 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||||
For those interested in the fate of the West (interior West, that is), AFF has a podcast up of the panel it held in Denver last week.
My portion of the panel starts at around 42:00. The real heat came, though, in the Q&A, which follows immediately after my portion.
And, yes, I really do subscribe to the Focus on the Family email blast just to enrage myself on a daily basis. Those people sure do hate teh gays.
In my post column today, I look at two upcoming, important free-speech cases:
Let’s face it: The 2008 election season is well under way, yet political speech remains decidedly un-free in America - held hostage to the vanity of John McCain and the cynicism of his accomplices in Congress and the media, who seek to silence their political opponents in the name of clean government.
…
Citizens United, an activist conservative group, wants relief from burdensome disclosure and disclaimers rules in ads for its documentary, “Hillary: The Movie.” While the film isn’t necessarily the most high-minded of cinematic projects (sample from the script: “She is steeped in controversy, steeped in sleaze.”), it is - as political speech - every bit as deserving of First Amendment protection as the newspapers of the early republic or the communist Daily Worker.
The other case relates to SpeechNow.org, which wants to run ads against politicians who support campaign-speech regulation. They’re aiming for irony, and will likely see their efforts to speak out against speech regulation shut down by … speech regulation.
If you happen to be in the Denver area next Wednesday evening (March 26), I’ll be on an America’s Future Foundation panel about the political fortunes of the GOP in the West (a topic, of course, close to my heart): “How the West Will Be Lost.”
Pessimistic, but I think correctly so (at least it’s pessimistic from a partisan, GOP perspective). Here’s the description from the Web site:
It’s no mistake that Democrats will be hosting their national convention in Denver. Liberal funders have invested heavily in Colorado as part of a multi-cycle strategy to turn traditionally red states in the mountain west blue. But have Republicans and the Religious Right put more libertarian-leaning mountain states up for grabs? Looking at the primaries, does Huckabee’s success indicate the growing or waning influence of evangelicals in the Republican Party? Does Ron Paul’s fundraising success indicate a growing influence of libertarians? And what to make of McCain? Join our panelists as we discuss the future of libertarians, conservatives, and evangelicals in the West.
Also on the panel will be Gene Healy of the Cato Institute, Jim Pfaff, president of the Colorado Family Institute, and Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute. It will be moderated by Brad Jones of FaceTheState.com.
Should be a fun time. Colorado really is ground zero in the West-turning-Blue story.
A look at what’s wrong with superdelegates:
ABOUT half a million Democrats went to the polls on Saturday, in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington state, handing decisive victories to Barack Obama. Some 14.6 million Democrats went to the polls Feb. 5 on Super Tuesday, including 1.7 million New Yorkers, and delivered a decision more evenly split between Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But maybe everyone should’ve just stayed home. In the end, the Democratic race may be decided not by the voters, but by 796 party powerbrokers: the superdelegates.
As a libertarian committed to the defeat of John McCain, I’ll be pissed if we’re left with Hillary Clinton as our last, best hope.
In my Post column today, I look at McCain’s continuing weakness with the base:
McCain’s strength, early on in the night, manifested itself most clearly in the northeast, where he racked up his first sound victories - that is, ones where he was able to break the 50-percent mark.
States like Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois and New York gave the Arizona senator comfortable margins of victory over his nearest competitor in the region, Mitt Romney.
But these states don’t represent the heart of the Republican Party - they hardly ever end up painted red on election nights these days. They may represent delegates in the primary process, but they don’t tell us anything about the senator’s ability to rally the base.
In the southern states, which do make up the heart of the Republican Party, McCain found himself slogging it out with Evangelical candidate Mike Huckabee last night.
As of this writing, Arkansas had been called for Huckabee (the hometown boy, by a lot), as had Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee (by smaller margins).
The results down South once again showed McCain’s weakness with the base. In Georgia, for instance, exit polls found McCain losing conservatives (67 percent of the primary electorate) to Huckabee by 21 percent to 38 percent. In fact, McCain was third among conservatives, with Romney garnering 37 percent of their votes.
Frankly, I’m not sure this can be overcome. McCain had his chance to be conciliatory toward the right between Florida and February 5; instead, he chose to act his obnoxious, arrogant self, smirking his way through the Reagan Library debate and unveiling that appalling line about “patriotism, not profit.” McCain the underdog has its appeal (though, not to me). But McCain the frontrunner is just a disgusting spectacle.
