May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« January 2008 |
Main
| March 2008 »
The Atlantic has started a new feature called the Current. I gather it's something of a group blog for the magazine's staff, but so far it looks like it's mainly an outlet for the slightly off-kilter rants of the magazine's associate editor (and WEEKLY STANDARD contributor) Reihan Salam. Here's his take on Prince Harry:
...Perhaps the real trouble is that men of royal blood, by their nature, need new lands to conquer. Why not give Prince Harry a crack contingent of Gurkha fighting men and set him loose on some war-ravaged region, where he can establish his own princely state as a latter-day white rajah? Consider Canada, a nation torn by ethnic strife and religious hatred, where daily life has become a miserable struggle to survive amidst endless gun battles waged by rival gangs of crazed ice-dancing rebels and the soaring loonie has sent the economy into a tailspin. Only Prince Harry can restore order, and so he must.
You'll definitely want to bookmark that site.
Also, the American, house organ of the American Enterprise Institute, has just added a new feature to its website. It's called Americana. You'll want to check that out as well.
This video in response to Hillary's ad from earlier today:
It's true that judgment matters...but when has Obama ever had to make, or take, a tough call? Never. The man has never had to make a decision with life or death consequences. And he led the effort to secure loose nukes? What, was nobody doing that before Obama showed up in Congress all of three years ago? They make it sounds like he popped a terrorist in the face and stripped him of his briefcase bomb. In fact, the expansion of Nunn-Lugar that Obama singed on to has nothing to do with nuclear weapons:
"Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.
And what does it say about his judgment that his strategy toward Iraq seems to boil down to this: retreat and then reinvade. I can't believe that the bulk of Amercians find that to be a judicious approach. Rather than push through to success and then draw down in Iraq, when the Iraqis are strong enough to take over more responsibility for security, he'd rather pull out quick, and then, if (and when) al Qaeda reconstitutes, send our forces back in? Is that a less costly strategy? Is that even a serious strategy?
HT: Hot Air
Northrop Grumman and EADS have somehow managed to defeat heavy-favorite Boeing in the battle to replace the Air Force's aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers. The initial contract for 80 aircraft is valued at $40 billion, and the service has plans to purchase as many as 100 more at an as yet undetermined cost.
The Northrop KC-30, which is based on the EADS Airbus A-330 passenger jet, had been considered the more capable aircraft. It's bigger, which means it can carry 20 percent more fuel, 20 percent more passengers, and 30 percent more cargo. It can also carry 45,000 pounds more fuel than Boeing's KC-767. But Boeing had pitched the smaller size of the 767 as a feature, rather than a handicap. However, the 767 is at the end of its commercial life. The military would have been the only customer for the airplane had Boeing won the contract, raising concerns about maintenance costs.
The KC-30 will be assembled in Mobile, Alabama, but much of the work will be done in Airbus's facility in Toulouse, France. There had been doubts as to whether the Air Force, and Congress, would award such a massive contract to a French firm, but a thaw in relations following the election of Nicolas Sarkozy may have eased concerns. Also Northrop claims that its aircraft will create 25,000 American jobs.
The Air Force's tanker acquisition program first received national attention in 2001, when Senator John McCain called into question a no-bid contract that would have seen the service lease, rather than buy, 100 tankers from Boeing. Upon further investigation, it became clear that Boeing had offered illegal inducements to Air Force officials in exchange for the contract. The ensuing scandal led to jail sentences for two Boeing officials, including the firm's CFO.
McCain has repeatedly noted his role in exposing the corrupt deal during this year's presidential election.
Another classic from the Tierney Lab:
If only the masses could understand the science of global warming, they’d be alarmed, right? Wrong, according to the surprising results of a survey of Americans published in the journal Risk Analysis by researchers at Texas A&M University.
After asking a national sample of more than 1,000 Americans how much they knew about global warming and how they felt about it, the researchers report that respondents who are better-informed about global warming “both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.”
That surely explains why Laurie David is so hysterical. I've written before of the gap in perception on this issue between scientists and meteorologists (think Max Mayfield, formerly head of the National Hurricane Center and world renowned global warming skeptic). People who actually know something about weather and climate, but whose research and grant money don't depend on a deep and abiding faith in global warming, tend not to be too alarmist about changing weather. But this is an interesting new spin, and it turns out those who are best informed are the least concerned--and these are the folks who (unlike me) have confidence in the science:
Another unexpected result: “Respondents who showed a great deal of confidence that scientists understand global warming and climate change showed significantly less concern for the risks of global warming than did those who have lower trust in scientists.”
Tierney offers some speculation that this is because respondents who are confident in the science are also confident in the ability of science to respond to global warming. I'm dubious. There are a lot of great ideas floating around for how to cool the planet, but nobody's going to win an Oscar for showing how technology can save the world and your SUV.
I have always thought that Dick Morris was hit or miss -- that half his writing was quite insightful, but the other half was very weak. His latest column falls into that latter category -- and it makes me think he's looking for work with the Obama campaign:
The best evidence of Obama’s readiness to lead the nation is the ability with which he has run for president. After all, what is more difficult, complicated, or challenging than getting elected president? What other life experience better illustrates one’s qualification to hold the office than a manifest skill in seeking it?...
