10 hours, 43 minutes ago Paul Nolan Carroll was a star defensive back for the University of Maryland until last September, when his college football came to an end due to a horrific leg injury. Following the insertion of a metal rod into his leg, Carroll began a lenghy rehabilitation process, which caused him to miss last winter's NFL combine where college players try to impress pro scouts. But Carroll impressed the Miami Dolphins during an interview session at the team's facility. That, plus his performance prior to the injury and a 4.41 40-yard dash time during a workout, caused the Dolphins to draft him in the fifth round.
Yesterday, Carroll survived Miami's final player cuts to win a job in the NFL. He is expected to handle kick-off returns and to play in "nickel" packages (in which the defense uses five defensive backs).
This fall, Carroll's mother, Jennifer Carroll, will also be trying to win a high profile job in Florida. She is the Republican party's nominee for Lt. Governor of the state. Carroll served in the U.S. Navy as a jet mechanic until 1999. Four years later, she became the first African-American female Republican elected to the Florida state legislature.
Jennifer Carroll and her husband, a former master sergeant in the Air Force, clearly raised their son the right way. For example, they did not permit him to play football his freshman year in high school because his grades didn't meet their expectations. No wonder he was able to come all the way back from his injury. And no wonder he made such a positive impression on Miami coach Tony Sparano and his staff during his interview.
I'll try to keep an eye on both Nolan Carroll's football career and his mother's career in politics.
12 hours, 8 minutes ago Paul Jim Kessler, who worked for then-Rep. Charles Schumer in 1994, argues that the Democrats can survive the 2010 midterms "the Reagan" way - i.e., the way the Republicans survived in 1982. Most of his argument consists, though, of trying to convince us that the Dems have a much better hand this year than they did in 1994.
We won't know for two months whether 2010 will be a better or worse year for the Democrats than 1994 was. But Kessler's arguments are not persuasive.
Kessler takes solace from the fact that "Nancy Pelosi is not Tom Foley." That's true - Foley (the Speaker in 1994) wasn't a factor in any race but his own; Pelosi is widely and strongly disliked, and thus will weigh down Democrats across the country.
Kessler also points out that "John Boehner is not Newt Gingrich." True again. But the enthusiasm generated by the Contract With America in 1994 need not be generated out of Washington this year -- the grassroots will fill the void. Indeed, because the Republican brand is not as popular as it was in 1994 (when memories of the Reagan administration were still vivid), a less-known, less-controversial Republican House leader may suit Republicans best this time out.
Next, Kessler reminds us that "Charlie Rangel is not Don Rostenkowski." In other words, there was more blatant corruption by Democratic Congressmen back then. But the Democrats of that era hadn't just ridden to power promising to clean things up. And, even apart from the hypocrisy issue, the public's standards probably weren't as high back then. For example, earmarks had not yet become a dirty word.
Kessler notes that "Tom Periello is not Jack Brooks." He means that in 1994, many Democratic incumbents had held their seats for decades and "had forgotten how to run and raise money." By contrast, most of the vulnerable incumbents this time are "young, hungry, and battle-tested." But, unlike their elderly counterparts in 1994, they tend to come from districts that are red, or at least not blue.
That certainly is true of Periello, who is trailing in the polls by something like 20 points. He may be young and hungry, but he and many like him were elected only as a result of the Democrat-friendly environment of 2006 and/or 2008. Thus, they aren't as "tested" as Kessler supposes.
Kessler's last point of comparison is that "Obamacare is not Hillarycare." Correct. Hillarycare didn't pass, and thus only left Americans upset. Obamacare was pushed into law against the strong wishes of a clear majority of Americans. It has left a great many of them incensed.
Finally, Kessler urges Obama to use Reagan's 1982 playbook "by offering a more positive powerful, muscular view of what this country can achieve." But Obama doesn't do "powerful and muscular" well, at least not in the same sentence as "America." And for a good reason - he is ambivalent about such an America. Reagan's belief in that American was not only genuine, but consuming. Thus, he could run that "play" in good times and bad. Obama might be able to run it semi-convincingly in good times, but not now.
