California Senate: Carly Fiorina Vs. Barbara Boxer

I've got questions about her conservatism, but in California, you take what you can get.

John Fund, of WSJ Political Diary fame, has this week's Weekend Interview with Carly Fiorina--former HP CEO and candidate for the United States Senate.

Look, Barbara Boxer is sooo bad on every issue. Whoever we can nominate in California will be a better alternative. Although, like Fiorina points out in her interview, Boxer's singular inability to really do anything makes her somewhat valuable.

You know the old joke, about a player on the other team being so bad that they are your team's MVP.

Yeah, that's Barbara Boxer.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Harry Reid's Nuts 5

A report on the contraction, not the possessive.

"What'd he do this time," you may be asking yourself. Oh, pick a fight with his hometown newspaper when he's already trailing 2 no-name Republicans in the most recent polling of his Senate race next year.

The WSJ Political Diary's John Fund has the story:

Majority Leader Harry Reid meant to make some news at last week's Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, but not the kind that subsequently filled the local media.

Mr. Reid came to the forum to reveal his plans on the Senate health care debate. He told the business leaders he would give bipartisanship a two-week trial period after the Senate returns on September 8. If Republicans refuse to pass a bill, Mr. Reid pledged to use "reconciliation," a set of budget rules that would allow him to muscle government-run health care through with a bare majority rather than the 60 votes required to beat a filibuster.

His speech didn't sit well with many members, who questioned if the reordering of one-seventh of the nation's economy should be done by turning Senate rules into a pretzel. But the real explosion came when his home state's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, accused Mr. Reid of using "bully threats" against the paper in his speech and in private remarks to one of the paper's executives.

Sherman Frederick, publisher of the Review-Journal, says that before Mr. Reid's speech last Wednesday, Mr. Reid in a receiving line met the paper's director of advertising, Bob Brown, and bluntly told him: "I hope you go out of business." Mr. Brown says he was flummoxed because while his paper's editorials have been critical of Mr. Reid's voting record, the paper's advertising director has nothing to do with its opinion pages.

But Mr. Reid wasn't finished. In his public speech, Mr. Reid told the audience that the only reason he wanted the Review-Journal to continue selling any ads was that the more liberal Las Vegas Sun was delivered as a supplement inside it.

Mr. Frederick, the paper's publisher, responded in a column on Sunday. He said he always thought that Mr. Reid "was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down. . . . I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don't have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal." The column then laid down what amounted to a declaration of war from the paper: "We won't allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first. It's a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid."

No doubt Mr. Reid didn't intend to stir up such a ruckus, and it's entirely possible Mr. Frederick is exaggerating what the notoriously ill-tempered and peevish Mr. Reid really was trying to convey. But on the other hand, Mr. Reid isn't either apologizing or explaining away his remarks.

Mr. Reid already trails two largely unknown Republicans in published polls in his re-election battle next year. The last thing he needs is a newspaper that's convinced itself that either he goes or its economic independence is in jeopardy.

That Senator Reid has risen to become Democratic Senate Majority leader is, I think, a sad commentary on the state of the Democrat party.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Democrats Subordinate The Needs Of The Children To Yet Another Union

For shame, Mr. President, for shame.

This time, it's the teachers' union. John Fund in today's WSJ Political Diary has the story:

My vote for the worst scandal in America right now is the education monopoly that keeps poor, inner-city kids trapped in failing public schools. Special mention here goes to the politicians who oppose giving these children the choice to escape even as they send their own kids to private or elite public schools.

Let's call them Sidwell Liberals, after the famous Washington, D.C., school where President and Mrs. Obama send their daughters. Despite this personal experience, Mr. Obama signed into law a provision passed by Congress that shuts down Washington D.C.'s voucher program, depriving 1,700 disadvantaged kids of the chance to escape failing public schools through the use of scholarships that let them attend private schools. Two of them attend Sidwell Friends School with the Obama girls.

