The Spectacle Blog

Meghan McCain Doesn't Get It

Jeffrey Lord — Tue, 29 May 2012 13:36:00 -0400

Meghan McCain is out there making the circuit with her new book, America You Sexy Bitch: A Love Letter to Freedom.

In so doing she complains about her Internet critics -- to which I can only say: chill out.

Politics, as Mr. Dooley said, ain't bean bag. What she is seeing on the Internet is only the Internet version of the kind of things millions of Americans have muttered under their breath about political personalities for centuries. Only now, cloaked in anonymity, this stuff makes it onto the Internet. One would gently suggest she learn to ignore it -- a must if she intends to continue.

Now as to her recent column in the Daily Beast … one can only marvel at her naïveté.

Without the slightest hint that she understood the irony, she said this:

Last week, I went on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show PoliticsNation to talk about extremism in the Republican Party. As a socially liberal Republican, this happens to be a topic I know a lot about.

I confess to being speechless.

Let me see if I understand this. Ms. McCain actually went on the show of a man whom we have written about here as shouting a gay slur on national television (here). Not to mention that her host is the same guy (audios linked in my article) captured on audio tape calling the Mayor of New York the "n-word" and referring to "Greek homos."

In other words, there is Meghan McCain sitting blissfully on the television show of a man who has a repeated habit of gay-bashing and race-baiting -- bullying -- while saying that Republicans are extremists.

Did she have the courage to call Sharpton out on this?

Nah.

But she is concerned if you think she has a weight problem. And she can write up a storm about Internet bullies. But face to face with a real bully? Somebody who has been out there gay bashing on camera? Why, she melts. So much for principle and Republican moderates.

Personally? What Meghan McCain looks like is irrelevant. What she so passively buys into is frightening.

The Paul Factor

W. James Antle, III — Tue, 29 May 2012 13:29:00 -0400

Tonight Mitt Romney will beat Ron Paul in the Texas primary, and possibly clinch the Republican presidential nomination. But the Paul network will be active in the state's Senate primary, like other races across the country. BuzzFeed reports:

Quietly, from the remnants of two failed presidential campaigns and the formidable online Paul organizations, a political machine is being born. The Paul agenda of extremely limited government, suspicion of economic elites, and their true outsider street cred have broad appeal in their party’s politics that go well beyond the sometimes-eccentric standard-bearer. The Republican Senate nominees in Wisconsin and Minnesota this cycle owe their nomination in part to the Paul influence. A Paul acolyte, Ted Cruz, is on the cusp of an upset victory over the establishment favorite in Texas Republican Senate primary. And Paul’s son Rand, the junior senator from Kentucky, is now mentioned seriously as a prospect for the 2016 Republican nomination should Mitt Romney fall short in November.

This new attention to state races is, a Paul advisor said, a matter of strategy.

I wouldn't say that Cruz is a "Paul acolyte" in the same sense as some candidates running explicitly as Ron Paul Republicans. But Cruz has the support of both Pauls, among many other conservatives, and we'll see if he can force a runoff tonight. (Since some commenters will bring up Paul no matter what I post about, figure I might as well have a genuine Paul-related blog entry.)

Planned Parenthood and Sex-Selective Abortion

TAS Staff — Tue, 29 May 2012 12:39:00 -0400

Stacy McCain's Kimberlin Story a Must Read

Jeffrey Lord — Tue, 29 May 2012 12:13:00 -0400

Stacy McCain's story nearby, "Terror By Any Other Name," is yet one more piece of evidence of just how far around the bend the American Left has gone.

The saga of Brett Kimberlin as Stacy explains it is in reality a microcosm of the leftist mindset that has been more than evident since the 1960s at a minimum. In fact, as I have detailed in an earlier piece "The Obama Thugocracy" -- and I am not alone in using the term -- intimidation and violence are staples of the left in general. Two years ago Andrea Tantaros (now a star of Fox's The Five) used the same title in her Fox column, and she had her own list of examples, saying:

From the G.M. bondholders, to the Black Panthers at polling stations, to ACORN to these assaults on private citizens, Obama is running a Hugo Chavez-style thugocracy. Like Chavez, he gets non-official "allies" to act as his henchmen and do the intimidation work. Obama provides the narrative and tells the story of "greed" while the SEIU provides the muscle. This is about power, not prosperity.

As I've mentioned, from the moment the blood thirsty French Revolutionaries began carting their enemies to the guillotine, on down through this or that socialist regime disguised as Russian Communists, German Nazis, Italian Fascists or Chinese Maoists -- the reflexive urge to intimidate opponents if not kill them outright has been present in all. In its modified American form this has shown up in varied venues across the decades. Here's a partial list -- a partial list just from 1969!!!!

The Haymarket Police Statue Bombing -- Chicago, October 5, 1969: By the Weathermen.
Days of Rage, a three day orgy of violence attacking cars, houses, a barber shop and luxury homes -- Chicago, October 8-11, 1969: By the Weathermen.
Sniper attack on Cambridge, Massachusetts police station -- November 8, 1969: By the Weathermen.
Bombing of Chicago police cars -- December 6, 1969: By the Weather Underground.

And on….and on…and on. The list, trailing into the 1980s, is long. Very long, as seen here.

