel-Ready a lot sooner..."
Posted by: johngalt at August 10, 2009 2:19 PMSo, according the Democrats you are patriotic if:
- You hold anti-war riots that trash college campuses that cost millions of dollars
- You don't permit Conservative speakers on campus
- You send Code Pink demonstrators to disrupt countless Congressional and other official meetings
- You intimidate and disrupt legitimate military recruiting activities
- You ban military recruiters from campus
- You skip the country to avoid military service
- You camp outside the President's summer residence to ruin his vacation
- You use paid union members to protest in front of corporate offices with whom they have no connection
- You beat up your opponents
- You label anyone who disagrees with you a "racist"
But if you peacefully, albeit vociferously, protest higher taxes and the socialization of America, why, that's just going too damn far and has to be stopped! That's un-American! There outta be a law!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 11, 2009 12:39 AMI have said it before but never enough:
Welcome to Zimbabwe.
1. A charismatic leader who isn't just a socialist, but an African Marxist: he decries economic gaps, then wins by promising to give his supporters what is taken from non-supporters. Check.
2. Branding of opponents as racist capitalists. Check.
3. A central bank that prints money as needed, when the government can't tax enough. Check.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 11, 2009 10:44 AMAll true, PE, and I for one welcome it. When a tin-pot dictator does these things the world ignores it. When the most powerful nation on earth does it, inflating the most important currency in the world, few nations can afford to ignore it. And America's citizens can no longer afford to ignore it. You say you want a revolution? The non-violent coup is really winding up. If it takes a "Marxist Brother" to do it, very well then.
Posted by: johngalt at August 11, 2009 11:14 AMAugust 3, 2009
Enough Said
Bill O'Reilly is jealous. This must have been a hidden camera, in his eyeglasses or something.
But imagine the horror of leaving "some people who need help unhelped." Doesn't the house bill do just that, leaving some 16 million still uninsured? (Not to mention the harm done to all those who ARE insured. Mister Hippocrates, call your office.)
Posted by: johngalt at August 4, 2009 10:20 AMJuly 31, 2009
A Little Pragmatism
My Yahoo/AP Headlines this afternoon at 2:34 MDT:
We'd all like to rise above partisan hackery, but I think that some "pure" libertarians have to witness what happens when you give the Democratic Party both houses and the Presidency. Any of those initiatives would be in serious jeopardy were any of the three under GOP control.
Yes, Bush's greatest victory was stopping the Democrats from wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on "stimulus," and the Republicans were so fiscally responsible when they controlled both houses of Congress.
Oh, wait...
Your "pragmatism" at best means "Not quite as bad but still bad." We were still on the road to hell under Bush, just at half the speed we are now, but still in the same direction.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 31, 2009 4:45 PMI've gotta agree with Perry - maybe they'd be in some but not serious jeopardy with GOPers like them that just lost the reins. Don't you take solace in the growing popular backlash against the full-speed gallop toward hell that mister "we won the election" has been spurring? [Got horses on the brain for some reason.] That wouldn't be happening under President McCain. The public would still be sleeping like they did when Bush was prez. Look where that got us.
Posted by: johngalt at July 31, 2009 6:31 PMPresident Bush vetoed the Schip expansion; President Oabam signed it. The 109th Congress was a sad affair that I cannot defend -- but things did not get any better when the gavels were handed over.
Posted by: jk at July 31, 2009 6:33 PMThat reminds me -- Bush also pushed for Part D and NCLB. Thanks trillions, George.
Oh, and the restrictions on Wall Street pay will be affecting my employer, even though we aren't a bank and sure as hell didn't get federal money.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 1, 2009 1:44 PMD O O M E D
This cannot be interpreted as heathly:
Hat-tip: Jimmy P:
The only question is: when will Atlas shrug?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 31, 2009 4:46 PMReason TV Interviews Instapundit
I enjoyed this clip and recommend it if you've got nine minutes to spare.
Reynolds is as close to my pragmatism as any figure I can name and makes good points about the Republican Party (hope Mr. Gillespie was listening) and the libertarian versus social conservative contretemps we enjoy around here.
July 28, 2009
Pragmatic
The Grand Old Party has taken some well deserved whacks on this blog. All have looked for ways to return the Republicans' devotion to limited government.
But I watch the Democrats on Sunday shows and I simply cannot see the Democratic party as a serious option for those who value liberty. I always want to ask those who voted for so-called Blue Dogs "how's that working out for you?" Well, Merrill Matthews does it for me in a guest editorial in today's WSJ. He examines the caucuss votes on four big spending bills and finds few that bucked Speaker Pelosi and leadership.
Republicans have long called themselves fiscal conservatives. But after their spending spree in the first six years of the Bush administration, they are widely perceived to have tarnished their brand.Are the Blue Dogs tarnishing their brand, too? If 80% of them voted for the stimulus bill and nearly 75% voted for the 2010 federal budget, can the group rightfully claim to be fiscally conservative?
The health-care bill will be the final test. The House legislation will cost at least $1 trillion over 10 years, including around $550 billion to $600 billion in new taxes. That doesnt count the employer mandate that will force employers to provide coverage or pay a penalty.
July 24, 2009
GOP Purity, Volume XCIV
Still some good comments trickling in on our follow up post to JG's "On a New Conservatism" post.
In addition to this's being my favorite topic, I wanted to clarify my position on social conservatives. Blog friend Sugarchuck called this blog hostile to social conservatives and I suppose it is a fair cop.
SC: A copy of Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty" is on its way. Read the last chapter, "Why I am Not a Conservative" and then give the book to your daughter to read the rest of it. (I'm a Hayek fan and even I gotta admit parts are pretty turgid.) The good news is that you can read sections and don't have to go coast-to-coast.
I'll buy you a new set of Telecaster strings if you can show me a paragraph that would offend a social conservative. It's a discussion of the classical liberal and the conservatism he opposes is european monarchical conservatism, plus the Buckleyesque "standing athwart history yelling stop!"
I loved Bill Buckley and I loved National Review, but I always squirmed when I heard that phrase. I would not object to 19th Century freedoms -- but I don't want to live in the 19th Century. This essay is older than I am but it holds up well today.
My war is not with social conservatives, but with those who would use statist means to achieve their objectives. I'm the Frank Meyers of ThreeSources! We have a natural affiliation, mister social conservative -- limited, Constitutional government will allow you to pursue your religion and will allow me to pursue things which are important to me. Where we cross swords, let's agree to do it at the State level and using methods which support rule of law.
"Hostile to social conservatives?" Not exactly.
Hostile to the imposition of social conservative values on others by force of government? Yes.
Hostile to the harm done to free market capitalism by association as partners in the GOP? Yes.
Before this comment leads into another abortion debate let me say that my heart sank when I offended brother SC. Particularly since the case I tried to make was not that the morality of social conservatives is contradictory to liberty and electoral success, but rather their willingness to increase government power in service to that morality.
So how does one say this without causing offense?
Posted by: johngalt at July 27, 2009 3:45 PMWho Were the Rubes?
Professor Reynolds has had of nice run of "Who Were The Rubes," in which he reports on Obama supporters who have not been well served by his policies.
He links to Reason a lot and certainly has much philosophical overlap with them. But he has yet to give them a WWTR? They trashed Senator McCain in every issue, and Matt Welch had full page house ads for his anti-McCain book. As I've mentioned, that might be fair.
But it was certainly not fair to give then-Senator Obama a free pass. It was obvious that he sought an expanded role for government and a huge arrogation of power to the Executive Branch. They weren't sycofantish like some media outlets, but they were not at all tough on an obvious statist.
I think in the back of their minds they thought "this guy will suck at property rights and economics, but he'll end the Iraq War and will likely ease up on the War on Drugs." Rubes? Reason? Mirror:
Hey, remember all the speculation that Barack Obama might be, you know, better on pot issues than his various awful predecessors, partly because he, you know, bragged at times about inhaling ("that was the whole point")? As the liberals like to say, He won, get over it. And for those of us who value individual rights and a sane (not hysterical) drug policy, get over that too. Here's Obama's drug czar Gil Kerlikowske talking in Fresno, California yesterday:
"Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine," he said.
Hat-tip: Insty (but with no WWTR?)
Libertarians like Radley Balko have bluntly stated that they hoped for big GOP losses, because of the GOP's record on things like Iraq and the War on Drugs.
Well, uh, it's not as if liberals are any better, are they? Voters have cast out one devil by inviting in a worse one.
Here's a repost of my comment on a friend's blog last night, on the subject of people supporting Obama only to get burned later:
Many in the financial industry, even ultra-rich who should have known better, supported Obama because they figured their support would temper his socialism into "regulations" they could tolerate.
Doctors supported him for the same reason, and even Wal-Mart is now supporting "reform" at the employer level. Maybe, they think, just maybe if they can influence Obama, it won't be as bad as it could have been with full-blown federal control.
This is like a rape victim thinking that since something bad is going to happen anyway, maybe if she does a little foreplay, it won't hurt as much.
The problem is that people are willing to compromise on their freedom. "Maybe if we feed the beast, he won't eat us." That never works. As long as you're willing to feed the beast called Government whatever it wants, it'll eventually run out of everyone else and turn to you for its next supper.
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 24, 2009 11:25 AMPE: The analogy of unlimited government to a rapist is brilliant. I'll credit you whenever I repeat it.
Posted by: johngalt at July 27, 2009 3:22 PMJuly 20, 2009
Republican Purity
My On a New Conservatism post elicited concern from JK that kicking the big government conservatives out of the Republican Party would be an electoral mistake. I think we've discussed that quite a bit around here with no consensus opinion, but consider this historic quote that Hayek placed at the very top of his 'Why I am Not a Conservative' essay:
"At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition." - Lord Acton
Is this not an accurate description of what happens when big government conservatives are running the party?
I'd like to offer a few quick points:
- Kasich is a good man. Palin is a good woman. Neither is a savior. The focus needs to be on the principle of limited government power and not on any particular individual.
- Grassroots involvement is important but remember to advocate for limited government first, particular candidates second.
- With all due respect to the "People's Front of Judea" I believe they are the ones with some decidin' to do: Resign to leaving their moral priorities in the private sphere where they belong or watch the Progressives/socialists run wild in the public sphere for lack of sufficient opposition.
- How is it possible to teach more Americans that they really are better off when government is less involved? An excellent start would be to teach more of them how many millions are in a trillion. (See the comments there.)
Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2009 12:18 PMHuzzah, everybody is right. It could only happen here at Three Sources. Let's purge the party, though being the simpleton that I am, I didn't get who exactly is going to be purged. The Three Sources hostility towards social conservatives and bible thumpers leads me to believe that we'll toss them under the bus, or as our friend JG suggests, perhaps they will leave their moral priorities in the private sphere and this won't be necessary. I'll bet that's what they'll do. Starting with Sarah Palin, they'll take abortion, gay issues and border security off of the table so we can all come together in a secular tsunami and wipe Progressive/socialists off of the playing field before they commence with any more of their wild rumpus.
But what if they don't... what if they decide they are not going to let any minority fringe of the Republican party tell them what to do and further more, what if they decide that minority fringe better check their morals at the door if they want to defeat Obama and the Democrats. Just asking.
I almost get the feelin' that pointy headed guy in the suitcoat is makin' fun o' me... I can't speak for the vast confederacy of ThreeSourcers, but I'll happily identify my prospective purgees.
I remain the pragmatist and fusionist 'round these parts. I am happy to share a big successful political party with social conservatives. I think the animating idea of the party, however, needs to be "limited government/enumerated powers." Live and share the Ten Commandments. Donate a plaque or a poster to a school through your Lion's Club or church, I'm in.
But when you say, in a presidential debate, that you want to have the Federal Government purchase and distribute (and force to display?) them. I am not too far off in thinking you have misread your Madison.
Still not purgeworthy, though it does disqualify my support.
My only purge is what I hope to be a small group that uses social issues as a campaign tactic to get elected and then to promote more government. I think that Rep. Tom DeLay and Senator Trent Lott are examples of this breed. "Vote for me to stop gay marriage," they say. And then in office they do not champion any limits on government power.
I think those people are counter-productive because they undermine a robust and attractive message of limited government.
Once again, my appreciation of Governor Palin was her veto (first as guv, I b'lieve) of a bill proscribing benefits for same sex partners of Alaska state workers. Her belief in enumerated powers -- she felt it violated the AK Constitution -- superseded what I imagine to be her personal beliefs about a social issue.
I don't think we have a Palin purger in our midst. Now that bass player guy from Arkansaw...
Yes, yes and yes, jk. You said it well. I don't advocate purging any "folks" from the party, just the ideas that keep it from succeeding in the modern world. Some of those ideas cause electoral failure and some cause faulty governance. People can learn and grow and I fully believe they'll embrace the ideals of liberty with just a little help to recognize what they are. (Would immigration limits really be necessary without the welfare state?)
I'm still waiting for Keith to chime in on why, if, or how the ol' "moral majority" will play along as we suggest. Brother Keith, where art thou?
["Wild rumpus." Awesome!]
Posted by: johngalt at July 21, 2009 3:18 PMI must take minor issue with JG on one point. That is, I subscribe to the Rosen philosophy that party trumps person. The ability of a party to control the legislative agenda via committee heads is an enormous advantage. Even when Republicans are on one of their "big" sprees, it's still smaller than any vision of the Dems. I will vote for almost any Republican before almost any Democrat.
Beyond that, it is as the grass roots level where you can influence the selection of the candidate. I can't remember which leftist dictator said, "I don't care who gets to vote as long as I get to pick the candidates," but it applies in a democracy as well.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 21, 2009 5:00 PM
Y'all are on the wrong track; no purging is necessary. It's only necessary to stand for what we know is right (even Huckabee has noted this), firmly resolutely, and let the weak-minded follow this newest (and very old) strong horse.
July 2, 2009
Oy Vey!
Sorry, Children of David, you've been had. Alan Dershowitz writes in the WSJ Ed Page:
Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch. Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama over John McCain in part because the Obama campaign went to great lengths to assure these voters that a President Obama would be supportive of Israel. This despite his friendships with rabidly anti-Israel characters like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and historian Rashid Khalidi.At the suggestion of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters -- including me -- the candidate visited the beleaguered town of Sderot, which had borne the brunt of thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas. Standing in front of the rocket shells, Mr. Obama declared: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." This heartfelt statement sealed the deal for many supporters of Israel.
Dershowitz's IQ is probably three times mine. I've enjoyed several of his books and even though he has gone pretty far left in recent years, I always appreciated his commitment to personal civil liberties (if not property rights). But do they never listen to The Who? They get fooled again. Every Time.
Who (not, The Who, I have moved on from that) seriously thought that Obama would be a friend to Israel? I was very happy with his choice of Clinton for SecState because I felt she would balance out an administration that I was sure would be anti-Israel,
But they will get fooled again (back to The Who again). Every time.
I've often thought there is a Heinlein quote for every occurence in human events. Here's one for this story:
"Human beings hardly ever learn from the experience of others. They learn; when they do, which isn't often, on their own, the hard way."
Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2009 1:51 PMIsn't it ironic: Dershowitz is quite far left, except he supports freedom of speech and freedom of property far more than pro-Israel-but-you'd-better-live-by-God's-law Republicans.
He supports freedom of speech more than these "tolerant" liberals who want anyone silenced who they don't like. The same liberals who, of course, don't support property rights at all, or Israelis' right to defend themselves.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 3, 2009 10:14 AMJune 21, 2009
jk defends wasteful government spending
About as fulsomely as I defended David Letterman, I'll give an eye-roll to an amusing example of your government's squandering almost half a million dollars. A good friend of this blog sends a link:
NIH Funds $423,500 Study of Why Men Dont Like to Use Condoms
In what government watchdogs are calling a waste of taxpayer money, the National Institutes of Health is spending nearly half a million dollars to determine why men dont like to wear condoms during sex.Thats only the start. You can be certain that once the researchers find out that men dont like condoms because a. they have to first think ahead and buy them b. actually put them on, and c. condoms dont feel the same as bare skin, which any conversation with any guy at the local bar could have told you, then well have to fund the billion-$ project to change behavior so everybody will be using condoms, whether they want to or not.
We'll not ask President Madison to lay any fingers on this post. Of course it is unconstitutional and of course I would get them to stop if I could.
But in the bigger picture of freedom's demise, this concerns me a lot less than expenses or regulation that destroy liberty. This represents a bit of research that should be done by the private(s) sector if it is done at all. But, beyond the theft of $423,500 it strikes me as a small threat.
We're socializing medicine and putting the Fed in charge of credit card interest and home mortgage options. The EPA will dictate energy usage, the FDA now controls the composition of cigarettes and seethes that it cannot design the Cheerios® box. If they want to waste a half million on this, or cow flatulence, or whatever the outrage du jour -- I'm happy to see them staying out of bigger trouble.
The very definition of faint praise...
Posted by: johngalt at June 22, 2009 10:08 AMUnfortunately this is not the extent of their statism. This isn't even the tip of the iceberg: it's a flake chipping off.
My state's legislature has supposedly been doing nothing for two weeks, but the government spending still continues at breakneck speed.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 22, 2009 4:06 PMJune 18, 2009
Now Here's a Guy We Should Destroy
We've had a good run at the Letterman contrtemps and I think everybody knows where everybody stands.
Blog friend SugarChuck has this great riff he does and I hope he won't mind my paraphrasing. When somebody is discredited, sc says "Oh, he|she will go cry on Oprah and be back in a year." It is a little cynical but damned if it is not a universal law. (It applies only to the left-of-center, don't look for a reemergence of Senator Trent Lott or Senator Ensign.)
But I will bet the price of my depreciating condominium that we'll see both Senator John Edwards and Gov. Eliot Spitzer back. The corpses will still be warm. Mickey Kaus is doing his best to stop an Edwards rapprochement, but I fear he'll fail:
ohn Edwards thinks he can come back. And somehow in theoretically humble disgrace comes off as smugger and phonier than ever! (Sample: "The two things I'm on the planet for now are to take care of the people I love and to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves.") ...
[...]
MacGillis also buries a solid lede: The last web page of her piece features an impressive, reported survey of broken Edwards promises to various actual impoverished Americans--scholarship programs cancelled, Katrina foreclosure cases unaided--complete with victim quotes. ("I just thought he was trying to cover his tracks while he was a candidate. ... It was probably all for show in the end." ).
We have not seen the rest of this vile man.
Actually, you need to cry on Sixty Minutes, preferably in the Fall, after a great football game. Had Pete Rose done this he would be throwing out the first pitch on opening day for the rest of his life.
Posted by: sugarchuck at June 18, 2009 11:03 AMHeh. I stand corrected -- 60 Minutes it is!
BTW, sc was in town for some guest appearances at the Virtual Coffeehouse. I have one posted on the Tuesday guest slot and there are more on the way.
Posted by: jk at June 18, 2009 11:16 AMGreat cut, JK! But somehow, I don't think that was coffee in Brooke's hand - unless they're serving it in brown bottles these days.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 18, 2009 2:27 PMJust as long as I can keep her off the heroin, br...
Posted by: jk at June 18, 2009 3:32 PMJune 14, 2009
Ayn Rand's Revenge
With a timely look at the question of what defines conservatism here is another revealing link from brother Russ - 'William F. Buckley vs. Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand's Revenge.'
And unfortunately, Buckleys insecure rants against Rand retarded the intellectual progress of the right for decades.The important point here involves Buckley, but it involves a lot more. The issue with Buckley is that he truly had nothing to contribute intellectually. And when faced with a true intellectual like Rand, all he could do was guttersnipe. Yet the wider point pertains to conservatism today.
Until it begins to intellectually justify itself in a logical way, conservatism will remain lost, and statism will continue its march. Rand provided the intellectual justification for capitalism and liberty and she did so by reference to the fundamental metaphysical facts of reality and human existence. She did not appeal to tradition or the supernatural. She appealed to the rational. And the public has been responding to her ever since.
Buckley and his cohorts brag about their electoral successes-"we elected Reagan" they chime. But what permanent changes have been made? The procession of the welfare state goes on. And who can stop it, people who say God went "poof" and then there were rights?
Rand made the case against the welfare state root and branch. She was the first to make a secular case against Communism and Socialism, and the first to make a fully secular defense of American values. The fact that her ideas were shut out by Buckley hurt the entire cause of Americanism.
Start with something positive, to bring the poster around to your side and establish your reasonableness. Well, I agree that the Conservative movement would have done better to adopt more of Ayn Rand's ideas.
And I approve of the word "gutttersniping." It describes McHugh's column pretty well.
Beyond that, you might put me down as a "no."
For a follower of Ayn Rand to denigrate another author for personal peccadilloes is a little rich. Even her most sympathetic biographers admit to her "insensitivities." Buckley's kid has written a Daddy Dearest book, but he and Pat were pretty well loved by the staff of National Review and even by many of his ideological opponents.
If Buckley's movement has failed because we have Socialism in the US, didn't Rand fail? And Hayek, Mises, Milton Friedman? All a bunch of big losers?
Buckley wrote about 600,000 books, hosted what was the longest running show on PBS, started one of the most important political magazines of out time, and shepherded a movement that, yes, did get President Reagan elected. Freed tens of millions from Communism. Launched the greatest peacetime expansion of the economy in the 20th Century.
I really don't see a tell-all book as Ms. Rand's revenge. I do, sadly (and maybe the little Objectivist kiddies should leave the room for this bit) see this as emblematic of Rand's followers' addition by subtraction: start with 20 people who value individual freedom and property rights -- then kick out 11 who aren't pure enough and enjoy nine devout followers. That's where "Revenge" against ideological allies gets you.
You might sell some books with that but you will not get people elected and you will not impede the loss of freedom.
We can't help but read under the influence of our preconceptions, can we? I wondered why the author even broached the "personal peccadilloes" subject except that was a major element of the younger Buckley's book. Upon re-reading it seems it was the reverse of what you suggest. Buckley apparently "would ridicule Rand on a personal basis for alleged personal shortcomings" and now gets his comeuppance at the hand of his own son.
Before reading this piece I had no real sense of a rift between Buckley and Rand, nor any clear explanation for the limited GOP adoption of Rand's economic ideas other than her atheism. Mr. McHugh's article gives a brief insight into both of these. And the title refers to the revenge of Rand's ideas as millions flock to read her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged (Amazon sales rank #84 in paperback) and thousands wave "Don't Tread On Me" flags at TEA Party rallies following the electoral return of unapologetic statism a mere 2 decades after Reagan left office.
The author claimed that a government rooted in Rand's objective justification for capitalism and liberty would be more enduring than one based on the idea that "God went 'poof' and then there were rights." Until this is tested it remains only a hypothesis, but the latter tactic has been dismantled by the Secular Progressive left in less than a generation.
I don't read the author as suggesting that anyone be "kicked out" of the popular party of capitalism and liberty (whenever that party actually emerges). The criticism is that Buckley used his considerable influence to "shut out" the ideas of Ayn Rand from mainstream Republican politics. Why he did this is academic. Far more important is undoing his damage. You said that the conservative movement would have done better to adopt more of Ayn Rand's ideas and Joseph McHugh and I say, "Better late than never, and no time like the present." Defend capitalism and liberty in secular terms and watch the healthy growth of a new political movement: Americanism.
Posted by: johngalt at June 15, 2009 7:47 PMMay 26, 2009
13-1
I have an ongoing (~9 years now) argument with blog brother and token ThreeSources Democrat "Silence Dogood." He concedes that the left has socialists who threaten our economic freedom, but is surprised that I can sit still while some on the right are so deleterious to personal liberties. He is a bright guy and the arguments reach much higher subtlety, but he laughs that "he can handle the commies in his party better than the religious wackos in mine."
I try to be fair and have ceded a certain amount of relativism to Silence and other friends on the left who make the same argument. I don't see an equivalence, but I shrug my shoulders and stress my little-l beliefs.
Shannon Love, on da Chicago Boyz blog, offers this chart, and the suggestion that they are using sex to sell the loss of freedom. Here is Love's scorecard:
| Freedom | Left | Right |
|---|---|---|
| Speech | ||
| Work | ||
| Business | ||
| Food | ||
| Housing | ||
| Consumer Goods | ||
| Transportation | ||
| Medical Care | ||
| Education | ||
| Free Trade | ||
| Self-Defense | ||
| Property Rights | ||
| Parental Rights | ||
| National Security | ||
| Police Powers | ||
| Recreational Drugs | ||
| Sexuality |
Being Mister Fair, I'd add a line for "Privacy" and give it to the left as well. But I find the other llines difficult to argue with, and that still gives the right wing wingnut wacko nutjobs a 13-2 freedom advantage over the left wing moonbats.
Yay team! Hat-tip: Instapundit
Thanks, Keith, 'ppreciate it!
I thought that that was odd as well. I would hope that libertarians would be assumed to be "blue" on all (and I would've used checkmarks instead of blue and red).
But while we've all had our nits to pick, I don't think anybody can say that the Democratic Party or the broad left of today has a superior position on freedom on many categories of contested liberties.
That may be a little "duh-worthy" around here, but I don't think it is accepted by many on the left. I would like to have a copy of this at the bar during an argument and ask a reasonable interlocutor to dispute the scoring.
Posted by: jk at May 26, 2009 7:16 PMUPDATE II: Overnight, Mister Magnanimity (is that a .44 Magnuminity?) has come to agree with tg: remembering the Bush FCC and the Wardrobe malfunction contretemps, my homies cannot claim a clear win on speech. 12-2.
Posted by: jk at May 27, 2009 11:14 AM12-3 if we include privacy rights.
However I am not sure if I am prepared to cede that to the left. I left a comment similar to the one here over at Chicago Boyz, and this was the response Shannon Love (creator of the graph) left me:
"Not really. As a practical matter, the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders have signed off and continued almost all the Bush era invasions of privacy. The Clinton administration created the NSA’s Echelon system which is the heart of our modern communications surveillance. It was Democrats who inserted many of the banking provisions into the PATIOT act so they could track down tax evaders. The Department of Homeland Security was envisioned by Gary Hart. Clearly when they fear being blamed for a terrorist attack, the real-world leftist politicians suddenly discover the virtues of a strong intelligence system.
More importantly, leftist only show concern for privacy in matters of national security. For example, they favor a hyper detailed tax code which requires that people report their economic affairs in minute detail. For people who itemize, you can reconstruct their movements and activities in detail from their tax records. Leftist also support the state having full access to people’s medical records, work records etc all in the interest of managing social welfare programs. I could go on.
I think it safe to say that leftist think of privacy for most people only in terms of sexuality. They also value the economic privacy of articulate intellectuals such as lawyers, journalist and academics. Anything else is fair game. They don’t believe you have right to economic privacy or privacy relating to any assistance the government might force you take.
As by others above, leftists tend support freedoms until such freedoms become inconvenient for them. I think the Democrats apparent sea change on anti-terrorist methods is part of this pattern."
So privacy can be filed under "wash" as well, methinks.
Posted by: T. Greer at May 27, 2009 12:03 PMTo paraphrase Senator Moynahan, you can have your own opinions but not your own score. I get to 12-2 by calling speech a wash and giving them privacy. Love's arguments are compelling but I consider the leftified ACLU's defense of privacy of communication and library records, &c. as a win in their column. President Obama's performance does not nullify their work in this area any more than President Bush's steel and soft wood tariffs nullify the Right's edge on free trade.
Posted by: jk at May 27, 2009 12:27 PMIf the ACLU applied their privacy ideal equally to all defendants you'd have a better argument, but they don't. Further, the privacy invasion by congressional Democrats in general and the Obama administration in particular reveal a clear pattern of infringement on individual privacy (gun registration? serial numbered bullets?) except in cases of sexual behavior, which was your own original point.
Posted by: johngalt at May 27, 2009 12:45 PMPrivacy? When the Prezznit appoints his "Internet Czar" later this week, we can revisit this issue of which camp wins on privacy.
Assuming our overlords allow this blog to continue its existence, I mean.
Posted by: Keith at May 27, 2009 2:10 PMMay 7, 2009
Specter of Bipartisanship
Speaking of the Democrats duplicitous treatment of Senator Specter...
April 17, 2009
Defending (and Counseling) Sarah Palin
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's comments at an Indiana right-to-life event yesterday are making a lot of news. And naturally most of it is slanted to portray her as an extreme pro-lifer who wants the government to eventually outlaw all abortions. But the comment I found most interesting isn't even being reported. While plenty of left-stream outlets are covering her candid admission that she considered aborting her son Trig when she learned he would likely be a Down's baby, I have yet to find an account that includes her conclusion that she was "happy with the choice she made." [When I find a video clip of this I'll link it here.]