For the first time in a long time, the GOP may actually nominate the less likable candidate this time around.
In my Post column this morning, I look at McCain’s win — a narrow one, once again without the conservative base, but enough:
THEY don’t like him. They re ally don’t like him. But he’s going to be their nominee.
John McCain has won yet another primary without carrying either self-identified conservatives or Republicans - at least according to the Florida exit polls, which show McCain losing self-identified Republicans by 31 percent to 33 percent for Mitt Romney. More, Romney scored a stunning 37 percent of self-described conservatives to McCain’s 27 percent.
But a win is a win - and there’s little that can stop the Straight Talk Express now.
McCain had been written off by the pundits (including me, many times, usually quite gleefully), but the media remains his base, his campaign treasure chest and his get-out-the-vote operation all wrapped up into one. His narrow victory will ring through the land as a landslide.
And, truth be told, while it’s underwhelming, it’s enough. It’s long been clear the winner of Florida would almost certainly go on to win the whole thing - and now McCain has, and he most likely will.
With Mike Huckabee staying in the race to split the conservative (and especially the southern Evangelical) vote, it’s hard to see where Romney could put together any significant number of primary victories on Feb. 5.
I also give a brief assessment of how he fares versus the two possible Dems. Short version: well against Hillary, poorly against Barack.
In today’s New York Post, I look at why Rudy Giuliani ran a campaign that deserves to lose:
TOMORROW in Florida, Rudy Giuliani will make what is expected to be his last stand of the ‘08 race. What went wrong?
As an early (2006) believer in his capacity to become this race’s frontrunner, I’d have to say that he’s run a campaign that deserves to lose.
While he focused strategically on Florida and the Feb. 5 states, he undermined this by pitching his campaign thematically to Iowa and other parts of the GOP least likely to vote for him.
My conclusion: The best thing Giuliani can do now is to bow out gracefully should he come up with anything less than a win tomorrow. He had his chance and wasted it: The least he can do now is stop wasting our time.
My Post column today looks at the emerging one-on-one race between John McCain and Mitt Romney:
BARRING a longshot comeback by Rudy Giuliani in Florida on Jan. 29, GOP voters now face a choice between the guy they’re not sure they like, vs. the guy they’re sure they dislike - that is, a choice between conservative chameleon Mitt Romney and professional maverick John McCain.
There’s already no love lost between Romney and McCain. Their hate for each other is so pure it could wash away sin. But things are only likely to get uglier and more heated from here on in.
[W]hat utterly opposite candidacies the two men represent. The man who will say anything to please, versus the man who says anything he pleases.
It also takes a skeptical look at McCain’s supposed big win in South Carolina.
My column from this morning’s Post:
January 16, 2008 — ‘WELL, my friends, for a minute there in New Hampshire I thought this campaign might be getting easier,” John McCain started off, as he conceded to Mitt Romney last night.
They were pretty much the only words the Arizona senator managed to get out of his mouth before Romney ran him over by starting his victory speech - contrary to convention - before his opponent could even spend a few seconds on national TV brushing off the dust of ignominious defeat.
Mitt’s message: Mac is most definitely not back.
…
Perhaps Romney’s personality just appeals more to Republicans than does the sometimes cantankerous McCain’s. But Romney also had something of a revival on the campaign trail in Michigan. Talking about the woes of the auto industry, and what he promised to do to make them go away, Romney seemed passionate and animated and genuine in a way that he hadn’t before in the campaign.
Of course, a marginally more sincere Romney — one still lying to Michiganders that they’re auto industry can come back — may yet be someone for whom few of us will wish to vote. But it’s a welcome departure from the utterly horror-show-like Mitt of 2007.
My column, from this morning’s Post:
IT looks like this year’s primaries have put “pander bears” on the endangered-species list.
Bay State Sen. Paul Tsongas coined the phrase in 1992 to describe his Democratic primary opponent, Bill Clinton. But it’s the Republican electorate that’s punishing the fakes and frauds this year.
Just look at the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. Throughout 2007, the conventional wisdom was that the GOP base would run riot over illegal immigration. The pitchforks were being sharpened, the torches lit - the GOP candidates would have to “out-Tancredo [Rep. Tom] Tancredo,” as the nativist firebrand himself put it at a debate in late November.
