Saturday, May 01, 2004

 

Real Clear Politics has some analysis of a CBS poll and what the results mean for the campaign.

Even after oversampling Democrats (35%) and Independents (36%) and undersampling Republicans (29%), CBS/NYT got the following result: Bush up 2 points on Kerry (43-41) in the three-way race among registered voters. I'm pretty sure that's not what they expected.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:08 PM 0 comments

 

Here's a line to chill your soul. "Clinton is forever."

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:05 PM 0 comments

 

Robert Novak floats the name of Joe Biden as a Veep choice for Kerry. I can see the slogans now: Vote for the Flip-flopper and the Plagiarist. Great.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:01 PM 0 comments

 

Atlantic Monthly has an interview with Bernard Lewis, the premier expert on the Arab world. He makes Islam sound almost Lockean. Would that it were so.

What about democracy? How compatible is it with Islamic law and custom?

Well, there are certain elements in Islamic law and tradition which I think are conducive to democracy. The idea that government is contractual and consensual, for one thing. According to the Islamic Treatise on Holy Law, the ruler comes to power by an agreement between the ruler and his subjects. This is bilateral. Both sides have obligations. It is also limited. The ruler rules under the Holy Law, which he cannot change and which he must obey. So these two elements, I think, of consent and contract, also have the element of limitation, and can be very conducive to the development of democratic institutions. There is also a deeply rooted rejection in traditional Islamic writing of despotism or dictatorship, of the capricious rule of the ruler without due regard to the law and to the opinion of the various groups in society.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:52 PM 0 comments

 

Jay Rosen looks at the role of journalists in a political campaign. It sounds like material from my AP Government class curriculum about how the media is an active player in politics and can change the story while reporting on it.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:49 PM 0 comments

 

Captain Ed has a good analysis of Kerry's foreign policy.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 4:49 PM 0 comments

 

Here's a story on what a good job the Bush team is doing on utilizing all their resources to counter Kerry's message and throw him off track.

Campaign officials actively reach out to local and regional media.

When they spotted remarks by Kerry on oil in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, the comments were quickly passed to Bush surrogates in Louisiana and Arkansas, both oil states.

“That black stuff is hurting us,” Kerry was quoted as saying, noting links between the burning of fossil fuels and global warning and respiratory diseases.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a leader of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Arkansas, issued a news release accusing Kerry of being “anti-job, anti-oil.” Local media picked up the remarks.

“Here’s the governor of Arkansas talking about how Kerry’s one statement on oil will hurt south Arkansas,” said Ark Monroe III of Little Rock, Ark., a former state insurance commissioner and friend of Bill Clinton. “Now, that’s effective. It does energize the base and say this guy really can’t be trusted. That to me is how thorough they are.”

Of course, Bush has to depend on work like this since he can't depend on the media to do it for him as they will do for Kerry.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 4:47 PM 0 comments

 

The Washington Post looks at the problems Kerry is in finding a way to gain traction on Bush concerning Iraq. Since the President has endorsed the efforts of the UN in setting up elections, that has removed one of Kerry's main line of attacks. Now, he's reduced to asking for a UN High Commissioner to fun Iraq. Silly idea.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 4:39 PM 0 comments

 

The New York Times has an interesting profile of Justice Scalia, much as they might profile some weird alien whom they don't quite understand but find intriguing nevertheless.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 4:36 PM 0 comments

 

Jesse Jackson wants Kerry to pick a black VP candidate. The only reasonable choice I could come up with from Kerry's point of view is Harold Ford of Tennessee. Ford is a real up-and-comer in Democratic politics and would have a chance of bring Tennessee into Kerry's camp. But who knows if there is still a residual, unpolled bigot vote that would not vote for a ticket with someone of a different race on it. That's what happened to Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. Would the outpouring of black support for a Kerry-Ford ticket in places like Arkansas or Florida outweigh the bigot vote? I don't know. However, by raising the issue, Jackson could make it even harder for Kerry if he picks a nice white guy like Edwards or Gephardt. Richardson could defuse that somewhat. I heard on Fox News one day this week that there was some unidentified problem with Richardson's background check. I have no idea what that would be, but it's stinky if someone is leaking that about him.

UPDATE: a reader, Joel K., wrote to inform me that Harold Ford is only 34 and so isn't eligible to be a Veep candidate. Give him a few more years seasoning and he'll be a star of the Democratic Party. I can't think of any other suitable black candidate for Kerry who wouldn't be underqualified or a kook on the fringe. Jesse Jackson will have to settle for Al Sharpton talking at the convention. Heh. Won't that fry Jesse's gizzard? Kerry will have to give him a spot, too. And it will have to be comparable or better than Sharpton's.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 11:17 AM 0 comments

 

Here are some of the latenight jokes on politics.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 11:12 AM 0 comments

 

Could Ohio be this year's Florida? Some think that Kerry has a real chance there and that it would be hard for Bush to win without Ohio. It would be ironic if Bush lost Ohio, but won Pennsylvania.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:58 AM 0 comments

 

A teacher in Broward County in Florida is in trouble for distributing a political survey to students to help them determine which party they should join. Some parents thought the survey was slanted towards Democrats because of statements such as these.

Students were asked whether they agree or disagree with a dozen statements, such as "We pay too much in taxes," "I am against abortions" or "We should be harder on criminals." If the student agrees with the statements, the survey says they are Republican.

The article doesn't say if there were any questions that were slanted towards the Democrats. If they were all like that, then, yes, it was a slanted survey. But if the survey included statements such as "In foreign policy, our government should not take unilateral actions, but should instead work with the United Nations to achieve collective agreement." or "It is important for the federal government to fund the arts and public television." then I don't believe the survey was slanted. Perhaps the parents don't like it that issues are spelled out so baldly, but can they argue that a person who is against abortion, thinks we pay too much in taxes, and that we should be harder on criminals shouldn't be a Republican?

I do a similar assignment in my AP Government class. I give the kids a survey of statements that are balanced between liberal and conservative statements, and when they're done, they compute to see strong a conservative or liberal they are. The two statements above are from my survey. After completing the class discussion and determing their ideology, we put their names on the board and it usually comes out as a bell curve so they can see that the great number of people are in the middle ideologically. I then point the kids to several online surveys which I have listed on my school web page. The kids have their parents take a survey and then write a paper assessing the surveys and if they and their parents fit the generalizations that we study about what groups tend to fit which ideology. We also discuss how one issue could be enough to cancel out all their beliefs on other issues. So, if abortion or gay marriage is the most important issue to them, that could override what they believe on foreign policy or taxes.

Many of the kids are surprised to find how many conservative beliefs they actually have. When one girl, who was sure she was a screaming liberal, came out as being slightly conservative, she retook the quiz changing her answers so she could stay happily a liberal. Draw your own conclusions about what that says about liberals. One girl last year did feel that my survey was slanted conservative. She objected to the statement, "There should be no limits placed on abortion." as a statement of liberal beliefs and didn't think anyone really thought that. I had to disillusion her about that, but I did adjust the statement the following year to making it one of the pro-conservative statements: "Abortion is tantamount to murder because unborn children are, by definition, human beings from the point of conception onward. As such, they deserve the right to enter into this world unharmed, irrespective of any burden this may cause the mother." The conservative side probably lost a few votes in that change as most kids were willing for there to be limits on abortion, but are not willing for there to be no possibility of abortion.

My class is almost all 10th graders and over half of them hadn't ever thought about what their ideology was. They had never thought about some of these issues. Mostly they were the typical young voters whose knowledge of politicians came from Jon Stewart or Jay Leno. Or just what their parents believed. They enjoyed determining where they fit on the ideological spectrum. So, back to the Broward County teacher, I think government teachers have a responsibility to discuss ideology and party preferences with their students. It's hard, but I try not to slant discussion to my very strong beliefs. I try to let the students direct the discussion so both sides make their points and the ones in the middle can decide who they think is more persuasive. Kids usually remember this as one of the most enjoyable things we do in class, perhaps because it's all about them and what they believe. So the Broward teacher should adjust his survey and keep doing it.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:41 AM 0 comments

 

The prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq seems to go much farther beyond a few guards taking pictures. I can well believe that our prison facilities and staff are stretched to the limit with so many prisoners being taken and held. But it is inexcusable that there weren't standards written and enforced. That seems basic to any kind of operation and very much unlike the military. If the problem rots from the head down, then the head should also be punished.

