Month: July 2008

A devastating critique of the incoherence and impossibility of McCain’s proposals on health, taxation, the budget and education.

The Iraqi government gets even clearer:

"It can be 2011 or 2012," al-Dabbagh said. "We don’t have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline."

Eric Martin notes:

What does it say of McCain’s argument for staying in Iraq that the alleged opposition to our long term presence from the elected government is simply a political move to bolster its support? That is, our continued presence is so unpopular that even our allies are forced to pretend that they oppose us in order to secure votes in upcoming elections. That doesn’t sound like a position that we can maintain long term. Even if Maliki can dupe the Iraqi population this election (assuming, ex arguendo, that that is his intention), how many times can he pull that stunt? And will he survive long enough, politically, for a redux?

If Maliki is genuine, McCain’s stance is wrong. If Maliki is politicking, as McCain suggests, McCain’s stance depends on how long Maliki can keep the bullshit coming.

Ezra reports on why there won’t be a repeat of 1994:

…this year, the Left is organizing first. They’re raising money first. They’re mounting a grassroots strategy first. They’re building the pressure coalitions first. SEIU has pledged a separate $75 million to the cause of health reform. The Obama campaign’s e-mail list and grassroots movement could prove a latent legislative organizing force. Added together, you’re looking at a simply fearsome organizing drive. It may, of course, prove insufficient. But unlike in 1994, it won’t be non-existent.

Conor Clarke writes:

…it does not seem obvious to me that a politician who changes public positions has less "character" than one who avoids changing positions long after the evidence has turned against him merely to avoid the appearance of being a softie. One kind of politician panders to the public’s appetite for particular policy positions. The other panders to the public’s appetite for politicians who can avoid the appearance of pandering.

Derbyshire goes after the creationist Discovery Institute.

Much has been written in the last few days on Helm’s racism. Weigel details his other kind of bigotry:

The anti-gay angle of the campaign was meaner still. Let’s remember what "gay rights" meant in 1984. Gay marriage wasn’t on the table, nor was gay adoption, or anything you could designate as "special rights." Helms favored legislation that criminalized gay sex. He attempted to override a 1981 Washington, D.C. law that legalized it. This was what Helms was attacking when he cudgled Jim Hunt, repeatedly, for taking money from gay groups. The Helms campaign bought blocks of ads in a local tabloid called The Landmark, funding a steady campaign of claims that Hunt had made common cause with the "faggots, perverts, sexual deviates of this nation." Still, too subtle. The Landmark hit paydirt when it bolstered a whisper campaign in the state about Hunt’s own sexuality.

Wiegel concludes:

I can understand the argument for the "Hands" ad: Gantt, after all, had benefitted from racial preferences on a mid-80s business deal. I’d love to hear the conservative or libertarian case for letting your political foe be smeared as a "fag." (And it’s not like this type of smear stopped in 1984.)

The fact that almost no one on the right even mentioned Helms’ disgusting, murderous homophobia after his death is telling. It was as deep as his racism. Can you imagine if a leading politician had said about Jews what Helms said about gays? And yet the president simply ignores it and calls Helms "decent." He wanted to throw me in jail for my relationship and deport me for being HIV-positive. That’s decent?

Mark Blumenthal tears apart an AP/Yahoo poll on dog lovers allegedly favoring McCain. It’s almost a case study in misleading statistics.

Here’s a story to cheer you up:

L.F. Eason III gave up the only job he’d ever had rather than lower a flag to honor former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms. Eason, a 29-year veteran of the state Department of Agriculture, instructed his staff at a small Raleigh lab not to fly the U.S. or North Carolina flags at half-staff Monday, as called for in a directive to all state agencies by Gov. Mike Easley. When a superior ordered the lab to follow the directive, Eason decided to retire rather than pay tribute to Helms. After several hours’ delay, one of Eason’s employees hung the flags at half-staff.

Eason is 51. Retirement was not imminent.

Ross responds to my post:

Let’s look at what the Cameron Tories are actually proposing: A tax allowance of roughly £1000 a year for parents who stay home with their kids, front-loaded per-child tax benefits that offer parents £2800 a year while their kids are below the age of three, and increased tax credits for low-income parents, which would offer 1.8 million British couples roughly £1600 a year. Translate those pounds into dollars, and those population figures into an American context, and you’ve got a set of proposals that might be slightly less pricey than the $5000-per-child tax credit and the (fiscally unspecific) notions of benefits for stay-at-home parents we propose, but that are certainly in the same general ballpark – and that actually go further than our basic proposals (though not our ideal ones) in terms of directly discriminating in favor of marriage.

The current exchange rate helps Ross’ argument, but Cameron’s proposals are still less expensive but more directed toward pro-marriage discrimination. (I might add I believe in the state encouraging civil marriage as far as possible. It’s good for all of us.) I prefer Cameron – but Ross’ point is well-taken about the "same general ballpark," which was, I might add, the general thrust of my argument. Reihan puts it less cautiously:

If Cameron embraced an agenda like the one outlined in Grand New Party, he would likely be accused of being a libertarian radical hellbent on destroying the most cherished parts of Britain’s welfare state.

But this is largely a function of where Cameron starts from in a much more collectivist Britain, especially in healthcare and education, as Reihan concedes.

"Although Obama is likely to be more vocal about issues of racial discrimination as president than he has been as a candidate, his speeches about the importance of strong families and the responsibilities of parenthood carry a decided echo of the gospel according to a certain Mr. Cosby. In this sense, instead of sparking a revolution in black political strategies and agendas, an Obama presidency might simply lend further weight to increasingly frequent suggestions that the old knee-jerk response of treating most difficulties facing black Americans as a product of white racism has long since grown stale and counterproductive," – James C. Cobb, Spalding Distinguished Professor of History, University of Georgia, Athens.