January 31, 2008
DID ANYONE REALLY THINK...:
Blair is dead, long live Blair (Matthew Taylor, 31 January 2008, New Statesman)
Having defined himself against his predecessor, is Gordon Brown now embracing Blair's vision for public services? Matthew Taylor, one-time head of strategy at No 10, detects a conversion in all but namePlus ça change. Just seven months on from the promise of change, change and more change, an embattled Downing Street endorses James Purnell's claim that Gordon Brown is "clearly the heir to Blair". Meanwhile, dismayed at inheritance tax cuts and the refusal to nationalise Northern Rock, the left commentariat boils with impotent rage.
...he'd eschew the default governing philosophy of the Anglosphere the past thirty years to return to the failed Second Way?
MAYBE THE FRENCH WILL LEND HIM FOCH'S RAILROAD CAR?:
Obama wants summit with Muslim countries (Reuters, 1/31/08)
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told a French magazine in an interview that if he wins office, he will hold a summit with Muslim countries to better the United States' image in the world."Once I'm elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West," Thursday's edition of Paris Match quoted Obama as saying.
THIS PROFILE IS SO FASCINATING... (via The Other Brother):
Who is this guy? (Wright Thompson, ESPN)
You don't notice Ernie Adams at first, but he's always there in his own peculiar way. Walking the halls in the Patriots' complex, lost in his own thoughts, he will often ignore co-workers. In meetings, he has been known to fall asleep. After practice, he is almost always the first person Bill Belichick consults. On game day, he's in the press box with a headset on, running numbers, computing percentages and, some around the league insinuate, overseeing more insidious operations.When Belichick is taking those lonely walks up and down the sideline, his head bowed as if in prayer, you can bet it's Ernie Adams yapping away in Belichick's ear. Some call him the smartest man they've ever met. A longtime NFL watcher compares him to "Q," James Bond's master of espionage and gadgetry. Author David Halberstam called him "Belichick's Belichick." No other team has anyone like him on its payroll. And yet, save for football insiders, he is virtually unknown. In an era of media oversaturation, there is exactly one more picture of Bigfoot on The Associated Press photo wire (two) than there is of Adams (one). And it's of the back of his head.
So here, in the ballroom of the Phoenix Convention Center, just six days before New England will attempt to complete a perfect season that Adams played a significant role in creating, I want to know what the almost-perfect Patriots think about their secret weapon: a guy with thick glasses and the sartorial sensibility of Mister Rogers; a guy who lived with his mother until she died three years ago. Who, exactly, is Ernie Adams?
"I don't know what his job title is," linebacker Adalius Thomas says. "I didn't even know his last name was Adams."
"Ernie is a bit of a mystery to all of us," offensive tackle Matt Light says. "I'm not sure what Ernie does, but I'm sure whatever it is, he's good at it."
Finally, I approach receiver Wes Welker. "I'm writing a story about Ernie Adams," I tell him.
"Who?" he says.
"The guy who's always with Belichick who doesn't ever really talk."
"Oh," he says, recognition washing over his face. "Ernie."
He thinks for a second. "He's got to be a genius," he says, "because he looks like one."
THE FRIENDSHIP
This is why God created best friends. Inside a cavernous church, Ernie Adams sat through his mother's funeral, the saddest day of a man's life, and by his side, where he'd been for years, was Bill Belichick. Sept. 25, 2004 was a beautiful New England day, a Saturday morning during the Patriots' bye week. In the tree-lined suburb of Brookline, Mass., a small crowd had gathered in the Gothic Revival Episcopal Church on the corner of St. Paul Street and Aspinwall Avenue. The stone bell tower rose cold and medieval against the fall blue sky.
The mourners had come to say goodbye to Helen Adams, a woman who loved education and adored her son even more. Ernie and Helen lived together, like something out of a Victorian novel, one friend said, with much doting and an occasional trip to the old continent. At the end, Ernie took care of his mother. In the crowd were friends from childhood, high school and college. One of them was the headmaster of Dexter School, where Ernie went to elementary and junior high. "I was struck by the loyalty of Belichick to Ernie," Bill Phinney says.
That bond is the cornerstone of the Patriots' dynasty. In many ways, the traits we associate with Belichick and the Patriots are traits commonly ascribed to Adams. The humble pie? Classic Ernie, frequently described as having no ego. The rumpled hoodie? Again, classmates remember, classic Ernie. Together, Adams and Belichick have created the transcendently successful franchise they dreamed of creating back in high school.
"It's really the story of a friendship," says Michael Carlisle, a successful literary agent who was Adams' high school roommate at Andover.
Adams and Belichick met in 1970. Adams had been at Phillips Academy in Andover, an elite New England boarding school, for three years. In that time, he'd become a campus legend, famous for his quirky attire and habits. He wore high-top cleats and old-fashioned clothes, looked and talked like something from the 1940s. His three obsessions were Latin, naval history and, strangely, football.
...that if it were April you'd assume he was another Sidd Finch.
WHERE WAS RUSH?
"We Will Be As a City upon a Hill" (Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA), Conservative Political Action Conference, Washington, DC, January 25, 1974)
There are three men here tonight I am very proud to introduce. It was a year ago this coming February when this country had its spirits lifted as they have never been lifted in many years. This happened when planes began landing on American soil and in the Philippines, bringing back men who had lived with honor for many miserable years in North Vietnam prisons. Three of those men are here tonight, John McCain, Bill Lawrence and Ed Martin. It is an honor to be here tonight. I am proud that you asked me and I feel more than a little humble in the presence of this distinguished company.
Ronald Reagan: Conservative of the Century (Remarks to the American Conservative Union, May 26, 1999, U.S.Senator John McCain)
Thank you. It is a great privilege to accept this award on behalf of that most eloquent, visionary and steadfast apostle of freedom, President Ronald Reagan and his family.At the time when Ronald Reagan began his presidency, there were few who shared his remarkable confidence that a new age of freedom was upon us, when the rights of man would be ascendant in many of the darkest reaches of tyranny. For most of us who fought in the twilight struggle against communism, the prospect of victory seemed a long distance off.
But Ronald Reagan didn’t see it that way. He didn’t believe in walls. That was his genius.
Seven years before that grotesque impediment to liberty—the Berlin Wall—was breached by the stronger forces of human yearning, Ronald Reagan predicted to a skeptical world the inevitable triumph of freedom.
“Let us be shy no longer,” he encouraged. “Let us go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable.”
