ExPostFacto

2003-11-23T09:55:00.000-05:00

The Incredible Shrinking Party

In a week when President Bush delivered perhaps the most important international address in a generation, when Congress debated sweeping legislation on Medicare and energy policy, the Democratic response on Saturday was devoted to … Yucca Mountain.

Moving forward on Yucca Mountain as the nation’s repository for nuclear waste is a decision that was made months ago. It is hardly a pressing issue today, anywhere but Nevada. But Nevada has 5 electoral votes and it went narrowly for Bush in 2000. So no issue is too small for the Democrats to take a cheap shot at the President.

So the Democrats claim that Bush “broke his promise” on Yucca Mountain. His promise was to base his decision on “sound science” – which he did. Moreover, the legislation that Bush signed was supported by 103 Democrats in the House and 15 in the Senate. But that doesn’t stop the Democratic Party from demagoging the issue. After all, Democratic candidates for President can vote for military action in Iraq, then criticize Bush for taking that action.

The Democratic response raised doubts about how the waste would be shipped to Nevada. What’s their solution? The only alternative is to shipping nuclear waste is to leave it where it is now, at nuclear plants across the country. Is that what they propose? No, they don’t propose anything but more study.

So once again, we have a President who’s serious about leadership, a President who recognizes that nuclear waste disposal is critical to both energy and anti-terror policy, and who risks the votes of a crucial state to make a long-overdue decision on thie issue. And we have an opposition party that proposes no alternatives, takes no responsibility for its own positions, and fires any cheap shot it can.

2003-11-23T09:54:00.000-05:00

Perspective on Death

Every death to an American soldier or Iraqi citizen - not to mention soldiers, contractors, and aid workers from countries around the world - is a terrible loss. Death is a fact of life for all of us, and we struggle for perspective on the loss of life in the continuing conflict in Iraq. There are thousands of deaths every day from disease, accidents, violence, and old age, and only a few are going to get notice from anyone but a small circle of relatives and friends. So we struggle for a reasonable perspective on thhe loss of life in the continuing conflict in Iraq. Here are a couple of thoughts:

Recent reports carried coalition estimates of 300,000 bodies in mass graves from the Saddam Hussein regime. If that figure is correct, the mass graves represent 12,500 deaths during each of the 24 years that Saddam was in power - or an average of 240 a week. This would suggest that, even with the toll that car bombings have taken among the Iraqi population, it's safer to live in Iraq today that it has been for the past 24 years.

On Nov. 22, the Cincinnati Enquirer provided some perspective on military deaths:

"Dr. Jay Johannigman's three months as a military doctor in Iraq confirmed what he already knew - war zones are dangerous places for young Americans.

"But not much more so than the streets of Cincinnati.

" 'On any weekend in our emergency room, I can lose three, four, five young men to gunshot wounds, to car wrecks, to any of the dangers out there,' said Johannigman, head of trauma care at University Hospital."

Also on Nov. 22, CBS News reported that 17 U.S. service personnel have committed suicide in Iraq. While that sounds like a lot, the report said (and it's certainly a terrible thing to contemplate), it's in line with statistics for the general population.

2003-11-11T07:47:00.000-05:00

Down Syndrome and Abortion

Blogging is even lighter than usual here at EPF as work piles up (Bush recovery in action). But here’s a great article by Dave Shiflett on NRO. Don’t let the funny (but true, very true) first paragraph fool you. This is a serious discussion of recent news features touting advances in prenatal testing that make it easier to identify and abort Down Syndrome children.

The article highlights CNN, but I recall a similarly upbeat and morally vacuous discussion the WSJ’s Personal Journal. This supplement, which is a self-parody of how-to-live-your-life-perfectly advice, also ran a column not too long ago with the following helpful recommendation: When a loved one dies, have an autopsy performed to make sure death wasn’t caused by some genetic problem that could get you, too. While this does not carry the same moral implications of aborting an imperfect child, it comes from the came cold, hard approach to life.

And in case you’ve forgotten what it means to have George W. Bush as President, here’s a blast from the past in Shiflett’s article:

Jocelyn Elders, just prior to being named Bill Clinton's surgeon general, famously proclaimed that abortion "has had an important and positive public-health effect" because it reduced "the number of children afflicted with severe defects." She pointed out that "the number of Down Syndrome infants in Washington state in 1976 was 64 percent lower than it would have been without legal abortion."

To anyone who has known and loved someone who has Down Syndrome, this is pretty chilling. But, of course, fewer and fewer of us have that experience any more.

2003-11-06T09:43:00.000-05:00

Going to Extremes

Doesn’t it strike you as funny that Senate Democrats call President Bush’s judicial nominees “extremists” and “out of the mainstream,” when the very reason they have to filibuster is that a majority of Senators is prepared to vote for them? Likewise, Howard Dean has said that partial-birth abortion is “an issue about extremism.” With over two-thirds of Americans supporting a ban on this horrible procedure, surely Dr. Dean means that only extremists could oppose such a ban. But no, he actually does mean that two-thirds of the American people hold an extreme position. Hmmm.

In this vein, PowerLine has this delightful story:

A group of Democrats led by the reprehensible Julian Bond, head of the NAACP, held a press conference yesterday to denounce Justice Brown as a "far right-wing extremist" who is "outside the mainstream." Which led to the following exchange:

"They were asked how Justice Brown could be described as a right-wing ideologue when 76 percent of California voters cast ballots to return her to the bench in 1998, the highest percentage of any justice in that retention election.

"'It's inexplicable to me,' Mr. Bond said. 'I cannot think of a response. But nonetheless, that election does not invalidate any of the things [we] have said.'"

The good news is, I think the Democrats actually believe their own press releases on this stuff and don't realize how far they've drifted from the real mainstream.

2003-11-05T13:53:00.000-05:00

Wictory Wednesday

It's now just one year until the 2004 Presidential election. In Mississippi and Kentucky yesterday, Republicans showed that they understand how to get out the vote. When you contribute or volunteer for the campaign of George W. Bush, you can feel that you're making a good investment in an organization that's serious about using its resources wisely to achieve victory. On this Wictory Wednesday, ExPostFacto joins with the blogs listed below to urge you to take action today to help reelect George W. Bush.

Boots and Sabers
Bowling for Howard Dean
BushBlog.us (unofficial blog)
Bush-Cheney 2004 (unofficial blog)
ExPostFacto
The Hedgehog Report
Jeremy Kissel
Left Coast Conservative
Mark Kilmer
Matt Margolis
PoliPundit
A Rice Grad
Ryne McClaren
Southern Conservatives
Stephen Blythe
Viking Pundit
The Wise Man Says

2003-11-05T13:44:00.000-05:00

The Battle Begins in Ohio

Yesterday, we saw the leading edge of the conservative movement to retake the Ohio Republican Party. The Cincinnati Enquirer headline got it right (for once): “Taft’s stimulus proposal rejected.” Issue 1 was indeed the baby of Gov. Bob Taft, part of his Third Frontier economic stimulus package, and its rejection was a resounding vote of no confidence.

As the Enquirer explains it, “Issue 1 would have let the state borrow …$500 million and use it as seed money for university research projects and startup businesses that have the potential to create jobs.” Proponents claimed that it would not raise taxes but had to admit that it would require over $50 million in state spending on interest.

Issue 1 lost by a 51-49 percent margin. But it was worse than that – Issue 1 lost in 73 of Ohio’s 88 counties. The final vote was relatively close only because the proposition picked up big margins in a few big urban – and Democratic – counties around Cleveland, Akron, Dayton, and Canton. Remember, this was a “Republican” proposal.

In other words, Taft has no base. Granted, that’s not a problem for him, since he’s term limited – but it’s a big problem for the Republicans who cling to him. The Republican base is saying, we don’t need another government program to pick economic winners – we just need lower taxes and less regulation. And that means we need new leaders – in our own party.

The next step in the battle is Secretary of State Ken Blackwell’s proposition to repeal the recently enacted sales tax increase. Blackwell’s proposition represents the beginning of open warfare against the Republican establishment.

The coming year will see turmoil in the Ohio Republican Party – not the best timing, perhaps, for George W. Bush, but a confrontation that’s long overdue.

2003-10-29T17:38:00.000-05:00

Wictory Wednesday

If you believe that terrorism constitutes the greatest threat to our future, can there be any doubt that re-electing George Bush is absolutely essential? No matter which Democrat is nominated - even Dick Gephardt, who's taken a responsible position on Iraq - he will be beholden to the forces of appeasement and denial that control that party. George W. Bush stands in good stead today because he is a leader. But we don't know what will happen in the next year to shake people's faith and determination (with a lot of help from the media). So it's critical to give W all the support we can. The Bush blogs below are participating in Wictory Wednesdays to encourage readers to voluteer and donate to the Bush campaign. As some people say about voting - do it early and often. Go to PoliPundit for more on Wictory Wednesday.

Boots and Sabers
Bowling for Howard Dean
BushBlog.us (unofficial blog)
Bush-Cheney 2004 (unofficial blog)
ExPostFacto
The Hedgehog Report
Jeremy Kissel
Left Coast Conservative
Mark Kilmer
Matt Margolis
PoliPundit
A Rice Grad
Ryne McClaren
Southern Conservatives
Stephen Blythe
Viking Pundit
The Wise Man Says

2003-10-27T10:17:00.000-05:00

Prediction

After all is said and done the Democrats will nominate Dick Gephardt for president and he will select John Edwards as his running mate.

2003-10-24T08:31:00.000-04:00

Rumsfeld - Serious Business

Several years ago I read an account of an outsider’s visit to the Pentagon. What surprised him, he said, was the lunchroom conversation. It wasn’t about enemies or weapons or battle tactics – it was all about retirement. I thought about that when I read Lileks’ reaction to the Rumsfeld memo.

The article I read long before Sept. 11, 2001, was intended to be reassuring, and it was. We are not a militaristic country. While the people of our military perform their duty with great honor and pride, they go to war reluctantly. The view from the left, and in big media (but I repeat myself) is of military brass spoiling for a fight (which is why we get these ridiculous, breathless reports that “even top generals say we’re not ready to fight a war!”).

Now that we’re in a real war, it’s not at all reassuring to think of the military as government employees in uniform. So, while the good news is that the Secretary of Defense has a sense of urgency, the bad news is that he has to try to convey that sense to the rest of the Pentagon.

And it’s not just the Pentagon. There’s plenty of evidence – the details around the Plame affair providing the latest examples – that folks at the CIA are more concerned about defending their egos or bureaucratic turf than defending the United States. The answer is not as simple as firing George Tenet. Indeed, chopping off heads may be precisely the wrong precedent when we face the real prospect of terrible failures in the war against terror, times when we’ll all need to come together against the enemy instead of turning on each other. But there has to be deep and real change, and maybe some people have to go.

And in the political arena … I’m all for partisanship, but it should be clear on all sides that we’re in a fight for our lives, and we’re all in it together. If Rumsfeld’s memo is a cause for concern, let’s consider the arguments. Instead, the response to this memo – about the ability of this country to maintain its liberty and way of life in the face of global terror – is the same kind of “gotcha” and “nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa” that you’d expect if Rumsfeld made a gaffe about the World Series.

