Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Mitt versus Mitt on Guns (and Everything Else)   [George Conway]

In an editorial entitled "Don't Let the Issues Get in the Way," a suburban Boston paper, the Brockton Enterprise, provides more evidence that the conservative Mitt Romney who is running for president is quite a different politician from the liberal Mitt Romney who was governor of Massachusetts:

We understand that many politicians will say anything, or pander to any special-interest group, to get elected, but Mitt Romney has taken this to extremes. Since it became apparent he was going to run for president, he has changed his position on so many issues that we barely recognize the man who was governor of Massachusetts until this very month.

Romney's explanation is that his positions have evolved. That is fair enough if it involves one or two significant issues — or if a person undergoes a life-changing epiphany. But Romney is still the same old Mormon moderate he always was. The only difference is that he is running for president in a relatively conservative country instead of running for senator or governor in a very liberal state.

That means he has shifted his positions on everything from gay rights to gun control, abortion to taxes. Just last week, he toured a gun show in Florida with the president of the National Rifle Association and reminisced about how as a boy, “I worked on a ranch in Idaho and shot rabbits with a single-shot .22 rifle.” (There goes the PETA vote).

Yet, as governor, he signed some of the toughest gun control laws in the country — and promised “I won't chip away at them” — and was certainly no friend to the NRA back then. In his run for U.S. Senate in 1994, Romney said he supported a ban on assault rifles and the Brady gun control law. But now he has put Massachusetts in his rear-view mirror and it's guns a-blazin' — or .22 pop guns, at least.

In his successful 2002 run for governor, he promised to uphold abortion rights. Today, he says he opposes Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion. Also in 2002 he refused to sign a pledge not to raise taxes as governor, yet a day after leaving office, he signed a “no-taxes pledge” in his run for president.

. . . .

It's all so confusing that it appears almost impossible to pick out the real Romney, which is bad news for the candidate. . . . [V]oters can be forgiven if they get the impression that issues are just minor details that get in the way of Romney's ambition.

01/17 08:24 AM

Friday, January 12, 2007

Worth Reading   [George Conway]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anthony Cordesman, and Peggy Noonan.

01/12 11:38 AM

Thursday, January 11, 2007

"Too Little, Too Late -- Way Too Late"   [George Conway]

An analysis by Thomas Ricks in today's Washington Post raises serious questions as to whether the "surge" will make any lasting difference at all:

An Army officer who recently commanded a battalion in Baghdad predicted last night that the plan would fail because Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government "will do things to maintain protection" of Sadr's forces. He also dismissed as "happy talk" the president's notion that the predominantly Shiite Iraqi army and police could reassure pro-insurgent Sunni neighborhoods by conducting foot patrols through them.

Bush said it is now clear that there have not been sufficient troops in Baghdad, and that part of the difference in this approach is that the plan will be adequately resourced. Yet the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq after the planned increase will be about 153,000, less than the peak of about 165,000 in December 2005. Military experts last night wondered, as one said, how a "thin green line" of 17,500 additional soldiers in Baghdad could affect the security situation in a city where many of the 5 million residents are hostile to the U.S. presence. "Too little, too late — way too late," said retired Col. Jerry Durrant, who has worked as a trainer of Iraqi forces.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have resisted Bush's push for more troops, according to officials familiar with internal deliberations, but recently gave in to the president's wishes. Bush said last night that top commanders reviewed the new plans to add a total of 21,500 Army and Marine forces in Baghdad and Anbar province and approved of them.

"The 'surge' is actually quite small," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, who compared it with the 206,000 additional troops that Gen. William Westmoreland requested in Vietnam in 1968. "In effect, Bush is counting on the Iraqis to pull our bacon out of the fire," Bacevich said, adding that there is no evidence that the Iraqi military and government are capable of doing so.

And over at the Corner, John Derbyshire succinctly points out the complete illogic in Bush's latest version of his strategy:

Sorry, but it struck me as a snow job, from an administration that—pretty much like the rest of us—has no clue where to go from here.

The central and most glaring contradiction is the implied threat to walk away... Yoked to the ringing declaration that, of course, we can't walk away. We seem to be saying to the Maliki govt.: "Hey, you guys better step up to your responsibilites, or else we're outa here." This, a few sentences after saying that we can't leave the place without a victory. So-o-o-o:

—-We can't leave Iraq without a victory.

—-Unless Maliki & Co. get their act together, we can't achieve victory.

—-If Maliki & Co. don't get their act together, we'll leave.

It's been a while since I studied classical logic, but it seems to me that this syllogism leaks like a sieve.

Derb also rightly points that it's hard to take seriously the implied threats Bush seems to be making to Iran and Syria:

The President: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria." We haven't been doing this? We haven't been doing this? How many of the the 21,500 troops of the "surge" will be assigned to these operations? Leaving how many for Baghdad and Anbar? Shall we have a "hot pursuit" policy?

And, returning to the issue of sticks: What, exactly, do Iran and Syria have to fear from us, whatever they do?