Ronald Reagan was a proud Cold Warrior; proud to be an enemy of the forces he justly denounced as evil. But being an anti-Communist was never enough for him. He knew that America’s efforts to help humanity secure the blessings of liberty are what truly distinguish us from all other nations on earth. He knew it was necessary to defeat communism to protect ourselves. But he also fought communism because it threatened America’s sublime legacy to the world.
That doesn’t mean that we have to risk lives and resources needlessly, lurching ineffectually from one crisis to another. But it does mean that we should defend our interests and values when they are threatened; that strength and courage should be the qualities of our statecraft; that we should make our way in this complex and dangerous world as President Reagan did: sure of ourselves, firm in our purpose and proud of our heritage.
When I was a prisoner-of-war, the Vietnamese went to great lengths to restrict the news from home to the statements and activities of prominent opponents to the war. They wanted us to believe that America had forgotten us. They never mentioned Ronald Reagan to us, or played his speeches over the camp loudspeakers. No matter. We knew about him. New additions to our ranks told us how Governor and Mrs. Reagan were committed to our liberation and our cause.
When we came home we were eager to meet the Reagans to thank them for their concern. But more than gratitude drew us to them. We were drawn to them because they were among the few prominent Americans who did not subscribe to the then fashionable notion that America had entered her inevitable decline.
We came home to a country that had lost a war and the best sense of itself; a country beset by social and economic problems. Assassinations, riots, scandals, contempt for political, religious and educational institutions gave the appearance that we had become a dysfunctional society. Patriotism was sneered at. The military scorned. And the world anticipated the collapse of our global influence. The great, robust, missionary democracy that had given its name to the century seemed exhausted.
Ronald Reagan believed differently. He possessed an unshakable faith in America’s spirit and greatness that proved more durable than the prevailing political sentiments of the time. And his confidence was a tonic to men who had come home eager to put the war behind us and for the country to do likewise.
Our country has a long and honorable history. A lost war or any other calamity should not destroy our confidence or weaken our purpose. We were a good country before Vietnam and we are a good country after Vietnam. In all of history, you cannot find a better one. Of that, Ronald Reagan was supremely confident, and he became President to prove it.
His was a faith that shouted at tyrants to “tear down this wall.” Such faith, such patriotism requires a great deal of courage and love to profess. And I will always revere him for it.
When walls were all I had for a world, I learned about a man whose courage and love gave me hope in a desolate place. His faith honored us, as it honored all Americans, as it honored all freedom-loving people. It is good that we honor him as the conservative who played such an important role in shaping the best part of the century we now take our leave from.
On behalf of the Reagan family, I thank you for this wonderful tribute to the President. But let all of our tributes to him always find their best expression in our own fidelity to his faith, the faith that could not abide walls.
Thank you.
Some men make the history of conservatism in America, others snipe at them from the sidelines about their supposed impurities.
THE DIGNITY OF THE INDIGNANT:
Proud to Be a Footnote (Robert Ferrigno, 1/30/08)
Canada has universal health care but not the First Amendment protection afforded US citizens. Me, I’m self-insured and paid enough for shoulder surgery last year to buy a Prius, but I’ll take the First Amendment any day. I suspect so would Mark Steyn, an incisive thinker and fearless essayist who lives in the US, but publishes a regular column in the Canadian magazine, Maclean’s. That’s where the trouble started.On Wed, Dec 5, 2007, four Muslim students at Toronto's Osgoode Hall Law School, and the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, accusing Steyn and Maclean’s of violating their "sense of dignity and self-worth”. My sense of dignity and self-worth is harmed every time I see the six-pack abs on the guy in the Bowflex ads on TV. Who do I sue? While the particular flash point for the CIC was Steyn’s article “The Future Belongs to Islam," an excerpt from his best selling book America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, the full complaint made clear that it was Steyn’s body of work that was on trial.
I first became aware of the situation when a Canadian reader emailed me with the news that not only was Steyn being charged by the Human Rights Commission, but in the documentation against him was his very positive review of my previous novel, Prayers for the Assassin. Steyn's praise for Prayers, a book written by a “recognized Islamophobe” according to the CIC, was further evidence of his prejudice against Muslims. For the record, I am neither Islamophobic nor recognized.
It gets better--apparently views that the complaint attributes to Mr. Steyn actually come from his summation of the plot of the novel.
THE THING ABOUT BEING sTUPID...:
In McCain, Voters Force a Winner on the GOP (Susan Estrich, 1/31/08, Reral Clear Politics)
I have to hand it to the Republicans. They might not want the hand, but they deserve it. If things continue the way they’ve gone, they’re on the verge of nominating the candidate many of them like least and many of my friends like most as their nominee for president.Which is to say, they’ve done the right thing, right if you care about winning, that is, not to mention the country’s best interest, as opposed to ideological purity.
...is you always end up seeming smart in the long run.
MESSAGE, WE CARE:
Iraq: Dems' Dreams Dashed?: When the Democrats took back Congress they promised a "new direction" in Iraq. What happened? (Nick Baumann, January 31, 2008, Mother Jones)
There are more American troops in Iraq today than when the Democrats assumed the majority in Congress. On Monday, the Pentagon announced that the president will ask Congress next week for another $70 billion to fund the war through his last day in office. And the administration has signaled that it may seek to enter a long-term security agreement with Iraq, which could lay the groundwork for a military commitment that extends beyond the Bush presidency. Also on Monday, Bush issued a presidential "signing statement" indicating that the White House may ignore provisions included in a recently passed defense authorization bill, among them a measure prohibiting permanent American bases in Iraq.In July, Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman and co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, predicted that "the Democrats are not going to stop the war." It's becoming increasingly clear that he was right. The Associated Press reported on Monday that Democrats are reluctant to begin debate on the $70 billion spending bill because they don't have the votes to bring the troops home. To stop the war, the Democrats could filibuster funding for the troops. But a majority of congressional Democrats have balked at resorting to this "nuclear option."
Without a legislative exit strategy, Democratic leaders in Congress still insist that Iraq remains a priority. Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, says, "both the Speaker and Senator Reid are committed to try to force a change in policy." But he concedes that congressional leaders remain "a bit surprised that the Republicans, especially in the Senate, stuck to the President this far." It is possible that vulnerable Republicans who are up for reelection this November will change their positions on the war. But as American casualties in Iraq have fallen in recent months, Republican pro-war rhetoric has grown more strident, not less so.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a leading anti-war Democrat, said this week that despite the obvious political obstacles, the Democrats should not cease efforts to end the war. "Of course, we have to have a Democratic president if we want the troops home at all," she said. "But we cannot stop the [antiwar] drumbeat because that would be irresponsible. . .We have a responsibility, and that is to talk about this, and remind people that it's going on. They've got to know that members of Congress 'get it' and care."