Of course, what type of standards do you need, to tell you that you should not take pictures pretending to torture naked prisoners?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:03 AM 0 comments

 

Thomas Roeser thinks that Senator Kerry is the Stephen A. Douglas of his day, a fence straddler who can't decide where he stands on the most important issue of the day. Does that make Bush the Lincoln of his day? How Democrats whould shudder at this rather strained comparison. Douglas' problem was that he was a Democrat in a day when succeess in the Democratic party meant supporting the South down the line on slavery issues as Buchanan and Pierce had done. When Douglas tried to have it both ways in order to get reelected to the Senate in 1858, he was forced by Lincoln to say some mildly anti-slavery statements that lost him the support of the South in 1860 and split the Democratic Party into two wings. He ended up winning only Missouri in the 1860 election while John C. Breckinridge won the South, Lincoln won the more populous North, and a fourth party, headed by John C. Bell won a few border states.

Once Lincoln won the election and the South seceded, Douglas threw his full support behind Lincoln's efforts in the war until his death early in the war. Douglas, in the end, showed a level of statesmanship and love of Union that transcended party.

I think the analogy would be stronger for Dick Gephardt if Gephardt had won the nomination. A party leader who lost his party because he wasn't fully to their side on the big issue of the day. And someone who could win Missouri.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 5:57 AM 0 comments

Friday, April 30, 2004

 

Check out this new Kerry bumpersticker. (Link via Ed Driscoll)

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:51 PM 0 comments

 

William Voegeli hits the nail on the head about how Kerry is a worse liar than Clinton is. Remember when Bob Kerrey said admiringly about Bill Clinton, "he's an uncommonly good liar." John Kerry just doesn't have the same skills.

On the question of trust, Kerry is like Clinton in some ways and unlike him in others. Unfortunately for his campaign, both the similarities and the differences work to Kerry's disadvantage.

The essential similarity is that both men are lawyers more than they are liars. With Kerry, as with Clinton, the truth is always subject to further revision. Additional details are provided grudgingly after they are withheld. Hairsplitting distinctions are employed to frame every damaging revelation. Partial answers are justified because the questioner didn't ask specifically and presciently for the exact details the candidate didn't really want to provide. Mutually exclusive alternatives are simultaneously embraced.

In a minor but representative episode, Kerry interrupted his advocacy of cars with better fuel economy and lower emissions to tell reporters that the SUV at his Idaho home isn't his, but his wife's. "The family has it. I don't have it." It may not make as good an ad for the GOP as, "I voted for the $87 billion…before I voted against it," but it's one more dot for the voters to connect when deciding who John Kerry is.

The fundamental difference is that Clinton, like Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's, was a real phony, where Kerry, like Al Gore, is just a phony phony. The late Michael Kelly took the measure of Bill Clinton in a 1994 article and concluded that he wasn't dishonest, exactly, but ahonest. Clinton would tell one person one thing on Monday, and really believe it, then tell another person the opposite thing on Tuesday, and really believe that, too.

(Link via Powerline)

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:15 PM 0 comments

 

Scrappleface has some fun at Jim McDermott's expense.

Rep. McDermott Forgot 'Under God', Civil Rights Act
(2004-04-29) -- Rep. Jim McDermott, D-WA, explained yesterday that he had omitted the words "under God" while leading House colleagues in the Pledge of Allegiance because he had learned the Pledge before 1954 when the phrase was inserted by an act of Congress.

Later, a spokesman confirmed that Mr. McDermott also often forgets about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because when he was in grade school it was still legal to discriminate on the basis of race.

"The Congressman also needs repeated reminders that Alaska and Hawaii are states, since they weren't when he was a child," the unnamed source said. "Which also explains why he visited Iraq and praised its leadership before the war. Rep. McDermott learned about Iraq before it fell under Ba'athist control, and he just forgot that it was ruled by a ruthless, bloodthirsty dictator for decades."

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:06 PM 0 comments

 

Donald Lambro says that, amazingly, the Kerry campaign doesn't have much of a ground operation yet in Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or other southern states. That's a real problem for them.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:54 PM 0 comments

 

Howie Carr is having some fun with what John Kerry blows his money on. I like the details about the license plates. One car has a plate Purple Heart 3; Teresa's car has a plate MOZMBQ and another one says HZ 57. Cute.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:45 PM 0 comments

 

The Democrats are all worried that Bush will succeed in painting Kerry in negative colors in the same way they painted Gore.

It's a recurring nightmare for Democratic strategist Tony Coelho — the party's presidential candidate portrayed as a flip-flopping opportunist, ill-served by a strife-torn staff. It happened in 2000, when Coelho ran Al Gore's campaign. Now, it's happening to John Kerry.

Democratic leaders fear he's getting "Gored."

"What the Kerry people don't understand is, it's succeeding," Coelho said.

Scores of Kerry supporters like the former California congressman say their initial response is to remain hopeful, based on polls showing the presumptive nominee tied with President Bush (news - web sites) while the Democratic Party is better funded and more united than in 2000. But they are worried about history repeating itself.

"No question, it's a rerun of 2000," said Donna Brazile, campaign manager for the former vice president's 2000 race.

"Every Sunday, Team Bush goes in overdrive by outlining the upcoming week's attacks on Kerry. It's followed by paid advertisements and assigning top-notch surrogates," Brazile said. "This is the exact moment in 2000 when Gore was seriously damaged as the Bush team painted the former vice president as a "serial exaggerator.'"

Well, if they hadn't chosen someone with the same weaknesses as Gore, they wouldn't be facing that problem today. Too bad.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:12 PM 0 comments

 

Robert Moran peeks in at what Democratic pollsters are finding out about their boy, John Kerry. It is dispiriting news for them. It looks like the Bush campaign to define Kerry negatively before Kerry can define himself has worked.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:54 PM 0 comments

 

Rich Lowry outlines how Kerry has said he wouldn't use Vietnam and then has used it to denigrate Republicans who did not serve.

Kerry's "personal reasons of necessity" always have to do with what is personally necessary to serve his ambition at any given moment. And whenever he says, "I have personally always believed [fill in the blank]," it is likely: 1) he doesn't believe it; 2) he either didn't believe it at some time prior, or is about to stop believing in it. So it is with his deep, personal belief about making Vietnam service, or lack thereof, strictly off-limits.

When Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe attacked President Bush's National Guard service earlier this year, Kerry insisted: "I have asked surrogates not to. In fact, when I have heard of a surrogate doing that I have said please don't, it is not an issue to me, and I have never made an issue, in the course of my entire career, out of what choices anybody made about where they served or didn't serve."

This is what Al Franken would refer to as a "lie." In 1996, Kerry faced a stiff challenge for re-election from then-Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. In one debate Kerry made an issue out of Vietnam in precisely the way he says he never has. As a Massachusetts newspaper reported, "Kerry landed one of the harshest and most personal blows of the campaign when he pointedly referred to Weld's lack of service in Vietnam."

It is a pattern for Kerry. In March 2002, he "chastised two top Republicans who had not served in the military for their criticism of Democratic leaders," according to the Boston Globe. Kerry bellowed at a Democratic dinner: "Let me be clear tonight to Sen. Lott and to Tom DeLay: One of the lessons that I learned in Vietnam, a war they did not have to endure...was that if I ever reached a position of responsibility, I would never stop asking questions that make a democracy strong."

Another apparent Kerry lie was this line during the initial spat over Bush's Guard service: "I have suggested to some people who are my advocates, who've gone that line of attack, it's not one that I plan to do ... I don't plan to do that, and I've asked them not to."

But the Washington Post reported at the time: "Kerry aides were not upset about McAuliffe's negative tone, Democratic sources said. Instead, they were worried that the party chairman had raised the charge too early ? preventing Kerry from making more effective use of a potent issue later this year if he is the Democratic nominee."

The Post's reporting has been borne out by events over the past week. When the Bush campaign aired an ad criticizing Kerry's defense votes, he immediately countered by questioning the non-service of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. A few days later, when ABC News broke a story questioning the consistency of Kerry's account of whether he threw his medals or his ribbons away in a 1971 anti-war protest, Kerry took his Vietnam-baiting right to the top: "I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard ..."

As Lowry points out. The Kerry position is now that only someone who served in Vietnam is capable of leading the country now when we're at war.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:42 PM 0 comments

 

James Lileks summarizes what college kids (namely James Lileks and his posse) believed back in the 80s.

These things we knew: Soviet influence in Central America could be blunted by a complete withdrawl of American support; Ronald Reagan was indifferent to the possibility of nuclear war; Europeans were wise rational Vulcans to our crass carnivorous Earthlings, except for isolated throwback horrors like Margaret Thatcher. All new weapons systems were boondoggles that wouldn?t work and would never be needed, and served as penis substitutes for Jack D. Ripper-type generals who probably went home and poured lighter fluid on toy soldiers, lit them with a Zippo and cackled maniacally. A nuclear freeze was the first step to a safer world, because if everyone had 10,237 ICBMs instead of 10,238 we might be less inclined to use them. The Soviets were our enemy only because we thought they were, which forced them to act like our enemy. Soldiers were brainwashed killbots or gung-ho rapist killbots who signed up only because Reagan had personally shuttered the doors of the local steel mill, depriving them of jobs. Of all wars in human history, Vietnam was the most typical. Higher taxes on the rich resulted in fewer poor people. The inexplicable mulishness of big business was the only thing that held back widespread adoption of solar power.