Rumsfeld is serious and -- contrary to the press accounts that always cast everything in political terms -- focused on the real issues, not inside baseball. But we need more than one guy who's serious to defend this nation against the threat we face now.

2003-10-17T08:41:00.000-04:00

Blanco - "I'm mediocre -- just like you."

In The Corner on NRO, Ramesh Ponnuru quotes this ad in the runoff for Louisiana Governor

“The closer you examine the records, the better Kathleen Babineaux Blanco looks. She understands real people because she is one of us. She had a full life before she ever ran for public office--teaching school, raising six children, and starting her own small business. She understands struggle and that the problems that the governor must deal with all have human faces. She knows that people aren't statistics or numbers, and you don't crunch people, you help them. Now Kathleen is in the fight of her political life against the hand-picked candidate of the right-wing Republicans, backed by Mike Foster, the Republican White House, and their millions of dollars…. "

Ponnuru had earlier suggested, since each side has a poll showing its candidate is in the lead, we would find out who’s really behind by who goes negative first. I think he’s right, and this ad indicates that Blanco knows she has a problem.

Ponnuru also makes this observation, “This is an attempt to convert Bobby Jindal's strengths into weaknesses: Okay, so he knows more facts than me and has accomplished an awful lot for someone so young. But that just means he's not like us and doesn't understand our problems. (I'm mediocre--just like you.) He may have saved the health department from bankruptcy, but he did so by not caring for people.” I think Ponnuru is exactly right.

My impression, from spending a good deal of time in Louisiana on business, is that there is a widespread feeling that the state is in trouble. Voters in California did not vote for someone who’s “one of us” and understands the needs of “real people.” No, they voted for someone who’s NOT like me – and not like any of the politicians who have gotten us into this mess – and who can DO SOMETHING.

Blanco’s ad is an appeal to the base (Ponnuru says it’s running mostly on black radio stations), not to the broad middle looking for someone to lead a turnaround in Louisiana. If this is the best argument she can make, Jindal is in the driver’s seat.

2003-10-15T09:16:00.000-04:00

Wictory Wednesday

It's time again to encourage everyone to get on board the Bush re-election effort. Volunteer or donate today.

PoliPundit has recruited bloggers to promote Wictory Wednesday, and we're proud to be a part of this effort. The full list of WW bloggers is below. Drop by their sites:

Backcountry Conservative
Boots and Sabers
Bowling for Howard Dean
BushBlog.us (unofficial blog)
Bush-Cheney 2004 (unofficial blog)
Freedom of Thought
The Hedgehog Report
The Irish Lass
Jarhead
Jeremy Kissel
Left Coast Conservative
Mark Kilmer
Matt Margolis
The Ole Miss Conservative
PoliPundit
A Rice Grad
Ryne McClaren
Slublog
Southern Conservatives
Stephen Blythe
Viking Pundit
The Wise Man Says

2003-10-14T13:36:00.000-04:00

California and the Presidential Election

All God's children seem to be expressing an opinion about the implications of the California recall on next year's presidential election. So here is mine: I have seen no evidence that having a governor of your party has any benefit at all to the presidential candidate of that party. Having the governorship of Indiana for the past 15 years has done little to help the Democrat presidential candidates in that state who routinely lose Indiana by huge numbers. Likewise, having a Republican governor in New York for the past several presidential elections has done little or nothing to help GOP presidential candidates. And Bush lost Wisconsin and Michigan last time despite having very successful and popular Republican governors in those states. But I also do not think that the successful recall of Davis means nothing for the presidential election. For it clearly shows that Democrat victories in that key state are not inevitable. Republicans CAN win. I believe that California will be in play for Bush in 2004 because I believe by that time it will be clear that his economic policies have been the right ones and that his leadership in the war on terror has been bold and largely successful. If the national economy is getting stronger and California is participating in that recovery then both Schwarzenegger and Bush will be seen as successful leaders. And I believe THAT is what California has said it wants.

2003-10-08T11:30:00.000-04:00

The Character Issue

My conclusion after the California recall is that character does matter, but character is not necessarily simple, and people have all kinds of strengths and faults. I think people can make a strongly negative judgment about some of Schwarzenegger’s character traits, yet have respect for others, and decide that the latter outweigh the former in choosing a governor. That’s the boat I’m in. I know I’ll sound like a “Clinton hater,” but I never found Bill Clinton to have any signficant redeeming qualities. Any apparent positive turned out to be faked or based on ulterior motives.

One other point. We have never seen the four children of Arnold and Maria – am I right on this? One can never be sure exactly what this means. Maybe wealthy Hollywood stars can never risk exposing their children. But I’ve got to believe that most politicians would have trotted out the kids to counter the sleaze factor this past week. So I’m thinking this just might be one good sign about Gov. Schwarzenegger’s character.

UPDATE: In the time since I posted this, the Sacramento Bee has published a very positive article describing Arnold and Maria as good parents who have given their children a remarkably "normal" childhood.

2003-10-08T10:18:00.000-04:00

Wictory Wednesday

I can’t stand concession speeches. Having worked on losing campaigns, I find it too painful – even when the right guys (Gray Davis) are conceding. I don’t dare imagine watching George W. Bush accepting defeat in 2004.

What was clear in California was the Gray Davis’ goose was cooked from the moment Schwarzenegger offered an alternative. We pretend that it all happens on the day and night of the election, but the factors in victory or defeat are determined long before.

Fortunately, we can count on W to do a good job in challenging circumstances. But we still have to make it possible for him to make his case and win the support of the American people, and to make sure that support is expressed on Election Day.

ExPostFacto is joining with the bloggers below for Wictory Wednesdays. We’re asking everyone to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign now – not next year. I can proudly say I contributed to W in the fall of 1999. I made my small contribution to the air of inevitability that helped W avoid a debilitating primary fight.

For more on Wictory Wednesday, go to PoliPundit or visit one of the participating sites:
Backcountry Conservative
Boots and Sabers
Bowling for Howard Dean
BushBlog.us (unofficial blog)
Bush-Cheney 2004 (unofficial blog)
Freedom of Thought
The Hedgehog Report
The Irish Lass
Jarhead
Jeremy Kissel
Left Coast Conservative
Mark Kilmer
Matt Margolis
The Ole Miss Conservative
PoliPundit
A Rice Grad
Ryne McClaren
Slublog
Southern Conservatives
Stephen Blythe
Viking Pundit
The Wise Man Says

2003-10-07T17:14:00.000-04:00

Let the Spinning Begin

Howard Fineman, a reliable voice of the conventional wisdom in Washington, is out front of the results in California with the predictable spin. His MSNBC essay is titled "Recall lessons for the President" and the teaser is "Voter alienation will not stop at voting booths in California." Get it? This is not about Gray Davis - it's about "voter alienation." Fineman says "the same forces that are shaking Sacramento could materialize on the doorstep of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave." (Only at the very end does he concede that "Bush is no Davis.")

This recall is not about "malaise" - it is about malfeasance in office, so blatant and so destructive that voters could no longer abide it. That's why the claim by Fineman and others - that California voters have opened a Pandora's box and the Democrats will respond by recalling Schwarzenegger - is wrong. If Democrats try it, they will be sorry. Because voters don't recall officials lightly. Davis is just that bad.

Fineman warns Bush about "voter alienation" but he has about as much respect for voters' choices as everybody else inside the Beltway.

2003-10-06T09:42:00.000-04:00

The Press and Leaks - Some History

More pundits are asking the same question I asked: If the "White House" leakers contacted six journalists, why don't those journalists come forward? See William Safire (requires registration - and thanks to RealClearPolitics) and Rich Galen, who cites Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.

For some perspective, I found the AP story from August 2000, to which I refer in the post further down ("What's a Journalist's Responsibility?" September 30). This is from the story the AP reporter filed on August 18, from evote.com:

New Grand Jury Investigates Clinton
WASHINGTON, Aug 18, 2000 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Independent Counsel Robert Ray is signaling that the Monica Lewinsky scandal is far from over, assembling a new grand jury to investigate the president's conduct, legal sources say.
News that the grand jury was impaneled a month ago reverberated to the other side of the country Thursday, with Democratic Party loyalists at the convention in Los Angeles decrying the story as a politically motivated leak designed to hurt Vice President Al Gore.
"If Clinton was to drop dead, the Republicans would dig him up," complained Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
The timing of the news "hours before Al Gore is to give this speech" warrants a federal investigation, said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.
"You can bet your bottom dollar that the Republican Party was behind" the leak, said House Minority Whip David Bonior, D-Mich. "I think the American people are going to reject this kind of behavior."
Gore spokesman Doug Hattaway said the judicial system was being "manipulated for political purposes."
With the convention in its final day, Clinton was 3,000 miles away at the White House, where spokesman Jake Siewert pointed to prosecutors as a likely source of the leak. Ray's office denied it.
The sources telling The Associated Press that a new grand jury was convened July 11 in the Clinton-Lewinsky matter are outside the Independent Counsel's office. The sources spoke only on condition of anonymity.

In other outlets, such as the Washington Post, the Democratic quotes above were interspersed with Republican denials and criticism of the leaks. But, in any case, the reporter who gave all this prominent space to Democrats complaining about politically motivated leaks ALREADY KNEW what came out later that day (this from ABC News):

OIC Leak Called Accidental
Aug. 19 — A federal judge said Friday he inadvertently disclosed that Independent Counsel Robert Ray has impaneled a new grand jury to investigate evidence against President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Richard D. Cudahy, a member of the Special Division that oversees the Office of the Independent Counsel, acknowledged that on Thursday he accidently revealed the information to a reporter from The Associated Press.
According to court papers just released, Cudahy, a Democrat appointed by President Jimmy Carter, made reference to the grand jury in explaining why he granted a one-year extension to the independent counsel’s investigation.

The AP emphasizes that its sources "spoke only on condition of anonymity." But since the judge voluntarily came forward later on his own, I wonder whether the AP reporter ever even ASKED him if he'd be willing to do so. Also, while I fully believe that the judge "inadvertently" leaked the information, note the possibility: Leak information that makes it look like your adversary did it - then hide under the cover of press-protected anonymity.

Are members of the press protecting their news sources to defend their First Amendment rights, or to make it impossible for individuals (in this case most notably Karl Rove) to clear up accusations and innuendo directed against them?

2003-10-05T15:36:00.000-04:00

What Poverty Statistics Really Mean

RealClearPolitics links to an illuminating article on the poverty statistics released last week. Here’s the most interesting part:

“Typical discussions of the annual snapshot of poverty also miss the inherent dynamics of the data. In July, the Census Bureau released a longitudinal study of poverty. Key among these dynamics is duration.

“The author of the study, John Iceland, reports that from 1996 to 1999, only 2 percent of the U.S. population was labeled as chronically poor - poor during all 48 months. [italics added] More than 50 percent of those interviewed indicated that they were officially in poverty for only two to four months. For almost 80 percent of them, time in poverty lasted less than a year.