Mr. Obama's Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, professes to support the D.C. choice program but his actions speak louder than words. He has taken back 200 scholarship offers that had already been made to local parents for the next school year. A bipartisan group including Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein and Nevada Republican John Ensign recently introduced a bill that would extend the Opportunity Scholarship Program for another five years. "It's not a liberal program or a conservative program," Mr. Lieberman said, "It's a program that puts children first."

Mr. Duncan himself knows the value of choice. He told Science magazine that he thought carefully where to send his daughter to school in the D.C. area when he moved from Chicago to join the Obama cabinet. He explained his decision to live in Virginia thusly: "My family has given up so much so that I could have the opportunity to serve; I didn't want to try to save the country's children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children's education." Would that the parents of the Washington D.C. children who will be thrown out of their current schools had that same option of relocating in upper-income Arlington and enjoying its relatively good public schools.

Many of the Members of Congress who voted to kill the D.C. scholarship program have made choices their own constituents would love to have but can't. A Heritage Foundation study found that 38% of Members of Congress send their children to private school, a rate about four times higher than the national average.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

I Still Support Sarah Palin, Haters To The Left

What she has--charisma, charm & good looks--cannot be taught. And she has them in spades. Where she may lack or be a little deficient--policy (though not energy), etc.--she can learn.

To my mind, any objective survey of the national Republican political landscape--Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, Gingrich, whoever--must conclude that Sarah Palin is the one with the most potential.

If she didn't have so much popular appeal, her antagonists in Alaska & elsewhere would not be so dogged in their attacks.

For instance, check out the latest from John Fund in today's Political Diary:

The Associated Press report yesterday that Sarah Palin was about to be found guilty of violating state ethics laws set off a round of speculation that the Alaska governor was resigning later this month one step ahead of the sheriff.

In reality, it appears as if the improper leak may be little more than a parting shot against her by her critics, who have filed a total of 19 ethics complaints and hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests against her. The leaks indicated that the Alaska Personnel Board has concluded that Governor Palin used her public image and notoriety to raise money for a legal defense fund she created to pay the costs of defending herself against ethics complaints. The only sanction it recommends is that she no longer accept direct payments from the fund to reimburse her $500,000 in legal expenses.

So far none of the ethics complaints filed against Ms. Palin have resulted in any findings of wrongdoing. The leaked portions of the report indicate that an investigator concluded that because an average citizen would have been unable to raise large sums to pay for legal bills, Governor Palin should not be able to either. "Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund," says a preliminary finding by the investigator.

Team Palin pushed back quickly. The governor herself used Twitter to send an abbreviated defense of herself: "In violation of Ethics Act more allegations were filed today by serial complainer; gave to press be4 we could respond; ridiculous, wasteful," she tweeted. "Some ask why not sue abusers of Ethics Act bc state wastes 1000's hrs/millions of tax dollars to fight (and win!) frivolous charges, tho it costs political critics NOTHING to file/play their wasteful game; They should debate policy in political arena, not hide w/process abuse."

Other Palin supporters joined in. Thomas Van Flein, her personal attorney, noted: "There has been no board finding of an ethics violation and there is a detailed legal process to follow before there is a final resolution." The head of her legal defense fund, Kristan Cole, told reporters: "This legal expense fund was thoroughly vetted by numerous attorneys from Alaska to the East Coast [and is meant] to help the Governor with the crushing legal fees she has incurred solely because of her public service."

No one doubts Ms. Palin has made a series of boneheaded public relations moves since her surprise choice as John McCain's running-mate last year. But the ethics charges strike many observers as bogus or nitpicky. They have included challenges to her out-of-state trips that appear dubious and even a complaint that her husband, Todd, wore a jacket made by a company that sponsored his snow-mobile races.

What the leftists have done to Sarah Palin is classic, well, leftist behavior: Use of courts through frivolous suits, etc., in pursuit of the politics of personal destruction.

I mean, can anyone believe the latest charge?--that she used her notoriety as governor & former VP candidate to raise money for her legal defense fund to defend herself against frivolous ethics charges like the one that says she used her personal notoriety to raise money to defend herself and I think you get the picture. Ridiculous.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

On Sonia Sotomayor (UPDATED)

After Obama announced Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, my dad, brother, and I emailed our initial thoughts back and forth. I suggested that,

[good judges] respect the rule of law & [believe] that its enforcement should be blind, rather than actively promoting a person's personal policy preferences.

