|
|
| |
 |
|
| |
|
|
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died within hours of each other on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration. Edward J. Larson recounts the bitterness of the 1800 campaign in a WaPo op-ed. He doesn't get into how Adams and Jefferson later reconciled, a story told, albeit greatly simplified, in the last episode of the fabulous HBO miniseries John Adams. After watching the miniseries I picked up The Adams-Jefferson Letters, a volume that I highly recommend for history buffs.
Posted By: John Tabin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The "works he considered homoerotic" line is priceless. The implication is that this is a subjective judgment, and some people would look at, say, Mapplethorpe's self-portrait with a bullwhip hanging out of his anus and say I don't know what you're talking about, I don't see anything gay about that.
This seems like a good excuse to link to The Onion.
Posted By: John Tabin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The Guardian's Jesse Helms obituary is a typical liberal hatchet job, but they get it right in their headline.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
"In 1989, he drew national attention for an attack on the National Endowment for the Arts after it funded works he considered homoerotic and anti-Christian," the Washington Post obit of Jesse Helms reads, without telling us whether it too might have characterized those works -- which remain unidentified -- as homoerotic and anti-Christian. The purpose, of course, is to suggest that Helms was off his bigoted rocker.
At least the New York Times does the more responsible thing by providing context and naming names, if still somewhat euphemistically:
In the 1980's he took on the National Endowment for the Arts for subsidizing art that he found offensive, chiefly that of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, who explored gay themes in some of his work, and of the artist Andres Serrano, who depicted a crucifix submerged in urine.
Regardless of the fusillade of condemnations his death has set off from all the usual sources -- and some new ones, such as the Post's online "On Faith" column, where writer David Waters only pretends to follow his grandfather's injunction not to speak ill of the dead (and don't miss the comments here) -- suffice it to say that Helms will forever have the last word. He died on July 4.
Posted By: Wlady
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Put Phil and Jim's critiques together and what do you get? A broad yet extraordinarily fragile coalition of Obama voters -- all of whom want at least one kind of substantive, even sweeping change in policy, and all of whom stand to be significantly disappointed. Michael has already beaten this drum --
If he wins the White House, Obama will leak
damaging news on Fridays. He will flinch. He will misspeak from podiums
adorned with the presidential seal. He will make stupid and damaging
bargains with his political enemies. He will not be able to satisfy
free-traders and protectionists. He will not usher in an era for new
socialist man, nor will he make the march of global capitalism any more
pleasant to those it displaces or any more hip to those that it
enriches. He will not convince his opponents that they were wrong all
along. They will not forgive him with a friendly laugh. He won’t trim
the illegal powers bestowed on the office by his predecessors. Out of
expediency, he will use codewords designed to vilify the opinions of
millions of his countrymen. And occasionally, he will just be a boring,
incompetent, tired, human. His story is one of a long, tragic,
assimilation into our political class. --
But what if these effects start piling up before Obama wins? A reminder of the reality of politics, yes, but also of its pathologies.
Posted By: James G. Poulos
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The New York Times slams Obama in its lead editorial:
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
In recent days I've been wondering if Obama's reversals are an example of deft Clintonian triangulation, or if they will begin to hurt his candidacy. About a month ago, I wrote about Obama's Mitt Romney problem, noting that, "Obama has never had to run a general election campaign against a viable Republican in which his liberal views underwent scrutiny and he was forced to move to the center to compete for independents."
The advantage that Obama has in making these shifts is that Democrats are so desperate to retake the White House, that they are going to give him a lot of wiggle room, and that a willingness by Obama to abandon any position that causes him problems does undermine McCain by making it harder for him to portray Obama as a radical liberal.
However, here's where I think that the flip flop problem could be disastrous for Obama, and perhaps even more damaging than it was for John Kerry. Obama has absolutely no real accomplishments to run on, and a very slim public record. He has made a world of promises to change the world, but there's nothing tangible in his past that he can point to that would demonstrate he has the ability to achieve any of it. If people stop believing in him, if he loses his image as a new kind of politician, if people don't trust his words, what's left? Why take a risk on somebody with practically no experience if you can't trust a damn word he says?
Like an inflated Internet stock in the late 1990s, Obama's meteoric rise on the basis of superficial factors may very well be followed by a precipitous fall, triggering a "flight to safety" in the form of John McCain.
Posted By: Philip Klein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| July 3, 2008 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Doctor Henry Morgentaler receives the Order of Canada, Canada's highest civilian honour. The award has struck a nerve. The good doctor is best known as an abortion activist. He opened an illegal clinic in 1969 and has consistently fought for the right to choose.