It's not a big deal that the Left didn't understand Iraq, they're too self-absorbed to understand why Communism and Islamicism don't appeal to people. But it ought to embarrass them that they didn't get how their own Republic works. They can't end the war for the same reason W couldn't get SS reform.
GETTING THEIR HEADS HANDED TO THEM NEVER SEEMS TO GROW OLD, HUH?
Democrats in Senate short of votes for stimulus bill (David M. Herszenhorn, January 31, 2008, IHT)
Senate Democratic leaders said on Thursday that they were short of the 60 votes needed to advance their own $157 billion economic stimulus package and would have no choice but to adopt a less expensive plan approved by the House.
WE ARE ALL DESIGNISTS NOW:
All Blue Eyed People Related to Brad Pitt (Andrew Curry, 1/31/08, Der Spiegel)
According to a new paper by a Danish researcher, blue eyes come as the result of a single mutation that occurred 10,000 years ago. Which means that all people with blue peepers have a common ancestor. [...]The paper, published Thursday by Danish geneticist Hans Eiberg in the journal Human Genetics, links all baby blues to a single mutation that occurred 10,000 years ago.
Adaptive Plasticity in Female Mate Choice Dampens Sexual Selection on Male Ornaments in the Lark Bunting (Alexis S. Chaine and Bruce E. Lyon, Science)
Theory on the evolution of ornamental male traits by sexual selection assumes consistency in selection over time. Temporal variation in female choice could dampen sexual selection, but scant information exists on the degree to which individual female preferences are flexible. Here we show that in lark buntings sexual selection on male traits varied dramatically across years and, in some cases, exhibited reversals in the direction of selection for a single trait. We show that these shifts are probably because of flexibility in mate choice by individual females...
There's no such thing as natural selection, just aesthetics.
HE'LL NEVER RECOVER FROM THIS ONE...:
Perry to endorse McCain (Andy Merten, 1/31/08, NBC: First Read)
As he continues to rack up high-profile Republican endorsements, John McCain today told reporters that Texas Gov. Rick Perry will endorse him this afternoon.
SHE IS WHO PEOPLE THINK HE IS:
Is Obama the most liberal senator? (Mark Murray, 1/31/08, NBC: First Read)
National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.
Since I've been of voting age the Democrats have served up: Jimmy Carter; Walter Mondale; Mike Dukakis, Al Gore; and John Kerry. But I still don't think the GOP is so lucky that they'll give us Barack Obama this time. It would just be too easy.
AND THEY WONDER WHY WE'RE WINNING?:
Top al-Qaeda leader reported dead (BBC, 1/31/08)
A senior al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, has been killed, senior Western counter-terrorism officials say.News of Libi's death first emerged on a website used by Islamist groups.
The website, ekhlaas.org, said Libi had "fallen as a martyr", the Reuters news agency reports.
Our martyrs die publicly proclaiming the Word. Theirs die huddled in dirt shacks and caves or in the act of mass murder.
SURE, IT WOULD BE MORE HONEST...:
Jeter captains Turn 2 Foundation event (Doug Miller, 1/31/08, MLB.com)
...but you can hardly expect him to call it the E-6 FOUNDATION (with its Manos de Piedra branch in Latin America...)
AND THE PREMISE OF HIS CAMPAIGN IS THAT HE'S A SMART BUSINESSMAN?:
Romney to reach into pocket, make 'significant' Feb. 5 buy (Jonathan Martin, 1/31/08, Politico)
Mitt Romney has decided to pour more of his own fortune into his presidential campaign and will go up on TV in California and other Super Tuesday states."Romney for President will be making a significant ad buy in California and other Feb. 5 states," spokesman Matt Rhoades said this morning.
TOUGH BREAKING THE CYCLE OF DEPENDENCY:
French morale hits a new low (Henry Samuel, 31/01/2008, Daily Telegraph)
[T]he real reasons are to be found deep in the French psyche, according to Gerard Mermet, a sociologist who publishes a highly respected study on the national state of mind every two years."Collective pessimism is engraved in French culture. We are regularly found to be the most pessimistic nation in Europe", he told The Daily Telegraph.
In his work Francoscopie 2007, he suggests that France now suffers collectively form of "hypochondria" because it knowingly plays up its economic and social ills, while glossing over its strengths.
However, the gloom had reached new depths since Mr Sarkozy's election - after a bright start - because of his attempts to reduce the overbearing role of the state.
They're conditioned to feel needy and their only support is being kicked out from under them.
I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION? (via Kevin Whited):
Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act (Charlie Savage, January 30, 2008, Boston Globe)
President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.
"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President." [...]
"I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that."
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The ntion that the Constitution requires him to behave in an unConstitutional manner is bizarre, even from a San Franciscan.
THEY HAVE TO GET LUCKY EVERY DAY:
Terror Leader Killed in Missile Strike?: U.S. Official Confirms Attack Was Aimed at One Particular AQ Leader (HABIBULLAH KHAN and MARTHA RADDATZ, Jan. 30, 2008, ABC News)
Pakistani intelligence sources say they believe a "high-value" al Qaeda target was killed in a missile strike yesterday in the country's tribal region bordering Afghanistan.U.S. officials said there was no indication that the target was Osama bin Laden or his deputy Ayman al Zawahri, but one senior official told ABCNews.com the strike was aimed at one particular figure.
"We don't know whether we got him yet, we are sorting through it," the official said, indicating the intended target was a top leader of the terror group.
LIKE MARIO CUOMO IN A DRESS:
Avoiding the Competition Cost Rudy (Maggie Gallagher, 1/31/08, Real Clear Politics)
But I think Rudy made a more fundamental error for a leader: He believed his own press clippings.He was America's Mayor, with a powerful lead in early national polls -- the only guy who could get the GOP to play deep in blue territory: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire.
New Hampshire?
The first big chink in his shining armor was the strategic decision to withdraw from a serious fight for votes in New Hampshire. He tried to play this as a bold new strategy for a bold new era. And we could understand his decision to skip Iowa. But why is it America's Mayor couldn't compete in the Granite State? Things went rapidly downhill from there. For a man who loves competition, he avoided just too many chances to compete.
He never had any intention of running, he just wanted to stand on a balcony and be applauded.
EVEN THE RIGHT ISN'T THAT RACIST:
Candidates finally see promise of Latino vote (Gebe Martinez, Jan 31, 2008, Politico)
In Florida, the state with the third-largest number of Hispanic voters, Arizona Sen. John McCain had a big Republican primary win against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, largely by taking half of the Cuban-American vote, with only 10 percent for Romney.Among Hispanics who are not Cuban-American, McCain won 51 percent, compared with Romney’s 21 percent.