Matt made a particularly good point, generally, about the divide between liberals & conservatives regarding the role of the judiciary:

I hate that applying the law impartially, without respect for outcomes, is seen as ultraconservative. Shouldn't that actually be considered a moderate approach?

This is something where I don't believe there will ever be reconciliation between conservatives and libs--judicial interpretation.

To which I responded:

Liberals see the courts as a way to advance their agenda--as a great ex post facto leveler & righter of (perceived) wrongs. They view the court as a way of equalizing everyone rather than as everyone being equal before the court.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor ticks all the liberal judicial philosophy boxes:

• In addition to filling racial and gender quotas herself, she rules in favor of them. (h/t Dan K.)
• Like Obama, she believes "empathy" is more important in judicial rulings than blind or impartial application of the law.
• Finally, we know that she believes that courts should make policy. Per John Fund, in today's Political Diary (h/t Scott L.):

The leading piece of evidence against her is a statement made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she said, "The court of appeals is where policy is made."

She is a doctrinaire liberal judicial activist. I'm not going to suggest that Republican Senators or anyone else engage in ad hominem attacks the way liberal Democrats do all the time. But that does not mean she shouldn't answer tough questions about her judicial philosophy.

The American people need to know exactly what kind of judge Obama has nominated and what her activism and wide eyed preferentialism mean for the rule of law on the highest court in the land.

UPDATE 28 May 12:32pm BST: A few of you wrote to say that you thought I was going to easy on Judge Sotomayor. Maybe so. Matt B., specifically, said,

Way too soft on Sotomayor. Regardless of [her] political views or decisions from the bench, she is incredibly incompetent and unqualified.

The criterion used by the Obama administration (indeed, liberals generally) has never had anything whatsoever to do with competence or qualification.

1. Is the judge a liberal activist?
2. Does the judge fit our racialist view of America? (how many boxes can we tick by nominating him or (preferably) her?)

It's patently obvious that the answer to both of those questions is a resounding "Yes." All that remains is to ensure that the nominee doesn't have any (or too many) skeletons in the closet (like tax evasion).

Like Matt B., I view the Supreme Court the same way I view application of the law generally: Who is the most competent, qualified, Constitution-respecting judge available? Nominate that person. The person's race/gender/religion/other-ridiculous-immaterial-superficiality matters to me not one iota.

If you have tips, questions, comments, or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Miss California Added To Hollywood Blacklist

Fresh off the set of their latest film criticizing HUAC & commie blacklists, Hollywood celebs roundly criticized Miss California, and, in what is fast-becoming their go-to move, blacklisted her for daring to stray from SAG-approved politics.

John Fund in today's Political Diary:

Entertainment blogger Perez Hilton wasn't subtle after Miss California Carrie Prejean said she favored limiting marriage to a man and woman in response to a judge's question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant. He called her "a bi[0]tch" and "the [seaward]" on camera afterwards. [ed. note: this is a family blog, after all] She responded merely by saying she felt sorry for him.

In a calmer moment, Mr. Hilton insisted: "Miss USA should represent all Americans, and with her statement she instantly was divisive and alienated millions of gays and lesbians, their families, friends and supporters." Hmmm. It was only five months ago that a majority of California voters voted to limit marriage in just the way Ms. Prejean suggested -- to a man and woman. A national survey by ABC News finds that voters still opposed the concept of gay marriage by 58% to 36%. Sounds to me like Mr. Hilton wants Miss USA pageant winners to only represent his viewpoint. Indeed, Mr. Perez told ABC News that her answer on gay marriage sealed Ms. Prejean's loss of the title: "She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that." Ms. Prejean eventually finished second.

Hollywood has spent more than half a century railing against the anti-Communist blacklists of the 1950s that prevented some people from working in the movie industry. Woody Allen, George Clooney and other celebrities have produced liberal-minded films purporting to show how evil the blacklist was and upbraiding those who were silent while it was imposed.