Andy McCarthy pretty much makes the same point:

In any event, most telling was one administration official’s sense that our forces in Iraq had “sure sent a signal to the Iranians” by detaining the Iranian military officials who were captured in raids in mid-December. Yet, even as the president was preparing his new strategy, even as he was readying the words of warning he uttered so forcefully last night, those Iranians were released by the Maliki government and sent back to Iran after about a week in custody.

What signal can this have sent? This one: If you’re an Iranian in Iraq helping to kill American troops, the comeuppance is that we’ll hold you for a few days and then send you back home.

Actions, the old saw tells us, speak louder than words. Given our actions, and what they imply about our sentiments, it’s going to take a lot more than last night’s rhetoric to make an impression on Iran and Syria.

Indeed, Ahmadinejad and Assad should be thrilled that Bush is tying up more assets in Baghdad and Anbar. They've got us right where they want us.

So much for substance. On style, Tom Shales correctly remarks here how tense, anxious and rigid Bush looked last night. Frankly, as he has over the past few weeks, Bush looked like a man who is in way over his head, which he is. The man who got the country into this hole, and whose neglect and incompetence dug us deeper into into it, looks like a man who would like nothing more than to get back to Crawford. We'd all be better off if he would.

01/11 09:59 AM

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Lowest of the Low   [George Conway]

According to a USA Today/Gallup poll out today, more Americans approve of Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump (28% and 41%, respectively) than they do of the job Bush is doing in Iraq (26%).

01/09 08:23 AM

Friday, January 05, 2007

Replacing Miers   [George Conway]

Bush and his supporters once told us that Harriet Miers was a great pick for the Supreme Court because she is an experienced, top-notch litigator.  Now they are telling the Washington Post that they are getting rid of her because they don't think she is good enough for the job she already has:

Miers, a longtime Bush loyalist whose nomination to the Supreme Court was withdrawn in 2005 as a result of conservative opposition, led an office that will oversee legal clashes that could erupt if Democrats aggressively use their new subpoena power. Bush advisers inside and outside the White House concluded that she is not equipped for such a battle and that the president needs someone who can strongly defend his prerogatives.

In other words, Bush was willing to entrust the future of the Supreme Court in Miers, but he doesn't trust her enough to handle a bunch of subpoenas.  That's just ludicrous.  Can this White House get its story straight on anything?   Does anyone there even care about conserving whatever piddling credibility Bush has left?

Miers was not the right choice for the Supreme Court, but it's disgraceful for the White House to be dumping on her like this—not to mention pointless.

01/05 05:14 PM

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Not Just Another Pretty Face   [Kellyanne Conway]

A day of charitable remembrances of the late President Gerald Ford as an “ordinary man” buried the breaking story of someone who would like to follow in his footsteps.

Today the campaign of John Edwards, former U.S. Senator (D-NC) and the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2004, confirmed that he is again running for President.
A preview of tomorrow’s announcement, which will occur in one of the hardest-hit areas of Katrina-ravaged New Orleans, occurred today when Edwards showed up in full regular guy regalia (blue jeans, khaki shirt and shovel) to help a woman still living in a FEMA trailer on her property rebuild her home.

John Edwards’ candidacy should be taken seriously by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Edwards as Everyman is silly, of course, since he is millions of dollars removed from that humble textile worker’s son he plays on the stump. Still, his appeal is real to certain constituencies, as evidenced by the exorbitant verdicts he extracted as a trial lawyer from the same juries who elect presidents and his surprise showing in the early primaries and caucuses in ’04.

As Democrats and bored pundits gaze over the collective Barack-Hillary ‘08 navel, wondering if Barack’s race and lack of foreign policy experience actually make her gender and slightly less lack of foreign policy experience seem more acceptable, or if Hillary’s support of the war in Iraq and general humorlessness deepen the appetite for someone “fresh and different,” Edwards has been busy.

He’s been far away from Washington and the anemic congressional approval rating his former colleagues have earned, crisscrossing Iowa and new Hampshire to deliver the types of talks, polite head nods and back slaps across that motivate precinct captains, grassroots coordinators and party leaders to help you get competitive in the early contests. And he’s pushing the kind of “social justice” agenda that has attracted legion Independents and caught fire even among some younger evangelicals and moms who in this past election were less reliable for the GOP than in years past.

With the departure of former Virginia Governor Mark Warner from the presidential hustings, Edwards is the only Southerner running in the Democratic Party, whose last two successful presidential candidates were from the South. He’s easy on the eyes, which matters more to more voters than they care to admit, crusaded against Wal-mart before it was de rigueur, and long ago apologized for his vote in favor of the joint resolution authorizing U.S. force in Iraq.

John Edwards should be stopped. His “Two Americas” platitudes are misguided and his policies dangerous to economic freedom and entrepreneurship. This will thrive out of the spotlight for too long if he is casually dismissed by the wristflickers so caught up in the Barack Bubble, Hillary Hoopla, McCain Mania or Romney Rumblings that they fail to see who else is lurking in their midst.