As we have watched Obama surmount the hurdles that lay in his path, we cannot help but be impressed with his judgment. Adam Wallinsky, who served on Bobby Kennedy’s staff, once singled out good judgment as JFK’s most salient characteristic. Obama has faced so many delicate questions and issues and seems always to have the right feel for how to handle them.
Will he be a good president? If he is half as skillful in serving as he has been in running, he can’t miss.
So the fact of having run a great campaign demonstrates one's readiness for the office? Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter ran strong, shrewd campaigns. Were they great presidents?
And winning the nomination is the best possible experience to prepare one for the Oval Office? Is it really better than serving as governor, or vice president, or Supreme Allied Commander Europe?
I think Morris' distaste for Hillary may have gotten the better of him this time.
There's a great story about General George C. Marshall, who--while posturing the nation for war--took a few minutes out of his busy schedule to hear out some gentleman from the automotive industry. After listening to them for about 5 minutes, Marshall nodded and said "Ok, do it."
And so the Army Jeep was born.
Different times, eh?
The Air Force's often-delayed announcement of which defense contractor will be awarded a multibillion-dollar contract to provide new aerial refueling tankers has been postponed until 5 p.m. on Friday, Feb. 29, a defense industry analyst said.
I've got my money on Boeing. But with a bureaucracy as impenetrable as the Air Force, it's anyone's guess. Updates after the announcement.
(For more on the competition, check out this piece comparing the two aircraft -- ed.)
The whole debate is absurd, but since they're still going at it over at the Corner, it's worth throwing up this gem from a Slate column earlier this month:
The Constitution's rule that the president be "a natural born citizen" focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date. At the founding, a special constitutional clause provided that even those who had not been citizens at birth could nevertheless become president, if they were citizens circa 1787. Thus, Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies, was clearly eligible. All those already in America in 1787 could be trusted; but the framers fretted that an Old World earl or duke might someday sail across the Atlantic with a boatload of gold and bribe his way into the presidency. (Rumor had it that George III's second son, the Bishop of Osnaburgh, would soon head this way.) Thus, the "natural-born" clause's main target of concern was not immigrants generally, but wealthy European aristocrats who might wreak havoc in an America lacking strong campaign finance laws.
How do you like that...it's all about campaign finance.
Several head-to-head polls of likely voters now show McCain beating Obama, and McCain’s favorable/unfavorable ratings are each a couple points stronger to boot. There is also evidence that Obama might be incredibly vulnerable in several key battleground states. In spite of a dozen straight losses and weeks of bad news, Hillary Clinton continues to lead Obama by 5 points in both Ohio and Pennsylvania. Clinton’s victory in these primaries may not reverse her epic fall, but it might foreshadow a decisive victory for McCain in the general election. That the Keystone State is very much in play should also bolster claims that McCain is giving a strong look at Tom Ridge as a running mate.
Yesterday the Senate unanimously approved legislation to extend favorable tariff treatment to 4 Andean nations:
The Senate cleared legislation Thursday that would renew trade preferences for four South American countries, just a day before their scheduled expiration.
The measure (HR 5264), which passed by voice vote, would extend duty-free treatment for most goods from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru through the end of 2008. The current extension, enacted in 2007 (PL 110-42), expires Friday...
The Andean bill would reduce revenue from customs duties by an estimated $82 million in fiscal 2008 and $37 million in fiscal 2009, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
I thought that Senator Clinton favored a 'strategic pause' in trade agreements? I thought both she and Senator Obama were deeply concerned about the negative effects of expanded trade on U.S. workers? Why were they absent when the Senate voted to extend favorable tariff treatment to 4 countries, with low-wage workforces, all of which have trade surpluses against the United States?
The House of Representatives is likely to vote next week on a FISA extension, but not the bipartisan bill which passed the Senate by a wide margin:
“We don’t have agreement but ... I am very hopeful that we will have legislation on the floor next week, “ House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said on the floor Thursday in a colloquy with Minority Whip Roy Blunt , R-Mo...
The Senate version, which the White House helped to draft, would grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have been sued for their alleged cooperation with the administration’s warrantless surveillance activities after Sept. 11, 2001. The House measure includes no such liability shield.
Liberals in the House are unwilling to extend liability protection to telecommunications companies that facilitated surveillance on suspected terrorists operating abroad. Quin Hillyer looks at the lawsuits that House Democrats are insisting go forward:
Moreover, the suit defines the class of aggrieved citizens as “all individuals” who were customers of the phone company “at any time after September 2001” that the program was in effect. In this one suit, that class is identified as consisting of 24.6 million people. How all 24.6 million Americans could possibly be harmed by this program aimed at suspected foreign terrorists is a question perhaps best answered in the Twilight Zone...
Do the math: The total potential payout by AT&T for the first two categories of alleged violations is $49.2 billion. Meanwhile, at $100 per day for each day of the four years at issue after 9/11, the total potential liability for each of the two latter counts is $3 trillion, 591 billion.
That number times 2, plus the $49.2 billion, comes out to a potential grand liability of $7.243 trillion. That is half of the entire national economy! And that’s even before “punitive damages” are taken into account.
Don't worry, though. Speaker Pelosi is 100 percent certain that there's no national security risk for allowing FISA to lapse, or leaving telecom companies on the hook for cooperating.
Feel better now?
