The Occasional Observer

No, not THAT one. I'm talking about Robert Novak, who picked up the nickname somewhere along the way for a personality that some have described as reserved or even aloof.

Well, Mr. Novak has penned a book under the title of his nickname, and I for one, can't wait to read it. This is a guy who knows the real behind-the-scenes story of what our political class has been doing for the last 40 years.

And if this review from Thomas Sowell proves right, it will be required reading for a long time to come. Can't wait to pick up my copy.

HT: RCP

Still leading in Iowa, and now he's "depressing" Obama supporters in NH b/c of the large crowds he's pulling into his events. Is the fancy man back? Everyone figured he was on the scrap heap after getting buried by Hill and O in Q2 fundraising. Now it looks like he's re-coiffed and gaining momentum yet again.

Chief Justice Roberts, my family's prayers and those, I'm sure, of many, many Americans are with you tonight. Best wishes for a speedy recovery!

See Ya!

Now having unsuccesfully attempted to begin two law school insurrections, first at Detroit Mercy and then AMSoL, I have to wonder how the job market is going to treat him. Despite his ample list of admirers and friends, any law school administrator is going to have to think long and hard about hiring the man. Sure, he says all the right things at first, such as when he's trying to coax a billionaire into funding a new school, hire him, and grant him tenure without an actual tenure process. But how long will it be before he's protesting and biting the hand that feeds him? Any potential employer is going to have to wonder. After all, it can't be written off as a one time thing anymore. Now it's a track record.

Former congressman Martin Frost says McCain's wilting and Fred's not a serious threat at this point (a fact underscored by his anemic fundraising, depite all the buzz).

Rep. Frost says it's Mitt and Rudy coming down the stretch for the GOP nomination, and either way, the pundit class got it wrong.

If Frost gets it right, and it comes down these two, Mitt is in a very strong position. He can unite the social, fiscal, and national defense wings of the party, whereas Rudy cannot. If none of the other candidates (Fred/Huckabee/Brownback/Tancredo/Hunter) generate some real momentum--and fast--Mitt might be in the driver seat.

This is a big get for Mitt. Wendy's bona fides as an advocate for a conservative judiciary are unassailable. And she chose Mitt after giving Fred a long, hard look. Her reasoning? Mitt has a commitment to a conservative judiciary, and the most executive competence (which creates the highest likelihood of success in transforming the judiciary and government in general).

Hat tip: AmSpec: Jennifer Rubin

with a little mustard.

Mmmmm.

While I don't have time to break it down yet, this OpEd is really meaningful for the prospects of victory (yes, victory) in Iraq. And from the NY Times of all places.

Well, Gingrich has managed to put even more clouds on this already heavily rainy day by predicting what we have all discussed for a while here and feared: the dreaded Clinton-Obama ticket. All I can say is, if the Democrats can't win with a Clinton-Obama ticket, they might as well cease existing as a party.

I practically salivate at the idea of a Gore-Edwards ticket instead. This way there's a chance only half of my salary will go to taxes, instead of 2/3.

When the fancy man is leading the nominal GOP frontrunner by 7 points and the "savior" by 11, well... you can draw your own conclusions. And this ain't no CNN poll, either--this is from Rasmussen, so you know it's accurate.

For all those tired of the AMSoL negativity at some websites, feel free to check out Incense where they are accentuating the positive.

Fredo, care to link Incense in the sidebar?

Or at least, so the candidate himself seems to think.

It's gotta be the sweaters.

Mitt took two excellent positions recently. In both cases he continued to distance himself from Bush, in a manner that I believe is essential for any Republican to have a prayer of winning in '08. First, he strengthened his previous statements that while the invasion of Iraq was a success, the post-war planning has been mismanaged and unacceptable. Second, he took a stronger stand on illegals:

"I ... don't think it makes sense to have an immigration policy that says that if an illegal couple—a couple that comes across the border illegally—has a child here, that child becomes a U.S. citizen, that then the whole family gets to come in, if you will, through 'chain migration,'"

For those who read EyeOn08, you know what you're getting: a steady diet of Romney-bashing. That said, when Soren ("Eye") gets off his agenda for a few minutes, he can be an extremely insightful blogger. His back and forth with Patrick Ruffini was some of the most interesting stuff from this cycle.