12/28 12:07 AM

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Let them Eat Foie Gras   [Kellyanne Conway]

The New York Times’ Anne Kornblut writes critically of the eye-popping price tag - at least $30 million — Hillary Clinton spent on her re-election campaign to the U.S. Senate in New York this year. That money helped her squeak out a 30-point win over her Republican rival and purchased private jet time, lavish parties and flowers and a flotilla of consultants.

HRC topped all other U.S. Senate candidates this year in spending, a fact that has raised eyebrows in Democratic circles, some of whom question her fitness to go the distance in a run for the White House. Sure, it shows that she can raise the dough. But it also reveals a lack of order, oversight and restraint that belies the “discipline” she is often credited with having.

As the Times explains,

the way she spent the money troubled some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, many of whom have been called on repeatedly over the years to raise and give money for Bill Clinton’s two presidential campaigns, his legal expenses, his library, his global antipoverty and AIDS-fighting program and now his wife’s political career. One Clinton supporter said it would become harder to tap repeat donors if it appeared that the money was not being well spent.

Her pollster was paid $1.1 million. I know Mark Penn is creative, but all the focus groups in the world can’t make her less Hillary and more Clinton. How many ways can you ask people in a survey if they prefer to see you in the black pantsuit or the navy one, if they regard you more as Margaret Thatcher or Joan of Arc?

Mark McKinnon, an adviser to Senator John McCain, and "a veteran of President Bush’s two penny-pinching campaigns for the White House" gets it exactly right:   “Donors, like voters, increasingly expect candidates to exercise fiscal discipline,” he told the Times. Just as some voters correctly wonder how someone who could not stand up to a cheating husband will stand up to Osama bin Laden, it is legitimate to ask how someone who wasted millions of dollars to run up the score will treat the people’s purse.

11/21 08:33 AM

Friday, November 10, 2006

“Staying the Course”: A Flip-flop of Fortunes.   [Kellyanne Conway]

According to an Election Night survey of 800 Actual Voters conducted by my firm, the polling company™, inc, compared to 2004, Iraq gained five points and “war on terror” lost five points as the primary motivating factor that brought people to the polls.

This reversal played a key role in Republicans’ loss.Iraq was on the ballot in every race this year, a significant advantage for Democrats, and fewer Americans were thinking homeland security, a disadvantage for the President and his party. In fact, 80% of those who named Iraq their top issue supported Democrats for the U.S. House and 76% opted for Dems in U.S. Senate races (versus 19% who backed Republicans in each race). 

Republican candidates did not enjoy quite as strong a margin among those who reported “terrorism” as their top concern: 60% of voters who selected the war on terror backed Republicans and 57% did do in Senate contests (compared to 37% who supported Democratic candidates in both races).

Still, Americans were not single-issue voters, a fair reminder as the legislative agendas are drafted for the new Congress.  “Jobs/ the economy” placed third overall with 13% and “morality/ family values” garnered 10% - the only other issue on the list of ten to net double-digits.  “Healthcare” (7%), “education” (5%), “immigration” (5%), “taxes” (4%), “abortion” (3%), and the “environment” (2%) rounded out the list.

• There was no gender gap with respect to the priority placed on Iraq by voters, with men and women tied at 22%.  However, men were more apt than their female counterparts to select the war on terror (21%-15%).  Men were also more likely than women to focus on jobs and the economy, while women paid greater attention to education than did men in making their electoral decisions.
• As voters’ age increased, so did their likelihood of naming Iraq the most pressing Election Day concern.  Conversely, the tendency of voters to select terrorism as their top issue decreased with age.
• Jobs and the economy were of special importance to 45-54 year olds, African-Americans, and upper-income households ($70K+).
• Groups more likely than most to elevate morality and family values on Election Day included – surprisingly to some — 18-34 year olds, moms, self-identified Republicans, and ideological conservatives.

Another key difference between the elections of 2006 and 2004 was voters’ perceptions of steadfastness and consistency.  In 2004, President Bush led Senator Kerry for months on the question of “Who is more likely to take a position and stick with it?”  Accusations that Kerry was a “flip-flopper” dogged his campaign and even more traditionally Democratically-leaning voters like Catholics, Hispanics, women and blue collar workers rewarded the GOP’s consistency with higher numbers of votes. Consistency was seen as principle, intractability, an unwavering commitment.

Two short years later, consistency has shifted from political asset to an electoral liability. That ‘stick-with-it’ spirit was now viewed as stubbornness, from a ‘stay the course’/ ‘Rumsfeld will remain’ insistence on Iraq, to the inability to admit a mistake in some of the scandal-ridden races. Some of the same voters who previously valued this steadfastness rejected it.

Another startling finding is the rebuke of the Republican Party by a majority of voters – including Republicans.  When voters were asked how their regard for the Republican party had changed over the past two years, an eye-popping 59% noted their opinion had “gotten worse.”  Just 32% said the same about Democrats.

