A Happy Moment In the Alternative Media

April 30, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under News media | Leave a Comment 

First Clinton chairman Terry McAuliffe praised Fox News. Now “Huffington Post” praises Bill O’Reilly:

Hillary Clinton made her first ever appearance on the O’Reilly Factor on Wednesday, a confrontational but mostly friendly exchange that was — kudos to Bill — the most issue-oriented (if right-leaning) major interview with a presidential candidate in recent memory.

O’Reilly’s been reasonably gracious to Sen. Obama over the last few days. “Huffington Post,” though a target of O’Reilly lately, gets points for this reference to his Clinton interview as well as for having broken the story of Obama’s comments about working people’s bitterness over the economy.

If Hannity and Colmes ever retire, how about Huffington and O’Reilly?

Wright Tender

April 30, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party, Faith | Leave a Comment 

From a fascinating New York Times study of the long, slow death of the Obama-Wright friendship:

“Its easy to hurt [Wright's] feelings,” said Richard Sewell, a Trinity deacon who has known both men for two decades. “He’s extremely sensitive.”

Us, too.

Weirder and Weirder

April 30, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party | Leave a Comment 

Two months ago in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd approvingly discussed Sen. Obama’s “more feminine management style.” The Boston Phoenix’s Steven Stark picks up the theme today, not approvingly (”Is Barack Obama in Danger of Being Outmanned?”):

[T]here is one Clinton line of attack that does have the potential to seriously undermine the Obama effort. She has begun to try to emasculate Obama - portraying him, in so many words, as a wimp. Look at the recent poses Clinton has adopted: she downs drinks at a bar, wields baseball bats at rallies, and constantly uses the combative metaphors of sports. She demands more debates, while Obama ducks them. Her most successful negative ad (the “3 am” commercial) accuses Obama of not being able to keep us safe, which is, after all, the traditional male role….It’s true that American culture and politics are changing, and that Obama may be the harbinger of not only a biracial but a “feminizing” trend, brought on by the huge gender shifts in American life. Still, that feminizing of our politics is likely to be welcomed far more by the young than the old, which helps explain, again, why Obama appeals so much less to elderly voters than to the young. So doubts about a candidate’s masculinity would spell trouble regardless of the opponent. But it’s especially problematic when, well, it’s a woman who’s pointing out what a wimp you’ve become. There is a well-accepted role in American life for the “tomboy” - a role, say, inhabited in pop culture by Seinfeld’s Elaine - the girl who loves hanging out in the boy’s gang. Clinton has more than willingly stepped into it.

And then tonight, Sen. Clinton had the bad boy himself, Bill O’Reilly, eating out of her hand. I wish President Nixon were still with us. Always energized by Presidential elections, he’d really be having a ball this year.

Jaw Jaw vs. War War

April 30, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party, International Affairs, Nixon Administration figures | Leave a Comment 

Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to two Republican Presidents, agrees with Sen. Obama that the U.S. should talk to Iran.

Frum/Perlstein Dialogue

April 30, 2008 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Book Review | Leave a Comment 

Today I acquired a copy of Rick Perlstein’s second book, Nixonland, which Scribner is to publish May 12 (though the book is already being shipped at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble’s website). Starting tomorrow afternoon I’ll be blogging about it in several installments, through the weekend. At 750 pages of text (not counting nearly 100 more of footnotes) it is, along with Conrad Black’s recent biography, the most massive book on the Nixon era since Richard Reeves’ President Nixon eight years ago. Perlstein’s first book about Sen. Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign, Before The Storm, was very well-received upon its publication in 2001, in both conservative and liberal publications, where this young historian was praised for his diligent research and impartiality. But in the course of this decade his statements both about contemporary politics and historical issues have become decidedly more partisan. A recent Chicago Reader profile discussed this shift. And, earlier this month, David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute conducted an online debate (via digital camera and telephone) with Perlstein about the arguments in his book and the contemporary political scene.

Newspapers, Save Thyselves (Pt. 6)

April 30, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under News media | Leave a Comment 

A journalist and blogger, Ezra Klein, writes:

Of late, I’ve been talking a bit about the media’s inability to report on policy in a judgmental manner. They know how to imply that Barack Obama has had bad friends, and Hillary Clinton tells lies, and John McCain — well, they know how to doodle his initials inside a sparkly heart. What they don’t know how to do, however, is say that one candidate’s health plan, or housing plan, or economic agenda, is better than another candidate’s. Which is why folks basically have to vote on grounds of flag pins and flip-flops — they’re not given much else in the way of analytical guidance. But I sympathize. Policy is hard.

