« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 31, 2005
Scalito
Judge Samuel Alito may not be a full-fledged "going to the matresses" choice by President Bush, but it's pretty darn close. The good thing about the nomination is that President Bush chose a clear conservative who is undeniably well-qualified. Liberals will not get any easy shots on him. Even the Nation's David Corn acknowledges:
There is no question that Alito is qualified, in that he has been an assistant solicitor general, a deputy assistant US attorney general, a US attorney and an appeals court judge. He is reputedly intelligent and scholarly. There will be no major disagreement over document releases; there are fifteen years of appeals court decisions for his friends and foes to scrutinize. That leaves the Democrats one avenue of attack: Alito would be bad for America.
Not surprisingly, Democrats and liberal groups have already taken this route, attempting to portray Alito as a radical. As for me, I think that presidents should be allowed to appoint judges as long as they are qualified enough to serve. As Sen McCain put it:
"I've always been favorably disposed towards a president's nominee," McCain told radio host Don Imus. "I voted for Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer because I think elections have consequences. I didn't share their judicial philosophy."
Much of the news coverage on Alito's nomination has centered on abortion, specifically his dissent in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey spousal notification case that eventually led to the U.S. Supreme Court partially reaffirming Roe v. Wade. In the coming weeks, I'll be interested in reading more about his past decisions on other issues. What I've read so far is encouraging. Here is a list of some of the business- friendly decisions he has made. It is also encouraging that he wrote a dissent arguing that Congress did not have the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the possession or sale of machine guns. I hope that Alito will be as consistent in his limited view of the commerce clause as Justice Clarence Thomas. When it comes to social issues, Antonin Scalia, to whom Alito owes his moniker, is often willing to allow for a much more expansive view of the constitution, as evidenced by this summer's Raich medical marijuana decision.
An old profile of Alito by The Legal Intelligencer, which compares and contrasts him with Scalia, is available here. One big difference they cite is temperment, describing Alito as "mild-mannered" and "polite." If this holds true during the hearings it will make it more difficult for Democrats to portray him as a radical.
Posted by Philip Klein at 3:07 PM | Comments (0)
October 28, 2005
Will Bush go to the mattresses?
In an earlier post, I pondered whether Republicans would have a voter turnout problem in 2006, given that the conservative base is so demoralized. President Bush could fix this with one swift move were he to go to the mattresses with his Supreme Court nomination, now that Miers has withdrawn. By going to the mattresses I mean appointing a clearly conservative judge who would trigger the all out brawl over judicial philosophy that the conservative legal community has been fantasizing about for decades. As I have said before, having appointed and then withdrawn Miers makes it more difficult for Bush to nominate a true conservative than if he had appointed one in the first place. Now, Democrats have more ammunition to smear any Bush nominee they don't like by saying Bush caved in to the far right. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has already taken this line. "The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination," he said in a prepared statement. "Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues."
Nothing would put conservatives in battle mode more than scenes of liberal senators "borking" an intelligent, well-qualified, conservative judge.
Andrew Sullivan takes a different view:
Bush may believe he needs to polarize the country to win back his base, especially if he's reeling from indictments and a major staff turn-over. He has done it before; and he may do it again. For my part, I think the Rovians are misguided in this prescription. A socially conservative fire-breather is not what the country needs right now - and, although it may shore up the base, it will further rattle the middle. What we need is someone of Roberts' ilk: impeccably qualified, intellectually serious, and concerned more with judicial process than results. The fundamental concern the public now has about this administration is its competence. The Roberts and Bernanke picks are reassuring. The Miers pick, er, wasn't. Excellence and judicial restraint should be the criteria: not ideology. They are the criteria upon which the right and center can converge. Here's hoping.
I have a few responses to Sullivan. Firstly, I think that Roberts had a unique blend of conservative credentials, stellar qualifications, and a thin paper trail. It may be difficult to find somebody else with that rare combination of traits.
Then there's Sullivan's main point that a "socially conservative fire-breather" would "rattle the middle." Sure, if President Bush nominates a clear conservative to the Supreme Court, moderates may be annoyed, but it won't make or break their support for Bush. They will judge him on other issues. However, for many in the conservative base, the matter of judicial appointments is the issue that counts, and this issue will be the basis of how they view the president. If he appoints a true judicial conservative, they will defend Bush to the death, and should that nominee get confirmed, Bush would be their hero. He would be applauded by conservatives for "getting the big things right." This would give Bush great leeway to appease moderates on other issues.
Posted by Philip Klein at 1:10 AM | Comments (0)
October 26, 2005
Turnout and 2006
It's one of the oldest clichés in politics. When pundits say it, it reminds me of when baseball announcers say things such as, "This team is going to have to start scoring some runs to win the ballgame." But there are reasons why things become cliché. Such is the case with the statement that turnout is the key to winning elections. I think this is especially true for Republicans in 2006.
Quite frankly, it's hard for me to see why any Republican would be motivated to vote next year. Republicans in Congress have been a tremendous disappointment to their supporters across the board. Libertarian Republicans are disappointed because Republicans in Congress wimped out on Social Security reform, even though Bush made it his top domestic priority this year. And, along with fiscal conservatives, they are disappointed by spending that continues to skyrocket. There hasn't been a whisper about the federal marriage amendment or any issues that are important to social conservatives. I can go on and on. It's just really difficult to think of one group of Republicans that Congress hasn't let down.
Following the 2004 Presidential election, much was made of how the Republican "get out the vote" effort was comprised of grass roots volunteers, as opposed to the Democratic effort, which was outsourced to professionals. Are Republicans going to volunteer in large numbers with such enthusiasm in 2006?
In 2004, even reluctant Republicans were driven by national security concerns and many conservatives campaigned hard for President Bush because of expected Supreme Court appointments. But national security is rarely, if ever, an issue in congressional races and the Miers nomination has demoralized conservatives. True, conservatives arenââ¬â¢t likely to vote Democrat. But what is going to prevent them from staying home?