“And almost 45 percent of the people who fell under the poverty threshold in 1996 had climbed out within two years. This is an important though neglected aspect of the heavily politicized debate over poverty. Consider the scenario of an individual who enters the job market, works hard and moves up the ladder through promotions and increased salaries. Initially, that person falls under the poverty threshold, but soon rises above it.”

Statistics are always treated in the press as revealed truth, but the “poverty level” is an arbitrary definition – that doesn’t mean it’s not meaningful, just that it’s subject to interpretation. Properly used, they can help guide effective policy. More often, they’re simply used to promote the agenda of the press or a political party.

2003-10-05T07:01:00.000-04:00

Where’s the energy in the recall?

As has been noted elsewhere on the web, there's this report:

“In another possible sign of Election Day trouble for Gov. Gray Davis, almost 40,000 more Californians registered as Republicans than Democrats during the heart of the recall campaign, according to figures released Friday by the Secretary of State's Office.

“Although the GOP edge in new registrations probably is too small to swing an election in which more than 15 million people can vote, political analysts say it could be an indication that Republicans are more energized than Democrats about the recall -- and more likely to go to the polls Tuesday.”

Is it a sign, or not? Well, here’s some supporting data:

A “Hollywoood reporter” on “The Beltway Boys” said that Hollywood is not paying much attention to the recall election – they’re more interested in the Democratic presidential candidates. Part of that reflects the fact that Schwarzenegger is well liked. But the fact that there’s obviously no intensity about saving Gray Davis in a liberal stronghold has got to be bad news for the Democrats.

And here’s a theory: Revving up opposition to Arnold doesn’t necessarily translate into getting Democrats to come out and vote against the recall. (My guess is that you have more voters who vote YES on recall and just skip part B, but that doesn’t help Davis.) But revving up anger against the LA Times DOES get Republicans to come out and vote.

Two cautions: On the one hand, don’t ever believe trailing campaigns’ assertions that their “internal polls” show them gaining ground. On the other, remember that the "broken glass Republicans" (who would crawl across broken glass to elect W in 2000) never materialized.

UPDATE: Mickey Kaus, who has done a great job of following the Recall, says: “Republicans are kidding themselves if they think the continuing Groping and Nazi stories aren't hurting Schwarzenegger. His campaign is certainly behaving as if they are, as Weintraub reports.” Daniel Weintraub , in turn, says “[The Schwarzenegger campaign’s] extraordinarily bitter counterattack, while evidence that the campaign believes it can score points against the media, also suggests that the stories might be hurting Schwarzenegger. More evidence of that: Schwarzenegger’s wife, Maria Shriver, changed her schedule at the last minute to join Schwarzenegger on the rally stage Saturday.”

Who am I to disagree with Weintraub, who really is the expert? I don't disagree. Still, I’d suggest two points: (1) Seeing how the DUI story ate away at GWB’s position over the last weekend in 2000, Schwarzenegger’s campaign may be taking out insurance – and the things they'd do in that case -- such as the change in Maria Shriver’s schedule -- are indistinguishable from what they'd do in reponse to real slippage. (2) The DUI story was pivotal in 2000 because the election was so close in so many states. The latest numbers in California indicate that it's not nearly that close.

2003-10-04T16:27:00.000-04:00

Arnold - Why the Outrage? (from the Left)

Anyone could have predicted the last-minute hits on Arnold Schwarzenegger.Even the specific charges - on sexual conduct and supposed Nazi sympathies - are on exactly the same issues that were drummed up when he first announced his candidacy. Still, I'm frankly surprised by the ferocity of the assaults from the left, and by the scope of participation by the mainstream press in the effort to bring Arnold down.

What's especially puzzling is the attack by women's gropes - I mean, groups. It can't possibly be the groping - these same groups love Bill Clinton. (By the way, I love the press accounts that portray these groups as lashing out in anger right now - with ads ready to go - in reaction to the LA Times story on Thursday, as if it was a stunning revelation.) And it can't be abortion -who would be a more reliable defender of legal abortion than a guy whose lifestyle was dependent on it? (And like Clinton, a guy who uses support for abortion to make up for his ill treatment of women - as Arnold hinted in his apology.) Maybe they just like Clinton's style better, but my guess is that Arnold is at least as successful with the ladies as Bill.

I used to think the left would fight to the death against losing their grip on the spigot of government money that's been flowing in California - but it appears that the legislature and Gov. Davis have succeeded in tapping a few years' worth of giveaways in the past few weeks.

Which leads to another theory... What's driving the frenzy is the thought that Arnold represents the same group in society as Satan himself - George W. Bush. Even though Bush has had very little to say about the recall, the left fears a successful recall and Schwarzenegger election as a victory for the forces of evil - the right. If they can work up this much fury over a guy as liberal as Arnold, we've got a rough year ahead, and the Bush folks had better be ready for the last two weeks of the campaign.

One last prediction: For every vote Arnold loses on the character issue, he'll gain at least one conservative who concludes, if the left is this bitterly opposed to Schwarzenegger, he must be worth voting for.

UPDATE: I hadn't seen this article, (via The Corner) which is in line with the theory above:

"...the most honest thing I heard came from film producer and Codepink activist Patricia Foulkrod.

"She admitted that Bill Clinton's sexual peccadilloes were as inexcusable as Arnold's.

"'The difference is that Clinton was so brilliant,' she said.

"'If Arnold was a brilliant pol and had this thing about inappropriate behavior, we'd figure a way of getting around it. I think it's to our detriment to go on too much about the groping. But it's our way in. This is really about the GOP trying to take California in 2004 and our trying to stop it.'" [italics added]

2003-10-02T06:52:00.000-04:00

If I May Say So ...

I, too, predicted that today (or tomorrow) would be the day that negative news would emerge about Arnold Schwarzenegger. (not that it was that big a leap) So the LA Times story on sexual harassment (I'm not providing any helpful link here) is right on schedule.

[Sun Sep 28, 06:08:09 PM | Bob Collins
California - What's Predictable

... Second, we can safely predict that we will hear something very negative about Arnold Schwarzenegger this Thursday or Friday. Whether it will be as effective as the dirty trick against Bruce Herschensohn cannot be predicted, but one would hope that Republicans are prepared for these last-minute hit jobs (like the DUI story in 2000).]

Let me now predict that this stuff won't matter, not this time.

2003-10-02T06:23:00.000-04:00

Press Innuendo

Yesterday's Cincinnati Enquirer contained the followng caption in a photo accompanying a CIA leak story: "Chief political strategist Karl Rove (left) -- who has been mentioned in connection with the leak-- and White House press secretary Scott McClellan walk to Air Force One en route to Cincinnati Tuesday."

A lame attempt to link a local-interest photo to a national story, yes. But also pure innuendo (see below for the sum total of the evidence that Rove is involved). I think Wesley Clark was behind the leak -- well, not really, and I have no more evidence (but no less) than Joe Wilson has about Rove's involvement. Still, now I expect the Cincinnati Enquirer to identify Clark as someone "who has been mentioned in connection with the leak."

Last night, flipping channels, I came across a cable news "expert" saying that Rove has a "pattern" of such leaks and that he "wouldn't be surprised" if Rove was behind this one. Until I see any hard evidence, I see the press in the service of a smear. (And where are the members of the press who could supposedly clear up this whole question? - see below)

2003-10-01T07:14:00.000-04:00

Eminent Domain Abuse

When groups like Institute for Justice go out to help the "little guy" fight eminent domain abuse, they find that a lot of the little guys just want to force their neighbors to sell. That's what I saw in nearby Norwood, Ohio. I've written about it at TechCentralStation.

2003-10-01T07:09:00.000-04:00

Wictory Wednesday

George W. Bush was here in Cincinnati yesterday for an event that raised $1.7 million. He's working hard on his re-election campaign (along with fighting a war and turning around an economy). The opposition has made it clear that he's going to need every dime, and every available volunteer, to counter their assaults. ExPostFacto supports the President by joining PoliPundit in Wictory Wednesday, along with the blogs below. We're asking readers to volunteer or donate to help W establish a clear mandate for a second term.

Here's the Wictory Wednesday blog roll:

Boots and Sabers
Bowling for Howard Dean
BushBlog.us (unofficial blog)
Bush-Cheney 2004 (unofficial blog)
ExPostFacto
The Hedgehog Report
Jeremy Kissel
Left Coast Conservative
Mark Kilmer
Matt Margolis
PoliPundit
A Rice Grad
Ryne McClaren
Southern Conservatives
Stephen Blythe
Viking Pundit
The Wise Man Says

2003-09-30T15:00:00.000-04:00

What's a Journalist's Responsibility?

Now that Bob Novak has said, “Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this,” the basis for suspicion of the White House is this: “An administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to several journalists in an effort to discredit Wilson.”

I guess I don’t understand journalistic ethics. Yes, you must protect your sources. But what responsibility does a reporter have to protect the identity of an unsolicited leak? Why should I think that I can call a reporter with any lie about somebody else, or any confidential information that could endanger an individual or the entire country, and feel that my identity must be protected?

This doesn’t strike me as First Amendment stuff. Sounds like a business decision to me – a reporter decides not to divulge the identity of the leaker for fear that some future juicy leaks may dry up. What’s the civic responsibility of these journalists? Are we going to put the entire country through the agony of an independent counsel so that reporters can protect their ability to get leaks, no matter how scurrilous?

I'm not suggesting that the reporters be forced to divulge this information (we don't even know if these reporters exist, much less who they are), but that they volunteer the information. That's within their rights - and the leaker doesn't have any right to keep his or her identity secret.

It’s all reminiscent of one of the most egregious breaches of journalist ethics I’ve ever seen. During the Democratic National Convention in 2000, word leaked out of a federal courthouse of pending action related to the Monica Lewinsky saga (I don’t remember the exact details). The assumption that this came from a Republican leak galvanized Democrats at exactly the right moment and surely contributed to Al Gore’s blast-off in the polls.

As I recall, the AP reporter who broke the story was Pete Yost. He continued to file stories the next day quoting Democrats speculating on Republican leaks and dirty tricks to upset their convention. Yet, he knew throughout this time that the source of the information was a Democratic judge – who eventually came forward. Did the reporter even think the ask the judge whether he would mind having his identity revealed? Did he ever ask himself whether it was honest to file stories about a Republican leak when he knew otherwise?

If there is any truth to the information from the “administration official,” there are “several journalists” who should be asking themselves some questions right now.

2003-09-29T21:13:00.000-04:00

When Did Karl Rove Stop Beating Wilson's Wife?

A few points on the Wilson/Plame case:

Here’s what Novak said on “Crossfire” today: “According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives.”

This is an issue I can relate to. My wife was a CIA analyst. It was not a secret then, and it is not a secret now.

There are reports that the CIA status of Mrs. Wilson/Ms. Plame was indeed confidential, but Novak doesn’t seem to have realized that he was outing a covert agent.

Here’s what the original Novak report said (from Townhall via RealClearPolitics):

“[Joe] Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.”

