Commentary Magazine


Posts For: September 12, 2011

Perry Loses Debate But Not the Nomination

Rick Perry complained last week that he was the piñata of Republican candidates. That was just as true at the Tampa Tea Party debate as it was at the Reagan Library. But his problem is not that his opponents were quick to pile on at the smallest indication of weakness on his part. It was that his weak showing came at a time when a confident performance might have solidified a stranglehold on the nomination.

Both Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann came out swinging at the frontrunner, and both rained blows on him on a variety of issues. In contrast to Perry’s vague pronouncements about his achievements in Texas, Romney came across as articulate and prepared while Bachmann was passionate and ready to fire up the Tea Party and conservative Christian base. Both may get a boost in the polls. But Perry’s basic strengths and their weaknesses are unchanged.

Read More

Perry Better Get Better

I don’t think Rick Perry lost the debate tonight, though he took obvious hits that might do him some harm on immigration and his handling of the Gardasil vaccine in Texas. He got off a bunch of good quick lines and jabs in the first half hour, though as was true in the last debate, he seemed to flag after the one-hour point and could barely compose a sentence without looking as though he might pass out from exhaustion. When pummeled by Michele Bachmann on Gardasil and the fact that he took a campaign contribution from Merck, he professed he was “offended” at the suggestion he would sell out for a $5,000 donation—apparently not understanding the implication that there was a price at which he might well sell out.

The main problem here, though, is that he seems to think he can wing these debates by referring to what he did in Texas here and what he did in Texas there. That is insufficient not just when it comes to giving voters a chance to judge him by the policy choices he might make; it’s insufficient because it suggests he thinks he can get away without getting specific and demonstrating a command of national and international issues.

Read More

Live Blog: The GOP Debate

The evening began with questions about Rick Perry’s ability to fend off attacks on his frontrunner status. Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann both had strong performances as did Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. But it’s still not clear whether Perry’s faltering debating style will hurt him in the polls or give a boost to either Romney or Bachmann.

***

The debate is over with a silly question about additions to the White House.

***

Perry tries to have it both ways on Afghanistan. Says he’s for bringing the boys home while keeping a presence. This was an opportunity for him to demonstrate a strong command of foreign policy issues. Instead, a weak response. This is not his night.

***

Isolationist Huntsman is asked by an Afghan immigrant what he would do to help Afghan women from the Taliban. His answer: you’re on your own. Disgraceful.

Read More

Will Perry Be the Piñata Again?

Tonight’s CNN/Tea Party Express debate in Tampa will afford the rest of the Republican field another chance to gang up on frontrunner Rick Perry. In the aftermath of his debut at the Reagan Library, the Texas governor has been taking heat about his stand on Social Security. So it’s expected that his closest rival Mitt Romney will be hammering him on that issue and that others, such as Michele Bachmann will join in the fun.

Tonight’s gathering might afford Bachmann an opportunity to make up some ground on Perry who has largely stole her thunder among the Tea Partiers who make up her base. But if she fails to gain ground or become the center of attention as she was in earlier debates, Bachmann, who has slipped badly in the polls since Perry’s entry, may be finished.

Most of all, the proceedings will give the public another good long look at Perry. Will he attack again as he did last week? Will he stumble or make a gaffe that will give Romney or the others an opening? Or will he solidify his impressive lead in the polls. We’re about to find out.

Rumsfeld Decides to “Go Timesless”

The news that Donald Rumsfeld canceled his subscription to the New York Times over Paul Krugman’s rancid, paranoid attack on America’s response to 9/11 prompted some gasps of surprise Rumsfeld even had a subscription.

His chief of staff, Keith Urbahn, explained to the Daily Caller: “Mr. Rumsfeld canceled his personal subscription to the New York Times years ago. We still had a subscription for our office, but after reading Paul Krugman, he decided to cancel it. We may not be getting the New York Times anymore, but I doubt we’ll be missing much.” It reminded me of the great Jay Nordlinger column from 2007 about people who stopped reading the Times:

Read More

Perry Trumps Romney With Jindal

On a day when, as Alana wrote earlier, Mitt Romney got a mild boost from the endorsement of former rival Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry still emerged the victor. Endorsements don’t decide presidential races anymore, but the minimal aid Pawlenty will bring to Romney is more than matched by the decision of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to back Perry. As a sitting governor with something of a national following which, unlike the positive buzz about Pawlenty, wasn’t destroyed by a spectacularly unsuccessful presidential bid, Jindal might actually help his colleague from Texas.

