Goldberg and Guthrie

Josh Marshall makes an astoundingly good point.

I have listened to the President make similar comments before - and had never stopped to think about the implicit assumptions behind his use of the term "our skin color."

EDIT: The President doesn't actually use the term "our skin color", but refers to people whose skin color is different than ours. Same point applies.

If you would like to see some racism, go and read Ann Coulter's new column. And remember, millions of Americans like her.

Bill O'Reilly last week:

A Canadian cable company, citing a growing demand for the FOX News Channel, had petitioned an application with their government to carry us. Now columnists on the far left "Toronto Globe & Mail" wrote: "Bring it on, we're all in a good need of a laugh. We'll find out if this Bill O'Reilly fellow is as stupendously pompous and preening as he appears to be in the rare clips we see of FOX News."

So they see rare clips, but think we're laughable. "The Globe & Mail" (search) sounds like a real responsible enterprise, doesn't it? Hey, you pinheads up there, I may be pompous but at least I'm honest.

And then, a few days later, a much wiser Canadian speaks...

Writing in The Toronto Sun, Peter Worthington said this today: "Whenever I return from an extended visit in the U.S., I feel withdrawal pangs because FOX News is denied access to Canada. With access to CNN but not FOX News, Canadians are being deprived. One needs both for better understanding, Bill O'Reilly's view of politics versus James Carville's"

However, in the last two days, O'Reilly has finally found the perfect solution when one citizen of a country insults you...

Last night, we told you about two American Army privates who deserted, fled to Canada, and are being hailed by heroes by some Canadian media. The two have filed for asylum even though they are not entitled to it under Canadian law. We said that if granted asylum, "Talking Points" would call for a boycott of Canadian goods and services by all Americans.

That's right! In an amazing coincidence, just a few days after O'Reilly discovered that large numbers of Canadians don't like him, he called for a boycott of that country. I wonder how many hard working Canadian citizens will lose their jobs because of the idiots who listen to O'Reilly and do what he says. And of course, this is the same Bill O'Reilly who once said:

The main point here is that trying to hurt a business or a person because you disagree with what they say is simply unacceptable in America. And that message has been sent by FOX. There's a principle in play. Vigorous debate is embraced by us, but smear campaigns will be confronted.

OK, apparently the National Review wants Bush's slogan to be:

Don't Vote for Kerry: He Did Not Serve Honorably in Vietnam and Has Close Ties to Enron.

In fairness, unlike the Vietnam attacks, I'm not sure if this line of attack is actually coming from the Bush campaign. (Some of the Vietnam comments came from Karen Hughes herself.) And the point isn't that Kerry can do whatever he wants because Bush's ties to Enron were worse. But it just goes to show the trust that the Bush campaign has in the press and the American people to NOT think about what he's saying. Sadly, he may be right.

(In fairness again, there were those who attacked Bush in 2000 for his lack of service and his wayward youth - an odd thing to do when the Vice President of a known draft dodging, blow job in the oval office loving President like Bill Clinton was running against him. But I can't recall the Clinton people - much less the Gore campaign - ever attacking Bush on sexual or draft issues - because this would have made little sense in context. So why is the Bush campaign getting away with doing this?)

Jonah Goldberg, today, approvingly posts the following comment from a reader:

The problem with Kerry is that he doesn’t want to admit he was wrong. I agree with the guy in the New York Observer today. If he said I was 25 and stupid that would be the end of the story. Aren’t we all stupid at 25? And this is why he isn’t connecting with people. Elites feel like they are perfect and have the answer for all of the world’s problems and therefore cannot have any themselves. The people I hang with laugh about the stupid things they did when they were young. Come on admit it! You were an idiot too. It’s okay. It’s normal.