To the extent this applies to print journalists, democracy is doomed. If newspapers don’t defend their franchise with discerningly reported stories about policy at home and events affecting U.S. interests abroad, then they’ll stop being useful, and they’ll die, and all we’ll have is bloggers and spokespeople — and no one will know what’s going on in the world.

Many Happy Returns

April 30, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Entertainment | Leave a Comment 

Today is Willie Nelson’s 75th birthday.Over the years the Willmeister has had to wrestle with some demons and deal with some problems; he has done some considerable good raising money and helping people; and he has said some supernally silly things.But his music has been an important and creative part of the American soundtrack since just about the time RN arrived in the White House.

As a performer and interpreter of American ballads, Willie Nelson has enjoyed a long career based on his superb taste and his sure touch. And as a composer and lyricist (he wrote Crazy, Nightlife, and Funny How Time Slips Away in the course of one week) he has provided spirited and touching memories for millions.

In an interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air in 1996, Willie Nelson talked about his life and music (and performed Amazing Grace and Family Bible among others).

Hoosier Hysteria and Jindal

April 30, 2008 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

This afternoon an article by Dan Balz appeared at washingtonpost.com concerning Indiana Gov. Evan Bayh’s view of his state’s primary next Tuesday. When I noted that Indiana had voter demographics not dissimilar from Pennsylvania’s in a recent post, I forgot one difference about this contest, which Bayh points out in this article: the Hoosier State, unlike Pennsylvania, permits members of one party to cross-vote in another. Bayh, a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, makes it clear that he believes that she would easily defeat Sen. Barack Obama next week if the Pennsylvania rules applied, but that, due to the likelihood of hordes of wascally Wepublicans voting for the gentleman from Illinois, Obama may win the state, though he notes that Clinton is gaining in the polls.

On the Republican side, Youtube now has some clips of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s appearance on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show. They further suggest that the Louisiana governor just might have what it takes to wage a winning vice-presidential campaign this fall.

Party On The Potomac (postscript)

April 30, 2008 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under News media | Leave a Comment 

The other day Vanity Fair’s site put up photos of the festivities at the post-WHCA-dinner bash at Christopher Hitchens and Carol Blue’s apartment in Kalorama. Pamela Anderson and Heidi Montag are absent, but the pix are must viewing nonetheless, for here’s your once-in-a-lifetime chance to tell your grandchildren you beheld Hitch - or his digital image, anyway - wearing a tie.

Playing Wright Into Democrats’ Hands

April 30, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Culture, Faith, Republican Party | 6 Comments 

According to a study reported in the Washington Post in 2005, half of the African-Americans surveyed believed that the AIDS virus is human-made, 25% believed it was done in a government lab, and 12% believed it was “created and spread by the CIA.” We can be appalled and amused by such people all we want, but if I were Sen. McCain, contemplating yet another razor-thin general election margin, I’d be wondering how to win some of their votes. If I were a Republican strategist or a right-leaning journalist, I’d stop bashing Jeremiah Wright and start talking to African-Americans about the issues that really concern them — and not just to those who earn our favor by disagreeing with Pastor Wright’s world view.

These African-Americans don’t think the government invented AIDS because they want to irritate everybody else, nor because they’re especially deluded or uniquely prone to conspiracy theories. Because of the cultural upheavals of their youth and young adulthood and their lingering suspicion about government, the majority of white Boomers erroneously think there was a government conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination. Blacks are also influenced by their cultural and political experiences, and they have a lot more to be angry about than a bunch of post-Woodstock elites who are still upset that Crosby, Stills, and Nash songs didn’t come true. Nearly 400 years of foul injustice, beginning with the arrival of the first African slaves in the early 17th century, only technically ended when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The anger and trauma obviously persist. It’s amazing that anyone thought they wouldn’t.

McCain gets the point. As David Broder wrote about the candidate’s recent swing through the deep south,

In Selma, McCain praised the African-Americans who, more than four decades ago, were clubbed and beaten by Alabama state troopers at the start of their anti-segregation protest march to Montgomery. He vowed, in their memory, to bring his campaign — and the publicity it attracts — to the “forgotten places” of America, and to help the families in those communities if he becomes president. At other stops, including the Kentucky hamlet where Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty and in New Orleans’ hurricane-obliterated Lower Ninth Ward, McCain condemned the performance of the Bush administration and offered his own free-market ideas for creating more jobs, improved schools and better health care. The Democrats were quick to call his message hypocritical, noting, for example, that McCain had opposed making a national holiday of Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. That’s a fair fight.But what is incontestable is the fact that McCain sees the need for Republicans to reach beyond their past comfort level and engage the many Americans who have every reason to doubt they are anywhere on the GOP agenda. To many of those struggling to survive, who are accustomed to being ignored, if not exploited, the Bush administration’s blindness to the plight of the residents of New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit is all too typical of the Republicans’ mind-set.