UPDATE: Embedded below are parts 5 and 6 of the seven part account on YouTube, and I must admit that I misinterpreted her remarks. I think the part I paraphrased was this, from 2:47 into part 6-
"So I prayed that my heart would be filled up - what else did I have - I had to call upon my faith and ask that my heart be filled up, and I'll tell ya the moment that he was born I knew for sure that my prayer was answered, and my heart overflowed with joy."
But in making her own case for every pregnant woman to choose life for her unborn child, she did talk about how she enjoyed the freedoms of privacy and choice in the matter of her own pregnancy. Freedoms that some in the pro-life cause would take away.
Part 5, (2:50) On why she didn't tell anyone she was pregnant -
"It was just really though too, at the sweet sacred time, a secret between Todd and God and me. I figured that's all who needs to know."
Later Palin said she considered abortion when she first learned she was pregnant, while out of town "at an oil and gas conference" and again at 13 weeks when she learned that Trig had an extra chromosome and would likely be a Downs baby. She knew this because of the results of amniocentesis, an elective procedure, of which "only my doctor knew the results. Todd didn't even know."
Part 6 (0:28) -
"And friends here tonight, that faith was built on what I hear from you, Vandenburg Right to Life. The seeds that you plant in a heart with your kind and your adamant efforts that can grow into a good decision to choose life."
The significance of this is not what her choice was, but that SHE made the choice.
I expounded on this in a comment [or click on "continue reading"] to a Bonnie Erbe blog on the opportunity that Palin's remarks present to the Republican Party.
And as long as the GOP continues to let itself be dominated by atavist religious conservatives, it will keep its title as minority party for a long, long time.
In a specific way I agreed with this remark, and ended with an exhortation to the Alaska governor- I would like to see Sarah Palin campaign for President on the platform that "abortion is abominable, but government prohibition of it is worse."
My concern is that if she in particular doesn't stake out this position then nobody will be able to defend her as a viable presidential candidate. Any other Republican would do well to take the same approach, but for Palin I view it as essential.
- 3SourcesJG's complete Bonnie Erbe blog comment:
While listening to Governor Palin's live remarks I heard her say that after considering abortion briefly she, and I'm paraphrasing, "is happy with the choice that she made." But if Roe v. Wade is ever reversed and a single state outlaws abortion then women in that state won't have the right to MAKE that choice. Even Governor Palin, who I greatly admire and respect, might feel differently about her child if the state had forced her to give birth under force of law.
Abortion is the thorniest moral issue in contemporary politics, with the grayest of gray areas in dispute. Human life does not mean merely the physical act of breathing - it includes the rational thought process of self-determination. A human being who is not free to make his own choices in life is nothing more than an animal.
The choice to abort DOES result in the death of a human being but the right to life belongs first and foremost to the pregnant woman because she is an independent, self-sufficient individual. An unborn child with a parasitic relationship to that individual has no moral claim upon its host. It is a brutal fact of nature (whether you believe that nature was created by God or not) but without it we are not citizens, but subjects. The line to draw is not between when life begins and when it has not, but between whose rights take precedence.
And to this extent I believe Bonnie Erbe is right: To be a genuine majority party the GOP needs to "get out of people's bedrooms." Advocate for morality, yes, but do not attempt to use the power of government to enforce it. I would like to see Sarah Palin campaign for President on the platform that "abortion is abominable, but government prohibition of it is worse."
Other than in philosophy books, that is the most reasoned argument I have heard in years. I'd definitely vote for that position. Are you running?
Posted by: Terri at April 17, 2009 7:14 PMI'm on board as well, jg. But trust me, Terri, the writings on this blog are virtual guarantees against any of us ever getting elected dog catcher. (Though oppo-research could be great publicity...)
Posted by: jk at April 18, 2009 11:26 AM"Stunned by huge turnouts, GOP leaders seek to channel energy"
That's the sub-head on this Washington Times story following up the 4-15 TEA Parties. The media may not have noticed what happened that day, but at least a few Republican party officials did.
"This is an opportunity for the Republicans or an opportunity lost, depending on how quickly they act," said John Brabender, a Republican Party campaign strategist. "If Republicans don't take advantage of this opportunity, you are looking at the real birth of a third party in this country."
Blog brother T.Greer opined that the TEA Party turnout was "dismal" (comments 2 and 4) though in fairness, he hadn't yet had time to read my late breaking account of the Denver event. This Georgia Republican sees it differently, however:
"This has legs, no question. The sheer number of people who turned out for something like this in Atlanta was astounding," said James Sibold, former Republican Party chairman of Georgia's DeKalb County.
Despite murmurs of a third party growing out of this I personally believe the best outcome would be a retasking of the Republican party. It is "a republic, ma'am" after all that we're trying to keep. This Michigan GOPer seems to understand:
Michigan Republican Party chairman Ronald Weiser said it was critical that the party reach out those who went to Wednesday's rallies. "They will vote for Republicans if they believe we're responding to the change they want and the feelings they have," he said.
But to really appeal to the silent majority of Americans they'll also need to find a way to get the GOP platform out of people's bedrooms. Stand for moral behavior, yes, but don't try to make it the law. (More on this later.)
The pragmatist in me is hoping that the GOP can still hop on this moving train. Some blogger worried that the GOP would try to co-opt this movement; I was hoping that this movement might co-opt the danged Republicans.
I think the GOP has been demoralized by corrupt Republican legislators and divided by the immigration debate. Yet there is a full time job defending this country from collectivism, and I can't see any but the Republican party doing it. The Democrats are too much in hock to collectivist constituencies. While a principled third party always sounds romantic, there will be no liberty left to protect when it's assembled, and if you'll tolerate one moe metaphor, you don't divide your armies on the eve of battle.
Posted by: jk at April 17, 2009 3:43 PMI think we can all relax. First of all, if the GOP can recover from Nixon and the anti-war 70's, it can recover from anything. Second, the election is 18 months away. That's an eternity in politics. As the movement crystalizes, leaders will emerge around whom the rest of us can rally.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 17, 2009 5:38 PMRelax as in "don't panic and attempt to avoid despair," I'm in.
Relax as in expect the emergence of a viable political movement to oppose collectivism -- I ain't so sure. We cannot get together on immigration or abortion (though we appear to have consensus on the DH and infield fly rule), there is no obvious housecleaning underway in the GOP. The left owns the Commanding Heights of academia and the media is more empowered than ever before to shape an individualist message.
March 26, 2009
Twice as many now believe 'U.S. evolving into socialist state'
Before Obama was elected president a good friend disputed our impassioned arguments that America is becoming a socialist country. "I've been to Europe many times and I know what socialism looks like. We're not there and we're not going there anytime soon." Every time I see him I resist the urge to ask him about this again. But TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence has been asking, and compared the answers now to those from last August.
A thumbnail summary of the results is that among Republicans and independents, the group who believes America is becoming a socialist country has doubled (from 1/3 to 2/3 of Republicans and from 1/4 to 1/2 of independents). Democrats, more eager to support the ideology than speak its name, were more likely to see socialism in our future under Bush than Obama.
The link is a brief essay and explains the results of the larger poll as representing three groups: Undeclared Socialists, Passionate Capitalists, and Hybrid Deniers. (Worth reading just to see those in the squishy middle called "deniers.")
JK & JG- You have taken everything I was going to say about the liberty/centralized power scale out of my mouth. Darn.
For the record, I am also a fan of those nice quandrant political scales. The one used by the Republican Liberty Caucus is my favorite of such sorts.
Posted by: T. Greer at March 27, 2009 1:42 PM
Yes, I found it ironic myself that I found so much common ground with the Ozark preacher. (Preachers ain't all bad, right Keith? :) The best parts of Christianity really are just Perry and the founder's 'Natural Law' and Uncle Eric's 'Juris Naturalis.' This is very similar to Rand's "true nature of man as a rational animal" development for an objective morality. As such, I'm on board.
If the "social conservatives" like Huckabee would just "get out of our bedrooms" they would find much less resistance to the balance of their values.
Posted by: johngalt at March 27, 2009 3:29 PMjg: The best parts of Christianity really are just Perry and the founder's 'Natural Law' and Uncle Eric's 'Juris Naturalis.' Ummmm... not sure I'll go that road; somehow I'm more comfortable saying the best part of Christianity is that it's objectively true in its claims, thereby appealing to the rational animal in me. On the other hand, I'm totally satisfied with Rand's "man as a rational animal" parallel, but as Christianity is not a blind leap of faith into the unknown so much as a well-informed, evidence-based faith.
jg, I find as ironic as you do the fact that you find more common ground with Huckabee than I do! What's clear is that you and I are running on some parallel tracks; the task of sorting people into Conservatives/Non-Conservatives can be as problematic as that of sorting them into Christians/Non-Christians. We've dealt with that more than once on my side; for a teaser, see this:
http://alhbible.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/what-is-a-christian/
One thing that's clear in both discussions is that neither self-identification nor media judgments are definitive. Complicating matters on my side, of course, is that the ultimate decider on who falls into which category have some longer-lasting consequences...
I don't have any children, but I'm going to have to check out the Uncle Eric books.
Posted by: Keith at March 28, 2009 3:19 PMI realize that this post is almost off the page and this is straying from the topic but I can't let it go. Keith states that Christianity is based on, "a well-informed, evidence-based faith." Please, Keith, can you explain what that means? My understanding is that the main definition of faith in religious terms is, belief WITHOUT evidence. I was raised Catholic BTW. I therefore have an overwhelming philosophical problem with this concept. If I am supposed to believe in God without evidence, who gets to decide what God says and wants? Unless God is speaking directly to me (and he hasn't) do I believe my priest? My Rabbbi? My Mullah? The Bible, which was written by men and re-translated many times?
Now we have a new can of worms. If I take what religion teaches without evidence, what else can I be talked into believing? Global warming? Keynesian economics? Multi-culturalism? Subjectivism in general?
So please tell me, what EVIDENCE am I supposed to base my faith on? This is not a rhetorical or sarcastic question, but one I have been asking for years to a chorus of ridiculous answers.
Finally, and on yet another subject, there has been a lot of traffic lately on the subject of, "Mark to Market," accounting rules not the least of which comes from my beloved. And as Keith says above, "Once again, I'm late to the table on a subject where I'm actually qualified to weigh in." I'm looking forward to a detailed "weigh-in" on this subject from an accounting perspective in the next month or so. But I claim that no one can expect such from someone in public accounting in the last 2 weeks of MARCH. So you can all look forward to a boring, expository filled with TLA's in the future.
Excellent comments, all. I'll be directing my personal contacts to this discussion. Huckster vs. McCain? C’mon, old news, let’s move along. The Preacher is good at what he is; let him reside there. I'd like to take up the discussion of political classifications, even hoping it gets its own post. I see there’s a Wiki article started on this.
1. I think classifications are useful, as people do want a 'team' to be on, to root for, and feel like they are in the game.
2. The way to get classifications into widespread use, is to get people to adopt them. Labels are assigned from the top down, a social model that nearly never works but that’s so easy, and feeds the egos of those from Rush 2 Obama; thus, their frequency. The easy part, btw, is what makes popularity in the media world, not the real world.
3. To get widespread use, they need to be simple and understandable.
So, I think two-axis (Lib/Cons. R/D, Socialist/Capitalist, etc….) approach is too divisive to get broad appeal. Even the very simple, 4-quadrant approach now adopted by RLC, as noted by TG (for more, see the end) I think is too complex.
I propose a three-axis model.
Economic Freedom
Personal Liberty
Moral(ity) Index
The first two are well known, hopefully well understood, and useful, powerful, pertinent, and rooted in our constitution. The third is where I’m moving into new ground, inspired by JK’s comments on morality and the need for force to back up the rule of law, even to create the peace necessary for it to develop, at times. I used a vague term for the third leg intentionally. I want those who participate to paint their own portrait of just what this implies. The overall thrust must once again be, as The Founders struggled with, how much power over these items must government be granted?
I think I need help from TS’ers. Probably first is how this is described: labels are bad as we all agree. “Classifications”, “categories”, etc. are all too pedantic and scream “top down” with all the divide&conquer implications they deserve. “Parties” has been used and abused. I want a new word that evokes the concept of ‘teams’, much like Tiger Teams in the working world. It implies voluntary association, as well as a direction and progress in a way the term ‘focus group’ does not. Hmm, caucus is reasonable. What say you?
I grant TS the right to share my eMail address to any who wish to contribute off line.
As an aside, let me take a moment to proselytize on the 4-axis from Nolan’s ideas, and now adopted by the Rep. Liberty Caucus. It looks identical to the 4-quandrant scale used by the AfSG folks who picked up on Nolan’s ideas to start the 10-question, “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.” I was once vastly enamored of the idea, and the implementation. If this had some lasting affect, I missed it. Pity, since I think our 100-year experiment with the current party system has run its course.
Dagny and All: My apologies - as you can probably imagine, Sunday is a a busy workday for me, and I didn't have the opportunity to come back and participate in the conversation.
Out of respect for you, my gracious hosts, I'm going to not postjack ThreeSources and turn this into a theology blog. Instead, I'm going to invite you all to let me shift the venue for the faith part on this topic over to my turf here:
I hope y'all will forgive me the presumption, but I have taken the liberty of dedicating the thread to Dagny and JohnGalt, owing to it being their comments on this post and the "Virtue of Selfishness" post that prompted mine. The red carpet has been rolled out...
Posted by: Keith at March 30, 2009 5:35 PMMarch 20, 2009
Republic or Oligarchy
Most of us, I'm sure, are familiar with the idea that "left" vs. "right" or "liberal" vs. "conservative" are imprecise definitions of political philosophy. What I've promoted instead is that political structures are organized along a continuum from fully collectivized to complete individual liberty.
This excellent video presentation by YouTube's "notdemocracy" describes the balance as one between "total government" and "no government." Five basic types of government cover the spectrum: monarchy - oligarchy - democracy - republic - anarchy. But only two of these are "stable" forms of government: oligarchy and republic. The other three naturally evolve into one of those two. (Hint: Everything becomes an oligarchy except a republic.)
Readers who watch this will understand why I consider it so important to fight for the integrity of the original Constitution, which means removing antithetical amendments to it such as the 16th.
Hat tip: Dr. Ignatius Piazza via jg's friend Russ.
Not that excellent. Whoever put this together blindly clings to "law" and does not recognize the concept of peaceful capitalist anarchy, just because it has no "law." So what? We have plenty of "law" today, and what has that done for personal liberty?
When this guy speaks of "law," is he talking about natural law or man-made law? Is he talking about the natural right to defend yourself and your property, which are a priori and need no legislation to enforce or guarantee? No, he speaks of "law" in the sense of rule.
Now, the problem with republics is that they degenerate into democracy. Tytler said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." From the very start of our "republic," the federal government practiced wealth redistribution. It was a trickle but increased during the days of "internal improvements," then in the 20th century with the welfare state.
As far as "stability," that exists only with slaves who don't rise up against their masters. Everything else about human society will wax and wane.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 21, 2009 4:04 PMI don't know about this guy, but he refers to America's founders. They attempted to establish a man-made law that codified natural law - and no more. Then they attempted to preserve man's inalienable rights from future man-made laws via the Constitution. The Constitution is the only thing that stood in the way of a natural degeneration to democracy and beyond.
You may be able to cite examples of wealth distribution based on tariffs and fees but I think you'll agree the real heavy lifting wasn't possible until the progressive income tax effectively enacted by the 16th Amendment. That was in 1913. Democracy in America is, therefore, essentially a 20th century phenomenon.
As for anarchy as a desirable political system, I think even Rand would agree with the proposition that "the proper amount of government makes everyone freer." Of course this statement is vague as to quantitization of "proper" but clearly it is more than "none."
Posted by: johngalt at March 21, 2009 7:09 PMI think that people who watch this video dont realize that the creator pulled a lot from Plato's republic, that book went through these steps in much the same way but what Plato left out was that his republic was in reality not a republic but an oligarchy because the people would be ruled by a guardian class, and that the transitions from republic to democracy usually have to be sparked.
Posted by: caritas at March 22, 2009 1:54 AMI like the video's rejection of absolute democracy. It's a good introduction to those who don't understand why "one man, one vote" is not the ideal.
It does, however, imply the existence of an ideal law. I appreciate rule by law but suggest we have not yet seen the text of that ideal. The original Constitution we all admire permitted slavery and counted people as three-fifths based on their skin color.
You want to keep all the Amendments but the 16th? Then it is a Republic? That seems awfully capricious. You call shenanigans on Wilson, but Lincoln had Federal troops in place to push the 14th. I think the 12th and 17th do more to degenerate republicanism into democracy. (You'll recall I wanted to rescind both until I encountered Governor Blogojevich, now I am not so sure.)
It is damned difficult to structure law; stop by my HOA meeting or get Sugarchuck to tell you a tale or two about township council. My problem with this video is that it papers over this difficulty. Like Perry, I see it championing a Law that does not exist.
Caritas -- great handle but you have to share it with my test server at work. I do wish I had a webcam to watch Johngalt as he reads your accusation of promulgating Platonicy.
Posted by: jk at March 22, 2009 12:25 PMI didn't take caritas as accusing me of promulgating [word] Platonicy [?]. He said Plato's Republic was an oligarchy. That's more than I know on the subject, but it agrees with what I and the video have said.
Which is not that the 16th Amendment is the Constitution's only problem, nor that the Constitution was perfect. I agree with the idea of an "ideal law" analogous with Perry's "natural law." That this law is "a priori and need[s] no legislation to enforce or guarantee" is proven false by the violation of this law all over the world (including, more and more, here in the USA.)
The Constitution sought to guarantee natural law. It did the job fairly well right up to the point where amendments such as (but not limited to) the 16th were adopted by unconstitional processes.
Some (ahem) have suggested the American people would quickly re-ratify the 16th Amendment if so proposed. I say it was more likely in 1913, before the public really understood what it would lead to. And yet it was necessary at the time to falsify the results in the state legislatures. In the full light of day, with a complete airing of the facts, it doesn't even fare as well as the old ERA (equal rights amendment).
Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2009 2:52 PMI don't know about this guy, but he refers to America's founders.Well, that in itself means nothing. Many liberals today refer to the Founding Fathers, like when Democrats proclaim themselves "The party of Jefferson."
Even then, which Founding Fathers? Jefferson believed in real liberty, while Alexander Hamilton was a statist who desired one United State government to rule all (which is what
They attempted to establish a man-made law that codified natural law - and no more. Then they attempted to preserve man's inalienable rights from future man-made laws via the Constitution. The Constitution is the only thing that stood in the way of a natural degeneration to democracy and beyond.Yes and no. The problem with the Constitution is the consolidation of power, and making it absolute law without any ability to question it. If you don't obey, for example, the 16th or 18th Amendments, no matter how bad the law might be, you're a criminal.
Declaring something "the law" does not necessarily mean it is right or proper. Many bad things have been set forth as legislation, statute, etc. Now you might say, by what standard are we to craft law? It's simple: is a particular "law" doing anything for all persons' lives, liberties and property, or is it a bad law that redistributes and/or targets specific individuals or groups?
"The rule of law" does not mean that law must always be obeyed. It means that whatever law there is, it must apply equally to everyone, else it's merely the rule of men.
You may be able to cite examples of wealth distribution based on tariffs and fees but I think you'll agree the real heavy lifting wasn't possible until the progressive income tax effectively enacted by the 16th Amendment. That was in 1913. Democracy in America is, therefore, essentially a 20th century phenomenon.It most dramatically increased speed in the 20th century, yes, but "internal improvements" began in the early 19th, as did the first income tax under Lincoln. It became a matter of the federal government getting more money from the states, and borrowing more.
All the money in the world doesn't matter if the government has no desire to spend it, and if the people have no desire to elect officials who will redistribute their neighbors' wealth. The "democratic process" took root in the early 19th century as people began asserting their "right to vote," and by the late 1830s the U.S. national debt necessarily increased. It wasn't as much as the 20th century, but relative to the budget then, it was tremendous. The national debt had nearly been paid off under Andrew Jackson, then started going up under Van Buren.
As for anarchy as a desirable political system, I think even Rand would agree with the proposition that "the proper amount of government makes everyone freer." Of course this statement is vague as to quantitization of "proper" but clearly it is more than "none."Government must exist only with the consent of the people. Not just "the majority" of the people, but "the whole people" constituting everyone. Thus the "proper" amount is the maximum that any given person is willing to give.
Even so, you're talking about a "political system" rather than a government. That's where corrupt favor-trading and wealth redistribution enter.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 23, 2009 9:41 PMMarch 5, 2009
Quote of the Day Deux
Don't you think the Dow would stop dropping if we had a President who would stop signing pork bills? -- Chris Matthews 2:20Get outta town! HT: Instapundit
Your point is taken, Keith, but Matthews's context in the story makes signaling out the president as fair as it is leg-tingle inducing. (Sad really, that's a spark of the old Chris Matthews who was worth watching).
@Keith Calhoun: The block grants, tax payments, credits and generally incestuous interconnectivity would keep lawyers busy longer than splitting up the Beatles -- the Feds would have the 11th Amendment to hide behind. I'd make sure to have plenty of ammunition.
Posted by: jk at March 5, 2009 3:45 PMI've probably mentioned it before in comments, and I know I have on my blog, but here's how the original federal model of taxation worked. Most Americans aren't aware that the first income tax wasn't instituted until Lincoln's presidency, let alone the original proportional model.
The census wasn't just for statistical curiosity and to determine Congressional representation. It was also to determine a state's share of the federal budget. If a state had 10.9123% of the population, then its legislature had to pony up 10.9123% of the federal budget. How it raised money was up to the state, but isn't it funny how such a system makes states compete with each other on the basis of tax burdens and tax structure? Additionally, rich and poor states alike would never want pork-filled federal spending. They all had to pay a proportional share. Imagine West Virginia residents actually having to pay for the roads the federal government builds for them! (Which wouldn't have happened originally, anyway, because that was not deemed a proper function of the federal government. It was purely a state matter.)
The Constitution's prohibition against a state paying in anything but gold or silver coin was precisely for the purpose of taxation. Otherwise a state could print up as much worthless paper money to meet its obligations.
As I commented recently, secession was very much viewed by Jefferson and other Founding Fathers as a sacred right. The colonies did, after all, secede from Great Britain. If a state didn't want to be a part of grotesque federal spending, it could then secede and say to its former Union, "Spend whatever the hell you want. We want no part of it."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 5, 2009 4:35 PMPerry, I don't think you can extrapolate from Jefferson, one of the most radical of the founders, to say "the founders" approved of secession. Jefferson famously wanted to regularly "water the tree of liberty with blood of patriots and tyrants."
Madison and Monroe were rather famously against nullification and feared secession. In the next generation, even the slave-holding Jackson and Tyler spent their Presidencies fighting to keep the Union intact (yes, Tyler changed after).
Posted by: jk at March 5, 2009 5:07 PMMonroe was not one of "The Founders" I speak of. He was very much "after the fact" when it came to the colonies' secession from Britain, and the formation of the new government.
Madison, of course, was there from the start of the Constitution's ratification. Though he had a principal part in forming the national government, he still very much prized a state's sovereignty over a federal compact. This was the man who wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
With the Ninth and Tenth Amendments saying what they do, how can a state be denied its right to secede? Or did the states come from the union, as Lincoln tyrannically argued, rather than the other way around? Not until Jackson (who was not perfect) and later presidents was it argued that states didn't have a right to secede. Remember that it was the northeast Federalists, those in favor of a stronger national government, who were threatening that their states would secede if the national government were too oppressive.
You're also confusing the act of secession with the right to secession. Few want the country to break up (that was Madison's fear, NOT the fundamental right of secession) unless there's no better solution. The colonists did not openly rebel until all their remonstrations were proven futile. But in the times that try men's souls, dissolving political associations becomes necessary and just.
You say that Madison opposed nullification, but nullification of what? What he said was that a state cannot nullify the Constitution, i.e. the specific document that the states had ratified. But should a state not be able to nullify something that the federal government does which is unconstitutional or what the Constitution does not give federal jurisdiction over (e.g. left to the states or the people)?
You can regard Jefferson as radical for what he said, but he was correct: liberty cannot be gained or preserved with compromise.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 6, 2009 3:17 PM@Perry: After the fact? Mr. Monroe was a prominent delegate to the Virginia State Ratification Convention. (And an anti-federalist to boot!) I do not how much more involved you could expect him to be in the formation of the young Republic's new government. (Certainly he did more than Jefferson, who was away in France at the time.)
And to be more on point- Perry, I think you are missing the point. No one here has disputed a state's right to secession. Quite a few have disputed a state's right to nullification.
Now we have talked about this before. My objections to nullification are listed at the bottom of that post, as is your riposte. So that we do not have to cover this ground again, I suggest we skip to where we left off.
Let us start with the proper authority for the nullification of laws: the judiciary. It is with the judiciary the responsibility lies for the determination of the legality of congress’ edicts. You have stated that this concept began with Marbury vs. Madison, and that I am but a sheep for mindlessly accepting Marshall’s power-grabbing decision. This view is in ignorance of history. The framers knew and argued for a judiciary with the powers recognized in Marbury.
Consider the words of Philadelphia Convention heavyweight James Wilson as he argued for the Constitution during the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:
“I had on occasion, on a former day, to state the power of the Constitution was paramount to the legislature acting under that Constitution; for it is possible that the legislature, when acting in that capacity, may transgress the bounds assigned to it, and an act may pass, in the usual mode, notwithstanding that transgression; but when it comes to be discussed before the judges,--when they consider its principles, and find it to be incompatible with the superior power of the Constitution, --it is their duty to pronounce it void.”
(Collected Works of James Wilson, pg. 204. Bold Emphasis added.)
And here is Alexander Hamilton, Philadelphia and New York Ratifying Convention delegate, writing as Publius, in Federalist No. 78:
“Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power...
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
(The Federalist Papers, 1987 Penguin Books ed., pg. 438. Bolded emphasis added.)
These are but two examples I have marked in books that I own. If you wish me to, I could scour the internet for more such quotations, as I know Ellsworth and more than a few Virginia Federalists (not the least being named Marshall) used similar arguments in the Connecticut and Virginia Ratification Conventions. In all cases, those who voted for the Constitution knew exactly what the role of the judiciary should be. It is clear that by its very nature the judiciary’s role is to interpret the Constitution.
The same cannot be said for the states. I find it funny that you fault a SCOTUS whose primary role is to interpret laws “because the Constitution does not explicitly say so” and yet gladly hand that power over to the states, despite the fact that the Constitution is just as silent on this matter. Perhaps you own a special copy of the Constitution that contains an article detailing the manner by which states have the authority to interpret federal laws?
This brings up the central problem with Calhon-style nullification: despite Jefferson’s protests to the contrary, the Constitution was never a compact between the states. Rather, it was a document ratified by WE THE PEOPLE, and gained its authority not by the states of its Union, but by the people residing thereof. James Wilson detailed this excellently in his remarks to the Pennsylvania convention:
”State sovereignty, as it is called, is far from being able to support its own weight. Nothing less than authority of the people could either support it or give it efficacy.... In this country, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power resides in the people at large; that they have vested certain proportions of their power in the state governments; but that the fee-simple continues, resides, and remains, with the body of the people.
...
If we go a little further on this subject, I think it shall be seen that the doctrine of original compact cannot be supported consistently with the best principles of government…. Because a contract once entered between the governor and governed becomes obligatory, and cannot be altered without the consent of both parties. The citizens of United America, I presume, do not wish to stand on that footing with those to whom, from convenience, they please to delegate the exercise of general powers for the sustaining and preserving of the Union... The people fetter themselves with no contract.”
(Collected Works of James Wilson, pg. 255. Bold Emphasis added.)
Wilson spoke of a plain truth: the Constitution is not a compact between states, nor a compact between the states and the federal government. If either of these were true then Lincoln’s war would have been justified. He would be correct in stating that the Southern states had no right to break the compact they made with Union without the Union’s consent.
All of this leaves us with an essential question: what happens when the judiciary errs? Who shall watch the watchmen? If we have decided that the states cannot do this, that leaves one other option- the citizens themselves.
I have one gripe with the way you phrase this concept. You stated, ”It is the right and duty of anyone, whether a private citizen or government official, to nullify a bad law.” I have already discussed why the judiciary is the sole branch of government with the authority to nullify laws; I shall now discuss the implications of private citizens with the power of nullification.
The implications of this notion are – to be frank – dangerous. Indeed, I can think of no quicker way to erode the rule of law than this. In essence, your view of the Constitution is not all that different than those progressives championing their Living Constitution. In your case, no law is binding. Every citizen chooses which laws he does not think to be Constitutional (i.e. every law he dislikes), and ignores it.
Think about what you are advocating here. As with Living Constitution theory, your would have the Constitution cease its role as the legal document governing the conduct of the federal government, it soon degenerating into the mere opinion of those reading it. The only practical difference between the two philosophies is that progressives concern themselves only with the opinion of the nine justices on the SCOTUS, while your viewpoint will have 300 million individual interpretations of what the Constitution should mean.