McCain’s bipartisan plan for earned citizenship for most illegal immigrants now in the United States was not as radioactive as Romney hoped it would be, with only four out of 10 Republican voters favoring deporting illegal immigrants to their country of origin, according to Florida polling.
The real importance of John McCain or Mike Huckabee being nominated this year was that they were the two most pro-immigration candidates and the Party can ill afford to drive away a natural constituency. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee this could be the election that turns the Red party brown, especially since Jeb is next.
PROUD MAVERICK:
Endorsements bring a new head of steam: McCain, on a roll, wins the support of Giuliani and Schwarzenegger. (Mark Z. Barabak, Michael Finnegan and Evan Halper, 1/31/08, Los Angeles Times)
John McCain sought to fasten his grip on the Republican presidential nomination Wed- nesday by securing high-profile endorsements from erstwhile rival Rudolph W. Giuliani and, in a reversal of his promised neutrality, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.Former New York City Mayor Giuliani, who spent months atop national polls but never finished better than third in any contest, quit the race at a Simi Valley news conference, where he hailed the Arizona senator as a friend and an "American hero."
"John McCain is the most qualified candidate to be the next commander in chief of the United States," Giuliani said, as McCain stood next to him. [...]
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney planned to focus on caucus states where he could apply his organizational prowess.
The Governor wisely recognizes he can't contend for actual votes.
ELITES ALWAYS HATE THE GRASS ROOTS:
Some Conservatives Make Last-Ditch Bid To Block McCain (JOSH GERSTEIN, January 31, 2008, NY Sun)
A popular talk radio host who has vocally opposed Mr. McCain in recent weeks, Rush Limbaugh, sounded resigned yesterday to the prospect that the Arizona senator will be the Republican nominee. "It looks like McCain's pretty far down the line now to having wrapped this up," Mr. Limbaugh said on his program."There's a lot of anxiety among a lot of conservatives about Senator McCain. It's simply indisputable, but there was no figure in our roster of candidates who rose up to challenge him or to galvanize conservative support. All the candidates on our side, for various reasons, are uninspiring or worse, and so, just as I predicted, the base has fractured."
When you passionately hate the most popular candidate -- only candidate on either side who has higher positive than negative ratings -- the problem is you, not him. Like the Left of the 70s, Rush and company have been co-opted by Washington and have their heads so far up the Beltway they can't see America. The view from a padded booth can't help but be omphaloskeptical.
January 30, 2008
THEN WHY CONTINUE THE CHARADE?
Romney Not Ready to Commit to Big TV Buys (DAVID ESPO, 1/30/08, AP)
In a major boost for John McCain, Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney signaled Wednesday he's not ready to commit to a costly campaign in the states holding primaries and caucuses next week.
How about putting the party first--for once--and dropping out?
NOW MAVERICK IS REALLY DONE FOR!
Schwarzenegger to back McCain (The Associated Press, Jan 30, 2008)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will endorse John McCain on Thursday, giving a certain boost to the Republican presidential front-runner six days before California's high-prize primary.The two will appear at a news conference after touring a Los Angeles-based solar energy company and the governor will make his endorsement official, his senior aides confirmed Wednesday.
Soon the Beltway Right will tell us why this is actually a bad thing for Mr. McCain.
DON'T HEAR MUCH THESE DAYS...
McCormack: Delegate Math (John McCormack, 1/30/08, Campaign Standard)
McCain's greatest advantage lies in the states that award all of their delegates - 373 in all - to the winner of the statewide popular vote: Arizona (53), Connecticut (30), Delaware (18), Missouri (58), Montana (25), New Jersey (52), New York (101), and Utah (36).Polls have shown McCain leading in all of these states, except Utah where Romney is up big, Delaware where Giuliani was ahead, and Montana where caucusgoers haven't been polled.
...from the folks who swore Mitt's delegate lead was important.
NOTHING COSTS MORE THAN IT USED TO:
Wal-Mart cuts costs even deeper (Nate Legue, 1/29/08, BusinessRockford.com)
The world’s largest retailer will slash prices by 10 percent to 30 percent in a bid to lure shoppers amid worries about a flagging U.S. economy.Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced Monday its plan to cut costs for groceries and other items in response to the government’s economic stimulus plan and in advance of Super Bowl weekend.
TOUGH TO RILE AN UNDERTAXED ELECTORATE:
McCainomics Beats Reaganomics (James Pethokoukis, 1/30/08, US News)
One of the interesting tidbits from the Florida GOP exit polls concerned the economy, with 45 percent of Republican voters, according to CNN, ranking it as their most important issue. And even though Mitt "I have the economy in my DNA" Romney stressed the economy as his key issue and promoted himself as an economic expert due to his private-equity—I mean, "venture capital"—background, John McCain won those voters by 40 percent to 32 percent. (And 63 percent, BTW, described the economy as "not so good/poor.") Moreover, exactly half of voters, according to CBS, said they would prefer that the next president place "a higher priority on reducing the budget deficit than on cutting taxes." With those voters, McCain crushed Romney 40 to 27.
By the time Ronald Reagan left office he'd raised taxes so much that the issue regained its salience, then George HW Bush and Bill Clinton both hiked them more. But W has cut them every year of his presidency and never hiked them, so it's not surprising the issue doesn't resonate.
GREEDY FOR GROWTH:
Fed Cuts Interest Rates by 1/2 Point (MARTIN CRUTSINGER, 1/30/08, The Associated Press)
The Federal Reserve on Wednesday cut a key interest rate for the second time in just over a week, reducing the federal funds rate by a half point. It signaled that further rate cuts were possible. [...]Many analysts believed the Fed would quickly follow last week's aggressive move with a cut of at least a half-point at its first regular meeting of the new year. That view gained support on Wednesday hours before the Fed announcement, when the government reported that the total economy slowed to a barely discernible 0.6 percent growth rate in the final three months of last year.
WE DID IT, WHY NOT YOU?:
After Appomattox (DAVID W. BLIGHT, January 30, 2008, NY Sun)
For most Americans it is all but impossible to imagine a time when murder, torture, and intimidation — terrorism — determined our own elections.But in the election violence of 1868–1876 during Reconstruction, we can find a homegrown brand of American terrorism that forever mars America's claims as a political model for the world. We have come a long way from the success of the "Red Shirts" in using terror to overthrow Reconstruction and black political liberty in South Carolina in 1876 to the victory of Barack Obama in that state's Democratic presidential primary this month.
