Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
"Pointing out the obvious" in Maryland
Here is how a Washington Times story on the Maryland race for governor starts: "Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log." It just gets worse. This is shameful stuff! I hope Steele wins.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [17] | 11/2/2005 1:44 PM
|
|
GWB’s conservatism: fusion or fission?
I, er, contribute to the latest installment of the debate over George W. Bush’s conservatism here. My previous interventions in this ongoing debate can be found here, here, and here. Update: You can find a version of Bill McClay’s piece, on which I rely quite a bit, in the June, 2005 issue of Commentary (unfortunately only in the subscriber-only archives online).
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [16] | 11/2/2005 9:49 AM
|
|
The Nub of the Problem
I missed this Peggy Noonan column last week in which she quoted Christopher Lawford (Teddy Kennedy’s nephew) telling about a remark of Teddy’s at a family gathering, "’I’m glad I’m not going to be around when you guys are my age.’ I asked him why, and he said, ’Because when you guys are my age, the whole thing is going to fall apart.’ "
There it is, in one short sentence: a fundamental aspect of liberalism’s long decline. Liberalism used to be an optimistic creed, and liberals believed in progress and the ability to solve problems through the persistent application of human intelligence and will. The future was always something to look forward to; now they dread it. Now looking forward to the future is a Reaganite trait. Teddy and his like appear reactionary.
Does this mean Teddy won’t run for re-election? Nah; too much to hope for.
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 11/2/2005 8:31 AM
|
|
Lots of Gas in Washington
A few Republicans have joined the bandwagon for the economically illterate idea of imposing a "windfall profits tax" on the oil and gas industry. But lo and behold, guess who makes the largest windfall off gasoline sales? The government. According to this study from the Tax Foundation, between the years 1977 and 2004, the government has collected $1.34 trillion in gasoline taxes, while the combined profits of the oil companies was $640 billion.
Meanwhile, even as gasoline prices are starting (predictably) to decline, natural gas prices look to stay very high through the winter. The Argonne National Laboratory issued a report entitled Environmental Policy and Regulatory Constraints on Natural Gas Production that identifies more than 30 different laws and regulatory regimes that have put off limits at least 100 trillion cu. ft of natural gas in the United States—a 20 year supply at current rates of use. Instead, we’re soon going to have to start importing natural gas from you-know-where. (Hat tip to Holman Jenkins’ column in today’s Wall Street Journal—not available to non-subscribers—"Something to Think About While Shivering in the Dark.")
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [246] | 11/2/2005 8:07 AM
|
|
You gotta love Bobby Bowden
Via Southern Appeal, here’s a religion and big-time college sports story, starring Florida State’s Bobby Bowden and Georgia’s Mark Richt. Bowden gets the best lines: "Most parents want their boys to go to church," he said. "I’ve had atheists, Jews, Catholics and Muslims play for me, and I’ve never not started a boy because of his faith. I’m Christian, but all religions have some kind of commandments, and if kids would obey them, the world would be a better place."In fact, he said, when about 70 percent of his players come from single-parent homes, or are reared by an extended family, it is his right and responsibility to be candid about his faith. "You got 90 kids in a history or psychology classroom around here, and a professor can stand up and say anything he wants in creation," Mr. Bowden said recently in an interview at his office. "Why can’t I tell my boys what I believe?" I might have to reevaluate my aversion to the Seminoles and the Bulldogs.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [249] | 11/1/2005 10:50 PM
|
|
Five Catholics?
With Samuel Alito’s nomination to serve as the fifth Catholic on the Supreme Court, I thought it worthwhile to catch up with what the Catholic law professors over at Mirror of Justice were saying. Here’s one post, with links to this one (on the changing face of conservatism) and this one (a joke). In general, it’s noteworthy that the evangelical George W. Bush is nominating a second Catholic after a failed attempt to nominate an evangelical (Michael McConnell, by the way, is an evangelical). At MOJ, Thomas Berg offers one explanation--that the conservative Catholic talent pool is deeper than that of conservative evangelicals, since the former have been attending elite institutions for at least a decade longer. That’s plausible, but I wonder if there’s another explanation as well--that the Catholic tradition is much more conducive to the development of legal doctrine. The good news for evangelicals in these matters is that the common causes in the culture wars are bringing together folks from all sides of the traditional Protestant-Catholic split, and providing for interesting cross-fertilization, as is evident here and here.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [6] | 11/1/2005 9:27 PM
|
|
Are the Dems Newt-ering Themselves?
News this afternoon is that Democrats have forced the Senate into a secret session, which can be done without consent or a majority vote, to complain about the lack of investigation into the origins of the Iraq war.
The Brave Sir Harry Reid (hat tip to Brave Sir Robin of Monty Python fame) probably thinks he’s emulating the confrontational style that served Newt Gingrich so well in is drive to gain a Republican majority in the House ten years ago. More likely Reid is just neutering himself in much the same way the GOP did in 1998 by overdoing the Clinton scandal. Or at least so thinks Glenn Reynolds.
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [13] | 11/1/2005 3:42 PM
|
|
Cheery News
Just heard on ABC Radio news that according to a Gallup Poll, 81 percent of Americans are not paying attention/don’t care about Prince Charles and Lady Camilla’s visit to the U.S. The American republican tradition lives!
Cheerio.
