Month: October 2003

Doonesbury becomes outraged about alleged sexual misbehavior.

Porphyrogenitus gets to the bottom of it.

Classic little throw-away in a New Yorker essay this week:

The other day at the Pierre Hotel, Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who ended the Cold War, was in an elevator…”

Yes, and the United States had nothing to do with it.

A very striking finding in a recent poll on Democratic party activists in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Given a list of issues and asked to say which ones they cared about most, almost none said terrorism. In Iowa a full one percent said they wre concerned about terrorism – less than three years since 9/11. The base wanted a candidate with credibility on national security – but didn’t seem to care about the issue as such. A combination of cynicism and amnesia. I’m not a Republican. But polls like these make me realize I’m even less of a Democrat.

THE GEPHARDT BOOMLET: He’s the candidate Karl Rove has always said was the most under-rated. But now there seems to be a genuine Gephardt boomlet. Some of it may be due to press boredom at the possibility of a Dean walk-over. But there are other factors. It seems that Dean has peaked in Iowa and that Gephardt is making inroads. The WaPo picks up the story here, and touts Gephardt’s labor roots, Midwest clout and hawkishness. Some Congressional candidates in marginal seats are getting nervous about a left-liberal national campaign. And the “theme story” is a contest between the “wine track” and the “beer track” among Democratic voters. It does seem to me that the class divide within the Democratic party is a pretty major fissure and could widen under a Dean insurgency. At the same time, Gephardt still strikes me as a terrible candidate. He seems too political, too Washington, too familiar and not distinctive enough to become president. Another veep potential? Dean will need someone from the South or the Midwest to avoid the “Starbucks candidate” label, and maybe Gephardt could assist. But what all this speculation amounts to, I think, is that it still looks very tough for any of the current crop of Dems to win against Bush. Gephardt’s real strength is that he hasn’t gone wobbly on terrorism. But that’s a weakness with the Democratic base, of course, which puts him back almost where he started.

BARBOUR HANGS TOUGH: He condemns some of his supporters’ “indefensible” racism, but stays chummy nonetheless.

Some video of a recent rally at Rutgers. Illuminating. (Hat-tip: Jonah).

THE REAGAN PIC: My view: judging by the script, a depressing attempt by one bitter faction to malign a former president. The misguided notion that he was an anti-gay fanatic who rejoiced at the AIDS epidemic has become a staple of left-liberal discourse; but the best students of the period accuse him of negligence not malice. There’s a difference. Virginia gets it just about right.

THE MULLAHS RESPOND: More evidence that the Nobel Committee did right. And here’s more evidence of some slender but real measures of progress in the Middle East.

“As I read your editorial in the Sunday New York Times, I could hardly contain my emotions. You see, Michael & I were the subjects. Our wedding was a simple but glorious event. Never could we have imagined what has come because of it. Neither of us will ever regret getting married. We have received nothing but positive support (much of it from total strangers) since this entire story erupted.
We both want to thank you for your eloquently written editorial. You have expressed how we both feel. Having had a door unceremoniously slammed in our faces, we will move on to a home that has greater compassion for all humanity. We will continue to believe that our marriage demands respect and to stand up for our civil right to marry.
– Robert Voorheis & Michael Sabatino.” Thanks for the literally hundreds of emails following my NYT piece on the Church. I wish I could respond personally to each; and I’ve tried. But here’s a general thank-you for the concern, intelligence and empathy of your missives. There’s more feedback on many other issues on the Letters Page.

MAHATHIR AND KRUGMAN: The ADL objects to his glibness. A reader makes a sharp point:

How is it, I wonder, that one can identify anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism (both of which have existed in the Islamic world for decades and centuries, respectively) along with the brand spanking new phenomenon of Islamic political self-criticism, and draw the conclusion that the former was caused by the 25 month old policies of an administration, while completely ignoring those same, new policies as a possible cause of the new phenomenon?
I don’t know which is more astounding – the level of Krugman’s intellectual dishonesty, or the fact that he no longer even seems to care to hide it.

I’d say the way in which Krugman’s blind hatred of the president has made him immune even to the real sources of bigotry.

EURO-ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH: This time, a very disturbing report from Sweden.

BLOGGING DOWN UNDER: The new medium picks up momentum.

My outage at the weekend may not have been an accident. Various warblogs are now down – including Instapundit and Little Green Footballs. It looks like a coordinated cyber-attack. Here’s some detail.

I’ve agreed to write a weekly fisk of something or other for the New Republic. It will appear on Tuesdays. Today’s is on a rather confused op-ed by Bill Bennett on marriage rights. If you see anything that cries out for a righteous fisking, please send it in.

The brush-fire is spreading in Europe. More danger-signs here.

“Perhaps the most important source of the new (and not so new) American radicalism is what used to be viewed as a source of conservative values: namely, religion. Many commentators have noted that perhaps the biggest difference between the United States and most European countries (old as well as new in the current American distinction) is that in the United States religion still plays a central role in society and public language. But this is religion American style: namely, more the idea of religion than religion itself.
True, when, during George Bush’s run for president in 2000, a journalist was inspired to ask the candidate to name his “favourite philosopher”, the well-received answer – one that would make a candidate for high office from any centrist party in any European country a laughing stock – was “Jesus Christ”. But, of course, Bush didn’t mean, and was not understood to mean, that, if elected, his administration would feel bound to any of the precepts or social programmes actually expounded by Jesus.” – Susan Sontag, in the Guardian. This is a classic. Notice the assumption of the idiocy of America not to laugh out loud at a politician’s invocation of Jesus. Notice also the idea that Jesus actually expounded on various “social programmes.” So instead of the Sermon on the Mount, we have the Sermon on Medicare. Or Social Security. Or the Clean Air Act. How ignorant can Sontag be of Christianity to make such crude and stupid claims?

KRUGMAN AND ANTI-SEMITISM: Almost self-parody this morning. The point about Mahathir’s critique of Islamic backwardness is a decent one – and one I made yesterday. But the notion that he is forced into anti-Semitism by Bush is astonishing. Here’s the money quote:

Not long ago Washington was talking about Malaysia as an important partner in the war on terror. Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become. Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.

Is everything Bush’s fault? Even the hate that the president this morning actively condemned? The deeper theme here is a refusal to see that the enemies of George W. Bush – just because they are his enemies – are not therefore good. For Krugman to find a way to excuse virulent anti-Semitism for domestic political points shows how low the opposition has now gotten. (For a terrific analysis of Krugman’s Bush-hatred, check this column out from a Naderite.)