Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
The Good, the Money and the Need
As most of you know Andrew Sullivan announced yesterday that he had raised almost $80,000 in a week-long on-line fundraiser, with over 3,000 people contributing to his worthy enterprise. This is important for two reasons. First, it shows that quality on-line journalism can be profitable (and the more primitive forms, from CNN to The New York Times, will have to pay more attention to bloggers). Second, it shows that attempts like ours can, eventually, become profitable (or at least pay for the necessities!). No Left Turns has only been at this since October 15th and we plan to be pontificating for a very long time. We will bring you some of the best, most interesting, and most high minded political and social commentary from some of the most thoughtful people in the country. But, there are costs involved. For now, we are fudging all that according to the Schrammian principle that the good will eventually be rewarded! We assume that if we talk folks will listen and, eventually, will contribute what they can towards our efforts. If you are willing to throw a few bucks our way even now, you may go here to do so. Thank you.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 12/20/2002 12:55 AM
|
|
The Long National Nightmare Is Over
AP reports that senior GOP sources close to Lott confirm that he will step down as Majority Leader, but will remain in the Senate.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [5] | 12/20/2002 11:15 AM
|
|
The Frist Momentum
The New York Times has this report on the move that Frist seems to be making. And here is the AP story. Note that Senators Warner and Alexander and Allen also seem to be aboard.
It is clear that this gambit will work, and Lott will be pushed out. Robert Alt’s warning about Frist’s imperfections should be noted, there will be many things to be worked out. My view is, first things first, so to speak.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 12/20/2002 9:28 AM
|
|
Real Corruption, not Mere Shadow
Today’s paper, filled as usual with holiday spirit, contains several examples of real corruption -- not the post-modern Common Cause kind that speaks of inchoate "access" or improper feelings of "gratitude" for political support.
No this is the good stuff, teacher’s union officials using Union dues funds for fur coats and Tiffany silver. LINK.
Or another installment in the continuing story of former Ill. Gov George Ryan’s administration, the exchange of bribes for licenses, then the use of that money for campaign contributions. LINK.
There’s also a story about a local investor who bilked numerous prominent Washingtonians out of their investment funds, including apparently columnist George Will. Unfortunately, I can’t find the link on the WaPo web page.
Now I’m no Blackstone, but my guess is that the conduct in these matter was prohibited at common law. Moreover, despite the fact that individuals still persist in this conduct, I do not see an uproar over the failure of our laws to "prevent" these bad acts, or the need for the federal government to take over areas traditionally governed by the states.
(Oops! Did I say something about States Rights? According to E.J. Dionne, I did. LINK).
Back to the point, it seems like we could recognize that some people are crooks, will commit crimes, and need to be apprehended and punished. That can be done without outlawing entire areas of legitimate activity - you can punish the extortionist, fund diverter, and defrauder without criminalizing investment advice, private unions, or political fundraising. That’my big thought for the season - happy holidays.
Posted by Allison Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 12/20/2002 9:34 AM
|
|
Palestinians Continue to Support Suicide Bombings
This is a pretty depressing piece of information : 63% of Palestinians support suicide bombings; Arafat is still the most trusted man (25%) while Hamas leader Yassin comes in second (11%). Yet, 83% of Palestinians think that there is corruption in the Paletinian Authority.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 12/20/2002 9:23 AM
|
|
Frist’s Race Problem
If you thought Lott’s statements on affirmative action on BET were bad, what about a program which seeks to impose a predetermined level of diversity not in admissions, but in graduation. According to a policy analyst in DC, this is precisely what Frist proposed about four years ago for, of all things, medical schools. The program would have given a big pot of money to schools which met proportional graduation goals, creating incentives to consider race not just in admission, but in grading. Leaving aside the legal arguments and even the non-legal arguments associated with race--do we really want incentives for medical schools to simply give a pass to any student?
