The Corner

The one and only.

The Latest Tweets from Team NRO . . .

Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper: If You Don’t Reelect Me, I’ll Let This Murderer Off Death Row


Colorado’s Democratic governor John Hickenlooper reportedly offered an interesting ultimatum about convicted killer Nathan Dunlap, potentially hanging Dunlap’s fate on the outcome of this November’s gubernatorial election.

The Denver Post reports that Hickenlooper indicated in an unaired CNN interview from February that if a Republican candidate were to beat him this fall he might grant clemency to Dunlap, who is on death row after he killed four people in a 1993 shooting rampage.

He gave Dunlap a temporary reprieve last year after the man was diagnosed with severe bipolar disorder. At the time of the interview, former U.S. representative Tom Tancredo, who had insisted Dunlap should face capital punishment, was the leading candidate in the Republican primary.

“If they . . . somehow they won, there are obviously remedies that the governor could do,” the governor said about what he would potentially do as a lame duck if Tancredo or another Republican won. “I could do a full clemency between election day and the end of the year. There are a number of different opportunities to make sure that doesn’t happen. Again, human life should not be a political football.”

Earlier this month, Hickenlooper announced that he no longer supports the death penalty. He had supported it in his first run for governor in 2010, and last year, he halted the Democratic legislature’s efforts to repeal the state’s death penalty by indicating he would veto the bill.

In June, Tancredo lost the Republican primary to former representative Bob Beauprez, who has also stated he would move forward to make sure “justice is served” with Dunlap’s execution. Beauprez said Hickenlooper should immediately commute Dunlap’s sentence if he “truly does oppose the death penalty” rather than punt the responsibility to his successor.

Driving Ourselves into a Ditch?


I’ve been really excited about the safety effects of self-driving cars for a while. But recently, I thought that if cars can self-drive, so can trucks – and that would mean the loss of over 3 million decent-paying jobs for low-skilled workers, mainly men. That prospect, of course, is years in the future, and it might be alleviated by requirements like those on airlines that require human pilots to be on board even though computers do most of the flying these days. But it’s the sort of issue that we will increasingly see as machines team up with computers to replace many low-skilled jobs we currently take for granted.

— Henry Olsen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.


Media Criticism of Potential Executive Action on Immigration Grows


Throughout the summer, numerous voices across the political spectrum have warned against President Obama taking sweeping executive action on immigration. While the New York Times editorial board has endorsed executive supremacy on immigration, many other publications have been more skeptical, fearing the constitutional as well as immediate practical implications of the president going alone on immigration policy. The Washington Post argued earlier in August that Congressional resistance “doesn’t grant the president license to tear up the Constitution” and warned against ramming through immigration reform via an executive order, points echoed by Charles Lane and Jonathan Chait (neither of whom are exactly fire-breathing right-wingers).

That drumbeat of criticism has continued. The Chicago Tribune recently warned the president not to issue an executive fiat on immigration. Earlier this week, USA Today’s editorial board declared that “Congressional action is necessary both as a sign of a functioning democracy and as a lesson for lawmakers that they can’t ignore their responsibilities forever.” The editorial found that “Congress is the only appropriate venue for adopting such sweeping changes in [immigration] policy.” The editorial board seemed to express support for the goal of “comprehensive immigration reform” but argued that the president could not ram it through by himself.

A recent editorial in the Arizona Republic also slammed the president’s proposed unilateral action on immigration. Like USA Today, the Arizona Republic is sympathetic to immigration “reform,” but it also finds that such action could exceed President Obama’s constitutional authority:

The Arizona Republic has led the way now for many years in passionately arguing for comprehensive immigration reform. No one wants these decent, hard-working people to live free as card-carrying Americans more than we do.

But not this way. This way is folly, Mr. President. Yes, Congress’ failure to act is frustrating. But if Obama takes these actions on his own, it would constitute a higher order of failure.

One of the key points made by the Arizona Republic is that executive action on immigration reform could radically damage the chances of passing immigration reform in future Congresses. Marco Rubio made a similar point in an open letter to President Obama, arguing that unilateral action on immigration could “close the door to any chance of making progress on immigration reform for the foreseeable future.” Senator Rubio was one of the leading figures in getting the Gang of Eight bill through the Senate, so his devotion to “comprehensive immigration reform” cannot be doubted (whether that vision of “reform” is good for the American worker and new immigrants might be a bit more up for debate).

