Allllllllllllllll we are sayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying….is give peace a chance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! First, there is no need for an apology from Quin Hillyer to Jeff Lord. None. Conservatives are the ones who make a big deal about “character.” My friend Quin has it, has always had it, and I know it. (He can occasionally be a character too, but that’s another issue altogether!) But I confess I was baffled at first when seeing his missive, and after hearing from a number of people, more irritated than mad. I was inclined to just not respond, then, grudgingly I confess, I decided it had to be done. As someone who is always advising friends in the public eye on the importance, in the age of the eternal Internet, to respond to unfair accusations because the original charge can and will sit in cyberspace unanswered for eternity as we know it, I felt I should take my own advice. It’s my job — Quin’s job — to observe, investigate, report, opine. This is the very heart of the existence of The American Spectator , Bob Tyrrell’s great creation that will be celebrating its fiftieth anniversary a mere five years distant in 2017. What Quin and I are here to do, and in fact what the entire conservative movement is about — is to provide sharp, insightful, hopefully always clear conservative thought on the issues of the day. In the doing of this there is bound to be disagreement sharply expressed. Is Newt a conservative? I say yes, Quin says no. Bob Tyrrell himself is no Newt fan and has, in his typical and now famous style, said so. Is Christine O’Donnell the right choice in Delaware? I said yes, Quin passed out. I’m a fan of Rush, Sean and Mark and the work they do every day. I’m not a fan of Ron Paul on foreign policy. Hundreds and hundreds of Dr. Paul’s legions regularly disagree and tell me what an idiot I am. All of this is to the good. In other words, disagreement between and among conservatives is the coin of the realm here. While it understandably can get lost in dust-ups like the one Quin and I had, in fact it is a sign of intellectual vitality. If everyone agreed we could all sit at home eating, drinking and making merry knowing our only job is to pull the lever for Obama in November. Fat chance! This, to me at least, is an important thing to understand. In his wonderful Reagan book The Age of Reagan 1980-1989 , Steven F. Hayward writes this: In a manner that eludes many historians, political scientists, and reporters, the most successful presidencies tend to be those that have factional disagreements within their inner councils, whereas sycophantic administrations tend to get in the most trouble. Fractiousness in an administration is a sign of health: the Jefferson-Hamilton feud in Washington’s administration, the rivalry within Lincoln’s cabinet, and the odd combination of fervent New Dealers and conventional Democrats in FDR’s White House provided a dynamic tension that contributed to successful governance. Though the partisans of the distinct camps in the Reagan White House would be loath to admit it, their feuding probably contributed to better policy in many cases. An attempted Reaganite purge, of either the party or his own staff, might well have backfired and snuffed out the spontaneous slow-motion revolution within the party that was already under way, and which gained new momentum in the 1990′s under the spur of figures such as Newt Gingrich. Steve Hayward, I believe, has it right. And I for one believe this thought applies not just to presidencies but conservative magazines
[Posted by Karl] Today is the Florida primary, which most expect to be won by Mitt Romney. While we await those results this evening, it is worth reflecting on the other primary Romney essentially sews up today : the invisible primary. Yesterday , I referred to the GOP apparat — and some of the response was to have a little fun with the idea, or to express weariness with debates about the “GOP establishment.” Such responses are understandable. After all, the Republican Party is not a conspiracy. Moreover, post-1968 reforms took presidential nominations out of the hands of party bosses and into the hands of caucus and primary voters, right? At the very least, it placed the process more in the hands of candidates and their campaigns, yes? Some political scientists think it is more complex than that. For example, in The Party Decides , Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller argue the rise of the invisible primary still gives the party control of presidential nominations: The invisible primary is essentially a long-running national conversation among members of each party coalition about who can best unite the party and win the next presidential election. The conversation occurs in newspapers, on Sunday morning television talk shows, among activist friends over beer, in chatter at party events, and, most recently, in the blogosphere. *** *** Some voices obviously count for more than others in the invisible primary, but anyone can join in simply by paying attention, attending party gatherings, and chiming in. The weighting of voices is determined by the resources (money, labor, expertise, prestige) the speaker can bring to party business and by the cogency of the remarks offered. Politics