And today he's made a point which really hits home, offering one theory for FDT's meteroic rise. Why is it that this candidate--one who has many limitations, from his background to his ideology--is becoming the "conservative" counterpoint to Rudy (sucking up oxygen from McCain, Romney, and the 2nd tier candidates) in the GOP primary?

The short answer: "a Thompson candidacy is getting its support from conservative groups partly to maintain some level of control over the party apparatus."

His reasoning begins with the following premise: if Rudy wins the nomination,

...out of necessity [the GOP] would need to recruit a whole new set of volunteers. As I pointed out last week, pro-lifers form a significant portion of the GOP activist base. Those people will not volunteer for Rudy. Many of those activists won’t even vote for him. Let’s assume, for a second, that the GOP and the Giuliani campaign would be able to recruit a new activist base. This would shatter the grip that social conservative activists have on the grassroots of the party. [Soren's emphasis]

Change is painful. People in control don't like to be bumped out. At the grass roots level, party insiders who have the job of building and running the GOTV apparatus are afraid of how (if?) they will be able to perform with Rudy at the top of the ticket. That doesn't mean Rudy can't win, just that the party will look a lot different if he does. There are pockets of entrenched power within the GOP (and, more than that, party leadership) that will want to prevent Rudy from becoming a change agent.

Soren's description of Fred's rise is, as a result, the most accurate I've seen (in as much as it explains the discrepancy between how FDT is treated, despite his obvious shortcomings, and the way other candidates' shortcomings are treated):

Fred Thompson is increasingly appearing to be the candidate of social conservatives. (if that proposition had been offered in 2000, it would have been laughable) Perhaps more precisely, he is becoming a part of the candidate of the existing coalition, which is "with but not of" the social conservative movement. [my emphasis]

This explains why so many insiders (and their blogosphere surrogates like FredState) are for Fred, and why many Social Conservatives (like me) are bewildered at how this man is becoming the standardbearer for other SoCons, what with the mulitple marriages, mixed bag in his track record on life issues (complete with a lot more equivocation than Mitt in terms of the fact that his position has changed), undistinguished legislative career, preference for TV over governing, and so on.

I would also love to get the skinny if Soren was hearing grumblings or was just putting together puzzle pieces in his mind.

UPDATE:

In the comments, Beasty added this phenomenal link

Overall:

1. Mitt (best combination of pro-life, executive competence, electability)

2. Huck (trust solidly on social issues; life story consistent with his values; fair tax proponent; effective, likable campaigner)

3. Tank (from taxes, to trade, to immigration, to social issues, no one is more solid in their ideology; too bad so many think he's a nut with crazy eyes)

4. Brownback (trust completely on social issues, AWOL on immigration)

5. Rudy (best track record as an elected official in the field; however, pro-choice Republican impossible to support; anyone else not want to double down on Bush-doctrine foreign policy?)

6. Fred (seems to have his heart in the right place, but who knows, since he's not actually campaigning. Come back to me after he announces and actually has a platform. He still won't have a resume.)

7. Hunter (See my comments on Rudy re: Bush Doctrine; Dunc is great on life issues, trade issues, and inspires confidence that he could handle the crisis scenario)

8. McCain (2000 should've been his time)

9. Tommy (drop out now please before you make yourself look any worse)

10. Paul (glad someone is out there stirring the pot on foreign policy; tired of his "defender of the Constitution" mantra, like all the other candidates are waiting to enforce martial law)


Ideology:

1. Tom Tancredo
2. Mike Huckabee
3. Sam Brownback
4. Mitt Romney
5. Fred Thompson
6. Duncan Hunter
7. Tommy Thompson
8. Ron Paul
9. John McCain
10. Rudy Giuliani

