Wednesday, December 31, 2003

Happy New Year 

I'll be out of town skiing until Jan 7. See you all in '04

Tuesday, December 30, 2003

Electoral Predictions 

I don't have any insight into how the 2004 election will turn out, other than I either think it will be very close, an near-landslide for Bush, or a near-landslide for the Democrat. But maybe Matt at notgeniuses is on to something his post (see below). It seems that Ohio (where both Guthrie and I are from) has a lot of disgruntled voters, so Matt could be right in writing this:

Now, I'm not claiming Dean is going to win Montana. That would be a tough fight (although, the polls are honestly better than I thought). What I am saying is that people in DC who think they know how those of us in Middle America think (what was that line - we prefer cowboys to metrosexuals? someone forgot to point out that Bush is a dude, not a cowboy) need to get in touch with us, because the conservative punditry in DC is as out-of-touch with us as the liberal punditry.

Keep bragging. We'll beat the snot out of you.

I'm predicting a Democrat wins with about 300 electoral votes and a popular majority nationwide (not just a plurality this time).


Just like Fox News, but for real 

Here is a post on the New Democratic Network's blog on Howard Dean. It's probably the first for-real "fair and balanced" look at Dean. It's worth reading, if only for its admirable neutrality.

Barack Obama 

Contribute here. He'd make a great Senator.

And yes, I understand this post is worthless since no one reads this site. Nonetheless

Props to Goldberg 

Goldberg has asked for props for all of the aesthetic work he's done on the blog. Props Goldberg, PROPS!


Joe Lieberman has apparently said that Dean should not be so sensitive to attacks from other Democrats, because the attacks from Bush will be far worse. Could this possibly be accurate? Is it true that George W. Bush, a member of the party that opposes the Democrats, may launch attacks on Dean that are more pointed than attacks launched by members of his own party?

I think it might be possible that Joe is missing the point: Dean is not suggesting that Democrats stop attacking him because he is personally hurt by these attacks. It just may be that it is not in the best interest of Democrats to be tearing down each other, and it is really not in their best interest to paint the likely nominee as both a cold-hearted conservative and a namsy-pamsy liberal.

Here is all I need to know about Joe Lieberman. In 2000, he decide to run for his Senate seat while running for Vice President while the governor of Connecticut was a Republican. Had Gore won (assuming we lived in some fantasy candy land where the candidate who received the most votes won an election), the Democrats would have lost their majority in the Senate. (However, thank God, Joe Lieberman would have been Vice President.) Instead of stepping aside and allowing another Democrat to win, Joe Lieberman decided to hedge his bets - assuring that he would be either a Senator or a Vice President. In other words, Lieberman, with all his talk of morals and virtue, put the good of himself above the good of his party and, ultimately, the good of his country.

A friend of mine also once pointed out that he sounds exactly like the dad from Alf. (The "Willie" from "Hey, Willie.") This is another reason I just don't like him.

UPDATE: Neither the word "namsy" nor "pamsy" appears in the Blogger spell check software.


I find it somewhat disturbing that the spell checker provided by Blogger does not recognize the word "blog." I wonder if it recognizes the word "blogosphere"?

UPDATE: It does not.


When I, in the face of all conventional wisdom, boldly predicted that no Supreme Court Justices would retire during Bush's first term. At the time I argued that none of the conservatives would retire - because none of them would want history to view them as having installed Bush in the White House so that they could retire knowing a conservative would replace them.

My prediction will certainly come true, absent a serious illness or something of that ilk. Though it was only a mini-story at the time, the allegation that O'Connor said something at a Washington party to the effect that she hoped Bush would win so she could retire would not have been viewed kindly by her biographers 20 or 30 years from now.

However, all Democrats (and all women who would prefer that men not tell them what to do with their own uterus) need to realize just what is at stake in 2004. Rehnquist will certainly retire. O'Connor will certainly retire - and her replacement could swing a lot of crucial votes the other way. Stevens - well, I saw Stevens speak two years ago and he seemed healthy; let us pray he remains so.