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [202] | 11/1/2005 3:05 PM
|
|
Leahy on Alito
Ken Masugi has nothing nice to say about this speech by Patrick Leahy, who doesn’t sound like he will be voting for Samuel Alito. Leahy presents himself as a constitutionalist, defending the President’s prerogatives against extremists in his own party. And he claims to be able to define what constitutes the mainstream, not only of the Republican Party, but of the nation as a whole. Ken is right: it won’t work, but only if Alito is defended on the level of principle.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 11/1/2005 11:58 AM
|
|
Better late than never
While Jim Wallis’ book, God’s Politics, is no longer as ubiquitous as the author himself, Doug Bandow’s review, just published, remains timely, above all because he makes a strong case for the role of prudential judgment in applying Biblical principles, such as they are, to politics. Bandow himself has a book on this subject. Hat tip: Hunter Baker.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 11/1/2005 11:21 AM
|
|
Why We’ll Like Him
Jonathan Adler’s WSJ op-ed explains why those interested in the rule of law should be pleased with a Justice Alito. As Adler notes, Judge Alito "is not a dogmatic conservative; his record shows a man more interested in getting the law right and faithfully applying applicable precedents than scoring rhetorical points or advancing an ideological agenda. As he commented in an interview earlier this year, ’Judges should be judges. They shouldn’t be legislators, they shouldn’t be administrators.’" Adler concludes: "We may not all agree with all of [Roberts’ and Alito’s] decisions, but we will respect their judgment, appreciate their analyses, and admire their commitment to the law." Read the whole thing.
Posted by Nathaniel Stewart | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 11/1/2005 9:39 AM
|
|
Paris riots continue
Muslim youth were at it for the fifth night in a row; it has also "spread to neighborhood towns" (whatever that means). Also note this remark by Sarkozy, which I do not claim to understand (from the International Herald Tribune): "Sarkozy says that violence in French suburbs is a daily fact of life. Since the start of the year, 9,000 police cars have been stoned and, each night, 20 to 40 cars are torched, Sarkozy said in an interview last week with the newspaper Le Monde." Why is there no TV coverage of this?
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [18] | 11/1/2005 9:19 AM
|
|
Iraqi military
Jackie Spinner, writing in the Washington Post, gives the reader a little bit of the right flavor of what change of regime means from the ground up. Creating a new Iraqi military is hard work. What is persuasive to an Iraqi is not exactly duty, honor, country stuff, but rather, money, privilege, authority. The American grunts trying to teach the Iraqis some measure of responsibility are very impressive. For much more on such themes see Robert Kaplan.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [29] | 11/1/2005 9:09 AM
|
|
Let the debate begin
George Will reflects on the Alito nomination, and finds it satisfying, and considers the two most disreputable arguments made by Demos against Alito. Coming from the Left, David Corn argues that the Democrats must make a serious argument against Alito. The Senate Dems must argue that Alito would be bad for America.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 11/1/2005 7:47 AM
|
|
It’s official
E.J. Dionne, Jr. has become a spokesman for Moveon.org and all the other left wing interest groups, arguing, in effect, for a filibuster of the Alito nomination until the Bush Administration comes clean on all its misdeeds concerning the Wilson-Plame affair. The nomination of Alito is, in any event, a divisive (unlike the nominations of Breyer and Ginsburg) attempt to distract us from the real issues, which involve a self-important ex-ambassador’s attempt to discredit intelligence that the British government still endorses and the alleged outing of a covert agent whose husband was doing everything possible to call attention to himself and whose current status didn’t and doesn’t meet the requirement of the law.
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 11/1/2005 7:21 AM
|
|
The Classy DNC
Mike Krempasky of RedState collects the good on an unsigned, "not-for-attribution" memo circulating DC attacking Judge Alito for failing to secure the prosecution of a few Italian mobsters back in the 1980s. Just what are they trying to imply here, hmmm?
Trouble is, Microsoft Word documents can be unlocked to see their coding, etc, and it turns out this document was produced at the Democratic National Committee. Moreover, the document originated back in July. Who knows how many anonymous, "not-for-attribution" slime sheets the DNC has on file for all the other potential Court nominees.
What a classy bunch.
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [255] | 10/31/2005 9:37 PM
|
|
Riots in Paris
Here is the brief BBC on the fourth day of rioting in a Paris suburb; and this is the Reuters story on the same. Note that tear gas has been fired into a mosque, further aggravating the situation. How Sarkozy handles this matter may have everything to do with his political future.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 10/31/2005 3:17 PM
|
|
Alito is a good political move
I think that these few paragraphs from Stanley Kurtz (at The Corner) on why the Alito nomination is a winning political move for Bush and the GOP just about nails it in a few paragraphs. Harry Reid warned Bush not to pick Alito, by the way. Hugh Hewitt mentions that Jonathan Turley told Katie Curic that the Demos "will come out of the dugout on this one," and predicted a filibuster. Kurtz thinks that should that happen it will be to the GOP’s long range advantage (i.e., 2006 elections). People for the American Way are hopping mad about this. The president of that outfit, Ralph G. Neas, said this: "Right-wing leaders vetoed Miers because she failed their ideological litmus test. With Judge Alito, President Bush has obediently picked a nominee who passes that test with flying colors." By the way, someone just said to me that if Alito is confirmed he will make the fifth Catholic on the Court. Is this true?
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [235] | 10/31/2005 9:36 AM
|
|
