Month: January 2004

POSEUR ALERT

“Yesterday I posted an announcement of my new piece on gay marriage. This piece, I believe, will shift the gay marriage debate from speculation about the future to a discussion of present realities. For that reason, I see it as the most important piece on gay marriage I’ve ever published.” – Stanley Kurtz, plugging yet another Very Important Article on marriage rights. (Don’t worry: I’m planning a substantive response soon.)

BLAIR ON THE BRINK

He could face a devastating defeat in parliament today over a very sensible reform on tuition fees for universities. Then tomorrow he faces the Hutton Report, which will lay out blame for the suicide of weapons scientist David Kelly. British prime ministers tend to disappear quickly. The odds are still that Blair will survive. But he is a deeply battered and frayed leader. This could be the biggest story of the week. As Matt would say, incoming …

CHENEY IN TROUBLE? The NYT picks up on his growing unfavorable ratings in the polls. Much of it is based on the shrill and often absurd attacks from the left on Halliburton. But some of it is self-inflicted. His adamant refusal even to contemplate that he didn’t misjudge the intelligence before the Iraq war is not a sign of intellectual confidence; it’s a measure of intellectual insecurity. The same can be said of his utter insouciance about endless deficit spending. His elusiveness has also lost its charm. He seems almost hostile to the general public – giving speeches to secluded or privileged groups or simply to fundraisers. None of this helps his public image. He’s right to get out more. But kicking off this campaign abroad is another indication that his staff have no sure political touch. The man needs to be out in America – in factories and military bases and schools. He has been acting like a cross between George Smiley and Louis XIV. Maybe he’s beginning to realize this is a democracy he’s vice-president of. And the people don’t have to re-elect him. If that’s the case: about time. He has a sharp mind, good instincts and great personal affect. So why hide away?

KRUGMAN BLAMES TAX CUTS

That’s the entire reason for the deficit. Yeah, right. But how can he ignore the obvious place of exploding domestic discretionary spending under Bush? Well, we have long learned about the fragility of his intellectual honesty. The lesson for Republican presidents: you will never get credit for spending, so don’t do it. Cut taxes; reduce spending. It’s the only governing philosophy that conservatives ever have a chance of winning with. But they never learn, do they?

KERRY’S ZIG-ZAGGERY: It’s impressive. Mickey has more evidence. But the fact that Kerry has taken (and rarely followed through on) many neo-liberal and even almost neoconservative positions over the years surely makes it harder for Rove to paint him as a stereotypical liberal. Yes, we pundits can rightly notice a man who’s as slinky as John Edwards’ bangs; but confusion about whether someone is a real liberal or “thoughtful” can only help insulate Kerry from being Dukakised. Weld tried it – and he still lost. More Kerryiana: John Ellis thinks writing off the South is simply Kerry’s advance spin before South Carolina. But I wonder if it isn’t a decent strategy. Imagine that the Dems don’t have to win the increasingly evangelical South. Couldn’t they tailor a message more to the libertarian West and Southwest, as well as Midwest and Northeast? There are many parts of the South that could be appealed to in a similar fashion. The GOP does the reverse, of course. They start with Southern white evangelicals and move out from there. Why can’t the Dems do the reverse?

THE TROUBLE WITH ISLAM

My review of Irshad Manji’s cri de coeur against and for her faith.

SEX SLAVES EPIDEMIC? That’s what the New York Times Magazine claimed last Sunday. Dan Radosh and Jack Shafer aren’t convinced.

A CLINT EASTWOOD REPUBLICAN: Or a Dennis Miller Republican, I suppose. That would be me. Here’s an interesting excerpt from USA Weekend magazine:

So, socially, you’re live-and-let-live. How about politically?

I suppose. I don’t see myself as conservative, but I’m not ultra-leftist. You build a philosophy of your own. I like the libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. Even as a kid, I was annoyed by people who wanted to tell everyone how to live.

As an ex-politician, does that extend to your view of same-sex marriages? That could be the polarizing issue of the presidential race.

From a libertarian point of view, you would say, “Yeah? So what?” You have to believe in total equality. People should be able to be what they want to be and do what they want — as long as they’re not harming people.

A radical new idea: conservatism that leaves people alone.

CHENEY’S NEGATIVES

The Fox poll is a good antidote to Newsweek’s – but it does show Bush with under 50 percent support against Kerry, and a seven point difference. But what also struck me was that Dick Cheney’s negatives have doubled in two years. 39 percent now view him unfavorably. Interesting.

FORGETTING THE SOUTH: There goes South Carolina for Kerry. But the interesting question is: is he right? The cultural divide between the South and the rest of the country is getting pretty yawning. Isn’t it equally true that the Republicans have given up on most of the Northeast? If you don’t include Florida in the South, Kerry may well be factually correct.

THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAN: Forget about internal reform. Regime change is what we need. Here’s why.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground, as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion — although I must say I actually think Iraq, what we learned during the inspection, made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war.” – David Kay, as reprinted by Robert Tagorda.

ATRIOS PUNTS: Funny. In his long posting about how he does too occasionally criticize the left, he cites not a single actual link to anything he has ever written. I just want to read, say, three specific instances in which Atrios has criticized the left. Just three. Then I’ll leave him alone.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I honestly don’t know how to respond to the all the plaudits raining down on the oratory of John Edwards from conservatives who ought to know better. Watching him, I saw in him the worst traits of Clinton all over again. The demonization of those with honest policy differences, and the casting of those disagreements in moral terms, the encouragement to voters to think of themselves as victims of malevolent right-wing forces, to believe that only government programs can save them from market-induced destitution. His comments were directed at people in my middle-income bracket. I’ve always thought of myself as an independent person that can manage my own affairs and pay my way through the world by purchasing the goods and services that I need. I’m not rich, but I have more than enough money to pay for the basic necessities and afford a few extra material comforts while I’m at it, yet Edwards seems to think that I’m one paycheck away from the poorhouse, and that if he doesn’t reach down to me and lift me up from my condition of incipient bondage, I’ll be scraping to survive until I die. Well I don’t need Edwards condescending pity, and I resent the insinuation that I need him to save me from the big, bad world… For the record, I’m no Grover Norquist flat-tax disciple. Fiscally, I’d say I’m a moderate, and some wealth redistribution doesn’t bother me one bit. It’s just that this guy is an opportunistic snake-oil merchant if I’ve ever seen one. I don’t know what Brooks, Marshall et al are seeing that I’m not. He makes me physically ill.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.