In today's world we have the violence from Occupy Wall Street. Not to mention the attempts to remove Rush Limbaugh from the air, the moves to "Stop Beck" …or Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan or Limbaugh advertiser Mark Stevens or Romney contributor Frank VanderSloot.

Now comes Stacy's tale of Brett Kimberlin, and these two disturbing tales of SWATting. One from Patrick Frey (the blogger Patterico) -- a frightening must-read tale of being SWATted -- and Sunday's SWATting of Red State's Erick Erikson, a CNN contributor.

All of this, I would suggest, is of a piece. Glimpses into the intellectual machinery of the Left….from the French Revolutionaries of 1789 right on down to the actions attributed to Mr. Kimberlin, if indeed he is responsible as so many are suggesting. Our friend and TAS Founder Bob Tyrrell has a book out right this minute titled The Death of Liberalism. The agenda of the Left in the Obama Era is "Stealth Socialism" says Bob. And in the hands of what he calls the "Infantile Left" the actions like all those listed above are what are collectively responsible for driving the number of self-identified liberals from a dominant majority to a mere 20% of the American public. No wonder.

Last Friday there was a Everybody Blog Brett Kimberlin Day. Alas, news of this reached my precincts too late (and a hat tip to TAS commenter "Booger" for the alert.)

It's very safe to say The American Spectator supports free speech.

Had I known early enough I would certainly have blogged in on the subject. So consider it now done, if late. And a decided thumbs up to Michelle Malkin for yet another display of moral courage when the chips are down.

And make sure to read my colleague Stacy McCain's story. You can be sure I'm on his side.

Bain v. Solyndra

W. James Antle, III — Tue, 29 May 2012 12:11:00 -0400

Today on the main site, I covered Barack Obama's attempt to resurrect Ted Kennedy's 1994 Bain attacks against Mitt Romney. Kennedy was able to derail Romney's Senate campaign by portraying his Republican challenger as a profiteering job destroyer. Yet Obama is running into some trouble getting history to repeat itself.

One complication I didn't mention in my column is the president's own record of crony capitalism. American Crossroads has a new ad hitting Obama as the "Public Equity President," pointing to public investments like Solyndra that have cost workers jobs and taxpayers money.

Illusionist

Yogi Love — Tue, 29 May 2012 10:06:00 -0400

At Least He Apologized

Ross Kaminsky — Tue, 29 May 2012 08:34:00 -0400

On Sunday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes put his foot in it in the worst possible way. Speaking in the context of Memorial Day, Hayes said he is "uncomfortable about the word 'hero' because it seems so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war."

To be fair, he did say that he understands there is such a thing as true heroism, but also that we "marshal this word in a way that is problematic."

What planet does Hayes live on? Planet Nimrod, clearly. Beyond the obvious question of who would think like that, one has to wonder who would speak like that? Nobody who is in touch with real life on Planet Earth.

The liberal intelligentsia is so reflexively anti-war that they are, despite their not-so-brave words to the contrary, also anti-military, which is to say anti-individual military members even if they will not admit it.

Hayes is the elitist version of the Vietnam War protestor spitting on a returning soldier.

John McWhorter of the NY Daily News was equally out of touch and equally deserving of scorn and ridicule: "Sometimes you need to revise. I would almost rather not say 'hero' and come up with a more neutral term which of course would take on partisan resonances as time went by...it is manipulative, I don't think necessarily deliberately."

In other words, for that New York leftist elitist, the word 'hero', along with 'sacrifice' and "valor', is part of some grand conservative "argumentational strategy," as if anyone knows what that means.

Hayes, McWhorter, and other guests on Hayes' Sunday show are living proof that liberals must try so hard to make themselves sound smart because their actual thoughts are so stupid.

Another liberal went on to say that the word 'hero' is meant to 'drape war in a righteous way." Just goes to show that there are both males and females of the Nimrod species.

Ann Coulter, on Twitter, capsulized the reaction of many: "Chris Hayes 'Uncomfortable' Calling Fallen Military 'Heroes' – Marines respond by protecting his right to menstruate."

Not surprisingly, Hayes followed this discussion with an interview of a woman whose son committed suicide after serving just over a year in Iraq, and who blames the Army for his death. (I'm not saying that this poor mother is wrong, just that it was an utterly inappropriate segment on the day before Memorial Day.)

If you can tolerate listening to effete liberals who understand nothing about the real America or real Americans, you can watch this, starting at about 6 1/2 minutes into the video. You will find it almost incomprehensible that MSNBC was able to find in one town on one day so many people with such fanatically anti-military views. But that's Manhattan for you.

At least Hayes had the courage to offer a sincere-sounding apology, though I'm certainly not alone with my suspicion that he truly believes everything he said, and everything his co-religionists in the cult of anti-Americanism said alongside him to besmirch our soldiers -- living, dead, and fallen -- on this Memorial Day weekend.

Our soldiers take an oath to defend America against enemies foreign and domestic. Clearly, domestic enemies are in MSNBC studios, though I don't suggest they be punished or harmed. They have every right to be idiots, though one would prefer that they at least recognize who is risking life and limb to protect that right. While I understand the temptation to waterboard Chris Hayes, the right answer is to understand that he represents today's Democratic Party. The proper punishment for Mr. Hayes and his ilk is to make sure their TV ratings are as low as possible (which may already be the case when it comes to Mr. Hayes' show) and to vote against Democratic candidates, other than those who (unlike John Kerry) have served with honor, at every opportunity.