I don't get it. Aren't we all the more a model because we overcame exactly the sorts of violent ethnic divisions that supposedly make other states unsuitable for democracy?
AS CONSERVATIVE AS A GAGGLE OF WOMEN GETS:
American Teachers: What values do they hold? (Robert Slater, Winter 2008, Eduction Next)
Over the last four decades, Americans in general have grown more tolerant of homosexuality. In the 1970s, 13 percent of nonteachers said there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. By 2006, 32 percent of them felt this way. During the 1970s, 18 percent of teachers also saw nothing wrong with it. By 2006, about a third saw nothing wrong with it; there was no significant difference between the two groups. If we control for education, however, we find that in each of the four decades, teachers are from 10 to 15 percentage points less likely than other Americans with 16 or more years of schooling to see nothing wrong with homosexuality (see Figure 2).About 60 percent of teachers and an equal proportion of other Americans say they are opposed to legalized abortion. Analysis of the survey data show class, gender, and education are all positively correlated with being in favor of legalized abortion. Americans who place themselves in the middle or upper classes, women, and the more highly educated all tend to favor abortion being legal. But teachers are about 14 percentage points more likely to oppose abortion for any reason than highly educated nonteachers—that is, they are more conservative on the issue.
American teachers tend to be more conservative than other Americans on issues of pornography as well. In 2006, 50 percent of teachers said they would make pornography illegal, while only 38 percent of nonteachers shared this view.The difference between teachers and highly educated nonteachers is even greater: only 29 percent of nonteachers would make pornography illegal.
Religion
God and religion play an important role in the lives of more than half of all Americans. In a study conducted by the European Values Study Group and World Values Survey Association, 58 percent of the U.S. population said that God was very important in their lives, a greater percentage by far than in the populations of other developed countries such as Great Britain (14 percent), France (8), Italy (33), Japan (7), Spain (17), or Germany (9).
Religion and education have always had a close relationship in the United States. The country’s first institution of higher education,Harvard College, was established in 1636 to train ministers. Many of the country’s first teachers were ministers and parsons. Even when women came to dominate the teaching field, religious values were still a priority. We should not be surprised if elementary and secondary school teachers value religion highly, perhaps even more highly than Americans in general. But do they?
According to the NORC survey data from the current decade, about 37 percent of teachers say they attend church one or more times per week,while 26 percent of other Americans say they do so. Controlling for the education of nonteachers does not affect this difference. Of those nonteachers with 16 or more years of schooling, 28 percent regularly attend church.
Looking at the data across the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s,we find that teachers are about 9 to 11 percentage points more likely than other Americans as a whole to pray one or more times per day. During the 1980s and 1990s, Americans were asked how close they felt to God. Teachers were about 8 percentage points more likely than other Americans to report feeling “extremely close” to God.
Why do teachers, by these measures, seem more religious than other Americans? Perhaps the differences are due to gender. Most teachers are women, and women are more likely than men to be frequent churchgoers and more likely to pray one or more times a day. In fact, we find teachers of both genders to be more religious than nonteachers. Female teachers are about 8 percentage points more likely to attend church frequently than female nonteachers, and male teachers are 16 percentage points more likely to attend church frequently than male nonteachers (see Figure 3). Teachers are apparently more religious than other Americans, regardless of gender or education.
THE LAST METROSEXUAL:
Edwards to drop out of presidential race (NEDRA PICKLER, 1/30/08, Associated Press)
Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race today, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voter's sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.
Tuesday was a bad hair day.
LOOKS LIKE GOVERNOR HUCKABEES LIKE GOVERNOR HUCKABEE GETS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES....
For McCain, Momentum That May Be Hard to Stop (Dan Balz, 1/30/08, Washington Post)
Strategists noted that Romney's tenacity and ability to write a check from his personal fortune to keep his campaign going make him a formidable opponent, but the landscape appears stacked against him -- beginning with the aftershocks from Tuesday's results.Romney will probably receive support from parts of the party's conservative base, which has never warmed to McCain and now has perhaps one final chance to stop him. But McCain will benefit from other developments in Florida.
Tuesday's primary eliminated from serious contention former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who stunned his rivals by winning the Iowa caucuses 26 days ago, and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, long the national front-runner until he dramatically faded over the past two months.
Giuliani is set to quit the race and endorse McCain before Wednesday's debate at the Ronald Reagan presidential library in California. Huckabee said he will remain in, and by doing so will help McCain by frustrating Romney's efforts to attract more of the conservative votes he needs to overtake the front-runner.
A DRAUGHT OF VINTAGE:
America still works: The US economy is slowing down, but the long-term trends for the country are more favourable than many think. There has also been a sharp improvement in many of America's social pathologies, such as violent crime and drug abuse (Michael Lind, February 2008, Prospect)
Anyone who reads the serious press about the condition of the US might be excused for believing that the country is headed towards a series of deep crises. This impression is exacerbated by economic slowdown and by the presidential primaries, in which candidates announce bold plans to rescue the country from disaster. But even in more normal times there are three ubiquitous myths about America that make the country seem weaker and more chaotic than it really is. The first myth, which is mainly a conservative one, is that racial and ethnic rivalries are tearing America apart. The second myth, which is mainly a liberal one, is that America will soon be overwhelmed by religious fundamentalists. The third myth, an economic one beloved of centrists, is that the retirement of the baby boomers will bankrupt the country because of runaway social security entitlement costs.America does, of course, have many problems, such as spiralling healthcare costs and a decline in social mobility. Yet the truth is that apart from the temporary frictions caused by current immigration from Latin America, the US is more integrated than ever. Racial and cultural diversity is in long-term decline, as a result of the success of the melting pot in merging groups through assimilation and intermarriage—and many of the country's infamous social pathologies, from violent crime to teenage drug use, are also seeing improvements. Americans are far more religious than Europeans, but the "religious right" is concentrated among white southern Protestants. And there is no genuine long-term entitlement problem in the US. The US suffers from healthcare cost inflation, a problem that will be solved one way or another in the near future, long before it cripples the economy as a whole. And the long-term costs of social security, America's public pension programme, could be met by moderate benefit cuts or a moderate growth in the US government share of GDP. With a linguistically united, increasingly racially mixed supermajority and a solvent system of middle-class entitlements, the US will remain first among equals for generations to come, even in a multipolar world with several great powers. [...]