Posted by Philip Klein at 12:42 AM | Comments (1)
October 25, 2005
Pottersville
My friend Alfonso Mangione's long-awaited novel Pottersville has been published, and is available for purchase here. This is the description:
Imagine waking up on an ordinary morning, the front end of a day of dead-end office work. At first, everything's routine--you shower, shave, pour a bowl of Cap'n Crunch, and turn on the radio. But today, the local shock jock has ditched his normal parade of WWF wrestlers and porn stars for one distraught caller. "Caller, tell us again. Why do you want to kill yourself today?" the host asks, prompting a litany of reasons: broken relationships, lost jobs, alcoholism. It sounds like a bad country song or an idiotic radio stunt until something freezes you in place, spoon halfway to your mouth, milk dripping into the cereal bowl and splattering the coffee table. You recognize the voice: the caller is your best friend. He's been lying to you for months about everything substantial in his life, and he's going to kill himself, and you don't know if you can stop it.
Posted by Philip Klein at 1:12 AM | Comments (0)
October 24, 2005
Mao's Legacy
I'm looking forward to reading Jung Chang's new book on Mao. "Based on a decade of meticulous interviews and archival research, this magnificent biography methodically demolishes every pillar of Mao's claim to sympathy or legitamacy," Nicholas Kristoff wrote in his NY Times review of the book. He also says "Mao emerges from these pages as another Hitler or Stalin." It's nice to see Mao relegated to his proper place as one of the worst mass murderers in history. Not surprisingly, the book is banned in China, along with issues of magazines that contain reviews of the book. And China accuses Japan of trying to whitewash its history.
Posted by Philip Klein at 5:20 PM | Comments (1)
October 21, 2005
Capote
I saw the film last night. The movie itself was solid, but Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance was incredible. Beyond just mimicking Capote's mannerisms and voice, he did a great job of portraying Capote's dually sympathetic/parasitic relationship with the killers who are the subject of his book. On the one hand, he seems to generally care about their fate, but on the other hand he wants them to be hanged so he can finally finish In Cold Blood. He befriends them, but also lies, manipulates and uses them. Throughout the film, I kept thinking about this passage from Janet Malcolm's book, The Journalist and the Murderer:
Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse. Like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings gone, so the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction writing learns--when the article or book appears--his hard lesson. Journalists justify their treachery in various ways, according to their temperaments. The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and "the public's right to know"; the least talented talk about Art; the seemliest murmur about earning a living.The catastrophe suffered by the subject is no simple matter of an unflattering likeness or a misrepresentation of his views; what pains him, what rankles and sometimes drives him to extremes of vengefulness, is the deception that has been practiced on him. On reading the article or book in question, he has to face the fact that the journalist--who seemed so friendly and sympathetic, so keen to understand him fully, so remarkably attuned to his vision of things--never had the slightest intention of collaborating with him on his story but always intended to write a story of his own. The disparity between what seems to be the intention of an interview as it is taking place and what it actually turns out to have been in aid of always comes as a shock to the subject.
Posted by Philip Klein at 4:54 PM | Comments (0)
October 20, 2005
Is Gore the Next Nixon?
Ryan Lizza makes the case for Al Gore in 2008, saying that he is the only Democrat that could beat Hillary. He writes:
His early, vocal, and unwavering opposition to the war in Iraq has made him a hero to many Democrats. The Hollywood liberals over at Huffington Post as well as the university-town activists at Daily Kos and Moveon.org love Gore. If he ran, he would instantly become the favored candidate of the "netroots," the antiwar, anti-Bush crowd that championed Howard Dean and that will be a significant source of money and buzz in the run-up to 2008. The activists in the liberal blogosphere, more than any other opinion-making constituency in Democratic politics, revere Gore...And Gore might be the only Democrat who can solve a vexing issue facing the party: How does a candidate establish a reputation for toughness on national security while simultaneously criticizing the war? Gore supported the Gulf War and, in most Clinton administration battles over the use of force, he took the more hawkish position. He is the party's only credible antiwar hawk.
Posted by Philip Klein at 11:45 PM | Comments (0)
October 19, 2005
Can you be anti-abortion but vote pro-Roe?
James Taranto is missing a key point in his analysis of whether a pro-lifer could conceivably support Roe v. Wade. The impetus for Taranto's analysis is the revelation that Harriet Miers expressed support for a human life amendment to the Constitution in 1989. The amendment would have prohibited abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. In response to questions, the White House said that this did not suggest how Miers would rule on abortion law if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Taranto argues:
It is true that many people are pro-abortion but anti-Roe--that is, they oppose both the criminalization of abortion and the creation of an imaginary constitutional right to abortion. The opposite position, however, seems far less tenable. Most people who support Roe do so on policy grounds; that is, they like the outcome and are indifferent to the Constitution. The only way we can see to reconcile support for Roe with support for the Human Life Amendment is if one has a highly expansive view of the Supreme Court's role--believing that it has near-dictatorial power over social policy, capable of being overridden only by the very difficult process of amending the Constitution.
Clearly, someone who is pro-life is likely to be against Roe, and, for the sake of argument, let us say that this is an iron-clad rule. Still, Taranto should not ingnore the possibility that a judge who personally thinks Roe was wrongly decided in 1973 may still vote to uphold it now. A judge who thinks Roe was initially wrongly decided could still be sympathetic to the argument that younger American women have grown up in a world in which abortion is a constitutional right and therefore determine that it would be wrong to suddenly overturn Roe. In other words, a personally pro-life judge could agree that Roe is a "super duper precedent," to borrow Sen. Arlen Specter's corny phrase. I'm not saying I necessarily hold this view myself, but it is a position I can see a judge taking, if nothing else but out of fear of rocking the boat.