Saletan strikes (sucks) again 

"We're going to have a little fun at the president's expense.'

That's what Howard Dean often says with a smile as he tears into President Bush. It's one of Dean's favorite themes. The van he campaigned in last summer bore the license plate "McFun." Now Dean is having fun again, this time at the expense of his own party."

Thus begins Saletan's new takedown of Howard Dean. This article is pretty pathetic. The DLC (the leadership, not the members) has treated Dean like the second coming of, I dunno, Jerry Brown, and Saletan seems to think Dean should just accept this. He shouldn't, and if the result is that people begin to realize that the DLC, as an organization, does not represent Democratic values anymore, so be it.

This has nothing to do with whether the DLC won in the 90s, or if its "centrist" positions are good. Because, issue-by-issue, the DLC and Dean pretty much agree. But the DLC has become, not the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, as Dean joked, but the scaredy-cat wing of the Democratic Party (joining Michelle Cottle and Jonathan Chait, among others--see this post). As Matt Y. said in Tapped, the DLC is more willing to take on those it agrees with substantively but the media considers "liberal" than those it disagrees with but are considered "moderates."

Saletan needs to realize that Dean needs to fight back against the DLC, if only to show that it's time has passed. Watch for the ascendancy of Simon Rosenberg's New Democratic Network.

Tom Tomorrow, very funny


Monday, December 29, 2003

Foreign Policy:

One of the things I've been noticing lately is how successful (if that's the right word) the right has been in debating foreign policy. Dean is a crazy-liberal for being against the Iraq war. The Democratic party is far left because it believes the UN and NATO can play a role in this country's security. I mean, the GOP's foreign policy is just so out there that mere level-headedness has become flaming leftism. Dean and Clark are offering, on the foreign policy front, nothing more radical than, basically, Brent Scrowcroft.

The Democratic Party Platform on Foreign Policy: James Baker without the Machiavellianism.


Man, Atrios is on fire tonight:


According to one poll about a third of Americans think Bush should be impeached over the Iraq lies. Oddly, that's about the same amount who thought Clinton should be impeached for lying about a stained dress.

Anyway, this is a comment on the media more than anyone else. For months and years the media elite were flabbergasted about the fact that a couple lies about a blowjob didn't drive the country quite as insane as it drove all of them. We should be, they assured us and themselves, outraged by this fellatious behavior.

Almost as many people think that being lied to about a war is worthy of outrage. I guess it's a start.

-Atrios, 8:57 PM


Hansel wrote this:

Thanks Dan. I really don't have any contempt for Clinton. I have contempt for people who wouldn't stand up and defend him and their party when we needed them, and are now invoking the Clinton legacy to their advantage and against those who support Dean. Dean is far closer to Clinton than any of those yahoos, but they are too clueless to see it.

I replied:
true, true. Dean is much more the heir to Clinton than anyone besides, well, Al Gore. Lieberman? Joe "I had the guts to take on Clinton" Lieberman. Fuck him. The point was not to agree "values-wise" that adultery is wrong, but that you cannot give any quarter to the Clinton-bashing GOP. Joe had the guts to be in the wrong. Reminds me of John Kerry's third or fourth slogan in this campaign: "The courage to do what's right." I mean, what the hell does that mean?

From the Atios comments board about Dean vs. the Democratic Party (and man is this article by Alterman awesome on this topic), a post that sounds exactly like Guthrie:

"I think Dean is right. He's not saying that he's going to take his ball and gone home. He's saying that some of his supporters will and I can understand why.

As a Dean supporter "new" Democrats have called me a hippie, cultest, deaniac, left wing, out of touch with the party, out of touch with America (so Republican), mindless, blind follower, idealistic, ideologue, koolaide drinker, and backwards looker who wants to take the party back to before Clinton. Doesn't exactly endear me to them.