The world outside the campus was crass and stupid and run by the people who went to frats and sororities. Say no more.

Is it all that different today?

Lileks makes a point about what will happen if Bush wins the election.

f some people think Bush is Hitler now, who will he be in 05 if he wins? Rabid Super Extra-Plus UltraHitler?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 11:20 AM 0 comments

 

Gerald Amirault i being set free today after 18 years of being improisoned on phony charges.

Our system isn't always immune to destructive pressures, and the child-abuse prosecutions of the 1980s were one such instance. Mr. Amirault's prosecution was driven by the passions of the times--in this case, the belief that child predators lurked everywhere and that the child "victims" must be believed at all costs.

Along the way, the law was stood on its head. The rules of evidence were changed to accommodate the prosecution; the burden of proof was put on the accused. Four- and five-year-olds were coached to say what adults wanted to hear. All this was done in the name of virtue, with the result being the kind of catastrophic miscarriage of justice we saw in Mr. Amirault's case. There never was any truth to the charges brought against him. Nor was there anything that would, in saner times, have passed for evidence in an American courtroom.

One of the reasons behind the district attorney's decision last week not to oppose Mr. Amirault's release on parole was that in order to have him classified as a "sexually dangerous person" there would have had to be a virtual re-trial of the entire Amirault case. The DA had to have been deterred by the prospect of parading into a courtroom with the incredible fantasies extracted from Mr. Amirault's alleged victims--about secret rooms, magic drinks, animal butchery, assaults by a bad clown. Then-District Attorney Scott Harshbarger had offered them as "proof" of the Amiraults' guilt.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:52 AM 0 comments

 

Mona Charen makes sense on the whole phony issue about the coffins at Dover.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:45 AM 0 comments

 

As always, Charles Krauthammer makes brilliant sense on condemnations of Israel's policies.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:42 AM 0 comments

 

Jonah Goldberg looks at the difference between being a Republican or a conservative.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:39 AM 0 comments

 

Here is David Letterman's Top Ten List about Bill Clinton's memoirs.

Top Ten Chapter Titles In Bill Clinton's Memoirs


10. "I'm Writing This Chapter Naked"

9. "I Pray Hillary Doesn't Read Pages 6, 18, 41-49, 76 And Everything Past 200"

8. "Protecting The Constitution: How To Get Gravy Stains Out Of The Parchment"

7. "A Few Of My Favorite Subpoenas"

6. "From Gennifer to Paula to Monica: Why It Pays To Keep Lowering Your Standards"

5. "1995-1998: The Extra-Pasty Years"

4. "Kneel To The Chief"

3. "What's The Deal With That Moron You Guys Replaced Me With?"

2. "NAFTA -- Bringing America Into... Ah Screw That, Who Wants To Read Some More About Bubba Gettin' Down?"

1. "The Night I Accidentally Slept With Hillary"

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:17 AM 0 comments

 

The New York Post reports that, when Kerry appeared on Meet The Press the ratings tanked.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:11 AM 0 comments

 

You know what a joke the 9/11 Commission is when, after lobbying hard to get as much time as possible to interview the President, two members, including the lead Democratic guy, left the session early because they had other obligation. I bet that if they thought they were getting the President to say incriminating stuff, they would have hung around.

Both early-departing panelists, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey and ex-Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, insisted they had prior commitments - but their sudden slip out the side door of the White House left Washington and some fellow commission members in shock.

Kerrey dashed to handle a private business matter - lobbying Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) for more money for his employer, the New School University in Manhattan.

Hamilton bolted so that he could introduce the Canadian prime minister at a ceremonial event at the Woodrow Wilson Center, which employs Hamilton as its director.

"I was surprised," fellow commission member James Thompson told The Post.

The sudden walkouts while Bush and Cheney were still testifying are all the more surprising because the commission had lobbied for months for unlimited time with the president with all 10 commissioners able to participate.

The treatment they afforded Bush and Cheney comes at a time when some Democrats on the 9/11 commission are already under fire for partisan grandstanding.

Kerrey seemed to find enough time to go on Comedy Central and laugh about what he was going to ask Bush and Cheney. Don't you think Senator Domenici would have found time for another appointment for Kerrey to have lobbied him. And Hamilton could have had someone on deck to introduce the Canadian prime minister if the meeting went long. Remember this is the same commission that only had five members show up when Condoleezza Rice testified in private, but they were all there to grandstand in public.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:09 AM 0 comments

 

Lisa Myers at NBC News exposes the Richard Clarke prevarication about how the Clinton administration's anti-terror work was what stopped the millennium bombing plt. Actually, it was just an alert customs agent.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:03 AM 0 comments

Thursday, April 29, 2004

 

Peggy Noonan tells of an interesting moment she experienced while watching A Raisin in the Sun. She's right that she witnessed a terrible cultural moment.

But I must tell you of the small moment that was actually a big moment. (There's a possible spoiler coming up, so if you don't know the story and mean to see the play, stop here.) An important moment in the plot is when a character announces she is pregnant, and considering having an abortion. In fact, she tells her mother-in-law, she's already put $5 down with the local abortionist. It is a dramatic moment. And you know as you watch it that when this play came out in 1960 it was received by the audience as a painful moment--a cry of pain from a woman who's tired of hoping that life will turn out well.

But this is the thing: Our audience didn't know that. They didn't understand it was tragic. They heard the young woman say she was about to end the life of her child, and they applauded. Some of them cheered. It was stunning. The reaction seemed to startle the actors on stage, and shake their concentration. I was startled. I turned to my friend. "We have just witnessed a terrible cultural moment," I said. "Don't I know it," he responded.

And I can't tell you how much that moment hurt. To know that the members of our audience didn't know that the taking of a baby's life is tragic--that the taking of your own baby's life is beyond tragic, is almost operatic in its wailing woe.

But our audience didn't know. They reacted as if abortion were a political question. They thought that the fact that the young woman was considering abortion was a sign of liberation. They thought this cry of pain was in fact a moment of self-actualizing growth.

Afterwards, thinking about it, I said to my friend, "When that play opened that plot point was understood--they knew it was tragic. And that was only what, 40 years ago." He said, "They would have known it was tragic even 25 years ago."

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:08 PM 0 comments

 

James Joyner has a good post on the whole phoney chickenhawk argument.

But does the fact that Kerry served in Vietnam mean that he’s innoculated from any criticism on national security policy making judgment from non-veterans? If so, why?

Dick Cheney and John Kerry both have fairly long records on defense matters in their lives as politicians. Certainly, the fact that Kerry has been in harm’s way gives him some perspective that Cheney lacks. But I’d argue that Congressman Cheney’s votes on defense matters were better than Senator Kerry’s. SecDef Cheney was right on the Gulf War; Senator Kerry was wrong. Vice President Cheney’s vision on the war on terrorism and the Iraq War are certainly more coherent than Senator Kerry’s; it’s way too early to pass judgment on who got it closer to right. Regardless, these wars are at the center of the re-election debate. The idea that Kerry is supposed to be immune from criticism because he went to Vietnam 30-odd years ago is just nuts.

If foreign policy can now only be discussed by war veterans, then we're going to have a pretty limited conversation.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:37 PM 0 comments

 

More on what a boo-boo head Jim McDermott is. I hope Washington is proud to have him represent them.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:31 PM 0 comments

 

Ramesh Ponnuru has a good defense of Karen Hughes.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:17 PM 0 comments

 

Here's a column that needed to be written. Douglas Brinkley has stopped functioning as a historian and has now become a political hack for John Kerry.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:40 AM 0 comments

 

R. Emmett Tyrrell reminds us of all the zigzags with the truth that John Kerry has had in the past year.

Actually, John Francois Kerry has endured more scrapes with the truth at this stage in his campaign than Boy Clinton, though most of the scrapes have been less momentous. Back in 2003 there was the scrape over whether or not he had ever claimed to be Irish. There was the refutation of his claim that his first speech in the Senate had been in favor of Roe vs. Wade -- it had been in opposition to cruise missiles. Now there are the many contradictions in his statements about what he did with his military medals, how he won them and precisely how anti-American his war protests were. Did he attend a protesters’ meeting that discussed murdering American politicians? He says no. Others say he did. And a member of Kerry’s campaign called at least one anti-war veteran from those faraway days of protest, asking him to change his reminiscence of Kerry the war protester.