Pawlenty’s limited appeal (amply demonstrated during his lackluster campaign) makes his endorsement less valuable, but it is doubtful he will do anything other than to remind voters of the awful moment during the New Hampshire debate in June when the Minnesotan lacked the guts to confront Romney face to face with his scathing criticism of his Obamneycare health legislation. Given that Pawlenty’s stands on the issues appeared to be closer to those of Perry, it’s not clear what really motivated the former Minnesota governor to support Romney.

Read More

Live Blogging the GOP Debate Tonight

Join us tonight as senior online editor Jonathan S. Tobin live blogs the Republican presidential debate from Tampa, Florida. So tune in to CNN at 8 pm and then log on to Commentarymagazine.com for live insights as the GOP contenders have at it once again.

Then and Now: Obama Officials React to Enron, Solyndra

At the National Review, Rich Lowry makes the connection between the Bush/Enron and Obama/Solyndra controversies. He also notes the difference in the media coverage of the two stories (guess which one was hyped more?):

President Bush was flayed for the Enron bankruptcy, based on his tenuous ties to the firm. If the same media rules applied, Solyndra would be Obama’s Enron, given his active promotion of the company and his lavish funding of it. A prodigious Obama-Biden fundraiser is a major backer of the failed concern.

Read More

Hypocrisy Alert: Bachmann to Attack Perry on Social Security

According to Byron York, Michele Bachmann is planning on attacking Rick Perry on Social Security at tonight’s CNN/Tea Party Express debate in Florida. Bachmann’s campaign has fizzled in recent weeks, and her placid approach at last week’s debate seemed to seal her fate as an also-ran, so it would be a surprise if the feisty Minnesota congresswoman didn’t come out fighting. But if she thinks she will gain ground against Perry among the Tea Party constituency he has stolen out from under her by playing the liberal Democrat, she’s lost touch with reality.

As Chris Moody writes, in an interview last year, Bachmann called Social Security a “tremendous fraud” and said anyone who ran anything like it would be “thrown in jail.” She also said young workers should be weaned off it. Any attack on Perry for saying essentially the same thing ought to earn the Tea Party heroine a gold medal for hypocrisy. Social Security may be Perry’s Achilles’ heal, but it’s hard to see how a candidate such as Bachmann, who has spent her entire career calling for entitlement reform, is any position to take advantage of that weakness.

Read More

Big Labor Clashes With Green Groups

The disappointments just keep coming for Al Gore. Last week, Obama angered environmentalist groups by scrapping the administration’s proposed EPA clean air regulations. And now the St. Louis chapter of the AFL-CIO has also come out against the environmental regulations, which it says will have a detrimental impact on Missouri jobs:

Today, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) announced the formation of a new coalition, “Energy for Missouri Jobs,” that will promote policies that ensure Missouri’s ability to access affordable, reliable power through coal. Energy for Missouri Jobs supports reasonable environmental regulation that continues the pursuit of cleaner air while balancing economic priorities. …

Read More

George Packer’s Existential Crisis

What do you do if you’re a passionate, committed follower of a political figure–Barack Obama–who has become, by almost every objective metric, a failure? If you’re George Packer, you revert to your middle school years and call the president’s critics names.

The most recent exhibit of this can be found in  Packer’s semi-regular thoughts posted at The New Yorker, where Packer writes this:

Read More

We Need Troops in Iraq

I am not the only one alarmed by the apparent White House decision to keep only 3,000 or so troops in Iraq. I have an editorial in the new Weekly Standard pointing out such a low troop figure has not been dictated by the Iraqis—it is a unilateral move on the part of the administration, which seems to suggest (wrongly) we have little stake in Iraq’s future. That point is reinforced in powerful op-eds by Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution and Meghan O’Sullivan of Harvard (a former Bush White House staffer on Iraq).