As if the candidates who managed to lose all 3 branches of the federal government should be the judge of political astuteness. I'm sick of their cluelessness about their role in these loses and their condescending atttitude toward their base. I don't need political lessons from these guys.

I have no issues whatsoever with the way Clark, Edwards, Kuncinich, Sharpton, and Braun have run their campaigns. But Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt's sense of entitlement is extremely off."

The writer calls himself Hansel. That's right...Haaanseel. So hot right now.

I don't understand why my email is posted twice on the right side of this page. It should only be there once. likewise, I don't understand why each post doesn't come with a new comments thread. And I don't know how to get trackback service, either.

....fixed. guess it just takes time.


The thing is, that O'Rielly article isn't the least bit funny. There are ways to make fun of whishy-washy liberals, but this ain't it.



When I first read this article by Bill O'Reilly (who will be oft discussed on this blog), I thought "Ah, here is a conservative who is engaging in some sort of satire, taking the Ninth Circuit's sometimes liberal views to the extreme in such a way that will perhaps cause me to think critically about the viewpoints espoused by the Ninth Circuit."

However, I then remembered that Bill O'Reilly doesn't believe in satire, in fact, he often argues that the haters of America hide behind so-called satire in order to peddle their lies and defamation onto an unsuspecting American public. Therefore, I must assume that Bill O'Reilly wants us to take his article literally - however, I know of no Ninth Circuit precedent whereupon a known genocidal tyrant would nbe free from criminal liability. This, then, is clear defamation, and I hope Mr. O'Reilly posts a correction shortly.


Finally, we come up in a Google search of "Goldberg and Guthrie." Good for us.

Another bizzare stop in the TNR primary train. This one says (1) because Dean has called the Democratic Party weak and bush-lite, he can't expect the party not to hate him; and (2) only a weak party has made his candidacy possible.

I don't think either of these things are true, but even if they are it seems to me entirely within Dean's rights to fight back against attacks--and to appeal to the attackers to stop, too.


An AP story is making the rounds which reads like a Foxnews fair and balanced report. (The story is posted on the Foxnews main page now, under the fair and balanced headline "Do as I Say, Not as I Do.")

Basically, the story details a meeting Dean had with energy executives which, according to the tone of the article, is basically identical to the meeting Cheney had with energy executives. Both meetings were kept secret, Dean criticized Cheney for keeping his meeting secret, Dean is a hypocrite, the world will end if he is elected President.

The part of the article that details why these two meetings were the same...

"The parallels between the Cheney and Dean task forces are many.

Both declined to open their deliberations, even under pressure from legislators. Both received input from the energy industry in private meetings, and released the names of task force members publicly.

Dean's group volunteered the names of those it consulted with in its final report.

While Cheney has refused to formally give a list to Congress to preserve the White House's right to private advice, known as executive privilege, his aides have divulged to reporters the names of many of those from whom the task force sought advice.

The Bush-Cheney campaign and Republican Party received millions in donations from energy interests in the election before its task force was created.

Dean's Vermont re-election campaign received only small contributions from energy executives.

But a political action committee created as he prepared to run for president collected $19,000, or nearly a fifth of its first $110,000, from donors tied to Vermont's electric utilities."

So in other words, there are many differences. The AP story says that both Dean and Cheney released the names of the participants in the meeting, but then two paragraphs later states that Cheney's aides divulged the names of "many" of the participants of his meeting to reporters. So, in other words, Cheney has not revealed the names of the participants of his meeting. And this is the main issue! Of course, Presidents and leaders will get better advice if the advice is kept private - it is far more important who they are getting the advice from.

The comparison of the campaign contributions must just be a joke.

Usually, one has to do research in order to refute the claims made in an essay or article. In this case, one simply has to read the whole article. But why do I get a feeling most people won't even do this? Thank Christ Al Gore invented the internet, so readers of this blog can get the fair and unbalanced truth. We're looking out for you, readers. (In other words I, Guthrie, am looking out for you, Goldberg.)