With that said, it is absurd for the White House to tell the public at large that it is unclear how Miers would rule on issues such as abortion, while touting her religious beliefs in a bid to reassure conservatives that she'd rule with their side on such issues. This is the game that gets played when you're dealing with a so-called "stealth" nominee, whose judicial views are unknown. The strategy worked with Roberts because conservative opposition to him was tepid. But with many prominent conservatives publicly criticizing the Miers nomination, the White House has been forced to send much more overt signals to the conservative base. This has made the balancing act a lot more difficult.
Posted by Philip Klein at 10:56 PM | Comments (0)
October 17, 2005
Legalize Drugs, Says Former Seattle Police Chief
Norm Stamper, the former chief of the Seattle Police Department, argues that we should leagalize all drugs. For those who are familiar with the debate over legalizing drugs, there's nothing majorly new with his argument. It's just interesting coming from somebody who spent 34 years in law enforcement. While I agree with him that all drugs should be legalized, I think he goes overboard when he writes, "It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery."
Posted by Philip Klein at 4:20 PM | Comments (2)
Judith Miller and Valerie 'Flame'
I just finished reading the New York Times article on the Judith Miller affair, as well as Miller's own account and reactions at several blogs (eg. here, here and here).
There are a few things that are on my mind.
In Miller's account, at first, she clearly states that she went to jail to protect the confidentiality of Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby. She writes:
Having been summoned to testify before the grand jury, I went to jail instead, to protect my source - Mr. Libby - because he had not communicated to me his personal and voluntary permission to speak.
But just a few paragraphs down, she seems to contradict herself:
Equally central to my decision was Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. He had declined to confine his questioning to the subject of Mr. Libby. This meant I would have been unable to protect other confidential sources who had provided information - unrelated to Mr. Wilson or his wife - for articles published in The Times. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questioning.
In other words, if prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had originally agreed to limit his questioning to Libby, she may have testified about Libby. The preceding paragraph makes it sound as if she went to jail to protect sources other than Libby.
This issue becomes more intriguing when you consider that Miller says she cannot recall who leaked the name Valerie Plame to her, but that she doesnââ¬â¢t think it was Libby. The name "Valerie Flame" appears in the same notebook that she used when she interviewed Libby, but Miller says it was written in a different part of the notebook than her Libby interview notes.
This raises the possibility that Miller has been protecting sources other than Libby all along. But by convincing the prosecutor that Libby was the person Miller was really protecting, her lawyers were finally able to secure a guarantee that she would only be questioned about Libby. The end result is that she's out of jail, Fitzgerald is off her back, but she has still protected the confidentiality her ultimate source/s.
Another part of Miller's account that damages her credibility is this:
Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer."My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.
Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.
This is an incredibly dishonest way to identify an anonymous source. You are allowing the chief aide to the vice-president to criticize someone while making it appear as though the criticism did not come from anyone in the Bush Administration, but in fact, a more detached "former hill staffer." If not lying, it is certainly an example of misleading your readers. Imagine identifying Dick Cheney anonymously as "a former congressman." To be clear, Miller never did write a story on Wilson. But even agreeing to such terms with an anonymous source is troubling.
Posted by Philip Klein at 1:12 AM | Comments (1)
October 16, 2005
Condi v. Hillary
According to a new book Dick Morris wrote with Eileen McGann, the only way Hillary Clinton will be defeated in the 2008 presidential race is if the Republicans nominate Condoleezza Rice. (Morris acknowledges that Rudy Giuliani could win a general election, but says that the Republicans will never nominate him). In an interview about the book on National Review Online, Morris says:
(Condi) would take away a third to a half of the black vote and would stop Hillary from gaining among white women. White men are a given. They will vote against Hillary by 2-1 as they voted against Gore and against Kerry. But blacks and white women are the moving pieces of this electoral puzzle.
I have to take anything Morris says with a grain of salt, especially since he's made a career of fueling conservative paranoia about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. The Condi Rice angle will help to sell books, I'm sure.
I admire Rice and would give her a fair hearing should she run for president, but I would be surprised if she did run. She strikes me as more of a scholar than a politician. It would seem more likely that after her stint as Secretary of State she would go back to academia, join a think tank and/or write books. But let's say she does run. She has no campaign experience and her views on many issues are unknown. Her candidacy could turn into a Wesley Clark type situation. There was a brief period when the idea of nominating a an anti-war former general to take on Bush excited many Democrats. But his appeal quickly fizzled after a short time on the campaign trail. Don't get me wrong, Rice may well turn out to be a stellar candidate and she is certainly one person who I would never want to count out. I'm just not ready to say that she would definitely win the presidency because of the demographic benefits of being a black female conservative candidate.
Posted by Philip Klein at 8:02 PM | Comments (2)
Saddam Dreamin'
I had a dream last night that I was back in school and we took a class trip to visit Saddam Hussein. We met him in a giant boardroom with a balcony. He fielded questions while we ate some sort of soup (which I refused to eat for fear that it was poisoned). I eventually got into an argument with him about the nature of the insurgency in Iraq, and he became very irate. I wish there were a better conclusion, but being that this was a dream, as far as I can remember the scene shifted soon after. I'm not sure what to make if it. I suppose under the Freudian method of dream analysis, the dream means that on some unconscious level I want to meet Saddam. Under the Jungian theory, it means that, on some level, I am Saddam. Imagine that!
Posted by Philip Klein at 7:54 PM | Comments (3)
October 12, 2005
Giuliani in '08: Fantasy or Inevitability?
In comments, Karol says Iââ¬â¢m in living in Fantasyland because I think that Giuliani has a chance of winning the presidency in 2008. ââ¬ÅPrimaries are very contentious, and there's no way Giuliani is getting out of one," she writes. Thereââ¬â¢s no doubt that Giuliani faces obstacles to winning the presidency. But those who dismiss his chances as pure fantasy are severely underestimating the man, and misreading history.
