July 16, 2003
July 14, 2003
More signs of the landslide
Larry Kudlow writes in the National Review about the coming boom due to hit full strength in 2004:
The liberal media and the Democratic presidential candidates jumped all over the latest jobs report, which showed a rise in unemployment to 6.4 percent. Screaming for President Bush's head, liberals are trying to make the case that failure in the economy will lead to the president's re-election defeat next year - the same fate suffered by his father over ten years ago.
But this group of harpies - the gang that can't shoot straight - is overlooking a number of market-oriented signs that point to a robust economic recovery. This resurgence is likely to begin in the second half of this year, and reach full bloom in 2004.
This crowd couldn't even get the jobs report straight. Outside of that higher unemployment figure, big gains were registered by temporary workers and the self-employed, both leading indicators of better jobs performance in the future. Significantly, 251,000 people re-entered the labor force in June, a confidence sign as hopes were raised by the new tax-cut package and its promise of new employment.
I'm all ready for a rousing chorus of Happy Days Are Here Again. Ironic, isn't it? It seems that the party of FDR is the one with all the long faces.
Saddam in bed with Osama
It turns out that, indeed, Saddam Hussein's government worked to support Osama bin Laden and his terrorist aims according to InstaPundit. This will only boster most Americans' opinion that war in Iraq was just even without weapons of mass destruction.
July 13, 2003
Dean to pinch hit for Lessig
This Slashdot article discusses that Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, Democratic presidential candidate, will guest blog for law professor Lawrence Lessig during the latter's vacation. And I was just listening to one of the Sunday morning yack-yack shows this past weekend about Dean; did they mention the word Internet anywhere? That's old media for you.
July 10, 2003
What We Know, What Bush Knew, and What Dems Should Keep In Mind
Professor Andrew Busch of the conservative Ashbrook Center has an informative editorial outlining what we know so far about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. He also has an observation about what we don't know, and what that could mean to Democrats who are currently foaming at the mouth:
It is impossible to say what discoveries the future will bring (a fact which, incidentally, makes the Democratic strategy quite risky) but it is useful to refocus attention on what we know—not what we thought we knew, or what we think today, but what is known beyond serious dispute.
As Democratic rhetoric becomes increasingly strident and condemnations are voiced with fewer and fewer caveats, the likelihood that some Democrats may become victims of their own hubris continues to rise. Of course, Prof. Busch has some advice for Bush as well:
Yet unless the administration does a better job of reminding the public (and the world) of what we do know, it runs the risk of allowing its credibility to be unnecessarily undermined with potentially great cost in Iran, North Korea, and beyond. And one of Bush’s greatest electoral assets—public belief in his sincerity and trustworthiness—will be vulnerable to attack.
(link via No Left Turns)
July 8, 2003
Who gets the big money in campaign donations? Who gets the chump change? According to yesterday's Washington Times editorial:
"The Nine Dwarfs" pursuing the Democratic Party presidential nomination have been relentlessly asserting that the Republican Party is beholden to the wealthy. It turns out, however, that it is the Democratic Party that has been addicted to the million-dollar contributions from the nation's fat cats. A recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan campaign-finance research organization, reveals that the Democratic Party gobbled up an astounding 92 percent of all individual contributions totaling $1 million or more during the 2001-02 election cycle. Meanwhile, it was the Republican Party that received 64 percent of all individual contributions less than $200 per donor.
92%! It's hard to get 92% of anything out of the body politic. I wonder why so many rich people prefer the Democrats and so many working people prefer the Republicans.
Next time someone calls the Republicans the party of the rich, mention the number 92%. You might also wish to remind them that 8 of the 10 wealthiest Senators are Democrats. (To be fair, of the 40 millionaries in the Senate only 18 are Democrats; the other 22 are Republicans. This is close to the overall parity between the parties in that body.)
July 3, 2003
Great local politics
My friend, Charles Kuffner, is one of the best local (Houston) and state (Texas) political bloggers I know. He may be the steadiest of Democrats, but that doesn't keep him from excellent writing on the local Republicans where the mayor's race is really heating up. Charles is also a contributor to the very excellent Political State Report, a group blog devoted to state and local politics around the country. He writes there, naturally enough, for the Texas section.
As Tip O'Neill was fonding of pointing out, all politics is local.
July 2, 2003
The Terminator California's next govenor?
Guest columnist Sheri Annis at the National Review has a fairly glowing report on Arnold Schwarzenegger and the possiblity that he might become the governor of California in short order. Annis was press secretary for Schwarzenegger during his recently successful initiative drive for a popular after-school program.» Continue reading "The Terminator California's next govenor?"