The Dish

TaB still exists – barely.

Mark Steyn makes a predictable jab at Barack Obama’s defense of his foreign policy credentials. Here’s what Obama said:

"My experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I mean, I’m somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. You know, I majored in international relations."

There’s no question that Obama needs major work in foreign policy. But he is obviously better informed at this point than, say, George W. Bush was in February 1999. And Obama’s internationalist pedigree seems to me a golden opportunity for the United States.

I don’t think many Americans have fully absorbed yet what the Bush administration has done to America’s soft power abroad, to the moral reputation of America, to the respect that many around the world once had for America’s democratic institutions, even if they differed from U.S foreign policy. Bush’s torture and detention policies, his cringe-inducing diplomacy, his proud lack of interest in other cultures and societies has deeply weakened this country’s international clout. Electing a half-African president, with Hussein as a middle name, who attended school in a Muslim country: it’s almost a p.r. agent’s dream for America. It would instantly give this country a fresh start in the world after the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years. It isn’t enough: Obama will need skills and determination in the terror war. But soft power helps; and Obama would put it on steroids. As for youth, Tony Blair was 43 when he became prime minister; Obama would be 48. What’s the problem?

(Photo of Obama’s formal – and exhilarating – announcement today by Scott Olson/Getty.)

The White House confirms Rove’s remark on immigration, one of the biggest gaffes in a long, long time. The MSM has nothing on it. Losers. Can you imagine if Pelosi had said it? Drudge would have a siren.

Giuliani is not, pace the NYT, gently shifting to the "right" on abortion and marriage. As best I can tell – and Ann Althouse has done more spadework here – he’s simply favoring a federalist answer to divisive, difficult, social and moral questions. As readers know, that’s what I’ve been favoring for quite a while as a small-c conservative truce in the culture wars. There truly is no need to forge a national consensus on issues like abortion and marriage. That’s why I’ve long opposed Roe and supported states’ rights on the issue of marriage equality. I don’t think Alabama is ready to have the same rights as California or Massachusetts. I feel sure they will one day, just as they eventually dropped slavery and bans on inter-racial marriage. The South is a very conservative place. Forcing them to move more quickly on issues of basic human dignity has historically led to even worse spasms of hatred, as Virginia has shown in the last decade in its vicious legal campaign against gay people.

It seems to me that if the conservative coalition is not going to fracture completely, then federalism is its only option. That way, centrists like McCain, Romney and Giuliani can actually become Republican presidents. Romney, of course, has tried to solve this problem by the most blatant, ugly and naked piece of political cynicism since Hillary focus-grouped her hair. But Giuliani is smarter. For him to adopt the anti-gay bigotry of the GOP base would not be smart politics. Ditto on abortion, where his position is mine: a personal abhorrence for abortion but a reluctant acceptance of its legality in the first trimester, combined with serious efforts to reduce its incidence. Opting to use federalism as the mechanism to allow the social conservatives to support him on other issues like national security and a more competent government, while personally supporting women’s freedom and gay dignity, is extremely smart politics.

I think Rudy is the best and most viable candidate the Republicans now have. Scandal may still derail him; but his tolerance, sense of fun, respect for alternative views on abortion, and connection with urban America should be regarded as assets, not liabilities for an increasingly marginalized GOP. Sure: appoint judges who think poorly of Roe. But let the states decide the substantive policy decisions on marriage and life.

And give McCain the Pentagon. They need him.

(Photo: Nicholas Roberts/AFP.)

I still haven’t quite recovered from losing Tab. But I’d forgotten all about Surge. Someone with too much time on their hands documents a love affair with defunct sodas. Pepsi Raging Razzberry? Yep, it existed.

Arlington, Virginia, 12.02 am.

Sandy Levinson wonders whether there is anything to be done about the risk of Dick Cheney becoming president.

Should our defective Constitution be amended to allow the removal of a vice president whenever, in the opinion of Congress, (s)he has demonstrated good cause for doubt about the capacity to fill the Oval Office? Many persons have attacked my argument for bounding a President on a "no-confidence" vote because, among other things, it would be destabilizing. I disagree, but reasonable arguments can be found on both sides. Why would any serious person, though, believe that it would be destabilizing to bounce a demented, delusional, quasi-fascistic vice-president whose habitation of the White House and gain of the vast powers of the presidency with regard to foreign policy and military affairs would quite literally threaten us all?

A more salient question is: what would be the real difference in policy between Dick Cheney being vice-president as he now is and his formally occupying the Oval Office? We may have to wait for history to tell us.

African-Americans are far more homophobic than any other racial grouping in society. That goes for the young as well, according to this new survey, where hostility to gay people is almost double that of young whites and hispanics. Karl Rove was onto something.

It can be tough being emotionally correct on campus:

Friends who know me weren’t surprised to learn that my Zionist boyfriend and I broke up last summer shortly after Israel began dropping bombs on Lebanese children. But the friends who really knew me were surprised to learn that I had even dated a Zionist to begin with.

In my defense, I thought he was just Jewish when it all began – a progressive one who was white but had tendencies for black supremacy. Politically, we aligned well, so I figured that he’d automatically agree with my stance on Israel-Palestine…

But my new progressive boyfriend, who was supposed to help me save the world, would stop short at any criticism of the Israeli government’s racist, oppressive policies. And wha’’s worse, he would sometimes defend them by saying things like that the land was up for grabs because the Palestinians never had an official state to begin with.

Man, you really think you know your white Jewish boyfriend with tendencies for black supremacy.

Tendencies for black supremacy? Is that a euphemism for something?

I’d like to know:

"I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

Mark Krikorian has not withdrawn the report on the Corner; although others have queried it. It’s a very big story if true – because it higlights the deep faultline in the GOP on immigration. Surely NRO should provide more sourcing or retract it forthwith. Or are they not in the business of fact-based commentary?