The constitutional implications of President Obama making a power grab on immigration are serious. The humanitarian consequences of such a power grab — how it might empower human traffickers, exploitative employers, and the criminal underworld through incentivizing more illegal immigration — as well as its risks for national security and for the wages of the American worker are also worth noting, however. Moreover, in terms of immigration policy, more and more figures on the Left, Right, and center are finding that sweeping executive action now could kill all hopes of passing immigration reform legislatively.

If the president is serious about advancing a long-term legislative solution to some of the shortcomings of the U.S. immigration system, it would not make much sense to polarize the immigration debate further by taking unilateral action. The White House might calculate that escalating polarization could render some short-term political dividends, but, as an increasing number in the media have come to realize, those dividends might come at the expense of the rest of the nation, our Constitutional inheritance, and the future of sustainable immigration reform.

Web Briefing: August 29, 2014

Marco Rubio: Obama’s Unilateral Action Will Kill Immigration Reform


President Obama’s expected administrative amnesty of five million people will spike even piecemeal immigration reforms, Senator Marco Rubio (R., S.C.) warned.

“If indeed you move forward on such a decision, I believe it will close the door to any chance of making progress on immigration reform for the foreseeable future,” Rubio wrote in a Tuesday letter to Obama. 

“I know you are receiving tremendous political pressure from certain activists to grant another unilateral, temporary and uncertain legal status to millions of additional undocumented immigrants. But to do so, without first taking any serious steps to address the border or protect American workers, will increase the perception of ambiguity in our laws, incentivize more people to immigrate here illegally, and significantly set back the prospects of real reform.”

And Rubio wasn’t referring to the comprehensive legislation that he helped write as a member of the Gang of Eight — he has already abandoned that type of proposal.

“After the experience of the last 18 months, I have become convinced that there is no realistic path forward on comprehensive reform for the foreseeable future,” Rubio wrote. “Instead, it is clear to me now that the only approach that has any chance of success is one that addresses our immigration problems in a series of sequential pieces of legislation.”


Report: American Killed Fighting for Islamic State


A San Diego man named Douglas McAuthur McCain was killed fighting for the Islamic State over the weekend, according to a new report from NBC News. McCain, who called himself “Duale ThaslaveofAllah” on social media, had been active about his involvement with IS on Twitter over the past few months.

From NBC News:

On June 9, Duale wrote to an alleged ISIS fighter on Twitter: “I will be joining you guys soon.” He also asked if another self-proclaimed ISIS fighter had made it to “r town” — an apparent reference to Raqqa, the militants’ Syrian stronghold.

Then came another post: “I’m with the brothers now.” Later, he retweeted: “It takes a warrior to understand a warrior. Pray for ISIS.”

His final Twitter post was last Tuesday.

McCain was found with $800 and an American passport. Read the rest here.

If the Michael Brown Audio Is Real, It May Corroborate Piaget Cranshaw’s Account


CNN reports on an audio recording that purports to show that eleven shots were fired at Michael Brown:

If this is indeed audio of the shooting — and, crucially, if it is complete — it seems to do some harm to the St. Louis Police Department’s account. Give or take, there are two main fusillades on the recording: First, a round of 6 shots; then a brief pause; and then, three or so seconds later, a second round of four shots. (I can’t hear the eleventh, but the attorney for the man who recorded the audio insists it is there.) Last week, the SLPD claimed that:

Wilson attempted to get out of his car and Brown pushed him back inside. A struggle ensued inside the car, in which Brown tried to take the officer’s gun. A shot was fired from inside the car. The officer then stepped out of the car and shot Brown, who died of his injuries.

I can’t see how this connects in any meaningful way to the audio. On the recording, there is almost no gap at all between the first shot and the next five – certainly not enough time to meaningfully separate out the single shot that was supposedly fired from within the car. Are we to believe that when the department says “a shot,” they mean “six shots”? Alternatively, if we presume that the initial shot is missing from the audio, are we to believe that the officer fired all ten or eleven rounds at Michael Brown while he was being charged and just happened to pause for three seconds in between shooting? Anything is possible, of course. But that seems odd to me.

The audio also calls into question the testimony of Dorian Johnson, the man who was with Michael Brown at the time. Per MSNBC:

“I seen the barrel of the gun pointed at my friend,” he said. “He had it pointed at him and said ‘I’ll shoot,’ one more time.”

A second later Johnson said he heard the first shot go off. 

“I seen the fire come out of the barrell,” he said. “I could see so vividly what was going on because I was so close.”

