Category: The Dish

Yuval Levin on McCain’s 2013 speech:

…the speech, and the accompanying ad released today, was organized around a description of how the country will look in 2013, after McCain’s first term. This puts him in the odd position of talking in the past tense about the future, which both causes his promises to sound more arrogant (if not naïve) than they have to and robs him of the forward looking rhetoric a speech like this could lean on (that of, for instance, Barack Obama). The ad, with its prominent "2013" theme, makes this problem particularly evident. It is frankly reminiscent of this recent spoof of Obama. Why not speak about these goals as things you want to achieve, and tell us why the agenda as a whole suits the needs of the moment? Surely those needs, as McCain understands them, would make for a more coherent narrative than remembrances of days to come.

The Tennessee GOP goes after Michelle Obama in a new ad:

The Obama camp fires back. This is part of what’s coming. If you cannot beat him on issues, beat up on his wife. Are the kids next?

A boycott is afoot because of boobage on Starbucks’ retro logo.

Contra Noam, Rick Hertzberg thinks the McCain Obama unmoderated debates are a great idea:

Obama’s biggest advantage, even bigger than all that no-strings Internet money, is that the policies he advocates are far more appealing than McCain’s. A face-to-face, man-to-man debate, unsullied by preening moderators determined to prove their toughness and boost ratings, would almost have to focus on policy.

It’s true that Obama has been just O.K. in most of the Democratic debates, especially compared with his performance in set speeches. But that probably reflects (a) the lack of serious ideological and policy differences on the Democratic side and (b) Obama’s relative reluctance to go for broke in intraparty debates, which tend to focus on marginalia and in which one candidate’s “victory” sometimes comes at the expense of his or her party’s ultimate prospects. By contrast, the legitimate differences between Obama and McCain are vast. Their debates will be zero-sum games. Obama will no longer have any reason to hold back. On every issue, he has a case to make. McCain doesn’t. Plus, he’ll be somewhat hobbled by having to defend policies he doesn’t really believe in (such as extending Bush’s tax cuts for the superrich), doesn’t really care or know much about (such as his announced proposals for health care), or hasn’t had to defend against serious opposing arguments (such as Iraq).

Matt Welch is having none of it.

Bob Barr, who wrote DOMA, supports the California ruling on federalist grounds. Meanwhile, a very sharp analysis here. Money quote:

The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the correct way to characterize the fundamental right question is whether there is a fundamental right to marry from which same-sex couples are unconstitutionally excluded, rather than, as the state argued, whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The court referred to Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, its landmark 1948 ruling striking down the state’s law against interracial marriages. In Perez, the court had not treat the question as whether there was a fundamental right to interracial marriage; rather, the question was whether different-race couples were being wrongly denied the fundamental right to marry.

Sane conservative Steve Chapman makes two obvious points:

Most economists believe that in the long run, the 2003 cut in the capital gains rate reduced revenue rather than raising it. For that matter, even the Bush administration’s budget admits as much. Keeping the rate at 15 percent rather than letting it revert to 20 percent, it estimates, would cause a revenue loss of $79 billion over the next decade…

A low capital gains rate hinders the free market by inducing people (especially very wealthy ones) to find ways to take earnings as capital gains instead of ordinary income. In other words, it encourages them to do things that would not make economic sense otherwise. A modestly higher rate would discourage such wasteful avoidance.

If we could cut real spending, i.e. defense or entitlements, I’d be eager to keep taxes where they are. But at some point, we cannot keep deferring debt to the next generation. McCain seems to have forgotten this. Or rather pushed it out of his mind for political reasons.

Chris Crain warns:

Expect gay marriage opponents to ask the court to postpone the effective date of its order until after November, so that they can put the question to voters.

The California court cited the 1948 Perez v Sharp anti-miscegenation law ruling prominently in its decision today. If you believe that courts should have no role in opposing public opinion in areas of social policy, then the polls at the time make for interesting reading. Ten years after the 1948 ruling, Gallup fund that 94 percent of white Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. As late as 1967, when Loving vs Virginia was decided, a majority opposed it. That remained the case through the 1970s. In fact, the Perez v Sharp ruling was fifty years ahead of public opinion.

Yes he can! From his remarks today, an Obama-like theme:

If I am elected President, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. I will listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse. I will seek the counsel of members of Congress from both parties in forming government policy before I ask them to support it. I will ask Democrats to serve in my administration. My administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. I will hold weekly press conferences. I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them.

He’s also hoping to reduce our presence in Iraq drastically in his first term:

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.

Most? So we’re down to less than 70,000 troops by then?