Some Canadians are annoyed with the decision because they feel that the Order should be given only to people whose work is unanimously considered beneficial to Canada. Clearly, an abortion activist doesn't fit the bill.
Father Lucien Larre has actually returned his Order, which he received some 25 years ago, saying that he couldn't in good conscious be linked to the activist.
Still, Morgentaler is only being given a "Member" medal in the Order. This status, the lowest awarded to a Canadian, specifically honors people who have serviced a "particular community, group or field of activity."
Well, abortion supporters are certainly a particular group. Now all Canada has to do is recognize a hero from the other side and the chaos can end.
Posted By: Erin Wildermuth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Rich Lowry has a very nice piece out today on George Washington and his Continental Army. A good read heading into Independence Day!
Posted By: Quin Hillyer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
"Once again, Congress and President Bush have turned legislation intended to fund American troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan into a Christmas tree for domestic spending." Brian Riedl reports on the new bloated emergency appropriation that creates a new entitlement and hands out other new goodies at taxpayer expense.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Obama has been vacilating between promising a speedy withdrawal and attaching so many caveats to this promise as to render it meaningless for some time now. While Obama's position on the wisdom of the Iraq invasion and the desirability of leaving is much clearer than John Kerry's in 2004 (and, in my view, sounder than John McCain's now), they are close enough to make me find the Obamacons entirely unpersuasive. Just as I didn't see why antiwar conservatives should want to vote for a pro-war liberal in 2004, I don't see why I should vote for a candidate who wants to raise taxes, grow government, codify Roe v. Wade, promote taxpayer-funded abortion, expand government control of health care, appoint liberal judges, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, add regulations, throw more money at Bush's compassionate conservative initiatives, impose cap-and-trade, and constrict free trade on the basis of foreign-policy and civil liberties issues where I can't figure out what in the hell he'd actually do anyway.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Barack Obama's position on Iraq is adjusting so rapidly, that his own
website cannot even keep up with his campaign's shifts.
This week on MSNBC, Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice described Obama's position this way:
"He
has said that the best military advice he's received leads us to
believe that we can safely withdraw our forces at the pace of one to
two combat brigades per month, and depending on the number of combat
brigades he inherits, our best estimate is that that could be
accomplished in roughly 16 months. That's not a deadline. That's a
timetable, and obviously if Senator Obama has said on numerous
occasions, he will listen to his commanders on the ground, he will
follow and heed their advice as he decides how at the strategic level
we must proceed. So he will do this very carefully and responsibly as
he always said but he will do it."
However, Obama's website
makes 16 months sound like a firm commitment, and never qualifies that
commitment by saying it could change based on the advice of commanders
on the ground:
"Obama will immediately begin to remove
our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each
month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16
months."
Here was David Axelrod describing Obama's position on CNN yesterday:
"The fact is that, Senator Obama introduced a plan in the United States Senate in January of 2007 that called for a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these benchmarks, and advice on the commanders on the ground and he's always said that he would listen to the advice of commanders on the ground, that that would factor into his thinking. He's also said we have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. So he's been very consistent on this point."
But here's how Obama's website describes that same legislation:
"In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008."
It's official. The Obama campaign has entered John Kerry territory when it comes to changing positions on Iraq.
Posted By: Philip Klein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Though he's had the nomination wrapped up for four months (about the same amount of time as between now and Election Day), McCain has shaken up his campaign to put Steve Schmitt in charge so that he can craft a message. I think it'll be a pretty tall order for a number of reasons. One is that the fundamentals so favor Democrats and the public is so against Bush, that no matter how skilled a political operator is, it would be difficult to craft a winning message for any Republican candidate. McCain has to appeal to independents while trying not to anger the conservative base too much; he must distance himself from Bush, but can't throw Bush under the bus. It's a real high wire act. But the biggest obstacle to consistent messaging is the idiosyncratic personality of McCain himself. By nature, he's not very scripted, and that's one of the very things that makes him appealing to a lot of voters. It's also not clear that he has any sort of clear ideology that ties all of his various positions together. I mean, how does somebody try to talk about free markets and limited government, have a good record of fighting pork-barrel spending, and yet want to go after CEO pay, support the re-importation of price-controlled Canadian drugs, and regulate political speech? So, no matter what Schmitt does, at the end of the day, McCain himself will always be the message.
Posted By: Philip Klein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Freddy Gray starts a self-help group for journalists fighting the urge to waterboard themselves. If only he could have saved Christopher Hitchens in time.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
I don't think Gephardt as veep is crazy or even mildly implausible. But does even the most ardent McCain backer find it scary? Really? If so, wow. This must be a Democratic year if an exciting candidate like Gephardt can roil the waters.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| July 2, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
With two summer jobs. Maybe they paid really, really well...
