"David just does a Vulcan mind meld with his candidates."Worth reading in full.
...
"There are very few people who happen to be white who are sensitive and willing to give their all and commit themselves to candidates of color," says Dennis Archer, the former mayor of Detroit and one of the many black mayoral candidates who relied on Axelrod's services. "Some come in with a pejorative sense and treat the candidate in a pejorative way, and you don't have the full, committed respect that David has displayed."
I was having dinner in Greenwich Village this evening and saw a thirtysomething guy with an Obama button--and a "Viva Chavez" T-shirt praising "Bolivarian Revolution." I asked him if the Chavez he was endorsing was Hugo (as opposed to Cesar, Linda, etc.) He said yes, so I asked him: "Are we going to have a Bolivarian Revolution here in America next month?" He said sadly, "Obama says all kinds of bad things about Hugo Chavez"--here he perked up--"but you never know!" I'm not being McCarthyite in recounting this (definitely not Joe, not even Andy)--I'm just pointing out that while every racist or other kook who backs McCain is going to be treated as a symptom of a horrendous and endemic Republican pathology, the other side has its share of extremists too...But it's telling that Potemra felt the need to specify "I'm not being McCarthyite." It's sort of a tacit acknowledgement that others in the Republican party are, in fact, being McCarthyite. Coming from NRO's Corner, that's about as strong of an "admission" of such wrongdoing as you're going to get...no mention of Bachmann's latest 7 minutes of fame yet, when it's huge news.
It is a hard thing, being right about everything all the time. Nobody likes a know-it-all, and we wait for the moment when the know-it-all is wrong to insist that he never really knew anything in the first place. The know-it-all, far from living in smug superiority, has the burden of being right the next time, too. Certainly no one has ever been so right about so many things so much of the time as John Stuart Mill, the nineteenth-century English philosopher, politician, and know-it-all nonpareil who is the subject of a fine new biography by the British journalist Richard Reeves, “John Stuart Mill: Victorian Firebrand." The book’s subtitle, meant to be excitingly commercial, is ill chosen; a firebrand should flame and then die out, while Mill burned for half a century with a steady heat so well regulated that it continues to warm his causes today—“Victorian Low-Simmering Hot Plate” might be closer to it.The whole thing is worth reading.
Mill believed in complete equality between the sexes, not just women’s colleges and, someday, female suffrage but absolute parity; he believed in equal process for all, the end of slavery, votes for the working classes, and the right to birth control (he was arrested at seventeen for helping poor people obtain contraception), and in the common intelligence of all the races of mankind. He led the fight for due process for detainees accused of terrorism; argued for teaching Arabic, in order not to alienate potential native radicals; and opposed adulterating Anglo-American liberalism with too much systematic French theory—all this along with an intelligent acceptance of the free market as an engine of prosperity and a desire to see its excesses and inequalities curbed. He was right about nearly everything, even when contemplating what was wrong: open-minded and magnanimous to a fault, he saw through Thomas Carlyle’s reactionary politics to his genius, and his essay on Coleridge, a leading conservative of the previous generation, is a model appreciation of a writer whose views are all wrong but whose writing is still wonderful. Mill was an enemy of religious bigotry and superstition, and a friend of toleration and free thought, without overdoing either. (No one has ever been more eloquent about the ethical virtues of Jesus of Nazareth.)
All of which makes trouble for a biographer. Every time we turn a corner, there is Mill, smiling just a touch too complacently at having got there first. Admiration for intelligence and truth easily turns into resentment at the person who has them; Aristides the Just was banished from Athens because people were fed up with hearing him called Aristides the Just.
Well, with all due respect while Mill was in many ways the greatest of liberals, there was quite a bit he wasn't right about. He was, for one thing, a supporter of imperialism and the civilizing mission of Europeans in Asia and Africa. And it's not quite accurate to say that he believed in "votes for the working class". The fact is he wanted to dilute the expansion of the francise by giving the economic and political elite extra votes: if your smart or rich, he thought, you should have more votes than the average person. So, a great man, but not right about everything.
An Immelmann is a precise aerobatic maneuver in which an airplane performs a half-roll to reverse its direction. A Bachmann is sloppier but more spectacular: To perform a Bachmann, a candidate for Congress puts her foot in her mouth, talks stupidly for seven minutes and watches her reelection campaign burst into flames.Good to see some hope for the Republican party; hopefully someone like him can give Tinklenberg reasonable opposition in '10.
