Want to know everything there is to know about Michael Mukasey, Bush's AG nominee? Here's his questionnaire as returned to Leahy. No, I didn't read the whole thing.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Broken Arms on Capitol Hill
Democratic House Whip James Clyburn (SC) predicts that he's about 15 Republican votes away from overriding the president's veto of S-CHIP (speaking of stalking horses...). Do my generation a favor, call/email your Rep and remind them that S-CHIP is a foot in the door for socialized medicine. Tell them you know they're not anti-kid if they vote against. I think a lot of Republicans need to hear this.
Oh and I'll spend some time tomorrow looking for a list of which Republican Reps have flipped from the first S-CHIP vote; if you find one, let me know?
Rush a Stalking Horse?
I'm starting to wonder whether this whole Rush Limbaugh/"phony soldiers" brouhaha - which, by the way, Rush said nothing close to what the Left alleges - is merely a Democratic stalking horse for the Fairness Doctrine. After all, Rush is Talk Radio, that evil menace to democracy that needs to be policed by the FCC. Michelle Malkin and I are on the same page; The Hill also agrees.
Can't Wait to Read It
More on the "Third Party"
As I've already noted, some social conservatives floated a third party candidate trial balloon, then quickly hauled it in when it proved to be leaden. Via Instapundit, Slublog sounds off and is worth reading - he clearly understands the consequences of an imbecilic third party bid. Hey Dobson, you listening?
Speed Blogging!
In an effort to be productive late into the night, I caffeinated. Ironically, I over-caffeinated and thus am for the foreseeable future, too caffeinated to work. Ergo I'll speed blog - limited deep analysis, lots of articles. Think of it as Instapundit Ultra-Lite - because I can't even claim to be Diet Glen Reynolds.
Finally!
It's been a headache multiple times in the past for reasons that are entirely inexplicable to me, but if you look down the page on the right side, you can finally see a Technorati-driven "tag cloud" - a quick way to see what I've been blogging about.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Third Party? Maybe Not...
The threatened third-party candidate backed by disenchanted Religious Right leaders (one reader suggested Alan Keyes?) is suddenly looking less likely, according to Marc Ambinder.
More on Ron Paul's Fundraising
The Journal's Washington Wire puts Ron Paul's surprising fundraising success ($3 million in Q3) in perspective. He's done better than Mike Huckabee, yet the former Arkansas governor - but Huckabee at least placed well at the Ames straw poll.
What this piece doesn't mention is the contrast with John McCain, who apparently has some $2 million in debts - as well as enough raised this quarter to repay them if he chooses (no links now - also worth noting that he'll likely keep those on the books rather than throw away so much of his hard-won cash).
Marc Ambinder reviews the whole Republican field's fundraising successes (or lack thereof), though he makes no mention of Texas's craziest son. Giuliani's campaign still isn't releasing numbers, but given that Rudy's chief fundraiser was pink-slipped last week, they're below expectations. If the former mayor can't raise some serious cash by year's end, Romney and others will be able to attack his claims of electability on the money front...though truth be told, Romney can already do that.
Oh the Humanity...
In recent days, the death toll in Myanmar/Burma's unsuccessful Saffron Revolution has risen from a mere handful to thousands. The Daily Mail reports, based on interviews with the highest junta officer to have defected, that thousands of protesters and hundreds of monks have been killed
while perhaps two thousand more are being held prisoner.
Meanwhile the UN's envoy continues "seeking meetings with the ruling military junta." Ace thoughtfully explores the hand-wringing of the Left with regard to Burma in comparison to their adoration of Ahmadinejad at Columbia last week, and underlines the fact that "for the left the proper way -- the only way -- to deal with brutal murderers and tyrants is to caterwaul about it and peacock-preen their pretty feathers of righteous indignation."
Thankfully, there is also beginning to be chatter about making China pay for their unwavering support of Burma's blood-stained generals. Perhaps the most effective, and public means of doing so would be a boycott of next summer's Olympic Games in Beijing, which is now being advocated by activists.