O’Sullivan points out in the Washington Post  all the reasons why we need a continuing troop presence to solidify the gains made since 2007. Pollack argues in the Wall Street Journal  that 3,000 troops might not even be able to protect themselves adequately.

Read More

Obama Itching for Fight With Congress

Word is Obama’s bill may not make it to Congress until at least 5 p.m. tonight. But he still gave a shorter version of his jobs speech from last Thursday at the White House today, complete with the constant “pass the bill” refrain.

As far as content goes, today’s speech was pretty pointless. There was nothing in it that Obama didn’t already say on Thursday. But it did give the GOP a taste of what they can expect when they oppose the bill. Obama’s strategy is to use the bully pulpit to constantly pummel the Republicans on this issue, and today he kicked off that line of attack.

Read More

Checks and Balances on the President

In his speech to a joint session of Congress last week, the president said this: “The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy; whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning.”

This is a repeated theme the president is using and will continue to use. It’s his effort to position himself as a modern-day Harry Truman, running against a do-nothing Congress.

Read More

On Electability, GOP Voters Side with Perry

While the new CNN poll is, as Alana notes, discouraging for Michele Bachmann, it also contains the worst news for Mitt Romney since the beginning of the campaign. The rationale for a Romney nomination has always been the claim of electability. But the CNN poll shows GOP voters don’t believe Romney is more electable than Rick Perry.

In fact, it’s worth remembering what Romney adviser Stuart Stevens said via email to Ben Smith after the last GOP debate, during which Romney and Perry sparred over the latter’s claim Social Security is a Ponzi scheme: “He has lost. No federal candidate has ever won on the Perry program to kill Social Security. Never has. never (sic) will.” Though Romney may still make the broader claim the general electorate finds his position on Social Security more palatable, he must first win the Republican nomination. From CNN’s write-up of the results:

Read More

Liberals Called Social Security a Ponzi Before Perry

Rick Perry is taking a lot of heat for his refusal to back off on his accusation that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. But though liberals and some of his Republican rivals are blasting his statement as irresponsible, the Texas governor was far from the first to label the retirement plan in this manner. It turns out that many liberals called it that long before Perry left the farm to run for president.

In National Review, Stanley Kurtz provides a fascinating exploration of the history of the use of the label that ought to defuse some of the hypocritical outrage being directed at Perry. The first person to call Social Security a Ponzi wasn’t an anti-New Deal conservative Republican but Paul Samuelson, a Nobel Prize laureate liberal economist. Samuelson used the term in a 1967 Newsweek column praising the system. He believed an ever-expanding population would make a pyramid scheme of this sort both rational and fiscally sustainable. In the decades that followed, other liberals and Democrats, such as Jonathan Alter, Robert Kuttner, Michael Kinsley and many others have used the same term to describe the system.

Read More

Literary Fiction: An Autopsy

There are only two ways to use the word literature. Either it means everything that has been written (as in the “literary language” distinguished from the spoken language) or it means the best that has been written. Think of how the word is used in other contexts. In the sciences, a knowledge of the literature is a ready familiarity with everything that has been published on a subject — to know only some of it, to know only the “settled science” (in the partisan commonplace), is to admit to ignorance.

In certain clearly focused and well-defined fields, it is entirely possible to read and know the entire literature. You can master American slave literature or the literature of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. In fact, the definition of the field eases the acquisition of the knowledge, because it gives rise to canons of relevance, levels of expectation, backgrounds of belief and agreement.

But there is writing that gives rise to a different kind of impulse altogether — the impulse to admire it, to express astonishment at it, to preserve it from loss or destruction, to pass it on to friends and family. This is writing that you like, quite apart from (or in addition to) any knowledge or benefit that you derive from it. As a class or category, as a field of human study, literature is simply that. Nothing more.

Critics have labored for centuries to single out the special qualities and necessary features of literature — it is mimesis, it is sublimity, it is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings — but even though it seems to refresh itself with each new effort, the labor has been defeated again and again. Give me a definition of literature and off the top of my head I can give you nine or ten literary masterpieces outside your borders.