Let me pose a question. Can you think of another politician who was ever discussed seriously as a presidential candidate whose primary political experience was being a mayor? Normally vice-presidents, senators, representatives or military leaders are mentioned as presidential timber, but I cannot recall a mayorââ¬â¢s name being tossed around so earnestly. Even though itââ¬â¢s early, even the biggest doubter of Giuliani has to admit that itââ¬â¢s highly unusual for a former mayor to be leading in polls both for his partyââ¬â¢s nomination and for the general election itself. A Giuliani doubter may argue that his popularity will erode in a rough primary. But let us focus on the source of his popularity. I think it goes without saying that the popularity is a result of his leadership on Sept. 11. With that one event, Giuliani rose from being a lameduck mayor to a presidential contender. This gets to the heart of my point. I think Giuliani will win in 2008, because history is moving in that direction.
As Mark Helprin once wrote, ââ¬ÅHistory is in motion, and those moving with it are so caught up that they cannot always see its broad outlines.ââ¬Â I believe that those people who dismiss Giulianiââ¬â¢s chances are too caught up within the motion of history (the politics of abortion, gay rights, etc.) and are missing the broad outlines of our age. Iââ¬â¢m sure that many of Giulianiââ¬â¢s doubters would acknowledge that terrorism is the defining issue of our time. I would go further to argue that not only is the fight against terrorism the defining issue of our time, but that it represents an epic event in the history of Western Civilization. When the history of this period is written, the politics of abortion and gay rights will be a mere footnote, but the battle against terrorism will take a prominent place. I believe that Giuliani is the best leader we have available to fight the terrorist threat, which is why I think that the course of history points toward Giuliani being president.
Winston Churchill was viewed as a washed-up laughingstock in the 1930s when he spoke of the Nazi menace. But history took its inevitable course, and by 1940 Churchill had ascended to the role of Prime Minister, because nobody else had the necessary guts and grit to lead the fight against Nazism. When we think about Churchill today, we think primarily of his leadership during World War II. We do not talk much about how he supported increasing taxes as a young member of parliament.
Like Churchill, Giuliani is a survivor and a man of tremendous will. As a prosecutor, Giuliani took down the mob and went after Wall Streetââ¬â¢s power brokers. He lost a close bid for election in 1989, but fought back to a victory in 1993, even though Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 5 to 1 margin in New York City. (Sure, Bloomberg did this too, but ran on Giulianiââ¬â¢s legacy and endorsement in 2001). Giulianiââ¬â¢s crimefighting and his transformation of New York City was the stuff of legend even before Sept. 11 catapulted him onto the national scene.
As Fred Siegel does a good job of illustrating in The Prince of the City, Giuliani did not suddenly become concerned with terrorism on Sept. 11. The terrorist threat has concerned him for most of his career. As a U.S. Attorney in the 1980s, Giuliani investigated the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, who was sitting in his wheelchair when he was thrown overboard from the Achilles Lauro cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists. As Siegel notes, Giuliani dedicated a good portion of his 1994 inauguration speech to the first attack on the World Trade Center. When Yasser Arafat visited New York in 1995, on the heels of his Nobel Peace Prize, Giuliani kicked him out of a U.N. event at Lincoln Center, amid widespread criticism. Giuliani was ridiculed as paranoid when he set up an emergency command center in New York City. Yes, the center turned out to be poorly located in 7 World Trade Center, which was destroyed on Sept. 11, but Giuliani must be given credit for thinking of these things far before 9/11.
Some people may cast asside my theory about the intersection of Giuliani and history. But given the man's record of overcoming long odds, of achieving things that many people once viewed as impossible, I cannot see how anybody can dismiss Giulianiââ¬â¢s chances in 2008, let alone call a possible victory mere fantasy.
Posted by Philip Klein at 9:19 AM | Comments (3)
N.Y. Subway Threat Hoax
Last week, I expressed skepticism over the alert issued regarding a terrorist threat to the New York City subways. Now it's being reported that the threat was a hoax.
I'm not going to be hard on Mayor Bloomberg, because I respect his decision to err on the side of caution and assume the worst. With that said, if we have too many situations like this, we run the risk of a "boy who cried wolf" scenario, where people no longer heed security warnings. I have to admit that in the four years since 9/11, I've pretty much reached that point. Once a terrorist plan is announced publicly, I pretty much assume that it's not going to materialize. The Sept. 11 attacks happened without public warning, as did the Madrid bombings, the London bombings and every other major terrorist act against a city that I can recall in the past several years.
Posted by Philip Klein at 1:54 AM | Comments (0)
October 11, 2005
A-Rod ain't no MVP
With the Yankees making an early exit from the playoffs once again, the major source of my anger is Alex Rodriguez. The so-called MVP candidate may have batted .321 with 48 HRs and 130 RBIs during the regular season, but when it came playoff time, the $250 million man once again came up empty, batting .133 with 0 RBIs in the division series, including an 0-4 final game--grounding into a double play in the 9th inning after Derek Jeter hit a leadoff single. Before Rodriguez joined the Yankees, people would always think I was being overly sentimental when I said I'd take Jeter over A-Rod in a heartbeat. This is a perfect example of why. In the division series, Jeter batted .333 with 2 HRs and 5 RBIs, including a 3-4 final game (the one out was a sac fly). Jeter brings his game to a whole new level during the playoffs and his enthusiasm and competitive spirit is unmatched.
Some may say that I'm being too hard on Rodriguez, and contend that anyone can have a bad series and that plenty of other Yankees screwed up. This is all true, and there is plenty blame to go around. But when A-Rod signed his $250 million contract with Texas a few years ago, it was based on the hype that he was the best player in baseball. So, if he were just any other player, I wouldn't have a problem with him choking. But since he's anointed himself one of the all-time greats, I think he deserves my wrath.