I would tend to agree that Dean should release the records. However, we now know that any document, no matter how inconsequential, would be used by Republicans during a Dean presidency to personally destroy him. If a single document suggested even the possibility that Dean may have done something illegal as governor (even if he had, say, lost money on a land deal while governor), a full scale investigation into Dean's life would begin. Everyone close to Dean would receive subpoenas, in the hope of digging up other scandals or in the hope of catching a witness in a lie, even a lie completely unrelated to the investigation. Dean would be forced to defend this investigation even while fighting the war of terror, and many good men and women would avoid working in a Dean administration.

Those are the rules these days. If I was running for office, I'm not sure I would ever turn over a single document about my life, absent a court order.


From the William Safire article, linked to by Dan below:

"That leaves Democratic primary voters to guess at what he's going to such great legal lengths to hide. Does an unsavory connection to an Enron subsidiary exist in his correspondence? Are there minutes of his meetings about same-sex civil unions that could come back to haunt him, or a pardon recommendation he wants sealed until he can laugh at voters' remorse? What could be so "embarrassing" at this 'critical time'?"

Could somebody explain how these remarks are any different from Dean's oft-criticized remarks about Bush knowing about September 11? They are not different at all - both speakers are making a point about the dangers of secrecy - the fact that it can lead to wild speculation and general distrust in government. (Of course there is one key difference - Safire, unlike Dean, does not say that he believes these mysterious allegations are false.)

William Safire talks about secrecy in government today. His point, I think, is valid, although his analogy isn't that good (Cheney's energy meetings vs. Dean's gubernatorial records). Cheney's meetings concern ongoing governmental policy, while Dean's records reflect what he has already done as governer, not what he would do as president. A better analogy would be Bush's gubernatorial records vs. Dean's.

Nevertheless, I don't see a compelling argument against keeping any but a tiny minority of these documents from the public. Why can't Dean just release them?


From what I've read of Dean's remarks I think they are extraordinarily refreshing. The fact is, Jesus Christ (in the Bible) was a rebel, he detested hypocrisy and, most importantly, he sought to provide a voice to the outcasts and despised segments of society. Good for Dean for pointing out that the message of Jesus is not to vote Republican. (It's probably not to vote Democratic either, of course, but one party shouldn't have a monopoly on the Jesus vote.)

By the way, I think we need to be prepared for a serious undercurrent of anti-semitism in articles concerning Dean's faith. There are plenty of people who despise the fact that Dean would marry a Jewish woman and allow his children to be raised in the Jewish faith. Not that I would accuse any of the analysts below of anti-semitism; still try adding the following sentence to the end of any statement questioning the sincerity of Dean's religious views: "I mean, come on, his own wife and children don't even believe that Jesus was the Son of God!"


A Fair and Balanced analysis of the political news of the day. The article is about Dean's recent remarks on Jesus Christ. The analysts cited? Mary Ann Marsh (who I've never heard of) and, fairly, former chairman of the Republican National Committee Mark Braden and Dick Gephardt's campaign manager.

The analysis, shockingly, is that Dean's attempts at bringing religion into the campaign are insincere.


Sunday, December 28, 2003

Why is it considered so insulting to call the Democratic Party the "Democrat" party. I would think it is, at most, mildly ignorant. what's the deal with this?


Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine just said that the only person who can stop Howard Dean is, well, Howard Dean!

Trenchant insight on Face the Nation, indeed.

ps. David "I left my dignity outside the NYT office" Brooks said Howard Dean would be the weakest possible candidate, but didn't elaborate.


Bob Schieffer just basically said what I wrote earlier about Howard Dean's campaign. He seems to finally "get" it. But we still need to make Jon Katz get it.


Saturday, December 27, 2003

Bowling in Columbine also argues that the media vastly overemphasized the importance of school shootings, which is curious as it is a whole movie about school shootings. (Spinsanity actually did a pretty thorough dissection of this film.) I thought by far the strongest part of the movie was the whole thing about the welfare to work program. Sad. Just another thing to thank Bill Clinton for (that, and a Republican Congress - I'll be posting more on this later).