In comparison with the problem of healthcare cost inflation, the alleged crisis of social security is puny. Claims of a "crisis" revolve around two dates: 2017, when the social security surplus runs out and the programme becomes a pure pay-as-you-go system based on annual payroll taxation; and 2041, when payroll tax revenues fall short of expenditures. Even in 2041, social security will be able to pay most of its obligations. The crisis, then, is nothing more than the fact that taxes will have to be raised or benefits cut before 2041 in order to supplement a mostly sound system. (Great confusion is spread by the phrase "unfunded liabilities." The only programmes with "unfunded liabilities" are those, like social security, paid for by dedicated taxes, in this case a payroll tax. This permits calculations of future divergences between dedicated tax revenues and expenditures. The Pentagon budget is paid from general tax, so the concept is inapplicable.)
The use of dates like 2017 and 2041, moreover, gives a specious precision to claims that in fact are extremely dubious. This is underlined by the fact that the US government regularly revises the date of the alleged social security apocalypse, as it reconsiders its assumptions. The "intermediate" calculations on which current estimates are based are almost certainly unrealistic. They assume a low rate of productivity growth in the US over the next half century of 1.7 per cent. This is only slightly higher than the average of 1.5 per cent in the long period of low productivity growth from 1973 to 1995. But from 1996 to 2006, US productivity growth boomed at an annual rate of between 2 and 3 per cent in most years. Productivity growth slowed after 2004, but surged ahead in the last quarter at 6.3 per cent. Nobody knows whether the resumption of high productivity growth in the last decade was a blip or the beginning of a new pattern. The point is that if US productivity grows at a rate near the historic average of 1945-2008, the picture for the solvency of social security is much brighter. (This is not the place for a full discussion of economic prospects, but it is worth noting that US industrial output rose nearly 35 per cent in the past ten years, faster than any other G7 country.)
Moreover, what the doomsayers neglect to tell the public is that if the cap on the amount of income subject to payroll taxation were lifted, the result would be such a flood of money from high earners that the problems of social security would be solved forever. And even if payroll taxes were raised on all workers, as a result of productivity growth the average earner in 2050 may well have wages that in real terms are at least 60 per cent higher than today's.
It is possible, and in my opinion likely, that in the future congress will choose to infuse general revenues into the social security system, as an alternative to raising payroll taxes on all workers. If that is the case, then the only question is whether social security is affordable. The answer is clearly yes. The share of government at all levels as a percentage of GDP is lower than that in almost all other industrial democracies. In the US, government expenditure at all levels—federal, state and local—as a share of GDP hovers just above 30 per cent (despite spending a staggering $626bn on military-related costs in 2007, over 22 per cent of the federal budget). By comparison, the EU-25 average was 47 per cent in 2005. An additional 2 per cent of GDP can be added to social security over the next half century without altering America's position as one of the least statist economies in the world.
It's nice to see Mr. Lind is back on his meds, even if only temporarily and even if it doesn't make up for his past ravings.
THE GIPPER'S HEIR:
After Romney's Barrage, McCain Stands Tall (Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane, 1/30/08, Washington Post)
[L]ast night, the senator from Arizona emerged from that negative onslaught a survivor. In money and message, Romney threw all he could at McCain in a bruising week in Florida, but it did not prove to be enough."You don't want to say it doesn't get you anything because a lot of campaigns are won on negativity," said John Weaver, a longtime political adviser to McCain. "But if Romney wasn't born on third base, if he had to campaign and fundraise like everyone else, I'm sure he wouldn't be here anymore."
The Republicans' swing through Florida was a watershed. Not only was it the first big state of the presidential nomination fight, but it was also the first state that looked like the United States at large, with all its ethnic, religious and racial diversity, its economic haves and have-nots, and the sheer scale of its political universe.
The GOP could have its unifier: McCain's victory in Florida shows that he may be able to cobble together a new type of coalition. (Peter Wallsten, 1/30/08, Los Angeles Times)
The Arizona senator, long the bane of the GOP establishment, showed in Florida that he could begin cobbling together a new Republican coalition -- attracting enough support from all corners of the party base to give him a plurality in the biggest and most diverse state to vote so far in the 2008 campaign.He took about a quarter of conservatives, secured nearly a third of evangelicals, dominated among his typical base of self-described moderates, and won easily among voters who care about authenticity, experience and electability.
In winning Florida, McCain threw off a major critique of his candidacy: He prevailed in an all-Republican primary that excluded the more moderate independents who had ensured McCain's wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
And in a state plagued by insurance woes, falling home prices and a rising number of foreclosures, he defeated a rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who had portrayed himself as the best-equipped to fix the economy.
I have to admit underestimating Mitt Romney's willingness to throw good money after bad, which kept him going this far, but it's hard to see how he can spend enough spread widely enough to stay competitive next Tuesday. So John McCain has wrapped up the nomination before the Super Bowl and the party is racing to fall inline in back of him. Ironically, it is the Democrats who will fix any lingering problems he has with the Right, as they spend the next ten months telling everyone how unacceptably conservative he is.
The Senator's victory speech last night previewed the message that will start to penetrate the miasma of conservative derangement now that he has no foes to the Right:
My friends, in one week we will have as close to a national primary as we have ever had in this country. I intend to win it, and be the nominee of our party. And I intend to do that by making it clear what I stand for. I stand for the principles and policies that first attracted me to the Republican Party when I heard, in whispered conversations and tap codes, about the then Governor of California, who stood by me and my comrades, and who was making quite a reputation for standing by his convictions no matter the changing winds of political thought and popular culture. When I left the Navy and entered public life, I enlisted as a foot soldier in the political revolution he began. And I am as proud to be a Reagan conservative today, as I was then. I trust in the courage, good sense, resourcefulness and decency of the American people, who deserve a government that trusts in their qualities as well, and doesn't abrogate to its elf the responsibilities to do for the people what the people can and want to do for themselves.We Republicans have always known that the first responsibility of government is to keep this country safe from all enemies foreign and domestic, and the American people unburdened by the heavy hand of government that spends too much of their money on things they neither want nor need, while failing to do as well as we should the things none of us can do individually. Government must defend our nation's security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us, measured in losses so hard to bear, and in the heartbreak of so many families. Government must respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; and enforce the rule, which distinguishes successful democracies from failed societies, and is the first defense of freedom. And the judges we appoint to federal benches must understand that is their only responsibility, and leave to elected officials their responsibility to make the laws that they enforce. We believe government should do only those things we cannot do individually, to tax us no more than necessary, and spend no more than necessary, and then get out of the way of the most industrious, ingenious and optimistic people in the history of the world so that they can build an even greater country than the one they inherited.
