Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns.
I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015).
I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!"
You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).
Archives
|
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Rex Murphy on the Bush haters Globe and Mail columnist Rex Murphy on the irrational and conceited hatred of President George W. Bush: "It is not because he is President, though that is usually the rationalization put forward. That because he is President, and therefore has such power to do so many evil, stupid things, it is not only right to detest him: It is an obligation. No. This line of reasoning is a kind of after-scaffolding for an emotion that has little to do with reason at all. Mr. Bush is loathed, first in his own right -- as a pickup-driving, nicknaming, inarticulate and haughty George Dubya. That he should be President just adds rocket boosters to the initial hate. If he is, as a person, so innocuous, so unfinished and essentially trivial -- what drives the anger and contempt of so many people? Part of an answer might be that for those outside America, for whom anti-Americanism is professional or ideological, the projection of the person inhabiting the White House as little less than a fool and a stooge adds an extra fillip of insult and contempt to their career animosity. For those within America who are fervidly anti-Bush, the same characterization offers them a proportionately larger and higher image of themselves. Michael Moore, ludicrous, pompous and banal all at once, preens himself, stands so much taller, morally and intellectually, when set against the dim caricature occupying the White House. The people who hate George Bush have a great deal of their own self-esteem invested in creating the idea of the upstart vacuous dummy in the Oval Office." Conservative Party news Two big stories are combined in this Canadian Press article: Tony Clements names another co-chair (MP Chuck Strahl) and Blahlinda Stronach's opponent for the riding nomination in Newmarket-Aurora (Lois Brown) won't give up the fight. Also, the CP story reveals Geoff Norquay, the very progressive former Tory panelist on CBC's Friday evening political roundtable is a key organizer for Stronach. That's bad news. John Kerry -- man of the people with money I don't care that John Kerry is stinking rich. (Or as Jay Leno joked last week: "In his big victory speech last night, Senator Kerry said that he wanted to defeat George Bush and the 'economy of privilege.' Then he hugged his wife, Teresa, heir to the multi-million dollar Heinz food fortune.") I don't care that the Washington Post reports that he is the largest recipient of "special interest money" in the Senate. But many people do. And they are usually called Democrats. The hypocrisy is beginning to stink. The stench is so bad even the Washington Post alludes to it, beginning their article thusly: "Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has made a fight against corporate special interests a centerpiece of his front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years, federal records show." Today's political news I have posts on the Nebraska gubernatorial race, the Colorado Senate race and an endorsment at Paulitics. Engineering joke I've posted economist and accountant jokes before but I think that I have left the engineers alone. I will presently correct this oversight by passing on this post by Clayton Cramer: "An engineer was crossing a road one day when a frog called out to him and said, 'If you kiss me, I'll turn into a beautiful princess.' He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket. The frog spoke up again and said, 'If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I will stay with you for one week.' The engineer took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned it to the pocket. The frog then cried out, 'If you kiss me and turn me back into a princess, I'll stay with you and do ANYTHING you want.' Again the engineer took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket. Finally, the frog asked, 'What is the matter? I've told you I'm a beautiful princess, and that I'll stay with you for a week and do anything you want. Why won't you kiss me?' The engineer said, 'Look, I'm an engineer. I don't have time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog, now that's cool'." It's funny because it's true. New York Times' Bush-beating conservative beat The Weekly Standard, in its Scrapbook section (subscription required), says that David Kirkpatrick, the new New York Times conservative correspondent, will, if the evidence provided in his first three stories is any indication, join the paper's "extensive array of Bush-bashing features." The Scrapbook concludes, "The 'conservative beat' is simply a clever new addition to this menu." Did we expect anything less? The 'fiscal conservatism' of Paul Martin The Globe and Mail reports that Prime Minister Paul Martin, the budget-slashing Finance Minister of old, is about to "dig deep" to fund a slew of promises expected in the upcoming throne speech. As the GM reports "The top levels of Paul Martin's government have become suddenly more optimistic about finding more money to pay for their new priorities..." including healthcare and handouts for cities. Great. A "senior official" declares "We have to be able to set more ambitious goals for ourselves." More ambitious goals is Canadian for spending more. The feds will pay for it by cutting spending for other programs (get ready for the screaming from the affected constituencies) and the government declare itself fiscally responsible because Canada's tax burden is great enough to cover our Big Government. And everyone, including the bent-over Canadian taxpayer is happy because mediocre healthcare will still be available to all. Apparently no energy outside of Vancouver and Winnipeg Blahlinda Stronach's blog still has nothing to report. Since her last post (January 22) she has talked to the Ontario Tory policy convention, opened a campaign office in Toronto (and was trailed by perennial mayoral candidate Ben Kerr -- the guy with the Viagra t-shirt), reportedly locked up Quebec and no doubt certainly talked to a many a woman to talk about how she cares about the future of the country because she's a mom. Yet, she hasn't found anything to blog about. Trading petro-dollars for yuan The Independent reported this week that France will align itself with any dictatorship as long as they do not sacrifice its ultimate principle: never give up a buck. The story began: "France and China laid the foundations for a new economic and diplomatic alliance yesterday, with President Jacques Chirac taking Beijing's side against Taiwan and calling for an end to the European embargo on Chinese arms sales." In exchange for siding with tyranny France secured a deal in which China will buy 21 A-320 airbuses from the European (read: French) airbus consortium. The Independent reported that this lack of principle "fits with his often declared opinion that the 21st century should be a 'multi-polar world' in which France - and Europe - should not be subservient to a 'unipolar' American world view." Of course, the United States has made this same bargain, but they at least pretend to care about the plight of Taiwan. Friday, January 30, 2004
Lots of polls and other stuff At Paulitics, of course. Democratic primary polls for Delaware, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Missouri. Missouri gubernatorial election. A congressional retirement in the wings. The Dean strategy of focusing on post 2/3. Christian voters are all idiots anyway That is the attitude of the media. Michael Graham explains the phenomenon of "C&E Christians" in The Corner and why church-going voters won't be swayed by the Wesley Clark/Howard Dean choir: "Wesley Clark joined Howard Dean in the ranks of 'Campaign & Elections Christians' last night when he told the debate audience: 'I went to church every Sunday and I did all that, and I can quote Scriptures and so forth.'' '...and so forth?' Yeah, that Jesus fella is really neat! You know, if white candidates went to a hip-hop forum on BET and said 'Yo, doggies, I'm jiggy with my housebuddies, let's hang in my cribbage!,' they would get pounded, and rightfully so. It's not just pandering, it's insulting, insincere and (most annoying) incompetent pandering. Why do the media give these knuckleheads a pass? Is it because the elite media types think this hokum works on dull-witted Christians? Or do they assume that everyone who claims to be a believer is insincere anyway?" I'd also add that the liberal media plays up Democrats going to church as a way of reaching out (especially if its a black church) but if a Republican were to do politics in a church they scream separation of church and state! Perhaps it is because conservatives understand that a church is more than a campaign prop. Thursday, January 29, 2004
