|
|
| |
 |
|
| |
|
|
It's about #@#@** time that somebody stands from the rooftops and shouts that last week SEC Chairman Chris Cox saved the stock markets. When he issued his emergency rule, applicable to 19 leading financial firms, against "naked short selling" (promising to sell stocks at a low price that one not only doesn't yet own, but doesn't even have an agreement yet to borrow), and promised to ask the Commission to extend the rule throughout the market.... what happened? Well, despite all sorts of gnashing of teeth and wrongheaded criticism (including this absurd column by the WaPost's Sebastian Mallaby), the fact of the matter is that the markets, badly tanking up until then, staged an almost immediate rally -- big, bold, and deep -- which continues as of this writing. The Dow rose more than 200 points the very next day, and overall it is up something like 500 points since Cox's action. A number of news stories have directly tied the rise in the markets to Cox's action, but always buried deep within the article, and always in passing.
But it deserves headline-making attention. What this economy has needed for months has been part substantive corrections and partly a change in psychology. The latter, in circumstances of bank runs and panics, is often at least as important as the former. Cox's emergency order, substantive as it was (and it WAS substantive, and much needed, as will be the broader rule when/if it is issued), also completely changed the psychology at work, for the better. Combined with President Bush's announcement that he is rescinding the executive order against offshore drilling, which had the immediate effect of driving down oil prices (again, psychology at work -- or, rather, a change in outlook which is based on fundamentals but which acts through psychology), the Cox move may well be seen in retrospect as the turning point in this economic rough patch we've been having. Much more needs to be done, of course, most of it by policymakers in Congress or the administration who sometimes seem to want to do exactly the wrong thing -- but for now, Cox seems to have put a stop to the panic, reintroduced some much-needed cautious optimism, and also of course done the right thing substantively to ensure that buying and selling actually involves securities that exist somewhere other than in somebody's imagination.
Cox explains it all very well in today's Wall Street Journal.
But there's more to be said, from a political standpoint. A few months back, when Cox was enduring moronic criticism about supposed complacency during the Bear Stearns mess, the Chamber of Commerce took out a large ad in the Washington Examiner dedicated explicitly to singing Cox's praises. Few people in Washington enjoy such respect from such an important group. Cox also has the respect of the tech community for his sponsorship of the Internet Tax Freedom act and for all sorts of other tech-savvy actions during his years in public life. And he did yeoman's work as first-ever chairman of the then-brand-new Homeland Security Committee in Congress. It all makes one think that if he were even half as aggressive at running to the TV cameras as, say, Chuck Schumer is (any more than half as aggressive would be obnoxious!), he would be a familiar face in most news-watching American living rooms, with a well-deserved reputation as a steady hand in tough times.
Just saying.....
Posted By: Quin Hillyer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| July 23, 2008 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
SAN FRANCISCO — Neither State Senator Joe Simitian of California nor the state’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, bears much resemblance to Dr. Seuss's Lorax. But on Tuesday, like that fictional defender of the environment, they spoke for the trees.
Well, at least he's stopped pretending to speak for conservatives. (And, yes, George Neumayr did warn us about where this would all lead long ago.) Sigh. Ready for more? More than six months after two Santa Clara residents were convicted under a state nuisance law for letting their redwoods cast shade on a neighbor’s solar panels, the governor signed into law a bill that gives trees the right to grow as they please—as long as they predate any solar panels they might be shading. “I think we’ve demonstrated that there is nothing mutually inconsistent about trees and solar,” said Mr. Simitian, a Democrat who wrote the bill, shortly after the measure was signed on Tuesday. “I was frustrated by the tone of the debate at the outset—that it was somehow about trees versus solar. I thought it should be about trees and solar.” By all means, let's not throw trees into an unnecessary cage match with solar! More diplomacy! Of course, at the same time, there absolutely is something "mutually inconsistent" about trees and solar, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for a bill to define the apparently separate-but-unequal rights of redwoods to grow--which is maybe why we need to do this stuff in space. But neither Simitan nor the Governator can acknowledge basic facts because they might just muddy up the precious self-aggrandizing rhetoric. And Ahnold wouldn't have Time magazine calling him--along with that paternalizing bore Bloomberg--a New Action Hero.
Hey, for the record Governor, I liked you better in Commando.
Posted By: Shawn Macomber
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Asked about the National Enquirer story, Edwards says: "
"That's tabloid trash. They're full of lies. I'm here to talk about helping people."
Translation: The story is 100% take-it-to-the-bank true. As Byron York notes, the Enquirer probably paid sources to get the story, but the reporting looks solid. If the account of him being caught in a hotel rendezvous with Rielle Hunter was false, Edwards wouldn't be changing the subject, he'd be suing.