Well, a new blacklist is being created right now, though few celebrities have dared to deplore it. Last December, Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, the state's largest nonprofit performing arts company, donated $1,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign against gay marriage. Protests from the producer of the Broadway musical "Hairspray" and many other show business people soon forced him to resign.

Similarly, Los Angeles Film Festival Director Richard Raddon was forced to step down after it was revealed he had donated $1,500 to "Yes on 8." The festival's organizer put out a statement blandly saying: "Our organization does not police the personal, religious or political choices of any employee, member or filmmaker." Behind the scenes, however, many of the festival's board members pressured Mr. Raddon to resign. "From now on, no one in entertainment is going to feel safe making a donation as measly as $100 to a conservative defense-of-marriage campaign," says Brent Bozell, head of the conservative Media Research Center.

Nor if Ms. Prejean's experience is any guide will many people be willing to exercise their free speech rights if they oppose gay marriage.

I believe this is what the kids call "hypocrisy."


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

'DisHonor Awards For The Lamestream Media'

The Media Research Center, parent organization of my sometime employer, NewsBusters.org, held their annual awards ceremony for some of the most ridiculous and outrageous "news" reports of the last year. John Fund has the report:

The Media Research Center handed out its annual "DisHonors Awards" to what some of its speakers called the "lamestream media" last night at a gala dinner in Washington D.C. The conservative group roasted what it called "the most outrageously biased liberal reporters as selected by a distinguished panel of leading media observers."

There were some truly rich moments provided by the nominees, many of them centered on the adulation reporters heaped on Barack Obama. Here is ABC News' Bill Weir reporting from the Obama inauguration: "Never have so many people shivered so long with such joy. From above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity."

Some TV anchors went way over the top in Obamamania even as they insisted they were just reporting the facts. Take Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who said last February after listening to an Obama speech: "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. . . . He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment."

An award mocking the "worst pummeling of Sarah Palin" was given out. Among the contenders was Newsweek's Howard Fineman for his dismissal of the Alaska Governor's credentials: "Sarah Palin makes Barack Obama look like John Adams. I mean, it's just, it's no contest."

The final category at the MRC dinner featured an award for "the stupidest analysis." The winner was CNN founder Ted Turner, who said that if global warming isn't rolled back, "in 30 or 40 years basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals."

But my personal favorite was from that fountain of anti-America snobbery, the BBC. Correspondent Justin Webb stood next to an 18-wheel big rig truck while dismissing President Bush's tax rebate. He warned: "Many Americans drive private cars not much smaller than this truck, and the risk is that they use their tax rebate simply to buy fuel, boosting the profits of the oil companies but doing little or nothing for the wider American economy."

In the tradition of the MRC dinner, none of the winners showed up to accept their awards, so a conservative leader was chosen to come up on stage and acknowledge the award on their behalf.

I'm told good times were had by all.




If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Redefining 'Grassroots'

Ah, the audacity of the Obama campaign. Recently they've been getting hammered for accepting donations from fictitious characters. The charge applies equally to their friends in the voter-registration arean, ACORN. From John Fund of the WSJ's Political Diary:

Earlier this week, Anita MonCrief, a former employee of Acorn's Project Vote, testified in a Pennsylvania court that she was given donor lists from the Obama and other Democratic campaigns so she could approach donors who had "maxed out" on candidate donations but could still contribute to Project Vote's registration efforts.

Both the Obama campaign and Project Vote strenuously deny the charge. Project Vote says it "does not have any cooperation with the Obama campaign." Team Obama's Pennsylvania campaign spokesman, Sean Smith, added that anyone was free to download a list of Obama's donors from the Internet.

Ms. MonCrief gave me spreadsheets of donors from several Democratic campaigns that were clearly not downloaded from the Internet. In any case, it's illegal for a nonprofit group to use Federal Election Commission lists to help its own activities. If the Obama campaign did give its lists to Project Vote, that would be very strong evidence of illegal coordination between the two entities.