Executive Competence/Temperament:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Rudy Giuliani
3. Tommy Thompson (w/ heavy deference to track record)
4. Mike Huckabee
5. John McCain
6. Duncan Hunter
7. Tom Tancredo
8. Sam Brownback
9. Fred Thompson
10. Ron Paul

Electability:

1. Rudy Giuliani
2. Fred Thompson
3. Mitt Romney
4. John McCain
5. Mike Huckabee
6. Sam Brownback
7. Duncan Hunter
8. Tom Tancredo
9. Tommy Thompson
10. Ron Paul

All rankings based on the FRGI (Fredo Round Gut Index), with apologies to Dick Vitale

It sounds like they have a real calamity on their hands.

No he di'int...

Yes he did. Newt just started unloading against anyone who happened to show up on his radar screen this morning. Fred Thompson. John McCain. Chris Matthews. Al Gore. Bob freakin' Novak.

Liked this quote. He managed to combine an "I'm better than these peons" arrogant vibe with a substantive shot at McCain:

"I have no interest in the current political process. I have no interest in trying to figure out how I can go out and raise money under John McCain's insane censorship rules so I can show up to do seven minutes and twenty seconds at some debate." Still, he said he might enter the race before the deadlines to "start filing petitions."

Anyone get the feeling Newt's made the conscious determination that people are sick of triangulating politicans and are hungry for a little old school mud wrestling? At least Newt won't spark a whole series of "does he have the fire in the belly" questions a la Fred. Maybe this will remind everyone of the Newt they loved (or loved to hate) about a decade ago.

Hey, even if he doesn't win, this kind of stuff will only make the Race 4 '08 a heckuva lot more fun.

SHK: You said you wanted to see a Republican who was going to go plum crazy and attack the WH and all the lameness that GOP leadership has exhibited for the past few years? (OK, maybe you didn't put it quite like that)

Guess Newt's been paying attention to you.

And are outraising the GOP by $100 Mil at this point in the cycle (hat tip: Drudge). If you weren't panicking already, you should be now.

Oh. And one more thing. We're also out of coffee.

For most people, Rush is a polarizing figure. Love him or hate him. I've always enjoyed his radio program, but never thought of him as a guru or a leader. Rather, he's always impressed me as being entertaining. And of taking other people's ideas and making them accessible to the audience--and fun.

That's why I've never understood the constant carping of liberals who bemoan not having a talk radio alternative to Rush. Well, someone a lot more intelligent and widely read than I am--Byron York--has apprarently come to the same conclusion, and written a piece in the N.R. that reminded me again of Rush's talent. Byron's starting point was Rush's opinion on Dem threats to bring back the "fairness doctrine":

“The real practical effect of the Fairness Doctrine was to shut down all controversial programming, because management would not deal with complaints,” Limbaugh told me. “So when you did listen to talk shows on the radio, they were dull and boring and horrible.”

Of course, Limbaugh did occasionally have his troubles with the Doctrine and sometimes found himself forced to share the air with community leaders who objected to something he had said. That made him unhappy, but not because he was opposed to differing viewpoints. It was because he was opposed to bad radio. “The problem with that is that radio is a business,” he explained. “You bring in people who are not broadcast professionals and give them unchallenged time…You try to make it as stimulating as possible, but…” Well, it wasn’t very stimulating.

You could almost hear Limbaugh’s teeth grinding as he discussed putting on a program that was “dull and boring and horrible.” He just can’t do it. And that is why Rush is Rush. He is deeply, deeply offended by the prospect of boring his listeners. And he has worked for years to develop his rather remarkable talent of keeping them interested for three hours a day, five days a week — all by himself.

The bottom line isn’t really about politics. It’s about radio. If Limbaugh were a liberal, we’d probably be talking about why liberals dominate talk radio. So you can talk about ownership and diversity all you want. But the bottom line is that Limbaugh simply knows radio, and what works on radio, better than anyone else in the world. That’s why he wins.