Johnson says he was within arm’s reach of both Brown and the officer. He looked over at Brown and saw blood pooling through his shirt on the right side of the body.

“The whole time [the officer] was holding my friend until the gun went off,” Johnson noted.

Brown and Johnson took off running together. There were three cars lined up along the side of the street. Johnson says he ducked behind the first car, whose two passengers were screaming. Crouching down a bit, he watched Brown run past.

“Keep running, bro!,” he said Brown yelled. Then Brown yelled it a second time. Those would be the last words Johnson’s friend, “Big Mike,” would ever say to him.

Brown made it past the third car. Then, “blam!” the officer took his second shot, striking Brown in the back. At that point, Johnson says Brown stopped, turned with his hands up and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”

 By that point, Johnson says the officer and Brown were face-to-face. The officer then fired several more shots. Johnson described watching Brown go from standing with his hands up to crumbling to the ground and curling into a fetal position.

Given how close the first and second shots on the recording are (less than a second), it seems unlikely that Brown would have had enough time to have escaped the clutches of a police officer and run past three cars before the second shot was fired. Moreover, if the “several more shots” of Johnson’s recollection represent the second fusillade, what happened to the remaining four shots from the first barrage? Again, I suppose it is possible that the recording missed the initial couple of shots. But had a police officer fired so many rounds from such short range and paused half way through, I’d expect that Johnson would have said so.

One eyewitness account, however, scans much better. Here is Newsweek’s take on testimony from Piaget Cranshaw, a resident of Ferguson who says she watched the events unfold from her apartment:

It looked like the officer was trying to pull Brown into the car, [Crenshaw said.] When that didn’t work, she said the officer chased after Brown and shot multiple times, though none of those shots appeared to hit Brown. In the end, Crenshaw said, Brown “turned around and then was shot multiple times.”

Two sets of “multiple” shots, separated by a short break. That checks out, does it not? Moreover, as the Daily Mail notes, Cranshaw’s account has been corroborated by another witness:

Tiffany Mitchell, who watched the shooting unfold, told CNN on Wednesday that the police’s version of events – that Brown assaulted the officer and tried to grab his gun – was not true.

Brown did not enter the police vehicle, as authorities have claimed, but there appeared to be a struggle at the window, Ms Mitchell said.

’It looked as if Michael was pushing off and the cop was trying to pull him in,’ she told CNN.

’The cop shot a fire through the window. Michael breaks away and starts running away but the officer continued shooting.’ 

Ms Mitchell had gone to the Ferguson, Missouri neighborhood on Saturday to pick up an employee, Piaget Crenshaw, for work. 

The usual caveats apply here, among them that a) witnesses are notoriously unreliable; b) that this may not be the audio at all; c) that it may be incomplete, and d) that even if it is both real and complete, it tells us nothing dispositive. I am, of course, merely piecing together what little information we have and attempting to make sense of it. But if the FBI were to come out of its investigation with the conclusion that this recording is legitimate, it would likely change the case considerably. Last week I suggested that, absent a piece of bombshell evidence, Officer Wilson was likely to walk free. This morning, I’m not so sure.

IRS Destroyed Lois Lerner Blackberry After Congressional Inquiry Began, Never Searched It


According to the second round of IRS affidavits submitted to U.S. district court judge Emmett Sullivan, who is presiding over the lawsuit brought against the nation’s tax agency by watchdog group Judicial Watch, Inc., IRS technical analysts did not search Lois Lerner’s Blackberry for her allegedly “lost” e-mails — and the smartphone was destroyed after congressional investigation had begun.

Lerner’s government-issued laptop reportedly crashed in June 2011, at which time IRS analysts tried but failed to recover data, including e-mail communications, according to previous testimony. In his sworn declaration, Stephen Manning – deputy chief information officer for strategy and modernization with the IRS Information Technology business unit – reports that “there is no record of any attempt by any IRS IT employee to recover data from any Blackberry device assigned to Lois Lerner in response to the Congressional investigations or this litigation.” This despite the fact that Lerner had been in possession of a government-issued Blackberry since November 2009, according to the statement of Thomas J. Kane – deputy associate chief counsel for procedure and administration within the IRS Office of Chief Counsel – and it would likely have hosted at least some of Lerner’s electronic communications.

Moreover, IRS documents provided by Kane show that Lerner’s Blackberry “was removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012.” By that time, a congressional investigation was well under way. In March of that year then-IRS chief Douglas Shulman was questioned by Congress about the targeting of conservative groups, and in April Republican congressman sent questions to Lerner about the targeting. Lerner responded on April 26.

