Month: November 2008

Michael Gerson manages to write a column about George W. Bush’s humane side without noting that this president subjected, by lawless fiat, countless individuals to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, tortured at least two dozen individuals to death, and launched a war where hundreds of thousands of innocents died because of his negligence and hubris. Yes, PEPFAR is an achievement. But set against the legacy of the first American president to authorize torture against mere suspects, to adopt the techniques of the Khmer Rouge and the Gestapo for the US, PEPFAR is sadly overwhelmed.

No president’s record – in its treatment of helpless prisoners under his total control – has ever been as indecent as this president’s. Gerson was an integral part of the administration that brought torture into the American system of government. He has yet to address this – and the challenge it presents for Christians in particular.

Jacob Sullum considers the meaning of Washington’s new assisted suicide law.

Robert Rapier studies Obama’s plans:

I think Obama’s choice of Secretary of Energy is going to be a strong indicator of whether he is going to declare open warfare on the oil companies, or whether he is going to try to work with them.

I have seen Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell floated as a possible candidate. I think that signals that open warfare is the direction, as Rendell has been quite a demagogue over the oil companies. As I documented before, Rendell is someone who doesn’t seem to see the connection between the ‘drive anywhere, anytime’ mentality and high gas prices. He wants to have the convenience of hopping in his suburban to drive two blocks, and then he wants to punish the oil companies because prices are too high. He actually wants to reward the people who drive the most. Fundamentally, I don’t think Rendell has an understanding of the nature of the problems we face.

Bradford Plumer has more on Obama’s energy challenges.

Ramesh is the lone voice of reason over at the Corner:

…if it is true that Gov. Palin did not know that South Africa was a country on the continent of Africa, it is the type of information that voters should know before her career progresses. And I don’t think, by the way, that most people on the Left fear her.

He expands upon this point here. He also has a smart post on the future of the right. I know it’s close to incredible that Palin was quite the know-nothing that she is, but you have to deal with the truth before you dig any further in.

A reader writes:

Don’t underestimate the impact Emanuel’s background is having on some people.  Within hours of announcing the pick, a friend of mine–a well-educated Jewish professional who voted for McCain because of concerns about Rev. Wright and Israel–emailed me, excited about the pick.  My wife’s grandfather–a Florida Jew who also voted McCain for the same reason–emailed me his Wikipedia page within minutes.  Emanuel’s a Modern Orthodox Jew, the son of an Irgun member, and volunteered as a civilian for the IDF during the first Gulf War.  His Israel credentials are every bit as impeccable as Alan Dershowitz’s.  Obama just calmed thousands of Jewish voters who were anxious about Israel and Iran, and sent a message to the world that he won’t be a pushover in the Middle  East.

I wonder how many other "anti-Semites" Obama will be filling his White House with.

Because they aren’t going to last:

Oil prices will rebound to more than $100 a barrel as soon as the world economy recovers, and will exceed $200 by 2030, the International Energy Agency will say in its flagship report to be published next week.

I sure hope so. Nothing less will jump-start the non-carbon revolution. Bradford Plumer has more.

This would be a huge mistake:

I hope advocates don’t make other, more radical claims.  I’ve heard people talking about arguing that Prop. 8, when combined with either the suspect class status of sexual orientation or the fundamental nature of the marriage right, requires that civil marriage be rescinded entirely, with presumably only a  non-discriminatory civil union status remaining.  The technical merits of the claim aside, I can’t imagine a judge accepting it.  More importantly, that argument strikes me as a public relations catastrophe: after arguing for months about the importance of marriage it would be seen as a scorched earth policy of denying the right to everyone rather than continuing the hard work of obtaining the right for ourselves.  I can’t imagine lawyers pressing this argument, and I hope they don’t.

My advice to the marriage movement: educate, speak, reach out. Stop the litigating. Resist the impulse to revel in victimhood. It may be justified and I certainly know how it feels, but it doesn’t change any minds. That’s what we have to re-focus on. And that’s the only reason we have had the success we have had. Patience, diligence, charity: these are what a civil rights movement needs to stand for.

An addendum to my post on 538:

…it’s also worth remembering that Silver’s statistical model was entirely dependent on other people’s polling data. This doesn’t detract from his accomplishment – it’s just a healthy reminder that even new media gurus depend on traditional reporting more than we’d like to admit. It’s a fairly banal observation, but the future of internet-based media probably involves some sort of symbiotic relationship with more traditional outlets. Which is basically a long way of saying that you should still subscribe to newspapers.

I said as much during my recent NPR appearance. Blogging needs the MSM and vice-versa.

A reader writes:

I completely agree with your larger point, but your reference to the Couric interview is off.  Couric was later – she interviewed Palin the same day McCain suspended, which was well after the Lehman collapse.  But you’re right about the turn coming before Lehman, and about much of it having to do with the growing awareness that Palin was a fraud. 

What fed it was several things: (1) Couric’s interview with Charlie Gibson ("In what respect, Charlie?"); (2) the press beginning to call the McCain camp on its blatant falsehoods — particularly the purported "thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere and McCain’s sex-ed ad; (3) the derisive reaction to the Republicans’ faux outrage over Obama’s lipstick on a pig comment; and (4) McCain’s appearance on The View on September 12, where he was called out for lying, and lied some more.

I’ve corrected the original post.

Toles again puts it as well as anyone: