On Thursday, in an appearance on Fox News with Rep. Ron Paul, Sarah Palin described marijuana as a "minimal problem" that police shouldn't devote scarce resources to. Although opposing legalization because of "the kids," she said:
“If somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems we have in society.”
On Friday, Power Line's Paul Mirengoff reported on some Washington appearances by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who Mirengoff thinks is "well worth a look" for the 2012 presidential nomination:
Daniels is pitching the notion that we may need a truce in divisive culture war controversies in order to deal with "survival issues" such as terrorism and debt. But Michael Gerson argues that Daniels is being naïve here. He asks: "Just how would avoiding fights on unrelated social issues make Democratic legislators more likely to vote for broad budget cuts and drastic entitlement reforms?"
Clearly, avoiding such fights would not produce that result. But it might well enable Republicans to become and remain more popular with moderate voters. And this, in turn, might give Republicans the majorities necessary to implement budget cuts and entitlement reforms.
Fellow Power Line blogger John Hinderaker (who, like Mirengoff, seems far from libertarian) added this (emphasis added):
… Over the last couple of decades, countless media/political voices have urged Republicans to abandon social conservatism on political grounds, i.e., the need to appeal to upscale suburbanites. This has always struck me as odd, since the social issues have consistently represented a net gain for Republicans–which is why, I assume, liberal commentators are so anxious for Republicans to abandon them. So in the past, my view has always been that Republican and conservative politicians should keep the social issues as one leg of the proverbial three-legged stool.
The present moment, however, represents a departure. It may well be that a consensus exists in favor of reduced federal spending and economic power that dwarfs any plurality on the social issues. So should conservative candidates forget about abortion, gay marriage and so on? The answer depends, obviously, on the particular district in question.
In general, though, it strikes me as a matter of emphasis. I do think that we are in a moment where conservatives should emphasize constitutional government and reduced spending first, and national security second; social issues third, if at all. …
As we stare into the economic abyss described by Arthur Laffer, more and more conservatives seem willing to at least declare a "truce" on social issues. The Tea Party movement has deliberately and explicitly elected to set aside divisive social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and focus instead on the economic and fiscal crises facing our country. That's a good thing, I think.
I only half-listened to the President's Oval Office address the other night, so I decided to take a look at the transcript and see if it still seemed as vacuous. A passage near the end that hadn't really registered while listening jumped out at me (emphasis added):
… what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny — our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how we're going to get there. We know we'll get there.
Um, wow. Did the guy driving the car really brag that he doesn't have a road map, doesn't know the destination, and won't be able to tell when we've arrived, but he's going to put the pedal to the metal anyway? Did he really think such inane blather would make us nod in agreement, swoon, or feel a tingle up our legs?
Well, first of all, I don't believe him. I think he knows exactly where he's driving the Car of State (to stick with that metaphor). He just thinks it's best not to reveal his destination to all us yahoos in flyover country because we might not like the idea of becoming a second-rate sclerotic socialist country.
Secondly, that quote couldn't help but remind me of this oldie-but-goodie: "Why are we in this hand-basket, and where are we going?"
The talking heads on the left seemed to be just as underwhelmed by the President's speech last night as those on the right. NewsBusters reported on MSNBC's post-speech panel discussion by Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Howard Fineman, and all three seem to have been pretty critical.
For sure, Chris Matthews didn't get that tingle up his leg this time:
Why does he continue to say that the Secretary of Energy has a Nobel Prize? I mean, it`s almost gotten ludicrous. We had Carol Browner do it again tonight. … I`m not sure whether these degrees are going to help or these awards from overseas.
… We have a blue ribbon panel now that`s going to look into what went wrong. Can`t we move a little quicker than that, than to name a commission? That`s what they`ve done here. Another commission and another guy mentioned, they mentioned for having a Nobel Prize. …
…
I don`t sense executive command. And I thought that was the purpose of this speech tonight, command and control. I`m calling the shots. My name is Barack Obama. I`m the boss. I`m telling people what to do. I didn`t get that clarity. … He must be chief executive. He can no longer be Vatican observer or intellectual, or a guy calling in experts, or naming commissioners or whatever. I think he`s, or citing people for their Nobel prizes, I think he has to be the boss. …
The former Obama cheerleader is now surprised and disappointed by the President's lack of leadership and "executive command" skills. Back in 2008, there was no shortage of people pointing out that candidate Obama's background as an academic, community organizer, and part-time, present-voting legislator was sorely lacking in real-world job experience, much less any executive experience that might prepare him for the presidency. But Matthews pooh-poohed such concerns. He had that tingle running up in his leg.
Every time I see a video of or read a statement by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, I like him better. In this 4:42 clip from a town hall meeting, he talks about the teachers' union. I love the schoolyard bully metaphor.