One day Kerry is explaining why he met with Vietnamese Communists outside Paris while our nation was at war with them. Another day he is caught cussing a Secret Service bodyguard. In that scrape, he also was caught claiming he does not fall off his skis, though reporters saw him fall half a dozen times. Now he is entangled in a row over whether he, a pro-abortion Catholic, should be taking Holy Communion. Then too there is the question of how much he paid a barber from the celebrated coiffeuse Cristophe to cut his hair before he appeared on “Meet the Press.” The talent was shipped to Pittsburgh before Kerry appeared went on the show. The authoritative Drudge Report insists the price was $1,000. Kerry insists he is being victimized by the radical right -- his predecessor in victimhood, Boy Clinton, endured a Cristophe scandal too.

Here is Tyrrell's explanation.

Kerry’s problems stem from the fact that he is a fantasist. He has created illusions about himself and then believed his own illusions. He gets in trouble with reality because for him, the only reality is his fantasy, the fantasy that he is a great man and -- oh, yes -- that European leaders have talked to him and told him they hope he wins in 2004. Remember that little fantasy?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:36 AM 0 comments

 

Deborah Orin says that some influential Democrats are getting pretty freaked out by John Kerry's poor showing in the past few weeks.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:30 AM 0 comments

 

Poor Tina Brown is so worried that Karl Rove is all over the place that she even muses about his placing a Republican plant as a waiter in a restaurant. She wishes that Dick Morris would come back to help out John Kerry.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:27 AM 0 comments

 

Rep. Jim McDermott is a joke. Now, he's raised eyebrows by ostentatiously omitting "under God" when leading the Pledge of Allegiance. He claims he was just saying it as he did when a child; however if you watch the tape you'll see him pause and hear the rest of the people in the House saying "under God" while he waits for them. He knew exactly what he was doing and he was trying to make his own little point.

Of course, this is no surprise for a guy who went to Baghdad to say how he trusted Saddam more than George Bush.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:23 AM 0 comments

 

Robert Novak notes how people have drawn conclusions from Bob Woodward's book that just aren't justifiable from reading the book.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:19 AM 0 comments

 

Check out the newest Kerry House of Ketchup by Sean Hackbarth.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:13 AM 0 comments

 

Polipundit has looked at the vote tallies from Pennsylvania, and figured out how Specter won.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:11 AM 0 comments

 

Hugh Hewitt dissects Kerry's answer on Hardball to concerning WMD. It's difficult to dive into Kerry's syntax and figure out what he was saying, but Hewitt has the main point.

Kerry's answer tells us that he fails to grasp the crucial issue of this campaign: the threat to America has changed, and our response has to change with it. Sure, he gave up a huge issue by admitting that WMD may yet be found in a transparent attempt to position himself against the possibility of their discovery before November, but more important than that admission is Kerry's display of what can only be called ignorance of the threat.

We should not be surprised. In his long career, Kerry has misjudged the threats posed by the Vietcong, the Soviets, the Sandinistas, and just about every other enemy the United States has faced. Now he has misjudged the threat posed by WMDs. Is America going to elect a "hear no evil, see no evil" president in the middle of a war that could go on for years to come?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:07 AM 0 comments

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

 

I didn't see Bob Kerrey on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but Michelle Malkin has some of the transcript. I used to rather like Kerrey since he was one of the few senators willing to face up to the problems in Social Security. But he has really crossed the line in abusing his position on the 9/11 Commission. He's supposed to act as an impartial investigator. This type of talk is deeply inappropriate and betrays a real lack of judgment.

Now, it would be one thing if Kerrey used his privileged position to inform Stewart's younger audience of the gravity of the 9/11 panel's task. But instead, Kerrey yukked it up. First, he dished with Stewart about President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's upcoming private meeting with the commission. When Stewart mocked the president's "buddy system," Kerrey guffawed: "He is bringing his buddy, that's exactly right, for safety." Emboldened by audience applause, Kerrey riffed that it was more like "Screw you, buddy." Asked by Stewart whether people were really blaming each other over the terrorist attacks during closed hearings, Kerrey snorted: "Oh, Jee-zus, yeah." More audience approval. (Taking the Lord's name in vain is always good for a few cheap laughs.)

Next, echoing a profanity uttered earlier in the show, Kerrey blurted out with a clownish grin: "Life is [expletive bleeped]." When Stewart proposed that Kerrey ask the vice president, "What the [expletive bleeped] is wrong with you people?" Kerrey cracked up and promised to use the question. And when Stewart called Attorney General John Ashcroft a "big [expletive bleeped]," Kerrey chortled some more.

And you wonder why Bush wants to give as little to this commission as possible?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 11:02 PM 0 comments

 

Zell Miller wants to repeal the 17th Amendment. I could see lots of benefits to that, but it won't ever happen.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:46 PM 0 comments

 

Dead white men to replace Sacajawea on the dollar coin. I can't wait to stock up on my Franklin Pierce or Benjamin Harrison coins.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:44 PM 0 comments

 

Mickey Kaus has a theory that robo-polls might actually be more accurate than polls that use actual humans.

Who won Pennsylvania? Final conventional Quinnipiac Poll (conducted by human beings): 48-42 Specter lead. Final Survey USA robo-poll (conducted by machines): Specter 48, Toomey 48. Actual result: Specter 51, Toomey 49. Advantage: Robo-poll! ...

Survey USA's robo-poll also did well predicting the results of the Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio Democratic presidential primaries and the Illinois Dem Senate primary--though they were off in picking the winner of this year's Iowa caucuses. ...

Explanation: Why might robotic polling (which uses a recorded announcer's voice) be more accurate? Kf's Mystery Pollster--who is not associated with Survey USA but is toying with the idea of using robo-polls--gives three reasons:1) They can poll more people more cheaply, creating a larger pool from which to pick only "likely" voters; 2) On some questions, people are less likely to lie to please a machine. In particular, they'll often tell a live human of course they're going to vote (when they're not) because they think voting is what's expected of them; 3) Robo-polling duplicates the impersonal and anonymous nature of voting itself. Often that results in fewer inhibitions about choosing--and a lower "undecided" vote. ... Meanwhile, the key presumed defect of robo-polls--they have a ower response rate because it's easy to hang up on a recording--may not have much of a biasing effect. ...

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:34 PM 0 comments

 

Dick Morris makes the obvious point that all those who think theUN is so wonderful and that our attack on IRaq was illegitimate have to answer for the fact that France, Russia, the Vatican, and the UN itself were receiving bribes through the Oil for Bribes program.

That's the question I want someone to ask Kerry. Why does he have such faith in the UN when it was clear they were being bribed? Why does he want to give an organization that includes dictatorships have a veto over American actions?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:40 PM 0 comments

 

Jonah Goldberg makes a valiant effort to summarize the Kerry line on his medals.

“Medalgate" — the inevitable name for the flap over Kerry's flip-floppery about what he did and what he said about his medals — is an amusing spectacle to behold and a story worth investigating.

It's amusing because Kerry has forced himself to offer explanations that make pretzels look straight. It's worth investigating because Kerry has made his service in Vietnam a central qualification for his presidency.

The superficial details of "Medalgate" are fairly easy to explain for anybody not determined to make Kerry sound consistent. From 1971 until about a decade later, Kerry wanted people to think he threw his medals away in protest of Vietnam.

In a 1971 interview, Kerry insisted that he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine" of his medals. Around 1984, when Kerry ran for the Senate, the times changed and he wanted people to believe he kept the medals and "only" threw away the ribbons. Why? Because his union supporters in particular and voters in general were no longer enamored with the excesses of the antiwar movement.

"It's such a personal thing," he told the Washington Post in 1985. "They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them. It shouldn't be a measurement of anything. People say, 'You didn't throw your medals away.' Who said I had to? And why should I? It's my business. I did not want to throw my medals away."

A decade later, he told the Boston Globe that the only reason he didn't chuck the medals was that he didn't have time to go home and get them.

And this month Kerry told the Los Angeles Times, "I never ever implied that I" threw away the medals.

Because Kerry "flooded the zone" with every possible version of events, it's impossible for him not to contradict himself. His only defense is a screaming offense.

So, he claims that anyone who questions any aspect of his Vietnam service or his anti-Vietnam service either is questioning his patriotism or is part of the "Republican attack machine," including the dyed-in-the-wool liberal producers and hosts of Good Morning America. Indeed, the first time Kerry felt the heat, he dropped his promise not to criticize Bush's National Guard service like a bag of dirt.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:33 AM 0 comments

 

I have my first BlogAd. Please support this Commentary Page by clicking on the ad on the left side of the page.. They have an interesting blog. What I particularly liked was the cartoon blog with links to lots of political cartoonists. I'm sure I'll be using that for my AP Government class.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:30 AM 0 comments

 

Rick Tucker points out that it was a lot easier to be an isolationist when other people weren't trying to kill us.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:00 AM 0 comments

 

The Washington Post seems to think that the administration will win its case on the Cheney energy task force.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:57 AM 0 comments

 

John Kerry is attacking Bush and Cheney for their lack of service. I can't believe that people want to vote based on Vietnam war service. Kerry defends his attacks on Bush and Cheney by saying that he believes that the White House is behind the ABC investigation of his flip-flopping on whether he has said he threw his medals or his ribbons or someone else's medals. (It gets confusing since he's had about four different versions.) Ah, ABC, that well known Republican sock puppet.