These revelations increase the likelihood that Judge Sullivan would grant a motion requesting limited discovery, which Judicial Watch is permitted to file after September 10.

In 2013, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request for e-mails to and from Lerner, the former head of the IRS’s tax-exempt division. The organization claims that the IRS never informed them of Lerner’s computer crash, in violation of the law.

Sanders 2016? Bernie Heads to Primary States


Senator Bernie Sanders, the socialist independent senator from Vermont, has expressed interest in a potential presidential run in 2016, and his travel schedule certainly indicates that he’s somewhat serious about it.

Sanders is heading to a couple of early primary states in the coming weeks: He will be in South Carolina next week and Iowa in mid-September. He will also visit Mississippi and North Carolina during that time.

The Vermonter visited Iowa earlier this year, as well as his neighboring New Hampshire, another early primary state.

He has repeatedly stated he is “prepared” to run if he feels none of the candidates are willing to address the issues he considers most important. He’s expressed reservations about the presumptive Democratic front-runner status given to Hillary Clinton.

GOP Rep: Pelosi Should Be Censured for Storming Across House Floor to Confront Member


Nancy Pelosi drew headlines earlier this month when she charged toward Republican representative Tom Marino on the House chamber in the middle of a floor speech and then chased him afterwards, and one congressman doesn’t think she should get away with it.

Representative Steve Pearce (R., N.M.) told a local Republican-party group that he will push his colleagues to censure the minority leader for her breach of protocol and confrontation.

“I’ve told our leader, Speaker Boehner, that when we get back, that needs to be taken up on the House floor, and if there is reason for censure, we should do that,” he said, according to the Roswell Daily News. “You should never approach another person when they’re speaking. And she was saying horrible things to him. It was something along the lines that ‘You need to shut up. You’re insignificant. You’re insignificant.’”

Indeed, after their spat, Marino said that Pelosi called him “insignificant” and “a liar” when he pointed out that Democrats failed to confront immigration reform when they controlled Congress in the first two years of the Obama presidency.

The New Mexico Telegram reports that the last censure came in 2010, against Representative Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) over ethics violations. Censures serve as a formal condemnation of a member’s actions and require them to step down from any committee chairmanships they may hold.

Senator Arrested for DUI Hours after Voting to Restrict Uber


A California state senator was arrested for drunk driving just hours after voting to toughen regulations against ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft.

Senator Ben Hueso, a San Diego Democrat, was busted around 2:24 Friday morning after cops saw him driving on the wrong side of the street.

“I am truly and profoundly sorry for the unacceptably poor personal judgment which I demonstrated last night,” he said in a statement about the incident.

“As someone who cares deeply about the public safety, I sincerely apologize to my family, my constituents and my colleagues in the Senate for breaching the trust they’ve all placed in me,” he said.

Earlier on Friday, he had voted in favor of A.B. 216, which would require background checks and drug testing for drivers and a ban on drivers who had committed crimes in the past.

Science’s Next Frontier: Emoticons


Some top-notch silliness from the Huffington Post:

We’ve read the daunting headlines. We’ve seen the bleak predictions. We know in our minds that climate change is putting our Earth’s future in danger. And yet there’s something uniquely frightening about this artist’s attempt to transform global warming data into visceral, human responses.

Not really, no. Here are a few of these “uniquely frightening” images:

This approach, HuffPo concedes, is “not often associated with scientific knowledge.” Indeed it is not. And why not? Well, because moody photographs of people looking sad represent the polar opposite of sustained and reasoned argument. The question of climate change is a complex one. Certainly, the earth is warming, and man’s behavior almost certainly has something to do with it. And yet the extent to which this is the case, precisely what it means for the future, and — crucially – how we should deal with the issue politically remain serious questions that attract a host of different answers. I am not sure what the correct response is. I can’t possibly know. I am sure, however, that it cannot be intuited from glorified emoticons.

Still, if this is the future of sober deliberation, one has to wonder what we might expect next? Perhaps those who believe that ISIS needs to be dealt with militarily will take to bolstering their case with photographs of John Bolton looking glum? Maybe staunch advocates of the PATRIOT Act will contrive a moody video of John Yoo weeping desperately? Will voters be persuaded to embrace a new round of tax cuts by snapshot of Art Laffer bawling his eyes out in an abandoned warehouse?