Gallup: Veterans Prefer Romney

W. James Antle, III — Mon, 28 May 2012 12:48:00 -0400

According to a Gallup poll released on Memorial Day, veterans support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by 58 percent to 34 percent. Obama has a four-point lead among nonveterans and the two candidates are tied among all registered voters.

While veterans in all age groups back Romney, his support is strongest among veterans aged 70 to 79 (66 percent for Romney, 28 percent for Obama) and weakest among those aged 50 to 59 (though these veterans still break 54 percent to 39 percent for Romney). Romney only leads by five points among veterans who are women, but 24 percent of adult men have served in the military compared to only 2 percent of adult women.

Gallup's Frank Newport writes, "It turns out that the male skew for Romney is driven almost entirely by veterans. Romney leads by one point among nonveteran men, contrasted with the 28-point edge Romney receives among male veterans."

Markos Moulitsas is Scum

Quin Hillyer — Mon, 28 May 2012 10:35:00 -0400

Evidence here. That is all.

Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Memorial Day Edition

W. James Antle, III — Sun, 27 May 2012 11:13:00 -0400

1. By most accounts, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker performed ably in his first debate against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, his Democratic challenger in the recall election. But how many people really watched a Friday night debate before Memorial Day weekend? The scheduling gave Walker a good dry run before the next debate, when presumably more people will be paying attention.

2. The Texas Republican Senate primary will take place immediately after Memorial Day, with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst hoping to avoid a runoff against Tea Party-backed conservative Ted Cruz. Dewhurst has been hovering around the necessary 50 percent mark in some surveys, so he has moved in for the kill by trying to associate Cruz with amnesty for illegal immigrants and calling Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert a liberal. Cruz has fired back that Dewhurst is trafficking in bigotry. From my view, Dewhurst's ad is misleading and Cruz' charge is a risky one in a GOP primary.

3. Barack Obama's weak showing in last week's Democratic primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky, following similar problems in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Alabama, North Carolina, and Louisiana, raises red flags for the incumbent president. Of these states, only North Carolina will actually be in play this fall. But it does speak to Obama's problems appealing to a kind of voter that will be well represented in genuine swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Sean Trende covered this well in an analysis for RealClearPolitics.

4. On ABC this morning, George Will asked a pertinent question: Why would it be divisive for the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare by a 5-4 decision, but not divisive for the court to uphold the unpopular law by 5-4?

5. All week long, Obama faced surprising Democratic backlash against his attacks on Mitt Romney's Bain record. Cory Booker and Harold Ford have frequently tried to appeal to centrists, but Ed Rendell is a pretty partisan figure.

6. A worthwhile statement from Rep. Jeff Miller, the Florida Republican who chairs the House Veterans Committee, about this weekend: "This Monday, as a nation, we will observe Memorial Day. Memorial Day is not just for barbeques, shopping, or having the day off from work. It is the day of the year all Americans should remember and reflect upon those who have fought for our country and who now lay in peace."

Johan Santana Shines on Rusty Staub Bobblehead Day

Aaron Goldstein — Sat, 26 May 2012 17:35:00 -0400

I am spending Memorial Day Weekend in New York with my Dad.

We along with 28,743 other people are now the proud owners of a Rusty Staub Bobblehead. The New York Mets were giving them away before today's game against the San Diego Padres. Amazingly, the Mets didn't have Staub throw out the first pitch or have some kind of on field ceremony for him. Instead, Le Grande Orange made a cameo appearance in the stands shaking hands with a member of the Royal Canadian Navy who could not correctly identify the season Staub became the first Met to drive in 100 or more runs in season. Staub had 105 RBI for the Mets in 1975. I am amazed that it took 15 years for a Met to drive in 100 runs in a season. I am also amazed that he held the team record for 15 years until it was broken by Darryl Strawberry who knocked in 108 runs in 1990. Mike Piazza and David Wright have the Mets team record with 124 RBI in 1999 and 2008, respectively.

Speaking of Wright, he was hitting .397 going into the game. Padres starter Clayton Richard wanted no part of Wright and essentially gave him an unintentional, intentional walk in the first inning. Up came Scott Hairston. I turned to Dad and said, "His number don't show it but this guy has pop in his bat." A few moments later, Hairston hit a three run homerun to give the Mets a 3-0 lead. Hairston isn't a superstar but almost every time I see him play he goes deep.

I had never heard of Vinny Rottino until today. In fact, I said to Dad, "I'd like some rottino for dinner tonight." Well, I'm sure somebody is buying Rottino dinner tonight because he hit his first big league homerun in the first to give the Mets a 4-0 lead.

The Mets didn't score again until the 8th when Ike Davis had a pinch hit RBI double and back up catcher Mike Nickeas belted a grandslam homerun to give the Mets a 9-0 lead. It was the light hitting Nickeas' second big league homerun.

