Archive

  • MORE TROUBLE FOR SHAYS.

    MORE TROUBLE FOR SHAYS. Yesterday I doubted whether Rep. Chris Shays' challenger Diane Farrell had the deadlocked race sewn up now by her endorsement in The New York Times . Well, now Garance has a piece in The New Republic that should deliver a death blow to Shays. Apparently Shays has taken to bragging about his first venture into Iraq, leaving out the part about how, stopping en route in Qatar, a small middle-Eastern monarchy, he told an audience: "This nation, like my small state, has always played a large role in advancing participatory democracy, civil discourse, and stable commerce." But the scandal wasn't his royal ass-kissing -- it was how Shays, with his famously holier-than-thou stance on ethics, got there in the first place. According to Garance: ... despite his record of pushing for meticulous record-keeping, Shays's privately sponsored trip to Qatar was notably absent from his own annual federal financial disclosure form, filed in May 2004, in violation of House rules...
  • WINGER WEEK.

    WINGER WEEK. Following up Pierce -- the president and vice president have said all sorts of great stuff to conservative journalists and commentators this week. --Sam Rosenfeld
  • DEPLORABLE.

    DEPLORABLE. It is deplorable -- deplorable, my friends -- that political parties might use illness or the misfortunes of others to score political points, and it is exploitative -- exploitative, my friends -- that they would use videotaping equipment to bring this deplorable exploitation into our living rooms. And how do we know they're not faking it? It's either one, my friends. Why, if we let something like that happen, then who knows ? A president might have to interrupt only the 43rd vacation of his administration to get back to work, and an actual doctor might use his professional credentials like a cheap tin drum, thereby rendering himself personally ridiculous, and his nascent presidential run a sad little circus act. Deplorable, my friends. Can't have that. --Charles P. Pierce
  • WHAT AL-QAEDA WANTS....

    WHAT AL-QAEDA WANTS. Peter Bergen , who probably knows more about al-Qaeda than just about anyone else alive, argues in today's New York Times that withdrawal from Iraq would, indeed, be giving the terrorist group what they want. Al-Qaeda's aim, he argues, is to acquire a slice of territory that they can control. The likeliest spot is in the Sunni-dominated areas of central and western Iraq. To pull out would be essentially ceding those spots to al-Qaeda, and would fit the group's master narrative of American weakness. It's worth noting that this is just one more way in which Bush's ill-fated invasion of Iraq was manna from heaven for bin Laden . Had Zawahiri mastered Manchurian technology and installed his controllable surrogate in the White House, he could hardly have done a better job. Not to engage in nostalgia for tyrants, but Saddam Hussein , for all his crimes, neither had WMDs nor any interest in ceding portions of his country to jihadists. That said, the situation is what it...
  • THE MAJORITARIAN DIFFICULTY.

    THE MAJORITARIAN DIFFICULTY. Glenn Greenwald makes a very important point about yesterday's judicial decision in New Jersey: The decision today is entirely consistent with the democratic will of New Jersey residents. The New Jersey legislature already enacted a domestic partnership bill two years ago which recognizes, and grants a whole array of marital rights to, same-sex couples. But the way the laws were written, some rights were still assigned only to "married" couples. The court decision today simply requires that those same-sex partnerships have all of the rights which are given to married couples. But New Jersey voters, through their representatives, already approved of recognition of same-sex relationships two years ago. Those who see a major backlash from the judicial ruling seem to assume that such decisions are counter-majoritarian. But civil unions have majority support in the country, and in New Jersey civil unions are supported by an almost two-to-one margin . Whether...
  • A SLIP?

    A SLIP? Which of these are actually bad , and which are bad merely for the Republican Party? Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters. As Rodger Payne notes, the failure to find stockpiles of WMD is actually a good thing, given that it means Iraq didn't have any WMD, and that a strategy of diplomatic and military containment can be wildly successful against rogue regimes. Then again, it's of course possible that President Bush cannot distinguish between the phrases "good for America" and "good for the Republicans". --Robert Farley
  • CONFIRMED.

    CONFIRMED. So they gathered them all up from radio studios across this mighty land this week, and they threw them across the White House grounds. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy , never has there been such a concentration of worthless bloviation collected in that hallowed place since the last time Warren Harding dined alone. Anyway, you just knew it would be a treasure trove of pure distilled wingnut poteen. And sure enough, courtesy of the invaluable Jonathan Landay , the folks at TPM found a tall glass of the real stuff right here . Let us be entirely clear here. Vice-President Shoot-'em-In-The-Face doesn't believe that waterboarding is torture. John McCain believes it is. Waterboarding will continue. The "compromise" bill McCain crafted isn't worth the matches they used to set it on fire in the White House. John McCain either doesn't give a damn or he's an utter sap. There is no third alternative. --Charles P. Pierce
  • THE COMING COUNTERMOBILIZATION ARGUMENT.

    THE COMING COUNTERMOBILIZATION ARGUMENT. In the wake of the decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey that same-sex couples are entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples (although not necessarily under the rubric of "marriage"), we're bound to hear a lot of speculation about how this will affect the upcoming election (which I'm sure will be forgotten should the Democrats take the House and pick up seats in the Senate.) As I have previously explained here on TAP , I think the effect of these decisions is often overstated, and there's no evidence that it matters whether it's legislation of litigation that leads to the policy change. I also don't think that it matters a lot whether the courts call the equal civil rights required for same-sex couples "marriage." One thing Jack Balkin leaves out of his otherwise fine account is that while the Goodridge decision was an important issue in the 2004 elections in Massachusetts, the pro-gay marriage side won . There's no...
  • SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN.

    SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN. Julian Sanchez poses an interesting question, in response to my earlier post on the nasty comments of Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) to her wheelchair-bound Libertarian opponent Thomas Rankin ("If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you across the face.") I asserted that Cubin's obnoxious remark was evidence that Republicans have it in for the disabled, as also demonstrated by various policies they promote. Julian responds: [W]hile I don't know the details of Rankin's views on these topics -- his platform doesn't directly address them -- he sounds like a pretty straight-up, across-the-board libertarian. Which means, presumably, that he also opposes workplace discrimination laws as interference with private rights of association, opposes Social Security, and opposes government funding for medical research.... So, in the likely event that Rankin does hold these views... are we supposed to infer that he "has it in for" himself? I called Mr. Rankin and asked...
  • THE MINIMUM WAGE....

    THE MINIMUM WAGE. Every once in awhile, I like to reengage the minimum wage debate. It's such an article of faith on the right that minimum wage increases lead to widespread unemployment, and such an intuitive argument, that society would have to be a pretty bizarre place not to abandon the wrongheaded policy altogether. Except for the fact that, intuitive as the argument may be, and faithful as its rightwing advocates may prove, there's just not much evidence that minimum wage increases have a measurable effect on unemployment. The foundational study in this area -- which various economists have sought to confirm or reject, all with varying, and often contradictory, success -- is the Card/Krueger survey of New Jersey restaurants that found a slight positive impact on employment. Lots of controversy on that result, but now there's new data from Arindrajit Dube, Suresh Naidu, and Michael Reich checking out San Francisco's restaurants after they instituted an $8.50 minimum wage. As Kash...

Pages