As I wrote about recently here, immigration didn’t turn out to be the issue it was cracked up to be. But a lot of other types of pandering have hurt the GOP candidates this cycle as well.
My Post column this morning gives a breakdown of Iowa:
IOWA is one strange bag of corn. First off, only one candidate has ever won the Iowa caucus and gone on to win the presidency in the same year: George W. Bush. Second: Various candidates who don’t win the caucus are liable to find reason for cheer. On the GOP side last night, while Mike Huckabee certainly has plenty to celebrate, they were also cheering over at John McCain and Rudy Giuliani headquarters. This is a three-man race now - and a two-man race to see who will stop Huck.
From there, I go candidate by candidate.
A few points, though, that I didn’t have space to make:
* What a refutation of the McCain-Feingold-Media theory of American democracy — that it’s all about the money. Romney proved you can’t buy elections in America. It’s been proven a thousand times before, of course, but here’s a great reminder. What irony that Huckabee’s penniless victory will do so much to benefit Mr. Maverick.
* On Ron Paul: With 10% of the vote, a higher place than Rudy Giuliani in the Hawkeye State, and lots of cash in the bank, what possible criteria can justify excluding him from future debates? None, I’d say. Let the man in.
* Of course: Barack Obama winning is huge, not just for this primary, but for America. It’s been said before, but having a black candidate who’s not just “the black candidate” is an amazing moment in American history. For it to break out in rural, lily-white Iowa is all the more amazing. I confess I’m rooting for Obama to win the primary. As a registered Democrat, I expect to vote for him February 5. Honestly, his rhetoric is much better than his policy. But given the alternative of restoring the Clinton dynasty or — retch — voting for John Edwards, I’ll pick the hopemonger.
* Lastly, another big loser last night: Michael Bloomberg. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are the candidates who would create room for a Bloomy run on the Right. Clinton and Edwards are the ones who would create that space for him on the Left. Two of those four candidacies died last night: Edwards and Romney. Huckabee is essentially implausible as the nominee in the GOP. Clinton is in trouble. I actually don’t believe there’s space in the race for Bloomy no matter what (I get tired of saying it, but the third-party space in America exists in the Dobbs-Buchanan center, not in the Bloomy-centrist-journalist center), but a run just got a lot less likely.
In today’s Post, my thoughts on the GOP debate and the campaigns the candidates’ might have run if they had 2007 to do over again:
YESTERDAY’S Republican debate - the last one before voters go to the polls Jan. 3 for the Iowa Caucuses - resembled a train wreck on more than one occasion.The big embarrassment was ex-Ambassador Alan Keyes, who hasn’t been at any other debate - and looked at many points like he’d have to be removed from the stage by security.
Still, out of all the chaos emerged at least a few revealing things about the candidates’ strategies going forward - and the campaigns they might have run, if they had 2007 to do over.
Awards season may just be getting underway, but we already have at least one winner. The award for worst debate moderating in a presidential primary goes to: the editor of the Des Moines Register, Carolyn Washburn, for her part in yesterday’s GOP debate on Iowa Public Television.
In today’s Post, I argue that Mitt’s Mormon speech will be of little to no use. The real problem is his flip-flopping:
ON Thursday, at the George H.W. Bush presidential library in College Station, Texas, Mitt Romney will deliver what’s being called his “JFK speech.”
Unfortunately for Romney, he’s trying to deal with a John F. Kennedy problem - a nation uneasy with the religion of a serious presidential candidate - when his real weakness is a John F. Kerry-type woe. Like the presidential candidate who “voted for it before I voted against it,” Romney is seen as a flip-flopper whose only guiding principle is personal ambition.
Romney & Co. seem to have panicked quite thoroughly over Mike Huckabee’s rise in the polls. Instead of a well-funded campaign of attack ads to take down the so-far unscrutinized Huckabee, the Romney campaign has decided they’d be better off putting the Mormon issue front and center for at least a week (it’ll probably be more like two) in the home stretch before Iowa votes on January 3.
There’s a phrase that describes that: political suicide.