Michele Bachmann, Minnesota's Sixth District member of Congress and former bush-hiding peeker on gay rights rallies, exploded on the cable TV show "Hardball" Friday, questioning Barack Obama's patriotism and suggesting that all 535 members of Congress be investigated to determine which ones are "anti-American." Immediately, money began flowing to the campaign of her main opponent on Nov. 4, Elwyn Tinklenberg, who has both DFL and Independence Party endorsement, as well as at least $800,000 in campaign contributions he didn't have before Bachmann pulled her early Halloween "Fright Night" on MSNBC. But she did more than get Tinklenberg revved.
She put herself in the sights of an Immelman again.
Aubrey Immelman, 52, is a psychology professor at St. John's University in Collegeville, Minn., who ran against Bachmann in the Republican primary. He finished second, with just 14 percent of the vote, but he got his campaign off the ground again Saturday by announcing he will run as a write-in candidate on Nov. 4 in the hope of knocking Bachmann out.
A South African immigrant to the United States who chose Minnesota for the great walleye fishing and the great colleges, Immelman has taught at St. John's since 1991. He calls himself a moderate Republican and says he supported Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000, but opposes the disastrous turn in U.S. foreign policy that followed the Iraq war.
"I gave up everything to come here, which is why I feel so strongly about the direction my country has been taking," he said Monday. "I'm a proud, patriotic American. And I cannot tolerate this festering brand of neo-McCarthyism Michele Bachmann is pushing."
Someone slashed the tires of at least 30 vehicles parked outside the Crown Coliseum on Sunday during a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, authorities said.
Sheriff's deputies are investigating. The tires were cut while people were inside the Crown Coliseum listening to speeches, said Maj. E. Wright of the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office...
Sarah Revis, who lives on Wilkes Road, said the slashed tires left several women, including a single mother and a toddler, stranded and upset. At least four tow trucks were sent to move the vehicles from the Crown, Revis said.
"This is an embarrassment to this city and to me as a citizen," Revis said. "I've seen women out here crying and men cussing. This is a crying shame."
Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration - and revulsion over today's Republican Party.I'll let the "rigidly liberal Obama" slide, since only kooks believe that, insofar as they also consider it an epithet. But hmm, "no animosity toward McCain" ? That might have described me on 26 June 2008, and definitely way back in 2000. But it doesn't describe me today. From Powell's endorsement, he feels the same way about the McCain camp's robo-calls etc. but doesn't want to go after his friend personally. But he was disturbed by the Palin pick, of course, as is any informed person who is not a Christianist or Republican hack.
From the endorsement today:Colin Powell is my kind of Republican. He would be a much better presidential or vice presidential candidate than McCain and Palin. If the rest of the party were more like him, they'd have my vote. Alas, a Republican like Powell cannot run for a presidential-level office because of the pro-choice litmus issue that's killing the Republican party.I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said such things as: "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is: he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.
But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be President?
Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion: he's a Muslim, and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
Powell went on to say that he "feels strongly" about that point, and cited a photo essay he saw regarding U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan which included a photograph of a mother in Arlington National Cemetary with her head on the tombstone of her 20-year-old son, who was awarded a Purple Heart and Bronze Star and was killed in Iraq, and the photograph showed the headstone adorned with the "crescent and star of the Islamic faith," and his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, a Muslim-American (I believe this is the soldier to whom Powell was referring).
There has been much condemnation over the "Obama-is-a-Muslim" line of GOP attack, but almost all of it has been on the ground that the attack is factually false as applied to the Christian Obama, not on the ground that it is a reprehensible and dangerous line of attack even if it were factually true. Powell bears much of the responsibility, and always will, for the horrific U.S. attack on Iraq (one which, just by the way, resulted in the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims), but he deserves credit for using the platform he had this morning to go out of his way to make this vital point when doing so was not necessary (and perhaps not even helpful) in advancing the cause of his endorsement of Obama.
That being Muslim or Arab is a mark against someone's character is now so ingrained in our political culture that it is hardly noticed any longer. When John McCain, at that rally in Minnesota last week, sought to chide his supporter for asserting that Obama is an "Arab," McCain did so by pointing out that, in fact, Obama is a "decent family man" -- as though that proves that he's not "an Arab because "decent family man" is the opposite of "Arab":
Later, another supporter told McCain, "I don't trust Obama...He's an Arab."