enters as well: pressure to go along with one’s group, to get on the bandwagon of the likely winner, or to repay old obligations. But the main business of the invisible primary is figuring out who can best unify the party and win the fall election. Note the authors’ definition of the party extends beyond its elected officials and party functionaries, but extends to activists, fundraisers, interest groups, campaign technicians and others. As Jay Cost noted last summer, the invisible primary has become extremely important because the cost of campaigning has increased exponentially and frontloading has altered the nature of the nomination battle. Since the institution of the caucus/primary reforms, Jimmy Carter remains the only candidate to win his party’s nomination without winning the invisible primary, as typically measured by fundraising and endorsements — and that was largely because the parties had not recognized that someone could beat the system before 1976 and the system was not as frontloaded. Howard Dean attempted a similar feat in 2004 via the Internet, but failed. Barack Obama may have beaten the seemingly establishment Hillary Clinton in 2008, but he raised more money than her heading into the Iowa caucuses and his endorsements in early states were competitive with hers . The closest example in the GOP, John McCain, stumbled in the summer of 2007, but started and finished as the winner of the invisible primary (especially after accounting for Romney’s significantly self-funded 2008 campaign). This cycle, anyone following politics could see the efforts mounted to pull Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan and Chris Christie into the race. The names of those behind such efforts were not always public, but it was hardly a shadowy cabal, either. Tim Pawlenty’s early withdrawal from the race was a product of the invisible primary (donors lost confidence in him after the Iowa straw poll). Most commentary and coverage of Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann reflected the judgment of the invisible primary that these were not serious candidates. The invisible primary has never been more visible. Of course, opinion is far from unanimous on the theory that party elites play a decisive role in determining presidential nominations. Nate Silver is among the skeptics, helpfully noting that Romney may be preferred by GOP elites, that preference is rather tepid. Silver focuses primarily on the relative scarcity of endorsements overall, but that data is corroborated by reports that many big-name GOP donors did not commit to Mitt until Chris Christie was officially out. However, even if you are more partial to the view that the current rules emphasize candidates, their consultants and voters over the party per se , Jay Cost correctly notes the early caucus and primary states often favor moderates and attract large numbers of the poorly informed. Even if you do not think the party decides, the party does more or less set the calendar. You know who that benefits? –Karl
See the original post here:
The invisible primary
[Posted by Karl] Jazz Shaw notes that Andrew Sullivan and Dr. James Joyner are getting a bit overwrought over the possibility that Newt Gingrich might become the GOP presidential nominee. First, Sullivan: This now is the party of Palin and Gingrich, animated primarily by hatred of elites, angry at the new shape and color of America, befuddled by a suddenly more complicated world, and dedicated primarily to emotion rather than reason. That party is simply not one that can rally behind a Mitt Romney. Then Joyner: If Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination–a notion that seemed absurd to anyone not named Newt Gingrich two weeks ago–the trend will have reached its logical conclusion. And the GOP will be where the Democratic Party was during the period from 1968 to 1988, a niche party out of touch with America and unable to win the presidency in anything but the most exceptional circumstances. Obama-Gingrich would likely be a landslide akin to 1984 and 1988. Jazz does a nice job of explaining why the fight over the direction of a political party never really ends. However, what struck me was how superficial the complaints are in the first instance. Granted, Sullivan’s intellect has been decaying for a long time. Even so, one would think it might have occurred to him that his basic indictment of the GOP sounds pretty much like every Democratic hack’s indictment of the GOP in every election cycle since the Sixties. Perhaps Sullivan would argue that every Democratic hack has been correct about the GOP since the Sixties, but even that lazy assumption would be problematic. In the immediate term, it destroys his argument that the prominence of figures like Palin or Gingrich represent something new for the GOP. More broadly, the notion that the right has some monopoly on populist anger is absurd, given the portion of the newshole given over to the Occupy movement over the past several months. Similarly, the notion that liberals are immune from magical thinking is more magical thinking from Sullivan. Indeed, the notion that Andrew Sullivan, one of the most high-profile and hysterical conspiracy cranks on the Internet, has the gall to throw stones in this context is a laugher. Joyner, generally