But the star of the show was Johan Santana who tossed a complete game four-hit shutout. It was his first shutout since 2010. Santana missed the entire 2011 season due to shoulder surgery. Today, Santana made a very strong case that he has returned to Cy Young form. Santana threw 96 pitches, 74 of them for strikes. Very, very impressive. The only question is if he can sustain this over an entire season.

CitiField is an improvement over Shea Stadium. While the new Yankee Stadium is more architecturally impressive, I'd rather watch a game in Queens than in the Bronx. It also makes for a quicker day. The game lasted 2 hours and 18 minutes. At Yankee Stadium, 2 hours and 18 minutes gets you into the fifth inning with no Rusty Staub Bobbleheads in sight.

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff — Sat, 26 May 2012 09:28:00 -0400

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:58:00 -0400

First, The Washington Post went after Mitt Romney for an alleged bullying incident which took place nearly 50 years ago. Then they went after him for a massacre committed by Mormons in Arkansas 150 years ago. Now they've gone after him for his rhythm or lack thereof.

As you probably know, Romney was heckled by residents of West Philadelphia (egged on in part by the Obama campaign) during a visit to a charter school run by Kenny Gamble of Gamble & Huff fame. More on him later.

Here is the WaPost's Philip Rucker describing Romney's interaction with schoolchildren:

Inside the school, Romney debated issues with educators and tried to connect with students. When he visited a classroom where the kids in the elementary school choir were standing, swaying and clapping to the beat of Kirk Franklin's "I Smile", Romney appeared charmed but did not dance with them. Rather, he tapped one of his toes slightly and bobbed his head, but did not catch the rhythm.

Didn't catch the rhythm? Romney isn't a contestant on Dancing With The Stars or So You Think You Can Dance? But apparently the WaPost thinks being able to dance like Savion Glover is a prerequisite for residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Of course, if Romney had danced with the kids you can be sure he would have got grief for it as he did when he sang "America The Beautiful" a few months back.

The WaPost could have taken a moment from its critique of Romney's footwork to mention that Kenny Gamble is now known as Luqman Abdul Haqq (a.k.a. Brother Luqman). Luqman has been buying up properties in South Philly and has been criticized for wanting to turn Philly into a Muslim only enclave and for his association with jihadists in the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA).

Not only does Romney get heckled by people who don't know what they're protesting but he gets blamed for things for which he was not responsible. Brother Luqman criticized Romney for the anti-busing activities which occurred in Boston during the 1970s. Except that these activities took place a quarter century before Romney was elected Governor.

And on top of it, the WaPost goes after Romney for being rhythmically challenged. All things considered, Romney's time is better spent campaigning elsewhere.

Regarding America's 21st-Century Population Edge

Reid Smith — Fri, 25 May 2012 14:31:00 -0400

Just out of graduate school (for the first time), I had the privilege to serve as research assistant to the eminent Ben Wattenberg -- senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, and long-time host of PBS's Think Tank. (I'd mention his son, Daniel Wattenberg, made a name for himself right here at TAS, when he teamed up with David Brock to expose the infamous "Troopergate" scandal that haunted the Clintons, for years.)

A true gentleman and scholar, Ben Wattenberg has a unique knack for humanizing American life through his encyclopedic grasp of social and economic data. I can honestly say I've never met a man so positive about the prospects for our future. If you're ever in need of a jolt of confidence about this American experience, by all means, thumb a few pages of any of his eleven books.

Yesterday, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal -- and hinted at some of the lessons gleaned in his 2004 work New Demography: How Depopulation Will Shape the Future. His column suggests a confidence in the buoyancy of America's population and its bearing on geopolitical, economic and cultural consequence.

An instance of Wattenberg's optimism:

Why is this so important to America? A hefty and growing population can yield power and influence. It's been a long time since a nation with a small population influenced how the world works—think the 16th-century Dutch and Portuguese.

Size also yields vast economies of scale. As population grows, through fertility and immigration, a healthy housing market is inevitable. It's either that or tens of millions of Americans sleeping on the streets. Bet on the boom.

There's corporate growth too, across industries. Imagine an American corporation, XYZ, that wants to start doing business in Thailand. Only in a polyglot nation like America can XYZ search out and find the adult children of Thai immigrants who know America inside and out but also know Thai customs and language.

Few if any nations have all these advantages. The demography in play guarantees that the 21st century, like the 20th, will be an "American Century."

Ever sanguine, Mr. Wattenberg remains a true believer in our exceptionalism. I thank him for his years of hard work, the opportunity he offered me and this most recent, and welcome reminder of what makes America great.

Tom Coburn on the Debt 'Disease'

Vivien Chang — Fri, 25 May 2012 13:11:00 -0400

Sen. Tom Coburn, a doctor, utilized his medical expertise when he declared that "the country's sick" while discussing his new book, The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America at The Heritage Foundation's Bloggers Briefing on Tuesday.

His diagnosis? A dysfunctional political class right here in Washington.

More specifically, he lamented the absence of leadership in the current political arena, dominated instead by politicians who focus on the "symptoms" rather than the "real disease" and its "treatment options."