Steyn on New Hampshire Writing in The Spectator, Mark Steyn comments on Senator Joseph Lieberman's third place finish for the bronze in New Hampshire: "Senator Lieberman, the only unabashedly pro-war Democrat on the ballot, had been claiming at every campaign stop for the last week to have something called ‘Joe-mentum’, which is like ‘momentum’, but apparently much smaller, if not entirely undetectable. Nonetheless, running into him in the final hours, I caught the Joe-mentum fever and rashly predicted he’d run his numbers up into double figures. The Connecticut Senator and former vice-presidential candidate was, after all, the only candidate in the field so eager to win New Hampshire that he rented an apartment in Manchester and moved here. John Kerry and Howard Dean were said to have the advantage of being from neighbouring states, but Lieberman had the advantage of being from a neighbouring neighbourhood. Frankly, the least we Granite Staters could do was bump him up to a lousy 10 per cent. Alas, this proved to be a gross Joe-verestimate. In the end, Senator Lieberman managed 9 per cent, but nevertheless turned in a remarkable impression of Sally Field. He’d confounded all the naysayers, who had him down at 7 per cent." Of course, the whole column, which is about Senator John Kerry diminishing the candidacies of all his opponents, is worth reading. Another great line: Wesley Clark "had shrivelled away to the candidate of the carny-folk Left." Kerry can have the Second America Scrappleface's satire on Senator John Edwards's Two Americas and Senator John Kerry's surge to the top of the Democratic heap: "Responding to accusations that he has divided the nation, President George Bush today offered to allow Democrat presidential candidate John F. Kerry to rule 'the second America.' 'I'm not a selfish man,' said Mr. Bush. 'I'll be president of the people who think America is great, who defend freedom and work to defeat tyrants, who value traditional marriage and life, who believe God is both loving and righteous, who trust the 'invisible hand' of capitalism and who protect the Constitution. Mr. Kerry can be president for all the rest.' Under the terms of the plan, Mr. Kerry would be called 'President of America Deux' (America II), and would report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations." Easterblogg on the two-man Democratic race Fairly banal political analysis from the king of banality Greg Easterbrook and his main point is that the race to become the Democratic presidential candidate is between Senators John Kerry (UltraD, People's Republic of MA) and John Edwards (D, NC but born in SC). I'll resist explaining why this is wrong except to say that Edwards won't win big enough in South Carolina to be able to continue on for long and Howard Dean's strategy of skipping February 3 and wait 'til Michigan and Wisconsin could score dividends. Easterbrook says that Senator Hillary Clinton (Media anointed ModerateD, NY) still looms as a possibility and that reporters are salivating over the possibility of a brokered convention. The only real nugget in the longish analysis is this: "In THE NEW REPUBLIC's internal debate over whom to endorse, yours truly threw his weight behind Lieberman and Gephardt. I sure can pick 'em! Maybe Gore and I should start a political consultancy: Dartboard & Associates." Rare self-effacing sense of humour from a liberal. Its a treat when it happens. Coyne does have a blog Check it out here. I had reported earlier this week, that he was thinking about blogging. My misunderstanding. (Hat tip to Maderblog) Jail isn't a deterrent to crime But the mugshot might be. At least if you ever look like James Brown. Check out here. Paulitics Over at my all-things-paulitical website the Democratic primaries in South Carolina and Missouri, 2008 (its never too early) and Lieberman's endorsement. Landsberg was emblematic liberal Eli Schuster, a Toronto-based freelance writer contributed this column to the December issue of The Interim on the retirement of Michelle Landsberg's column in the Toronto Star in November. (I should note that I edit The Interim and that Schuster is a friend of mine and that the column idea was mine.) Landsberg was a horrible writer, terrible social theorist and awful human being. She lacked wisdom, charity, knowledge, perspective, really anything that makes a columnist worth reading. As Schuster noted: "As a commentator, Landsberg's greatest failing was a complete inability to recognize that the folks who disagreed with her might have arrived at their views honestly, and merely possessed a different take on how to make the world a better place to live. Instead of viewing them as intellectual opponents, Landsberg saw modern-day Hitlers. The world she described is indeed a scary place, where rich, conservative, middle-aged men spend their days sipping scotch and thinking of new ways to harass minorities and single welfare moms." In a word, Landsberg was a liberal. Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Something to think about Terry Teachout on his About Last Night blog: "It?s true that the Golden Age of Television was mostly Milton Berle and low-budget westerns and mysteries. But it was also Ernie Kovacs, An Evening With Fred Astaire, No?l Coward and Mary Martin, Your Show of Shows, my beloved What?s My Line?, The Sound of Jazz, New York City Ballet?s Nutcracker on Playhouse 90, Leonard Bernstein?s Young People?s Concerts, and Toscanini and the NBC Symphony?not every night, but often enough. We don?t have anything like that today, at least not on network TV (nor is there nearly as much of it on cable TV as is commonly thought). What we do have is an unprecedentedly candid style of TV comedy and drama that reflects the brutal knowingness of our postmodern age with startling, even alarming clarity. I like it. I?m not so sure I like what it tells us about ourselves." I know I don't like what is says about ourselves. The impetus to this post was a comment by James Lileks about Curb Your Enthusiasm: "People talk about the golden age of television (grainy, overexposed hard-to-watch kinetescopes of big braying vaudevillians in drag) or the golden age of sitcoms (Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family) and I suppose that?s correct. But TV today is better than TV ever was." While I think that All in the Family is matched only by Seinfeld and The Simpsons in the great sit-com department and I enjoy Curb Your Enthusiasm, I don't think society is better off with The Simpsons or Family Guy (as much as I enjoy them) than it is with The Andy Griffith Show or Leave it to Beaver or M.A.S.H. Hours of fun If the weather has you down, let the Bush Conspiracy Theory Generator lift up your spirits. Along these lines, Toronto radio talk-show host Michael Coren yesterday blamed the snow on former Ontario premier Mike Harris, on whose shoulders lay the blame for most of went wrong in the second half of the 1990s by the usual gaggle of leftists. New York Times hires someone for the 'child molester' beat Actually, we should give the Times a chance to prove that they don't share Manhattan's and ABC's view of conservatives. Jonah Goldberg reports in The Corner that the paper has hired a correspondent to cover conservatives. Really. "The New York Times has assigned a full-time reporter to cover, well, us. Seriously, the Times will have a dedicated reporter to cover 'conservatives.' Now I don't know David Kirkpatrick much beyond his byline so he might do a great job. But I can't help but get that old-time gorillas-in-the-mist vibe again where reporters trek out into the wilds of conservatism to explain who we are. But Bill Keller, the Times executive editor, says that's not the case: 'I winced a little when I read that job announcement,' he told the NY Observer 'because it was a little like ‘The New York Times discovers this strange, alien species called conservatives,’ and that’s not what this is about.' I'll take his word for it. For now. Still, I can't wait for my own media embed. Kirkpatrick can hangount in my office with Cosmo the Wonderdog staring at him like he's a daytime burglar just out of reach." Suggestion #1 for the new correspondent: don't use the term extreme or staunch when describing us. For starters, the Times and its readers assume we all are either extreme or staunch so you will save your company some ink. Conservative party news Blahlinda Stronach announces that Val Meredith, a BC MP from the Canadian Alliance wing of the merged Conservative Party, has endorsed her candidacy. The Ottawa Sun reports that Bill Casey, a Nova Scotia MP from the Progressive Conservative wing of the new Conservative party, endorsed Stronach's campaign. Interestingly, Blahinda's website has no mention of this announcement. Joining Mike Harris-era strategist Tom Long as Tony Clement's campaign co-chair is former federal minister of a bunch of things, John Crosbie. Crosbie fits Al Franken's description of Rush Limbaugh. Eight months ago, Crosbie was on the CBC railing against ever merging with the "bunch of extremists" in what he insisted on calling the Reform Party. Today Crosbie backs the bridge candidate. If the first step to a serious candidacy is a quality website, Clement is in better shape than he was last week. It is now worth checking out. Jackson Murphy disagrees: "Clement’s slogan, 'The Conservative for all Canadians' doesn’t exactly inspire one to join, donate, or volunteer. And the site still isn’t very good if you ask me. It looks like what a campaign website is supposed to look like but is about as exciting as watching paint dry, which is, sadly, is kind of what the whole Tony Clement campaign feels like." (OK, I agree with Murphy. Clement's site is a whole lot better than it used to be but it is still awful.) An email dispatch from Stephen Harper's campaign says that an "internal poll" finds he is the favourite of party members in Ontario, with nearly 41% saying they support him compared to 16.5% for Tony Clement and 11.2% for Blahlinda. I hope this is true; if it is, disregard my previous post on the leadership race. The numbers that matter Caroline Overington writes in The Age (Melbourne) that President George W. Bush is going to be re-elected. Some facts: * Bush's approval rating hovers around 60%, near that of Ronald Reagan 10 months before he crushed Walter Mondale, winning 49 of 50 states. * Economic growth is estimated to be near 5% annually. Furthermore, interest rates are low, tax cuts are in people's hands and they are spending. * While New York and Los Angeles scoff at Bush's opposition to abortion and gay marriage, which make "him a bit old-fashioned but millions of Americans like old-fashioned values." Tens of millions, in fact. The most important numbers are in regards to Iraq. Overington writes: "Because I live in New York, I rarely get to hear the voice of this majority. Instead, I get magazines such as Vanity Fair, which last month had a column by the editor angrily listing statistics from the war in Iraq. Such as: number of American soldiers killed: 500. Number of weapons of mass destruction found: 0. But, as some readers pointed out, there were statistics missing from the list. These include: number of mass graves uncovered in Iraq: around 260, containing as many as 20,000 bodies. Number of people liberated from brutal, murderous leadership: 12 million. And number of times Bush lied about receiving oral sex from a White House intern: 0." Kinsella doesn't like conservatives What a surprise, eh? Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella gives his view about John Tory and the Ontario Tories in this January 27 post: "In the Toronto mayoralty race, John Tory went from approximately 3 per cent support, to more than 35 per cent, because he is a progressive, decent, sensible guy. Progressive, decent, sensible guys are rather thin on the ground in the Ontario PC caucus, these days. If he won, John would be very lonely: picture an urbane, university-educated astronaut marooned on a planet of knuckle-dragging berks who despise public education, public health care, public services - and who favour tax cuts for the rich, George W. Bush, and obliterating a woman's right to choose. Scotty, beam me up! There's no intelligent life down here!" What a jackass. Why Harper should be worried I'm not predicting Stephen Harper will lose the Conservative Party leadership race, but 1) no one knows where Tony Clement's or Blahlinda Stronach's support will go the second ballot and 2) the point system is so screwy that Quebec gets a quarter of the leadership points despite providing probably less than 3% of the party membership. Harper could get 60% support or more on the first ballot and still finish with just 40% of the points necessary to win. Writing in the Montreal Gazette, L. Ian MacDonald explains why Harper is in for a rough ride and why the Blahlinda campaign is stronger than its candidate: Quebec. MacDonald says that if Harper sweeps BC and Alberta and does well in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, he will be roughly even with Blahlinda after her Quebec showing. (MacDonald reports that she has bought up all the key Tory organizers in the province and that Quebec should be hers.) Harper has no hope of attracting support out East (or at least so goes the CW) and Ontario is Clement's and Blahlinda's as "favourite son" and "favourite daughter" respectively. I still think Harper will do well among many former Canadian Alliance supporters in rural Ontario. I also think that he will pick up a good many second ballot Clement supporters, assuming Clement finishes third -- which I do. But if Clement finishes second, I can't see Stronach's support heading over to Harper. This race will be closer than many expect. Unfortunately. Blogging can be so incestuous but... I have to link this, in which David Mader posts a response to my post about his comments on the blue state/red state analysis as it pertains to the Democratic primaries. His response is worth reading and he's right up to a point but I still say that despite the fact that a so-called moderate may get some votes in more generally conservative states, liberal Democrats are still likely to come out on top. As for Mader's point that I mucked up his name, my deepest apologies to both Mr. Mader and my readers; I have corrected the spelling of his name in the original post. Over-rating Edwards This lead-in to a comment by David Frum has little to do with Frum's comment but it is point that should be made: Senator John Edwards has very little substance in either his resume (a trial lawyer turned one-term senator) or policy. The media says he's nice so everyone thinks he is. The media says Howard Dean is angry and everyone thinks he's angry; Rudy Giuliani was, we are told, a great leader in the aftermath of 9/11 and everything agrees he's a great leader, but really, what did he do?. You are what you're labelled. Anyway, in his NRO diary, Frum says of Edwards's message: "'Two Americas': couldn?t that have been a theme of any Democrat in any election since 1968? Or 1948? Editors call timeless articles 'evergreens.' They can run at any time ? and as a result they tend never to run at all. They are always superseded by something more urgent and specific." As for the Democratic front-runner, Frum says that the Democrats (the establishment, their faithful voters and the faithful media) confuse "military biography with national security credibility": "John Kerry was a valiant soldier in Vietnam. He remains clueless on terrorism. And the American people will be able to tell the difference." Quote of the Day Stephen Green has this beauty in his Vodkapundit blog: "Moral ground" is French for "petrodollars." The context, of course, was the liberation of Iraq. Coyneblog? Paul Wells reported yesterday in his blog at the Macleans website that National Post columnist Andrew Coyne might join the blogosphere, but then again, he might not. I look forward to either possibility. Yes, this reflects my ambiguity concerning Coyne's punditry. The policy that dare not speaks its name Is Paul Martin for same-sex marriage or not? Good question. Better question: Can he say the words "same-sex marriage"? Macleans back-page pundit and blogger Paul Wells: "Watch today's news conference to see whether the prime minister is able to say, 'I support same-sex marriage' Or 'I think gay marriage is the right thing.' Or, for that matter, whether he's able to say he's against same-sex marriage. Basically, today's presser offers a chance to learn whether he is physically capable of saying the words 'same-sex marriage.' So far he's had trouble with it. In one of his year-enders -- CTV, I think? -- the clip was: 'I've already voted in favour of, uh, that'." Blahlinda stats From Blahlinda Stronach's website -- or at least that part of which she is updating (still no updates on the Blahlinda blog since 3:48 on January 22 -- but who's counting) -- the campaign tells us that the candidate has momentum (well, so does molasses) because: * From the campaign launch until 4 p.m., Friday, January 23, the belinda.ca website received 9,770,705 hits. * In the same time period, there were 138,758 unique visitors and 686,582 page views. * Close to 19,000 people searched for "Belinda Stronach" on Google on January 20 and 21. * More than 500 people packed into a Vancouver pub to meet Stronach on Wednesday, January 21. * 1354 people attended a breakfast speech by Stronach at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce on Friday, January 23. And none of these people have been impressed by the Blonde Ambition Tour. BTW, I'm sure many of those "hits" were repeat visitors looking for a blog update, to no avail. Amiel on Blahlinda One funny comment from Barbara Amiel's Macleans column on Conservative leadership hopeful Blahlinda Stronach and one much more serious. Commenting on Blahlinda's less than lyrical website espousing a cliched, unoffensive vision -- "I want you to get involved. I want to hear your solutions. That dialogue starts right now at belinda.ca, our Web site" and "Do you believe, as I do, that Canada deserves better?" -- Amiel says, "Yup. Sure do. Still, perhaps you get used to communicating in one-liners after being married to a world champion Norwegian speed skater." On a more serious note, Amiel worries about the direction (backwards) that Stronach threatens to take the new Conservative Party: "If Belinda and her backers start tailoring policy to groups like 'women' or 'minorities,' Canada's voters might as well stick with the Liberals. Think of voters as blocs and you get further and further away from the idea of a genuine liberal democracy made up of sovereign individuals. What you have instead is an interest-group state trying to balance self-seeking, hostile entities. Group politics are misleading for another reason as well. 'Women,' for example, are also consumers, medical professionals, patients and taxpayers, as Stronach must know. Any group has a myriad of cross-memberships. Nothing would be more ironic than to find that the new Conservative party, having got rid of the Red Tories that ran the Progressive Conservative party into the ground in 1993, have after all the corrective surgery and healing of 10 years, handed it back to that same faction through Belinda." As I've said before, Blahlinda, putting the Progressive back into Conservative. Real conservatives must protect their party against this assault. Don't write off Dean The best piece on why Howard Dean should not be written off, or at least, quite yet, is by Dorothy Rabinowitz in yesterday's Opinion Journal. Rabinowitz says that it was not Dean that was angrily anti-Bush but his supporters and that his anger was merely a pose that attracted that constituency -- the posturing "aggression that had made him the hands-down choice of those possessed by hatred of George W. Bush" led him to be "prepared to draw a sword at every turn. They [the possessed] rewarded their hero with devotion and money; In return he spoke to their anger." The Dean Scream, then, was a retreat to the comforting "political womb" of his angry, mostly young, supporters. While the blogosphere had great fun with his wild rant and the media thought it demonstrated a candidate becoming unhinged, the Dean Scream spoke to his die-hard supporters. Admittedly this was written before yesterday's primary, but Rabinowitz continued: "Front-runner John Kerry presents an eminently reasonable posture but seems unable to deliver a thought not charged with pulpit-like oratory on the abandonment of our allies, the Patriot Act, and that refrain suggesting his future victory 'We're coming, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.' This is presidential? That might have worked better coming from Howard Dean, a man to whom a touch of humor doesn't seem entirely alien, whatever other temperamental oddities he may have. From the looks of his quick transformation to the rational mode, evident this weekend, the doctor, it seems, is prepared to fight. It would be a mistake to count him out." And New Hampshire was not entirely awful for Dean. As Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi writes today, "The story line that was supposed to finish off Howard Dean -- the crazy screamer married to the feminist frump -- did not entirely accomplish its mission. The Dean campaign is not totally dead. Not yet." Dean, says Vennochi, has regained his dignity and credibility and he shows greater temperance having been burnt by the fire of unexpected defeat in Iowa. Since Saturday night, the columnist reports the Dean website reporting, the former Vermont governor has raised $600,000. And Dean won a quarter of the vote despite being described as in free-fall. Deaniacs have not quit and Dean isn't about to anytime quit either. Then there is the candidacy of Senator John Kerry (UltraD, People's Republic of MA). At No Left Turns, Peter Schramm says "Dean will stay in and still has a chance as Kerry will now be much more seriously examined by an otherwise obtuse media; it will be discovered that he is a real bore, canÂ’t go anywhere without his hairdryer, only has one gesture and is a monotone candidate. Dean can come back." I don't share Schramm's optimism that the media will do its job and seriously examine The One that might beat President Bush. Rush Limbaugh