Novak mentions Plame’s CIA connection only to explain how her husband wound up in Niger. If her CIA status was such a bombshell, why was it in the SIXTH paragraph of the column?

Moreover, as I read Novak’s column, he is not even claiming that the “senior administration officials” were the source of the information that Ms. Plame works for the CIA. He mentions it almost as if it is common knowledge – which reinforces Cliff May’s take on the situation – THEN cites administration officials on her involvement in the Niger decision.

Yet today we have headlines like this: “White House Denies Rove Leaked Secret Information.” Karl Rove?! How did we get from “administration” or even “White House” officials to Rove? I thought there were quite a few people working there.

Well, the source – the only source – is Mr. Wilson, a virulent opponent of the Bush administration. Here’s the Washington Post story: “Wilson has publicly blamed Rove, although Wilson did say Monday he did not know whether Rove personally was the source of the information, only that he thought Rove had ‘condoned it.’” According to The Best of the Web, “Wilson himself has said he would like ‘to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.’”

Now we have people raising suspicions that the White House hasn’t responded as strongly as they would expect – must be guilty! (The alternative interpretation is that they don’t know any more than anybody else about what’s going on or why this is a big deal.) Or that Scott McClellan didn’t respond directly enough when asked whether Rove had assured him that he wasn’t involved – maybe he just didn’t want headlines that said “Rove denies…”

This looks like a SMEAR to me - and I don't mean a smear of Mrs. Wilson. Now Mr. Wilson is saying, basically, "Oh, did I say Karl Rove? Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that he was responsible..." Certainly not!

One more theory: The “White House officials” who did this were the same ones who called Wesley Clark after 9/11.

2003-09-28T19:08:00.000-04:00

California - What's Predictable

PoliPundit and others have noted that polls in California have to be considered virtually meaningless. And really, I have only my gut to tell me that Schwarzenneger is going to be Governor - I've grown more comfortable with his candidacy, and I'm supposing that other conservatives have, too. (Although the fact that Davis is calling for a one-on-one debate with Arnold is one strong objective indicator of where things stand.)

Still, there are two predictable developments that favor Davis:

First, we know that every public employee in the State of California, along with families and acquaintances, will be voting against the recall. In an election where turnout is a key wild card, strong turnout among Davis's dependents should not be overlooked.

Second, we can safely predict that we will hear something very negative about Arnold Schwarzenegger this Thursday or Friday. Whether it will be as effective as the dirty trick against Bruce Herschensohn cannot be predicted, but one would hope that Republicans are prepared for these last-minute hit jobs (like the DUI story in 2000).

2003-09-25T21:15:00.000-04:00

California - Energy on the Right

Every analysis I've seen following the candidate debate in California said that the best performances were turned in by Schwarzenegger and McClintock. But nobody mentioned the obvious implication - all the ideas, all the energy can be found on the right side of the spectrum. The focus has been on whether Republicans/conservatives will split their vote. But the real story is that it's Republicans/conservatives who are having the lively debate about what's essential to their vision, and what's the best way to advance their ideas. All you hear from the other side of the spectrum is pandering, fear-mongering, and whining. Come to think of it, that's what's going on at the national level, too.

2003-09-24T12:02:00.000-04:00

Wictory Wednesday Blogroll

Here's the full list of blogs participating in Wictory Wednesday. (see next post for details)

Algol
Bowling for Howard
Dean
BushBlog.us (unofficial blog)
Bush-Cheney 2004 (unofficial
blog)
ExPostFacto
The Hedgehog Report
Jeremy Kissel
Left Coast
Conservative
Mark Kilmer
Matt Margolis
PoliPundit
Southern Conservatives
Viking Pundit

2003-09-24T07:38:00.000-04:00

Wictory Wednesday

While I don't put too much credence in recent polls - especially the howler that Wesley Clark is leading George W. Bush - they are a sobering reminder that W's re-election is going to be fiercely, viciously contested. ExPostFacto has joined PoliPundit in observing Wictory Wednesdays to support George W. Bush in his bid for re-election in 2004. Each Wednesday, we’re asking readers to volunteer and/or donate (even if it's just $25) to the Bush campaign. Just take a moment to remember how you felt the morning after the 2000 election, then hit one of the links above to help make sure W wins a clear mandate in 2004. For more information on Wictory Wednesdays, go to PoliPundit.

2003-09-21T10:34:00.000-04:00

Ken Blackwell - In a Class by Himself

Ken Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, is the rarest of Ohio Republicans. Blackwell's most distinctive attribute is not his race - though he is one of the nation's highest-ranking black office holders - but that he's a true conservative in a state where wobbly Republicans dominate statewide races.

Blackwell has launched a petition drive aimed at the repeal of the recently enacted increase in the state's sales tax. His campaign website points out that Ohio's rate of growth in revenues and spending is higher than inflation and that of most other states. And this is under long-time Republican rule -- the likes of George Voinovich and Bob Taft, now in his second term.

Needless to say, this does not make Blackwell beloved among establishment Republicans. Though he is far more nationally prominent and impressive than Taft (who admittedly benefits from a great last name) or any other Republican in statewide office, Blackwell has been forced to wait his turn for the governorship - and he's still going to have to play musical chairs with the other statewide Republican officeholders. The bigger problem is, if Republicans continue to drive the state's economy south, getting the Republican nomination for governor next time round may not be that good a deal.

One last note about Blackwell. Like Jerry Springer, he's a former Mayor of Cincinnati (both from the days when Cincinnati had a "weak mayor" - the highest vote getter in City Council elections). Too bad the wrong guy gets all the press.

2003-09-17T11:17:00.000-04:00

Bush Reelection in Great Shape

President Bush remains a very formidable candidate for reelection despite some recent poll numbers which have the Democrats hopeful and some of the President's supporters nervous. But the fundamentals driving Bush's reelection are actually improving. The economic numbers have been coming in quite strong in recent months and all the signs point to a recovery that will begin adding jobs in significant numbers in 2004. Oil prices are also improving and that will begin to be reflected in lower gasoline prices, as well. And while Demos are literally gloating over the failure so far to find WMD or to capture bin Laden or Sadam and what the mainstream media insists on calling a quagmire in Iraq, the fact is that it is quite possible that dramatic successes in all of these areas could very well come in the middle of the election year, providing a powerful boost for the President. There is an ebb and flow to politics and as so many have said, timing is everything. I like how things are shaping up so far for the race in 2004.

2003-09-16T08:33:00.000-04:00

Wesley Clark - Give Me a Break!

Here's the end of David Brooks' op-ed in today's New York Times: "...Which is why so many Republicans are quietly gleeful over Dean's continued momentum. It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon, that keeps their happiness from being complete. "

Wesley Clark wasn't even the most impressive armchair general on the cable stations during the battle in Iraq. Quite apart from the fact that he was dead wrong, he was no more compelling a figure than any of the other commentators. And Republicans are supposed to be quivering in their boots at the thought of his candidacy?

2003-09-15T08:36:00.000-04:00

It's Tax Day - Again

Today, September 15, is the day that estimated taxes are due to the federal government. This is the day that self-employed people like me see what they owe for three full months, and write out one big, fat check for the full amount. And, by the way, that amount includes your “self-employment tax” – the full bill for Social Security and Medicare (minus the effect of deducting half from taxable income).

No sneaking the money to the IRS through withholding. No hiding half of your Social Security taxes in your employer’s payment.

Withholding is money you never see, but this is money you have in your account and sign away (or worse, it’s money you have to borrow because the IRS has more leverage over late payers than you have with your clients/customers). Withholding can seem like the price of having a job, a kickback for the privilege of employment. But it’s obvious that estimated tax payments come right out of your own hide.

All of which is why there’s every reason to expect the growth in self-employment to coincide with growing resistance to tax increases.

2003-09-14T09:16:00.000-04:00

Frank O'Bannon

The death of Gov. Frank O'Bannon of Indiana reminds us that politics doesn't have to be the total war of recent years. Gov. O'Bannon was a partisan Democrat and an effective politician who beat the pants off the Republicans time and again. I say all of this as a compliment, because he was also universally respected as a good guy. And people who honestly questioned his performance as governor could still acknowledge his personal qualities. I'm all for a good partisan fight, but I'm getting a little tired of politicians and their crazed followers who can't just claim the other guy is wrong - he has to be monstrously evil, too.

2003-09-14T09:06:00.000-04:00

Unemployment Misinformation
Alan Reynolds, whom I liked and respected when I worked at Hudson Institute, clears up the misinformation on unemployment statistics in today’s Washington Times. While the Democrats continue to harp on “2.7 million jobs lost” under President Bush, household surveys – the data used to determine the unemployment rate – show total employment nearly steady. There is not a single person alive today who has not grown up with the unemployment rate as the key statistic on this issue. Yet suddenly today, we hear that the payroll data – which show the large loss of jobs – are more “reliable.” Even Bush’s own Labor Department so testified.

It has long been recognized that the payroll survey is of dubious accuracy at turning points in the business cycle … you know, like right now. Companies that have been surveyed have gone out of business during the downturn, and the Labor Dept. has to guess at how many new businesses have begun hiring. Today a larger structural issue appears to be driving the growing gap between the payroll and household surveys, as Reynolds points out: “If more people are working at home as self-employed consultants, or working through temp agencies, they would not show up as payroll employees.”

Here I am working at home. Until 1997, I was on a payroll. Since then I’ve been making as much or more income. If I were asked, I’d say I’m employed, but I’m not on anybody’s payroll. Are government statistics keeping up with the shift to work situations like mine?

One last point: Reynolds mentions that “the median duration of unemployment dropped from 12.3 weeks in June to 9.6 in August.” This seems pretty significant – why haven’t I seen this anywhere else?

2003-09-11T09:27:00.000-04:00

"Our Resolve Must Not Pass"

From President Bush's Address to Congress and the American People, Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001

"Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. …

"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars – but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war – but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks – but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day – and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack. …

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. …

"These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way. …

"This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

"Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. … These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.

"After all that has just passed – all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them – it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.

"Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom – the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time – now depends on us. Our nation – this generation – will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

"It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. …

"Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice – assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America."

2003-09-11T00:28:00.000-04:00

This Fight is for Civilization

The anniversary of the attacks of Sept 11, 2001 should serve as a reminder that the war we are now engaged in is like no other in our history. The battlefields are different, the measures of success and failure are different and the stakes are different. This is a war to preserve civilization itself. The enemy has made clear his intent to attack not just all that is Western or all that is modern but all that is civilized. America must be resolute in the face of this extraordinary challenge because so much of the world is so timid and refuses to acknowledge or confront it. President Bush has it right: we have been called to fight this battle and we must recognize it as a duty and an obligation, not just for ourselves, but for the future of a civilized life on earth. We will do what it takes to prevail.

2003-09-10T07:09:00.000-04:00

It’s Wictory Wednesday

ExPostFacto has joined PoliPundit in observing Wictory Wednesdays to support George W. Bush in his bid for re-election in 2004. Each Wednesday, we’ll ask readers to volunteer and/or donate (even if it's just $25) to the Bush campaign if you haven't done so already (or maybe even if you have). The stakes are far too high to be complacent. Talking (or blogging) about politics is fun, but elections are not entertainment – they’re for real. We need George W. Bush to stay the course in the war on terror and to defend conservative principles here at home. For more information on Wictory Wednesdays, go to PoliPundit.

