Friday, 25 January 2008

John Edwards

I leave you this fine evening with a column by Charles Krauthammer.

Free Trade

Globalization has been disastrous for many Americans—even as it has generated great wealth for a few. Americans are wising up to it. See here.

The Grand Old Party

It’ll be interesting to see what happens when Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani drop out of the presidential race, as I believe they will by 6 February. Things come into focus when you have just two candidates. We know that John McCain is the darling of the establishment, but he does better among unaffiliated voters (I refuse to use the term “independents”) than he does among Republicans. Mitt Romney is the outsider in this race. The three factions of the Republican Party, as I said earlier today, are libertarians, conservatives, and imperialists. Libertarians will probably divide evenly for McCain (who refused to vote for President Bush’s tax cuts) and Romney (whose Massachusetts health-care plan rankles proponents of small government). Conservatives will break two to one for Romney, who is solid on illegal immigration and more reliable than McCain on judges. Imperialists will break two to one for McCain, whose support for the Iraq war has been unwavering. It could be a dead heat going into the convention.

Addendum: Let’s draft Newt! See here for Newt’s positions on various issues, including illegal immigration.

Addendum 2: I asked my 73-year-old mother (who lives in Michigan) who did best in yesterday’s Republican debate. She replied that “Rodney” did well. “Which one was Rodney?” I asked. She told me that if I tease her about her spelling, she will stop writing to me.


Here is a scene from today’s stage of the Tour Down Under. I could live in Australia.


Here is Peggy Noonan’s latest column. Here is Peg Kaplan’s latest post.

Two Bits

Which quarter is best, and why? Which quarter is worst, and why? I will give the correct answers in a few days.

Best of the Web Today



This is unbelievable. John McCain must be defeated. It’s one thing to have a Democrat doing things like this; it’s quite another to have a Republican doing them. Did I mention that the New York Times has endorsed McCain? What does that tell you?

Addendum: The Times writes: “He [McCain] was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate.” Replace “uphold” with “betray.” As usual, the Times gets things exactly backward.

Katko v. Briney (1971)

This case generated more outside-the-classroom discussion than any other during my law-school days. I vividly remember the discussions, even though they occurred more than 28 years ago. What do you think?


Here is a review of Pat Buchanan’s new book. I’m with Pat as against the libertarians and the imperialists.

Addendum: The reviewer, Chris Suellentrop, who works for the New York Times, says that Americans reject some of Pat’s views. Duh. Is that not true of everyone, including those who get elected president? I’m certain that if Americans had to be governed by Pat or Chris, they would choose Pat. So what exactly is the point of saying that Americans reject some of Pat’s views? What is the implied comparison? By the way, Americans put a pitchfork in the presidential ambitions of Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry as well as Pat Buchanan, so if Pat is supposed to be humiliated by defeat, so should they. Suellentrop makes it sound as though only one person—Pat Buchanan—has ever been defeated in a presidential bid. Another point: Being rejected for president doesn’t mean that Americans reject all of one’s views. If that were the case, then Al Gore’s defeat means that Americans reject his views on the environment, and John Kerry’s defeat means that Americans reject his views on foreign policy.

Liberal Fascism

Dr John J. Ray replies to a critic of Jonah Goldberg.


This New York Times op-ed column by David Frum (a man I respect) is downright silly. How could an intelligent person such as Frum confuse the Republican Party (which is a goal-directed association of individuals) with conservatism (which is a normative political theory)? There are not three types of conservatism: economic, social, and foreign-policy. There are three Republican factions: libertarianism, conservatism, and (for lack of a better word) imperialism. If the Republican Party is to succeed, it must keep all three of its factions happy. Right now, conservatives are not happy with what they are being offered.

From Today’s New York Times

To the Editor:

Maureen Dowd’s column reminded me why I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. It also reminded me why I did not vote for him in 1996.

Like many Americans, I am ready for a change, and that means moving beyond the Clinton and Bush years of unproductive nastiness and partisanship.

It’s too bad that a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton means a vote for Bill Clinton, because I would really like to see a woman as president and I think that Mrs. Clinton has done a good job as senator for New York.

If Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and if either Senator John McCain or former Gov. Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, I believe that despite the disarray in the Republican Party, a lot of moderates from both parties will think twice before electing “two for one.”

Robin Albing
Flemington, N.J., Jan. 23, 2008

Note from KBJ: Like the letter writer, I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 but not in 1996. I said many months ago that there are many people out there who would like to see Hillary Clinton as president, but cannot abide another four or eight years of Bill in the White House. Her chances would probably improve if she divorced him.

Bush-Hatin’ Paul

Paul Krugman¹ is pathologically opposed to letting people—especially wealthy people—keep their money. If he had his way (let’s hope he never does), the government would equalize wealth by taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor. Someone needs to teach him about the goose and the golden eggs. A lesson in responsibility and desert might also be appropriate.


¹“Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults” (Daniel Okrent, “13 Things I Meant to Write About but Never Did,” The New York Times, 22 May 2005).

A Year Ago