The Corner

The one and only.

The Latest Tweets from Team NRO . . .

Ca Predictions


K-Lo asks for predictions. Here’s mine:

The CA recall is starting to have the same feeling as Jesse Ventura’s late surge in 1998 in Minnesota (which none of the last-minute polls picked up). Between a predicted high turnout, surging GOP voter registration in recent weeks, and all the closing energy of the Arnold bus tour, I think we might even see a blowout. So I’ll go out on a limb an predict recall gets 57%, Arnold 44%; Cruz 36%; McClintock 14%, with the rest going to the other 130 nut jobs.

Don Nickles


is not running for reelection. Link not found yet….


Sullivan’s Smear


Andrew Sullivan carved out a very interesting spot for himself on the cultural-political spectrum during the Lewinsky scandal. He was simultaneously anti-Clinton and anti-anti-Clinton. He, as much as anyone else, deserves credit (or in my opinion, blame) for the widespread notion that conservatives were anti-Clinton because they were prudes. His “The Scolds” article in the New York Times magazine, which I’ve criticized many times over the years, was a transmission belt for this meme. In it he declared among other things, “For the new conservatives the counterattack on homosexual legitimacy is of a piece with the battle against presidential adultery.”

What bothered me so much about Sullivan’s argument was that, while he believed Clinton should resign, he reserved for himself a monopoly on correct motives for that position. While other conservatives had bad motives deeply bound up in sex-panic. I’m sure it’s true that, as Ramesh Ponnuru and David Brooks have been arguing, many conservatives saw Clinton as a stand-in for the broader culture war. But couldn’t some of us have had less grandiose reasons for thinking Bill Clinton was a bad dude. Indeed, couldn’t even social conservatives have agreed with Sullivan on his reasons for wanting Clinton to resign?

Anyway, I bring all of this up because my friend is now bashing the right for not supporting Arnold Schwarzenegger enough (even though pretty much every Republican in the state of California, minus McClintock, has endorsed him as has President Bush and a host of national GOP luminaries). Arguing that Arnold represents a “cultural revolution” because he’s cool and saucy, Sullivan writes: “That Arnold should represent this and the Republican Party is threatening to all sorts of people: to the joyless, paranoid scolds who run the Dixie-fied GOP.”

Um, maybe that’s true. I don’t know. But can’t someone be less than enthusiastic about Arnold without a Freudian motivation? After all, I’m not terribly jubilant about the man, but after scouring my subconscious I can’t find prudishness as an explanation. Maybe Andrew could convince me otherwise if he could actually explain what makes Schwarzenegger a conservative. He’s pro-choice, pro-gun control, opposed to prop 54 and his wife is a liberal Kennedy (liberal wives are problems for even the most conservative politicians).

Rather than get into a lot of theorizing about the libidinal fears of social conservatives, maybe Andrew should have looked for a simpler explanation: the guy’s not that conservative and he will probably make a lousy governor, a point even Andrew concedes. Sure, this whole thing is fun and it would be a great joy to see Davis lose. But politics is supposed to be about more than fun and rooting for the “coolest” candidate.

Web Briefing: October 21, 2014

Gloria & Arnold



Sorry, No Hill Yet


Speaking of Instapundit, he has a link up to the FEC website where it appears my junior senator (that still gives me chills) is running for president. Not so. I have it on good authority that this hasn’t happened…yet. The entry Insta’s reader found was an ID created when a draft Hillary committee registered. Dig further and you’ll find records for a draft committee in 2000, too, I believe. So, while I’m still betting the day is coming (a matter of months), when Hillary jumps in, it hasn’t happened yet. (I checked it out yesterday, after a few Corner readers emailed me the same link the cyperpunditman has up.)

Tibet, Tibet


A few days ago I reviewed Patrick French’s new book Tibet, Tibet on NRO.
For a take on this book by an actual Tibetan, see Jamyang Norbu’s review on
the World Tibet Network here.

Move-On’s Latest Low Blow


Their commercial takes a quote about T3 and pretends its about real life.



