Public Policy, Hot and Fresh
This morning, at around 7:00 AM, Cosmo started barking. But it wasn’t his usual “squirts in the wire!” (Trans: “Squirrels inside the perimeter”) bark. I went to the door to see what the rumpus was. A fresh copy — hot off the presses — of the Public Interest was at my door. The PI has long been one of my favorite publications (I used to hang out with the editors when I was at AEI). Anyway, I just thought it was kind of funny to have a quarterly public policy journal delivered to my house like it was a bag of fresh bread from the bakery. Thank goodness it got here today!
By the way, it does look like a great issue, including a lead piece by James Ceaser on “The Genealogy of Anti-Americanism” and a tease of Charles Murray’s new book, which some of us have been waiting for for a very long time.
Tomorrow morning the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on William H. Pryor, Jr., Attorney General for the State of Alabama, and nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Pryor’s conservative record has the usual suspects in a tizzy. People for the American Way just released a 43-page report condemning Pryor for, among other things, successfully advancing federalism before the Supreme Court — a state AG advancing federalism, imagine that! — and daring to speak “approvingly” of 5-4 decisions upholding federalist principles (Gasp!). Additional attacks are sure to follow in the next twenty-four hours, as liberal interest groups hope to lay the gruondwork for a strict party line vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
For updates of all-things-Pryor, check out Southern Appeal; past SA posts on Pryor are listed here. Also worth reading is Douglas Kmiec’s defense of Pryor in the WSJ, and Michael Greve’s NRO article from last week (see the section “Let Pryor Be Pryor”).
Just a Thought About Martha
The case has been made that Martha Stewart is being unfairly pursued and prosecuted (see, for instance, Alan Reynolds). But one of the complaints made is that it is because she is a woman. (Reynolds does not make this case, but assorted pundits throw it out on the taking-heads shows.) How about: The media, at least (I would not play with this theory as being the prosecution’s motivation), are no fans, because she’s making money off a conglomerate that, face it, is largely used by women, to do things that women traditionally, and largely, do. Sure, guys might use the magazine for this or that, and there are exceptions and all, but still, the generalization, I think, is still a reality. And, it might have something to do with the fact that not too many of Martha Stewart’s fellow elite Democrats are crying tears for her. (Some, actually, are downright hostile to their successful sister.) Anyway, I toyed with this idea a little last year here.)
Let’S Say Hillary Is Telling The Truth
From an e-mailer:
Over the past several days, print and TV pundits from the left and the right have been squaring off over HRC’s account of the Lewinsky scandal. The focus has invariably been on whether Hillary is telling the truth when she says that she didn’t know/believe that Bill had had “relations” with Monica until he sat her down and told her. But one thing has gone unmentioned. What if she IS telling the truth?
Wouldn’t that speak volumes about Hillary’s capacity for rational judgment? Isn’t a person’s inability to draw a rational conclusion in the face of mountains of historical evidence at least as probative of their fitness for higher office as their honesty?
I suspect people see Hillary as too smart to actually have fallen for Bill’s lies, and that’s part of the reason that they immediately seized on the implausibility of her story. But if she wants to confess that she was a monumental dupe, I’ll take her at her word and conclude that she lacks the skill and acumen necessary for leading this country.
Vrwc: Back@The Scene of The Crime
In the Katie interview the Today Show is rolling out this week in installments, when asked if she stands by her Vast-Right-Wing Conspiracy, HILLARY said, “I might have used a more artful term….” It’s not really a conspiracy, because they’re (we’re) not hidden, but there is a there there on the right.