On the bright side, I think that the Yankees' failure to win for the fifth straight year underscores that you can't buy a championship. Critics of the Yankees contend that the championships of 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000 were bought. While the high payroll no doubt helped, it's clear that those teams had a special blend of chemistry and heart that you simply can't put a price on. This year's team, with its $200 million plus payroll, may have had more superstars than those teams in the late 1990s, but winning is about more than money.
Posted by Philip Klein at 1:51 AM | Comments (3)
October 10, 2005
Chancellor Merkel
I look forward to seeing what type of chancellor Angela Merkel becomes. By all accounts, she's more pro-American than Gerhard Schroder, although that's not very difficult. It should be interesting to see how much of an appetite Germans have for free market reforms.
What I find most ironic about U.S. media coverage of the German election is that American liberals are able to see the need for free market reforms in Europe, while still advocating a larger role for government in the U.S. This irony was on full display in a New York Times editorial a day after the vote. The editorial (which I can't link to), read:
Given Germany's dismal economic health, there is no alternative to reforms for Germany and for Europe as a whole...If the two major parties look beyond their rivalries, they could find that they agree on the basics of critically needed economic reforms like lowering employment costs, making labor markets more flexible and simplifying the tax code. And they would certainly have the clout to push a joint program through the Parliament and past the unions. Mr. Schroder called the elections because there was a big job to be done, and the voters agreed.
This is an editorial page that, when writing about the U.S., has argued for higher taxes, a larger government role in health care, more regulation against businesses and stricter labor laws.
To be fair to the NY Times, they are still against a flat tax, no matter the continent. The editorial also read:
Mrs. Merkel seemed to be doing well against Mr. Schroder, a highly skilled candidate, until she blundered by picking Paul Kirchhof, a professor who advocates a flat tax, as her economic spokesman. The idea fell, well, flat.
Posted by Philip Klein at 5:27 PM | Comments (0)
October 7, 2005
Oklahoma Student Suicide Bomb
I am starting to get annoyed by the sanctimonious attitude that bloggers have about how the mainstream media (MSM) is not giving more attention to the story of the so-called Oklahoma suicide bomber. This is becoming a situation where bloggers' active imaginations make them take a given set of facts and draw wild conclusions. I'm glad that the MSM hasn't jumped on this bandwagon.
For those of you who are coming late to the story, Joel Henry Hinrichs, a 21-year old Oklahoma University engineering student, blew himself up last Saturday, about 100 yards from the school's football stadium, where 84,000 people were watching a game. It was subsequently reported that Hinrichs tried to purchase ammonium nitrate fertilizer last week, which was one of the ingredients used in the Oklahoma City bombings. There were also reports that Hinrichs attended the same mosque as Zacarias Moussaoui, who was to be the 20th 9/11 hijacker. And that bomb-making materials were found in his room, which he shared with a Pakistani Muslim. For those of you interested the type of noise being made, visit Michelle Malkin's site. She's been all over the story.
But there's a lot we don't know and, for what it's worth, the FBI has (at least publicly) said that it was a lone suicide that was not related to terrorism. Also, Hinrichs, according to this story, wasn't even a Muslim. But even if he did visit the same mosque as Moussaoui, why can't that just be a coincidence? The mosque was located in Norman, Oklahoma--where Hinrichs lived.
Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of mysterious details in the Oklahoma story that make it interesting, and I have no problem with blogs giving it attention. But speculation on the blogs has gotten more and more outrageous as the days go by. Blogger Mark Tapscott, who was interviewed by Fox News regarding the story, has a post this morning titled, "OU Stadium, NYC Subway Threat: Were These the First Two Planned Attacks in a Ramadan Offensive?" It concludes:
Think about the impact of successful attacks that killed thousands in Norman and hundreds more in New York. Message: We can get you in your heartland and we can get you in the heart of your biggest city.
How, exactly, do two attacks that have not materialized, that we don't even know were planned, constitute the opening salvos of a coordinated offensive?
I have trouble holding the MSM in contempt on this issue. The MSM always faces a dilemma in situations like this. If they ignore a story and it becomes legitimate, they look like fools. However, if they pursue a story overzealously, and the story turns out to be nothing, they also look like fools. So they have to make a judgment about whether a certain threshold is met, whereby the story has a good chance of being ligit.
Bloggers don't face this dilemma. Nobody will hold bloggers accountable if this Oklahoma story turns out to be nothing. On the other hand, if bloggers turn out to be right and the Oklahoma student is, indeed, a terrorist, I'm sure there will be plenty of self-congratulatory rhetoric on the blogoshpere and plenty of screeds about how the MSM blew it again. But let's not forget that bloggers can publish all sorts of speculation that the MSM cannot. Bloggers can throw as much crap as they want against the wall--and eventually some of it will stick.
I think blogs serve a useful role in keeping the MSM in check and focusing on stories that may be ignored by the MSM. But I also think the so-called "gatekeeper" function that the MSM performs is important. I wouldn't want to be getting my news on terrorism exclusively from armchair FBI agents. In short, I think the two mediums complement each other well.
Posted by Philip Klein at 1:25 PM | Comments (0)
ElBaradei/IAEA Win Nobel Peace Prize
"The award sends a very strong message: 'Keep doing what you are doing - be impartial, act with integrity' - and that is what we intend to do," Dr ElBaradei told a news conference in Vienna.
Yeah, keep doing what you're doing. After all, you've had great success with Iran and North Korea.
Anyway, congrats on joining past Nobel winners such as peacemaker Yassir Arafat.
Posted by Philip Klein at 12:28 PM | Comments (0)
On Withdrawing Miers
In today's column, Charles Krauthammer argues for withdrawing Miers. Apparently Bill Kristol suggested she withdraw herself.