• The discontent with the GOP extended to members of all ideologies and political affiliations, as 35% of conservatives and 34% of self-identified Republicans indicated their opinion of their own party had worsened.
• No more than 15% of any demographic group studied (including Republicans) said their opinion of the party had improved over the past two years.
• Though in smaller measure, Democrats also had definite detractors.  Groups more likely than most to say their impression of the Dems had worsened included Republicans, conservatives, frequent church-goers, men aged 55+, Protestants, and those for whom the war on terror, immigration, taxes, and family values were the most important issues of the election.
• A common disgust for all politicians was shared by 13% of voters who said their views of Republicans and Democrats had deteriorated.

By a Margin of Nearly 3-to-1, Americans Vote for Small Government, Even if it Means Fewer Services.  When given the choice between a “larger federal government that provided more services and charged higher taxes” and a “smaller federal government that provided fewer services and charged lower taxes,” Americans indicated a clear desire to downsize.  In fact, 62% of voters preferred the smaller government – and with intensity as 41% would definitely pick a leaner administration.  By comparison, just 22% opted for the more expansive government.

• There was a definite gender gap in these responses.  While majorities of both men and women favored a small government, men were notable more likely than women to do so (68%-57%).  Women were more inclined then men to opt for a larger federal government that did more and charged more (27%-18%).
• Adherents of all three political parties agreed that small was superior to large – though with drastically different intensities (85% of Republicans, 65% of Independents, and 42% of Democrats).
• Ideological liberals were among the only demographic groups studied more likely to favor a big government over a smaller one (46%-33%).

11/10 02:57 PM

Sunday, November 05, 2006

What Might Have Been   [Kellyanne Conway]

The situation in Iraq is on the ballot in every federal race Tuesday, with all candidates rightly being asked to explain past positions and specify future plans. The economy lingers, too, with Democrats talking minimum wage and making their base nostalgic for the Clinton years of “no deficits and middle class prosperity.” The President himself is pushing a job growth, tax-cutting message on GOP-friendly soil throughout the weekend.

Occasionally, a political ad or casual conversation might turn quickly to health care, education or even marriage if it is on that state’s ballot, but only for a sound bite. Abortion has been mentioned less by the Left during this cycle than in any other in recent memory, even by people usually obsessed with it, see, e.g., Nancy Pelosi. In Iraq, the Left has found an even more divisive issue that leads to early departures at dinner parties and arguments in the office cafeteria.

And the anti-gun crowd has mostly silenced its muskets in favor of Democratic candidates who make nice noises about the Second Amendment and beg the NRA for endorsements. This includes, not coincidentally, those Democrats most competitive in their U.S. Senate contests heading into Tuesday: Webb (VA), Ford (TN), McCaskill (MO), Tester (MT), and Casey (PA).

And then there is immigration. The hottest issue six short months ago (remember the May 1st walk-outs and protests in major cities?) and still a dominant one on talk radio and around kitchen tables in many areas, is all but ignored by both political parties. This is a mistake, especially for Republicans who should have more frequently embraced and more boldly articulated immigration reform on the campaign trail. In a recent CBS/New York Times Poll, after Iraq, IMMIGRATION WAS THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT AMERCIANS WOULD MOST LIKE TO SEE CONGRESS CONCENTRATE ON NEXT YEAR. And Americans are clear how hat should be done.

Last month my firm conducted 15 surveys for the Center for Immigration Studies (full results) , across the country and in four states and 10 congressional districts locked in tight battles. A plurality of voters everywhere reported that immigration would be one of the top five issues influencing their votes for Congress. The national poll also found that the immigration proposal passed by the U.S. House – which has at its center tighter border security and stricter enforcement of current immigration laws to encourage illegal immigrants to go home over time – was by far the preferred policy of Americans. This held when the basics of the House plan were tested alone and when they were stacked up against other proposals.

Two-thirds (67%) of likely voters supported the House’s plan – more than 2.5 times the number who opposed it (26%) in a straight up or down test. These are dramatically higher marks than those afforded to the Senate’s plan which was rejected 61%-34%. Furthermore, when the House, Senate, Pence, and mass-deportation proposals were tested in a “head-to-head” contest, the House plan emerged the clear victor with a 44% plurality favoring it (over just 16% for the Senate plan).

Furthermore, Americans heralded this “attrition through enforcement” plan over both earned legalization and mass-deportation in a separate test (44% vs. 31% and 20%, respectively).

These data suggest a lost opportunity for nervous candidates whose consultants sitting in Washington counseled them to play its safe with shopworn ideas conceived in silos and tested in focus groups. As the finger-pointing begins, everything from low presidential approval ratings to high gas prices to the easiest scapegoats (DeLay, Foley, Ney) will be blamed by people who pocketed millions while their clients lost.

Immigration will eventually be thrown into the cauldron of GOP post-election self-loathing. It belongs there, but only because, ignoring the will of the people, most candidates decided to forget it or forego it, punting the matter into the next Congress. This has provided an additional reason for voters — including conservatives — to be frustrated with Washington and suspicious that, amidst all the polls, polite head-nodding and personal requests for input, no one is listening.

11/05 11:27 AM

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

No Clarity in NJ   [Kellyanne Conway]

David Souter has company. Deborah Poritz, the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, also was appointed to that position by a Republican (then Governor Christine Todd Whitman) and also has governed as a liberal.