Does this destruction of nullification mean that citizens have no method of redress when the government begins to approach their rights? Of course not. There are two options on the table for any citizen who feels a law to be unjust and dangerous. (Hint: nullification is not one of them.)
The first is civil disobedience. Dr. Martin Luther King, in writing his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” outlined the proper way to conduct such a response to an unjust law:
“In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
(“Frequently Requested Documents: Letter From Birmingham Jail.” Bold emphasis added.)
The second response is rebellion. If rights are being trampled upon and the Constitution no longer serves to check the federal government, every man can work above the Constitution and exercise his right to protect himself from oppression. But make no mistake, this is not nullification. It is the renouncement of a corrupt government entirely. If you shoot a police officer for illegally entering your house, he loses both the ability to infringe on your privacy and the ability to protect you from criminals. So it is with government. You cannot elect to break laws that do not strike your fancy and yet hold true to the rest. You are abandoning the entire system. If and when such action is necessary, the Constitution (and all legal laws who use it as their foundation) no longer has any authority from you at all.
Thus, we have two choices when confronted with an unjust law. You can break it and accept the legal consequences for doing so, or you can withdraw your consent for a government that creates unjust laws all together.
Thanks, tg, for beating me to a swift defense of James Monroe. Dude fought at Yorktown and served as a foreign emissary to Presidents Washington and Jefferson. Nobody wou;d seriously ascribe the intellectual heft of a Jefferson his direction, but nor would I disqualify his opinion.
Our own "Era of Good Feelings" may be as short-lived as Monroe's, however. I take a third tack on nullification. I'm a big fan of Lysander Spooner and consider individual jury nullification as a foundation of liberty.
I certainly don't see it as reserved to the judicial branch, though in our history of tripartite government, they have been the most reliable (not unlike being the smartest of the Three Stooges).
Quote of the Day
In reaction, Republicans, true to form, set sail for a deserted island to ponder a dispute between Rush Limbaugh and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. At issue: Who's captain of the GOP Titanic. -- Dan Henninger, in a great column "Has Obama Buried Reagan?"Well worth a read in full.
I agree with Henninger - Rush is on the right track. Republicans tried the GOP version of the "third way" with McCain and only succeeded in garnering the support of Republicans and other conservative types who viewed him as the lesser of two evils. Now that we have the greater evil in the White House it will be even easier for an unapologetic "prosperity conservative" to compete in '12. (And in congress in '10.)
Henninger points to another important dragon to be slain before then - the "saving" of the planet:
There isn't much in his [Obama's] plan to stir the national soul. It's about "sacrifice" now so that we can live for a future of small electric cars and windmills. This may move the Democratic Party's faith communities, but it cannot revive a great nation."
To answer Henninger's title, they haven't buried Reagan yet but they're shoveling dirt as fast as they can because they know his "shining city on the hill" is the greatest enemy of their "carbonless" future.
They stragegized to make Limbaugh the "face" of the GOP for the same reason they paint a vibrant industrial economy as "blast furnaces and factory chimneys" and the Global Warming movement as "save the [cute, cuddly] polar bears:" image-conscious political fashion.
Personally I think giving Limbaugh such prominence will backfire on them - to the extent that Rush hammers the Reagan ideas into the mushy heads of future GOP candidates. (Preferrably cute and cuddly ones. Sarah, are you listening?)
I tell despondent family members to listen to Rush every day. Not because they need to learn the ideas, but for the sense of hope he inspires.
"Knowledge of what is possible is the beginning of happiness." - George Santayana
Posted by: johngalt at March 5, 2009 12:55 PMThe Refugee agrees with JG on this one. Rush is a thought leader in the Republican party generally and the conservative movement specifically. Rush is never on the ballot and is unlikely to ever negatively sway any race.
It's true that the Republicans do not currently have a personification. But just four months removed from the last election, it doesn't matter. Important issues will emerge as Obama/Polosi/Reid socialize the country. As issues crystalize, personalities will emerge. If anything, the Dems are shooting all their ammunition while the enemy is still out of range. Attacking Rush really does nothing to further their current agenda. They have all the votes they need under any circumstances. The result of those votes will be up for referendum in two years.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 5, 2009 4:45 PMFebruary 26, 2009
Democrat Libertarians
I try to keep an open mind when some Democrat friends claim to be "libertarian." You can make a point that Democrats might be a little more open to gay marriage, extended immigration, civil liberties. I question how devoted they are to these purities compared to their devotion to socialism and bigger government. But the 109th Congress GOP wasn't very defensible, so I try to give some benefit of the doubt.
I cannot be so kind or sanguine when they say that Democrats are less likely to pursue the War on Drugs. William Bennett is always held up as a poster boy, but Reason reminds that now-VP Joe Biden created the "Drug Czar" position. And the little-l's dream that enforcement would be reduced by the hipper, younger administration is going -- if I may quote Tommy Chong -- "Up In Smoke:"
Attorney General Eric Holder today announced the arrest of 52 people in a continuation of a Bush Administration drug investigation of the Mexican cartels. The operation began 21 months ago. The total number of arrests (a number of whom are low level traffickers) is 750.The military may get involved in the effort
[...]
Another Holder plan that should be no surprise: He wants to bring back the assault weapons ban.
Vote Democrat -- no property rights, no civil rights!
You are losing me, tg. You say you don't want bans but you use the language of The Brady Society.
If the grenade ban has not worked, then it is time to discard the whole ATF gameplan. The grenade ban is pretty efficacious on this side of the border -- I've been to a gun show or two and don't remember seeing grenades -- or even a "grenade show loophole."
I'll use the language of the left: look at root causes. We have to look to helping the Mexican government create security and order. And, ahem, if you really want to fix it, end the insane liberty-sucking War On Drugs. When these guys have to compete with Walgreen's, grenades will be of little value.
@tg: Apologies for the words-in-the-mouth thing; it sounded like you supported that position, so my mistake.
WRT the "guns flowing south," I still don't believe it. ATF has made dubious claims in the past, and ARE NOT the friends of gun owners. But let's assume it's true and that we are successful in magically removing them tomorrow. Would the gangs be disarmed? Not a chance. Chaves/the Chinese/the North Koreans would be happy to sell them arms.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 27, 2009 12:45 PMTG: I'll try not to put words into your mouth but when you say, "I want to know what is [the answer to keeping U.S. made weapons out of the hands of foreign criminals]" are you expecting to find some sort of law or regulation that would only apply to foreign criminals (or domestic criminals either, for that matter) and not to American citizens? Do you honestly expect any measure could be effective short of actual cessation of manufacture?
I suppose it's possible to prohibit export of military/police grade weapons to gun dealers in Mexico but who doubts they'd find a way to get them anyway through an intermediary? Shall we ban ALL non-governmental export sales?
For some insight about why we're hearing this now [U.S. guns being used by Mexican criminal gangs] see this David Kopel essay: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=347&issue=015
Posted by: johngalt at February 27, 2009 4:30 PMIt's also worth noting that Mexico has very strict control of private gun ownership. Doesn't seem to be working, does it? They also have far swifter and harsher punishment of drug dealers that we do. Seems the risk/reward calculation of the bad guys only fosters greater violence.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 27, 2009 5:55 PMJk, all I have done is cite statistics. Are facts tools only to be used by those on the left?
Now granted, BR might be right and the ATF could be cooking their books. Certainly they would not be the first governmental organization to do so. But personally speaking, I tend to trust the sources used by Generals when they draft strategic assessments on the likelihood our neighbors becoming failed states. This may be foolish of me, but even if the numbers are not quite 90%, I think we can say with confidence that they are very high.
This brings us to the crux of the issue: what should we do to solve this problem? I am very thankful for the link JG posted, and I suggest anybody who has not read it should do so. As the article speculates, the Obama administration's knee-jerk reaction to a Mexican collapse is a crack-down on gun ownership. When the liberal tide comes in favor of such a move, what is the right going to say? Shall we sit lamely by, simply saying "No, that won't work" or shall we be able to stand up and offer up a true solotion, shouting "The right way to end this illegal trade is to..."
Is to what? That is what I am intend to find out. I find it quite silly (and am quite surprised) that members of this site are so eager to hand over the imitative to statists and enemies of liberty. As the situation in Mexico deteriorates, issue will only gain prominence. Hopefully by the time the clogs of government start rolling we in the minority will have a mature enough position to possess a decisive voice in the national debate.
Here is where I suggest we start. Former Secretary Rice said this in response to a plea to reinstate the assault ban: "“I follow arms trafficking across the world, and I’ve never known illegal arms traffickers who cared very much about the law."
I suggest that is how we start thinking about this problem. This is not about of domestic gun ownership but the international arms trade. I know we spend millions trying to ensure that illegal arm shipments do not make it to insurgent groups in the Middle East- would it be so hard to extend that same courtesy to Mexico?
Posted by: T. Greer at March 2, 2009 7:25 PMGot no problem with statistics, though I would join the house in questioning ATF's (the department that should be a convenience store).
You say you're not for a gun ban. Yet you want action; you want American government action. This is my problem. Since government is proscribed from banning domestic weapons, we're going to control the international arms trade? I say that is fraught with the same peril.
We tried this in Kosovo, joining our brave European allies and enforcing strict weapons embargoes into the Balkans. This was like keeping the moms in DC housing projects unarmed. The Serbians had weapons in stock and opportunity for replenishment through Russia. Our embargo kept the Kosovars from defending themselves, and it did not turn out well.
The answer in Mexico, Albania, Kosovo, and the District of Colombia is not disarmament.
Posted by: jk at March 3, 2009 12:11 PMFebruary 20, 2009
The System That Doesn't Choose Phil Gramm for President is Flawed
Senator Gramm tells the truth so much he can't even be an economic advisor to a presidential campaign. But my first choice for President has a great guest editorial in the WSJ today:
I believe that a strong case can be made that the financial crisis stemmed from a confluence of two factors. The first was the unintended consequences of a monetary policy, developed to combat inventory cycle recessions in the last half of the 20th century, that was not well suited to the speculative bubble recession of 2001. The second was the politicization of mortgage lending.
[...]
As Mr. Greenspan testified last October at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of CRA." It was not just that CRA and federal housing policy pressured lenders to make risky loans -- but that they gave lenders the excuse and the regulatory cover.Countrywide Financial Corp. cloaked itself in righteousness and silenced any troubled regulator by being the first mortgage lender to sign a HUD "Declaration of Fair Lending Principles and Practices." Given privileged status by Fannie Mae as a reward for "the most flexible underwriting criteria," it became the world's largest mortgage lender -- until it became the first major casualty of the financial crisis.
I intended to post the latest Thomas Sowell column 'Upside Down Economics' today but this Phil Graham piece goes a bit further, though not explaining in detail how the CRA became so powerful. Yes, congress passed and President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 but the law directed federal agencies to "encourage" lenders to make minority and low-income loans "consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions." It wasn't until Clinton's HUD imposed data reporting requirements, and quotas to go along with them, that the "safe and sound operation" idea took a back seat to political pressure. So the fault lies with President Clinton as much or more than Carter.
It's also worth noting that these political pressures continued under Bush's HUD, at least according to Sowell.
Posted by: johngalt at February 20, 2009 3:25 PMI also greatly appreciated Gramm's treatment of the "deregulation" argument:
"In reality the financial "deregulation" of the last two decades has been greatly exaggerated. As the housing crisis mounted, financial regulators had more power, larger budgets and more personnel than ever. And yet, with the notable exception of Mr. Greenspan's warning about the risk posed by the massive mortgage holdings of Fannie and Freddie, regulators seemed unalarmed as the crisis grew. There is absolutely no evidence that if financial regulators had had more resources or more authority that anything would have been different."
But then, this was only "in reality."
Posted by: johngalt at February 20, 2009 3:30 PMThe New Obama World Order dictates that Senator Gramm actually caused the meltdown by sponsoring the repeal of Glass-Stegal. Sadly, I think he had to pen the piece to defend himself. Somebody (Newsweek? Slate?) recently listed the people responsible for the current crisis and had Gramm as #1. Some people really still get their news from sources like this.
Posted by: jk at February 20, 2009 4:38 PM
Yup, I thought I was going to make an important and powerful contribution to 3 sources after reading this, but JK beat me to the post by a few minutes at least.
Sen. Gramm again sheds light where there is otherwise so much heat, and a general round of kudos to those here who are trying to do the same to this insanity sweeping our capital (OK, I get to post something called "Das Capital"; everyone else stay away!! as long as you can, at least). Thanks, you are helping me... at the very least my sanity!
February 17, 2009
Quote of the Day
Woman of the people, Alexandra Pelosi, releases a new documentary that shows slack-jawed, inbred, bible-thumpin' conservatives are more partisan that ever. Yet she doesn't quite get her subjects:
Respectfully, I wanted to say to them, I live on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. I am on the winning side of capitalism. I work for HBO, corporate America. The Man has been good to me. You, on the other hand, are driving a truck that says, "Obama is a socialist idiot," and you're in a much lower tax bracket than most of the people in Manhattan that are voting for Obama. So the times I would actually get into it would be like, "OK, explain to me why you think he's an idiot. He's trying to give you a tax cut. You understand you're voting against your own self-interest?"
Glad she said "Respectfully," aren't you?
UPDATE: Changed Andrea to Alexandra, sorry for any confusion. Yes, this is Speaker Pelosi's Daughter.
Idiot [censored anatomical reference] like Pelosi are the ultimate form of hypocrisy and arrogance. She has an ostensibly good job (for all we know she's some secretary or lackey, and the male in her life is the real breadwinner), so therefore she thinks it's fine to redistribute everyone else's wealth. Like Soros and Buffett, who cares what Obama does, they can afford it!
I'm on the "winning side of capitalism," if you want to call this garbage of an economy "capitalist," and I oppose Obama and all other socialist idiots.
How about this, to take straight from what Walter Williams said: let her keep what she earns and spend it on whatever she wants, and let the poor proletariat do the same with their own money. But that would destroy the self-anointed "social messiah" roles that Obama, Nancy Pelosi and this Pelosi have set up for themselves.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 17, 2009 1:34 PMFebruary 16, 2009
Here's Hoping
From our friends at PA Water Cooler
February 12, 2009
80s Nostalgia
Get out the skinny ties, Steven F. Hayward has a great column in the WSJ Editorial Page comparing President Obama's mandate to proceed with his economic agenda with that of President Reagan. Both had economic problems and both had a mandate.
Instead of Yes, We Can Spend a Trillion, "Reagan's team produced a 50-page, detailed blueprint for their first six months in office. The passage of their economic policy was the central objective."
One of the main themes that emerges from the [Initial Actions Project] is that Reagan and his team didn't assume that a landslide victory meant they had a mandate to do whatever they wanted. To the contrary, the report's authors, Richard Wirthlin and David Gergen, wrote: "The election was not a bestowal of political power, but a stewardship opportunity for us to reconsider and restructure the political agenda for the next two decades. The public has sanctioned the search for a new public philosophy to govern America."
[...]
The IAP report understood that the American people "are yet to be convinced that Mr. Reagan's policies will work." Relying on his skills as "the great communicator," the IAP recommended that the president focus on "the outlining of broad strategic policy outlines, and not on narrow programs" and that his explanations be "simple, straightforward and understandable."Translation for Mr. Obama: Don't go on TV to talk about the stimulative effects of "weatherization." Even Jon Stewart thought that was lame.
Astute ThreeSourcers have commented that 47% of the country did not vote for President Obama. And I've read a few stories about people who voted for him but not for this.
Hayward glosses over the fact that Reagan had to get his proposals past Tip O'Neill and James Wright. But still I can vividly remember President Reagan's taking his case to the people.
I didn't buy but I've got copious remorse!
President Obama has a mandate based less on the popular vote totals and more on engineering a resounding electoral college win and, more importantly, Congressional coattails.
Neither Senator McCain nor the RNC could raise sufficient concerns about a Pelosi-Reid-Obama triumvirate with filibuster-proof majorities. You can cry about it, but I don't think you can fairly say that President Obama does not have a substantial mandate.
Posted by: jk at February 12, 2009 1:39 PMjk: I'll grant you that, but I submit that the current polling numbers on the stimulus bill - accompanied by a side order of good economic sense - might negate that mandate (such as it is).
I'd also submit that had McCain done a better job of reaching across the aisle to Republican voters, and/or the voting public paid attention in their junior-high civics class to some basic economic learnin', we might not be in this fix.
Thank you very kindly for the shout-out on your subsequent post, by the way. Even here in California, there are more than a few people embarrassed by their unremovable Obama bumper stickers...
Posted by: Keith at February 12, 2009 2:12 PMUtter claptrap. Doesn't anyone remember what Reagan's stimulus plan was? A sound dollar, and tax cuts. Don't kill people with inflation, and don't kill them with absurdly high marginal tax rates.
It worked well then, and it would work just as well now, but the country's "leaders" are hell-bent on repeating the failed New Deal.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 12, 2009 3:17 PMPerry: both of Reagan's foundations were a tough sell in the economic climate. Volcker's tight money wasn't beloved by Phillips Curve devotees who wanted to inflate our way to full employment, and tax cuts had all the usual enemies "Reagan is starving our kids and making them eat Ketchup for school lunches!"
Yet he laid them out and argued -- munificently -- for their enactment. Not sure at whom the claptrap was aimed but Hayward (and I) would like to see President Obama make and defend the case for his ideas -- not just tell us we have to do it right away.
Keith: No question the mandate is slipping away. I'm just being honest that were I on his side I'd feel pretty comfortable claiming a mandate even though the vote totals weren't quite Grant vs. Greeley.
Posted by: jk at February 12, 2009 3:47 PM
Several things seem missing in the New Deal/WW2 references I keep seeing. One is noted here -- wealth transfers out of troubled Europe. Others are:
- arms deals whereby our tanks & planes were sold to others (Britain, USSR, Australia, etc.) during the war;
- more arms deals after the war, in many cases of surplus items.
- postbellum wealth transfer from troubled Europe.
- postbellum loans (some of which were repaid).
- Excess, very efficient, manufacturing capacity.
Reaganomics was hard enough then, but Americans in the last 30 years have been softened up. Even in 1992, Americans may have liked Medicare and Medicaid, but they still didn't believe that government could run health care for everybody. Today, well, Americans think government can give us everything.
But just because people's state-worshipping has grown worse does not change truth.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 15, 2009 5:03 PMFebruary 10, 2009
Prejudice!
This is a great story! "Hailey Woldt put on the traditional black abaya, expecting the worst."
Ms. Woldt was doing her version of "Muslim Like Me" to document the prejudice of backwoods rednecks in Alabama. Ho, ho, this was going to be good! Sadly the residents of Arab, Alabama (told you it would be good!) did not comply, and treated the young woman with friendliness.
What Woldt discovered was not the prejudices of the small-town southern white American but instead the prejudices and stereotypes of contemporary leftist academia. Woldt expected to find prejudice not because she had already seen it but because her education indoctrinated her to expect it in others. This little incident opens a window on the insular, elitist and bigoted world of leftist in contemporary academia.
Hat-tip: Insty
February 2, 2009
l'Affaire Daschle
Wow! I really am a partisan hack. Hugh Hewitt considers me one -- and I consider him one. So, you do the math.
Hewitt wants to give Daschle a pass on tax evasion because the confirmation debate is becoming too rancorous and good people will no longer be willing to serve in government. And, the excuse I pulled out for Geithner, he worries that another nominee would be worse.
Errors on tax returns related to unusual circumstances and nanny issues are simply not the sort of character issues for which confirmation should be denied. Fixing the "confirmation mess" requires some restraint when presented with targets. The GOP should stay fixed on the stimulus bill, and not go chasing Daschle.
Take a deep breath. Count to ten. He begins with "My two cents on the latest confirmation dance is sure to disappoint my most partisan listeners" Well, I am a reader and not a listener, but if I can be counted among Hugh Hewitt's most partisan anythings, we have truly entered bizzaro world.
Hewitt sees misfeasance where I see malfeasance. "Errors on a tax return" and a reasonable point that, making $5,000,000 in two years, he would not have risked his political opportunities over a mere 200% of the median income of one of his former constituents in South Dakota.
That is his best point. And I do share the desire to get beyond confirmations being derailed by small transgressions on nannies or gardeners.
But I disagree that it was a small or simple error. This figure represents real money to anybody and it is in an area that is "gray" enough to avoid detection and prove to be a reasonably deniable. Yet, I have had to manage business vs. personal miles on a company car. I don't think it's outside the attention of a Senate Majority leader to consider if for a chauffeured limo.
As far as getting somebody worse, I've no doubt that there are worse ideologues than Senator Daschle. Yet his book about Health Care calls for an American equivalent to the NHS's NICE panel which would provide approval of all treatments and procedures based on government-decided efficacy and cost efficiency. Senator Daschle is radical enough to scare me and is a sophisticated enough player that he seems likely to be able to achieve many of his goals.
I'll take another roll of the dice, Hugh. And I'll take an early defeat to the Obama Health Care Express. If future Government appointees are going to have to start paying their taxes, we'll just have to live with that.
February 1, 2009
Size Matters
I made some stylistic complaints about President Obama's inaugural address and do not remember a long line of ThreeSources stepping up to say I was too harsh. As far as the content, there were only a few things that bugged me, but by far the largest was his suggestion that all discussion over the size of government was over (hint: small did not win).
Ilya Somin at Volkh takes on this topic:
In his inaugural address, President Obama said that "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." This is a commonly heard argument in response to concerns about the growth of government. Who could possibly be against government when it "works"? Why not instead consider each proposed expansion of the state on a case by case basis, supporting those that "work" and opposing any that don't?Taken seriously, this argument leads to the rejection of any systematic constraints on government power. Why should we have a general presumption against government regulation of speech or religion? Why not instead support censorship when it "works" by improving the marketplace of ideas, and oppose it when it doesn't? Think of all the misleading speech and religious charlatans that government regulation could potentially save us from! The answer, of course, is that government regulation of speech and religion has systematic dangers that are not unique to any one particular regulation. Given those systematic flaws, it makes sense to have a general presumption against it.
Well worth a read in full. Perhaps I am being naive, but supply-side, free-trade, lassiez-faire arguments seem lost for two years at the very least. Perhaps there is some currency to arguing against expansion of government. I like to remind my lefty friends not to give President Obama any power they don't want President Palin to wield.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
January 28, 2009
Woo Hoo! GOP Shut out!
Bad news: Stimulus bill passes House
Good news: No GOP members vote for it! A new bipartisan era has not come to Washington!
WASHINGTON - In a swift victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House approved a historically huge $819 billion stimulus bill Wednesday night with spending increases and tax cuts at the heart of the young administration's plan to revive a badly ailing economy.The vote was 244-188, with Republicans unanimous in opposition despite Obama's pleas for bipartisan support. Eleven Democrats voted against the measure, while no Republicans supported it.
"We don't have a moment to spare," Obama declared at the White House as congressional allies hastened to do his bidding in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
MSNBC doesn't push the shut-out angle, but Mister Brutally Honest does. Awesome on stilts!
Hat-tip: Instapundit
UPDATE: Quote of the Day nomination:
Barack Obama promised to end the "politics of division," unite Washington's factions and overcome partisanship. And what do you know -- so far he has: The President's stimulus plan generated bipartisan House opposition, with every Republican and 11 Democrats voting against it on Wednesday. It passed 244-188. -- WSJ Ed Page
Hey, has anyone found a list of the 11 (or 12 according to some reports) democrats who voted against it? I'm just curious.
Posted by: dagny at January 29, 2009 10:27 AMThat MSNBC site is very useful. Between the "Historic Obama Presidency Multimedia Show" and clips from Rachel Maddow questioning a recalcitrant GOP House member, they do provide the roll call:
All Republicans voted against President Barack Obama's spending plan. Of the Democrats, 11 voted against the measure. Among them: Allen Boyd, D-Fla., Bobby Bright, D-Ala., Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., Parker Griffith, D-Ala., Paul Kanjorski, D-Penn., Frank M. Kratovil, D-Md., Walt Minnick, D-Idaho, John E. Peterson, D-Penn., Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and Gene Taylor, D-Miss.
NED bless the blue dogs! Posted by: jk at January 29, 2009 11:15 AM
Wit' Republicans Like These...
As blog pragmatist, I try to defend the GOP's slim commitment to liberty as being better than none on the other side. But, then you get Rep. Peter King and some children to protect:
Smile, say cheese and hold that pose till you hear the 'click'. A new bill introduced in the Congress by New York Republican Rep. Peter King requires mobile phones with digital cameras "to make a sound" when a photograph is taken.The move is part of the 'Camera Phone Predator Alert Act' and the idea is to ensure privacy and safety of the public, especially children, claims the bill.
Hat-tip: Alhouse via Insty
January 13, 2009
The New Rust Belt
I was surprised to read that outmigration in California has now eclipsed inmigration.
The Chicago Boyz blog has some thoughts. The whole, short post is great, but here is a sad, true paragraph:
It seems that in post-New Deal America, economic and civil success sow their own seeds of destruction. When things are going good, socialist experimentation seems harmless. A booming economy can pay for increased government spending and an ever-increasing scope of government power. Eventually, however, socialism strangles the economic engine and destroys civil society.
I linked favorably to Matt Labash's dark view of Detroit and traded some emails with blog friend Everyday Economist (short version, the article is a little over the top, but the "little" got shaved down as the thread progressed). Could California really go the same sad way of the Great-Lakes-Industrial cities? I've suggested that Duluth and Buffalo, for all their charms, have a tough sell to new industries based on their weather. California still has the sun and the pretty vistas. But they still have the same political class that will fund "Soft America" on the remnants of a long-past Golden State "Hard America" until harder reality is forced upon them.
Many escaping jobs will find their way to Texas, Nevada, and Colorado. But when the Rust Belt moved, it was not as easy to offshore. A lot of those will find their way out of the United States -- not out of Comparative Advantage, but to escape bad government.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
January 2, 2009
Headline of the Day
Conservatives look to Flake to rescue GOPOnce considered almost a novelty for his relentless one-man attack on House GOP spending practices and push for Cuba policy reform, many conservatives now are looking to the five-term congressman for guidance in rehabilitating the tarnished Republican brand.
They are looking in the right place. Anybody have a Republican they like better than Rep. Jeff Flake (R - AZ)?
Hat-tip: Club for Growth
Constitutional Conservatism
Peter Berkowitz has a guest editorial in the WSJ today, actually a synopsis of a longer article forthcoming in Policy Review. He echoes a lot of points I hold about a pragmatic call to return principles without discarding Meyers's Fusionism:
But the purists in both camps ignore simple electoral math. Slice and dice citizens' opinions and voting patterns in the 50 states as you like, neither social conservatives nor libertarian conservatives can get to 50% plus one without the aid of the other.Yet they, and the national security hawks who are also crucial to conservative electoral hopes, do not merely form a coalition of convenience. Theirs can and should be a coalition of principle, and a constitutional conservatism provides the surest ones.
The principles are familiar: individual freedom and individual responsibility, limited but energetic government, economic opportunity and strong national defense. They are embedded in the Constitution and flow out of the political ideas from which it was fashioned. They were central to Frank Meyer's celebrated fusion of traditionalist and libertarian conservatism in the 1960s. And they inspired Ronald Reagan's consolidation of conservatism in the 1980s.
Berkowitz suggests that both social conservatives and libertarians can coalesce around the Constitution. Amen to that. Where GOP legislators and the Bush administration have "wandered off the reservation" were instances where they moved away from Constitutional principles.
December 22, 2008
On the Mootness of Legislators
Blog friend T. Greer sends a link to George Will's column Making Congress Moot. The column is unsurprisingly well crafted and reminds me why I appreciate Will in spite of his Conventional Wisdomness. Will rubs salt in the wounds opened by Gene Healy's book.
If TARP funds can be put to any use the executive branch fancies because TARP actually is a blank check for that branch, then the only reason no rules are being broken is that there are no rules.
In spite of the dubious merit of bailing out the Detroit Buggy Whip industry and its deeply flawed business model, Will is dead on that the arrogation of power to the Executive is complete. Purse strings for policy are clearly to be controlled by the House of Representatives. Yet, when Congress demurred, the Bush Administration took the money out its AIG Widow's and Orphan's fund.
TG sends the link, an excerpt, an incendiary quote form his CNN interview, and a link to my I [Heart] W post, asking "Why was it again, that you can love this guy?"
Well, the post linked was about personal virtue, which I feel our current President has in spades. I would say the same about President GHW Bush, with whom I had even more policy disagreements. President (GW) Bush's capacity to take the heat and do the right thing are worthy of admiration. And, as my post said, I think will be sorely missed.