Whether or not the Obama campaign shared its lists, it certainly hasn't shown any interest in going beyond the letter of the law when it comes to disclosing its donors to the general public. Despite pleas from campaign-finance reform groups such as Common Cause and Democracy 21, Team Obama has refused to follow Senator McCain's lead and release names of donors who have given less than $200, even though such donors supplied half of the $605 million the Obama campaign raised through September 30.

Perhaps one reason is that, as the Washington Post reported this week, the Obama campaign has turned off its Address Verification System, or AVS, at its Web site. That program should have stopped most contributions coming in from citizens of foreign countries -- a violation of federal law. The Federal Election Commission, which does receive a complete list of donors, has a list of several thousand small Obama donors it suspects may have contributed illegally from foreign countries.

You have to purposely turn off AVS. These things don't happen accidentally. Neither does signing up felons and the dead. Make no mistake about it, Democrats will, by hook or crook, do whatever it takes to win this election.

Meanwhile, the law-abiding are left out in the rain.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Who Are Obama's Supporters?

Add this to "who is the real Obama?" John Fund in yesterday's WSJ Political Diary, reports on Obama's "grassroots" financial supporters--you know, all the small-time donors that supposedly made Obama a new kind of politician. Turns out Obama (read: Axelrod) won't turn over the information related to these donations. Legally, he doesn't have to, but McCain did and we're able to find out that none of his were shady in the least. Meanwhile, Obama ...

More than 2.5 million Americans have contributed to Barack Obama's campaign, an impressive accomplishment. But are all of them Americans, as required by law?

John McCain's campaign has identified its entire donor base, including those contributing under $200, whose names are not required to be legally disclosed. But the Obama campaign hasn't identified individual donors for nearly half of the $427 million his campaign has raised. Small donations account for much more of Mr. Obama's donation take than most candidates.

That concerns the Republican National Committee, which cites Federal Election Commission records that show some 11,500 Obama donors trigger one or more warning flags that they may be foreign nationals -- including use of a foreign bank account or foreign address. About one out of seven of the donors in question are clearly U.S. diplomats or military personnel since they used an APO address overseas. But the others may be worthy of inquiry, especially given the tale of Palestinian brothers Hosam and Monir Edwan, who contributed more than $31,300 in small increments to the Obama coffers even though they are residents of the Gaza Authority. The FEC flagged their donations and alerted the Obama campaign, which acted in slow motion to refund the money. Almost a year after the last donation by the two brothers, the campaign has still failed to return $891 of their contributions.

The problems with possible foreign donations could have been resolved if the Obama campaign had simply agreed to the transparency rules suggested by the Center for Responsive Politics and seven other watchdog groups. "We asked both campaigns for more information on small donors," Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center, told Newsmax's Ken Timmerman. "The Obama campaign never responded," she notes, while the McCain campaign has made all of its small donor data available online.

For its part, the Obama campaign responds to questions about its small donors by saying "we will continue to review our fundraising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available step to root-out improper contributions." No mention of why it won't post the names of donors online.

The FEC will eventually unravel the mystery, but it usually requires three to four years to finish any probe. Should Mr. Obama become president, the full extent to which his 2008 campaign may have skirted the law will be known about the time he seeks re-election.

(emphasis added)

My position on campaign finance reform is the same it has always been: I disagree with McCain's signature piece of legislation, McCain-Feingold. I think it's a horrible, anti-speech bill. I say let anyone donate any amount to anyone, but let there be transparency. Also, limit donations to American donors (though I can be persuaded on this point).

This way we wouldn't have shady 527s accepting donations from who knows where and run by who knows what group with no responsibility to anyone. This way, if there is an ad in bad faith, we would know who to castigate.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Yes On 8: Supporting A Traditional Definition Of Marriage

I haven't written about this topic--marriage--for awhile. Looking through the archives, the most recent entries I can find were this series here, here, & here. I haven't forgotten about it and I certainly haven't changed my mind. A recent email from Laura W. reminded me of everything going on in California.