The tax man. He takes my earnings when I collect my pay. When I buy gasoline. When I turn a profit on my investments. Even when I die.

But now, he wants to implement a 20,000% (yes, you're reading that right) increase on each cigar I buy?

This means war.

Interesting poll out today, suggesting Iranians (the populace, not the government) really do want democracy, a new gov't, and abandonment of nukes if they could get economic aid.

If this is true, it suggests that the best approach to Iran might be to have the CIA fund insurgent groups inside Iran, try to rock the boat and overthrow the government from the inside. Force the people to have a vested interest in the game, that's the only way. Otherwise, you have the Iraq situation now where there is not enough commitment and buy-in from the residents themselves.

On the one hand, I'm suspicious as to whether the above poll is true, b/c this is the same party line I've heard for years, yet the people of Iran never seem to want it enough to rise up and overthrow the government. (I'd also heard that the people of Iraq were well-educated, civil, and would quickly embrace democracy, so there's that too.) On the other hand, the poll was run by joint group of Repubs and Dems and seems legit.

Huckabee's got a new campaign site up. His Q2 fundraising numbers were weak, despite the fact that many regarded him as the winner of the first set of debates. He always seems extremely comfortable in his own skin and fast on his feet, and gives me hope that he'd have the ear and the communication skills to effectively handle the media and stay a step ahead of the political opposition.

But since we've been on the topic of Iraq today, I thought I'd share his bullet points on the War on Terror, which are about as close to my thoughts as I've seen from a candidate. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing for the governor, but here are the bullets that I thought were especially worthwhile:

...The top priority of the President as Commander in Chief is first and foremost protecting our own citizens.

With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone...

...As President, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might.

The terrorists train in small, scattered groups. We can accomplish a great deal with swift, surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units...

...We don't have a dog in the fight between Sunnis and Shiites - our enemy is Islamic extremism in all its guises.

The long-term solution is to empower moderates in the region by attacking the underlying conditions that breed terror.

Part of winning the war on terror is achieving energy independence.

I believe in the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force to accomplish a mission.

I have the executive and crisis management experience, the judgment and the temperament to be an effective commander in chief.

I will expand the army and increase the defense budget.

for Catholic voters. He has issued a pamplet entitled "Catholics in the Public Square" that un-muddies the waters surrounding our political discourse. Despite the (small "t") tradition of certain Catholic politicans who take the illogical and inconsistent "personally opposed, publicly supportive" line on abortion (Cuomo, Teddy K., Dick Durbin, Rudy), Bishop Olmstead clearly delineates the issues that should be "deal-breakers" for Catholic voters:

Olmsted's booklet lists three principles as not negotiable for Catholic voters "because they involve matters that are intrinsically evil." Those principles are the protection of life from conception until natural death; the recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage; and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.

"People of faith have every right to bring their beliefs into the public square just like anyone else," the booklet states.

Clarity. Thank you Bishop Olmstead.

Hat tip: Amy Welborn

Is it somekind of omen? One must wonder. First, Katrina. Now, this.

Out of Iraq --> Into Iran!

Just when the Bush administration seemed likely to ride off into the sunset, and leave a massive and unfinished undertaking in Iraq to its successor, apparently they're not done on the foreign policy front. The Bush doctrine, long scuttled operationally if not rhetorically, is apparently making a comeback in the oval office, if this story is correct.

Here is the upshot:

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

I'm sure the Weekly Standard is doing cartwheels, but there comes a time when one has to wonder, has anyone been paying attention around here? Or in the parlance of my boys in the Orange and Blue, "Can't anyone here play this game?"

Oh, sure, I can conceive of certain situations in which a military strike might make sense. But not until those running DoD have shown the American people that they understand that nation building in the middle east is a futile undertaking (at least with the limitations that are inherent for the U.S., with our all-volunteer military and political environment). With that framework in place, one could argue in favor of a strike meant to destroy Iranian terror-making capacity, without any grandiose dreams of making Iran an ally. Of course, with arguably little progress in Iraq and no recognition that we've been walking the same dead-end road for 5 years, I have a hard time giving this administration the green light to begin a new military excursion. They simply haven't earned the trust (on judges, yes; on nation building, no).