In today’s New York Post, I make the argument that Ron Paul’s success has far less to do with any “libertarian moment” than it has to do with an unfortunate rise of populist sentiment in the Republican Party:
December 1, 2007 — FOLKS in Washington seem to think that the unexpected success of Ron Paul in the Republican primary suggests the country is in some kind of “libertarian moment” that will reshape American politics. Sorry: While I’d be delighted if the GOP were gripped by libertarianism - that is, a resurgent commitment to economic and social freedom - the truth is actually quite the opposite.
Both The Washington Times and The Washington Post ran pieces over the weekend reading big things into Paul’s showing in the polls. He’s at around 5 percent nationally and in Iowa - far above the 1 percent blip you’d expect from a fringe candidate. And he’s done phenomenally in fund-raising, bringing in $9 million-plus so far this quarter (which may put him ahead of John McCain in the cash race).
But what does the Ron Paul Revolution, as it’s dubbed itself, really represent? Paul, a 10-term congressman from Texas and the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president, has a well-deserved reputation as a principled constitutionalist. But his success now has more to do with anti-war populism than radical libertarianism.
How else to reconcile the simultaneous rise of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee?
My latest in the N.Y. Post:
SEN. John McCain has a problem: Some of his supporters have decided to run ads boosting his campaign down in South Carolina.
Why is that a problem? The group running the ad is endrunning McCain’s beloved campaign-finance restrictions. So the senator can either admit that the “independent groups” he’s spent so much time railing against aren’t really an existential threat to American democracy, or he can relentlessly denounce his own supporters for having the temerity to try to get their candidate elected.
He’s chosen the latter option. But instead of proving how principled he is, he’s merely helped demonstrate how counterproductive his brand of speech regulation truly is.
Yes, I know: Me hating on John McCain. You’ve seen it before. But the irony of this latest episode is so delicious I’m worried about being too full for Thanksgiving dinner.
Today I have my first column in The Politico. It’s on my favorite topic: the West. The main analysis certainly won’t shock anyone who’s been following me on the topic. But there’s a short preview of the down-ticket races that will be important in ‘08. The seat being vacated by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) is likely to be a big pick-up for the Democrats; and it will solidify the state’s emerging “blue” status.
UPDATE: Also, the column was part of a package. Here, James Antle offers a take skeptical of any sort of “libertarian” sentiment in the West — he thinks the trend is more outright liberal. I’d just note, as I have before, that no part of America is actually “libertarian.” Bad ideas like the minimum wage are going to pass pretty much anywhere you put them on the ballot. But, relatively speaking, this is a region that wants low spending and little regulation of people’s private lives. It’s a broad definition, to be sure, but I’m convinced it’s closer to libertarian than liberal.
I forgot to link my article on Eliot Spitzer and charter schools from the New York Post on Friday. And a book review (of John Samples’ new campaign-finance-reform book) from the New York Post on Sunday.
Shorter Sager:
* Spitzer is proving to be pretty good on charter schools at this early date.
* John Samples is smart and right; campaign-finance reform is a scam.
Have a nice day.
UPDATE: Also, a correction to my charter school piece. In the piece, I say the Department of Education commissioned a review of the Williamsburg Charter HS. Actually, the school’s board of directors commissioned that review.
In the New York Post today, I write up the latest outrage campaign-finance reform has visited upon free speech:
It looks like John McCain has a little explaining to do to the NASCAR set.Kirk Shelmerdine — one of the greatest pit-crew chiefs ever, most famously for the late Dale Earnhardt, Sr. — is today engaged in a less-successful second career as a driver. But to the Federal Election Commission, he’s just a reckless campaign-finance law violator.
The day after Christmas, the FEC announced that it was sending Shelmerdine a “letter of admonishment” for his actions during the 2004 presidential campaign — namely, putting a “Bush/Cheney ‘04″ decal on a panel of his car for a total of four races.
It seems the FEC sees the decal as a “contribution.” The definition of possible “contributions” is expanding rapidly — bumper stickers on celebrity cars, ads for movies (see: Michael Moore and “Fahrenheit 9/11″ during the 2004 campaign), ads for newspapers that have incidental mentions of candidates names (see: Santorum vs. Casey Senate race in 2006), and, most egregiously, out in Seattle a while back, talk on a talk-radio program against a gas-tax increase.
Next up? Political t-shirts on rock stars? Bumper stickers on celebrities’ private cars? Who knows?
All we do know is that if there’s somebody willing to complain to the FEC, innocent civilians will have to answer to federal regulators for their unsanctioned political activities.
