Gaming Florida

A reality check from Ambers:

HRC won, if you’ll recall, 49 to 33. Can Obama exceed 33% of the vote? That’s his floor — and the floor for his expectation. He is almost certain to improve on this number, which would, under certain circumstances, give him the equivalent of a moral and perceptual victory in the state.

What worries Obama managers in Chicago is the timing: if Florida is seen as a real re-do, and if the media portrays it as a wide open contest, a clear Clinton victory would give her a big bounce of momentum right as the primary window closes.

Danny And Me

An online chat with the Times of London’s Danny Finkelstein. I’ve know Danny for a long time and used to be just to his right. Anyway, I try and explain why a self-described small-c conservative likes Obama. I guess I should reiterate that I am undecided about the general election if it turns into a McCain-Obama battle. There are aspects to both men that I deeply admire. Oddly, I find McCain more persuasive on domestic policy and Obama more realistic when it comes to foreign policy. But I can’t be the only person relieved that this may be our choice this fall. It’s about the best outcome one could have hoped for six months ago.

Quote For The Day

"Would I want Hillary answering the red phone in the middle of the night? No, bloody not. The White House first responder should be a person of steady, consistent character and mood — which describes Obama more than Hillary. And that scare ad was produced with amazing ineptitude. If it’s 3 a.m., why is the male-seeming mother fully dressed as she comes in to check on her sleeping children? Is she a bar crawler or insomniac? An obsessive-compulsive housecleaner, like Joan Crawford in "Mommie Dearest"? And why is Hillary sitting at her desk in full drag and jewelry at that ungodly hour? A president should not be a monomaniac incapable of rest and perched on guard all night like Poe’s baleful raven. People at the top need a relaxed perspective, which gives judgment and balance. Workaholism is an introspection-killing disease, the anxious disability of tunnel-vision middle managers," – Camille Paglia, cheering so many up.

How Many Over-Wrought Cliches …

… can you fit into one sentence? A reader forwards this:

Eliot Spitzer’s tumultuous tumble from the zenith of a promising political career to the nadir of a shocking sex scandal came as no surprise Wednesday as the bright, bull-headed governor announced his resignation, effective Monday, under bloating pressure from state lawmakers and the public.

Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

The real point of what I’m sure has been a flood of criticism should be this; don’t always conflate the unintended consequence with “misadventures in big government.”

I think many would argue that the mortgage industry worked remarkably well until recently. But then something seemed to happen. A round of deregulation coupled with record low prime lending rates. What wasn’t to like? New and innovative mortgage products and low monthly payments for everyone. And not a regulator in sight to sour the party atmosphere. So why is anyone surprised at the size of the hangover?

What galled me about the Jacoby column is that it attempted to lay the blame for the sub-prime mortgage mess at the feet of a program (Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) designed to redress a very specific issue of discrimination. We can all debate the program’s success, and whether Congress should have even been the vehicle to tackle “redlining.” But Jacoby, and by his quotation DiLorenzo, tried to link the current debacle to the CRA without even discussing simple things such as a correlating trend of increasing foreclosures. Go back to the Jacoby column for a moment. He mentions interest only loans as one of the risky mortgage products. I agree completely. But I know several realtors and until recently, say the 1999-2000 timeframe, they tell me that an interest only loan was a rarity. Now this is anecdotal information, but a more convincing argument would have addressed this issue with some backing statistics. And I did go look for DiLorenzo’s article about the CRA which provided more detail, but no statistics as backup that I could find.

What is ironic is that government does need to be watched. Unrestrained growth in government programs is dangerous, not to mention expensive. But you can’t expect to win these debates by latching onto something as unlikely as a direct link between the CRA and the current sub-prime meltdown.

The Clintons and The Gays, Ctd.

A reader writes:

It is important to note, and try to comprehend why, Bill Clinton would totally de-gay his 950-plus page name-dropping autobiography, "My Life" (Knopf, 2004).