Even if the proper framework were in place for an attack on Iran, I would view it skeptically. There are far too many pitfalls diplomatically, and the threat posed by Iran would have to be catastropic and immediate to justify the downside. For those who scoff at the diplomatic downside, I too once thought the same way. But the Iraq venture has proven that the diplomatic shock waves caused by unilateral regime change are real and consequential. The effects go further than the mere "squawk box" on the East side of Manhattan.

For one, real relationships become strained. Close friends become less likely to back you (Germany/Italy/Spain/Britain). Marginal/neutral powers who sought to foster good (or at least calm) relations, become increasingly aggressive and confrontational, as they perceive us as meddling in their sphere of interest and presenting a real threat to their national interest (Russia).

Then we come the third world. In the Cold War, poorer nations were important only symbolically (at least in the geopolitical sense), as the US and USSR argued about the inevitability of Communist revolutions. But in the age of terror (where a man and a plan and a little government-sanctioned space can do serious damage) such nations are important in and of themselves. And the "summits" we have seen are troubling, where anti-US leaders have started to band together to create a Lilliputian counterweight to protect themselves from US interference (Cuba/Venezuela/Iran).

Finally, unified international action becomes increasingly difficult in such a fractured diplomatic environment, even against known rogue states (North Korea).

In short, an aggressive, military-first solution to the terror problem is changing the way world thinks of America. Instead of the city on a hill, that far-off land where the streets are paved with gold and freedom is cherished, I fear we are becoming viewed as the bully willing to hit the little guy with a billy club at the first provocation. We are becoming the interventionist European state of yore that the founding fathers specifically warned us not to become.

At this point, unless the President has intel that Iran is firing up the rockets or shipping the warhead to AQ, I hope he has the common sense to stand down until 2009. The next administration may have the judgment, competence, and political capital at home, that if military intervention becomes necessary in Iran, it can be successfully executed.

Well, I must say this really warms my heart. Nothing I love better than seeing CNN and Michael Moore go head-to-head. It's a win-win, and further proves what an extremist Moore is. He's so far left wing that even the Clinton News Network isn't liberal enough an MSM outlet for him, and he has to pick a fight with them. Well played...

[See below for update #2]

I certainly expected some bumps along the ride, but it's really starting early. As someone who has been looking forward to the return of the 1962 Missal, I was really deflated by what I heard this morning.

I'm beginning to sense the motu propio will be ignored by some pastors in my diocese. During this morning's homily at St. James in Seaford, the pastor stated point blank that the motu proprio does not mean that the parishoners in his parish will have any right to request or expect a traditional mass as part of the regular schedule. This is because, he says, the diocese has instructed its pastors (via email, apparently) that parishoners will only have the right to request regular traditional masses in communities where it has been continuously "adhered to all these many years" since the Novus Ordo was implemented. How this makes sense eludes me.

The translation of the Motu Propio that I read was that pastors should "willingly accede" to the requests of their parishoners for a traditional mass "in parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably." The way I understand that, the document does not only offer the right to request traditional masses to those parishes where the liturgy has existed stably (how could it when it was basically forbidden?), but rather to parishes in which parishoners who are attached to the old liturgy have existed stably. The word "attachment" is not defined, but I would assume that the attachment, be it of asthetic, nostaglic, or theological reasons, would be internal to the parishoner, and not one of external/communal practice, since such practice has been basically impossible.

The pastor did instruct us that there was a church about 10 miles away, and another about 40 miles away, that currently (and licitly) offer mass according to the 1962 Missal.

Of course, it's early yet, so hopefully all this will be worked out by the time the motu propio is actually implemented in September. And perhaps I'm the one at fault here for not willingly submitting to the judgment of the pastor, even though it seems (to my imperfect reason and faith) to be at odds with the Holy Father's statements.