In her 10 years on the bench as chief, Poritz has issued her share of leftward opinions, most famously the one that allowed an eleventh hour switch where disgraced incumbent Bob Torricelli was replaced as the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate by had-been Frank Lautenberg.

That is why hopeful Poritz watchers were expecting her to make history today, by leading the court toward recognition of same-sex marriages under the New Jersey constitution. Poritz is set to retire at midnight (unfortunately, Souter is not), her 70th birthday, and many assumed her swansong would be this salvo in a self-designated "progressive" state that recognized domestic partnerships in 2004.

The Court refused to specifically recognize marriage for same-sex couples, but said they are entitled to equal rights and benefits of married people, and that it can be called marriage or something else (civil unions). “The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."

The reaction from the Left is comical. According to PoliticsNJ.com, Assemblyman Richard Merk called the Supreme Court "clueless" and vowed to introduce legislation that would impeach the entire court. The head of Garden State Equality chastised the court, vowed to stop at nothing short of marriage and quite ironically said, "SO HELP US GOD, New Jersey’s LGBTI community and our millions of straight allies will settle for nothing less than 100 percent marriage equality"

These reactions misread how Joe Lunchbucket in this heavily unionized state views these issues, to say nothing of the people in the 19 states that have voted to protect traditional marriage, with more than 71%of the vote on average.

For those who wish the hotly contested U.S. Senate race in NJ were about more than "corruption," here's an idea: Menendez and Kean should be required to read, analyze and react to today's decision, opine clearly what should happen over the next 180 days as a result, and name their choices to succeed Poritz as Chief Justice.

10/25 04:58 PM

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Sobriety Checkpoint   [Kellyanne Conway]

Here’s a twist on conventional wisdom: if the Democrats fail to gain control of the House it will be due in part to the Mark Foley incident. I know the chattering class has it the other way, that “if the GOP fails to keep the House…” but they are the same people who said Jesse Ventura should be president (yes, of this country), John Kerry would be (with manufactured exit polls to prove it) and Hillary will be (she won’t run).

 They are so swept up in the moment becoming the party of moral supremacy that they fail to understand what motivates voters – and what alienates them.

Before I proceed, allow me to make clear that this is not a defense of the Republican leadership and their handling of the Foley information. No heroes there. And there is little excuse for some of the awful legislation that has passed on their watch and the death of good ideas left languishing.

But the Left has totally overplayed the Foley incident and there is no indication that they will stop. That’s good for Republicans because one’s disgust for the incident is different from its direct impact on one’s vote. Security and affordability are the dominant themes this year, with prescription drugs and immigration specifically important in some races. Yes, ethics has a place in this election, but more in individual contests than as some sweeping national trend.

Americans rarely base their electoral decisions on a single incident or individual. But they do punish those who they think waste time focused on less consequential issues and who keep repeating themselves as if we need to hear it 3,000 times to get the message. And they rein in those who they believe have overreached. The 1994 elections, for example, were a response to the excesses of the first two years of the Clinton Administration.

Republicans have been on the losing side of this overreach equation, too. In 1998, the party spent millions of dollars in ads featuring Monica Lewinsky, not tax cuts. They then lost five congressional seats. In the 1996 presidential primaries, businessman Steve Forbes cut into Senator Bob Dole’s lead in Iowa when Forbes accused Dole of having voted for tax increases. But the ads ran incessantly, and eventually the caucus-goers shifted their anger toward Dole for his policies to Forbes for his overkill. “Does he think I am stupid – or that I want him in my living room every five seconds?” one focus grouper famously remarked.

The obsession with Foley is reaching that type of critical mass, with front page stories persisting some two weeks after it first broke. It would all be irritating and little more if nothing else was happening in the world. But we’re at war. North Korea is going nuclear. I part company with the George Conway-Howard Dean view of the political impact of the North Korea nuke test. They see this as a “told you so” moment of sunlight for failed policies of the Bush Administration that have clumsily focused on the wrong member of the axis of evil.

Others, including the UN Security Council, who today voted unanimously 15-0 to sanction North Korea, regard its claim of a nuclear test as a sobering reminder of what’s at stake. Serious matters have a way of injecting grown-up calm and reason when more scintillating yet less consequential events overtake water cooler conversations and media coverage. Still, Kim Jong-Il is not yet getting the same amount of attention as Mark Foley or Jack Abramoff from the MSM or the Democrats.

The congressional page incident engulfing Capitol Hill may be serious, has certainly been overanalyzed and will be investigated. But it should be moved off the front pages, infinite cable loops and silly campaign propaganda in favor of the real “issues.” Easier said than done. Consider that in the weeks preceding September 11, 2001, a hearty portion of the national conversation was fixed on the mysterious disappearance four months earlier of Chandra Levy, the Washington intern who had an affair with Congressman Gary Condit (D-CA). 9-11 did little to cure this 24/7 obsession with missing lovers, cruise ship passengers or murdered children. That’s why before last week Natalee Holloway, John Mark Carr and JonBonet Ramsey had higher household name recognition than Congressmen Mark Foley or even Dennis Hastert, third in line for the presidency.