Coburn has at times been labeled a deficit hawk, but has also been a divisive figure on the right. Last year, he publicly butted heads with Grover Norquist and his anti-tax colleagues when he pushed for a plan to eliminate ethanol subsidies, which Norquist viewed as a gross violation of the advocacy group’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, as the proposal did not offset the new government revenue with tax cuts elsewhere. Coburn argued that higher revenues are necessary to reduce the nation’s massive deficit.

"[T]here has to be some revenue component to [the tax structure], and anybody that says that’s not the case, I think they’re just wrong and they're not thinking about the long-term health of our country," Coburn had said then.

He described his new book, The Debt Bomb, as "a compilation of how we got where we are, conflict of interest in the average politician, and why they would vote for their next election rather than the best interest of the country."

As a three-time cancer survivor, Coburn is all too familiar with effective treatment options. His prescription for the nation’s debt crisis was a "very limited government," which he believed to be "the principle and the key behind our freedom." In order to attain this, Coburn called on the American citizens to demand action from their representatives.

Coburn expressed hope that "we will re-embrace [this] principle." For more on Coburn's commitment to principle, I heartily recommend this report by Andrew Ferguson.

WND's Aaron Klein: Obama Spoke at Socialist Conference

Jeffrey Lord — Fri, 25 May 2012 11:31:00 -0400

Our friend Aaron Klein over at World Net Daily has made a remarkable -- if unsurprising -- discovery.

As Klein writes here, in 1996 there was a town meeting in Chicago presented by "The Democratic Socialists of America." And on the speaking list?

That's right. As listed on the pamphlet Klein has obtained with photo included:

Barack Obama. Candidate. State Senate. 13th Legislative District.

Again, you wonder why Sean Hannity is vetting the President? And our friends at Breitbart.com? Precisely because finding things like this pamphlet were not done in 2008.

But they are finally surfacing and being discussed. They are decidedly relevant -- and yes, Governor Romney is beginning to incorporate this point as the fall campaign gets under way. See Romney here on Fox and Friends taking on Obama over capitalism.

Kudos to Mr. Klein and WND.

Follow the first link above to Klein's story and take a good read.

Bradley Prize Winner Meese's Originalism Should Figure in 2012 Race

Kevin Mooney — Fri, 25 May 2012 10:36:00 -0400

Thanks to the heavy lifting of former Attorney General Edwin Meese, the concept of "originalism" has gained serious traction within the judiciary, and even in academia.

On June 7, Meese will be honored as one of the four 2012 Bradley Prize recipients during a ceremony at the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. By calling attention to Meese's contributions to the conservative cause, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation has performed a valuable service. If President Obama wins re-election, he could potentially remake the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason alone, it is worth reviewing the former attorney general's key observations.

A critical turning point came in 1985 when Meese addressed the American Bar Association (ABA) in Washington. Here, he made the case for a jurisprudence rooted in the Constitution's text and its original meaning. Since President Obama could potentially remake the U.S. Supreme Court if he wins re-election, it is worth reviewing some of Meese's key observations.

"By seeking to judge policies in light of principles, rather than remold principles in light of policies, the Court could avoid the charge of incoherence and the charge of being either too conservative or too liberal," Meese explained in his ABA talk. "A jurisprudence seriously aimed at the explication of original intention would produce defensible principles of government that would not be tainted by ideological predilection. This belief in a jurisprudence of original intention also reflects a deeply rooted commitment to the idea of democracy."

A close confidante to Governor Reagan and later President Reagan, Meese, who now chairs the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, has been a potent intellectual force within the conservative movement.

"Ed Meese has been an invaluable public servant," said Michael Grebe, president and chief executive officer of the Bradley Foundation. "His entire career has been devoted to upholding the rule of law and making the nation more secure."

Meese's 1985 ABA speech jolted Washington's liberal establishment. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan accused originalists of "arrogance cloaked as humility" during a talk at Georgetown University that same year.

There was no reliable way modern judges could properly discern original meaning, he argued.

But Meese was unrelenting.

In subsequent speeches, he continued to hammer home the idea that judges should not substitute their own political convictions in the place of fixed constitutional meanings.

Given how narrowly divided the U.S. Supreme Court is between constitutionalists and activists, Gov. Mitt Romney would do well to channel Meese's commentary on originalist jurisprudence.

My op-ed on Ravi/Clementi

Ross Kaminsky — Fri, 25 May 2012 08:37:00 -0400

I was very pleased to be contacted by USA Today on Thursday, asking me to write an opposing view on their take that the conviction and sentencing of Dharun Ravi was fair because society is becoming less tolerant of bias. (They had seen my American Spectator article which made roughly the opposite point to theirs.)

I wrote my view for them, and it has been published as the "Opposing View" in Friday's USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-05-24/rutgers-webcam-case-prank/55195230/1

Ever Wondered What Happened to the Prop Oval Office From the Film 'JFK'?

TAS Staff — Fri, 25 May 2012 07:00:00 -0400

Refuting Compassionate Conservatism's Electoral Benefits

W. James Antle, III — Thu, 24 May 2012 12:10:00 -0400

I wrote about TAS alumni Phil Klein's new Mitt Romney ebook on the main site. One point I didn't get to bring up was Phil's rebuttal to a popular big-government conservative argument: that the Medicare prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind got George W. Bush reelected, and therefore we have those expansions of government to thank for John Roberts and Sam Alito. (Of course, without conservative pressure we might have ended up with Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers, but be that is at may.)