My friends, as I said the other week in South Carolina, there is nothing in our country that is inevitable. We can overcome any challenge as long as we keep our courage, and stand by the principles that have made our party and our country great. Our party has always been successful when we have, like Ronald Reagan, stood fast by our convictions. And we have only suffered when our allegiance to our principles has not been as steadfast as it should. I intend to make my stand on those principles, and I am confident we will succeed in this contest and in the bigger one in November against anyone the Democratic Party nominates.
Most importantly, I promise you again, I will always put America -- her strength, her ideals, her future -- before every other consideration.
Despite his decades in public life and 8 years in the national spotlight, even few Republicans realize that Mr. McCain was hand-picked for Republican politics by Ronald Reagan. With the field cleared and a free media megaphone big and loud enough that he can drown out the Beltway Right, he can easily run as the Reagan Republican he is.
MORE:
McCain Disproves the Doubters (ANA MARIE COX, 1/30/08, TIME)
A victory in Florida's closed primary should silence the refrain that has echoed through talk radio and conservative blogs ever since McCain started to claw his way toward the nomination: He's not a "real Republican." Says one McCain staffer: "Maybe after they see his name next to an 'R' in the general election they'll change their minds."After his win in New Hampshire, critics proclaimed McCain too moderate to win over enough religious conservatives in South Carolina. After his victory there, critics insisted that Romney's millions, superior get-out-the-vote effort, and command of economic issues would erase the slim lead McCain had eked out in Florida. The day after Tuesday's convincing win, McCain's enemies will surely be looking for new ways to frame these same familiar complaints. But a look at the exit polls suggests that many of the assumptions that made McCain's candidacy look shaky from afar have dissolved in the heat of a competitive race.
For all of Romney's private-sector experience, McCain's almost quaint message of fiscal conservatism — he repeats the line "If only we could cut spending" to the point of parody — resonated among the many voters who were looking for answers to Florida's economic slump. Fifty percent of those who turned out Tuesday said that the economy was their most important issue, and McCain won those voters by 38% to 35%. Explains Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain adviser, "People understand the difference between a very good salesman and a commander in chief."
IN FAIRNESS TO THE MAYOR...:
Giuliani looks to be out of the race: He is widely expected to endorse McCain after finishing a distant third in Florida. His unconventional strategy appears to have been his undoing. (Mark Z. Barabak and Louise Roug, 1/30/08, Los Angeles Times)
Giuliani became a national hero -- "America's mayor" -- after his stout-hearted performance on that day.For a time, with seemingly little effort, he sat atop national opinion polls for the GOP presidential nod.
But Giuliani had the unfortunate effect of growing less popular the more he campaigned -- even though he managed to keep his famously combustible personality under control throughout most of the contest.
For Giuliani, a dizzying free-fall (Michael Powell and Michael Cooper, January 30, 2008, NY Times)
Rudolph Giuliani's campaign for the Republican nomination for president took impressive wing last year, as the former mayor wove the pain experienced by his city on Sept. 11, 2001, and his leadership that followed into national celebrity. Like a best-selling author, he basked in praise for his narrative and issued ominous and often-repeated warnings about the terror strike next time.Voters seemed to embrace a man so comfortable wielding power, and his poll numbers edged higher to where he held a broad lead over his opponents last summer. Just three months ago, Anthony Carbonetti, Giuliani's affable senior policy adviser, surveyed that field and told The New York Observer: "I don't believe this can be taken from us. Now that I have that locked up, I can go do battle elsewhere."
In fact, Giuliani's campaign was about to begin a free-fall so precipitous as to be breathtaking. Giuliani finished third in the Florida primary on Tuesday night; only a few months earlier, he had talked about the state as his leaping-off point to winning the nomination.
As Giuliani ponders his political mortality, many advisers and political observers point to the hubris and strategic miscalculations that plagued his campaign. He allowed a tight coterie of New York aides, none with national political experience, to run much of his campaign.
...his leading position was never more than a function of name recognition and a neocon and liberal dominated Washington media that could care less about abortion, homosexuality and guns so assumed the flyover country doesn't really care either. There was never any chance that once actual Republican voters found out that he opposed the Party's entire social agenda he could be a viable candidate. When a candidate can not afford the political damage that will be incurred by straightforward press coverage--can't allow people to find out what his positions are--he's not a contender. The only folks who ever took him seriously were those who don't even begin to comprehend the GOP.
MORE:
The End of Rudy: In the oddest of settings, Giuliani faces defeat (Byron York, 1/30/08, National Review)
When he takes to the stage, shortly after John McCain has been declared the winner, Giuliani doesn’t precisely say he is dropping out of the race. But it’s obvious to everyone, and he begins to talk about his presidential run in the past tense. “We ran a campaign that was uplifting,” Giuliani tells the crowd. “The responsibility of leadership doesn’t end with a single campaign, it goes on and you continue to fight for it.”“I’m proud that we chose to stay positive and to run a campaign of ideas in an era of personal attacks, negative ads and cynical spin,” Giuliani adds. “You don’t always win, but you can always try to do it right, and you did.”
Those are the words of a man who is out of the race. It’s something everybody saw coming — how could they not? — but no one wants to accept. “I guess I’m praying for — for something,” a woman named Debbie, who drove in from Palm Coast, tells me. She’s originally from Seaford, Long Island and helped run Giuliani’s campaign in Flagler County. “We really don’t know until all the votes are counted,” she says, not believing her own words.
Nearby, five friends — four are ex-New Yorkers — are standing around a table drinking wine. “To Rudy,” one of them says, raising a glass. On the other side of the room, a lifelong Republican named Mary Jane shows me the two-sided sign she made to take to her polling place this morning. DO YOUR DUTY — VOTE FOR RUDY reads one side, which Mary Jane flips over to reveal the other: OMIT MITT. She has been going to Giuliani events, urging him to fix the “notch years” problem with Social Security, in which some people born between 1917 and 1921 receive slightly lower benefits then other seniors. (That includes Mary Jane, who will turn 89 in a couple of months.) I ask her if she supports Giuliani for any other reasons beyond Social Security.
“You’re not going to hate me?” she asks.
“No,” I say.
“Pro-choice,” she confides.
CONFUSING sTUPIDITY WITH STUPID:
The Stupid Party and the Evil Party (Dinesh D'Souza, 1/30/08, AOL: News)
My mom, who lives in Mumbai, India, has trouble understanding American politics. Recently she asked me to give her a brief summary of what's going on.I explained, "There are two parties in American politics. There is a stupid party and there is an evil party." [...]
I was kidding, of course, but the humor arises out of the element of truth in this description. Consider the charge of stupidity. Would the Republican Party be in the confused state it is now if Bush had appointed a vice president who was electable and actually sought the nomination?