Mickey Kaus, who's been all over the Edwards-Hunter story from the beginning, wonders if the mainstream media can continue to ignore this story.
Posted By: John Tabin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
I stand corrected.
But kind of. If a newspaper is willing to be more unabashed in its reporting, whereas other newspapers are more restrained, the former can attribute errors to its tabloid style and not take a single hit. But then, you can't be certain that what you're reading is solid.
Hence my continued skepticism.
Posted By: J.P. Freire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Quin is right that Pawlenty would be a boring pick, but I wonder if that is precisely his attraction to the McCain camp. They know they can count on him to stay on message, and though he may not say anything memorable, he's unlikely to say something embarassing. He won't excite conservatives, or anybody, for that matter, but I wonder if the McCain team is operating more under the "do no harm" theory.
Posted By: Philip Klein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Um, J.P., none other that Mark Steyn sang the praises of the National Enquirer back in the gold old Clinton days.
"The National Enquirer has a better record on the O.J. trial that ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, et al.," he wrote in his April 1997 TAS column, in which he praised the tabloid press for its energy and resourcefulness, in contrast to the lazy, smug, and cowardly mainstreamers.
Posted By: Wlady
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
If this is true, McCain is making a mistake. Pawlenty turns off economic conservatives, for good reason, and REALLY turns off people who want more drilling and who dislike extreme environmentalist trend-chasers. He's boring as hell on TV. He says nothing memorable, ever (other than making awful references to his sex life with his wife). And I will bet a pot of homemade gumbo that he can't even carry his home state of Minnesota for McCain. And he has shown absolutely none of the right stuff to suggest he would be a good president if he were forced to step in. Overall, he's a total yawn. But (everybody, roll your eyes now), other than all that, he's okay.
Posted By: Quin Hillyer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Uh. Stacy, two words should make you skeptical: National Enquirer.
Posted By: J.P. Freire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| July 22, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
That's the angle the National Enquirer is pushing, saying that the former Democratic senator was caught in a rendezvous with his mistress -- the alleged mother of his "love child" -- at the Beverly Hilton. Of course, Edwards must have a perfectly innocent explanation for his meeting with blonde divorce Rielle Hunter, and this whole Enquirer story is just "completely untrue, ridiculous," as Edwards said of the magazine's original report about the alleged affair last year. Amazing that the Enquirer's reporters have nothing better to do than to smear innocent ex-senators like Edwards.
Posted By: Robert Stacy McCain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
This Rasmussen poll is an anomalous outlier, so I'm keeping a grain or two of salt handy, but -- holy kamoley! McCain 52, Obama 42 in Ohio! Given the parlous state of the Ohio GOP, which underwent a near-total meltdown in the 2006 midterms, if Ohio is solid for McCain, it would be the best news for Republicans in a long time. Other polls of Ohio have been mixed, but none has shown McCain leading by double digits in the state since last fall. It's possible that the Marc Dann scandal has hurt Democrats in Ohio -- a state which, it should be remembered, was won by Hillary Clinton in the primaries. A Detroit News poll showing a dead heat in Michigan and a tie in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll constitute still further evidence that Obama has problems stateside that are unlikely to be helped by his European excursion. The New Republic's Nate Silver notices the Ohio numbers and also sees American Research Group polls indicating a shift toward McCain in Florida and New Hampshire -- neither of which is in Europe or the Middle East.
Posted By: Robert Stacy McCain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Another interesting take from Katie Couric's interview with Barack Obama:Couric: You said not too long ago that Jerusalem should remain undivided. And then you backtracked on that statement. Does that play into the argument that some believe that someone more experienced would not have made that kind of mistake?
Obama: Well…if you look at what happened, there was no shift in policy or backtracking in policy. We just had phrased it poorly in the speech. That has happened and will happen to every politician. You're not always gonna hit your mark in terms of how you phrase your policies. But my policy hasn't changed, and it's been very consistent. It's the same policy that Bill Clinton has put forward, and that says that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, that we shouldn't divide it by barbed wire, but that, ultimately that is … a final status issue that has to be resolved between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Unlike her exchange with Obama about the "surge," Couric didn't ask any badgering follow-ups on this point. Obama's "phrased it poorly" explanation seems rather convenient. It was in a speech to AIPAC that Obama drew cheers for endorsing an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. And it was only after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said he "totally rejected" Obama's statement that the candidate "backtracked" (to quote The Washington Post) in a CNN interview. So, when speaking to an audience of pro-Israel Jews, Obama is staunchly pro-Israel, but then when the Palestinians complain, it's another one of those "under the bus" moments for which the Democrat has become notorious.