Phil writes:

Despite the passage of No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug bill, Bush actually did worse among voters who considered education and health care their most important issues in his 2004 reelection campaign than he did in his 2000 run. According to CNN exit polls, those voters who identified education as the issue that “mattered most,” favored Al Gore over Bush by a spread of 52 percent to 44 percent. Yet four years later, John Kerry trounced President Bush among voters who thought education was most important, by a margin of 73 percent to 26 percent. Similarly, in 2000, Gore had a 64 percent to 33 percent advantage among health care voters; in 2004 Kerry was favored by a margin of 77 percent to 23 percent. Keep in mind, this was even though Bush’s overall percentage of the popular vote increased in 2004.

It's not even clear that Medicare Part D was the chief reason for Bush's gains among senior citizens. As Phil points out in his ebook, 21 percent of seniors cited moral values as their top issue and another 19 percent picked terrorism. Only 12 percent named controlling health care costs.

Re: Warren Pulls Even

W. James Antle, III — Thu, 24 May 2012 11:57:00 -0400

Aaron notes that Elizabeth Warren has pulled even with Scott Brown in the latest poll despite the Native American flap. It's Massachusetts; Barack Obama will be on top of the ticket this November. So you can always expect a candidate like Warren to remain competitive. Nevertheless, I think it is striking that Scott Brown is polling better in Massachusetts than George Allen is in Virginia. Warren looks much more beatable than just a few months ago.

Warren Pulls Even with Brown in New Poll

Aaron Goldstein — Thu, 24 May 2012 09:58:00 -0400

For all the controversy around Elizabeth Warren's claims of Native American status, it would appear that it has not hurt her with Massachusetts voters.

According to a new poll released by Suffolk University, Warren has closed the gap between herself and Scott Brown. Warren trails Brown by only a percentage point (48% to 47% of likely voters). Back in February, Brown had a nine point lead over Warren.

The most significant part of the poll is that while 73% of those surveyed were aware of the controversy with regard to Warren claiming status as a Native American, 69% of those folks didn't see what the fuss was all about.

Of course, this is a by-product of living in a liberal state. Most folks here in the Bay State not only favor affirmative action but see nothing wrong with Warren's claims even if they are dubious. In which case, Scott Brown could be in a lot of trouble. If voters in Connecticut didn't care about Richard Blumenthal misrepresenting his military service, is it really a stretch to imagine that Massachusetts voters won't care if Elizabeth Warren lied about being Native American to advance her career?

Obama at the Academy

Ross Kaminsky — Thu, 24 May 2012 09:32:00 -0400

On Wednesday, President Obama delivered the commencement address at the Air Force Academy. As with most Obama speeches, it was full of self-congratulation.

As George Will put it, "If you struck from Barack Obama's vocabulary the first-person singular pronoun, he would fall silent, which would be a mercy to us and a service to him, actually."

In his speech at the Academy, Obama used the word "I" 36 times. ("Me" was only used a further two times, while some fraction of the 69 instances of "we" were simply aggrandized versions of "I".)

After explaining to the airmen and women that they would face fewer deployments than other recent graduates because of the winding down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama embarked on a litany of self-defense, cloaked in terms of leadership, almost pathetic for the Commander-in-Chief speaking at a military academy.

Obama said that the US is "leading on global security," almost amusingly mentioning "reducing our nuclear arsenal with Russia." You would think he would not want to remind us of the sweet nothings he whispered to former Russian President Medvedev about increased "flexibility" after the 2012 elections.

He said we are leading economically, at a time when his outrageous budget deficits have even Europeans ignoring the US when it comes to being a role model for how to keep a nation from bankruptcy.

He said we're leading "on behalf of freedom" because of our actions in Libya, where he said we "led from the front," again an odd reminder of the fact of his "leading from behind" as well as a reminder that thousands are being slaughtered in Syria as the US stands nearly silent.

He said that "there is a new feeling about America (and)...new confidence in our leadership." Perhaps he has not noticed the results of Pew's annual survey of opinion of America which, other than in Japan, has generally been sliding during Obama's presidency.

Perhaps most disingenuous and clever, however, was Obama's stated support for capitalism, a word which must be difficult for him to utter. He urged the listeners to "(put) aside the tired notion that says our influence has waned or that America is in decline" and then suggested that "we fought our way back (and) created the largest middle class in history and the most prosperous economy the world has ever known."

The president transitioned this into calling for more "investing," which is his code for government spending, and to "get on with nation-building here at home."

Obama went on to a theme of an upcoming "American Century," but in typical Obama fashion said that it will be "because we have the strongest alliances of any nation." Even when he said that "no other nation can play the role that we play in global affairs," that was based on "shaping the global institutions of the 20th century to meet the challenges of the 21st."

In other words, according to Obama, the US will only be strong because it works through the United Nations, a premier anti-American institution if ever there was one, and because we skip through the fields of foreign affairs holding hands with other nations' diplomats. That may be Obama's definition of strength, but it is one which most prior American presidents and others in position of national leadership would not recognize. Indeed, some might consider Obama's characterization a description of American weakness rather than strength. An interesting message to deliver at a military institution.