John Kerry, on Meet the Press two weeks ago, talking about a comment he made in the early 1970s in which he said the United Nations should have control of U.S. foreign policy:

KERRY: That’s one of those stupid things that a 27-year-old kid says when you’re fresh back from Vietnam and angry about it. I have never, ever, ever, in any vote, in any policy, in any speech, in any public statement advocated any such thing in all of the years I’ve been in elected office.

David Broder, analyzing this response by Kerry:

Over the course of the hour, Kerry struggled to explain why he had once—decades ago—advocated placing U.S. forces under the direction of the United Nations…

That's right, smart Corner reader, the reason this is a story is because Kerry won't admit he's wrong. He never admits he's wrong - like all elites. (I won't even bother to note that George Bush has NEVER admitted he was wrong, and in fact couldn't answer a question about mistakes that he's made during a press conference.)

ADDED LATER: I should note that I got the Kerry and Broder quotes from this Daily Howler. And I changed the title from I Don't Think That Would Work to I Don't Think This Would Work.

According to Jonah Goldberg's new column, Kerry's conduct during Vietnam deserves scrutiny because (1) he thought the war was a mistake and yet (2) he volunteered to fight in the war. That's right. Apparently, Bush and Cheney deserve more credit because they (1) did not think the war was a mistake and (2) decided to let poorer people fight it for them. And on this, Bush and Cheney cannot be accused of flip-flopping - even today, they continue to allow poor people to die in wars that John Kerry thinks are mistakes.

Also, note the absence of one word from this column: Clinton. That's because under this new standard, Clinton's actions during Vietnam were the bravest and most consistent of any of our Presidential candidates. He was consistently and openly opposed to the war in Vietnam, and took steps to avoid serving there.

I would argue that a person opposed to the war had two honorable choices: (1) submit to the draft or volunteer to serve because, even if a war is wrong, it is still one's duty to the USA to fight when called upon OR (2) refuse to serve because there is a higher moral calling than patriotism which sometimes requires one to ignore the demands of one's country. I think that a person who supported the war (which by all accounts George Bush now says he did) had many honorable choices. One of them was not, however, to use one's father's political connections to land a coveted spot in the National Guard and then fill out the application to the Guard by checking "does not volunteer to serve overseas."

I can't even believe Republicans are actually pushing the issue of Kerry's conduct during Vietnam. I admit, when Kerry first started talking about this, I thought he was sort of making up the attacks just so he had an excuse to talk about his service. I was wrong. George Bush, who at best avoided service by slithering his way into the National Guard, is actually attacking John Kerry's war record. Simply unbelievable.

... everything changed. As some readers of this blog may know, this was something of an obsession of Goldberg and I for a time. Basically, September 11 was given as the reason for so many absurd things. For example, "After the tragedy of September 11, Americans longed for something comfortable and familiar, and hence the ratings of Friends improved."

Well, from Karen Hughes (via Daily Kos, via Atrios)... after September 11, Americans began to learn the value of life... specifically, unborn life.

The full, awesome quote...

I think that after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life," she said. "President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions. And I think those are the kinds of policies the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy and, really, the fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life.

Kos does a good job destroying this - and pointing out that she is essentially putting on equal footing the majority of Americans who support a woman's right to have an abortion and Al Qaeda a terrorist network that ordered some of its members to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, killing thousands of American citizens. I repeat, to Karen Hughes, one of our President's most important advisors, terrorists and my mom are equally immoral. (My mom, I assume, is pro choice.) In fact, the terrorists and Rudy Giuliani are equally immoral, as are the terrorists and Colon Powell. I, for one, cannot imagine why we would let Powell run the State Department, given that him and our terrorist enemies do not value every life.

I know after September 11, when I learned that the terrorists were Muslim extremists, the first thing I thought was "by God, we've got to start forcing women to agree with our moral and religious views."

Of course, I suppose, if you honestly and truly believe that an abortion is a murder, then I suppose pro-choice people are as bad as terrorists - which is why I don't think most people believe this. But why isn't an abortion murder? Is it because an unborn life, while important, is not as important as a living, breathing person? Or is it because most people who are against abortion aren't sure what an unborn life is? And if we aren't sure, then who should be making the decision? George Bush and Dick Cheney, or the women actually facing this choice?