What Kerry, Tom Oliphant, and Chris Matthews and so many others don't get is that the story isn't about his throwing his medals; it's about his prevarications about what he actually did. It plays into the whole image of Kerry as someone who will say whatever he thinks will make him look good at the moment.

I think it's interesting that he's excusing his going back on his pledge not to attack the President's National Guard service, by saying that it's okay to attack Bush since Bush is behind the attacks on Kerry. Remember, that Teresa Heinz has said that she'll release her money for Kerry if she thinks his honor is being attacked. Can we be far from that moment when she announces that the evilRepublicanattackmachine is forcing her to spend some of her millions left to her by her Republican husband? I don't think so.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:55 AM 0 comments

 

Check out the caption contest at Captain's Quarters. There are some quite funny ones. I like the Patton spoof.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:46 AM 0 comments

 

I couldn't bear to watch more than two or three minutes of Chris Matthews suck-up interview of John Kerry. Hugh Hewitt watched some of it and said Kerry was bad even though he was getting a puff-up interview. Basically, the whole tone of the part of the interview I saw was why are the Republicans being so stupid and evil in how they're attacking you?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:40 AM 0 comments

 

Andrew Sullivan shares my opinion of Newsweek as being totally in the tank for Kerry.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:33 AM 0 comments

 

Joanne Jacobs links to this story about how No Child Left Behind is working in Chicago.

Kids who won highly prized transfers out of failing Chicago public schools averaged much better reading and math gains during the first year in their new schools --just as drafters of the federal No Child Left Behind Law envisioned, an exclusive analysis indicates.

And, contrary to some predictions, moving low-scoring kids to better-performing schools didn't seem to slow the progress of students in those higher-achieving schools.

Even kids "left behind'' in struggling schools generally posted better gains in state tests once their peers transferred elsewhere.

Sounds like the theory is working out as proposed. It's interesting to read about the difference between the schools. The higher achieving schools are the ones that set high expectations for student performance and strong discipline. It really doesn't sound like rocket science. You just need to find teachers who will do this, principals who will support them, and parents who will back up what is going on at school and expect great things from their children.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:31 AM 0 comments

 

Robert Samuelson looks at the myths about American jobs being shifted overseas. It really isn't true.

It's a myth that companies such as IBM, General Electric or Microsoft are (as it's often said) "stateless." To be sure, their vast global interests often create conflicts between what's good for companies and what's good for America. But the larger reality is that their success (or failure) remains strongly connected to the success (or failure) of the U.S. economy.

The precise reasons for this stubborn attachment to the United States aren't clear. These companies do shut U.S. plants. They are growing abroad. Indeed, foreign-job increases are higher in percentage terms, because they start from a smaller base. But numerically, job growth is still greater in the United States. From 1992 to 2002, U.S. multinationals added about five American jobs for every three foreign jobs. Perhaps these companies succeed simultaneously at home and abroad. But expansion abroad -- motivated by low wages or closeness to growing foreign markets -- may also create U.S. jobs, concludes economist Matthew Slaughter of Dartmouth University in a study for the Coalition for Fair International Taxation, a group of multinational firms. He says that growing foreign activity may require more U.S. scientists and engineers, financial specialists and managers.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:23 AM 0 comments

 

Joe Hagan in The New York Observer worries that John Kerry is never going to get any better on TV.

In recent appearances, Mr. Kerry’s digressions and obfuscations about whether he threw a war medal or a ribbon on the White House lawn in 1971—or whether the young Mr. Kerry should have used the word "war crimes" to describe actions in Vietnam—have obscured the candidate. At every turn, he has managed to turn the TV screen into smoked glass: He’s right in front of you, but you can’t … quite … make … him … out. With his morose patrician mien and robotic delivery—parodied with precision by Jon Stewart on the Monday, April 24, Daily Show, surely not a good thing for the candidate—Mr. Kerry’s TV performances are sounding a gut-level alarm about his ability to inspire confidence in the electorate. "He needs to speak the truth and speak from the heart and not try to calibrate his views or his actions," said Mr. Weaver. "The public catches on to these things, and they can see through whether there’s a calibration going on or not. He needs to stop that."

Even Chris Matthews was criticizing Kerry's delivery. And Chris is doing all he can to pump Kerry up.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:13 AM 0 comments

 

Well, that's depressing. Specter wins by two points. Undoubtedly, Bush's and Santorum's support and ccampaigning made the difference and helped blunt the conservative attacks on Specter. I wonder if Specter made some pledges to them about what he'd do with Bush's judicial nominees. At least, one thing I can bet about Chairman Specter. He won't be like Orrin Hatch always making speeches about how he looooves his brother senators like Schumer and Kennedy. Hatch always makes me nauseous when he goes on and on about his love for the people stabbing him in the back.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 5:52 AM 0 comments

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

 

Here's where you can check the results from the PA primary. With 43% reporting, Specter is up by 4 points.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:18 PM 0 comments

 

Dahlia Lithwick is the Slate reporter who covers the Supreme Court. She is clearly liberal and dislikes this administration. However, I enjoy her snarky roundups of big cases. You get a feel for how the questioning went and what the tone of the session was. Here she is on the Cheney energy taskforce case heard today.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:30 PM 0 comments

 

David Hill shows how polls can be used as propaganda.

Yet as these polls linking Iraq to Vietnam have shown, writing poll questions can become a propagandist?s dream.

The questions at hand were asked earlier this month. First, a Newsweek poll conducted April 8-9 by Princeton Survey Research Associates (PSR) asked: ?How concerned are you that Iraq will become another Vietnam in which the U.S. does not accomplish its goals despite many years of military involvement? Are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned or not at all concerned about Iraq becoming another Vietnam??

The second question was asked April 21-25, again by PSR, but this time on behalf of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press: ?Some people are now comparing Iraq to the war in Vietnam 30 years ago. Do you think Iraq will turn out to be another Vietnam, or do you think the U.S. will accomplish its goals in Iraq??

This second, follow-up question is particularly interesting because its lead-in ? ?Some people are now comparing Iraq to the war in Vietnam? ? seems largely to be an artifact of the first poll. In short, PSR created a swarm of stories with the first, Newsweek poll. Then it exploited the hubbub in its second poll.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 8:18 PM 0 comments

 

Ah, the sweet humor of having Hillary Clinton criticizing the Bush administration as disparaging sexual harrassment laws. Have these people no sense of irony?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:41 PM 0 comments

 

Condeleezza Rice made an intriguing Freudian slip the other day.

Rice, according to an account in this week's New York magazine, at one point said: "As I was telling my husb . . . " then stopped and said, "As I was telling President Bush. . . ."

Actually, it seems rather sad. She's basically devoted her life now to serving the country and the President and all she gets is criticism. She needs a private social life.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:39 PM 0 comments

 

When it rains it pours. Drudge has the story of a John Kerry $1000 haircut.

On the Friday before his MEET THE PRESS appearance, Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry flew his Washington, DC hairdresser to Pittsburgh for a touch-up, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Cristophe stylist Isabelle Goetz, who handles Kerry's hair issues, made the trek to Pittsburgh, campaign sources reveal.

"Her entire schedule had to be rearranged," a top source explains.

A Kerry campaign spokesman refuses to clarify if Goetz flew by private jet on April 16 or on the official Kerry For President campaign plane.

The total expense for the hair touch-up is estimated to be more than $1000, insiders tell DRUDGE.

Maybe that's why the first thing Kerry said when Tim Russert showed him the clip of Kerry claiming to have committed atrocities in Vietnam was not a serious response to the accusation of having admitted to war crimes, but a comment on his hair.

MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me.

Maybe, that's Kerry's sad attempt at humor, friendliness, and likeability. It didn't work and just fell flat.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:31 PM 0 comments

 

I know it seems like hitting a man when he's down, but hey, it's John Kerry, so what the hey. Here's Wes Pruden.