With all due respect to Mr. Broder, for most of my adult life the typical enlightened GOP view on race has been: “We get it. Slavery was a sin, although we didn’t do it personally and of course wouldn’t have. Our party neglected its 19th century principles by failing to work for equal rights for all in the 20th century. But our policies today will lead to more opportunity for all people, especially blacks, and if they’re smart they’ll get on board instead of always being in the tank for Democrats. You guys were oppressed and degraded for centuries, no question, but we get it now, like I said, so get over it.” When a conservative such as Oklahoma’s J. C. Watts comes along, many Republicans can’t help but say, “Check out our black — he saw the light, and you can, too!” Yet did you hear what former Rep. Watts said about the GOP candidates this year?:

Republicans want to say we reach out [to blacks]. But what we do instead is 60 days before an election, we’ll spend some money on black radio and TV or buy an ad in Ebony and Jet, and that’s our outreach. People read through that.

The danger this election year is that blacks will read through the conservative media’s persistent attacks on Pastor Wright and thoroughly dislike the subtext. For the last few months, right-wing radio and TV commentators have devoted themselves to two propositions above all others: McCain isn’t conservative enough, and Obama should be held accountable for having associated with a pastor with noxious views on the U.S. and its government. How about we take it one step further? Let’s disassociate ourselves from every black voter who attends a church where black liberation theology influences the preacher. The problem is, beginning with the thousands at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, that might be a lot of voters. According to Thabiti Anyabwile, author of The Decline Of African-American Theology, who gave an interview in March to the evangelical magazine “Christianity Today,”

I’ve…been surprised at how deep the ignorance [about] the African American church and its preaching tradition goes. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the church in either its historical or contemporary form would recognize Wright’s preaching in style, and sometimes in content, as essentially what has been preached for at least 100 years in African American churches. There’s much to object to in some of the language. But it’s essentially what is shared in a lot of churches whenever the comments turn political.

But what Wright says about America is inexcusable! Of course it is. That’s not the point, nor would it matter if it could be demonstrated that most black pastors and churchgoers don’t take a Wrighteous line. I’ve heard enough angry callers to talk radio in the last few days to understand that many black Americans who disagree with much of what Wright says also deeply resent the attacks on him. If we can’t grasp that, then we’re still failing to hear the echoes of four centuries of trauma. Vietnamese still angry at the communists may understand. Armenians still angry at the Turks may as well. Heck, a good number of Georgians are still mad at General Sherman.

So let’s not make the mistake of seeming to require everyone associated with Obama, and by implication all black Americans, to repudiate Wright. Now that Obama has clearly disassociated himself personally from him, if Republicans and conservative commentators continue to pound Wright in a probably only marginally useful effort to saddle Obama and other Democrats with his views in the primary and general election, they risk deepening the racial divide in our country and missing yet another chance to make new inroads in the African-American community for the party of Abraham Lincoln.

The better move: A speech by John McCain enunciating his own vision of a better deal for black Americans and calling an end to to the national debate about Jeremiah Wright. If Obama is the nominee, it will be tempting for Republicans to ignore the black vote or even run against it. These would be terrible errors. Instead, McCain should give African-Americans a better choice — a candidate who understands and respects their experience while credibly pledging to keep America safe from its enemies so it can continue to grow in freedom and justice.

Wednesday Morning Open

April 30, 2008 by Jonathan C. Movroydis | Filed Under Open threads | Leave a Comment 

“When the winds blow and the rains fall and the sun shines through the clouds he still resolves as he did then, that nothing so fine ever happened to him or anyone else as falling in love with Thee-my dearest heart.” - Richard Nixon

Featured Articles — April 30, 2008

April 30, 2008 by Jonathan C. Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes from Home and Abroad:

Getting to Know John McCain By Karl Rove
It came to me while I was having dinner with Doris Day. No, not that Doris Day. The Doris Day who is married to Col. Bud Day, Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, fighter pilot, Vietnam POW and roommate of John McCain at the Hanoi Hilton.

Obama’s Opportunity By Dick Morris
At the start of his campaign, Obama ran in counterpoint to the previous candidacies of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Here was a black man running for president on issues that had nothing to do with race as he rose above the victimization rhetoric that characterizes so many speeches of African-American political figures.

Economy puts heat on politicians By Richard Simon and James Gerstenzang
As prices rise and constituents call for action, officeholders float proposals and seek to deflect blame.

Pakistan’s Moment By Yousaf Raza Gillani
We Will Fight Terrorism — Our Way.