What I find ironic is that while the death toll has continued to rise in Darfur in spite of public outrage in the West, it takes a courageous protest and the resultant bloodletting to bring Burma into focus. There has been little chatter about the fact that both the Sudanese and Myanmarese regimes are Chinese clients, that Beijing is willing to support these murderous regimes in a quid pro quo. In the case of the Sudan, this is in exchange for access to the country's natural resources; in Myanmar, for access to ports on the Indian Ocean.
I think the West, by doing little more than wringing our hands and expressing our outrage without doing anything concrete to support the pro-democracy protesters (sorry, wearing red in solidarity doesn't count) has lost some of the moral high ground we claim to hold. Yes, we lose it through inaction - through sitting idly by and allowing dictatorial regimes to butcher their people, not through intervening in dictatorial regimes to prevent such butchery. But the left will never admit that.
It's the First Monday in October
And that means the Supreme Court is back in session! The Las Vegas Review-Journal gives a good roundup of the major cases the court will be hearing in the near future (as well as one they'll likely hear):
The most high-profile case on the court's calendar is probably one involving Guantanamo detainees. Lawyers for some of those held at the Cuban base will maintain that a U.S. law allowing the indefinite imprisonment of terror suspects should not prevent challenges in U.S. courts to their confinement.
The Bush administration argues that Guantanamo prisoners are treated fairly.
"This is the most generous set of procedures ever afforded to a nation's military adversaries in the history of the world. They are, however, far short of what would be afforded a U.S. citizen caught up in the civilian justice system," said Brad Berenson, who served under Mr. Bush in the White House counsel's office.
We see little danger, however, that terror suspects who truly threaten the United States would be released if they were allowed to avail themselves of U.S. jurisprudence.
Other major cases include:
• Voter ID: Democrats want the court to toss out state laws that require voters to identify themselves at the polls. Oh, the humanity! Maintaining the integrity of the electoral process is an important matter. The identification requirement is a minimal burden that the justices should uphold.
• Lethal injection: This will be an interesting case. Death penalty opponents maintain that this method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. OK. But is there any means of execution that would be acceptable to them? Probably not. Liberal court observers who complain about this panel's lack of respect for precedent may find themselves in a bit of a pickle, here, given justices have ruled repeatedly over the years that the death penalty itself is not inherently "cruel and unusual."
• Crack cocaine: Thanks to U.S. sentencing guidelines, sellers of crack cocaine -- who often happen to be black -- are subject to more stringent criminal penalties in the federal system than sellers of powder cocaine -- who often happen to be white. The issue before the court is whether a federal judge has the discretion to impose a more lenient sentence on those who sell crack. In fact, many of these hard and fast sentencing mandates go too far in taking away the ability of judges to analyze an individual case and act appropriately. Let's hope the justices agree.
• Government bonds: In this case out of Kentucky, the justices must decide whether a state can treat interest income from municipal bonds differently if they are from out of state rather than from in state. If the court upholds a ruling that the practice is unconstitutional it will have major implications for investors
• Child porn: Is it a crime to promote child pornography by talking about it even if you don't possess it? That's what the justices must determine in a case involving a man whose conviction was overturned after an appeals court ruled that a federal law criminalizing such activity is unconstitutional. The prohibition against actually possessing such images is not at issue.
A case not yet on the docket involves Washington, D.C.'s, strict gun ban. Many people expect the justices to soon accept the matter, in which an appeals court struck down the ban as an affront to the Second Amendment.
If so, it will likely become the most watched matter on the docket -- and present the justices with the opportunity to reaffirm that the Second Amendment gives individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms.
A Most Unlikely Bright Spot
When Massachusetts Democrat Marty Meehan resigned to become Chancellor of UMass-Amherst, I never bothered to check the Fifth District's demographics - it's Massachusetts, right? Last time I checked, Republicans are hard-pressed to be elected anything other than governor there. That impression was reinforced when Niki Tsongas, wife of former Senator Paul Tsongas, won the Democratic primary. Game, set, match...right?
Well RCP's Reid Wilson suggests that maybe I shouldn't be so gloomily hasty, if for no other reason than the GOP's candidate in the MA-5 isn't your typical Republican. Jim Ogonowski has deep roots in the district, continues to run his family's three farms, and is a military veteran; his brother, another veteran, was the pilot of American Airlines Flight 11 on the morning of September 11th.