From the Washington Post: Walking on Eggshells, by Howard Kurtz.
From the Chicago Sun-Times: Hope Isn't a Foreign Policy, by Steve Huntley.
From the Long War Journal: Egyptian al Qaeda Leader Killed?, by Bill Roggio.
From Contentions: An Anti-War “Teach-In” at the CIA? by Gabriel Schoenfeld.
From the Economist: Hope and Fear.
 From Ares: BAE's JLTV Prototype.
Blogosphere consensus: nice of Hillary to be making commercials on behalf of McCain...
Still, there's another problem with this ad, mainly that Hillary seems to be just the kind of person who would want to micromanage a military situation. That's how she's run her campaign, and there's little doubt that's how she'd run the White House. If "something's happening in the world" that requires a 3 a.m. call to the White House and Hillary picks up the phone, how much you want to bet she's on the phone with her lawyers by 3:30.
Traveling the world in search of Condi's legacy:
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said on Friday he may go to Beijing at the weekend to meet his North Korean counterpart for talks on ending Pyongyang's nuclear programs.
"I think we will have an announcement on that at some point," Hill told reporters in Bangkok. "We had some very good discussions with the Chinese. There is an idea we might try to arrange something this weekend."
We're always on the verge of a breakthrough with the Chinese. A cynic might call it chasing the dragon.
A wonderful story:
After completing two tours in Iraq, Sgt. Wayne Leyde won $1 million from a scratch-and-win lotto ticket on Tuesday.
Now that he's won, Leyde, a 26-year-old member of the Washington National Guard, says he's still going to volunteer to go back to Iraq for a third tour and won't spend any of the money in the meantime.
Later in the story:
"I was on my way out when the lady said, 'Do you have a lucky scratch coin?'"
"I said 'no, you gave me a dime and nickel back.'"
"She said 'no, try this,"' handing Leyde a penny.
I hope Sgt. Leyde keeps that penny in his pocket during his next tour of duty, and returns home safely. And in the unlikely event Hollywood executives read that story, perhaps they should consider making it into a movie instead of the preachy and predictable drivel like Stop Loss that we've come to expect.
Although proponents of campaign finance reform often proclaim too much money is being spent on politics, New York City’s new matching system might actually increase the total amount expended. For complying with certain caps, participant-candidates can receive $6 in matching funds for every $1 donated. That means a $175 check, which is the maximum amount the city will match, magically transforms into $1050--all courtesy of city taxpayers. Mayor Bloomberg signed the legislation into law this past summer, but is now expressing second-thoughts at the $90 million price-tag.
HT: New York Magazine
Jay Cost has some very interesting thoughts on the Democratic party's superdelegate problem, which he believes is indicative of the larger trend in American politics of neglecting the role of the political party:
It seems to me that the Democrats are in the midst of a robust, valuable debate about the future of their party. The fact that it does not involve sharp policy differences is a non sequitur. One need not discuss policy to be substantive. If the RCP average is any metric - it is an argument that neither side has won. And yet, lots of worried Democrats want it over. They doubt the capacity of the party organization to resolve the conflict. They are wise to have these doubts. Because they are unbound by rules of any kind, the fact that the super delegates will break the tie is a disaster waiting to happen.
But why are the super delegates so free? The Democrats have lousy rules that nobody cared to revise in the last quarter century because the best and brightest in American politics don't give a damn about the party organization. This is part of a decades-long trend in American politics. The party institutions have been taken for granted. They no longer play a vital role in daily American political life, so they are left to decay - until we need them. At which point, they are incapable of doing their job.
Americans like to think that strong parties are an impediment to democracy - and so, the weaker they are the better we are. They are wrong. Strong parties are an asset to democracy. The happenings on the Democratic side indicate what can happen when the parties are weak. The Democrats are in the midst of a animated discussion that many of the conversants want to end because the party organization is incompetent.
With Cost, you come for the math--but stay for the history!
Cat's out of the bag:
Prince Harry has been serving on the front line with his British army unit in one of Afghanistan's most lawless and barren provinces.
Harry is the first royal to serve in a combat zone since his uncle Prince Andrew flew helicopters during Britain's war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.
British officials had hoped to keep the 23-year-old's deployment secret until he had safely returned, but they released video of Harry serving in Helmand Province after a leak appeared on the U.S. Web site the Drudge Report.
The planned deployment had been disclosed to reporters, with no specific date, but was not reported previously under a pool agreement between the Ministry of Defense and all major news organizations operating in Britain, including The Associated Press. The news blackout was intended to reduce the risk to the prince and his regiment.
This type of leadership impresses me to no end. Prince Harry didn't just request to be sent to the front lines, he demanded it. And equally impressive is the restraint shown by both the Ministry of Defense and the tabloid driven British media, sitting on a bombshell of a story for what appears to be all the right reasons.
But, for the same reason that Prince Harry was denied a deployment to Iraq, the Ministry of Defense will now be forced to separate the royal from his men. He's simply too rich of a target, and the knowledge that he's active in what is certainly the hottest combat zone in the CENTCOM AOR undoubtedly has the area's sizable Taliban and al Qaeda contingent licking their lips like hungry wolves. This doesn't just place Prince Harry at unnecessary risk, but his entire regiment.