As far as I'm concerned, Howard Dean was/is right about guns - it's a local issue. Guns in Harlem and guns in rural Alabama (or Vermont) are very, very different - and I think people who don't hunt underestimate how important hunting is as a bonding experience for some people.


I finally saw Bowling for Columbine last night. It was pretty good, I guess. Since I graduated college, I've become less interested in gun control (a lot because Guth has convinced me that it's not as important an issue as I thought). Anyway, the movie is good, but it's not entirely coherent--does Moore think our gun problems are because the media has created a culture of fear, or because we have a strong military? The movie is at its weakest when it is pursuing the latter line of thought (mostly because it's a weak argument), but the "culture of fear" argument is a pretty good one, assuming that the media in other countries are that different. They probably are, judging from what I've seen on BBC. Anyway, I think Steve Gilliard (whom I really like), has some good things to say about gun control in this post (even though the post rambles a bit)


Iran Earthquake Relief:

I was told this is a good fund: Relief International. And you can earmark for the Iran quake. I gave $50. I told myself I'd give an amount to charity at year-end equal to what I've given to politicians this year (something on the order of $500 maybe), but I haven't, and probably won't. Maybe my conscience will catch up to me and I'll give more to some hunger fund or something before Dec. 31. Anyway, give something to Iran.


Go read the link and comments on Atrios about David "I was the liberals favorite conservative until I got a gig at the NYT" Brooks.


Atrios, per my request, is helping look for a charity/relief fund for the earthquake victims in Iran. Will post when he finds something.


Friday, December 26, 2003

I have nothing really to add today - only to point out that The Daily Howler basically wrote all of what Krugman wrote today while it was going on. Any liberal who doesn't read The Daily Howler on a daily basis simply doesn't understand what we're up against.

Paul Krugman, once again, shows that he is the only person with a mainstream media outlet who is not afraid of anyone or anything. Today, he takes on the media, but not without missing an opportunity to call GWB a "phony, a silver-spoon baby who pretends to be a cowboy." Today's column is the most important column I've read in a while, and every editor (Fred Hiatt, Bill Keller, hello?) shoud make every reporter carry a copy.


Thursday, December 25, 2003

Somewhere, Jonah Goldberg (no relation, thank God) is thinking: "I hope the perpetrator of this is gay, black and a Muslim."


Tomorrow at andrewsullivan.com:

"I just saw Peter Pan. It was wonderful, and it again proves how the anti-war crowd is morally bankrupt."


This is pretty funny.

(Of course, like a lot of attempts at humor, it is sort of ruined at the end when the author explains the joke. Still, the point is a good one.)

I was just flipping channels and saw "The Big Story" on Foxnews. Oliver North was on, and was discussing how it was that U.S. forces were able to catch Saddam Hussein. He said it was through careful police work, which included "interrogating, not threatening" suspects. Then he said (I'm paraphrasing), "In fact, it's a joke over there - you don't have to threaten anyone, you just have to say the word 'Gitmo' and they'll talk - because they all know what Gitmo is and they don't want to go there." Doesn't sound like a threat to me...


A rare admission from a conservative (though it is just Jonah Goldberg):

"Now, as a conservative I don't mind that Americans aren't consumed with political fervor. In fact, I tend to like low voter turnout on the principle that the people not voting are probably the people I don't think should vote."

Just remember this when listening to the typical Republican spin about "liberal elites" not understanding the values of every day Americans. The Democrats benefit when more Americans vote. The Republicans don't.

(The rest of Goldberg's piece proceeds to argue that Americans are basically stupid for choosing to watch Paris Hilton do, at least, something on Fox as opposed to watching the President say nothing on ABC.)