is expanding on the Schramm point on radio right now. Limbaugh says Kerry has yet to be attacked by his fellow Democrats despite being the frontrunner for the past week nor has he received the media "anal exam" which, if honest, will find an extremely liberal and Kennedyesque Senate voting record. I agree with Limbaugh that the other Democrats will start criticizing Kerry but I doubt the media will expose the liberal voting record, or at least describe it as such. Fade to black Frank Johnson describes one of the (many) down-sides of Conrad Black (possibly) losing control of the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator, in this week's Speccie: "But it looks as if the editors of the publications concerned must reconcile themselves never again to receiving one of Conrad Black's letters for favour of publication and dissenting from the editorial position of the papers he owns." Johnson then pens a pretty good andhumorouss spoof of a Black-type letter to one of his own publications: "One does not have to be a member of Likud to be outraged, or in my case faintly baffled by, and dismissive of, the amount of attention, and the wholly excessive praise, which you devote to that entirely marginal figure in Middle East politics, Jesus Christ. I happen to know Governor Pilate. He is a valued member of our main board. The action he took at the Easter in question was entirely justified by the security situation. Pontius is not a man to be diverted from his duty by an obscure agitator supported by the New York Times, and the dregs of the counter-culture of which he was himself so egregious an embodiment. The governor also acted on the advice of the indigenous religious authorities who, I would remind you, are far from being Roman and who can be assumed to know no more about the region than the average liberal foreign correspondent. Not that there is anything wrong with the Romans. They saved Britain from permanent rule by Boadicea and her descendants. Were it not for what the BBC, and the similarly weak-minded, dismiss as Roman imperialism, you Brits would still be running around in loin cloths...." Hilariouss. We always knew that media considered 'conservative' a dirty word Journalist John Stossel on his book tour (promoting Give Me a Break): "Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say conservative the way people say child molester...[Conservative] is the worst thing for a reporter to be called." CNSNews.com reports that official TVdom shares Manhattan's and ABC's particular bias: "Before adopting a skeptical view of the government and public-interest groups, Stossel was an enterprising consumer reporter. He won 18 Emmys while exposing shady business practices. But since realizing that more regulation might not be the answer to the world's problems, Stossel said he has observed changes, and he has only won one Emmy in that time." (Hat tip to The Corner) Paulitcal matters The New Hampshire results for both parties (and a fallout analysis for the Democrats), the Missouri Democratic caucus, the Florida Senate race and Edwards on the possibility of becoming the vice presidential nominee. All at Paulitics. Tuesday, January 27, 2004
CW is wrong David Mader (whose Maderblog, with his brother Dan, is one of only two Canadian blogs I check daily) is wrong in his analysis on the future of Senator Joseph Lieberman's campaign. But so is everyone's. Mader says: "If Lieberman can break double digits (he's at 9% at present), he'll stay in the race. His strength is in the south and the red states, and Democratic voters there and are going to want a right-tilting candidate to vote for. Clark has squandered that role with his lame pandering to the crazy-left." The problem with this conventional wisdom view is that the primaries in the red states are for the blue party. Regardless of how the state leans, Democrats are Democrats and Democratic voters lean left regardless of where they live. As I noted yesterday, Democrats in Arizona and Oklahoma generally give poor favourable and relatively high unfavourable ratings to Lieberman. And, by the way, wasn't New Hampshire a red state in 2000. Waiting for Kerry Senator John Kerry looks like he will win the New Hampshire primary tonight and since at least 8:25 -- its 9:07 now -- his campaign has said that he would speak soon. As Chip Griffen notes on The Corner, brilliant: "The Kerry team really has beautifully orchestrated this. The Curtain Cam shot on CNN all this time, waiting for Kerry, is priceless." CNN should send a bill for 40 minutes of advertising time. Kristol lecture Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer to deliver Irving Kristol Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute on February 10. I know this is a small thing but... Blahlinda Stronach started her campaign blog on January 19, the same day she launched her campaign. There hasn't been an entry since January 22. I know that campaigning is hectic but you think she could find somebody who could belt out a couple of lines on the keyboard. Maybe Blahlinda needs to spend a little more money and hire someone to blog in her name. Ms. Stronach, I'm available if you need a blogger. I'll even stop calling you Blahlinda. The lessons of Sex and the City In a column that appeared in the Detroit News, Froma Harrop says that Sex and the City presented a message that people should take to heart (although Harrop goes to great lengths to distance herself from evil moralist conservatives): "Sex and the City does not flinch in its portrayal of casual sex as a source of pain. The trysts are the source of serial humiliation. Hearts break with regularity. The worst loss, though, seems to be in the quality of the sex. As opportunities pile up like oranges at Sam’s Club, sex loses the magic of forbidden fruit. Physical intimacy stripped of the romantic is just exercise." Busy day in the paulitical world Lotsa stuff over at Paulitics: strange bedfellows, endorsements, Congressional races in South Dakota and Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Senate race, Michigan polling, first New Hampshire results and Dems spent a lot of money in New Hampshire this past week. Two Americas New York Times columnist David Brooks mentions the Two Americas Democrats, especially the North Carolina senator variety, talk about: "But according to [Senator John] Edwards and the other Democratic candidates, we are actually a nation divided between the top 2 percent, the rich, powerful insiders — 'those who never have to worry about a thing,' as Edwards puts it — and the 98 percent, us ordinary folks. This particular version of the Two Americas theme is sociologically, politically, economically and demographically false, but it is rhetorically quite effective. It means that all these problems that seem intractable are actually solvable if we just take power away from that selfish sliver. Government will begin to work for the people again; all students will have access to first-rate education; regular folks will have a health care system that works for them. It's all imminent!" Unfortunately, Brooks only mentions and does not explain why the 98-2 divide is untrue. One aspect of Edwards' loose association with the truth is challenged by Jeffrey Utech. In Edwards's The January Speech, the North Carolina Senator said not only are there Two Americas, there are separate tax systems for the 2% elite and 98% working stiffs. Utech says: "Edwards claims there are two tax systems where 'the rich pay less, and the rest of us pay more.' That seems blatantly untrue, and I'm rather amazed that he can get away with saying it. Perhaps there is a way to spin or twist it into truth, but the claim seems intentionally misleading at best and a lie at worst. I was in mid-rant about the whole thing following one of my commercials when My Lovely and Talented Wife pointed out the most remarkable point of the whole claim: If Edwards weren't a politician but a business, he would be sued for misleading advertising. To take that one step further, the people who would like to see him sued for misleading the public are Democrats themselves." There are Two Americas. The real America where 98% of Americans live and the make-believe America that hardcore, feet floating away from the ground Democrats think exist. Stephy should get off the bus Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz reports that ABC This Week's George Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton aide, is riding around in nice bus covering the New Hampshire primary and his latest guest is retired General Wesley Clark. Early in the story Kurtz quotes Stephanopoulos: "It's not really about making news at this point ... It's about showing people what's going on. . . . By doing away with the single-minded focus on making news ... [the candidates] are going to be less uptight." A couple of questions. 1) Is Stephanopoulos doing his job as a journalist? Letting people see the candidates is what CSPAN is about, not the network news. 2. Would the lightweight coverage -- nothing that would cause candidates to be uptight -- be extended to other guests, such as administration officials talking about Iraq or tax cuts? I somehow doubt it. An example of why this type of "journalism" doesn't work, as reported by Kurtz. "Stephanopoulos asks about Clark advising a House candidate in 2002 to support the congressional war resolution. 'It depends on what "the" is, George,' Clark says, since there were different versions of the resolution. Moving on, Stephanopoulos wonders where Clark might score his first win...." Pulling a Clintonian depends what the definition of the is (he might have just become a Democrat last Fall, but Clark has caught on quick), the retired general is not challenged on 1) an important policy position on which he has not been clear and 2) a poor choice of words. Instead, as not to make the candidates "uptight," Stephanopoulos moves on. Which is what viewers should do when they see his dime-store brand of journalism on TV. Monday, January 26, 2004
