I’m not an advocate of polls about tax cuts. People have been indoctrinated for so long into thinking that they have no right to keep their own money that they feel guilty admitting it. Nonetheless, today’s New York Times poll has one interesting nugget. In an admirably rare piece of a fair questioning, the poll gave a summary of both the president’s and the Democrats’ budget plans, and asked which was preferable. It said Bush’s would devote a third of the surplus to tax cuts, a third to debt reduction and a third to spending; it then said that the Democrats would use half for debt reduction, and divide the rest between tax cuts and new spending. 57 percent backed Bush’s priorities; while only 49 percent backed the Democrats. That seems significant to me. Why the small majority for Bush? The most persuasive reason given is that 56 percent are afraid of what Congress would do with the money if it were left in Washington. If I were Bush, this is the main theme I would strike. I’d say that the Congress can’t help itself. What did Reagan compare Congress to? A baby: a huge appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Why doesn’t W use that line again? The public knows it’s true; all they need is a president who can remind them.
INK, INK, INK: Some flattering pieces about this site you might be interested in. Inside.com reviews the Amazon honor system. Apparently, we’re doing a lot better than others, which, to my mind, is just a sign of how great you guys are. Cruising past $6,000 by the way, which is $6,000 more than Inside.com has yet to make in profit. THANKS AGAIN. The American Spectator Online also just called us “perhaps the single most famous personalized Website in American journalism.” Thanks, Wlady. Logrolling extra: the new Spectator is refreshing and slick as well. And I’ll forgive the Cosmos Club for insisting I wear my Puff Daddy overcoat in the bar next time. Fun having a drink with Bob Tyrell there the other evening. Tyrell has a smile on his face these days that announces VINDICATION everywhere he goes. And he deserves every inch of it.
IS TIM NOAH DUMBER THAN DUBYA?: A new low for Noah in Slate, which is saying something. He waxes on and on and on about how president Bush is stupid – a far worse accusation among Noah’s coterie than, say, adulterer or perjurer. The evidence for W’s dumbness is his obvious lack of knowledge about things Bill Clinton could recite at will at 4 am in the morning, while on the phone to some criminal donor with Monica under the desk. But is that dumb? Or, rather, does that make W “functionally dumber,” to use Noah’s phrase, than Clinton? Intelligence is a multi-faceted thing. There is, for example, a pretty old distinction between theoretical and practical wisdom. (Re-read your Aristotle, Tim.) No-one has ever claimed that W is an intellectual. But he’s clearly canny, shrewd, good with people, efficient and a good manager. These are good qualities and they surely count as functional intelligence – especially in someone supposed to run the government. It also remains indisputable that W pummeled Gore in the three debates last year – in large part because he wasn’t as smart as Gore but a hell of a lot wiser and nicer and more intelligible. I have nothing against eggheads, I should add. I am one, after all. But I am a terrible manager of people, useless at organizing much, bad at schmoozing, good at pissing people off, and not always good at judging character. I’m proud of my work editing The New Republic, but, man, could I have benefited from some of the basic managerial techniques W seems to have mastered. Or to put it another way: I’m probably smarter in some respects than W, but he’s way smarter than me – and most hacks for that matter – in the area he’s working in. And that includes Noah, who is Exhibit A in why most people find clever-dick journalists to be even less appealing than tongue-tied politicians.
The Dish 