I really don't think that would help conservatives. Let's just say that Miers is forced to withdraw, and Bush, to make the base happy this time, picks someone to replace her that is a clear conservative. Such an action would play right into the hands of Democrats who want to portray Bush as someone who is doing the bidding of the far right. It would have taken a battle to confirm a tried and true conservative even if Bush had nominated one initially. So imagine how hard it would be to confirm, say, a Michael Luttig, if he was picked after the more moderate Miers was forced to withdraw under fire from the right.
If Democrats begin to turn sour on Miers and she is forced to pull out under pressure from them, perhaps Bush would get a chance to nominate a true conservative. But I think Democrats realize this, which is why I believe that the Miers nomiation will sail through the Senate with token opposition, ironically coming from the far right and far left.
Posted by Philip Klein at 11:53 AM | Comments (1)
Social Conservative Case For Giuliani
Lawrence Henry, in an article on the American Spectator's Website:
I'm a social conservative. I used to think former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani could never be nominated as the Republican candidate for President, given his pro-choice and pro-gay sympathies. Recent circumstances convince me that not only can Giuliani get the nomination, he will. And that, if nominated, he will win election. The giant karmic wheel of political affairs has turned his direction.
A lot can happen between now and 2008, but I'm happy to see more and more people start to wake up, especially social conservatives. Republicans would be doing themselves a great disservice if they nominate a boring, generic, candidate in 2008, who simply toes the party line. Conservatives may not agree with everything Giuliani says, but at least he speaks with unwavering conviction and is a natural leader. Simply put, Giuliani is the man for our time.
Posted by Philip Klein at 12:35 AM | Comments (1)
October 6, 2005
Confusing NYC Subway Threat
It's hard to know what to make of this. NYC officials and the feds completely contradict one another.
One the one hand, we're told this:
ââ¬ÅWe have never had before a specific threat to our subway system,ââ¬Â (Mayor Michael) Bloomberg said, adding that he still felt secure enough to take the subway home Thursday night. ââ¬ÅIts importance was enhanced above the normal level by the detail that was available to us from intelligence sources.ââ¬ÂA law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the threat was ââ¬Åspecific to place, time and method,ââ¬Â which was a bombing. The official said the information resulted from the arrest of al-Qaida operatives in Iraq.
Then we're told this:
But in Washington, Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke said ââ¬Åthe intelligence community has concluded this information to be of doubtful credibility. We shared this information early on with state and local authorities in New York.ââ¬Â Knocke did not elaborate.A counterterrorism official, who was briefed about the threat by Homeland Security authorities, said the intelligence was considered doubtful because it did not reflect ââ¬Åon-the-ground, detailedââ¬Â information. Rather, the official, who also insisted on anonymity, said the intelligence was similar to ââ¬Åwhat can be found on the Internet and a map of New York City.ââ¬Â
It makes no sense that Bloomberg has confidence saying that it's a "specific threat," when the Department of Homeland Security, presumably the source of the information, says it's of "doubtful credibility" and another counterterrorism official says it doesn't reflect "on the ground, detailed" information. Somebody is wrong here, and it seems more likely that it would be Bloomberg, because the Dept. of Homeland Security would be more likely to know what a detainee in Iraq said than the NYPD would. This is a developing story, and I hope we learn more about why the threat was issued.
Posted by Philip Klein at 10:30 PM | Comments (0)
October 5, 2005
Alternate Take On Miers
From comments:
Friends who have worked with her in the Counsel's Office say she is "wicked smart" and "not getting enough credit from the media." I think it was appropriate for Bush to replace O'Connor with a woman. And it's not that unusual for a supreme court justice to come from outside the judiciary....seems that diversity of legal experience on the Court would even be a good thing. Anyway, I just wanted to offer a slight counterpoint, although I don't have anything glowing to say.
Obviously, Miers is no dope--a person couldn't rise to where she is without being very intelligent. I don't think anybody is making her out to be Dan Quayle. But there are plenty of "wicked smart" lawyers. Not all of them belong on the Supreme Court. And I just have a hard time getting beyond the idea that the reason why Bush appointed her was that she was loyal, he knew and trusted her and thought she'd be easily confirmable. Were it not for her personal connection to the president, I don't think that anybody would even be mentioning her as a potential nominee.
Posted by Philip Klein at 7:33 PM | Comments (1)
N. Korean Refugees Forced To Be Sex Slaves in China
My friend Mingi passes on this article:
The women who flee North Korea believe nothing could be worse than
their dictatorship's famine and labour camps.But many change their minds after they cross the Tumen River into the
"safety" of China, smuggled by middlemen who promise safe passage."I was locked into a house and raped every night," said Kim Chun-ae, a
matronly 51-year-old. "My teenage daughter was sold three times by
traffickers. She was 'recycled'."
Posted by Philip Klein at 2:23 AM | Comments (0)
Judicial Selection Too Politicized, NY Times Says
In an editorial on the Miers nomination, the NY Times has the audacity to argue:
Ms. Miers's nomination is a sign of just how politicized judicial selection has become. The normal model for a Supreme Court nominee is a judge, usually from a federal appeals court, who has served long enough to develop and demonstrate judicial excellence. But today, anyone who meets that standard runs into a political Catch-22. The far right of the Republican Party will oppose anyone who has shown signs of moderation, and Senate Democrats will try to block anyone who has not. Rather than select a strongly qualified candidate from the legal mainstream, President Bush has taken the easy way out by choosing a less accomplished nominee who will raise fewer political problems.
Yes, the same editorial page that tries to portray any judge who does have clear conservative credentials as an extremist, is now arguing that the process of judicial selection has become too politicized. It is also worth noting that it is precisely the view of the judiciary that the NY Times embraces--i.e. that judges should make laws based on evolving social trends--that causes a potential nominee's political ideology to become so important.