Monsieur Kerry and his handlers are frightened that the medals episode could be taking another Massachusetts pol for a ride in a tank. Most Americans, who regard combat medals awarded for valor as more than pieces of cast metal and strips of colorful cloth, as something, like the flag, to hold in awe and reverence because such objects have been endowed with blood spent on battlegrounds at Lexington and Concord, on hillsides from Manassas to Pea Ridge, on killing grounds in the Argonne Forest and at Guadalcanal and Pork Chop Hill and the Ia Drang Valley and a lot of other places besides. Americans will regard the distinction between a combat medal and a combat ribbon as the ultimate distinction without a difference. Both medal and ribbon are fraught with holy meaning, and the man who treats them as trash, throwing them back at the country that bestowed them as tokens of gratitude and thanksgiving, is a man whose soul has withered to a dried prune. (Would Monsieur Kerry disdain the Legion d'Honneur?)

Democrats disdain every question that John Kerry raises about his Vietnam War record as a slur at the senator's patriotism. Republicans have actually taken great care to give the senator credit for taking up arms when certain prominent Republicans went over the hill. Marc Racicot, the chairman of the Bush campaign, remarked Sunday that "from the very first [we] talked about the fact that John Kerry serviced this country honorably."

This was an odd slip, Freudian or otherwise, for a Montana man to make. Every rancher knows that "servicing" is what a bull does for a heifer. Or maybe it wasn't a slip at all.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:14 PM 0 comments

 

Peter Wallison explains what is wrong with the Kerry medals story.

But what do we have at the end? Once again, Kerry is trying to have it both ways. In 1971, he threw away his ribbons to protest the war in Vietnam, implying that he had actually thrown away the medals. But in 1984, he uses the medals to demonstrate to labor that he did not really do the symbolic act that he performed in 1971. In other words, that throwing away his ribbons was not the same thing as throwing away his medals. If this sounds a lot like "I voted for it before I voted against it," you're getting warm.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:55 PM 0 comments

 

Keith Burgess-Jackson explains liberals.

The first thing you must realize is that liberals have a program. They are visionaries. They envision a world in which everyone controls the same amount of resources. Nobody is born to privilege or disadvantage; or, if anyone is, it is swiftly neutralized by the state. To allow disadvantage, they believe, is to become a participant in it. Society, to the liberal mind, is a massive engineering project. Most of us distinguish misfortune and injustice. Not the liberal. No misfortune goes unaddressed by the social engineers. It is presumed -- conclusively, without evidence or argument -- that disparities in wealth are the result of morally arbitrary factors (accidents of birth or circumstance) rather than individual character, effort, discipline, work, or merit.

Deep down, liberals know that conservatives are no less intelligent than they are. It just makes them feel good to say as much. So they attribute the pervasive belief in responsibility and desert to greed. Opponents of the liberal program are greedy. They won't admit the truth because they don't want to share the wealth. They take the positions they do, on matters such as affirmative action and welfare, to solidify their social position. Greed is bad, of course, so if you reject the liberal program, you're evil. You put self-interest ahead of justice.

Here, in one neat package, we have all the liberal platitudes. Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three. Either they don't grasp the obvious truth or they're incapable of thinking clearly or they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don't try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors. Evil people need suppression. It's often been remarked that liberals are less adept than conservatives at arguing for their views. Now you see why. They don't practice.

That explains why the rhetoric on the left is so vitriolic. Conservatives are evil Nazi-like fascists trying to stem the forces of good.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:46 PM 0 comments

 

More bad news for Air America.

There was a funny moment at the Quiz Bowl tournament we were at Saturday. One team was asked the name of the new liberal radio network. They obviously couldn't remember it at all and the captain finally guessed that its name was "Dead Air." He may have been closer to the truth than he knew.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:43 PM 0 comments

 

Ruth Mitchell has a great column slamming how courses in our schools, including high schools, have been dumbed down so that few courses, except for AP or IB courses, are taught at grade level. I like that she slams one of my pet peeves: high school assignments that are really art projects in disguise.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:01 AM 0 comments

 

Amir Taheri looks at how terror is coming home to roost for the Saudis.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:57 AM 0 comments

 

David Brooks complains that pundits are avoiding talking about what is going on right now in Iraq because they really have no idea what the right course to take is and so would rather criticize decisions that were made a year or more ago because now they have the privilege of hindsight.

What's going on is obvious. The first duty of proper Washingtonians is to demonstrate that they are smarter than whomever they happen to be talking about. It's quite easy to fulfill this mission when you are talking about the past. It's child's play for a salad-course solon who spent the entire 1990's ignoring foreign affairs to condemn the administration piously for not focusing like a laser beam on Al Qaeda on Aug. 6, 2001.

It's harder to be a smart aleck about the future, especially in regards to Najaf and Falluja, where none of the choices are good ones. Do the Baathists win a victory every day they hold off our siege? Or if we take them out now, do we undermine Sistani? We Klieg Light Kierkegaards will give you the right answer — three years from now, after whatever option the president takes has been judged and found wanting.

Some people in other places may like to look through keyholes to see women in their underwear. We here in the political class like to look through keyholes to see what happens when a bunch of alpha males (and females) with the jobs we wish we held sit around a table and curse about people not in the room. After two years of Iraq obsession, many of us couldn't tell you what the Dawa Islamic Party stood for if our kids' Sidwell admissions depended upon it, but the frisson we feel hearing the nasty words Colin Powell said behind the back of Douglas Feith! C'est délicieux!

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:53 AM 0 comments

 

I wonder if the Democrats are having the same doubts about their candidate that conservatives think they should be having. John Podhoretz thinks Kerry is an awful candidate and that the Dems should have gone with John Edwards.

Kerry mentioned Bush's National Guard service not once, but twice, during his five minutes with Charlie Gibson. So now we have the Democratic candidate for president himself making the accusation that the president of the United States was a deserter.

You don't have to be a Bush fan to think this is spectacularly stupid. The issue isn't Bush or his campaign. The issue is Kerry and a series of statements he made on the record in the media dating back more than 30 years. Trying to change the topic to Bush's service simply smacks of cornered desperation.

And that is Kerry's great weakness as a candidate - a weakness that will be hard for him to overcome, because it appears to be a character trait. The man who said "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is a man filled with the conviction that he can talk himself out of a tough situation.

Sometimes, it's better just to be silent, take the hit and move on. But Kerry seems constitutionally incapable of doing that.

Kerry has been the presumptive Democratic nominee for two months now. Ask yourself: Aside from fund-raising success, has he had a good day? Has he come up with a winning soundbite? Has he made a policy proposal you've heard people talking about?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:47 AM 0 comments

 

Liberal columnist Thomas Oliphant tries to defend Kerry by saying that he saw him throw his medals/ribbons away in 1971 and that Kerry never said anything different. Oliphant just doesn't get it. the question isn't whether he threw them or not. It's how he's shaded the story according to the political moment. In 1971 he played up throwing away his medals. Then later, he switched his story and said, it wasn't the medals, but the ribbons plus the medals of a couple other guys that he threw away. Then he denied that he ever claimed to have thrown away his medals. Then he said he would have thrown away his medals but didn't have time to go fetch them. (How much time elapsed between the protestors conceiving the idea th throw away their medals and the actual act? Enough time for a quick flight up to Boston, perhaps?) Then a video clip emerged on ABC of his claiming to have thrown away his medals in 1971. Now, he says that ribbons and medals are the same thing and it's just a ploy of the evilRepublicanattackmachine. It's always the coverup that gets them.

Everyone is having fun with Kerry. Here is The New York Post.

Kerry himself has made his Vietnam service - and his leadership of the anti-war protests - the centerpiece of his candidacy. It's what defines his character, says his campaign.

So if he's got a credibility problem on this issue, what does this say about his credibility on everything else?

Actually, this is becoming par for the course for the man who would be president.

Just last week, he did a similar verbal dance around the issue of SUVs. "I don't own an SUV," he declared, while stressing his support for higher fuel-economy standards.

Which brought the question: Then what's that gas-guzzler parked in your driveway? It's his wife's, he replied: "The family has it. I don't own it."

Gee, senator, have you ever driven the "family" SUV? Or do you refuse, on principle, even to set foot in the car?

While you're at it, got any thoughts on the meaning of "is"?

I don't think yesterday's campaigning is the stuff which reverses polls.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:38 AM 0 comments

 

Andrew Sullivan looks at Woodward's book. The Sullivan-o-meter now is tilting to a nine on a ten scale in favor of Bush.

Which brings one to the real winner of this book: the president. As in the previous book on the Afghanistan war, "Bush at War," the president emerges in this book as a shrewd, fair, diligent, decisive and moral man. He asks the right questions. He makes the tough calls. I have no problem with someone with Bush's responsibility praying as he makes those calls. And reading the book makes me admire this man's calm under fire and composure under immense pressure. Which is, of course, what Bush wants me to believe. And it's what Woodward, in classic form, has delivered.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:19 AM 0 comments

 

I don't think a campaign ever wins by attacking the vice presidential candidate of the other side. I don't think that Kerry will get far demonizing Cheney with Halliburton and the War in Iraq. However, they will definitely go nowhere attacking the timing of the Cheney's first child as a gambit to avoid the draft. People will regard that as a particularly despicable personal attack.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:15 AM 0 comments

 

Why should liberal Jews be so opposed to Bush and regard him as so dangerous to Jewish interests?