Start Drilling By Robert Samuelson
What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we’re almost powerless to influence today’s prices. We are because we didn’t take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling.

Why treat the London election as a joke? By Simon Heffer
There was a compelling BBC television drama series - and I apologise if it is early in the day for an oxymoron - broadcast recently called The Curse of Comedy.

Foreign Law and the First Amendment By Floyd Abrams
How British courts threaten free speech in America.

King and the Jews By Clarence B. Jones
MLK had no tolerance for anti-Semites.

Life Sentence

April 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Clare Booth Luce said that a great leader gets one sentence. President Nixon’s critics have sometimes said his will be “He quit.” In a book excerpt posted at npr.org, Bill Emmott suggests that it will be “He went to China”:

Richard Nixon’s presidency was dominated at the time by the final failed years of the Vietnam War and by Watergate, but memories of it now are dominated by a diplomatic act, not a military or judicial one: his dramatic opening of relations with China in 1971–72, which brought to an end more than two decades of bitter estrangement between the United States and the People’s Republic.

The New Nixon-Rockefeller

April 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party, Election 2008, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Though he overstates their ideological differences, Mark Green says two great moderate Republicans helped light the way to 2008’s inevitable unity ticket:

Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller represented two different wings of that Republican Party. With Rockefeller itching to run, he and Nixon met at 810 Fifth Avenue to iron out differences — the result being “the Compact of Fifth Ave” with Nixon putting some civil rights planks in the party’s platform and Rocky stepping aside.

Ferris Bueller’s Day On

April 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Culture, Faith, Nixon Administration figures | Leave a Comment 

In which Nixonian Ben Stein, while making his documentary “Expelled,” gets the better of the world’s leading atheist:

Amazingly, Stein got to [Richard] Dawkins and edited the face-to-face interview to make the Oxford don look dumb, including when he admits that nobody knows how life started on Earth. Luckily, big-brained Ben does. Was it Dawkins’s belief in British fair play or intellectual vanity that led him to entertain Stein? It was a naive move, either way.

This Australian reporter, John Harlow, is undoubtedly right: Michael Moore and Mike Wallace would never edit an interview to advance their own arguments. Besides, is the point that Dawkins really does know how life started on earth? Somebody better find that outtake quick!

Dean’s Foolishness

April 29, 2008 by Jonathan C. Movroydis | Filed Under Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

H/T: LGF

In an attempt to unite the Democratic base, and depress and distract the rest of the electorate away from their primary indecision, Howard Dean and the DNC have just launched a defeatist ad attacking John McCain for his steadfastness on the Iraq War. The footage is incredibly tasteless with depictions of American troops dying in battle:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/RIYQEmkgJj4" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

On a more amusing note, this tactic is Dean’s attempt to be Rovian, attacking the opposing candidate on his strongest point. Here are Dean’s own words in an email release regarding the intention of the ad:

Dear Friend,

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He’s said it, and it’s on tape.

But his campaign hates that he was caught. They’ve viciously attacked anyone who reminded the American people that he said it, including me. They’ve said that those who reference the 100 years comments are “deliberately misleading voters.”

So we’ve taken John McCain’s own words — video of him saying that 100 years would be “fine with me” — and made a TV ad. There’s no confusion, no distortion, no misleading — it’s John McCain, on tape, for voters to judge on their own.

It’s one of the most powerful political ads I’ve ever seen. It’s devastating — and the McCain campaign will spend the rest of the election trying to fight it.

Unfortunately for Dean, John McCain along with Generals Petreaus and Odierno, are responsible for the increasingly positive narrative in Iraq. And unlike John Kerry and Sen. Obama, he isn’t prone to same type of negative attacks that devastated both campaigns. McCain’s service to his country doesn’t require embellishment, and he isn’t running a Messianic unity campaign undermined by the divisive company he keeps.

Then again, there are McCain’s lobbyist ties. But Dean seems to be cautiously balking at this charge, as even the “unsullied” Obama has his lobbying problems.

Tuesday Morning Open

April 29, 2008 by Jonathan C. Movroydis | Filed Under Open threads | Leave a Comment 

A public man must never forget that he loses his usefulness when he as an individual, rather than his policy, becomes the issue. - Richard Nixon

Featured Articles — April 29, 2008

April 29, 2008 by Jonathan C. Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes from Home and Abroad:

Petraeus, Odierno deserve gratitude By San Antonio Express-News Editors
One of George Bush’s greatest weaknesses as president has been his penchant to reward loyalty over performance.