Posted by Philip Klein at 1:50 AM | Comments (0)
Blocking Miers
Randy Barnett and George Will both make strong cases for the Senate to consider opposing the Miers nomination.
A president should generally be allowed to appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court, but I have reservations about this Miers selection. If it were just a matter of her stances on certain issues being a question mark, it would not justify opposing her confirmation. I supported the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, even though his ideology was unclear, because he was incredibly brilliant and well-prepared for the job. Don't get me wrong--I'm not implying that Miers is a loser. Obviously, her success as a female lawyer in Texas speaks volumes for her character and perseverance. I just think that a Supreme Court Justice should meet a higher standard.
Furthermore, there is the concern of cronyism. I think the president should be cut some slack if he chooses to appoint loyal associates as ambassadors or cabinet secretaries, because these positions involve working closely with the president as well as communicating and implementing administration policy. But a justice on the Supreme Court has an obligation to the judiciary and is a check on presidential power. Therefore, personal loyalty to the president raises more questions.
Posted by Philip Klein at 12:52 AM | Comments (2)
Romney: Laptops For Everyone!
Many conservatives have touted Mitt Romney as a potential Republican Presidential nominee in 2008. Earlier this year, the Massachusetts governor was the subject of glowing profiles in the National Review and the Weekly Standard. But for conservatives frustrated with the stupefying expansion of the federal government under President Bush, this type of talk can't be very encouraging:
BOSTON, Sept. 29 - Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has a bold plan to improve public education in his state. It involves new laptops for students, new science and math teachers and, the most ambitious component of all, merit pay tied to classroom performance that could add $5,000 or more to a teacher's annual salary."The ability to close the achievement gap is the civil rights issue of our generation," Mr. Romney said in an interview, noting concern over test scores as well as the country's lagging production of scientists and engineers. "This is the way to do it."
He is betting large sums that his plan can work. The overhaul package he announced last week calls for $46 million in new spending for the 2006 fiscal year and $143 million for 2007.
Tying a teacher's salary to performance makes sense to me (although I think measuring teacher performance is trickier than, say, giving bonuses to salespeople). But increasing spending, giving free laptops to students and talking of the achievement gap as the, "civil rights issue of our generation" is similar to the "compassionate conservative" tone that President Bush struck in the 2000 campaign. This attitude is what led to, among other things, the costly No Child Left Behind Act and perscription drug add on to Medicare.
Posted by Philip Klein at 12:19 AM | Comments (1)
Fredo Abbas
What do Fredo Corleone and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have in common? Read my latest piece in the American Spectator to find out.
Posted by Philip Klein at 12:11 AM | Comments (0)
October 3, 2005
Miers and 2008
The Miers selection could bolster the chances of a strong social conservative getting nominated by Republicans in 2008. Now, obviously, a lot can change in the next two plus years. By Jan. 2008, her votes could end up making conservatives very happy. But if conservatives worst fears are realized and the Miers pick is still seen as a betrayal when the 2008 primary season rolls around, I think it's much less likely that social conservatives would allow a Rudy Giuliani nomination.
As I have argued in the past, Giuliani's capacity for leadership makes him uniquely suited for the battle we are facing against terrorism, and I firmly believe that all other issues take a back seat to this one. I thought the experience of Katrina clearly demonstrated why America needs to have a strong leader like Giuliani during a crisis.
But, with Bush possibly having missed an opportunity to shift the balance of the Supreme Court to the right, I think that social conservatives will demand more assurances than ever from any Republican candidate in 2008. And they may oppose a potential Giuliani nomination more vociferously than they would have otherwise, considering he has liberal views on abortion and gay rights. Again, a lot can change between now and 2008. But while Katrina may have been one data point that made a Giuliani nomination seem more plausible, the Miers pick is a data point that hurts Giuliani's prospects.
Posted by Philip Klein at 11:09 PM | Comments (0)
Conservatives on Miers
The reaction from conservatives has been almost uniformly negative, with Bill Kristol speaking for many in describing himself as "disappointed, depressed and demoralized." For conservatives that have stuck with Bush as he's come under fire for Iraq, Katrina, etc. and to those who have sucked it up as Bush abandonded conservatism and engaged in the biggest expansion of government since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, this may be the last straw. Meanwhile, on the flipside, there is a "trust Bush" crowd that wants to give the president the benefit of the doubt, out of hopes that Miers will turn out to be a reliable conservative vote.
But for me, it is not just an issue of votes. One of the things that impresses me about the Supreme Court is that it is the only institution of government that allows people to resolve issues in an intellegent manner through reasoned debate. I think conservatives should expect more than just a reliable vote, but hope for someone who is a brilliant thinker that can guide future generations of judges and lawyers.
As John Podhoretz put it:
She might vote with Scalia every time for all we know. The problem with the Miers nomination is that there are a dozen scholarly judges and thinkers, including women, who were unambiguously more qualified for the position, and Bush passed them over to throw a lifetime bone to his friend and deputy.
I look forward to learning more about Miers in the coming weeks and months. And perhaps her confirmation hearings will win me over. But right now, I have to concur with Kristol.
Posted by Philip Klein at 1:31 PM | Comments (0)
Miers and Abortion
According to research I've been doing, in 1993, Miers led a failed effort to get the American Bar Association to change its position on abortion from pro-abortion rights to a neutral position. This doesn't necessarily say anything about her opinion on abortion or suggest how she's likely to vote, but in the absence of much of a paper trail, I wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats make an issue of this. Stay tuned.
Posted by Philip Klein at 1:13 PM | Comments (0)
Harriet Miers
My initial reaction to the Miers pick is profound disappointment. With the Roberts pick, we were asked to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who didn't have much of a paper trail, but at least we knew we were getting someone who was superqualified and incredibly brilliant. Not only is Miers an ideological question mark, her qualifications leave much to be desired. Her prime qualification seems to be close ties to President Bush.