2003-09-09T13:35:00.000-04:00

Be Specific

So the Democrats want specifics from Bush on Iraq. Well, I want specifics, too. Sen. Tom Harkin questions how we can have $87 million for Iraq and Afghanistan when we’re 'underfunding education.' OK, Sen. Harkin, tell me exactly how much we should be spending on education, and what it’s for. No more just saying we need “more.” Be specific – how much will it take to end the whining that we’re not spending enough on education?

And, by the way, tell us exactly what the minimum wage should be. Don’t come back every year and complain that Republicans are stingy because they won’t raise the minimum wage another $1. Tell us exactly what it should be – at what level would you quit complaining that the minimum wage is too low. Is it $10? $20? Be specific.

2003-09-09T09:39:00.000-04:00

More Exit Strategies

I demand to know why Teddy Kennedy has spent over 40 years in the Senate and never once insisted that we have an exit strategy for Germany! Or Korea. The fact is, we remained in both places after major hostilities ended precisely because there was a geo-political reason to do so and it was in our national interest to remain. The same holds true in Iraq. All of these fatuous references to Vietnam are a pathetic attempt by aging baby boomers to refight the battles of their youth. Sad, really.

2003-09-09T09:24:00.000-04:00

Exit Strategy

I see that Ted Kennedy is demanding an exit strategy from Iraq. In every meeting I’ve attended on some corporate plan, some guy who wants to look smart pipes up on the need for an exit strategy. OK, sometimes it’s necessary. But in this case the idea of stating an exit strategy is incredibly stupid.

Let’s tell our enemies exactly how long and under what conditions we intend to stay in Iraq! That should assist in their planning if not ours. Here’s a better idea: Let’s make clear to our enemies, as Bush has done, that we will spend “whatever is necessary” and stay “as long as it takes.”

There have been several articles lately on the similarities between Iraq today and the Tet Offensive. The Vietnam War is a subject I actually researched in grad school, and I came to the conclusion that the war was winnable – was in fact being won – but the goofy strategy under Johnson and McNamara allowed too much opposition to build up. (Like the “slow squeeze” on the North – talk about catch phrases that substitute for rational thought!)

So now we have the same people who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam – and doomed the people of the South, who valiantly fought for their freedom, to generations of suffering and oppression – telling us to do the same thing in Iraq. The abandonment of the South Vietnamese in the 1970s was at best a horrible mistake, and at worst a disgrace. (A similar statement could be made about leaving the Iraqis in 1991.)

The War on Terror is the main reason to keep fighting in Iraq for as long as it takes, but we must never again waste American lives to defend freedom, only to pull out and leave our allies to be torn apart by the jackals. That is an immoral exit strategy.

2003-09-08T22:41:00.000-04:00

Quips as a Substitute for Thought

I think this all got started when Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist, said in a column before the war with Iraq something to the effect that America's intervention there would be like the old sign in a china shop that warns customers, "If you break it, you own it." Clever. And since then I have heard variations of this quip over and over again. On the news tonight on CNN the anchor said about the cost of Iraq restoration, "like the old saying goes, we broke it so we own it."

This, of course, demonstrates the problem with substituting clever phrases for rational thinking. Clearly Iraq is broken. And broke, too, for that matter. But does anyone really have a difficult time understanding who broke it? Saying that "we", meaning the United States, broke Iraq is like saying saying that the fire department damaged the burning house by breaking in and spraying water on the fire.

Iraq is broke, but America didn't break it. And we certainly don't own it. But we are fixing it and doing so much faster and far more successfully than the mainstream media would have us believe.

2003-09-08T15:09:00.000-04:00

Hillary Off the Cliff
Best of the Web reported on Friday about an analysis of Social Security lists of most popular baby names, showing that the name Hillary is the most “poisoned” name of the past century. The analysis by blogger Matt Evans showed that Hillary dropped precipitously from No. 136 in 1992, falling off the list of 1000 top girls’ names 10 years later. The analysis claimed that no other name had fallen so far so fast, with Adolph and Ebenezer being the next most poisoned names – and Adolph didn’t fall off the top-1000 list until the 1970s.

The decline in popularity for the name Hillary is truly astounding. Think of any name you might consider possibly “poisoned” (even the boy’s name Clinton) – you won’t find anything like the way Hillary fell off the cliff after 1992. Matt Evans doesn’t hazard an explanation, but we all have an idea. To imagine how widespread this kind of feeling must be about Hillary (and nobody has to ask “Hillary who?”), look at some of the girls’ names that made the top-1000 list in 2002: Reagan (#201), Penelope (#710), Unique (#932), and Baby (#986).

On Saturday, I was talking with another parent at a soccer game. She was saying how confusing it is to have so many relatives named Ed. I said we have a similar situation, and were going to name our child Edward and call him Ted (“he” turned out to be Maureen) but my family couldn’t stand it – “you mean, like Ted Kennedy?” She said she had wanted to call her son Ted, too, and her husband said exactly the same thing. We're looking at a similar phenomenon here.

The complete poisoning of the name Hillary exposes a sentiment that is not subject to the biases of public opinion polls. Rush Limbaugh has been saying that there is no way Hillary Clinton can be elected President, because, he says, "you haven't seen negative voting like you'd see against her." But Rush also said for months that Hillary would never really run for the Senate. So this Social Security data is some very comforting corroboration.

2003-09-08T13:51:00.000-04:00

Boldness in a Timid World

The world has often been described as dividing into two camps. The camps change from time to time but in my memory I can recall those camps as being the Haves and the Have-Nots; the East and the West; the Free World and those behind the Iron Curtain. From time to time a third camp tries hard to emerge. Remember Indira Ghandi's attempt to fashion a group called the "non-aligned?" But that hardly worked. Everyone always knew who leaned which way in that group.

Today the world has a new divide. It is between the Timid and the Bold. Although they are evil and pre-modern and a variety of other bad things, the perpetrators of terror are among the Bold. They believe passionately, they hate passionately and they kill without compunction or discrimination. And they have counted on the world to be timid in response. As well they might. The Europeans are content to respond by holding conferences in nice hotels with breakout sessions explaining how terrorism is actually a post-colonial phenomenon that must be understood in it's proper intellectual context. Or they delve into the arcane distinctions between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. And, inevitably, they all agree that it is all somehow America's fault. (Later, over espresso, attendees lament the fact that their brightest kids are attending college or working now in the United States. But that is another subject altogether)

Terrorists have learned that, for all of its reluctance to begin a fight, America is also Bold. We fight by more civilized rules, sparing civilians and helping our former adversaries, but unlike the timid Europeans we are not afraid to fight. In President Bush we now have a leader who has not been constrained by the timid elites who cower behind psuedo-intellectual arguments that offer excuses for inaction. The terrorists have seen that in President Bush they have an adversary as bold as they are. Their only hope is that timidity somehow prevails in the civilized world. If America continues to stand behind George Bush, it won't.

2003-09-08T09:17:00.000-04:00

Update: Downplaying the Good News

As we continue the longest stretch without a US military death in Operation Iraqi Freedom since March (see post below), this is the AP lead:

"Insurgents broke a period of relative calm with a bomb attack Monday that wounded two U.S. soldiers in Baghdad ...

The story notes that
"There have been no reports of U.S. combat deaths in the last few days [that's five days, to be exact, the longest period of time with no such reports], and on Sunday afternoon, military spokesman, Lt. Col. George Krivo, said the U.S. military had completed a 24-hour period in which no American soldiers had been killed or wounded. The near-daily attacks on American troops have become a serious problem for the Bush administration, and it has called for help from other countries to restore security." [Let's mmake sure we maintain the negative spin to counter any positive facts on the ground.]

Update Update: The AP story has been revised: The title is “No U.S. Casualties in Iraq for 7 Days” and the lede “The U.S. military has not lost a soldier in combat for seven days, and despite a bomb attack on a convoy in Baghdad Monday, the country has witnessed a rare period of relative calm.”

2003-09-07T15:48:00.000-04:00

Good News, If the Press Will Notice

It’s now nightime in Iraq on Sunday, September 7. If no US soldier is killed in Iraq today, this will mark the longest stretch of Operation Iraqi Freedom without a US military death – five days – since the war began in March. Based on the chronolgical listing at Faces of Valor, previously the longest period without a US military death was April 18-21. (The death on April 17 occurred in Kuwait, but like other casualties in Kuwait, it is included in the numbers we hear for the Iraq war.) I’ll be interested to see whether the news outlets that have kept up the daily drumbeat of war deaths will take note of this milestone.

Looking at the number of deaths over the past 30 days (August 9-September7) and comparing it with the monthly statistics at Lunaville suggests that the rate of US military deaths may be coming down (Lunaville counts both US and UK troops). Of course, this would be good news, so the Washington Post ran a story on September 2, highlighting a rise in wounded. I don’t know if that’s still true, since September 2 was also the day of the last US military death in Iraq. (There’s also no analysis of the severity of the injuries.) Like everyone who comments on this subject, let me make clear that I’m not making light of any death or injury sustained by US soldiers serving in Iraq. But it does seem like some people are looking for anything that proves we’re losing, and moving the goal posts.

2003-09-05T19:07:00.000-04:00

Good News, If True

Tonight on Fox News Channel's "Special Report," Sen. Orin Hatch told Tony Snow that the Senate Republicans will have to use the so-called "nuclear option" - he said he preferred to call it the "Constitutional alternative" - to get an up-or-down vote on filibustered court nominees. Hatch, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, was unequivocal. He said it would have to be done to uphold the Senate's Constitutional responsibility for "advice and consent."

Under Hatch's "Constitutional alternative," a Republican would ask the chair to rule that a simple majority could bring the nomination to a vote. The chair would rule in favor, Democrats would object, the chair would overrule their objection, and the vote would take place. At this point, the Republicans would have to have 51 votes willing to take this approach - the only escape "hatch" the Senator admitted in his conversation with Tony Snow. And it is surely possible that there are a few Republicans who just couldn't bring themselves to such an undainty maneuver.

Hatch said that when Sen. Robert Byrd was Senate Majority Leader, Democrats used this option more than once. He also noted that Democrats have threatened to "blow up the Senate" if Republicans take this route, but argued that they are already doing that - slowing things down, determined to prevent the President from being successful. By the way, Hatch also said, in answer to a general question about whether Miguel Estrada might be nominated again, that he would support Estrada for the Supreme Court.

I totally agree with Sen. Hatch, but I must say that I have seen him talk tough before. I hope this time he really means it, and that he has the Senate Republicans with him.