Posted By: Robert Stacy McCain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Ross Douthat has a short, thoughtful item up at the Atlantic. Like your humble servant, he notes that there is actually less daylight between the candidates on Iraq than before.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Matt Yglesias provides some charts from the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that show defense spending up and domestic discretionary spending down under President Bush, especially if you lump in all security spending with defense. I don't have much of a problem with defense increasing its share of federal spending while domestic programs shrink, because national defense is the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government. But I do have some problems with these figures. First, they use funding levels rather than actual expenditure levels. If you look at the money that was really spent as a percentage of GDP, you get different results. Second, looking at spending patterns from 2001 to 2008 allows Bush's resistance to spending by the Democratic Congress to cancel out the GOP spending binge of 2001-06. When Republicans had the greatest opportunity to control federal spending, they instead increased it virtually across the board.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
I always thought Katie was pro-Hillary, but never thought she was anti-Obama. Look at how she gets annoyed at his prevarications over the surge in Iraq:Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.
Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …
Obama: Yes.
Couric … would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible. (Via Marc Ambinder.) I mean, wow. I don't think Katie Couric has ever badgered a Democrat like that, and she seems clearly annoyed by Obama's habit of trying to talk about Afghanistan every time she asks about Iraq.
Posted By: Robert Stacy McCain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
It's nice that the Republicans have finally adopted a position that is both relatively conservative and relatively popular on an issue that voters actually care about -- energy. But I'm not as convinced as the minority leader seems to be that it is enough to say "drill," hope that John McCain wins with coattails to spare, and bank on individual members doing well at home. If Republicans had simply won back all the House seats in conservative districts they lost due to ethics issues in 2006, they would be a third of the way back to a majority. Instead retirements, poor recruitment, and abysmal fundraising has probably put this goal out of reach. It's at least as likely at this point that House Republicans will be knocked back to their pre-1994 levels. If the Republicans were to hold onto their current numbers or even make modest gains, that would put them in the position that the Democrats were in throughout the 1990s -- continually within striking distance. Even then, it still took the Democrats twelve years to retake Congress. A loss of another ten, twenty or thirty seats will make it very difficult for Republicans for the forseeable future. That's why some kind of strategy, even if the conditions are not right for a Republican majority in 2008, is so necessary. Relying on your members to know their own districts is fine for a majority party that can afford to be complacent, but won't do anything for a party seeking to return to the majority. I suspect Boehner probably knows all this on some level. When Al Regnery asked him what congressional Republicans would do if faced with a President Obama and a Democratic Congress, he didn't exactly reject the premise out of hand. Neither was he willing to make a concrete prediction as to how well the congressional Republicans would do, other than to say "better than expected."
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
House Minority Leader John Boehner spoke to a group of journalists about energy, the state of the Republican Party, and the 2008 elections earlier this afternoon, as part of The American Spectator's Newsmaker series. Boehner's talk comes after he went on what was billed as an "energy tour" of the United States in a bid to boost American-made energy production. The tour brought him to Alaska, where he learned that energy production could proceed in an environmentally safe manner. But although there is a majority in Congress who would support more domestic production, the Democratic leadership is blocking a vote to avoid putting their members in a tough spot. During the question and answer session, I asked Boehner to respond to conservative critics who argue that the Republican Party still hasn't learned its lesson from 2006, and that it's still addicted to earmarks and wasteful spending.
"What I've tried to do over the last 18 months is to rebuild our team. Rebuild our team on Republican principles. And if you look at what we've done to stand up to wasteful spending, whether it was the supplemental last year or the supplemental this year, the end of the year fight on the omnibus spending bill, we worked closely with our Senate colleagues and the White House and held the line on spending." He also noted supporting Gen. Petraeus and the surge strategy, and blocking the expansion of S-CHIP. I followed up by asking why, if his main focus is on rebuilding the team, Rep. Jeff Flake, who is one of the leading opponents of earmarks in Congress, was denied a slot on the Appropriations Committee when one opened up early this year. "The steering committee decided that another member was more qualified for the job," Boehner responded. "The steering committee made that decision. A lot of people think I control the steering committee. I wish I did, but I don't." Michael Barone asked Boehner about the prospects for Republicans in the fall elections, and Boehner said that he thought House Republicans would do better than expected, and that John McCain would do better than expected. In response to another question, he said that he expected Republicans would do well in 23 or 24 of the roughly 30 seats being vacated by retiring Republicans, but he said he wouldn't deny that a few would be "tough." Jim Antle asked followed up by asked what the overall strategy was for retaking Congress or at least mitigating losses. Boehner said that because it is a presidential election year, there were no plans to nationalize the Congressional elections, but instead, they are encouraging each candidates to tailor their message to their own districts. He also said that Republicans are on the right side of the energy issue. UPDATE: Dave Weigel has more.