The index of "My Life" is one giant gay redact. Why would Clinton not mention at least one of the positive gay stories from his Presidency? Why wouldn’t he at least mention his appointment of the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador James Hormel? Not a word in the book about Ambassador Hormel. Why wouldn’t he include his naming the first openly gay person to be confirmed for a sub-cabinet post by the Senate, that "damn lesbian" (Jesse Helms), Roberta Achtenberg?

You would think standing up to Jesse Helms’ bigotry might have been considered an interesting and positive anecdote.  Not there.  But Clinton does have time and space to mention that Helms held up the nomination of  Bill Weld to be ambassador to Mexico.   Why couldn’t Clinton summon up the grace to mention his longtime gay friend and supporter– when it counted—David Mixner.  Nothing in the book about Mixner. He is not listed in the index. The first-ever openly gay or lesbian Assistant to the President, Virgina Apuzzo, is not mentioned; nor is Daniel Montoya, an openly gay man who was named Executive Director of the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV/AIDS. Fred Hochberg, the first openly gay person to be appointed Deputy in a cabinet level agency (Small Business Administration), was not mentioned.   Richard Socarides was not mentioned; he was the openly gay liaison to the gay and lesbian community. Bob Hattoy, a well known supporter and part of the Administration, is not mentioned in the index. Vic Basile, a gay leader, and Peace Corps Liaison is not mentioned. White House Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan is not mentioned. Keith Boykin, whom Clinton sent to Zimbabwe, not mentioned. 

All of these people were openly gay and supporters of President Clinton; and many of them were involved in situations that were significant challenges, even triumphs, for President Clinton.

Bob Hattoy once summed up the Clintons’ approach to gays in their time in the White House in one phrase: "It’s the economy, faggot." The other phrase that springs to mind is: "How much money can they raise"?

What If?

Ezra:

Obama is not a woman, nor a white man. He’s who he is. To say that if he were different, things would be different is to say nothing at all. As a white woman, maybe he would have led a military coup and established himself dictator. Who knows!? Hell, if he were a slightly less inspiring speaker, or had an off-night at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he wouldn’t be in this position either. Similarly, if Hillary Clinton were a black man, it’s unlikely that she would have been a national political figure for the past 15 years, as it’s unlikely that she would have married another man from Arkansas, and unlikely that the country would have put an interracial, same sex couple in the White House. But so what? This is an election, not Marvel’s "What If?" series.

Scales. Eyes. Clintons.

Marc Lynch:

What pushed me over the brink was the Clinton campaign’s treatment of Samantha Power.  Not because she’s a personal friend – I’ve never met her – but because of the deeply ugly implications of Clinton’s decision to burn a well-respected, decent, intelligent Democratic Party foreign policy advocate to secure a momentary political advantage.

I’m still amazed so many people are surprised. Do they not know who the Clintons are?

A Conservative Of Doubt

David Mamet comes out. So good to see that he understands the core conservative idea:

If the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?

I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience. I referred to my own—take away the director from the staged play and what do you get? Usually a diminution of strife, a shorter rehearsal period, and a better production.

I use exactly the same analogy in The Conservative Soul.

Looking Back

A reader writes:

Last night, I sat reading Gordon W. Prange’s fine book "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor" when I came across a passage that made me think of how far we’ve fallen in the years of the Bush administration.

The passage relates that "in later days Yoshikawa [a Japanese agent in Hawaii] frequently spoke of his fear of the FBI" and that perhaps "he equated the FBI with Japan’s sinister Tokko ("Thought Police"), which had an unpleasant habit of arresting and "interrogating" suspects with no such details as evidence, warrants, or habeas corpus to cramp their style."

It’s a sad state of affairs when one can read about the "sinister" methods of a past totalitarian, militaristic regime and see things that the government of the United States of America is doing today.  Once our nation fought against such atrocities, but now we can only look back and see ourselves.