Will's point of Executive power expansion is a fair cop. Unlike Healy, and Reason Magazine, I have a difficult time blaming President Bush for this. This is a structural, systemic flaw in the Constitution as we practice it. I don't know how to fix it, but don't expect Bush to be the guy fighting clean on Pro Wrestling. The game is fixed and Rove/Bush had a way to play it.
I'll provide one example. My hero, President Coolidges response to the 1927 flood of Louisiana earned him a line in a Randy Newman song.
President Coolidge come down on a railroad train
With a little fat man with a note pad in his hand
President say "Little fat man, ain't it a shame?
What the river has done to this poor cracker's land?"
That was Coolidge's Katrina. President Bush went in with an army of FEMA agents and, well an Army, and -- because he was two days late -- his administration was deemed incompetent. I say that he never recovered. War is always unpopular and he was destined to lose support in Iraq. But Katrina removed the perception of competence and left all policy subject to criticism.
What would Kanye West have thought if Bush had pulled a Coolidge? He would have been impeached! It's well and good for Healy and Will and Reason and even my great friend TG to complain about The Imperial Bush Presidency, but the people demand it. They gave a landslide victory to a successor who promised even more involvement in the markets.
I'm enjoying Jon Meacham's "American Lion" biography of President Jackson. Though we recovered from Jackson and Lincoln, it is interesting to watch early expansion of Executive Power -- and twice as interesting to see how it is considered heroic by the historians.
Individual parts of Bush policy have been debated around here. And I come to the end of the second term less enthused than ever about "big government conservatism." Again, I won't call it treason. It was an experiment: give the people the government they want (look at the polls, they do want it) but build it on market mechanisms like HSAs and private Part D administration.
I'll listen to intelligent criticism from the right or left, but I cannot look back and wish that we had elected President Gore or Kerry.
As I type this, another blog friend sends me ammo. Ed Gillespie's Myths and Facts About the Real Bush Record. Well worth a read in full, though it targets typical left criticism, I find myself drowning in contempt from the right.
I worked pretty hard to elect Governor Bush in 2000 and harder to re-elect President Bush in 2004. There have been disappointments, but I am not regretting those efforts. Yes, he has flaws. No, he does not represent all my beliefs. He was the best electable candidate in 2000 and 2004 and I will not abandon him at the end.
JK, I just don't know if this convinces me.
For one, the problem is much larger than the expansion of the Executive Branch. I will repeat the quote I attached to the letter for those who did not receive it: "I HAVE ABADONED FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO SAVE THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM."
In my mind, nothing else needs to be said to consign Bush to the bowels of the "worst President ever" list historians like to make in their free time.
But, you do bring up an interesting point. Bush is just waltzing past congress by giving the TARP money to the Big Three. I guess this incident encapsulates all of my problems with Jr. Here we have an imperial Presidency, disregard for the rule of law, and faux capitalism all in one happy bundle! Other than the *idiotic* idea of a small-footprint warfare, what is missing?
~T. Greer, fed up with W.
It may have escaped your otherwise keen attention, tg, that President Bush is sometimes not the most articulate spokesperson for his beliefs and ideas. If you're going to take a single quote and dub dubya the "worst President ever" I suggest you buy one of the popular "Bushism" books and be done with it.
Many gripes against this President from the right are well founded. I cannot think of one that is likely to get any better under President Obama. I had some hope for less Jovertesque drug prosecutions, but with AG Holder, umm, not so much.
Okay, worst President ever. Who is great and would any of the greats have a chance of capturing a single delegate in a modern election? Brother JG said "worst" or "one of the worst" in a recent comment as well. I will admit to being stupefied at that. President Bush has not been a solid advocate of small government. Stack him up against Wilson, Nixon, LBJ, FDR, and *ahem* TR, I think he comes out pretty well. I'd have zero problem putting him ahead of Clinton, GHWB, Carter and Kennedy. Bubbling up close to the top of the 20th Century Presidents.
Lastly, to continue our orthogonal thought: small footprint warfare was an awesome idea; small footprint nation building failed.
Touche. (I probably should buy a Bushism book now that I think of it..)
However, my problem with the quote is that it is not just words -- it truly reflects our President's actions. He has given his whole-hearted approval to what the folks here at Three Source's call "outright socialism." And not only that, but he has trampled across the constitution to do it!
I have trouble accepting the "people of America demand it" argument. To put it lightly, Mr. Obama has received a heavy dose of criticism on these pages. Considerably less vitriol has been thrown at Mr. Bush -- despite the fact that they are doing the same things, for the same reasons. Your acknowledgement that Bush is expanding the executive branch far beyond its bounds and while suffocating the market for the sake of public demand seems at odds of your perception of Bush as a virtuous man. Would a man of virtue bow to the mob as you say he is?
You do hit head on the nail when you note that things will be no better under Obama. Policy wise, things will get quite a bit worse. But there will be a silver lining with the loss of Mr. Bush: the words, terms, and images surrounding free markets, limited governance, and the GOP might just be separated from the sitting President. For in truth, Bush has done more to damn conservative policies than all of the elocutions Obama could dream up. His faux conservatism has been deemed the real thing, and nothing short of a colossal screw up on the other side will bring about a change of heart.
As for the worst Presidents lists- honestly, I think the whole exercise is a bunch of crock. The challenges faced by Presidents, an individual President's power, and the metrics by which we can rate them vary so widely from Presidency to Presidency that drawing up little lists seems kind of childish. With that said, I can hardly call Bush's two terms a success. If we are looking at long term influence, Bush has very likely doomed any chance of true conservative policies to be implemented for quite a while. Either way, I would not say he was a "good" President in any true sense of the term.
Finally, I would suggest that the problem implicit with small foot-print warfare doctrine is that it assumes small foot-print nation building will be able to clean up the messes it makes.
~T. Greer, still not convinced.
While it does not refute anything you say, read Bill McGurn's piece. When I speak of expecting to miss him, this monstrous amount of personal integrity and decency come to mind.
It is extremely frustrating to hear Bush's policies related as the apogee of small-government and lassiez-faire. I blame the media for that and not the President. They will find sins just as egregious when President Bush is back home in Texas.
I disagree with the President on the automotive bailout as I have disagreed with him many times. But I applaud the Justices he has appointed to SCOTUS, respect his veto of the SCHIP extension and his attempted veto of the farm bill. No he's not the lost love child of Ayn Rand and Lysander Spooner, but when Secretary Daschle is installed in HHS and the government moves to take over 17% of GDP, I'm going to miss the guy who vetoed SCHIP.
I provided a list of worse Presidents to ask you if you stood behind your statement that he was the worst. You don't have to rank Taft against Hayes. But I'd like to hear you say that you really think Bush worse than Wilson, Nixon, FDR, and LBJ.
You ask a fair question. Is Bush worse than Wilson, Nixon, FDR, and LBJ? Well, I would say that depends on what metric you use.
If we judge our President's by their ability to accomplish what they have sent out to do, then the only one of those fellas worse than Bush is LBJ.
If the we judge our President's by how much better or worse off a country is after they have completed their terms (this is a completely arbitrary metric in my opinion, but it is used) then Bush gets beat out by FDR and Wilson.
If we judge our President's by the long term effect his Presidency has on the country, then it is pretty much impossible to make any accurate judgments for 20 years. Still, from the perspective of 2008, it looks like Mr. Bush has done more to hurt American democracy then anyone else since FDR.
At the same time, I have no trouble placing all of the President's you mentioned before (GHWB, Clinton, Kennedy) ahead of Bush on all three counts.
~T. Greer, wannabe Presidential Historian
And for the record: I think TR beats the snot out of Bush when it comes to a Presidential record. ^_~
P.S. I should probably clarify this: I do not think 43 is the worst. I just think he belongs on the list of the worst.
Posted by: T. Greer at December 23, 2008 9:18 PMDecember 19, 2008
The Lure of New Law
The Everyday Economist has a brief, trenchant post on Madoff and Regulation. Among other virtues, it contains a Wikipedia link to Charles Ponzi, infamy incarnate. One assumes his progeny must change their name or avoid employment in the financial sector. "Herb, this is Harry Ponzi, he has a new idea for a hybrid credit-swap derivative that I think you should look at. Hello? Herb? You There?"
I digress, again. The important point is that there are laws on the books against fraud. Every time there is a high-profile case -- a Gaggle of Legislators introduce new legislation -- at great cost to the business community. Yet, the problem, more frequently, is lax enforcement of existing regs.
1.) Regulation is important and we need rules in place against such schemes. Free enterprise operates best when there are rules (whether enforced by government or private entities).2.) Regulation is only useful if it is actually enforced. One point that I have made regarding the financial crisis is that it was not merely a failure of regulation, but also of regulators. Decisions within regulatory agencies to relax the regulatory standards renders such standards useless. Thus, even with regulation in place, we need regulators who will actually do their job. The Madoff scandal highlights the fact that the regulatory agencies have become nothing more than a joke in terms of enforcement.
My desire for lassiez-faire too frequently has me cheering for business at all costs. But every time a crook gets away with something, a new law is passed that saddles the next honest innovator. Thusly can little-l libertarians appreciate tough law enforcers like Rudy Giuliani and Charles Evans Hughes. Prosecutors need to follow the rules and use discretion. But more competent enforcement is the best protection against the rapid expansion of new regulation.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the US patent office in 1899 famously said, "Everything that can be invented has been invented." If The Refugee might be so bold, he would like to coin a phrase, with apologies to Mr. Duell: "Everything that can be regulated already has been regulated." Unfortunately, our Congressmen like our entreprenuers seem to have endless creativity.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 19, 2008 11:31 AM"The important point is that there are laws on the books against fraud. Every time there is a high-profile case -- a Gaggle of Legislators introduce new legislation -- at great cost to the business community. Yet, the problem, more frequently, is lax enforcement of existing regs."
It's "feel-good" legislation - legislation that makes the legislators feel like they're "doing something" rather than doing nothing, and leaves the voters with the false impression that their legislators are taking the situation seriously and working on their behalf (rather than meddling in the natural course of the economy to its detriment, like the amateurs they are).
We already have the laws on the books necessary to have prevented this situation; they merely need to be enforced.
I once proposed that there should be an article of the Constitution, forbidding the passing of any law unless it was accompanied by the repeal of two others. Silly, perhaps, but if you stop and think about it...
Posted by: Keith at December 19, 2008 12:02 PMDecember 17, 2008
Jackson Jr. Sings Like Bird
According to Fox News, Jesse Jackson, Jr. has been singing to the Feds for years about Blago and others. The Refugee wants to know: in politics, is better to be a crook or a squealer? When it comes to Chicago, The Refugee thinks he knows the answer. Jackson's career is done.
You have got to respect a Chicago squealer. Like many, I was concerned that our President-elect had no record of standing up to corruption. Well done, Rep. Jackson!
Maybe this is the start of a "Chicago Awakening?"
four or six years of singing?
how many arrests?
sounds like he's just keeping his nose "less dirty"
Posted by: AlexC at December 17, 2008 2:49 PMOkay, so the bar's a little lower for Illinois Democrats. I'm just filled with the spirit of the season, ac.
Posted by: jk at December 17, 2008 3:08 PMDecember 1, 2008
Justice Brandeis, Call Your Office...
A good friend of this blog sends an interesting link:
Pick our fights and move to the statesMy central insight in my recent disagreement with Patrick is that the creativity will take place in the states. While there will be some very important fights in Washington over the next 2-4 years, in particular health care, card check, and bailouts, another equally important fight will happen in 40 or more states over that time period. In the federal fights, our answer is likely to be simply: NO.
But at the states, something else will happen.
The article refers, specifically to upcoming budget crises as states reconcile boomtime spending with busttime revenue. But, generally, it is an awesome idea.
I have often saluted Blog Brother AlexC for his attention to state and local politics. It's much better soil to till -- especially now that national issues are even further out of control. It's also a good way to build a base and elevate future leaders and issues.
jk: I agree with the strategy, but I'm having a "yes, but..." moment on where it will lead. As an act of full disclosure, I'm going to admit before shooting my mouth off that I'm a strict constructionist on the Enumerated Powers, and a huge fan of the Tenth Amendment - which means that I don't see the Federal government obeying the Tenth Amendment a great deal.
I get a huge kick out of national politicians ducking issues (for example, homosexual marriage) by saying "that should be an issue for the states." Yes, that worked out really well for capital punishment and for abortion, didn't it? When the federal government poked its nose in and trumped all the state laws, they ceased to be merely state issues.
For this strategy to work effectively, restraint at the federal level is mandatory. I'm not seeing it. For example, were more and more states to ban homosexual marriage, I would fully expect to see an increasing demand for federal intervention to guarantee rights for homosexual marriage.
Caveat: I'm not intending to use this to discuss the merits of abortion, capital punishment, or homosexual marriage - they're merely examples to illustrate the blurred distinction between state and federal jurisdiction. For that matter, the article cites "in particular health care, card check, and bailouts." On what basis - on what Constitutional grounds - does the Federal government rightfully poke its nose into any of those three issues (and I roundly reject any answer that includes the Commerce Clause).
Yes, I suppose that makes me a States' Rights guy.
I'll go so far as to say on the record that using distribution of tax dollars to enforce the federal will on states is an illegitimate use of power. The Federal government can, instead of enacting an unconstitutionmal national speed limit, simply withhold revenues for highway repair from states that themselves refuse to enact a speed limit law with which the federales are satisfied - and so we replace legislation with extortion.
Of course, the solution is that levying taxes for highway repair must be done at the state level and not at the federal level. Why should Michiganders pay for Arizona highways?
So yes, the strategy of moving issues from the national level to the state level is one with which I agree, but unless we prevent the Federal government from intervening, we leave the losing side with an end-around.
Posted by: Keith at December 1, 2008 6:03 PMKeith -- Actually, I am thinking of tactics more than philosophy. For what it's worth, the Ninth and Tenth are among my favorite ignored Amendments.
But I saw the piece as a call to engage at the state level. Instead of fighting an overwhelming collectivist majority in Congress and the Executive Branch, lovers of liberty would be advised to focus time/energy/money on more localized politics. This preserves liberty and at the same time might elevate some new ideas and new leaders into the national forefront down the line. Justice Brandeis's "State laboratories of Democracy writ large."
Noted and agreed. But the Federal government has this annoying habit of striking down things they don't like.
Nonetheless, if conservatism is going to grow, the state level more fertile (and more rightful) ground than the federal, on that you're right. Here in California, Tom McClintock is probably our last best hope - and given the disaster which is our budget, they may be foreclosing on the whole state if we elect anyone else...
Posted by: Keith at December 1, 2008 7:47 PMNovember 17, 2008
The Two Party System, Finally Explained
Prince succinctly nails the two major parties in America. In a profile in The New Yorker, Prince is interviewed by Claire Hoffman who notes "Princes voice was surprisingly deep, like that of a much larger man." And a much bigger thinker as well:
People with moneymoney like thatare not affected by the stock market, and theyre not freaking out over anything. Theyre just watching. So heres how it is: youve got the Republicans, and basically they want to live according to this. He pointed to a Bible. But theres the problem of interpretation, and youve got some churches, some people, basically doing things and saying it comes from here, but it doesnt. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum youve got blue, youve got the Democrats, and theyre, like, You can do whatever you want. Gay marriage, whatever. But neither of them is right.
Whole thing, like, trust me. Hat-tip: The Corner
The next paragraph....
When asked about his perspective on social issues—gay marriage, abortion—Prince tapped his Bible and said, “God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, ‘Enough.’ ”
For a rockstar, Prince has been quite ambiguous with his politics... kind of like Bob Dylan.
Maybe he's a South Park conservative?
Posted by: AlexC at November 18, 2008 12:04 PMNovember 10, 2008
Does the Slippery Slope go up?
Stop him before he tortures this metaphor any further! Slippery slopes go down!
Hear me out. I think every ThreeSourcer will agree with the WSJ Ed Page that a bailout of the big three automakers is counter-productive.
For decades, Congress has never had a second thought as it imposed tighter emissions standards on GM, Ford and Chrysler, denouncing them for making evil SUVs. Yet now that the companies are bleeding cash, and may be heading for bankruptcy, suddenly the shrinking Big Three are the latest candidates for a taxpayer bailout. One $25 billion loan facility has already been signed into law, and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) wants another $25 billion, this time with no strings attached.
But, and I know this won't be popular 'round these parts, I fear that the "no-bailouts!" brigades have spent all their energy in opposition to the Paulson Plan. I don't want to tell principled people what to think, but I am very comfortable having supported the Paulson rescue and opposing the Stabenow bailout.
In spite of President Jackson and AG Taney's heroic work in the 1830s. the Federal government has a substantive involvement in the financial system. Fiat money rules the world, for better or worse, and I can't see the Fed and Treasury sipping coffee (mmm, coffee) while the global credit markets seize up. The idea of the Paulson plan was to buy assets, thereby injecting liquidity and using the government's singular ability to float bad paper on its balance sheet through the bad times. I know that few -- okay, maybe nobody -- agrees with me on this but it is a legitimate position. The lender of last resort.
The automotive industry is not a casualty of the credit crisis. It is a casualty of Schumpeterian gales of creative destruction and an anachronistic labor model. Bankruptcy seems a far superior option than a bailout. In bankruptcy, the companies will be able to renegotiate union and dealer contracts. The bailout will leave all these structural flaws in place.
So what's this slippery slope up nonsense? I fear the opposition to the defensible Paulson rescue plan has undermined opposition to the indefensible automotive bailout. "Oh those, wacky right wingers, they want everybody to fail." Better to claim that government has an interest in keeping markets operating, but not in preserving outdated industrial models.
You beat This Refugee to the punch, JK. Any Detroit bailout is a subsidy to the unions. While management and unions may share the blame, there's no disputing that the current business/compensation/work rule model is unsustainable. Left to the market, GM, Chrysler and maybe even Ford would file Chapter 11. Bankruptcy would allow the companies to shed the yoke of union contracts via court order. Using taxpayer funds, the unions can protect their position. Having spent nearly $400 million of their member's dues to elect Democrats, you can bet the unions are calling in all their markers for a little ROI.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 10, 2008 11:44 AMNovember 7, 2008
COS Emmanuel
Now that the election's over, we can ignore politics and get back to our lives.
Or, we could discuss President-elect Obama's staff and cabinet appointments. Yeah, that sounds good!
I rolled my eyes when I heard that Rep, Rahm Emmanuel (D - Clintonistan) was picked for Chief of Staff. "Post partisan, indeed," sniggered I. But I have now come around to the view of some teevee pundits and the WSJ Ed Page: A President Obama will need a tough like Emmanuel to protect him from an überliberal Congress. And if trade is one of my largest worries about an Obama Administration, having NAFTA-Man (with his maple-leaf tights) onboard is not a bad idea.
He helped to negotiate the 1997 balanced budget deal that cut the capital gains tax even as it created the children's health-care entitlement. He supports expanded trade and will not want Mr. Obama to govern as a protectionist. The Chicagoan also has experience with financial markets, so he is likely to be a voice against the long-term nationalization of the U.S. banking system.As for Mr. Emanuel's famously sharp elbows, they are as likely to be wielded against his fellow Democrats as against Republicans. With Democrats now so dominant, the fiercest fights -- and the ones that really matter -- will take place among Democratic factions in the White House and Capitol Hill. Mr. Emanuel can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center.
Now, as for his economic team, blog friend Josh at Everyday Economist has shed his non-partisan demeanor to worry about the dubious pick of Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Bringing the "Michigan Miracle" to the whole nation are we?
"Balanced budget"? As I commented some weeks back, the only reason the budget became "balanced" was because the tech boom brought in tax revenue faster than they could spend it. It was NOT because of any "fiscal discipline" no matter how much they claim it was.
There's already talk that Obama will have to "delay" his tax cuts (surprised?). Now Granholm. Coincidence? Or would that be confluence? Or both?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 7, 2008 3:12 PMNovember 6, 2008
Quote of the day
In a comment to 'I [heart] W' on these very pages, Boulder Refugee wrote:
If the left wants a "new tone" in politics, all they have to do is shut up.
Maybe I just don't get out enough but I've never - ever - heard it said better than that.
I agree.
Sadly, they don't think so. See:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/277642.php
It would behoove the right to start by looking in the mirror first.
Posted by: The Heretic at November 8, 2008 2:47 PMThe Refugee will admit that Michael Savage is often over the top and that he lost much respect for Ann Coulter as well. Even so, when considering the words of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, Danny Glover, Alec "Kill their mothers" Baldwin, Spike Lee, Jane Fonda, The Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, it is clear that the Democrat party has become the undisputed champion of hateful rhetoric.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 10, 2008 4:11 PMFusionism: Cool Again?
Ilya Somin at Volkh Conspiracy thinks it's time conservatives and libertarians banded together: "Reforging the conservative-libertarian coalition will be very hard. Relations between the two groups have always been tense, and the last eight years have undeniably drawn down the stock of goodwill. But if we can't find a new way to hang together, we are all too likely to hang separately."
Good Post (HT: Instapundit)
Ringing Endorsement
Lisa Mossie at PA Water Cooler informs that neither Gov. Ed Rendell (D - PA) nor Senator Arlen Specter (RINO - PA) is a big fan of Governor Palin:
Rendell says if the Republicans ever hope to have a chance again, they have to shelve John McCains choice for the #2 spot:A Republican Party that is dominated by the philosophy of people like Sarah Palin can, in my judgment, never win again in places like the Philadelphia suburbs and the Philadelphia media market.
Asked whether Palin represents the future of the party, Sen. Specter answered succinctly: No.
That's good enough for me: Palin 2012!
The Nonexistent GOP Youth Vote
Professor Greg Mankiw admits that Harvard undergrads are hardly a random sample of the population, but that his discussions with them have led him to conjecture:
These particular students told me they preferred the lower tax, more limited government, freer trade views of McCain, but they were voting for Obama on the basis of foreign policy and especially social issues like abortion. The choice of a social conservative like Palin as veep really turned them off McCain.So what does the Republican Party need to do to get the youth vote back? If these Harvard students are typical (and perhaps they are not, as Harvard students are hardly a random sample), the party needs to scale back its social conservatism. Put simply, it needs to become a party for moderate and mainstream libertarians. The actual Libertarian Party is far too extreme in its views to attract these students. And it is too much of a strange fringe group. These students are, after all, part of the establishment. But a reformed Republican Party could, I think, win them back.
The post opens with a startling graph of the paucity of GOP youth vote. I'll concede that the Republicans will never flip that to a 2-1 majority, but it will be hard to win elections if we continue to give away 66% of the youth vote and 90% of African-Americans.
The hard-core social conservative issues are playing with fire. I have no doubt that there will be a call to accentuate them going forward after the "moderate" McCain lost. I still believe in Frank Meyers's fusionism, and disagree with Mankiw's students that Governor Palin does not bridge the Conservative-Libertarian divide. I think that she, like President Reagan, can appeal to both.
Thanks dag. I didn't realize the error until now myself.
While were in 'corrections' mode let me also apologize for mischaracterizing JK's 'Roe' position. I only remembered the second half of your argument.
Posted by: johngalt at November 6, 2008 10:22 PMForget that -- I want to know which evil ThreeSourcer opposes Pumkin Pie -- we may have our first excommunication!
Posted by: jk at November 7, 2008 11:14 AMI refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may draw aspersions upon someone I love. (And before you draw any conclusions, I DO love myself!)
Posted by: johngalt at November 7, 2008 5:11 PMIt's probably best I don't know.
Posted by: jk at November 7, 2008 5:34 PM@Jk: Sorry, I have not replied to you sooner, but I have been a bit busy of late. So anyway, here is the 30 second version of a two page post I had planned on writing before the election was over:
On the face of the matter, McCain and Obama seem to have one of their largest splits on policy with their positions on the United State's relations with the Middle East. However, a quick look between the lines leads one to the conclusion that their positions on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are essentially the same.
John McCain has stated that Americans should stay in Iraq until victory is achieved. He has been less willing to place a timeline on when such a victory will happen. However, it is not hard to infer what a McCain administration's troop levels would look like: if current trends in Iraq continue, Iraq will be a fully self-sufficient state able to protect itself from both foreign and domestic enemies by 2012. (I would say 2011, but I am on the optimistic side of the debate.) Likewise, the merging SOFA agreement between the U.S. and Iraq will probably attach a timeline to the U.S. troop presence in Iraq- either way, the majority of our boys will be out of Iraq before the end of 2012.
In contrast, Obama originally pushed for a 16 month withdrawal plan (although in recent times he has backed away from this position), the tactical realities of the situation mean that it is impossible to withdraw our troops at the said pace. Obama simply will not be able to do so.
It is also worth noting that Obama's plan calls for enough troops to be stationed in Iraq to respond to any terrorist threats, and his vice-president has declared that the Obama administration will use American troops to stop genocides across the world. This is pretty much identical to the McCain position, which stated that we should not make any hasty plans for withdrawal lest either terrorist cells or ethnic cleansing becomes widespread in Iraq.
So what will an actual Obama or McCain administration Iraq policy look like? Well, by 2011 the majority of our troops will be rotated out of Iraq, probably with a force of 30,000 or so still in the country. The difference will be in how the President's address the rotation- for McCain, we will have had our "victory." For Obama, we will be "withdrawing from a war we never should have started." While soldiers are being rotated out of Iraq, a similar number will be rotated into Afghanistan. Again, the Obama and McCain strategies are practically the same; the difference being that McCain will call his plan a "surge" while Obama will be “focusing America on the real war on terror."
Their Iran policies are also pretty similar. While Obama talked quite a bit about meeting with Iranian leaders “without preconditions” early on in his campaign, it didn’t take long for Obama to backtrack and provide a list of conditions that would need to be met, or at least addressed, before any summit level meetings between Obama and whoever happened to the President of Iran at the time. In reality, both will use low level diplomats to try and engage in a dialogue with Iran, and if that fails, will push for harder sanctions on the country. Neither is likely to go to war with Iran even if they obtain nuclear weapons, as it is a sad reality that any conflict between Iran and the United States would spell disaster for every American soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq, something niether President would find acceptable.
~T. Greer, originally planning on titling the expanded version of the above comments: “Obama, McCain and Iraq: More sound than fury.”
I'll look forward to linking to the full post.
But I overwhelmingly disagree.
I'll accept that the actual outcome of a President McCain or a President Obama in Iraq will be about the same but that is a coincidence based both on the success of the surge and counterinsurgency efforts and, as you mention, the logistical difficulties of executing a good cut and run. Because victory and retreat look similar from Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Colorado does not mean it will look the same to our MidEastern allies or our enemies.
On Iran I would suggest that ambiguity has been historically problematic for the US; and that President-elect Obama is willing to use ambiguity to play differences between audiences. Dean Acheson suggested that Korea was "outside our perimeter" and the Bush 41 Administration implied the same about Kuwait. Both China and Iraq thought they had a green light to invade and the US had to project power across the globe to disabuse them.
I'm hoping for the best on domestic and foreign policy from an Obama Administration. I'm probably one of the more sanguine folks 'round these parts. But I feel that Obama and a huge portion of his voters want terrorism to be handled more as a criminal and not military matter. I wish him luck with that but think that like ambiguity, that emboldens our enemies. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Posted by: jk at November 9, 2008 11:27 AMOctober 22, 2008
No Representation Without Taxation!
This has concerned me for some time. And it's not going to get better next year.
The chart comes from a NYTimes Economix blog article "Don't Worry About the Bailout." Don't worry, because you won't be paying. Hat-tip: Professor Mankiw
I worried in 2003 that as much as I loved the Bush tax cuts, the only way to sell any tax cuts is to make the curve more steeply progressive and to remove more people from liability altogether.
Today, Professor Adam Lerrick has a guest editorial in the WSJ that questions "What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes?"
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
There is much for a little-l libertarian, big-P Prosperitarian to worry about in 2008, but this "tipping point" represents a structural, irreversible change in Madisonian Democracy. We are no longer going to let the people who are paying the bill choose the restaurant.
YES! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.... yes! I've been searching for data to draw this graph for over a week now. I was going to call it the "Say goodbye to fiscal conservatives effect."
Incidentally, this is what led to the downfall of Rome - after instituting democracy the populace voted themselves "bread and circuses" from the state treasury.
One last thing. The first link is broken.
GREAT POST! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
Now let's see if we can get this in print on the NYT pages. (fat chance)
Posted by: johngalt at October 22, 2008 8:32 PMI nearly forgot to mention that I was also going to place the blame for this situation with President Bush (the current one). The numbers I was working with were 40% paying no taxes after the Bush tax cuts and 20% in that category beforehand. According to the graph, Bush increased the non-taxed population from 25% to 33%, perpetuating a trend that began with (gulp) his father. It is noteworthy that this group remained at roughly 25% between the offending Bush administrations despite both a tax hike and a tax cut.
This by itself is enough for me to reverse myself and declare the presidency of George W. Bush the worst in history. If Obama was promising not just tax hikes for the rich but for everyone across the board it might be enough for me to actually vote for him. That's how important I think it is that everyone who votes should also be a taxpayer. 28th Amendment anyone?
Posted by: johngalt at October 22, 2008 10:10 PMWe do aim to please, jg, thanks for the kind words (and the first link is now fixed).
I had an interesting email thread a few years ago with James Robbins of the National Review. He thought it would be easy to remove taxpayers from the bottom 50% and I cried foul.
I'm going to agree with you on the 28th Amendment, but fear we may have to rescind the 24th first. Let's roll in something against stealth withholding -- at least a recognition or statement of what a taxpayer has paid into the system.
Blaming the Bushes...I dunno...Politics is the art of the possible, and the only way to sell the 2K3 cuts was to steepen the curve. I would take that trade any day of the week, even knowing I'll have to endure five years of "tax cuts for the rich" lies and nonsense.
And I think Rome fell when they discovered white flour. I am concerned but still believe in a Touquevillian promise that we are particularly suited for liberty.
The Refugee falls somewhere between jg and jk. Allowing only taxpayers to vote sounds good, but is remincent of the days when only the landed gentry could vote. I would not want to see our republic moving toward an aristocracy. On the other hand, the future of our liberty is at risk.
The Refugee would suggest that the best solution is Neal Bortz's "Fair Tax" proposal. That is, a consumption tax. There are too many benefits to enumerate here and The Refugee recommends Bortz's book, "The Fair Tax Book" as required reading for all ThreeSourers. Ultimately, there may be no other way to stop the socialist redistribution of wealth other than a consumption tax.
Interestingly, this is one area in which The Heretic and The Refugee agree.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at October 23, 2008 12:16 PMI'm laughing a little, br. There are many fans of consumption-based taxation 'round these parts. And I used to point out that it was one thing Silence Dogood and I agreed on.
I soured on it when Governor Huckabee became its voice -- not entirely fair, but we're only human. If I could roll back the clock and enact this in lieu of the 16th Amendment I would. RE: the art of the possible, I don't think revoking the 16th will come much easier than the 24th. A flat tax -- while less cool on several fronts -- is actual workable in the current system.
As Silence cynically says (and it applies to either) "only 535 reasons why that won't happen."
August 18, 2008
Reading Racism Between the Lines
In a year when it is racist to call Senator Obama "skinny," Paul Waldman, writing at The American Prospect, has realized that the Obama Energy Plan Tire Gauge -- much beloved by some ThreeSourcers -- is actually a, um, I think I'll let him say it:
The message couldn't be plainer: See that itty-bitty, little tire gauge? If you vote for Obama, that's how big your penis is. If you vote for McCain, on the other hand, your penis is as big as this [working oil] rig, thrusting its gigantic shaft in and out of the ground! Real men think keeping your tires inflated is for weenies.
Wow. I missed the PoMo, feminist collegiate experience by: a) being old, b) studying math and hard science, and c) dropping out. But I have encountered it because I read a lot of literary criticism of Buffy and Angel (sometimes a sword is just a sword, Doctor).
If every candidate is going to have to justify the double indirection parsing of his or her words, we're going to get even farther away from a serious philosophical election.
Hat-tip: Attila (who else?), reminding that I have been remiss in not linking to "When CPA Means 'Jew'," even though I have laughed about it every day since I read it. Riffing off the "skinny" contretemps, Attila recalls the 2000 Lieberman-Cheney debate:
. . . and it's really quite obvious that Cheney's reference to CPAs is a not-so-veiled allusion to Lieberman's Jewish background. What Cheney said was, "You have to be a CPA to understand what he just said." A CPA. Get it? He could just as easily have said, "You have to be a Jew to understand what that Jew just said." And then Cheney went on to say, "The fact of the matter is the plan is so complex that the ordinary American is never going to ever figure out what they even qualify for." The "ordinary American," as opposed to the Jew. That's not very subtle, either, painting the Jew as the Other.
August 5, 2008
Thanks a Million, Oprah
Professor Mankiw links to a paper that examines the value of celebrity endorsements and suggests that Ms. Winfrey's support of Senator Obama brought him an additional 1,000,000 votes.
Craig Garthwaite and Tim Moore of the University of Maryland Economics department admit that there are substantial hurdles to accurately measuring the effect of any endorsement, but they do some reasonable extrapolation of Oprah's clout in book sales and other items featured on her show. Interstin'...
July 23, 2008
Public-Private Partnership
I was going to give WSJ Ed Page Editor Paul Gigot a quote of the day, for this little bon mot:
My battles with Fan and Fred began with no great expectations. In late 2001, I got a tip that Fannie's derivatives accounting might be suspect. I asked Susan Lee to investigate, and the editorial she wrote in February 2002, "Fannie Mae Enron?", sent Fannie's shares down nearly 4% in a day. In retrospect, my only regret is the question mark.
Reading the rest of the editorial made me realize that this needed a little more coverage. Long time readers of the WSJ Ed Page have followed the battles with Fannie and Freddie -- if you're behind, they have compiled them here.
Gigot takes the unusual step of writing a bylined editorial on his own page, and I strongly suggest that you read the whole thing. He and his staff were on the front lines against this perverse hybrid of government and private power. He has certainly earned a few I-told-ya-sos, but he uses the space to expand and discredit the whole idea of mixing government power with private enterprises.
The abiding lesson here is what happens when you combine private profit with government power. You create political monsters that are protected both by journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street, by liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans. Even now, after all of their dishonesty and failure, Fannie and Freddie could emerge from this taxpayer rescue more powerful than ever. Campaigning to spare taxpayers from that result would represent genuine "change," not that either presidential candidate seems interested.
It is germane not only because we are bailing out Fannie and Freddie today, but also because Senator Obama, and to a lesser extent, Senator McCain both have a soft spot for this "third-way" model, Public-Private Partnership. It's all Kumbaya all the time, until you realize that you have created an un-reformable, undefeatable monster.
UPDATE: Great article by James Surowecki (other than cartoons, the reason to read New Yorker) on the GSEs. Professor Mankiw links and points out that it is one more thing to thank LBJ for:
It wasnt until 1968 that Fannie was privatized....The main reason for the change was surprisingly mundane: accounting. At the time, Lyndon Johnson was concerned about the effect of the Vietnam War on the federal budget. Making Fannie Mae private moved its liabilities off the governments books, even if, as the recent crisis made clear, the U.S. was still responsible for those debts. It was a bit like what Enron did thirty years later, when it used special-purpose entities to move liabilities off its balance sheet.
Jeez, them Enron boys were pikers...
July 19, 2008
The New Graeme Frosts
I assume many of you saw this, but I think everybody has to.
NPR profiled the plight of this family that has had to cut down on food. The headline on the NPR site is For Some Ohioans, Even Meat Is Out Of Reach. I'm sure the story was quite touching on the radio. I can almost hear the dulcet tones of the NPR announcer du jour, and the well produced transitions with acoustic music in the background.
Low-income families in Ohio say they are particularly hard-hit by the changes in the economy, according to a new poll conducted by NPR, The Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health.
In the blogosphere, however, the story has a different vibe because it includes a picture of Angelica Hernandez and Gloria Nunez, the "starving" family:
Now I hate to be cruel. I have been heavy most of my life and could certainly use to drop 20 pounds right now. But only NPR could present these two as suffering from a lack of food. (Okay, I'll be cruel: the headline "Meat out of reach" is apropos because none of them can lift her arms! -- Sorry.)
Like the Frosts, the family that starred in the Democratic Radio address to support SCIHP, maybe these people have -- I don't know -- made some bad choices, or have perhaps done something slightly wrong that has kept their income from keeping up with inflation?
Nunez and most of her siblings and their spouses are unemployed and rely on government assistance and food stamps. Some have part-time jobs, but working is made more difficult with no car or public transportation.
Yet the high prices have hit them hard as the accompanying graphic shows:
They're not hit by high gas prices because they don't have a car. They've cut back on food (no more ice cream!) so they are saving money. Their energy costs at home are subsidized and unchanged. Why were they chosen by NPR to support this story premise? Because they were the only family in Ohio that claimed they were eating less because of food prices. And because there are no pictures on radio.
Chain of hat-tips: Instapundit, Gateway Pundit, Moonbattery.
UPDATE: Mean-spirited photoshopping from Snapped Shot: Mondo-Heh!
They had to cut down on ice cream! Cry me a river.
Yeah, subsidized housing. Healthcare is unchanged, because these two get it because the rest of us are forced to pay.
Somewhere there's a Third World village that's starving because of these two bitches. Not because these two bitches eat the same food, but because the costs of "public support" means the rest of us have less to spend, including on goods and services that Third Worlders could produce and thereby lift themselves out of poverty.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 19, 2008 1:49 PMNot to mention how much money was wasted by "NPR, The Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health" to discover whether low-income families are "particularly hard-hit" by the economic downturn.
Posted by: jk at July 19, 2008 2:35 PMBut without worthless studies and news reports that are easily debunked with the truth, what would these pseudo-economists and "fake but accurate" reporters do? If they didn't have these taxpayer-supported jobs, they'd...they'd weigh 350 pounds each, be on welfare, living in subsidized housing, complaining that they had to cut back on ice cream!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 20, 2008 10:46 PMAs the young folk say, LOL. I didn't recognize it as a jobs engine.
I was thinking of James Lileks, who counters such studies with "Dang, I thought the poor were going to come out really well this time."
Posted by: jk at July 21, 2008 10:49 AMJune 10, 2008
Remember When...
...Paul Krugman used to stick to writing those great economics columns on Slate defending things like free trade and cheap labor? Now he writes things like this:
Obama says hes partnering with Elizabeth Edwards on health care. While I dont know exactly what that means, it gives BHO a lot more credibility on the issue, at least in my eyes.
Yes, indeed. As all of you know, Edwards is a respected
As one of my friends said, Krugman's support of Hillary should have told us ages ago that she wouldn't get the nomination -- because as we know, always go with the opposite of what Krugman predicts.
But now that Obama has the nomination, Krugman has to kiss some butt if he has any hope of an economic advisor position.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 10, 2008 2:45 PMMay 19, 2008
O'Rourke
The folks at Samizdata had been discussing a line from the P.J. O'Rourke column in CATO's Letter.
Now, if you're electing Democrats to control government spending, then you're marrying Angelina Jolie for her brains.
Some closet Virginia Postrels came out and suggested that just because Ms. Jolie is attractive does not mean that she is not intelligent. I'm going to duck that question. And not even post a picture. When O'Rourke is on form, as he is in this piece, almost any paragraph can be pulled for a Quote of the Day or a Blog Post. Professor Mankiw likes this one:
I have a 10 year old at home, and she is always saying, Thats not fair. When she says that, I say, Honey, youre cute; thats not fair. Your family is pretty well off; thats not fair. You were born in America; thats not fair. Honey, you had better pray to God that things dont start getting fair for you.
I can excerpt too -- how about the intro:
Well, I wish I had better news for you, but the barbarians are at the gates. We are besieged by paganssavage, brutish worshippers of big government. Theirs is not even a golden calf. Theyve abandoned the Gold Standard. They worship the taxing and spending of a fiat god, all the more dangerous for being both false and imaginary.
Must. Read. Whole. Thing.
May 6, 2008
Taking Libertarianism Mainstream
I just read an amusing (read: leftist) review of Ron Paul's new book. Here is my favorite part:
Often seen as a rich mans political philosophy, devoid of social programs and indifferent to the plight of the poor, libertarianism needs a makeover if it is ever to break through to the mainstream.
By "makeover" does she mean more statism?
The review continues...
Paul understands this, and he thus softens up his views with a vague, benevolent populism. In a passage that condemns all forms of welfare, he is quick to tell us that he is also talking about government aid to rich corporations. I do not understand why we take for granted that the net result of all this looting is good for those who are lower on the economic ladder, he writes. True enough, but it doesnt change the fact that Paul still opposes giving federal aid to the disadvantaged.
Allow me to outline the leftist manifesto:
1. One must fail to distinguish between the concepts of total and marginal.
1a. An additional dollar of funding will have the same effect regardless of how much one is already spending.
1b. Taxes are to be defended on the grounds that they are the price one pays for a civilized society.
1c. This concept should only be applied to analysis of government. By contrast, individuals do not need certain levels of income. Although this level of income is not known, it will be subject to the obscenity test by our trusted elected officials.
2. Government is bad and oppressive.
3. Government is the answer to our problems.
4. Believe it or not numbers 2 and 3 do not seem to contradict one another. Number 2 refers to civil liberties and war. Number 3 refers to redistribution of income and government regulation.
5. Intentions rather than results are what matters.
6. Incentives? What incentives?
7. Tax it. Regulate it. Regulate it some more.
8. Those who do not favor an expansion of government should be mocked. No explanation or counter-argument is necessary.
9. Belief in freedom and free markets is naive. Belief in the benevolence of government is ideal.
10. If it fits on a bumper sticker, it fits on the platform.
April 30, 2008
Ron Paul's Book
Perhaps there is hope. CNN reports:
Ron Pauls loyal supporters helped him set campaign fundraising records and capture more delegates during his presidential run than some of his high-profile Republican rivals...Now theyve taken his latest book to the top of the Amazon.com bestseller list.
The Revolution: A Manifesto, released earlier this month, is currently No. 1 on the Web sites list of top sellers, besting even Oprahs latest Book Club selection.
Regardless of how anyone feels out Ron Paul (and certainly ThreeSources has been a place of both praise and criticism), it is encouraging to see a libertarian message reach such a large audience.
Let the record show that I agree wholeheartedly. You can count me among the ThreeSourcers who did not feel he was the right President at the right time, but his ideas on Constitutional purview and the power of liberty deserve a wide audience.
The delegate count is interesting as well. My life's work is to convince the GOP to embrace these ideas. Delegates are the coin of the realm.
April 22, 2008
Swapping Stickers
I've regaled you with stories about my political family members [Yawn, is he done yet?] Here's a manifestation.
I own only the nanocar. I love it and it meets all my needs save one: no room for Husband, Wife, and Loyal Family Pet. That's frequently a drag, but in my current situation of showing a house for sale, it is intolerable.
My lovable but Communist sister-in-law has been perhaps the most generous helper as we prepared the house for sale. Words cannot describe her input: inside, outside, and emotionally. Struck by my plight, she has offered to trade cars with me for the month. I hope she enjoys the convertible in the awesome convertible month of May.
She can choose to remove my magnetic "Support the Troops" ribbon in Red, White and Blue if she chooses -- I'm not sure if she will. I have no options on the "Department of Peace" bumper sticker on my new Camry (they're keeping the hybrid).
C'est la guerre!
April 15, 2008
Not Questioning Their Patriotism
Lileks does a nice riff on "bitter-gate:"
Ive been trying to find the right words for a certain theory, and I cant quite do it yet. It has to do with how a candidate feels about America they have to be fundamentally, dispositionally comfortable with it. Not in a way that glosses over or excuses its flaws, but comfortable in the way a long-term married couple is comfortable. That includes not delighting in its flaws, or crowing them at every opportunity as proof of your love. I mean a simple quiet sense of awe and pride, its challenges and flaws and uniqueness and tragedies considered. You dont win the office by being angry were not something else; you win by being enthused we can be something better. You can fake the latter. But people sense the former.
Nice words, but I think the sage from Minneapolis might be pulling his punches a bit. My brother (the mad lefty one) had an interesting coda in a recent email discussion (riff, coda, got something going here...) He said he was upset because "the flag is now a Republican symbol" and a moderate relative agreed.
I didn't respond to that point but I have been thinking about it for quite a while. It is not that my lefty friends lack patriotism per se, but the ones I know are completely uncomfortable with the idea of American exceptionalism. They have ceded the flag as a symbol to those who do believe.
I tell a good friend "we liberated tens of millions from Communism," and he says "yeah, but what about propping up Somoza and Pinochet and Marcos?" I think of the Ken Burns documentary on WWII. I love the guy's work, but he juxtaposes the Bataan Death March with Jim Crow laws and restricted liberties for black soldiers. Yeah, Ken, I guess we're both bad. Another friend loves to bring up Japanese Internment camps. And don't ever ever ever get a liberal started on Indians, Native Americans Indigenous Americans.
They think I'm a jingoist, but I am comfortable appreciating this country's achievements "warts and all." Senator Obama famously refused to wear a flag pin. I don't say that he -- or his Marin County listeners -- don't love this country, but it's not questioning anybody's patriotism to point out how uncomfortable most of them are with displays of patriotism.
Gotta go now, Team America World Police is on cable...
The flag is only a Republican symbol because Democrats have allowed it to be.
How hard is it to put up a flag? But Dems won't do it because God forbid, someone might think them a rightie.
If a few more flew it, it would no longer be a Republican symbol.
Posted by: Terri at April 15, 2008 1:55 PMTerri, to the leftist mind, the US flag is the ultimate symbol of world oppression.
On a side note, as someone who straddles the Pennsylvania line between the State of Philadelphia and the central PA "T," I can tell you from my encounters that Obama has lost the central portion of the state, not to Shrillary, but to McCain.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at April 15, 2008 10:25 PMApril 1, 2008
Thanks Dems
Our Democratic Congress decided to say "no thanks" to an anti-pork measure.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a former member of the pork-dispensing Appropriations Committee, strongly opposed the moratorium, as did all but a handful of Democrats.House Democrats such as John Murtha, D-Johnstown, a longtime Pelosi ally who got the "porker of the year" award from Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based watchdog group, weighed in as well. If the Senate won't give up its pork, they argued, why should the House?
Earmarks for road and bridge projects, contracts for local defense companies, and grants to local governments and nonprofits can mean jobs back home. Then there's the political boost that lawmakers running for re-election reap from earmarks, especially endangered freshmen such as Nancy Boyda, D-Kan.
Can we at least pretend they're not trying to bribe us for their jobs?
Or is that too much to ask?
If the GOP didn't have Sens. Stevens, Cochran, &c, they could take this up as a defining issue. The rallying cry of "we don't suck quite as bad as them!" lacks energy.
Posted by: jk at April 1, 2008 11:10 AMMarch 25, 2008
Praise for James Carville
I love this guy. Three cheers for Democratic überoperative James Carville:
First. One of my favorite lines from any debate ever. He was "debating" Bill O'Reilly during the 2000 election and he said [quoting from memory]: "It's important. Whether the US is run by the principles of George Bush or Al Gore is important, My wife thinks it's important that it is George Bush, I think it is important hat it is Al Gore, but we agree that it is important."
Second. He mentioned his wife. If Mary and James can keep it together, none of us has any cause to question our vows. I'm not kidding, it gives me great hope.
Third. (HT Insty) He's not apologizing or revising his "Judas" remarks:
I was quoted accurately and in context, and I was glad to give the quote and I was glad I gave it, Mr. Carville said. Im not apologizing, Im not resigning, Im not doing anything.
We need more Carvilles in our political world.
March 19, 2008
A New Deal for the New Economy
Hanging around with Libertarians on the Internet (It's fun, but remember to wash your hands), I am often challenged to reassess my party affiliation. Yup, the GOP has some positions which are not friendly to liberty and a poor track record of success on its good positions.
Reading Reason Magazine, or Ann Althouse, or Megan McArdle, I encounter serious, sane, sentient people who love liberty and look first to the Democratic Party for candidates to pursue it. One tries to be open minded and all -- BUT
But then I watch the Democratic debates, or read something like this. Comprehensive "Fisking" is not my blogging style, but I am tempted to try it here. I think I disagree with every sentence in Rep Rahm Emmanuel's "A New Deal for the New Economy." To be fair, Congressman, I didn't think so highly of the Old New Deal.
He starts with Nafta, the thesis being that the trade deal is not the cause of anxiety so much as the lack of a social contract. Even still, he is not willing to defend Nafta, with which he was closely involved.
In 1993, I was President Clinton's point man in ratifying Nafta. And, I am the first to admit, the fact that our party is still debating this trade agreement 15 years later is proof it hasn't lived up to its hopes. It is true that if we were to negotiate Nafta today, we'd insist on tough labor and environmental standards that never mattered to negotiators in the first Bush administration, who hammered the agreement together before Bill Clinton took office.
Evil, wicked, Republican pact it was -- I always thought so too.
But the problem is not Nafta, the problem is that we are not Sweden. The way to make an anxious middle class feel better is to:
- Add another year of compulsory education (the first twelve rock!)
- Expand Schip for all kids (why shouldn't I take care of Warren Buffet's grandchildren?) and those between 55 and 64 years of age.
- "[C]reate a new institute -- funded at the same level as the National Institutes of Health -- that will support critical research into energy technologies for the future." Millions of green collar jobs, energy independence, yadda. (Because government develops and selects technology so much better than the private sector -- look at Ethanol!)
- Finally [at last!] Universal Savings Plans,"Like 401(k) plans, these accounts would supplement, not supplant, Social Security. Employers and employees would contribute 1% of their paychecks on a tax-deductible basis, and workers could make additional contributions if they chose."
He learned at the foot of the master, only a Clinton aid could use the word "contribute" in the sense of a forced, coercive mandate.
Rep. Emmanuel is not a crazed lefty or ideological outlier. He's a party centrist in the mold of President Clinton. This is their best plan. Greater regulation of trade pacts abroad and a huge increase in the size, scope and cost of government at home.
Wonder if they still have the green St. Pat's Pachyderms for sale at gop.com...
Great fisking, and a good call on "contribute." After all, haven't our income taxes been called "voluntary contributions" for decades?
Now, how the hell can I put up 1% of my income starting in 2010, when my taxes are going to go back to the moon?
The wife would like to try having children already, and we could have a couple by the end of 2010...God knows we *already* need all the deductions we can get.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 19, 2008 1:21 PMMarch 10, 2008
Hot Schadenfreude On a Stick!
Don Luskin is having waaaaay to much fun with Governor Spitzer's woes.
I consider Spitzer the archetype of government power gone bad. Allahpundit says "Wife and kids, so schadenfreude isnt in order." I will worry about his kids just as long as he worried about Hank Greenberg's family, or Dick Grasso's before he launched unfounded attacks on them from the New York AG's office.
UPDATE: Try this fun blogger-media quiz! Find any story anywhere on this that does not use the word 'schadenfreude." Bet you can't...
February 13, 2008
I Have Seen It All
A blog from the self-proclaimed netroots of the Green Party proclaims:
The business conservatives are screaming for a corporate income tax cut. They claim that the tax rate that US corporations must pay is far higher than their overseas competitors. They are right...kind of. Some are screaming for the rate to be dropped to 25%. We should publicly agree and take it to the extreme by calling for the rate to be cut to 0%.
I say that we act now before they change their minds.
The same idiotic mindset thinks, "Wow, great, auctioning off broadcast TV airwaves will bring in revenue for the government!"
In the end, they can't see, or refuse to admit, that the consumer must eventually pay the tax. Businesses are merely the tax collector.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 14, 2008 3:40 PMFebruary 11, 2008
Okay, Senator McCain is Ninth On My List
The Everyday Economist links to a list of the Laissez-fairist U.S. Presidents, and wishes If only one of them were running for President.
Grover Cleveland (1885-1889 and 1893-1897)
Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Blog friend Perry Eidlebus recently disagreed with my call for 19th Century government. I will point out that the top four inhabited my Century.
Oh, and as far as Andrew Jackson being laissez-faire, how do you justify his signing and wholehearted support of the Tariffs of Abomination? I'll even put aside the fact that *he* was the one who told South Carolina that it was subject to federal authority, and not that the federal government was a compact between the state governments.
I should also add that four in the 19th century is better than the 20th century, but there were 24 presidential administrations during the 19th century, and 22 if you don't want to count John Adams or William McKinley.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2008 11:56 PMI was a little surprised to see Jackson on the list, though I'd think you would applaud his (and Taney's) efforts at fighting the National Bank.
I'll tell you what I love about the 19th Century: all those Presidents are an unknown blur of bald heads, moustaches and sideburns. They didn't create the League of Nations or the New Deal or the Great Society. They governed modestly. I am no fan of tariffs, but they also operated the entire Federal government without income tax.
Post-slavery, pre-income tax. Not a bad time for US Government.
Fighting the Fed's first incarnation was the best thing Jackson did. He was also an honorable man who had the guts to defend his wife's honor. However, things like the Trail of Tears and his support of the Tariffs of Abomination (not to mention his support of federal superiority over federalism) mar his record.
The Constitution explicitly empowers Congress to place a *uniform* tariff to be placed on imports (which tells us that BS preferential treatment like "MFN" status is unconstitutional). It would be an overstatement to call the original tariff levels "modest." It was a fraction of a percent, and indeed it was enough to fund the federal government until the Civil War. The federal government was so in line with its Constitutional limitations that the tariffs didn't need to be high, until Lincoln set an example for LBJ and drew the U.S. into a bloody mess.
The Tariffs of Abomination were deliberately protectionist, by contrast. They were set very high so that foreign machinery would become artificially more expensive than the North's equivalents, so that the South would be forced to buy from the North. Supposedly this was going to help the North's economy, then "trickle down" to the South. This was true force, because if you refuse to pay tariffs, the government will imprison or kill you. If my neighbors otherwise banded together and said they'd levy a tariff on whatever I buy from Wal-Mart, I'd laugh in their face.
And I shouldn't need to add that, like all tariffs, it completely backfired. A country can't get rich by oppressing one half of its economy.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 12, 2008 2:25 PMBTW, the time was post-slavery, pre-income tax, with massive increases in federal power, such as all the subsidies and charters granted out as political favors, and that the Southern states were forced to ratify an amendment if they wanted the goddamn national army to lift martial law.
Since then, federal power has waned not one bit. It may not have our state legislatures under military rule, but the federal government established itself as higher than the states.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 12, 2008 2:29 PMI would suggest the expansion of government started about 1788 or so, and continued pretty much unabated until today.
I'm as Federalist as the next guy, but you're not getting me to speak against the 13th, a4th and 15th Amendments. I'm in enough trouble celebrating the 19th Century!
Do you not understand what the 14th Amendment did? There are some good and neutral portions, but for the first time, citizens of the several States were proclaimed citizens of the United States, putting them under federal jurisdiction.
Before, people were "the people of the United States," but unless they were Americans who lived in federal territories or the District of Columbia, they were citizens only of their home state. They were citizens of the United States for purposes of identification when traveling abroad, but until the 14th Amendment, they were not subject to federal authority save in interstate matters. *That* was the natural of our original federalism.
The 14th was the first truly bad amendment. It speaks of "privileges or immunities" when it should be talking about *rights*.
And to boot, as I've already said, Southern states refused to ratify it, so the federal government dissolved their state legislatures and instituted martial law until the Southerners complied.
Oh, and if you want to get technical, the expansion of American government began in 1789 once the Constitution was ratified. Lysander Spooner had an excellent point, and I agree. How do several of the States have the power to approve a compact, thereby forcing the remaining States into it, when the others do not yet approve? Of course, the other states eventually ratified the Constitution themselves, but why should they have been forced to join the new Union before their own ratification?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 13, 2008 3:21 PMJanuary 27, 2008
I Was Born In the Wrong Country
I'd put up with the NHS to hear speeches like this! Imagine, for one second, Senator Carl Levin or Harry Reid trying something this deft and intelligent.
Samizdat Perry DeHavilland says "William Hague is on the money and bloody hilarious..." Insty just says "Heh"
January 23, 2008
Cal!
Sad proof of how far the GOP has declined in 84 years. President Calvin Coolidge makes quite a bit of sense:
This is said to be the first film of a US President with sound. Hat-tip: Rick Sincere
Second best president of the 20th century!
Posted by: HB at January 23, 2008 9:27 PMJanuary 16, 2008
Not Me Man, I'm a Prosperitarian
I don't want to pile on the Ron! supporters around here. But things are playing out that reinforce my beliefs about the state of the liberty movement.
In discussing the Ron Paul Newsletters imbroglio on this blog, no one has refuted my central thought that neither big nor little-l libertarians will ever have a chance of influencing our electoral system until they weed out some of their toxic elements. They've got liberty to sell for cryin' out loud -- they don't need to muddy it with racism or millenarianism.
ReasonOnline has an article on the newsletters that makes substantive but unproven accusations that Lew Rockwell wrote them. Again, there is no proof, but there is a good circumstantial case. More telling to me is the recounting of toxic, millenarian sentiments from Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, recalling their history as paleolibs.