Nice rhetoric, you say, but what specifically is Christie doing? Glad you asked. In "The Reform Agenda: Changing Course in N.J.," Christie described the state's monumental fiscal crisis, which had been years in the making (state spending growing at double-digit annual rates for decades; 116 tax increases in nine years). Then he outlined his reform proposal. It consists of constitutional caps on property tax increases and discretionary spending, accompanied by a comprehensive set of legislative reforms on collective bargaining, civil service, health care, education, and pensions.
That bold and broad reform proposal follows putting together a budget that cuts state spending by over a third. And by all accounts, Christie is remarkably popular. I hope he serves as an example for other state leaders around the country on how to restore fiscal responsibility and tackle tough problems instead of kicking them down the road.
Dick Morris has a theory about why the Obama administration offered Andrew Romanoff his choice of high-level jobs if he gave up his primary challenge against appointed Senator Michael Bennet. Morris thinks they did it to buy Bennet's vote for Obamacare.
It's purely speculation, but it does seem to make sense. As Morris noted, Bennet was "no great friend of the White House" and he "lacked a political base and was never a particularly strong candidate." In fact, one could make the case that a Senator Romanoff would be more to the liking of the administration than Bennet. So it's hard to come up with any other compelling reason why they'd go out of their way — to the point of doing something certainly unethical and possibly illegal — to protect Bennet.
Despite all kinds of pressure, Bennet remained uncommitted on Obamacare for many months. Given how unpopular the bill was in Colorado, he had good reason to vote against it. Unlike the other Democratic holdouts (Landrieu and Nelson come to mind), he never won any well-publicized special treatment or benefit for Colorado. Yet that fall, a few weeks after administration officials apparently tried to bribe Romanoff to drop out of the race, Bennet suddenly decided that passing Obamacare was utterly vital to the nation and his highest priority in life.
I wonder if some reporter will have the stones to ask Bennet directly, "Senator, did you trade your vote for Obamacare in exchange for the administration's efforts to get Andrew Romanoff out of the race?" And after the inevitable, "Of course not," to follow up with pointed questions about the timing, about why Bennet had the sudden change of heart on the bill, and about which members of the administration he had communications with and when during that time period.
Reason's Jacob Sullum expertly dissected the Democrats' DISCLOSE Act, a bill intended to undermine Citizens United v. FEC and silence critics of incumbent politicians (while leaving public employee unions largely unaffected). It's coming to a vote soon.
Among other things, Sullum noted that "Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said he wants people to worry about a fine or prison sentence when they dare to speak ill of him." This prompted Glenn Reynolds to comment that:
Hacks don’t like criticism. But they should be careful. They’ll like tar and feathers even less, and that’s what you get when you make criticism illegal.
Tar and feathers have been out of favor for far too long. It's high time they came back into fashion. Given recent events in Massachusetts, maybe that would be a good place to try resurrecting the practice. Watch your ass, Capuano!
House Democrats plan to leave the country without a budget according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer who stated, “It’s difficult to pass budgets in election years because they reflect what the [fiscal] status is.”
Now that’s courage, leadership and transparency.
…
Remember, the Democrats hold 59% of the seats in the House with a 255 to 176 advantage over the Republicans, yet it is too hard to put a budget together?
For perspective, consider election year 2002 when Speaker Dennis Hastert enjoyed a slender 222 to 211 advantage, yet our nation was not left without a budget.
The ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, has called this decision, “an unprecedented failure to govern.”
I call it unprecedented cowardice and dereliction of duty.
I call it a calculated and cynical attempt to hide the ugly truth from the American people during the run-up to the November elections. Will it work? Maybe not this time. Michael Barone thinks there's something different about the current mood of the country:
It has long been a maxim of political scientists that American voters are ideologically conservative and operationally liberal. That is another way of saying that they tend to oppose government spending in the abstract but tend to favor spending on particular programs.
…
In the past, rebellions against fiscal policy have concentrated on taxes rather than spending.
…
The rebellion against the fiscal policies of the Obama Democrats, in contrast, is concentrated on spending. The Tea Party movement began with Rick Santelli's rant in February 2009, long before the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts in January 2011.
What we are seeing is a spontaneous rush of previously inactive citizens into political activity, a movement symbolized but not limited to the Tea Party movement, in response to the vast increases in federal spending that began with the TARP legislation in fall 2008 and accelerated with the Obama Democrats' stimulus package, budget and health care bills.
The Tea Party folk are focusing on something real. Federal spending is rising from about 21% to about 25% of gross domestic product — a huge increase in historic terms — and the national debt is on a trajectory to double as a percentage of gross domestic product within a decade. That is a bigger increase than anything since World War II.
I hope Barone is right — and that this long-overdue revolt against government spending is not too little or too late.