Tragedy that it is to part an effective platoon leader from his troops, the MoD has little choice.
Yesterday’s airstrike in Pakistan’s tribal agency of South Waziristan, which killed 13 Arab al Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban, has raised once again the question of whether last month’s airstrike in North Waziristan claimed the life of Adam Gadahn, the American traitor and al Qaeda propagandist. Rumors swirled last month that Gadahn was killed along with Abu Laith al Libi, a senior al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan. Gadahn was reported missing by associates, and he has not produced an al Qaeda propaganda tape since the January strike.
Rusty Shackleford, who closely tracks jihadi and al Qaeda’s propaganda operations at The Jawa Report, believes Gadahn died in the late January airstrike. “This week a trusted source revealed to me that he was hearing from Pakistan that Gadahn was most likely dead,” Shackleford said. “I asked him if his sources weren't the same as NBC? No, he replied, he had a different source of information.”
“Then why hasn't the U.S. confirmed Gadahn's demise?” Shackleford asks. “ Too many body parts,” his source said. “Very little left of any one on the ground. Could take some time, or we may never have confirmation.”
Perhaps. But al Qaeda would certainly know if one of its senior propagandists has been killed. Al Qaeda has been quick to announce the death of its leaders in the past, and has taken the opportunity to use their deaths as propaganda and recruiting tools. In the case of Abu Laith al Libi, al Qaeda released an announcement less than 48 hours after the airstrike. Several videotapes have been released addressing al Libi’s death, including one released yesterday by none other than Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s second in command.
Al Qaeda likely would have capitalized on Gadahn's death as well given his unique status as an American member of the terror group. Al Qaeda could claim the cowardly Americans had to use remotely launched missiles to kill their own countryman (despite the fact Gadahn tore up his passport in a video released a few months ago).
Of course, there is the possibility that al Qaeda would hide Gadahn’s death to deny the Bush administration its own propaganda coup. Gadahn was indicted in a U.S. federal court under charges of treason and providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization by making al Qaeda propaganda videos. He is the first American to be indicted for treason since 1952. But this seems unlikely, as covering up Gadahn’s death would run counter to al Qaeda’s history of quickly and publicly announcing the death of the group's senior figures.
Angelina Jolie writes in today's Washington Post:
As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.
The article isn't really about the military situation, and she stipulates half-way through the piece that she is "not a security expert," but she's only saying what security experts have been saying for months now. If this analysis doesn't help her win an Academy Award, and it won't, it's an extremely effective piece of diplomacy. She pleads on behalf of the UNHCR "for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons." Congress should give it to her.
She also asks each of the presidential candidates "to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy." McCain should be first in line to offer such a plan. The case for sustaining the U.S. presence there has always been based, in part, on the responsibility this country has to the people of Iraq. Let Obama explain how he's going to assure the safe return of refugees in tandem with a withdrawal of U.S. forces.
The Pew Research Center issued a new poll today highlighting some of Senator Obama and Senator McCain’s strengths and vulnerabilities as they both try to nail down their party nominations.
The survey gives the Illinois Senator a nine-point lead (49-40) nation-wide over Hillary Clinton among all Democratic primary voters. It also shows him ahead of John McCain by seven-points (50-43) in a head-to-head match up nationally among all registered voters.
But the survey finds reason for McCain optimism. First, the poll reveals public attitudes about the war in Iraq have turned more positive. “47% now favor keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until the situation there has stabilized, the highest percentage expressing this view in well more than a year,” the Pew poll reports.
The report also highlights some potential Democratic base fissures that could handicap Senator Obama. “Overall, 20% of white Democratic voters would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee,” the poll shows--double the percent of white Democratic support McCain would get in a Clinton-McCain race. Indeed, most parts of Senator Clinton’s base (seniors, lower-income, less-educated Democrats) would support McCain at higher levels if Obama were the nominee.
It also reveals a majority of Americans (56 percent) believe Senator Obama has not provided enough information about his policies and plans. Only 37 percent say Senator McCain has not provided enough information.
Pew also highlights some McCain soft spots. As he moves closer to securing the nomination, McCain has improved among Republicans, but has lost ground among independents and Democrats. For example, McCain’s unfavorable rating among independents rose by 13 points in less than a month, according to Pew. The poll also argues McCain’s age is an issue. It notes about a quarter (26 percent) think he’s too old and that proportion rises to near a third (32 percent) when voters are told he is 71 years old.
Read the full report.
McCain opened today's call by expressing some satisfaction with recent polls giving him a lead in a head to head match-up against Obama. He also took the opportunity to hit Obama again over his comments in the most recent Democratic debate that he would consider moving troops back into Iraq if al Qaeda was establishing a base there. McCain said "not only might al Qaeda establish a base there, al Qaeda has a base there and in the words of General Petraeus it is now the central battleground in the struggle against radical Islamic extremism. I agree with him, and al Qaeda is one the run but they are not defeated in Iraq."
He then took questions. Geraghty always posts something resembling a transcript, so check that out if you want the minutes of the call. Of particular interest...