I repeat my claim that the liberty movement needs two leaders. They, firstly, need their own William F. Buckley, Jr. Bill chased the John Birchers out of the conservative movement in the fifties, and created the structure that paved the way for Goldwater's quixotic run in '64, and built strength to Reagan's successful run in 1980. Secondly (I gave away the ending), a libertarian Reagan will be needed to communicate ideas beyond the confines of the movement.
One person to create the infrastructure and one to communicate beyond. But the first guy has to chase all the Lew Rockwells, Murray Rothbards, and Leonard Piekoffs out. Then, somebody will have to articulate an incremental vision to rolling back American collectivism.
Rothbard and Rockwell want to rebuild a libertarian utopia out of the ruins of a race war. In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand had to shut society down. The Buckley-Reagan conservative axis didn't produce utopia (immanentize the eschaton?) but they turned back sizable hunks of the New Deal-Great Society collectivism at home and freed 50 million people from communism abroad.
I'm glad that people have been exposed to some classic liberal ideas through Ron Paul, but fear they will take away some of the wrong ideas and give up on the right ones. Here's the close of the Reason piece:
Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racistsand taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own pastacknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.
I have perhaps, in one post, angered every regular reader, writer, and commenter on ThreeSources. All in a day's work.
Angry? No. Just a couple of fact checks:
1. Ayn Rand, author of 'Atlas Shrugged' referred to Libertarians as "hippies." (AlexC added the modifier "dirty.") And in 'Atlas Shrugged' she didn't "shut society down" to rebuild a libertarian utopia. Instead she showed what happens when creative men eschew unearned guilt and choose not to trade with any man who asks him to sacrifice himself to others. The net *result* was to shut society down, for without creative men there is nothing.
2. Leonard Peikoff is not a Libertarian, nor even a libertarian. He is an Objectivist. See above.
'Nuff said. Someone else will have to defend those other characters.
Posted by: johngalt at January 16, 2008 11:44 PMI've had the good fortune to have met many reasonable [O|o]bjectivists in my day. I would like to think that a resurgent liberty movement could include them.
I got a little sloppy in my terms, I am talking about a liberty movement that may grow out of current libertarians but will not likely grow out of the current LP.
Your point on Atlas is taken. But I have to say that I have also met some [O|o]bjectivists who look forward more to the train crash than the happy times on Atlantis.
I know you're 'down for the struggle' JK and my clarifications weren't intended for you so much as for unwary readers - "for the record" as they say.
And possibly also for wary readers who've forgotten what Rand's real point was.
Posted by: johngalt at January 17, 2008 2:33 PMJanuary 15, 2008
The Silver Lining
If we must endure a President Hillary Clinton -- and I very much hope we do not -- at least there will be a few laughs as the last light of western civilization and freedom is extinguished and flushed down the commode. Christopher Hitchens, who wrote The best Clinton Hate Book during Clinton's impeachment (I think I read them all), could really let loose. Every week, we would be treated to prose like this:
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."
Almost worth it. (Hat-tip: Insty)
January 3, 2008
Rep. Lantos
How about a little elevated debate for the New Year? Celebrate a Democratic Congressional leader in ThreeSources. John Fund writes this superb tribute to Rep. Tom Lantos (D--CA), titled "A One Man History Lesson:"
It's safe to say the next chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee won't have the fascinating biography of California Rep. Tom Lantos. As Mr. Lantos, who disclosed he has been diagnosed with cancer and announced his retirement yesterday at age 80, put it in his press release: "It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust from Hungary and a fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family, and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a Member of Congress."Mr. Lantos has always been a minority voice on foreign policy in his Democratic Party, especially given the fact that he represents part of radical San Francisco in the House. In the 1980s, he founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which criticized both Communist and right-wing dictatorships with equal fervor. He has been a fierce critic of human rights abuses in China, skewering Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco Systems for agreeing to comply with Internet censorship restrictions there.
Most notably, he led the floor debate in favor of the resolution authorizing war in Iraq in late 2002, a move that prompted an unsuccessful primary challenge against him in 2004.
Known as a prickly and stubborn man, Mr. Lantos found he had to accommodate himself to the liberal tenor of his fellow House Democrats when his party took over control in 2006. Last February, he drafted a resolution opposing the troop surge in Iraq, a move he may well privately regret now. In deference to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, his good friend, he also abandoned his earlier opposition to a resolution that condemned Turkey, a U.S. ally and NATO member, for its killing of Armenians during World War I. Ms. Pelosi was eventually forced to backtrack, embarrassing both her and Mr. Lantos.
While his fidelity to a bipartisan foreign policy waned during his recent tenure as House Foreign Affairs chairman, Mr. Lantos leaves Congress with a distinguished record and the respect of human rights activists the world over regardless of ideology. Here's hoping others in his party are willing to carry forward the torch he held high.
Good luck Congressman.
January 2, 2008
Policy by Plebiscite
Speaker Newt Gingrich sends an email "How You Can Help America in Iowa If You Act Today." I follow the link (anything but work!) to find the American Solutions Platform of the American People -- A Red, White, and Blue Revolution
Gingrich has collected a long list of issues/solutions all of which have substantive majority support across the political spectrum. Each change is followed by the percentage of support it received in their polling. So, how about it, America? Can we roll up our sleeves and forget our differences, and work together?
Umm, no, Mister Speaker. I am not sure we should. I agree with almost all of your suggestions, and could probably live with the ones I do not. But -- is the poll our ultimate guide? To my dismay, it seems to be the case in GOP immigration policy, but what if the people are wrong?
For example, one I would criticize is: "Climate change and global warming are probably happening. (82 to 13)." I bore my friends with references to Karl Popper and insistence that science is not democracy. Should we sign Kyoto because 82% cheered at the end of "An Inconvenient Truth?" Gingrich doesn't suggest this but he does say "We support building more nuclear power plants to cut carbon emissions and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. (65 to 28) Im all for more nuke plants, but not if we're building them to cut carbon emissions (plants need to breathe too!) or for "energy independence" (see Huck-a-Whack, Dec 31). If they make economic sense, and the electorate can be convinced of their safe operation and storage, let's go.
He does not list "Pee in the cornflakes of the 49% (51 to 49)" but we all know, deep down, it's in there.
Brilliant JK. Superb.
Posted by: johngalt at January 3, 2008 3:53 PMDecember 31, 2007
Cui Bono?
A good friend of ThreeSources sends a link to this WaPo story and wonders whom it will hurt. My Latin isn't up to that, so I wonder who will benefit.
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.
I think Bloomberg is running. He seems to be making a lot of noise and inquiries, and if he ever wants to do it, this is certainly the year. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rep. Ron Paul run as a Libertarian, though Reason Magazine points out some legal hurdles.
I guess it depends on the final candidate list, but I think this tends to hurt the Democrats. It's an escape valve for those who do not care for Senator Clinton (just last week I encountered two very liberal Democrats who said they cannot support her), and if Senator Obama gets the nomination, a Bloomberg run would bleed off the "nice guy" vote.
The social conservatives and the economic conservatives are unlikely to find a home in a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket. We'll see how many antiwar Republicans there are, but I am guessing that is not a huge plurality.
Who loses? Those who send money to this doomed enterprise. Who wins? David Harsanyi -- sales of his Nanny State book should soar -- Mayor Bloomberg gets quite a few pages.
UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg links to a David Weigel post that projects a GOP victory if Bloomberg spoils NY for the Democrats and Ohio and Florida for the Republicans. Interstin'...
December 19, 2007
Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?
That's an Abraham Lincoln quote, and the title of a funny book.
I thought of it reading John Fund in the Political Diary on the importance of turnout and weather in the Iowa Caucuses:
One reason some Democrats may skip the event is that Democratic caucuses are not the businesslike affairs the GOP caucuses are. At a Republican caucus, voters show up, listen to very short speeches, fill out a slip of paper, drop it in a box and leave. At a Democratic caucus, voters show up at 6:30 pm and vote for delegates for each candidate. But first they must listen to short speeches on behalf of all the candidates. With a half-dozen or more candidates, that takes time. Then everyone breaks into "preference groups," with voters gathering in various corners of the room to express support for a given candidate. If a candidate doesn't receive 15% or more support, his or her supporters must join another candidate's preference group. In most of Iowa, this effectively means only Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards will elect any delegates to the local county convention, which is held later. It also means that a voter's second choice can be highly important in who actually wins. Ominously, while Mrs. Clinton has many supporters, she's not the second choice of many Obama or Edwards backers.Further complicating matters is that rural areas are given more weight than urban ones in selecting delegates. In a small town, 25 caucus-goers might carry as much impact as 250 who stop by a downtown Des Moines caucus.
Every year I get a little less proud of my party, although when they put Rep Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens in prison, I'll bump up. But reading this, it looks like the GOP gets the better deal.
December 13, 2007
The Road To Serfdom
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have heard every Democrat in the Primary Debates speak to making college more affordable -- up to Gov. Richardson's plan for "College for All." At first glance, that's a typical example of good politics, bad economics. Is it perhaps a little more invidious? A WSJ editorial today (free link) points out that the result of government subsidies is not reduced tuition, but rather a larger portion of education paid for by Federal largess:
Ironically, these government handouts are creating the tuition problem. Tuition has risen about three percentage points faster than inflation every year for the past quarter-century. At the same time, the feds have put more and more money behind student loans and other financial aid. The government is slowly becoming a third-party tuition payer, with all the price distortions one would expect. Every time tuition rises, the government makes up the difference; colleges thus cheerfully raise tuition (and budgets), knowing the government will step in.
Already well endowed schools are free to raise tuition, then grant capricious exemptions.Gregory Mankiw says "In the future, Harvard will cost $1 billion a year, and only Bill Gates's children will pay full price. When anyone else walks through the door, the message will be 'Special price, just for you.'"
Compared to terrorism or socialized medicine, one is tempted to let this one slip -- college is swell, right?
Considering the <bold-italic-super-emphasis>EXTREME</bold-italic-super-emphasis> collectivist tilt in academia, and academics new importance in financing candidates, this is concerning. We are creating not only expensive tuition, but also a well funded intellectual superclass.
December 6, 2007
Kind Words for Senator Lott
Hey, I am as surprised as you!
Don Luskin admits to giving Lott a hard time, but says we'll miss him when he's gone:
So what would happen if the House sent the Senate back a tax bill with offsets? Lott says, "Theyre going to have to eat this. Get over it. Now, Nancy can dictate to all the Democrats she wants to. She aint dictating this. If they want the AMT, there aint going to be no offsets. Write that in granite. I can guaran-damn-double-dog, you know, guarantee you that.""Offsets" is just another word for taxes.
Guaran-damn-double-dog! I'll miss that. Lott seems to have philosophically lost his way, but the minority Senate has been impressive. Credit where it's due, Senator Lott knows how to play this game:
In Lotts last weeks as a Senator, he is blocking new AMT taxes, the excessively large S-CHIP bill, billions in energy taxes and a proposal to raise taxes on capital gains by 135%. The sad news is that no one seems ready or able to take up his whack-a-mole duties next year.
Ive been through a lot of end-of-sessions, and Ive been involved in them very closely, and Ive been the solution and Ive been the problem, said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., who is leaving Congress at the end of the session. This is the most bizarre situation and atmosphere Ive ever seen. Nobody has any idea how to do anything or how in the world were going to get out of here, or when.
UPDATE: Luskin posts that the Double-Damn-Dog Guarantee was honored. Well done Senator Lott!
Baucus legislation will protect 19 million American families from unfair tax increase; minority objections to fiscal responsibility forced elimination of provisions to pay for bill.
Even with the Democratic spin I like it!
November 23, 2007
Reagan, Thatcher, Sarkozy!
Air traffic controllers, mine workers, rail workers. The NY Sun says Collapse of Rail, Subway Strike Is a First Success for Sarkozy
"We think a dynamic of return to work has begun," Julie Vion, a spokeswoman for France's state-owned railroad network, SNCF, said.Union leaders began to concede defeat yesterday. "We have to face reality. Since yesterday's negotiations, things have changed. The strike is no longer the solution. The strike strategy is no longer winning," a leader of the Sud union representing Paris underground railway workers, Philippe Touzet, said in an interview with Bloomberg News.
A few days ago, it was called a daring move that would make him a five year lame duck if he failed. Audaces fortuna juvat, Monsieur Presidente! Fortune favors the brave.
Hat-tip: Insty.
In "Paradise Lost," Satan says, "To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n." Or put another way, it might be Hell, but at least he's the boss.
Sarkozy knows better. One can be captain of a sinking ship, but it's still a sinking ship. Sarkozy knows that despite the modern Gallic proclivity for laziness, something has to be done to revive France's economy. Right now it's in heavy competition with Germany for that dubious title of "the sick man of Europe," as Ireland once was. Ireland grew itself out of economic woes by, surprise surprise, cutting taxes to attract businesses.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 27, 2007 3:36 PMOne hundred bonus points for quoting Milton.
Posted by: jk at November 27, 2007 4:31 PMOctober 24, 2007
How About That First Amendment Thingy?
Senator Clinton is racking in the donations from Chinatown dishwashers, Senator Obama and Governor Romney are drawing four-digit checks from "the children." The Washington Post notes the trend:
Elrick Williams's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.
[...]
A supporter of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), Susan Henken of Dover, Mass., wrote her own $2,300 check, and her 13-year-old son, Samuel, and 15-year-old daughter, Julia, each wrote $2,300 checks, for example. Samuel used money from his bar mitzvah and money he earned "dog sitting," and Julia used babysitting money to make the contributions, their mother said. "My children like to donate to a lot of causes. That's just how it is in my house," Henken said.
It's time to cut and run from the quagmire of campaign finance reform. All of it. It lives in opposition to transparency, which would be good. It contributes to establishment candidates and the much-decried dynastic Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton trend.
Here's my campaign finance laws: Everybody can give all they want to anybody they want. Candidates who do not provide a good public accounting of the support they receive should not be voted for. Understandable, enforceable, and Constitutional.
Good Republicans or not, I'm calling Bull***t on the Dover kids: $2300 from dog sitting? For a primary? I'm thinking not.
Posted by: jk at October 24, 2007 12:54 PMSeptember 20, 2007
POW Habeas Corpus
It really breaks my heart when bills in the Senate can't hit the supra-constitutional 60 vote cut off.
The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would have allowed terrorism suspects held at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, to petition federal courts claiming that they're being held in error.The 56-43 vote in favor of the bill fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off Senate debate, blocking the legislation. Both Washington state senators voted for the measure.
The bill, sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., would have given military detainees the right of habeas corpus the right to challenge one's detention in court, rooted in English common law dating from before the Magna Carta of 1215 which serves as a check on arbitrary government power.
Actually, I would support such a measure: even "enemy combatants" should be allowed to prove, if they can, that they're innocent. There's evidence that some were turned over to U.S. forces by their neighbors, because of family feuds.
But on the flip side, if we prove we captured them for a good reason, we should just execute them summarily.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 21, 2007 3:21 PMThey deserve some process, which I understand that they get. But the full panoply of the US understanding of habeus corpus is too much.
We cannot allow a captured, foreign terrorist to demand to learn how evidence against him was collected and to see the full evidence. For an American citizen, this would and should be required.
You nail the alternative -- if the hallal rice pilaf at Gitmo is not up to epicurean standards, enemy combatants can always be (quite legally) shot. Wanna reconsider, Ahmed?
It wouldn't have to be the full process, just a military tribunal where they can present evidence and, if they were seized in a raid, find out what the evidence was. Not all were captured on the battlefield, and I'm troubled because some circumstances were questionable. If a neighbor rats you out as a terrorist, is it true, or the result of a feud? So I think we should give them a good chance to prove their innocence, even if it demands they question how we knew they were terrorists.
On the other hand, I don't think any process should be given to anyone captured in battle -- American citizen or not. John Walker Lindh should have been shot where he was found, and it would have saved us a lot of headaches.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 22, 2007 10:55 AMSeptember 14, 2007
Not so fast, Senator...
I posted Senator Salazars response to my letter yesterday. I was pleased that he had indeed come out against the MoveOn.org advertisement and said "Well done." The letter references media reports:
As noted in media reports, I believe the ad was inappropriate and sent the wrong message ("Salazar assails MoveOn over Petraeus attack ad", Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 9/13/07).
I almost made a joke about being surprised that I had missed that in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, but I'm not really that amused. The paper's website lists its circulation as:
Daily Circulation: 30,707
Sunday Circulation: 33,733
I think the Senator is being very clever indeed. He can respond to his right wingnut constituency, that "the ad was inappropriate and sent the wrong message" and he can cite the media report. At the same time, he can be certain that most people have only the slightest possibility of encountering his brave moment.
I thought I would test this by doing a Yahoo Search for "Senator Salazar MoveOn Ad." ThreeSources comes up three times in the top ten (this might make four!) I'm glad to be known as the guy who owns this story, but it becomes clear that nobody else is paying attention.
Is my Senator having it both ways?
UPDATE: Gary Harmon of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel emails Professor Glenn Reynolds, who linked to tihs post:
Prof. Reynolds: Here I sit, damned with faint praise re Salazars Sis Souljah? Did you have to mention the size of the readership? Now I feel like the freshman on the first day in the locker room with the seniors. Again.Actually, we wont apologize for the size of our readership. Its actually growing and not many can say that in this business. What is interesting is that the comments were made in a phone conference involving almost all Colorado media, including the big dailies and AP.
That it made it to our paper might explain why were growing and, well, theyre not.
I certainly didn't mean it as a slight to the paper. If the larger dailies passed on the story, it negates my point, but it still works out well for Senator Salazar. Nice scoop, Gary. You get the "well done."
All well and good, but what if he went to the NYTimes and they said he would have to pay retail for the privilege of refuting them?
Screwed, he would be.
He just wanted to make sure that Norman Hsu knows where he stands.
Posted by: johngalt at September 14, 2007 4:26 PMAs a Colorado resident, I would say this action is completely in character for Ken Salazar. He is a very calculating man. This isn't the first time he has done this type of thing, and it won't be the last. So far, he has pulled off these incidents unscathed. I predict the Colorado media won't call him on it, he is known in local media circles as the Teflon Hispanic.
Posted by: Steve-o at September 14, 2007 5:38 PMWhat Steve-o said. Being from Colorado I thought "Why am I not surprised?"
Of course there is an undertone of sliminess to the whole thing but that too is no surprise.
P.
Posted by: Portia at September 14, 2007 6:43 PMI'm not at all surprised the Denver Post didn't print anything: No doubt they agree with the ad and they are only an AP reprinting vehicle anyway.
(We get it at work so I occasionally, and masochistically, read it.)
Posted by: mrsizer at September 15, 2007 2:15 PMSeptember 11, 2007
Dear Senator Salazar
Senator SalazarI see that you received $4,000 from MoveOn.org for your campaign in 2006. I don't find much agreement with that organization but would not object to your accepting a modest donation from them.
I strongly object to their "General Betray Us" advertisement. Reasonable people can disagree on the war but there is no justification for this ad hominem attack on a great American patriot.
I write to request that you publicly disavow this smear.
Thank you,
John Kranz
Marie Rivera
How about your Senator?
September 10, 2007
Hsu Fly Pie II
Hillary! has decided to dump $850K (yes, nearly a million) of Hsu-sourced money.
It makes one wonder how much Hsu-sourced money has found it's way into the Pennsylvania political system.
That's hard to tell from the Campaign Finance website, but it does find interesting things like $500 to the Republican National State Elections Committee.
Ahem.
September 8, 2007
Hsu Fly Pie
NOTE: I always subscribed to the theory that one of the reasons Sun Microsystems' Java language was so popular was because the trade press could make up clever headlines about it. Senator Clinton may have misfortune in the name of her errant donor for the same reason.
I'm intrigued when campaigns are caught with "smelly money" that they can give it to charity: it's a get out of jail free card for political campaigns. I bought it until I heard that Senator Edwards gave $300,000 of Rupert Murdoch's smelly money to a charity run by his daughter.
It seems that Senator Clinton could enjoy power by directing campaign cash to charity. Does the press follow up? She'll give this money away -- but it will not be to the RNC.
UPDATE: National Journal's Buzz has a collection of Hsu puns (including this one). Click on over. Hsu know Hsu want to...
The right and morally correct thing for all those who received money from Hsu would be to use that money to reimburse those who were swindled by Hsu. Of course were talking about the Democratic party so something like that will never happen.
Posted by: Allan at September 9, 2007 12:22 PMI'm thinking she'll give it to the Clinton Presidential Library
Posted by: jk at September 9, 2007 1:23 PMAugust 31, 2007
Friday Funnies
Jay Leno, courtesy of Polical Diary:
"Speaking at a forum organized by Lance Armstrong on cancer research, Hillary Clinton told Chris Matthews if she is elected president, she will declare war on cancer, and then she will support the war on cancer for two years, and then she will be against it for a year, and then she will back out of it all together" -- Jay Leno, host of NBC's "Tonight Show."
Sen. Craig (R-- EW!)
I fear my beloved Republicans have learned the wrong lessons from recent history. Poor Senator Craig cannot find a friend in the Senate Cloakroom. Well, perhaps, that's for the best. But he cannot find a friend in the GOP leadership, and I am not sure that's right.
Really creepy? Yes. But I'd like to compare the Senior Senator from the last stall to members in the partys Hall of Shame who enjoy their good standing.
- Rep. Tom Foley -- he may be out of good standing now, but his is supposed to be the lesson learned. I suggest that Rep, Foley was propositioning minors and was using his position as a Congressman coercively. He should have been shut down early by leadership that suspected/knew of this behavior.
- Sen. Ted Stevens (R - $$) -- no room in the party for a creepy queer, but crooks may hold leadership positions. Senator Stevens is a crook who stands against everything the party is supposed to embrace.
- Rep Don Young -- see above, what is with these Alaska guys?
- Rep. Jerry Lewis -- I will not call him a crook, but he's a poster child for purchasing incumbency with Federal largesse.
Creepy Craig was at least seeking something consensual with a grownup, and I suspect that he was going to pay out of his own pocket.
August 30, 2007
It was Only $100 Million
A union shell group raises and spends $100 million illegally, and the punishment is a fine of less than 1% -- I bet they spent more on coffee.
Yet another problem with government regulation of campaign finance -- besides its explicitly contravening the First Amendment -- is that the laws have no teeth. Like the mob, you just budget for some fines in your business plan. John Fund reports on the recent decision against "Americans Coming Together."
The Federal Election Commission has just found that Americans Coming Together, a top union group active in the 2004 presidential election, spent $100 million illegally on federal election activity that year. The agency imposed a fine of just $775,000 -- and not one dime will go back to the union workers who financed ACT's illegal activities with their forced payment of dues.This is a textbook example of what's wrong with federal election laws. The FEC takes years to catch up with those who break the law, then administers a slap on the wrist on the grounds that ACT disbanded after the 2004 election and won't be engaging in further election activity.
In reality, such groups may disband but their supporters and personnel have every intention of remaining active in politics under another brand name. That perfectly describes the ACT shell game.
Its largest donor was the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically active labor unions. Its largest non-union donor was billionaire George Soros. And who was the group's president? None other than Harold Ickes, a long-time functionary of the Clinton machine who served as Bill Clinton's deputy White House chief of staff. Mr. Ickes is now a major player in the huge fundraising apparatus of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who unsurprisingly has run into her own campaign finance scandal this week. One of her top donors, Norman Hsu, was revealed to be a fugitive from justice and may have illegally laundered campaign contributions to the Clinton campaign through "straw" or fake donors.
It's clear the FEC can't be relied upon to report on the law-skirting by major political players before voters render their judgment at the polls in 2008. Nor are its sanctions much of a deterrent to those playing for big stakes on the presidential stage. Mrs. Clinton's latest scandal appears to be a near-replica of the 1996 Clinton fundraising scandals, in which 120 people either fled the country to avoid questioning, took the Fifth Amendment or otherwise failed to cooperate with investigators.
The FEC enforcement action against ACT came after a complaint three years ago by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Meanwhile, the news media resolutely ignored the story, insisting that looking into the modus operandi of the Clinton machine represented "old news." Here's hoping the press wakes up and realizes the time for vigilant reporting on the 2008 election excesses of all parties is before Americans vote, not years afterward.
I'm sure they'll start with the GOP, John.
August 21, 2007
The State of the Left
A good friend of this blog sends a pair of links to be enjoyed together.
In An Investment in Failure Thomas Sowell points out that, back to Karl Marx, the left has no interest in those rising out of poverty. Once you cease to be an object for their polity, you are -- if I may borrow a word from Senator Clinton -- invisible.
At one point, Marx wrote to his disciples: "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing."Think about that. Millions of human beings mattered to him only in so far as they could serve as cannon fodder in his jihad against the existing society.
If they refused to be pawns in his ideological game, then they were "nothing."
No one on the left would say such things so plainly today, even to themselves. But their actions speak louder than words.
Over at The Nation, their words speak pretty loud as well. Barbara Ehrenreich cannot contain her glee that the subprime crisis is Smashing Capitalism but she is mad that it is not self directed. You really have to read this in full (it's blissfully short), but here's a taste:
The American poor, who are usually tactful enough to remain invisible to the multi-millionaire class, suddenly leaped onto the scene and started smashing the global financial system. Incredibly enough, this may be the first case in history in which the downtrodden manage to bring down an unfair economic system without going to the trouble of a revolution.First they stopped paying their mortgages, a move in which they were joined by many financially stretched middle class folks, though the poor definitely led the way. All right, these were trick mortgages, many of them designed to be unaffordable within two years of signing the contract.
Like my disappointment at "The Glorious Revolution," however, the serendipity of it annoys her.
Personally, I prefer my revolutions to be a little more pro-active. There should be marches and rallies, banners and sit-ins, possibly a nice color theme like red or orange. Certainly, there should be a vision of what you intend to replace the bad old system with--European-style social democracy, Latin American-style socialism, or how about just American capitalism with some regulation thrown in?Global capitalism will survive the current credit crisis; already, the government has rushed in to soothe the feverish markets. But in the long term, a system that depends on extracting every last cent from the poor cannot hope for a healthy prognosis. Who would have thought that foreclosures in Stockton and Cleveland would roil the markets of London and Shanghai? The poor have risen up and spoken; only it sounds less like a shout of protest than a low, strangled, cry of pain.
Capitalism will survive? Damn.
"European-style social democracy, Latin American-style socialism, or how about just American capitalism with some regulation thrown in?"
There's some stuff a bull left in a field. A Frenchman might call it merde, a Spaniard might call it mierda, and an American baby might call it caca. It doesn't matter what you call it: it doesn't change what it really is.
Ehrenreich is truly an idiot. If she thinks defaulting on a mortgage is a revolution, what will "mortage protestors" do when they want to take out a loan? Strike one: credit history. Strike two: higher interest rates, if they get approved. Strike three: banks will stop lending money to anyone below stellar credit. Yeah, that's great. Mortgage yourself to the stars, default intentionally to hurt those evil rich people, then lose your house and never own your own home again. Brilliant!
The poor don't borrow from other poor. They don't even borrow from the middle class. When you take out a $500K loan on a new house, from whom do you think you're borrowing? John Q. types who earn mid-five-figure annual salaries, or a single millionaire? All right, so several middle-class families could save enough between themselves to lend to one family. But in a new subdivision where everybody's a new homeowner, who are they borrowing from? Certainly not from each other.
The rich are actually the ones who are invisible these days. The rest of the people don't see how their very livelihoods and borrowing depend on how wealthy "the rich" are, and that raising taxes won't do a damn bit of good.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 21, 2007 1:45 PMHow many thousands of column inches do you bet The Nation has devoted to running down banks who would not take a chance on poor or minority borrowers?
Now, giving a loan to a guy who needs it is predatory lending. I hope they never see Jimmy Stewart in "It's A Wonderful Life."
August 18, 2007
More Media Nonsense
The media has absolutely nothing to say about anything -- at least not enough to maintain 24-hour news channels. First, Obama wasn't black enough. Then Hillary wasn't woman enough. Now, Fred doesn't know which shoes to wear. All this is apparently considered important information when choosing our next leader.
They should just stick to the important things, like how we're losing the war and the devastation of global warming.
Posted by: jk at August 19, 2007 11:45 AMAugust 17, 2007
Netroots
Harrison Bergeron's post last week on "Kos" highlighted what a negative impact the Netroots' tactics will have on their own preferred candidates. Today Kim Strassel interviews a moderate Democrat who survived a Kos-inspired primary challenge: Henry Cuellar (free link).
Yet a lively midweek chat with Mr. Cuellar suggests that this campaign of threats isn't necessarily having the intended effect. If anything, it might be backfiring. "They win when they intimidate people," says Mr. Cuellar. "I've taken everything they've thrown, plus their kitchen sink, and I still stand proud as a moderate-conservative Democrat." He says his triumph over blogger fire has only strengthened his conviction that his party will only win elections if it continues to be a "big tent" open to all views. "To make that tent smaller, to force people--not to persuade, but to force, because these are threats--to quiet down, that's destructive in the long term and the short term."