Wednesday, December 24, 2003

This article is on the front page of the NYT's business section today. The main thrust is this:

"Two provisions buried deep in the nearly 700-page Medicare drug law may limit the discounts that insurers and pharmacy benefit managers can get from drug makers - and, therefore, how far the new drug benefit for the elderly will stretch, executives say."

Now, wouldn't it have been nice for this to be on the front page of Section 1? And for it to have run BEFORE the law was passed? Tax payers and seniors may have been interested! Damn press corp.


Howard Dean (and Franklin Foer) call this man now!


The New Hampshire Primary.

A few weeks ago I was in the Boston area for work with very little else to do. I got an email from the Dean campaign reminding me to attend the December Meetup that Wednesday. Since I was very close to the New Hampshire border, I thought I'd go to a meetup there and find out what NH for Dean people were talking about. So I drove up to Manchester to attend a meetup at a bar there.

It was very interesting, and I the mood there reflects the mood of the campaign throughout the country. I asked a man in his late 30s/early 40s, who was wearing a LGBT for Dean pin, his feelings about the campaign. He didn't go into a diatribe against Bush or any of the other Democratic candidates. He said (paraphrase from memory), "I think Dean is trying to recreate a sense of community in this country that has been lost. I think he sees that, in Vermont, you still have that sense, but it doesn't exist in many other parts of the country. This campaign is giving people that sense again."

I think this is the main thing that people who react negatively to Dean miss: it's not about Bush-hatred; it's not about taking this country down some birkenstock and hookah-filled ride to the Left; it's about coming together and standing up for ourselves. This is why Dean supporters gloss over the candidate's weaknesses. We Dean supporters feel that we are apart of something, and that is as important as any single position on an issue. To be sure, a lot of the campaign is about tacking opposite "Washington," but that's more because we feel "Washington" has too much invested in the status quo (meaning the status quo in general and the status quo in the Democratic Party power structure).

Anyway, this meetup was attended by senior citizens, gays, college students, teachers, and others. And the common thread among everyone was the desire to join the community, to have a sense of ownership about the direction this country is headed. In a way, the Dean campaign is doing more to bring about David Brooks' "ownership society" than stock ownership every will. And that's important, and that's a big reason why Dean has such intense support.


William Safire joins the ranks of Republicans eager to give the Democratic Party electoral advice. I'll post more on this later (maybe).


Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Oooooohhhh! Looks like one of the posters on this blog went to Yale!


Rush Limbaugh today: "The Democrats in this country still cannot defeat me in the arena of political ideas, and so now they are trying to do so in the court of public opinion and the legal system," he said. "I guess it's payback time, and since I'm not running for office, they can't get to me that way."

Hmmm.... I don't seem to remember Rush taking so kindly to a similar argument made in 1998, when a woman blamed the legal troubles of her husband on a political conspiracy.


How pissed are you if you're the Secretary of Agriculture? All ready to go home for the holidays, then this happens, probably the only agricultural-related crisis that can't wait until Monday.


Well, an ex-girlfriend is quoted in the New York Times today. It's nice to see that she's no longer concerned with the superficialities she was in college. And it's also nice to know she parlayed that Yale degree to a job as a "planner" at Barney's.


Kevin at Leanleft gets it right


Fuck yeah!


The most pathetic thing I've seen in a while. It makes GWB look like a mensch.


Tax cuts:

Why aren't taxes ever seen as what they are: the way--the only way--to finance governmental operations. Take Will Saletan'snew article about Dean, Clinton, and centrism.
He says that it's not about offerring a clear alternative to the GOP, it's about picking battles:

"There are three problems with this "clear alternative" approach. One is that it misconceives and underestimates the alternative. As I argued a year ago, being a Clinton Democrat rather than a McGovern Democrat isn't about eliminating the differences between you and the Republicans. It's about choosing those differences. You eliminate differences that create bad policy or bad politics in order to focus the election on differences that create good policy or good politics. War? Yes, if necessary, but with allies so we don't get stuck holding the bag. Tax cuts? Yes, but for the middle class, not the rich."