Powerline's Paul Mirengoff asked McCain if he had a response to today's George Will column, noting that Will had characterized McCain as a man of "towering moral vanity." McCain responded that "we will have to agree to disagree on this specific issue of campaign finance reform." Mirengoff also asked whether it was true that McCain had refused to shake hands with FEC commissioner Brad Smith. McCain didn't hesitate, "it's true...there was no reason to shake his hand, he had basically attacked my character...I'm certainly not ashamed or embarrassed that if someone attacks my character and integrity, no I'm not going to shake their hand."
I asked McCain whether he had any comment on the New York Philharmonic's North Korea tour and, more generally, on the status of the Six Party talks.
I have concerns, very grave concerns...the facility in Syria, according to published reports, had the earmarks of North Korean involvement. They continue some of the illicit activities around the world, and most offensively the abuse of the human rights of their own people. I wish some of the people who are barely surviving, if they're surviving, in the largest remaining gulag in the world would have had the chance to see the philharmonic perform, rather than a chosen 1,400 or whatever it was....
Next up was a guy whose name I can't get right even after listening to the tape a few times, but he had a hell of a question. It sounded like he was reading from a lengthy prepared text, but it boiled down to this: does John McCain know the difference between MySpace and YouTube. You'll all be delighted to know that he does. And he noted that YouTube is a reservoir of embarrassment--"John Edwards can attest to that (click it, you know you want to watch it again)." McCain would later remember that his campaign has a MySpace page.
Contentions blogger Jennifer Rubin asked McCain to comment on the Democratic debate over NAFTA, and McCain responded by warning against protectionism:
"I would make a strong argument that history shows that every time we've engaged in protectionism, we have paid a very heavy price for it. And by the way, holding out the Colombia free trade agreement, I think is reprehensible on the part of the Democrats. Denying one of our closest allies in the entire hemisphere free trade status, and if we don't, I think that's going to send a message to other countries in the hemisphere. I cannot be more adamant in my support of free trade.
Geraghty asked McCain how long Americans should expect troops to remain in Iraq in light of McCain's comment that American troops could be there for 100 years. Geraghty also asked how Americans will know when we've reached a turning point. McCain responded that we'd already reached a turning point "when the surge started succeeding." McCain then offered his standard defense of the earlier comment in pointing to the permanent basing of American forces in Germany, South Korea, Kuwait, etc. He went on, "when we can quote declare victory, I'm not sure when that happens, because the Iraqis, I think, will be struggling with al Qaeda for a long time...but the way that we are progressing, which is astonishingly rapid...I can envision an operation some time from now where all the United States would do is supply air support as needed."
Geraghty followed up asking would it be possible to achieve this kind of "victory" during his hypothetical presidency. McCain responded "absolutely, I understand the frustration of the American people...it was mishandled for a long period of time, but I was pleased to see a USA Today poll that at least more people, I think it was up to 43 percent, believe the surge is succeeding, and it's a lower number now that think it's not. That's the first time we've seen that kind of number in public polling."
On the final question, McCain said "anybody who is counting the Clintons out has made a bad mistake."
Think Progress reports "McCain Rated As America’s Worst Senator For Children":
Today, the Children’s Defense Fund Action Council released its 2007 Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard. CDF reports some positive news, particularly that average scores for members of Congress “improved from the previous three years with more Members scoring 100 percent than in 2004, 2005 or 2006.”
Many, however, did not fare so well. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) received a 10 percent rating — the worst in the U.S. Senate.
And, of course, the rankings of this nonpartisan group "weren’t divided by party," according to the folks at Think Progress. Well, take a look at the rankings and you tell me:
I always felt some of Bill Buckley’s best columns were his obituaries. When a friend or someone he admired died, Bill’s essay would evoke the person’s good nature and distinctiveness. He also managed to capture a person’s eccentricities. Consider his obit this past fall for Norman Mailer:
“This initiative brought him and his wife to our house in Stamford, Connecticut, and I took him out on my 36-foot sailboat. He could not believe it when I turned the wheel over to him, pointing out a course to the end of the harbor. It was very cold by the time we had finished dinner, but he ordered his wife Jeannie to the back of his motorcycle, and they zoomed off to Brooklyn.”
There have been some wonderful obits, but I doubt that anyone can resurrect Bill’s spirit the way he could bring about the memory of others. I will miss him.
From the New York Post: WFB, Transcendent, by John Podhoretz.
From NRO: A Neighborhood Reborn, by Pete Hegseth.
From the Long War Journal: Sunnis and States' Rights, by Bill Ardolino.
From Junge Freiheit: An Interview with Victor Davis Hanson.
From Time: African Journeys with George, by Bob Geldof.
I recently had the opportunity to speak with Jim Ogonoswki, a Republican candidate who's seeking to face off against John Kerry in his Senate re-election bid this year. Last year Ogonowski waged a surprisingly strong special election campaign in Massachusetts' 5th Congressional district -- strong enough that state and national Republicans eagerly sought his entry into the Senate race this year.
The plain-spoken Ogonowski will offer a strong contrast with the patrician Kerry, whom Massachusetts voters seem eager to replace. Further, Ogonowski makes a strong case that Kerry is more a resident of Washington than of Massachusetts, and that he's ineffective and out-of-touch. He points out that Kerry wouldn't take a position on the Cape Wind project out of fear of alienating Ted Kennedy. Ogonowski says voters complain that they never see Kerry in the state, and rarely hear back from him on issues of concern. How effective is Kerry in getting things done for the state? In his 24-year Senate career, he has gotten 8 bills signed into law (two of which were World Population Awareness Week).