A Pastor at Center Stage By George Will
Because John McCain and other legislators worry that they are easily corrupted, there are legal limits to the monetary contributions that anyone can make to political candidates. There are, however, no limits to the rhetorical contributions that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright can make to McCain’s campaign.

The Food Crisis By J.R. Dunn
Food riots have occurred in Haiti, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Indonesia, Yemen, and as close to our borders as Mexico, but the problem has its origins in politics.

China’s Drug Dilemma By Roger Bate
How to ensure product safety when oversight is weak?

The Remaking of the BJP By Swapan Dasgupta
The party that was written off a year ago has staged a comeback.

Looking for Mr. Wright By Jonah Goldberg
The minister reveals that he’s as radical and bigoted as his critics insist.

The Shrinking Election By E. J. Dionne
This is supposed to be a big election, but it has given every sign in recent weeks of becoming a small one. As a result, the public and the media are showing signs of exhaustion with what had once been an exhilarating contest.

Understanding American Exceptionalism By Karlyn Bowman
An ambitious new book explains how and why the U.S. is so different from other countries around the world.

An Old Newness By Thomas Sowell
Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

China’s powerful weakness By Francis Fukuyama
Beijing’s reach isn’t big enough to stop local governments from abusing the rights of ordinary citizens.

Demography Is King By David Brooks
Fifty-five years ago, 80 percent of American television viewers, young and old, tuned in to see Milton Berle on Tuesday nights.

A Victory Against Voter Fraud By John Fund
Justice John Paul Stevens begs to differ with Barack Obama.

Balkan Neighbors By Takis Michas
State of the Union: Resolving the ‘name dispute’ won’t end Cold War between Greece and Macedonia.

An Urgent Memo to the SecDef By Herbert E. Meyer
On May 13 about 70 percent of Iraq’s mobile telephone network will cease to operate. This will be a serious blow to the Iraqi economy, and many Iraqis will no longer be able to phone in tips on terror activity.

If You Can’t Get Olympics Tickets

April 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Asia, Nixon Library | Leave a Comment 

News of our upcoming ping pong diplomacy rematch.

Ethanol Montana

April 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Bush Administration, International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

The Secretary of State says setting U.S. farmland aside for biofuels is contributing to the international food crisis. Now back to Pastor Wright and Hannah Montana’s “Vanity Fair” photos!

This Bud’s For You

April 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, International Affairs, Nixon Center, Republican Party | Leave a Comment 

At The Nixon Center, President Reagan’s national security advisor, Bud McFarlane, says President McCain’s first year would be “neocon redux.”

Let’s Move Beyond Wright

April 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party, Faith | Leave a Comment 

Joe Klein argues that Pastor Wright is now freelancing — boosting his own profile, wholly unconcerned about the political effect he’s having on Sen. Obama.

It’s just as likely that the pastor can’t help himself. Those called to ministry usually have tender egos. Charismatic preachers who are community fixtures get a lot of affirmation and adulation and very little if any of the kind of treatment he’s been receiving from Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, the commentators who really seem to have gotten his goat. Upset about being misunderstood and attacked, he’s doing everything he can to get an unalloyed version of his message across. He’s evidently oblivious to the fact that every time he opens his mouth, it gets worse.

Whatever Pastor Wright’s mission and motives, since he’s obviously beyond the control of the Obama campaign, isn’t it about time to give the issue a break?

In his Philadelphia speech, Obama dissassociated himself from the pastor’s most corrosive views. Just because Pastor Wright keeps expressing doesn’t mean that Obama should have to keep disassociating. Some may want him to cut off Wright completely, but he still shouldn’t renounce his family’s pastor, for both humane and practical reasons. The time for that would’ve been 15 years ago.

Besides, efforts to associate Obama with Wright’s angriest statements will have less and less saliency. Most voters have probably made up their minds about it.

So after this National Press Club round, after Obama says a few more times that his oddball father figure doesn’t speak for him, how about we talk about something else — the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing?

Party On The Potomac

April 28, 2008 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Entertainment, News media | Leave a Comment 

Of all Washington’s major social events, none match the level of glitter and pizzazz maintained over two decades by the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner.  During the last few weeks, as thousands around DC prepared themselves for the dinner - or, if they weren’t invited, for one or another of the post-dinner parties - or, if not invited to the parties, for milling around somewhere near the parties - there could often be heard “Remember what Colbert said in his speech?” or “Remember what happened at the [Jason] Binn party last year….” or some similar nostalgic remark.

But it wasn’t always this way.  At New York Social Diary Carol Joynt, the organizer of the well-known Nathan’s lunches, who’s attended WHCA dinners since the Nixon era, details how the event grew to its present pre-eminence over its competitors, the Gridiron Club and Radio & Television Correspondents’ Association dinners.