Please send your best contributions to [email protected] — and be sure to let us know which topic you are hoping to address.

The ‘Ex-Im Is a Win-Win’ Myth Exploded, in Five Minutes


The great Frederic Bastiat once wrote:

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

I think this line applies to lawmakers too. Too often, lawmakers focus on the visible consequences or beneficiaries of a government program program and they ignore the unseen consequences and victims. Take the Ex-Im Bank.

Over the past few months, I’ve often made the case that the fight over the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank is one between the visible, powerful, and vocal beneficiaries of the program and its unseen and often silent victims. Now, thanks to my colleague at the Mercatus Center Matthew Mitchell, lawmakers won’t have to ignore these victims: He’s produced a short and wonderfully clear video on the topic. In five minutes, Mitchell does a great job showing why the Ex-Im Bank isn’t a “win win” for the United States:

Lawmakers can only continue the “Ex-Im is a win-win” charade if they listen to the testimony of Bastiat’s ”bad economists.” I testify on that same issue back in June and my testimony is here

Lowry: Obama ‘Cannot Admit to Himself What a Catastrophe’ His Iraq, Syria Policy Has Been


Four Ukrainian Border Guards Killed by Russian Helicopters


From Reuters:

Ukrainian military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said on Tuesday that Russian Mi-24 helicopters had attacked a border post in Luhansk region the previous day, killing four border guards.

“Yesterday, during the day, at the border post of Krasnatalovka, Russian Mi-24 helicopters attacked Ukrainian border guards. As a result of the attack, four guards were killed, three were injured,” Lysenko told Reuters.

The news comes as Russian president Vladimir Putin and Ukainian president Petro Poroshenko meet in Minsk, Belarus for talks on the ongoing conflict. It also follows Ukraine’s capture of ten Russian paratroopers yesterday at a site 15 miles into Ukraine from the Russian border. 

NR Seeks HR Consultant


Any Corner regular who has (1) a strong HR management background, and (2) would be interested in doing consulting work for America’s premier conservative magazine, should contact publisher Jack Fowler at [email protected] (Subject Line: HR Consulting). Knowledge of New York and District of Columbia employment laws and regulations would be a good thing indeed. Thanks.

Bus Fever Is Spreading


The New York Times has an interesting article on the use of buses by high-income Americans.

Until recently, John Alday either drove or flew the 200-mile trip between his company’s headquarters in Dallas and its satellite office in Austin.

But too many times, he said, when he flew it ended up taking far longer than he planned, whether it was a problem in getting to the airport or checking in, or a weather delay. Now he has switched to a simpler and, he says, more reliable means of transportation — a bus, specifically an executive coach.

“It’s more luxurious than any first-class seat I’ve ever been in,” said Mr. Alday, the chief executive of the Cima Solutions Group, an information technology company. The Vonlane bus Mr. Alday rides has 16 reclining leather seats, Wi-Fi, an attendant who serves meals and beverages, a wireless printer, office supplies and a conference table with additional seating.

The executive coach between Austin and Dallas isn’t unique. The article quotes a transportation consultant who credits the Hampton Jitney, “which shuttles people between New York and the North and South Forks of Long Island,” as being a pioneer in getting high-income Americans to recognize the value of traveling by bus.

Other services include Dartmouth Coach and C&J, originating in New Hampshire and traveling to Boston and New York with stops in between; LimoLiner, which travels between Boston and New York; Vamoose Gold and Royal Sprinter, which travel between Washington and New York; Red Coach, which connects cities in Florida; and Lux Bus America, whose routes include Los Angeles to Las Vegas.

Perhaps because of the sins of my youth, or of a past life, I spent several years stranded in Ithaca, New York. I often had to travel to New York City, which either meant a four-hour trip in a car or a short flight. But after a couple of years a “luxury bus” started running between Ithaca and the city. It was wonderful. It beat both flying and driving hands down — I got a lot of work done on that bus because it was equipped with large, comfortable seats and wireless internet; I could show up minutes before the bus left, as opposed to an hour for a flight; I didn’t have to go through the time-consuming process of packing with optimal precision because I wasn’t trying to fit all my stuff into an overhead-sized bag; I didn’t have to go through the humiliating and obnoxious rituals that define air travel today; and the bus picked us up and dropped us off in good locations, so there was no need to travel to and from airports or train stations. The bus had snacks and a coffee machine and other good stuff, too.