Daring not to denounce Jong-Il, a certifiable lunatic who starves his own people and who has even been denounced by Russia, and China, whose ambassador criticized North Korea’s “flagrant behavior,” many on the Left saves it descriptions of a “sick and twisted man” for Mark Foley and accusations of a “liar” for their own president. It is imperative that North Korea not be a two-day story, a mere diversion from the Foley debacle, which itself is a diversion from North Korea. To those preening about “protecting the children,” a madman with a nuke is more dangerous than a horndog with a BlackBerry.

10/14 11:28 PM

Monday, October 09, 2006

Through the Mushroom Cloud   [George Conway]

I’ve been trying to make sense of the Administration’s foreign policy for quite some time now, and I think I’ve finally got it. In 2002, the President identified three countries – Iraq, Iran, and North Korea – as an “axis of evil,” an axis of terrorist states that were pursuing weapons of mass destruction. We invaded the one member of this axis, Iraq, that was the least likely to obtain nuclear weapons, the one that wasn’t even close to being close to building the bomb, and, in doing so, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and the burden of being embroiled in a lengthy, unsuccessful occupation, managed to succeed in empowering the second member of the axis, Iraq’s neighbor and longstanding enemy, Iran, which the Administration has left free to pursue the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium, all while essentially ignoring North Korea, which has now, it appears, successfully detonated an atomic bomb. It’s all clear now.

10/09 08:47 AM

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Lost   [George Conway]

George Will recounts a story from State of Denial:  Scooter Libby calls up David Kay, who's in charge of looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to tell Kay that the Vice President wants a particular place searched. Libby gives Kay the location's coordinates, and tells him that "something's buried there."

Kay and his staff pull out a map. The coordinates are in Lebanon.

Will opines that this story would be

hilarious were it not about war. The vignette is dismaying because it seems symptomatic of a blinkering monomania that may have prevented obsessed persons from facing fact.

Will goes on:

"Where's the leader?" Bush, according to Woodward, has exclaimed in dismay about the Iraqi government's dithering. "Where's George Washington? Where's Thomas Jefferson? Where's John Adams, for crying out loud?" For a president to ask that question about Iraq, that tribal stew, is enough to cause one to ask it about the United States.

10/03 09:58 PM

Saturday, September 30, 2006

"State of the Obvious"   [George Conway]

According to Peter Baker in today's Washington Post, the White House's bottom-line take is that there's nothing new in Bob Woodward's book:

Bush aides frantically called Woodward and asked for copies, which he sent over. A squadron of White House aides then spent hours tearing through the book and doing quick research to try to undercut its more damaging elements. They settled on a strategy of disputing certain conclusions while broadly dismissing it as old news.

"In a lot of ways, the book is sort of like cotton candy — it kind of melts on contact," White House spokesman Tony Snow said at a briefing dominated by the topic. "We've read this book before. This tends to repeat what we've seen in a number of other books that have been out this year where people are ventilating old disputes over troop levels." Snow said it was well known that events in Iraq have been difficult and that officials have debated the right approach. "Rather than a state of denial," he said, "it's a state of the obvious."

Meanwhile, Michiko Kakutani reviews the book in today's New York Times:

Were the war in Iraq not a real war that has resulted in more than 2,700 American military casualties and more than 56,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, the picture of the Bush administration that emerges from this book might resemble a farce. It’s like something out of “The Daily Show” or a “Saturday Night Live” sketch, with Freudian Bush family dramas and high-school-like rivalries between cabinet members who refuse to look at one another at meetings being played out on the world stage.

There’s the president, who once said, “I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy,” deciding that he’s going to remake the Middle East and alter the course of American foreign policy. There’s his father, former President George Herbert Walker Bush (who went to war against the same country a decade ago), worrying about the wisdom of another war but reluctant to offer his opinions to his son because he believes in the principle of “let him be himself.” There’s the president’s national security adviser whining to him that the defense secretary won’t return her phone calls. And there’s the president and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, trading fart jokes.

09/30 07:17 AM

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Driving Them Crazy   [Kellyanne Conway]

The ACLU has withdrawn a lawsuit seeking to stop Ohio from the further sale of “Choose Life” license plates to drivers in that state. This followed an earlier decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to let stand a Sixth Circuit opinion upholding Tennessee’s right to continue a similar program.

According to today’s Columbus-Dispatch story cited above, “the customized plates cost an extra $30, with $20 going toward nonprofit groups that help place children in adoptive homes. The remainder pays for the custom plate.” They have been a popular selection since their introduction last year.

The argument, a silly stretch even by ACLU “standards,” was that state-administered “Choose Life” plates, albeit a voluntary purchase and for a fee, were unconstitutional because they represented just one side of the abortion debate.

This seemingly small case is noteworthy because it lays bare several tenets of the Left’s ethos.

First, if it is about abortion, it’s worth every penny to fight. National Review’s Senior Editor, Ramesh Ponnuru, offers the most comprehensive and insightful treatment of the topic in Party of Death, his must-read book published earlier this year. Ramesh methodically deconstructs how the Left has used abortion as to hijack the Democratic Party, direct its resources, and expand its agenda into other areas debasing the sanctity of human life.