The WHCA dinner has been around since the 1920s, much longer than the RTCA event but a newcomer compared to the Gridiron, which has done its shindig since 1885.  Until the 1960s, the Gridiron dinner - then, as now, primarily a journalistic and political affair - was the leading event of its kind. Then the RTCA and WHCA began to up the ante with figures from the world of show business, a process that accelerated after the late Jack Valenti became MPAA head and movie and TV stars became increasingly frequent visitors to the capital. But while both groups’ dinners could attract leading show-business names to provide entertainment, the RTCA took the lead when it came to rounding up superstar guests at the tables.  By contrast, the WHCA tended to be sedate.

This continued to be the case until 1987, and, as Ms. Joynt notes, the man who took the first step in making the WHCA dinner what it is now was none other than Michael Kelly.  The man now best remembered as the dedicated journalist and Washington Post columnist killed in the first days of the Iraq war was, in the late Reagan era, working for the Baltimore Sun.  When Kelly was given the chance in 1987 to pick a notable to grace that newspaper’s delegation to the WHCA, he chose Fawn Hall, Oliver North’s statuesque aide.  This caused a lot of grumbling among the WHCA elders.  Undeterred, Kelly rounded up Donna Rice, who’d just derailed Sen. Gary Hart’s presidential candidacy, for the 1988 dinner.  And from then on the WHCA dinner started to become a favorite destination of the famous, the notorious, and the just plain curious among celebs.

This year’s dinner was the last one to see President Bush speak, and he delivered some particularly barbed lines, noting that Sen. Hillary Clinton was absent “due to sniper fire” and that Sen. Barack Obama was otherwise engaged - “at church.”  Colin Ferguson, the late-night TV host, turned in a speech that, by unanimous consent, was an improvement over Rich Little’s remarks last year, though not quite displaying the kind of take-no-prisoners verbal assault that Stephen Colbert unleashed in 2006.

But, as always, the big WHCA story was which celebs were there and where they went afterwards.  This year the list included (in alphabetical order) Pamela Anderson, Marcia Cross, Rosario Dawson, Morgan Fairchild (a very longtime guest at this event), Colin Firth (who was turned away from the Bloomberg after-dinner party at the Costa Rican Embassy because security failed to recognize him - perhaps he should have worn his Mr. Darcy outfit), Dennis Hof of HBO’s Cathouse (the Bunny Ranch proprietor was admitted with no problems to the Bloomberg event), Rob Lowe, Heidi Montag of The Hills (along with her “frenemy” Lauren Conrad), Ron Silver,  Ashlee Simpson, Donatella Versace, and rapper Will I Am.  The usual representatives of the Fourth Estate were supplemented by manic showbiz blogger Perez Hilton.

The most snippy guest had to be actor Rupert Everett, who informed Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger of the Washington Post that the dinner was “one of the most hideous events I’ve ever been to.”  The most highbrow guest, maybe, was novelist Salman Rushdie, who put in an appearance at Christopher Hitchens and Carol Blue’s traditional after-dinner gathering.

Other online examples of WHCA coverage are the Sydney Morning Herald’s account,  and David Patrick Columbia’s lengthy survey of the scene.  And once the hangovers are done, it’ll be time to get ready for next year.

Newspapers, Save Thyselves (Pt. 5)

April 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Kindle, News media | Leave a Comment 

With their astonishingly useful Kindle, Jeff Bezos and Amazon have set out to save text and rebuild our attention spans. Every newspaper in the world should be Kindled; it makes it cool for people under 50 to read good journalistic content again. Papers should buy hundreds of thousands of Kindles and give them away in promotions. Below is from Bezos’s 2007 investors’ letter, which is all about the Kindle:

Physical books ushered in a new way of collaborating and learning. Lately, networked tools such as desktop computers, laptops, cell phones and PDAs have changed us too. They’ve shifted us more toward information snacking, and I would argue toward shorter attention spans. I value my BlackBerry—I’m convinced it makes me more productive—but I don’t want to read a three-hundred-page document on it. Nor do I want to read something hundreds of pages long on my desktop computer or my laptop. As I’ve already mentioned in this letter, people do more of what’s convenient and friction-free. If our tools make information snacking easier, we’ll shift more toward information snacking and away from long-form reading. Kindle is purpose-built for long-form reading. We hope Kindle and its successors may gradually and incrementally move us over years into a world with longer spans of attention, providing a counterbalance to the recent proliferation of info-snacking tools. I realize my tone here tends toward the missionary, and I can assure you it’s heartfelt.

Fear and Loathing at CFIUS

April 28, 2008 by Joshua Trevino | Filed Under Asia, China, International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

Cross Posted From Joshua Trevino.