What do you make of this? There was a great editorial in the LA Times on Friday about Proposition 8 (same sex marriage ban), to which 74 comments were made which were negative, nasty, and insulting. I and about 6 of my friends tried multiple times to send in positive comments in support of the writer, and (of course) not a single one of those made the comment thread. So obviously, the liberal idiot webmaster was just deleting anything positive and only posting the anti-prop. 8 rants. Oh, I was totally incensed. I wrote a letter to the editorial dept. at the Times and I was nasty. But I started to wonder. Is this a miscarriage of free speech? Or is it actually a benefit to our side? If all the liberals in the LA area think there is absolutely NO ONE who would be so stupid as to vote yes on Prop. 8, then maybe they won't battle as hard. I don't know, just a thought.

(emphasis, link added)

In fact, there is something to what she suggests. From Monday's edition of the WSJ Political Diary (John Fund):

Opponents of a measure that would cement a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the California constitution were cheered by a new Field Poll last week showing the measure losing 55% to 38%. Just a few weeks ago, the measure was trailing by only nine points.

But the battle over Proposition 8, which seeks to reestablish a traditional definition of marriage that was overturned by the state's Supreme Court this summer, isn't over.

A new study of polling in 26 states -- including California -- that have voted on the issue of gay marriage shows that support for such measures is often under-reported in polls. For example, in 2000 when California first voted on gay marriage, polls showed that Proposition 22 -- which would have banned gay marriage -- had 53% support in the final pre-election poll. It wound up winning with 61%.

"I can't say for sure why polls almost always understate support for traditional marriage," says Frank Schubert, a strategist for anti-gay marriage forces. "I believe it is because the media portrays same-sex marriage as being politically correct. Supporters of traditional marriage don't want pollsters to consider them intolerant, so they mask their true feelings on the issue."

In states that have voted on gay marriage, the study found that polls underestimated support for traditional marriage by an average of seven points. In only two states (Texas and South Carolina) did pre-election polls accurately predict the outcome of the vote. In only one state (Arizona), polls overstated the final percentage of voters who backed traditional marriage.

[...]

(emphasis added)

If, like me, you care about this issue and want to lend your support, check out Restoring Marriage & Protecting California Children.

In other, related news, my pals at NB and I are looking in to the LA Times coverage of Prop. 8. Stay tuned.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Quote of the Day

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a McCain economist, was recently quoted in the National Journal, responding to former Enron Adviser*, Paul Krugman's criticism of McCain's pro-drilling policy:

If we could get a firm commitment to expanded supply of oil on the market three and a half years from now, that would change spot market prices three and half years from now, that would change futures prices today and that would translate into pressure on prices instantaneously. You know, Mr. Krugman's a good economist; he can go back and read his finance text

*Thank you James Taranto.

h/t: John Fund, Political Diary


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Jerry Brown, Misogamist

Issues relating to the family are important to this blog. Last Spring, the California State Supreme Court ruled against traditional marriage--repudiating a clear democratic majority of the state and misinterpreting key parts of the state constitution.

Californians responded by getting over a million signatures--more than enough to get a measure on the ballot this fall which would alter the California constitution in favor of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

It's likely the measure will pass.

Despite California's reputation as a state that votes Democrat, a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage enjoys a clear majority.

But the leftists in the state were never going to leave it up to the people. In this case, Jerry Brown is the one doing the meddling. Per John Fund of the Wall Street Journal:

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is stepping outside his law enforcement role and playing politics with a November ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

Backers of the measure collected some one million signatures this spring under a title approved by Mr. Brown's office that made it clear the measure would "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid." Since the signatures were collected, the state Supreme Court has ruled same-sex marriage constitutional but also allowed the ballot measure to go before voters.

Mr. Brown, a candidate for governor in 2010, has apparently decided to make a play for liberal Democratic primary voters by changing his own office's description of the measure. It now reads that the ballot initiative seeks "to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry," a much more negative way of describing the measure. His office says the meaning is the same.

But both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage "know that to some voters -- perhaps a decisive bloc in a close election -- the new ballot title language could make the measure sound punitive by eliminating a 'right,'" notes Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters.