As recent polls predicted, Republican Charles Djou has won the special election for the House seat in Hawaii's 1st District. The district covers Honolulu, Obama's home town, and as I noted recently, has been in Democratic hands since the last ice age.
But I suspect the mainstream media will find this election much less significant and newsworthy than the Democrats' ability to hold on to Pennsylvania's 12th District.
Radley Balko has begun to "warm up to this Nick Clegg chap," and I can see why. Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition government that the Conservatives formed with Clegg's Liberal Democrats, and he's promising "ambitious and radical" political reforms that aim to empower individuals and reduce the power and scope of government. I like most of the bullet list, but like Balko, my favorite is "a bonfire of unnecessary laws."
It's all just talk so far, but it's encouraging talk (emphasis added):
In an attempt to reassure Liberal Democrat members and supporters who doubt the wisdom of joining forces with the Conservatives, he will promise: "This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state. That values debate, that is unafraid of dissent."
…
He will announce plans to consult the public on which laws should be scrapped. Promising to "tear through the statute book", he will attack Labour for creating thousands of criminal offences which took away people's freedom without making the streets safe.
"Obsessive lawmaking simply makes criminals out of ordinary people. So we'll get rid of the unnecessary laws and once they're gone, they won't come back. We will introduce a mechanism to block pointless new criminal offences," he will say.
…
"This government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state. This government is going to break up concentrations of power and hand power back to people, because that is how we build a society that is fair. This government is going to persuade you to put your faith in politics once again."
Mr Clegg endorsed David Cameron's flagship "big society" theme, which the Tory leader contrasts with the "big government" offered by Labour during its 13 years in power. In a U-turn, the Liberal Democrat leader told a Downing Street seminar for voluntary groups he hosted with the Prime Minister: "What I'm discovering is we've been using different words for a long time – it actually means the same thing. Liberalism, big society. Empowerment, responsibility. It means the same thing."
That sounds pretty good to my libertarian ears. It's just a hope at this point, but maybe — just maybe — Britain's messy election will lead to something really positive for that nation.
Maybe some British liberals are ready to re-embrace their roots as advocates of freedom, democracy, and civil liberties, instead of focusing on egalitarianism, regulation, and "positive rights." And maybe some British conservatives are returning to their traditional commitment to individual liberty and distrust of overarching government, instead of … well, whatever you call the inchoate policy porridge that's characterized them since the end of Thatcherism.
Maybe this coalition government is an opportunity for a realignment in British politics, the creation of a real, lasting coalition of those across the political spectrum who've recognized the limits — and dangers — of government power. Something akin to a tea party movement. Wouldn't it be appropriate for the Brits to have something akin to a tea party? Eh, wot?
Chris Christie has been governor of New Jersey for less than four months, and he's already said and done more good things than any other governor in America. I made some modest contributions to his campaign, and I think they may be the wisest political contributions I've made in years.
Is it too soon to talk about Christie for President? Some people don't think so — there's already a "Chris Christie for President in 2012" Facebook group. That may be a stretch, but I think Christie has a future in national politics. At least, I hope he does.
In the following video, Christie responds to a reporter's snarky question about Christie's "confrontational tone." His reply is priceless. Keep your eye on the fellow behind and to the left of Christie — he really enjoyed it.
If you have time, check out some of the other Christie videos, too, like his appearances on Fox & Friends, Morning Joe, and with Don Imus. And by all means, read George Will's profile of the Governor. Christie is a breath of fresh air in the fetid landscape of American politics.
Boy, this is looking like a tough year for Socialist Democrats running for Congress. Voting is already well under way for the May 22 special election in Hawaii's 1st Congressional District, and the latest poll shows fiscal conservative Republican Charles Djou with a commanding lead :
Djou leads with 39.5 percent of the vote, followed by former Congressman Ed Case and Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, who are tied at 25.5 percent, according to the poll by Aloha Vote, a Hawaii subsidiary of Merriman River Group (MRG), a Massachusetts research organization. Nearly 10 percent are undecided….
The automated telephone poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.0 percentage points. The poll of 1,081 likely voters was conducted on May 6 and 7.
More than half the respondents — 52.6 percent — had already voted. And of that group, Djou got 45 percent of the vote, one reason it's so difficult to imagine trends changing in any significant way between now and May 22….
Djou leads among voters who believe limiting government power or national security are the most important issues in the election. They are "through the roof" for Djou, Rosenthal said.
Hanabusa wins among voters who identify education as the most important issue, while Case wins among voters who pick energy independence and environmental protection.
The 1st District covers Honolulu, so it's Obama's "home congressional district." It's been lopsidedly Democratic since the last ice age, and would probably remain that way in a two-way race. But Djou's strong showing, plus the fact that 13% of those polled described themselves as belonging to the Tea Party, are pretty amazing for this district.