Many Jewish liberals are drawn together by a singular hatred for the president — a loathing that is hypocritical, misguided and self-destructive.

While it was acceptable for liberal Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to practice Christianity, Jewish liberals hunker down, awaiting the Bush/Ashcroft conversion police. Jewish liberals devalue the president's religion — his love for Jesus is deemed to be inconsistent with the presidency. Christian conservatives love freedom, embrace the Holy Land and adhere to the Bill of Rights — which guarantees religious freedom. With vicious assaults on conservative Christianity, Jewish liberals, a group supposedly devoted to diversity, act with hypocrisy. But whom should Jews be more wary of? When was the last time a conservative Christian blew up a synagogue filled with worshippers? Did a conservativeChristian slaughter a Jewish journalist on video? Has Mr. Bush ever proclaimed that the Jews control the world as the former (Muslim) Malaysian prime minister recently did?

Jewish liberals accuse the president of neglecting the United Nations. That a Jew-hating fascist dictatorship like Syria held a seat on the Security Council conveniently is ignored. Many U.N. member states are dictatorial, shelter Jew-hating terrorists and are more dedicated to the eradication of Jews than the well-being of their own people. Liberal Jewish support of this corrupt organization is unconscionable. If Israel, a symbol of freedom and Jewry, had submitted to the twisted will of each bigoted U.N. resolution, it would no longer exist.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:07 AM 0 comments

 

Jay Rosen has a long piece about the Bush thesis regarding the press, which can be summed up as "You're Assuming That You Represent the Public. I Don't Accept That."

Boy, nothing cuts the press in the raw as asserting that they don't represent the public. Think of the disconnect between the political beliefs of the press and those of Americans on issues like abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts, you name it. Of course, the press doesn't represent the views of the public. That is why the press is all surprised that Bush's poll numbers went up after they hassled him about not apologizing for anything. They just don't get it.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:03 AM 0 comments

Monday, April 26, 2004

 

Hugh Hewitt sums up the John Kerry line on his medals.

"They're not my medals. I didn't throw them. And besides, you threw them first."

And, I might add, it's all the Republicanattackmachine's fault.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:26 PM 0 comments

 

One moderate voter watched the Good Morning America interview and thinks it's the moment when Kerry lost the campaign.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:17 PM 0 comments

 

Mickey Kaus has more on Kerry flip-flops.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:13 PM 0 comments

 

This latest Pennsylvania poll shows the race tied among likely voters. The trend is obviously in Toomey's favor, however if those voters who say they're "not certain" if they'll vote turn out, Specter should win. I hope they have plenty of poll watchers.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:02 PM 0 comments

 

Is Kerry missing a chance to win the Cuban vote in Florida?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:59 PM 0 comments

 

Mark Steyn is, again, spot on. Here he writes about the Palestinians.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:52 PM 0 comments

 

Kenneth R. Timmerman looks at what has been found in Iraq concerning WMD. There's a lot that hasn't received any publicity.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:49 PM 0 comments

 

A while back Polipundit had some great ideas for ads that the Bush people could run. One idea involved highlighting the weapons systems that Kerry had voted again. Well, apparently the Bush people are either on the same wavelength or reading Polipundit. They've now come out with a similar ad.

I also like Polipundit's response to the ridiculous charges by Kerry that the questions about his medals all are part of a Republicanattackmachine. (It's become such a standard complaint that I think they have a macro programmed on their computers to spit it out.)

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:46 PM 0 comments

 

The Washington Times wants the President to go raise more money.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:17 PM 0 comments

 

Just reading my Civil War calendar. On this date in 1865, John Wilkes Booth was killed. Tomorrow is Ulysses Grant's birthday.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 4:07 PM 0 comments

 

The URL says it all. (Link via The Corner with a warning about foul language.)

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 3:57 PM 0 comments

 

A journalist who used to work for the New York Times looks at their crusade against Mel Gibson.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 3:54 PM 0 comments

 

Kathryn Jean Lopez went to the March of feminists for abortion and against Bush this weekend. Here's her report. Aren't you glad you missed this?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 3:53 PM 0 comments

 

Historians are debating whether or not Robert Oppenheimer was a member of the Communist Party during the 1930's. It seems that he belonged to a left-wing organization that was probably a communist group. The question is whether he knew that and if it meant anything to his work for the government on the Manhattan Project or after the war.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 2:45 PM 0 comments

 

Drudge has the transcript of Kerry's appearance on Good Morning America trying to defend his throwing away his medals or his ribbons or not throwing them or wanting to throw them and forgetting them at home or not wanting to throw them away. Or that it's all the Republicans' fault. Not a great example of resolution and leadership.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:50 PM 0 comments

 

Chief Wiggles answers Andy Rooney's questions.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 9:15 AM 0 comments

 

George Neumayr looks at some of the placards carried in the march for abortion rights this weekend. Apparently, the women are upset that the Pope's mother and Barbara Bush hadn't gone ahead and had abortions.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:59 AM 0 comments

 

Jeff Jacoby is not impressed with Hosni Mubarak's warning that Arabs now hate America so much more than before the Iraq War.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:53 AM 0 comments

 

The Prowler notes that Kerry is having trouble getting volunteers from the campaigns of his defeated rivals to come out to work for him.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:50 AM 0 comments

 

Donald Lambro chastises Kerry for blasting Halliburton when those people are dying to improve life in Iraq.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:44 AM 0 comments

 

William Safire looks at what is wrong with Brahimi.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:32 AM 0 comments

 

Mona Charen has some pet peeves on people mixing up the meaning of several words.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:30 AM 0 comments

 

The Washington Times looks at polls in several battleground states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Iowa, Florida, and Michigan.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:24 AM 0 comments

 

For some non-serious news, you can ponder the thought that Madame Tussaud's is unveiling a Beyonce statue that has a wiggling derriere.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:20 AM 0 comments

 

Well, it's heating up this week with Kerry attacking Cheney and Cheney attacking Kerry. What fun for pundits. I don't know that anyone else is paying attention, however.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:18 AM 0 comments

 

Powerline has some fashion comments on Kerry's biking ensemble. Powerline has also gone trolling through some of the comments on IndyMedia, a liberal site, about the death of Pat Tillman, in a story entitled, "Dumb Jock Killed In Afghanistan." If you can't bear to go to the site itself, Captain's Quarters has some excerpts. Geesh. The vitriol of these people never ceases to amaze.
.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:09 AM 0 comments

 

Bruce Bartlett talks about his earlier experiences with Bob Woodward.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:00 AM 0 comments

 

An editor compares Bush's and Kerry's appearances before the newspaper editors' luncheon.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 5:52 AM 0 comments

 

ABC has unearthed a video of Kerry in 1971 talking about the medals he purportedly threw away in an anti-war protest. Oops, here's another flip-flop by Kerry. Or an outright lie, if you prefer.

"I gave back, I can't remember, 6, 7, 8, 9 medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C. news program on WRC-TV's called Viewpoints on November 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his 11 medals during an anti-war protest in April, 1971.

His campaign Web site calls it a "right wing fiction" and a smear. And in an interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a "myth."

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

It's ironic that his actions in 1971 protesting the war and accusing American soldiers of atrocities, the actions that brought him to national attention in the beginning, are now coming back to bite him. Wait until some conservative specialinterest group puts together an ad about this. And they will.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 5:47 AM 0 comments

Sunday, April 25, 2004

 

I guess the Bush campaign has decided to take Kerry on about his remarks about atrocities being committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. They've chosen Karen Hughes as their voice for the criticism. She even zings him for pretending to throw his medals away.

"He only pretended to throw his. Now, I can understand if, out of conscience, you take a principled stand, and you would decide that you were so opposed to this that you would actually throw your medals. But to pretend to do so -- I think that's very revealing," she said.

I've always thought that that was the anecdote that told you all you needed to know about the shallowness of his character. When I tell my students that story, they all have the same reaction. Yech. What a phony!