Ogonowski's message seems well-catered to the prevailing political climate. He complains that Washington doesn't work, and is unresponsive to the needs of the people. He tells me that when Kerry endorsed Barack Obama, and cited the need for change in Washington, he realized "there's one thing I agree with John Kerry on." He stresses the need to achieve energy independence ("35 years ago I sat in gas lines with my dad, and we still don't have a plan.") He believes that we went into Iraq with insufficient troop levels, but that the change of course is making a difference. He says we need to let our troops do their job, then bring them home. He stresses the importance of achieving border security. And only when I bring up the war on terror does he talk about how September 11 touched his life directly.
How good are Ogonowski's chances? It's s steep hill to climb -- there are few states bluer than Massachusetts, and Kerry has more than $10 million to spend on his campaign. At the same time, Ogonowski points out that 55 percent of Massachusetts voters are independents, that John McCain will do better than most Republicans in the state, and that he can tap an established web of state donors (as well as people nationwide who dislike Kerry) to fund his campaign. Further, Ogonwski is an attractive personality, who started from scratch in his Congressional race and nearly pulled off a surprise.
Plus, the results of a poll by Ogonowski's primary challenger Jeff Beatty show that voters in the state aren't just disappointed with Kerry in the abstract -- they're willing to vote for a Republican challenger, as well. That gives state Republicans a real chance to beat Kerry, even if it may be a longshot.
Nearly every conservative blogger has something to say about William F. Buckley Jr., who died yesterday morning at the age of 82. All agree that he had a profound impact on conservatism and the country--and that he was a profoundly great man.
Scott Johnson at Pajamas Media writes, "The death of William F. Buckley, Jr. deprives the modern American conservative movement of its founder, for Buckley was preeminently the founding statesman of the movement that gained its political expression first in Barry Goldwater and then Ronald Reagan. When Buckley founded National Review in 1955 at the age of 29, he lit the fire that sparked the movement."
More from Peter Suderman at the American Scene, who remarks, "He was not merely clever and smart; he was wise. Conservatism lost a great defender and advocate today, and the larger world of ideas and letters lost one of its greatest minds." And Captain Ed concludes, "Buckley will be missed, but his work will remain as lively and vibrant as ever. Few men and women can claim that kind of intellectual achievement and impact on society."
Yet Buckley, says John O'Sullivan, "took it all very humbly and even a little quizzically. It was as if he didn't quite believe that he had blown a trumpet and, lo, the walls of Communism had tumbled down -- 'literally,' to use a word whose misuse he occasionally denounced."
Buckley influenced many of our favorite bloggers, including Power Line's Paul Mirengoff, Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo, Hugh Hewitt, and Michelle Malkin, who says, "He was an engaged and engaging Renaissance man who joined conservatism and libertarianism, fought statism, and served the Lord."
The folks at National Review's blog The Corner have posted numerous tributes to their founder and former editor. Ramesh Ponnuru writes, "Bill's kindness and generosity of spirit really were remarkable. He was as interested in listening to the college senior to his left as to the former secretary of state to his right." And Mona Charen's tribute to "Bill's smile" is particularly touching: "Bill had the capacity to make everyone feel that they enhanced his life. If you ran into him on the staircase, he would make you think that you had just capped his day. It need hardly be said that few men are great. But even fewer great men are so good."
According to Military.com, the Iraqi army will be trading in its AK-47 for new M16A2 assault rifle. Says one U.S. official,
"We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK ... it's more durable," said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who's in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces. The Iraqis have embraced that ... and the fact that it is U.S. manufactured and supplied. They are very big on U.S.-produced [foreign military sales] materials."
This seemingly minor change could have significant long-term repercussions within Iraq. First, it will establish a common supply line with the U.S., so that we do not have to purchase the AK's 7.62 x 39mm ammunition from outside the U.S. logistic system. Moreover, because the M16 fires 5.56 x 45mm ammunition, it will not be so easy for Iraqi soldiers to sell their ammunition on the black market or smuggle it to al Qaeda and the insurgents. Gradually, the supply of AK-47 ammunition will begin to dry up (though this will take a long time, considering how much is lying around Iraq). Finally, because the M16's receiver is made as a sealed unit, it cannot be repaired easily in the field, but rather needs a skilled armorer with special tools. This would make the M16 of limited value to the insurgents, who do not have these resources. That the M16 looks and sounds very different from the AK-47 will also make it easier for U.S. and allied troops to distinguish between legitimate Iraqi troops and insurgents or impostors--not an insignificant factor on the urban battlefield.
There are some negatives. While the U.S. spokesman is right about the durability and accuracy of the M16 vs. the AK, the former is tolled to much finer tolerances than the latter, which means that it requires constant cleaning and care, especially in the dusty Iraqi environment. Unless cleaned regularly (and correctly), the M16 is prone to jamming (a problem it shares with the similar M4 Carbine). The AK, in contrast, was designed with very loose tolerances because it was meant to be used by poorly-trained conscripts. This makes it relatively inaccurate but very simple to maintain in the field, which is why it is beloved of guerrillas, terrorists, and many Third World armies. For the M16 to be a success with the Iraqi army, its troops are going to have learn habits of weapons care and maintenance on par with those of the U.S. Army--and it took a long time for us to learn to love the M16.