It was also amusing to hear the president say that he supports "the liberty of individuals," getting in a jab at Walmart by saying "we stand with...the entrepreneur who wants to start a business without paying a bribe." Of course, there were many labor unions whose implicit bribe of campaign contributions earned them waivers from the tyrannical mandates of Obamacare. Cash may not have changed hands, but this administration is no better than the money-grubbers Obama criticized in his speech.

Obama added that he believes in a "simple yet revolutionary idea -- there at our founding and in our hearts ever since -- that we have it in our power to make the world anew, to make the future what we will." I doubt this was the conception of Madison and Jefferson. Their goal was not to "make the world anew" but to create a nation in which the powers of the federal government were limited so that people are free to pursue happiness. If our Founders knew that a big government radical like Barack Obama was using them as his stated inspiration and justification for his policies and practices, they would shout out in disapproval.

The Commander-in-Chief is an appropriate speaker at a military academy's graduation. But this president's words serve to remind that he is a narcissistic, self-congratulatory, internationalist well outside what many, especially in our military, believe our nation's leader should be.

Video of the Day: Cruz-ing in Texas

TAS Staff — Thu, 24 May 2012 09:15:00 -0400

RET on C-SPAN

TAS Staff — Thu, 24 May 2012 00:42:00 -0400

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. will be on C-SPAN's Washington Journal Thursday morning between 8:30 and 9:15, to discuss his latest book, The Death of Liberalism. Parental discretion advised.

33 Years in Prison For Helping the CIA Find Bin Laden

John Tabin — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:07:00 -0400

From the Wall Street Journal:

LAHORE—A Pakistani doctor who helped the Central Intelligence Agency track down Osama bin Laden was sentenced to 33 years in prison, officials said, a decision that will further strain relations with the U.S.

The doctor, Shakil Afridi, established a vaccination program at the CIA's request in Abbottabad, a Pakistan garrison town where bin Laden was living. The plan was to collect DNA from residents of the compound where the U.S. suspected bin Laden was hiding.

Pakistani authorities arrested Dr. Afridi shortly after U.S. forces killed the al Qaeda leader in a raid on his compound a year ago. Leon Panetta, who was CIA director at the time, appealed to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari for the release of Dr. Afridi on a visit to Pakistan after the raid. CIA officials also worked intensively with Pakistan's then-ambassador to the U.S. to gain the doctor's release.

U.S. officials had expected that Dr. Afridi would be set free after questioning. But Pakistan instead launched an investigation and continued to hold him.

"The doctor was never asked to spy on Pakistan. He was asked only to help locate al Qaeda terrorists, who threaten Pakistan and the U.S.," said a senior U.S. official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda in Pakistan. "He helped save Pakistani and American lives. His activities weren't treasonous, they were heroic and patriotic. "

Dr. Afridi was convicted in a secretive sentencing in the Khyber tribal region near the border with Afghanistan, where the case could be kept out of the public eye.

Pakistan's tribal regions are governed under a special set of laws that date to the British colonial era and give wide-ranging powers to a government-appointed political agent, including the right to sentence people to time in jail...

An official with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate military spy agency contested the U.S. view that Dr. Afridi was a patriot. "He wasn't serving Pakistan. He was serving Americans," the official said.

No surprise that an ISI official would talk as if Pakistan and the US aren't allies; as Eli Lake explained in a New Republic feature on the Pakistani "deep state" last year, elements of the ISI are allied with al Qaeda and the Taliban, and those same elements have helped support a terrorist safe haven the tribal regions where Afridi was sentenced. One of Eli's sources put it this way: "Imagine if the CIA was supporting the drug cartels of Mexico over the wishes of the Congress and the White House... That’s what we have in Pakistan."

But in that situation, it would be incumbent on the government to arrest those rogue pro-cartel agents. If the Pakistani government can't or won't curtail its anti-American security apparatus -- if it doesn't even protect someone like Dr. Afridi -- at what point is the government itself, for all intents and purposes, our enemy?

Romney Ahead in Florida

Larry Thornberry — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:40:00 -0400

A Quinnipiac Poll released today shows Mitt Romney with a 47 to 41 lead over president Obama in Florida, a state whose 29 electoral votes are absolutely necessary for a Republican to win the White House. The poll shows that today Romney's six point lead over Obama would become an eight point lead -- 49 to 41 -- if Florida's conservative rookie U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio, were on the ticket with him. The poll has a margin of error of 2.4 percent.

Florida, which elects mostly Republicans to state and local offices, has been a close business of late at the top of the ticket. Obama won in Florida in '08 by 2.8 percent. The state has been decided by an average of 2.4 percent over the last three presidential races. The 2000 race was won (finally) by George W. by a whiskery margin of 537 voters.

In this poll 52 percent of respondents told pollsters they disapprove of Obama's record and say he doesn't deserve a second term. Only 44 percent say he should be rehired. Even the gender gap has disappeared among Florida voters, where the ladies fancy Romney as much as they like Obama.

Quigley's Quixotic Defense of Liz Warren

Aaron Goldstein — Wed, 23 May 2012 16:33:00 -0400

Bernie Quigley's defense of Elizabeth Warren's claims of Native American heritage have been both widely and wisely mocked by the likes of Ace of Spades, P.J. Gladnick at Newsbusters and the triumvirate of Jonah Goldberg, Kevin D. Williamson, and Mark Steyn at National Review Online.