Second, if one cannot respond through the proper channels, e.g., lobby for one’s own customized plates, then one should use the courts. The ACLU and its abortion advocate friends could have done precisely what the pro-lifers did by asking for a tag of their own. But what might it have said and shown…“Anti-Life,” with a baby pictured in one of those red circles with the diagonal slash? And who would crow about the proceeds of plate sales going toward abortion.. er…“family planning?”

Alternatives to show their true colors also exist apart from the license plate route. Buy a hybrid car. Burn a bra. Slap on a bumper sticker that brags, “I killed my baby.” That would be cheaper than 30 bucks for the plate. These are losing propositions, of course, that no one – literally – would buy. So they revert to begging judges to upend opponents’ rights to free speech and commercial enterprise.

A cursory view of websites for several state Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV) reveals myriad opportunities to put junk on your trunk by way of personalized license plates. Take Virginia for example. There are over 180 choices to express one’s allegiance to colleges, wildlife species, professions and ideas. Some are downright odd or idiosyncratic, and you may not see them anywhere beyond the website.

Under the ACLU logic, each choice would have an untenable consequence. Consider: the display of the “Greyhound Adopt” plate could make the Welsh Corgi Rescue Society feel slighted. Ducks and mallards? Vegans in Virginia should cry foul (“fowl”). “The Virginia Society of CPAs” might induce acts of road rage around April 15.

Until recently, George and I had cars registered in Virginia, where for a nominal fee one can support the Washington Redskins on his license plate. But not the Philadelphia Eagles, our personal favorite, for which we are season ticket holders. Who to sue for this gross injustice?

Then there are the humdingers available through the Virginia DMV that somehow have escaped the notice of the ACLU, the smoke-free freaks, Jesse Jackson, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest of the gang: “Tobacco Heritage,” “National Rifle Association,” (which George had on his Corvette), and Sons of Confederate Veterans, complete with flag and available for motorcycles or autos. Suddenly,

I wish we still lived in Virginia, and I wish I had more cars to festoon with a couple of these gems.

But none of these messages are so audacious as to suggest that one cherish or choose or celebrate life, a threat to the Left’s fixation on abortion so real, so raw that it drove the ACLU all the way to the Supreme Court.

09/21 06:32 PM

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Get the Congressman a Clue   [George Conway]

An Associated Press story dated yesterday, entitled "Hastert: U.S. can defend borders like it has Iraq's," quotes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert as saying:

I always say if we can protect Iraq's borders against Syria and, you know, Jordan, and everyplace else, Iran, we can protect our own borders.

Hello? Earth to Denny: Have you been following the Iraq situation for, say, the last three years? Well, here is what an article just a few weeks ago on defenselink.mil, the official Defense Department website, has to say about the situation on what the article describes as Iraq's "porous" borders:

al Qaeda in Iraq . . . has imported foreign fighters to launch suicide attacks in Baghdad. These horrific attacks have killed hundreds of innocent Iraqi men, women and children as well as members of the Iraqi security forces and coalition servicemembers. This is a particular problem along Iraq's border with Syria.

In addition, extremists bring weapons - especially components for improvised explosive devices - into the country. The most deadly of these - the explosive fragmentation projectile, or shaped charge - comes in mainly over the border from Iran, officials said.

We should hope that the Army's efforts to create an effective border patrol in Iraq will succeed. But we certainly ought to try to do better at home.

08/16 06:19 PM

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Caught in the Act   [George Conway]

Little Green Footballs uncovered a badly faked Reuters photograph of Beirut. Now Reuters has pulled the picture with an advisory stating:

PICTURE KILL FOR LBN20 TRANSMITTED AT APPROXIMATELY 1408GMT ON AUGUST 5, 2006. PHOTO EDITING SOFTWARE WAS IMPROPERLY USED ON THIS IMAGE. A CORRECTED VERSION WILL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THIS ADVISORY. PLEASE REMOVE THE IMAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEMS. WE ARE SORRY FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE. REUTERS LBN20

More on the doctored photo here, here, here, here, here, and here.

UPDATE: And here, here, here, here, and here.

UPDATE: Another Photoshop scandal seems to be erupting here and here.

UPDATE: Reuters now claims that this is an unretouched image of the same scene. What was the point of cloning the buildings and the smoke?

UPDATE: And here, on the English-language website of Yedioth Ahronoth, is the first news story on the controversy. It quotes a statement from a Reuters spokeswoman:

Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures.

As soon as the allegation came to light, the photograph, filed on Saturday 5 August, was removed from the file and a replacement, showing the same scene, was sent. The explanation for the removal was the improper use of photo-editing software.