Actually I was merely looking to highlight Patrick Kennedy’s idiocy. But if we’re going to talk about Dean, okay let’s talk. I think there’s a lot of merit to Instapundit’s analysis. But I think the situation’s more complicated than that. Dean isn’t nearly as pro-gun as many think. The fact is his state’s constitution is unequivocally friendly to gun rights, stating flat out that you can have any kind of gun any way you want it. Moreoever, Vermont’s coalitional politics, require any successful politician to peal off at least a few moderates and Old Vermonter types in order to win. And those folks would not truck with seeing their gun rights tampered with. However, Dean has said in the past that he would favor any gun control measure if it could be proven to him that it would save lives. This is an easy dodge in Vermont which has remarkably low-gun crime. But if Dean were president, it’s not at all clear he wouldn’t be persuaded that federal gun controls would save lives in California, Illinois, Michigan etc.

I agree entirely with Instapundit that being pro-gun, or even gun-neutral, would help a Democrat more than it hurt in a general election. But I’m not sure being anti-gun control is as harmless for Dean in the primaries as Instapundit thinks. And surely it doesn’t cost Patrick Kennedy (or Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards etc) to hammer him on it.

Re: Re: La Times


When John Carroll sent that internal memo saying he wasn’t going to tolerate liberal bias at the Times. I thought at the time that either (a) he would face a newsroom revolt and be deposed; or (b) the memo needed a laugh track. It’s time for (b).

Re: La Times


Yes, Derb. Here’s the scoop, on news coverage of abortion, specifically: I think The Corner was the first to report it, via Rod.

La Times


The behavior of the L.A. Times in this recall election has been absolutely
disgraceful. But now hold on there a minute: Wasn’t this the paper from
which we heard a few months ago that a senior editor had circulated a letter
to the staff insisting on more objectivity in news coverage? Am I
remembering this right?

Also Today in California...


The recall is not the only exciting thing happening in California. Today I am
in San Francisco to argue another medical cannabis case before the 9th Circuit
Tuesday morning. This one is Raich v. Ashcroft and you can read
about it here. Three weeks ago (the
day the petition for en banc review of the recall decision was due in the 9th
Circuit), I argued the case of href=””>U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers
. The issue in both cases is whether the enforcement of
the Controlled Substance Act–as applied to these parties–exceeds the powers
of Congress under the Commerce Clause, improperly interferes with the
traditional police power of the State of California to protect the health and
safety of its citizens (thereby violating the Necessary and Proper Clause),
and improperly infringes the fundamental rights of seriously ill people to
alleviate their pain and suffering and preserve their lives without any
compelling justification. While this case was made possible by the Rehnquist
Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence (e.g. U.S. v. Lopez and
U.S. v. Morrison) and its willingness to protect state sovereignty
from federal encroachment, it illustrates how the state experimentation
protected by federalism is not just for one particular ideology.

Thinking About An Election Day to Come


Who Loves Gray?




Field Poll estimates 65 percent turnout today.

Well, Let’s Hope So!


From the same Times Gitmo piece: “There are also tantalizing clues that the military knows much more about at least some of the suspects than it is letting on.”

Translation Problems


From NYTimes:

American interpreters at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who are under suspicion of espionage may have sabotaged interviews with detainees by inaccurately translating interrogators’ questions and prisoners’ answers, senior American officials said on Monday.

It is unclear in how many cases, if any, this may have happened, the officials said. But military investigators are taking the issue seriously enough to review taped interrogations involving the Arabic-language interpreters under scrutiny to spot-check their accuracy.

If the investigators’ worst fears are realized, officials said, scores of interviews with suspected Qaeda or Taliban prisoners at the Cuban detention center could be compromised, and military officials could be forced to reinterview many of the camp’s 680 detainees.

Life and a Matter of Speaking


A reader writes:

Okay, you did it. I hope I am the one that puts you over the top with my NRD
subscription so the suits leave you alone. I’m tired.
Tired of the guilt of free Corner snooping.

Tired of the voice that keeps telling me “What’s twenty bucks for a year?
You waste more than that in one week smoking stuff that’ll kill you. Die

LIVE informed. Get NRODT. Get NR Digital. Don’t miss out on the magazine WFB founded in 1955. It’s not all pixels, you know.

Building Suspense


“It may be 24 days before we know,” says Tim Russert. Concedes it won’t be as exciting if it’s not close, of course. All depends on turnout. Yada yada.



Jonah, someone thinks you miss the point on that Kennedy thing.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review