Update at Paulitics Latest New Hampshire polls, another endorsement and my predictions for the primary tomorrow. Quote of the day I'm quoting from memory this great line from Dennis Miller in his opening monologue on his initial CNBC broadcast on why he is now a conservative (from memory): "I'm not as certain about my guesswork to be liberal anymore." Frum, Fund on conservatives getting a little fed up with Bush Both NRO's David Frum and WSJ's John Fund describe the CPAC confab of disgruntled conservatives. Frum says that there is the deficit spending, the prescription drug plan, etc.. but what really irritates conservatives is Bush's immigration policies: "On Bill Maher’s program Friday, I heard Nader denounce George Bush for deficit spending. Ralph Nader! Is it conceivable that Nader could attempt to use the immigration issue? It seems unlikely – and yet … and yet I think George Bush would be wise to pay very careful attention to the discontents of his conservative base over the next 11 months." Fund writes about the concerns of some of the conservative lawmakers in Washington and notes that Christopher Cox has worries about the growth of government under a Republican president and Republican Congress. Fund says: "If some budget reform doesn't come soon, conservatives will have to confront the fact that they may no longer be seen as the party of smaller government, an advantage that has helped them win four out of the past six presidential elections as well as take control of Congress in 1994." Bush needs to learn to use the veto and Republicans need to learn to say no: "From the farm bill to the new Medicare entitlement, spending lobbies have never had it so good since the heyday of the Great Society." Conservatives must make it clear to the GOP that such behaviour will not be tolerated. Corcoran defends Black Financial Post columnist Terence Corcoran defended Conrad Black in a pair of columns (subscription required) last week. Gotta love this 'graph: "The filed statement of claim [against Conrad Black] is certainly a wondrous litigation document, rich with juicy bits from Lord Black's no-doubt voluminous archive of seemingly self-incriminating e-mails. His disdain for minority shareholders, for example, is supposedly contained in his comment that Hollinger International 'served no purpose as a listed company other than relatively cheap use of other people's capital.' Sounds incriminating, except that it amounts to nothing more than a crude but accurate description of the stock market. Equity is a relatively cheap source of corporate capital; in terms of cash and leverage, it is cheaper certainly than bank loans, debentures and junk bonds. It's one reason companies go public." Moore loves Clark and Clark loves it I've said for a while that I'd just as much like President George W. Bush to have to face wacky Wesley Clark as howling Howard Dean in November because -- and this is theme at Sobering Thoughts recently -- Clark is just as nuts. Indeed, when people complain that he is not genuinely Democrat, he can point to his own insanity as proof that he qualifies in his newly adopted party. National Review's Byron York notes that during the Democratic debate last Thursday, Clark would not criticize Michael Moore: "Consider also Clark's response to questions about his embrace of the radical leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. Moore, who famously wondered why terrorists struck New York City on September 11 when there were so many Bush voters they could have targeted elsewhere in the country, endorsed Clark recently, and the two shared an on-stage love-fest. In his remarks at the time, Moore referred to George W. Bush as, among other things, a 'deserter.' ABC's Peter Jennings, who shared moderating duties at the debate with Fox News's Brit Hume, asked Clark, 'That's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict [Moore], and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.' 'Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this,' Clark answered. 'I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot.' Clark then said, 'This election is about the future, Peter, and what we have to do is pull this country together.' Clark explained that he believes he can accomplish that with 'the support of a man like Michael Moore, [and] of a great American leader like Sen. George McGovern.' Still, Jennings did not accept Clark's claim to know nothing about the 'deserter' charge. 'Since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore were involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts,' Jennings followed up. 'Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?' 'To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen ? he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign'." What a pant-load. Of course Michael Moore has a right to say what he wants. What Jennings is wondering is if Clark agrees with what Moore is saying. On one level, a candidate is not responsible for the views of those who endorse (although perhaps a candidate attracts the support of a wackjob like Clark, in the first place). But a candidate can be expected to distance himself from the nuttier ideas put out there by his backers. Would Clark ever let Bush get away with not criticizing, say, David Duke if the former Klansman had publicly support the president? Or, to take it to an extreme and improbable example, if Osama bin Laden endorsed Howard Dean, couldn't we make some conclusions about that? One good point about this exchange; Jennings, for all the legimate complaints about his political bias, is to be congratulated for his vigorous questioning of Clark on this issue. The revenge of Teddy Kennedy Or, how the Democrats learned to love the insanity William Safire admits in his New York Times column today that he (like almost everyone in the media) "used to think that the battle within the Democratic Party would pit the centrist Clinton Restoration, using Clark as its sacrificial lamb this time around, against the maverick antiwar, antiestablishment legion that Dean had excited." Iowa changed all that. Dean, as Safire notes, "machine-gunned himself in the foot" and Democrats turned not to Wesley Clark but Senator John Kerry (UltraD, People's Republic of MA). Safire says instead of going to Clark, "many disillusioned Deaniacs went to a third faction that has long been lying in the Democratic weeds: the proponents of class warfare propounded for a generation by Ted Kennedy." Good-bye John F. Kennedy, the tax cutting defender of liberty, hello Teddy Kennedy-led Old Left, "scourge of conservative judges and free-market medicine, whose aging acolytes have tried to keep the not-so-hot liberal flame burning under the rich and powerful." Safire continues: "The resuscitation of this long-dormant faction among Democrats surprised me. But with his campaign in the doldrums as Dean's restorative rage invigorated both the new Netties and the Old Left, John Kerry turned to his Senate senior and Massachusetts mentor for succor. Teddy dispatched his chief of staff, Mary Beth Cahill, to take control of the demoralized campaign from Jim Jordan, Kerry's insufficiently ideological longtime manager. Kennedy's Charles River Gang gave the previously independent-minded Kerry (his initials happily J.F.K.) a stridently populist economic line: that average, hard-working, patriotic Americans are being ripped off by a plundering bunch of robber barons represented by George W. Bush, who has sold out to the predatory 'special interests.' This sounds a little outdated at a time when the very rich pay most federal income taxes and the poor pay none. But envy still sells to a leftist constituency, especially to Democrats worried at the way Republicans were slavering for a Dean nomination. Kerry caught the spirit as his health recovered. He combined Old Left oratory with memories of his Vietnam valor and subsequent antiwar activism." Post Iowa, the insanity just takes a different persona. Miller's show begins tonight Comedian Dennis Miller's CNBC talk show begins this evening at 9 pm. (Tennis star John McEnroe also has a talk show but I'm not sure if it begins tonight.) The AP reports that Miller, a former Saturday Night Live star, admits he is a conservative because "Nine-11 changed me ... I'm shocked that it didn't change the whole country, frankly." Miller, who sat in the gallery at the State of the Union last week and rode aboard Air Force One, said that his show will be a George Bush mocking free zone and defends his (more) conservative position saying at least he's honest about it. Of ABC news reader Peter Jennings, Miller says "At least I come out upfront and tell people about my politics ... He sits there and displays it through subtle poker (expressions) all year long — the raised eyebrows, the arch tone of the voice. We get it that he's liberal. We get it that he doesn't like Bush. Just come out and say it!" The AP television reporter notes ABC News spokeswoman Cathie Levine's reponse: "Peter Jennings is an experienced journalist who respects the boundaries of fairness and accuracy in all his reporting." Yeah, right. The politics of heading up the Toronto Star While the coverage of publisher John Honderich leaving the Toronto Star was predictably laudatory and free of juicy gossip in that paper, Globe and Mail columnist Eric Reguly reports that Honderich and TorStar Corp. president and CEO Robert Prichard have been fighting over editorial policy at the paper. As Reguly says, "it is an open secret that he [Prichard] and Mr. Honderich do not get along," and that in addition to Prichard taking steps to undermine Honderich's control of the paper, the two disagree over the political stance of the paper. Honderich (and most of the Star editorial staff) supported socialist David Miller in the Toronto mayoral election last November, while Prichard supported business-friendly John Tory. As Reguly notes, "Traditionally, shaping newspaper editorial policy is the right of the editor, and to some degree the publisher, not the CEO. Corporate bosses are rarely even invited into newsrooms." But Prichard has strutted through the newsrooms on several occasions. What does the future hold for Honderich? He is rumoured to be interested in a jump to federal politics, seeking a Liberal nomination somewhere. But while Liberal "officials" deny that Honderich and the party are in real discussions (although one admits that Honderich was on a list of possible star candidates but that nothing came of it), one "official" does admit Prichard is being courted by the party. Prichard would make more sense because his "background as business executive and former university president" would fit better with the Paul Martin agenda. However, Prichard was "non-committal." All of which leads us to ... where exactly. One hopes a less reliably liberal Toronto Star. Lots of Paulitics Or more properly, lots of polls: South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arizona and three from New Hampshire. Also, the Los Angeles mayoral election for 2005. At Paulitics. Check for updates throughout the day. All Democrats are the same, Lieberman a little less so Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak on the Democratic clones, er, candidates: "Kerry and Edwards disagree on nothing. Indeed, all the leading candidates except Lieberman agree on policy and even what policies they talk about. For prudential reasons, gun control goes unmentioned and abortion is seldom mentioned. The theme is redistribution of wealth in America, and multimillionaire trial lawyer Edwards propounds it most effectively with his concept of 'two Americas'." That is, the two Americas all Democrats believe in: the haves (the source of taxes) and the have-nots (the source of votes, bought by redistributing wealth). Sad state affairs for Democrats A January 23-25 American Research Group poll of registered Democrats finds that Howard Dean's unfavourable rating is slightly lower than Senator Joseph Lieberman's (36% for Lieberman, 35% for Dean). So much for the return of sanity to the Democrats. At least Al Sharpton fares worse; 38% of registered Democrats have an unfavourable opinion of the race-baiting New York City preacher. Ah, scratch that. Only 38%! Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, an ARG poll of 600 registered Democrats (also January 23-25) finds that Dean's favourable/unfavourables (38%-39%) are not much different from Lieberman's (43%-41%). Sharpton's unfavourable: 41%. Sunday, January 25, 2004
Blahlinda Martin? Concerned Christians Coalition Inc. has a website dedicated to looking at the similarities between Blahlinda Stronach, who is hoping to put the Progressive back into Conservative, and Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. Giving up the blog already? Blahlinda Stronach doesn't seem to have the time to have someone write her blog in her name. No posts since January 22. With sanity like this, Bush has it in the bag Mark Steyn writes in the Chicago Sun-Times about the Democrats' return to sanity: "That sounds fine in theory. But let's suppose it works, and the Dems nominate Kerry, whose argument is that, because he's a veteran, his plan to give Jacques Chirac a veto over American foreign policy sounds butcher than it would coming from Dennis Kucinich. Fine. But take away the war from Kerry and what's left? An old-school Massachusetts liberal. Not a mere lieutenant, but a mere lieutenant-governor. To Michael Dukakis. Kerry's record on domestic issues is well to the left of Dean's, and a much fatter target for Republicans. He's soft on drug pushers and murderers, big on tax hikes and partial-birth abortion. If I were Bush and I had to choose between running against Howard Dean's Vermont or John Kerry's Massachusetts, I know which guy I'd be rooting for. So that's the net result of the Democrats' moment of sanity in Iowa. The runaway favorite for the nomination is an unimaginative doctrinaire New England Democrat, and his principal rival is a paranoid narcissist who thinks Bush is a deserter who allowed 9/11 to happen. It's too much to expect Democratic primary voters to boost Joe Lieberman up to double figures. But, if I were voting on Tuesday, my calculation of the party's best bet would be this: If it's going to be the South against New England this primary season, better Edwards vs. Dean than Kerry vs. Clark." What conservatives should do for the Republican party Human Events has a column adapted from the keynote address at the Conservaive Political Action Conference by Rep. Mike Pence (R, IN). Pence, who is the House Deputy Majority Whip, recognizes that conservatives owe their loyalty not to Republican party but to the principles for which the party must fight: "It's time for conservative Americans to do what Reagan did. It's time for conservative Americans to right the ship again: To celebrate our great Republican President and Republican Congress that are leading our nation's progress in national security, economic prosperity and value of human life, but also to see her listing to port, in the direction of big government, and set her right again. This is not a sign of disloyalty, but of true loyalty to principle. When a ship is approaching a rocky coast, the life of the ship and its crew depends on the navigator with his sextant to counsel the captain and crew to steer clear of the shoals and, if need be, to forcefully oppose the captain when the fate of the ship hangs in the balance. This is our cause. To stand with our captain as he leads us well. And to right the ship where she is adrift." What passes for conservative in SF George F. Will on the strange politics of San Francisco, which recently elected Gavin Newsom mayor (53%-47% in the runoff against Matt Gonzalez): "The city has about as many camels as Republicans, so Newsom is called a "conservative." This smear gained currency even though Newsom supports "transgender rights," meaning the city pays for its employees' sex change operations, including -- this may be more than you want to know -- expensive hormone treatments. Newsom courted the large LGBTQI constituency, an acronym he can almost explain. It stands for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people, questioners and 'intersex.' What is that last group? He is not sure." Saturday, January 24, 2004
Clement should spend some coin on his website Damien Penny agrees with me that Tony Clement's leadership website is awful. In fact, Penny says "Based in no small part on his spectacularly shabby website, I can't take Tony Clement seriously as a candidiate." Of course, there are other reasons not to take Clement seriously, starting with the fact he lost the last two campaigns he has waged (the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership race in 2002 and his re-election as a Tory MP last October). Friday, January 23, 2004
Frum still confident Despite the fact that President George W. Bush is unlikely to face either Howard Dean or Wesley Clark in the general election, David Frum is still confident about Bush's chances in November and he thinks the close race will be good for the president and the country: "How you campaign shapes how you govern. By pressing President Bush to explain and defend his activist approach to the terror war, a Kerry, Edwards, or Lieberman candidacy will force the Bush camp to talk candidly about why his approach will work – and why the Democratic approach will not. They will force President Bush to mobilize public support for his bold vision – and drive him away from the mushy middle. If faced by more effective opponents, the Bush political operation will quickly perceive the weakness of the vague, feel-good campaign that has been tempting some Bush staffers. You’re not going to beat John Kerry or John Edwards or Joe Lieberman by condemning the use of steroids in professional sports. To beat them, President Bush will need big issues, big themes – and a big vision. Enunciating those issues and that theme will be good for him – and good for the country." To understand why Bush needs to have a clear vision and direction, you need not go any further than Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb: "If No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription entitlement had been Democratic initiatives, Republicans undoubtedly would have rallied to defeat them. But while in charge, Republicans have pursued a strategy of pre-empting Democratic issues - Bush's analog to Clinton's famous triangulation politics. Bush did fight vigilantly for tax cuts. But the rate reductions have actually been modest. Bush has reduced the top income tax rate to 35 percent, still a far cry from Ronald Reagan's 28 percent. Getting rates down - and keeping them down - requires a broad tax base. But Republicans have joined Democrats in eviscerating the tax base through proliferating exemptions, deductions and credits." If it wasn't for the War on Terror, Bush would have lost the support of conservatives. A more serious political opponent would force the president to pay closer attention to his political base. UN's credibility gap to fill Saddam's hole From the satirical newsblog Scrappleface: "The U.S. military announced today that it will fill Saddam Hussein's spider hole with reams of paper printed with 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions and transcripts from U.N. meetings on what to do about Mr. Hussein's regime." Paulitics Looks at New York in 2006, Oklahoma Democratic primary and the Washington Governor's race. Mahoney's blog It almost seems obligatory that candidates for elected office have a blog. Richard Mahoney, a Paul Martin ally who captured the Liberal nomination in Ottawa Centre for the next federal election, has a blog and hasn't posted an entry on it since he won the nomination on December 4. The world is so much the worse not knowing what Mahoney is doing or thinking. Songs for Bush Earlier this month, Pete Vere set up Songs for Bush, a blog that has some fun parodies about Howard Dean's religion, Saddam's capture and other current affairs. Considering yesterday was the 31st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I'll offer Vere's ditty "Have Yourself a Partial-Birth Abortion" as a taste: "Have yourself a partial-birth abortion Let your womb be light From now on, your troubles will be out of sight Have yourself a partial-birth abortion You don't have to pay From now on, your troubles will be miles away Here we are, as Democrats NARAL golden days of your Childless friends who are dear to us Gather near to us Once more Through the years, we all will be together If the faits allow Stab a shining knife below the vertebrae And have yourself a partial-birth abortion now." Thursday, January 22, 2004