Thank John McCain.
I’m scheduled to be on the Rush Limbaugh Show at 1:15 p.m., tomorrow (Wednesday). I’ll be talking about the book.
A list of stations that carry the show can be found here.
I’ll also be traveling over the next few days. Wednesday night, I’ll be at the Dole Institute in Kansas. On Thursday, I’m scheduled to be on a panel in Washington, D.C., hosted by National Journal. We’ll be talking about the field for the ‘08 election. I’ll be — extremely unofficially — representing the pro-Rudy camp. My panel’s the one at 11 a.m.
UPDATE: I won’t be able to make the National Journal panel (trouble with travel out of Kansas). Hopefully, Rudy won’t go totally unrepresented.
I forgot to post this earlier, but I’m scheduled to be on “The Heartland with John Kasich” at 8 p.m. tonight.
Yale Law School has a (relatively) new publication called Opening Argument. The latest issue asks the question: “Does the Democratic Party have a future?”
I write in support of the “yes” side — perhaps the only time I’ll ever work so closely in concert with my fellow contributor … Nancy Pelosi.
This is going to earn me so much abuse from my Republican friends (some of my best friends are Republicans!).
A bunch of new stuff is up under News/Reviews and Appearances.
That includes a radio interview tomorrow morning in Boston. Also, there’s a bunch of radio coming up on Election Day.
More will be coming throughout the month.
I’m on a segment about Kerry’s botched joke tonight on CNN Headline News’s Glenn Beck show.
I forgot to link my column Friday on the New Jersey gay-marriage-(but-not-really) decision.
Essentially, I think the court got things right. It wasn’t exactly an exercise in judicial modesty — in fact, the court asserted fairly boldly that it had the power to short-cut the democratic process if it so chose … but they decided to be nice and restrain themselves from mandating full “marriage.” (The three dissenting justices weren’t conservatives — they would have taken that next step and mandated it.)
In the end, however, given that sexual orientation is a “protected category” in New Jersey, and given that the state didn’t even argue that heterosexual-only marriage was necessary “for the kids,” I don’t see how the court could not have granted at least civil-marriage rights.
The fact that the state essentially didn’t even put up a fight is what strikes me as most interesting here. The factual and logical argument over whether excluding gays from marriage helps straight families is over. It doesn’t. The only obstacle left now is culture and time. Every day, the younger generation that accepts gays rises, and the older generation that doesn’t dies off. All that these marriage amendments represent is the last gasp of a dying bigotry.
Good riddance.
I’m scheduled to be on Fox News’s “Live Desk” at 1 p.m. tomorrow (er, today, Friday).
We’ll be talking about … really, whatever comes up.
UPDATE: Rescheduled for next week.
New radio and TV appearances here.
I’m scheduled to be on Fox & Friends tomorrow morning. Then, on Tucker Carlson’s show around 4:30 p.m.
On Saturday, I’m scheduled to be on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal at 7:45 a.m.
Tonight, from 7:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Eastern, I’ll be on Open Source Radio discussing the 2006 midterms. Here’s a list of places you can listen on public radio, and you can also listen at the Open Source Radio Web site.
The panel tonight is headlined, Handicapping the Midterms. I’ll be on, starting around 7:20, talking about The Elephant in the Room. And we’ll also be joined by Chuck Todd of The Hotline and Ari Berman of The Nation.
Should be fun.
The appearances page has been updated with all currently scheduled in-person and TV and radio appearances.
Tonight, I’ll be at the New York Young Republican Club (meeting at: Soldiers’, Sailors’, Marines’ & Airmen’s Club, 283 Lexington Avenue (btw. 36th & 37th Streets), 8:30 p.m.).
Tomorrow morning, I’m scheduled to be on Fox & Friends. Time to-be-determined.
There’s also a ton of local radio, for anyone who might want to try to catch it.
It’s archived and available to watch in RealVideo here. There’s a great blog account here.
A surprising number of people have inquired.
We had a great (overflowing from the auditorium) crowd and a great discussion. A lot of people — at least, you know, at Cato — are pretty ticked off with the direction of the Republican Party.
Actually, pretty much every conservative radio host I’m talking to this week thinks it would be a good thing if the GOP just lost the House (at least) this election.
Recent Comments