2003-09-05T08:31:00.000-04:00

Second Thoughts - Sort Of

I was thinking I may have been a bit overwrought in comparing the Senate Republicans' failure to secure confirmation for Miguel Estrada to the impeachment trial that wasn't. The political and procedural issues on confirmation are complicated and daunting. Then I read this

"There's going to be a lot of blame going around, saying the Republican senators should have done more," says one insider. "But there are many factors to be weighed in the balance. The leadership realizes there's an agenda to get through, and it's our agenda — we've got the president in the White House right now — and what do you sacrifice to make Miguel Estrada a federal judge?"

I'd be willing to "sacrifice" a lot of what the Senate has done for the past 18 months. Should we forgo Estrada to get prescription drugs?

The simple fact remains - having a slim Republican majority in the Senate has not been decisive in getting judges confirmed. We've only moved the Democratic roadblock from the Judiciary Committee to the Senate floor. A slightly larger majority after 2004, if it falls short of 60 working votes, won't change anything (and remember that at least one prime Republican target is the seat of Zell Miller - already a vote for cloture). If we still face that roadblock on the floor AND have a Judiciary Committee chaired by Arlen Specter, conservatives are not going to be happy.

In fact, the argument could be made that it is MORE important for conservatives to knock off Specter than to maintain Republican control of the Senate. So let me make that argument.

2003-09-04T12:13:00.000-04:00

Estrada and Specter - Judge for Yourself
Two articles on the Wall Street Journal editorial page today: An editorial on the withdrawal of Miguel Estrada’s nomination for a federal judgeship, and an op-ed on Arlen Specter’s likely ascension to chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee if he is re-elected next year. The obvious conclusion: Conservatives should support Pat Toomey in his primary battle against Specter.

The only reason for conservatives to support Specter is to retain Republican control of the Senate. But the Estrada defeat shows how little value that has for conservatives. Senate Republicans have once again shown (as in the impeachment “trial”) that they are unable or unwilling to fight for Constitutional principles, and Democrats have successfully raised the bar for federal judges.

I contributed to Republican Senate candidates in 2002 precisely because of the Senate’s role in judicial nominations. I have been bitterly disappointed. It would be foolhardy to think that a bigger Republican majority after 2004 will help – especially if it means Specter chairs Judiciary.

2003-09-04T09:46:00.000-04:00

California - Recalling Davis Is What's Most Important

California Democrats have been ridiculed for opposing the recall of Gov. Gray Davis while simultaneously supporting Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante to replace Davis should the recall succeed. I don’t see a contradiction. I wish Republicans could be as clear about the purposes of the recall. Too many are saying that if Bustamante ends up as governor, the exercise was a failure. Not so. Republicans need to separate the importance of calling Davis to account from the potential bonus of benefiting their own party.

Davis is what happens when Democratic interest-group politics reaches its logical conclusion. He has prostituted himself to every available group, handing over whatever state funds or regulation were necessary to secure their financial support. He clearly misled voters in last year’s election (with the help of a supportive press and ineffective Republican campaign) about the state’s fiscal crisis.

This is what recall elections are for. The people of California have a chance to enforce minimum standards in the democratic process. Whether Republicans end up stronger is up to them. But just because they can’t earn voters’ support shouldn’t mean anyone should let Davis off the hook.

If Bustamante wins, Democrats and the press will undoubtedly mock Republicans for a “failed coup.” So, what? As bad as Bustamante seems to be, recalling Davis is still necessary to enforce basic standards of honesty and fair play in democracy. So Republicans shouldn’t feel pressured to vote for Schwarzenegger to avoid an embarrassing loss. I like Arnold (though I’ve never seen any of his movies) – his story and his style. But his policy positions? – Well, at best you could say the jury is still out.

So, I say, play it straight. Focus on recalling Davis, vote for the best replacement – and let the chips fall where they may.

2003-09-03T09:59:00.000-04:00

What Was Campaign Finance Reform All About?

The Hill (via Lucianne.com) reports today that

“Democrats are poised to reap the benefits of soft-money contributions next year, even though the new campaign finance law bans candidates for federal office from raising such unlimited money directly. …

“A survey of groups that have raised at least $50,000 for this election cycle showed that pro-Democratic forces have set up 28 soft-money funds and raised close to $12 million through them. By contrast, Republican allies set up 18 such groups and raised less than $5 million. …

“Groups that don’t have to disclose their fundraising activities, such as the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association, will also spend much soft money. …

“On the hard-money front, Republicans, who control the White House and both houses of Congress, continue to dominate. Federal Election Commission records show that the Republican national-party committees have $42.6 million in the bank after the first six months of the year. The Democratic national-party committees have $22.2 million.”

So instead of the nearly 2-1 edge for Republicans that has been widely reported, the ratio of known funding is more like 3-2, not counting the groups that don’t have to report, and in-kind contributions, most notably from unions.

I’ve seen the argument made that Democrats supported Campaign Finance Reform on principle, but when they saw that it would hurt them, they abandoned their principle. That’s unfair to the Democrats, who I think genuinely believe that they have a responsbility to hold on to power – for the future of the children, the planet, or whatever. In this light, it would be selfish and immoral to let excessive legal fastidiousness prevent them from taking the fight to their foes. So I am quite sure that no Democrat who supported CFR ever had the slightest concern that it would impair the party’s ability to conduct campaigns. And while they may or may not have figured out the exact strategy to raise money under the new regulations, Democrats never doubted they could come up with one. The real question is, what was CFR all about, anyway?

2003-08-13T15:49:00.000-04:00

Kerry Bites the Big One
I'll venture a prediction. The Philly Cheese Steak incident is either (a) the end of John Kerry's bid for the Presidency or (b) the proof that, even if this event doesn't finish him off, he can never be President. What has kept Kerry in the race -- the ONLY thing that keeps him in the race -- is that he looks presidential. But his gravitas -- to use an old favorite term from 2000 -- has always been razor-thin (if not a complete illusion). The cheese steak gaffe (that's the term that would be applied if a Republican were involved) broke through the veneer, and showed how easily Kerry can be turned into a joke. So even if he survives this one, it's only a matter of time before he stumbles again and can't get up.

2003-08-13T00:12:00.000-04:00

Steady Progress

While the Democrats and the mainstream press obsess over the fact that George Bush has not remade the world into a perfect place in his first few years in office, they are missing the point that the world IS being made into a much better place. America's natural reluctance to interfere in the affairs of other nations can be set aside quite rapidly as the perpetrators of the attack on the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center all discovered. Such reluctance is replaced by a resolve and a determination that, combined with America's military and economic might, is a force for much more than revenge; it is a force for good. President Bush understands with absolute clarity that there is a strategic need to rid the world of rogue states who either threaten the US directly or destabilize regions of the world where instability can provide indirect assistance to those who would do us harm. The American people understand this, as well. Step by step progress is being made. One by one dictators and tyrants and those who support terror are being eliminated or removed from power. Last year, Mullah Omar and the Taliban; a few months ago, Sadam Hussein; a few days ago, Charles Taylor. And if you are a dictator in North Korea or Iran or Syria or wherever, you surely do not rest easily these days. Steady Progress. There is, of course, much left to do and we all know in the back of our minds that there could be discouraging setbacks ahead. But the world is better because America has stepped up to confront this menace to mankind. Let the small minds and the petty partisans carp and whine and complain. The American people understand what we have been called to do.

2003-08-12T14:43:00.000-04:00

Iraq – The Facts Are Irrelevant
"Bush Lied – and Our Soldiers Died” – that’s the latest Democratic refrain. For people who are always demanding a “smoking gun,” the claim seems pretty sketchy, and even so, nobody’s saying that the battle in Iraq wasn’t worth fighting. But you know what? It doesn’t matter. If one thing was absolutely predictable in December 2000, from the moment Bush was clearly going to be President, it was that Democrats would accuse him of lying. Iraq just happens to be the subject.

Democrats have to accuse Bush of lying – because they have to believe that Republicans are no better than they are. Everybody knows that Clinton lied. Democrats have to believe that Bush lies, too – and, of course, Bush lies about important things, not just about sex! Bush was elected on a promise to “restore dignity to the Presidency.” Oh, how that must stick in the craw of Clinton supporters! So Bush was destined to lie – in the eyes of Democrats and their friends in the press.

What’s truly remarkable is this: Just as it was utterly predictable that Bush would be accused of lying, it was certain that Democrats would try to attach a scandal to him, to establish his moral equivalency with (or inferiority to) the Clinton Administration. Yet, after nearly three years and lots of attempts – Enron, Halliburton, Harken Energy, Cheney’s energy task force, etc., etc. – there is no scandal. (And, no, it’s not because right-wingers have taken over the press and scared poor little CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, Time, and Newsweek into covering up Bush’s crimes.)

2003-08-11T17:14:00.000-04:00

Saddam Dead or Alive

Would it be better if Saddam Hussein is captured, or killed? A death that involves destroying the body beyond recognition might be the worst outcome, since fanatical followers in the Middle East will never be convinced of his demise, and eager skeptics here at home will never shut up. That’s why it was necessary to display the bodies of Uday and Qusay. (And who knows about Osama?) Otherwise, however, one can only say that Saddam’s death would be the best outcome. Imagine the circus that will ensue if Saddam is captured. Victor Davis Hanson's comments today in National Review Online, on the West's fastidious hand-wringing about Uday and Qusay, suggest what we might expect if Papa is in U.S. custody:

Saddam will immediately receive coveted victim status. We’ll hear endless criticism of U.S. treatment of the prisoner, appeals to (someone’s interpretation of) international law, and demands for UN intervention.

Cable stations will begin touting the latest “trial of the century.” Saddam will be assumed to have the Constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen. Defense attorneys will parade before the cameras with “expert” views that he cannot be proven guilty of anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Saddam will benefit from favorable contrasts to (fill in the blank) John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush – or whoever is railroading his conviction. The President’s political opponents will look to Saddam to contradict Bush’s rationale for going to war – and the more he does, the more credibility he’ll have with the press corps.

Saddam’s capture will be explained in purely political terms – as a tactic in President Bush’s reelection campaign.
In all this, it will be almost impossible to focus attention in the press on the crimes Saddam has committed against his people and the world – oops, I mean the crimes he is alleged to have committed.

2003-08-11T13:19:00.000-04:00

California: A Prediction

If the polls continue to show Gray Davis losing badly in his attempt to defeat his recall, don't be surprised if he decides suddenly to resign. Look for Davis to self-rightously proclaim that he is ending this circus atrmosphere so that California can focus on solutions blah, blah, blah. This, of course, would thwart the immediate political ambitions of the surging Arnold and would ensure that a Democrat, albeit one disliked by Davis, would remain as California governor. But such an outcome just might be a perfect scenario for Republicans. The state would remain in economic and political chaos and the Democrats would still be the people Californians would see on the news every day as the leadership that can't fix the problems. But the big loser just might then become Barbara Boxer. Having been introduced to the California voters as a plausible candidate who can generate significant interest and enthusiasm, who better than Arnold to run against the state's junior Democrat Senator in 2004? Stay tuned.