Posted By: Philip Klein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
One argument against Jindal as running mate is that it might encourage more diversity-mongering from the melanin-obsessed MSM, e.g., the Washington Post:Second, and more positively for McCain, naming Jindal would be a major symbolic step in fundamentally re-branding the Republican party. Jindal, an Indian-American, would put a whole new face on a party that is widely seen by voters as controlled by old white men. Just look at how much ponderous "what it all means" punditry has been unleashed by Obama's campaign. Jindal's status as one of the sharpest young politicians in the GOP is qualification aplenty, but it's obvious that Big Media would use his candidacy as an excuse for more such annoying "historic significance" blather.
Posted By: Robert Stacy McCain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The question is how one defines victory and whether that definition is broader than simply hoping for the election of people with R's next to their name regardless of what, if anything, they actually do in office. I agree that a lot of young conservatives are too cavalier about the consequences of unified Democratic government, especially at a time when the Democratic Party is more homogeneously liberal than it has ever been. I'm from Massachusetts -- I know one-party liberal Democratic rule and Republican minorities very well. It is a political development best avoided. But it is undeniable that conservatives have won by losing before: the Goldwater debacle of 1964, Gerald Ford's loss being followed by Ronald Reagan's victory, and George H.W. Bush's defeat being followed by 1994. Should conservatives have accepted Rockefeller Republicanism and tried to move it in the right direction? Some influential conservatives at the time, like James Burnham, thought so. And the answer was by no means as clear then as it seems in retrospect: the 1964 LBJ landslide took out a lot of congressional Republicans, paving the way for disastrous Great Society liberalism. At least some of these Republicans might have survived with Nelson Rockefeller at the top of the ticket. The GOP recovered somewhat in 1966, electing one Ronald Reagan governor of California, and liberalism went totally mad in 1968. Conservatives and Republicans would profit from a certain amount of house cleaning. The challenge is to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That and to avoid mixing metaphors.
Posted By: James Antle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Quin, I was merely chronicling the situation, examining the "is" and leaving the "ought" to others. In truth, there are not a few elders who've wondered whether the GOP might not benefit from a swift kick in the hindquarters (e.g., a certain "veteran communications operative" who shall remain nameless).Having only abandoned my own hereditary Democrat yellow-doggism circa 1994, I sometimes feel like the world's oldest young conservative, as headstrong and enthusiastic as any College Republican or YAFer. On the other hand, I'm occasionally astonished by the arrogance and impatience of some 20-somethings, who seem to believe that anyone who hasn't become a regular on Fox News by age 30 is a failure. I've joked that my next book will be titled I've Got Ties Older Than You: Now Shut Up and Get Me a Cup of Coffee, Kid. Beyond the issue of the current election, the brewing struggle between conservatism's Old Guard and its Young Turks is an important development. UPDATE: Just noticed an interview with Jon Henke, the brilliant 30-ish online operative who was brought into the George Allen '06 campaign after the "Macaca" incident in a belated effort to stem the blog damage and subsequently became New Media strategist for Senate Republicans. Henke says: Our view is that the Right is in many ways broken, and we need to rethink what the brand is, what the strategy is for the coalition, what the coalition itself looks like, and our tactics . . . how do you use the Internet, how do you organize people and mobilize them, how do you sell the message, how do you frame the message. Henke has definite ideas, but I've never seen him exhibit the know-it-all arrogance of some of his peers.
Posted By: Robert Stacy McCain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Our own good Mr. McCain has been posting some interesting things about young conservatives hoping for a loss. My message to them is the same, I think, as Stacy's: Grow the bleep up. Anybody who thinks a loss is EVER better than a win is nuts, when it is the nation's future we are talking about. Too much damage can be done in four years for it to be safe to hope for some sort of "cleansing" experience from being forced to the outside. Now it is a good thing to turn a defeat into something positive by regrouping and rethinking and re-working, but that does NOT mean, not at all, that the loss itself is a good thing, but only that one must always try to make the best of a bad situation by trying to improve rather than sulking in defeat. But it would be better to be trying to improve while still in some position of authority than it would be to improve while in no position of authority, especially when the opposition/Left is SO much worse, so much less responsible, than it was in years past.
As the professor said at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, What DO they teach these children in schools these days?
Posted By: Quin Hillyer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