But he assumes that you're either "pro-tax cuts" or not. But that's not the issue. Neither tax cuts, not tax increases, are "goods" in and of themselves. They're simply the way to pay for what the government does. So, you basically want to tax people at the lowest and fairest rates you can. You shouldn't be for knee-jerk "middle-class tax cuts" any more than for "tax cuts for the rich" any more than making the rich "pay their share." Saletan makes is seem that Democrats should be for a 0% tax rate for middle class people, which is crazy. You just want fairness and revenue--nothing more, nothing less.


Our friend Brad has an unhealthy obsession with poker


I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio show - actually, a "best of" edition on a Saturday night. A caller called in and made some conservative point - I can't remember what. But this caller was obviously just trying to get on the air - and followed it up by saying "I also want to ask you what you think about the Bush campaign push polling in South Caroling in 2000 - asking people what they thought about John McCain's illegitimate black child." Hannity responded - "I have no idea what you're talking about." And that was the end of that call.

I don't know what to do in a case of dishonesty this profound. I don't want to marginalize talk radio - because the audience is so big, and so much of their anger is real. I think the left makes a mistake when we just call them "liars" and make fun of them - a lot of the people who listen to this should probably be voting for Democrats but they're never going to if they think Democrats just don't respect them. But what can you do? How can you engage this sort of debate seriously? Is there any way for the left to reach through Foxnews and talk radio and reach this audience?


I'm not always the biggest fan of Andrew Sullivan. However, scroll down and read his post "Hoist by Their Own Petard." Not only do I love the use of this phrase, but he links to a poll being run by some family values group. (Family values not in the way real people think about it but in the way the right thinks about it, in other words hating gay people.) Note that when Mr. Sullivan first linked to the poll, they were apparently showing the results. Now, when you vote in the poll, no results are shown.

Of course, in order to fight this type of ignorance, I think we should all follow Andrew Sullivan's advice and vote for George Bush. Scroll down to yesterday's posts and see Mr. Sullivan defend our President's greatness because he said he would only support an amendment banning gay marriage "if necessary."


Shorter David Brooks: It's the right, privilege and duty of the Washington Establishment to use every immoral and underhanded trick in the book to hold on to power. And it's not the least bit hypocritical to turn around and preach "values" the very next day.

Shorter shorter David Brooks: "It's ok when we do it."

Monday, December 22, 2003

The Browns are the new Bengals.

Michelle Cottle at TNR is, based on her articles, a pretty smart woman. However, she comes from that faction of liberal coalition that is deathly afraid of, well, everything. She's scared of Howard Dean; she's scared of the Massachusetts Supreme Court; she's afraid of anti-war Democrats; she's afraid of secular Democrats. The funny thing about this is that she agrees with the policies of each of these groups (well, she agrees substatively with the gay marriage ruling). So, basically, she's afraid of herself.

This is the end of her new article,

What do you get when you cross a court ruling on sodomy and a court ruling on gay marriage with over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception? A Repubilcan majority for the next 50 years.

Now, this is not only incorrect, it signifies everything wrong with the Democratic leadership. If you cede half the issues, you better be sure as shit that you'll win on every other issue. She wants to cede social issues, cede "values" as if you just can't attack the morals of the party of Limbaugh, Thurmond and George W. Bush (push-polling, anyone?). Pathetic, and the exact reason the rank-and-file likes Dean, and the Washington Democrats hate him.

update...also note how Cottle is afraid of Clark's taking on of Bush's record on terrorism in her post in TNR primary

As I was looking at the aforementioned Sean Hannity book, the stupidity of the whole enterprise reminded me of another incident of stupidity: the time when George W. Bush made a reference to the "fact" that Atty General Ashcroft was a "General" in the military sense.

The cover of Sean Hannity's new book seems to indicate that Sean Hannity will personally deliver us from the evil that is the Statue of Liberty.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?