2003-08-09T15:22:00.000-04:00

A Rare Missed Opportunity for the Clintons

The bizarre carnival sideshow that we know as California politics presented an opportunity for the ever-opportunistic Clintons that I have to say I am amazed they missed. I mean, what could be better than having the former President, beloved in the land of fruits and nuts, step in at the last minute as a candidate for Governor? Sure he has never lived there but what does THAT matter? Hillary never lived in New York, right? And what a perfect fit! He could soak up the media attention and cruise back into public life as the saviour of a state that craves celebrityhood almost as much as he does. And if he is constitutionally barred from ever being President again, surely being the chief executive of a state that is larger than most nations is not a bad fallback position. Not to mention the fact that Hillary would have an entire continent and two major mountain ranges seperating her from her husband. What's not to like?

2003-07-24T11:04:00.000-04:00

The Party of Eeyore

Americans are a relentlessly optimistic people. Our history is one of confronting huge challenges with an attitude that we CAN prevail. And we almost always do. From the sucess of our revolution against the great superpower of the late 18th century, to the settling of the West, we have faced great challenges with an attitude that we can and will prevail. It is no surprise, therefore, that the leaders Americans love and revere are leaders who have been positive and optimistic. Washington led and inspired the Continental Army despite desperate odds. Teddy Roosevelt boldly asserted American power. Franklin Roosevelt confronted the Great Depression with an active, aggressive policy and presented a hopeful and optimistic demeaner to a worried nation. JFK talked about getting America going again. He talked about what America WOULD do; defend our friends, oppose our foes, go to the moon and, yes, cut taxes. And Ronald Reagan came to office following the gloomy and depressing years of Jimmy Carter. Reagan was sunny and optimistic and presented a positive plan that was predicated on a belief that if Americans could keep more of their own money and government could be reigned in from its growing controlover the economy, that this country could have an economic revival. And we did.

Abraham Lincoln would seem at first to be the exception to this rule. Given to bouts of depression and gloom, Lincoln did not exude the same personal optimistic spirit that the Roosevelts or Kennedy or Reagan did. But his leadership was nevertheless based on an optimistic idea: that the Union could be saved despite the seemingly insurmountable problem of slavery and that a single, unified nation could be built on this continent. He is remembered and revered, of course, for his leadership during the Civil War. But Lincoln also was a key supporter of the Homestead Act and the trans-continental railroad, both of which helped make us a continental nation and eventually a world power. To conceive of such ideas and to support them in the face of incredible physical and financial obstacles, required an optimism that Americans almost uniquely respond to.

Given this history, it is nothing short of astanishing to watch the Democrat Party and its candidates as they prepare to challenge President Bush. The Democrats have become the party of what we CAN'T do. We can't reform Social Security, we can't give parents choices in where they send their kids to school, we can't extract more oil out of Alaska, we can't drive SUV's, we can't fight terrorism abroad without UN approval. Can't, Won't, Shouldn't. Negative, negative, negative. The Democrats have become the party of Eeyore and in doing so they have put themselves at odds with the historical and deeply rooted tendencies of the American people.

2003-07-20T22:32:00.000-04:00

Oil Price Key to Bush Re-Election

I heard once that the price of gasoline at the pump is the one price that virtually everyone in America knows. Not milk or bread or electricity per KWH, but gasoline. It seems to me this is pretty much true. And despite the fact that the price of gasoline in real terms has been remarkably stable over the last few decades, when it does fluctuate up or down the mood of the country seems to move with it. It is disheartening to go off to buy hamburger and bread and note on the trip to the store that gas has jumped 10 cents a gallon in the last few days. So the ice cream we were about to buy is ignored, along with the mower we were about to buy and that biotech stock we were about to invest in. Of course it doesn't always work exactly like this; some people actually buy and consume MORE ice cream when they get despondant. But I do believe that the price we pay at the pump affects our attitude about whether the economy is getting better or worse. It is the common man's leading economic indicator. For this reason I believe it is absolutely essential that the price of crude oil drop below $25 by next Spring. If Bush is to win in a landslide we need a happy, optimistic electorate. And nothing makes Americans happier than seeing the prices at the pump falling.

2003-07-07T18:05:00.000-04:00

Economic Recovery: Are We There Yet?
Is it just me, or does it seem that there’s no way to get a handle on the economy? Whenever it looks as if the economy really is moving ahead, we get some unexpectedly bad report on an economic indicator. Housing starts are up, but manufacturing is down. Consumer confidence is up, but factory orders are down. Manufacturing is strengthening in Philadelphia … but soft in Chicago. New unemployment claims are up … no, they’re down … oops, up again. Intel is gloomy about the future… Intel is optimistic about the future… But Cisco is gloomy. If there’s lots of good economic news on Monday, you can bet on a negative bombshell on Tuesday. I almost expect to hear analysis like this: “The markets reacted to all the good economic reports by driving stock prices down, in expectation of the inevitable bad news to come.” And through it all, the economy continues to grind out weak, but positive, growth quarter after quarter.

2003-07-07T09:23:00.000-04:00

Bush in Africa
When President Bush is in Africa, let’s hope the focus is on substance, not symbol. While Africa may not seem to be of critical strategic importance, its population is growing rapidly despite the AIDS epidemic, and it's expected to triple by 2050. Africa's relative size is growing even more rapidly, as the population of developed countries levels off and declines. Population growth in Africa, without economic growth to support an improving – or even stable – quality of life, will create global pressures. By the way, it’s also simply right that the U.S. takes an interest in the suffering of this huge and troubled continent.

If you look back at the press coverage of President Clinton’s African tour in 1998, it is all about symbolism. There’s endless speculation as to exactly how explicitly Clinton will apologize for slavery, and lots of talk about the symbolism of his visit to the site in Senegal where slaves departed for America.

In a way, President Bush can thank Clinton for clearing the decks, so that Bush can focus on substantive issues of here and now. Any apology for slavery would only serve as pretext for more aid demands by unscrupulous dictators who wish to funnel the proceeds into their private accounts. It would also encourage the reparations lobby back at home. Most importantly, it would support the notion that past sins of the West – colonialism and slavery – are the root causes of the disaster that is Africa today. That would only take pressure off reforming the disastrous political and economic structures and policies across the continent.

If President Bush is true to form, he has very specific ideas for what should be done now to build strong economic, political and social structures in Africa, and to address the urgent needs for food, sanitation, and health. If he is true to form, his trip is not a series of photo ops, or an attempt to dominate the news cycles during the dog days of summer, but the beginning of a sustained – and effective – engagement in Africa.

2003-07-01T15:05:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court, Pandora, and Baghdad
The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas indicates that the Court did not learn the lesson of Roe v. Wade. In both cases, the Court seemed to think that it could resolve a contentious social issue by the weight of its decision. In fact, what happened in Roe is that the Court’s attempt to short-circuit an ongoing, vigorous public debate served to polarize the country. Those who opposed abortion were no longer able to fight it out in their state legislature. They were faced with the nearly hopeless challenge of securing a Constitutional amendment.

Lawrence is different from Roe in a way, because public opinion is clearly moving against sodomy laws anyway – there was, and is, no such consensus on abortion. Of course, that makes the Court decision all the more pointless and arrogant – why couldn’t the Justices just let society work its will? But the way the Court decided Lawrence is the real problem here, because it clearly opened the possibility of Court-mandated gay marriage. And in that way, the Court has opened up another Roe-like Pandora’s box. We are already hearing calls for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage. Right-to-life supporters can tell you just exactly the chances of that ever becoming part of the Constitution.

Justice Scalia said in his dissent that the Court had taken sides in the culture wars. His comment brings to mind the fall of Baghdad, because maybe this is different from Roe v. Wade - maybe the war is over. What was expected to be a long, hard battle over gay marriage seems to be over before it began. Tod Lindberg's column in the Washington Post (via Real Clear Politics) takes a similar, broader view.

2003-06-19T10:22:00.000-04:00

David Brinkley and the Death of "The News"
The recent death of David Brinkley has evoked reminiscences – such as this column by Kathleen Parker – of the days when Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite were father figures, authoritatively declaring to American viewers “the way it is.” All this nostalgia highlights the change in the media that has been brought about by the Internet, talk radio, and cable news.

Brokaw, Rather, and Jennings have never achieved the stature of their predecessors, but the networks have continued to believe that they are revealing the simple truth to the masses. And the left, which doesn’t believe in objective truth, nevertheless believes that it resides at ABC, NBC, CBS, and NPR.

What makes Fox News so dangerous is not only that it gives conservative ideas a airing, but that it challenges the very idea of “The News.” Fox’s “fair and balanced” claim drives liberals crazy, not only because they see Fox as leaning right, but even more so because it dares suggest that network news might not be the only version of the truth. Fox News is the New York Post on TV, appealing to the common sense of the average guy. The networks are The New York Times, handing down the stone tablets. Even the most authoritative figure on Fox, Brit Hume, allows a panel of pundits on to his show to debate the issues as he’s presented them.

Similarly, what made the embedded reporters in Iraq so distressing to some people was not only that they came to understand and respect their military comrades. To those for whom “the news” is what the networks say it is, the worst thing about the embedded reporters is that they demonstrated that “news” is always seen through a particular lens.

The Internet allows and requires readers to check multiple sources, compare conflicting reports, and put together their own picture of the news. Readers become participants in defining the news (as do talk show listeners). No longer can the elites count on trusting masses accepting whatever Huntley and Brinkley tell them.

2003-06-17T15:48:00.000-04:00

Term Limits - Gaining Momentum in the Blogosphere?
David Frum at National Review Online takes up the term limits cause today. When I wrote about term limits earlier this month (in reaction to Bill Clinton's remarks on the 22nd Amendment), I was thinking it might be a dead issue. Maybe not.

2003-06-17T15:42:00.000-04:00

I'm Sorry, So Shut Up
No offense intended - this is the title of an article I have posted today at The American Spectator on the Web.

2003-06-16T09:45:00.000-04:00

Mediscare
I believe President Bush is the most effective leader we've seen in a long, long time. And I'm impressed by how bold he is in pursuing goals dear to the hearts of conservatives -- not just tax cuts, but also things like missile defense (and an end to the ABM Treaty). But I'm having a hard time figuring out how the Medicare "reform" is anything but a disaster.

I have thought that the most important argument in favor of providing prescription drug benefits to Medicare recipients is efficiency. That is, drugs have proven to be a much more cost-effective way to treat a number of conditions than the kinds of medical treatments paid for by Medicare. The development and use of drugs to treat and prevent heart disease and other conditions is one of the great medical success stories of the past 30 years. It's often said that, if Medicare were created today, it would cover prescription drugs. That's undoubtedly true, but beside the point.

The fact that drugs are so much more cost-effective, yet no one claims cost-savings as a plus for extending benefits, proves what the Wall Street Journal emphasizes today. Most older people already have some kind of prescription drug benefit. The fact is, drugs are so valuable that people have found ways to get access to them -- by private insurance, by demand for employers to provide drug benefits, by spending their own money for something that's worth it. And low-income patients have access to government-funded prescription medicines.

In fact, when it comes to prescription drugs, the current situation is the one that Bush is supposedly trying to create for all of Medicare -- a range of options, including private sector optons. We should be trying to make the rest of Medicare look like the way seniors get their prescription drugs, instead of the other way around.