14 hours, 24 minutes ago PaulThe Washington Post reports that U.S. military commanders in southern Afghanistan are adopting a strategy that increasingly places the priority on fighting the Taliban even if it means tolerating some corruption. According to the Post, military officials in the region have concluded that the Taliban's insurgency is the most pressing threat to stability in some areas and that a sweeping effort to drive out corruption could create chaos and a governance vacuum that the Taliban could exploit.
These conclusions seem so obvious that a report that the U.S. has just reached them reads like parody. How could it not be the case, in a war, that fighting the enemy takes priority over fighting corruption? And how could our military not have understood that "driving out corruption" in a place like Afghan might leave a vacuum?
I don't think neo-conservatism is the culprit. Promoting democracy is one thing; insisting that, in the midst or a war, that a third world government be laregly free of corruption is quite another. The preoccupation with fighting corruption is more neo-Boy Scout than neo-conservative.
I suspect that the source of the preoccupation lies somewhere in modern counter-insurgency theory, perhaps at its intersection with liberalism. For it is the Obama administration that reportedly has made rooting out corruption in Afghanistan such a priority, to the point of sending FBI and DEA teams to assemble corruption cases.
In fact, the turn towards fighting the enemy, instead of our corrupt allies described above comes from the military, not the politicians and bureaucrats. According to the Post, "it was not immediately clear whether the White House, State Department, and law enforcment agencies share the military's view."
The premise of the neo-Boy Scout obsession with corruption is that if leaders of the central government or major provincial outposts are corrupt, we will be unable to win the hearts and minds of the locals. For example, our attempts to do so through aid projects will be thwarted because much of the money finds its way into the pockets of leaders.
If rooting out corruption in places like Afghanistan is a prerequisite to successful counter-insurgency, we should rethink our willingness to undertake long-term military projects in places like Afghanistan. But I doubt that that it is a prerequisite. The Iraq surge succeeded in its primary objectives of turning the tide against al Qaeda and heading off a civil war without, as far as I can tell, substantially eliminating corruption in Iraq. As I understand it, we succeeded in part because we took the village and tribal elders as we found them, and proved that we were serious about fighting the enemy. We did not attempt to remake them in our image.
The same approach seems to hold the greatest promise in Afghanistan. As one senior defense official explained the situation, "there are areas where you need strong leadership, and some of these leaders aren't necessarily pure." On the other hand, "they can help us be more effective in going after the primary threat, which is the Taliban."
If we want to make the kind of progress President Obama is demanding over the next year, we had better focus on going after the Taliban and more or less forget about purifying Afghan leaders. To the extent the Obama administration stands in the way of this approach even as it imposes de facto timetables, it is all but guaranteeing that we will not succeed.
15 hours, 57 minutes ago JohnI hadn't taken a vacation for several years, so we were long overdue for a week in the North Woods. Our favorite northern spot is Lake Vermilion. Vermilion is the fifth-largest lake in Minnesota--a little larger than, for example, the Sea of Galilee. But unlike, say, Mille Lacs, it is full of bays and islands that make it endlessly interesting. As usual at the end of the summer up north, the weather was highly variable--up to 90 degrees the first two days we were there; then a cold front moved in, and the temperature bottomed out in the low 30s. Following the maxim that if you have to shave it isn't a vacation, I didn't.
Any time I spend a week driving a fishing boat around a big lake, I feel like I've had a summer:
All four kids were with us, which isn't easy to achieve these days. My daughters always enjoy a long pontoon boat ride:
The fishing was great this year, mostly because my son, unlike me, actually knows how to fish. We caught lots of northerns and bass:
Through the miracle of North Woods wi-fi, I was even able to do a post now and then. Altogether, it was a great vacation. And it came at an opportune time: I am in the midst of the busiest year of my career thus far. This is why I haven't been posting as much as usual, and that will probably continue; my contributions to this site will most likely be sporadic until around Thanksgiving. Tomorrow, it's back to work.
18 hours, 23 minutes ago JohnThrough the genius of Iowahawk, insight on a relationship gone bad:
Barack, can we, uh, talk for a few minutes?