Lawyers question the validity of Mr. Brown's move. If the meaning is the same, why is the change needed? If the meaning is different, the change contradicts the petition that placed the proposition on the ballot. Either way, the change is groundless.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Tony Snow, RIP

For years we watched Tony Snow on Fox News. He was fair in reporting and persuasive in arguing a point and advocating policy. Though we never knew him personally, we always knew him to be a strong and ardent defender of conservatism. He was a good example.

In the aftermath of the Scott McClellan disaster, Tony Snow was, well, awesome. Longtime observers of the office of Press Secretary say Tony Snow was the best ever. And he was very good in a very difficult time for the Bush Administration and the country. He was loyal and competent and very, very good.

Today's Political Diary (h/t: S. Lybbert) ran a few pieces about Tony Snow which seem only appropriate to reproduce here.

John Fund on Tony Snow:

It took C-SPAN only a few hours after news that Tony Snow had died to begin airing the last major public speech he gave -- a closing address to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last February.

The former White House press secretary was at his rhetorical finest in telling conservatives: "We've got more work to do and we have to do it as a team." He directly addressed those conservatives who were considering not supporting John McCain as the Republican nominee by suggesting they see a bigger picture. "You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don't be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer. . . .This may be a time of testing. But it's not our swan song. Not by a long shot. Instead . . . this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best -- turn adversity into strength."

It didn't take long after C-SPAN aired this speech for a viewer to call McCain headquarters and urge them to run excerpts at the Republican convention in Minneapolis as part of a tribute to the departed White House aide. Don't be surprised if Tony Snow is called on to rally the troops one last time.

John Podhoretz:

"[Tony Snow] wrote, he edited, he wrote speeches, he hosted television shows and radio shows and gave endless speeches. In all these pursuits he was agile and deft and successful. But I think it's safe to say that it turned out Tony's greatest achievement was his time as White House press secretary. At this crucial job, a central one in American political life, he proved to be the best -- the best ever, without qualification. He could speak with fluency, honesty, wit, and clarity on every subject under the sun; he remained poised, unruffled . . . sure of himself at the podium in the press room. Tony was a fascinating type. He was, literally, the opposite of a paranoid. He was a 'pro-noid.' He assumed people liked him. It is a rare quality for any person. It is almost unheard-of in Washington"

Brendan Miniter:

On Saturday conservatives lost a strong voice for their ideas and the world lost a thoroughly decent man. I knew him in a different capacity. I got to know Tony nearly a decade ago through a mutual friend, Ken Smith. Ken, the deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Times, himself died of liver cancer in July 2001. An article Tony wrote in response to Ken's death couldn't help but come to mind this weekend. "Suffering often does grotesque things to people: It transforms them physically and spiritually; twisting the body and desiccating the soul. But Ken never became bitter or morose. He didn't milk his plight to elicit pity," Tony wrote.

Ken remained himself, shared his kindness and never let on how much pain he was in. Later Tony would say that by keeping his dignity, facing his terminal cancer with the same conviction that he had used to build his life, Ken had performed one last service: He showed us all how to face our own mortality. A few years later, Tony returned to Ken in a column headlined "How to Be Sick." He wrote: "There are things far worse than illness -- for instance, soullessness."

I last saw Tony several years ago as he was heading out the door of a Starbucks in Alexandria, Va., on his way to work. He wasn't rushing. He had time for a man who was asking for spare change. Tony reached into his pocket, dug out several coins and at least one bill and handed it to the man. I saw Tony step closer to the man and heard him ask how he was. As the door closed, I couldn't hear what else he said, but as Tony walked away both were smiling.

*UPDATE 17 July 12:22pm PST: Today a funeral will be held for Tony Snow. In honor of the man and in addition to what we posted earlier, check out this NRO Symposium.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Mitt Romney Watch III

We're late to the game with these links, but the questions they address remain relevant to the ongoing issues surrounding Mitt Romney's campaign for President.

First, Romney's Mormon Question over at time.com. From Time you get about what you'd expect. Left of center writing for the slightly above average American reader. Time is for the intellectually curious who are interested in politics, but not that interested and not that intellectual. They want more than they get from a newspaper, but not what they might get from The Nation on the left or National Review on the right. So, option one is the superficial, mainstream look at Mitt Romney.