2003-06-10T12:31:00.000-04:00

UK Should Integrate With US, Not Europe
A few years ago, returning from a business trip to Russia, a colleague and I stopped off for additional meetings in London before returning to the US. The Russian part of the trip had been especially grueling and as we rode in our taxi from Heathrow to our hotel, my travelling companion -- a fellow American -- slumped in his seat and muttered, "God, it's good to be home!" I thought of that moment when I read a line at the end of a Reuters report that the UK, to absolutely no one's surprise, was not yet ready to join the European single currency. The line in the story that caught my eye was that the study undertaken by the UK Chancellor to determine if the time was right for European and UK monetary integration had concluded, among other things, that the British economy remains more in tune with the US economy than with Europe.

Britain has never quite been able to reconcile its feelings towards Europe. In some ways Britons want to feel like they are Europeans. More sophisticated than those crass, naive Americans, they years ago cultivated a taste for such continental delights as great clarets, truffles and holidays in Tuscany, Provence and the Algarve. But unlike most of the continent, Britain is fundamentally a commercial nation, a "nation of shopkeepers" as it was once famously described. And as such, Britain has always had a problem with the way Europe deals with business. The Anglo approach to regulation and commercial law is fundamentally different than that which exists in Europe. And the truth is, it is much more compatible with how the US transacts business. In their heart of hearts most Brits truly believe that the Europeans have "got it all wrong" regarding business. Their attraction to Europe is basically aesthetic but that attraction could potentially lead Britain into a continental trap and an economic model that is rigid, decaying and fundamentally foreign to the UK.

A few hundred years ago Britain looked west to its future. It established colonies in North America and settled them in ways that were far different than the manner in which the continental powers settled their colonies. The British sent families and tradesmen and established private, commercial trading companies. The colonies thrived and if they were badly governed in the end, leading to a nasty revolution and the creation of a new North American nation, the Brits nevertheless left a legacy for that nation that endures to this day. And it is why the British economy remains, as Gordon Brown's report confirmed, more in tune with the US economy than with Europe's. It also suggests that Britain's best hope for a vibrant economic future is to once again look west, to its old colonies and its natural economic partner. The US and the UK are culturally, economically and linguistically a far better fit than the UK and the dying, or at least stagnant, economies of Old Europe.

Despite the fact that I laughed at him at the time, my colleague in that London taxi had inadvertantly made a good point. When we arrived in the UK we were, in a sense, "at home". They were driving on the wrong side of the road but these were people with whom we could do business.

2003-06-07T13:13:00.000-04:00

TERM LIMITS AND DEMOCRACY
Bill "Won't You Please Just Go Away?" Clinton has revived discussion of term limits with his not-very-surprising comment in favor of repealing the 22nd Amendment. In The Corner on NRO, Kathryn Jean Lopez (June 7, scroll down) expresses a very unusual point of agreement with the former president.

This is one of those issues that does not break down along conservative-liberal lines. I'm for term limits. The case for term limits on legislative offices was made several years ago by George Will. In one word, it's "gerrymandering." His argument, and I'm paraphrasing, is that term limits are not anti-democratic, because constituents don't choose their legislators; legislators choose their constituents. The most recent redistricting in California, where Democrats conceded the opportunity to pick up several seats in the U.S. House in favor of protecting all their incumbents, illustrates Will's point. During the recent redistricting dust-up in Texas, I saw an interview of incumbent Democratic Congressmen, in which the underlying assumption was that they were being robbed of "their" seats. Here in Ohio, we have term limits on state legislators. It has resulted in a game of musical chairs, but it still makes the point that these seats don't belong to anyone.

If the argument for term limits on the Presidency was not as clear, Clinton has just made it. Yes, I fret about the day -- five and a half years from now -- when someone other than George W. Bush is president. But no president should get the idea that this could possibly be his (or her) role for life. I'd be surprised if Bush has anything other than a Cincinnatus-like view of public service. But I still want term limits.

2003-06-04T17:58:00.000-04:00

MARTHA, LACI, JON BENET

I put CNBC on mute today because I was fed up with the breathless and endless coverage of Martha Stewart's indictment. I understand that this is news. She is, after all, a well-known CEO of a substantial, publicly traded company. And it does appear that she may have acted improperly and perhaps illegally. Fine. Cover the story. But I happened to glance up from my computer screen and noticed that CNBC was interviewing the head of the FDA about their drug approval process, specifically getting new and innovative cancer treatments on the market sooner. Since a substantial part of my tear-stained personal portfolio is in a small biotech company working on such treatments, I was obviously interested in his comments. So as the new head of the FDA is addressing these important issues with implications for the market as well as for seriously ill patients, he is suddenly cut off by the anchor and told that they are out of time. Why are they out of time? Well, the anchor explained to viewers, it is a big news day today and they just didn't have as much time for this interview as they would have liked. A big news day?? What is wrong here? They had a split screen going so they could show Martha (the best celebrities are ones we can call by their first names and tout la monde understands who they are) as she exited the court house. Like it was the first moon landing! THIS is what made it a big news day. THIS is why we couldn't have a full interview with the head of the FDA on a serious topic. I guess this is what happens on a day when there are no embedded reporters to call in on their satellite phones, no shark attacks at beach resorts, no Amber Alerts or missing pregnant women. We can still have Martha. And it can still be a BIG NEWS DAY! It is almost enough to make you wonder if the French don't have a point about American culture. Well, almost.

2003-06-04T15:30:00.000-04:00

VICTIM STATUS SEEKERS
I read The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins this past week, just as an article by Jonah Goldberg touched off a lot of talk about bigotry against Republicans. Since I'm a member of both victim groups, I'm feeling pretty special. Goldberg's piece was actually a reaction to a New York Times Magazine article on "The Young Hipublicans" - conservative college students. Goldberg quotes from the article: "Today, most campus conservatives who hope to be effective won't dress like George Bush or Dick Cheney. The idea is to dress like a young person." Pretty amazing to assume that young people who are conservatives wouldn't dress like young people, except to advance their political agenda. There are also some jaw-dropping examples of how liberals think of Republicans in this round-up on Real Clear Politics. Likewise, there are some anecdotes in the Jenkins book of the amazing things that enlightened people "know" about Catholics. I guess you could call it bigotry. But the Catholics who would most likely be offended by attacks on the Church are the same ones most likely to find some reassurance in rejection by "the world." As for Republicans, we've never been into claiming bigotry - we don't need victims status to justify protection from the government. What's more, we have a sense that we're winning. So the stories are good for some shock value or a few laughs, and it's good to be aware of what some people think of us, but let's not make a habit of complaining about prejudice.

2003-06-04T13:22:00.000-04:00

HILLARY IS TODAY'S TEDDY KENNEDY
The dismal performance to date of all of the Democrat presidential candidates and the release of Hillary Clinton's new book will no doubt fuel the inevitable speculation that she will someday run for president herself. After all, unlike all of the candidates in the race for the democrats, she has star power and energizes the base of her party. And, of course, she can raise money. So should Republicans be worried about Senator Clinton as a potential national candidate? I don't think so. I am reminded of another Democrat who also had star power and whose potential presidential candidacy also was the topic of endless speculation by the media and both political parties. In the early 70's, in spite of his unfortunate "incident" at Chapaquidick, Teddy Kennedy was feared as well as loathed by the Republican party. He was seen as the Democrat gold standard. He carried the last name of a former Democrat president and was a celebrity in the media as well as in his party. The polls all showed him to be a formidable potential candidate. But a funny thing happened when he finally got around to running for president. Teddy Kennedy actually peaked the day he announced. He was a strong POTENTIAL candidate but a weak contender in reality. I have a hunch the same will be true of Hillary Clinton, if she ever decides to run. When you cross the line from potential candidate to actual candidate the rules all change. It will be interesting to see if she, too, peaks on the day of her announcement.

2003-06-03T12:20:00.000-04:00

More on Nuclear Threat
In today's Washington Times, Bill Gertz reports on a CIA assessment that al Qaeda is "ready to use nukes." I don't know what I think about this specific report, but it's a reminder of the cloud that hangs over the world. I'm old enough to remember MAD. I've seen some comments that nobody really thought about the threat of nuclear war back then, but I did. And the heck of it is, the threat today is really more dangerous. The bottom line is that is doesn't matter for most of us - we have to live our lives to the full and not trim our plans or dreams because something bad could happen. But I do hope that the people who should be doing something about this threat are acting aggressively.

2003-06-02T08:21:00.000-04:00

Bush's Tax Cut Victory
I have an article posted today on Tech Central Station, about the qualities that produced President Bush's astounding victory on taxes: persistence, flexibility, a focus on results rather than credit, and a willingness to take risks.

2003-06-02T06:55:00.000-04:00

Chirac Thwarts Effort to Head Off Doomsday
Last night I posted on the need for concerted action to get control of WMDs before terrorists can launch a doomsday plot. First thing this morning, I see this article from the London Telegraph, about Chirac's opposition to a US/UK proposal to do just that. French pique wins out over international cooperation on the most pressing challenge of our lives. I recall an observation (from Mark Steyn, I think) that the countries least concerned about Saddam Hussein and WMDs were the ones most concerned about genetically modified food. There's no reason to show any deference to this kind of foolishness.

2003-06-01T22:30:00.000-04:00

The issue of weapons of mass destruction -- specifically WMD that might make it into the United States and be used here -- was something that Senator Lugar tried to talk about during his presidential campaign back in 1995. But in those happier days of endless bull markets, globalization and the "new economy" no one really wanted to be bothered by such depressing thoughts. Lugar was mocked and derided for raising such a serious issue in a presidential campaign and his candidacy soon ended. I have since heard Dick Lugar talk with expertise and deep concern about this ongoing danger and the practical, as well as diplomatic, steps that the world must take to lessen this danger. This is a front in the war on terror. We must make it a high priority of US policy to make these weapons as scarce and difficult to procure as possible. This means strengthening Nunn-Lugar and maintaining a constructive dialogue on this issue with Russia and the new states of the former Soviet Union. But it also means that we must continue to enhance methods and activities of our intelligence services. We must ensure that American intelligence around the world is is able to provide policy-makers with the best and most accurate information possible.

2003-06-01T19:49:00.000-04:00

Doomsday Warning
In today's Indianapolis Star Andrea Neal sounds the warning from Sen. Dick Lugar about the availability of weapons of mass destruction to the world's terrorists. Mike, I know you've heard Senator Lugar speak with deep emotion about what he sees as a very real danger. Lugar has not come to this issue lately -- he's been working on reducing the nuclear stockpile in the former USSR for many years. I think the war on terrorism is going well in many respects, but all that progress will mean nothing if the world fails to get control of thousands of WMDs that could quite possibly fall into the hands of terrorists. The doomsday scenarios, like the one Neal describes, are truly terrifying -- and would have a devastating and lasting impact, not just on the immediate target, but the entire world. I hope we see some clear recognition of this issue and the kind of commitment we've seen from President Bush on other aspects of the war against terror.