Oh, nothing. It's just that it just seems we haven't had a chance to talk for a while. I mean, I know we've both been busy for the past year or so. You with your fundraisers and golfing and stuff, and me with all those appointments at the unemployment office. But you know I think it's important in a relationship like ours to keep the lines of communication open. ...
Yeah I know my some of my friends warned me you were trouble, and that it was the alcohol talking. But I knew that if we gave it a chance we could make it work. You and me, together. And after you moved in, I really think we did for a while. I mean, you've really helped me get over my inhibitions and hangups, and I like to think I've really helped you grow and discover yourself. Like last year when I lent you $800 billion to pay for your demo tape and new rims for the Cadillac.
No, no. I'm not asking for the money back now, Paul Krugman told me you're good for it. And please don't think I don't appreciate all the constructive criticism. It's important for me to know when I'm not meeting your needs and when I'm holding you back. Look, I know I'm not the prettiest democracy in the hemisphere, and I really can't blame you when your eyes wander to Spain or Venezuela. It's just been kind of hard to pay attention to my appearance since losing my job.
18 hours, 46 minutes ago JohnToday President Obama hit a new low in Scott Rasmussen's Approval Index, at -23, with 24 percent of voters strongly approving of his performance, and 47 percent strongly disapproving:
The 47 percent who strongly disapprove represents a new high, too. Overall, 42 percent of voters approve of Obama's performance, while 57 percent disapprove. Poll numbers bounce around, of course, but the trend for Obama is grim. For a long time, a plurality of voters have strongly disapproved of his administration; that group is now perilously close to being a majority.
24 hours, 14 minutes ago ScottFrom the right, Andrew Ferguson administers justice to Peter Beinart in "Pundit (declined)." Is Beinart deserving of Ferguson's attention? I'm not sure, but the result, as noted in "Beinart, bloodied" (which also links to critiques of Beinart's essay on young American Jews turning away from Israel) is highly enjoyable.
Beinart is the author of two books on American foreign policy. Ferguson briefly discusses The Good Fight, the first of Beinart's two books. This year Beinart published a new book on the role of hubris in American foreign policy. From the left, David Rieff takes a critical look at Beinart's two books in the review/essay "Punditry at the drive-thru."
Rieff finds Beinart's books wanting in their own right. He adds that Beinart himself has treated his first book somewhat unkindly. In his current book, Rieff writes, Beinart's first book has "gone the way of Bukharin in a Stalin-era Soviet encyclopedia. It has been replaced by a new explanatory key, radically different from but no less simplistic than the one Beinart put forward in The Good Fight, which, reading his latest offering, one would barely know he had ever written."
25 hours, 16 minutes ago ScottI think there is a logical error that undermines Fareet Zakaria's Newsweek column on the purported American overreaction to 9/11. Indeed, the premise of his column is based on the error. According to Zakaria, the war on al Qaeda and related actions undertaken by the United States since 9/11 have proved unnecessary because al Qaeda has been unable to mount another successful attack on a major target in the United States or Europe. Hmmm. Why might that be?
Zakaria tries to dispose of this point in a subordinate clause conceding the efficacy of "serious countermeasures." Zakaria decries a number of countermeasures that are supposedly excessive, but he nowhere bothers to make the case that they have not contributed to the prevention of another successful attack. He simply assumes the conclusion.
Zakaria's column calls to mind the tendentious New York Times headlines on crime rates falling while incarceration rates rose. George Will usefully collected these classics a couple of years ago: "Crime Keeps on Falling, But Prisons Keep on Filling" (1997), "Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate Drops" (1998), "Number in Prison Grows Despite Crime Reduction" (2000) and "More Inmates, Despite Slight Drop in Crime" (2003). Hmmm. Why might that be?
Zakaria's Newsweek column raises another question. Is it possible that Sidney Harman overpaid for Newsweek?
Via RealClearPolitics.
UPDATE: Memeorandum compiles comments on Zakaria's column. I see that Patterico makes precisely the same point that I do. In the style of the New York Times, Patterico titles his comment "Newsweek: U.S. Uses strong anti-terror measures despite the lack of another 9/11."