The fact that “luxury buses” or “executive coaches” or whatever you want to call them are catching on highlights some of the benefits of traveling by bus relative to car, air, or train. We will probably see more high-income Americans using buses for travel in the future, at least if trains and planes continue to provide their current levels of service, quality, and expense.

You can read the entire Times article here.

The benefits of buses are not restricted to high-income Americans. An expanded role for buses also offers an opportunity to help low-income Americans who live far away (measured by either clock time or mileage) from commercial centers. I pointed this out in my most recent column:

We know that urban areas characterized by a high degree of socioeconomic segregation often have relatively low mobility rates and high unemployment rates. One way to support employment and earnings is to spend money on transportation infrastructure to connect low-income workers with jobs.

The amount of money involved could be relatively small: We could simply buy buses, have them pick up workers in lower-income, outer neighborhoods and exurbs, and then run them express from those places — not stopping along the way in middle- and upper-income neighborhoods — all the way into commercial centers. In larger cities, we could run the buses express from low-income exurbs to the last stop on commuter rail lines; basically, we could give low-income workers a fast lift to the train, connecting residents of exurbs with the labor markets of major cities.

Buses are great because they’re flexible, cheap and use existing roads. Additionally, we could spend more money to build more sophisticated transportation networks — more roads, maybe rail; roads that function as dedicated bus lanes? — to support working-class Americans in their noble effort to earn their own success in the labor market.

By significantly decreasing commuting times from lower-income neighborhoods and exurbs — which are often measured in hours, not minutes — we would effectively increase the number of jobs available to low-income workers. Some workers on the margin of participating in the labor market may enter if their commute time is one hour rather than two. The long-term unemployed, currently in the labor market, would have more jobs to which they could apply. And the quality of life for low-income workers with long commutes would increase.

You can read my column in its entirety here.

— Michael R. Strain is a resident scholar and economist at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him on Twitter at

Is Putin Getting His Money’s Worth From His Propaganda Purveyors?


Russia is spending more on propaganda justifying its aggressive moves than ever before, and Vladimir Putin is certainly getting imaginative work for his money.

When Ukraine announced yesterday it had captured ten Russian paratroopers in camouflaged fatigues from the 98th Airborne Division a full 15 miles inside Ukraine, it reported that interviews conducted with the men revealed they were on a “special mission.” Not so, reported Russian news agencies, who quoted military sources saying the soldiers had crossed the border by mistake.

“The soldiers were really taking part in patrolling a section of the Russian–Ukrainian border, they crossed it most likely by accident, on an unequipped, unmarked section,” a defense-ministry source was quoted as saying.

That’s not quite what the Russian paratroopers say. Ivan Melchyakov, who was interviewed on Ukrainian television, said, “They just told us we were going on a 70-kilometer [45-mile] march over three days. Everything is different here, not like they show it on television. We’ve come as cannon fodder.”

Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko and Russian leader Vladimir Putin are meeting for “peace talks” that include European Union officials in Belarus. One can only imagine how the Russia’s Twilight Zone media will cover the likely failure of those talks.

In Vino Very Tasty


I joined the National Review Wine Club, and happily so. I paid my fee (no Publisher’s discount!) and before you could say Demote Harry Reid a big box of fruit of the vine came to Casa Fowler. In the ensuing weeks I’ve shared a few bottles with some friends (yes, I do have some) and they liked them very much (and, in their vino glow, even liked me a bit better!). And then a few pals who signed up to show their brotherhood with Yours Truly wrote me to say — they’re loving it! So, why don’t you give the National Review Wine Club a shot? Order now and you’ll get twelve great bottles (all red, all white, a mix — you choose), plus two bonus bottles of Russian River Valley Pinot Noir, and lots of collateral material that is informative, even when you are starting to see double. Sign up right away here. You’ll thank me!

The Book Is Better than the Movie


Today’s Between the Covers podcast is with Kenneth Killiany, who has just brought back into print the classic political novel Advise & Consent by his uncle, Allen Drury. We discuss whether Drury was a conservative, whether the Hiss-Chambers case inspired the main story, and what Drury would think about Washington, D.C. today.

Ike and Goldwater


Mona writes:

Significant percentages of white southerners voted for Ike even though the Democratic party remained firmly segregationist and even though Eisenhower backed two civil-rights bills and enforced the Brown decision by federalizing the National Guard. 

If anything, that understates the matter. Contrary to the “trading places” myth, Eisenhower, a civil-rights leader, won a slightly larger share of the southern vote than Barry Goldwater would a few years later.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review