He's also polling pretty well - 51%-41% behind Tsongas according to internal campaign numbers - and his opponent hasn't released anything to contradict that which suggests they're looking at the same thing. It's also clear that Tsongas is being cautious if not alarmed - Bill Clinton and Pelosi have both come to stump for her.
Ogonowski's also doing himself a favor by running as the outsider, running ads featuring Pelosi, Murtha, DeLay, and Duke Cunningham (Pelosi's certainly in fine company there); his background as an agricultural activist and his support for green technology is also a boon.
The special election will be held October 16th, and will (as is the case with all special elections) be primarily a battle of get out the vote. It will also be worth watching.
Wilson also suggests that
A surprise showing from Ogonowski, even if it isn't a win, would dramatically change the conventional wisdom in Washington. While Congress' approval ratings are in the tank, few insiders believe that Democrats will not expand their majority in 2008, and a rash of recent articles have suggested that the Republican house is in shambles. Should Ogonowski come close to taking a seat for his party, pundits could take another look at the 2008 map, and perhaps conclude that a message like Ogonowski's - of change in Congress, no matter the party - could carry the day and hold some hope for Republicans.
Jim Ognowoski is on the web here; you can donate here (he is being strongly out-raised by Tsongas).
Paul to Surprise Again?
Yesterday marked the end of the third quarter of FEC reporting, so we'll know in the near future how the presidential campaigns have done. Unsurprisingly, much of the chatter remains focused on Clinton and Obama both because Obama can generate serious amounts of cash from an enormous number of donors (and fail to turn it into success!) while Clinton's clearly the more establishment candidate.
The Republican side is less interesting because (among other things) no Republican, presidential or Congressional (or at least the NRCC and NRSC) can raise much. There's also the Romney factor - the ultra-wealthy ex-consultant can dump any amount of his enormous ($250 million?) fortune into his campaign if he so desires.
The shocker of last quarter was when crazy Texan Ron Paul finished with more cash on hand than John McCain. And it looks like Paul may surprise people again this quarter; his surprising success means he'll be able to compete (and in a weirdo state like New Hampshire, may actually get a fair amount of support), and makes struggling candidates like McCain look even more pathetic.
The Next Big Thin
This is just cool: Sony's set to roll out its new line of TVs in December. The kicker? The screen will be .12 inches thick (3mm) thanks to Sony's revolutionary use of organic light-emiting diodes. Of course they'll be released first in Japan, so American techies will have to salivate from afar for a while.
Sorry for using both the typo-as-pun and pun in four words. It's early, I'm tired.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Cutting Off the Nose to Spite The Face (or something to that effect)
It's hardly a secret that many of the kingpins of the Religious Right - Dobson and Land most vocally - have said they cannot vote forRudy Giuliani, and that they would urge their supporters to do the same. As it becomes increasingly likely that said moderate will win the nomination, they're starting to mumble about supporting a third-party candidate. Really folks, really? You'd rather throw the election to the Democrats because Rudy fails to meet some litmus test that is beyond what most Americans want? My own party exasperates me - this is the kind of stunt I expect from Democrats.
Of course nothing will render the party's moralists irrelevant faster than supporting some obscure third-party candidate. Odds are the majority of their followers will hold their noses and vote for Giuliani merely out of a deep-seated loathing for Clinton. If these power-brokers should be consigned to the dustbin of political history, the Republican Party will, I think, be better situated to win in the future: stripped of its moral baggage, the party can focus on an economic message which will resonate strongly if Democrats give into the quasi-socialism espoused by their base.
One immediate objection that comes to mind is the matter of electoral foot soldiers - small business owners are unlikely to go door to door and there's not enough of them in any case. My quick answer to that is that in the last few cycles, Republicans have brought targeting into the 21st century; technology may likewise soon render traditional get-out-the-vote efforts irrelevant.
"Do It for the Taxpayers"
Fred Barnes convincingly lays out the argument against S-Chip, rightly portraying it as a foot in the door measure for universal healthcare. This is the sort of thing we used to be good at but Democrats never showed much aptitude for - putting the other party in a position where policy aside, it's a symbolically bad vote. It'll be interesting to see if the truth about the policy makes it into the media or is lost behind the "Bush hates kids" meme.