Frist now appears to be the front-runner for Majority Leader. If he wants to show that he is a leader on the racial issues which have provided the impetus for him to become leader, he must explain whether he still supports such a policy.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 12/20/2002 7:20 AM
|
|
Piling on Lott
It has become clearer by the end of this day that Lott will not be able to hang on. Not only have Inhofe, Nickles, and Thomas called for new a new leader, but, most important Frist said this:
"I indicated to them that if it is clear that a
majority of the Republican caucus believes a
change in leadership would benefit the institution
of the United States Senate, I will likely step
forward for that role." Of course the supporters of Lott will warn that this means that the White House is going to be selecting the majority leader of the U.S. Senate--since it seems obvious that Frist is Bush’s preference--and isn’t that a dangerous thing, etc. Well, actually no, not if the distinguished senators need a little boost to set their part of the government in order. Besides, it is arguably the case that they’re back in the majority because of the White House. Maybe this could be the start of a real political party where there is some accountability and responsibility. It looks as though Bush is willing to take on that task. May he prosper.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 12/19/2002 7:43 PM
|
|
Social Science at its Best
Reuters reports on a study about to be published in the British Medical Journal. "Researchers from Austria and Canada selflessly analyzed the bodies of
centerfold models in 577 consecutive issues of Playboy, from the
magazine’s launch in 1953 to December 2001." And these diligent social scientists "found that models’ weight had remained steady, but their bust and hip
measurements had decreased and their waists had thickened." This is social science at its best.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 12/19/2002 7:19 PM
|
|
Military Killing Sleep?
Both Frederick the Great and I have tried it (without success) and now the military is trying to figure out a way not to enjoy the honey-heavy dew of slumber for about a week. See this ABC report.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 12/19/2002 2:18 PM
|
|
More on Lott
I have been missing in action for most of the week because I’ve been up at the Cleveland Clinic with Vicki. She had her surgery and all is well! Thanks for your concern, she appreciates your good will. Much good has been written on NLT on this Lott matter by others, so I will not (for now) add much to it except to send you to a good article by Mac Owens from the Ashbrook site. I do not think Lott can survive this (and I hope he doesn’t). This is very chaotic at the moment and not in the Republican Party’s interest since Lott (and others) are kowtowing to group based politics. However, the game is by no means finished. I have reason to think that a great deal of good might come out of it all: The GOP will have to talk about these matters and make the case for the basis of individual rights. They have always shied away from this because they were afraid; they now have no choice. And the President will have to take the lead; I am betting that he will because he must, both for the sake of right and for his own preservation. I trust his (and Rove’s) judgment on this matter.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 12/19/2002 1:46 PM
|
|
Rallying on behalf of the Gipper
Time magazine’s premier race-baiter Jack White attacks Reagan as a racist this week in a completely scurrilous piece. I have offered a refutation today on National Review Online, which you can read here
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 12/19/2002 10:23 AM
|
|
Clark Entertains Presidential Bid
Here is an interesting article suggesting that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark is weighing a presidential bid on the Democratic ticket. As the article suggests, a Clark candidacy would give the Dems an asset they lack: a potentially strong and credible voice on national security and foreign affairs.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments | 12/19/2002 8:48 AM
|
|
And How Did You Get Elected in Arkansas, Mr. Clinton?
President Clinton entered the Lott fray, accusing the Republican party of being hypocritical for criticizing Lott. CNN reports that Clinton said of Republicans: "How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway?" While he attempted to back up the statement with allegations of attempts to suppress Black voter turnout, the presumption inherent in his initial question seems to be that to be elected in the South, you must appeal to racism. Which begs one question: how is it that you think you got elected in Arkansas, Mr. Clinton?
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments | 12/19/2002 8:02 AM
|
|
Lott and the Michigan Case
The New York Times editorializes this morning that the Bush administration should offer a brief to the Supreme Court in favor of affirmative action, especially in light of Lott’s recent statements:
With Trent Lott’s recent remarks casting doubt on the Republican Party’s commitment to racial equality, there is more reason than ever for the administration to stand up for affirmative action.
They just don’t get it. Just because one member of a party makes an comment which tacitly supports a discriminatory policy does not mean that the proper response is counter with a Justice Department brief in favor of yet another racially discriminatory policy. Two equal protection wrongs do not make a right, particularly where, as here, the affirmative action policies are not tied to any notion of remedying the present effects of past discrimination, but are offered as justified in their own right.