Except as a way of saying “I like this book” (therefore it is literature) or “I don’t like that one” (therefore it isn’t), the word literature is feckless. Literature is simply good writing — where “good” has, by definition, no fixed definition.

For the past quarter century, though, the word has become attached to a species of prose fiction that can best be identified by the via negativa. “Literary fiction” is not “genre fiction” (crime fiction, science fiction); it is not thrilling, exciting, suspenseful, page-turning fiction, ripped from the headlines and set to serviceable prose for comfortable beach reading; it is, as Lev Raphael quoted a best-selling mystery author as saying, fiction where not very much happens to people who aren’t very interesting.

You know what I mean. Literary fiction is serious fiction, although the epithet serious has problems of its own. Some of the funniest writing on earth requires the most careful consideration and thought. The term literary fiction was popularized by the New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani, and it has become standard usage for distinguishing fiction of deep and earnest intent from bestsellers and “genre fiction.”

The distinction is bunk. As Catie Disabato pointed out in a wonderful little piece at Full Stop last week, genres are not the niche markets that publishers have cultivated in order to sell books to readers who want to know in advance just what they’re getting: a genre is a “literary tradition that has thrived longer than the modern construct of ‘literary’ fiction.” The tradition of the novel includes mysteries, fantasies, science fiction, romances, horror, even Westerns. The question is not to what subgenre a book belongs. The question is whether it is any good. And if it is good only according to the conventions of a subgenre, and not in the larger tradition of the novel, then it is not any good at all.

Literary fiction — or what the British novelist Linda Grant has taken to calling LitFic — ought to be a haughty way of saying “good fiction.” But that’s not how the term is used. What, then, is it? Easy. Literary fiction (like 98.5% of poetry these days) is written by and for the entrenched bureaucracy of the creative writing faculty in the universities. There is good fiction, there is bad fiction, and there is fiction written in creative writing workshops.

A Reevaluation of President Bush

Melvyn Leffler is no conservative, or at least if he is, he’s  managed to conceal it well: A long-time history professor at the University of  Virginia, he is a past winner of the Bancroft Prize given by Columbia University and past president of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Policy—the  kind of professional baubles that tend to be given to those who follow the  familiar politics of academia. So it is all the more interesting to read what he  has to say in the current issue of Foreign Affairs about President George W.  Bush and his post-9/11 policies.

The standard critique of Bush is that he engaged in unprecedented unilateralism and militarism. Not so, writes Leffler:

Read More

Saudi Bluff on Palestinians Fools No One

It appears the Palestinian Authority isn’t the only Middle East party playing liar’s bluff. In today’s New York Times op-ed page, former Saudi Ambassador to the United States Turki Al-Faisal writes if the Obama administration vetoes a motion recognizing a unilateral Palestinian declaration of an independent state, it will mean the end of the U.S.-Saudi alliance.

Al-Faisal’s threats are patently absurd. The Saudis need U.S. power as a shield against both Iran and al-Qaeda just as much if not more than Americans need Saudi oil. But the main conclusion to be drawn from this threat is not so much about the Saudi devotion to the Palestinian cause, which we know is mere lip service. The interesting thing is what it says about the Saudis’ opinion of President Obama. For such a threat — albeit one without much credibility — to be issued by a prominent member of the royal family and the regime illustrates how weak they think Obama really is.

Read More

CNN Poll: Bachmann Trails Gingrich?

To be fair, that headline may be a little misleading. The latest CNN poll did find Michele Bachmann at 4 percent, trailing both Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, but that’s only when Sarah Palin is included in the race. When Palin’s excluded from the lineup, Bachmann ties Gingrich at 7 percent, and beats Cain by one point. Still, she’s dropped 5 percent since late August, a troubling trend for her campaign.

The poll, which was taken after the GOP debate last week, shows Perry and Romney are both holding their grounds. In the non-Palin lineup (a.k.a. the more likely scenario), Perry’s still at 32 percent, unchanged since late August, suggesting that the momentum he came into the race with may be waning. Romney is now at 21 percent, a 3-point increase since late August. And Ron Paul shot up to 13 percent, a 7-point bump since the last poll. He’s now knocked Bachmann out of the #3 slot.

Read More