More to come.
Posted by Philip Klein at 12:04 PM | Comments (0)
October 2, 2005
Times Finally Runs Krugman Correction
Not on the Frist column I mentioned, but on the error he made regarding media recounts of the Bush-Gore race. Of course, Krugman himself was spared from writing the correction.
I am perfectly sympathetic to journalists who make errors. From my experience working as a reporter at a wire service, I know the type of stupid errors even the most skilled journalist can make when under deadline. And I also know how embarrassing it can be when somebody points to a mistake. But once it becomes clear that an error has been made, the only right thing to do is suck it up and offer an quick and honest correction. It's simply inexcusable and arrogant to fight corrections tooth and nail like Krugman does. It's one thing if it were just conservative commentators pouncing on Krugman. But two public editors in a row at The New York Times have both had problems with Krugman.
The first public editor, Daniel Okrent, wrote of his experiences:
I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed ââ¬Ëreluctantlyââ¬â¢ to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word ââ¬Ëreluctantlyââ¬â¢; I canââ¬â¢t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism.
The current public editor, Byron Calame, wrote last Sunday (before today's correction was issued):
Meanwhile, in the opinion section of The Times, the corrections policy of Gail Collins, the editor of the editorial page, is not being fully enforced. As I have written on my Web journal, Paul Krugman has not been required to correct, in the paper, recent acknowledged factual errors in his column about the 2000 election in Florida.The Times has long been a trailblazer in its commitment to correcting errors. This is no time to let those standards slip -- even when well-known critics and columnists are involved.
Posted by Philip Klein at 8:51 PM | Comments (0)
CORRECTION: Frist/Krugman
In the "Krugman Errs Again" post, I wrote that, "Frist sold the shares (of HCA) on June 13." It turns out that on June 13, he ordered the shares to be sold, but the actual transactions were carried out on July 1 and July 8. I'll let you be the judge of whether Krugman should correct his statement that Bill Frist, "sold all his stock in HCA, which his father helped found, just days before the stock plunged."
Note: The stock plunged on July 13.
While I'm on the subject, according to the Wall Street Journal's weekend edition (paraphrased by Andy McCarthy):
On April 29 ââ¬â over two months before the July 13 earnings warning that caused the stock to decline 9 percent in value ââ¬â he told his accountant he wanted ââ¬Å"to dispose of all hospital stocks in all the accounts that I have control of.ââ¬Â He then asked the Senate Ethics Committee for permission to do so on May 20. He got approval around June 9 and, four days later on June 13, instructed the trustees overseeing his assets to sell the stock. That was done in transactions on July 1 and July 8.
Posted by Philip Klein at 8:32 PM | Comments (0)
Bennett and Blacks
William Bennett's comments on his radio show have provoked much debate. He has been called a racist, he has been condemned by leading Democrats and even The White House thinks the comments were "not appropriate." Tech Central Station's Nick Schulz, among many others on both sides of the political spectrum, has written in Bennett's defense.
For those who haven't been following closely, the impetus for Bennett's remarks was a caller to his radio show, who speculated that if it weren't for legalized abortion, Social Security would be solvent because more babies would have been born over the past 30 years. It's pretty clear that Bennett's controversial response that, "you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down," was intended specifically as an example of how such arguments involving abortion can lead to absurd, immoral outcomes. This is clear because he immediately followed up his statement by saying, "That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do." You can listen to the call on Bennett's Website here.
It is also important to keep in mind that the comments were made during a radio show, which is a casual format that doesn't provide the time necessary to think through every comment. If it were a newspaper column, or even a blog post, I think it would change the debate.
With that said, I still think it was a poor choice of words by Bennett. In this current political environment, it just isn't helpful for a Christian conservative to talk about aborting black babies, because you know that it is going to be taken completely the wrong way and provide ammunition to those who seek to paint caricatures of conservatives as racists. I know a lot of conservatives would accuse me of caving in to political correctness and sympathizing with those who want to stifle intellectual debate. But race was not relevant to Bennett's overarching point. In Freakonomics, the book Bennett mentions that popularized the abortion-crime hypothesis, the authors frame the debate in the context of unwanted pregnancies. Bennett could have just left it at that. (For a response to Bennett's comments by Steven Levitt, one of the authors of Freakonomics, look here. It's worth reading). I think the Larry Summers fiasco is a clearer case of debate being stifled because of political correctness. Summers' comments on gender differences were clearly relevant to his overall analysis of why there weren't more women in the sciences.
Furthermore, imagine how conservatives would have reacted if similar comments were made by Jesse Jackson. For example, what if Jackson were to have said, "If you wanted to reduce racism, you could abort every white baby." Even if Jackson followed the statement up with all sorts of qualifications, conservatives would be skewering him.
Posted by Philip Klein at 3:16 PM | Comments (0)
Spider-Man 3 Villians
Kirsten Dunst spilled the beans on the Spiderman 3 villians: Venom and Sandman. Venom will be played by Topher Gracel, who I don't know, and Sandman will be played by Thomas Haden Church, who I loved in Sideways, but I have a hard time picturing him as Sandman. When speculating on the next most logical villians for the series, I was always thinking either Venom or Sandman, but didn't think that it would be both. I hope they pull it off, because I felt that the Batman series went downhill once they started adding multiple supervillians to each movie. It especially makes me nervous when Dunst says, "There's a lot that they're trying to fit into this one." But director Sam Raimi has not failed me yet in the Spider-Man series, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see the movie in 2007. They'll have to come up with a more dramatic way for Spiderman to defeat Sandman than in his debut in Amazing Spider-Man #4, when Spider-Man uses an industrial vacuum cleaner to suck him up. Okay, I should stop letting myself descend into total comic book geekdum.
Posted by Philip Klein at 11:53 AM | Comments (1)