Idiot Hall of Fame The latest inductee into the Idiot Hall of Fame is British MP Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat who said that if she lived in the Palestinian territories, she would consider becoming a suicide bomber. Tonge, the party's former International Development spokeswoman, told a pro-Palestinian audience that Israel forces them to live in horrible conditions and thus resorting to suicide bombings are understandable. She said: "That sort of thing [the intolerable conditions] repeated on a daily basis made me understand how people can become suicide bombers. I think if I had to live in that situation - and I say that advisedly - I might just consider becoming one myself." She protested that her comments should not be construed as condoning suicide bombers -- "Nobody can condone them" -- but that they were merely a declaration of understanding. She then continued: "I dare say if I was in their situation with my children and my grandchildren and I saw no hope for the future at all - which I'm not, of course, but if I did - I might just think about it myself." While she was not condoning terrorist actions, she certainly sympathized with them; in these times of the War on Terror, the expression of such sympathy is akin to condoning the terrorist action. Jenny Tonge is a bona fide idiot. Oxblog and the Chinese New Year Oxblog is often an excellent and intelligent blog. However, they messed up with this link to monkeys to mark the beginning of the Chinese New Year, this being the year of the monkey. The animals presented (chimps, gorillas, gibbons and orangutans) are apes, not monkeys. Blahlinda blog watch From Belinda's blog, with comments from yours truly: "I want to thank everyone in Winnipeg and Vancouver for such a tremendous welcome and encouragement. The electricity in the events was huge." And you need electricity if you're going to bake an economic pie. "I believe this new Party needs a new Leader that can unite the Party and ignite the country to elect a Conservative government in the next election ... that's what I am working very hard to achieve with your help." She's uniting the party by having the conservative wing of the Conservative Party rally to Stephen Harper. "I am humbled by how many times women came to me tonight and said that they were single Moms, never involved in politics before, and how motivating it was to see me running for office." Motivating or motivational? Apparently dropping out of university wasn't such a good idea. "I too worry about the Canada that my children will live in. That's why I'm doing something about it by running. We need a strong economy to create opportunities for all of our children." Creating economic opportunities for our children? I don't think kids should be working. More on mixing sports and politics Domenico Bettinelli on the bloody crossroads where sports and politics meet. And once again, Senator John Kerry (UltraD, People's Republic of MA) is involved: "Super Bowl-bound New England Patriot quarterback Tom Brady has become one of the most sought after political endorsements this election cycle after he agreed to be a guest of President Bush and Laura Bush in her VIP box during the State of the Union speech! TV images of 25 year-old Brady giving Bush repeated standing ovations—and cheering during several of the speech’s passages—thrilled White House operatives. One Bush staffer emailed the DRUDGE REPORT: 'It was a Touchdown from Kerry’s own 40-yard-line!'" Shea thinks the Democratic nominee will be Edwards Why does Mark Shea think this? "I think it will ultimately come down to Edwards. Why? Because he's the prettiest and the TV camera decides these matters. Kerry looks too much like a walking cadaver." You gotta love Dubya President George W. Bush tries to order some ribs at the Nothin' Fancy Cafe in Roswell, New Mexico, while being pestered by journalists: THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs. Q Mr. President, how are you? THE PRESIDENT: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs. Q What would you like? THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I'd like. Q Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure. THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch -- what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat? Q Right behind you, whatever you order. THE PRESIDENT: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib? Q But Mr. President -- THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food? Q Yes. THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like? Q Ribs. THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs. Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir? THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something? Q An answer. Q Can we buy some questions? THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people -- they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money. (Hat tip to Mark Cameron. I like the headline on his post.) Wednesday, January 21, 2004
I am deeply concerned about Kofi Annan's prize Tim Blair notes: "Congratulations to Kofi Annan, winner of the German Media Award for 2003. Kofi won the award for helpfully saying exactly the same thing about every single issue, thereby allowing journalists to re-use previous Annan press releases with only a minimum of changes." You have to check out the link Blair has to "saying the exact same thing." It's funny. Why Howard Dean lost Iowa Because he's Howard Dean. Washington Post columnist George F. Will says that Iowa proves that Democrats are serious about defeating President George W. Bush. Dean was cathartic for the party faithful until it was time to get serious about the serious business of the primaries: choosing the party's presidential nominee. Two money lines from Will's column. The first is about Iowa, the cruelest political state: "Iowa severely damaged the angriest candidate, Dean, who led there almost until the moment it mattered. Iowa destroyed the oldest candidate, Dick Gephardt, 62, winner of the 1988 caucuses." The second is about the fact that good marketing cannot sell a bad candidate: "In the past five presidential elections, since 1984, the candidate with the most money in the year before the election won the nomination. Last year that was Dean. But the Edsel was backed by all the marketing muscle of Ford Motor Co." Why Conrad Black was the best newspaper/magazine owner ever Anne Applebaum, in a mostly critical Washington Post column (that earnestly tries to be fair), says "His old-fashioned view of the world was also part of why those employees who didn't loathe him loved him. Eccentrically, he appointed witty writers, not gray but competent managers, to run his newspapers. When they proved to be ideological opponents, he wrote thundering, eloquent letters to the editor but didn't fire them." No greater proof is necessary than his tolerance of Spectator columnist Taki. With friends like Carol Moseley Braun ... According to Chicago Tribune Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet, "Carol Moseley Braun dropped her Democratic presidential bid" to throw "her endorsement to [Howard] Howard Dean in time for it to be useful to him." It was useful enough to see him fall from a close fight for first in Iowa to a distant third, receiving only half the votes of leader John Kerry. While Dean got a third place finish out of Braun's endorsement, check out Paulitics to see what CMB got in return. Churchill's parrot is still alive But he has mellowed an no longer uses the f-word when mentioning Hitler. Quote of the Day DOC HOLLIDAY: What do you want, Wyatt? WYATT EARP: Just to live a normal life. DOC: There is no normal life, there's just life. -- Kevin Jarre, screenplay for Tombstone, noted by Terry Teachout at his About Last Night blog. Worst Conservative leadership candidate website Easily Tony Clement's. Check it out for yourself for about 2 minutes. About Paul Martin's blog No posts since October 19. As one might expect, the prime minister doesn't have time. But those interested in feel-good generalities can now read Belinda's penetrating policy analysis on her blog, noted below. The blah blah blahness of being Belinda Now announced Conservative leadership candidate Belinda Stronach -- or just Belinda, like Madonna, Ellen or Britney -- makes clear on her campaign blog (good grief) that she believes strongly in nice, safe cliches. These words could just as easily appear on Paul Martin's blog. Her "On the issues" section repeats many of those same nice, safe cliches and then has the gall to claim "My vision is clear." Please note: make sure you have belinda.ca not belinda.com because the latter may have a number of interesting positions of a non-political nature. That giant sucking sound isn't Monica. Its the constitution going down the drain Vodkapundit Stephen Green on President George W. Bush saying in the SOTU that the federal government will do something about steroids: "Federal action against STEROIDS? On domestic policy, Bush is the Republican Bill Clinton. No issue is too small to get his attention, if he can throw a few million dollars at it and claim 'progress'." Green has 33 posts (in 50-something minutes) in real time on SOTU. Click here and scroll down to January 20 for them all, including one post (#33) explaining why despite Bush's Clintonian moment, he is still worth supporting in November. Perhaps Daschle can use this in his promotional material Vodkapundit Stephen Green on the Senate Minority Leader at the SOTU: "Tom Daschle would never make it as a salesman in the private sector, and he's too much of a priss to make it as a factory worker, or even a manager. Keep him off welfare and in the Senate!" The bloody crossroads where politics and sports meet Remember in October during the American League playoffs between the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, Senator John Kerry questioned Howard Dean's New Englandness because the former Vermont governor grew up in New York City and thus probably was cheering for the Yankees. Dean answered the criticism saying he has been "officially" a fan of the BoSox for several years. Now Kerry questions the sports allegiances of retired General Wesley Clark. Reported in the Boston Globe yesterday: "In another sign of changing fortunes and shifting strategies, the Kerry campaign sent an e-mail last night attacking Clark for changing his football alliance to the New England Patriots. It was just the kind of attack e-mail that used to target Dean. 'In New England, he dons a Pats jersey, in Wisconsin it's the Packers,' the e-mail read. 