Over at The Corner, they're apparently hoping that the tragic death of Pat Tillman will shut liberals up about only poor people dying in the war. A very good point - if it wasn't a terrible point.

Many, including Goldberg and myself - have compared Bush's pre-9/11 actions with Clinton's actions pre-1/1/00. Specifically, it is beyond dispute that the Clinton administration prevented a terrorist attack that was to take place on New Year's Eve, 1999. The argument goes, had Bush taken similar steps perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented.

But is this fair? The millennium presented a natural opportunity for terrorists to attack, and it appears that law enforcement knew in advance that this was the target date. There is, obviously, no evidence that 9/11 was ever suggested as a potential attack date. How could all law enforcement agencies be put on high alert for an unknown period of time?

In fact, see this from Clarke's Meet the Press appearance:

MR. CLARKE: Now, in retrospect, we now know that there was information in the FBI that hadn't bubbled to the top, that two of the hijackers were in the United States. If we had had that kind of process in the summer of 2001 that we had in December '99, where the national security adviser was every day in the White House asking the FBI director and the attorney general and the secretary of defense, "Go back to your building, find out all that you can"--if we had done that in the summer of 2001, maybe the information that was in the FBI would have shaken loose.

MR. RUSSERT: But you kept your guard up for six weeks, through the end of August. Why didn't you stay on high alert through September 11th? And you regret this day that you didn't because you may have stopped that attack.

MR. CLARKE: We kept up the high alert for some facilities that could keep up the high alert. The Defense Department, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others, said that they were physically not capable of keeping the troops overseas, for example, on high alert any further, that they were exhausting the troops. And, therefore, they unilaterally came down off of alert. We kept all of our counterterrorism forces in the United States on alert. We continued to send out threat advisories to the airports and the airlines. We continued to send out information to 18,000 state and local police departments and to Immigration and Customs and Secret Service and Coast Guard.

This cuts both ways - on one hand, we weren't doing all we could have done. On the other, you can't keep forces on high alert at all times - it's just not possible. My point is - is this a fair comparison - Clinton preventing an attack known to be planned for a specific date and Bush, possibly, failing to prevent attack at an unknown future time? I don't really think that it is.

Well, I am working pretty much around the clock these days - likely through next week and perhaps beyond. I am working on a pro bono asylum case which is teaching me a lot which I will - lucky for all of you - post about later (i.e., post about what I've learned, not the specific case).

This weekend I did go to Washington D.C. to visit my girlfriend's dad and step mom - and we went to a rather nice restaurant for Easter brunch. As I walked into the restaurant, who was walking out but Tucker Carlson. The only thing I want to say is that he was acting exactly as I would have pictured Tucker Carlson acting if he walked out of a restaurant. He was wearing a bow tie and he was yelling. I don't know what he was talking about, and it seemed he was with his family or friends. I just heard him say, "Look, I'm not criticizing, I'm just making an observation..." For all I know, he was talking about the omelets.

Also, I finally went to the FDR Memorial, which I'd never seen. Good God, it sucks. It's about as awe inspiring as the exhibit on prohibition that was in the Westerville, Ohio library. (And that wasn't very awe inspiring.) Couldn't they just build a really big thing in honor of the third greatest President? Why can't we do that anymore? And why is every new monument a fountain? (The new WWII Memorial - which isn't quite complete - is also a fountain and it did look very cool.) (Of course, after Saving Private Ryan, is it really necessary to build a monument to WWII veterans? Wasn't Tom Hanks dying on the battlefield and whispering "earn this" to Matt Damon enough?)