Posted By: John Tabin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
I don't think that's as crazy as you seem to, Jim. Gephardt may be boring, but he would please labor leaders, who can be valuable allies on election day. The lobbying is probably a disqualifier, though.
Posted By: John Tabin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Peter Ferrara takes on Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam today on the main site; I review their book, Grand New Party, in the July/August issue of the print magazine. I agree with most of Ferrara's criticisms, especially his argument with their treatment of welfare reform (I discuss it a little bit here, but don't really get into it in the review). But I differ with him on the expanded child tax credit. These tax cuts do help families keep their hard-earned money and therefore should not be described as a subsidy or bribery, unless all tax cuts are bribery. (Ferrara doesn't actually use the word "bribery," but the implication of buying political support is close.) Second, while it's true that this tax cut won't have much of a supply-side or pro-growth effect, capital investment isn't the only behavior conservatives should want to incentivize. Finally, the point is to broaden the constituency for a conservative governing coalition. Empowering that coalition by protecting the paychecks of working families and promoting affordable family formation will make it easier to enact the purer supply-side policies that Ferrara and I would prefer.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
I just wanted to second J.P.'s message. I've only met Brian a few times, but have always found him to be a good guy. Here's to Brian's speedy recovery.
Posted By: Philip Klein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
I mostly agree with the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial mentioning my June piece on the sad state of the Ohio Republican Party, except this bit about reform ,"which Antle seems to define as tax cuts." Well, yes, I like tax cuts. But given the rapid spending increases, at a much faster clip than inflation plus population growth, I'd say some budget reform is in order. To say the least. Ohio's state government is a petrified creature neither party will tackle.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Lord, is Sam Anderson's recent New York magazine spread on Barack Obama's
ability to talk real pretty-like a piece of work!
Like America
itself, [Obama is] addicted to origin myths. He's built his political success
on the back of compulsive autobiography, the brilliant telling and retelling,
and then retelling some more, of his divinely unorthodox life story: the great
sweeping legend of Obamerica, the fusion of man and nation, whose manifest
destiny extends all the way to the White House.
This, apparently, explains why his legislative record is
pretty thin gruel: It must be difficult to moonlight as a senator when
you're day job is going through the no doubt painful process of fusing yourself to the nation formerly known as the United States.
(Welcome to Obamerica, please enjoy the complimentary compulsive
autobiography.) Also, since the term "manifest destiny" is back in vogue, I'm happy to hear the Canadians are so
jazzed on Obama. NAFTA will have to be renegotiated when you're absorbed in
Greater Obamerica, friends. More: It's significant that he used his first appearance in the
national spotlight, the keynote speech at Kerry's DNC, to meta-sketch the
inspirational origin of that very keynote speech: "Let's face it, my presence on
this stage is pretty unlikely," he said, and then unleashed, in about 60
seconds, a pithy intergenerational family saga spanning three continents and
all the major events of mid-twentieth-century America (Depression, Pearl
Harbor, postwar boom)--complete with such unlikely details as goat herding, a
tin-roof shack, oil rigs, and Patton's army marching across Europe. It was like
a brilliant movie trailer designed to promote the incalculably awesome feature
attraction of his future political career. To deny his candidacy, after that,
would be to deny a very powerful narrative logic--the goats, the tin-roof shack,
Patton, all of it.
This sounds like the rantings of an overbearing salesman: If you want the goats and Patton, you're
going to have to take the Obama--and trust me: You want the goats and Patton. They
really tie the room of the national tin-roof shack together. And later:
My relationship to Obama has been a complex cycle of
enthusiasm canceled immediately by self-correcting cynical objections, canceled
by self-correcting enthusiasm, canceled again by the cynicism, canceled by the
enthusiasm.
I guess I'm starting to see why people faint at Obama
rallies. Hope...make...brain...huuuurt.
Posted By: Shawn Macomber
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Brian Beutler, a leading liberal blogger was shot three times in the stomach during a mugging, I'm told by mutual friends (then confirmed by TPM). It's especially sad as this poor guy had no business getting shot -- some desperate guy wanted his cellphone. Clearly, he wasn't one to be reasoned with -- were he, I'm confident Brian's charm and thoughtfulness would have triumphed (I've met him a few times). But ours is a crazy world, let alone a crazy city, leading to what I would assume to be a frightening ambulance ride for Beutler and his companion.