In fact, earlier this year, I had my AP Government students do a project following the Democratic contenders in the primaries. The ones who followed Dean fell in love with him. The ones who followed Graham were so glad when he dropped out because he was booooring. They then followed Clark and didn't like him much. The ones who follwed Edwards found him to be a pretty boy and were so sick of hearing about the two Americas and his father working in the mill. The ones who follwed Gephardt were bored stiff. The ones who followed Lieberman liked him but knew he had no chance. And the ones who followed Kerry came to despise him. And this was in October and early November before Kerry made his breakthrough and Dean fell from grace. The Kerry kids laughed doing their presentation about what a loser he'd become. It's funny to think back on how far we've come. But one thing has remained the same. My students, both Republicans and Democrats, don't like Kerry. One very liberal girl said she was so upset to see a creep like Kerry messing up her party. So, I know there's a real enthusiasm gap. I've always felt that my teenagers were a good barometer of how the candidates would do. They thought Dukakis was a joke. They laughed at Bush 41 and liked Clinton. Just saying "Bob Dole" made them laugh. And they thought Gore was strange and didn't really like him, although they do sneer at Bush and how he pronounces "nuclear." And they despise Kerry. So my teen-o-meter, for what it's worth, predicts a Bush victory.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:47 PM 0 comments

 

Scientists have determined what caused the Dust Bowl. It was the oceans' fault.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:32 PM 0 comments

 

Mark Steyn has his own explanation for the poll results showing Bush ahead after the supposed beating he's taken in the past weeks.

One day it will not be necessary to sell ''These Colors Don't Run'' T-shirts. But it is as long as Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore & Co. are twitching to add Iraq to the pockmarked pantheon of Vietnam, Iran and Somalia.

The left resists this analysis. ''Resolve,'' they say, may sound macho but it's also simplistic. Not necessarily. In today's phony-baloney world, nuanced inertia is the simple choice, the default mode of international diplomacy, of the U.N. and the European Union. When you dig into what's holding up American resolve on Iraq, the people seem to be making more subtle distinctions than their elites.

Thus, the president's numbers aren't affected by the sob sisters of CNN's Baghdad bureau filing their heartrending reports on how thousands of Baathist apparatchiks haven't been paid since they were made redundant from Saddam's Department of Genital Mutilation and Electrode Clamping last April.

U.S. public opinion is hardheaded about this: The welfare of the Iraqi people is a bonus, but the welfare of the American people is the primary objective. That's why the United States went to war.

That's the problem for the Democrats. If ''resolve'' is the issue, can you beat it with ''nuance''? If I had to name the definitive Kerry campaign headline it would be this, from Britain's (left-wing, Kerry-backing) Guardian last week: ''Kerry Says His 'Family' Owns SUV, Not He.'' That Chevy Suburban in the yard has nothing to do with him. Who you gonna believe? A respected senator or your lying eyes?

His statement is true in the sense that his ''family'' (i.e., Teresa) also owns the house and the grounds, and indeed a big chunk of his presidential campaign. But it's hard to claim that your powers of diplomatic persuasion would have won over the French and Germans when you can't even win over your ''family.'' And do Americans want to hand over responsibility for Iraq to someone who won't even take responsibility for the car in his driveway?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 10:25 PM 0 comments

 

Here's why everyone talks to Bob Woodward.

One reason for this openness could be Woodward's style. First, he's no "gotcha" journalist. He is not after scoops, or headlines, but is, he often insists, trying to present the facts and understand what happened.

"Journalistically speaking, he is not doing his job, which is to get the news out to his readers, instead of saving it up and charging $28 for it eight months later," says Fellings. "But on the other hand, I am sure it helps interviewees relax and confide in him."

Also, those who know Woodward or have been interviewed by him talk of a "rock star quality" and a "power of seduction" that makes a person feel privileged to be interviewed by him at all. "You feel you can talk to him and say things to him that perhaps you would not say to anybody else - maybe to a priest in a confessional, maybe to your psychiatrist in the quiet of his study," Mr. Gergen told NPR.

And, the more people talk to him, the more others feel they would be missing out not to. Felling calls this "implicit muscle," and compares Woodward to Tony Soprano, the character on the popular TV show. He does not look frightening, says Felling, but he wields great power and everyone knows it.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:40 PM 0 comments

 

David Broder gives his theory of why Kerry's poll numbers have been dropping.

The poll found a roughly 10-point swing from Kerry to Bush during the seeming time of trouble for the president. In trial heats, Bush went from trailing the Massachusetts senator by 5 points to leading by the same margin.

Some public opinion experts, including Andrew Kohut of the Pew Center, think this is a rallying-around effect. When the country is in trouble, especially when young men and women are at risk, the inclination is to support the commander in chief. But the shift appears to be tied directly to a decline in regard for Kerry. Between March and April, The Post's poll showed a 9-point drop in the percentage describing Kerry as a strong leader and a 10-point drop in the share saying he is honest and trustworthy. Bush's numbers moved not at all.

March was the month that Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination, so his scores may have been unnaturally high at that moment. But that does not explain the biggest gap between the rivals. When voters were asked to rate Bush and Kerry on their willingness to take a position and stick with it, eight out of 10 said Bush does that, while only four out of 10 saw that consistency or tenacity in Kerry.

Some Democrats blame this on the millions the Bush campaign has spent in recent weeks on ads depicting Kerry as a flip-flopper. But in the Post-ABC poll, Kerry actually fared much better against Bush in the states where those ads have run than in the rest of the country.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:37 PM 0 comments

 

Vincent Carroll asks a question I've been wondering about Kerry's defense of his Winter Soldier testimony.

There are two mysteries in Kerry's stubborn loyalty to his extremist everyone-did-it rhetoric. The first is why he would want to maintain a thesis that slanders tens of thousands of potential voters who served in Vietnam. Contrary to what Kerry told Congress in 1971, most of those veterans are not ashamed of their service. As Professor Mackubin Thomas Owens of the Naval War College (himself a Marine veteran of Vietnam) noted in a column that appeared January in NationalReviewOnline, "a comprehensive 1980 survey commissioned by the Veterans' Administration reported that 91 percent of those who had seen combat in Vietnam were 'glad they had served their country;' 80 percent disagreed with the statement that 'the U.S. took advantage of me;' and nearly two out of three would go to Vietnam again, even knowing how the war would end."

The second mystery is why Kerry would want voters to believe he spent his time in Vietnam committing awful acts against innocent people. That Kerry was brave and heroic there is no doubt. But why should voters honor bravery and heroism if they merely aided a despicable cause?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:29 PM 0 comments

 

Here's a nice article about how Andre Agassi has funded his own charter school. What a wonderful way for athletes and other millionaires to put their money where their mouths are about helping to give back to their communities.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 3:22 PM 0 comments

 

Sorry for the light posting yesterday. I was watching my school achieve glory in two state competitions. The Quiz Bowl team (which I help coach) won first place in the state Quiz Bowl competition. And then later, I went to watch my school's Science Olympiad team (which my daughter is a member of) win first place in the state Science Olympiad and qualify for the first time to go to the National Tournament. This is so exciting and we're all walking on air in pride at the hard work these kids and their coaches put into preparing for the competition.

Plus, it's an added benefit to see a small charter school whup up on the big public schools and pricey private schools.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:58 AM 0 comments

 

Mark Steyn takes on the silly notion that the UN is somehow a noble institution.

No matter how corrupt and depraved it is in practice, the organisation's sunny utopian image endures. Say the initials "UN" to your average member of Ms Toynbee's legions of the unthinking and they conjure up not UN participation in the sex-slave trade in Bosnia, nor the UN refugee extortion racket in Kenya, nor the UN cover-up of the sex-for-food scandal in West Africa, nor UN complicity in massacres, but some misty Unesco cultural event compered by the late Sir Peter Ustinov featuring photogenic children.

So the question now is whether the UN Oil-for-Food programme is just another of those things that slip down the memory hole, and we all go back to parroting the lullaby that "only the UN can bring legitimacy to Iraq/Afghanistan/Your Basket Case Here". Legitimacy seems to be the one thing the UN doesn't bring, and I'm not just talking about the love-children of UN-enriched Balkan hookers in Kosovo.

The scale of the UN Oil-for-Fraud programme is way beyond any of the corporate scandals that so excite the progressive mind. Oil-for-Food was designed to let the Iraqi government sell a limited amount of oil in return for food and other necessities for its people. Between 1996 and 2003, Saddam did more than $100 billion of business, all of it approved by Kofi Annan's Secretariat.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:52 AM 0 comments

 

Even the New York Times seems to think that Kerry should release his records. HEre is another reason that I hadn't thought of.

Bill Allison, a spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said tax returns were private because the government gets more detailed information that way. For a candidate or spouse to refuse to release the returns, Mr. Allison said, could set a dangerous precedent and lead future candidates to file returns separate from their spouses.

"Down the road, someone could use the same exception nefariously and put all their business in their wife's name and avoid disclosure that way, and soon everyone will be filing separately and that will gut the whole idea of disclosure," he said. "She has to disclose."

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:29 AM 0 comments