Though we have different limits around here, I think we all agree that politics is a balance of enlarging the tent for electoral victory and maintaining ideas to make it meaningful.
Kos seems to be bent on creating the smallest Democratic tent and, as hb exposed, not bothering to tie it to any ideas or policy of consequence.
August 15, 2007
Kos is not a libertarian
We know that Markos Moulitsas is a partisan hack. He believes that Karl Rove is responsible for the bridge collapse in Minnesota, he believes that socialist progressives (my words, not his) are the new "center", and he does not think that Democrats should ever be criticized (although he does believe that the party needs cleaning). Kos also pretends to be a libertarian, abeit in is own words a "modified and twisted around version of libertarianism." In reality, Kos and his followers are a growing threat to individual liberty and freedom from government.
What is disturbing about Kos is that, unlike many activists, he is not really an idealogue. When asked for the three most important issues for the candidates in 2008 on Meet the Press, he did not name a single issue. His sole purpose in life, it seems, is to get Democrats elected (well, only those who oppose the war in Iraq).
The political realm should be one of ideas. Personally, I subscribe to the ideas of individual liberty and free market economics. Kos, however, subscribes to the idea of party loyalty and ridding the party of those who are not loyal to the cause.
Given the fact that the Kossacks are big government socialist progressives, my hope is that the Kossacks are simply a fad within the Democratic Party.
I have to admit that I do not pay a lot of attention to Kos. He whips up a lot of fury, but they are so outside the mainstream, I don't see their affecting much more than party politics.
It seems you're right, they push the Democrats to purity yet don't push ideas -- that strikes me as anti-pragmatism, the least effective of both worlds.
August 6, 2007
If Other States Want...
"States shall Choose Electors" but the Constitution provides great latitude. John Fund reports on an interesting bit of Inside Baseball in the Political Diary:
Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, knows a trap when he sees one. The Democratic state legislature in North Carolina was on a fast track to pass a bill that would have ended the practice of apportioning all that state's Electoral College votes to the statewide winner. Instead, the winner of each of its 13 Congressional districts would win one electoral vote, while the remaining two (representing the state's two U.S. Senate seats) would go to the statewide winner. In 2004, under the proposed formula, John Kerry would have won three electoral votes from North Carolina rather than zero. Only the small states of Maine and Nebraska currently apportion their electoral votes in such a manner.The North Carolina Senate had already approved the measure and the State House was within hours of sending the bill to Democratic Gov. Mike Easley's desk when Dr. Dean called and urgently prescribed the patient's death. "He said the party had suddenly learned a similar measure was being proposed by Republicans in California and that could mean over 20 electoral college votes in that state going to the GOP," one Democratic state legislative staffer told me. "That meant [Democrats] would be tagged as hypocrites if we proceeded to do the same idea in North Carolina and then opposed it in California."
Indeed, last month Thomas W. Hiltachk, a Republican attorney in Sacramento who is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's personal lawyer on election matters, filed a proposed initiative to allocate the state's Electoral College votes precisely as Democrats had planned to do in North Carolina. The difference is that California is such a megastate that even though President Bush lost statewide in 2004 by 10 percentage points, he nonetheless won a majority in 22 Congressional districts. Hendrik Hertzberg, a liberal New Yorker magazine columnist, says that if voters were to approve the initiative in California's June primary next year, it would represent an "unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes" to next year's GOP nominee. Democratic strategist Chris Lehane says that if the rule were adopted, it would "virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008."
No one knows if Republicans will invest the $1 million it would take to qualify such a measure for the California ballot, much less the millions it would take to withstand the Democratic onslaught against it. Democrats worry that the measure has the appearance of creating more fairness than the current winner-take-all formula -- which is precisely why they thought they could get away with the ploy in North Carolina. They also worry that in a low-turnout primary in which only local offices are on the ballot (California's presidential primary has been moved to Feb. 5), the measure just might pass.
If the proposal does appear on the June ballot, expect the mother of all battles. It's not too much to say next year's entire presidential race could be played out in the California ballot battle even before the two parties' candidates are officially nominated at their respective conventions. And you thought the presidential campaign process was already front-loaded?
I fought tooth-and-nail against Colorado's attempt to do this, and was glad to see it go down in flames. Even though we're pretty close to flipping blue, I think it reduces a states importance. Colorado is becoming a swing state and seems likely to pick up a seat in the 2010 census. It seemed crazy.
If other states wish, however, I guess I've no objection. Any strong feelings in ThreeSources land?
August 5, 2007
More of the Same...
More of the same from the "reform-minded" Democrats:
If the idea was to shame lawmakers into restraint, it did not work.Eight months after Democrats vowed to shine light on the dark art of earmarking money for pet projects, many lawmakers say the new visibility has only intensified the competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving.
So far this year, House lawmakers have put together spending bills that include almost 6,500 earmarks for almost $11 billion in local projects, only half of which the Bush administration supported...
...The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has obtained about $63 million worth of projects, most of them in or near her district in San Francisco. But Ms. Pelosi was overshadowed by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who obtained $163 million in pet projects more than anyone else in Congress and more than his own previous record of about $100 million.
And the money quotes:
Were lying to the American people when we say were fixing earmarks when were not, said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, during debate this week on the Senate floor.But Democrats respond that the changes are a big improvement. This is just sour milk, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said of Mr. Coburn.
Tases like sour milk to me too, Senator. The 110th is going to take a victory lap for their brave reform efforts. Insiders know these laws have no teeth, yet the Democrats get a win.
C'est le guerre...
Posted by: jk at August 5, 2007 5:22 PMJuly 25, 2007
Again, Bullwinkle?
That Special Prosecutor trick never works!
But it would be great for lAffaire Gonzales. AP:
WASHINGTON - Angry senators suggested a special prosecutor should investigate misconduct at the Justice Department, accusing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday of deceit on the prosecutor firings and President Bush's eavesdropping program.
I choked when I heard Sen. Arlen Specter (RINO - PA) suggesting it. It's a bad idea to begin with (cf Fitzgerald, Starr), but especially worrisome when there has been no crime.
I'd love to see Congress take the President to court. (SCOTUS, natch)
Then we'd settle this separation of powers debate.
Posted by: AlexC at July 25, 2007 5:50 PMThe best part of Specter's Special Prosecutor threat was that he threatened the Attorney General himself with the spectre (no pun intended) of "the Attorney General has the power to appoint a Special Prosecutor..." or someone else could do it, he added.
Posted by: johngalt at July 26, 2007 2:59 PMThe WSJ had a nice editorial today on this. I love the lede:
Here we go again. Democrats in Congress have made little headway in their own investigations into the non-scandal over the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys last year, so they've hit upon another strategy: Get the Justice Department to do the investigating for them. And right on cue, Republican Senator Arlen Specter has joined the call for a special counsel to investigate the dismissals. Now, there's a truly bad idea.
"Right on cue." They assert that a "pinata" AG will be better for the administration than investigations, prosecutors, and conformation hearings. Posted by: jk at July 26, 2007 3:20 PM
Two Republicans in Jail
I'll suspend my pragmatism to clean out the stables. The Wall Street Journal news pages report: (paid link)
Rep. Don Young of Alaska, the former chairman of the House Transportation Committee, now is the subject of a continuing criminal inquiry involving possible political favors for a company in Alaska, people close to the case said. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the powerful former chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the longest-serving Senate Republican, is also now under criminal investigation, these people said.
I would trade a Senate seat and a House seat to get rid of those two. You can throw Rep. Jerry Lewis of California in their cell as well.
July 16, 2007
The Leftward Lurch of the Democrats
When the New York Times tells you you're trending left...
Greg Mankiw linked to this NYTimes Story and it is highlighted on the NYTimes email alert. The Times spins it a little more positively:
The more populist tone is one indication of a broader debate among Democrats over how much they should break with the centrism of the Clinton years.
Sadly, the Democrats learned all the wrong lessons from the Clinton Years. Rubinomics dictates that increased taxes = greater prosperity (it worked once, sortof) but none learned that more trade or lower spending helps.
Not only the Presidential candidates, but also Congressional leaders have all tacked hard to port:
Their language, and to some degree their proposals, reflect a striking contrast with the approach taken by Democrats during much of the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton asserted that trade would create American jobs and that paying attention to the concerns of Wall Street would help the economy by lowering interest rates. The more populist tone is one indication of a broader debate among Democrats over economic policy and how much they should break with the careful centrism of the Clinton years embodied by Robert E. Rubin, the former treasury secretary, who was a champion of free trade and cutting deficits.
What strikes me is the lack of another voice. Clearly, no one sees an opening for championing free market policy in the Democratic Party. Senator Obama provides some lip service and has the talent on staff but it has not crept into his policy in any meaningful way.
On the other hand, the GOP seems pretty diverse on trade. You have Rep Tancredo on immigration, Rep Hunter boasting that what separates him from the others is his willingness to dabble in tariffs and interfere with China's currency. If there were a constituency for classical liberalism, I would think the Democrats would field a candidate or that the GOP would openly tack harder to starboard.
Sorry liberty lovers, the groundswell of votes that you are certain is there for the right candidate clearly is not.
July 10, 2007
Sen. Feinstein (D - Guangdong )
Don Luskin links to a Charles Krauthammer column, in which the Senior Senator from the Golden State wonders why we can't be more like China:
The senator was vexed. The U.S. auto companies were resisting attempts by her and other Senate well-meaners to impose a radical rise in fuel efficiency by 2017. Why can't they be more like the Chinese, she complained. Or, to quote Sen. Dianne Feinstein precisely: "What the China situation, or the other countries' situation, shows is that these automakers, in all of these countries, build the automobile that the requirements for mileage state. And they don't fight it, they just do it."
Ahh, yes. They just do what the government tells them without a lot of lip like you get around here. One child, 40 miles to a gallon, none of that Falun Gong, no subversive websites...
July 2, 2007
Townhall.com now in charge
Flush with victory against allowing the United States to humanely treat the workers it needs to expand the economy and generate wealth, populist blogsite Townhall.com has now decided it is in charge of policy.
Having halted the Bush-Kennedy grand bargain on immigration, many conservatives are expressing newfound optimism that they can do the same to the presidents signature education achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act.
I'd be more sympathetic to opposing Federal involvement in education but I am hoping they fail for two reasons:
- Further expanding the influence of the populist wing of the GOP (Sam's Club vs. Country Club) is a bad idea. Put me in with the Country Club sect, and bring me an Arnold Palmer -- with a little ice this time for cryin' out loud.
- All the leftist, NEA/ACT teachers in my family absolutely hate NCLB. They get night sweats over accountability tests. Anything that disturbs that much must have some redeeming value.
June 30, 2007
Freedom is Popular
I know that Ron Paul isn't very popular around these parts, but this speech about freedom and liberty is stellar.
I think Rep Ron Paul is very popular around these parts. I've been critical of his isolationism and think JohnGalt has joined me. This was a good speech but I find a few things worrisome:
1) Did I say "isolationism?" He asserts that we can lead the way just by following our principles and that others will see our wealth and freedom and emulate us. Did that trick ever work, Bullwinkle? The Cold war? Cuba? the Taliban? It is naive to think that the world will follow our example and dangerous to think that we do not need a vigorous defense. Like Mayor Giuliani, I think defense today requires a lot more offense.
2) I love the founders and consider myself a late-blooming history buff. I do not agree that we need only "ask the founders" for the solutions to current problems. I think the founders gave us the greatest gifts but I think that we have to apply the documents they gave us to the 21st Century.
This may be a quibble and, yes, I wish our legislators looked more toward The Federalist Papers and less toward MoDo. But I cite it as an example of oversimplistic reason to assert that the founders had us covered.
3) Freedom is very popular, Rep Paul. Popular with 9% of the electorate as I understand. In 1988, Paul, with no less zeal for liberty, attracted 432,179 popular votes (0.47%).
I'm with JK.
Ron Paul makes a great trouble making Congressman. Where "Dr. No" is a fine appelation.
It's just that he's not suited toward the Executive Branch.... and isolationism is the biggest nail. "In a post 9/11 world..." etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: AlexC at June 30, 2007 1:35 PMjk,
I must quarrel with point number 2.
To claim that "we have to apply the documents they gave us to the 21st Century" is akin to what Robert Higgs calls the Modernization Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the expansion of government has arisen from the belief that the scope government must change in response to the increasing complexities of modern society. Both the proposition that world has become more complex and the assumption that only government can solve this increasing complexity can be called into question. Arguments for modernization will only lead to bigger government.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it limits the power of the federal government, separates powers, and most importantly is able to be amended.
Unfortunately, the federal government has reached beyond the scope outlined in the Constitution and much of this can be explained by this push for modernization and "interpreting" the Constitution. Anti-trust, health care regulation, and the federal minimum wage are prime examples of attempts to deal with modernization through federal policy not described in the document.
If the documents truly need to be adopted to the 21st century, then steps should be taken to amend the Constitution, not re-interpret it.
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at June 30, 2007 1:52 PMI may have to cut and run, here. On another listening, I can hear your interpretation of his remarks (1:30 - 1:00 before the end) and agree that was what he was saying. I heard something that is not in there and would withdraw point two.
I'll eat a bit of crow on my hasty comment but still think I'm batting .667..
I still haven't gotten around to watching the video, but I will after I get back next week from vacation.
Today, I will say this as a general argument: Ron Paul's "isolationism" is typically mischaracterized. Ron Paul is a disciple of Bastiat, as I am, in believing that free commerce and non-interventionist foreign policies are the way for nations to prosper and exist peacefully alongside each other.
Ron Paul is not saying that if you're attacked, don't fight back. Likewise, he has never said that non-interventionism is a guarantee you'll never be attacked. He has never denied that bad guys sometimes attack you even though you never did them any harm. But if we leave others alone and set an example, it just might set off light bulbs elsewhere. At the very least, it won't provoke others who would have otherwise not become jihadis were it not for guys in camouflage uniforms bearing American flags on their shoulders. To rescu
Our Founders had much wisdom, and the Constitution was meant to be mostly inflexible for our own good. It could be amended, but only with great difficulty. Jefferson had written 11 years earlier that, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." But for the most part, it had no need to be. It set up a very limited federal government, just enough to get things done between the states, and it left everything else up to the states and the people. After all, people can do things more "flexibly" within their own states if they decide, without dragging others down with them. Right, Robert Byrd?
The principles the Founders stood for still apply today. How much less strife would we have if we heeded Washington's admonition to avoid "the spirit of party," and to stay out of permanent alliances? How much less "blowback" if we heeded Jefferson's similar advice about trade? "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none." Well, since "blowback" is by definition that which comes back to you, we wouldn't have had any. Yes, we'd still be fighting jihadists, but we wouldn't have had all those Marines die in Beirut because we sent them where they didn't belong. We wouldn't be helping the jihadists recruit the next generation by giving them excuses.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 3, 2007 1:27 PMA Call for Pragmatism
The setting is the upcoming debate over the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or Schip, a brawl that could well determine the future direction of U.S. health care. Democrats see expanding Schip as the first step toward socialized medicine. If Republicans fail to meet that challenge with their own more compelling plan for market-based, consumer-driven reform, it may prove the beginning of the end of today's private model.Kimberly Strassel, my new favorite WSJ Ed Page writer, details the Democrats' plan to incrementally enact Socialized medicine -- and GOP plans to stop it. It's an outstanding bit of inside baseball that has the potential to decide the World Series.
Rather than risk a 1993 full frontal, HillaryCare assault, they will provide health care "for the children." Then they will increase Medicare with a bailout of UAW workers and lowering the enrollment age to 55. Pretty soon, a huge majority of Americans will be getting health care from Uncle Sam, and the final takeover will be easy.
Schip is the first step. The program, with its $25 billion budget, was originally designed to provide insurance to only the poorest children. Democrats want to throw an additional $60 billion at it, expanding Schip's rolls by three million. They would expand eligibility so much that as many as half joining would drop private insurance to do so. Even adults could sign up.Next: Even as Democrats work to expand Schip to cover older Americans, they'd expand Medicare to cover younger Americans. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell is said to have recently floated the idea of allowing the struggling Big Three auto makers to enroll workers in Medicare at the age of 55, or 10 years early. Consider this a pilot program for dropping Medicare's age limit overall and instantly subjecting tens of millions more Baby Boomers to the government's tender care.
Democrats will meanwhile argue the only way to pay for Schip and other expanded programs is to gut Medicare Advantage and similar free-market reforms. See how clever? Swallow up ever more Americans into federal programs, banish any last vestiges of popular market plans, and voil! It is Hillarycare! Only nobody ever had to use the dreaded word!
They are going to fight at the margins: a little more socialism here, a little more there. A good friend tells me he's ready to let the GOP lose a few more elections to get "real conservatives" in power. Another 16 years from Goldwater to Reagan. At the same time, the ever restless libertarian wing is crying for more purity.
I know it is unpopular to be so impure but I am calling folks to get their head and heart and wallets into the game. We are going to lose in Iraq, and we're going to lose the most innovative health care system in the world. Or we can write a position paper on abolishing Medicare.
June 29, 2007
Oratory
The good news is the political speeches are shorter.
The bad news is that they are dumber.
The only compensation for the decline is that as the speeches get worse, they mostly get shorter. When all you have are bullet-points, your ammunition is pretty quickly spent. Modern presidential speeches are composed of dry, detailed lists of promised programs sandwiched between warmed-over boilerplate. It's the very combination that Tocqueville predicted: the boring particulars and the vapid generalizations; "the intermediate space is empty." The richness of earlier rhetoric, particularly in the Senate, is on display in the great triumvirate of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster. Volume I contains the speech each made in the Senate on the Compromise of 1850. Clay's speech alone is 67 pages long and must have taken at least six hours to deliver. This is not filibustering where a senator reads aloud names from the phone book. This is closely reasoned argumentation on the constitutional powers of the federal government with respect to slavery. Seeing the length of these speeches, I intended to skim them but couldn't. They were gripping precisely because they made demands on the listener.
June 28, 2007
The Nine Per-cent Solution
I frequently quote this paper from Pew Research. I'm a pragmatist. In the lingo of Ryan Sagar's "Elephant in the Room," Frank Meyers's fusionist marriage must be saved. It is the best chance of keeping the United States from adoption European-style Socialism.
When libertarians say they can't work with those conservatives or vice versa, I'll start quoting Pew. I did this in a thread recently and the quotees have questioned the poll results for bias in questions and method. I'm not a gospel believer in polls, but the datum I quote most frequently, about 9% being libertarians, seems to match what I see in my countrymen. And Sager would say I am living in a densely libertarian part of the country,
People were sorted into the four categories based on the combination of socially liberal (or conservative) and economically liberal (or conservative) answers they gave. To be included in one of the four groups, a person needed to provide at least two answers consistent with either the social or economic dimension and at least one consistent answer in the other dimension - while also giving no more than one inconsistent answer in each dimension.In other words, liberals tended to give consistently liberal responses to the six questions we chose, while conservatives gave consistently conservative responses. Populists, by contrast, gave conservative responses to the social issue questions but liberal responses to the economics questions. Libertarians took the opposite approach, giving conservative responses to the economic questions and liberal responses in the social issue sphere.
Based on this process, almost six-in-ten Americans fall into one of the four ideological groups; 18% are liberals, 15% are conservatives, 16% are populists, and 9% are libertarians.
Perry Eidelbus said "All it takes is enough people to get a majority of states' electoral votes by getting a plurality (a majority in some jurisdictions) of the vote in each." I say with 9%, that's a tall order.
But, again, it all depends on the questions asked, so I'd have to see how they compare with similar quizzes I've taken. Also, what about the 40% that don't fit into any parties? That's a *lot* of people.
In the end, it comes down to who truly wants government out of their lives, and those who want government meddling in everyone's lives because that's how they make a living: politicians and bureaucrats, welfare recipients, union bosses, and those who want a high minimum wage.
Ask this question: "Is limited government merely the means, or the end goal?" A lot of Americans are too stupid to understand the difference. But as I say, storm's comin'. People then will learn.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 29, 2007 3:42 PMIf you follow the link they give the exact questions and the scoring method. The 42% gave answers that were not consistent enough to categorize them as "ideologues."
I'd've scored Libertarian. Depending on the barometric pressure, I may have voted either way on "Worry government too involved in promoting morality." But by their scoring, I'd be in the illustrious nine with either.
I challenge you to say that your view of the electorate differs widely from these results. Do you really look on the great expanse of the unwashed, American electorate and see a plurality for laissez faire?
Storm's indeed comin. I fear we're going to elect Democrats in 2008 with a mandate to nationalize 17% of GDP. Grab an umbrella and galoshes...
Posted by: jk at June 29, 2007 4:35 PMActually, we're already being taxed at 17% of GDP, which is about average for the last few decades. Krugman wants a full third.
The paper talks about the difficulty of finding ideologues, but the authors don't even know their own search. Ideology IS a yea or nay response to "Do you want government to guarantee health insurance for everyone?" A true question is, "Are you willing to pay higher taxes so government can guarantee health insurance for everyone?" Or more accurately, "Are you willing to pay higher taxes, wait months for operations, and possibly be denied lifesaving treatment so that government can guarantee health care to all?"
Should homosexuality be "accepted"? I don't know what they mean by "accepted." Legalized? Tolerated? Embraced? Does it mean businesses should be *forced* to hire homosexuals against their will? I'm a moral conservative, personally, so I think homosexuality is wrong, but I leave other people to their own conscience. I couldn't give a proper answer to the question without more clarification.
Also, stem cell research. A true libertarian recognizes that it's a red herring, that the true issue is whether government should fund it. A true libertarian therefore opposes stem cell research funded by government, based on the principle of government non-intervention into the economy, but would not oppose stem cell research itself. A conservative would oppose the research on moral grounds but wouldn't inherently oppose funding for any sort of research. A liberal is just liberal with other people's money, so why not. As the authors define the term, populists are basically just liberals who are conservative only for their own lives and generous with other people's money.
I could go on. But one last thing: 63% of the "libertarians" opposed making Bush's tax cuts permanent? Does that sound right to you?
I don't see a plurality of the entire population, but there are enough people out there who aren't voting, who can be awakened, and who can offset the rest. Only a third of the population, according to memory, has been voting in presidential elections. That's a lot of people who stay home out of laziness or because they don't think they can make a difference. I'm generally optimistic but am pessimistic on people voting in a government that will restore freedom. But I think there's got to be a chance, because of the awful alternative.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 2, 2007 5:22 PMBy 17% I meant taking the entire health care sector from private to public, a 'la HillaryCare.
Youre complaining about the general view questions. I think the questions actually used for classification are clear and seem indicative of the groups' beliefs: "Favor government guaranteeing health insurance for all" Yes/No. Somebody who votes "Yes" to that is N-O-T a libertarian. Favor legalizing gay/lesbian marriage. Oppose banning books with "dangerous ideas" from school libraries. Favor private retirement accounts for Social Security. These seem clear.
If I question the results, it might overstate libertarians. I get a perfect score. No real libertarians I know would let me in their club unless I brought beer.
I had not noticed that only 37% favor making the Bush tax cuts permanent. That seems an anomality but I have little doubt that the other 63% don't recognize the legality of the 16th Amendment or cannot support the Bush tax plans because all taxes should be abolished. Which brings me to my pragmatic argument. While they're passing out pamphlets for repealing the 16th Amendment (with their 9% majority) the liberal-populist axis will easily rescind those "tax cuts for the rich."
June 27, 2007
Keeping the Thread Alive
Perry Eidlebus of Eidelblog has provided some thoughtful and well articulated comments interleaved through three posts. Two new ones appeared yesterday, and the post will fall off the page today and my evil SQL script will soon disable comments.
Now, all these thoughtful and reasoned comments are in opposition to me. But they deserve better placement. Here are yesterday's two comments, concatenated into a single post:
"I'll counter that your don't-give-an-inch does not serve the cause of liberty."
It does not work today not because it isn't the right thing to do, but because so many people prefer "the tranquility of servitude" and the peace of compromise, being too afraid of the "extreme" of full-blown God-given rights.
We fought for independence because we refused to give in, because real liberty is not won with compromise or "accepting" that certain things cannot be. As a matter of "practical politics" (a phrase I often use), sure, elections aren't won by extreme candidates. But which do you want to win, centrist candidates, or the cause of real liberty?
"Braveheart" had a couple of great lines on how far one is willing to go. The Elder Bruce maintained, "But it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man noble." It is easy for people to compromise when their livelihoods are based on power, whether they wield it (politicians) or derive benefits from it (welfare state recipients). When the Princess of Wales offered Wallace the king's bribe, he retorted, "Slaves are made in such ways!"
"But I will stand up for the ownership society and Part D. You refuse to admit that it is built on market principles and that is unfair."
I refuse to admit it because it's patently false. The very fact that government is intervening (i.e. taking money from some people to give to others) means it is NOT free-market. Something can be based on "market principles," but that is NOT the same as a free market where people make purely voluntarily transactions. This is not John Kerry nuance. It's plain fact.
You can keep arguing "ownership society" until you're blue in the face, but it's an absurd phrase while Social Security and Medicare taxes are coerced out of my salary.
"The rest of Medicare is single payer; part D has private insurers competing for subscribers."
Via an infrastructure that government created, thus skewing market forces. Again, not free market.
"As such, it is the one government program that has surprised to the downside both in cost to the government and average premiums to its subscribers."
Which is only so far. People think they can keep credit card under control, too, but how much will they restrain themselves when they're borrowing money in other people's names? Not much.
I will point out for the umpteenth time that even the most conservative estimates show the program has high long-term costs to make Social Security look cheap. Have you ever looked at the full projections? I have.
"A future administration might build on those figures to spread market mechanisms into the rest of Medicare."
Again, it's only the skewing of free market forces. You need to understand the difference between "market forces" that have the appearance of the free market and what is truly the free market.
"The idea of the ownership society is that these mechanisms function like seed crystals. Over time, they become a larger percentage of the structure and crowd out the collectivist portion. It is a bold attempt and it may not work, but it is disingenuous not to recognize the attempt."
That I "recognize" the attempt is a ridiculous demand when the process is just another instance of government intervention. Not recognizing the programs for their proto-socialism IS what is disingenuous.
A real ownership society is one where government butts out and allows people to function on their own. History proves, time and time again, that all the planting of seeds will do is create a larger and larger bureaucracy. Look back to FDR's New Deal, and its constantly failed attempts that kept the U.S. mired in depression. Should we have "recognized the attempt" that he was "pragmatic" in his belief that government needed to "prime the pump"?
"You applauded the try for private Social Security accounts -- that's the exact same thing. Had legislation progressed, there was much talk of increasing benefits to sell it to the Democrats. Were you being a Socialist? Perry was trying to take my money against my will and give it to seniors! What a Communist that Perry is!"
Private accounts are very different from Plan D, because you're using your own money. It's not really free market because the state forces you to save, but you're not being given someone else's money to save. The rest of Social Security is complete socialism, however, just like Plan D. It's a very simple test: is government taking money from someone to give to you?
I support real privatization, namely the abolishment of the whole thing, but I will support private accounts as a first step. It's not enough, but it's legally important: it could force the SCOTUS to recognize people's legitimate claim on what they paid in. You may recall that it ruled otherwise in 1943.
"McClellan did not last long enough, but there was improvement in his tenure. Fast track approvals for terminal conditions and the Pharma funded faster approval process both happened under his watch. (Sadly, I think he was pulled off to do Part D -- that was a dark day for me)."
Which comes down to begging government for permission to do what is our natural right in the first place.
"I got a kick out of your prison sodomy line, but I think you are missing the saddest fact there is. Welfare for seniors is wildly popular beyond those who accept benefits. People like the idea of a safety net for themselves, their parents, and think that it is a component of "a just society." "
Oh, don't think I realize that. Limousine liberals aren't the only ones who feel "good" about coercing others into charity. Liberalism is all about generosity, after all: generosity with other people's money.
"Nine percent libertarians according to Pew. The other 91% are, sadly, very cool with collectivist, nationalized health care and pensions for the elderly. If you will not admit that, you will not be successful in a Madisonian democracy."
It does depend on the question's phrasing. If you ask someone, "Do you believe that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor," they may not realize it's completely at odds with, "Do you believe government should provide a safety net?"
Ask people if they're willing to support Part D to help seniors, then ask them if they're willing to pay massive tax hikes to fund it. Or ask them if they're willing to tax "the top 1% of taxpayers," notwithstanding it's that 1% that provide the business management, savings and investment to create jobs for the rest of us.