This is an extended version of this piece, which originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal Asia on April 28th, 2008.

Japan isn’t the only place flexing its regulatory oversight of foreigners these days. Now, the U.S Treasury Department wants to look at transactions involving stakes of less than 10% of the acquired American company.

But before Treasury does that, how about first explaining the criteria bureaucrats use to weigh the transactions they already review? That step – so obvious that it’s surprising it hasn’t been done yet – would offer much greater benefits to U.S. and foreign companies and investors, not to mention the American economy overall.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, has existed in its present form since the late 1980s. This intergovernmental panel is empowered to review any acquisition of more than 10% of a U.S. company by a foreign entity when the U.S. company does business important to national security. But only this year, on April 8, did Treasury, which coordinates CFIUS, announce it will release clear guidelines on how CFIUS conducts these reviews. That will likely happen sometime next month.

Meanwhile, CFIUS remains a regulatory black box, issuing contradictory rulings with abandon — and without meaningful explanation. Unfortunately, what explanation exists is too often nakedly political.

The political nature of CFIUS becomes especially stark when considering the China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s 2005 effort to acquire Unocal. The proposed acquisition was scuttled by vigorous political opposition within the United States that included the employment of CFIUS as a bureaucratic obstacle. CNOOC’s leadership grasped that American security concerns would have to be assuaged for Unocal shareholders to approve the bid, and so it voluntarily submitted to CFIUS review. Incredibly, CFIUS refused to conduct that review until after Unocal accepted CNOOC’s buyout. CFIUS’s withholding of review was a major factor in the erosion of CNOOC’s bid, which thus ultimately failed.

By contrast, during the 2006 fracas over the United Arab Emirates-based Dubai Ports World’s bid for port operations contracts within the United States, it approved the firm’s doomed bid. CFIUS was right in that case, but it’s notable that the argument against its decision had some objective merit on national-security grounds. The argument against the CNOOC/Unocal deal, by contrast, was more tenuous — and, troublingly, rests upon an assumption of China as a power hostile to the United States.

Major policy decisions should not be implicit, and certainly not in the hands of an inter-bureaucratic committee; and CFIUS should strive for consistency rather than present the appearance of politicization. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that CFIUS approved the DP World deal because the American Executive branch supported it.

Meaningful reform would entail the promulgation of definitive rules for CFIUS’s authority and operations. Under current law (50 U.S.C. app. § 2170), the factors purportedly affecting CFIUS decisionmaking are sufficiently vague as to be easily subjected to the politicization already noted. The law requires the CFIUS to “consider among other factors,” “domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements,” “the control of domestic industries and commercial activity by foreign citizens as it affects the capability and capacity of the United States to meet the requirements of national security,” and other similarly-worded criteria. With “national security” meaning nearly anything that a politician may wish it to, this must change.

A reformed CFIUS would restrict itself to the scrutiny of deals involving actual enemies of the United States — for example, states on the list of terror sponsors. Barring that, it would subject itself to judicial appeal, rather than operating as an economic Star Chamber with a capricious power over business and entrepreneurial life.

Until such a list comes out, expect more debacles like the thwarted merger between 3Com and Bain Capital, two American companies that wanted to merge with cash from Huawei, a Chinese firm that would have then owned a minority stake in the company. That deal failed last month when CFIUS refused its permission.

It is undeniable that 3Com is involved in the production of sensitive and advanced technology products. However, a Huawei minority stake under the proposed deal with Bain Capital would not meaningfully alter China’s access to those products. For starters, they are already freely available for purchase by private parties — and Huawei already participates in the manufacture of many of them. The 3Com facility in Hangzhou, China, at the Zhijiang Science Park, has operated under a partnership with Huawei for some time, to the apparent unconcern of CFIUS.

Were CFIUS genuinely concerned with foreign acquisition of critical national-security products, it would not have approved the 1995 sale of Indiana-based Magnequench, Inc., to a China-based consortium. Magnequench was and remains a key manufacturer of the rare-earth magnets needed for American precision munitions — and its entire production operation has since left Indiana for China. CFIUS apparently believes that 3Com’s routers, network intrusion-prevention systems, and network cards, available to any purchaser, are more vital to American security than actual advanced war materials whose sole market is the Pentagon itself. This is, to be charitable, a remarkable proposition.

Arguably worse than its rejection, though, is that CFIUS didn’t deign to tell the parties, or anyone else, precisely why it had rejected the deal. Given the costs involved, such an explanation was the least CFIUS could have done. Bain Capital shareholders are now out $66 million, which must be paid to 3Com as a termination fee for the deal.