a more sane voice than Sullivan, unfortunately lapses into some flawed history. The Democrats were far from a niche party from 1968-88, having controlled the House of Representatives for that entire period, and the Senate for most of the period. Granted, the presidency is the big national office. However, even accepting that premise, I would again note that the GOP during this period was the subject of the same types of critiques being leveled today. The GOP’s populist streak arguably started with Nixon’s campaign against judicial activism and his reliance on the “silent majority,” which was historically much less silent than the typical academic would have us believe. And for all of that, the American people — as opposed to political activists — are not as polarized as Joyner fears . Moreover, it is quite unlikely that nominating Gingrich would result in a loss anywhere near the Dukakis loss in 1988, let alone the Mondale loss in 1984. Although campaigns and candidate certainly matter, post-WWII elections suggest that the incumbent party will generally lose when the economy is bad and win when it is good. The performances of the Dems in ’84 and ’88 are easily explained by economic factors. Currently, the economic climate does not favor Obama’s reelection . Accordingly, even if you think Gingrich would be a losing candidate, the odds of a blowout seem rather low. Of course, this could be the year in which the typical post-WWII model breaks. Given that the 2008 meltdown was in some ways the worst since the Great Depression, perhaps voters will be more forgiving of Obama’s failed economic policies. But once we start “This Time Is Different” arguments, they can be invoked on Newt’s behalf as well. The point here is not to praise Newt or bury him. Rather, it is to note that if he should somehow become the GOP nominee it would not signal certain disaster in the general election or mark a fundamental shift in the nature of the party. Indeed, it might say nothing more than Republican voters looking at the political environment of 2012 and deciding — rightly or wrongly — that “abrasive loose cannon” is a marginally better brand than “animatronic plutocrat.” –Karl
Continue reading here:
Newt Gingrich: The Party’s Over?
Filesonic stops infringing . I guess the site’s leadership didn’t want to go to jail like Ninjavideo , or get hit like Megaupload did. People put up with ad-laden, obnoxious ‘file sharing’ sites when they want to download something that can’t be distributed legally, by less annoying sites. Everyone knows this. It’s a good thing that Megaupload was taken down. That was a blow for property rights. But not all in the anti-SOPA coalition support property rights. They don’t want prudent copyright protection laws to fix the problem of foreign free riders, and want us to wink and nod at infringers. Look, even if we repealed the Sonny Bono act, or even the copyright act before that, we’d still have copyrights that needed protection. Europe regulates the Internet again. “Right to be forgotten?” I say Brussels has a right to take a long walk off a short pier. Chuck Grassley, convert to our side on SOPA , gets his Twitter account attacked. Hijacking someone’s communications accounts is to attack political discourse in an open society. I hope those responsible are prosecuted. Also, way to reward people for doing the right thing, not.
The rest is here:
Tech at Night: War on Copyright intensifies as infringers fall, Grassley hacked
You may have noticed that there were no posts here on Wednesday. What you may not have realized is that Wednesday was the day of a massive coordinated protest against SOPA : Wikipedia went dark for a day. Google hid its logo under a black shroud. And hundreds of other websites darkened their pages temporarily in a massive, coordinated protest against a pair of bills that would step up enforcement of copyrights and trademarks. Wednesday’s demonstration provoked such an intense backlash against the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act (better known as PIPA and SOPA) that by the end of the week, more than 100 lawmakers had declared their opposition and both bills had been placed on hold. So in fact, what seemed like sloth on the part of Blog Management here at Patterico.com was actually part of an Online Protest Against Big Government Attempts to Control Free Speech!! Well, OK. The truth is that I have been in trial and Karl was having Internet access issues. But you have my assurance that, if I had known that I could not post for a day and call it a “protest,” I would have. Hell, the Occupy Wall Street guys got away with doing nothing and calling it a protest for months ! In all seriousness, this SOPA and PIPA nonsense sounds like a terrible idea. I can’t tell you how often I see bogus claims of “piracy” used as an excuse to squelch speech — and now we want to give the government the power to shut down web sites when some doofus asserts a claim of piracy? The original versions of PIPA and SOPA would have enabled the Justice Department to seek court orders to seize the domain names of foreign sites that were either “dedicated to” infringing copyrights and trademarks or just facilitating infringement. Not a good idea at all. I may have to protest a few more days.
Excerpt from:
Patterico’s SOPA Protest