McCain stood shaking his head as she spoke, then quickly took the microphone from her.
"No, ma'am," he said. "He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with." '
It's debatable whether McCain actually intended to express the point that way -- whether he intended to imply that the opposite of "Arab" is "decent family man" and "citizen" -- but regardless of McCain's intent, that was how the point was expressed, and it received little attention.
A major enabling factor in convincing the population to support unnecessary and brutal wars -- and to perceive the "need" for endless expansions of federal surveillance and other police powers -- is the demonization of large groups of people both inside and out of the country. The Right's ongoing, intense obsession with demonizing Muslims and Arabs is, for that reason, not only repulsive but also quite destructive. The core of the Republican Party has degenerated into the unrestrained id of its worst impulses, and it was good to see Powell specifically cite (and condemn) those elements as a principal reason why he is turning away from the party he has served for so long and supporting the Democratic nominee.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president, describing the Illinois senator as a "transformational figure."NYT: here
Powell says both Obama and Republican John McCain are qualified to be commander in chief. But, in an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said Obama is better suited to handle the nation's economic problems as well as help improve it's standing in the world.
Powell expressed disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, as well as in his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee. Powell says he does not believe Palin is ready to take over as president, if necessary
"I think Sen. McCain as gifted as he is, is essentially, going to execute the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda with a new face and a maverick approach to it. I think we need more than that. I think we need a generation change. My sole concern is where are we going after January 20, 2009."Excellent, he called out Bachmann too! See here for info on that race and a donation link.
"I'm well aware of the role I played; my role was straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war, and the president agreed with that and tried to go through the UN. And it didn't work, and I supported the president. And it looked great...but then [it went bad] and now it's starting to turn around."
On McCain's ads: "It troubled me. Those kind of images going out on Al-Jazeera are killing us around the world. This business from the congresswoman from Minnesota saying, let's examine all congressman to see who is pro-American or not pro-American."
He just announced it on Meet the Press. More soon.
Late Update: Powell elaborated on his decision in a Q-and-A with reporters moments ago. He said he'd concluded that we need a "fresh set of ideas" and a "fresh set of eyes."
While he praised McCain's "maverick" ways, he added: "I think we need more than that," asserting that we need a "generational change" in leadership.
Powell said he'd arrived at his decision within the past couple of months.
Notably, he specified that "decisions that came out of the conventions" played a role in his decision, strongly suggesting that McCain's choice of Sarah Palin cost McCain the chance of Powell's support.
Also interesting was Powell's claim that the two men's response to the economic response played a role. He said that gave him an opportunity to evaluate the two men's "judgment" and way of "approaching a problem."
He praised Obama's "calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach to problem solving."
Late Late Update: Looks like McCain's robo-sliming didn't help matters much -- Powell also said on Meet the Press that they'd "gone too far."
Like I was saying, $50 from ten thousand people on the internet can become serious money in one of these smaller congressional races. You can join me in donating to Tinklenberg here. Let's send these people a good old-fashioned American message -- all the cool kids are doing it.The campaign of El Tinklenberg, the Democratic challenger against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), announced today that they've raised about half a million dollars in the time since she let loose on Hardball with her claims that Barack Obama may be anti-American and that the media should undertake a full investigation into which members of Congress are anti-American.
Tinklenberg still faces an up-hill battle, though, as this district voted 57%-42% for George W. Bush in 2004. So the question for him is whether there has been enough of a turn against Bush Republicanism -- and especially against Bachmann's extreme version of it -- for him to pull off an upset.
Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and [Obama is] worried that someone won't read them their rights.
Technically, this lie originates in her speechwriter and his team, as I imagine Palin hadn't the faintest clue what habeus corpus meant. Still, that alone should be enough to disqualify her from the presidency: even with the "best" advisors, it's difficult to uphold a constitution you aren't familiar with. Exhibit A: George W. Bush. I've said before that her answer and false statement means she should at the very least explain herself in an interview. So far, nothing, so I can only assume she's not even aware of her mistake and actually thinks Obama is worried about "reading the terrorists their rights". That's simply unacceptable when dealing with one of the most important presidential-level issues of our time (the Bush administration's attempt to deny habeus rights by sequestering suspects at Guantanamo Bay).Obama isn't worried, as Palin said, "that someone won't read them their rights" when it comes to suspected terrorists who are detained by the U.S. He does, however, support the right of detainees to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. That's the same position the Supreme Court took in June in a case called Boumediene v. Bush.