But before I pile on, it should be noted that Quigley cannot be completely dismissed as a left-wing crank. Back in July 2009, Quigley eviscerated President Obama for his snobbery in his handling of the Gates-Crowley affair. Quigley's evisceration of Obama won him praise from no less than Rush Limbaugh.

Having said that, I shall proceed to pile on. Quigley begins by writing:

Elizabeth Warren might be excused for wanting to be Native American. She can claim an old American soul, going back generations in Oklahoma. In the heartland it is almost universal for those who have been there for a few generations to claim Indian blood; that is, to wish it were there even if it isn't.

Well, if not Indian blood then perhaps high cheekbones will do. It is almost universal for us to want higher cheekbones and for those of us that have the means, your friendly plastic surgeon can make those dreams come true. But it won't make you any more Native American than the late Chief Jay Strongbow.

It is not so much a lie as it is the acculturation of personal and regional American myth; the fabric of old-soul American consciousness.

If John Edwards is convicted then I guess he can appeal to a higher court and say that his conduct was only being representative of old-soul American consciousness.

The first poetic vision of Europeans in the new world was that James Fenimore Cooper, who conjured Natty Bumpo. He had an "Indian name" - he had several: Hawkeye, Deerslayer, Pathfinder - indicating that he had been "reborn" in the new world in the Indian spirit. It is the oldest and most important myth in the American canon of our folklore, from Lone Ranger, who died and became "born again" via agency of an Indian shaman, and Fox Mulder, who returned from the dead via Indian intercession in "The X Files," born anew with the past burned away in death, to enter a new age under the flag of the White Buffalo.

I mean if Quigley is going to go all out on a limb then why not conjure up an image of Kevin Costner on his hand and knees uttering, "Tatanka"?

So Warren's claim to be "part Indian" is correct in mythical terms. Every old-school white Oklahoman is in this regard even if this is nominally not true. But it is not a lie to want to be Indian and imagine your ancestors were.

Actually, it would be bald-faced lie. To put this matter in some perspective, I grew up in Thunder Bay, Ontario where there is a significant Aboriginal population both on and off reserve. I greatly admire Aboriginal culture and tradition. But I am not about to go around and claim to be an Aboriginal Canadian. To do so would be wrong and profoundly disrespectful. With that said, it is one thing to identify with Native Americans; it is quite another to identify yourself as a Native American. Even if it's only 1/32 Native American.

I hope Mitt Romney remembers this and incorporates Indian blessings and ritual in his inaugural ceremonies as Canadians do and as they did in those terrific Winter Olympics in Salt Lake in 2002. And I hope Elizabeth Warren doesn't back down on this, because wanting to be Indian, like Hawkeye, makes us in a deeper sense fully American.

I'm not sure which Canadian inaugural ceremonies Quigley is referring to exactly. Given that he mentioned the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics perhaps he was referring to the Opening Ceremonies of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. But there weren't any Aboriginal blessings when Stephen Harper's Tory government was first sworn into office six years ago by Canada's Governor General at Rideau Hall. Besides, could you imagine if Mitt Romney were to suddenly claim Native American heritage? The Washington Post would call him Chief Flip Flop faster than you could say Bain Capital.

I do agree with Quigley on one thing. I hope Liz Warren doesn't back down on this either because as long as she doesn't then her credibility remains suspect. OK, so Warren wants to be Native American. I want to pitch for the Red Sox. That doesn't mean Bobby Valentine is going to take Daniel Bard out of the starting rotation and give me the ball on Memorial Day against the Tigers. And if he did, it wouldn't make me any more fully American than I am now.

Ron Paul Wins Kentucky

W. James Antle, III — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:56:00 -0400

Ron Paul finished a distant second in the Kentucky primary, despite his son being the state's junior senator. But a Paul supporter -- a backer of both Ron and Rand (who reciprocated) easily won the Republican nomination in the fourth congressional district.

Thomas Massie defeated his nearest opponent in a four-way race 44.8 percent to 28.6 percent. The district has been represented by a Republican for all but six years since 1967 -- when quite conservative Democrat Ken Lucas held the seat -- making Massie a heavy favorite to win the general election in November. Politico referred to it as "another Randslide." This is part of the movement-building I've been writing about for a while that will have impact beyond Tampa.

More Political Wisdom Unthroned

Larry Thornberry — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:45:00 -0400

We're in a strange political cycle, and much political wisdom has been overtaken by events. Even the seemingly unquestionable old saw, "You can't beat somebody with nobody," may have to be revised.

A political no-name took 42 percent of the vote on the Democratic side in Arkansas's open presidential primary Tuesday. Even more interesting, "uncommitted" took 42 percent of Kentucky's closed presidential primary, where only Democrats could vote.

What does it say for President Obama's re-election hopes when even Democrats think they would be better off with someone chosen later, or perhaps no one in the White House, than with Obama?

This raises some interesting questions. If no one wins an election, does he/she still have to be sworn in? Could we soon hear something like: "I, none of the above, do solemnly swear…."