37 hours, 7 minutes ago Paul Byron York reports that White House aides cautioned Michelle Obama against taking her trip to Spain in August. They warned her that the trip, during which she stayed at a glitzy five-star hotel in Marbella, would hurt her image. That is just what happened, according to polling data.
The First Lady decided to take the trip nonetheless. Afterwards, she reportedly was surprised by the intensity of the uproar her posh vacation on the Spanish Riviera caused. It is difficult to say whether the affair, including her reaction to the uproar, speaks more to Michelle Obama's arrogance or her cluelessness. Perhaps the unifying theme is her sense of entitlement.
The White House notes, however, that despite her falling approval numbers, the First Lady remains in demand among Democrats who want her to campaign for them. I guess when one's own number is south of 40 percent, 50 percent looks pretty good.
But David Axelrod says that Ms. Obama is not "eager to jump into the fray in a very political way, and I don't think she will." Perhaps she and her husband realize that, other than another vacation at an international hot-spot, the surest way to blow what remains of her popularity is to campaign for Democratic members of Congress.
43 hours, 43 minutes ago PaulThe American Action Forum (AAF) has followed up its polling of likely voters in nine key congressional districts in the Midwest with similar polling of 10 such districts in the West. The districts include three in Arizona, two each in California and Colorado, and one in New Mexico, Nevada, and Oregon. As with its Midwest poll, all of the districts are currently held by Democrats.
The broad findings are similar to the findings for the Midwest, and ominous for the Democrats. By a margin of almost 3-1, respondents think the country is on the wrong track. By a margin of 53-39, they disapprove of the recently enacted health care law.
President Obama fares poorly among likely voters in the ten districts. 51 percent disapprove of his performance, while only 44 percent approve. Speaker Pelosi fares much worse. By more than a 2-1 ratio (59 percent to 28 percent), respondents disapprove of her performance.
On the issue that counts the most right now -- demoting Pelosi -- by a 41-34 margin likely voters in these districts plan to vote for the Republican candidate in their district. Republicans lead Democrats in five of these Democratic-held districts (AZ-1, AZ-5, CO-3, CO-4, and NV-3), with one district a deadheat (CA-11). In two of the remaining four districts, the Republican is within two or fewer points of the Dem (AZ-8 and CA-47).
Finally, let's see what's up in the four districts that Larry Sabato, in his recently-revised House analysis, rates "leans Democratic." In two of them, the Republican is ahead. In AZ-5, the incumbent Dem, Henry Mitchell, trails his opponent David Schwikert by a 45-42 margin and in CO-3, the incumbent Dem, John Salazar, trails Republican Scott Tipton by 48-42.
In one of the "likely Democratic" districts, incumbent Gabrielle Giffords is only one point ahead of her challenger, Jesse Kelly (45-44). In the other, CA-11, Democratic incumbent Jerry McNerney is tied 41-41 with his challenger, David Hamer.
So, if AAF's polling is reliable, all four of these races can be viewed as no better than a toss-up, from the Democratic point of view. To help oust the frivolous Rep. Giffords by contributing to Jesse Kelly's campaign, go here.
UPDATE: AAF also asked how likely voters view the Democratic incumbent Senator running for re-election in their state. The results weren't pretty for Barbara Boxer. Voters in the two California districts polled -- which, remember, have Democratic incumbents in the House, both of whom are running neck-and-neck with their challenger -- disapprove of Boxer's performance by a margin of 56-34. Carly Fiorina's "favorables" significantly exceed her "unfavorables" in both districts, though many voters haven't yet formed an opinion. These findings were among the most striking in the entire report for me.
In Colorado, the Democratic incumbent, Michael Bennet, has a break-even approval rating, which he is cultivating by denouncing the federal debt and Washington generally. However, Bennet's approval rating does not exceed 40 percent in either district. Meanwhile, challenger Ken Buck is viewed more favorably than unfavorably.
In Nevada's Third District, Harry Reid has an upside down approval rating of 42-54. But Republican Sharron Angle does even worse (35-50). Have Republcans, and conservatives, shot themselves in the foot by nominating Angle?