UPDATE: Someone from a Reuters IP address sent a death threat to Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson back in May? You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

08/06 08:12 AM

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Joe Knows   [George Conway]

As Kellyanne always says, the best polls, the polls that are truly unbiased, are the polls you never see — the internal polls conducted by political partisans, the ones that politicians rely on to decide how to advance their ambitions or to save their skins, the ones that tell them how and where to spend the money they've worked so hard to raise — not the "nonpartisan" media polls that are biased toward creating headlines that match the preconceived notions of editors and reporters. After that last weekend in November 1980, Richard Wirthlin and Pat Caddell knew exactly what was going to happen — and told their candidates so well before those of us who were just watching TV had anything more than a clue.

What are Joe Lieberman's pollsters telling him? Well, we don't exactly know, but this New York Times story today gives us some pretty significant clues.  It seems that the Lieberman campaign is giving up some of its ground game for an air attack:

But in the waning hours of the most closely watched Democratic primary in the nation, Mr. Lieberman, a three-term incumbent, appears to be ceding some tactical ground to his opponent in favor of running new advertisements emphasizing his message that voters should see him for more than his vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

People affiliated with the campaign said it had dropped plans for a far-reaching — and expensive — get-out-the-vote effort that would have added as many as 4,000 new workers and volunteers to the campaign in its final days.

“We haven’t closed the sale with Connecticut Democrats, and so we need to spend some resources to get our message out on TV and radio and direct mail,” said Sean Smith, Mr. Lieberman’s campaign manager. “That said, we continue to have a robust get-out-the-vote operation.”

By downsizing the large-scale ground operation, which analysts said could have added at least five percentage points to his support, the Lieberman campaign seemed to be indicating that Mr. Lamont’s lead had grown too wide to be overcome by phone calls and door-knocking alone.

Not only that, but some of Lieberman's top union supporters are "leaving the state," and his friend and supporter, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, is saying publicly that Lieberman should forget running as an independent if he gets creamed next Tuesday. All of which is consistent with what Rich Lowry says here.

Ironically, Lieberman publicly kvetched early on about how he could be hurt by the low turnout of an August primary. But turnout doesn't help if the people who turn out don't vote for you. In any event, turnout may not be so low this year, after all:

In a sign of the tremendous interest in the primary, nearly 11,500 voters have changed their status from unaffiliated to Democrat, Connecticut’s secretary of state, Susan Bysiewicz, said yesterday. That was up from the 6,715 Ms. Bysiewicz said had switched their status earlier in the week.

If turnout is relatively high, and Lieberman gets trounced, it'll be awfully hard for him to justify running on an independent line.

UPDATE: The Hartford Courant says Connecticut's town clerks are "inundated" with voters changing their registration status:

As Tuesday's primary draws near, town halls across the state are being inundated by people who want to register with the Democratic Party, according to the secretary of the state and town registrars. . . .

Registrars from Rocky Hill to New Haven say their offices have been busier than ever, local clerks said. In Manchester, 20 people have been walking into the registrars' office each day to sign up to vote. Usually, foot traffic is limited to one or two people a day, said Republican Registrar Barbara King. Other registrars say the number of unaffiliated voters who have become Democrats is especially high.

"Even in the presidential primaries, you don't see a lot of changes or new registrations. You see some, but it's usually just before the election," said Peg Byrnes, the Democratic registrar in East Hartford. . . .

"Some of them have indicated that the day after the primary they're going to go back to being unaffiliated," Byrnes said.

08/05 08:49 AM

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Is Lieberman Cratering?   [George Conway]

Yes, indeed — if a new Quinnipiac poll (890 LVs, MOE +/- 3.3%) has it right: 4. If the 2006 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont for whom would you vote? (If undecided q4) As of today, do you lean more toward Lieberman or Lamont? This table includes Leaners.

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS....... Tot Men Wom Lib Mod/Con Lieberman 41% 40% 43% 31% 49% Lamont 54 55 53 66 45 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - - - - - DK/NA 5 5 5 3 6

TREND: If the 2006 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As of today, do you lean more toward Lieberman or Lamont? This table includes Leaners.

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS....... Aug 3 Jul 20 Jun 8 2006 2006 2006 Lieberman 41 47 55 Lamont 54 51 40 SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - - - DK/NA 5 2 4

4c. (If candidate choice q4) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS JL NL Tot Voters Voters Made up 85% 83% 88% Might change 14 16 12 DK/NA 1 1 -

08/03 09:40 AM

Saturday, July 29, 2006

The Fates of Fraudsters, 2006   [George Conway]

"It may well be that all but the most trivial frauds in the publicly traded companies may trigger sentences amounting to life imprisonment" under current law, wrote Judge Ralph K. Winter yesterday in justly affirming Bernie Ebbers's conviction for committing securities fraud by hiding costs to "create a false picture of profitability."   The 64-year old Mr. Ebbers should begin his 25-year prison term presently.

In contrast, as the New York Times reports today, State Department bureaucrats who "used an accounting shell game to hide ballooning construction on its programs . . . and knowingly withheld information on schedule delays from Congress," well, they just get whacked with a little report.  Ouch.  After all, what's a billion dollars or two to the American taxpayer?

* * * * *

The differing fates of Mr. Ebbers and the government bureaucrats should hardly surprise, as even the Securities and Exchange Commission can't keep its books straight.  See also here, here, here, here, here, and here.

07/29 01:26 PM