Upon CFIUS’s scuttling of the deal, 3Com’s shareholders saw their company swiftly lose 12% of its market capitalization, with its stock dipping to its lowest level since the early 1990s. The prospects of the acquisition had driven 3Com’s total capitalization to approximately $1.8 billion in fall of 2007: as of this writing, it stands at about $960 million — barely half its prior value. That is a tremendous amount of havoc, in a few short months, for an unaccountable bureaucracy to wreak on an American company and its shareholders.

Indeed, that market reaction helps clarify exactly what is at stake here. America needs foreign trade and investment. By introducing an element of unpredictability into such trade and investment, CFIUS does more harm than good. And the problem appears to be getting worse just at a time when the U.S. economy appears to be wobbling and needs all the help it can get.

CFIUS defenders point to the potential threats to national security that would result from the sale to foreigners of a company manufacturing critical military technology. On its face, this is a good thing. Who wants an Iranian firm to purchase an American manufacturer of uranium centrifuges? Why should we allow a Venezuelan business to acquire American technical expertise that abets Caracas’s destabilization of Latin America?

Yet this noble-sounding purpose is confounded by the government’s failure to explain how it evaluates deals in practice. The number of “obvious” cases – an Iran buying centrifuges, say – is exceedingly rare. Among other reasons, this is because most of America’s post-Cold War state enemies are too poor to buy any American assets. So CFIUS does most of its work on “marginal” cases where there might be some grounds for concern but the potential threat to security interests isn’t clear.

And all too often those cases seem to get decided by politics. This should hardly be surprising, given CFIUS’ origins. The law creating the committee was passed in 1988 amid fears that newly wealthy Japanese companies were gobbling up America. Security concerns would hardly seem to have justified opposition to the bulk of those deals. Japan was then, and is now, a strong ally and a thriving democracy.

China presents a different situation. It’s neither a strong ally nor a thriving democracy. But given the history of CFIUS, the burden is still on the committee to prove that it’s making decisions that are rooted in national security rather than protectionism. The only way to do so, and take another step toward encouraging the foreign investment America needs, is for CFIUS to be clear and consistent about its standards.

Clinton’s Lowest Blow

April 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party | Leave a Comment 

This “Guardian” analysis overreaches in implicating the Clintons in race-baiting. For elevating racial tensions in the Democratic campaign, the Clintons are 1% to blame, Pastor Wright 80%, and the conservative media for endlessly repeating his comments 19%. But on reflection, this comment by Sen. Clinton, when she was asked if she thought Sen. Obama was a Muslim, is indefensible:

There is nothing to base that on - as far as I know.

Of course that’s not race-baiting; it’s faith-baiting.

McCain and “a New Cold War”

April 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, International Affairs, Presidents, Republican Party, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

In “Newsweek,” Fareed Zakaria on Sen. McCain’s “radical” foreign policy:

On March 26, McCain gave a speech on foreign policy in Los Angeles that was billed as his most comprehensive statement on the subject. It contained within it the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years. Yet almost no one noticed. In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil—but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power. We have spent months debating Barack Obama’s suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain’s proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war.

Featured Articles — April 28, 2008

April 28, 2008 by Jonathan C. Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes from Home and Abroad:

Pariah Diplomacy By Jimmy Carter
It is counterproductive for Washington to isolate governments that refuse its mandate, as exemplified by recent events in Nepal and the Middle East.

Dear Senator Obama … By Karl Rove
President Bush’s former senior adviser offers advice for fighting the ‘elitist’ label.

Hillary Gets No Respect By William Kristol
Since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary Clinton.

America needs to make a new case for trade By Lawrence Summers
While the financial crisis dominates current discussion on the US economy, questions regarding America’s future approach to globalisation are looming increasingly large.

An Anatomy of Surrender By Bruce Bawer
Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.

The ABA’s ‘Diversity’ Diktat By Gail Heriot
How the American Bar Association mandates discrimination in our law schools.

The Fed’s Bender By Wall Street Journal Editors
What Ben Bernanke needs isn’t a gradual withdrawal from easy money but membership in Central Bankers Anonymous.

Tan Ally and His Ordeals By Rupert Darwall
Bookshelf: Tony Blair was brilliant at Question Time but failed to deliver on all sorts of promises.

Betraying Benedict By Robert D. Novak
How two American bishops disobeyed the pope at his own Mass.

Flying (and Bidding) Solo By Dov S. Zakheim and Ronald T. Kadish
Competition barely exists in the defense industry — and it’s growing weaker by the day.

Plouffe: McCain is the New Wallace

April 27, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party | Leave a Comment 

Obama campaig