PALIN: I think you are a cynic because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no affect, on climate change.A previous position of hers, in her own words:
"I'm not a doom and gloom environmentalist like Al Gore blaming the changes in our climate on human activity."The problem with calling this a lie is that we don't know precisely what she meant by "blame". The most I can ascertain for certain is that her prior position ("not one to blame") is disingenuous, ignorant, or both.
Of course it’s true that there’s a contrast between those portions of Virginia that are part of Metro DC and the rest of the state and probably correct to say that the rest of Virginia is “more Southern in nature.” But still, lots of folks live in Northern Virginia. They’re perfectly real people. And they live in real places. And progressive candidates with their base in NoVa won the governor’s mansion in 2001 and 2005 and the Senate election in 2006, are poised to win the state’s other Senate seat in 2008 and currently are winning in the presidential sweepstakes. It all seems real enough to me.If he loses Virginia, McCain has to win a blue state like Minnesota or Pennsylvania plus hold on to all of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Missouri. He cannot win otherwise.
I strongly believe that adding [polar bears] to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. And there is no evidence that polar bears are being mismanaged through existing international agreements and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Even though it was a lie, for my part I'm still impressed that something she wrote appeared in the NYT.Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears ... An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.
When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.
From Anchorage Daily News, the lie:Back when she was increasing the long-term debt of the town of Wasilla by 69 percent, Mayor Palin also fired the town's police chief and librarian, Irl Stambaugh and Mary Ellen Emmons. The accusation was that they were fired because they had supported her opponent in the previous election. Palin denied any political motivation. But whatever the merits of the firing, what is salient is Palin's reflexive instinct when confronted with the fact.
The truth:Reached at her home ... Palin said she planned to meet with Stambaugh and Emmons this afternoon. She also disputed whether they had actually been fired. ''There's been no meeting, no actual terminations,'' she said.
Stambaugh's response was to read part of the letter given to him. ''Although I appreciate your service as police chief, I've decided it's time for a change. I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment. . . . '' ''If that's not a letter of termination, I don't know what is,'' he said.
"Palin didn't need Greek columns. People react to her because they believe she represents what the Greeks established." --Kathryn Jean LopezK-Lo outdoes herself... again.
Ach, okay, I'll wade back in to this debate one more time, because I think Mark Steyn has slightly mistaken the thrust of this post.Thanks for missing the point, Steyn, as it gives the rest of us the pleasure of reading Douthat, once again:
Sarah Palin's Alaska is not the conservative cocoon. Neither is Tim Pawlenty's Minnesota, or Mike Huckabee's Arkansas, or any other place out in flyover country where a populist conservative became a popular and successful governor. The cocoon is the constellation of mutually-reinforcing conservative institutions - think tanks and advocacy groups, talk-radio shows and websites - that can create the same echo-chamber effect that the liberal media has long produced, and that at times makes it difficult for the Right to grapple with reality. The cocoon is the place where it took an awfully, awfully long time for conservatives to admit that the post-2004 crisis in Iraq wasn't just a matter of an MSM that wouldn't report the good news. The cocoon is the place where conservatives persuaded themselves, in defiance of most of the evidence, that the reason the GOP lost Congress in 2006 was excessive spending, and especially excessive pork. And today, the cocoon is the place where conservatives are busy convincing themselves that Sarah Palin's difficulties handling high-profile media appearances aren't terribly important, that her instincts are more important than her grasp of national policy, and that the best way to defeat Barack Obama is to start with the lines that Palin has used on the stump - Ayers, anti-Americanism and ACORN - and take them to eleven.That's Douthat for ya: one of the most eloquently sane conservatives with his eyes wide open.