That reminds me - Saving Private Ryan was a very, very bad movie. For a good year or so this was an obsession of mine - trying to prove to people that this movie was bad. It never worked. This article from a 1999 Esquire captures perfectly, I think, the movie's glaring and obvious flaws. (Goldberg - I put this column up there with a certain Michael Kinsley article as far as brilliance.)

My favorite quotes:

"In a fallacy that, since Schindler's List, Spielberg has all but patented, to dislike his movie was to proclaim your snickering contempt for the hell that Dad (or Granddad) went through."

"... the celebrated opening is actually superfluous to the story. But it's a brilliant piece of showmanship, since the big number Spielberg pulls off up front half cows and half wows the audience into accepting that the whole movie has been made in the same somber, gritty spirit. It hasn't, of course; commercially speaking, he's not that big a fool."

"One enthusiastic write-up deemed Ryan's big finish 'almost unbearably thrilling,' which it is. But given the movie's pretensions, didn't it cross anyone's mind that maybe it shouldn't be?"

And my favorite...

"One reason the onscreen debates about the mission's value go in such circles is that the down-to-earth answer to the movie's big question - is one man's life worth risking eight - is so screamingly obvious: No."

Oh, one more...

"To call this an antiwar movie is lunacy; if I were seventeen, I'd have left the theater with a woody to enlist. Ryan's ending elevates a gallant death into the noblest of romantic destinies while transforming the grim necessity of defeating the Axis from a past test of national resolv - which indeed we did mee - into a mystical summons to future greatness: 'Earn it.'"

Katherine Lopez of the Corner writes:

Does Sullivan believe that a politician (or anyone, for that matter) can call himself "Catholic" while supporting abortion--and to the extent that he votes against a ban on infanticide (partial-birth abortion)? It seems to me that not only is it not possible to claim to be a faithful Catholic while rejecting what the Catholic Church teaches to be true about abortion, but it compounds the offense to pretend, and thus lead impressionable people inside and outside the church to believe, that it is possible.

By this same logic, I suppose that any politician who would vote against a ban on all pork products cannot call himself "Jewish."

Furthermore, any politician who would vote for the death penalty cannot call himself "Catholic." (Unless, of course, you are Justice Scalia and are permitted to question those pronouncements of the Church that you disagree with.)

On the other hand, it could be that some people have deeply held religious and moral beliefs, but don't agree with forcing them on other people - especially when those beliefs dictate how a person should be allowed to treat their own body.

(FYI - Lopez is referring to this post on Sullivan's site.)

UPDATE: Per Goldberg's advice, I changed "against the penalty" to "for the death penalty", which is what I what I meant.

Today, the National Review Online has an editorial. It begins:

Representative Zach Wamp apparently has a short memory. He was elected to Congress in 1994, and has already forgotten why he came to Washington.He was elected to Congress in 1994, and has already forgotten why he came to Washington.

Back then Wamp ran as a conservative, with some silly populist ideas like paying members of Congress the same as a lieutenant colonel and making them live in officer housing, according to The Almanac of American Politics. Now, Wamp has grown in office and instead advocates silly establishment ideas, like instituting new "paygo" rules that would make it almost impossible to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Perhaps it is the NRO that has lost its ideological way since 1994 and the Contract With America which, among other things, promised (a vote on) a balanced budge amendment: in other words, a Constitutional Amendment preventing Congress from running a deficit. With certain exceptions, Congress would have been Constitutionally prevented from ever passing a tax cut or spending increase that would leave the budget out of balance.

The outrageous PayGo rule is a far less radical step - one that would require a Congress already running a budget deficit to simply avoid adding to it with any spending increases or tax cuts. (See the definition in C-Span's helpful glossary: "The PAYGO or pay-as-you-go rule compels new spending or tax changes to not add to the federal deficit. New proposals must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds.")

Again I ask: who has betrayed everything the Contract With America stood for?

It is true, Goldberg, that anyone could make a mug. But could anyone make this? Behold.

For those of you who claim Otterbein College does not exist, behold.