The Democratic contenders are stumbling all over themselves to show how disappointed they are with NAFTA, and how committed they are to changing it. Fact is, there's no reason to think that withdrawing from NAFTA -- if possible -- would help create jobs in the United States.
That's because the United States trade deficit -- the bogeyman that's caused a mere 95.1 percent of the workforce to have a job -- is not primarily with Mexico (or Canada, for that matter). In 2007, the United States ran its largest trade deficit with China. Our second-largest deficit was with Japan. Our third and fourth-largest bilateral deficits were with Mexico and Canada respectively. The deficits with Mexico and Canada together totaled about half the trade deficit with China.
So if you believe that trade deficits are robbing the United States of jobs and growth (and the data show the opposite to be true), then your chief complaint ought to be about China -- not Mexico (or Canada).
But what if you did repeal NAFTA? What if you took away the low tariff rates that give an incentive for American firms to locate their production in lower-cost Mexico? Why would you imagine that those companies would relocate production in the U.S.? It's entirely possible that they would relocate to a lower-cost manufacturing country --- such as Malaysia, Thailand, or China.
Not only would this not help create jobs in the United States, it would reduce them (at least in the short term). That's because our imports from Mexico have a much higher content of material originally produced in the U.S. (our exports to Mexico) than do our imports from China. So if we replace imports from Mexico with imports from another country, it harms our export base.
Lastly, the nation's largest trade deficits are with countries that we have no trade agreements with. The proper public policy for addressing such deficits then, isn't to get out of the ones that we have, it's to negotiate more:
“What jumps off the page is how small the deficit is with NAFTA and our other free trade partners,” Vargo said. “Together they account for only six percent of the manufactured goods deficit, meaning 94 percent of the deficit is with our non-free trade partners.
“Today’s data leaves you wonder why some in Congress remain so hostile to trade agreements,” he said. “If you wanted to solve our trade deficit, would you focus on 6 percent of the problem or 94 percent of the problem?
When Obama and Clinton attack NAFTA, they're simply playing politics. They're offering a prescription that couldn't be implemented (since Mexico and Canada won't renegotiate NAFTA along their lines) and would only make matters worse if it was.
In response to the ridiculous piece from the Times today about McCain's eligibility for the presidency, a friend writes in:
Of course, the argument is preposterous. A citizen is "natural born" in either of two ways: first, by being born of American parents; second, by being born on American soil. The former, a longstanding doctrine, is codified at 8 USC 1401.
But let's keep in mind the bottom line: Under the NYT-reported theory, children of servicemen stationed overseas would not be "natural born Citizens" and could not run for President, but the child born of an illegal immigrant who crossed the border for the sole purpose of having that child would not be so limited.
There's no doubt, it's preposterous. NRO's Bench Memos gives it a proper fisking, but the McCain camp ought to embrace this challenge if only to make sure that everyone knows that he was born in the Canal Zone. The more Americans learn about McCain's background and family history, the better he's able to frame his candidacy as being about service to the nation. And it's a nice contrast to Obama, whose candidacy seems to be about nothing so much as the transcendent power of himself.
Ron Paul's presidential campaign exceeded expectations--at least in the fundraising department. Now he's using his cash and donor lists to elect other Republicans who back a withdrawal from Iraq:
Murray Sabrin, a New Jersey Senate candidate who has been endorsed by Paul, is expecting a “moneybomb” from his own backers and Paul’s this Friday. Sabrin has raised $194,260 since launching his campaign last month, according to a calculator on his Web site...
Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones , a fellow Iraq war critic who faces a tough primary challenge in North Carolina coastal 3rd District, has rented access to Paul’s list of donors in the state...
Paul’s presidential spokesman said the campaign is still in the process of figuring out how best to make full use of its massive list of campaign donors.
“A likely use would be to help candidates for office who are running on a constitutionalist platform,” Jesse Benton said. “It will go to a good use.”
I wrote about Walter Jones here. Sabrin, an underdog in the New Jersey Senate race, has called the Iraq war a 'fiasco,' and warns darkly that George Bush may do something to check Iran's nuclear ambitions.
When Texas Republicans decide on Tuesday whether they want Ron Paul representing them in Congress, they ought to consider how he will use the platform they give him.
Over at CSIS, Anthony Cordesman has published his latest report on violence in Iraq. His assessment of Anbar:
My colleagues and I at the THE WEEKLY STANDARD wanted to express our condolences to our friends--and Bill's colleagues--at National Review, and above all to Christopher and the rest of the Buckley family. We'll all be publishing well-deserved tributes and appreciations. For now, I'd say just this: What a man! And what an achievement!
I met Bill Buckley while interning at National Review during the summer of 2001. When he later invited me to join him in Gstaad, Switzerland, to serve as his research assistant on Last Call for Blackford Oakes, I instantly agreed. I left a well-paying full-time job in Washington, D.C., to avail myself of this exceptional opportunity.
Bill and Pat were my two favorite people in the world. I told Pat that she was at the very top of the list, and Bill was second. She let me know that “That’s the smartest thing you’ve said in months.” Rhetorical gems of this sort were happenstance when hanging with the Buckleys.