On the way home this evening, I heard Hugh Hewitt talking with National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. Ponnuru made an interesting point that I hadn't thought about, but which strikes me as quite valid: the opposition to the Obama administration is much more programmatic and policy-driven, and much less personal, than the opposition to the Clinton administration was.
Think back — the right's dislike of both Bill and Hillary was quite intense, personal, and visceral. Yes, there are a few whose reaction to Obama is similar — but they're mostly marginalized fringe people like the birthers. The Tea Party people, who are the opposition mainstream, are thoroughly focused on issues: out-of-control spending, out-of-control growth of government, out-of-control deficits, "stimulus" pork, cap-and-tax, health care takeover, etc.
When Clinton was called names, they tended to focus on his character and were quite personal. When Obama is called names, they tend to focus on his agenda — ends and means — and are quite ideological: socialist, radical, Alinskyite, etc.
To the extent that this comparison is valid, it seems to further discredit the spurious claim that opposition to Obama is racially motivated.
Although I'm sure someone will point out that Bill Clinton was proclaimed our nation's first black president, so the opposition to him must have been racist, too.
Don't get too excited about the news that President Obama has embraced "Drill here, drill now." The initial MSM reports sounded good, but just a bit of digging reveals this to be the administration's April fool's joke. Or, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute put it, "sleight of hand":
Most of Alaska, all of the Pacific coast, and other areas that could yield affordable energy for American consumers are still closed off from any development. Rather than a painful compromise, this is therefore actually a step back from what the American people thought had been achieved in 2008.
"When gas reached four dollars a gallon, the American people were shocked to discover that most of our domestic oil reserves were locked up by the federal government. They demanded change," said Competitive Enterprise Institute Director of Energy Policy Myron Ebell.
In 2008, President George W. Bush revoked his father's executive order barring new offshore energy development and the Department of the Interior prepared a five year offshore leasing plan. The Democratic Congress co-operated by dropping the long-time moratorium which banned offshore oil production everywhere except in the western Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean off Alaska. The Obama administration, however, suspended the Interior plan and delayed a planned lease auction scheduled for 2011. It is now proposing a new plan that is much more limited.
So in a nutshell, the areas they're bragging about opening up were already open (pre-Obama). And some of the areas they're closing down were already open, too. The net effect is to reduce access to domestic reserves, not increase it.
The editors of National Review Online think they know the true purpose of this new plan:
The limited drilling is clearly being offered as a bargaining chip, a way to give soft Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and oil-state Democrats such as Mary Landrieu (D., La.) cover in exchange for their votes on legislation that caps or taxes emissions. Graham and Landrieu were members of the Gang of Ten, the senators who proposed limited drilling in exchange for lots of new subsidies for green-energy companies and, in the process, nearly derailed the effort that undid the congressional ban. Unsurprisingly, the Obama's drilling proposal looks a lot like the one the Gang of Ten put on the table. … We argued at the time that the amount of oil that the Gang's proposal might yield wouldn't be worth the cost to taxpayers of even more subsidies for politically influential but commerically lame green industries. It certainly wouldn't be worth it now that carbon caps have been added to the broader policy mix.
Just like "no middle-class tax increase," "reducing the deficit," "shovel-ready jobs," and "transparency," the claim of "opening coastal waters" deserves a Joe Wilson type of response.
Rep. Hank Johnson (SD-GA) took over Cynthia McKinney's seat, and he seems to be a worthy successor to that moonbat. At a House Armed Services Committee meeting last Friday considering a troop increase on Guam, Johnson expressed his concern about adding 8000 troops and their families to the island:
Addressing Adm. Robert Willard, who commands the Navy's Pacific Fleet, Johnson made a tippy motion with his hands and said sternly, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."
Willard paused and said: "We don't anticipate that."
Like other islands, Guam is attached to the sea floor, which makes it extremely unlikely that it will tip over, even if there are lots and lots of people on it.
I appreciate The Hill making sure readers are educated on the nature of islands. Extremely unlikely, indeed.
Aside from a few idiots chortling over the political benefit of letting the Democrats pass such an unpopular bill, the Stupid Party has acquitted itself pretty well during the struggle over government-controlled health care. Maybe — just maybe — some of them have actually learned from their well-deserved drubbing in 2006 and 2008.
The Evil Party, on the other hand, has interpreted public repudiation of Republicans (to be precise, candidates pretending to be Republicans) as a mandate to become even more evil. This fall, they may learn what a mistake that was.
I just hope we can find another Reagan — or better yet, a Thatcher — in the next three years.
If we don't, I'll look into retiring in Costa Rica. Or Belize. Or maybe Honduras — the people of that little country have recently demonstrated great courage and great respect for democracy and the rule of law. I might really like it there.