UPDATE #1:

The US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has released a FAQ regarding the Motu Propio. Question 5 deals with the issue above. Their interpretation is concise:

5. When may the extraordinary form be used in parishes?
In parishes where a group of the faithful are attached to the extraordinary form of the Mass, they may approach the pastor, who is to support their petition willingly. No permissions are required.

Not extraordinarily helpful, as they also punt on defining "attached."

UPDATE #2:

The priest at my parish in Hicksville confirmed for me today that the Bishop has made a determination that, "for now," the only traditional masses that will be offered will be the two already offered. He has instructed the pastors that any parishoners who request the Mass of Blessed John XXIII should be instructed that the mass is already available in Uniondale or Cutchogue.

Also, in the comments, William of Nassau made an important observation that we should not lose sight of the real blessing that already exists in those two churches offering the traditional mass. And that a hopeful, even-tempered dialogue with pastors will be an important part of implementing the M.P.

Firefighters really coming out swinging against Rudy now.. If other candidates get a hold of this video and help distribute it, that could be a big blow to Rudy.

on the war in Iraq. It makes you wonder what the Bush Presidency might have looked like if he had abided by his campaign pledge to avoid nation building. Or listened to his Secretary of State and avoided the snake pit in Mesopotamia. Or, having decided to mix it up with the snakes, had he listened to his Secretary of State about going in with overwhelming force.

I know the President did what he felt he had to do, but what might his Presidency have looked like had he cleaned up Afghanistan, diplomtically isolated Iraq, and focused his ample political capital (as he described it post re-election) on reforming entitlement programs, pressing for school choice, getting his tax cuts made permanent, confirming more judges (where are the nominees, Mr. President?), etc. Just makes you think is all.

The Turks probably just want to seal their border, but still...

The Motu Propio promulgated by our Holy Father Benedict XVI has arrived! For those who haven't been following it, this document allows priests to offer the traditional Tridentine Latin Mass under the 1962 Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII, subject to certain requirements.

An unofficial English translation of the Latin can be found here. Here is, to me, the crux of it for the laity that wishes to attend a Latin Mass:

Art. 5.1. In parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably, let the pastor willingly accede to their requests for the celebration of the holy Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962. Let him see to it that the good of these faithful be harmoniously reconciled with ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop according to Canon 392, avoiding discord and fostering the unity of the whole church.

5.2. Celebration according to the missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays, while on Sundays and on feast days there may be one such celebration.

5.3. Let the pastor permit celebrations in this extraordinary form for faithful or priests who request it, even in particular circumstances such as weddings, funerals or occasional celebrations, for example pilgrimages.

The upshot (as I'm understanding it): if a group of parishoners requests a Tridentine Latin Mass, the Pastor should accomodate them. If individuals request the traditional Latin celebrations of marriage/baptism/funerals, the Pastor should accomodate them.

If this report is true, then it paints a contrasting picture of Rumsfeld to what his critics claimed. Hardly a reckless cowboy, it shows that he was willing to abort a mission for extremely high-value targets to prevent damaging relationships with another country. I still think that while he was an amazing Secretary of Defense for invasions or war time he was not the right person to lead reconstruction / nation-building (although then again, who is?) That said, this does show more insight into his decision-making process than MSM ever showed.

And some information is already coming to light.

But first, greetings on this First Friday of July (another link here).

Happy 4th, all. God bless you and yours, and God bless the United States.

Here's a 4th of July link to a column by Peggy Noonan, with some great thoughts about how we become Americans.

So Rudy takes the prize for Q2. Mitt comes in second. McCain is lagging and slashing his staff around the country.

But the real news is not the GOP side, but the huge leads in cash that both Hillary and Obama are running up on the Republican field.

Fundraising being fundraising, people don't like giving money to candidates that they perceive as unlikely to win, which is why these early leads can easily snowball into insurmountable leads later.