Perhaps my fondest memory of our time together was when Bill and I headed off for lunch one day to discuss his book. Bill had many admirable talents, but I’m afraid driving was not one of them. That day as we drove to a restaurant in the center of Gstaad, Bill took a wrong turn off the road onto a cross-country trail. As the trail got narrower, Bill began banking the car into the snow on the passenger’s side--my side of the car!--to avoid plunging us into the shallow stream on the driver’s side. Later down the path, we eventually got stuck in a ditch. Bill suggested we abandon our vehicle and proceed to the restaurant, where we enjoyed a carafe or two of wine as skiers were forced to navigate around the forsaken car.
The Air Force, which needs all the help it can get on the public relations front, has banned access to blogs:
The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read, cutting off access to just about any independent site with the word "blog" in its web address. It's the latest move in a larger struggle within the military over the value -- and hazards -- of the sites. At least one senior Air Force official calls the squeeze so "utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream."
Until recently, each major command of the Air Force had some control over what sites their troops could visit, the Air Force Times reports. Then the Air Force Network Operations Center, under the service's new "Cyber Command," took over.
Cyber Command, which is a bureaucratic construct of questionable necessity built around the need for effective network defense, has now expanded its mission from network defense to regulating internet usage within the Air Force's Major Commands. It seems reasonable, then, to ask whether time spent policing the internet habits of those in the service will, by diverting scarce resources, undermine the command's ability to defend against legitimate cyberattacks, and to return fire.
Also problematic is the fact that USAF bloggers have been among the most credible advocates for force-modernization plans, offering their strong support for the acquisition of the full fleet of 380 F-22s in particular. The Air Force has in one fell swoop discarded a valuable media asset, forcing the public to rely on cumbersome--and typically boring--USAF press releases instead.
Because Air Force public relations isn't so much an effective media campaign as it is a crawl from one PR disaster to another, the service needs bloggers now more than ever. Which makes this a strange and almost certainly counterproductive move.
Stolen directly from Geraghty, the latest Rasmussen numbers:
- McCain now leads Obama 46% to 43% and Clinton 48% to 43%.
- Obama is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 46%. McCain’s numbers are 55% favorable, 42% unfavorable. Clinton earns positive reviews from 47% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 52%.
- McCain is trusted more by 55% of voters when it comes to National Security issues. Obama is trusted more by just 30% on this point. Just half (51%) of Democrats express more trust in Obama than McCain on national security. Unaffiliated voters prefer McCain by a two-to-one margin.
- On Iraq, McCain has a much smaller advantage—49% trust McCain while 39% prefer Obama.
- When it comes to the economy, 45% prefer McCain while 39% trust Obama more.
The general election is a long time away, but there's something going on here. Rasmussen explains "McCain has consistently held a modest lead over Clinton but he moved ahead of Obama only after publication of the controversial New York Times article last week." Captain Ed delves into those numbers--66 percent of respondents said the piece was a deliberate attempt to "hurt the McCain campaign." One wonders what Marilyn Thompson would make of all this.
A statement from McCain on the passing of Bill Buckley:
"I am profoundly saddened to hear of the passing of William F. Buckley Jr., and offer my deepest condolences to the Buckley family. Bill had many friends, including my parents, who he visited when they were stationed at the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii. My father and mother very much admired him and so did their son.
"With Bill's passing, freedom has lost one of its greatest defenders. Bill was a great American who helped change the course of history. When conservatism was a lonely cause, he bravely raised the standard of liberty and led the charge to renew the principles and values that are the foundation of our great country. A man of tremendous vision and big ideas, he founded the National Review in 1955 and through its pages and his other endeavors, as a lecturer, commentator, debater and author of dozens of books, inspired many and advanced an intellectual rigor that transformed American politics. Bill was an American giant who shall be missed."
We've posted some Buckley-related pieces from THE WEEKLY STANDARD archive here, and also worth your time is Roger Kimball's review of Buckley's "literary autobiography" here.
I've written before that House Democrats seem headed for a painful immigration debate that exposes the fault lines between the moderates elected in 2006 -- who want to protect their seats by passing legislation to get tough on illegal immigration -- and the lliberals and latinos who favor 'earned legalization.' Well, it looks like the depth of the split is already on display in the subcommittee that funds immigration enforcement:
...House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman David Price, D-N.C., and ranking member Harold Rogers, R-Ky., said ICE faces difficulty identifying all illegal immigrants among the millions of people held in about 5,000 federal, state and local jails across the country. Price said the jails hold about 600,000 criminal illegal immigrants but at its current pace ICE will take up to five years to deport them all...
"It's not acceptable to have people who we know are capable and willing to harm our citizens ... to be back out on the street," he said...
Tensions mounted during the hearing when some Democrats questioned how ICE conducts work-site raids and how the agency handles children and people who need medical care. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., accused ICE of acting like Nazi Germany's Gestapo when conducting raids. Myers defended ICE employees, saying she would not tolerate the accusation. "We are not the Gestapo," she said, interrupting Farr...
Congratulations Sam Farr, on being the first to prove Godwin's Law. But perhaps you ought to direct your anger at Chairman Price, who seems eager to see ICE get tougher on the illegal immigrants who are the target of worksite enforcement. Your message might get a more receptive hearing if the man who funds ICE wasn't sending th | | | |