'What will Wes wear in South Carolina today?'" Manchester Union Leader endorsement goes to ... The conservative newspaper endorses Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic presidential nomination because he is less odious than the others (he's for defending America, tax cuts, school vouchers and against the "filth" peddled by Hollywood). In its front-page editorial, the Union Leader says "But in a campaign in which the flipflops and outrageous statements are unending, Joe Lieberman’s refusal to pander is refreshing and remarkable. He is worth the consideration and support of independent-minded primary voters." In a refreshing break from the media herd that Lieberman is less pro-choice than the rest of the Democratic herd, the paper notes: "His stand on abortion is classic liberal, giving lip service to wanting it to be 'safe, rare and legal' but voting in a way that encourages it." Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Was Iowa good for conservatives? National Review's John J. Miller thinks so. "If Dean continues his Iowa fade, Bush may have to think more about his base. The GOP's preference for a Dean nomination comes from the fact that Dean could very well get beat the way McGovern did. In a Bush-Dean race, the president can make stabs for the political center with new spending, amnesty deals, etc. and hope for an election landslide that gives him a broad mandate. (But to do what?) Against a figure like Edwards, he'll need to gin up conservative support and make sure his base turns out for him -- he might be forced to run a more conservative campaign than otherwise, and this would set a better tone for his second term. So for conservatives, an Edwards nomination may be high risk/high reward." I'm not sure I agree. Bush's political instincts are not very conservative and his policy positions are more compassionate than conservative. I'm not sure how far back to the right he would swing; he could see a strong battle for the centre as more politically advantageous. Stu Rothenberg noted over the Christmas holidays that for all the talk about the political base of each party, the swing 5-10% of truly independent voters will still decide elections. What will be good for conservatives is not Bush moving to the right but Congress moving to the right and to do that, the Republicans need to pickup Senate and House seats. This is good for conservatives if for no other reason than to get Bush's judicial nominees approved. I think it would be better to have Dean win the nomination and have the GOP pickup 5-6 Senate seats and 15-22 House seats because of the anti-Dean backlash in the sane parts of America. With Dean, there's a real chance to win Louisiana's open Senate race; without him, probably not. With Dean, Florida's open Senate seat is an easy pickup; without him, its a tough fight. With Dean, defending the Republican seat in Illinois is possible; without him, not. With Dean, Senator Tom Daschle is in trouble; without him, its too close for comfort. With Dean, good-bye white Democratic Congressmen in the Carolinas, Texas and most of Florida. Dean will be a tough presidential opponent because he could energize the Democratic base and reach new voters in the industrial midwest (from Missouri through Ohio and Pennsylvania), but southern Democrats are deathly afraid of his candidacy. This is where the opportunity to grow the Republican party will be. And while the Republican Party and conservatives do not always share the same interest, it is highly unlikely that a significant increase in seats in both houses would hurt conservatives. Political commentary on Dean's loss in Iowa Steven Hayward on No left Turns on the Iowa caucus and the demise of Howard Dean: "I don’t follow the daily polls like a fever chart (I have a life, unlike Chris Matthews and Frank Luntz), so I don’t know exactly when Dean’s progress stalled and started going into reverse. It is tempting to date it to Al Gore’s endorsement--is there any more certain kiss of death than to have Gore on your side?" Chip Griffin in The Corner on the demise of Dean: "I wonder what Dean’s position is on Weapons of Self Destruction?" Fred Barnes writing in the Daily Standard about yesterday's winners and losers: "Loser: Harkin. He put his prestige on the line for Dean. He campaigned vigorously for Dean. At rallies, he spoke longer than Dean. But his endorsement had no impact, no legs. His clout turned out to be a myth." Andrew Sullivan on the demise of Dean and the demise of the anti-Dean: "Dean's implosion also strikes me as bad news for Wesley Clark. He was supposed to be the anti-Dean, but adopted Deanish rhetoric. Both positions are now somewhat redundant. The Iowa voters - not exactly centrists - picked Kerry and Edwards to be the anti-Dean candidate, and the shrillness of the Dean-Clark message (the shrillness that so appealed to Paul Krugman) was just as soundly rejected. Good news for the Dems - and the country." National Review editor Rich Lowry on NRO on the demise of flakiness: "My guess is that Wes Clark is going to be hurt by all this. Not just because he will have to stem the tide of momentum from Kerry and Edwards. Iowa also speaks to a certain seriousness on the part of Democratic voters — it was an anti-flaky vote. And Clark is plenty flaky." David Frum on the demise of Democratic insanity: "Have the Democrats gone sane? Yesterday Iowa Democrats administered a brutal drubbing to Howard Dean and the far left of the Democratic party generally, opting instead for the two most sensible candidates on the ballot. If the Democrats go on to drub General Wesley Clark in New Hampshire, we may have to revisit all those articles about the 'angry electorate' and 'divided America' – and open our minds to the hopeful reality that the patriotic consensus of 9/11 still holds. ... the Iowa results are deeply reassuring: There are some 600,000 Democrats in Iowa, and they may be some of the most liberal Democrats in the country. And yet when the time came to cast a ballot, not even they could stomach the destructive opportunism of the Dean campaign." Jonathan V. Last in the Daily Standard on not-quite-the-demise of Dean: "Dean may be a rock star, but he's a rock star with problems. It isn't that he lost Iowa, it's that two candidates who voted for the Iraq war and campaigned as pleasant adults, beat him 70 to 18 percent. There isn't room in the race for both Kerry and Edwards, and eventually one of them will drop out. ... Still, Dean isn't dead. He's running a 50-state campaign, he's got tons of money (and there's no reason to think that supply will dry up) and a solid infrastructure that operates almost independently of the campaign." Monday, January 19, 2004
Light blogging For a couple of days. Will focus, when I'm online, on Paulitics. Should be a couple of interesting days. Nordlinger on Sharpton Or, more properly, the party that has embraced him. From Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column: "I do not think we've absorbed how remarkable it is that Al Sharpton should be a mainstream, universally accepted Democratic presidential candidate. He is a vicious liar (Tawana Brawley) and arguably an inciter of murder (Freddy's Fashion Mart). He did all he could to destroy at least one good man's life (Steve Pagones, a victim of the Brawley hoax). He has devoted much of his career to making New York City as toxic and divided, racially, as possible. He is what the New York Post has dubbed a 'racial arsonist' — a guy who goes around setting, or pouring fuel on, fires, black-against-white. And this guy participates in all these presidential debates and instructs the Democratic front-runner — Howard Dean — in racial comportment. In proper racial behavior (even the phrase repulses me: 'racial behavior'). And no one, apparently, thinks this is weird. No one — certainly no Democrat, certainly no leading one — says, 'Hey, wait a minute. Al Sharpton delivering lectures on moral behavior? Go jump in a lake.' As I've mentioned before, sometimes I fear I am too partisan, and too repelled by one of the two major parties in this country. But then I reflect on the fact that Al Sharpton can run for president in that party — with hardly an eyebrow raised, by anybody — and realize that disgust is all too reasonable a response." Paulitical news other than Iowa caucus Well, they both have Iowa in the story, but specifically they are about Senator John Kerry being backed by a former colleague and several potential '08 GOP candidates are in Iowa tonight. This is what Democrats mean by improving the tone in Washington The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that former Senator Max Cleland (D, GA) campaiged with Senator John Kerry (D, MA) in Iowa yesterday. The paper reported "Cleland, in his talk, railed against 'the Bush crowd that never went to war' sending troops into battle to 'complete Daddy's war'." So much for my predictive power Yesterday over at my other blog, Paulitics, I predicted the results for today's Iowa caucus. Comparison below of predictions and results. My Prediction Result Howard Dean - 30% Kerry - 38% Dick Gephardt - 23% Edwards - 32% John Kerry - 22% Dean - 18% John Edwards - 17% Gephardt - 11% Dennis Kucinich - 4% Kucinich - 1% Not even close. That will not stop me from making a prediction for New Hampshire but perhaps to increase the chances of being correct, or at least getting the right order, I'll make different predictions on Paulitics and Sobering Thoughts. You can point your finger and laugh at me like Nelson at paul_tuns@yahoo.com. Recent paulitical news A bunch of stuff over at Paulitics: my prediction for the Iowa caucus (which is today), most recent California primary and New Mexico caucus polling, Kansas Senate race and the Indiana governor's race. California's government interference will turn the Golden State into Canada George F. Will describes in his Washington Post column why California's economy is not doing well. In a word: government. Will says: "Then must come measures to decrease the cost of doing business in California. Concerning which, consider Buck Knives. Favored by sportsmen around the world, they have been made in San Diego since Hoyt Buck arrived there in 1947. By next year they will be made in Idaho, where the firm's immediate savings will include $500,000 in workers' compensation costs and a 60 percent decrease in utility bills. The owner of five Hungry Howie's Pizza franchises near Fresno scrapped plans to add five more, with up to 70 new jobs, when energy costs tripled and workers' compensation quadrupled. Multiply the businesses that do not come to, stay or expand in California and you have Argentina, which in 1900 had a per capita income as high as Canada's. Or sub-Saharan Africa, which in 1950 had a per capita income as high as Southeast Asia's. Government -- especially bad government -- matters." |