A Laughable NYT Op-Ed
[Don't read this with breakfast: you may snort your coffee with laughter or vomit.]
The Times edit board gets their panties all in a bunch over the specter of the justices of the Roberts Court, you know, judging. According to them, the Court is composed of "four very conservative justices, four liberals, and a moderate conservative, Justice Anthony Kennedy, hovering in between." That strikes me as an unfairly balanced composition - how about four conservatives, a moderate, and four liberals? I would hardly qualify Roberts as "very" conservative, and would only qualify Alito, Scalia, and Thomas as such on certain issues; and by very conservative I also mean in tune with the Constitution. Details, details.
Especially juicy are these paragraphs:
It is striking how conservative the court is now. On race, it was for decades a proud force for racial integration. Last term, it ordered Seattle and Louisville, Ky., to stop their voluntary efforts to have children of different races attend school together. The court, once an important force for fairness in American society, now routinely finds dubious legal excuses to deny relief to criminal defendants, consumers and workers who have been mistreated.I suspect by "conservative Republican" they mean anyone to the right of MoveOn.org. Oh and since when is the law supposed to be fair? It's supposed to be the law, which isn't crafted with an eye towards fairness.
The Roberts bloc has not adhered to any principled theory of judging. Its members are not reluctant to strike down laws passed by Congress, as critics of “judicial activism” are supposed to be, or reluctant to overturn the court’s precedents. The best predictor of how they will vote is to ask: What outcome would a conservative Republican favor as a matter of policy?
And they ignore a category of people that have been mistreated in recent rulings: landowners. As in Kelo v. New London. But in that particular case, the majority was composed of Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, Stevens (opinion) and Ginsburg. They also accuse the court of being hyperpartisan (which calls to mind a Safire column from years ago about the overuse of the word hyper as a prefix)...but begs the question of why the decades of legislating from the bench wasn't hyperpartisan?
I know some people wring their hands over the influence of the Times, but I have to imagine to the majority of Americans this stuff comes across as it really is. Laughable.
Glenn Reynolds on "Microtrends"
One of the recent additions to my Amazon Wish List is Mark Penn's Microtrends. Penn is Hillary's chief strategist and by all accounts a rather brilliant pollster; he's now published a book in a quest for credibility as a "serious intellectual" or some such. And now Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds has a review. Go forth and read.
More Polls!
I've seen this causing some chatter, so I might as well mention it: Rasmussen's latest weekly numbers have Thompson in front of Giuliani (and at the head of the pack) 26%-22%; Romney and McCain occupy a sort of netherworld they describe as "a precarious niche somewhere between the frontrunners and the also-rans."
There's always an additional note with Rasmussen. At the bottom of the page, Scott R trumpets his success record over the last two cycles. His polls, however, use "automated technology" and thus are generally distrusted by many within the beltway; at the NRSC during my tenure there, his results were always treated suspiciously.
Obama Showing Signs of Life?
After a long while as merely one of the also-rans in Iowa, a new poll (only the second?) shows Obama in first in the Iowa caucuses. The poll has Clinton in first (31%) over Obama (25%) and Edwards (25%) among all Iowa Democrats. But when only "likely caucus-goers" (aka those crazy enough to go sit in a church basement and fight about this in January) are surveyed, Obama ekes out a narrow win over HRC and Edwards (28%-24%-22%). Politico's Ben Smith has a nice brief analysis on this here, including discussing the intricacies of that "likely caucus-goers" filter.
Newsweek also had this interesting caveat to temper any renewed sense of Obamamentum: "the poll suggests that Clinton’s supporters may be the strongest of the pack. A majority of her boosters (55 percent) say their support is “strong,” edging Obama (41 percent) and Edwards (37 percent)."
That being said, it'll be intriguing to see how the Clinton team plays the expectations game down the home stretch. Unless she's opened a commanding lead, the caucuses can still produce funny outcomes - and despite what this poll's strength of support numbers suggest, I've always believed that Edwards has a pretty strong core of supporters there. I love election season!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