I'm not saying Bush shouldn't have appointed Cheney the first time around. Cheney inspires irrational and paranoid loathing on the left--he's Darth Vader for the Michael Moore set--and this alone was good reason to keep him reasonably close to the Oval Office, not to mention the nuclear arsenal.
But when Bush ran for re-election, he should have sent Cheney packing. Then the GOP would have an heir apparent who would have an inside track to the nomination and who could claim up-close experience in the responsibilities of governance. If Bush had done this, he would have shown both foresight and concern about the future of the GOP.
Now let's turn to the evil party. What other term is appropriate to describe a party where Ted Kennedy's endorsement is actually counted as a positive?
It is the belief in Evil that makes conservatives--indeed, Americans--Stupid, not the doing of dumb things. Just as it is the lack of faith that makes our betters Bright, though literally unAmerican.
HERE, FOR INSTANCE...:
The Base is Wrong About the Gang of 14 (Richard Baehr, 1/30/08, Real Clear Politics)
When conservatives lay out their long list of apostasies committed by John McCain, one of them is always his role in the Gang of 14, the 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans in the Senate who agreed to a judicial compromise in 2005. The deal that was struck eliminated the use of the "nuclear option" by the then-GOP-controlled Senate, and also limited the Democratic minority's ability to use the filibuster to block certain judicial nominees (at the time the deal was stuck, there were no pending Supreme Court nominations, only Appellate Court nominations were being held up).To put it plainly, the critics of the deal are flat out wrong. Conservatives should thank John McCain and the other Senators who were part of the Gang of 14 for getting three Appeals Court nominees who had been held up, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen, approved quickly and Brett Kavanaugh approved a bit later, and for Samuel Alito making it onto the Supreme Court without a filibuster blocking his way. And they should thank John McCain for preserving for the Republican Party the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations that might be made by a Democratic President beginning in 2009 or later.
,,,is an instance where John McCain was Stupid, while the rightwing talking heads betrayed stupidity.
IF YOU INCLUDE NAZISM THE TERM HAS NO MEANING ANYWAY:
Are American liberals "nice fascists"?: a review of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg (Richard Bernstein, 1/30/08, NY Times)
Before anybody had heard of Mussolini (who in his early years in power was widely admired by American progressives), [Woodrow] Wilson established the first propaganda ministry, shut newspapers and magazines, encouraged vigilantes and formed dozens of boards to subordinate every aspect of life to the great cause of winning the war to end all wars.That's a strong argument, because, after all, who would think of the moralistic and well-intentioned Wilson, whose decision to enter World War I was certainly a defensible one, a fascist? But Goldberg's point isn't to liken Wilson to Hitler. Wilson, he understands perfectly well, was entirely different than Hitler, whom he would have despised.
Goldberg's point is rather that a lot of what the American liberal culture takes as good - and he lists a lot of things, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps to Hillary Rodham Clinton's ideas about it taking a village to raise a child - bears a similarity to some of the intellectual underpinnings of fascism.
But is it true, and if it is true, does it matter? Goldberg makes a convincing case that there was indeed a lot in the early, original version of fascism, as practiced by Mussolini in the 16 years before he was more or less taken over by the Nazis, that appealed to American progressives, who saw it as an effective way to mobilize people and get things done.
Goldberg is also insightful and thought-provoking in his treatment of some modern fads, showing their admittedly benign fascist connections. The contemporary cult of organic food, he says, is built on a deep wish to return to an imagined prelapsarian earth where everything was unpolluted and organic and a natural harmony prevailed, not all that different from the vegan Hitler's romantic cult of the organic, authentic Germanic connection with the soil.
But the fact is that it's a long way from eating organic tomatoes to committing genocide, even if Goldberg is right about the overlap between the whole earth cult of today and Germanic romanticism.
Except that fascism isn't genocidal in general. Nazism was and the modern abortionists of the liberal Left are. They're also socialist, which fascists aren't as a rule--consider Franco and Pinochet. Mr. Goldberg's book may be that imprecise about the term, but it's surprising that the always thoughtful Mr. Bernstein is.
JERUSALEM IS WORTH A MASS PARDON:
Bush's Achievements Larger Than Can Be Understood (Michael Gerson, 1/29/08, Real Clear Politics)
Proposals such as No Child Left Behind, the AIDS and malaria initiatives, and the addition of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare would simply not have come from a traditional conservative politician. They became the agenda of a Republican administration precisely because of Bush's persistent, passionate advocacy. To put it bluntly, these would not have been the priorities of a Cheney administration. [...]Bush has received little attention or thanks for his compassionate reforms. This is less a reflection on him than on the political challenge of compassionate conservatism. The conservative movement gives the president no credit because they view all these priorities -- foreign assistance, a federal role in education, the expansion of an entitlement -- as heresies, worthy of the stake. Liberals and Democrats offer no praise because a desire to help dying Africans, minority students and low-income seniors does not fit the image of Bush's cruelty they wish to cultivate.
Compassionate conservatism is thus a cause without a constituency -- except for the large-hearted man I first met in 1999 and who, on Monday night, proposed to double global AIDS spending once again.
Which ignores not only the drop in abortions, the ban on embryonic stem cell funding, and the appointment of pro-life judges but the vouchers in NCLB, HSA's, Welfare Reform reauthorization, and the retirement reforms, all of which are integral to compassionate conservatism (the rightwing term for the Third Way). Indeed, only two bits of unfinished business remain: SS Reform, which this president will not get to achieve, and immigration amnesty, which he is not unlikely to effect via the presidential pardon power, as Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam deserters.
IMPORTING THE SUPERIOR CULTURE:
Homemade Potato Chips (Contra Costa Times, 01/30/2008)
2-3 pounds Kennebec or Russet potatoes1 gallon peanut oil
Fine salt or seasoning blend
1. Fill a large bowl halfway with cold water. Peel the potatoes and use a mandoline to cut them into uniform slices, about 1/16-inch thick. As you slice, drop the potatoes into the water to rinse off excess starch and prevent oxidation. Add additional water to keep all the slices submerged. Soak the potato slices in the water for 30 minutes. (The slices can be stored, submerged in water, for up to a day in the refrigerator.)
2. When ready to fry, fill a large stock pot or Dutch oven a little over halfway with the oil. Heat the oil to 325 degrees if you like your chips golden, or 375 if you like them extra-brown and caramelized. Use a deep-fry or candy thermometer to monitor the temperature of the oil.
3. As the oil heats, remove a quarter of the potato slices from the water and spread them evenly on a clean tea towel to dry. Cover with an additional tea towel and blot away as much moisture as you can -- excess water will cause the oil to splatter da