For the more ambitious, those who fancy themselves to be a bit more intellectual, check out the transcript of a lengthy interview/discussion with Professor Richard Bushman. Hat tip to our old man for finding and emailing us the link to this insightful dialogue.

All the heavy hitters from most of the major periodicals attended and many of them asked questions: John Fund from The Wall Street Journal, E.J. Dionne from The Washington Post, et al. The piece starts out with a prepared presentation by Bushman, followed by Q&A with members of the press.

Of particular interest to us was the evolution of Mormon politics since the church's inception. From the radicalism of Joseph Smith to the conservatism of the last century, Bushman explores the historical factors surrounding these ideologies. If you want to know about the compatibility of Mormonism and Democracy, this is your primer. Mormonism and Democratic Politics: Are They Compatible?


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

I'll take sour grapes, with a skosh of schadenfreude

In our last post we referred to an impending Cambridge trip. It ended up being positive and productive for a number of reasons. With the help of a professor friend there, we pounded out an idea for a PhD proposal, attended the Intelligence Seminar and listened to a CIA historian, and sat at the high table at Corpus Christi formal hall.

These intelligence seminars are interesting affairs. All in attendance agree to abide by Chatham House rules. Essentially this means that participants can use the information they learn at these seminars (or any other setting where Chatham House rules are invoked), but cannot reveal the source. As a result, we get some fairly interesting bits of information. Since I've already revealed who the source was, I can't really post what he said, other than to say, that the CIA had more things going on in China and Tibet going on in the last 50 years than I would have ever guessed.

During the seminar he also discussed the gross innacuracies of The Good Shepherd and its treatment of what is supposed to be "the untold story of the beginning of the CIA." Sorry to burst the bubble of all you cloak-and-dagger enthusiasts, but that movie is pure fiction. He (the CIA historian) also referred us to a fantastic story about two CIA operatives who were captured by the Chinese in 1973, imprisoned for 20 years undergoing all sorts of deprivations, and finally released, quietly when relations with China "thawed" under Nixon.

There's another interesting dynamic at these meetings. Most of those in attendance have or are working on PhDs, with a few MA students and undergrads kind of in the periphery. Though the invited speaker is a guest, it is a time honored tradition to put hard questions to these speakers. Having been trained in the self-esteem society that is the American education system, it is always a little shocking to hear just about anyone sitting around the large conference table in the hollowed halls of Corpus Christi College take a CIA historian or whoever to task.

While in this seminar, we met and briefly talked to Stefan Halper. Mr. Halper was an erstwhile assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney when Mr. Cheney was White House Chief of Staff for President Gerald Ford and later an assistant to Mr. Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush. Prior to the 2004 Presidential election, Mr. Halper co-authored a book critical of the "neoconservative cabal" inhabiting the halls of power in Washington DC. In his own words, his name was "stricken from dinner party lists in DC." That line sounded like it had been repeated not a few times, with great delight.

Now, we don't want to jump to any hasty conclusions, but the schadenfreude that infects Mr. Halper's voice as he talks about the difficulties of his one time Republican colleagues and friends smacks of sour grapes at not having been invited in to government when the Republicans retook the presidency with George W. Bush in 2000. Mr. Halper now hosts a show over at the BBC.

Mr. Halper pointed out, and we found it funny, that Mark Steyn, probably the most consistently funny political writer we read, "stole" his book name, America Alone. He probably wouldn't be pleased to know that Mr. Steyn's book appears #1 on an Amazon search for "americal alone," while his comes in at #6.

We suggest, therefore, that you read Mr. Steyn's column from yesterdays New York Sun about Nicolas Sarkozy's win in the French presidential election (Congrats, Mr. Sarkozy). Good stuff.

Read also John Fund, from the Opinion Journal, about the same thing.

***Update: Also worth reading, a primer on George Tenet's new "slam dunk" of a best seller by the Weekly Standard's William Kristol. Turns out (thanks Marc) the intel about al-Qaeda in Iraq was even better than we thought. Thanks Mr. Tenet for that "inadvertent truth."

Until next time, enjoy.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.