The Times concludes:
In its brief to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration should say willingly what Mr. Lott said under pressure — that it sees carefully drawn affirmative action programs as the best way of opening up opportunity to all Americans.
This, of course, is one of the major problems with affirmative action policies for the sake of diversity at universities: they are not "carefully drawn." It took this lawsuit to get the University of Michigan to abandon its previous admissions policy, under which 100% of White applicants were rejected with entrance GPA and SAT scores in ranges which garnered minority groups approved for preferences nearly guaranteed admission. The new admission policies, while more subtle in their discrimination, are discriminatory nonetheless.
But of course the Times and liberal supporters really don’t care if it is carefully drawn or narrowly tailored. To demonstrate the point, I was on a cable talk show in New York about 6 years ago discussing the Hopwood case, which struck down the admission system at the University of Texas. The Texas system was so blatant they had zones in which applicants were automatically admitted or denied based on nothing other than their scores and race. They even color coded applications so that there was no mistaking which admissions pool the applicant fell into. The leader of a liberal advocacy group who was on the panel with me dismissed the practices at Texas, saying (and I paraphrase) "oh, well that activity was always impermissible. We are concerned with upholding narrowly tailored programs." While this may have been an accurate statement of what was or should have been required under the Equal Protection Clause, it was not an accurate statement of the public views of the group, which had opposed us in the Hopwood litigation--that is, they supported the "always impermissible" policies of the University. Similarly, I do not recall the Times ever saying that an affirmative action plan at a university was wrong because it wasn’t closely tailored, at least not before a court struck the program down. Let us then be serious: the affirmative action policies at universities are not carefully or narrowly tailored, and the Times does not care if they are, so long as the end numbers come out right.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments | 12/19/2002 7:24 AM
|
|
Kristol on Coy Republicans
Bill Kristol has a wonderful piece in today’s WaPo on the problem of Republican leaders’ coy response to Lott. He wonders:
The hints and the feints and the background quotes are getting tiresome. Isn’t Republican honor in danger of turning into dust? And, if the evasions continue until Jan. 6, won’t the lusty exuberance of the president’s remarkable Nov. 5 election triumph be reduced to ashes?
It is a must read, particularly for Krisol’s reference to Churchill on the "boneless wonders" who wander freak shows and the halls of government.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments | 12/19/2002 7:19 AM
|
|
How Big Should the DC Circuit Be?
The Post runs an editorial this morning calling for the Judicial Conference to examine whether the DC Circuit needs 12 judges before Bush sends nominations for the 11th and 12th seats. The question arises because members of the Senate and D.C. Circuit Judge Silberman have long argued that 10 is enough. Whatever the final count is, the court is currently understaffed, with by my count 8 sitting judges. Look for Senate Democrats to attempt to use this as an issue to block Estrada to the ninth position, saying that the study on the size of the circuit should be done first--despite the fact that no one disputes that there is a need to fill at least two more judgeships.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 12/19/2002 7:13 AM
|
|
Lott Lashes Out at White House
The signs of desperation are growing. WaPo reports that Lott was critical of the White House for leaks which are unfavorable to him. Note to the soon to be ex-Majority Leader: leaks are the nice way of saying "In the name of God, Go!" Those with a modicum of sense and reflection would take that hint (and probably would not have made the offensive statement at Strom’s party, for that matter). If the White House stops speaking on background, they are likely to start speaking on the record. Take a hint.
In the race for Majority Leader, the Post suggests that some Republicans felt that Nickles statement calling for Lott to step aside was opportunistic. Frist therefore is playing it cool, and using the classic line that he would only run if he was recruited by Republicans. Translation: he’s probably campaigning behind the scenes more than anyone for the position.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 12/19/2002 7:07 AM
|
|
Technical Difficulties
The site was down most of the morning due to technical problems with the server. Our apologies to those of you who could not get through sooner.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 12/18/2002 3:26 PM
|
|