I forgot to comment further on Roberts and Alito. I'm not saying Bush nominated a pair of Souters. They're actually not bad, but they've disappointed me with past and present rulings. A while back, Professor Bainbridge had a great entry on why "originalist," "textualist" and "strict constructionist," which are often used interchangeably, are really different. So I really wasn't concerned if they were like Scalia and Thomas, who themselves have disappointed me. I don't care if someone's conservative, libertarian or liberal: my single test is how faithfully he will defend the Constitution.
Originally I said on my blog that Alito would be a good choice, and he could well be in the end, but I have a feeling his dispositions might be a problem for our freedom at some point in the future. For example, his dissent in Doe v. Groody was inexcusable. Granted it was when he was a federal appeals court justice, but it shows he's too willing to give police the benefit of the doubt. As my friend Billy Beck charged, the police are a part of government that has no right of presumptive innocence when charged with wrongdoing, by the very fact that they are pre-authorized to use force on behalf of the people.
Now, getting specific with Roberts, his ruling in Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was completely inexcusable. That sets the tone for what will happen in the future, I'm afraid. Also, is he consistent? It bothered me during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he said he'd be obliged to respect SCOTUS precedent. That doesn't jive at all when he said the Court was correct to rule as it did in Brown v. Board. As you may recall, it was a reversal of Plessy v. Ferguson. So which one does Roberts really believe? Did he say what he did before the committee just to placate abortion litmus test liberals, or will he rule as a matter of convenience for the politics of the president who nominated him?
Pretty good nominees overall, but it's that fraction that may come back to bite us.
(sorry Perry - I would have left a comment directly there, but can't remember my google password)
Posted by: Terri at June 27, 2007 4:49 PMI'm with Perry on the bottled water, but with Terri on Eidelblog's restrictive, google-centric comments policy.
Posted by: jk at June 27, 2007 5:04 PM"On Part D, I think we've both made our points. I'll stop before it denigrates into "Are not!" "Are too!""
Well, it's a very simple difference. You're talking "market principles." I'm talking genuine free market. When I talk about the free market, you can trust that I'm as hardcore as you can get. I'm not fully Austrian, but you could call me the stepchild of a third-generation Austrian economist.
"I'll take real Liberty. The quandary is whether to let a Senator Clinton or Obama win the White House because the GOP candidate is not "pure" enough to support. I know many people who will do this and, I know you're undeclared right now, but I suspect that you will be one."
No candidate other than Ron Paul wants real liberty, and we won't get such a candidate past the primaries until enough people stand up and *demand* it.
There's a GOP candidate I'll probably endorse soon. I'd say he's 95% of what I want, and someone who can win. He's a conservative and has had a couple of positions in the past that I can overlook, so I disagree with his likely desire to continue the War on Drugs. So you can tell right there, my choice isn't Ron Paul.
Yesterday, I suggested to a friend that Paul is wasted in Congress. He should instead be on the Supreme Court.
"You compare Part D, passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law, to private SS accounts which exist only in your mind. To get something so radical as people keeping their money would have necessitated huge increases in benefits and plenty of coerced redistribution."
Even private accounts won't solve the pyramid scheme's problem of redistribution (don't forget that I want to abolish the whole thing or at least let people opt out), but it's better than Part D, which is purely redistribution.
The proposed private accounts aren't the same thing as true privatization, but at least you'll be able to do something with the money than let Congress spend it and give an IOU to the SSA. Do you see the benefit of the system going bankrupt sooner than 2017? People would finally realize it's a pyramid scheme, and enough might just demand they truly hold on to the money.
"You can ignore them and let the forces of darkness and anti-modernity elect President (Hillary) Clinton or Obama."
We *can* live in a what's accused of being "idealism" if we are brave enough to fight for it. There are more than you think who want limited government, but they fall into the trap of "Well, the two parties are in control." All it takes is enough people to get a majority of states' electoral votes by getting a plurality (a majority in some jurisdictions) of the vote in each. Also, look at how low Congress' approval rating has become. People hate both parties and want change. Unfortunately, McCain-Feingold may have solidified the two-party system too much.
How many people would say "yes" to "Are you a libertarian?" How many people would say "yes" to "Do you want the government to get out of your life and leave your paycheck alone?" How many would say "yes" to "Do you want the government to keep giving you social programs at others' expense?"
Thomas was great in the Raich case, but he has disappointed me a time or two. I actually wanted to see him as Chief Justice.
"Right now, I'm happy that we got two more who think that the Constitution outranks the New York Times Editorial Page."
Outranks, but they don't consider it Supreme as they ought to. That's the key: it's the Supreme Law of the land.
"Nor am I bothered by Judiciary Committee testimony. Of course one respects precedent. Judge Bork respects precedent. Overturning incorrect decisions by previous courts should be done respectfully."
I neither respect precedent nor automatically deride it. A previous ruling can be useful purely as a guide but should never be assumed to be correct, nor should the decision of a previous case have any weight on the procedures or eventual decision of the present case. When we turn to precedent, then cases boil down to attorneys for both sides poring over previous cases, arguing before a magistrate that, "Well, so-and-so ruled in he-v-she that..." What about arguing a case based on the merits of the case itself? And why assume that because some schmuck judge ruled this way 10 or 20 years ago, that we must rule the same way today?
And if a previous turns out to be incorrect, I'll have no mercy for the idiotic ruling of the predecessors.
Oh, and JG, I told jk that I appreciate the offer, but these days I just don't have the time to blog regularly for myself. I was supposed to blog at the Liberty Papers but never even bothered to log in. My plan was to make my first post *the* definitive introduction to Bastiat. All modesty aside, outside of GMU's professor-bloggers, I'm probably the one person in the blogosphere who's qualified to write that.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 28, 2007 4:58 PMTerri, I'm a nice guy and all, but you'll learn if I keep commenting regularly that I'm pretty ruthless on pinning people down. If you're going to talk to me, defend your position. Otherwise, mind yourself, for I won't let you get away with "I disagree." It's better for you, anyway, because it'll force you to think through your position and, if necessary, refine or change it.
That being said (I tend to write that a lot at work when explaining our policies to someone), if company-provided bottled water is not a form of compensation for employees, then what is it? Altruism?
We get free water, soda and fruit juice at my office, as one way to make the office environment more pleasant and attract workers, just like a good health care package can attract workers albeit to a greater extent. We pay for the drinks eventually by receiving less of a salary than we'd otherwise be paid. However, the benefit of company-paid beverages is that income taxes aren't paid on the money used to buy them, only sales tax if applicable. The company can write it off as a business expense and not have to pay taxes, and you won't have to pay taxes on the money spent, unlike if you bought it yourself even at the company's same bulk rate. Tax laws aren't quite as simple for employer-provided health insurance, but it's the same principle.
By the way, did I ever mention Gavin Newsom is a goddamn idiot?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 28, 2007 5:17 PMMy humor will get me in trouble someday -- no one will ever replace you around here, jg. It was funny that you said that right after I had offered Perry an author's login. And he did demur.
In Part D, People can choose different providers based on cost or opt to not participate. That strikes me as fundamentally different from other government programs. I've yet to find a competitor to the IRS or FDA.
If I was down when I saw the 9^ number, I went lower when I read Brian Dougherty's "Radicals for Capitalism." Even though it ended on some upbeat comparisons, those who want liberty couldn't form a plurality if they numbered 90% -- they'd split into 15 factions. They're intrinsically unempowered to govern.
I will post the Pew Research paper.
Posted by: jk at June 28, 2007 5:26 PMPerry,
I'm sure you're right and you are a nice guy. And I actually admire people who are idealist enough to stand on principles no matter what.
And you're right also, I don't generally spend a whole lot of time explaining myself, so I won't bother a lot as you work to "pin me down". The closer a person get's to getting pinned down the deeper and deeper you have to go to find evidence, write and re-write articulately etc, etc. Yes, I'm lazy and yes, I'd rather spend free time outdoors vs in front of the computer.
This is especially true when the argument is clearly not going to be won because we have different bases from which we are thinking.
That said we move back to bottled water.
You've misunderstood. I said "oddly" because your blog mentioned the "city" employees getting or rather not getting bottled water.
If your office wants to buy drinks on the house, good for them. It probabaly does make for a better working environment.
If I have to pay taxes to 1)first clean the water so that's it's good enough to drink and then 2) buy bottled water for the city employees to drink that seems like it would be against your principles.
Me - I'm not so fussy.
Posted by: Terri at June 29, 2007 11:38 AMJune 26, 2007
Only Nine Errors?
It's been a tough few years for Republicans, but the news is not all bad.
WASHINGTON -- Democrats may be winning elections. But they still can't win a baseball game.Despite an influx of fresh talent from Pennsylvania -- and the coaching skills of Rep. Mike Doyle of Forest Hills -- the new majority party on Capitol Hill last night extended its losing streak in the annual congressional baseball tournament to seven games.
The GOP soundly defeated the Democrats 5-2, at RFK Stadium, home of the Washington Nationals.
Nine Democratic errors didn't help.
"That was a marked improvement over last year," said Mr. Doyle, referring to the 12-1 thrashing of 2006, his first year as coach. He wore a Pittsburgh Pirates uniform bearing No. 14, his Pennsylvania congressional district.
The Republicans have now won 32 of the last 46 games, according to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill publication.
Hat-tip: Karol at Alarming News, who says "There's no crying in baseball -- maybe that's why the Democrats can't play the game."
I Think I Heard This One
Consummate Washington insider Sally Quinn has a juicy Washington rumor, and she'll share it with you: A Plan to Oust Cheney
Removing a sitting vice president is not easy, but this may be the moment. I remember Barry Goldwater sitting in my parents' living room in 1973, in the last days of Watergate, debating whether to lead a group of senior Republicans to the White House to tell President Nixon he had to go. His hesitation was that he felt loyalty to the president and the party. But in the end he felt a greater loyalty to his country, and he went to the White House.
See, you replace the Vice President, who is a galvanizing force, with a popular, younger candidate, who would then be able to run in 2008 as a sitting VP with all privileges thereunto appertaining. What a startling idea, it's a wonder that 6,000 people have not thought of it before -- oh, wait, they have. For years, it was going to be Secretary Rice. Now? How about Senator Fred Thompson?
Giuliani is too New York, too liberal. His reputation as a leader, forged on 9/11 and the days after, carries him only so far. McCain, who has always had a rocky relationship with the president, lost much of his support from moderate Democrats and independents (and from a fair amount of Republicans) when the Straight Talk Express started veering off course. And no matter what anyone says about how Romney's religion doesn't matter, being a Mormon is simply not acceptable to Bush's base. Several right-wing evangelicals have told me they don't see Mormons as "true Christians."That leaves Fred Thompson. Everybody loves Fred. He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor.
Fred will prevent Armageddon.
He could be just the partner to bring out Bush's better nature -- or at least be a sensible voice of reason. I could easily imagine him telling the president, "For God's sake, do not push that button!" -- a command I have a hard time hearing Cheney give.
I suppose this could be the broken clock story that is right sometime. But if it never happened before, it's hard for me to see it happening now.
Hat-tip: Insty, who is worried about the GOP because of what he heard on Rush Limbaugh, via Riehl World View, who is ready to quit the GOP over this. I think I'm going back to bed.
Somehow i don't see Fred! as saying "Don't push that button!"
He's more of a "they ought to think we might push that button" kind of guy.
That, and punching hippies.
Posted by: AlexC at June 26, 2007 2:33 PMBesides, FDT wouldn't touch Dubya with a thirty nine and a half foot pole.
Posted by: johngalt at June 26, 2007 3:23 PMJune 22, 2007
A Free Trader After All?
Senator Hillary Clinton has outsourced the composition of her campaign theme song. The LA Times reports:
Well, it's official. The H. Clinton campaign has just picked its official campaign song, "You and I" by Celine Dion. (Wait a minute, she's Canadian!)
Free movement of Labor, Capital, Goods and jejune pop music: that's a platform we can all get behind!
Hat-tip: Famous unknown blogger Extreme Mortman.
A Nonprofit to Support Sen. Edwards
There may not be comic strips in the NY Times, but this story on Senator John Edwards has a laugh a minute.
John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students the main beneficiary of the centers fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.
The Center for Promise and Opportunity! Stop it! You're killin' me!
A nonprofit to finance the promise, opportunity and extreme styling needs of one of our nation's richest tort attorneys. Audaces fortuna juvat, baby!
Mr. Edwards mixed policy and politics in a way that allowed his supporters to donate to the causes he believed in and to the organizations he had set up. He also set up two political action committees, something commonly done by politicians thinking of running for president.But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Mr. Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities, which are regulated under Section 501C-4 of the tax code, can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status.
Hat-tip: Insty, who points out "[T]here are two Americas: Those who manage to enrich themselves by exploiting legal technicalities, and those who do not."
June 20, 2007
A Party Without Mayor Bloomberg
I don't want to be pragmatist today. New York City's nanny-in-chief wants to leave the GOP:
After some six years as a Republican, the 65-year-old former CEO announced Tuesday that he has left the Republican Party and become unaffiliated in what many believe could be a step toward entering the 2008 race for president.
Don't let the metaphorical door hit you on your non-metaphorical, trans-fat-bannin', property-right-encroachin', non-smokin' ass on the way out. In six years, he has contributed as much to Republicanism as I have to the hip-hop music genre.
Hear hear.
A political thinker friend of mine sees this as a loss, especially for the money and "moderates".... but I"m thinkin Bloomberg takes more Dems from Hillary.
Posted by: AlexC at June 20, 2007 12:30 PMJohn Fund agrees with you in PoliticalDiary:
The biggest ding would be to Democrats, who would suddenly find themselves having to defend safe blue territories such as New York and California (86 electoral votes between them). Other states that lean Democratic, such as New Jersey and Connecticut, would also be in play. For their part, Republicans would be forced to compete more intensely in a few states they usually carry, such as Florida (chock full of New York migrants). But it's unlikely Mr. Bloomberg would have much appeal in the South or Midwest GOP strongholds. "How much of a cultural fit can a five-foot, seven-inch culturally liberal Jew from New York City with a Boston accent be in Kansas City?" asks one GOP consultant.Posted by: jk at June 20, 2007 12:50 PM
I'm hoping for a New York perspective on this. But after the Rockies beat the Yankees 3-1 yesterday, I don't know if we'll see any 'round here.
Posted by: jk at June 20, 2007 12:59 PMYeah, a few of us here are...still celebrating! YEAH! I'm not as much a Mets fan as I am a Yankees anti-fan.
Damn Yankees. Those infidel defilers. A hundred and ninety-five million goddamn dollars a year, and they can't beat a team that pays out a quarter of that?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 20, 2007 1:37 PMA Bloomberg candidacy would have The Perot effect against Democrats, but not to the same degree as its namesake.
Further to Mr. Fund's analysis, Mr. Perot was a Southern favorite; a Texan, no less. There's no way Mr. Bloomberg can dispel his Northern, limousine reputation. Even as he uses the NYC Subway daily to commute to work, there's little that reflects Southern values.
Posted by: Charlie on the PA Turnpike at June 20, 2007 1:47 PMJune 19, 2007
On Pragmatism
Perry Eidelbus has provided many thoughtful comments at ThreeSources, and I consider his Eidelblog a must read. But I once accused him of "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" in one of his comments and I must reprise that theme today. It may be more fun to be the purist than the pragmatist but I think pragmatism is going to be in demand through November 2008.
Today, he uses the occasion of a Bush veto threat to post a litany of this administration's departures from limited government: Katrina, the energy bill, the transportation bill, &c. Now I wish that President Bush had found his inner Grover Cleveland and vetoed 413 bills in his first term, but I find Perry's post to be counterproductive.
George Wallace said "there isn't a dime's difference" between the two parties. Pat Buchanan was more colorful when he called them "two wings of the same bird of prey." Thinking of Nixon-Humphrey, Wallace may have had a point. Likewise, in 2000, the election was more partisan than ideological though I'd ask Perry if he thought that VP Al Gore would have been a better steward of our national largesse.
The next presidential election is shaping up to be a clear choice. Democrats are pitching universal preschool (because the government so excels at educating older students), all-day kindergarten, college for all, and the only health care argument seems to be whether there will be any place for private enterprise after the government takeover.
Whacking the current administration when it's down emboldens Democrats, depresses Republicans, and suggests to moderates that perhaps it's time to give the other party a try. Does this mean you cannot criticize President Bush? Certainly not. But both Perry and Captain Ed choose a moment when he is standing up to berate him for years of going along with the GOP Congress. (Didn't either of them ever train a dog?)
I'm not saying that you have suddenly turned, but I do stand behind the dog analogy -- reward good behavior.
On Terris point, as we're coming to the twilight of the Bush Administration, I am thinking that he was more often on the side of limited government than was the GOP Congress. No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Drug Benefit were questionable, but they did contain some market mechanisms and the President believed in finessing a compromise. Whether you agree or not, they were good faced efforts.
The GOP Congress, by contrast, just turned into incumbents. They showed no courage or leadership, they just enjoyed the perquisites when it was their time in the sun. Now Bush is leaving but Reps Duncan Hunter and Jerry Lewis, and Senators Trent Lott and Chuck Grassley are staying. Maybe the 22nd Amendment was backwards.
I'm reading and re-reading and I don't see where I said it was "good" thing to have the president sign everything that was sent to him.
I believe, what I said was if the GOP wants X and they cleaerly want X, then why is it odd that the head of the GOP says, "OK."? He, Bush is getting flack because now, of all times, he has his veto pen out. That doesn't seem odd to me at all. But then again, maybe in my "ignorance" of federalism (?) it's just another thing I don't get. huh?+
Posted by: Terri at June 20, 2007 10:55 AMjk, politicians shouldn't have to be "rewarded," or accoladed for doing the right thing. It's part of their job. Besides, what has Bush done to deserve accolades? Tax cuts, excellent. Private health savings accounts, good. Pushing for Social Security reform, fine. But the rest of his administration has been raping the Constitution, whether it's out-Hitlering Giuliani with the "Patriot" Act, or out-Demming the Democrats with everything from NCLB to the prescription drug bill. Bruce Bartlett calls the latter the worst legislation ever passed, and he could be right.
Bush could have been a great president, but he destroyed any possibility of that by trying to keep his party in power by supporting massive government and thereby buy votes. He spoke of limited government in the 2000 campaign so he could show some traditional conservative credentials and beat McCain. Come 2004 with no challengers in his own party, he could formally come out as a fan of big government. Contrary to what one of my liberal friends says, Medicare Part D wasn't so much a giveaway to pharmaceuticals as it was garnering senior support -- especially in Florida.
Terri, this is what you wrote: "Bush is the head of the Republican Party I would think if the Republican controlled Congress send him a bill to sign, he should be able to assume they've discussed it's merits and want it signed."
If you think this is the way to do things, do you not also think it is "good"?
The President is a check on *Congress*, whether or not his party is in power. The President took an oath to the Constitution and American people, not his party or its interests. His party can discuss a bill all they want, but is it in *their* interests, or the interests of those who will ultimately pay for the legislation?
The only thing worse than Republicans controlling the White House and Congress is the Democrats controlling both.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 20, 2007 2:01 PMVirtue is its own reward, I'm sure. I was just questioning the timing of complaining when somebody has done something right.
On the Bush Presidency in general, your comments have sparked a surprisingly fulsome defense of our 43rd prez -- scroll up to June 20, 2007
It's expected. The good part is not the point. The bill signing without veto would be expected because the bill originated amongst party members of which the president is the head.
Posted by: Terri at June 20, 2007 5:47 PMTerri, rubber-stamping your party's own bill shouldn't even be "expected." Two of the things Clinton did right were NAFTA and welfare reform, completely bucking his party. But it's like the Bruces in "Braveheart": one side of the same coin supports what's good, and the other side opposes. Thus Clinton did what was in fact good for the economy, but his party remained officially against it and so retained support from labor unions and minorities.
I expect the President to follow his oath to the Constitution and American people, not call it a "goddamn piece of paper." If you look through the Constitution, there's nothing about parties. It's about each branch of the federal government acting against the other two, not two branches working together.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 22, 2007 3:10 PMJune 16, 2007
Realignment
I used to dream of realignment that Professor Reynolds speaks of
Frankly, that's okay with me. I've long been unhappy with both Democrats and Republicans. The GOP has been better on national security, though that advantage is fading with time, but overall both parties have been lame and more likely to unite in opposition to citizens' rights and liberties than to compete in protecting them. I've often at least sort-of hoped for a third party that would combine the GOP economic-libertarian strands with the Dems' social-libertarian strands. I don't know if the GOP's self-destruction makes that more likely, but it seems like it might. At any rate, if people really want to commit suicide it's hard to stop them, and that seems to be the GOP's main goal at the moment..
Terri at I Think (Link) Therefore I Err is on board as well. I don't remember when I became the cynic, but I left this comment:
Id probably sign up as well. Especially if they took Glenns readers tag line: Dreaming of an America where millions of happily married gay couples have closets full of assault weapons.The problems are:
a Pew poll puts the number of libertarians at 9%. Not gonna light up the electoral map with that unless we all move to Wyoming.
Read Brain Doughertys Radicals for Capitalism. Every time a group of Libertarians numbers more than ten, they will split up and never talk to each other (Peoples Front of Judea!)I agree with the Professor on civil liberties but not immigration. Ron Pauls with us on spending but I cant go for his isolationism.
What youre dreaming of is a plurality of people who agree with you and are able to exercise power. Madisonian Democracy dictates that you have to align yourself with some folks you may not agree with.
Great to dream about a party where we agree with everybody. But it is not likely. In 2008, we will choose between a President who will fight Islamist terror and keep the Bush tax cuts against one who will promise Universal Healthcare, Universal preschool, all-day kindergarten and "College for all!" -- right after we retreat from Iraq and close Guantanamo Bay.
If I must align myself with the likes of Senators Trent Lott, or John McCain to ensure that, I will.
May 19, 2007
More on Murtha
Actually, not so much on Murtha, but on the AP and they way they choose story titles.
Republicans will seek a House vote next week admonishing a senior Democrat who they say threatened a GOP member's spending projects in a noisy exchange in the House chamber, Minority Leader John Boehner said Friday.Their target is Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., a 35-year House veteran who chairs the appropriations subcommittee on military spending. Murtha, 74, is known for his gruff manner and fondness for earmarks , carefully targeted spending items placed in appropriations bills to benefit a specific lawmaker or favorite constituent group.
Venture a guess on the title?
Republicans want House vote admonishing anti-war Democrat
I'm surprised it wasn't "Evil Republicans..."
Posted by: jk at May 19, 2007 1:21 PMMay 18, 2007
All Over The Murtha Implosion
Our Keystone State Brothers at PA Water Cooler. Go to May 18 and scroll....
May 12, 2007
Senator Clinton: Mission Accomplished!
Insty linked to this as "Mission Accomplished."
Interesting as that, but it is also 23 seconds of vintage Clinton. She's trying to extricate herself from her authorization vote, and she takes a hard left turn here. No matter what you thought about the original authorization, or the President's decision to, you know, rush to war before the inspectors were able to tell us whether there was any WMD..."
This is the most hawkish Democrat in the race in 2008. This is the person who is possibly too "far to the right" on the war. I hate it when people say "The entire civilizations hangs on this election!" I'm sure the Republic would survive a Democrat in the White House. I'm just not sure the cause of liberty would not be irrevocably set back.
April 24, 2007
Defender of the Constitution
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stood bravely against media and elite opinion when he opposed McCain-Feingold. He then took it to the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC. He lost there but has not given up. He is filing an amicus curiae brief in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. And an amicus curiae editorial of sorts in the Wall Street Journal (paid link, sorry!)
Five years ago, as my colleagues got ready to pass BCRA, I warned them that three things would result: that rather than reduce the influence of money on politics, they'd drive it further underground; that advocacy groups would be blocked from speaking even on issues unrelated to elections; and that a deadline on issue ads would only lead to campaigns starting earlier, with a greater premium on early fund raising. All three predictions have come true, from the influence of 527s on the last presidential campaign, to the case before the Supreme Court, to primary campaigns 23 months ahead of the next presidential election.Still, BCRA's potential impact on the presidential primary season isn't what primarily motivated those of us who fought against BCRA. The issue then, as now, is more fundamental. As I say in the amicus brief I submitted for tomorrow's case, "Restricting grass-roots lobbying would silence core political speech that is integral to the functioning of our form of government." The freedom to engage in this political speech is set out clearly in the First Amendment, and BCRA's strict limitation on issue advocacy of any kind during campaign season is a fundamental assault on its spirit and intent.
McConnell also bucked his party by opposing a flag-burning amendment. Today I salute this stalwart defender of free speech.
April 18, 2007
Can't Keep Mister Imus Waiting...
John Fund in Political Diary:
Everyone wishes New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine a swift recovery, but details about his accident have led New Jersey's state police to promise a full review of the governor's driving practices. The governor's vehicle was going 91 miles an hour -- 40% above the speed limit -- and using its flashing lights to clear a path. The crash occurred when a red pickup truck pulled onto the shoulder to get out of the way. The driver had to swerve back into traffic to avoid a mile-marker post.Police experts say excessive speed by the governor's car, which was heading for a meeting between radio host Don Imus and the Rutgers University women's basketball team, could not be justified by the circumstances. "I think there has to be some reason to violate the speed laws," Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina who evaluates high-risk police activities, told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "It doesn't make any sense to go that fast to get to that meeting. He should have left a little earlier."
Samuel Walker, a Nebraska professor and author of the book "The New World of Police Accountability," went even further: "This was not a pursuit. I think there's a broader problem of public officials who believe they are above the law. Traveling at 91 M.P.H. is a demonstration of that."
Ditto, many would add, for the governor's disregard of his state's seat belt law. When he was in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Corzine had pushed for laws to force states to strengthen their enforcement of seat-belt laws.
New Jersey State Police Superintendent Rick Fuentes told reporters this week that there are no specific guidelines "about a maximum speed in the normal course of transporting the governor." Hmmm. How about common sense and respect for others? It appears that the governor's driver was acting more like Princess Di's late chauffeur than a responsible state trooper. In the process, he may have endangered the lives of other motorists and not just those of himself, the governor and his aides.
Maybe it's out of line to pursue this with Governor Corzine in the hospital, but these folks are something else. "When he was in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Corzine had pushed for laws to force states to strengthen their enforcement of seat-belt laws" and, we now hear, Corzine himself would never deign to wear a seat belt himself. Having the trooper drive 91 mph to get him to a photo op, this is insanity.
I wish the former Goldman Sachs head, Senator, and current Governor a speedy recovery. At the same time, I wish the good people of The Garden State would start being a little more demanding in whom they elect.
91 mph,...unrestrained, and reports that the SUV rolled over,....
I hope Corzine makes it to a house of worship when he gets discharged!
I've seen too many people from that get the big yellow sheet over them at the scene.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at April 18, 2007 9:51 PMNot rich people...
Posted by: jk at April 19, 2007 6:53 PMApril 13, 2007
Who Cracks the Whip?
Joseph Rago asks (and answers) that question in OpinionJournalDotComsPoliticalDiary today. Because y'all are too cheap to spring $3.95, I'll post his section (but you're missing the story of Rep. Rangel sneaking out without signing copies of his new book).
John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton this week effectively scotched a planned primary debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus because it was to be broadcast on Fox News. The three said they didn't want to "legitimize" the channel because it purportedly leans too far right.Similar concerns did not stop the trio from appearing in an April 10 Webcast forum arranged by MoveOn.org. The three Democratic front-runners -- joined by lovable losers Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd -- exhibited not the least worry about legitimizing an organization whose leftism makes no concession to proportion or taste. On the contrary, deep curtsies were paid by all to MoveOn.org. Even Ms. Clinton, regularly strafed by the online activists for her Iraq stance, congratulated "the netroots" for being "such lively participants in American democracy."
The substance of the forum turned mostly on a single question "What is the best and fastest way to get out Iraq?" The correct response apparently was that the fastest way was the best way, with all candidates paying lip service to the need to withdraw ASAP. Credit Dennis Kucinich with the most novel of the many fig leaves offered for retreat: His alternative called for dropping Iraq to confront climate change, as this would "affirm international law" and "human unity."
Of the 42,882 votes cast by MoveOn members after the debate, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards collected the lion's share, finishing first and second at 27.9% and 24.8%. Mr. Kucinich came in third at 17.2%, which gives some indication of the politics of the Internet activists.
The collapse of the Fox News/Congressional Black Caucus debate raises a legitimate question: Who is holding the ideological reins of the Democratic Party? Given the apparent political imperative to flatter the MoveOn.org crowd at all cost, the answer won't be pleasing to Democrats who thought the plan was to get more in sync with mainstream America.
How do you suppose Markos Moulitsas and George Soros would respond to being labelled "crackers?" It's an apt designation, however.
Posted by: johngalt at April 14, 2007 2:34 PM