His spleen has been removed, particularly disconcerting as that will severely impact his ability to fight illness. Then there are the risks inherent in major surgery.
I can only echo Megan's thoughts about the state of crime (and crime-fighting) in this city -- it reminds me of the needless and violent murder of the New York Times's David Rosenbaum, who was left unaided, ailing on the sidewalk, ignored in his death. There's an illusion of safety in this city, conveyed by the economic development and the swollen demographics familiar from college. But we're not on college campuses where things feel safe (and are sometimes very much not). We're in a city, a particularly criminal one.
When I lived on Capitol Hill, police reports would include muggings where someone had been assaulted with a brick. Scofflaws would remove them from sidewalks under construction, then lob them at people to disable them long enough to steal a wallet or a purse or an iPod. This, in the "newly" gentrified neighborhood just six blocks east of the Capitol building.
The temptation to discuss gun control law, how this doesn't or does apply, is strong, but I think there's a more obvious philosophical point that I hope Brian derives from this tragedy -- and the miracle of his survival, and that is this:
Life is far too short, and you have to do what good you can while you live it. Brian, AmSpec wishes you the speediest of recoveries and the warmest of our wishes.
Posted By: J.P. Freire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The conventional wisdom is that with liberal voters desperate to return to the White House and conservatives tepid about the Republican nominee, Bob Barr will be a much bigger threat to McCain than Ralph Nader will be to Obama. But a new CNN poll suggests just the opposite. The poll has Obama beating McCain 50-45 in a head-to-head match up, but: In a four-way matchup that includes independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, Obama's lead over McCain dwindles to 3 percentage points, 46 percent to 43 percent. (Nader registers 6 percent, and Barr gets 3 percent.)
It's hard to know what to make of this, since I haven't seen any other polls reflecting such a strong showing for Nader. I would have thought that with the most liberal candidate since George McGovern on the ticket and with Nader's controversial charge that Obama was "talking white," that the old consumer advocate wouldn't be able to pull off anything like he did in 2000. I'm still pretty much of that view. But maybe the far left won't have as much tolerance for Obama's general election moves to the center as I've assumed. His reversal on FISA and initial rejection of Wesley Clark's comments seem to have struck a particular nerve. Kos and Arianna Huffington have both registered their discontent with Obama. Just another wild card to keep an eye on.
Posted By: Philip Klein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Over at the Corner, Kathleen Parker responds to John McCain skeptics who argue that his decision to refuse early release as a POW was merely in keeping with the Code of Conduct and thus not truly heroic. I would just add that at the time he was offered early release, McCain was still severely sick and injured, and there was doubt as to whether he would survive in the prison camp. Given his debilitated condition, fellow prisoners supported him accepting early release, and wouldn't have seen it as a breach of the Code. But he refused anyway, knowingly subjecting himself to the most brutal beatings he received in all of his years at the camp.
Posted By: Philip Klein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Jim Webb is the latest Democrat to take aim at John McCain, but his comments show perhaps an higher degree of chutzpah than Wesley Clark's:
Mr. Webb, a Virginia Democrat who is often mentioned as a possible running mate for Mr. Obama, said Mr. McCain should "calm down" about his military record. "Don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them, because they don't," he said on MSNBC.
A Marine who served in Vietnam -- a fact he mentioned often as he campaigned for the Senate, occasionally while wearing his son's desert combat boots -- Mr. Webb said "we need to make sure that we take politics out of service."
It's pretty clear that Webb owes his Senate seat to the fact that he used his military service, as well as his son's service in Iraq, to give added credence to his anti-war views. Here is Webb in a debate with George Allen on Meet the Press on Sept. 17, 2006:
I know what it’s like to be on the ground. I
know what it’s like to fight a war like this. And there’s -- there are
limits to what the military can do. Eventually, this is going to have
to move into a diplomatic environment. Now, that’s where this
administration seems to have blinders. They’re not talking to Syria,
they’re not talking to Iran. And there are ways that we can do this,
move this forward....
One of the, one of the great problems we have right now in, in, in
discussing this war is that very few people who have brought us this
war have served and very, very few of the children of these people who
have brought us this war have served. And if you have to wake up every
morning wondering about a loved one, you will look at, at words like
this much differently.
I've never heard McCain argue that Obama opposes the war because he doesn't know what it's like to be on the ground. And McCain did have a son serving in Iraq, but, unlike Webb, only talked about it on the rare occasion when somebody else brought it up, and certainly never used it to bolster his arguments on Iraq.
The only person who needs to calm down here is Jim Webb.
Posted By: Philip Klein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