So when I say that a populist conservatism needs elites, what I really mean is that it needs elites who can step outside this cocoon and see national politics more clearly - whether they work for conservative outlets, MSM outlets, or something else entirely. This is not, I repeat not, a matter of listening to Beltway conventional wisdom instead of the practical wisdom of the heartland. It's a matter of recognizing political realities, instead of denying them outright - whether you're in DC, New Hampshire, or Wasilla. The Sarah Palin who ran for statewide office in Alaska appeared to understand this, which is why she seemed like such a promising figure to me months before McCain selected her: As governor, she was conservative and pragmatic, right-of-center and anti-ideological. The trouble is that since she's burst on to the national stage, she's entered a right-wing world that's bent on, well, cocooning her - telling her how great she is regardless of whether she gets up to speed on policy and handles Katie Couric's questions, feeding her lines that appeal primarily to the segment of the electorate that's already in conservatism's corner, and calling out anyone who criticizes her as a cocktail-swilling elitist.
Again, these voices are doing her no favors. If you don't think Sarah Palin should listen to people like David Brooks, fine - there are other conservative thinkers whose views differ from Brooks's particular strain of right-of-centrism, but who share his interest in policy and (more importantly) his understanding of the straits the GOP is in. But she needs to listen to someone who won't just say, as Steyn does, that all she - or conservatism in general - needs are "a few sharper moose gags" to get things back on track.
In her speeches, Sarah Palin routinely and repeatedly uses the phrase: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." In the McCain-Palin ads, the claim is that she "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."The truth:
In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform,[101] attacking "spinmeisters"[102] for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere"[101] and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[103]
About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals, a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain,[104] and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding.[105] Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government[106] and is spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned.[101] Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.[107]
Much has been made in the media about 'respecting' a person's religion. This is especially occurring as of late in the United Kingdom where Muslim immigrants are demanding accommodation and respect for their religious beliefs, which are many times at conflict with existing law and regulation. Though, not to pick on Muslims, there have been cases involving nearly every religion conceived by man, where a belief system is expected by its followers to be held in esteem by all, follower or not.As a matter of public policy, I of course respect everyone's right to believe as they wish.
A circumstance of birth, which many times dictates what particular religion one adheres to, is not a factor that demands respect. Nor is a 'choice' to follow centuries old mythology a means to earn respect. If a religion holds to certain tenets, it is not the obligation of all humans on the globe to treat these beliefs with reverence. Religious beliefs are a personal matter that do not require all to pay heed, only the believers, and trying to impose your beliefs on others only indicates a level of insecurity with knowing there are those who think differently than you. A secular society endorses no religion, or lack of religion, it is neutral in the area of faith leaving open the choice of beliefs to the individual... not the state.
Respect your own faith and show it reverence by keeping it a private matter, doing so will illustrate you are confident and secure in your beliefs without the insecure need to ask others to conform as well. If you follow a religious text that requires your government to adhere to certain tenets, it would follow that moving to a secular country where all are free to choose a personal creed is not going to provide the established theocratic rule required for your beliefs. A better option would be to seek out and reside in a country that would provide the rule of law that conforms to the scripture of your faith.
In a converse situation the theocracy will not bend for the immigrated secularist, nor should it. It is not the role of any government to capitulate to every new citizen by altering law and regulation to conform to individual creed.
Palin stated on July 17 that Monegan was not pressured to fire Wooten, nor dismissed for not doing so:[114][117] "To allege that I, or any member of my family . . . directed disciplinary action be taken against any employee of the Department of Public Safety, is, quite simply, outrageous."The truth:
On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without officially endorsing,[135] the Branchflower Report in which Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority,"[136] and that Palin abused her power as governor by violating the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act[137] when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired."[138] The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."[138][139]
CHICAGO—In a surprising refutation of the conventional wisdom on opinion entitlement, a study conducted by the University of Chicago's School for Behavioral Science concluded that more than one-third of the U.S. population is neither entitled nor qualified to have opinions.
"On topics from evolution to the environment to gay marriage to immigration reform, we found that many of the opinions expressed were so off-base and ill-informed that they actually hurt society by being voiced," said chief researcher Professor Mark Fultz, who based the findings on hundreds of telephone, office, and dinner-party conversations compiled over a three-year period. "While people have long asserted that it takes all kinds, our research shows that American society currently has a drastic oversupply of the kinds who don't have any good or worthwhile thoughts whatsoever. We could actually do just fine without them."
In 2002, Fultz's team shook the academic world by conclusively proving the existence of both bad ideas during brainstorming and dumb questions during question-and-answer sessions.
a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the nigger!"
Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the nigger."
In this economy, racism is officially a luxury. How is John McCain going to win if he can't win those voters?
Political Browser | washington
graph_large.jpg)
